Just thought I'd toss this in for JimB to help get a better understanding of what #'s were really happening in Cedar Creek. It kind of walks on Gary's story......

Here is a really interesting comparison that pits Cedar Creek coho productivity against the hatchery facility directly across from its mouth. The new info is in bold at the end of each broodyear’s description.


Cedar Creek Brood Year 2003/Run Year 2006 Adult Production and Return

WDFW estimated the total Cedar Creek coho smolt production at 58,174. The juveniles smolted in the spring of 2005.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/wild_salmon_...g-rpt_2005.pdf

Page 92 of your reader.

WDFW coded wire tagged about 26,000 which again is a tag rate of just about 1 in 2.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/RBA691.txt

5 CWT’s were recovered from this tag group in 2006. 4 were recovered in 2006 CR gillnet fisheries. 1 was a hatchery recovery.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run1207.txt

RMIS reports these 4 tags expand to 5 for fishery sampling sizes.

The tag rate for the total 2003 brood year smolt production in Cedar Creek was about 1 in 2.

The Lincoln-Petersen mark and recapture principal would then dictate to us the CR gillnet fleet harvested 8 Cedar Creek Coho (multiply the estimated tags by 2 to account for the smolt tag rate of 1 in 2). By the spawner tables linked above anyone can see that the balance of the 16-32K adults did not show up in Cedar Creek as spawners in 2006.



Now........let’s compare this to the hatchery facility right next door to Cedar Creek.

Take a gander at what the happens when you leave hatchery fish at the hatchery.

Here are the tag recovery tables with adult production estimates (the EST’d column represents the total adult production estimate) for the Lewis River Hatchery (directly across from the mouth of Ceadr Creek) coho smolt releases for the exact same broodyear and adult return year.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run20016.txt

Just look at it. You have hatchery production smolt release groups, just barely larger than Cedar Creek’s smolt production, producing between 1,500 and 2,000 adult recruits and these release groups do it with fewer than 100 adult spawners. Cedar Creek uses thousands of adult spawners in the form of hatchery production adults spawning naturally combined with hatchbox releases and in turn produces virtually no adult recruits.

And check out the number of adults that escaped all fisheries and converted to spawner broodstock! Just look at what percentage of the adults escaped all fisheries, including the curtains of death, and became available for spawning. Nearly 70% of the adult recruits became spawners.




Now let’s compare broodyear 2002 Cedar Creek coho to the Lewis River Hatchery coho the year before......


Cedar Creek Brood Year 2002/Run Year 2005 Adult Production and Return


The total coho smolt production based on the Lewis River Hatchery inputs plus the Cedar Creek no ad-clip hatchery hatch box coho into Cedar Creek was pegged at about 34,999 by WDFW. It was an intense estimation effort complete with juvenile trap efficiency tests to assure the highest level of certainty around the estimate.

Page 83 of your reader.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/wild_salmon_...heececarcr.pdf


The no ad-clip hatchery hatch box coho produced 1,970 of the total smolt production based on the otolith sampling (the eggs transferred to the hatch boxes had their earbones thermally marked at the hatchery in order to determine their contribution to the streams overall productivity).

Finally, a group of slightly under 17,000 coho smolts from the total of 34,999 received a coded wire tag. The tag rate then is then just about 1 in 2. In other words, for every 1 tagged smolt there exists 1 smolt from the Cedar Creek smolt production that does not possess a Cedar Creek tag.

Here are the two tag code groups from Broodyear 2002. They were trapped and tagged in Cedar Creek during the juvenile out migration season of 2004.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/RBA17991.txt

Now, this CWT group represents smolt offspring from hatchery coho spawning naturally in Cedar Creek (because the Lewis Hatchery is directly across from the mouth of Cedar Creek), first generation hatchery progeny adults that produced offspring, other generations of hatchery progeny adults that produced offspring combined with the Fish First no ad-clip hatchery hatch box coho.

