Reduction in Bank Fishing on Nestucca

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Background

Several years ago the ODFW Commission authorized a change in the hatchery winter Steelhead Program on Nestucca. The previous augmentation program was comprised of an Alsea basin stock that had a split release strategy. Half of the smolts were released directly from Cedar Creek hatchery on Three Rivers while the other half was a main stem release (3rd or 1st bridge) This provided fish for both the bank anglers who fished at or below Three Rivers (fish tend to hold below natal tributaries until higher flows) and drift boat anglers who could access fish regardless of what part of the river the fish are imprinted upon.


Currently

As of this week Tillamook District staff have completed and submitted for public comment the new HGMP (Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan) for the new “Broodstock” Program. Along with fundamental changes in the stock used and how they are collected District staff has decided to go with a 100% tributary release of juvenal fish into Bays Creek. The ramifications of this strategy could be that instead of large numbers of fish holding at or below Three Rivers, nearly all of the returning adult Winter Steelhead could hold at or below Bays Creek. Unfortunately if that does happen it will eliminate a majority of bank angler harvest, the area at and below Bays Creek is private land with no reported bank access.
It is true that I have several issues with the way District Staff have conducted this change in hatchery programs. I am not impartial regarding many aspects of what has been proposed and what has occurred thus far. However I feel that a 100% tributary release as it is currently proposed is unfair to the many bank anglers who fish the Nestucca. I also feel that everyone should get a chance to voice their opinion regarding this new HGMP.

Attached is a link to the new HGMP (warning it is a little large)
Cedar Creek HGMP

Please feel free to read for yourself and if you wish to comment (for or against) please do so. ODFW does its best when everyone gets involved. There is a limited time to comment, ODFW is rushed because of a legal oops.

Send your comments to:
Keith.E.Braun@state.or.us

If you have any questions at all regarding the changes to this hatchery program please feel free to ask here or PM me. I am sure that Marty would be happy to answer any questions as well

Please keep the flaming to a minimum

[Mr. Shannon O'Brien]

Well, I hope it works out for you folks. I'd hope they do not create a keg party in front of Bay's Creek with DB's.

I can see the race now. Heck, some will just start dropping lines in prior to the mob arriving, which would be before first light. :depressed:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

ODFW News Release

[spinner53]

So, where is Bay's Creek ?? above first bridge ? Wayside ?? ??

[Salmon Stryker]

Where is Bay's creek? I read on this site last year that the broodstock were being dumped in at farmers creek.

[Uglygreen]

I like the idea of having the fish more spread out thru the system. There isnt much water below three rivers for either boat or bank. There is a lot of bank access upstream from three rivers that is unused. Plus, my observation is that even if the release site is remote from the hatchery, a large percentage of fish still remain imprinted on and return to the hatchery area. Example - This year the Eagle creek hatchery in the Gorge had several thousand fish (hatchery coho) hanging out below the trap which hasnt been opened in 3+ years. Even though all those smolts were from Tanner creek eggs and ALL the smolts were released upriver in tribs like the Kilckatat a buncha fish remained imprinted on the Eagle Creek hatchery. I would guess even with the remote release site at Bay creek a signifigant percentage of the run would likewise still return to Three rivers and Cedar Creek.

Second Idea - A lot of additional bank oppertunity and spawning habitat would be gained if broodstock fish were allowed to migrate upstream past the hatchery wier at three rivers. My understanding is that nothing goes past the wier now, and there is at least ten miles of habitat and a lot of bank access upstream of that point.

UG

[ 12-05-2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

UglyGreen

That is a good point and one that staff will be using to support their decision. Unfortunately Cedar Creek Hatchery does not use water from Three Rivers. Cedar Creek Hatchery uses water from Cedar Creek. It remains to be seen if the small amount of flow from Cedar Creek added to Three Rivers will be enough to turn remotely released fish. Since the fish will have never tasted Three Rivers water they could consider it foreign and move along. Even if some straying back into Three Rivers occurs will it be a fair or equitable number for bank fishermen?
I too like the idea of having fish spread out and holding in areas all along the Nestucca. It was my hope that District staff would allow 3 release sites with a third released from Bays Creek, a third released from three rivers, and the last third released at a tributary with better bank and boat access.

Because these are hatchery fish returning spawning opportunity is to be avoided with these hatchery fin clipped fish. I believe the goal is 10% or less hatchery straying

[Amerman]

***

I think what the ODFW is doing is right on. If you look at what they are doing they are try to model Nestucca Broodstock Program after the highly successful Siletz Program. On the Siletz all the fish are released out of Palmer creek at Moonshine park. The way fish return through out the system with some even returning above Palmer Creek. If this plan goes through it should provide quality hatchery fishing through the entire river system.

Bays Creek is in the upper Nestucca above the 5 1/2 boat ramp. If you compare the amount of bank fishing between Bays creek and Cloverdale compared to the amount of bank fishing from the three rivers hatchery to Cloverdale. I think you will see that we are gaining tons. Plus if you look at the boat access it will change from just the 3rivers to Cloverdale run, to having all the water from 5 1/2 to 4th bridge, 4th to first bridge, 1st to Farmers, Farmers to 3rivers and 3rivers to Cloverdale. All of these places people will be able to target these fish.

