IFish Fishing Forum banner
41 - 60 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,935 Posts
Seems if ODFW had taken steps to keep Rock Creek pHOS below the CMP thresholds for the past 5-7 years, then this entire issue would have been a non-issue. They claimed their ability to do better was limited by insufficient staffing, yet how much have they spent dealing with the fallout? Paying for hatchery programs should also mean paying to operate them within guidelines.

My takeaway is that anglers wanting hatchery programs should encourage ODFW to keep pHOS low.

Problems with pHOS are common in Oregon, in some cases more severe than the Umpqua. They’re a ticking time bomb for more conflict and litigation.
pHOS is actually a fairly subjective measurement based on stream surveys which have been proven to be very inaccurate.

In this case we have an actual fish ladder to count the wild and hatchery returns. And the wild returns INCREASED after the start of the hatchery over 60 years ago.

According to the data provided by ODFW the vast majority of hatchery steelhead that were in the river were very near the hatchery. Why not encourage selective recreational angling in this area to remove hatchery fish? Why isnt that a first choice of managers???

Another data point ODFW presented was that the mortality assigned to catch and released angling was 2% or less. Recreational angling as a management tool that is going usused.

Remember, ODFW was REQUIRED by the CMP to operate the trap at Rock Creek. They chose not to. And suggested reducing plants. Mostly due to their lack of action in my opinion.

This isn't over, but those 78,000 smolts whose parents were rescued from the burnt hatchery by heroic ODFW employees need to be released into the river in the next few weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,935 Posts
I know Mark Labhart and yes he hunts and fishes.
Commissioner Bob Spellbrink is a licensed fishing guide, has been for years, he lives on the Siletz River. Avid fisher and hunter. His grandparents had a homestead near the North Santiam. That he still fishes. Always been a soft spoken gentleman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
Generalizations like hatchery steelhead have a negative effect don't apply when the wild fish spawn in Steamboat Creek Where hatchery pHOS is near zero. The trap is ineffective on Rock Creek so some hatchery fish spawn above the trap. These fish are counted in the total pHOS. The purpose of pHOS is to count hatchery fish potentially spawning with wild fish. Hatchery fish spawning with hatchery fish does not matter. Repair the trap or open the Rock creek to sport angling. There are effective alternatives to shutting down the fishery.
Studies have also shown that some hatchery fish move upstream looking for colder water but return to the hatchery when Rock Creek cools. Depending on when a survey takes place, these fish may be counted incorrectly in the pHOS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Commissioner Bob Spellbrink is a licensed fishing guide, has been for years, he lives on the Siletz River. Avid fisher and hunter. His grandparents had a homestead near the North Santiam. That he still fishes. Always been a soft spoken gentleman.
GO GET EM MR BRUCE! (y) (y)
Appreciate all your hard work and influence Sir.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Here is an action alert from CCA that will allow you to communicate directly with the governor and the ODFW commissioners.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
Here is an action alert from CCA that will allow you to communicate directly with the governor and the ODFW commissioners.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I’ve sent many emails to Gov and never received a response. I guess she is too busy commuting murderer’s sentences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,935 Posts
The 78,000 smolts in the hatchery now are progeny of fish rescued by heroic ODFW employees. After the fire went through the hatchery manager got permission to go in. He found the smolts in the hatchery dead. But the adult brood fish were alive so the got trucks and help and moved them to another hatchery.

When those fish were spawned these are the descendants. One year class died in the fire. This is the next one. If we lose this year class we lose to possibility of ever having a hatchery run of in basin fish again.y

This video of the hatchery manager and footage of the rescue and fire aftermath are heart breaking. But for the 4 commissioners to kill this program after these efforts is really unimaginable.

Chapter V: The Hatchery - YouTube

Please respond to the action alert that Pearl posted and ask your friends to as well.

The Governor can step in and fix this, if she wants to.

Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
pHOS is actually a fairly subjective measurement based on stream surveys which have been proven to be very inaccurate.

In this case we have an actual fish ladder to count the wild and hatchery returns. And the wild returns INCREASED after the start of the hatchery over 60 years ago.

Remember, ODFW was REQUIRED by the CMP to operate the trap at Rock Creek. They chose not to. And suggested reducing plants. Mostly due to their lack of action in my opinion.
pHOS: There are plenty of estimates of pHOS across Oregon derived from traps, not stream surveys, and they’re some of the highest pHOS values of all. If the stream surveys are biased, they’re likely giving pHOS that’s too low

Rock Creek: Having a hatchery / trap on a tributary like Rock Creek is a best case scenario for segregating H vs W. I agree it is sad that ODFW didn’t do their job on that. It certainly doesn’t instill confidence when commissioners are voting.

