IFish Fishing Forum banner
61 - 80 of 95 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by hustlerrjim:
....snorkel surveys....I did years ago, on the North Fork Nehalem....This is what I call hands-on.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hey Jim, you wouldn't happen to have a photograph of you in snorkle, goggles & swim fins lying in the creek shallows...er, doing surveys...would you? The mental image I have is disturbing! :wink:
 

·
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,096 Posts
Originally posted by BrionLutz:
POSClerk,

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

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

Brion
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Okay Brion,
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?

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,...
Let's see here,... 3 letters a day for 390 days (weekdays only) should keep you busy enough to give us a little relief here at least. :grin:
Jamie
 

·
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
·
13,800 Posts
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.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am a constant detractor of the Bush Administration. I, too, feel that they do not have the best interests of the environment or us "little guys" at heart.

However, I'm a little confused about the above state I quoted from your last post. I have never, ever seen where someone from the Administration has come out and said they want to "end the 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,


TR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
:hoboy:


Brion, YOu must have one-way glasses not to see the insults that you just threw at Dan. As CT suggested, we need to get one of those Graemlins that has a smily banging his head on the desk.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Hey Jim, you have some good points but some of your beliefs I don’t buy into.

I’m not going to waste much more time with Brion. Everybone realizes it is a waste of time and most feel he is out to lunch. I just hate to see lies or mistruths passed on to folks that don't keep up with science that might not know any better. This is a method that a lot of cults use to recruit folks.

You are correct in your assumptions about historical returns of coastal wild coho. I have pointed this out more than once to Lutz. The only historical data we have is based on commercial fishing and that dates back to 1892 and I have scanned and posted that here and elsewhere. Anything else is nothing but speculation. But as usual Brion is in denial with science, statistics and the majority of biologist.

If you haven't noticed Oregon and NOAA don't base their decisions on Brion's fairy tales so why should you? :wink:

He is attempting to use fictitious numbers that are impossible to meet to make it appear that the incredible rebounding of our coastal wild coho are at historical low numbers and a dismall percentage of what they once were to promote his anti logging agenda and pro hatchery and pro commercial agenda. A bunch of nonsense. :hoboy:

Biologist agree that these fictitious numbers are unobtainable and therefore stymies progress in rebuilding wild coho stocks because there would be no hope in obtaining such a goal. This would undermind any compromising by timber industry or others by this hopeless goal of reaching the impossible.

The thing to keep in mind is that we are currently at 50 year highs and not at historical lows and certainly not endangered at 50 year highs. :wink: I am confident we will even surpass that in just a few months when they return again.

The article says a quarter of historical abundance. The article also says close to 1 million. As usual Brion doesn’t accept or acknowledge what is generally believed to be true in the scientific community.

If what Brion was claiming was even remotely true NOAA the organization he worships wouldn’t be looking into the possibility of delisting the OCN’s. :wink: You probably noticed the Bush Administration didn't offer funds to evaluate the Columbia River wild coho stocks that are in dire straits!

I’ll go along with the overwhelming scientific community and not the hogwash presented forth by Brion Lutz and his associated organizations. I know of very few folks if any that believe what he post is true and no (zero) zilch, not one biologist that accepts it. :wink:

It is obvious to the many ifisher’s that I have talked to that Mr. Lutz doesn’t know what he is talking about and has been disproved time and time again. But he keeps coming back and has destroyed almost every thread I have seen him on and made for lots of unhappy ifisher's and as you pointed out Jim, wasted a lot of folk's valuable time. :hoboy:

It is also known that when Brion is confronted with the overwhelming science of the problems of hatchery fish, commercial fishing and low land habitat he ducks and dodges the questions because they don’t support his anti logging and pro gill netting agenda. :hoboy:

Fortunately we have well educated bio’s using current sound science making the decisions instead of Lutz and his groupies. :grin:

Things are going quite well and I believe they will continue to do so. Our Chinook stocks are healthy and our coho stocks are doing some incredible rebounding. If you want the wild steelhead to do significant rebounding also, I'm afraid you're going to have to get rid of the hatchery steelhead also because you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Ask the Canadians if you don’t believe me.

As for a question or two you asked I didn’t understand the first one. “I don’t find any information that tells me where the fish came from.” I’m not sure I understand what you are asking there. Maybe clarify your question and I or someone will attempt to answer it.

