You can take wild coho in Oregon-temporarily

Cohoangler · 12-11-2003, 12:03 PM

This is interesting. The flexibility of the ESA is mostly focused on "incidental take". That is, killing a listed animal/plant is allowed if it is done while conducting otherwise legal activities. That's why, for example, turbines on the dams can still continue to turn while also killing ESA listed fish. The fish they kill are covered under an "incidental take" authority.

However, catching ESA listed coho is not "incidental take". It's direct take. That is, anglers are purposefully killing wild coho that are listed under the ESA. I'm not sure how NMFS authorizes it. If Bill Bakke and friends decide to run to the courthouse, they might have a good case. But I'm not suggesting that. Perhaps NMFS needs to explain the legal and biological basis for their decision.

drhall99 · 12-11-2003, 10:20 PM

This late in the season , the bigger question should be WHY? Too dark to bother with messing the wild fish. Let them spawn in peace!

D

Artwo · 12-11-2003, 11:20 PM

Limited take on wild coho from the month of Siltcoos and Tahkenitch lakes.

http://katu.com/outdoor/story.asp?ID=63068

[ 12-11-2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Artwo ]

Ty · 12-11-2003, 11:39 PM

I think that coho should remain catch and release for "unmarked" fish. The status of coho on the Oregon Caost is extremely difficult to monitor. OFWS uses spawining ground surveys as population index's to determine run sizes within different coastal drainages.

Hatchery born mixed stock fisheries combined with poor ocean survivals and drought conditions led to the listing if various coho stock on the coast.

I think many of these stock are in great shape. I think Oregon would be jumping the gun by reversing all the hard work and effort that it has taken to educate the public and get people releasing unmarked coho.

Coho should remain like steelhead and unmarked fish released untill better in river management stratagies are adopted by ODFW to determine good years form bad years allowing unmarked fish harvest.

just my .02 worth

V. Green · 12-11-2003, 11:43 PM

I would have to agree with Bill Bakke on this. I would rather wait to harvest wild coho until they have rebounded to good numbers for several years.

Straydog · 12-12-2003, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cohoangler:
Perhaps NMFS needs to explain the legal and biological basis for their decision.

Excellent point.

I am not saying this move was right or wrong in terms of fish populations and survival of the species in these two watersheds.

I am though, saying the explanation, if one were to be forthcoming with honesty, would fall under the heading of "political" rather than "biological".

Look at the other conservation roll backs this conservative administration has enacted or attempted to enact and no one should be surprised by this decision.

[ 12-12-2003, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

SlimPickens · 12-12-2003, 06:38 AM

From what I've heard and read, this is suppose to be good fisheries management. Targeting a healthy run of wild coho in these lakes. The other wild coho runs that aren't doing as well in the Umpqua or up north are not affected-- they're not being harvested. Its management depending on the status of the wild run. Similar to allowing harvest of wild winter steelhead in the North Umpqua or Rogue, but not in the South Umpqua or north coast rivers. Makes sense to me. Gets rid of blanket regulations.

Its legal under the ESA because if you kill a fish "incidentally" or "directly"-- what's the difference to the population? Nothing! If you die trying to get over a dam, or from being caught and released a few times by commercial fisherman out in the ocean, or harvested in the lake-- it all amounts to the same result...you don't spawn.

I'd rather see easing up on harvest in areas where you know what run you're targeting and not doing it in the ocean where you affect all kinds of runs.

I don't think its a political deal...my 2$

garyk · 12-12-2003, 01:45 PM

Good summary there CohoAngler. Nicely written.

SlimPickens · 12-12-2003, 03:12 PM

Cohoangler-- the direct take of a listed species can be allowed under the ESA. Two avenues- a section 10a1a permit or allowed in a 4d rule that outlines the take prohibitions.