By releasing these fish in one place ( Bays Creek) it will allow them to place a fish trap there that will allow them to trap all the hatchery fish and let the wild fish pass up Bays creek. Which will keep the hatchery fish from spawning with the wild fish plus allow the hatchery fish to be recycled back through the system to be caught again. I also think currently they will keep releasing the Alsea strain brats into 3 rivers so what will really be lost. Once the broodstock proves a success I believe they will remove the Alsea stock.

UG currently the wild fish are passed above the 3 rivers fish weir and are allowed to spawn in the upper river.

[SteelieSteve]

I'm not clear about where Bay's Creek is. If I remember correctly Hebo is 14 miles up river so your talking 7.5 miles further up. Not a lot of bank access up there since most of it is private property. I don't want to see the fishery go to a boat show. I see multiple release points as the best way with a healthy release from Cedar Creek Hatchery. That would allow for the continued Hebo/Three Rivers fishing as well as put more fish upriver. The lower river fishery results in the freshest catch IMO, plus they are recycled for another chance.

[Salmon Stryker]

Thanks for the explanation Scott. Bays creek sounds good to me now that I know it is upriver. There is a lot of bank access at the mouth of 3-rivers and farmers creek and along 101 and the 101 bridge. I think the bank guy's will be gaining, especially if they keep dumping brats in at cedar creek. There really isn't a whole lot of bank access on 3-rivers anyway I think spreading them out a long the Nestucca is a good move.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mr. Amerman

Thank you for your eloquent reply. I would tend to agree with you if things were as you say. Unfortunately District staff has done a sub par job of informing everyone as to how the broodstock program is to work. The current plan calls for ALL of the fish, both the Alsea stock and the Nestucca stock to be released at Bays Creek. This change from what you understand occurred not because of fishing concerns or even stock concerns but because District staff wanted the straying study that they are doing as part of this stock change to have better scientific results if Both stocks are released at Bays Creek. The most ironic thing about this study is that it is costing over $1,000,000.00 for the 8 year study and is being paid for by fishermen in the form of R&E dollars. R&E dollars are collected as a surcharge on your license fees and are to be used to create extra angling opportunity on top of other ODFW funds. In this case because of the study some fishermen will get less?

[Mrdorkfish]

*** Clerk, What do you know about a small run of salmon in Farmers Creek? I know they are there..i watch them spawn every year, My concern is pressure right around the wayside/mouth of the creek...I know this would cause quite an uproar but i personally would like to see a deadline above..and just below the take-out. The fish that sit there until the creek is passable get harrassed...most of them are pretty tired and need to get their duty done..a few snags or C&R's doesn't help...i'm bring this up cuz more fish uppriver means more pressure. Who makes decisions on where a deadline is placed. :whazzup:

MrDorkfish [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Louis

[Amerman]

***

I was unaware of any changes to the Alsea strain stock being moved. I personally would like to see them all replaced. You can thank the additional cost and the Alsea stock being moved to the couple of people that have tried everything they can to stop the Nestucca Broodstock porgram. I am sure YOU know who I am talking about. I believe you will see that the stray study, like the spawn survey, are being forced upon the ODFW. These are the same people that are trying to remove the summer steelhead from the Nestucca, are the reason the broodstock fish were released where they were last year, and the reason the broodstock program is just getting started now. If not, it would have been up and running years ago. I am sure YOU have researched this and know exactly what I am talking about; some people will just try everything to stop this program.

I agree Cosmo--what we lose is little compared to all we gain.

[Mrdorkfish]

I guess i'll have to get info from ODFW, Yep...i would really like to have the wayside shut down as far as fish'n goes...I can remember when i was very little and would wade Farmers creek on my parents property and see thousands of tiny fish at my feet..and the adults spawning in the late fall and winter...Dad says there was a hatchery of some sort long ago...which are now his ponds that are now filled in with silt and berry bushes...He cleaned them out one year and planted Donaldson trout in them but the neihbor kids fished them out and the blue Herron helped themselves. Maybe i'm all wrong in my thinking...the hatchery fish or those who fish for them might be screwing up the natural spawners...

MrDorkfish [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Louis

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mr. Amerman

If halting the use of Alsea basin stock were part of a carefully considered long-term plan for the Nestucca Basin I would agree with you. Unfortunately staff has not, nor wants to do any long term planning.

As to the persons you alluded to, John Bracke and Les Helgeson. It would be easy to vilify them as they make easy targets from your point of view. But from my understanding they originally wanted the cheaper study option (with volunteers). I can not speak for them But I also believe they were willing to grudgingly accept this Broodstock program if it were run more like the Whitaker Creek program on the Siuslaw.
Whitaker Creek is done very differently than the proposed Nestucca program, Whitaker Creek incorporates both hatchery augmentation and Habitat improvement on the tributary, the Nestucca program does not. The Whitaker Creek program utilizes the capture facility for spawning a widely diverse portion of the population while the Nestucca uses only what volunteers can hook when the river is fishable (last year was real bad). I think they would still be willing to accept this program if it were part of a long-term (20 year) plan that was managed to improve wild populations in an effort to halt hatchery augmentation.
I believe you are correct that they would like to see an end to the stocking of summer stock. This does make many anglers unhappy… but what if they are right? What if all the other native stocks would greatly benefit from halting the non-indigenous summers? What does District Staff use as a yardstick to balance benefit from impact?

District staff had an opportunity to work with everyone and come to a consensus regarding this program as well as many other aspects of management on the Nestucca. They instead strong armed their beliefs and utilized the less wild population friendly avenues that this Broodstock program had to offer.

