IFish.net banner

1 - 20 of 78 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Even though this might not make Bob (Robert Buckman) happy, I feel he deserves some credit for the rebounding of our wild coastal coho.

He in fact told me several years ago that our OCN's are resilient and would rebound if we would only give them some time and quit overwhelming them with hatchery stocks.

I trusted this guy because he seemed down to earth and based his decisions on the health of our stocks and sound science.

He was and has been always open to questions. A few times he asked me; what do you think…

I’m thinking Geez, a bio is asking me of my opinion?

That is the way Bob is.

But you can bet your life on it, if science disagrees with you, he will base any of his decisions on the hard facts!

But sometimes there is the unknown, whether it be biology, reg’s, or otherwise and I can guarantee this guy is looking out for your best interest.

This guy is a class act and the one you want working for you when it comes to salmonids.

NOAA is currently looking at removing our rebounding wild coho from threatened on the endangered list and rightfully so. These guys (OCN’s) are doing great not like some others experiencing the same good ocean conditions that we have been blessed with. (Eat your heart out Brion)!

I have talked to a few educated or knowledgeable fishermen off and on this site, and Bob is highly respected and appreciated for his efforts.

Great guy, good person, and all those that fished with him on the Sea Jypzee the last couple of days will probably testify to that fact.

Robert Buckman and ODFW might be used as an example worldwide for the rebounding a fish that was on the endangered list and recovered. Quite a contribute!

His counterpart is Kevin Goodson and another great guy from my experience.

We are lucky and fortunate to have these caring guys around!

Hats off to a great bio and one that cares!

Dano

[ 07-07-2003, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
Dan good to give credit where it is due:).. Lots and lots of good Bio's in both our states. Now we just need managers that will listen to them:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Couldn't have said it any better GSA. Good post!

These guys do get allot of political pressure from all sides.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
GSA I don't fully agree at least in terms of WDFW managers. They do not manage based on sound science. The manage based on providing harvest and that is what they WANT to do. MSY for instance is Washingtons way of managing steelhead. No WDFW policy has been so damaging and scientifically unsound, hell it doesn't even follow common sence.
it all stems from the Department of fisheries way of thinking.. build it so they will come. Thats how they do it and thats how they want it.. has nothing to do with political pressure. it's what ensures the funding for their hatcheries it pays their wages.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
True, true.

I've met others at our local South beach office that I have a lot of respect for also.

I have also had the pleasure of meeting and spending some time with Joe Hymer in the Vancouver, Washington office a few times and several times on the phone.

Mostly have dealt with Joe on the hatchery coho and regs in the SW Washington rivers. He and another bio in that office seem like some pretty good guys.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
When I consider the extensive geographical areas most fish & wildlife biologists cover and the multitude of issues they need to be on top of, I am in awe of the knowledge and dedication of our state F&W employees. I've known quite a few bios over the years and while each is somewhat different in his/her own way, all of them I've met are true professionals.

I think the DFW managers and state F&W commissions listen to the bios and try to operate on a scientific basis where feasible...political interference and non-science influence comes mostly from the politicians (our representatives) in Olympia and Salem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
I do agree with what Mr. Buckman has done in the past and believe that he will continue to advocate for better biologically sound programs (example) . I do not believe history will be as kind to many of ODFW’s fish managers in general. That may not seem fair but I feel that is what will transpire if everyone involved in salmon management does not take an objective look at themselves. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Dan
I cannot let this go by without a response,
Bob Buckman should have been fired years ago!!!!!!!! fortunately for us here at Nehalem he transferred to Newport. where he has been nothing but trouble for the department of fiction and wildlife
Let us review his record and the loss of credibility he has caused.
When he first walked into the North Fork nehalem hatchery his immortal words were I am here to shut this place down, this started a split between him and the hatchery employees.
His next big fiasco was single-handedly shutting down the hardest working group of fishermen on the coast. The Necanicum river sportsmen group who had adopted the Necanicum river and worked their hearts out to bring it up to one of the best producing rivers for steel head and Chinook on the coast.
These people were the very first people to start a brood stock program -THE VERY FIRST..
This was labeled as interfering with wild fish by Buckman, but now it is being widely accepted as the salvation of our fishery -- this is kinda strange
He really came out using his position to satisfy his personal believes when he planned on killing all the excess steel head at the North Fork Nehalem hatchery .his plan was to kill them and bury them, this was after he told us and a meeting that nothing would change at the North Fork nehalem hatchery concerning the wild fish policy this was a bald fased lie and he is on TV telling us . For that he should have been fired.

