Recreational salmon fishing limited to single site, catch

[Scott V]

Taken from Sac Bee:

The Central Valley will again experience a curtailed recreational salmon fishing season this year, the result of a historically low population of fall-run chinook.

The California Fish and Game Commission on Tuesday ruled that fishing will be allowed only on the Sacramento River between Knights Landing and the Lower Red Bluff Boat Ramp, and only between Nov. 16 and Dec. 31. Anglers may keep only one salmon per day and possess only one at any time.

All other areas of the Sacramento River and its tributaries, including the American and Feather rivers, are closed to salmon fishing.

The commission also affirmed a closure of commercial salmon fishing in all ocean waters off the California coast, in accord with a previous decision by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. It approved a limited recreational ocean catch, as well as a limited recreational season on the Klamath and Trinity rivers.

The Central Valley fall-run chinook was once the largest salmon run on the West Coast, but its numbers plunged amid poor ocean conditions and environmental problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

[Darrin.Deel]

I am really glad they are doing this. I like catching (and bonking) one salmon a year. that's all need.

[David Lee]

Lovely .

Numbers are in the s#!tter and they are going to allow limited take anyways ??? I wonder why the Salmon have come up the river ?

Nearly as STUPID as the folks taking limits of SPAWNING Stripes on the big Sac right now . That'll help the population rebound , won't it ?!?

People never cease to amaze me .....................

David

[Covelo]

David,

The season only targets the late fall run salmon which are genetically different from the fall run and has had stable return numbers for the past 5 years. In fact the start date for the season was pushed back by 15 days this year because of potential impacts to late arriving fall run fish last season.

As for stripers, anyone who doesn't bonk one is doing a disservice to salmon and steelhead.

[Dustin Revel]

the sacramento will have 112 fish over the minimum to ensure a sustainable run... sooo apparently thats table fare.

and striper caviar is tastey... mmmmm

[David Lee]

David,

The season only targets the late fall run salmon which are genetically different from the fall run and has had stable return numbers for the past 5 years. In fact the start date for the season was pushed back by 15 days this year because of potential impacts to late arriving fall run fish last season.

As for stripers, anyone who doesn't bonk one is doing a disservice to salmon and steelhead.

Covelo -

If Dustin's numbers are correct ...... that would be 112 Salmon that could INCREASE the total population of river-spawned late-Fall run fish IF they were left alone . A 'sustainable' run is far from being a thriving run , wouldn't you agree ?

As far as the last line of your post - you are entitled to your opinion . I know Striped Bass feed on Salmon/Steelhead Parr/Smolts , but so do Suckers (natives , BTW) , Squawfish (also native) , Sculpin , and a host of other critters . If Stripers were a huge factor in the decline of native Salmon/Steelhead runs since their introduction (late 1870's)...... why didn't Salmon and Steelhead dissapear around 1900 ???????

As long as we have our Salmon and Steelhead cut-off from ripe spawning water (or , I should say what little water we still have left after exporting) ...... they will NEVER rebound . Unless we're counting the mass-production fish from Coleman .

Striped Bass are not the problem , and they never have been the problem .

David

[Covelo]

If Dustin's numbers are correct ...... that would be 112 Salmon that could INCREASE the total population of river-spawned late-Fall run fish IF they were left alone . A 'sustainable' run is far from being a thriving run , wouldn't you agree ?

You are comparing apples with oranges. A thriving run is only possible if as you stated below, the conditions are improved via more spawning grounds and more water. Unlikely. A sustainable run supported by hatcheries is the best we can hope for unfortunately. The worst part about everything that is going on with the Sac system is that the true wild runs have been forgotten and will continue to suffer.


As far as the last line of your post - you are entitled to your opinion . I know Striped Bass feed on Salmon/Steelhead Parr/Smolts , but so do Suckers (natives , BTW) , Squawfish (also native) , Sculpin , and a host of other critters . If Stripers were a huge factor in the decline of native Salmon/Steelhead runs since their introduction (late 1870's)...... why didn't Salmon and Steelhead dissapear around 1900 ???????