Regarding the failure to release the broodstock in the tributary this previous spring, I believe you have confused Les for the district personnel who failed to apply for and obtain an HGMP for the new program. Had they released them in the tributary it would have been against the law. A technicality but ODFW is picky that way at the main office.

Regards

*** Clerk

[cosmo]

All the way up at 5-1/2!! AWESOME!!

I'm not sure I'm seeing how that could be a loser at all--the fish will still go past all the bankies at Three Rivers, plus so much more water upstream. Seems like you may lose a "shoot fish in a barrel" fishery but you gain a more spread out, more natural fishery with potential for regaining some quality of experience.

[Amerman]

Louis,

If you want to see the Farmer creek hole closed, you would have better luck getting it closed for a period say in early fall when low flows create a fish in a barrel fishery; there with much illegal activity. I am sure if you talk to the ODFW and OSP you could try to get the ball rolling. I am sure both are aware of the current problem with snagging, illegal activity and the impact on the farmer creek run. They have in the past extended closures on holes to protect runs and curb problems. This is one of the prime bank fishing spots on the Nestucca, so getting it closed year round would be a battle you more than likely would lose but extending the closure from Aug 1st - Sept 15th ( current) to Aug 1st to Oct 1st( 15th or Nov. 1st) would be a more realistic goal. Email or call me if you want more help on who to talk to and that kind of thing.


*** Now you opened a can of worms by printing names. Now the thread will get locked and Jennie and the rest of us will get a threatening email from a certain someone and his attorneys again.

You say you cannot talk for these people, but yet you go on to do it again quoting and using their names all the while hiding yours. As with every topic about the Nestucca broodstock, you are quick to complain about all that is wrong with it, giving us Les and John's side and, like them, never giving us any other (or better)alternatives. Les's only alternative he has given is removing all hatchery fish from the Nestucca and implementing a limited kill fishery on native steelhead (I am quoting this from his emails and email posts you and others have made for him here on Ifish). I worked with him and Bracke on the Nestucca Angling Regulation Workgroup and watched his work first hand as we all set and tried to work on a unified decisions as to what was best for the river. Any time things didn't go 100% his way, he threatened suit, called the meetings illegal and would quit participating (even his friend Bracke was embarrassed with his tactics) making working with this individual impossible. I tried talking to him directly and quickly found out that it was his way or the highway. The only thing that came out of this was him using my name as one of his backers which couldn't be farther from the truth. I just wanted to keep his input in what was going on with the Nestucca programs so we could all work together (when I saw him working against us and pulling away). We could have a valuable group of people working together for the betterment of the river. Instead we have one guy and a couple of his friends that work against everything else being done on the river.

To start at the beginning ( I will take as much of this as I can from Les's emails; remember once you send a letter or email to the ODFW ( and other state agencies) in support or against a program, they become public records). Above I talked about the Nestucca Angling Regulation Workgroup which the ODFW put together to get the input of people concerned with what was going on with the Nestucca. This group included many Nestucca area fisherman, Marty Peterson, me, Ron from Nestucca valley, ODFW staff, OSP and even Bracke and Helgeson along with many others. As we worked through regulations and what was going on with the Nestucca, Les pushed for the closure of the Nestucca from March 1st through May 15th (or some dates like that). When this did not get passed, he got really mad, claimed the meetings were illegal, threatened to sue, and quit participating. Before our next meetings, Les forced the ODFW to make the meetings public and as such post public notices. At the next meeting many more people came, most standing against Les's closure, and he claimed the ODFW had illegally brought in outside people that were not fighting his motions when in fact these people came because of his public notices.

When we started the Nestucca river Broodstock program, Les threatened to sue if the program wasn't stopped claiming that the impact on the wild fish was too great and taking 50 wild fish to create a broodstock would remove a large percentage of the Nestucca native run (he claimed the run of fish was only hundreds of fish strong). The ODFW had to shelf the program for a year while we paid ( I believe the money was donated buy the OWHF) to have spawn studies done to count how many wild fish returned each year to the Nestucca. When the counts came back that somewhere about 10,000 wild fish returned to the Nestucca, it was decided that the impact of removing 50 fish was small enough that we could continue on with the broodstock program. At this time Les filed another injunction claiming now that there was so many wild fish that there was no need for a broodstock and that there was enough to support a kill fishery on natives instead. The Broodstock Program went on and after the first year's take, hatchery budget cuts were suggested. Les wrote the governor asking him to add the Nestucca to the list of hatcheries to be closed. When it was added, he wrote the Governor, ODFW and other calling for immediate cease of the broodstock program, the release of all of the captured adults, and the KILL OF ALL THE HATCHERY SMOLTS. We fought this and again got funding to support these programs ( Jerry dove stepped in from the Tillamook anglers and worked with us to prove we would pay what ever was needed to keep these programs; I saw many Ifishers at these meetings). Once we got the smolts raised and ready to release, Les threatened suit again over where the smolts were to be released using your words about inappropriate paper work. This year we have everything in order as to where we will release these smolts, and now you guys are crying about the lost fishing opportunities on the Three Rivers, when in fact, if you had it your way, there would be no hatchery fish so all the Three Rivers opportunities and all others would be lost.

I also think if you read the program, you will see that the replacement of the Alsea stock is written into our program by replacing the Alsea stock with indigenous stock.

So I will argue the facts with you all you want, but please try to work towards something better instead of grabbing at every straw you can to stop everything. I think you care little that some fishing opportunities may be lost on Three Rivers but more about once again stopping these programs. Please come work with us and stop working against everything, and I think you would see we have a lot in common.

