: Commerial Take of Wild Steelhead to be Increased!
01-15-2004, 12:46 AM
FYI, If this does not outrage you, I don't know what will, The Wild Steelhead Coalition just got a from RFA, notifying us that they had just heard that WDFW is asking NOAA Fisheries for an allowable ESA impact on Col. R. ESA Steelhead of 5-7%, up from last year's 2%.Please take the time to write and call the appropriate people.
Also taken from piscatorial pursuits:
OK guys, here's a post that Silver Hilton posted on I-fish. It's got a link so you can find your local pols, and a sample letter that you can copy and paste. Lets each spend 10 minutes making it happen.
posted 01-13-2004 07:22 PM
I sent the following note to my legislators today, and to several of my friends, asking them to do the same. We can still make some noise on this side of the border, should we choose.
I'd like to ask that you each write your state congressmen. I have taken the steps to make it easy. First, go here and figure out who your representative is http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx
Then, select the member and send them the following e-mail, or something similar.
See, easy! It will take you just minutes, and may help our fishing.
Clip below here.
I am writing to ask for your support in the area of the Columbia River Spring Salmon Fishery. In the next few weeks, Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife will be deciding how to allocate the catching of Columbia River Spring salmon between sport and commercial fishermen. While the run this year is expected to be fairly strong, the season will likely be restricted for the sport fishermen, due to impacts on wild salmon that run at the same time as the hatchery salmon. The catch is allocated between sport and commerical fishermen, based on their estimated impact to wild fish. Both groups must let wild fish go, but some percentage of the wild fish will die due to handling. The sport catch mortality rate on these released fish has historically been 10% or less, and sport fishermen may be required to use certain handling procedures that will reduce this catch further. The mortality on wild bycatch by gill netters using tangle nets is 18%. The wild fish are anticipated to be about 30% of the overall run. Neither group can avoid catching wild fish - fishing by either group impacts the wild fish. However, sports fishing is almost twice as efficient as commercial fishing in harvesting the hatchery salmon within the Endangered Species Act guidelines.
Currently, proposals are on the table to allocate the impacts between sport and commercial fishermen 50-50, or possibly 45% commercial, and 55% sport. I'd like you to persuade the Washington State personnel engaged in this decision, specifically, Dr. Jeff Koenings, Director, Washington Fish And Wildlife Commission, Bill Tweit, Columbia River Policy Lead and Cindy LeFleur, Columbia River Harvest Manager, to allow a greater percentage of this catch for sport fishers. Dr. Koenig is at 360 902 2947, Mr. Tweit is at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia WA 98501 - (360) 902-2723. Ms. LeFleur is at 2108 Grand Boulevard, Vancouver 98661 - (360) 906-6708.
Based on past history, this impact will require the sport season to be restricted sometime in mid april, right at the peak of the run. This is disastrous for sport fishermen, as the weather is just getting nice and the fishing just getting good when the season will be restricted.
It makes sense to allocate the catch more to sports fishermen for several reasons:
1) There are simply vastly more sport fishermen. Tens of thousands of sports anglers will pursue these fish, while there are only about 200 commercial fishermen.
2) Sports angling is more efficient in harvesting the hatchery salmon, in terms of the impact on the wild fish that occurs in catching fish. By allowing commercial harvest, we are in effect wasting a certain number of hatchery salmon that could have been caught by the sport angler. These fish will go unharvested.
3) The sports fishermen contribute much more to the economy per fish caught and per fishing day than the commercial fishermen do. The economic impact of sportfishing for salmon dwarfs the commercial gain from gillnetting. The commercial harvest is currently estimated to bring about $1,800,000 into the economy. Sportsfishers, on the other hand, spend an average of $100 a day for fishing. On a busy saturday in April, there will be 2000 boats fishing for salmon, with 2 to 4 people fishing. That is an estimated revenue impact of $600,000 a day. Three days of sports fishing will equal the economic impact of the entire commercial season.