But the best is yet to follow, the fish clubbing incident !which made national headlines TV and radio shows done more to harm the credibility of the Oregon department of fiction and wildlife than anything that has ever happened in the past or will happen in the future.
Of course, he is now taking credit and you are supporting it for the rebound in the coho along the coast, one only has to look at the improved ocean conditions and the closing of coho seasons to see where their credit is due.
Therefore I firmly stand on my conviction that buckman should be fired and fired immediately and all the watershed councils shall be done away with and the money used to rebuild the hatcheries.
Nobody wants to look at the results of the screw traps which tells us the spawning beds are in excellent shape. why a waste our money on a bunch of greenies planting trees in the lower river which the Beaver usually eat up the first night??????
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
These people were the very first people to start a brood stock program -THE VERY FIRST..
This was labeled as interfering with wild fish by Buckman, but now it is being widely accepted as the salvation of our fishery -- this is kinda strange
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Jim, I'm not going to take the time to sit around and argue with you as I have with another ifisher since February. I proved him wrong with that emailed letter from NOAA and I could do the same with you.

In case you haven't heard, broodstock fish aren't widely accepted as the salvation of our fishery as I learned in great detail at the commission meeting I participated in (testafied) earlier this year.

There is a big concern with broodstock fish as there return and spawning timing is the same as the wild fish that the eggs came from unlike the earlier run and spawn timing of those retarded hatchery fish you so much like to defend with your well known cafe science.

Therefore you have a greater chance of the domesticated broodstock fish that wasn't naturally selected and naturally void of the weaker fish that were saved in the hatchery environment breeding with the wild fish if it chooses to stray.

Salvation? No. Better fish than typical hatchery mutts? Yes and no.

One of these days Jim, you're going to learn that the best thing for wild fish is just to simply leave them alone. Don't screw with them. We already tried that and it didn't work.

But the best is yet to follow, the fish clubbing incident !which made national headlines TV and radio shows done more to harm the credibility of the Oregon department of fiction and wildlife than anything that has ever happened in the past or will happen in the future.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It didn't harm the credibility of ODFW. What do you think you do with excess hatchery fish? I was laughing or actually disappointed in all the naïve politicians and Alliance members. Good Lord, on the NF Lewis River they just throw them in the big commercial totes and let them die the slow death!

I went to the court hearings and could not believe the Alsea Alliance cafe scientist were up in arms and so ignorant . Just shows how ignorant some folks are about fish biology and hatchery practices. I talked with some of them before the hearing and they were beyond laughing stock. Most of them were old dogs that you couldn’t teach new tricks.

ODFW won the case. Wild coho won!

Things are going great around here Jim because of Bob and others like him.

Others have proved your pro hatchery barbershop biology wrong many times on this site and I'm not going to waste my time debating you on that issue.

There are many that would disagree with you on your opinion of Mr. Buckman which includes folks from this site and biologist from State agencys and NOAA.