[rebell]

Good lord!

Who say's politics are not a big deal in fishery management?

Good luck Scott, your going to need it.

[SteelieSteve]

Mr. Ammerman
I have several questions and btw I'm not trying to stop or cause the broodstock program problems. Can you clarify what role Cedar Creek Hatchery is to have? Are they going to raise the hatchings? Why can't there be multiple release points? I am all for the replacement of Alsea strain eggs with the native Nestucca strain. It just makes sense to me to replace the current Alsea hatchings with Nestucca strain and continue hatchery releases and several placings on the main river. The problem I see with one spot for release on the upper river is this is mostly a driftboat show with all the private property upriver. I, like most of the fishermen, fish from the bank.

[Amerman]

Rusty, Thanks, I Think :whazzup:

Steve, One M in Amerman :grin: Ok, the reason for one main release point, I believe, is to have a place that we can remove the fish from the river. We will have a trap on Bay's Creek and trap all returning adults letting the wild fish go up the creek to spawn. This should keep hatchery stock from spawning with the wild stock. There is much concern with the impact of hatchery fish spawning with the wild fish. I believe the fish will be hatched and raised at the Cedar Creek hatchery. I also believe that this release point will allow more bank fishing spots. The fish will still travel through all the bank spots around Three Rivers, and their is much bank access in the upper river; I believe way more than there is currently in Three Rivers itself.

[Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs]

Good job Scott I like to see guy speek what he feels, especially when he is right. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[MasterCaster]

Ok, the reason for one main release point, I believe, is to have a place that we can remove the fish from the river. We will have a trap on Bay's Creek and trap all returning adults letting the wild fish go up the creek to spawn. This should keep hatchery stock from spawning with the wild stock.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I understand part of the reasons for this but Im confused as to why they would no longer plant at least part of the smolt back into Three Rivers? There is already a trap and weir there so they can take all the hatchery fish out and let the wild fish above. What is the reason they are no longer wanting to release part of them back into Three rivers itself or am I misunderstanding all this?

I think its a good idea to have a trap farther up the Nestucca and gain that much more fishing area but why take away part that is already there? It just doesn't make sense to me. :whazzup:

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[rebell]

I am behind you Scott.

It's sad that one or two individuals can stall, or threaten any management policy with the threat of lawsuits. From what I am reading here, it sounds like ODF&W has a good management policy in place for the Nestucca. I wish that they could manage the Wilson broodstock program that way. It would be nice to have a weir or trap where the hatchery fish could be seperated from the wild stocks.

If it were possible, I would be behind the Wilson program. If we could utilize one of many creeks that dump in to the wilson in the way that ODF&W has decided to use Bay's creek, I feel that the broodstock program could truelly be a success. It's just going to take some money to make it happen.

[SteelieSteve]

Scott I understand the one release point to keep the strains seperate but isn't the goal to discontinue the Alsea strain? Maybe i'm just a little resistant to massive change. The release from the hatchery produces many hooked fish presently. Sorry you have one individual that has that much influence with the Governor and ODFW, it shouldn't be that way when the decision effects all the anglers that fish the Nestucca system. I will email the proper person to voice my opinion. Additionally I would not like to see summer steelhead discontinued. They add to the fishing and the economy of the area. In the past there has been some question about those fish spawning naturally. Do they? Summers used to be released in the upper Clack and it too was a great summer fishery that was halted over the spawning ground issue.

[Amerman]

Thanks everyone.

First I am not 100 percent sure why they want one release point. My arugument all along has been that *** and others don't care either. It's just another attempt to undermind the broodstock program or challenge everything that goes on with it. But I do believe having an upper river release point will increase fish opportunities for all. We may lose the crowded masses that fish below the Three Rivers hatchery and the S-curves (but that is the only spots I see losing). People will still be able to fish there. I believe we are looking at one release spot because one of the challanges thrown at the Broodstock Program is how much will these fish stray? So by going to one release point we can measure how many of the fish retrun to one point and how many stray. Also, with one release point we can remove the fish. The program is now being modeled as closely as possible to the Siletz programs. But I do beleive this is ultimately being forced by the same people that have complained about everything else.

Rusty, I agree that the Wilson program could be run better, and I would love to get some of the changes you talked about to happen. Hopefully if the Nestucca one works, we will soon be able to change the Wilson one to model after the Siletz and Nestucca. Call or email me if you want to talk about this more. I would love to get your ideas and take them to the ODFW. I know that funding would not be an issue; there is tons of money out there if the programs are written right. We had to take little steps with the Wilson program to first get it at all. We knew all along if we could get it up and running, it would be easier to change things then. I think the Wilson program is way better now than it was before but nowhere near perfect.

Mastercaster, I know that multiple release points with fish removal could be done at Bays Creek and at Three Rivers. I think it really comes down to stray rating. But email the ODFW and ask them. xc Maybe they will give you a better answer.

[Gone Fishin]

Great posting Scott! I have been very highly involved in this program and have been very interested in this thread. I just wonder why *** took so long to start it! :tongue:

The Bays Creek site was selected based on water flow and other considerations and yes, the plan is for the release there so that all the broodstock and hatchery fish can be collected and allow the wild fish to pass upriver leaving the upper Nestucca the wild fish sanctuary it is today.

If we would have been allowed to do so, without such oppisition of a few individuals this program would have been implemented at the release of our first broodstock smolts this past April. Instead, this fish were released at their usual release sites: Farmer Creek, First Bridge, Fourth Bridge and into Three Rivers itself.