4) These fish are raised to be caught. There is a large group of people that would like opportunities to catch them. Shutting down the sport fishery, which will certainly happen unless the allocation is modified, will reduce the opportunity for many people to catch these fish.
5) Finally, the commercial fishermen have been resistant to improving their catch methods to reduce mortality in the wild fish bycatch. Giving them 50% of the wild fish kill quota rewards them for not improving their catch methods and recovery tank usage.
We realize that the commercial fishermen feel vested in the fishery, and have a traditional stake there. However, in these days of declining resources, adjustments need to be made, and it is time to allow the sports fisher more access to this resource.
Please contact the state personnel shown, and ask them to weight the sport fishery more heavily in the catch allocation. We ask for a 70% Sport, 30% Commercial allocation.
01-15-2004, 01:56 AM
You have me and others confused on this one. Are these two items linked? I think you are calling for a protest of the proposed Columbia River salmon fishery (tangle tooth net???) becasue of the impact on steelhead stocks which also happen to be ESA listed. Is this right? And are you also reporting that WDFW and ODFW are arguing that allowable steelhead bycatch should be raised above the 2% current rate? If I decode correctly, then yes, this does tick me off. That fishery needs to be shut down plain and simple.
If I didn't decode it correctly, please clarify.
Either way, thanks for the update. You and the WSC are our eyes and ears. Keep up the good work.
01-15-2004, 02:27 AM
I assume you are talking about WDFW increasing the allowable by-catch of wild upriver Columbia steelhead (i.e. Snake, Grand Ronde, Entiat, Wenatchee, Methow, Yakima, and Okanogan stcck).
If so, like Sinktip, this really makes my blood boil! NOAA will not allow the Wenatchee be opened or even consider it being opened for C&R for another 4 years because of the very low mortality in a C&R fishery, which they call unacceptable. Yet, the info you posted indicates that it is OK with them and WDFW to have far more of the upriver Columbia steelhead killed by the commercial salmon netters than would ever be killed in a C&R fishery. All so a few commercial salmon netters can use more efficent nets and thus catch more fish in a shorter time. AARGG!!!!!
If I am wrong on this, please clarify.
It's about time we went to selective commercial fishing methods, like weirs and traps especially on dammed rivers like the Columbia where it would be relatively easy. The information gathered would be valuable, virtually no wild fish would be killed, and the costs of the 200 commercial fishermen would be reduced creating dramatically increased margins. Tens of thousands of fishermen should use their clout to buy out the 200 commercial fishermen and keep the gill nets out for the inaugural season, coordinating with biologists to measure the impact on the runs, using that data to move toward selective commercial fishing techniques (above) to help get things rolling the first year.
Hatchery fish of premium quality could be culled into shaved ice bins at traps near ladders without affecting native strains or protected species, producing a more efficient harvest and a better product for consumers. The profit margin over running a 30,000 boat and managing nets, paying crew, etc - would be ridiculously improved, thus yielding higher $$. Any difference in profitability after allocation to existing commercial interests could even be used to fund the phase-out program further, or else given to the commercial interests to make them like the approach better themselves (more money, less work).
The problem would be allocation of these fish / rights to the 200 commercial anglers. My suggestion would be a lottery system available only to grandfathered commercial anglers granted within peak return times. They'd all get a shot, but days would be granted in a lottery.
Native American interests would be required to abide by these rules as well.
It would be different, but it would yield a higher profit margin, a better quality product, and virtually eliminate by-kill.
If only I were king... :)
01-15-2004, 01:34 PM
that's a dirty word,for sure,i've spoken with a long since retired commercial fisherman,,,,he got out in the eighties,,he stated they just threw the `unwanted',,,add whatever here;cutthroat,coho,over the side,,since it was illegle to bring them in,,it bothered him then,guess it still haunts him,,a lot of dynamics on the fishery there,,since some of those fish run way upriver,,what's the best way to come up to speed on info,?,i thought the state was buying out most of the commercial guys,at least in ore.???,,it's not like people don't eat,,but,,,,,,i try and `keep the faith',,,,with the `experts',,,,fish,n' game,,,,that's their `business',,wasn't the fishery closed offshore for,springers,upriver brights ,about three years back altogether?