As long as we have our Salmon and Steelhead cut-off from ripe spawning water (or , I should say what little water we still have left after exporting) ...... they will NEVER rebound . Unless we're counting the mass-production fish from Coleman .

Striped Bass are not the problem , and they never have been the problem .

David

Plenty of water and habitat back in 1900 so stripers were negligible impact. Same conditions do not apply today. Less water, warmer water, more concentrated system leading to greater interaction. How do you put 6 million predatory sized stripers into the bay/delta and call their impacts negligible? Even if they only ate 1 smolt a year, that is a significant impact. Maybe not significant in years with good flows and healthy ocean conditions, but in all other years it is.

[Jgoding]

Maybe I'll start bonking people over the head (except native americans)..... that'll help out the salmon too.....amirite? We all know you love your native species Covelo, but honestly, you can't really believe what you just said do you (about the stripers)??

Native or not I think the striper has earned a position that should be respected as a game fish and not some trash fish that should be eradicated because we can't manage natural resources to sustain a healthy population of salmon and steelhead. I'm getting tired of hearing this argument when the resources have been so mis-managed for sustainability for the all high and mighty dollar and then instead of taking any type of responsibility we point the finger at some fish which mind you, we introduced, and that really has had a minimal role in declines of salmon/steelhead stocks...

And yes, go ahead and argue that striper eat salmon smolts and lots of them. I'm sure they do but when looking at a biological system that's what smolts are for and that's why so many are produced.... Spawning adult fish are much more "valuable" for future stocks and herein lies the hypocrisy of our argument(s) that striper have caused the decine of our beloved salmon and steelhead.

And I always love "posession" in the regs....

[David Lee]

Don't bonk me on the head , Jeff ....... I'm a 4th-generation Californian !!

David

[Darian]

Not trying to stir the pot but I'm curious about why predation by Steelhead on Salmon and Steelhead alevin/smolts while in rivers/streams never enters these discussions :?: I recognize it's part of a natural cycle and I'm sure they (Steelhead) have a significant impact on survival of these tiny fish, naturally spawned, due to their proximity at the time of emergence from spawning gravels.... :confused: No impact studies available :?: :?: Ami missing something :?: :?:

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

VERY GOOD POINT DARIAN......;=D>

I believe the term here is "prejudice".....[-X

:p

Predation of salmon/steelhead smolt by stripes is part of the natural cycle too, but............... ](*,)

At least the striper bashing going on here is not in the striper forum, like the last one.... :eek:

[Hairstacker]

Not trying to stir the pot but I'm curious about why predation by Steelhead on Salmon and Steelhead alevin/smolts while in rivers/streams never enters these discussions :?:

I believe that is so because, as Jeff noted, this discussion boils down to native vs. non-native.

[Darian]

Robin, thanks for the thought.... Prior discussions have included more than a little bias against Stripers. :neutral:

Actually, I was only hoping to find out if there is something (info) available to quantify the impact. Maybe I'm wrong and the impact is insignificant.... :confused: If the impact of Salmonid predation on each other is significant, we could do more to defend against spureous litigation and bad attempts at legislation. :cool:

[Covelo]

To Darian's point, I would like to see data examining the native rainbow component in the Sac River prior to Shasta Dam and whether the dam has shifted conditions in favor of non-anadromous life cycle. If so, it might explain why steelhead have done so poorly in the upper Sac since fry would have to compete directly with rainbows for food and would be eaten when small.

Yes it boils down to a native vs non-native issue. Likewise impacts from natives are not equivalent though they can be increased due to habitat modifications. Stripers and non-natives do not earn a place over time. They have an impact and have been having an impact since they were introduced. We may not understand that impact completely but it is real. Many species in the Bay/Delta and the rivers that feed them have been in decline for decades. Much of this has been due to dams and flows so it is difficult to tease out the individual impacts of other causes. You cannot just throw in several million high level predators and say they have no effect. That is biased.


