umpqua wild steelhead need your help

[shawn kempkes]

It is time to start writing letters to the O.D.F.W again.

On Monday May 5th 2008 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) announced their proposed changes to the 2009-2012 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. Please visit the ODFW website and download a copy of the “2009 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation Development: A Public Process May Meeting Packet”: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2008/may/050508.asp or contact Rhine Messmer of ODFW for a copy (phone: (503) 947-6214 email: rhine.t.messmer@state.or.us). There are eight different proposed regulations that would allow for the harvest of wild winter steelhead on the Umpqua system. A very vocal, organized group is doing their best to get the 1 wild steelhead/day, 5 wild steelhead/year kill regulation re-instated. We need all advocates of wild steelhead from far and wide to speak out strongly and in large numbers against the proposed kill regulations if we are to see the current wild steelhead release regulation stay in place on the Umpqua. ODFW adopts the sport fishing regulations through a “public process”—it is up to the public to let ODFW know which regulations they support or oppose. This is your opportunity to speak loud and clear to ODFW regarding your stand on killing Umpqua wild steelhead. Here is how to get your voice heard:

1. Write a letter: Share your thoughts with ODFW on the proposed regulations. Address letters to: ODFW, Angling Regulations, 3406 Cherry Avenue NE, Salem OR 97303 or you can email your letter to Rhine Messmer (Angling Regulations Coordinator) at the email address listed above. All letters and emails will be forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Commission as part of the public record. Anyone who is affected by the proposed regulations is encouraged to write, one does not have to reside in Oregon to participate.
2. Attend a Public Meeting: Throughout the month of May are ten public meetings where ODFW staff presents an overview of the Public Process and proposals for statewide regulations. Then district staff will present the proposals for a given Angling Zone—there should be several Zones represented at most meetings. There should also be time for questions and comments from the public. Meeting details are listed below:

May 13 Blue Mt. Conference Center 404 12th Street LaGrande OR, 97805
May 14 Central Oregon Community College, Hitchcock Auditorium 2600 NW ollege Way Bend, OR 97701
May 15 OSU Extension Service 3328 Vandenberg Road Klamath Falls, OR 97603
May 16 Jackson County Auditorium 400 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503
May 19 North Bend Library 1800 Sherman Avenue, North Bend, OR 97459
May 20 Douglas County Library 1409 NE Diamond Lake Blvd, Roseburg, 440-4311
May 21 Lane Community College Forum Building (#17), Room 308 4000 East 30th Avenue Eugene, OR 97405
May 22 Hatfield Marine Science Center 2030 SE Marine Science Dr. Newport, OR 97141
May 23 Oregon Dept. of Forestry 5005 Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141
May 27 Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Headquarters 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, OR 97303
May 28 Sunnybrook Service Center (Clackamas County Building) 9101 SE Sunnybrook Center Clackamas, OR 97015
3. Testify at a Commission Meeting: There are two Commission meetings where the public has the opportunity to comment: August 8th at ODFW Headquarters in Salem and September 12th at Oregon Hatchery Research Center near Alsea. You can find details on presenting testimony to the Commission at the ODFW website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/co...procedures.asp

The Steamboaters will issue a position paper on the proposed Umpqua regulations, highlighting problems we see with re-instating the kill fishery—we will distribute this paper in the coming weeks. The position paper will have plenty of points one can use in their letter writing efforts and talking points for the public meetings. The intent of this notice is to let you know what is happening and ask you to get involved in the public process. It cannot be stressed enough how important it is to have a large show of opposition to all variants of the kill regulation. One version of the 1/5 regulation proposal was submitted 175 times. Not only is there a large contingent of sport fishers that support killing wild winter steelhead on the Umpqua, ODFW Staff is in favor of re-opening the river to wild steelhead harvest. Steamboaters are in the process of crafting a detailed, in-depth formal argument against the kill regulation that we will distribute to the Commission in late June. We will make this set of documents available to any interested party at that time. Until then, please get involved--start writing letters and plan on attending a public meeting this month. Get the word out to as many people as possible—that magnificent race of wild winter steelhead that call the Umpqua home are depending on us.

One of the major issues is the fact that they haven't set any real escapment for the basin. They are saying that 25% of the 30 year average is a healthy run and that it has to meet that number 3 our of 5 years. No one thinks that would be the case but yet that is the number is being used. They can't use science as they don't have any science to back up what they "think".

Please write the Commission as mentionted above and let them know that there are sportsman that support keeping ban on killing wild winter steelhead. If you have any questions regarding the Public Process, please contact the Steamboaters at steamboaters@hotmail.com.

[matt johnson]

Thanks Shawn, great info!

Umpqua fly fishing guide Scott Howell also has an online petition going and good article up on his site. Here is the link:
http://www.scotthowellfishing.com/petition.html

Matt Johnson

[Covelo]

It is interesting how the numbers always get twisted. For example, in Scott Howell's assessment he states that the estimate by the ODFW is 1200 wild steelhead killed each year, but then suggests that 5000 are likely killed. His statement that only 42 fish a day would need to be killed to reach the 1200 wild fish total proposed by the ODFW is confused by his observation of 42 trailers in the parking lot, infering they are taking many more wild fish. Are they all killing wild fish or a combination with hatchery fish? Certainly not everyone kills wild fish or even catch fish. Mr Howell is railing against junk science then turns around and contributes to it by attempting to extrapolate from a few observations to a higher level of take for wild fish.

From a population perspective, centering the debate on how many fish are being taken is misleading. The important number is what is the size of the total run. Only with that number can the ODFW make any where close to a scientific determination as to whether the take of 1200 or 5000 wild fish will have an impact.