Runs: As to what runs did when the hatchery started, yes, everything was trending upwards because of a good ocean. Just like everything has been trending down now. Everyone appreciates the importance of ocean regimes. One of the anti-hatchery speakers (not a fish bio) gaffed hard on that trend issue and was rightfully called out. However, another speaker (McMillan the fish bio) showed using ODFWs own data that more H smolts led to lower W productivity (recruits per wild spawner). This was not what ODFW concluded.

The issue to me isn’t what has caused such a large decline - that’s a lot of things - it is about doing what we can to ensure integrity of wild stocks and their genes. That’s especially important when run sizes reach critical levels like the Umpqua is now

I wasn’t going to get into data, because this thread seems not about that … but I did my own research and by chance stumbled onto data that made me wonder about the ODFW analysis - specifically how ODFW chose their data when concluding no effect of H smolts on wild runs.

ODFW argued that hatchery smolt releases did not affect wild productivity using the data shown below, from the period 1990-2011. No relationship.

Rectangle Font Slope Symmetry Parallel


Note the years: Why did ODFW only use 1990-2011 data, when more data were available? In testimony, ODFW justified using only this time period (1990-2011) because they said it allowed analysis without confounding effects of changing ocean regimes caused by the NPGO (North Pacific Gyre Oscillation).

That made me curious about the NPGO, so I looked it up. The NGPO data are below. The data do not show a stable regime, but instead very large changes in ocean regimes from 1990-2011 (contrary to ODFWs claim)

Font Slope Plot Line Parallel


The fluctuating ocean regime matters.
At a shallow level, it raises questions whether ODFW really did what they said.
At a biological level (as I understand it, not a fish bio!), large shifts in ocean regimes greatly change adult survival, and also change smolt-adult relationships. Those two big NPGO regime shifts from 1990-2011 could explain why ODFW did not detect a smolt (H) x adult (W) relationship in their analysis. Use of a longer time series might wash out the noise to show a signal, or reveal distinct relationships for different ocean regimes.

Seems the HxW issue is more complex than it was presented.

———

Regardless of these wonky details, my main point stands as before. Anglers who want to keep hatcheries open should encourage ODFW to follow their own guidelines and keep pHOS low. All I ever hear are guide/angler proposals that go in the opposite direction from that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
You missed the part where the Umpqua decline was in sync with declines in other rivers. Originally pHOS was for salmon and based heavily on carcass counts and less on visuals or Redd counts. Steelhead don’t workout well for pHOS. They don’t die, they often arrive spawn and leave totally unseen in one night or two. And Coho Redds look no different from Steelhead Redds. Not uncommon for Coho and Steelhead to be spawning at the same time. Biased science papers often leave out these facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
You missed the part where the Umpqua decline was in sync with declines in other rivers. Originally pHOS was for salmon and based heavily on carcass counts and less on visuals or Redd counts. Steelhead don’t workout well for pHOS. They don’t die, they often arrive spawn and leave totally unseen in one night or two. And Coho Redds look no different from Steelhead Redds. Not uncommon for Coho and Steelhead to be spawning at the same time. Biased science papers often leave out these facts.
No, didn’t miss that. No thanks for telling me what I know.
All those rivers trending have hatcheries …
Slope Font Line Pattern Parallel


… but I don’t know anyone who argues that hatcheries directly and solely cause the current declines.

That Doesn’t change the need to preserve wild genes, especially in a time of decline. They’re the last line of defense before populations blip out. And please, I’m busting a gut over the idea of hatchery fish as “lifeboats” … hatchery fish are there for harvest. save the lipstick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
Suggest you read up on the tribes recolonization of Idaho steams with hatchery fish. Worked out quite well. Most folks aren’t buying the old adage all hatchery fish are bad Any more. The person who suggested the potential life boat that hatchery fish may offer has more degrees, done more wildlife research than anyone else who testified. Look at Condors, Pandas and a number of other endangered species raised in captivity and released in the wild. From a gene standpoint, there is nothing unique about fish that makes them any different. I always find it laughable when people try to protect a gene pool when stray rates from nearby rivers could run up to 20%, each and every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Suggest you read up on the tribes recolonization of Idaho steams with hatchery fish. Worked out quite well.

. I always find it laughable when people try to protect a gene pool when stray rates from nearby rivers could run up to 20%, each and every year.
Right here you’ve contradicted yourself.

I’m not here as a gimme to focus your anger with the commission’s decision. I’m offering a common-sense solution. Keep pHOS within ODFW guidelines. It’s that simple!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,935 Posts
In NOAA fisheries last biop of the Willamette system they stated that hatcheries are a vital tool for the preservation and recovery of salmonids.

They and others have used hatchery fish as “wild surrogates” to rebuild “wild” stocks. successfully.