As far as the stream surveys go, no, Bob Buckman did not attend any of the stream surveys I was on. I’ve been out with several different surveyors and was impressed with all of them. These guys had a pretty good idea of the difference between a cutthroat red and a coho red. They knew and pointed out the different types of gravel that were viable to spawning and the ones that were not. They worked hard physically covering miles of stream that were at times very difficult to maneuver due to woody debris crossing the streams. I have to admit I couldn’t physically keep up with the last surveyor I went out with. The surveys are conducted in a very thorough way.

It is very exciting seeing all these wild coho doing it on there own and I not once came across a hatchery stray that I could identify. All the coho that I could identify dead or alive had adipose fins intact.

The Nehalem wild coho are rebounding also but not at the rate they should. I believe the numbers were at approx. 20,000 the last few years. The Nehalem River is a large non gradient river and believe there is good habitat all the way up into the Vernonia area. I believe the returns should be closer to 60,000 for that river.

I know you want to place the blame on the cormorants but why is it that cormorants aren’t eating and raising havoc with the wild coho smolts all up and down the coast? The wild smolts are there as you said Jim but why aren’t they converting to wild adults?

The Nehalem has had very large hatchery programs over the years and that is a well known factor in compromising wild coho. The Nehalem has also had many different out of basin stocks introduced there prior to science identifying that as being a big problem.

Perhaps the gene pool of the Nehalem wild coho has been altered and is performing very poorly as do typical hatchery fish. Dunno Jim. I’m sure you are aware of the poor percentage of returns of hatchery smolts.

I would have to agree with you that there is a lot of good habitat on the Nehalem. So is it the cormorants or are the Nehalem wild coho compromised? For some reason these Nehalem wild coho smolts aren’t performing as well as the wild smolts throughout the coast.

One thing I do know is that the Nehalem wild coho will greatly benefit from the curtailed stocking of hatchery coho and I think we are already experiencing that with the help of good ocean conditions.

I believe it was GSA that brought up the very significant problem of the low lands habitat in the Nehalem where perhaps the river has been channelized and is missing back water sloughs, structure and woody debris that you drift boaters don’t like but at the same time is very beneficial for the smolts to take refuge from predators. Is that a possible problem there in the Nehalem Jim? Not being sarcastic but just simply looking for answers.

As you can see there are many factors that can affect wild fish. Not just cormorants and ocean conditions. Or according to Lutz just logging and ocean conditions. There can be multiple problems with low land habitat, hatchery competition both in the rivers/bays and in the ocean, hatchery influence, freshwater conditions (floods and droughts), over harvesting, predators (sometimes invoked by large hatchery releases of oversize hatchery smolts) and ocean conditions. I probably forgot one or two.

I wish it was that easy Jim to Diagnose the problems of the health of a run and simply point out that it is cormorants or seals or… Brion Lutz is the only biologist that I know of that can diagnose the problems of wild fish based solely on the numbers of the returns! And it is always 100% of the time 96% habitat degredation! See wasn’t that simple Jim?

When we shot the cormorants in tillamook bay, we found it made no difference to them whether they ate wild Smoltz or hatchery Smoltz.

I think you are missing the point here Jim. I don’t know that anyone ever claimed that a cormorant, seal or sea lion would only eat hatchery smolt. The problem I have seen is when you dump in the thousands and at times over a million stupid, dumb, domesticated, oversized hatchery smolt that are used to eating power bait and turn them loose in the wild, you end up attracting and chumming the predators. Unfortunately the wild fish can get caught up in this hatchery induced feeding frenzy. In the Alsea River they got rid of the inferior poor performing Fall Creek hatchery coho and the harbor seal/cormorant buffet paid for by the State or Feds was eliminated.

Unfortunately Jim you can’t have both hatchery and wild fish of the same species in the same basin and expect the wild fish to perform up to par. I just don’t think it can be done. This is what science is showing us (eat your heart out Brion) and where I see large hatchery programs in Oregon and Washington I see poor wild runs. On the other hand where I see small or no hatchery programs I’m seeing better wild runs. Now that we have curtailed our coastal hatchery coho we are seeing phenomenal rebounding going on. We will continue to have these resilient fish rebound. Mark my word.