01-15-2004, 02:06 PM
As an ex-commercial fisherman myself, PS gillnetter for 12 years, I question the fellow you talked to. Bycatch of steelhead, coho, kings is rare, at least by Puget Sound gillnetters. I never caught a cutt. Many factors involved, wrong time of year, mesh size, etc. We still would get something once in awhile. Not sure what type of gear your guy was fishing but for me when I got a steelhead or some other fish that I wasn't supposed to have it went home with me. The only thing I would throw overboard would be trash fish like rats and such. Spent some time sieneing and we would cook up anything like a steelhead for dinner. Still it was rare to get one even in a purse siene. I don't think steelhead mingle much with salmon.
Not sure what to think about the increase in bycatch percentages. Need to learn more. If this is indeed mostly about the Columbia River fisheries I can see where there would be more of a problem with bycatch.
01-15-2004, 02:48 PM
Apologize about the confusion, I was in a hurry last evening and just wanted to get some info out. There is a request out to raise the incidental commercial fishing kill on ESA listed wild steelhead from 2% to 7% for the upcoming commercial spring chinook fishery on the Columbia River.
This whole tangle net fishery has been a fiasco for up river endangered wild steelhead as well as depressed runs on the lower columbia tributaries. As soon as I know more I will post it.
This is a note I recieved from Dick Burge our VP of Conservation.
Guys---I just got an e-mail from Trustee Jim Tuggel on the subject. It will come up at the F&W Commission meeting/hearing in Olympia this Friday and Sat. The request is for a 7% incidental kill on listed wild steelhead!
Some of these fish are threatened and others are endangered (in other words--some are near extinction). They may never recover if this type of mortality continues. We shouldn't be killing
a single one in a commercial net fishery let alone the allowed 2% or this new and unbelievable number of 7%.
Maybe it's time to get every sportfisher from Oregon and Washington together for a march on the capital. It's time the Gov. know that we are getting fed up with this BS.
I'm sure our F&G employees like Bob Gibbons will think we couldn't do it. Wanna make a bet!
THE TIME IS RIGHT.
01-15-2004, 04:22 PM
the man said he ran out of either brookings or crescent city,got out when the economy went in the toilet ,about 81,,that's all i know?????
01-15-2004, 05:18 PM
Thanks for clarifying that it is a proposal by the commercials and not something that NOAA or WDFW has agreed to, yet. However, this is still an important issue and we sportfishers need to make out voices heard to the politicians in Olympia to stop this lunacy.
I like your idea, tell us where to meet. Gibbons needs a wake up call!
I agree with you on Puget Sound. Bycatch is very low indeed, anyway that's what the records show. But on the Columbia we have wild Steelhead and the Chinook entering the river at the same time.
I for one would much rather see the commercials having a season with tight restrictions. The only alternative is aquaculture and that is a dead end road for our wild Steelhead and wild Chinook. The tangle net is a loooooooser but you won't get the state or feds to admit to it. Sometimes ideas that seem good at the begining are not so good when put into action and that's the tangle net. Even if they perfect the tangle net it won't work, anyone who has been a commercial knows that time is money and you will never see a commercial taking the time to use a tangle net properly. The time has come for fish traps and let the commercials have their 25% of Columbia River hatchery fish, sport fishermen their 25% and the natives their 50% of MSY. That is fair and it is law. Trap fishing would mean the release of all wild fish.
Anyone have any expertise on this???
01-15-2004, 08:58 PM
FYI, From the WSC VP of Political Affairs-
Here are more pieces of contact information to use...and use often and immediately!
1. Bob Lohn, Reg. Admin., NOAA Fisheries
7600 Sand Pt. Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
To send comments electronically, go here:
NOAA Fisheries Comments
2. Dr. Jeff Koenings, Dir. WDFW
Natural Resources Bldg.
1111 Washington St.
Olympia, WA 98501
600 Capital Way
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
3. Lee Van Tussenbrook, Reg. 5 Director
Cindy LeFleur, Col. R. Harvest Manager
2108 Grand Blvd.
Vancouver, WA 98661
4. WDFW Commission
This whole "tangle net" fishery is a joke to begin with...the encounter rates of wild springers and wild steelhead was unacceptable to begin with when it was set at 2%. This will just increase both the encounter and mortality rates for several runs of fish listed either as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
At the risk of sounding naive, or perhaps idealistic, this is yet another opportunity for all sportfishers and conservationists to get together and do something good.
I can't help but think that the only reason the powers that be think they can get away with this is that we have shown an insurmountable ability to find any reason whatsoever to splinter ourselves into politically weak fragments.
I urge all of us to encourage the cooperation of all the various fishing and conservation groups in this endeavor, and to not let sniping and disagreements about other issues color the fact that this will require us all to be on the same page, or business as usual will continue.
01-16-2004, 12:47 AM
FYI, From the WSC VP of Political Affairs, Here's your chance to get involved!
As many, or all, of you know, WDFW has requested that NOAA Fisheries approve a THREE-FOLD increase in allowable mortality on wild ESA listed steelhead in the Columbia River for the non-tribal commercial "tangle net" spring chinook fishery. If approved, this allocation of mortality will be set in stone for the next three seasons.
The request is to up the allowable from last year's 2% to 5%-7% for the next three seasons.
I doubt that there's anyone among you who think that the 2% was acceptable to begin with, and the requested rates are triply unacceptable.
In an effort to ramrod the process, the request was made public just yesterday, the one and only WDFW hearing on the request will be Saturday, and the decision is reportedly slated to be made during the week next week.
First, I'd encourage everyone to not only go down to the hearing Saturday, but to encourage everyone else you know to do it, too.
For my part, I have a van that can seat myself and seven others, and I plan on driving it down. Anyone from the Seattle area that wants to go with me is welcome, until the van is full, of course. All I would ask is that everyone kick in $5 to cover the gas.
We could spend the hour, hour and a half, strategizing and pooling our information and resources to present some sort of a unified front. The more folks representing the most groups, the better.
Thanks, everyone, and please forward this to any lists or BB's that you would like to make sure that my van is full and that the freeway is full of others driving down there. We really need to take it to 'em on this.
The meeting is at 10 am at the Natural Resources Building in Olympia, 1111 Washington Street.
I can be reached at 425-281-0571, or at firstname.lastname@example.org .
VP Political and Legal Affairs
Wild Steelhead Coalition, http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com
01-16-2004, 09:54 AM
Am I correct in assuming that WSC also finds that even a 2% impact by the combined sport fisheries to also be unacceptable. Does that mean that even a 1% hooking mortality (1/2 of 2%) in sport fishing would also be unacceptable?
Think that you'll have a tough row to hoe if the sport community isn't willing to accept the same standards for itself. Reserving what minimal inpacts that are allowed to just a sport fishery makes sense to us anglers I suspect that issue is even more complex than that given the mandates of the various State and Federal agencies. For example in managing such fisheries NMFS must consider conflicting policy or directions. The top two directions are ESA and Treaty concerns (unclear to me which has the highest priority), next in line would the direction from the Magunson act (maintance of viable fisheries).
You know that isn't what was being said. It is my understanding that the 2% impact is 2% of the total run. So if the run was 100 fish that the now acceptable kill rate on that run would be 2 fish. You know it isn't 2% mortality on one fish. So the commercial fisherman would have to take about 11 fish to get 2 dead one (18-19% mortality). And yes I know that sports fisherman have an impact too. Sport fisherman would have to release around 30 fish to kill their 2 fish (5-10% mortality). Who has an easier time taking there "allowable" number of wild fish to reach the allowable limit of dead fish?