During our meetings the "stray issue" was a big one from Bracke, Helgeson, Mr. *** and members of some flyfishing group. With lawsuits threatened and the clock ticking, these fish had to be released. Unfortunately, thanks to their actions as of right now, we don't have a facility for collection and these broodstock fish probably will stray! Thanks for the help guys!

I know I will continue the fight for this program as long as it takes!

[rebell]

Scott,

I would love to get together with you and Marty concerning the Wilson program. You guy's have a lot more at stake than I do. Though I have not been able to fully support the broodstock program, I feel that some kind of supplementation is needed with all of the pressure some of the north coast rivers recieve. Broodstock fish are the best way by far.

I hate emails, and hate phones even more. You and Marty let me know when you guy's have some free time, I would also enjoy talking with Travis concerning the Wilson and Nestucca programs. I am usually in Tillamook a couple of times a month visiting my parents and doing some fishing. Between the four of us, im willing to bet that we could come up with a plan that would satisfy everybody. In the meantime, please send me any reports you may have concerning all three programs.

I have one question that I feel needs to addresed here though. When the broodstock program was first introduced, one of the selling points was that these broodstock fish were compatible with wild stocks. ODF&W stated that these fish spawning with wild fish would not be an issue. Has that feeling changed with ODF&W biologists? I know that has always been the feeling concerning the Alsea brats that they plant now.

[MasterCaster]

Thanx I will do just that and E-mail ODFW.

One of the main reasons I dislike the idea of pretty much cutting off the Winters from Three Rivers is my Father and Grandfather are both disabled but able enough to get down to a couple holes on Three Rivers. From what I have fished and seen of the upper Nestucca there is very little access for them up there. So they and others like them would be losing out on yet another area to fish. If they are wanting to do stray studdies then why not just make different clips on the fish released at Bay's Creek than the clips they do on Three Rivers? They would still be able to get their stray numbers as well as keeping the fishery they have now and adding more of the Nestucca.

I just dont see a very good reason for pretty much cutting off Three Rivers when the fish are raised there in the first place. I do agree that it is in the best interest to get the Alsea basin stock &lt;47&gt; out of the river and replaced with fish native to the watershed &lt;47w&gt; but why not dump 1/3 of the smolt back into Three Rivers at Ceder Creek and the other 2/3 at Bay's with different clips?

I have one other question maybe someone here can answer. Is there even a native run of Steelhead on Three Rivers itself? I have seen very few unclipped Steelhead there in all the years I have fished it and most of them are obviouly misclip fish with only part of the fin missing. If there is no such run then I can see no reason not to keep planting fish in that river. The summers are planted, the Springers are planted, the fall Chinook are planted, and the winters are planted. Seems like a perfect hatchery river to me.

Now off to e-mail ODWF....

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mr. Amerman

Thank you for your replies. I am sorry I have not replied sooner but I had Xmas lights duty the past two nights.
Your longest post regarding the history is factually accurate for the information it contains.(see I have complete copies of many of the nasty e-mails bouncing back and forth at that time)
I am encouraged by your invitation to work with you on behalf of this program but at the same time dismayed by your rhetoric that I only complain and never offer any other better alternatives. This I do find puzzling. When would I have had the opportunity to offer better alternatives? During what point of the development process has the public been allowed to comment? The answer is not until now. The work group was only empowered to design the “stray study”, Staff made it clear on several occasions that was all that was to be discussed. When the original R&E funding for the broodstock holding ponds was put forward there was no plan yet as to how the broodstock program was going to be done. When the commission approved the stock change there still was no plan. District staff put off submitting the new HGMP for several years because the feds require public comment and failing to submit a new HGMP prevented the public from commenting. This also allowed District Staff to collect and spawn stock for two years with no public comment. Now has come the time for ODFW to accept comment on this program after it was proposed 4 years ago and has been collecting and spawning fish for two.
I can promise you that I will submit my suggestions to make this broodstock program as good as it can be.

After viewing the Whitaker Creek Broodstock program last spring I have to admit I was pretty pumped about how a broodstock program could be run. I bartered away 3 cords of oak firewood for all of the galvanized pipe, steel rod, and planking needed to build the type of capture facility ODFW wanted to use. My intention was to donate the materials and help with construction of a second capture facility. However I became so dismayed over the lack of input tolerated by staff that I abandoned the plan. Sometimes I have been so infuriated by the inappropriate actions of staff I have been tempted to sell it all for scrap . It was not my intention to bring this issue to the discussion board in an effort to cause the demise of this program. This would not be the appropriate forum. I felt that many fishermen here would like to discuss changes in hatchery strategy.

I should not have tried in any way to speak for Les or any one else. This was wrong as the emotions are too high. I will not attempt that again…


Rebell

ODFW does not have a management strategy in place for the Nestucca Basin. ODFW District Staff has several hatchery programs but no Comprehensive management plan for the Basin. Basin management plans are part of the NFCP but until done the Nestucca will be managed under Interim Criteria. Long-term goals or planning are years away.

Mr. Amerman
“My arugument all along has been that *** and others don't care either. It's just another attempt to undermind the broodstock program or challenge everything that goes on with it”
First, it is UNDERMINE… Was that a Freudian slip? :grin:
Second, I do care. I dislike the idea of yanking away opportunity from one group and giving it to a select few without open discussion.

