IFish Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
finclipped,

We will likely end up in the middle or as it is refered to "The Oregon Plan.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmmm...what is the "middle"?

They are either listed and protected both in fishing and in habitat or they are not.

What leads to more fish is Coho staying on the list.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

The quote and question raised by Charles Dewberry is ridiculous and unfounded. "Is it going to be where a lot of these runs go to zero?” The answer is simply no!
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmmm...you are agreeing with Dr. Dewberry that the coastal Coho will not be there as they cycle from the current peak to the next trough in Coho populations. It is cyclical, always has been. Anyway...I don't think you meant to agree with Dr. Dewberry but your statement did.

You notice there was no statement by Mr. Dewberry regarding the unprecedented rebounding of the OCN’s. No statement by him regarding the work that has been done regarding habitat restoration. No statement regarding the reduction of the detrimental hatchery coho.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You probably need to take that up with the person who wrote the article. You make it seem like Dr. Dewberry does not have detailed positions on the issues you raise. Since you know that's not true, why pretend that just because the article only quoted a line or two that is all Dr. Dewberry has to say on the issue?

You notice there was no statement by Mr. Dewberry regarding the unprecedented rebounding of the OCN’s. No statement by him regarding the work that has been done regarding habitat restoration. No statement regarding the reduction of the detrimental hatchery coho.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Same bogus bell on those statements. If Dr. Dewberry had written the article, you might have a case, he didn't, you don't.

You will also notice that Charlie Dewberry was noted as “an independent fishery biologist”.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dr. Dewberry is PhD, President of a local college, has done huge amount of university research on salmon, been hired to do extensive research and restoration projects by US Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries, timber industry and environmental groups and is recognized by timber industry, gov't, science community and environmentalists as the leading scientist on salmon restoration in US.

Vs. DepoeBayDan.

Cough, cough.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Thumper,

So you think the political decision by the Bush Jr. admin. to delist the Coho is a good thing?

The last time they made a political decision on the salmon we had 40,000 dead salmon in the Klamath.

Not a great track record.

Brion

[ 08-13-2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
finclipped,

Charlie Dewberry works for Ecotrust and does contract work for the Pacific Rivers Council. ...
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He is also the lead scientist for the NOAA Fisheries Chinnook River restoration project among other things. Fairly typical when you are the leading scientist in your field in the US as Dr. Dewberry is in Pacific NW salmon, you end up on a lot of science projects.

A long history of salmon research at the peer reviewed university level. DepoeBayDan likes to claim equal expertise and track record <grin>.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
finclipped,

He also believes hatchery's are an integral part of restoring salmon on the Chinook river.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think "restoration" is the key.

At the Salmon 101 Seminar the CRITFC (tribes hatchery) and Trout Unlimited (au natural) biologists agreed that hatcheries are essential for salmon restoration and have many roles to play.

The key is matching the hatchery operation with specific habitat and changing it as the salmon restoration proceeds.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
lingslayer,

Merely delisting them on the federal level.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Merely...ah yes...we call that removing all protection which has resulted in the Coho's modest rebuild from near extinction (per the scientists) to current 5-10% of historic (per the scientists).

I think we can expect the same "protection" from the Republican legislators for salmon that we can expect for our school kids...that would be zero.

You do realize that Oregon Republicans already tried a bill this year, in conjunction with Bush Jr admin, to state that any animal not listed by the Feds cannot be listed by ODFW.

You are either for salmon or for Bush Jr, take your pick. They are mutually exclusive.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
lingslayer,

Gee thanks once again for telling me how I think brion.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...don't see where I told you what you think, why would you say something untrue? If you want to change the actual thread topic, you should start a new one.

What I did say is that a person must either be for salmon or Bush Jr and that they are mutually exclusive political choices.

Every action taken by the Bush Jr admin, from political decisions to override biologists and killing 40,000 Klamath Salmon to siding with Enron and power companies to withhold Columbia river water from salmon to delisting Coho and removing protections to increasing clear cutting in Federal land destroying salmon habitat to cutting the budget for salmon restoration in the Columbia after making it a campaign pledge.