And yes, go ahead and argue that striper eat salmon smolts and lots of them. I'm sure they do but when looking at a biological system that's what smolts are for and that's why so many are produced.... Spawning adult fish are much more "valuable" for future stocks and herein lies the hypocrisy of our argument(s) that striper have caused the decine of our beloved salmon and steelhead.

Glad someone has finally acknowledged that stripers eat lot of smolts. Spawning fish are not more valuable unless the system has under utilized spawning grounds and can carry more fry. Probably true right now with the current low returns, but not so otherwise. I never stated that the striper caused the decline, but they have contributed to it and will likely slow the recovery. Further, their impact is likely more severe for wild fish than for hatchery fish just like the squawfish was for native steelhead on the upper mainstem of the Eel River. The hatchery fish are released larger and when trucked down to the bay they avoid a long line of stripers and other non-native predators.

[mikel]

Please check out this post from today....

http://www.kiene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16247

-Mike

[David Lee]

Glad someone has finally acknowledged that stripers eat lot of smolts.


" ........... I know Striped Bass feed on Salmon/Steelhead Parr/Smolts , but so do Suckers (natives , BTW) , Squawfish (also native) , Sculpin , and a host of other critters ....... "

The above is from my second post in this thread . You would have to be out to lunch to think Stripers don't feed on ANYTHING that is available in large numbers .

I'm not going to be involved in this exchange anymore . Your personal bias continues to paint Striped Bass as the boogymen - I don't know why you don't like them to that extreme (and I don't much care why) but , as I said before ..... you are entitled to your opinion .

There are , as far as I know , NO documented runs of Salmon or Steelhead that have dissapeared because of Striped Bass predation . If you can name one , I'll happily eat crow .

David

[Darian]

Covelo,.... There's gotta be some info somewhere on this stuff.... :confused: I understand that Stripers have had an impact on Salmonid populations and that over time, habitat and water quality degradation magnify that impact but wouldn't the same circumstance apply in reverse where adult Salmonids are predators for juvenile Stripers and Shad (even Black Bass). :-| Lets reduce the predation issue to it's lowest common denominator: with few exceptions, big fish eat little fish whether native or non-native. :cool:

I'm a bit confused here, tho. If, as has been pointed out, "Stripers and non-natives do not earn a place over time." How do we justify eradication (too strong a choice of words :question: ) of Stripers and while not eradicating other non-native species that haven't been in California much longer than Stripers have (e.g. immigrant human population for one) :?: Doesn't everything become a native species over time :question: What about the impacts of adaption and natural selection :question: The trouble with reducing things down to this native vs non-native specie argument is, where does it end :?:

Non-native species continue to be imported into California by collectors and commercial dealers in animals, birds, fish and plants for sale on a daily basis. Plus they arrive through vehicles (e.g. recreational boats, rail, shipping and aircraft) that we have no control over. Natural vectors factor into this as well. Many of them end up being released into the environment. IMHO, it's far too expensive and too late in the game to even attempt to eradicate many non-native species. They're here whether we like them or not. :nod:

For me the solution is pragmatic. Why not try to protect what we have rather than wake up and find out all anadromous fish species are gone :question: I'm still of the opinion that a high tide floats all boats. :cool:

[Jgoding]

[QUOTE=Covelo;60138]

Yes it boils down to a native vs non-native issue. Likewise impacts from natives are not equivalent though they can be increased due to habitat modifications. Stripers and non-natives do not earn a place over time.

I agree with you there.

I just think in your first post that perhaps you were implying AB1253 is the way to go in turning the tide in the decline of our salmon stocks when the much larger picture is of course the quality of habitat these fish have to utilize for reproduction and early stages of growth.

I don't know, I've just always been bothered with the mentality that you should bonk certain fish over the head whenever you catch one just because they're believed to be a trash fish, nuisance fish, or non-native. For especially invasive species that displace native species I do agree that culling is a good idea, but when looking at say stripers..... I don't see them as being an invasive species that wipe out ecological systems they inhabit and to promote they're decline is being pretty pretentious.

To the point of stripers being a cause of the decline of salmon.... I don't think this has been proven either way. Obviously they've co-existed for a fair amount of time and I just think if we helped improve the spawning habitat every so slightly (manage water flows appropriately during spawn etc...) we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.