Some examples of where direct take has been allowed are with troublesome grizzly bears, wolves. Threatened bull trout have been directly killed in some sport fisheries where the population is healthy under the 4d rule. Wild coho can be taken in Siltcoos and Tahkenitch lakes under the 4d rule.

freespool · 12-12-2003, 03:29 PM

This is just the beginning of the new ODFW management style. Get used to it,because your going to see a lot more of it throughout the state. Don't be suprised to see wild steelhead back on the catch list in certain rivers. Many hatcheries will close in favor of naturally spawning wild fish,with limited retention allowed. The new emphasis will be on habitat,and over all basin health. This is truely a turning point for our fish stocks. Can't wait to see what happens.

free

Born to be Wild · 12-12-2003, 03:42 PM

Quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Cohoangler:
Perhaps NMFS needs to explain the legal and biological basis for their decision.

Originally posted by Straydog:
Excellent point.

I am not saying this move was right or wrong in terms of fish populations and survival of the species in these two watersheds.

I am though, saying the explanation, if one were to be forthcoming with honesty, would fall under the heading of "political" rather than "biological".

Look at the other conservation roll backs this conserv ative administration has enacted or attempted to enact and no one should be surprised by this decision.

This fishery was proposed to provide opportunities for fishermen and not for any political gain.
If you had been following several post on ifish by myself and others throughout the last 9 months you would have seen that this was biological.
May I suggest you go to the NOAA website and read. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or his administration!

To the rest of you that haven�t been following this proposed fishery that has had extensive postings on ifish I will do my best to fill you in.

Originally there was a proposed fishery on Siltcoos, Tahkenitch and Tenmile lakes.
District biologist Bob Buckman (Siltcoos, Tahkenitch) and Mike Gray (Tenmile Lake) proposed a fishery on wild coho populations in those lakes that were biologically sound and have had healthy populations for 10+ years or so.

Mike Gray received some political flack from the Tenmile Lakes watershed council and backed out.
Bob Buckman on the other hand hung in there and even though he is pro wild fish he feels if we have healthy populations of wild fish, lets fish them.

I myself did a presentation endorsing the FMEP to the game commission back in March of this year as I felt it was a good move in the right direction and having studied the OCN�s for many years I had no concerns.
The commission miss understood and thought the FMEP was for the year 2004 I found out during a break and brought it to their attention it was for the year 2003.
The issue was addressed after the break of whether it could be done this year and the ball was rolling.

The fishery was originally scheduled to open October 1rst but got bogged down in the bureaucracy of NOAA.
I started a thread back in August or September that the FMEP was up for public review and comments.
I believe NOAA received approx. 100 comments which were mostly pro fishery.
There were none from ifisher's that I saw.

I had the opportunity to read through these comments and I was touched by some of them especially the old guy (73 years old if I recollect) and how he pointed out how he still buys a fishing license and referred to a few incidental wild coho he caught last year in one of the lakes and had to release.
He made a comment a kept coho every now and then went a long ways towards meals.

Two groups opposed the FMEP and a meeting was under way with Katlyn Lovell [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img] (sp) representing Trout Unlimited and Bill Bakke of Native Fish Society.
I was fortunate to be invited.

Bill Bakke�s main concern appeared to be lack of nutrients to the streams from the harvested coho which were at a 1,000 fish cap but it was shown from prior harvest records it would likely be a lot fewer than that.

Well Bill if you are that concerned about a lack of nutrients maybe you ought to go to a fish plant or hatchery and get you some. :grin:
Should we shut down our wild Chinook fisheries all up and down the coast so we can put more nutrients in the rivers?

Bill at one point asked what were the historical numbers of the coastal lakes wild coho.

I interrupted and pointed out the fact that since the beginning of this century there have been several illegal warm water species introduced into those lakes (bluegill, brown bullhead, yellow perch and most recently black crappie).
Also introduced by the game commission was largemouth bass to control the bluegill populations.
I believe at one time or another that striped bass were introduced also.

So as I stated I don�t think it is fair to compare historical numbers with present day numbers with all those warm water species their presently.
Also, what�s the point? If we were to open and close fisheries based on historical numbers, most fisheries would be closed.