Marty
I was waiting for the HGMP to be completed. How can we discuss it if it is not done yet? Have you not learned yet that I like all the information and all the details? :tongue:


MasterCaster
Your comments were exactly why I began this thread.
I hope that we can get a portion of the releases in Three Rivers. If not I would be happy to work with you in an attempt to improve disabled access to other portions of the Nestucca. Different clips are going to be done for each stock. However I would like to see a right maxillary clip for all Bays Creek released fish and a left maxillary for Three Rivers released fish. There would be no need for stock distinction because the two different stocks (47 and 47W) return at two different times.

To all the guides who have been working to get this program changed:
I understand how frustrating it can be having someone thwart what you believe is the best course of action. However two wrongs do not make a right. Reducing public input to silence the voices of discontent will not bring you what you seek. It will only, in the long run, hurt what you think you are trying to accomplish. :smile:

I am not the enemy of better fisheries management, but the champion of an open and public process. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]


Regards

*** Clerk

[Gone Fishin]

Marty
I was waiting for the HGMP to be completed. How can we discuss it if it is not done yet? Have you not learned yet that I like all the information and all the details

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dear, dear ***,

If you were waiting for the HGMP to be completed, why did you start this thread??? You are discussing the HGMP in this thread! [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] I have learned oh, wise one that you do like all or some of the details to post on ifish and get people stirred up! :tongue:

To all the guides who have been working to get this program changed:
I understand how frustrating it can be having someone thwart what you believe is the best course of action. However two wrongs do not make a right. Reducing public input to silence the voices of discontent will not bring you what you seek. It will only, in the long run, hurt what you think you are trying to accomplish.

I am not the enemy of better fisheries management, but the champion of an open and public process.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I know you're not the enemy Louis, nor am I your enemy. Why don't you put ALL THE INFORMATION on the table if you want to discuss it, not just what you choose to debate on.
And lastly, if you aren't the enemy of better fisheries management as you say, then what are YOUR SOLUTIONS??? You can blast and blast away at ODFW and what ever you want to... But, what's your take how do we fix it Louis? Please help!

[Amerman]

***

I am glad that you find the possibilities of a broodstock promising. There have been so many that are now really successful that I'm hoping for good things. You say that you are dismayed that I claim that you have never added anything positive and you claim you have never had the forum. But I went back and did a search on "Broodstock" I found many ( 20+) topics about broodstock. A bunch of those you and Les have gotten on and slammed the Broodstock program. Lots of people, including me, have asked what you guys would do differently or what your guys thoughts are. In one of the topics I think 10 plus people asked you guys for alternatives. Yet in none of them have either of you guys said anything that wasn't complaining or negative. Anyone can search for all the past topics (you can search the archive for broodstock or by member number 881 or any other of our numbers). You could not have much more public input than this. But this is all in the past now. Let's quit fighting and start working together. My email and phone numbers are on this site. Call or email me with your ideas if you are serious about wanting to make this program the best it can be.

Rusty

To be honest, my thoughts are that no one really knows what happens when wild and hatchery fish spawn together. Many people have different beliefs. We are finding out that out-of-basin stocks are definetly bad. No one really knows for sure what happens with in-basin stock; again many people have different thoughts. My thoughts are it's better to remove them than wait to find out some time in the future that they were bad.


One more point is that many people are seeing this as taking away from the bank fisherman and giving to the boat fisherman. But I really see it as just more opportunities for all. Fish will still return to Three Rivers no matter where we plant them. This is where many of these fish will be raised, and there is only one hatchery on the river and hatchery fish are always drawn to the smell of a hatchery even if not released there. There may not be the one month circus we have now. There also is lots of bank access between Cloverdale and Bays Creek. It may not be the shoulder to shoulder fishery we get at the hatchery, but I believe once these fish start to return, no one will complain.

Marty

Keep up the good work! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[rebell]

Scott,

Great post. And thanks for trying to answer my question. I personally feel that the in basin stocks can only be a good thing. I like the fact that you are not willing to take the chance of letting these in basin stocks spawn with wild fish, to find out later that it is not a good idea.

I think it shows that the broodstock program is still an experimental idea. I can't help but feel that it is a whole lot better than we have had in the past. I am willing to go along with the experiment, but we do need a definite plan in place with some kind of time frame.

Hang in there Marty [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] . Let's work on this and try to get it right.

[MasterCaster]

Scott, Marty,

What are your thoughts as to still planting or not planting Winter Steelhead in Three Rivers? Do you think we will be better off by not planting any in Three Rivers? If so why? Is there a reason they cant plant some of the Broodstock fish from the Nestucca in Three Rivers? That way we can phase out the out-of-basin stock and still keep a decent run of fish returning that arent just strays.

Im trying to find out the actual reason behind not actually planting any more Winters into Three Rivers itself if thats in fact what they are wanting to do. I have not received answers to my e-mails yet and maybe they will answer my questions but Im still curious as to your opinions.

