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

Goinfishin,

WDFW has the authority to board, or haven an observer on board, any of the gillnetters participating in the fishery. WDFW didn’t do that on boats when the owner/operator resisted. There is a term for that, but I shouldn’t print it on a family-oriented web site.

Gillnets let most of the steelhead through safely, but they have a high interception rate and mortality rate on wild spring chinook, which are also ESA listed. Tangle nets don’t kill so many wild chinook, which is a priority so that they can fish for more of the hatchery chinook. However, 4 ½" tangle nets catch many more steelhead than 9" mesh gillnets. The recovery tanks actually work pretty well when properly used for that purpose. So they “need” to increase the allowable impact on ESA steelhead in order to fish for more hatchery chinook.

I only fished for springers twice, and I didn’t “suffer” from the monitoring. Neither did the gillnetters, which was a problem, since some of them admit they don’t follow the rules when no observer is on board.

IMO, this is a stupid fishery. It is biologically unsupportable. It isn’t supported economically, either. Socially, it preserves a small piece of the dying non-treaty gillnetting “tradition,” at the expense of the broader based social benefit of many citizens enjoying fishing for spring salmon with lower mortality rates to wild ESA salmon, and almost no impact to ESA steelhead. If someone can explain an intelligent rationale for this fishery, I would so love to hear it. This fishery makes less sense to me than commercial buffalo hunting, which doesn’t harm other ESA species.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Anyone interested in reading about an observer on a commercial boats harvest on the Columbia River this last season should read : "The Reel News" latest edition available in G.I.joes or most local fishing stores. The article was by a gentleman who was on board a commercial boat during (1), 12hr. Netting period. That is (1). I was apalled by what he saw going in the box on the boat. Just a recap of what he saw were as follows: during a 12hr period : steelhead,9 dead out of 9, 4 of which were wild. sturgeon 2 dead out of 8. coho caught 113 of which 35% to 45% were unmarked , 10 were close to 20lbs. chinook caught were 6 . 1,190 pounds of fish were landed. Mortality rate for steelhead was 100%, all of the coho were thrown in the box including all unmarked fish. and 25% of the sturgeon floatedaway dead. The observer goes on to say he finds it remarkable this fishery is still in existence!! And this was just (1) commercial boat out of how many ? 175 to 200 boats commercial or more? in one 12hr. period. Its no wonder the steelhead and salmon are having a tuff time. It seems the commercials take what ever they can get in the nets no matter what the cost. Maybe thats why they dont want observers on board their boats . They dont want anyone checking their catches to see what really goes on. Go read it for yourselves and get the latst edition of " The Reel News" at you local tackle shops .

goin,


peace back atcha. It was a bad day. And yup, I'm arrogant.

Brilliantly said, Salmo.

If managers and commies had any brains, they would gladly implement some other form of selective harvest to

1) maximize profits from the resource, and
2) minimize management headaches

while having negligible impact on ESA "protected" stocks.

When will they realize that their $eason$ on hatchery $pring chinook can be maximized when their method$ allow the unharmed LIVE relea$e of ESA protected $tock$?

How about bringing back the fishwheels of days gone by?

Bottom line: If the goal is removing only hatchery chinook from the river, gillnets are simply the wrong tool for the job.

This would be akin to using a wrench to remove a phillips-head screw. WRONG TOOL!

Trying to justify tangle nets is like arguing a 3/8 in wrench is a better tool to remove that same screw instead of using a 3/4 in wrench.

Oh, and one more thing. Did I ever mention how much I really hate gillnets?


Here's why:







Get the picture?

Better send those pics to PETA or the folks who fought for the ban on animal traps...I would say a gill net is a great animal trap.

Salmo G. Thanks for your response. Illuminating as usual.

Good thoughts from everyone.....It has prompted me to do more research on the subject at least.

