Confusion over Sturgeon Management...

Lured In · 02-20-2002, 02:14 PM

I was in a discussion yesterday regarding the new sturgeon regs and started thinking. (that can be dangerous.)

Last year was the first year that the season was closed for any period that I am aware of in the last 5 years. They did this in effort, same as this year, to curtail the sturgeon take to below that magic 50,000, combined commercial and sport. Does anybody know what the take in 1999 was? How about 1998?

I realize that historically the breeding sturgeon population was decimated and has made great strides since the introduction of slot limits. I also know that some claim more people are sturgeon fishing in the last few years due to suppressed salmon runs.

So let me ask this question, is the increase in take last year due to more sturgeon or more fisherman? You would think that with the two month break in the season, all of Aug and Sept, the take should have been down if the same number of sturgeon were available. This also assumes roughly the same number of fisherman. Usually July and August are red hot down in the Columbia estuary, with take numbers approaching 300-500/day. How is it that we "exceeded" the number for last year with no fishing in August and September?

I guess my point is this, if the sturgeon are recovering effectively (i don't know) and we are reducing the number of days we can fish, it is logical to conclude success will rise and the catch/day rate will increase also. The end result of this scenario would be that more fish would be caught in fewer days.

For a minute pretend there are enough sturgeon to not only reproduce themselves but actually grow the population as a whole. How is it that ODFW/WDFW know exactly how many sturgeon, which migrate also, are in the river and what an acceptable take should be of a growing population?

Don't get me wrong, I am not slanting ODFW/WDFW. I am just confused as to how this magic number of 50,000 pertains the real sustainable harvest of the population if the population is growing? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

Thoughts...?

Point-of-Sale Clerk · 02-20-2002, 02:35 PM

Well, I attended the last ODFW Commission Meeting and the sturgeon block closures were on the agenda. The point was made that if people are limited to C&R at one time will they catch and retain more later. The thing that I noticed right off was that no one brought forth the idea about reducing the total yearly limit a sport fisherman could retain or better still a two fish retained per calendar month harvest limit to reduce take but not reduce fishing.
If they were really sincere about not exceeding the total quota why do we not fluctuate the commercial harvest to hit our harvest goals. Isn�t it easier to control the relatively few commercial harvesters then to try to predict what the fishing pressure will be from every sport fisherman?

Do we really need commercial sturgeon harvest at all?

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-20-2002, 02:36 PM

Hi!

I can't speak for ODFW's opinion, but here is WDFW's from program staff.

The last two years the sports anglers were over the limit by 1700 fish and the commercial guys were over 300 fish.

Fishing was excellent last year due to a lot of factors including a great smelt run. So, with more fish there came a lot more anglers and the quota was filled VERY quickly. That is expected to happen again this year.

We use a mark-recapture program to determine fish numbers. This program has been in place since 1984 and has been very successful. We tag approximately 5,000 fish a year and recover these tags throughout the year. We have a section on our website for anglers to report their tag information. It is VERY important data, so make sure if you get a tagged sturgeon you report it.

Had we not closed the fishing when we did, we would have gone way past our quota which would have been bad.

Hope this helps!

Let me know if you need additional information!

stace :grin: :grin:

birdhunter · 02-20-2002, 02:42 PM

Good points Lured In. I'd like to know the answer to some of the same questions. I know we have some very qualified people on here who might be able to fill us in.

What I'm most interested in is the population estimate for sturgeon in the Lower Columbia. The Dam pools are easy enough cause they're closed systems, but the lower Columbia is an open system. You have fish coming and going and migrating up and down the coast. I know they tag some fish w/ spagetti tags and WDFW keeps track of the proportion of tags returned to the # of tagged fish, to estimated population.

Still, this seems kind of vague to me. I don't know how many sturgeon get tagged, but I don't think it's enough to really get a very accurate estimate of population for the ENTIRE lower river. Has there ever been a REAL sturgeon inventory? My understanding is that there hasn't been and it is due partly to funding and partly to the difficulty associated with surveying the Lower river. Seems that for such a successful and increasingly popular sport fishery, the Dept might want to have accurate population estimates.

