Is The Run Over?

Sakana · 05-08-2005, 07:29 AM

Wow, did the counts really drop yesterday. Only 564 over Bonn. Talked to a couple of guides at Fishermens Marine, OC on Fri who still think the is just late.

24 on/ 48 off · 05-08-2005, 07:39 AM

I think the numbers speak for themself.

--spud--

SalmonJeff · 05-08-2005, 07:51 AM

"IT'S OVER ROCK, IT'S OVER"

what about the steelhead counts as well they are down to. I sure hope they pick up soon and get a good flush of early fish.

wack0 · 05-08-2005, 10:03 AM

Put a fork in it! It's just stragglers now.
I fished last night through a nice high slack under the power lines at the split. It was so quiet I could hear a smolt flop! I keep checking my calander and thinking it just can't be...

but the fact is it was one of the worst season I've had in 30+ years of springer fishing.
I put the boat away for now. Hope I'll see some post on the massive run of 4 year fish in the lower channel!!!!

KZ4LIFE · 05-08-2005, 10:19 AM

I had a call from a Bait and Tackle wholesaler from British Columbia on Saturday. He was putting in an order and mentioned they were seeing and catching an unusual amount of Springers around Vancouver Island that were in the 12 to 18 pound range. He gets his information from Guides and Charters and the general consensus is that they may be our fish. He seems to think that the Earth Quake and subsequent

Tidal Wave

may have thrown things a little further out of

wack

then we may have thought. I hope that we keep getting decent numbers through the ladders. Yesterdays count surely did

suck. I will keep my fingers crossed while I pray

for better runs. I wonder if the run is really that late, will they call them Summer Salmon?

jayman · 05-08-2005, 04:06 PM

When did it start?

jayman

RiverMan · 05-08-2005, 04:53 PM

I agree with most of you, it's done. I was asking questions clear back in late March but everyone kept saying, "they are just late". Typically on big years as they predicted for this year you will see some fish show very early....just didn't happen this year at all.

RM

prawnman · 05-08-2005, 08:41 PM

[/image]

Grandpa Lynn · 05-09-2005, 06:30 AM

Guess it depends on where you're fishin.. Momento from Saturday.

Grandpa

LuckySteelhead · 05-09-2005, 06:58 AM

Yup, the numbers speak the truth, the few who have caught fish have done there home work and put there time in. I'm not going to tell you its white when I know its black.

5-Cents · 05-09-2005, 09:58 AM

You know there will be some fish available in the tribs. I was hopeful that things were just going to be late or a steady stream of fish but looking at the dam counts the last few days it seems that the run is over!

You know I read something last night that the State & Fed Bio's said that each sealion eats about 30lbs of salmon a day while on the river. The fly over counts this year on the CR have counted over 500 seals/sealions on the river at any one time. Those are the ones they saw... If each sealion eats 30lbs that should equal 2 fish. Is it safe to assume that another fish is probably mortally wounded too? If so that would be 3 fish per seal on the river...

3 X 500 = 1500 springer killed daily.

Feb 28 days = 42,000
March 31 days = 46,500
April 30 days = 45,000
May 31 days = 46,500

Total fish kills would be 140,000 fish... humm that seems just about what we are short!

Its going to be pretty sad next year when the amount of these animals increase even more on the river. I thought the so called fishing managers might have learned a lesson with that steelhead run up in WA

People can say what they want about the nets but at least we know how many fish they kill. Lets just hope one of those stupid sealions dosent cruise on up to the dam in September and starts a URB buffet!

Beefcake · 05-09-2005, 10:51 AM

5-Cents, Those numbers seem reasonable... maybe even conservative. So, based on conservative numbers, the stupid sealions are killing roughly 75% of the run. I'm sure glad ODFW doesn't think that the sealion problem is having a substantial impact on fish counts.

West Linn Wader · 05-09-2005, 11:27 AM

Shane,

I can believe those numbers but the sea lions were here last year too right? Maybe not 500 strong but I'd assume the 2004 number isn't night and day from the 2005 number.

I believe they have a large impact and should be managed, I just find it hard to believe that they are the main problem this year if they weren't last year.

jet · 05-09-2005, 11:58 AM

A few weeks ago I heard on local am radio saying that there are 3000 seals and sealions in the Columbia system from the moth to Bonneville. The math tells the story.

Jet~~~

SlipKnot · 05-09-2005, 12:45 PM

5-Cents-

I keep doing the same math that you are. That's why I can't understand why they keep intereviewing these ODFW people that say the seals are having a 2% impact on the fish.

