Louie.. We might agree on something! If were going to list something there should be Zero take, but like has been posted here there's so many ways to take that it would be impossible. So now they will probaly set an impact rate and this should allow all user groups to battle for .0008 of this and that and point the finger at each other..Somehow I feel the games have started..

+ many, and precisely why I have maintained that we should focus on harvest and hatchery reform in the short term. Harvest first, as it is the one thing we can effectively and immediately affect. The changes associated with hatchery reform, though costly and probably a bit unrealistic, would likely be much more palatable to humanity than those associated with habitat restoration.

If limiting harvest doesn't help and hatchery reform is not feasible, we are all screwed. When the salmon are gone, the loss of fishing opportunity will be the least of our concerns, considering the dire effects that would have on the entire ecosystem.

For springers- likely true at least partially.

For URB's- that is completely BS. The habitat in the Reach can support about five times more spawners than the current (reduced) escapement target. Plenty of fish are entering the river mouth to meet the available spawning capacity. Yet the number spawning are not even meeting the reduced escapement targets for two or three of the last four years. That is NOT a habitat issue, it is harvest. And of course the number reaching the river mouth could be many times higher yet if they weren't overharvested in the ocean in Alaska and BC, another harvest issue.

Yes, there's also a habitat (and of course hydro) issue because with better dam operations, survival of eggs and fry in the Reach could be even better.

And although Todd (partially correctly) called out lack of food as a habitat issue, it is equally a harvest issue because the amount of food in the habitat is directly affected by the harvest rate. Of course the agencies and user groups are all determined not to let any of the fish get "wasted" on the riverbanks so they are always harvested to a level that keeps nutrients out of the river.

Bottom line is that all four H's are valid targets for improvement, and each of the H's is more or less of a factor for varying individual runs and locations. We need to quit trying to convince each other that everything except our own chosen pet targets are invalid.

Freespool, you are passionate about dams. I get that. I'm not trying to stop you from spending your energy on that issue. Would you please get a clue and stop trying to convince everyone that cares about harvest to stop caring? You're wasting your time which could obviously be better spent on pursuing dam removal. I happen to personally think it would be great to see the Snake River dams come down, but I choose not to spend my time pursuing that goal because it's not where my current passion lies and I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. But I wish you luck in pursuing your interests.

Just asking for some data that says harvest is a limiting factor for recovery.
So far we haven't seen any.

*ignore*

ditto

+1

"Over 75 percent of fisheries are already fully exploited or overfished. Scientists predict that at the current rates of fishing, all the world’s commercial fisheries will be exhausted by 2048".

I can't imagine I'll be around in 40 years but would someone younger reading this present Freespool with the last commercially caught fish as proof. I know he would need that fish certified since I know he couldn't take a hint that all the commercial fishing boat sitting at the dock was proof enough.

Starfish, there is a bunch of interesting information (probably not sufficient "data" though) about these URB populations. In a different post, I mentioned the fact that there are a tremendous number of unmarked hatchery fish that are returning to the reach that are credited to natural production that probably is not occurring. This would lead to an overestimate of the productivity of this spawning aggregate, which would in turn bring into question whether or not the current harvest regime is appropriate or not. To complicate the matter, there are plans for significant increases in hatchery programs for URB's. That in itself may not be a problem, however, in my opinion, the managers' harvest plans to deal with these additional hatchery fish are a major concern. In a nutshell, their plans are to increase the harvest rate on all URB's based on increases in the composite run size (natural + hatchery runs). These harvest rates could easily get to the 70% rate based on projections of increased run sizes from planned hatchery programs, not any increase in natural productivity. Anybody got any data that shows any local natural Chinook populations capable of being able to sustain 70% harvest rates? Anybody have any experience with what happens to natural populations when their harvest rates are based on aggregate natural and hatchery populations? I do. I bet Sg does, too.

You need any more listed populations to worry about Sg?

If in fact harvest is a factor for recovery on the CR, then there should be plenty of scientific data to show why it is.
So let's see some.

OncyT,

Ouch! That's alarming. I wasn't aware of the plans for increased hatchery URBs. My understanding, which I now know was faulty, was that URBs were the healthiest natural chinook population in the state. To the extent that the population is sustained by hatchery URB strays, that undermines the allegation. The Handford Reach is very stable, good quality chinook habitat, given the present ramping and flow fluctuation limitations on Priest Rapids, which is not to say that it couldn't be better. Nonetheless, that quality habitat coupled with good juvenile passage conditions at the four lower mainstem dams, could conceivably support an average harvest rate of nearly 70%. However, we know that hydrologic conditions at Priest Rapids varies, as do the juvenile passage conditions at the lower mainstem dams. Knowing this, increasing hatchery URB production and managing for a composite (integrated) population is highly likely to lead to exactly the condition of all the depressed, threatened, and endangered populations. On the surface, it looks like repeating exactly the mistakes made before, only knowing full well that a mistake is being repeated.