Just my .02

Lured In · 02-20-2002, 03:35 PM

Stacey thanks for the feedback but your answer only raises more questions and still leaves a few unaswered.

1. How many sturgeon are "estimated" to be in the Columbia River right now since most are following the smelt and/or heading up to the dam to spawn?

2. What is the quota based on? Percent or just that 50,000 sounds like a good number?

3. If percent based, what percentage of the total "estimated" sturgeon population is the 50,000 quota based on? (ex: 10% of total, 10% of spawners, 10% of fish between 42 anbd 60?)

4. If based on percent, the 50,000 should vary from year to year, and from what you are telling me and I am reading it doesn't vary. And we agree the number of sturgeon in the river vary's.

6. So if the quota doesn't vary based on the number of fish in the river, are we managing sturgeon populations or just fish accountants?

7. You stated that with more fish, came more anglers and the quota was met very quickly. Salmon and steelhead seasons are adjusted midseason based on the run size. Please expain to me how having more fish in the system is a problem and why the quota wasn't adjusted to reflect a larger representation of fish?

Any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Auntie Em, it's a twister...it's twister! :grin:

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-20-2002, 04:01 PM

Whew!

Okay, here goes.

1. There is an estimated number of 1,000,000 +/-. This includes ALL size classes. Little guys to the the big ones.

2. The quota is based on a calculated OSY or Optimum Sustainable Yield number. This number is the rate of harvest on legal size fish.

The 50,000 quota is part of a three year package. This is the last year of that package. Each year there are new population estimates. Tagging is successful in the lower river, because there are tag recoveries from all over, so we are able to know what the population estimates should be.

Now, since we went over the last two years, we have to cut back this year in order to not exceed the three year limit of 50,000 a year. Next year that number can likely change with the implementation of the new package.

The harvestable fish allow for new spawners. Meaning we only can take a certain number of legal size fish so that a certain number of females can reach spawning size of 6ft and males of 5 ft.

Salmon and steelhead runs can be adjusted because they do not fall under the strict quota package that the sturgeon do.

I hope I covered everything for you!

If not, please let me know.

:grin: :grin:

Lured In · 02-20-2002, 04:12 PM

Stacie, you are a great sport about this.

I see some odd logic here. If we agree the number of fish in the system fluctuates, why is the "package" a 3 year deal? Could we not have the population collapse or explode under the same "package"?

Here is another question. Theoretically, what if we come up end of year and are under the 38K maximum? Will we see the "difference" applied to next year's quota in a positive fashion? Why do I highly doubt it?

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-20-2002, 04:46 PM

I think I got it now! :shocked:

Quota determination also falls under abundance and growth rates. Sturgeon are such long lived fish that growth rate has to be determined to figure out when they will reach the legal size class. Unlike salmon, when sturgeon reach legal size their age classes mesh.

It takes one full year for our mark-recapture data to give us a population estimation. So the three year quota is based on a projected number of fish expected to reach legal size because of what we know about their growth rate.

The mark-recapture study done yearly will either prove or disprove the quota number and then will be adjusted as needed.

The difference would not affect the next years cycle.

The number of lower Columbia sturgeon may fluctuate as some leave the system and some stay, however, the abundance and growth numbers are what determine the overall population systemwide.

My understanding is that so far, this system has worked but as with any scientific module there have been some differences. Mother Nature has a way of doing as she wishes irregardless of what we think will occur!

Hope this helps, as always, let me know if I can give you more clarification.

See, this is why I work with trout. They don't go anywhere!

stace

:grin: :grin: :grin:

TheRogue · 02-20-2002, 05:10 PM

*** Clerk...

Why do I find myself agreeing with you more and more all the time??? :grin: :grin:

fish_on · 02-20-2002, 06:52 PM

I think it's great to have someone from WDFW on the board. I wish ODWF would do the same. Stacie do any of the opions or ideas expressed here make it back to the people in charge? And if not why and if so does this help influance future decisions?

Lured In · 02-20-2002, 06:52 PM

*** is the strange and mysterious one. Always there when the fish management issues come up. I actually thought of naming *** in my request for feedback.

