IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 135 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
DepoeBayDan,

We'll start a new thread on the decline of the salmon in the Pacific Nw.

Your original message:

Qriginally posted by DepoeBayDan:

Well I was going to wait untill I started a wild and hatchery coho thread before I posted this chart and others I have but will post it here also.



As you can see Jim the only pattern with the OCN’s is that they have been on a steady incline in the 90’s and into the millennium after being afforded protection. No three year cycle as you have stated. No 50% decline as Lutz has stated. :hoboy:

’97 & ’98 they took a nose dive and that was because the February ’96 flood trashed the ’94 smolts and ’95 eggs that were in the river when the devastating flood hit.

Now when you add the three year old offspring to the ’94 and ’95 equation you come up with ’97 and ’98. Simple as that. Then they recovered and started rebounding once again.

There will be large numbers of wild coho returning again this fall/winter as long as the sport boats don’t manage to kill too many. There are a lot of them out there again this year and last count 54,000 coho have been released in the Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain hatchery coho fishery.

The figure is probably over 60,000 by now. The majority of those were wild coho and a large chunk of those were killed especially by the irresponsible sport anglers.

It is quite obvious that we can produce a lot more coho in the wild on the coast than we can produce hatchery coho.

Now if you look at the returns of hatchery coho to the Oregon coast over the last 30 years you will see returns as low as 5,000 coho and as high as 39,000 coho with the average being probably around 20,000 coho.

Doesn’t hardly compare with the estimated numbers of wild coho at 169,500 in 2001 and 264,300 in 2002! This year 2003 could be real interesting and I’m sure it won’t be a disappointment.

Yes Jim I’m confident that the biologist did the right thing by cutting back the amount of hatchery coho smolt being planted in our coastal rivers and the rivers that don’t have hatchery coho plants are doing the best.

You and I both know the reason behind the reduction in hatchery coho smolts on the Oregon coast and that was to rebuild the wild coho runs. You can’t argue the fact that our OCN’s are rebounding in unprecedented numbers. You can argue the reasons why they are rebounding but I think Bob Lohn of NOAA set some of you straight on that.

“The wild fish policy is working”
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This in my opinion is one of the few accurate statements you have made on this thread. :grin:

I think we have done our part here on the North Fork nehalem with the fish traps above the hatchery, where they can separate the hatchery fish from the wild fish.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Now Jim, you asked; “I would like to know how you can come up with a number of coho in the nehalem River when there is no counting station there”

You mean that “they can separate the hatchery fish from the wild fish” but they don’t bother to count them? That’s kind of hard for me to swallow Jim. One phone call could get down to the bottom of this and I would be willing to bet that is an inaccurate statement also.

Cafes aren’t a healthy environment to produce fish science. :wink:

Dan

[ 07-27-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Depoe Bay Dan,

What you don't post is the historical perspective that shows that:

1. Salmon are extince in about 50% of their range in the continental US.

2. Remaining native runs are 3-5% of original runs.

3. Salmon are endangered or threatened in much of their remaining habitat.

Let's take your graph and compare it to historical numbers such as *** Clerk's on commerical catch.

1. 1979 Commercial Catch alone is about 700,000.
2. 2002 Total native return is only 264,000.

We know salom were in severe decline in 1979, yet in 2002 we are only about 12% (2M total/700 commercial catch) of this reduced population, about 3% of historical.

We also know that in 2003, ODFW is predicting a decline of close to 50% putting the Coho at 6% of 1979 low numbers and 1.5% of historical.

It funny how folks forget how big the salmon runs used to be so they lose perspective on how small are the current runs. Much less consider that so many salmon runs are extinct in the Pacific Northwest.

We have a lot of work to do in restoring salmon in the NW.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Let's take your graph and compare it to historical numbers such as *** Clerk's on commerical catch.

1. 1979 Commercial Catch alone is about 700,000.
2. 2002 Total native return is only 264,000.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">brion, how many of those 700.000 coho are wild and how many are hatchery ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Boater,

Those were the stats/graphic posted by POSClerk, perhaps he can answer your question.

Historically, the original Oregon coastal coho run is estimaged at 3-5M which puts the current year prediction of 150,000 by ODFW at 3%.