Every decision made by Bush Jr admin regarding salmon has been to the detriment of the salmon.

You can certainly choose Bush Jr over salmon for other reasons but you have to accept that if you chooose Bush Jr then you are going to see anti-salmon policies at every level.

Delisting of Coho is a perfect example.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
linslayer,

There you go again with your misleading *facts* and *hard sourced data* brion. Check the salmon kill numbers in the lower Klamath again. The article about that kill you refer to claims 33,000. You just turned that into 40,000 with a couple keystrokes.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...the scientists at the CA Dept of Fish and Game increased the original estimate of the fish kill in 2002 from 30,000 to 40,000+. As you see below from the references and links to the hard science , the original 30,000 count is probably off by 40-80%, that would make the Bush Jr fish kill in the 43,600-54,000 range. I was being conservative by saying just 40,000.

Here's the facts for you again. Always happy for an opportunity to post info on Bush Jr admin making political decisions that kill salmon. Who knows, maybe someone will actually start voting for salmon and stop voting for those who promote policies that kill salmon.

The American Fisheries Society (AFS 1992) states: “Estimates of losses based on countable dead fish will be conservative,” and adds, “Very seldom will counts represent more than a modest fraction of the fish killed….” Fish kill estimates most often underestimate the true magnitude of losses due to difficulties in conducting such surveys. Limited access; water clarity; the ability to observe dead fish in deep pools, under debris, or in heavily vegetated areas; and losses of carcasses to predators or scavengers are just some of the factors that lead to low estimates. Therefore, the estimates in the lower Klamath River for September 2002 should be viewed as a minimum number of fish killed and may have significantly underestimated the actual numbers of dead fish.web page

Increasing the gloom and doom by another 21% through misquotes and/or erroneous, inflammatory posts.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You are incorrect again, the scientists disagreed with your opinions again. Notice they say 45%-86% greater than the original 30,000 count.

As further evidence of the conservative nature of the fish kill estimate, the DFG can relate experience in conducting salmon carcass surveys on the Shasta and Scott rivers to estimate run size. The DFG jaw tags all fresh carcasses encountered on one day and resurveys the same river reach within two to five days to determine the recovery rate for those marked carcasses. The recovery rates for tagged carcasses ranged from 45% to 86% for 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1998 on the Scott and Salmon rivers which suggests a significant portion of the carcasses are missed, eaten by scavengers, or float downstream during each survey (Mark Hampton, DFG Fisheries Biologist, Yreka, personal communication).

So now back to the issue of whether the Bush Jr Admin plan to put politics ahead of science again and delist the Oregon Coho is a good idea or a bad idea.

History and science say it's a bad idea.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
TheRogue,

So, Brion, at what point do you feel that a species should be delisted, if ever?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'd leave that up to the biologists with the caveat that we error on the side of being very conservative. Estimates and projections will differ so go with the most conservative, pro-salmon numbers.

I would think the actual 10 year average is the key. When we see sustainable runs of native fish in the 50% of original population at the bottom of the natural cycles we could delist (not stop managing) the salmon.

The idea would be that we have restored the habitat and the ocean conditions are stable enough over a 10 year period that we have enough fish to catch, both sport and commercially, without need of hatcheries.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
POSClerk,

I spent a lot of time following and commenting on Oregon’s new Native Fish Conservation Policy and believe that the new policy would continue to protect and manage OCN’s in a manner to prevent their populations from ever becoming imperiled again.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The problem is that this can be changed instantly by politicians in Salem. We saw that already with the bill to force Oregon to de-list Coho if the Bush Administration was able to over ride the biologists and de-list Coho.

As others have pointed out, the Oregon "solutions" only came after the ESA was threatened and invoked.

If the state had a track record of meeting or exceeding the ESA requirements over a sustained period of time, perhaps they could be trusted but that track record doesn't exist now.

And it really is a Federal issue from many other angles, the salmon habitat on Federal land, the ocean conditions, the cross state jurisdications, the nature of the migratory fish, etc.

