Outrageous proposal

Received this from Bill Bakke, director of the Native Fish Society.
While I understand those who oppose Mr. Bakke and NFS on other anadromous fishery matters this proposal is short sighted and should be of concern.


Current Angling Regulations

North Coast (Necanicum River to Neskowin Creek) Catch and release, flies and lures only. Adopted in 1997.

South Coast (Salmon River south to California line) 2 fish/day, 8-inch minimum, flies and artificial lures only. Regulations were identical to the North Coast until changed in 2001.

Proposed Change: Coastwide, 2 fish/day, 8-inch minimum, flies and artificial lures only. This regulation will be in effect for four years if adopted by the ODFW Commission.

Statement in Opposition:

It is thought that cutthroat (CT) populations above barriers and resident populations in some larger streams are generally healthy. The current thinking is that these resident populations do not contribute to sea-run (anadromous) populations. The upper Nehalem River is an example of a local river that appears to have a healthy resident population although it likely contains anadromous components also. Healthy resident populations should be able to withstand a 2 fish bag limit if it is decided that it is critical to take two 8-inch trout home to eat in order to have had a successful angling experience. I say this assuming that the light angling pressure currently observed on the south coast holds true for the north coast. Apparently, the 2 fish limit is not very attractive to the typical trout angler.

The sea-run cutthroat population, when healthy, can provide a “Blue Ribbon” angling experience for 12-16 inch fish caught near the surface on light tackle using flies or lures. This population is extremely vulnerable to poor ocean conditions caused by El Nino weather patterns that predominated along the Oregon coast from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Sea-run CT populations crashed but it was not until 1997 that ODFW responded with protective regulations. In all fairness to ODFW, it should be pointed out that this is a difficult fish to inventory and obtain good populations estimates. Ocean conditions have greatly improved over the last 3 or 4 years and it is thought that these populations have improved to some extent.

At my request, ODFW has provided me with a White Paper entitled “Biology, status and Management of Coastal Cutthroat Trout on the North Oregon Coast” that represents their justification for the proposed regulation liberalization. ODFW has a long term (1965-2003) resting pool counts of summer steelhead and spring chinook adults in three Tillamook County rivers. Adult sea-run CT were also noted during these surveys. Recent counts indicate a substantial recovery from the very low counts of the El Nino years. They also have a 6 year data set of smolt trap counts from three North Coast rivers but it does not show any obvious trend toward improving smolt numbers. The report does not discuss whether or not populations are close to carrying capacity or if any perceived improvement is due to improved ocean conditions or restrictive angling regulations.

ODFW has always given considerable emphasis to protecting salmon and steelhead smolts from angling impacts by imposing restrictive minimum size restrictions. This is as it should be. Their report contains considerable discussion of how the proposed 8-inch size limit will continue to provide protection for these smolts but there is no mention at all of protection for sea-run CT presmolts. Most coastal sea-run CT smolts enter the ocean as three or four year old fish greater than 8-inches in length. Under the proposed angling regulations change these CT presmolts will be exposed to a year or two of angling take before their initial ocean emigration. CT smolts only spend two to four months at sea before returning to the river estuaries and accordingly have relatively high (up to 40%) smolt to adult survival rate. Excellent survival rates for salmon and steelhead would be in the 3-6% range. The CT presmolts are too valuable to be targeted as 8-10-inch fish in a consumptive sport fishery.

Many adult sea-run females on their first spawning migration are not mature enough to spawn. These fish are thus exposed to a take fishery as presmolts and two years as adults before getting a chance to spawn. Adult fish have a high (up to 40%) rate of repeat spawning. In comparison a rate of 10% would be considered very high for steelhead. The larger, older repeat spawner females produce nearly twice as many eggs as younger fish. Except at times of extremely high population levels, it appears that the adult fish may be too vulnerable to provide a consumptive fishery.

It seems that the south coast liberalization of CT regulations in 2001 after only three years of protective rules is premature. It seems unlikely that sound biological information would indicate a substantial recovery of 4 or 5 year old adult fish after three years. It would appear that either there was little support that populations were ever depressed or there were some political or social pressures applied.

The opening sentence of the conclusion from ODFW’s aforementioned White Paper does not provide a lot of confidence that the proposed regulation change is based on strong science, indicating a healthy present day sea-run CT population. It reads: “Indicators of abundance and population size of coastal cutthroat trout on the north coast suggest that the population is likely rebounding from historic lows observed over the previous 20 years.” Underlines are added for emphasis.

I also have a concern that ODFW will not be able to react in a timely manner if populations again crash. Given the 4 year regulation cycle, limited population level information, inherent bureaucratic inertia, and a short institutional memory; I feel the fish are better protected with restrictive regulations in place.

I strongly feel that coastal cutthroat, and in particular, sea-run cutthroat should be managed to provide a “Blue Ribbon” fishery on healthy adult populations. A consumptive fishery on 8-10 inch presmolts is not a compatible alternative.