After a few generations of returns those fish perform the same as “natural origin spawners”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
The assets of the anti-hatchery groups are substantial.
They spend money.
I'll just leave it at that. ;)
agreed Oregon Wild has a paid lobbyist and a war chest of 1.5 -2 million, Oregon Wild agenda and several of the ODFW board members align together. CCA has a petition to Governor and ODWF to reverse this decision, Go to CCA Oregon to join the cause
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
What continues to be unfortunate and perhaps the demise of our anadromous fish is pick and choose science to advance a political narrative. Selecting arbitrary pHOS, ignoring straying and effects of drought, lead to fewer fishing opportunities. But ,more important, what we see right now on the Umpqua, Coquille and other rivers are the last returns of a historic fish. The pursuit of the unique And elusive gene pool does not matter when numbers of fish reach critical levels. At this point in any population the resilience of the gene pool is already lost in a genetic bottleneck. From here, supplementation from nearby rivers, mining remaining brood stock, must trump politics to ensure the very survival of the fish. Harsh words for the political narrative of some, but when you are down to a couple hundred fish, extinction is a real possibility. Hatchery fish derived from in river brood stock could be the only life line in saving a run of fish
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,860 Posts
I agree with you SSPey. Why ODFW only used those years when 70 was available (since hatchery summers have been present) was a bit of a head scratcher as there are modeling methods to incorporate shifts in ocean conditions (as well as other covariates) across time. My guess is it came down to time/resources devoted to the analysis (thinking to how much time we spent on the Clackamas analysis).

pHOS: There are plenty of estimates of pHOS across Oregon derived from traps, not stream surveys, and they’re some of the highest pHOS values of all. If the stream surveys are biased, they’re likely giving pHOS that’s too low

Rock Creek: Having a hatchery / trap on a tributary like Rock Creek is a best case scenario for segregating H vs W. I agree it is sad that ODFW didn’t do their job on that. It certainly doesn’t instill confidence when commissioners are voting.

Runs: As to what runs did when the hatchery started, yes, everything was trending upwards because of a good ocean. Just like everything has been trending down now. Everyone appreciates the importance of ocean regimes. One of the anti-hatchery speakers (not a fish bio) gaffed hard on that trend issue and was rightfully called out. However, another speaker (McMillan the fish bio) showed using ODFWs own data that more H smolts led to lower W productivity (recruits per wild spawner). This was not what ODFW concluded.

The issue to me isn’t what has caused such a large decline - that’s a lot of things - it is about doing what we can to ensure integrity of wild stocks and their genes. That’s especially important when run sizes reach critical levels like the Umpqua is now

I wasn’t going to get into data, because this thread seems not about that … but I did my own research and by chance stumbled onto data that made me wonder about the ODFW analysis - specifically how ODFW chose their data when concluding no effect of H smolts on wild runs.

ODFW argued that hatchery smolt releases did not affect wild productivity using the data shown below, from the period 1990-2011. No relationship.

View attachment 979328

Note the years: Why did ODFW only use 1990-2011 data, when more data were available? In testimony, ODFW justified using only this time period (1990-2011) because they said it allowed analysis without confounding effects of changing ocean regimes caused by the NPGO (North Pacific Gyre Oscillation).

That made me curious about the NPGO, so I looked it up. The NGPO data are below. The data do not show a stable regime, but instead very large changes in ocean regimes from 1990-2011 (contrary to ODFWs claim)

View attachment 979329

The fluctuating ocean regime matters.
At a shallow level, it raises questions whether ODFW really did what they said.
At a biological level (as I understand it, not a fish bio!), large shifts in ocean regimes greatly change adult survival, and also change smolt-adult relationships. Those two big NPGO regime shifts from 1990-2011 could explain why ODFW did not detect a smolt (H) x adult (W) relationship in their analysis. Use of a longer time series might wash out the noise to show a signal, or reveal distinct relationships for different ocean regimes.

Seems the HxW issue is more complex than it was presented.

———

Regardless of these wonky details, my main point stands as before. Anglers who want to keep hatcheries open should encourage ODFW to follow their own guidelines and keep pHOS low. All I ever hear are guide/angler proposals that go in the opposite direction from that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
agreed Oregon Wild has a paid lobbyist and a war chest of 1.5 -2 million, Oregon Wild agenda and several of the ODFW board members align together. CCA has a petition to Governor and ODWF to reverse this decision, Go to CCA Oregon to join the cause

Hoping some of you watched Outdoor GPS. This entire issue was explained clearly. Hope you guys take a few minutes and send your support. Use the link
Pearl provided. I can't seem to post links.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
The Commissioners vote was beyond disappointing. To not follow the evidence presented to them by people far more in tune to the subject was mind blowing to me. Having the tribes united in support for the program and subsequently discounted was also shocking to me.
Basically the Commissioners ignored the majority to appease the vocal minority.
My question is can they change the vote or is it final?
Going to be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out.
 
41 - 60 of 98 Posts
Top