PNP- I understand your feelings on the subject. The main problem with these fisheries, ours included, is compliance with the regs. Sports fishing still has a much higher compliance rate than the commercials. Since a ban on commercial fishing for springers is unrealistic, an alternative approach may be necessary. What type of net is better? The most effective net for chinook seems to be a tangle net that kills steelhead. A gill net may save more steelies. Mesh size and color seems to play an important role. My final take on it for my .02 is that manadatory on board monitoring should be required of commercials. I found this interesting reading....

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/commercial/selective/tangleprogress1.pdf

Goinfishin,

I'm not ready to accept that commercial gillnetting where 2/3 of the catch is ESA listed salmon and steelhead is inevitable. This fishery is unjustifiable due to its impacts to bycatch. The targeted hatchery spring chinook are still available to other fisheries without the lower Columbia gillnet fleet. Most of the fish are bound upstream of Bonneville, where a treaty net fishery occurs, and beyond the point of migration for most of the intercepted steelhead. This is not an argument for the treaty gillnet fishery on those same fish, but an acknowledgement that it happens, and will continue to happen, anyway. The spring chinook bound for lower Columbia tributaries are available to recreational fishing in the Columbia and the respective tributaries.

The lower Columbia gillnet fishery is anachronistic, unnecesary to make biolgoical, economic, and social use of the chinook fishery public resource. If you've read my posts over the years, you'll know that I'm not opposed to commercial fishing; I'm not even opposed to gillnets. But I am opposed to stupid gillnet fisheries like this that are not biologically, economically, nor socially justifiable.

As fish advocates and conservationists, we owe it to ourselves and our children to continue to pressure the WDFW Commission to rescind this mistaken fishery.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Amen Brother Amen

Aunty

Could see how the fishwheel thing would be impractical in the tidal portions of the lower river... they wouldn't work as well on the incoming tide. They would still be a viable option further upriver as a means of live capture and sorting of the catch. Maybe the tribal fishery could be prosecuted with these devices.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on the trap and seine suggestions.... I have been advocating their use in Cook Inlet to reduce the obscene Kenai/Kasilof chinook bycatch encountered during the sockeye gillnet season.

FNP,

Just curious. On several occasions this fall at John's River, I noticed a guide boat (big sled). The guide looked kinda like you. The reason I ask is because the name on the boat was eye-fish, and my understanding is that you are an eye doctor. I think there was even a drawing of an eye on the boat. Any connection?

The tribes used to dip net at Celilo (sp) Falls, why not let them dip net in the Bonneville fish ladders. The white commercials could do the same thing, can not get to much more selective than that. Hell we could even make a machine that does it for them. Of course why are we doing it for commercials, now they get to sell the fish and do nothing. I've always thought this to be one of the most selective ways to fish. The tribes could also do it at the Ballard Locks, this way the count would be more accurate and NO Chinook by catch. Why do the simple fixes get so easily overlooked????

NEN

Why not pull them out at the dam fish ladders?? Sounds silly but iit would be very efficient.

Very observant SlabQuest.... you are right about the connection. For the record, fishNphysician, eyeFISH, and KeenEyeMD are all aliases used by the same fishing-addicted Aberdeen eye surgeon. A bunch of you guys that put in at the 28th St boat-launch drive right by my office to go fishing. The name of my Alumaweld sled is eyeFISH because that's pretty much what I do..... those two items occupy the vast majority of my available time.

You were mistaken on a couple of counts, though.

1) I do not have a picture of an eye on the boat, although I am seriously thinking about getting some decals made to match my business logo... two salmon swimming around an eyeball.




2) I am not a guide. I fish strictly for fun... wouldn't dream of turning my favorite hobby into a JOB. Besides, I could never get even a double boatload of clients to pay me the $$$ I would have to give up in forgone income from just one day in the operating room. And for what... just to go fishing?

FNP,

That is one cool logo. I would definately put it on your boat. I just assumed your boat was a guide boat because of its looks and graphics.

New question for you....

When you go from Aberdeen (28th St. launch) to Johns River, do you follow the shipping channel past the airport and turn left past the goalposts, or are you able to follow the shoreline past the Chehalis and come up the south side of the bay?

Let's not lose track of Aunty's point about WDFW/ODFW request to triple netting impacts on ESA-listed LCR steelhead. Time to get busy on those letters to the commission and the gov.... whomever he/she may be.

You know, if you assume that the commercials are going to harvest 20,000 fish (more than they actually did), and that their cost to catch these fish was 30% of the gross, then their income from the fishery would be about:

20,000 *25lbs/fish *$4/lb = $2,000,000/yr. If their costs are 30%, then they net out about $1,400,000

If you assume that there are 20,000 spring salmon fishermen, for $70 per fishermen, per year, we could afford to buy out the commercials.

$70 bucks per season, and you get no nets, and a probably a full season.

Nice analysis, SH. The problem is how do we get the managers to implement such a plan?

If they really thought about it, the economy could recoup the entire value of the commercial catch in just a few days of extra openers for the sports. The average expenditure per fish on one of the other threads I recall was quoted as $138.00. The commies might lose out, but society as a whole would derive much more value from the resource. The obscene bycatch mortality would also become a non-issue.

Here is the latest (12/17) revision of the forecast:


2004 Returns and 2005 Forecasts for ImportantColumbia River Salmon Stocks
Stock 2004 Forecast 2004 Return 2005 Forecast Author/Method/Notes
Upriver spring chinook (through May 31) 360,700 193,400 -------- 1/
Upriver spring chinook (through June 15) 221,600 254,100 2/
Sockeye 80,654 124,000 70,700 3/
Wenatchee 27,500 30,900 30,400
Okanogan 53,000 93,000 40,300
Snake River sockeye 154 120 66 4/
Willamette spring chinook 109,400 143,700 116,900 5/
Snake River spring/summer chinook 200,700 125,200 128,100 6/
Snake River Wild spring/summer chinook 46,200 32,900 23,400 7/
Snake River hatchery spring/summer chinook 154,500 92,300 104,700 8/
Upper Columbia spring chinook 28,200 18,800 47,200 9/
Upper Columbia Wild spring chinook 3,400 3,100 6,200 10/
Upper Columbia summer chinook 69,100 65,200 62,400 11/
Wild winter steelhead 32,200 33,900 27,000 12/

Note: Methods below are for 2005 forecasts only.

1/ WDFW. Pettit/Harlan. Cohort relationships.
2/ New method and accountability for Upriver spring chinook. Upriver spring chinook are now defined as fish passing Bonneville Dam from January 1 through June 15 and includes Snake River summer chinook. Forecast developed by cohort relationships and provided by TAC.
3/ CRITFC. Fryer. Cohort relationships. Wenatchee and Okanogan estimates based on stock specific cohort relationships.
4/ IDFG/TAC. Smolt to adult survival.
5/ ODFW. C. Melcher. Cohort relationships.
6/ TAC. By addition (see footnote 7 & 8).
7/ TAC. Lower Granite age-specific estimates expanded to river mouth (IDFG – Marshall), based on unclipped fish.
8/ TAC. Lower Granite age-specific estimates expanded to river mouth (IDFG – Marshall), based on clipped fish.
9/ TAC. Jack and ½ method. PRD jacks versus river mouth return (BY 1976-2001).
10/ TAC. 5-year average percent wild (13%).
11/ New method and accountability for Upper Columbia summer chinook. Upper Columbia summer chinook are now defined as fish passing Bonneville Dam from June 16 through July 31. Forecast developed by cohort relationships and provided by TAC.
12/ TAC. Expanded tributary forecasts.


TAC
December 17, 2004

Gee... no numbers for the Cowlitz, Kalama, or Lewis Rivers?!?
Guess those runs are no longer important. :rolleyes:

The numbers from the chart got scrunched together making it unreadable. I dont know how to post the chart. I can PM it to anybody that knows how.

How about a link to the chart? Is it on the WDFW website?

Pete posted it in a thread on the sister board. It's a word document in his second coment.

thread link