Even if you estimate the most conservative estimates for the number of seals and consumption, I can't possibly see how there is a 2% impact.

It makes we wonder if these people are being told what to say.

SN

steelhead22 · 05-09-2005, 01:13 PM

(Edit: OK, I lied, I will get into fact & figures

)But, from what I understand, MOST species of seals and sea lions eat right around 8% of their body weight per day, which would make 30lbs/day a conservative number. What isn't typically factored in, is their BEHAVIOR. These are, by nature, OPPORTUNISTIC FEEDERS. As such, like many other species, they will gorge themselves in times when food is abundant (like when it's kegged up behind a dam) in an effort to produce reserves for when it is not.

An example of this is, well, last week. When I saw only 2 sea lions eat 15 fish in 4 hours. This was only in the 300 yard stretch that I could see them. Had they not eaten one more single fish all day and just gone and laid on the dock at Sportcraft, that would've been 7.5 fish/seal. Any way you slice it, these animals are having a HUGE impact on the runs.

*DISCLAIMER*: I 100%, without a doubt, COMPLETELY understand that there are MANY other issues regarding anadromous fish runs, this is simply the one we are currently discussing.

'ZZZZzzzzzz' · 05-09-2005, 01:30 PM

I think that the effects of the sea lions were way under estimated by the powers to be and I tend to believe that 5-Cents' projections are closer to the truth.

I believe the run was eaten by sea lions. I know that they ate two Springers that were on my line with my Kwikfish still in the Springer's mouth. :depressed:

Imagine if they really ate 5 or 10 fish each daily...

ZZZZzzzzz.

steelbiten · 05-09-2005, 01:31 PM

Lets see 2% of 50,000 springers = 1000 fish eaten during the run. So 3000 sealions goes into 1000 fish = 1/3 a fish per sealion for say 2 months of the run. I don't think a human could survive on 1/3 of a fish for 2 months. I think its perfectly obvious they take more than 2 or 3 percent of the this run at least.

FlyingAce · 05-09-2005, 01:34 PM

I cant believe that with all of the biologist and fish managers involved in this that they would or could continue to turn a blind eye to all of this

. Everyone knows that it is completely politically motivated

. They cant be that naive to think that the problem doesnt exist and that it is only 2% of the run. They themselves are the ones saying how many seals and sealions are in the river system and the fact is these animals are intelligent creatures and are not vegitarians. I think that it is completely rediculous to not regulate one species to protect another simply to protect yourself from the onslaught of activists.

Get some courage MR LION.

flapbreaker · 05-09-2005, 01:42 PM

I'm just curious. Do sealions eat the whole fish or do they prefer certain parts ie. bellies ect..? Just wondering if they don't tear through several fish only eating the parts they like.

West Linn Wader · 05-09-2005, 01:49 PM

I'll say it again (until someone explains why this would not be true)...

Whatever impact (on the run number - not on native fish) the sea lions had this year - isn't it logical to believe that they had a fairly similar impact last year?

Does anyone think their Columbia population suddenly jumped enough to eat 100,000+ more fish this year than last?

Grandpa Lynn · 05-09-2005, 01:51 PM

I'm with you, Steelhead22
Grandpa

PISCES · 05-09-2005, 01:59 PM

The sealions may be eating the same amount of fish as last year. However the number of fish returning this year is no where near last years return. Therfore the impact is higher this year.

West Linn Wader · 05-09-2005, 02:09 PM

Agreed Pisces..of course "impact" percentage would be higher. My comments were responding to Shane's post, total numbers eaten, not "impact"...I shouldn't have used that term.

GoneFission · 05-09-2005, 02:17 PM

Compare sport fisherman (us) to seals/sea lions (them):

They get a longer season (a head start plus they're still fishing as I write this); they're better at it (fishing), they don't play by the rules (they can camp out at the ladder entrance and steal fish from fisherman), and they have no limiting harvest cards. The only thing we have over them is that there are probably a few more of us (but I not so sure of that either). By that logic, I bet the sport impact is only a fraction of the seal/sea lion impact. 2% for the seals/sea lions just doesn't add up.

GoneFission

Steelie Steve · 05-09-2005, 02:18 PM

I just did a quick check from last year. The preseason forecast for Spring Chinook Returns was for 360,700 Columbia River salmon with an additional 100,000+ in the Willamette. The total count at Bonneville Dam for the period ending 06.01.04 (when they quit calling them Spring Chinook and started calling them Summer Chinook) was 171,777. Seems like there was some significant impact last year also.

5-Cents · 05-09-2005, 02:22 PM

I read somewhere... I believe it was the Oregonian that three years ago there were under 100 sealions in the system for the springer run and every year since 2001 the numbers have grown exponentially (sp? I are a dork!) The article alluded that next year given the current rate of sealion/seal increase in numbers there would be about twice as many as this year next year.

In 2004 you had a doubling of sealions from 2003 and look at what happened to the projections last year... they were in the toilet too. Now add twice as many sealions this year and the numbers are twice as bad. Wait till next year there wont even be any springers.

PISCES · 05-09-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Wait till next year there wont even be any springers.

I have a feeling next year might be like 2000 where we only fished for a couple weeks in Feb and March and then we'll all be in the Willy!

West Linn Wader · 05-09-2005, 02:35 PM

SS,

I'm referring to actual numbers, year over year...not actual numbers against projections.

Go here and look at some of the jumps and drops we've had over the last 50 years. There are years when the numbers dropped by as much as 80% in just one year and then doubles and then doubled again the next year.

This year is certainly an anomaly compared to the last 5 years but not when the next 15 are factored in. I believe that sea lions are a big problem...I just haven't been convinced (yet) that they are the main reason why we are about 140,000 fish short from last year.

steelbiten · 05-09-2005, 02:42 PM

I guess comparing this years and last years forcasts and final return totals for springers, some would say wow what a coinsidence and if it happens again next year they will say, how did we miss this coming..... right? I'm not going to jump off the fense and say it's the Sea Lions, but wouldn't it be nice to have a plausable explination for the last 2 years projections and returns, even if there are many contributing problems. How can projections be so far off? And incidentally, when will next years projections come in?

steelhead22 · 05-09-2005, 02:44 PM

WLW- Here's somethin' to chew on. Last years run's were "supposed" to be outstanding. Last years preseason prediction was 360,000 springers over Bonneville. But, we only got 170,000. Take a look here http://bluefish.org/360to189.htm

This part is particularly interesting:

"We spent some time thinking about that but haven't come up with any great ideas," Ellis said. There could have been some sort of die-off in the ocean, for example, that fisheries officials are unaware of. Or changes in the fishes' maturation rate may have somehow delayed their return. Or TAC might have just made a bad forecast, plugging in wrong variables in what is a complicated calculation.

"It is disappointing that we missed it by such a large percentage," Ellis said. It's probably due to a number of factors." The forecasting method has been fairly reliable. The preseason forecasts since 1980 have largely been within 50 percent of the actual return and in most years much closer.

Notice the part about the VARIABLES. "Usually" predation is considered a constant (according to my Calculus Applied to Biological Models class). But, sea lions aren't factored into most equations, as they are "fairly" new. This variable is particularly hard to predicted because it's basically been growing exponentially for the last 10 years at Bonneville.

Now, let's look at the rivers BELOW Bonneville. The Clackamas got 22,300 springers!!! That's a HUGE run and well above the preseason forecast. The Willamette was projected to have a very large run of 109,000 (remember it in the papers)...but 143,700 showed up!!!

So, what happened to the 190,000 fish that were supposed to go over Bonny last year? (That number is ONLY if it met expectations, which all the rivers below Bonneville went WELL above)

Maybe the sea lions DID have an impact last year, there were just too many fish for us to notice it like we do this year.

mandinga · 05-09-2005, 02:44 PM

First the sealins hijack the salmon, now they are hijacking threads?!

Beefcake · 05-09-2005, 02:45 PM

Yeah, but the Willy fish have to get past the sealions too.

steelhead22 · 05-09-2005, 02:48 PM

"I'm referring to actual numbers, year over year...not actual numbers against projections."

WLW- We understand that, BUT.....

"The preseason forecasts since 1980 have largely been within 50 percent of the actual return and in most years much closer."

See me previous post.

5-Cents · 05-09-2005, 02:52 PM

Whoa those are some eye opening

numbers there sh22

Kentucky Hog Hunter · 05-09-2005, 02:55 PM

Man thats tough.....

We have been experiencing awesome #'s of the past several years and this is probably a cyclical thing.....

Lets hope this is not a prelude to declines to come for our springer fishery.....

West Linn Wader · 05-09-2005, 02:57 PM

Boy they sure leave themselves a lot of room don't they?

steelhead22 · 05-09-2005, 03:04 PM

Beefcake- True, but without the UNNATURAL BARRIER that blocks the salmons travel upstream, they have a MUCH better chance for escape. Sure, they gotta get past Willamette Falls, but there's "only" about a dozen up there (highest EVER, but still MUCH less that at Bonny)

In all reality, the DAMS are the problem. Without them, we wouldn't be talking about this. But, we created this monster, now we have to find a way to deal with it.