[Dustin Revel]

just to put the isue in a little different light...
imagine stripers were not introduced into the delta 100 years ago and our salmon/steelhead population was at this pathetic low. would you introduce 6 million predators?

i think covelo is just saying what nobody wants to believe or has the balls to say. just because we love stripers and we love fishing for them doesn't mean we should let our emotions cloud the issue. We have introduced a species that is aiding in the diminishing returns of native species, and thst is totally factual.

[Mike R]

I was trying to stay out of this but can't. Stripers are just one cog in a very big wheel. There is no denying that stripers eat salmon smolt. Do stripers put a dent in the smolts? I'm inclined to think so but I also believe that stripers are much heavier predators on other fish, namely threadfin shad (which has also diappeared, btw).

So here's the rub. Striper populations are way down too. Populations of EVERY migratory species that swims throught the delta are down. This may be a significant clue as to what might be causing the demise of the salmon/steelhead, stripers, delta smelt, etc. If the striper population was way up and they were picking off the smolts as they came down the river, I think we could point a finger at them, but they aren't.

If you really want to talk about an invasive species putting a dent in fish populations, look up Potamocorbula amurensis or Corbicula fluminea. It'll blow your mind.

My head hurts from thinking about how/why the salmon population has crashed.

Mike

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Well said, Mike R..... =D>

[Jgoding]

Is 6 million the current projection of the striper population? I thought it was a lot lower or was that just an example?

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Is 6 million the current projection of the striper population?From http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbacher/060622stripedbass.html

"The striper population has varied widely in recent years. Abundance probably reached a peak of 3 to 4.5 million fish in the early 1960’s. The population varied from 1.5 million to 1.9 million fish from the mid-1960’s through 1976, but declined to an all time low of 600,000 fish in 1994.

Since that time, the population of legal-sized striped bass has increased to about 1.5 million. “The recent upturn in abundance is unexplained and is being investigated by DFG scientists,” according to the DFG.

On the other hand, juvenile striper population has declined precipitously over the past two decades. In the fall 2005 trawl net survey in the Delta, DFG biologists documented the second lowest number of young-of-the-year stripers.

The survey also revealed the lowest ever population of Delta smelt, the second lowest-ever population of longfin smelt and the tenth lowest population of threadfin shad, according to Chuck Armor, DFG biologist. The federal and state governments are currently investigating the causes of a dramatic food chain decline that includes these four species, as well as plankton species that they and other fish forage upon.

Although a number of factors are blamed for the striped bass decline, including toxics and invasive species, the chief culprit is undoubtedly the massive export of Delta water by the state and federal pumps to the Westlands Water District and southern California. "
================================================== =======================================
I believe it would follow that this is the same chief culprit of the salmon/steelhead decline, as they live in and migrate through the same waters.

Just some food for thought.... (no pun intended)

[mr. 3 wt.]

Our biggest predator to our salmon and every other fish up here in the Sac/SJ river/delta system is southern california. If they didn't take so much water, there would be enough to flush out the system every year, resevoirs would stay fuller longer, cold water releases would last longer, the list goes on and on. Mike R's statement (what's up mike!) is on par. There are many pieces to the decline, stripers is just one small one.

[Darian]

This has kinda drifted off point but.... Altho I agree that if demands for water were reduced everything would easier in the delta, I'm just not sure that current water management practices are really tied to the call for conservation. :confused:

If demands were reduced, profits made from the sales of water as a commodity would be reduced. IMHO, the money changing hands on water transactions is so high that beneficiaries of these sales would not allow that to stand. Why do you think they've undertaken the all-out effort (videos ads, litigation, legislation) to make sure that the water continues to be pumped at current levels :question:

Surface water allocations are based on a need of a particular entity (agencies/municipalities). Any excess water left after actual use is sold to downstream water agencies, distributors, growers and/or users. (initial allocations are granted to water agencies and municipalities; then sold to others downstream). At each point, the cost of water is higher than the last. :neutral:

The affect of this is that those who ask for allocations ask for the maximum each year and, in turn, demand (mandate :question: ) conservation in order have an excess to sell and use the resulting money to keep rates low. However, since the same amount of water is taken from the source, there is no conservation of water in this scenario. [-(

[Covelo]

just to put the isue in a little different light...
imagine stripers were not introduced into the delta 100 years ago and our salmon/steelhead population was at this pathetic low. would you introduce 6 million predators?