It is also my understanding that between 30 and 50 of the fish these nets catch are wild fish and have to be released. I am sorry the impact is pretty huge and this fishery is hurting more then helping.
I personally would say yes 1% total impact would be better. But I speak for myself. And yes I know it would limit sport fishery too.
But why is the state asking for NOAA to increase the acceptable rate to 5-7%? So the commercial boats get a longer season.
01-16-2004, 02:29 PM
Are the affected fish (steelhead) the late winter componet of Lower Columbia Tribs. Specificly the Cowlitz and Lewis?
Could this be another negative impact of Hatchery production, lots of fish (King Salmon) from hatchery production so we must Harvest to get our share so the Treaty fishers won't be burdened with the job of Harvesting our share under "Foregone Oppurtunity?
01-16-2004, 04:30 PM
This Columbia River tangle net fishery is even more maddening because it is a situation with what could be a win-win solution with extremely selective fisheries. If the commercials adopted 100% selective techniques (like traps or fish wheels) they could use their full allocation of hatchery fish, advertise like crazy about how selective and sustainable their approach is, and deliver the highest quality fish to market imaginable. They could extend the "fresh fish" season by simply keeping fish in the traps until they were ready to sell 'em. With a good marketing campaign those fish might even command "copper river king" prices, or at least something close. The people taking part in that fishery could surely up their income and buy a lot of support from sportsfishers by giving up the netting and ESA bycatches.
Maybe they simply like the fact that they have the political influence to ram this through. This is a great opportunity to tell the legislature, WDFW, and NOAA that there is a political cost in treating lower Columbia commercials as their sacred cows.
Howzer now you are thinking outside the box we should have none of that. :hehe:
This could be a win-win situation. But unfortunately a lot of people don't see it that way.
The state knows they can't do this with a 2% limit is my understanding as they know the commercials have a much bigger impact then that. So they just move the bar to make this fit the model. Would it be against everyone's beleif to change the fishery to a non-gillnet fishery or god forbid close it down completely. Which is a better solution?
01-16-2004, 07:55 PM
With pre-season predictions calling for a really large return, it seems crazy to just "nudge" up the allowable bycatch in order to get a bit more of the springer harvest when they could really up their take by going to traps and fish wheels.
These guys don't appear to be thinking about maximizing their economic returns. Instead, they are showing great skill at maximizing the anger of sportsfishing and conservation groups. I'm all for a full-utilization of the hatchery spring chinook returns. Who wants those tasty fish stacked up at the hatchery racks turning black? Okay, I'll quit now because I'm sounding a lot like a broken record...
01-16-2004, 08:10 PM
Check this out...this comes straight from the horse's mouth, with his permission to use both his name and his assessments in public.
I just got off the phone with Dan Rawdings, Region 5 Anadromous Fish Biologist. His assessment is as follows:
The combination of impacts from a commercial fishery that takes 5-7% of ESA listed steelhead, combined with the small but measurable sportfishing cnr mortality, will likely put the Toutle River wild winter run steelhead in JEOPARDY.
In this case, "jeopardy" means pushed beyond the point where they could recover.
This assessment was made when he was requested to comment on Oregon's Biological Assessment in regard to the increased commercial ESA impact.
This information was furnished to WDFW on 12/30/03.
Exactly how serious is WDFW about recovering wild steelhead stocks in SW Washington? I think that stuff like this speaks for itself.
WDFW is really serious about it, unless it impacts the ability to have economically viable commercial fisheries without having to make the commercial fishers more selective in their harvest of listed fish.
Maybe I'm being too cynical...am I missing something?
01-16-2004, 11:30 PM
01-17-2004, 01:01 AM
I clearly understand the 2% is on the total run. My comments regarding the 2% being unacceptable centers around the outrage when that sort of impact occurs during a commerical fishery but when the same 2% impact on an ESA listed wild run is allowed in a sport fishery (for example the recent steelhead fishery on the Methow which had the same 2% impact cap) the same folks seem welcome the fishery. Am I the only one the sees this as a double standard?