Conservative, prudent resource management would be to, at a minimum, leave existing protections in place until the resource has recovered to sustainable level that can provide sport and commercial fishing without the hatcheries.

Even under the most optimistic view of the current conditions, that puts us close to 1M fish behind in a good ocean year(s). Where will be at the downside of the cycle?

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

I base my opinions and assumptions on my extensive fishing on coho in fresh and salt water (mostly fresh water) and stream surveys I have volunteered to participate in, and communicating with many biologist via email, phone conversations and in person, and reading scientific reports on the internet, magazines and other articles.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes...we know you have zero expertise, are not a scientist or biologist and consistently say that your opinions are worth more than the scientists yet you cannot provide references and links to back up your views.

The example you use of you vs. Dr. Dewberry. Leading salmon scientist in the US, working for NOAA, US Forest Service, timber corporations, universities, environmentalists etc. vs DepoeBayDan.

This is fairly typical of the anti-salmon folks, despite the preponderance of evidence and the studies and statements by the leading scientists, they choose to ignore them, or worse, make the claim that the scientists are wrong and they are right.

The delisting of the Coho is a perfect example. Scientists urge caution, use of hard data and repeatable historical timelines of 10 years before even considering delisting.

Those with political agendas, such as the Bush Jr admin, go against the science and that has always been a disaster for the salmon. The most recent, example being the 40,000 salmon killed by Bush Jr political manager's decision overriding the scientists.

Brion

[ 08-14-2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

You keep celebrating what are historically low numbers. To make matters worse, you seem to ignore the cyclical nature of salmon returns and pick the peak of historic lows and then say we can delist the Coho.

Regarding the historical numbers, the study (there are many) Freespool referenced was "Information Report Series, Fisheries 81-3. Research and Developmente Section, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife "Oregon's Commercial Harvest of Coho Salmon, 1892-1960. Robert E. Mullen, Federal Document PL-89034 funds."

This an older document and not available online.

Most historic number studies are based on reported commercial catch. This study uses those numbers and estimates the number of commercially harvested salmon at 1,859,000. Using escapement of twice harvest, we have close we get 1.8M caught, 3.6M escapement for a 5.4M for native Oregon Coastal Coho.

A lot of reasons why you see the commercial harvest numbers calculated differently, there are reporting discrepancies, not everyone reported. There are accuracy issues, there were no standards for reporting. There are no correlations for number of fishermen and technology of fishing.

There are newer studies use science studies on carrying capacity of salmon streams with more modern controlled environment studies.

These studies tend to support the higher estimates from the many commerical catch based estimates of the native population.

Using the preponderance of evidence and being conservative, we can safely say the historical population of Oregon Coastal Coho was in the 3-5M range.

So we have clear scientific evidence, past and current, that says:

1. Oregon Native Coastal Coho are 3-10% of historic numbers.

2. This is at the peak of a cycle.

So the scientific evidence says keep doing what we are doing rebuilding habitat, spawning and ocean, manage fishing and see where we are in 10 years from the date of the Coho being listed, 1998.

There is huge political pressure on NOAA Fisheries to side with the Bush Jr. admin and delist the salmon now so that agricultural, development, power and fishing interests can go back to their wicked, wicked ways which lead to the salmon's demise in the Pacific NW.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

Ah… Mr. Dewberry is on the ecotrust payroll. "Fair and balanced”?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He is also on the NOAA Fisheries and US Forest Service payroll. That the Feds, the enviros and timber companies all pay him for his expertise is a good indication of the respect Dr. Dewberry holds in his scientific field which is Pacific NW salmon.

We can already safely say that vis a vis Dr. Dewberry, you have no expertise. Regarding employers (NOAA, USFS, Ecotrust, Imperial Timber for Dr. Dewberry) and since you bring it up in asking us to trust your raw opinion vs. Dr. Dewberry's decades of scientific research, who is your employer and why should we trust your opinions? If for example, you made more money the higher the allowable salmon harvest (say if ESA listing was lifted) you can see how that might make your opinions suspect.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan

Oh you mean this report that I posted on your “decline in salmon” thread?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Eyup. That one. As has been pointed out to you it uses commercial catch to estimate native population.

1.4M native fish.

The ODFW study I just provided for you of also uses commercial catch rates more recent and detailed vintage.

4.4M native fish.

Which do you choose to believe?

Where did you say you got those from Brion?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmm...seems pretty clear in the previous message and it was put in bold so you wouldn't miss it but here it is again

Regarding the historical numbers, the study (there are many) Freespool referenced was "Information Report Series, Fisheries 81-3. Research and Developmente Section, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife "Oregon's Commercial Harvest of Coho Salmon, 1892-1960. Robert E. Mullen, Federal Document PL-89034 funds."
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Point was that commercial catch estimates vary widely due the problems in using commercial catch reporting. There was no real system, no real standards, a lot went unreported, number of fisherman and technology changed greatly from period to period.

What we have now are more scientfic studies based on stream biology and long term studies on the carrying capacity of coastal salmon habitats.

Those estimates tend to agree with the higher commmercial catch estimates in the 3M-5M range.

It is both scientifically sound and more prudent to use the more conservative numbers of 3-5M to estimate original native Coho populations.

That tells us that:

1. ESA listed "Threatened" Coastal Coho are at 3-10% of original historic population.

2. Current years are peak ocean environment years and top of normal Coho population cycle.

That combined with the NOAA Fisheries report which noted current peaks in Coho are due to unique ocean conditions and not to any dramatic change in Coho habitat, all points to sound scientific reasons for leaving the ESA listing in place.

Brion

[ 08-14-2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

Are you sure about this Brion?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Eyup so now answer the question. Since you have attacked Dr. Dewberry regarding his employment and since offer your scientific expertise in place of his, who is your employer and do you benefit in any way from Coho being delisted and more fish being caught?

Who has hired you for your scientific expertise on salmon restoration?

We do want to take this step by step. You can change the subject later but since you brought up employment issue, please finish that step.

Now what’s your expertise in salmon?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">None...I just quote them. You are the one who has challenged Dr. Dewberry's qualifications so you need to have some expertise in fish biology and science to do that. You have offered your expert opinon of Dr. Dewberry's qualifications so I think you are bound to provide us with your scientific qualifications to do that.

Also, you haven't quite explained how his having EcoTrust as a one of his clients for his scientific expertise would change the results of Dr. Dewberry's research.

Brion

[ 08-14-2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
POSClerk,

...we must admit to ourselves that this population is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Alternatively we could "admit" that:

1. It's way too soon to consider delisting Coho.

2. We have seen significant crashes in Coho population causing it to be listed as threatened.

3. We are seeing current returns that are only 3-10% of historic highs.

4. Current returns represent a cyclical peak and we need to see what the 10 year average is, particularly the 10 year low. It is the low point of the cycle that determines species survivability.

5. Current political climate in Washington and Salem to delist coho for political reasons gives us great incentive not to delist due to disasterous track record of politicians managing fish (see Coho population crash and Klamath Basin fish kill for two relevant examples).

Gets back to article that started this thread, the push to delist is political, not scientific.

Ironically, those who push to de-list are the same folks who fought the origional listing and fought the habitat and other reforms that have helped the fish return, the last people we should trust with the salmon's future.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
hustlerrjim,

... are quoted as the gospel by some people in their hallucinogenic rage. to promote their wild fish theory.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Absolutely correct and that is exactly the point I was trying to make to DepoeBayDan who quotes the one estimate as gospel refusing to realize that there are many estimates based historic commmerical catch and they are imprecise and have big variatons. from 1.4M to 5M.

We do have some more modern research based on carrying capacity of streams that suggests that the higher estimates are more likely correct.

However, the key is to understand we are dealing with fish that are extinct in much of their original range and have had recent population crashes in their current range to endangered levels.

This would seem to call for taking a very conservative approach.