_______________

Walt Weber worked as a district fish biologist for ODFW on the North Coast of Oregon for many
years and still spends a lot of time there doing survey work on the steams.
CONTACT INFORMATION:

Please let ODFW know about your concerns regarding the proposal to allow a kill fishery on cutthroat trout in Oregon’s north coast streams. Send your email comments to Rhine Messmer at rhine.t.messmer@state.or.us

Call him at 1.800.720.6330 x 76214 or send a land letter to him at Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/3406 Cherry Ave. NE/ Salem, OR 97303.

[blacktail]

I'm not knowledgeable enough on this subject to make a strong argument either way.

However, I do know the cutthroat population has dwindled in many coastal and "valley" streams.

At this point I would be inclined to think they need continued protection - i.e. no harvest in most areas.

Mike

[ 03-11-2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: blacktail ]

[Jennie@ifish]

Bill spent considerable time today talking to the local biologist about this issue.

It is extremely depressing to me. :depressed:

Why on EARTH when things are coming back into shape would they kill them now?
Sometimes I think I'll never understand how some people think. I'm fighting this one tooth and nail. Loogout!

Jen

[garyk]

Ya know, we've got fine and beautiful places like Cape Meares lake and the other lakes north and south to provide for those anglers who want a consumptive trout fishery. And they can even keep 5 trout there!

What about those of us that just want nice fish that produce a quality fishery. Two fish limits don't sound like much, but 2 fish day after day after day, quickly diminishes the available fish. We've seen this all before.

I've certainly enjoyed the C&R opportunity for very nice 'cutts, that were not there in numbers worth fishing for prior to the protective regulations. And I wouldn't even be trout fishing in Tillamook County if, those regs hadn't helped the cutts recover.

Note that the testimony is written by Walt Webber, a well-respected ex-Bio of ODFW.

ODFW's making a big mistake here.

[ 03-11-2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: garyk ]

Originally posted by Jennie@ifish:
It is extremely depressing to me. :depressed:

Why on EARTH when things are coming back into shape would they kill them now?
Sometimes I think I'll never understand how some people think. I'm fighting this one tooth and nail. Loogout!

Jen

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree! 8" trout!?!?!?!? C'mon

[Mojo]

I thought hatchery planters were for keeping, and wild trout were for gently releasing. Did I miss a memo?

Originally posted by Mojo:
I thought hatchery planters were for keeping, and wild trout were for gently releasing. Did I miss a memo?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No you didn't Mojo. Seems that the ODFW wants to lower the minimum size for retaining these fish which in alot of peoples opinion is a bad idea.
There are plenty of lakes where the state plants legal size trout for the public to catch and retain. Why they feel that there is a need for this cutthroat retention is a mystery.

[ 03-11-2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Snapset]

In my opinion, Cutthroats are an ideal fish for kids. I think they should limit fishing for Cutthroats on coastal streams from May through July to kids 16 and younger.

[rebell]

I have fished for cutthroat in Tillamook streams for close to 40 years. Most of my summers growing up there were spent fishing for cutt's. They could be found almost everywhere, you would be shocked by some of the places we hauled cutthroat out of. All of the local sloughs were loaded with trout up to 20+ inches. The upper north fork of the Trask was alway's good fishing. We caught good cutt's in the south fork so far up river you could step across it in most places.

Over time the numbers seemed to decrease ( go figure, with all of the fish we used to keep ). I don't target them like I used to when I was a kid, but they are slowly making a come back. It bothers me to think that ODF&W would even consider a 2 fish limit at this time. In time possibly we could allow a small harvest, but 2 fish a day is way out of line.

Possibly a 12 inch limit, 1 per day, 10 per year. But how could it be enforced? Now is not the time, MAYBE in the near future a small harvest could be allowed, but not now.

[freespool]

Am I missing something here? What would keep 8in steehead or salmon smolt from becoming creel foddder? Isn't that why they stopped trout fishing in streams with anadromous fish? Seems like a quantum leap backwards.


salmon hugger

[Joe]

I gotta admit that if it was legal I would probably eat a couple trout each year. :blush: Cutthroat are what got me into fishing when I was a kid. I never ate very many but I did enjoy the few I ate. Besides from my observations resident cutts have always been around in healthy numbers? Now Sea Run cutts are a different story but from what I understand they are not the same fish.

What is it about this that bothers you folks.

[sparkleboy]

Originally posted by freespool:
Am I missing something here? What would keep 8in steehead or salmon smolt from becoming creel foddder? Isn't that why they stopped trout fishing in streams with anadromous fish? Seems like a quantum leap backwards.


salmon hugger

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I was concerned about this a couple of years ago, so I contacted ODFW about it. I spoke with Kevin Goodson about the subject, and he told me most salmon and steelhead smolts 8 inches and over would have gone smolted down to saltwater by the time the cutthroat season opened. I know some still hang around though, because I've caught some.
It always worries me when I see someone cleaning small fish when I'm fishing for summer steelhead. I can't help but think it's a salmon or steelhead smolt. I agree with everyone else about lakes and stocked streams as being consumption trout fisheries.
Cutthroat trout do not need to be retained.

[Jimmy Carl Black]

We should wait a while longer before we start taking them out again.