There also is lots of bank access between Cloverdale and Bays Creek. It may not be the shoulder to shoulder fishery we get at the hatchery, but I believe once these fish start to return, no one will complain.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There may be more area for fishermen but how much of that area is accessible to people that cant walk very well or climb the banks? Are there areas I have not seen because from what I have fished and seen of the bank area up there my Father and Grandfather would not have a chance. They are able to fish Three Rivers in multiple areas. Some people would be losing out greatly IMHO.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[ 12-08-2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: MasterCaster ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mr. Amerman

I am glad you are glad :smile: . I am also pleased with your computer searching skills . However we are on two differing wavelengths regarding mine or any other’s ability to make positive input upon Broodstock programs done by ODFW. Although Ifish and the internet does offer a forum for people like you and myself to argue points and make comments regarding these programs I was referring to the non-cyber world. Ifish does have much influence with ODFW staff but real input comes in the form of direct public input, workgroups, and taskforce meetings, of which are not a searchable databases on Ifish. (I know, I’ve looked)

You can rest assured that before the 23rd of this month I will complete my comments and submit them to staff. I truly would enjoy an open and free exchange of ideas but because there are several issues that have ramifications beyond the Nestucca basin that is not possible at this time. I hope you realize that there are two public input hurdles to jump. The first is the current public comments asked for by ODFW that is actually part of the HPMP process of the NFCP. Then will come the federal only HGMP.


MasterCaster

THORPEJ@DFW.STATE.OR.US


Marty
Sorry I was referring to staff completing the draft version of the HGMP for all of us to comment on.
I enjoy this type of format for discussing fisheries issues. Not because we have to consider ALL aspects at once but because we can break down the individual parts and expound on their merits. Considering all things at once is very problematic as can be attested to by ODFW staff currently working on the coastal Coho SMU.

Further, Who is Louis? :whazzup:

[MasterCaster]

I have sent out some e-mails and waiting for replies but I keep getting one sent back to me. John.Thorpe@state.or.us does not seem to be working does he have another e-mail? I have also sent them to

CedarCreek.Hatchery@state.or.us

Charles.A.Corrarino@state.or.us

Keith.E.Braun@state.or.us

Who else should I send my questions and concerns to?

Im not %100 sure where I stand on this yet and would like to get all the answers I can before making my desision. So far it seems as though the Guides and people with drift boats are gaining alot while most of the bankies are losing. Im sure there is a way to keep both happy and at the same time accomplish what ODFW is trying to do.

Three Rivers is a small river but thats what makes it nice. It clears faster when it does blow and and is fishable when most others are not.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[MasterCaster]

I have recieved one reply to my e-mails so far but not sure if its ok to post it. Seems the reason for not planting fish back into Three Rivers itself is indeed for a stray study. They THINK there will be enough straying to maintain a fishery in Three Rivers. Here is a small piece of the e-mail.

"We do not intend to eliminate the fishery on Three Rivers. We suspect
that the presence of the hatchery will attract a substantial number of
adults back to Three Rivers. If we are correct, then the fishery in
Three Rivers will be maintained even with all the releases occurring in
Bays Creek. If it is shown that fish do not return to Three Rivers in
sufficient numbers to provide a reasonable fishery, then we would adjust
the releases such that a portion of the fish are released in Three
Rivers."

If I can get permision I will post the whole e-mail but I dont want to step on any toes.

I still dont like the idea of not planting Three Rivers itself. If it is determined that there is not enough straying how long will it be until they begin to plant again if they even do?

Im still waiting to hear from some others that I e-mailed but to me this doesnt look good for the bank fishermen that enjoy Three Rivers. If they stick with this plan I guess only time will tell.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[MasterCaster]

I was told its ok to post the e-mail so here it is for those interested.

Thank you for your questions regarding the Nestucca winter steelhead
HGMP.

The decision to utilize a tributary release strategy in the Nestucca
was based on research conducted on the Siuslaw River in the mid 1990's.
That study showed that a direct tributary release resulted in a high
percentage (&gt;90%) of the adults returning to the release stream.

We chose this approach on the Nestucca because it should reduce
straying of hatchery fish within the basin, will facilitate the
monitoring and evaluation of the two broodstocks, and will maintain the
mainstem sport fishery (Bays Creek is just upstream of the upper extent
of current hatchery releases). We could also collect fish for brood at
the trap site.

One difference between the Siuslaw and the Nestucca is the Nestucca
basin has a hatchery within the system. One aspect of the program we
want to evaluate is to what extent will fish released elsewhere in the
basin return to Three Rivers. To do this we either have to release all
the fish outside of Three Rivers, or differentially mark groups of fish
so we can tell them apart. We considered several options, including fin
marks, coded wire tags, and releasing all the fish outside of Three
Rivers. After considering the alternatives, we decided that a 100%
release in Bays Creek would be the best option. The fish already receive
a double fin-clip, so to differentially mark them would require a third
clip, which would likely negatively impact the survival rate of the
fish. The coded wire tags would be expensive and may require killing the
adults to recover the tags. This would eliminate the option to recycle
fish through the river fishery or take to lakes.

We do not intend to eliminate the fishery on Three Rivers. We suspect
that the presence of the hatchery will attract a substantial number of
adults back to Three Rivers. If we are correct, then the fishery in
Three Rivers will be maintained even with all the releases occurring in
Bays Creek. If it is shown that fish do not return to Three Rivers in
sufficient numbers to provide a reasonable fishery, then we would adjust
the releases such that a portion of the fish are released in Three
Rivers.

The public comment period for the Nestucca winter steelhead HGMP
continues through Dec. 23rd. I would encourage you to submit any written
comments you have. You can access the document on the ODFW website
(www.dfw.state.or.us), or we could send you a copy of the document.

I would be happy to answer any further questions that you have. Thanks
again for your input and interest in this program.