Yes, in a nutshell. Thanks for the concise summary. My 6 million figure was taken from a 1994 report (quote below) and included all striped bass of piscivorous size. It is a little dated so striped bass numbers are probably less now though likely still in the millions or possibly higher if 1994 was an all time low as posted by Mrs Finsallaround. I never said anything about eradication and the current bill proposes to only deregulate the striper, not erradicate it. The side impacts from attempting eradication would be huge. Natural and man-made introductions are not equal just like impacts from natives are not equal to those from non-natives. Non-native impacts are usually just added on and are not selected for in prey avoidance. Maybe after a few thousand generations they will be. Whether humans are considered native or their actions (both purposeful and incidental) considered natural is a whole other discussion.

"DFG wrote that, "...Based on the 1994 abundance of delta smelt (4,803,000), annual consumption of delta smelt by the present (mean 1992-94) striped bass population in the Estuary is estimated to be 5.3% of the population..." The "(mean 1992-94) striped bass population" used by DFG was 6,760,385 and included estimated abundance of piscivorous age-1, age-2 and age-=>3 striped bass. Thus, the striped bass population characterized by DFG would have consumed 254,559 delta smelt annually, even though delta smelt "frequency of occurrence" in striped bass stomachs had never been observed to be greater than 0.0033."

David Lee wrote

There are , as far as I know , NO documented runs of Salmon or Steelhead that have dissapeared because of Striped Bass predation . If you can name one , I'll happily eat crow .

Sure you do not want to set that bar any lower? :) We have gone from not thriving to extripated all in the same thread. Would significant impact be sufficient? Below link is to a paper on Coos Bay and estimates the potential upper limit impact of stripers at 46,000 adult kings. I'd call that significant. The lower link has a volume of info regarding stripers.

ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/Adult_Sturgeon_and_Striped_Bass/Striped%20bass%20enhancement%20and%20predation%20o n%20salmonids%20Coos%20Bay%201992.pdf

ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/Adult_Sturgeon_and_Striped_Bass/

[Darian]

You got me there, Covelo. :o I agree that you didn't use the term eradicate and that the current bill (AB 1253) only removes game fish protections from Stripers. :cool:

Unfortunately, Stripers are included in the overall blanket of invasive species when discussed by politicians (DFG and water resources managers, D. Feinstein, D. Matsui, the governor, ad nauseum) and others who advocate eradication of all invasive species. So, removal of protections for Stripers adds up to death by a thousand cuts (recreational and commercial fisherman, poachers, etc.). :( Of course, that position generates sound bites, is political and maybe not possible. :confused: At any rate, I'll try to read your posts more closely. :D

Since the situation described in the following quote hasn't occurred, I'm not sure that the message is relevant. :confused: "just to put the isue in a little different light... imagine stripers were not introduced into the delta 100 years ago and our salmon/steelhead population was at this pathetic low. would you introduce 6 million predators?" I can imagine the outcome but how does it relate to our current problem (which is clearly not the same), especially when predator populations are also in decline. :question:

If what I suspect is correct, our current Salmon/Steelhead populations may continue to decline regardless of whether predators are present or not. :neutral: Many of the major, contributing factors to decline of anadromous fish populations are beyond our ability to control, either through lack of will on the part of our leaders to do so or by conditions in parts of the environment that're beyond our reach (e.g. oceanic environment). :sad:

[Dustin Revel]

Well there is some obvious denial going on around here about the very quality that makes stripers an exciting game fish (they eat fish... lots of em).
this article shows the probability of the quasi extinction of winterrun chinook salmon in the sacramento river in relation to striped bass abundance.

if you don't understand the math skip it, and make sense of what you can. If yiu have any questions I'll do my best to use my available resources to answer them, but this school year is coming to an end which means i shouldn;t be doing this right now.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDG/is_2_101/ai_102341374/pg_7/?tag=content;col1

unfortunately striped bass are an invasive species, and should be treated as such.

