If the removal of hatchery fish from the gene pool is the desired result, why wouldn't the use of excluder's at the dam and Willamette Falls work even better?
LCR tribs could adapt a more liberal sport bag limit, traps and weirs could remove even more hatchery fish.
This would achieve a lower level of hatchery wild interaction, and it wouldn't screw the LCR sport fishing fleet out of existence..

That would make sense if they knew they were actually passing true wild fish to co-mingle in the gene pool. How are they going to identify the true wild fish again?

Just the clipped one right?

Keith

Freespool,

Of course traps and state of the art fish sorting facilities at Bonneville and Willamette would work better. Facilities already exist at Cowlitz and will soon on the NF Lewis. Kalama Falls could be retrofitted. This would be consistent with ESA recovery, highest and best use conservation in the LCR, and responsible and intelligent fisheries management.

Keith's concern about unmarked hatchery fish is very small potatoes in the big pool of more serious fish conservation issues.

Sg

Thanks Salmo, and I agree totally.
And Keith has been shown the data on CR mark rates, he just doesn't believe it.

Looking back over this large thread the most glaring thing that sticks out is the unknown due to the fact of the tests being done and not knowing what to expect after that. The unknown seems to always conjure up the worst case scenario whether the world is flat and when you get to the end you will fall off to the CR with the use of selective live capture gear after testing will ruin sport fishing.
The CR long term strategic plan says that compromise will play a role for improved fisheries for both parties the sport and commercial and looking at the math there is no reason to believe that wouldn’t be the case.

Another interesting thought in this thread was taking the commercials off the main stem and putting into safe areas. When gill nets were tested in these areas there was a high ratio of sturgeon to target fish. The use of selective live capture to be used to catch hatchery salmon and release the sturgeon unharmed could be a possibility..

It should be interesting to see what the test result will bring this year.

WDFW, ODFW, and NOAA-F have had "long term strategic goals" talking about the recovery of all the ESA listed fish in the States, too, and how we won't need hatcheries any more once there are millions of wild fish returning again, and everyone will be happy...until then, short term economic benefits, political expediency, and outright denial of the facts of life will continue to rule the day...

Fish on...

Todd

what math are you looking at ?, and if you read "onthecolumbia`s" post on the last page i totally agree with him, common sense should tell you that if you look into the spring chinook fishery and check the numbers of hatchery spring chinook caught in it that the compromise would be coming from one place and that's the sports.

I can't believe my own eyes and have avoided commenting on this thread for some time.........finally someone making sense, Salmo G and amazingly Freespool...........Back your commercial trucks up to the sorting area's at Bonniville and the like and load up..........price of admission of course..........put up your nets

"Putting up their nets" is the ONLY solution that will provide better sportfishing AND more wild fish on the spawning grounds...employing the commercial industry to "help" is like employing Wile E. Coyote to feed your chickens.

Fish on...

Todd

What prevents the tribes from fishing the LCR.

Nothing is stopping them, however their present fishing methods wouldn't work on the LCR, where larger boats are needed to safely fish a much larger body of water.
FYI the Tribes have erected platforms at Willamette Falls and dip netted spring chinook, and they annually harvest Lamprey ells at the falls.

Lead Bouncer,

While tribal fishermen may fish the LCR, as far as I know, no treaty tribe has adjudicated (meaning approved by a federal court) fishing rights in the LCR as "usual and accustomed fishing area." That would prevent them from fishing in the LCR unless WDFW, ODFW, USFWS, and NMFS gives at least a tacit approval, as in failure to object implies consent.

Sg

you mean after the non-tribal commercials are banned from the lcr mainstem ?

Thanks SG


If the fish were removed at the bonneville ladder by the lower river commercials and no wild fish impacts resulted, what would the allocation be based on?

LB,

Allocation would be based on the forecasted return to coterminous US waters, same as they are now I presume.

Fish traps at Bonneville would not completely solve problems. Some number of hatchery fish need to be made available to the treaty fishery, and others need to go to non-treaty recreational in the mid-C, Snake, and terminal areas, and differing percentages of hatchery fish need to return as brood to their respective hatcheries of origin. I expect that even with the best of calculations and allocations some excess hatchery fish would still end up on natural spawning beds. However, the amount of control would be much greater than under current conditions. Near perfect would be having the treaty fish also harvested from traps at Bonneville and McNary.

That could work so well that ESA fish might even have a chance at recovery with the dams remaining in place.

Sg

If no wild fish die in a bonneville trap, who gets all the fish?

I would say that that would be a small formality on the part of the Tribes, to say they never fished below where Bonneville Dam now stands would be absurd.
Salmo, the Tribes have been dip netting and hook and line fishing just below the dam for a number of years now, which makes it clear that they can in fact fish the LCR is they so choose.

I can support this.

Did you really just say that?

Fish on...

Todd

Too easy.....

If no wild fish die, how are the allocations set.