Off to Vancouver to see my daughter! :dance:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by hustlerrjim:
.....But the best is yet to follow, the fish clubbing incident !which made national headlines TV and radio shows done more to harm the credibility of the Oregon department of fiction and wildlife than anything that has ever happened in the past or will happen in the future.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jim -

The infamous fish clubbing incident may have taken place in Bob's district but it wasn't his decision entirely or even primarily. That decision was likely made at the Fish Division Chief's level. As I understand it, that coho run was originally established to support the ocean commercial troll and charter fishery...but due to federal ESA restrictions, in the early '90s nobody could fish offshore for coho. The broodstock had been in domestication 46 years...the return rate of the hatchery fish was very poor relative to smolts raised & released. Even it there had been offshore coho fishing allowed, the hatchery run was moribund, not producing enough fish to justify the cost. I think the fish clubbing video was during the 3rd and final year class of that worn-out stock...they'd already clubbed the two previous year classes. Besides no fishing allowed offshore, the main Alsea was closed due to the extremely low numbers of wild coho that would have been incidentally impacted and a percentage killed if angling had been allowed. Anglers were allowed to fish for the hatchery coho in Fall Creek just below the hatchery (by free permit) and some number...a couple thousand?...were caught. But by the time they got up to the hatchery, many were pretty far gone...deteriorated...and not prime sport or table fare. So the decision to club the coho was correct. Since then, the Alsea wild coho, which ODFW's decision helped protect, have made a tremendous rebound. The only real mistake ODFW made was not being prepared for the public outrage & political backlash from the incident...and that's another story.

At one time the Alsea and other coastal rivers produced more wild coho than ever came back from hatchery programs...I think Mr.Buckman and ODFW would eventually like to shut down as many hatcheries as possible...which would make sense if we have abundant wild coho runs...strong runs capable of sustaining catch & keep fishing.

That should be everyone's goal. :smile:

[ 07-13-2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]
 

·
Qualified Sturgeon Hugger
Joined
·
38,157 Posts
GSA: Amen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Another factor you forgot to mention GSA was it was believed the feeding frenzy on the out migrating smolts was believed to be induced by the million large and not-so-bright hatchery smolts that were planted.

Hatchery coho have to be raised 3 times the size of a wild coho smolt in order to survive!

Unfortunately the wild coho smolts were amongst the oversize hatchery coho smolts when these feeding frenzies were induced.

It is well documented and ODFW has videos of this taking place.

When the hatchery smolt were reduced from one million to 200,000 the last year things started getting back to normal. The following year when there were no planted hatchery coho, things returned to normalcy.

The wild coho no doubt benefited from this and rebounded from just a couple hundred to over 5,000 last year. (I'm in Vancouver and my mom doesn't have the charts)! :grin:

I was at the hearing and Jim Lannan the retired
OSU fisheries professor testified on behalf of the Alsea River Alliance.

I heard him answer to the judge that he did indeed feel the Fall Creek hatchery strain were highly domesticated. And he also said that once we loose that strain they are gone for good.

I say; good riddance! That's the point! :grin:


What a waste of peoples time and money that fiasco brought to you by the Alsea River Alliance was. :hoboy:


The Facts About Fall Creek Hatchery

From the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

History

*Hatchery coho have been released in the Alsea River Basin since 1908.

*Fall Creek Hatchery started releasing fish in 1952 and by the early 60's, was releasing about one million coho smolts annually to provide salmon for ocean fisheries and to contribute fish to the Alsea River.

*The last release of coho smolts from Fall Creek Hatchery was in 1998 (206,241 smolts). The last return of hatchery produced coho was 802 adults in the fall of 1999, of which 32 unmarked adults were allowed to spawn.

Why did we discontinue the hatchery coho program at Fall Creek?

*Alsea shows the most promise for a natural production strategy because of good habitat conditions.

*Return rates of hatchery coho were smaller in this basin relative to other basins.

*Harbor seal predation on smolts was significant compared to other basins and the ODFW questioned the role of the hatchery program contributing to increased predation on wild coho smolts.

*The stock we were using in the hatchery program was not genetically suitable to rebuilding.

*ODFW's 1997 Fish Management Plan for the Alsea supported this action.

*Alsea River Basin coho have declined from a run in 1951 of 80,000 to a 1998 wild run of less than 300.

*The National Marine Fisheries Service listed coho in the Alsea River Basin as threatened in October of 1998.

*The Fall Creek program had poor cost effectiveness relative to coastwide programs.

*ODFW sought to reduce the potential risk to severely depressed Alsea wild coho.

*If wild coho recover to relax fishing regulations, a new hatchery broodstock can be developed.

What are the potential ramifications to hatchery programs if state legislation were passed to prevent the killing of surplus salmon and steelhead at ODFW hatcheries?

*Would contradict the best available scientific guidance showing the negative effects of hatchery fish on wild populations.

*Would cause ODFW to be out of compliance with a NMFS negotiated agreement.

*Would not be consistent with Governor Kitzhaber's Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.

*Would be inconsistent with the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), resulting in potential loss of funding for federally funded ODFW hatcheries.

What can ODFW's hatchery program accomplish?

1. Enhance fisheries.

2. Replace fisheries that are otherwise lost due to dams, etc.

3. Accelerate recovery times for fish in trouble.

4. Provide additional recreational and commercial fishing opportunity.

What are ODFW hatcheries unable to accomplish?

1. Avoid listings under the federal Endangered Species Act .

2. Result in ESA recovery as a result of returning hatchery fish ­ESA listings and delistings are not based on hatchery fish ­ the number of returning hatchery fish has no correlation to wild fish production.

3. Compensate for poor fish spawning and rearing conditions in a basin.

For more information, call Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (503) 872-5264.

EACH HATCHERY PROGRAM IS DIFFERENT. YOU CANNOT COMPARE ANY ONE HATCHERYPROGRAM TO ANOTHER PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY PROGRAMS IN OTHER RIVER BASINS.

By the way, excellent post GSA! :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
I like what you are saying here fellas-
Much is true and I agree wholeheartedly that we should have a common goal to rebound wild fish to levels that would sustain a consumptive fishery. I worked under Bob Buckman on the north coast for a season and enjoyed my time learning under him. Unfortunately, I have to rely on hatchery fish to make my living because wild fish are in such a depressed state. Now everyone has their opinions and Bob certainly does but I think even he would tell you ocean conditions are the #1 factor for wild coho recovery- even over the halt of hatchery plants. I think Bob would actually tell you healthy riparian areas along with responsible harvests (commercial and sport) also play important roles- especially when returns are low. Next time you talk to Bob Buckman Dan, ask him if he feels the 20 foot "no-touch" buffer zones are adequate enough for coho recovery in the Tillamook State Forest. He is a good enough biologist to tell you how he really feels about adequate riparian buffers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
The 20' no-touch zone mentioned above isn't the whole story.

The Forest Practices Act (FPA) requires Riparian Mgmt Areas (RMA, aka buffer strips) on each side of fish-bearing streams of 50' for small streams, 70' for medium streams), and 100' for large streams).

The FPA requires leaving a specific number and amount of trees (measured by basal area...i.e. 230 sq ft in the coast range) standing in the RMA while allowing surplus tree removal where it can be done while maintaining shading and without negative stream impacts. Within the RMA, the FPA requires leaving the first 10' from the streambank completely untouched; within the first 20' all trees must be left uncut; all trees that lean over the stream must be left; in addition to the basal area requirement, at least 40 live conifers over 11" DBH must be left per 1000' of RMA.

So its a bit simplistic to dismiss the FPA requirements as merely a 20' no touch zone. :wink:

[ 07-17-2003, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
GSA-
You clearly know more about this than I. I learn more by visuals. Do you know of a document that clearly shows how this all lays out?
What I question is- is a 20' no touch zone really enough? Why would we manipulate riparian zones at all- is it possible to make them more fish friendly by selective harvesting some species?
To me, it's all confusing without looking at a graphic. I see other states have larger no touch zones in their state forest lands. What are we missing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by TGFwriter:
GSA-
Do you know of a document that clearly shows how this all lays out?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes, I have one and referred to it when making my post, above.

It is Oregon's Forest Protection Laws produced by Oregon Forest Resources Institute in 2002. Its a user-friendly visual guide to understanding the FPA. You can order it from OFRI for $10. Other publications are free...click on "publications" at www.oregonforests.org . You might be able to land a free copy at your local State Forestry office...they had a few copies to hand out when first published.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
TGF,

If we are to rebound wild fish to levels that would sustain a consumptive fishery, then I think everyone ought to start thinking about the negative effects these hatchery fish have on them.

I cannot be sympathetic to guides, charters, commercial fishermen, marina stores, etc. that are relying on hatchery fish to make a living and not willing to sacrifice some hatchery fish to rebuild wild fish runs. We did it with the coastal coho and it appears it is paying dividends.

Keep in mind that 85% of the Tillamook Chinook you and others catch are wild Chinook. Without the other 15% hatchery Chinook that are caught in the Tillamook fishery, you might gain that or more in wild Chinook?

Too me it’s like eating a couple cheese burgers a day and hitting the doc up for some cholesterol lowering pills and asking later why you had a heart attack. I believe it wiser to get to the root of the problem. Band aids are very expensive and have not worked very well.

What I would like to see is a reduced harvest and stocking of hatchery fish and see if that doesn’t resolve the problem. As I said it appeared to work with our coastal wild coho. And I might add, it was working for the coho well before the good ocean conditions.

As for buffers, I have talked to Bob and Keith Braun (Tillamook) and Dave Plowman (Tillamook) and their boss, Rick Klumph (Tillamook), and several other biologists and I don’t think any one of them would criticize the buffers in the TSF.

Bob on the other hand has said to me that he didn’t think some of the buffers left on some of our local private lands were adequate.

Dan

Day 5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

I proved him wrong with that emailed letter from NOAA and I could do the same with you.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You recieved what is known in the newspaper business as a "There is much in what you say letter" from NOAA.

It confirmed that the recent rise in salmon runs was due to ocean conditions.

Which is entirely consistent with the recent declines, 50% for Coho, 40% for Chinook which according to you are due to a drastic decline in habitat.

That is not the case, both the recent increase and decline are due to the ocean conditions as NOAA noted.

No big change in habitat over those years though certainly some incremental improvement due to cut backs in logging and other habitat restoration which is what the NOAA letter referenced.

Now you can go back to your anti-hatchery campaign <grin>.

On that topic, you might want to attend the next Salmon 101 seminar where the "anti" and "pro" hatchery folks lay out the issues based on best available science. They both noted big areas of agreement.

Brion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
On that topic, you might want to attend the next Salmon 101 seminar where the "anti" and "pro" hatchery folks lay out the issues based on best available science. They both noted big areas of agreement.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Email me some info on the Salmon 101 seminar, who sponsors it, who will be there and maybe I will be interested and attend. Sounds like it could be right up my alley.

Brion I’m not anti-hatchery. I feel there is a place for them and places where they should be eliminated.

In a month and a half I will be catching hatchery coho in several SW Washington rivers. Some of these rivers have dams on them and little spawning habitat because of that factor unlike down here at the coast where there is enough spawning habitat that are producing historical numbers of wild chinook and the wild coho are rebounding in unprecedented numbers.

You take out the dams and I might consider hatcheries a curse there also as long as there are some native wild stock left to replenish those streams.

I’m not going to argue with you but Bob Lohn did say:

As to the Oregon Coast Coho, as well as for many of the other ESUs, I think there is strong indication that both ocean conditions and reforms and improvements in harvest, hatchery management, and habitat were working together to achieve these results. The two are very much interlinked . Absent good ocean conditions, we can make a lot of improvements on the inland side, and still get poor returns. Conversely, without the inland improvements in place, the rebound in the event of good ocean conditions would be very much smaller.