FishinTechnician · 05-09-2005, 03:13 PM

Not for me!! Fished by myself this morning till noon and had three takedowns between 0930 and 1045. Missed the first, released the second, a 20+lb non hatchery, and kept a 17lb hatchery. All in rather heavy rain!

fishing is life · 05-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Population control you bureaucrats, get back in touch with reality

Another thing i was wondering was what effect the salmon farms were having on baitfish populations. They didnt exist before and they have to get their feed from somewhere. hmmmm.

steelhead22 · 05-09-2005, 03:22 PM

Another variable that is most likely left out of the equation.

Ya know, I hear a lot of guys ragging on ODFW for the run predictions, but it's pretty incredible how close they actually do get when you factor EVERYTHING in. Sure, they miss some stuff, and it seems like they are missing a BIG ONE (sea lions) this time, but they really do, do a pretty decent job with very limited resources.

drano100 · 05-09-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

I'll say it again (until someone explains why this would not be true)...

Whatever impact (on the run number - not on native fish) the sea lions had this year - isn't it logical to believe that they had a fairly similar impact last year?

Does anyone think their Columbia population suddenly jumped enough to eat 100,000+ more fish this year than last?

dude where were you last year the spring run was off by 170,000 fish I think their was major impact

lost_sailor · 05-09-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Population control you bureaucrats

The legislators make the law, the bureaucrats just try to comply. Turn your energy toward your Senators and Congresscritters.

garyk · 05-09-2005, 04:58 PM

No doubt seals/sealions have an impact.

However, solid evidence that something else is ALSO impacting the run numbers is the lack of older fish that were predicted to be prevalent this year. Look at the average size; instead of nice big fish, up until now they've been puny. When have you ever seen so many sub-ten-pound springers?

Also, the last 10 days the pinnipeds in the vicinity of the mouth of the Willy have been eating carp. That there's not even enough salmon for them to catch is pretty illustrative of the overall lack of salmon.

steelhead22 · 05-09-2005, 05:11 PM

"Look at the average size; instead of nice big fish, up until now they've been puny."

Interesting you mention this. A thought I was throwing around during a long, fishless afternoon above the 205 bridge in OC was: What if a lot of the fish came back last year?

Keep in mind, there's a lot we still don't know about these fish, any bio. will tell you that. Think about last year's run, at least on the Sandy and Clack (Maybe on the Columbia as well, had the sea lions not eaten a bunch), it was HUGE. What if,during years of ideal conditions, these fish are genetically programmed to return? Seems like a GREAT evolutionary trait to me. Think about it. They "say" this year's run was supposed to be a lot of 4 and 5 year olds, but last year we got an absolute TON of the 3 and 4 year olds...the fish that WOULD be this years 4 and 5 year olds. There's only so many fish that survive as smolts, if they all come back in 2004, there's none left for 2005. :shocked:

This is just somethin' I was thinking about, and by no means to I have ANY evidence to back any of this up. It's just a thought. I figure, why not, we've gone from seals to giant squid, to El Nino...why not?

Honestly, nobody REALLY knows what the heck happened (notice I said HAPPENED). It's probably A LOT of things.

luguando · 05-09-2005, 06:10 PM

I'm sure the sea lion's impact was huge - all but one of the springers landed on my boat this year had a bite mark on it. One thing that we probably don't know is the impact the high seas commercial fleet (Russian, Korean, Japanese, etc.) have on these fish either. Those ships can haul in a lot of fish. Maybe the smaller fish can get past those nets??

I have no idea what happened, all I know is I'm disappointed (like everyone else). To think we have to wait another year sucks!!

flywrapper · 05-09-2005, 06:30 PM

I think the 2% figure is for ALL salmon - including thule, fall fish, pinks etc. The G men are just playing with figures so to stay "PC".I agree with 5-cents prox figures. A one ton critter eats a lot of calories just to stay warm, let alone race after your fish! The herd of lions is eating all the available fish in Cal, so the excess lions have have to come up here. The excess lions can increase easily in the river by factors of 3X if the main herd on the coast is big enough. (it is) Say goodbye to springers, boys and girls if we don't get it together and change some laws and quick!!!!!

garyk · 05-09-2005, 06:36 PM

Forgot to add before....

Remember, the lowermost Columbia River areas were a bust for springers too. Evidence that a lot of the missing fish never entered the Columbia at all.