Katlyn Lovell (Trout Unlimited) questioned numerous issues but it seemed her biggest problem was the precedent setting of opening a fishery that is a listed species.

It was explained to Katlyn by Lance Krusic of NOAA that if that were to be the case that the they would face the same scrutiny that this FMEP went through.
I asked Katlyn; �if California over fished their lingcod and ours were healthy, should we close the lingcod fishery here in Oregon?

The irony of that statement is that the situation did take place a couple months later and Oregon lost their ling fishery Nov. 21 because of California. Just a coincidence, I had no prior knowledge.

So as you can see you have these environmental groups trying to deprive us sportsmen of an opportunity even though the proposed fishery was shown to be biologically sound.

The fishery was approved by NOAA after some intense scrutiny because it indeed was biologically sound and NOAA supports fisheries on healthy stocks.

I just read the KATU article that was posted and see Bill Bakke is attempting a different angle now following Katlyn�s lead of Trout Unlimited.
His points are bogus and the runs that will be targeted are not depressed, but healthy.
Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration and the biologist that proposed this fishery is not a Bush fan.

Katlyn Lovell (Trout Unlimited) also was the one that wrote an editorial to the Oregonian a while back stating that the OCN�s took a 62% drop this year.
That was a couple months ago and the OCN�s are still being counted and hadn�t even started returning then.
Environmental groups are real good at twisting and supplying inaccurate information to further their cause.

Shad Boy, I applaud you and you hit it on the nail.
Fishermen should be happy and excited about this fishery.
Another opportunity to fish on some healthy stocks and it will not effect any of the adjacent stocks up or down the coast of which some of those are showing some very impressive numbers.

Some of the comments and questions I would like to address on this thread:

Quote:

This late in the season , the bigger question should be WHY? Too dark to bother with messing the wild fish. Let them spawn in peace!

The reason is that it was supposed to open October 1rst but got bogged down by the fed�s (possibly due to Bill and T U?).
The fishery is for the lakes and not the trib�s so the darker spawners that you are concerned about will not be fished on.
It is late but wild coho are much later returning than their hatchery cousins and there is still some opportunity for quality coho. At least everything is in place for next year.

Quote:

Hatchery born mixed stock fisheries combined with poor ocean survivals and drought conditions led to the listing if various coho stock on the coast.

I think many of these stock are in great shape. I think Oregon would be jumping the gun by reversing all the hard work and effort that it has taken to educate the public and get people releasing unmarked coho.

Coho should remain like steelhead and unmarked fish released untill better in river management stratagies are adopted by ODFW to determine good years form bad years allowing unmarked fish harvest.

First of all I believe it was over fishing (mainly by the commercial troll fleet) combined with massive hatchery coho programs that brought the OCN�s to their knees. Both of these problems have been managed accordingly with the troll fleet non existent or off limits and the coastal hatchery coho programs curtailed 80% and non exisitant.

This is not reversing all the hard work and all other wild coho will still have to be released.
Your last paragraph was a bit confusing to me but ODFW has adopted better management strategies and the coastal lakes coho have been healthy for over a decade.
Unlike the steelhead you mentioned these coho don�t have any hatchery influence to depress them.

Quote:

However, catching ESA listed coho is not "incidental take". It's direct take. That is, anglers are purposefully killing wild coho that are listed under the ESA. I'm not sure how NMFS authorizes it. If Bill Bakke and friends decide to run to the courthouse, they might have a good case. But I'm not suggesting that. Perhaps NMFS needs to explain the legal and biological basis for their decision.

Cohoangler, you need to read the 4D rule.
This is legal under the 4D rule.

NOAA FMEP and 4d Rule

So to all of you, you don�t have anything to worry about.
This FMEP was highly scrutinized and it it is biologically sound.
It is a very modest harvest and will at that still bring happiness to many anglers and revenue to some businesses.
The coastal lakes wild coho are not �threatened� and have never been but were listed under that �blanket� that someone mentioned.
The fish are just basically going to waste.

The logic that some of you use would be for us to close the consumptive fishery on wild Siletz spring Chinook because of the nearby Nestucca wild springers aren�t fairing as well and you have to release them.
Nonsense! Get rid of the Nestucca hatchery springers and maybe you would be able to harvest wild Nestucca springers also.

We have done our part on the Oregon coast managing wild coho and if certain stocks are proven healthy over a given time period then we ought to be able to harvest some as we do our wild Chinook stocks and some wild steelhead stocks.

Dan

[ 12-14-2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

Born to be Wild · 12-12-2003, 03:51 PM

Right on Freespool.

And just some food for thought...
Who knows how many wild coho were killed out in the ocean this year so you hatchery coho buffs could have a season in the ocean.
10,000 20,000 30,000 wild coho killed this summer?
Who knows but it was a very large number.
If I remember right it was around 100,000 coho released this summer more than the 83,000 or so hatchery coho harvested.
This was the intentional killing of both weak and healthy stocks (incidental mortality).
The coastal wild coho fishery has no impact on the weak stocks.

Dano

[ 12-14-2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

birdhunter · 12-12-2003, 05:58 PM

I seem to recall a similar situation not too many years ago where a managing agency promulgated 4(d) rules for a threatened species that allowed a public sport season. Got thrown out - FAST, Sierra Club v. Clark 755 F.2d 608 (1985). Now this one was an 8th circuit decision and not binding over here, but you tell me exactly how conservative our 9th has been on ESA issues.

This is a healthy fishery and can support a limited sport harvest, but this is the wrong way to go about it. It sets a dangerous precendent under the Endangered Species Act and I seriously doubt it will be upheld. You want a fishery, delist.

Cohoangler · 12-12-2003, 11:07 PM

Shad Boy - Although I agree that this is probably not a political deal, I have to disagree with your characterization of the ESA. It's illegal to kill a listed animal or plant. Period. There is no exception. However, if someone is engaged in another activity (that is otherwise legal, such as fishing) that ends up killing a listed animal, they can get exempted from the "take" prohibitions of the ESA.

However, if the activity (fishing) is directly targeting a listed animal (wild coho), that activity cannot be exempted since it is not "incidental" to otherwise lawful activities. It is, in fact, directly taking a listed animal.
That's illegal.

The difference is intent. In one instance the activity is not directed towards a listed animal. In the other instance, it is. But you are also correct in that once it's dead, it's dead. The means by which it died are less important. However, the number of animals killed in "incidental take" is generally much less than what you might expect from direct take.

Born to be Wild · 12-14-2003, 04:51 PM

Quote:

You want a fishery, delist.

Birdhunter,

I don't think this sets a dangerous precedent.
As Lance Kruzic answered Katlyn at the meeting I attended, any future FMEP's would get the same scrutiny this one did.
NOAA is not going to allow a fishery on a depressed stock or situation that is not biologically sound.
And as I said earlier we fishermen should be excited and thankfull that we are given this opportunity by some ODFW and NOAA bio's.

As you are probably aware, NOAA is looking at the possibility of delisting the OCN's.
That I believe was funded by the Bush administration.

I myself am in favor of the delisting because the OCN's are not in anyway threatened any longer.
Last years numbers were approx. 300,000 (ocean escapement) and 264,000 (spawning escapement) I believe and that was the largest numbers in some 50 years or so.
The year before (2001) I believe they were in the neighborhood of 169,000 and that was probably the highest in 30 years or so.
40-50 years ago the OCN's weren't threatened and they aren't now either.
So why should they be listed when they have obviously rebounded from the low numbers of the 90's when they were listed and are managed better.
Big difference between 20,000 coho and 300,000!