Specifically, in the case of the Oregon Coast Coho, it's my belief that the harvest and hatchery reforms have had a very large effect on the improvement and, without them, we would not be seeing anything like the current returns.

In short, I think I'm in basic agreement with the points you make.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, I knew this all along and was honest about it. No brag, just a fact.

I do disagree with your statements again but found it counter productive to show you why.

Here is the letter I received from Bob Lohn (NOAA) in it’s entirety in case you missed it or parts of it:

Dan --- Sorry that I have not responded sooner. I usually don't volunteer comments about newspaper articles, and in my quick read of your message, I assumed that your questions were intended as rhetorical.
Several thoughts about the article.

First, I tend not to make much of headlines. Normally, they are not written or even reviewed by the author of the article, and are basically just an attention-getting device crafted by an editor during the page layout. I agree completely that the headline does not adequately capture either the gist of the article, or the preliminary status review about which I was quoted.

Second, the characterization of the report --- especially as reflected in the first paragraph --- is Mr. Bernard's conclusion, not mine. In fairness to Jeff, he had a tough job in summarizing in a few paragraphs the signficance of a lengthy and relatively technical document. I also don't know if what you saw really represents all that Jeff wrote. Often these articles are truncated to fit the space available.

In general, the preliminary report represented a review of the current population trends and numbers of most of the ESUs listed in the Northwest and Northern California. It was not intended to talk definitively about the causes behind those trends and numbers. The science panel that prepared the report was not asked to review conservation efforts or underlying causes of the population dynamics, and it would be unfair to read their report as a definitive scientific statement about these factors. You're free to read the report for yourself; it's posted on our website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.


Finally, my comments to Jeff Bernard were fairly general, since the report included 27 ESUs. The comments in the article were selected by him from a longer conversation, where I tried to address some of the same points that you raised.

As to the Oregon Coast Coho, as well as for many of the other ESUs, I think there is strong indication that both ocean conditions and reforms and improvements in harvest, hatchery management, and habitat were working together to achieve these results. The two are very much interlinked. Absent good ocean conditions, we can make a lot of improvements on the inland side, and still get poor returns. Conversely, without the inland improvements in place, the rebound in the event of good ocean conditions would be very much smaller.

Specifically, in the case of the Oregon Coast Coho, it's my belief that the harvest and hatchery reforms have had a very large effect on the improvement and, without them, we would not be seeing anything like the current returns.

In short, I think I'm in basic agreement with the points you make.

Thanks for writing to clarify the record.

Bob Lohn
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh, why not!

You received what is known in the newspaper business as a "There is much in what you say letter" from NOAA.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I’m not sure I catch your drift on that statement Brion. This was a letter written by Bob Lohn NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regional Administrator. Are you now questioning Bob and NOAA the ones that you based your many arguments on since Feburary? If I had a dollar for every time you stated on ifish that NOAA scientist said… I could retire.

It confirmed that the recent rise in salmon runs was due to ocean conditions.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">:shocked:


Which is entirely consistent with the recent declines, 50% for Coho, 40% for Chinook which according to you are due to a drastic decline in habitat.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion if you are talking the same Oregon coastal naturals (OCN’s) or Oregon coastal wild coho that we are talking about we had approx. 149,000 return in 2001 and 300,000 return in 2002. Now the way I see it, that is a 200% increase! Not the bogus 50% decline that you come up with!

That is not the case, both the recent increase and decline are due to the ocean conditions as NOAA noted.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Is there two NOAA’s? :rolleyes: :shocked:


No big change in habitat over those years though certainly some incremental improvement due to cut backs in logging and other habitat restoration which is what the NOAA letter referenced.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">:hoboy:

Do I smell a greenie? <Grin>

Dan

Day 6
 
1 - 20 of 78 Posts
Top