IFish Fishing Forum banner
81 - 95 of 95 Posts

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

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.
Brion [/QB]
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I did?... No no no such thing.

Jamie

[ 08-16-2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37,111 Posts
I have asked repeatedly that all of you address the issue and not attack each other.

Either the personal attacks stop now or the thread is closed.

I will also ask Jennie for one week cooling off "time-outs" for anyone who posts another personal attack on this thread.

Enough is enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Crabbait,

Either the personal attacks stop now or the thread is closed.

I will also ask Jennie for one week cooling off "time-outs" for anyone who posts another personal attack on this thread.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I like option No. 2 better. Doesn't seem fair that folks can misbehave and shut down a conversation for others.

On the week, that seems like a lot. Two days might be more effective.

Brion
 
G

·
Too many wild coho....that's just terrible :rolleyes:
It's good to see them rebounding and maybe if this trend continues for a few years who knows. One or two good years is not enough to say "Well the problem is over!"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts


Brion, the report is right there on your screen. Please show me where it says 4.4 million coastal wild coho. Please.

Can you do that for me and the rest of us. I know I need glasses but I just don't see it there.

Thanks in advance,

Dan
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Too many wild coho....that's just terrible
It's good to see them rebounding and maybe if this trend continues for a few years who knows. One or two good years is not enough to say "Well the problem is over!"
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Stew I understand your point. But, keep in mind that the decline of the OCN's is blamed on over harvesting (up to 80% of the wild coho were harvested each year for the most part by ocean commercial fishermen - trollers) and that was compounded by the millions of hatchery coho that were stocked in the coastal streams.

Those problems have been fixed. As I pointed out BC or the Strait of Georgia is experiencing the same problem. I have read the report and it claims that the wild coho in that area were over fished (again by the commercial fleet) and they took our lead by building massive hatchery opperations and are now realizing that was a big mistake. They also point out that not only are the problems with freshwater competition and interbreeding but that they have discovered that there can also be too much competition in the salt water for food!

The decline of wild coho in the Strait of Georgia is not being blamed on logging but the factors I mentioned above combined with extreme poor ocean conditions.

I'm not saying there isn't room for habitat restoration which is taking place here but that is not the main factor on the decline.

Now we are seeing the results of our management combined with good ocean conditions. Some folks don't want to applaud this and only want to give credit to good ocean conditions. I have told folks around here for years that we would see the rebounding of our OCN's with current management.

Keep in mind that these are the best numbers in 50 years. Not 5 or 10 or 15... years. Also take note that our OCN's with the current management are rebounding by leaps and bounds unlike the Columbia River wild coho that are hindered by massive hatchery coho, dams and gill netters.

The Columbia River wild coho and other wild fish runs are experiencing the same ocean and ocean conditions as our OCN's but are not rebounding or at least at the same magnitude as our OCN's.

So why is it the OCN's are doing exceptionally well and others are not? I would have to conclude that the problem at least for the most part has been fixed.

Say hello to Aunty M for me.

Preliminary 2003 Oregon Ocean Recreational Selective Coho Salmon Fishery Estimates

Preliminary 2003 Oregon Ocean Recreational
Selective Coho Salmon Fishery Estimates
Area: Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain
Dates: Open seven days per week. June 21 through earlier of August 24 or coho quota.
Quota: 88,000 adipose fin-clipped coho
Notes: All retained coho must have a healed adipose fin clip. Two salmon per day. Minimum size lengths of 16" for coho, and 20" for chinook and steelhead. No more than two single-point, single-shank, barbless hooks may be used.



