IFish.net banner

1 - 20 of 126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2007/august/080307b.asp

"Effective Jan. 1, 2008, anglers will no longer be able to keep wild winter steelhead on the Umpqua River. The Commission considered several proposals to eliminate the harvest of wild steelhead and voted to make the fishery catch-and-release only for wild winter steelhead in the mainstem and North Fork Umpqua River. Previously, regulations allowed the harvest of one wild steelhead per day and five per year."

Haven't seen much discussion of this... good, bad, indifferent?

Did anyone go to the meetings in Salem or otherwise have any idea why ODFW changed the regs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,634 Posts
As Straydog pointed out, this was a political decision, not a biological one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
it was a super excellent decision regardless why it was made..

keeping wild steelhead is selfish PERIOD!

it's an extremely rare win for everyone who loves steelhead and steelhead fishing...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,634 Posts
Your entitled to your opinion Rob, and I can respect that, but when the Commission makes political decisions instead of biological ones, the fish will lose in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Since when is killing wild steelhead a political decision?

Biological or political.........A most excellent decision!

Congrats to all!!!:applause::applause::applause:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Freespool
I'm afraid I have to disagree about the steelhead losing in the end in this decision. Those steelhead were doing just fine in the thousands of generations before they were harvested. And even if it is a political decision, that doesn't make it wrong, just like a decision made for biological reasons doesn't necessarily make it right.

Jackson
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Unless I'm mistaken, these fish were not "Wild", they were only un-clipped. I could be wrong though, if this is the case, then I think this decision is very bad, these fish are meant to be harvested, and there is no reason not to. Wait, did I mention that they came from the north fork? so it DOES make sense for this rule on the mainstem, but not the north fork. just my two cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
ODFW has been making the political decision to allow harvest whenever and wherever possible for decades..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2007/august/080307b.asp

"Effective Jan. 1, 2008, anglers will no longer be able to keep wild winter steelhead on the Umpqua River. The Commission considered several proposals to eliminate the harvest of wild steelhead and voted to make the fishery catch-and-release only for wild winter steelhead in the mainstem and North Fork Umpqua River. Previously, regulations allowed the harvest of one wild steelhead per day and five per year."

Haven't seen much discussion of this... good, bad, indifferent?

Did anyone go to the meetings in Salem or otherwise have any idea why ODFW changed the regs?
Very Good:applause:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Well, with any luck, we'll soon make the political decision to stop ALL C&R on wild steelhead, period. If you really, really want to make these fish some sort of demi-gods, then lets not take any chance whatsoever of possibly harming them. Maybe then we can get all boats off rivers, don't want to take a chance in hurting one that way either.

Political decisions on wildlife matters are wrong, whether they're pro OR con.

TR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,235 Posts
I'm glad to see that all of you in support of this decision also support managing the resource based on Politics, not biology. Next time that a political decision is made that isn’t beneficial to the fish, I'm sure you'll be completely understanding. When that time comes (and it won’t be long) you can remember what a hypocrite you are, while you type your message about how wrong it is that the fishery managers ignored the biological data in making their decision.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
I'm glad to see that all of you in support of this decision also support managing the resource based on Politics, not biology. Next time that a political decision is made that isn’t beneficial to the fish, I'm sure you'll be completely understanding. When that time comes (and it won’t be long) you can remember what a hypocrite you are, while you type your message about how wrong it is that the fishery managers ignored the biological data in making their decision.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Exactly my feelings.

I have read, preached and heard over and over how we must "follow the science" when deciding fish issues, whether it be in regards to dams, closed seasons, logging, irrigation, etc., etc. etc. etc........

Then, when something like this happens, just like what happened on the Rogue with the half pounders and bait, there is no cry to follow the science....... The average fisherman just got the shaft, from what I know.

I was not at the public meeting which was held, but from the media reports of it, the bios all said this fishery was healthy and not being threatened by the regulations in place (1 and 5).

Even some of the people I talked to that were at the meeting were shocked by this decision. They had come away from the meeting thinking the science did not support a change and did not expect a change.

Soon I am sure we will be hearing once again the laments of the agency over decreased license and tag sales and guess who will be expected to pay to make up the difference in revenue? Those of us that continue to fish anyway.

If anyone has any information from the commission meeting regarding this decision I would sure be interested in hearing it.

As for the opinion that NO wild fish should ever be killed, I simply disagree strongly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
No the fish aren't unclipped hatchery fish. There are no hatchery plants on the North Fork.

The ODFW said the absolute max exploitation rate that could happen was 30% when the runs were strong and thriving in an ideal situation. They allowed exploitation rates between 25% to 30% and now that the conditions aren't perfect there was no buffer built in and are using the same models. Also they had no data on the what was going on in the South Fork and what the effect of the kill fishery was having on this run and by all accounts the run is crashing. I guess no data is good data. I know it sounds like a political decision but there is science behind this decision.

I am from up in Washington but love this river and to fish down there. You think that we would learn from the state of Washington's systems where they did the same thing to systems like the Snohomish, SKagit, etc that harvesting right to the max exploitation rates will eventually help cause the closure of the system (no not the only reason but it is one of them).

Just a lurker around here.
JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,073 Posts
IMHO it would have been a political decision to allow for the continued harvest of wild fish. ODFW makes more and more of their decisions based on politics every year. Like steelheadjunky said above, just because you have a few good years doesn't mean that the state shouldn't protect one of the few semi-healthy runs left in the Pacific Northwest. Anybody that has spent any time fishing the OP has seen the damage done by the harvest of native steelehead.

This is a great decision!
TF
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
No the fish aren't unclipped hatchery fish. There are no hatchery plants on the North Fork.
Exactly.

And the exploitation comes from the main river, as the North Fork does not get anywhere near the pressure that the main stem does.

So, for all intents and purposes, they just deemed the North Fork a C and R fishery only, for steelhead while ignoring the So. River which, as you say, is said to be in decline.

Wonder what's next........... fly fishing only??

Careful what you wish for guides, careful what you wish for........
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
steelhead junky,

BTW, thank you for the information you provided.

I am assuming you were at the commission meeting. I have heard through the grapevine that there was some discussion concerning the manner in which their data was collected on the main and north rivers.

Do you have any recollection of that?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
The crux of the issue that no one wants to address............

And yes, it is political, in my opinion........

ODFW has been said to be against ever trying to manage the commercial business on this river. I have heard it from the guides themselves; The attitude is this is there river and they don't like competition.....

“Every guide from Portland to Brookings is on the water,” bringing clients to fish on the Umpqua when conditions are low, said Gary Lewis, owner of Gary’s Guide Service in Roseburg. “When the water’s high, we don’t have that problem.”

[News Review Story here

Rather than eliminate harvest for the guy that gets to fish only occaissionaly, why not address the real problem....... too much commercial fishing of a public resource????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Then, when something like this happens, just like what happened on the Rogue with the half pounders and bait, there is no cry to follow the science....... The average fisherman just got the shaft, from what I know.


As for the opinion that NO wild fish should ever be killed, I simply disagree strongly.
What I dont get is why you have to kill every thinging that hits the boat. How are you getting screwed? Because you can't keep 5 wild steelhead? You could keep many more hatchery fish from another river. At least you can still fish the run. The alternetive is to close the river to fisning when you have killed all the fish! This is exploitation of a resource pure and simple. Yes, I'm a hypocrite but I will take protection of wild steelhead any way I can get it. Just like you guys will take killing wild steelhead anyway you can.

Mike
 
1 - 20 of 126 Posts
Top