This says about 250,000 spring chinook expected. Mostly 4-year olds and 75% marked hatchery fish. Does anyone remember what the run size was this year?


Notebook: Columbia producing solid chinook runs

By Mark Yuasa
Seattle Times staff reporter


Spring and summer are a while away, but salmon anglers will be glad to know that another decent chinook-fishing season will likely occur on the Columbia River and off the Pacific coast.

"The Columbia River chinook stocks are good across the board, which includes spring, summer and fall runs," said Cindy LeFleur, a state Fish and Wildlife salmon manager.

Fall chinook-run sizes in the past four years have ranged from 544,000 to 885,000.

The Columbia upriver bright-chinook return of 370,000 this year was one of the largest on record since 1964, and next year's run should be healthy as well.

The Lower Columbia hatchery-fall-chinook stock is expected to be down from the past two years, although the wild run looks good.

Bonneville Pool hatchery chinook and mid-Columbia bright-chinook stocks should be good.

The upriver spring-chinook outlook for the Columbia is predicted to be about a quarter-million fish, and most will be larger 4-year-olds with a mark (hatchery fish with a missing adipose fin) rate of 75 percent.

In Oregon, the Lower Willamette spring-chinook outlook is also decent, and about 80 percent will be larger 5-year-olds. On the Washington side, the Cowlitz, Kalama and Lewis spring-chinook runs will mirror this past season in which all were open daily with a two-fish bag limit.

On the other hand, the Columbia River coho return this year was just over 400,000, and next year's return is expected to be down from recent years.

"What worries me the most are next year's (Columbia River) coho runs, and that will affect what happens to the ocean fisheries," said Doug Milward, a state Fish and Wildlife coastal-salmon manager. "While I have some concerns, it is not at all doom and gloom, and we'll just have to work around it."

State Fish and Wildlife will release final predictions on Washington salmon runs at a public meeting in late February. For more details on Columbia River salmon forecasts, go to http://www.seattletimes.com/fishing.

170K past Bonneville

Here you go.

forecast htm

I believe that the 2005 run forecast meetings are this week...

Seems kind of funny to "negotiate" what the run size is forecasted at...at least they use lots of numbers before they get to the negotiation point!

Fish on...

Todd

I recieved a copy of the page linked above at the sportsman's show in Oregon last winter. It's dated December 30,2003.

Last year there were a lot of fish in the system yet things were shutdown. The impact of the nets seems to have a greater role in the season than the run size forecast.

I sure hope they keep the lower Columbia open longer! It seemed that most guys were getting better at releasing the nates, plus there's alot more water to fish below Bonneville than above "the dam". A one fish limit would be just fine too!!!

If the Snake River run remains strong, a good place to try is below John Day Dam. Not as crazy as below Bonneville.

My experience has been that the sea lion predation has grown exponentially worse over the past few years. I would assume that has to be a major factor in sport season restrictions as well.

I think that they overforecast it again like last year to allow the commercials the larger share without having to hear from us pesky fishermen.....

I hear that goinfishin.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

P.S. They should hold off the net's a little later to let the wild get through then pound on the fin clippers.

Those forecasts are voodoo. It was said that they are forecasting more fish than last years return. A partial truth at best.

Just remember last year's forecast was for something like 400K and it got downsized to 170K in-season.... of course that was after the nets got all of theirs first.

Y'all can look over your shoulders for black helicopters if you want, but the process is pretty well thought out. I wen't to some of the Commission meetings last year, and it was pretty interesting. They have a pretty sophisticated model for how the run will shape up based on how many fish come by at a given time. But, as we all know, the fish can be a bit early, or a bit late , and that will throw any model off.

The commercials' seasons are targeted into time frames that are intended to reduce impact on the most vulnerable runs, in order to maximise the hatchery fish caught per wild wish (or steelhead) handled. Or, that's the goal, anyway. March is apparently one of the better times for that, so they get fish earlier in the season.