Landings through August 13, 2003

Port No. Angler Trips No. Fish Harvested No. Fish Released
Retained Catch Per Angler
Coho Chinook Coho* Chinook
Garibaldi 11,355 11,966 1,357 15,516 308 1.17
Pacific City 5,682 7,504 1,217 8,554 27 1.53
Depoe Bay 9,926 10,615 1,729 13,823 65 1.24
Newport 21,534 22,509 6,973 23,237 595 1.37
Winchester Bay 22,854 17,590 8,092 28,144 3,203 1.12
Charleston 9,301 5,232 2,474 7,242 765 0.83
Bandon 1,422 715 774 1,255 79 1.05
Port Orford 6 1 0 0 0 0.19
Total 82,080 76,132 22,616 97,771 5,042 1.20
Percent of quota taken 86.5%


* Number of coho released includes fish released for any number of reasons including: no legal adipose fin clip, sub-legal or small fish, and anglers targeting chinook.

76,132 hatchery coho harvested, 97,771 coho released (so far). Most of the released coho were not fin clipped out of which most of them were wild coho. Tribal coho are not fin clipped but are a very small percentage of the Columbia River stocks that we are catching out here in the salt.

Going to be pretty exciting to see the amout of OCN's that return in just a few months.

Dano

Day 34
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDay,

Brion, the report is right there on your screen. Please show me where it says 4.4 million coastal wild coho.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There is no "the" report. There are many "reports", many estimates of the original native Coho population based on the many estimate of commercial catch and escapement.

I'm sure this has suddenly dawned on you so you are going to keep pretending that the one you posted is the only one .

For example, "Information Report Series, Fisheries 81-3. Oregon's Commercial Harvest of Coho Salmon, 1892-1960. Robert E. Mullen, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Population Dynamics and Statistical Services Section, Corvallis, Oregon. January 1981." estimates a Oregon Native Coho population of 4.4M .

Since we have many estimates of historical population and they vary widely, which do you choose? The 1.4M in the report you posted or the 4.4M in the report I posted?

Since we are dealing with a threatened species, extinct in much of its original Pacific NW range, one with large fluctuations in its natural cycles over decades , it would seem prudent and conservative to use the more conservative estimates..

Hope that helps. If you are going to repeat the question for a 6th time, just refer to this 5th answer <grin>.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

But, keep in mind that the decline of the OCN's is blamed on over harvesting (up to 80% of the wild coho were harvested each year for the most part by ocean commercial fishermen - trollers) and that was compounded by the millions of hatchery coho that were stocked in the coastal streams.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...habitat destruction was also key. That's why we built the hatcheries which produce most of the Oregon Coho.

Some folks don't want to applaud this and only want to give credit to good ocean conditions.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...as NOAA Fisheries noted the recent years good runs were due to flutuations in ocean conditions not to sudden improvement in the damaged habitat.

So why is it the OCN's are doing exceptionally well and others are not?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Considering your conclusion that habitat can support 100% of the original native population, the question you need to ask yourself is why in the record year, we only see 20% of native fish even by the most optimistic of estimates?

Keeping in mind that is the most optimistic view. A more conservative estimate is that we are seeing only 7% native return in what NOAA Fisheries says are exceptional ocean conditions.

What will the native population be in poor ocean years 5%, 1%, 0%?

Brion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37,111 Posts
Let me summarize both Depoe Bay Dan's and Brion Lutz's opinions, if I may:

DBD: Believes that the combination of improved habitat, cessation of commercial harvest and good ocean conditions have turned the corner for OCNs and that delisting is appropriate. He appears to believe that delisting would not significantly impact Coho recovery and that the measures already in place will assure continued Coho rebounds.

Brion Lutz: Believes that Coho numbers are much lower than their historic potential and, while prolific as compared with the recent past, are still only a small percentage of the carrying capacity of Oregon streams if further habitat restoration and other measures are pursued. He appears to believe that delisting of native Coho is a premature measure due to the short time elapsed since the extremely poor returns of the recent past.

If these synopsis of opinions are incorrect, I would ask that Brion and Dan give one post to more accurately convey their summaries.

When that clarification (if necessary) is completed, I am requesting that both Dan and Brion refrain from posting to this thread until Wednesday, August 20, to allow others the opportunity for input.

If anyone would like to provide their opinion on this issue I request that you let us know what you think and why, rather than either agree or disagree with Dan and/or Brion. Lets' hear some independent thought.