While the coded wire tags couldn’t be implanted into just the Fish First no ad-clip hatchery hatch box coho, the general Cedar Creek wild spawned hatchery coho smolt-to-adult survival rates and the Cedar Creek ocean and LCR fishery exploitation rates can now be determined.

This Cedar Creek coho brood year life cycle can now be described from cradle to grave.

The RMIS database is web based. It allows one to access all tag recoveries in addition to tagged groups and ad-clip release summary. This RMIS program is the database store and clearinghouse for CWT research on the west coast (including Canada via the Pacific Salmon Treaty).


http://www.rmpc.org/

Here are the adults that were generated from the two brood year 2002 tag groups. The point estimate is 22 adults.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/RBA17991.txthttp://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run19730.txt

In 2005 16 adult Cedar Creek coho CWTs were found in all west coast salmon fisheries. This sample is reported by RMIS to expand to an estimated 22 Cedar Creek CWT’s (total harvest is rarely sampled for either recreational or commercial fisheries so it must be expanded to match the landings). There are three tags that have no EST’d number so we will just add their raw numbers to the 22 for a total of 26 estimated fishery tags.
Based on the Cedar Creek smolt tag-to-no tag ratio one can assume 52 adult coho (smolt tag rate multiplied by the estimated adult production fishery tags) from Cedar Creek were taken by all non-ad-clip retention west coast salmon fisheries(the CR gillet fishery is a component of this). The recreational fleet operating in the ocean and B10 usually has half the impact allocation so another 52 can be assumed dead in those fisheries (just not retained due to ad-clip only regulations).

104 adults (non ad-clip fisheries plus ad-clip fisheries) were generated from the entire 2002 Cedar Creek brood year spawners combined with the hatch boxes.

According to the spawner tables linked above, 231 no ad-clip adult coho produced from brood year 2002 ran into Cedar Creek in 2005. Just for good measure let's add these to the adult production we see from the tag recovery table. We will assume none of these no ad-clip adults are the result of the Lewis River (or other CR basin no ad-clip hatchery releases) no ad-clip hatchery juvenile releases. Let’s just assume they are all the result of a natural spawn in Cedar Creek.

104 + 231=335 adults produced off the 2004 smolts resulting from the brood year 2002 spawn in Cedar Creek.

335 x 0.05(the no ad-clip hatch hatchery hatch box coho contribution to smolt production as reported by WDFW in the linked report above) = 16.75 adults that were produced from 400,000 hatchery eggs.

16.55 adults were produced from 400,000 hatchery eggs incubated in the SRIs.

To compound matters further, based on the adult spawners needed to create the adult recruits from the Cedar Creek no a-clip hatchery hatch box coho, the project is exhibiting an adult recruitment rate in the neighborhood of 0.05 adults per spawner.

It is quickly obvious the 16-32K adult claims did not occur off the brood year 2002 production.



Now look at this........

Here is the tag recovery table that shows all the Lewis River Hatchery coho adult recruits from the exact same broodyear.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run21195.txt

Just look at that adult production! Less than 100 adult spawners (based on 2,000 eggs per coho female) per smolt release group turned around and produced up to almost 2,300 adult recruits.

Once again look at the massive spawner escapement! With nets and recreational fishing combined!

Keith

Thanks for the info.

So just what are you trying to say Keith? Excellent research and great post.

Ike

Sorry I didn't try to steal FishBulb's work, that's my fault. Yes the information was taken from Ifish.

Point to the story is it's pretty hard evidence that Gary's story is one that certainly stretches the truth...

What is my problem with the situation you might ask??? Why in hell would you want to start a false run of Coho from hatchery fish?? It's obvious his intent was to create a wild run of Coho and quite possibly have it be the main reason the nets would have to halt in the Columbia... I just don't understand his reasoning... It sure as heck wasn't to increase harvestable fish!!!!! There's already enough mis-clipped coho in the Lewis.

There are far more important fish that a hatchery fish that hatches from a hatch box in the Lewis river, a great start would be to preach about the Truely native Fall King run (Lower River Brights) in the Lewis and quite possibly use their fall in #'s as something to preach about.......

Keith

Who cares? This isn't about Gary Loomis. It's about 6,000 Pacific Northwest fishermen who are finally getting some action towards resolving some of the nonselective fishing abuses on the Columbia River, and (later) in other locations.

I certainly don't beleive everything that I read, but I do think that what Fishbulb's post contains is about as real as it gets with the info I've found from our WDFW Biologists....

What's your personal take on it Aunty? Fact or Fiction?

Keith

Sure can tell that Keith has a day job and not fishing much. Keith get out and wet a line. LOL

All the crap aside, Keith is right...the story is a complete falsehood, and whoever said "Gary got his numbers from the WDFW" is very incorrect...I posted all of WDFW's numbers on the last CCA thread, and they are nothing at all even in the same solar system as Gary's numbers.

Thumper, no matter how much you don't like it, it IS about Gary Loomis. He's out there telling lies to YOU to get YOU to give $25 to the CCA...make that $50, now, plus banquet tickets, without doing anything yet.

If you're OK with that, then don't worry about it...but also don't bother defending the story, which is bullchit on many levels.

Integrity does matter.

Fish on...

Todd

AuntyM,

Where did you go, I was curious about your answer....

It's odd how you'll clam up on this direct subject....

Keith

This hasn't been beaten into the ground yet so what's a few more...

How about you talk to Loomis then Todd, or would that make too much sense? Why not try to solve the problem instead of perpetuating it. Really though, I think there is another agenda in your negativity towards CCA, and hopefully people will make up their own mind after realizing you will continuously bash, but not offer up anything positive.

F4b, I asked Gary about it at the very first meeting I attended at my former PSA chapter's "CCA Talk" meeting...he looked at me like he'd been poleaxed, and then a bunch of the folks in the room were appalled that someone would even question such a man, I mean, after all, he sure makes some good fishing rods! BTW, there was no response from him whatsoever about it.

The answer has repeatedly been the same...no one wants to hear the truth, they want to drink the Kool-Aid and believe. Nothing wrong with believing, but there is something wrong with being lied to, and what's worse, I think there's something even more wrong when folks like you let them lie to you and don't seem to be bothered by it.

My agenda is just what I've said it is...repeatedly... in spite of people purposely mischaracterizing it...

My agenda is for the improvement of fish stocks and fishing...period. It is a hard field to get into, and it takes a lot of time and hard work...and it takes credibility.

Telling lies hurts not only the CCA's already tenuous credibility, but it hurts the credibility of all the rest of us involved in sportfishing advocacy.

Integrity does matter.

I don't care if you don't think that, or don't care if our "sportfishing leader" is spreading lies, or if you don't care that most of the CCA membership doesn't seem to mind being lied to, either...I care, because it makes it harder to get what we need done.

It hurts fish, and it hurts fishing...

I offer that up as a positive element every single time you Kool-Aid drinkers who don't mind being lied to bring it up, like you are here...hold your leadership accountable, make them be truthful, or watch them get run out of the room by those who are making the decisions.

You can make up stories to sell $25 memberships...hell, you can make up stories to sell banquet tickets and get newspaper coverage, too...but you can't make up stories in court, nor can you do it at negotiating tables, without huring the very interest you are there to protect.

You're a CCA member...you tell him to stop lying. I already have, and it didn't change his tune one bit.

Make too much sense?

Fish on...

Todd

Marsha,

Gary's Cedar Creek numbers are as crooked as a $3 bill, and no amount of you trying to put lipstick on that pig will ever change it.

You know the truth...everyone is being lied to about Cedar Creek.

Some of us don't like that, some of us don't care...you're part of the "don't care" crowd.

That's where integrity matters...I do care about being lied to, and like I've said a dozen or more times...and I'll say again...being a liar does not serve you well when you go into court with your war chest, or into a negotiation room with your 4000 members behind you.

At that point, you have a true story, you have a valid interest, and you have integrity.

So far the CCA has a false story, an interest in banquets, and a sore lack of integrity.

I hope their lack in these fundamental building blocks doesn't hurt anything but themselves...the fish can't afford them screwing up the rest of the situation as badly as they've screwed themselves on this one.

Integrity does matter.

Fish on...

Todd

I do care if I'm being lied to, and will stand up for the truth once I have learned enough about the subject to do so, but until now, you are the only one who keeps going on about this. I don't doubt that you could be right, but I know there's a few pretty knowledgeable CCA members and I'm wondering why it isn't being brought up by anyone else?

It's funny I used to have the same BFD attitude regarding the lies with Gary... It was more about getting the nets out of the Columbia River but it's come to rub me the wrong way... I struggle following a leader that is deceitful, sadly enough it doesn't bother others.........

Keith

Marsha,

Every time you open your mouth, you show just how little importance you place on integrity, and how for you it's all about being 'right', rather than being anything that will help fish or fishing.

It's not a new way for you to act, but it's incredibly transparent now.

Integrity does matter, and if you don't require it from the CCA, then how do you expect anyone else to think they have it? After all, people like you *are* the CCA, from what I hear.

Fish on...

Todd

How is it blowing something out of proportion?? You lost me there.... It's simply going over stats that pretty much hit the nail on the head...

I've walked Cedar Creek a handful of times and the numbers aren't what are being stated by Mr. Loomis.... Maybe that's part of the reason I have such a problem with it...

Keith

here's an idea......

Why don't you guys and/or gals from both sides of this "debate" go to one of Gary's meetings and simply ask him to explain his #'s.

It would be an interesting exchange I would assume.

This would seem to be the only way to end this "debate."

Its nice to know that we are members of a statewide organization. The way its set up, all chapters will get in their two cents, then it will go to the state board and direction will be set. It will not be just one making the rest jump. Frankly I do not jump all over the WSC or any other entity, I would appreciate it if you could realize that we members are trying to make a difference. If you are so worried that we will shoot off in some direction that will hurt what you have worked for, as distastful as it might be to you, your help is being solicated, so if we go out and screw it up out of IGNORANCE, you will only have yourself to blame. Now for the numbers thing, even if they are wrong, and I dont know for sure, some seem to think so, the model of the CCA, and how it works intriges me. Todd if you had been a little less loud, and flaming there may have been a lot more members than today. Just imagine what you could do with those numbers of people behind you. Keith, the present direction of CCA can likly only help your business, and we can hope more fish for all someday. Regardless of how the numbers thing or your flames, there are many of us that will go on trying to make it better for all. Thats a spirit you should not be trying to kill. GO CCA Chuck G

THANK YOU BIG DADDY for a voice of reasonnnnnnnnnnnn

Irregardless CCA will move foreward and I'm not trying to stop that. Before I even think of becoming a member based on a BS story I would want to have a better understanding of one major question:

What direction will CCA take if and when they remove the gillnets? What will the states plans be due to this resolution? Will it affect hatchery plants in the future?

Keith

Keith thanks for saying something nice. I have no idea which way we will go, but with guys like you aboard and talking at the local chapter level and maybe at state board level, who knows, your knowlege is important, it will sway the decision of people like me. Each chapter will have input, and it will only be as good as the people behind it. I would like to do something to help, and I expect so do all the other members. As far as me personely, I would like to fish selectively and pass the natives onto the gravel. I do like to eat fish, and that wont happen in my lifetime if all we can fish for are natives. Maybe a few salmon, and for the moment one native steelhead on the penn streams. The broodstock thing seems to work on some oregon streams, and in canada. Bring your knowledge and help.......Thank You Chuck G