Steel22, that's an interesting thought.

flapbreaker · 05-09-2005, 06:51 PM

Maybe the bigger salmon decided not to run back when we were having such a severe lack of rain.

Beefcake · 05-09-2005, 07:31 PM

Then maybe they'll come back next year even bigger!

Sorry, I just had to throw out one optimistic comment today.

steelies_R_US · 05-09-2005, 09:08 PM

I think you guys are right.....Next year we will have 150,000 6 Year fish. I could go for limits of 35lbs hatchery springers. That will make for some great eats and even better stories.......... :grin:

LuckyDuck1 · 05-09-2005, 09:41 PM

If the Fish and wildlife officers believe the numbers they are shoveling, I have 100 acres of beach front property to sell them!!!!

In Arizona!!! :grin: LD1

12pulls · 05-09-2005, 09:58 PM

The run is not over but while we blame the sea lions ( I am not a fan of them) let's remember that in S.E. Alaska last year they caught over 200,000 more chinook than their ten year average. Perhaps we should look north for our missing fish, or on the shelves in the stores.

steelbiten · 05-10-2005, 05:38 AM

Quote:

The run is not over but while we blame the sea lions ( I am not a fan of them) let's remember that in S.E. Alaska last year they caught over 200,000 more chinook than their ten year average. Perhaps we should look north for our missing fish, or on the shelves in the stores.

Don't we tag our fish and wouldn't they be able to scan or check some sample of the fish they take to determine where they come from? Seems like there should be an easy way to tell if someone else takes some columbia river fish. Or maybe its just hopefull thinking on my part?

flapbreaker · 05-10-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Don't we tag our fish and wouldn't they be able to scan or check some sample of the fish they take to determine where they come from? Seems like there should be an easy way to tell if someone else takes some columbia river fish. Or maybe its just hopefull thinking on my part?

Some of the salmon have a chip in their head and as long as the fish counter cut's it out at the dock they can track it's origin. We caught a chinook out of Depoe last summer that turned out to be from a river in California. Can't remember which one but it was quite aways from the oregon boarder. It was interesting to get that kind of info.

Ethical hunter · 05-10-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

You know I read something last night that the State & Fed Bio's said that each sealion eats about 30lbs of salmon a day while on the river. The fly over counts this year on the CR have counted over 500 seals/sealions on the river at any one time. Those are the ones they saw... If each sealion eats 30lbs that should equal 2 fish. Is it safe to assume that another fish is probably mortally wounded too? If so that would be 3 fish per seal on the river...

3 X 500 = 1500 springer killed daily.

Feb 28 days = 42,000
March 31 days = 46,500
April 30 days = 45,000
May 31 days = 46,500

Total fish kills would be 140,000 fish... humm that seems just about what we are short!

I think we are leaving out a few variables in this equation. Such as, the undeniable belief many have regarding the seals and sea lions just eating the bellies.

So, IF each animals eats 30 lbs of salmon a day and they are just eating the bellies (~2lbs) thats 15 fish a day per animal.

Feb = 210,000
March = 232,500
April = 225,000
May = 232,500

Thats 900,000 fish. 643% of what is missing!!

HB

5-Cents · 05-10-2005, 01:46 PM

From what I have seen those sealions dont waste much of any fish they catch.

Mojo · 05-10-2005, 01:59 PM

I'm positive it doesn't have anything to do with the lack of riverflows in 2001-2002

.

FishinTechnician · 05-10-2005, 02:58 PM

I agree with the latest posted figures on sealion take. The state and feds are way off base on their projections. Given their research results on this one makes one wonder what else they are getting wrong.

Let's not forget that these freeloaders are also injurying a lot of fish in the process, some fatally. Back in the 60's and 70's it was very unusual to see a seal mark on a fish, now its common. I haven't kept any records, but I would estimate that at least a third of the fish we have caught this year have had marks on them. I wonder if the state is keeping track of this kind of information at their ramp checks?

Things were slow at the head of the slough this morning. We released a 15-16 wild fish that was snagged behind the right pectoral fin. Didn't see any others caught and I think there were four or five on the board at Fred's yesterday. All the local creeks along the river are pumping dirty water into the river and visibility is down a little from yesterday and I expect it will be a lot worse tomorrow.

steelhead22 · 05-10-2005, 07:17 PM

Only 1/3 of your fish have a seal marks on them? I'd say AT LEAST 70% of the one's I've caught the last 2 years have had some evidence of being attacked by a seal. Most have the tell tale "arches" behind the ventral fin.