i agree 100 percent.

Let’say for the sake of argument that I agree with the statement above.
After reading what has been written in this thread how can you both still agree that
“the only benefit of LCR commercial selective fishing is more commercial harvest”?

http://www.cbbulletin.com/393123.aspx

“It is estimated that standard mesh gill-nets cause a post release mortality of 30 percent for steelhead and 30 percent for spring chinook salmon. The estimates for smaller mesh tangle nets are 14.7 percent for spring chinook and 18 percent for steelhead. In the fall the estimated steelhead mortality is 66 percent when gill-nets with 8-inch mesh are deployed and 59 percent with 9-inch mesh.”

Apparently you two could care less about steelhead, but for those of us that do care included those that live in Idaho, this is what it would mean.

Non treaty commercials have to release steelhead. In the worst case scenario in the fall that would be for every 1000 steelhead gill netters release as bycatch--- 660 would die and 340 would live.
In the spring with standard gill net gear those numbers would be --700 would live and 300 would die per 1000.

An added benefit fishing selective gear would be if at 1% speculative (since that number hasn’t been established yet) ---10 would die and 990 would live out of 1000 released.

So between 1% & 5% selectively caught = 10 to 50 would die selectively per 1000--- VS--- 300 spring gill netting or 660 fall gill netting per 1000 steelhead released.

That represents a large differential between selective gear and gillnets.

Other bycatch like sturgeon would benefit as live capture and released by selective gear methods also.

We could have used real numbers to figure this out if the gill netters hadn't allegedly cooked the books .

LL, why dont you post a document that says they are not going to use gillnets anymore in the main stem columbia after the selective gear is developed ??

It would shock me if gillnets went anywhere any time soon in the LCR...

Keith

SW,

There might be, but I'm not coming up with much off the top of my head. If there is a case where wild chinook or coho are co-mingled with far more abundant hatchery salmon of those species, then yes. But in the cases that I can think of where that usually occurs, the commercial harvest is by treaty fisheries, which so far seem resistant to selective harvest methods.

As for Gray's Harbor/Chehalis, I don't know what limits the commercial fleet (including treaty), because it doesn't seem to be the availability of surplus production, this year being the slight exception.

Sg

LL,

As a many decades-long steelhead fly fisherman, I do care about steelhead, especially those wild ESA listed ones that are Snake River and Idaho bound. I think one flaw in what I make of your position is that you assume if the commercial fleet fishes selectively, they will no longer gillnet. There is zero evidence of any such plan. Anyway, the selective gear being tested isn't very efficient or selective, except relative to gillnets. This is largely why I think it is beyond time to eliminate the obsolete LCR gillnet fishery and replace it with state-of-the-science traps at Bonneville fish ladders. Such facilities have 98 to 99% survival rate, and would truly be selective. All this make-believe selective fishing research crap on the LCR is like putting a bandaid on an aortic hemorrhage.

Thank you Salmo.

So if I am reading you correctly it would only make sense to have selective harvest in an area that consisted of co-mingled species with an abundance of hatchery fish as compared to wild. I assume the reason for this is what Todd detailed in a previous post about hooking 10 wild fish to bonk your 2 hatchery fish and why we had the ability to harvest wild coho in Grays Harbor this year. That sorts out the sporties but I have a question about the commies.

If the ultimate goal of the wild retention rule in GH is to lessen the impacts on wild fish then what of the impacts of gillnets in the Harbor? Wouldn't the wild vs. hatchery catch rates of the commies lean heavily towards wild and ultimately mitigate any of the potential benefits of the sport policy?

Does anybody out there know what the commercial fleet in GH is limited by?

Doc maybe you could chime in on this one?

Sorry if I am behind the curve here, just trying to come away with a better understanding.

SW,

Yes, it would, but a sizable surplus of wild coho was forecast, so the commercial fleet is reasonably entitled to a share of those (under present policy and law). If it were Puget Sound, when reported catches approached the allocation, no more open fishing periods would be scheduled. In Gray's Harbor, it seems like a fishing schedule is adopted, and then they stay with it regardless of catch. Doc's probably got the records on this, however.

Sg

[/quote]

I believe your reference to "it" is the CR correct? I imagine that all commercial in-river fisheries are not based on an ESA take quota correct? None of my above posts have been about any specific fishery.

My larger point KD is why do we focus our energy on selective vs. non-selective when the ESA policies and regulations (or lack of adherance to) seem to be a major obstacle to recovery?

Many of you seem to think that eliminating the non-treaty commercial fishing industry will solve these problems. As someone already noted above, do you think that treaty tribes are just going to let those fish available for harvest swim upstream? Especially when there is a market for the product? IMO you guys are dreaming. [/quote]

I definitely understand, and share, in the frustration factor.
My take on the situation is that there are too many moving parts, relating to ESA fish, treaty tribes, the states, and all the habitat/dam/carrying capacity issues (and whatever I missed) and we are not going to solve this in the near future.