[wjorg]

If Salmonid and Striper fishermen and women fight, that is exactly what the striper bill was designed to do. Make us fight, instead of unifying to blame the government for MISMANAGMENT of fisheries, habitat, water and other factors.

I could care less for stripers, but they shouldn't be the scapegoat for the government that gets us bickering when we should be organizing.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

... blame the government for MISMANAGMENT of fisheries, habitat, water and other factors.

...they shouldn't be the scapegoat for the government that gets us bickering when we should be organizing.

Well said.... =D>


Well there is some obvious denial going on around here about the very quality that makes stripers an exciting game fish (they eat fish... lots of em).

No one is denying this fact, least of all me - especially when I'm using a minnow pattern to catch 'em.

We are just denying that this is the sole reason for the decline of the salmon/steelhead fisheries, as some avid salmon/steelhead fishermen/women seem to express.

If this was the case, there wouldn't be the number of other native/non-native species in the same water system in equal decline, including the stripers themselves.

I, for one, do not want to see the decline of any species, native or not.

[Darian]

Thanks for the info Dustin.... Interesting material, so far. I'm still digesting it. :)

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

dustin's article says "...Winter-run chinook salmon have a 28% chance of becoming quasi-extinct and a 11% chance of recovering to more than 20,000 adults in 50 years, if no striped bass stocking were to occur... If, on the other hand, striped bass predation could be eliminated completely, the probability of quasi-extinction would decline to 23% ([delta]=-4.5%, 0.9 CI=[-5.6%,-3.4%]) and the probability of recovery within 50 years would rise to 14%."

I'm not willing to help eradicate an entire species to raise the probability of recovery of Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon - Morone saxatilis - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha a mere 3%.....:eek:

[Dustin Revel]

Robin,
when they say "Winter-run chinook salmon have a 28% chance of becoming quasi-extinct and a 11% chance of recovering to more than 20,000 adults in 50 years, if no striped bass stocking were to occur" read "no striped bass stocking" as 512,000 adult striped bass
the current population number you presented (from a source other than a peer reviewed journal) is about 3x the "no stocking" figure.

"A future adult bass population of 3.0x[10.sup.6] would raise the chance of winter-run chinook salmon quasi-extinction to 55% ([delta]=27.7%, 0.9 CI=[25.4%, 30.1%]) and lower the recovery probability to 3.8%. If, on the other hand, striped bass predation could be eliminated completely, the probability of quasi-extinction would decline to 23% ([delta]=-4.5%, 0.9 CI=[-5.6%,-3.4%]) and the probability of recovery within 50 years would rise to 14%."

THis means if the population of striped bass reaches 3 million the probability of quasi extinction over 50 years is 55years. what you think that means would happen over 100 years if there were 3,000,000 SB? if the SB population was 0 the probability of quasi extinction would be 23%

I don't think anyone suggested eradicating the species entirely (personally I would advocate an increase in bag limits). I was just trying to make everyone aware that this is not a scientific question; it is a societal question of which is more valuable native (potential game)fish or introduced gamefish.

"Although this analysis suggests that striped bass predation may be a significant risk factor for winter-run chinook salmon, striped bass eradication would not be enough to ensure recovery of winter-run chinook salmon"

there are many other things adversely affecting this evolutionary significant unit, but i was just proving the point that sb DO have a significant affect on salmon... i think i've done that.
...I'm going trout fishing?
Dustin

[Frank Alessio]

I like Stripers.... They do not die after sex and stink up the river. You know it is true....

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

I like Stripers.... They do not die after sex and stink up the river. You know it is true....

LMAO... :lol:

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... After re-reading the material and the latest post, the fact that Striper predation has a significant impact on recovery of Salmon/Steelhead populations is confirmed.... :nod: Of course, that doesn't answer the question about the level of predation by other Salmonids on juvenile Salmon/Steehead (or other species, either). That raises a number of other related questions.... :confused: This has to end sometime soon, So, I won't start that here.... :|

As we've all seemed to agree, this is, "a societal issue." For our purposes, the value of one species over another is a choice to be made through consideration of a number of related personal concerns. 8-)

IMHO, efforts for recovery of Salmon/Steelhead populations are not certain to succeed whether or not Stripers are there. Also, we (the BB community) are apparently not advocating eradication, raising the take limit on Stripers appears to be a reasonable position.... Realistically, the problem becomes advocating an increased bag limit for Stripers as opposed to removal of game fish protections as a viable option to contribute to the recovery of Salmon/Steelhead populations. :nod:

[matt johnson]

“it is a societal question of which is more valuable native (potential game)fish or introduced gamefish”

This is an interesting point. If California is able to reach the recovery goal of 20,000 winter-run Chinook, do you think there will ever be a recreational fishery on winter run Chinook allowed?

Has anybody here ever even seen a winter run Chinook? As a remnant and displacd population are they valuable to the ecosystem? Their nutrient value as decomposing carcasses has long been cut off from their original spawning areas much higher in the watershed...

I totally dig salmon, but personally favor management/enhancement of desireable fish species that present maximum recreational opportunity to the maximum number of people.

We should be able to keep the winter run Chinook around as a sort of "do-do bird" curiosity for the forseable future.

The fall run are going to be fine when the ocean cooperates, and we will again have robust recreational fisheries in the future. We stock the crap out of those things...

Striped bass have never been the problem. My .02 Matt.

[Dustin Revel]

Hmmm,.... After re-reading the material and the latest post, the fact that Striper predation has a significant impact on recovery of Salmon/Steelhead populations is confirmed.... :nod: Of course, that doesn't answer the question about the level of predation by other Salmonids on juvenile Salmon/Steehead (or other species, either). That raises a number of other related questions.... :confused: This has to end sometime soon, So, I won't start that here.... :|

As we've all seemed to agree, this is, "a societal issue." For our purposes, the value of one species over another is a choice to be made through consideration of a number of related personal concerns. 8-)

IMHO, efforts for recovery of Salmon/Steelhead populations are not certain to succeed whether or not Stripers are there. Also, we (the BB community) are apparently not advocating eradication, raising the take limit on Stripers appears to be a reasonable position.... Realistically, the problem becomes advocating an increased bag limit for Stripers as opposed to removal of game fish protections as a viable option to contribute to the recovery of Salmon/Steelhead populations. :nod:

WOW! i think we've agreed on something...8-)

[Dustin Revel]

I totally dig salmon, but personally favor management/enhancement of desireable fish species that present maximum recreational opportunity to the maximum number of people.


I find this idea very disturbing. there is more to it than recreational value, and i would've expected/hoped a fellow angler to realize this, but I guess not.

[matt johnson]

hey Dustin,

Yes, I probably came off rather blunt and narrow-minded with that statement. Of course I see the existence of a fish as something well beyond that which I can extract some "recreational opportunity" out of...

Since you brought them up (winter run Chinook that is), I was just kind of airing out the frustration I have with single species management.

The Feds forced the State to shut down what was in my opinion a pretty pragmatic program of raising up slavaged striped bass from the delta pumps and releasing them at a larger size to enhance the striper sport fishery. This program was discountined because of the winter run Chinook "extinction models" you referenced. So great, the striped bass anglers take a hit for the winter run Chinook (meanwhile continuing to be "taxed" for nothing via the striped bass/delta enhancement stamp!), when ALL fish species (including winter run Chinook!) using the delta for all or part of their life histories would have benefited from broader conservaion "brush strokes" such as reduced pumping, reduced pollution, etc...

We're back to the same kind of deal with BS like AB 1253! Just beat up on the stripers! It's too easy to ignore the larger picture and train the cross hairs on the striped bass.

Of course I get the argument: "while they're not the REAL problem, striped bass are not helping out the situation by being here". That is a valid point. I just don't think that it is worth sacrificing a non-native sport fish that is so available and meaningful to so many fisherpeople to persue the point of "well, they are not helping the situation any". We can do better than that. Matt.