1. Use the higher estimate of historical population as a baseline.

2. Understand that the current "record" returns are still historic lows.

3. Understand that the recent "record" returns are due to ocean conditions and cyclical population variations and that the real keys to restoration are 10 year averages and, even more importantly, the 10 year low.


All you have to do is look at the history of the ocean conditions, which leads us to the absolute conclusion everything is based on the food chain in the ocean.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually that's absolutely wrong. In the areas where salmon habitat has been destroyed and species are extinct, even with great ocean conditions, no fish.

Even with "great" ocean conditions, native salmon return on the Columbia 600,000 fish. Historic native run, 16,000,000 fish.

Even if you accept the highest estimate of native Coho, the current "records" are only 20% of historic. If your theory on ocean conditions being the "absolute" determinant was correct, the return of fish would be 100%.

With food chains, every link is important. That is why we need to continue with habitat restoration so when we have bad ocean conditions (and ocean conditions are nowhere near historic levels and are in crisis ) we can have assured survivability of the fish.

Personally, I'd like to take restoration beyond that have assured level of sport and commercial fishing even at the low points of the cycle.

People sometimes forget that Endangerd Species Act only assures "survivability". We could have salmon but not be allowed to fish for them because population are at "survival" levels. That seems OK with some folks...not for moi.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

Brion, are you high? Been grazing on the wrong kind of mushrooms? Need some new glasses?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Un...as a matter of fact no but some probelms with the personal insult stuff.

1. It tends to show you have no confidence in your point of view and need to make things personal to make up for a weak arguement.

2. Personalizing the debate adds nothing to the discussion.

3. The nature of the personal insults tends to be more an indication of how they are or might be behaving vs. the other person.

Just some food for thought.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
lingslayer,

If this is really what you think why are you inundating us with your opinion instead of writing our democratic Governor, (after all, he is the one pushing for this deal) and your state congressional members?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am writing to my reps. Certainly encourage everyone else to do the same thing if they want to restore the salmon and if they enjoy fishing for salmon.

Decision to delist is a threat to both.

Given the studies that are planned and the speed with which the gov'ment moves, you should have at least a year to 18 months,...
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hard to say. Current Bush Jr admin. has been pushing since January 2001 for:

1. End of the Endangered Species Act altogether.

2. Delisting animals on the list based on politial considerations.

Brion

[ 08-15-2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
TheRogue,

I have never, ever seen where someone from the Administration has come out and said they want to "end the ESA".
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This was from the LA Times back in April 2001 after Norton was confirmed.

Bush Seeks Greater Control Over Endangered Species List Budget: Plan would give Interior secretary more authority, bar suits by
environmental groups.

By ELIZABETH SHOGREN, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON-- In a move that critics say would undermine a landmark environmental law, the Bush administration is quietly trying to wrest from the courts control over the listing of endangered
species and the designation of protected habitat for them. The proposal, buried in the voluminous budget President Bush sent to Congress on Monday, would give Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton wide authority to decide which plants and animals should be protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A bunch more references. Bush Jr and Norton have tried a two prong approach.

The first attack, contained in a rider on the House version of the Defense Department appropriations bill, would have arguably given the Secretary of the Interior sole discretion regarding where and when-and whether-to designate critical habitat for endangered species. Although the appropriations bill still contains a damaging ESA exemption for the Department of Defense, the more radical rider was defeated by the House on May 21.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">1. Give Norton the power to list or delist ESA species, exempt from public and Congressional oversight or comment. I'm sure her scientific expertise as a lawyer/lobbyist for the mining industry will help her make decisions such as listing or delisting the Oregon Coho.

2. Defund the ESA studies. Bush Jr cut budget request to $8.5M.

ESA would "exist" but not in anything resembling current ESA.

And second, if by saying "politics" you mean coming up with a way to involve and compensate for the affect ESA listings have on human populations, well,
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Haven't seen anything by Bush Jr admin on economic compensation. For example, what compensation are the fishing industries offered. I know states have had buyout program and I think the Feds have participated.

Is that what you were referencing?

Brion

[ 08-15-2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top