No personal attacks and no posts directed at Dan or Brion as they have been asked not to comment and it would not be fair to reference them while they are voluntarily sitting out.

[ 08-17-2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Thank you Steve (crabbait)!


Perfect except you only left out one very important factor according to science and biologist. I will edit or add it in bold letters.

Excellent job and thanks again as I was done with this thread anyway.

DBD: Believes that the combination of improved habitat, cessation of commercial harvest, large scale reductions of coastal hatchery coho and good ocean conditions have turned the corner for OCNs and that delisting is appropriate. He appears to believe that delisting would not significantly impact Coho recovery and that the measures already in place will assure continued Coho rebounds.

Dano

Day 35!

[ 08-17-2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Well went out fishing the salt with Nancy last night. Ran into her when I went down to Dockside Charters to have a cup of coffee with Jim and chat.

The ocean was gorgeous and didn't live up to the previous forecast. Nancy got a beautiful 25lb. chinook on her hoochie. I kept loosing coho on my coyote spoon. Must have had a dozen on my spoon and landed a few.

We finally limited out on our evening trip but really had a problem getting our 4 fish. The dog gone endangered natives kept getting in the way. There are so many of those endangered coho out there this year that they are becoming a nuisance. Does anybody know what we can do about all these wild endangered coho that are being such a pest?

I mean it is not only me complaining about them but all the charters and everybody are complaining that there are too many wild endangered coho out there and it is making it very difficult to catch the less abundant hatchery fish.

Do the wild endangered type coho reproduce out there in the ocean? I know they couldn't have been born in the rivers because there is too many of them and there isn't any spawning habitat left.

What are the loggers doing wrong? I thought I read somewhere they are suppose to be killing all of them up in the forest. We do need to address this problem however because there are way too many of them and they are suppose to be on the brink of extinction.

I did release them with a gaff in the water to make sure they don't become extinct on my behalf though.

You can email me at: [email protected]

Dano

Originally posted by the one and only...

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.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Let's try this again Brion. You mean this one Brion?

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: [/QUOTE]


Now how could I say that report doesn't exist when this is the third time I have posted it on ifish.net. Twice on this thread and once on your infamous "decline in salmon" thread. :hoboy:


Did you not notice how it says; “Estimates of the Historical Abundance of Coho Salmon in Oregon Coastal Streams and in the Oregon Production Index Area” by Robert E. Mullen ? :wink:

It also says PL 89-304 funds on the front page! :wink:

I just can't seem to find or interrupt a low of 538,000 to a high of 978,000 coastal wild coho into 4-5 million as you do. :shrug:

[ 08-16-2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try this again Brion. You mean this one Brion?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Eyup...that's the one. ODFW Study. Robert. E Mullen, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlilfe, Population Dynamics and Statistical Services Section, Corvallis, Oregon January 1981.

It shows 4.4M native Coho as the original population.

As has been pointed out (this must be the 5th time), all these estimates (one you posted, the one I've posted) are based commercial catch rates. No standard of record keeping, yearly variations in number of fishermen, no set methods, changes in fishing technology, many fishermen did not report, differences on how to convert lbs to fish, etc. etc.

That is why there are many estimates with many variations...1.4M to 5M.

We do have recent scientific work on estimating salmon stream carrying capacity and these studies tend toward the higher native Coho estimates.

So to be conservative we should take the higher native population estimate which tells us that 4.4M historic/304,000 current we have 6.9% of native historic return.

So to sum up.

1. Current returns are due to unique ocean conditions per NOAA Fisheries.

2. Current returns are a cyclical peak but are only 7% of historic population per many estimates of historic population and current research.

3. Salmon are extinct in much of their lower 48 range and in severely depressed numbers in the remaining habitat.

4. We should be very conservative and use the most conservative estimates regarding delisting the Coho.

5. We should use the 10 year average and the 10 year cyclical low to determine survivability of the threatened Coho.

As the post at the beginning of this thread noted, the push to delist the Coho is a political push from the adminstration in DC not one being pushed by the scientists.

Brion
 
81 - 95 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