Robert

Robert W. Bradley
Assistant District Fish Biologist
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Coast Watershed District
4909 E. Third St., Tillamook, OR. 97141
503-842-2741 (phone)
503-842-8385 (fax)
robert.bradley@state.or.us

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If it all works out the way they THINK it will then this is a step in the right direction IMHO. I just hope we dont end up with no winter run on Three Rivers for several years during the study.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[Gone Fishin]

No matter what the title of this post says, or what you hear from others on this board, I'm here to tell ya...Those fish will still return to Three Rivers! They are grown and raised in the water from Cedar Creek and they will return!

If anything, this program will increase both the bank opportunity and the boat fishery.

I guarantee it!

[Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs]

Listen to Marty (and Scott) folks they are right. Infact I would say in time there will be even more fish returning to Three Rivers as it is moved to entirely in basin stock (broodstock). The Alsea strain of fish receives an anual return of slightly over 1% of the fish released. So with 50,000 Alsea smolt being planted (which not all are put in at Three Rivers) that would be only 500 fish returning. Broodstock fish retun at a rate of 6% to 9% (which is equal to Wild fish). So instead of 500 fish returing we will have at the low end 3000 fish returning.

Like Marty commented a good percetage of these fish will go up Three Rivers because that is the water in which they were born. By purley just having more fish return the numbers that go up Three River will be larger. And when we go to 100% broodstock fish, releasing 100,000 there will even be more fish.

So you Three Rivers fishermen don't worry you will always have fish to fish for and most lkely even more, so will the driftboat fishermen and so will everybody!

These people that are against hatcheries will use anything that might help them meet their agenda. And as Scott mentioned will change their tune entirely to meet that agenda.

Wild fish, hatchery fish and fishermen, I am pretty certain we can all live together. :smile:

[rebell]

Easy there Travis, I may sound anti hatchery at times, but my #1 goal is good management. I understand why you would think that some are anti hatchery, but in my case, I am simply looking for the fishery to be managed in the best way possible.

I understand why *** has concerns, and I also understand why you, Marty, and Scott have concerns. I feel it's a good idea to have a management plan in place before going forward. I am currently trying to get as much information as possible.

You must admit that mistakes have been made in the past. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed. I just don't want to make the same mistakes again. I don't feel that's to much to ask.

[MasterCaster]

I certainly hope you dont think Im anti hatchery as I have sent my e-mails, made phone calls, and shown my support at meetings and such to help keep them open. I'm just concerned that a fishery I really enjoy is going to slip away. It makes sence to me that fish will return to there even if planted at Bay's creek and I hope that is correct but from what I understand noone KNOWS for sure if it will happen that way. Thats why they are doing this is to find that out. Im all for replacing the Alsea stock with the Broodstock fish.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[Amerman]

Rusty & Mastercaster I am sure Travis didn't mean anything at all towards you two by his comments. You both have shown a concern for our fishery and are willing to try and help. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Its the other people that have repeated tried to use ifish to get people fired up against the program ( thinking they can use people by making the facts look bad by presenting one side) that he is referring too. The same people who claim to just be trying to help but no matter how many times we call them out and ask them to help the always have some excuse, Sorry *** for throwing you in this too( but you showed your true colors this time). You have made it clear where you stand, and that's not on the side of helping. All you can do is throw stone hoping if you guys through enough one will break the glass. Once again when asked to give us some helpful input or to just say your side you hide your head in the sand. You whine about not having a say but refuse to give input, make up your mind. This history is long here on ifish ( for all to see that want to go back and do a search) and longer if you want to see all the challenges thrown at the broodstock program and all the different angles these people have taken ( contact the ODFW and ask for copies). Once again you had a chance to step up and you copped out.

Repeatedly we have asked you guys to join this process and be part of a making the Nestucca better and repeatedly you guys have refused and instead stand on the side and throw stones. So Rusty, mastercaster and others who do care please realize that the people that Marty, Travis, the ODFW and me are talking about are not those that disagree with us, but those that do so( and claim to be smarter than us) and refuse to help make it better.

[Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs]

I am not pointing fingers at Master Caster or you Rusty, or any of those not in favor of hatcheries, you have a right to your beliefs. I support and respect people that are open minded and willing to look at both sides. So I shouldn't of put "ani hatchery" that was to labeling. My sentiments are of what Scott said.

I don't think a single person would disagree with you, that things were bad in the past, but we are moving on. So Rusty I can understand you being leary. But if you could witness what has taken place on the Siletz over the last 7 years you would be on the band wagon waving flags. I fished the Siltez before the broodstock program and it was like all our coastal rivers. A December January fishery of Alsea pin heads and an above average Wild fishery. Now we have hatchery fish through April and lots of them. Hatchery fish that range in size from 8 to 20lbs. And I mean hump backed, broad shouldered, tail dancing, if they weren't clipped you would never know they were from a hatchery type fish. And the native population well it has only gotton better. I catch quie a few more natives a year than hatchery fish, with last year being the most I ever caught.

Thats why many of us are so hot for this program, we have seen it work. And if we can get these other programs working without being sucker punched every time we turn around, everyone else will see how well it works. We have the capabilities to have many rivers like the Siletz which inturn will spread the pressure on all rivers. I don't drive 1hr and 45 minutes each way every day for my health

I have been chastised on this site for my "Cafe Science," but we need to put a little trust in the guys that fish every possible day for 4 months of the Steelhead season. We don't have the facts that will go down in statistical reports, but due have a very good feel for how a fishery is doing, and can recognize impacts of certain changes.

[ 12-11-2003, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs ]