Ya but blaming other user groups is a lot more fun.
Besides politicians don't want to get involved in any redirecting of present land development.
But you could argue by what rights does a land owner have to negatively impact a river? Does he have the right to stabilize the river banks bordering his land?
Presently here in Oregon a land owner does indeed have that right.
That's why nothing ever happens, nobody wants to make the hard decision.
And fish recovery suffers because of it.

It has a fair return, nothing like it could be.

The Nehalem has other issue's just like other NC Oregon rivers.

I could care less about taking a fish home for dinner. That is why I am against taking wild fish from the gravel to make hatchery fish for dipshits that insist a good day fishing requires taking a fish home.

Kevin,

Yes, actually there is a Puget Sound river with an increasing salmon run that is totally out of proportion with other rivers in the area. All rivers had excellent pink salmon returns this year, but the White River, the major tributary of the Puyallup River is absolutely unreal. It had almost no pink salmon 10 years ago. Four cycles ago it had something like 13,000 pinks return, then 27,000 or so, then 30-some thousand, then 127,000, and then this year over 500,000 pinks returned. Why? Aside from it being an excellent pink year, it was habitat. The White River had the lower 21 miles dewatered from 1912 until 1986, when instream flows were increased, and then in 2004 when all natural flows were returned to the river as a hydro project was retired. Also, a fish killing valve at the flood control dam was replaced with a fish friendly passage through the dam, and a modern NMFS criteria fish screen replaced an old nearly non-functional so-called fish screen, and Tacoma Water removed and replaced its river crossing water line that formerly was buried in concrete that formed a dam that obstructed fish passage. Four habitat fixes and now the river has received more salmon in 2009 than in all the since 1947 to 2008. That's one thing habitat can do.

Sg

The upper Cedar River is also seeing increases in abundance of both Chinook and Coho without supplementation through hatcheries. Pointing to one factor or one run year and saying, thats the problem, or look there are tons of fish ultimately fall short as a means of understanding salmonid biology and population dynamics. Salmon are prone to broad fluctuations in abundance, but as a biologist I greatly respect once said, "freshwater habitat is the bankaccount" if you have a low balance you wont see much return even when things get good. Yes there is still productive habitat in many watersheds in the Northwest, but hatcheries ARE making much of it less productive than it otherwise would be. Even if they pursue completely contradictory policies NOAA, WDFW and ODFW all acknowledge this fact in writing. See the HSRG, WDFW hatchery and fisheries reform docs, and while I'm less familiar with the Oregon Literature I know it's there.

I can't keep repeating myself so at the risk of sounding like a broken record I will say it one more time...from year to year big changes in abundance are NOT driven by changes in the freshwater component of salmonid lifehistories, rather they're driven by changes in ocean conditions. From Sea Surface temperature, to upwelling strength to a whole host of other environmental variables, the amount of productivity in the coastal food web can fluctuate more 2 degrees of magnitude between years. Thats why we've had huge returns of Coho this year, but why returns may well tank next year (El Nino). Freshwater habitat, hatchery impacts and the like play out on a longer timescale generally meaning that the 10 year average adult return, and the longterm population trend are probably reflections of habitat condition.

The last thing to keep in mind is that many sport fisheries are almost entirely driven by hatchery production in the lower 48. That means that adult abundance is entirely decoupled from habitat condition, which is unfortunate because we pour alot of money into hatcheries when in the long run, in many cases we might see a greater return on our investment if we spent less money on supplementation and focused on habitat restoration. I suppose people are never really that patient though.

Sudden big changes yes but the gradual degradation of populations over as little as 5-10 years mean something is happening in the watershed itself.

Besides pollution,deforestation of upper watersheds and loss of habitat due to the construction of dams,tribal gillnetting and excessive commercial offshore netting hatcheries have done well to compromise the health of our steelhead runs. Now we are seeing evidence of hatchery interbreeding and the effects it is having on our wild fish stocks,what's left of them.

I say get rid of all hatcheries. I know it's not that simple but few things worth saving come easy. I have seen evidence of improving steelhead runs on several streams in california and the apparent recovery of some of these wild fish runs coincides with improving spawning habitat and the discontinuation of hatchery supplementation.


It makes no sense to deprive wild fish for their eggs in order to satisfy sport fishermen. These fish are too valuable and once a run is extinct the characteristics of that run and its genetic diversity are gone forever. You can't duplicate mother nature.

No river should be open to the retention of wild steelhead ANYWHERE.

if the numbers support it, why the hell not?

i don't believe in protecting fish just for the hell of it because you think they're somehow superior to other fish. that said, there sure as hell aren't any rivers left in this state with harvestable numbers, so don't allow a kill fishery.

That pretty much sums it up.

IMO, Simple math, 90% Broodstock = Turning wild fish into hatchery fish at the expense of wild fish. If broodstock program is used for recovery show me goals, critical success factor and timeline for program, oh and no bonk allowed if used for recovery. I would rather see the segregated apporach in moderation for hatchery steelhead rather than another broodstock program.

You can't blame netting on the coastal rivers of Oregon, how about taking advantage of that...

The numbers don't support it. Not anywhere in the lower 48 anyway. I don't think they are superior fish. I think wild salmon deserve the same treatment. Our rivers are in serious trouble. Finally we are seeing dam removal proposals being set into action(Sandy River). I would love to see the Klamath treated a little better. The gillnetting has to stop on that river. It is inconceivable that kind of thing is still allowed.


I guess also i just am not that crazy about eating river fish. Unless it's a springer.


You know I actually have to rat on myself a bit. I do think wild steelhead are superior to any other fish. When I land one,I want more than anything to see it swim off. The most beautiful creature that swims. It's why I fish.

..

i think we should be aiming for healthy runs that will allow some harvest

No native steelhead should ever be killed regardless of the health of a river. Boater the tool has so much to say, but nothing comes out when he moves his lips, just a bunch of jibberish. Can't have healthy rivers with gillnets boater. You along with tool time ripely speak out both sides of your mouth.

why not ?

Seriously?

Never figured you were the smartest tool in the shed, but MFG, that is the dumbest question of all time.

No river should be open to the retention of wild steelhead ANYWHERE. [/quote]


If a river can't sustain limited harvest, then it's not healthy.

If a river can't sustain limited harvest, then it's not healthy. [/quote]

Name one freespool.

you clearly dont know what your taking about.

Again....

Seriously!

Name one freespool.

[/quote]

Rogue.