I think it will take a 50 year effort, at least, to revisit the way we handle distressed fish populations (ESA) , the Boldt decision, the state directed mandates, because right now it is all driven by competing interests with no particular overall strategy. As it stands now, the predictable outcome is more of the same. We may not change these elements in the near future but this patchwork piece is wearing out, it's broken, and we need to start over.

Change the way ESA fish are handled. If using more selective methods allows more harvest, so be it, just allow reccies their share. And let more ESA fish survive to restore the runs.

Change the dams to allow more fish to do their spawny thing.

Put a set back on the rivers and jump over creeks so they do the filtering, shade, and habitat part the way designed.

Change the way treaty rights are fulfilled to be in keeping with current times. We don't live in 1850. Mono nets and casinos are modern items.

Change the management strategy of the states to have healthy water eco systems, not just lots of hatchery fish to catch, but healthy systems.

(FWIW, I don't think hatchery fish are as much a problem as some here think, I think the fish would figure it all out just fine. These river basins have been repopulated a number of times after natural disasters, e.g. Missoula floods, so I think they could figure it out again if we don't kill them all first)

Thanks,

if they were not a problem and reproduced succesfully in the wild do you think we would have any esa listed salmon populations ?

ODFW and the BPA are looking at fish passage issues on several high flood control dams on the Willamette River basin.
These dams block ancient spring chinook spawning redds, fish passage would make these spawning beds available to reintroduced naturally spawning springer stocks.
ODFW has experimented with putting excess hatchery springer over the dams, what happened shocked many who thought that either the fish wouldn't spawn, or the fry would assimilate in the impoundment, and become trout creel.
These fish did indeed spawn on the ancient redds, and smolt outmigrated through the dam turbines, and then returned in numbers no one ever expected.
Getting smolt to bypass the turbines is being addressed in central Oregon at Lake Billy Chinook, where a new fish passage concept is showing sign of success at attracting smolt away from the dams turbines.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Fall_2010_newsletter.pdf


Pay attention to page 7..I'm hearing NMFS might be stepping into the mark selective fishing fray with their own set of management numbers..Also a good shot of the GM salmon compared to a natural one of the same age.

Good question. I think that given enough time and development of some selfsustaining run people would just figure "problem solved." I think the state and fed govs don't want to spend any more money on sustaining any more runs than they have to.

Sg's comment about chinook in the Willamette system are interesting. The McKenzie, off the Willamette, has been thought to have the last "Native" run of Chinook in the system, but I have been told the genetics are mixed now and we have some "wild" fish mixed in with the hatchery fish.

It's about the same with most all salmon in the CR basin isn't it?

Keith

A fishing pole makes you a expert fisherman, it doesn't make you a fisheries expert.
To learn about fisheries science you need to read a lot of research, it doesn't have anything to do with how long you have been an angler.
Fish genetics are not like any mammals, when wild and hatchery breed, virtually nothing returns, and if any do return, few if any of their offspring return.
Hatchery genes don't survive in the wild, so it's not a watered down gene pool that's the problem, but all those black holes created in the spawning beds.

what do you think of this project ?

http://www.prlog.org/10411958-local-fish...-northwest.html

I'll take a pass on this. I understand both sides of the discussion but know there are lots of very well read individuals who disagree markedly on this issue.

Some hatchery fish are good at it...some are marginal...some really suck, bad...

The worse thing about the bad ones (Chambers Creek steelhead being the absolute worse) is that they spawn with wild fish and take the wild fish contribution to the next generation out of the system as assuredly as a gillnet or fish bonker.

Others, like winter steelhead broodstock programs, typically take fish out of the system to make a smaller amount of fish than if they just left the wild fish in the river to do their thing...and those fish are harvestable...double whammy.

Fish on...

Todd

Keep telling yourself that, sooner than later you'll believe it....

I took your advice and did some reading, used the Cowlitz river as an example....

Historically, hatchery broodstock have been mostly native Cowlitz fall Chinook. However, four non-native plants of juvenile Chinook occurred between 1951 and 1981, including Toutle, Kalama, Big Creek, and Bonneville stocks. Broodstock is collected from volitional returns to the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery. This is an integrated harvest program, and some natural-origin fish may be inadvertently collected for broodstock, but the level is unknown since the marking/tagging level of the hatchery release does not allow the identification of natural-origin fish. Incubation and rearing occurs on-station at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery.

Inbred? Hmmm, help me understand.... Seeing how it's been of recent years that they're getting around to clipping 100% of hatchery fall king releases, how do you really know?

Stock status was rated Depressed in 2002, because of chronically low escapements. Natural spawning abundance is more a reflection of the size of returns to the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery and stray rates than of natural production.

No genetic analysis has been done on naturally-spawning Cowlitz fall Chinook. Allozyme analysis of Cowlitz Hatchery fall Chinook sampled in 1981, 1982 and 1988 showed that they were similar to, but distinct from, Kalama hatchery fall Chinook and distinct from all other Washington Chinook examined (WDF and WDW 1993, SaSSi 2002).

How do you really know?

Keith

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/30/Mitchell-Act-salmon-hatcheries-Columbia-River/


Wouldn't worry, after this turnout NMFS wouldn't dare cut lower river hatchery stocks..