Brion

[ 07-27-2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Historically, the original Oregon coastal coho run is estimaged at 3-5M. Brion
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What is the source of that number? :whazzup: Are you including Columbia River coho with the estimate for coastal coho? What is "estimaged"...combination of estimated and imagined? :whazzup:

[ 07-27-2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Skein
--------------------
Charter Member of the "I wanna look just like Keta" Fan Club.






All you need is sunglasses! :wink:

[ 07-27-2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,907 Posts
Funny you should ask that question GSA. I was just talking with a Bio3 friend of mine from the fish research lab in Corvallis. His best guess is 3-4 million coho on the coast alone. He also said Siltcoos,Tahkenitch and Tenmile lakes contributed about 1 millon alone. Don't ask me what data they used to come up with that number, but those are his numbers.

[ 07-27-2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: freespool ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
GSA,

Those were the numbers based upon the commercial catch in the late '50's. Scientists took those reports to come up with the 3M for the original native coastal Coho run. Recently the biolgists, using their latest work and the historical record for more scientific estimate of 5M.

As I understand it, that does not include the Columbia river salmon. Those are estimated at 16 million original run vs. the current 600,000 native run.

Effect of logging, development, agriculture, pollution on coastal fish is about the same for Columbia fish affected by the dams plus the loggingt etc. on salmon habitat in the various Columbia tributaries.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
I have a feeling Dan is getting his boxing gloves on and is getting ready to rumble!!!! :wink:

Jab, Jab, Left Hook. Down goes Frasier!!!!!
:grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Could you be a little more specific, Brion? Chapter & verse, if you please. "Scientists"? "Biologists?" Name some names, cite some studies.

DBD...you're on! :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,188 Posts


This is gonna be another good one folks...... :grin:

Did Brion really use smilies in post #1 ??? <wink>

Hey Brion, looks like you had a blast tuna fishing. I'm jealous...been wanting to get out for a few weeks and bloody up some rain pants. Fresh tuna..yummmmm :bowdown:

Chris :cool:

[ 07-27-2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: FWF1 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Depoe Dan has some good points but I would have to also say that Brion does as well...
It seems that we as fishermen aren't concerned about what the run size should be but what its minimum could be to take fish. In other words, we care about our punch cards and how many are filled instead of the health of the runs. I say that all wild fish should be released until they reach near historic levels. Then open it up to all the meat eaters out there with a one fish limit on them. Also, I am sure that allot of those wild fish being caught off the coast right now are also from the CR and N.Cali streams and possibly some WA streams as well...
Its hard to say what is a good number to allow fishing on wild fish but it has to be a repeated number that we can count on. I say maybe when we get a few years of over 500,000 or 600,000 fish then open in up...
Just my take on it. Plenty of hatchery fish to eat and kill until then though.

Fish on...
Romeo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
FishaholicAZ,

I say that all wild fish should be released until they reach near historic levels.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow! I thought I was ambitious <grin>.

It would probably take 50 to 100 years to get it back to 50% of the original. That would include removal or rebuilding most of the dams with a salmon friendly model that has yet to be found.

I think if we did have 50% of historical run as our overall goal, what we need to do would fall in to place.

Simply releasing wild fish is not going to restore the salmon. We need to rebuild the salmon habitat that has been lost, rebuild the water systems that have been lost and rebuild the ocean stocks of bait fish that have been lost.

Key is very quantifiable...a steady, long term increase in native fish populations.

Brion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Dams on the Oregon coast? :shrug:

I think if we did have 50% of historical run as our overall goal, what we need to do would fall in to place.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">OK Brion you asked for it! :wink:

You ready for a lesson in real science?


Depoe Bay Dan,

What you don't post is the historical perspective that shows that:

1. Salmon are extince in about 50% of their range in the continental US.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think the word you were looking for is extinct. What’s the continental US got to do with your supposed decline of Oregon coastal salmon stocks or the rebounding Oregon coastal wild coho stocks? No extinct salmon here!

2. Remaining native runs are 3-5% of original runs.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Those figures are hogwash Brion and I’m going to prove it. Fasten your seatbelt!

3. Salmon are endangered or threatened in much of their remaining habitat.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion you are aware that these coastal coho are probably coming off the threatened list and absolutely none of them are listed as endangered as you just implied!


Let's take your graph and compare it to historical numbers such as *** Clerk's on commerical catch.

1. 1979 Commercial Catch alone is about 700,000.
2. 2002 Total native return is only 264,000.

We know salom were in severe decline in 1979, yet in 2002 we are only about 12% (2M total/700 commercial catch) of this reduced population, about 3% of historical.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I assume you meant salmon Brion. Which salmon Dr. Lutz? I would just like to hear you say or admit it once Brion, the OCN’s are on the incline! Yes Brion the OPI for 1979 was approx. 2 million of which probably 75% or so were hatchery fish which would include the commercial harvest as well.

Try this for size Brion. The OPI for 2002 was 964,500 coho! Yep, that’s correct! 660,100 hatchery coho and 304,400 wild coho. In case you didn’t know Brion, OPI means Oregon Production Index. So I would have to say that 2002 was close to 50% of the year 1979, not the bogus figure of 12% you just posted! (Glad I didn’t take math in Jersey). :grin:

I talked to the ODFW person that handles the coho surveys and estimates – Steve Jacobs. The surveys in 1979 showed 17.8 coho per mile. Last year (2002) the surveys showed 47.7 coho per mile . So you can conclude by dividing 17.8 by 47.7 that 1979 only had 37% of the coho per mile that we had last year. :wink:

Last years ocean abundance of wild coho was 304,400. The spawner abundance was 264,300. If you take 37% (1979) of last years 264,300 wild coho spawner abundance you come up with 97,791 wild coho spawner abundance for 1979.

But there is the other factor that reduced coho spawners in 1979 and that was harvest . It appears that the commercial harvest was approx. 700,000. The sport harvest around 25,000. The ocean harvest for those years is thought to be approx. 80% of the wild coho ocean abundance.

Do the math Brion. I come up with 488,955 wild coho ocean abundance for 1979. Last year (2002) we had an OCN ocean abundance of 304,400 or 62% of the OCN abundance in 1979. Yehaa!

Now I’m going to address your erroneous 3-5% and 3-5 million numbers.

There is no scientific basis for OCN's prior to commercial fishing in the late 1800’s. Any speculation on OCN numbers prior to that is just that, speculation. Here are the historical numbers of wild coho for the Oregon coast from the ODFW Information report titled “Estimates of the Historical Abundance of Coho Salmon in Oregon Coastal Streams and in the Oregon Production Index Area” by Robert E. Mullen:



As you can see Brion the historical numbers for wild coho for the Oregon coast from 1892-1940 range from 538,000 to 978,000! I computed the average at 770,300 per year. We are currently approaching half of the average of wild coho abundance historically. 40% Brion, not 3-5%! As you can see the OCN’s are on an incline in recent years, not a decline as you can see by the chart posted earlier on this thread!

We also know that in 2003, ODFW is predicting a decline of close to 50% putting the Coho at 6% of 1979 low numbers and 1.5% of historical.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">These numbers don’t add up! I have already pointed out to you on the Tillamook Forest thread that ODFW can’t estimate accurately the numbers of OCN’s to return the following year.

ODFW’s preseason estimate last year was 71,800 OCN's and we ended up with a postseason return of 304,400 Brion! Now that you see how inaccurate preseason estimates are on wild coho, you can throw your 50% decline, 6%, '79 and other deceptive Lutz biology out the window!

Several biologist that I have talked with and myself are optpmistic that there will probably be at least as many wild coho returning this year as there were last year.

As you can see on the OCN chart posted above (my original post), there was 169,500 wild coho in the year 2001. With a parent year like that it could get real interesting when their progeny return next year in the year 2004! And then 2005 with the parent year of 264,300? Holy Oncorhynchus kisutch!

Historically, the original Oregon coastal coho run is estimaged at 3-5M which puts the current year prediction of 150,000 by ODFW at 3%.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
Originally posted by GSA:
Could you be a little more specific, Brion? Chapter & verse, if you please. "Scientists"? "Biologists?" Name some names, cite some studies.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">By the way Brion, it is estimated back in the 1979 era that 75-80% of the wild coho ocean abundance were harvested each year. All hail to the commercial fleet! :depressed:

Over fishing Brion. :wink:

Dano

Day 17
 
1 - 20 of 135 Posts
Top