Oh this looks like fun! I've just been pulled into one of the mid-C relicensings. Further evidence that no good deed goes unpunished. So when does the LCR URB fishery become ad clip only? I may become a vegetarian yet.

Sg

Freespool,

While not the limiting factor, harvest is a contributing factor for ESA coho and chinook and chum. The harvest distribution data are the scientific evidence driving the changes in fishing seasons and regulations that OncyT refers to. You won't find it in a copy of Scientific American or even the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, but the data exist in the form of catch records and agency run reconstruction records. If the data didn't indicate that harvest is a contributing factor (different than being THE limiting factor), then there would be no basis for changing harvest regimes. And harvest regimes for the mentioned species have changed a lot.

Sg

Actually Sg, if they marked all the hatchery releases, ad-only retention might not turn out so bad. BTW Sg, NMFS has already pointed out the problem with the proposed harvest rates on URB's. The managers basically said "thanks for your comments" since the ESU is not listed. (Yet?) This kinda stuff doesn't end up in status reports either. Crazy!

we have lost about 90 percent of the habitat on the columbia are so saying that the runs crashed because they are over fished ?

OncyT,

True. That could maintain a high harvest rate on hatchery URBs while relaxing the take on wild ones. I'm imagining a disparity however, wherein the recreational fishery subsidizes the commercial fishery by fishing selectively while the gillnet fleet takes hatchery and wild, co-mingled. What do you think?

Sg

And the last special interest group to push this harvest as a recovery tool were the dam operators and aluminum producers.
The same group of lobbyists now working for a new fish advocacy group.
I suspect that this same group of lobbyists had something to with originally making harvest one of the H's.
For what ever reasons harvest didn't have any effect on recovering the wild steelhead, yet we now see leverage to continue this failed policy.

Most of the CR reviews I have seen say that the CR salmon were already crashing before the dams went in. The dams jst put really big nails in coffin that was already being tacked closed.

Yep and the LCR stocks crashed as well, and in spite of 25 years of no steelhead harvest, no stocks have recovered.
So why would this failed recovery policy work now?

Freespool,

I'm not sure I understand you. It appears that because harvest is not THE proximate cause, or THE limiting factor affecting salmon and steelhead recovery, you want us all to agree that harvest is not a factor at all. That simply isn't the case. Harvest is one contributing factor, just not the main one.

All causes of mortality are factors affecting the rate of egg to adult recruitment. But some factors are far more significant than others. And some factors are natural factors beyond our control. And some factors are human induced, but easier or harder to control, depending on the specific attributes of the situation. Any source of mortality that can be reduced will help to some degree to contribute to recovery. If harvest is one the sources of mortality, and it is reduced, then that amount of reduced mortality contributes to recovery by increasing the number of adult recruits.

We have seen wild steelhead harvests reduced to extremely low levels, but the runs have not recovered. That doesn't mean that the former harvest rates were not a factor affecting the populations. It means that harvest wasn't the only factor, and wasn't the limiting factor. But it should be clear that without the harvest restrictions, those threatened populations would be in even greater jeopardy.

Similarly, the reduced harvest rates on LCR tule chinook, is highly unlikely to recover those populations IMO, because the small tributary habitat of those fish is trashed pretty bad. And elimination of harvest will increase escapements somewhat, but won't recover the runs because egg to smolt survival won't be high enough. However, that doesn't mean that harvest is not a factor. Again, it means that harvest, while a contributing factor, is not the proximate cause (at this time). Harvest probably was the proximate cause in initially depleting those runs because of the high hatchery production and the high harvest rates applied to both hatchery and wild chinook alike, causing the wild runs to decline. At the same time, society was trashing the tributary watersheds with heavy logging and road building such that under current conditions, those populations won't recover, not due to over-fishing, but because the habitat is now the limiting factor.

If this seems complicated, it's only because it is.

Sg

These are ecoSYSTEMS. Steelhead were abundant because salmon were abundant because water was abundant because trees were abundant and mature because................

Stopping SH harvest fixes one problem but until you allow more salmon to spawn, until the riparian zones recover, and so on.

It should be obvious that the solution to salmon recovery is complex. The problem is that it is so complex that no one factor is responsible. It allows each "user" tp say it is them and not me.

I know that I push for increased salmon escapement as a solution. But, if we don't maintain stream flows, restore floodplains, fix the estuaries, and so on we will never get recovery; just keep the populations arouind as museum pieces.