[trinity]

Howell is making a crude estimate, but even if Oregon tries to calculate the size of the total run, what is that? A crude estimate. I'm not knocking the the science of calculating the fish returns, but they don't tell the whole story. Figuring out how many wild fish spawned or are going to spawn is impossible. I think most people know that wild steelhead are threatened though, and we ought to release them when we catch them. Hopefully Oregon sticks to its policies and continues to protect them. Besides, isn't it a good goal to have a population of wild steelhead flourishing? Steelhead are some of our most prized gamefish of the PNW, hopefully our kids and their kids will be able to fish for them too. Who cares what the numbers are, just don't kill them.

[Covelo]

Howell is making a crude estimate, but even if Oregon tries to calculate the size of the total run, what is that? A crude estimate.

I do not know how ODFW estimates run size. Sometimes they can go into the creeks and count redds. This doesn't invalidate my point.


I think most people know that wild steelhead are threatened though, and we ought to release them when we catch them.

Most people do not know this. Some presume to know this, but if your comments that it is impossible to determine the total run size are true, how could anyone know that they are threatened?


Besides, isn't it a good goal to have a population of wild steelhead flourishing? Steelhead are some of our most prized gamefish of the PNW, hopefully our kids and their kids will be able to fish for them too. Who cares what the numbers are, just don't kill them.

Yes, a flourishing pop of wild steelhead should be our goal, but that is not mutually exclusive from having a take fishery if it is sustainable. I very much believe in a scientific debate. Howell attempted to challenge the science being used to support legalizing take of wild fish, but then used unscientific means to do so. The point you express where they are our most prized game fish (I agree) and therefore should not be killed no matter what the numbers are, is not scientific.

[shawn kempkes]

The odfw has a pretty good estimate of run size. They have a fish ladder and a video monitored counting station at winchester dam. The last two years the north umpqua alone had counts nearing 10,000. The south Umpqua wild steelhead are not doing as good.

I am going to the meeting in clackamas next week.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Wouldn't one need to be a resident of Oregon for their opinion and support to count? I'm happy to write letters, but I'm in CA...

[Covelo]

I forgot about the ladder at Winchester Dam. Do you know if that 10,000 count was for wild fish or total fish? I hope they distinguish as they do at Bonneville.

[shawn kempkes]

I forgot about the ladder at Winchester Dam. Do you know if that 10,000 count was for wild fish or total fish? I hope they distinguish as they do at Bonneville.


The north Umpqua winter run is mostly wild fish. Some hatchery fish stray into the north because they raise them at the hatchery at rock creek.

[shawn kempkes]

Wouldn't one need to be a resident of Oregon for their opinion and support to count? I'm happy to write letters, but I'm in CA...


Since the most of the umpqua drainage is in federal land. The steelhead in the rivers are the peoples fish. They are entrusted to the state oregon to manage the resource. Write a letter stating that you support catch and release of wild steelhead in the Umpqua basin and tell them how much you spend while fishing for them.

[Jasonh]

I have signed the last two petitions to support umpqua wild steelhead. I agree that the fish counts on the North Umpqua at Winchester are somewhat reliable and the winter steelhead of the North Umpqua have had strong runs in the last few years. Part of this could be do to the fly fishing only regs in the upper part of the river where a majority of these fish hold and spawn. There is not much pressure on the North Umpqua in the winter as there is by fisherman in the main stem and south umpqua in the winter. This could relate to the numbers in the North Fork as well.

I think the big issue is the wild returns in the south umpqua. From what i have read over the past few years is that the wild steelhead returns in the south umpqua have dropped down to close to 800-2000 spawning wild steelhead. I dont understand how the ODFW can say the system can support a kill fishery on wild steelhead with those numbers. Whether it is 1500 or more wild fish killed in a season during the kill regs, it is too many. The South Umpqua receives a ton of pressure in the winter, mostly from gear fisherman who are looking to kill everything. Unless catch and release regs STAY in effect, this fishery is doomed. While i am not a fan of hatcheries, they are there for people who want to take steelhead. I am still all for catch and release wild steelhead fisheries with no hatcheries. That would be a dream!

Just my .02 cents worth

[aaron]

The important number is what is the size of the total run. Only with that number can the ODFW make any where close to a scientific determination as to whether the take of 1200 or 5000 wild fish will have an impact.
Exactly, if ODFW can't determine the total size of the run how can they come up with any semblance of a minimum viable population? Why should they allow a wild fish to be killed when they have no clue what it's impact will be?

This seems like a textbook example of a case where the precautionary principle should be used, which in this case would seem to be not allowing harvest of wild steelhead until the needed data is collected and analyzed in order to determine the proper course of action. Just look at the salmon decline, scientists are struggling to determine why and have forced an emergency closure. Crisis driven conservation efforts are extremely expensive and often unproductive, and in this case lead to the almost complete shutdown of a fishery altogether. Nobody wins when it gets to this point, so let's do the work to determine if the proposals will have an adverse impact while erring on the side of caution just in case. Current climate conditions are unpredictable, scientists are forecasting the largest arctic ice melt in recorded history, so who knows how steelhead will react to these conditions. Other species are already suffering due to shifting currents and small populations are extremely difficult to maintain. To me this seems like reason enough not to kill a wild steelhead period.
My .02 cents
-A

[Covelo]

This seems like a textbook example of a case where the precautionary principle should be used,

Problem is somebody always thinks that and once used, the regs are rarely repealed.

The ODFW probably has a pretty good estimate for how many fish are spawning in the SF. Considering the threatened status of most west coast steelhead stocks, I doubt the feds would let take of wild fish occur without some pretty decent data to support it. Until somebody comes forward with more than a guess as to the run size on the SF, we are just speculating.

Here is the proposal from the ODFW doc at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/docs/2009_Public_Process_Packet.pdf. I cannot imagine why there is a rift with fly fishermen.

Page 44 Umpqua River, Mainstem up to confluence of North and South Forks
• Reinstate harvest of wild steelhead 1 per day and 5 per year.
• Existing Rule: Closed to all take of non-adipose fin-clipped (wild) steelhead.
• Proposed Rule: "Allow retention of non-adipose fin-clipped steelhead Dec. 1 – April 30; bag limit 1 steelhead per day, 5 per year, as part of daily or annual salmon/steelhead catch limit."
• Staff Comments: 175 Duplicate proposals for same rule change.
Rationale: (Summary of some of the public rational submitted with proposals. Increases angling opportunity; supports local small businesses; makes regulations consistent with other SW Zone rivers. To allow customers to take a steelhead home with them if they choose to and allow the guides the option of retaining a certain fish that would be deemed a non-survivor due to bleeding or over stressed. The ban against keeping any Wild steelhead caught on the Umpqua River was put in effect on Jan. 1, 2008 as a result of a short term petition process that was done external to the ODFW 4-year regulatory review process where changes in regulations are normally considered with full public input. Most sportsmen were oblivious to what was being considered. The two guides and single fly-fishing group that advocated the ban do not represent fairly the interests of most sports anglers that fish for steelhead on the Umpqua. ODFW creel census data and fish counts at Winchester dam show that the Wild steelhead run on the Umpqua is healthy and can more than tolerate a limited take. Those anglers who advocate exclusive catch and release for Wild steelhead are free to practice it. They should not try to force the practice on others where it is not supported by biological need or wanted. The Commission decision to now allow wild steelhead harvest needs to be reversed. To do otherwise would send a message that ODFW biological input and the interests of the majority of sportsmen does not matter and what special interests want is all that counts.

[bigtj]

Petition signed, as I did last year.

This river needs protection, plain and simple. To me the argument isn't about science, and estimates, because those estimates are pretty much an educated guess for the South Fork and mainstem. To me, the issue of no-kill on the Umpqua is a political issue not a science issue. Anglers of all kinds - gear and fly - are finally behind the idea that wild steelhead are too valuable to kill, especially on this river. The tide is finally turning. We need to set a precedent here on the river with the first fly-only water in Oregon. The rest of the great steelhead rivers will follow. Canada has catch and release for wild fish on most of their great steelhead rivers, we have catch and release for wild steelhead on most of our rivers, why not C&R on the NU? So some guy can have his glory shot of a dead steelhead with his hand stuffed up his gills, and a freezerfull of fish he just gives away to friends and family? Bonking wild steelhead makes no sense. We have to realize that and stand behind that principle. If we wait much longer it will be too late.

I say kill each and every hatchery fish that enters the system - no limit go for it, bonk all you want. Just leave those wild fish alone. Period.

[Darian]

If I understand what I'm reading, correctly, the proposal only applies downstream of the forks in the Umpqua.... On the surface, the balance of the ODFW statement appears to be reasonable.

Agreed that once Reg's are changed, they're rarely re-visited. However, Oregon appears to weigh public input more than this state and ODFW is doing the right thing to evaluate before adopting as they, apparently, didn't do during the last "....short term petition...."

I guess we're speculating. So, let's see what the Steamboater's (Shawn's group) can develop in the way of support for opposing the current petition. 8) 8) 8)

[Covelo]

Political? You are kidding right? Try emotional. I can guarantee you that there are far more anglers in favor of take regs than C&R. Therefore, you have a smaller group attempting to force their beliefs on the angling community as a whole. And to say that it is necessary regardless of the science is just wrong. We enlist these agencies to manage species by evaluating the best science available. Then you want them to ignore the science when it favors your personal POV. Be careful what you wish for as I can see them disregarding the science again when it comes to protections for something closer to home, say the delta! :(

[Darian]

Not sure you were responding to my post but I'm not suggesting ignoring science. I am suggesting that we let the process go forward and have our input. Hopefully, ODFW weights science appropriately. :? Also, I'm not advocating catch & release, here, and agree that the C&R crowd are in the minority as stated by you and in your quote from the ODFW proposal. On the other hand, I'm not willing to say that the Steamboater's don't have resources available to them that have a basis in science and are on point. Thus, my position is to wait and see; then decide. why not??? Not sure that's political....

Like it or not, Oregon employs a politicized process (involving public input) in order to avoid the constant attempts to debunk scientific findings like in California (when it suits us) by citing personal observation as better than science (.... even tho I've done it, too :roll: :roll: ). To me, a non-scientist, the process is the only real way I have to judge a proposal or outcome. For the science component, I rely on informed people (like you) and try to ask enough questions to allow me arrive at a conclusion. Of course, we won't always agree but, IMHO, this is a satisfactory way to exchange thoughts, etc.

Finally, if "We enlist these agencies to manage species by evaluating the best science available.", why are they created by political bodies, why is funding based on political whim and why are they all headed by political Bodies (boards) or appointees (individuals) and not scientists :?: :?: Oddly enough, when an appointment of a person with a background in science is made, that person suddenly becomes political....

Whether in California or Oregon or at the federal level, money/politics trumps science every time (unfortunately). :( :( Witness what has already happened to fish in the Delta for the sake of providing subsidized water to corporate agriculture (....can you say corporate welfare :?: :roll: ).

Speaking of subsidies, the fed's just passed the latest farm subsidy bill to help out corporate farmers, many of whom are politicians themselves, whose product is being sold at record prices, already.... :x :x Of course, there's no denying that we get the quality of government we deserve..... :( :( :(

Enough, I gotta get off my soap box now.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

[ycflyfisher]

Agree totally with Covelo that this is simply a, knee-jerk reaction that's based entirely in misinformed, and ill advised, pure emotion. It's damn near impossible to get flyanglers to band together for any cause. It's frustrating to say the very least that when they seem compelled to do this, it's on a watershed where abundance is sustainable and isn't pushed to the brink of expirtation.

[matt johnson]

I really don't want to come off as sounding like a "chest beater", but I feel compelled to share a bit of insight...

For the last 6 years I have been estimating salmon and steelhead escapement into the Upper Sacramento River Basin. I am 100% in the field observing and collecting data. I have done it all, carcass surveys, redd surveys, snorkel surveys, dam counts, overhead video, Vaki, split-beam transducer, Didson....

Bottom line is, IT IS REALLY HARD TO COUNT FISH!!!! WINTER-RUN STEELHEAD ARE THE HARDEST SALMONIDS OUT THERE TO COUNT!!! DON'T TRUST THE "BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE" touted by, especially, the state agencies, because the DATA LIKELY SUCKS!! There are some good biologists working for these agencies, but the sad truth is that they are tragically under-funded and broken organizations, and the "shots are called" by politics and license sales, not science.

Certainly the Winchester Dam count is a good one (Dams or other such fishways are the best method of counting fish), but, that is just a "snapshot in time" of steelhead escapement into the North Umpqua Basin, and as has already been pointed out earlier, winter-run escapement into the South Umpqua is not evaluated with such a handy tool.

Back to the North Umpqa and the Winchester Dam count: Where are the fish ODFW has counted at the dam going to spawn? In the mainstem, Steamboat Creek, Little River, Rock Creek, or some other small trib? Are all those tribs going to make escapement? Does ODFW have the staff and funding to survey all the spawning habitat of this vast watershed? On the day the crew is scheduled to go, for instance, conduct a redd count on Steamboat Creek, was the river blown out? Did they see anything?

The fishery conducted between the forks and the bay is a "mixed stock" steelhead fishery, composed of wild winter steelhead representing the uniquness and diversity adapted over time to the vastness of the watershed. It's all there, run timing, habitat niches.... certainly not every wild steelhead component of this watershed is healthy? But here all the gear guides are, booked solid for the season bonking their "one fish per day, 5 per year limit" for their clients....How can this impact be effectively measured? I welcome anybody out there to go hike or snorkel a creek for 12 bucks an hour in the winter. You'll probably have a miserable to good time, see some neat stuff, but I really doubt you'll walk away feeling like you "know how many steelhead are out there" Matt.

[Covelo]

I was not directing my last post at you Darian, but at the poster above you.

I understand there is politics in the fishing regs, but politics is not pushing these C&R regs. Emotion is. I understand also that science is sometimes pushed aside, but when a poster openly states that he does not care about the science, I feel that is a bad path to take.

Matt -- I was not advocating either side other than the side of science. I wanted to hear what the estimates were for the wild escapement in the SF. The petitioner suggested it was close to 10,000 like on the NF while somebody here suggested it was closer to 2000. Nobody has posted up what the ODFW thinks it is. I understand the difficulties in estimating escapements when there is no ladder or weir. Just look at how off the estimates were for salmon returns on the Sac the last few years. What happened to those 1 million fish. Still those estimates are the best we have, but often cannot account for recent changes in conditions such as ocean currents, pumping of excess water. If you go to that link I posted before, you will notice that at least for the NF where they have reliable counts, winter fish do not appear to have been affected by 30 years of take fishing. That is some pretty strong evidence that there is no impact. Yes there is still the possibility that an isolated watershed within the NF drainage could be in decline, but that is merely a "what if" unless there is data to support it or suggest that somehow take is slanted towards a specific run of fish which is unlikely. Do you know of any such data. This still leaves us with what is the estimated wild fish count for the SF?

[trinity]

I agree with Matt Johnson, you can pose as a scientist, but your conclusions are only as good as your data. What is wrong with including emotions in the calculus? We protect Bald Eagles because they are a symbol of America, Stealhead are the same for the Northwest. The question of kill or no kill deserves to be considered on this basis at least as much as on the basis of bad science. Lets be honest, it does have a lot to do with emotion, and the so-called science is not reliable.

[Covelo]

Are you really going to compare killing a bald eagle with killing a steelhead? And certainly for the eagle, the minority is not trying to prevent the majority from killing them.

I see many are willing to accept the data is flawed without ever seeing it or evaluating it. Even good data is not acceptable when you do not come to the table objectively.

[aaron]

Problem is somebody always thinks that and once used, the regs are rarely repealed.
So applying the principles of conservation biology is a problem in this case?


Still those estimates are the best we have, but often cannot account for recent changes in conditions such as ocean currents, pumping of excess water.

Since being cautious is a "problem" we should allow the addition of extra pressure in light of all the negative uncertainties these fish face and the lack of decent info?


I was not advocating either side
For claiming objectivity you sure sound like you're advocating take of wild fish?

[Covelo]

Applying the PP and the principles of conservation biology are two different things far too often. I am for the latter and the former when warranted.

What negative uncertainties? The only thing anyone has come up with is quasy numbers and the fact that they do not like it when wild fish are taken.

I have no problem with the take of wild steelhead or any other species when it can be done sustainably. I have been pretty clear about that. In this instance I would like to know more about the SF as I am unfamiliar with that stream. The NF I have fished before and followed a little. It is under no threat from the take of wild fish. The science supports that.