Dan
 

·
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 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

You are correct in your assumptions about historical returns of coastal wild coho. I have pointed this out more than once to Lutz. The only historical data we have is based on commercial fishing and that dates back to 1892 and I have scanned and posted that here and elsewhere.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There is no "only historical data". You have posted one of many historical commercial catch numbers and native fish estimates. You fail to understand that there are many such records and estimates and that they do not agree for all the reasons Lingslayer laid out for you. There was no system for record keeping. Many of those catching did not report. There was no standard for reporting. There was no record of number of fishermen. There was no adjustment for changes in technology. It goes on and on.

So we have many estimates with a big variation in their estimate of historic numbers. They range from 1.4M to 5M.

Since you fail to understand that basic fact and since that is the foundation for the rest of your message, I think you can see why your following points are not valid.

Brion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
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.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, why are you always trying to deceive people? The fish we were dealing with on this thread is the OCN’s that are currently being considered for delisting. THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT ANYWHERE ON THE OREGON COAST. NEVER HAVE BEEN NEVER WILL!

2. Understand that the current "record" returns are still historic lows.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Record returns! LOL! :laugh: Are you doing this on purpose or just ignorant about our salmon Brion? :rolleyes:


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.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Understand that these are not “record” returns and that these are the largest returns in 50 years and this years return might and probably will surpass that and next years return will probably… and understand that these non record but impressive returns are due to habitat restoration, harvest restrictions and protection and lack of millions of hatchery coho dumped on top of them as in the past and this was all helped out by favorable ocean conditions! Understand that!

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.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, sorry if I hurt your feelings. I have a good friend down in California that jokingly says to me and others when we say something wrong or something he doesn’t agree with; are you high? Doesn’t bother me any. I think I even made the comment; Maybe I need glasses.

The whole point is Brion is people put facts, charts, tables, etc right in front of your face and you either ignore or dodge them or in this case read something that wasn’t even there. I am not the only one that is frustrated and fed up with your post on ifish. Far from it!

Anyway your assessment of my lack of confidence is quite the opposite. You have to admit you are a conflict everywhere you go and really upset ifisher’s with your total nonsense, twisting of facts, twisting what someone has said and lack of debating skills. I and most others consider you a nuisance to this website. So it is not a lack of confidence but a lack of tollerence for you.

By the way Brion, contrary to your claims I backed my info with credible sources. You on the other hand cannot because it does not exist.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

Brion, why are you always trying to deceive people? The fish we were dealing with on this thread is the OCN’s that are currently being considered for delisting. THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT ANYWHERE ON THE OREGON COAST. NEVER HAVE BEEN NEVER WILL!
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">In the Pacific NW, salmon are extinct in approximately 50% of their original range in CA, OR and WA.

By the way Brion, contrary to your claims I backed my info with credible sources. You on the other hand cannot because it does not exist.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You are in error claiming that the following does not exist. 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.

The point that myself and several others have been trying to get across to you is the following.

1. There are many estimates of historical Coho native fish populations.

2. The many estimates are based on commercial catch records.

3. The many commercial catch records are very imprecise .

4. The many estimates based on those imprecise records have a large variation from 1.4M to 5M.

Brion

[ 08-15-2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

I was commenting on how your constant use of personal insults reflected more on you than anyone else.

I believe I listed how your use of personal insults reflects on you.

Your choice whether you continue to use them or not.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Rebell,

Brion, are you backstepping?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think it's called a "walkover" <grin>.

I'm sure Dan understands what everyone has told him about the wild variations in the many estimates of native salmon population and he knows that he is incorrect claiming there is "only one".

He'll get over it.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by BrionLutz:
I'm sure Dan understands what everyone has told him about the wild variations in the many estimates of native salmon population and he knows that he is incorrect claiming there is "only one". Brion
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Of course, when BLutz uses only one number (16 million fish) over and over to estimate pre-1850's Columbia River salmon runs, that's OK? :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
GSA,

Of course, when BLutz uses only one number (16 million fish) over and over to estimate pre-1850's Columbia River salmon runs, that's OK?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Feel free to post another estimate of original native Columbia salmon with the source.

The CRITFC and Trout Unlimited biologists felt that number was generally accepted so that was good enough for me since those folks are on opposite sides of the hatchery/native debate and it was a number they agreed upon.

It is interesting that the Columbia River 16M original/600,000 current native ratio of 3% matches up with the 5M original/304K 6% for coastal Coho.

Brion
 
61 - 80 of 95 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