Understanding the ESA Impact Guideline...

Lured In · 04-07-2003, 02:42 PM

I believe this is something that will help all of us who wonder what is going on with the Springer Fishery and its relationship to the ESA Impact Guideline.

The usual communication from ODFW, etc is in terms of percentage of the run with other various percentages tossed in here and there.

Last week amidst the hoo-ha over the closure, I sent and email to ODFW and asked if someone could clarify how the ESA impact was calculated.

Today I received the following helpful response...

"The overall 2% non-Indian impact is on the ESA listed upriver spring chinook stocks which include Snake River Wild and Upper Columbia Wild. However, the non-Indian fisheries are managed for a 2% impact to the total upriver spring chinook run (hatchery and wild). The wild portion of the run will be impacted at the same rate as the total run (2%). The total sport handle (kept and released) of upriver spring chinook is limited to 11.1% (1.11%/10% mortality rate) of the total upriver run which is currently 16,139 upriver fish (145,400 X .111)."

Hopefully that makes sense to you, but in summation...

Based on the the current run size of 145,000 sport fisher ESA impact is based on the total handling of 16,139 upriver fish. (kept and released). If the run size is not updated, once this number is hit the fishery will close.

In the closure press release last week, it stated that to date roughly 9500 hatchery and wild spring chinook had been handled in the Columbia. Using other info from ODFW documents, it would be safe to assume about 80% of those 9500 fish were of upriver stock.(about 8000 upriver fish as of last week). That 8000 represents half of our ESA Impact Guideline of 16,139.

So what does this mean and why do we need to know? EXPECTATIONS!

Nobody likes to be disappointed or to feel mislead. So let's look at what's left.

Since the press release on 4/2, you can bet at least another 1500-2000 more fish (in total) were handled. Using the same 80% guideline that would put the current ESA Impact for us, somewhere around 60%. (Perhaps more from what I saw on Saturday up at the dam.)

The upriver run seems to be really turning up over the dam. The Willamette fish may finally be starting to show up in good numbers. If both runs are going strong come this Wednesday, you can bet we will see large numbers of both upriver and Willamette stock fish handled in the Columbia. I wouldn't be surprised to see close to 1000 fish handled each day. Again, depending on the mix of Willamette fish, we could come close to maxing out the ESA impact after Saturday. If the Willamette fish are in, we might get another week.

So there you have it. Right now we are over halfway to closing the season on the Columbia. What we need are the Willamette fish to show up and the upriver run size to be upgraded. So let's keep our expectations in line and enjoy what we have left of the season.

Good luck.

(Disclaimer: this is just my opinion based on what I have read, seen and been told. Take or leave it. I am not making any predictions, just sharing my thoughts, right or wrong.) [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

Thanks to ODFW for getting back to me.

[ 04-07-2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Lured In ]

Tyeebuster · 04-07-2003, 02:57 PM

Makes you wonder if you should admit to the checker that you released a fish?

Lured In · 04-07-2003, 03:22 PM

Tyeebuster...you bring up a interesting point. In reality not telling the checker you released a fish accomplishes the same thing as not telling the checker you kept a fish. The ESA impact is based off of both. (Total handled).

CATCH AND EAT · 04-07-2003, 03:43 PM

I have real mixed feelings about telling a checker I released a Native fish. Especially during the ocean fishery off the Columbia. Released fished fin or not count against the quota of kept or handled native fish percentages. I will probably get hammered for this but I do not tell the checker I caught a native and released it because of the quotas and restrictions. Go ahead and bash me if you want, that is okay. I just dont believe it is right in my own mind to count them against the quota. Sorry.

Lured In · 04-07-2003, 04:19 PM

C&E..while I certainly understand how you feel, I think you might be missing the benefit of this. If you will hear me out...

Imagine this, you don't tell the checker you caught and released an unclipped fish. And let's say you are not alone in this effort and many others do the same. What do the fishery managers see when they look at the harvest rates? They see a "radical" decline in the presence of unclipped fish. "Oh no, the ESA Impact guidelines are not working. Let's close the river completely to protect our now apparently dwindling stocks of wild fish." :depressed:

This logic could potentially "backfire" if enough sportsman shared your view. Again, I know how you feel and can't help but wonder if we aren't setting ourselves up for early closures by reporting how many unclipped fish we released. The flip side is that this information is valuable to the fishery managers. It is an opportunity for us to HELP them manage the fishery better. We participate in the management and are not just subject to it. (Think of it as an ongoing test fishery.)

Personally, I would prefer to participate in the management of the fishery than not to have one at all.

I don't expect that I changed your mind, but hopefully you will reconsider your position.

Flatfish · 04-07-2003, 04:25 PM

So they actually think that a full 10% of released fish die? That number seems a bit high to me. Any of you educated fish folks wanna comment on this.

If we lower the impact on nates killed during release, we get to fish more days. Right? Sounds easy, at least.

Mark and the dog.

garyk · 04-07-2003, 04:33 PM

Flatfish, from the way some of the bankies drag them up on the sand, wrestle with them a while, hold them for some more photos, and then toss them back in the river - then yes, an overall average of 10% or more seems very realistic.

I've certainly noticed much improved handling techniques by folks in boats - leaving the fish in the water now seems standard practice.

And to be fair, I've seen some bank fishers handle them very responsibly too.

Silver Hilton · 04-07-2003, 05:00 PM

Flatfish,

I doubt any improvement in handling would be factored into this years plan. It might affect next years plan. If I were a fisheries manager, I wouldn't change my plan until I had hard evidence of an improvement in survival.

boater · 04-07-2003, 05:07 PM

flatfish, ive wondered the same thing about the 10 percent mortality, it would be interesting to know if when the ocean fisheries are set if they use the same 10 percent rate even though barbless hooks are requred, if its the same then i`d have to ask why use barbless hooks in the ocean ? and if the ocean rate is lower, i`d ask why not use barbless hook in the river to lower the mortality rate. anyone know ?

Lured In · 04-07-2003, 05:46 PM

Boater...I will look into that, because I had the same question.

Flatfish · 04-07-2003, 09:04 PM

I don't have enough experience in the ocean to have a valid opinion. But since they are feeding there, it is apples and oranges. Feeding fish equal swallowed bait(hooks). That and the water conditions may make it much harder for a lot of folks to release boatside ala freshwater.So the fish may get netted and such when they would not in freshwater.

If they figure 10% on the springers. What do they figure on spring steelhead(natives)? I have caught enough of them to have an opinion, and I would argue 10% mortality with that in most cases.

Seems to me that if we want to increase our opportunity, we show that 10% is high. A lot easier than trying to up our 1.11% take that we are allocated now. At least it seems so on my side of the tracks.

Might help to clip all the hatch fish too so we actually have a reasonable way to calculate how many true upriver nates are going thru the system. Then again, maybe there aint enough real nates left for a sustained fishery if we clip the brats.... But that is another conversation in itself.

Mark and the dog.

BrionLutz · 04-07-2003, 10:27 PM

Flatfish,

I've fished Tillamook ocean with herring and up river Columbia with herring and there doesn't seem to be much difference in how the fish are hooked.

On asking the biologists to revise the 10% mortality estimate, be prepared that it might increase. There has to be a higher mortality rate with dual treble hooked plugs than with inline herring or prawn hooks.

There are a lot of experienced folks here who can get a treble out like surgeon but I'd bet most folks struggle with it (I know I do). I'm switching my plugs to single hooks per advice here that it works just as well as trebles.

Between bank fishermen having to drag the fish over the rocks, boat fishermen with nets and trebles, they may find actual mortality is higher than they figured and cut back on the sport quota.

With the budget crunch, I doubt there's going to be any funding for a study in the near future.

Brion

cosmo · 04-08-2003, 07:53 AM

Ocean mortalities used are much higher than 10%. Salmon toughen up considerably upon hitting fresh water.

monoman · 04-08-2003, 08:24 AM

The 1.11 is the system impact. Below the dams it is 1.00 impact! The seasons are closed when the 1.00 is hit or the total impact of 2.00 is reached. Until the run size is increased there will not be an impact increase, we will hit the 2.00 before we hit the 1.00, let's hope for an increase in the run size!

Hoosier Daddy · 04-08-2003, 08:26 AM

:whazzup:
I find it troublesome that we grouse about poor or inappropriate management while admitting or suggesting that we don't or shouldn't give creelers correct information. Like it or not, managers have to have as much info as possible to figure this stuff out. The more accurate the info, the better. It ain't cheap to keep creel surveyors out in the field. And if you hold out on them, you are wasting your license dollars, and quite possibly shooting yourself in the foot as Lured In suggested.

Ty · 04-08-2003, 08:30 AM

Indeed cosmo you are right... Ocean mortalities are extremely high... One thing that should eb pointed out is that mortalities are not inherintly higher because of where they are but because of when they are in "ocean phase" there are many physiological factors that make them much more vunerable to handling stress. However, somehow the saltwater is majicall at healing wounds if they survive the release. One more thing is this "ocean phase" can be encountered when fish are in fresh water. It is very common when you see fish very fresh from the ocean and there scales are all falling out. Once they start to "reabsorb" there scales and they don't loose them so easily they are much less suseptible to mortality.

Killertraylor · 04-08-2003, 08:38 AM

I hit the dock at Scappoose bay on Friday afternoon at 4:00 and the fish checker was already gone. There were over 100 boat trailers in the parking lot. I've seen prior posts on here about them "estimating" the catch based on the data they got from earlier that day - not really an accurate measurement in my opinion. I've also read that mortality rates are much higher than 10% for released fish - I'm glad they are using such a small number.

All of this stuff is so debatable - nobody seems to really know the answer and nobody has the money to find out.

Born to be Wild · 04-08-2003, 08:46 AM

Hook & release mortality is I believe estimated around 14%. If they are hooked and lost (come off by them selves) I believe it is 5%. They are very fragile out there and hooked in the eye or tongue is very detrimental to them.

Another mortality is the cap, not to get confused with hooking mortality. This is the estimated % of the estimated run size of the wild coho that will be accepted to be accidental mortality during other fisheries, i.e. ocean hatchery coho and chinook seasons, bottom fishing, commercial chinook seasons and others.

Last year I believe they allowed a 11% mortality cap, but this year with the increasing wild coho numbers that cap was raised to 15% which means we can accidentaly kill more wild fish therefore harvesting a higher percentage of hatchery fish.

I'm not familliar with a mortality on chinook in the ocean or whether they have ever studied that.

Hoosier Daddy · 04-08-2003, 08:48 AM

KT, I believe creelers are usually scheduled pretty randomly to make the surveys more statistically valid. They can't cover the whole day by themselves, so I think they mix it up with mornings and afternoons on different days.

cosmo · 04-08-2003, 09:43 AM

I participated in the study on the Willamette to assess mortaity rates on spring chinook. It was done at Willamette Falls, over three seasons. The fish were caught using a variety of methods(biat, plugs, spinners,etc) (we caught like 50 on the day I went!), netted, measured, tagged and then released three or four different ways (straight into the water, into one of the three fish ladders, or shuttled above the falls. The fish were accounted for at upriver hatcheries, creel counts, spawning surveys, etc. It was very thorough. The actual mortality, at the end of the study, three years later, came in at 7-7.5%, if I remember correctly. They use 10% to provide a little cushion.

Ocean mortalities (and it has been a while) are I beleive based on British Columbia studies. Mortality ranges in the ocean can be in the 20-40% range. Like Ty says, physiologically, salmon are more delicate in the ocean.

As for the fish checkers- two things. The more bad information they get, the more compensation for uncertainty gets added in. And secondly, fish checkers are the future of fish and wildlife departments. Fresh from school, they get paid pennies to stand around at ramps. Make it a habit to treat them well, with an extra dose of kindness. Nothing is worse than ingraining a negative view of sport fishermen in the next generation of leaders, yet you see it happen at ramps often.

[ 04-08-2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: cosmo ]

Killertraylor · 04-08-2003, 09:57 AM

I hear you, Cosmo and Hoosier. I'm always polite to the checkers, it just seems that their supervisor could schedule their hours a little better. I'll bet at Scappoose Bay on springer fishing days they check less than 10 boats before noon as the overwhelming majority of folks fish well into the afternoon. It's different for sturgeon in the estuary where easy limits are often the rule and folks are back at the dock early.

Cosmo - thanks for sharing your information - that's what I'd consider a valid test and it really made me feel good to hear that the mortality was lower than what so many have posted! Do you know how that compares to the mortality rates of springers released in the tangle tooth net fishery with the recessitation box on board?

cosmo · 04-08-2003, 12:19 PM

They are using 25% mortality to run the tangle net fishery, 50% mortality for released fish from a standard gill net.

The most recent numbers I saw on tangle nets were: low immediate mortality, 19% at the 48 hour after release mark, and some greater number over the following months. There is still debate as to where that greater number falls. The paper I read suggested a 35% mortality, but 25% was put into place for the fishery. There are a lot of variables with the nets and they are working to do what they can to improve survival.

Cohoangler · 04-08-2003, 12:58 PM

The hooking/handling mortality estimate (10%) is based on scientifically based research. It ain't a wild guess based on angler opinion. Ditto for the creel census clerks. They sample the fishery by checking anglers at randomly selected times. The entire sampling/estimating procedures are not perfect but they are based on statisically valid sampling methods. Angler participation in these efforts is critical to their success. Let's all do our part to help.