Stacie, don't feel like you have to answer every question. Opinionated/unfounded feedback is always appreciated.

STGRule · 02-20-2002, 07:59 PM

Fish_on: Stacey is very brave to let everyone know she works for WDFW. (Hi Stace, I'll e-mail you later to reveal my secret identity

) There are LOTS of ODFW people that lurk and post on this and other boards. The problem with "coming out" is SOME of you (this is a generic "you") are less friendly than most of the people on the boards. Can only get blamed for things we have no control over so many times before it becomes pointless. I'm happy to give information when I have the info to give. I'm also happy to give my opinion when I want too. The problem is somebody is always willing to associate an opinion with policy. I don't always agree with policy :shocked: so I have to be careful that my opinions stay just that. My opinion. :grin:
I don't work in management so I don't know how policy is made. I'm in research (much more personal satisfaction). If you have questions about how we do that (green and white sturgeon) I can help. :smile:
And Jenny is SOOOO right. Girls rule, boys drool! :grin: :grin:

birdhunter · 02-20-2002, 08:11 PM

" Fish Management is an ugly business. I don't know why anybody would want to get involved in it. Nobody's ever happy with your work: you're setting harvest levels too high or too low; you're favoring them over us; and you may say you've been working for years to maintain the health of a stock, but we know you've actually been trying to destroy it. Its thankless, dirty work."

Sam Smith (editor) The Fisherman's News (12/96)

THANKS!

Point-of-Sale Clerk · 02-20-2002, 08:19 PM

STGRule

who are you talking about? ;-)

[ 02-20-2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

STGRule · 02-20-2002, 08:21 PM

Amen

STGRule · 02-20-2002, 08:23 PM

***! I surprized! I said it was a generic "you". :grin:

Point-of-Sale Clerk · 02-20-2002, 08:29 PM

STGRule
I saw right threw that...

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-20-2002, 08:30 PM

I am proud to say I work for WDFW. :grin:

I am pretty much a piece of algae in the big picture that is the Department. But I do know one thing (maybe a couple!) that the public is a VERY important aspect of my job.

I do a lot of field work where I get out on the boats, sample fish, interview anglers at the lake, write reports and help with management issues for trout. So I work with the public A LOT.

When I first started doing these forums a couple of years ago a lot of people were like, hey! you mean you're gonna listen to us? And my reply was: DUH!

Anglers are the people out there (lakes and rivers) ALL the time. Anglers have a feel for the waters they fish that very few biologists could get. That is VERY valuable information to me.

Anglers opinions entirely matter. We have had several instances in my program where anglers have come to us wanting change and after looking at the situation we say, yeah we can do that and it happens.

Mind you, that can't happen all the time, especially with sensitive issues but the biologists do care about what you think and if they don't then shame on them.

Information I receive most assuredly gets back to appropriate program managers.

I am lucky to have a boss that supports these forums as a tool for working with the public.

I don't know all the answers, but I know people who do. I don't know all the policies, but I know people who do. People aren't going to like all the answers, sometimes I don't either. But oftentimes there are very good reasons for why things have to be done the way they are even if they aren't immediately understood.

The best thing to do is call the Department. Ask questions. You might be surprised!

As for 'coming out' on forums. There isn't much that can shake me. I do medieval sword fighting and jousting for a hobby so harsh words or disagreements pretty much don't even phase me!

I will honestly try to answer questions that people have.

End of rambling!

stace

birdhunter · 02-20-2002, 08:33 PM

Wow. All I can say is welcome to the BB. Very glad to have you.

WaterDog · 02-20-2002, 08:45 PM

Stace has the enthusiasiam of a recent college grad.

I like your attiude! :grin: Welcome aboard!

Collective "you" = *** clerk :grin: funny how that works.

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-20-2002, 08:47 PM

The ironic thing about that is I have been in this field for 12 years!

I love my job. Some days it stinks but I really have the best job in the world.

Thanks for the welcome!