This years numbers I'm willing to bet are going to be around 300,000 again and I have hopes of up to a half million.
We will know probably in January or February and then it will be time for some of these devious environmentalist to hide in their closets. :grin:

If the Yaquina River recieves another 25,000 wild coho again this year I sure would like to see a fishery in Yaquina Bay next year (2004).
25,000 is more than enough for seeding the Yaquina and I'd rather keep a couple of them to eat providing nutrients to me. :grin:

Quite a success story the Oregon coastal wild coho are.
A very resilient fish and were helped out with sound science and management.

Unfortunately the hatchery coho aren't going to fare as well again and it would be my guess that next years return of hatchery coho will be somewhere between last years mediocre return and 2002's dismall return.
The only good jack counts that I saw the last time I looked a couple weeks ago was the Cowlitz and they are still returning.
I didn't see too many jacks this year but the ones I caught on the Cowlitz and Elocoman were very good size.
I'll take a shot at only 600,000-700,000 hatchery coho for 2004 but the ones that did survive are going to be of good size again.

If only them hatchery smolts were smarter...

Dano

Straydog · 12-14-2003, 05:20 PM

Political <opinion> abounds.

Every federal natural resource agency I am familiar with has changed the way it does business since Bush was elected and the NMFS is no different.

Having said that, let me reiterate that I am not saying it is a bad decision or slamming anyone. I am expressing what I see as a fact. In fact, I believe it is a good decision.

However, it came faster and in a different manner than would have likely resulted under a different administration.

[ 12-14-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

Uglygreen · 12-14-2003, 05:27 PM

Just FYI - unclipped Coho have been fair game for a long time above Bonneville dam. Not sure if they are wild, but they are unclipped.

UG

Straydog · 12-14-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:

Mike Gray received some political flack from the Tenmile Lakes watershed council and backed out.

No politics involved in the decision making process? All just strickly biological?

Ok.

[ 12-14-2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

crabbait · 12-14-2003, 06:18 PM

Agree, disagree discuss and debate but do it with respect. Let's keep this thread open.

Born to be Wild · 12-14-2003, 06:29 PM

Yes Straydog, biological.
The bio's involved decided that the health of these lakes wild coho was good and we might as well fish them.
As I mentioned previously, they are just going through their cycles and going to waste.
So the bio's decided to propose this fishery for the fishermen.
Nothing to do with the Bush admin.

Sure there was some political opposition.
Always is!
Trout Unlimited and Bill Bakke opposed it also.

Seems when it comes to decision making regarding fishing you can't make everyone happy.

Next year everything should be in place and I think it will prove to be a beneficial fishery with no harm to the lake stocks that are healthy.
This year I don't imagine very many will be caught with the delayed late opening.

Dan

Straydog · 12-14-2003, 07:28 PM

I don't argue that there was not biological support for the decison that was made.

There was speculation being made by some here as to how the decision was made.

I believe it is much safer politically to make a decision such as this under the current administration than it would be under others. I further believe this reality had significant influence on the process.

Had there been much political resistance applied againt this decision, as was evidently the case at Ten Mile, the decision may very likley had gone the way it did there.

As sad as it may or may not be, it is my experience that at that level politics plays a role in most decisions that are made. The question at hand is which took precidence in this particular decision, the timing of it and how it was arrived at, politics or biology.

GutshotApe · 12-14-2003, 09:03 PM

Of course politics had some part in the decision..."politics" is involved in virtually every aspect of fish & wildlife management. But the proposal for the very limited coho retention season would never have been made if not for the underlying biological soundness of it. Just as wild steelhead harvest on the North Umpqua (1/5 rule) has been maintained while being prohibited elsewhere, just as wild chinook have been harvested on the coast while being protected elsewhere, where there are strong runs of coho as in Tahkenitch & Siltcoos Lk systems, why not have a limited harvest?

If our wild fish are turned into total museum stocks...look but don't touch...public support for restoring & maintaining them will wane.

Straydog · 12-14-2003, 09:26 PM

Gutshot,

Welcome back.

If you're arguing with me, your wasting your time. I don't disagree with anything you say.

My opinion has to do with timing and process and as you say, politics is a part of that.

I am not and have not argued against this opening.

[ 12-14-2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]