The above comments does not mean that I endorse or even condone the proposed increased commerical spring chinook fishery. It is just I find little creditability in protest if one doesn't apply the same standards to all fishing.
01-17-2004, 01:53 PM
I hate to tell you but I think you guys are missing the boat.
The way I see it, the system works like this:
The working fisheries biologists want to help the resorce but they are under pressure from upper management, who is under pressure from the politicians. Pressure meaning loss of funding, jobs, etc.
The politiciions will allow passage of any regulation, or law to appease the trouble makers. They just wont approvve funding for enforcement!
That way, they can claim to have helped one group, while at the same time, they are more or less telling the other side, "don't worry about it, we won't enforce it."
You can make a lot of noise, throw big bunches of money at the problem but the only thing a politician fears is losing the next election. And I seriously doubt that a fisheries issue would determine the outcome of an election. And they (politicians) know it.
Add to that the fact that the head honchos, hi-mucky-mucks of fish and game depts are appointed officials. The only way to oust them is to get the governor to fire them.
It's kind of like the old "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't him drink" thing.
I don't have any answers either. Well, I do but you'll never see this one passed.
NO CAREER POLITICIONS. do you thing for one term, and then go home. And answer to the people for what you did,,,to them!
my .02 worth. off my soap box. sorry guys but that's the way I see it.
01-17-2004, 05:45 PM
JD - I can make the horse drink by putting salt in its feed. We need to do something comparable for the pols and the commercials, or at least, buy the commercials out.
A lot of the fish I have caught on the Deschutes over the last ten years have had net marks. I hav advocated for a no- net fishery on the Columbia for years. The question is what can we do to make the pols and the commercials see it as being in their own best interest (salt in their food)? Some of the ideas here are a step in that direction.
How many of us have already sent letters or emails? I just returned to town and will send mine this evening.
01-17-2004, 06:19 PM
t_richerzhagen all well & good but I would go one step further.
Read my lips,,,,,,,,,No more incumbents! :devil:
The outrage is coming in asking for the increase from 2% to 5-7% that is where the outrage is being directed. If they were trying to do the same thing on the Methow I would oppose opening that fishery also to sportsmen. And yes I would be in favor of reducing sportsman opportunity to take the impact down to 1% on ESA listed stocks. Some of those upper columbia fisheries have there own issues like why are they still planting hatchery fish in rivers that have no season planned on them. Does that make sense? But I guess that is neither here nor there in this discussion.
So what do you think about what the Region 5 biologist had to say.
At some point as much as I love to fish I am willing to sacrifice my opporutnity to fish today to hopefully have more of an opportunity in the future.
Smalma, Todd, anyone,
Can anyone fill us in on exactly what the 1st year and second year of the tangle net fishery numbers were like? Was it 2% those years and did the commercials go over that and by how much if they did.
Like Jeff said we here at NW Steelhead and the WSC are not so much against commercials having the 2% number. But how come they can not make that number if these tangle nets work as advertised a few years ago.
I just read on an other board, and Todd can probably correct these numbers, but the commercials in 2002 to catch their 15,000 fish caught 22,000 wild steelhead. Even at an 18.5% mortality that is 4000 fish (not to mention the wild spring chinooks they take). How can a gillnet fishery that has a huge impact on the endangered wild run make sense? This obvisiously isn't a targeted fishery it is a lets sweep the river and who cares what we get fishery.
01-19-2004, 02:04 PM
Some rather confusing numbers here for me to ponder. We are refering to an endangered run of Steelheads that are being impacted by a early spring gillnet fishery that has a potential to impact the run of ESA listed Steelheads. Yet the results of a limited and restricted State and NMFS approved Tangle Net fishery have taken 22,000 of these non targeted Steelheads. With numbers like that one is given to ponder the viability of the claims that these fish are endangered or threatened.
Are we talking about the Late run of winter Steelheads that are taken in this fishery or the much more numerous Summer Run stocks that head into the interior of Ore Ida Wa? I am certainly not a proponet of Gillnet Fisheries under any name but I find it hard to be judgemental without more information. Last time I checked I wasn't drawing a paycheck to be a Judge anyway but I am curious on these numbers.:confused:
It is my understanding that these are the late winter runs if they net early or the early summer fish if they net late. See Todd's comment on the Late winter run on the Toutle. I believe most SW washington rivers used to have a very healthy run of spring steelhead and now they are depressed and this fishery really hits them. I will have to check to see if that 22,000 fish were all wild or a mix.
01-20-2004, 06:55 AM
The non-tribal impact is limited to less than 2% on each of the ESA listed stocks.
The following is taken from the file at this link:
One of the provisions of the agreement (U.S. v Oregon parties 2001) and associated Biological Opinion (NMFS 2001) is that the combined incidental mortality rate in all non-Indian fisheries will be 2% or less for each of the affected steelhead ESU's.
For steelhead (O. mykiss) -
The ESU's as published in the Federal Register are:
62 FR 43937 (8/18/97) - Upper Columbia River (Endangered
62 FR 43937 (8/18/97) - Snake River Basin (Threatened)
63 FR 13347 (3/19/98) - Lower Columbia River (Threatened)
64 FR 14517 (3/25/99) - Upper Willamette River (Threatened)
64 FR 14517 (3/25/99) - Middle Columbia River (Threatened)
The U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) tangle net fishery report (TAC 2003) estimated that the incidental mortality rate on winter steelhead during the 2002 fishery (including Upper Willamette steelhead and the winter run portions of the Lower Columbia River and Middle Columbia River ESUs) likely ranged between 5.6% - 14.5%.
Catch-and-release mortality associated with 8-inch and 4.25-inch mesh size for wild winter steelhead is currently estimated at 35% and 20%, respectively. The catch-and-release long-term mortality associated with 8-inch and 4.25-inch mesh size for winter steelhead currently used may change as a result of additional data collected in 2003 and beyond.
Effects of the 2002 Fishery (Not Including the Additional Management Guidelines) Steelhead catch in the commercial spring chinook tangle-net selective fishery greatly exceeded the preseason catch expectations due to the extremely large winter steelhead run in 2002, the timing of the fishery, and the gear employed in the fishery. A total of 20,900 steelhead were handled in this fishery, of which 8,400 were marked and 12,400 were unmarked. Unmarked steelhead include wild fresh run winter and summer steelhead, unmarked hatchery fresh run winter and summer steelhead, and spawned out winter and summer steelhead kelts. The wild winter steelhead total terminal run size (tributary returns) for 2002 is estimated to have been about 34,100 fish. The total number of wild winter steelhead mortalities in the 2002 tangle net fishery is estimated to have ranged between 1,800 and 5,800 fish. The estimated impact rate on wild winter steelhead for the affected ESU's in 2002 therefore ranges from 4.9% to 14.5%. Additionally, there were impacts on wild winter steelhead in the mainstem sport fishery during March and April of 2002. The total number of release mortalities is estimated to have been 22 fish in the 2002 sport fishery. The impact rate from the 2002 sport fishery was about 0.06%. Combined commercial and sport fishery impacts on wild winter steelhead in 2002 is estimated to have been between 5.0% and 14.6%.
Exceeding the allowable incidental take for the affected steelhead ESUís reduced escapements below what they would have been in 2002 by 3-13%.
The TAC attempted to analyze impacts to wild summer steelhead for 2002; however, because of the presence of several ESUs and the difficulty in determining ESU-specific run reconstruction, the estimates are not as reliable as for winter steelhead. Impacts on wild summer-run steelhead stocks were likely less than 2%.