[Covelo]

The Feds forced the State to shut down what was in my opinion a pretty pragmatic program of raising up slavaged striped bass from the delta pumps and releasing them at a larger size to enhance the striper sport fishery. This program was discountined because of the winter run Chinook "extinction models" you referenced. So great, the striped bass anglers take a hit for the winter run Chinook .....

Of course I get the argument: "while they're not the REAL problem, striped bass are not helping out the situation by being here". That is a valid point. I just don't think that it is worth sacrificing a non-native sport fish that is so available and meaningful to so many fisherpeople to persue the point of "well, they are not helping the situation any".

I don't quite get the striper-victim point of view. The striped bass need to take a hit as their numbers are huge. I have caught stripers all summer throwing plugs and I was not even fishing at peak times (April-May). Float the Yuba River above Yuba City and see how many LM, SM and striped bass you hook. 20-30 a float easy. They are too available, so I do not understand this their numbers will suffer POV. As for meaningful that is an opinion. For me, the multiple endangered species in the River/Bay/Delta are much more meaningful.

While I would prefer the striper deregulation bill to pass, I am not happy about the process. I do not like the precedent of the legislature making game management decisions the DFG should be making. The DFG knows the impacts of the striped bass and other non-natives and should have moved in this direction already. If not, then some group would have eventually sued them in court over the impacts to endangered species and won. The water barons are trying this avenue also. They have obvious alterior motives but at least they are on the right side of the law this time.


Has anybody here ever even seen a winter run Chinook?

We boated 3 of them this past Dec while fishing for late fall run kings. Unfortunately you cannot tell them apart until you examine their gonads.

http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/data/465crop1.JPG

[Dustin Revel]

hey Dustin,
Since you brought them up (winter run Chinook that is), I was just kind of airing out the frustration I have with single species management.


This really is not an example of single species management. Many many species are affected when several million predators are introduced into an ecosystem. If anything this is an example of restoration management... all the sudden we're just not that into restoration anymore are we?

[matt johnson]

Dustin,

What I am ultimately getting at has everything to do with restoration. It may apprear to be self-centered, but I just want there to open and viable fisheries left in the Central Valley. Lets not "restore" ourselves into a corner! In my opininion the only "restoration" benefit reducing striped bass numbers would have on Central Valley Chinook would be to reduce predation at hatchery salmon release sites. And no, I don't think hatchery salmon have any place in salmon restoration, but that is a whole different argument! The best "restoration" card we have to play is improving primary production and the juvenile fish rearing capacity of the delta. Until we do that all fish that use the delta are going to continue the free fall.

Gorgeous King Covelo! The Sac late fall season was set back to close on Dec. 31 a few years ago to minimize such winter run encounters. My grandfather and uncle fished Kings on the Sacramento in town all winter long unless the river was blown. There was a "continuum" of salmon passage through Sacramento then, with fall blending into late fall, then winter run and spring run overlapping January through March. The season never really ended. That continuum still exists, although sadly at only remnant levels.

And by the way, next late-fall season please release any fish with an intact adipose. Coleman late-fall are doing fine, actually too good as they strayed all over the place this past winter and spawned in the wild at what I think are unacceptable numbers. Natural late fall escapement over the last two years has been abysmal. A sport fishery on this stock is not justifiable in my opinin. Just more bad fish politics/management. I'll pm you some data next week if you are interested.

Oh and one other thing, I would agree that the stripers are present everywhere in the system but I don't think the numbers are HUGE. Please take me to your fishin' holes! I have only been fishing stripers for the last 4 years so my "data-set" is very limited. However, anecdotal evidence in the form of the catch per unit effort of all the veteren striper anglers I have talked to suggests the striper population is at an all time low. Oh and the juvenile indicies since 2000 suggest a population in steep decline... The whole "fish ark" is going down in the Central Valley. Focusing on striped bass is not going to save the ship. Matt

[Covelo]

Please do pm me the data. Thanks