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Perfect Drift · 02-20-2002, 09:38 PM

Stacie- a big question, many of us would love to know. How as a fishing community can we speak in a louder voice? For example, commerical nets on the Columbia or Willapa Bay, is this the only place in the US where we can buy an endangered species? Commericals lobby very well or they seem to, how can the sport fishing community lobby it's self in a more effective manner. Realizing 10's thousands of folks attended the sport show several weeks ago and the money that is generated, why are the commerical fleets so strong. Several years back sturgeon were an incidental catch and not to be targeted, now they have a season. I am really trying to stay away from the 'us against them', I seriously don't understand the system in which the states make these decisions. Would you be able to help me understand this issue?
It just appears to me that more revenue would be generated from sport fishing than a handful or so of restaurant suppliers, an I wrong in this thinking? It is this that I really don't understand. With so many budget cuts through out the department, I keep asking myself, why doesn't the department target the sport fishing community aggressively. Like just ask for donations, I would gladly give money to a hobby that is a lifestyle, that gives so much joy. I give to many conservation groups, why not WDFW.
Stacie, sorry for going on and on but I really draw a blank on all of these questions.

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-21-2002, 12:40 PM

The most important thing is to attend all the public meetings that the Department has. These are valuable tools to Olympia to determine what the anglers have to say. If you don't go and are not heard then your opinions may not be accounted for.

I really don't have a good answer for you on the whys of the commercial fishing.

This is one of the goals from our Mission Statement on our website:

"Sustainable management of marine resources to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the state's fishing industry and to enhance recreational and commercial fishing in state and offshore waters."

We need to provide fair opportunity for all groups. I wish I had a better feel for this particluar area, but I really don't. If you would like, I could find someone who has a better grasp for it and put you in contact with them.

stace

SureSet · 02-21-2002, 04:56 PM

Don't burn her out too soon guys, I seem to remember "FISHCOP" who we had on the board for a week or so.....

Welcome Stacie and I hope your'e being here works to mutual benefit. Glad to see you here.

SureSet

Stacie L. Kelsey · 02-21-2002, 05:08 PM

Hi SureSet!

I really LOVE the interaction with the anglers. It is a lot of fun to be able to help out so ask away!

Perfect Drift · 02-21-2002, 06:18 PM

OK attend the meetings, got it, will do.
On to a fish question. Warm water enhancement fee.
Catfish, I read are being raised on the east side, are these the cats you put into Kress Lake? You mentioned bass in that lake, are there good numbers of them there?
How about bass, any new news on enhancement in our area?

Gus Orviston · 02-21-2002, 08:46 PM

Look at the great information we can get if we don't dog pile on the informant. Do you think we can all get along...who said that... anyway, Let's keep more of an open mind and maybe the ODFW guys will come out of the closet. [img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

I like data!!

wiser · 02-21-2002, 11:27 PM

Thanks Stacie for your input here.I'm sure you are giving out the best information that is available to you. Thanks for that.

My personal opinion( not claimed as being worth more or less than anyone elses) is that the retention of sturgeon for sports anglers will be eliminated, completely, within two years. Maybe sooner. These fish will not survive the pressures being put upon them. Even the casual angler who fishes for sturgeon can see the excessive pressures and sports harvest excesses. This is only my opinion, but mark my words, " no retention allowed within the next two years" I'll eat those words if wrong. Actually I hope I am wrong.

Limit your take don't take your limit. Following generations depend on it.

[ 02-22-2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Wiser? ]

Pilar · 02-21-2002, 11:43 PM

Thanks for coming out of the woodwork you public servants. I read your posts with the real expectation that I am about to learn something.

Fisherman as a group don't really understand how the management of the resource works. The general principles sure but some decisions seem arbitrary.

By shedding light on just what is considered in managing the fish you make it easier for the rest of us fishers. Understanding the process will empower us to influence it.

Thanks and play again soon.

Perfect Drift · 02-22-2002, 07:01 PM

Yea, what Pilar said !!!

invader · 02-22-2002, 07:24 PM

i have the perfect idea. == get rid of all gillnet and comercial boats on the coulmbia river and we will have plenty of fish with NO closeed season!!..john

CptCatchem · 02-23-2002, 07:20 AM

Personally I hate the new sturgeon regs...Guess what my days off are? yeppers Sundays n Mondays ....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA