#549729 - 10/27/09 05:08 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: The Moderator]
|
Spawner
Registered: 10/26/02
Posts: 908
Loc: Idaho
|
The time that fall kings spend in any river habitat is minimal. Therefore they are effected less by the river habitat than a steelhead or coho, which may use the river for as much as 18 months. How many hours, days, months, weeks, years, does a salmonid EGG spend in the ocean??? If the habitat is degraded enough as to where the survivability fails at the egg stage, what does that leave you with? Doesn't really matter now if you have THE BEST ocean conditions EVER - if all those fish are failing to make new fish because the habitat is messed up, or getting messed up. Eventually, the habitat loss will catch up to the numbers. Or, keep the wool over you eyes and enjoy the fish now and in your lifetime, as your kid(s) can kiss them goodbye. Its the Ocean *now*, Stupid. Fixed that statement for you. No you didn't fix it for me. Here is the problem, everyone is looking for that perfect answer to fix salmon stocks. There isn't one, all factors are important. Looking at the historical data, Ocean conditions are the driving factor in salmon returns, habitat is a driving factor in maintaining some sort of population base. No habitat = no returns, marginal-to excellent habitat, ocean conditions dictate returns.
_________________________
Facts don't care about your feelings..
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549733 - 10/27/09 05:10 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: willametteriveroutlaw]
|
The Chosen One
Registered: 02/09/00
Posts: 13942
Loc: Tuleville
|
Here is the problem, everyone is looking for that perfect answer to fix salmon stocks. There isn't one, all factors are important. Looking at the historical data, Ocean conditions are the driving factor in salmon returns, habitat is a driving factor in maintaining some sort of population base. No habitat = no returns, marginal-to excellent habitat, ocean conditions dictate returns. I kinda thought that is what I was implying by the fix. I think we're on the same page......
_________________________
Tule King Paker 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549734 - 10/27/09 05:11 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: The Moderator]
|
Spawner
Registered: 10/26/02
Posts: 908
Loc: Idaho
|
Ah, ignorance is bliss.
Climate Change isn't real and I should have voted for Sarah Palin and that other old dude she was running with.
What was his name again? You'd know him, he was white.
Thats right, the Messiah is kicking ass and taking numbers with regards to saving the salmon... Oh wait, he just signed on with the previous administrations bullsh!t plan.
_________________________
Facts don't care about your feelings..
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549736 - 10/27/09 05:15 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
The Chosen One
Registered: 02/09/00
Posts: 13942
Loc: Tuleville
|
What I am saying is that habitat didn't take the runs out of of rivers that don't have habitat issuues. I'm not too sure anyone is disagreeing with that, as much as just having fun yanking your chain. There is and always will be dramatic oceanic cycles, varying from good to bad. We are in (or coming out of) bad and in to good. We should see run sizes increase. I don't think anyone doubts that. I will be shocked if we don't start seeing increased run sized due to increased favorable oceanic conditions. Look at the HUGE jack count on the Columbia? One of the main hypothesis of why a jack would return early is because of good ocean conditions. If that's true, we should see an ass-pot of adult springers next spring on the Columbia. Not too sure how this part of the thread got started. I thought we were talking about broodstocking on the Oregon rivers. Granted we are not oceanographers, but what I'm interested to know more if is the how/why our oceans changed so much recently. Is/was it just a cyclic event (yes, to a lot of degree), but is or was there a climate change issue at work here? I don't study oceans, so I don't really know. I'm tending to lean towards a natural oceanic cycle at this point and not the Al Gorefearmongering Climate Change idea. I'd think that would be more gradual......
_________________________
Tule King Paker
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549741 - 10/27/09 05:29 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3771
|
The real issue is a rivers carrying capacity, which is a cumulative sum of all the life history habitat, water quality, stream complexity, abundance of large woody debris, overwintering back channel alcove habitat, and estuary habitat.
When any one or a combination of these factors are degraded, then the overall carrying capacity goes down.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549745 - 10/27/09 05:42 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: ]
|
Spawner
Registered: 12/23/01
Posts: 913
Loc: gales creek, or
|
Jake, This is only one example, but the little north fork of the Wilson flows in at mills bridge. You should remember where that is, as we fished just above the bridge for steelhead two years ago. Anyway, the little river or creek has a smolt trap that counts smolt that outmigrate the stream. The numbers are staggering. It appears the adult fish are doing their part in making the little ones. You tell me what the next part to eliminate is.........maybe the Ocean. here ya go. http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/CRL/Reports/FinPro/tbnep99-3.pdfKeep in mind this little trib put out 1.2million fall chinook smolts on it's own in 1998. it is only one of many tribs that get fall fish from the wilson. There is data to shows that the river are putting out tons of smolt. Just look at how many the birds are eating in the Columbia.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549751 - 10/27/09 05:51 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
We have all of those things here in Oregon and Washington too Jake. Yet we have fall chinook returns to the Tillamook basin that marvel any. On good ocean conditions of course.
I'm not saying that habitat is not important. What I am saying is that habitat didn't take the runs out of of rivers that don't have habitat issuues.
If the Siletz was the only river in Oregon that was failing to get fish back into it, and every other river was doing good, then you could say that is a "river" problem. But............
Every river in the NW region that has Coho is doing great, yet the kings are bad(for the most part). So is the king habitat that bad? Or is the coho habitat that good?
Where did all the spring and fall chinook jacks come from? There are more over Bonny this year than ever in the history of the dam. Can you thank the improved habitat for that? God i hope not!
Did those smolts have such great food in the Ocean that they grew fast and healthy? you bet! Did they get to the Ocean in 2006 to find bath water? Not this time. They had all the stars alligned and got a burst of the best ocean conditions in years.
I want to know one thing. If our chinook runs turn 180 degrees, like I think will happen in 2010. Will all of you be giving credit to a healthy habitat?
the only thing that has varried so much in the last ten years for a salmon is the Ocean in which it grows. the habitat is very close to the same as it has been for 50 years, maybe even better now that they realized the importance of trees in the river. For the most part I agree here, we'll see some huge runs of salmon in 2010.......... The writing is on the wall....... Keith 
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549755 - 10/27/09 05:55 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3771
|
Jake, This is only one example, but the little north fork of the Wilson flows in at mills bridge. You should remember where that is, as we fished just above the bridge for steelhead two years ago. Anyway, the little river or creek has a smolt trap that counts smolt that outmigrate the stream. The numbers are staggering. It appears the adult fish are doing their part in making the little ones. You tell me what the next part to eliminate is.........maybe the Ocean. here ya go. http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/CRL/Reports/FinPro/tbnep99-3.pdfKeep in mind this little trib put out 1.2million fall chinook smolts on it's own in 1998. it is only one of many tribs that get fall fish from the wilson. There is data to shows that the river are putting out tons of smolt. Just look at how many the birds are eating in the Columbia. So the smolt migrate into the mainstem Wilson, then turn down river, where they encounter rip rapping, dikes and stabilized stream banks, the riparian zone from Mills Bridge to the mouth is nonexistent, now the smolt enter the estuary where there is zero cover, avian predators are now feasting on the smolt because all the structure has been removed from the bay. I think the problem is most folks don't really know anything about what habitat salmonics need to thrive, and your a classic example. You make your living from the resource, yet you don't even know the basic habitat requirements for a healthy stock.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549757 - 10/27/09 05:57 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
I get my candy from Todd
Registered: 08/13/09
Posts: 115
|
Wild steel appear in good numbers in december and still enter my favorite river into late april. Since the removal of big creek hatchery fish ( which are early returners like chambers creek junk stock) the early wild fish numbers have increased steadily. With wild broodstock programs, less smolts are planted than generic stocks and a much higher return rate occurs. Less smolts are needed to have good returns. So saying generic stocks are better because they don't return at the same time is a hoax. Also if less hatchery smolts need to be planted to get a decent return, the less the competion between hatchery and wild smolts for food and habitat in stream. Planting 50k wild broodstock smolt is far less impactful than planting 180k junk generic, poor returning chambers, big creek, alsea etc.. Trash strains. The wilson r. Program has it right. Come fish it if you don't buy it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549758 - 10/27/09 05:58 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
Eyed Egg
Registered: 10/27/09
Posts: 7
|
The real impact is created by the continued use of the hatchery stock in the recovery of the wild fish while using the wild fish for the hatchery stock. Not confusing at all to see why ODFW is trying to figure out what happened to their fish or should we say ours.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549761 - 10/27/09 05:59 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: ]
|
Spawner
Registered: 12/23/01
Posts: 913
Loc: gales creek, or
|
Magically return a river's habitat to where it was before we showed up and your going to see better returns even with continued harvest and the affects of ocean conditions.
This is present everyday in many places in BC and Alaska. So why are the runs of chinook in the tank in places like the Karluk, or the Togiak, or the Good News, how about the Arolik. These rivers have 0 habitat change in the last 100 years. Do you mind explaining how these rivers chinook returns have been hammered by poor habitat?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549771 - 10/27/09 06:10 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: kevin lund]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3771
|
You'd have to look at 20 or 30 years of population numbers to ascertain that they are indeed tanking, and not just reflecting the ocean conditions that are now poor.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549772 - 10/27/09 06:11 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: Illahee]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
You'd have to look at 20 or 30 years of population numbers to ascertain that they are indeed tanking, and not just reflecting the ocean conditions that are now poor. Mark my word.... All this bickering will be gone next year with what's in store... Chinook counts should be through the roof with most rivers up and down the Coast and Columbia, more than just the jack counts say so... If we can just keep the seine nets from going into the CR, we'd have it whooped.... Keith
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549779 - 10/27/09 06:24 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: ]
|
The Chosen One
Registered: 02/09/00
Posts: 13942
Loc: Tuleville
|
One big-ass glacier to cover all of Alaska, Canada, and Washington...... That would fix the habitat problems...eventually...when the ice melted..... IceAges. The end-all cure to our fish issues.
_________________________
Tule King Paker
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#549781 - 10/27/09 06:27 PM
Re: No North Umpqua Wild Steelhead Harvest WE WI
[Re: stlhdr1]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 305
Loc: Extreme Left of Center
|
You'd have to look at 20 or 30 years of population numbers to ascertain that they are indeed tanking, and not just reflecting the ocean conditions that are now poor. Mark my word.... All this bickering will be gone next year with what's in store... Chinook counts should be through the roof with most rivers up and down the Coast and Columbia, more than just the jack counts say so... If we can just keep the seine nets from going into the CR, we'd have it whooped.... Keith Don't Bogart that joint my friend...pass it over to me
_________________________
RELEASE WILD TROUT and STEELHEAD
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (SpoonFed, wolverine),
936
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11499 Members
17 Forums
72912 Topics
824737 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