Effects of the 2003 Fishery (Including the Additional Management Guidelines) The wild winter steelhead total terminal run size (tributary returns) for 2003 is estimated to have been about 15,500 fish. The total number of winter steelhead released in the 2003 fishery was 2,184, out of which 1,086 were natural-origin winter steelhead. The total number of wild winter steelhead mortalities in the 2003 tangle net fishery is estimated to have been 189 fish, or 1.538% of the river mouth runsize estimate. The states had allocated 1.6%-1.8% mortality rate to wild winter steelhead for this fishery in 2003. Upon reaching a 1.538% mortality rate mark, the states closed this fishery for the year.
Additionally, there are recreational fishery impacts on wild winter steelhead in 2003 that need to be considered. The total impact rate from the 2003 recreational fishery is expected to be less than 0.1%. Combined commercial and recreational fishery impacts on wild winter steelhead in 2003 will be less than 2%.
The TAC will attempt to analyze impacts on wild summer steelhead post-season in 2003; however, because of the presence of several ESUs and the difficulty in determining ESU-specific run reconstruction the summer steelhead estimates are not as reliable as for winter steelhead. Impacts on wild summer-run steelhead stocks were likely less than 2%.
For Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) -
The ESU's as published in the Federal Register are:
64 FR 14308 (3/24/99) - Upper Columbia River Spring (Endangered
64 FR 14308 (3/24/99) - Lower Columbia River (Threatened)
64 FR 14308 (3/24/99) - Upper Willamette River (Threatened)
57 FR 14653 (4/22/92) - Snake River Spring/Summer (Threatened)
Impacts on the listed chinook were as follows:
In 2002, the first year of the commercial spring chinook tangle-net selective fishery, a total of 28,727 spring chinook were handled during this fishery, of which 14,238 were kept and 14,489 were released. Based on CWT and Visual Stock Identification (VSI) data, the kept spring chinook catch was comprised of 8,237 upriver stock; 5,242 Willamette stock; 473 Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy stock; and 286 Select Area Fishery Enhancement (SAFE) stock, while the released catch was comprised of 12,396 upriver stock; 958 Willamette stock; 28 Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy stock; and 1,105 SAFE stock. The large number of upriver and SAFE stock spring chinook released in this fishery in 2002 reflect the fact that not all hatchery fish returning to these areas that year were mass marked with an adipose fin-clip. The impact rate on wild upriver spring chinook in 2002 was 0.70% which is similar to the preseason management guideline of 0.68% for 2002. Impacts on naturally produced Willamette spring chinook in 2002 totaled 0.60%. In both cases the overall impact rate was 2.0%, one third of which was allocated to the commercial tangle-net fishery.
In 2003, the second year of the commercial spring chinook tangle-net selective fishery, and the first year using the additional management guidelines which are the subject of this Supplemental Biological Opinion, a total of 5,667 spring chinook were handled during this fishery, of which 3,173 were kept and 2,494 were released. Based on CWT and VSI data, the kept spring chinook catch was comprised of 2,012 upriver stock; 918 Willamette stock; 137 Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy stock; and 106 SAFE stock while the released catch was comprised of 2,203 upriver stock; 234 Willamette stock; 7 Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy stock; and 50 SAFE stock. Most of the spring chinook released in this fishery were of upriver origin. The fishery targets unlisted Willamette spring chinook. The catch composition (kept and released) reflect the fact that upriver chinook returning to the fishing area in 2003 were early or that the Willamette spring chinook were late. The impact rate on naturally produced upriver spring chinook in 2003 was 0.668%, which is greater than the guideline of 0.59% for this fishery, but less than the total allowable impact of 2%. Impacts on wild Willamette spring chinook in 2003 totaled 0.295%. Catch-and-release mortality associated with 8-inch and 4.25-inch mesh size for wild spring chinook are currently estimated at 50% and 25%, respectively. Recreational fisheries were also managed inseason with time and area closures to ensure that the overall impact rate of 2% was not exceeded.
Hyvš Kalastus! - Plunk
01-20-2004, 09:05 AM
Your post certainly helped to clear up some of my confusion by seperating the Apples from the Oranges. Thank you!