[Darian]

I'm a bit confused here. :? Isn't all science based on available data/info??? As new data/info is found, changes to prior conclusions are made. If so, what was the point of the following:
....you can pose as a scientist, but your conclusions are only as good as your data. Am I missing something here :?: :?: :?:


What is wrong with including emotions in the calculus? I'm sure what this one is about and do not see what including the level of emotion surrounding the north Fork of the Umpqua River can add to the debate over whether it is a sustainable fishery or not. It's great to be passionate about the pursuit of something but dangerous when it becomes overly zealous as in the case of minority rule.

Based on good or bad data, science at least is the best attempt to be clear, rational and objective. 8) 8)

[ycflyfisher]

I think Matt brings to light some very accurate points and I agree in totality with what he stated. Certainly some of the data we've got at our disposal is somewhat wanting and less than conclusive. I do think it does allow in most cases where we have a decent sample size of data to draw conclusions on how abundance is trending at the very least.

I'm not really seeing this issue as one that is potentially damaging on it's on volition. Fighting for further protection of streamborn Umpqua steelhead certainly can't hurt that situation. It's simply the nature of the fight and the selection of the battles that the flyangling community elects to collectively fight that leaves much to be desired and is the real issue here IMO. The whole arguement here of taking a hard fast line where all streamborn fish should be protected at all costs is very similar to the "dead fish can't spawn" arguement offered up errantly in the Smith River thread. Problem is when groups tend to take a hard and fast line approach, and give no quarter to their nearly religious beliefs based on a totally emotional response, it's becomes damned difficult to to take anything they feel compelled to represent at face value.

I'm finding it highly ironic that this forum feels compelled to literally write 100's of letters in favor of saving streamborn Umpqua fish, (all the while accusing anyone of not holding the same religious beliefs as being advocating fish killers and in a watershed where no one has yet to post anything backing up that abundance of winter fish could potentially be suppressed by angler take to boot) yet when someone like Roger Barnhart actively gets several anglers to solicte help in data collection on this forum and many others, he gets next to no one that actually takes the time to so much as send him a simple e-mail with the requested data. Frustrating to say the very least, especially considering that he put some thought into the matter and made the decison to attempt to get less useful data at the cost of more potential angler participation. (i.e. the reduction of specific locations to more simplistic request of general regions in the hopes that the request was simple enough to get a higher level of participation. A clear compromise when trying to develop what he was attempting to do.) There certainly hasn't been any shortage of anglers from here fishing the Trinity......... I'm not seeing the closer to home arguement apply here or being a valid excuse for legit angler concern.

Yeah, we're certainly leaving a lot to be desired when fighting the good fight is concerned......


What we as a group really seem good at is pointing the finger at whom we think screwed things up, buying into every fake "feel good" proposition in the name of ill founded conservation that comes along, and arguing amongst ourselves for little more than the simple sake of doing so.

Again, if there's any solid data(or anything that even gives the slightest indication) that angler take could potentially imperil abundance in the Umpqua basin, let's see it. That to me seems the likely place to start for anyone buying into this notion

[shawn kempkes]

please dont paint this as a bunch of flyfisherman trying to keep the status quo on the Umpqua river system. There are serveral gear fishing guides pushing for the catch and release regs to stay in effect. Currently the North Umpqua has a healthy population of winter steelhead. 15 years ago that wasnt the case the run wasclose to half half of what it is now.

[Darian]

Shawn,.... Not sure that's what's being done.... The partial quote from the ODFW proposal mentions who the original petitioners were for implementation on January 1, 2008:


The ban against keeping any Wild steelhead caught on the Umpqua River was put in effect on Jan. 1, 2008 as a result of a short term petition process that was done external to the ODFW 4-year regulatory review process where changes in regulations are normally considered with full public input. Most sportsmen were oblivious to what was being considered. The two guides and single fly-fishing group that advocated the ban do not represent fairly the interests of most sports anglers that fish for steelhead on the Umpqua. (emphasis added)

The idea is that a minority of anglers should not dictate to the majority when it's determined that a healthy population of fish exists. From the proposal, I'm not sure whether the current review is a response to complaints about the prior (short term) review or the end of a regular 4 year period for review. :? :?

[bigtj]

I would like to clarify I said every word carefully the way I meant it. I am sick of how one or two minor voices again and again try to twist my words. THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL, THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL, THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL AND IT TRANSCENDS SCIENCE. I have killed thousands of anadramous fish in my life, so emotions have nothing to do with this. I gave up bonking wild steelhead about 10 years ago once I realized it's just a stupid thing to do until the the thouseands of extirpated, endangered, thretenend, and depressed runs and screwed up watersheds start to bounce back.

Anybody on this board has a lot of nerve making contemptuous remarks about Scott and his understanding of the situation up there. He has fished that river since he was a kid, and his dad and gradad before him. He has spent more time on that river than all the rest of us could ever begin to imagine. And his reactions are certainly not kneejerk. If he says 5000 fish, then nod your head and believe it. He is honest and knows the real deal. He just doesn't want to see his river destroyed.

I know the guys who saw massive numbers of wild steelhead that would otherwise be headed for the south fork or other tribs heading home in coolers. AND NOBODY AT ODFW REALLY SEES THIS STUFF GOING DOWN!!! Data, schmata...these biologist are underfunded, undereducated, and guessing 90% of the time. Poaching is rampant. I have seen it first hand there and reported it and nobody from ODFW was able to do a thing. Thousands and thousands of wild winter steelhead were being harvested before it was stopped. This issue is about protecting some of the last good things on earth. You might remember a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Had a little something to do with a place you might have heard of, called Yellowstone. The upqua drainage is the same kind of place, and the steelhead on that river are a lot like a Bald Eagle, a Bison, or a wolf. You just don't go and let some state agency wildlife biologist making 50K a year to make educated guesses about harvesting of wild steelhead populations on the south fork and mainstem of the NU. Or listen to a bunch of meat-hungry guides who want to whack and stack one of the great steelhead runs in the world. It's simple really. There are some places worth protecting.

Sheesh next thing you know somebody will start arguing we should be able to kill Kispiox and Babine summer runs! Or shooting grizzlies in Yellowstone. Well you know what? You guys that are so in love with your perfect science can take your student's T distribution, and your baysean monte carlo population model and take a giant hike up to the cowlitz or the santiam and play god with some fish that we can afford to lose. Matt is the only guy here who's honest enough to tell it like it is. Bilogists are gonna make too many mistakes and this issue is about way more than arguing over the inadequate science that doesn't hold up to real scrutiny.


Come on guys this is a no brainer. Let's protect Umpqua wild steelhead once and for all so our grandkids have a prayer at catching one. Some places and species should be protected the Umpqua system is top on the list.

[bigtj]

In this instance I would like to know more about the SF as I am unfamiliar with that stream. The NF I have fished before and followed a little. It is under no threat from the take of wild fish. The science supports that


Here's the deal: all the umpqua fish enter the mainstem umpqua. Some are headed for the NU (where the fish are counted with a ladder), many also spawn in the mainstem (that's where the real toads live), increasingly fewer and fewer every year make it up the South Fork, where wild fish were previously protected (no kill). Yet, 5 winter fish could be killed in the mainstem, WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF WHERE THE HECK THAT FISH WAS HEADED. This is the kind of loopholes that people can't understand and knew had to be closed. Bottom line - you can't allow mainstem harvest without jeapordizing South Fork harvest.

[jayclarkflyfishing]

John-
Very well put!!I admire your passion for anadromous fish.Killing wild steelhead is archaic and should not be allowed.They are worth fighting for and protecting for our children and grandchildren.
Jay

[bubzilla]

Agree totally with Covelo that this is simply a, knee-jerk reaction that's based entirely in misinformed, and ill advised, pure emotion. It's damn near impossible to get flyanglers to band together for any cause. It's frustrating to say the very least that when they seem compelled to do this, it's on a watershed where abundance is sustainable and isn't pushed to the brink of expirtation.

Very well said! =D>

[Darian]

John,.... Great rant but I'm not sure I can agree with the characterization of the current situation up there. Also, I'm not sure characterizing person whose ideas differ from your own as
....minor voices.... who're trying to twist your words.... That seems a bit too....(you get the idea)

As I've stated elsewhere in this discussion, there's so much history/tradition surrounding fly fishing for Steelhead on the North Fork of the Umpqua River that real objectivity is easily overlooked. The following quote illustrates:


....THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL, THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL, THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL AND IT TRANSCENDS SCIENCE.

Respectfully, the issue, mentioned in the ODFW proposal, is/was whether one group of fisherman (a minority) should be allowed to dictate to another group (the majority) of fisherman; involving a partially political process (public input). Also, since I'm of the opinion that this process takes into account some scientific info about the health of the fish population (gathered by the ODFW), the outcome probably will be at least partially based on science.

While I admire your feeling toward that river and Steelhead in general, I would substitute the word EMOTIONAL for POLITICAL in the above quote. 8) 8)

[bubzilla]

Anybody on this board has a lot of nerve making contemptuous remarks about Scott and his understanding of the situation up there. He has fished that river since he was a kid, and his dad and gradad before him. He has spent more time on that river than all the rest of us could ever begin to imagine. And his reactions are certainly not kneejerk. If he says 5000 fish, then nod your head and believe it. He is honest and knows the real deal. He just doesn't want to see his river destroyed.

First of all, it's not "his" river. It's a public resource, and his opinion, just like your's or mine, counts for one vote--no more; no less. I live less than 90 miles from Steamboat, and guarantee I have fished the Umpgua literally hundreds of times more than you. Does that make my wishes with regard to the river more important? The "my river" attitude is an unavoidable part of any issue dealing with the Umpqua drainage, but contrary to what many may think it is actually "our" river. And many of us would like "our" river to be managed with science rather than emotion.


Poaching is rampant. I have seen it first hand there and reported it and nobody from ODFW was able to do a thing.

OSP enforces game regulations rather than ODFW, but your point is a valid one. There is a poaching problem. It's a problem that will exist regardless of what the regulations read, however. Moreover, if the regualation is unpopular with the overwhelming majority of anglers, as in this case, it is even more likely to be ignored. Yet another reason the misplaced focus on the Umpqua is so wasteful of the fly angling community's limited political capital. Rather building coaltions to make real changes, once again we have a myopic focus that does harm to relationships with little hope for genuine benefit to the fish or fisheries.


You might remember a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Had a little something to do with a place you might have heard of, called Yellowstone.

This isn't meant as a cheap shot, but Ulysses Grant was president when Yellow Stone was created (1872) and not TR. I think this illustrates, however, that real facts are in very short supply when it comes to the arguements in support of the regulations adopted last fall. There are plenty of appeals to emotion, but not much in the way of fact.

I would say that there is no doubt TR was a great conservationist, though. And, as such, he encouraged scientific management of resources to ensure their future existence and to guarantee the ability of posterity to enjoy them. I think that is a principle with which many of us more interested in conservation than preservation would agree with. Fisheries should be managed with science to make sure that fishing can continue. The Umpqua is a fishery--not a private park.