All the fishing groups are constrained by the overall goal of the Compact, which I believe is to kill no more than 2% of the wild run. They assume that roughly 25 to 30% of netted and released fish will die, assuming tangle nets and revival tanks, and 10to 18% of sport caught and released fish will die.

During the season, the numbers caught and crossing the dam are masured. They have a good idea of the ratio of hatchery fish to wild fish is, because they can measure at the dams. Bsed on the catch surveys and these numbers, they can estimate how many fish are handled and released. Knowing this, they can calculate pretty well how many wild fish have died. When the total number of estimated dead wild fish is 2% of the predictedreturn, the seasons close.

Now, my opinion is, this is a good approach, because it incents all of us, at least those that can think, to be smarter about our handling of wild fish, so that these impact percentages come down. The commercials have the most room for improvement, and the most to gain from making those improvements. Unfortunately, I haven't seen them get this yet... This could happen with education.

Anyway, that's how it works.

Mr. Silverhilton,

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Government is quite capable of screwing up the resource with the "best science available."

While I always respect your well thought out and even backed with logic responses, I don't think you are completely on track here. You think that a little education is going to change commercial practices? An aquaintance of mine , retired F&W Sgt. Jim Tuggle, once told me that the compliance rates for commercial fisheries on these runs is less than 18%.

I am aware of how the run is forecast, I also have attended a springer meeting. I just don't have your faith in their modeling and management. I also disagree with the mortality rate you describe for sportsmen. The meeting I attended had the number at 2-10% with the new rules in place. Ok..I agree we need to all practice good release techniques.

Maybe another approach would be to space out the commercial harvest with a less generous netting schedule and base it on the actual run size as it materializes. Since the run can be shut down if the overall wild mortality rate is achieved, and the main culprits are the nets, do they dictate the closure?

And tell me, who catches the most spring salmon?

Sporties?
Netters?
Seals?

Just curious, please tap into your vast storehouse of knowledge.

I hope this all is pointing to another good year in Idaho!!!! I had the most fun of my life last year up there.any Ideas? I am already planning my vacation.

Wasn't last years run way under what they predicted because 4 years earlier they didn't spill water (pushed it through the turbines instead at Boni). That's what I had heard, not sure if there is any truth to that.

Aunty,

If NOAA F approves WDFW's & ODFW's request, I don't assume that will increase the allowable sport fishing impact any. The reason they are requesting the higher impact is so the commercial gillnetters can get more days on the river and increase their catch of hatchery spring chinook.

If NOAA F approves the request, all sport fishing interests should lobby the dickens out of the WDFW Commission to hold to the old 2% impact level. The sport impact on listed winter steelhead in the Columbia is extremely low, maybe 0.1 to 0.2%

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Well, I was trying to provide information. I guess no good deed goes unpunished when you're trying to talk to people who won't do a little research and think for themselves.

First, the sporties catch a lot more springers than the commercials do. I'm not going to waste my time going to the Compact site, you can do it yourself. My recollection is that the sporties got around 49,000 fish last year, and the commercials got around 23,000. You can look it up on the Compact site. For the math challenged among us, that means we got more than twice as many.

The sporties caught more springers because a) we got a greater allocation of the wild fish impact and b) our calculated kill from handling was at a much lower percentage than the commercials. I don't know about the sealions, but they got a few of mine.

Second, I don't know why you are arguing about the commercials. My point is precisely that they could reduce their estimated impact rate, and therefore increase their catch, by working as a group to improve their practices. They have a great deal to gain, in actual cash dollars, if their practices as a group improved. They could reduce their impact to about 15% with good practices, which would let them fish twice as long. But they, like a lot of ignorant and bullheaded sporties, are convinced they know better than the disinterested people monitoring and measuring what really happens. So they continue spouting a bunch of suppositions that they would like to believe are true, while ignoring hard data that is being collected by professionals.

The government didn't kill our runs. We did. We did it by overfishing them, by destroying spawning habitat, by wanting electric power, flood control, and irrigation so we dammed everything in sight, and by omitting fish passage facilities on things like the Dvorak dam in Idaho, and the Cowlitz, Diablo and Elwha dams in washington. Some of the dams are public, some of them are private, they all block salmon runs.

On the other hand, thanks to the Magnusen Act (that would government for the civics impaired), we have federally funded hatcheries. These are paid out of scarce tax dollars, so in the coming eras of skyrocketing deficits, it is likely that hatchery funding will be further reduced. The Endangered Species Act (government again) is the hammer behind most of the salmon recovey efforts today, though the current administration seems bent on eliminating this protection. How do you feel about water quality regs, land use regs, heck, game regs? All them things are damn gummint tricks that, oh, by the way, help salmon.

There's plenty of stuff that the government has been behind, such as BPA and irrigation districts, for a couple of prime examples, that have had their share of impacts. But those don't happen just because the 'government' decided to do something. They happened because some interest group wanted the measure. And those interests are us. Not the Canadians, not the French, not the Democrats, not the martians. They were and are loggers, builders, farmers, paper mill workers, aluminum smelter workers, power company owners, and people who want to live next to a river but get offended when it floods.

Blaming the government, or the Democrats, or the Republicans makes you feel good. But it dodges the reality that we are where we are because we want everything. We want power. We want jobs. We want fish. And we don't want to pay more taxes that could fund hatcheries, fish ladders, and enforcement. Why? Because the government, everybody knows, is good for nothing and wastes every dollar we give them. Pah!

Back to the topic at hand, the current allocation process ain't perfect. But it also ain't what caused the issues in the first place. I think we sporties do fairly well in the allocation process. You're not going to eliminate commerical fishing, because the commercial fishing is what motivates the Magnusen act funding. The current process, as I previously discussed, is good in that it motivates each interest group to adopt better handling practices. If we don't like the share we get, well, talk to your legislators. I think the best indication that the current process is reasonable is that sporties and commericals hate it equally.

That's enough for one day. I wouldn't want your head to explode.

Salmo G. I could not agree more...

Why can't WDFW recognize the poor compliance rate of the commercials as well as limit and re-set their season for later if it is closely monitored?

You might be able to answer this better than most. It is my understanding that in the Willipa study, gill nets were actually much more condusive to reducing fish mortality if they are used properly. They also allow more of the small fish to pass through unharmed. So why tangle nets? I'll guarantee that the commercials guys dont go to much trouble to save and revive a fish.

In my opnion it seems like sportsmen suffer much more monitoring than the commercials, am I off base on that?

I heard that the sea lions and seals harvested upwards of 9,000 salmon per day on the Columbia...I certainly saw first hand a terrible predation problem last year at Cathlamet.

The request to raise the listed fish kill from 2% to 7% was written mostly by WDFW division 5 folks who are 1000% pro commercial gill netter. Access to more Spring Chinook for the gill netters is totally dependent on raising the kill percentage allowed. We are talking about killing endangered salmon and steelhead stocks here and not allocation for sport or commercial. Those phony recovery boxes on the gill net boats don't see much use as far as I can tell.

Silverhilton....you are amusing although a bit arrogant.... I love how you came out swinging....Good man!

I appreciate your concern about my cranial capacity I really am fine. You might even be amazed that I have some formal education in the field of environmental science.
Of course we all want what's best for our own interests...isn't that what people are all about? lol OK...we are not in disagreement about any of this. I just wanted to point out that the tone of your post was to accuse us of being paranoid about how the government favors the commercials.

A lot of us believe that does occur, perhaps unwittingly at times. We had to fight for the larger allocation last year. That argument being that sportsmen contribute much more to the overall state economy.

Fisheries management is understandably a complicated and emotional issue. That is precisely why it is difficult for any government agency to manage the resource.

Please don't interupt our ranting in the future with a bunch of facts...

Now I have to get back to work. Peace