Salmon Closure

[Mik]

http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/863899.html

[David Lee]

I'm for both a closed Ocean season , and no-take in freshwaters .

I'm also for reversing the Marine Mammal act and thinning the Sealion/Seal populations a bit (let's say ...... 30 % , Hmmm ??) , cutting NorCal water exports to anyplace south of San Jose by at least 40% , and the removal of Englbright and Oroville dams . Also cutting immigration (no , not from across the country's borders .... but across STATE borders) and a manditory re-funding of Cal DFG .

Let the shit fly .............. :D

David :evil:

[Bryan Morgan]

We have all seen a big decline on the valley rivers. Let us all at least give it a shot!

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

In Alaska they open and clothes salmon runs by the hour and by the day depending on how the runs are doing.

I guess if the runs are down they need to be closed?

[Ed Wahl]

The salmon runs in the Central Valley are so depleted right now that every breeder counts. I for one will happily give up a season or 3 on the chance that they'll recover.

It's not the fishing that killed them, no one really knows for sure what did. The fishing community, both recreational and commercial, will be the first and hardest hit by the inevitable closure. All of the supporting businesses will be doing well just to stay afloat.

The extermination of our salmon runs is a heinous thing to have to consider. Ed

[Rick J]

what is unfortunate about the closure on central rivers is they do not plan to close the Klamath and in fact I have heard they are upping the limit and not going for catch and release so expect the pressure up there will magnify greatly as many of the guides may migrate up there and who can blame them - they need to make a living also.

I would have liked to see catch and release everywhere if not closed

[Covelo]

As Mr Wahl stated, it is not the fishermen who killed them. Unfortunately we are the first and often the only group to be penalized, at least directly. This is one reason I am always leery of closures. If policy changes do not accompany the closures then the net effect is negligible and just provides cover that something was done. Certainly it is difficult to see how a river like the American is going to recover when you have 1200 cfs releases all season during the outmigration of smolts. That basically implies that only the hatchery is important to the run. If that is the agency's position, then that river should remain open as long as the hatchery is meeting its quota.

For at least the Sac and Klamath systems, it would be nice to see clipped fish and take of hatchery fish only like we have for steelhead. I have not seen data to support it, but it seems like wild stocks are dwindling, possibly being pushed out by the hatchery fish. I like hatcheries when they are necessary (ladders would be better), but not if they exist at the expense of wild stocks. It seems this discussion has become one revolving around the total number of returning adults, when it is equally if not more important to analyze the components of the run, namely the wild component. The total run size could be going up while the wild component continues to decline.

[bigtj]

I'm 100% for the closure. All the fish that make it in with the forecasted ultra-low returns need to be allowed to spawn. We can't do anything about poor ocean conditions, but we can control killing of fish that would otherwise spawn. Given a couple years of favorable conditions populations will start to rebound.

The best part of the closure is it brings attention to the habitat problem. When you start seeing the closures on the front page of newspapers you know it's a big deal and the general public is taking the problem seriously. This can do nothing but help long-term prospects for support of habitat recovery. For example, I think the timing is great in terms of re-licensing on the Klamath dams. I recognize we're talking about closures on the American, but to the layperson, they understand that salmon are in trouble in general, and when the issue of the Klamath relicensing comes up, they are more likely to be pro-salmon, not pro dams, with this kind of press. It really puts an exclamation point on the seriousness of the problem. We have to think long-term, not short term, and these closures are going to pay off big time in that respect.

[Mik]

Thanks for everyone's post. I know this is a very passionate subject for many. I have lived in Sacramento all my life and I have never seen the American flows this low for such an extended period of time. It only makes sense to put a closure on the rivers to boost the population. Fly Fishing folks are understanding of that. I don't think the majority think that way. I want to hear the argument for the one vote we have for NO so far. Must be a snagger that infiltrated Kiene's Forum.

[Covelo]

I did not vote mainly because I do not see the issue as so black and white as a yes or no for a closure. I understand why someone would be against a closure for the reasons I posted above. Clearly though, calling someone a snagger, whether done tongue in cheek or not, just because they disagree with you on the best coarse of action necessary to protect salmon runs is really what divides fishermen.