The problem here, like with all of the proposals and movements related to the Umpqua drainage in recent years it seems, is that there is little or no basis in science to support the positions taken. These are emotional positions tied, unfortunately, to an elitism that appears deeply rooted in certain parts of the fly fishing community associated with that area.

[ycflyfisher]

I would like to clarify I said every word carefully the way I meant it. I am sick of how one or two minor voices again and again try to twist my words. THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL, THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL, THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL AND IT TRANSCENDS SCIENCE. I have killed thousands of anadramous fish in my life, so emotions have nothing to do with this. I gave up bonking wild steelhead about 10 years ago once I realized it's just a stupid thing to do until the the thouseands of extirpated, endangered, thretenend, and depressed runs and screwed up watersheds start to bounce back.

Anybody on this board has a lot of nerve making contemptuous remarks about Scott and his understanding of the situation up there. He has fished that river since he was a kid, and his dad and gradad before him. He has spent more time on that river than all the rest of us could ever begin to imagine. And his reactions are certainly not kneejerk. If he says 5000 fish, then nod your head and believe it. He is honest and knows the real deal. He just doesn't want to see his river destroyed.

I know the guys who saw massive numbers of wild steelhead that would otherwise be headed for the south fork or other tribs heading home in coolers. AND NOBODY AT ODFW REALLY SEES THIS STUFF GOING DOWN!!! Data, schmata...these biologist are underfunded, undereducated, and guessing 90% of the time. Poaching is rampant. I have seen it first hand there and reported it and nobody from ODFW was able to do a thing. Thousands and thousands of wild winter steelhead were being harvested before it was stopped. This issue is about protecting some of the last good things on earth. You might remember a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Had a little something to do with a place you might have heard of, called Yellowstone. The upqua drainage is the same kind of place, and the steelhead on that river are a lot like a Bald Eagle, a Bison, or a wolf. You just don't go and let some state agency wildlife biologist making 50K a year to make educated guesses about harvesting of wild steelhead populations on the south fork and mainstem of the NU. Or listen to a bunch of meat-hungry guides who want to whack and stack one of the great steelhead runs in the world. It's simple really. There are some places worth protecting.

Sheesh next thing you know somebody will start arguing we should be able to kill Kispiox and Babine summer runs! Or shooting grizzlies in Yellowstone. Well you know what? You guys that are so in love with your perfect science can take your student's T distribution, and your baysean monte carlo population model and take a giant hike up to the cowlitz or the santiam and play god with some fish that we can afford to lose. Matt is the only guy here who's honest enough to tell it like it is. Biologists are gonna make too many mistakes and this issue is about way more than arguing over the inadequate science that doesn't hold up to real scrutiny.


Come on guys this is a no brainer. Let's protect Umpqua wild steelhead once and for all so our grandkids have a prayer at catching one. Some places and species should be protected the Umpqua system is top on the list.

This, as simply put as possible, is the single most condescending and purposely envenomed message I've ever seen hit any flyfishing message board. This simply is amazing. First, a total ad hom attack attempting to totally devalue the individuals (and not the opinions) offering up a differing viewpoint. Followed by a total napalm job on on the virtual (perceived by the author) imcompetence and ineptitude of the nature of fisheries science in general. But that's not enough, let's further attempt to devalue the opposing opinions by dragging the percieved income of all associate level bio's and their Jr level and tech staff into the discussion by pointing out that they simply don't earn enough to possess any level of competence and thus ARE NOT the individuals that should be at the forefront in regards to fisheries management decisions. Unreal. Also highly ironic when you consider that most prospective bios now literally need a MS and not just a BS coupled also with several years living their lives out of a duffel bag, traversing around the state as even lower paid techs/ interns before they eventually get their first junior level opportunity. Fisheries isn't a field that most go into with the illusion of monetary reward. It's very much become a career path where a genuine interest and a ton of self sacrifice is madantory and the career opportunites are anything but guaranteed. I've never seen anyone EVER attempt to so completely devalue an entire profession, with such ill chosen words simply because by their own admission the science available doesn't fit what they want to believe.

Not to be so bold as to attempt to derail this discussion away from one condescending and inconsiderate individual's mad rantings, and total and purposeful attempt at another trainwreck, is there anything not totally based in emotion (or egotistical anger poorly disguised as "passion") that is in anyway indicative that angler take, is in any way/shape/form going to irrepairably impact abundance in this particluar situation?

[bigtj]

OK Darian and YC, you think I'm over the top and maybe I was a bit.. We'll agree to disagree on the fact that I don't think the state biologists rank ultra-high on the heirarcy of scientific study power available in the US. It may have come out wrong the way I said it, I'm just saying these guys aren't the best that the US could do if we put all of our resources and priorities on the problem. Given 100 million in funding and a team of the best fisheries biologists in the world I guarantee you a better assessment of the situation could be made.

On my insistence that science is not the ultimate information being used to make a decision about this situation, look at it like this... a state fisheries board makes the decision on the regs based on public input. The bilogists give their input, too, but ultimately a board makes the decision, with fisheries managers that may or may not be biologists. This is at least how I understand the decision is made after being involved with this issue for two years now. Three of the guys on the board I have corresponded with personally by mail and on the phone are not biologists, although one of them has a background in biology, but now they are simply a manager/regulator and they are way up the "food chain" from the feet-in-the-trenches bilogists. Ultimately the decision comes down to the judgment of the board, and their personal perception of the situation. Put two different groups in charge of the board with two different viewpoints and two different decisions would get made. Think of it as similar to city council. Because the science is never completely accurate, the board has to put that in perspective and judgement and GASP!! poltical pressure on that board by the public ultimately end up influencing the decision.

Science has a role in decision making but ultimately decisions by boards like this are made based upon more than the science.

On that, I'm outta here....see you on the NU this summer swinging dries. Make your voice heard to protect Umpqua wild steelhead, and bonk every hatchery fish you can get your hands on!

[bigtj]

Bubzilla,

Hey man let's get the facts straight on this...Grover Cleveland was president when Yellowstone was finally protected and Roosevelt was the force behind it. Sure Grant enacted the park, but it was about to be exploited and Roosevelt was the main guy who stopped the exploitation (Hmmm sounds a lot like the Umpqua and what Scott Howell is trying to do):


In 1887, Roosevelt and editor George Bird Grinnell of "Forest and Stream" magazine founded the Boone and Crockett Club. In the pages of his magazine, Grinnell had called for forest management, clean water, and restricted use of natural resources-ideas considered quite radical by most Americans. Under Roosevelt and Grinnell, the Boone and Crockett Club would support these concepts, not only promoting the enjoyment of hunting, but the study and preservation of game animals and their habitats.

Perhaps none of the club's efforts was more significant than one of their earliest-the battle for Yellowstone. While Yellowstone had been officially designated a national park, the designation included no provision for its protection from commercial exploitation. When mining and railroad interests threatened to seriously damage the park, Boone and Crockett rose to the defense.

With editorials, speaking engagements, and furious lobbying among Washington's rich and powerful, the B & C succeeded. In 1894, President Grover Cleveland signed a bill protecting Yellowstone. While this action alone might have been enough to enshrine Theodore Roosevelt as a Friend to Nature, it represented only a fraction of what he would do to preserve the natural world. Roosevelt's career as a politician/conservationist had only begun.

Our special places and wildlife gets protected because people want it to happen and cause political pressure. Think Yellowstone and its wildlife would have gotten completely protected had Roosevelt not gone around and convinced everyone it was worth protecting? Would we rather have killed off all the bison, bear, and elk and put a bunch of open pit mines there instead? I'm sure there were biologists in the late 1800's that would have said the elk populations would be fine in yellowstone if it wasn't protected and that protection was unnecessary. Call it emotional if you want, whatever - it's all about the decision maker's perception.

[bubzilla]

Bubzilla,

Hey man not to be condescending but Grover Cleveland was president when Yellowstone was created and Roosevelt was the force behind it.

Ummm...well you can be condescending if you like, but you're still wrong. :lol: Personally, I'd try some research in the future.

http://www.yellowstone.net/history/earlyyears.htm

Again, take a look at your own quote with regard to TR. He was a proponent of scientific management--not emotion driven preservation which is what you're supporting. My guess is TR would not be with you on this one; nor would he have supported most of the nutty regulations proposed for that drainage in the last decade because they had nothing to do with scientific management and everything to do with elitism.

[bigtj]

Sorry I meant to say protected, not created see my edits. No Roosevelt and we would not have the yellowstone we have today, that is a simple, well documented fact.

TR was way more about political lobbying and getting people behind a cause than science. My great grandfather was a secret service agent and guarded Roosevelt personally. It's well known in my family from my Great Grandfather's letters that Roosevelt wore his heart on his sleeve when it came to protection of resources. But that's also shown in the popular history not just my family's.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Some people just like to be controversial.

We can all have our own beliefs even if we are wrong once and a while.

Up north on the Columbia River they are trying to get a permit to kill or remove a bunch of Sea Lions that are eating the dwindling runs of salmon and Steelhead below a dam.

This might help and might not. Who knows for sure?

[ycflyfisher]

Bill,

Does your forum have an ignore feature? If so how do you activate it? I've clicked all over everything and can't seem to find one. I've had enough of the sick, condescending, self-grandizing and twisted view of the world according to Bigtj to last me a lifetime.

Thanks in advance.

[Covelo]

I hope most of the people posting here have been on forums long enough to recognize the classic circular arguement.

Step one -- cannot argue the facts so they make it personal.

Step two -- Cannot argue the facts so they offer meaningless trivial points and try to deflect the debate into a tangent, ie Teddy Rosevelt

Step three -- Cannot argue the facts so they try to elevate their position and make it equal with yours, ie "we will just have to agree to disagree"

How does one determine that a fish is headed for the SF and not the NF?
Rhetorical question, I know.

[Ed Wahl]

I believe Taft was bigger than Roosevelt, Grant, and Cleveland combined. Plus I think he would have had the best baked Steelhead recipe. :p

If we had a mooning emoticon you'd be seeing it now, in it's stead, you'll have to use your imaginations. That ain't pretty for the people who know me.

This threads done, put a fork in it.

[sculpin]

Here it is ED


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/Sculpin/cid_003301c7866e180d55406c01a8c0Lap.gif

[Ed Wahl]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Hairstacker]

After 3 pages of steelheaded discussion, Mark pipes in at the end with his contribution. . . . Good one Mark! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Darian]

:lol: :lol: Another great emoticon. =D> =D> Greg could we have some added to the BB selection :?: Please, please, please.... [-o< [-o< [-o<

[jbird]

Its funny how these types of threads always bring out the usual suspects to toot their horn. Theres about 4 or 5 (obvious) members out there that just cant bare to sit quietly in "lurker mode" . so they log on to exploit all the [so called] ignorance. Only posting if theres a point to prove... This is a big reason I rarely participate on any forums anymore. I cant deny the entertainment value of being a fly on the wall tho :evil: