Feast or Salmon?

[Tony Buzolich]

Let me start out by saying that this is meant to be a “Striped Bass” post but the more I thought about it the more I think it should go out to everyone especially those that have a primary interest in Salmon and Steelhead.

For the last few weeks stripers have been coming into the upper river system with more frequency. Some days have been good, some even great, and then for whatever reason you’ll have a dead period with few if any being caught. But, you keep trying and you stay at it because you just know,,,,, that on your next cast,,,,, you’re going to a fantastic grab and it’s game on. Time and time again, the grab is everything. And it’s addictive as any drug. You’ve got to have just one more. Then you want something bigger,,, and then more of that too. What a wonderful addiction striper fishing is.


The last couple of weeks fishing has gotten better and better,,,,,, until today. Two days ago we had one of the best days ever and today it was tough to get three fish to the boat.
Yes, I know,,,,,,,,, that’s called fishing. But why? Well, here’s the answer.

During the last few trips there have been lots and lots of small minnows dimpling the surface and with each trip there seemed to be more. My buddy Jim said he thought they looked like smolt. I thought they had to be baby squawfish because they already dumped smolt back in February. Well, Jim was right. He called to say he saw a F&G tanker truck running up Garden highway after dropping it’s load at Boyd’s. Hmmmmm? That’s fine but what about all the millions of other minnows we see swimming in the river ABOVE Boyds? On the way back to the ramp this morning we see another F&G tanker leaving the parking lot after dropping its load.

This has me puzzled. Why are they dumping smolt now? They already dumped smolt in the river two months ago. I decide to call the hatchery in Oroville and talked with a very nice lady who answered all of my questions and gave me a new outlook on the salmon / steelhead vs. striped bass controversy. Here’s what she had to say.

First off, yes they have been dumping smolt at Boyd’s for the past week and they only have one more small load for next week and they are done.

I asked why they dumped smolt two months apart? She said what they are dumping now are SALMON smolt. What they dumped in February were STEELHEAD smolt.

I asked also about the size of the smolt in February being much larger that those they are dumping now. She said, the hatchery keep and raise the steelhead for fourteen months before releasing them into the river system. This lets them get stronger and bigger in size and they have a better survival rate.


The Salmon smolt are considerably smaller (about 3 inches) when being released as they are this past week. “ Why so small when released ?” I ask. She said it’s so they mix and blend in with the natural downstream spawn that is happening now too. I told her we’d been seeing smolt all over the river way above the dumping site as they seemed to be everywhere. “These” she said, are all “natural spawned” smolt that hatch from the river bed and migrate downstream just like they have for thousands of years”.

That kind of made me feel good. Here’s a few of the hors d’oeuvres that came from one predator’s stomach this morning.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b320/buzolich/smolt_zps5f35858b.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/buzolich/media/smolt_zps5f35858b.jpg.html)

I now asked about their timing of release in relation to the upstream migration of striped bass. Don’t they know that these smolt become a prime food source for the stripers and squawfish and merganser’s, and cormorants, and every other predator up the food chain?

She responded casually by saying this is just a natural food chain and has survived this way with striped bass for over a hundred years. She did not come across as having any negative feelings for the striped bass. This is a natural occurring spawning migration for the salmon just as it is for the striped bass. Some of the BEST salmon and striper seasons we’ve had in the past have been when they co-mingled together BEFORE all of the dams and water diversions altered these migrations.

So, with all of this newly enlightened information, I have a better feeling about striped bass being mistakenly called or made out to be the bad guy. They aren’t the BAD guys that are reducing the salmon / steelhead population, it’s the WATER guys. The water diversions that are headed south. The reduction in natural flows is the real culprit.

Stripers and salmon CAN survive together.
Tony

[Ned Morris]

You all should know American Shad have a greater impact on Wild Salmon and Steelhead stocks in Central Valley than Stripers do by far. They key in on Fry and are thought to have had an impact on Winter Run Chinook stocks. Shad fly patterns don't lie gentlemen.
I agree 100% with Tony. Stripers have been around for 135 years and 80 years ago Salmon and Steelhead stocks were just fine. Water/Dams have without question been the culprit to their decline. Personally I feel better Stripers are mowing the hatchery smolts. They are planted to provide food for all!

Cool pics BTW Tony

[David Lee]

Slightly off the topic- how's the new spearfishing in freshwater for Stripes going , anyways ?? Anyone see or hear of the spear fishers having any success yet ?

D.~

[Larry S]

My quick research shows that striped bass were introduced to CA waters in 1879 and shad in 1871. I have no dog in this
fight; but, I fail to to see why shad are bigger predators on salmon and steelhead smolt than stripers. Tony and Ned; would like to sit down over a beer and discuss this. You both have better credentials in this subject than I; my history is catching
a schoolie striper in Maine a few years ago. However, even two hundred years is a short stretch in river biology unless
you add man into the equation. I would like to see the studies that pit stripers vs shad. And I will quickly submit!
Best,
Larry S

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Guess I've got some reading to do. I've been living in and fishing for Shad in the Sacramento area since 1975 and have never heard the theory that Shad were a predator of Salmon/Steelhead smolt until now.... Wonder if Ned's snickering a bit.... ;)

[ycflyfisher]

You all should know American Shad have a greater impact on Wild Salmon and Steelhead stocks in Central Valley than Stripers do by far. They key in on Fry and are thought to have had an impact on Winter Run Chinook stocks. Shad fly patterns don't lie gentlemen.
I agree 100% with Tony. Stripers have been around for 135 years and 80 years ago Salmon and Steelhead stocks were just fine. Water/Dams have without question been the culprit to their decline. Personally I feel better Stripers are mowing the hatchery smolts. They are planted to provide food for all!

Cool pics BTW Tony

Seriously? Whom is it exactly that thinks American Shad are having a measurable impact on SRWRC?

American shad are plankton feeders like most herring. They are not predominantly piscivorous at any point in their life history. Yet you're stating that it's absolute fact and common knowledge that they're not only piscivorous but so much so they're imperiling SRWRC and steelhead also? Got a source for this angler rhetoric?

The fact that you think shad flies somehow resemble YOY proves what exactly? Anglers for decades have been tying flies, particularly flies presented on downstream presentations for anadromous fish that resemble nothing in nature. I've never seen a neon yellow, or neon lime green YOY before. I've caught more American shad on glo-bugs fished on a WFS with a sink-tip, than any other pattern I've ever thrown at shad by probably a 2:1 margin. What do you think a swimming glo-bug could mimic that occurs in nature?

Maybe either you or Tony could tell us WHOM is it exactly that is blaming the demise and measureable impact in the abundance of SR chinooks/steelhead on stripers that all these pike minnow, pinnaped, Blue Heron and now American Shad baseless conspiracy theories are necessary to deflect the impact that piscivorous stripers have on the SR ecosystem? There's definitely some concern that if the food web in the delta continue to degrade/ shift to IS's that stripers could further imperil the already imperiled SRWRCs.

I've not yet seen any credible source conclusively blame stripers for pushing any CV salmonids towards extirpation. And I'm seeing these baseless conspiracy theories that attempt to shift impact from stripers to something else as little more than a comical strawman defense against an imaginary "battle" that simply does not exist.

You guys seem to be in a state of absolute denial that piscivorous stripers have an impact on fish species they coexist with. All predators and their respective prey by definition, must coexist with one another. And all predators have an impact on the abundance of their prey. In most cases it ISN'T a terminal impact on population abundance or there wouldn't be a SUSTAINABLE predator-prey relationship in the first place. The notion however that the predator-prey relationship is a peaceful or somehow mutually beneficial interaction is completely dellusional.

No doubt about it that CV anadramous salmonids have coexisited with stripers for decades. That isn't the concern. The concern seems centered on if that coexistance is sustainable in the midst of a food web that seems to be shifting from natives to invasives in the delta.

The water apologists have been sucking massive amounts of water out of the delta for nearly as long as stripers have been present. That also hasn't led to extirpation. Does it have an impact? Definitely. But I think it's pretty clear that the entrainment impacts alone have not and are not leading to the terminal imperilment of salmonids, nor the pelagics of the POD. To place the entirety of the blame on the water apologists while simultaneously downplaying the potential impact on piscivorous stripers like you and Tony are doing is comical and is baseless angler rhetoric.

If you're actually interested in educating yourselves on the actual issues imperiling the delta, I'd go back and read some of the science surrounding the POD that Marty Gingras provided last fall. I'd start with the interagency progress report. It's the best science availible. It doesn't overlook anything (water impacts) nor does it overstate the impact of predation. It does not draw any conclusions but does examine all the potential impacts. The picture it paints is pretty dismal, but what it seems to suggest is the root cause, is not what you biased striper afficianados seem to think it is.

I hope we can at least agree that you can't "solve" any problem until you can at least define the problem. Placing blame on everything under the sun, including American Shad, while downplaying the predation impact that stripers have on salmonids and the POD species, from where I sit does nothing to illuminate the root cause of the problem.

[Alosa]

Seriously? Whom is it exactly that thinks American Shad are having a measurable impact on SRWRC?

American shad are plankton feeders like most herring. They are not predominantly piscivorous at any point in their life history. Yet you're stating that it's absolute fact and common knowledge that they're not only piscivorous but so much so they're imperiling SRWRC and steelhead also? Got a source for this angler rhetoric?

The fact that you think shad flies somehow resemble YOY proves what exactly? Anglers for decades have been tying flies, particularly flies presented on downstream presentations for anadromous fish that resemble nothing in nature. I've never seen a neon yellow, or neon lime green YOY before. I've caught more American shad on glo-bugs fished on a WFS with a sink-tip, than any other pattern I've ever thrown at shad by probably a 2:1 margin. What do you think a swimming glo-bug could mimic that occurs in nature?

Maybe either you or Tony could tell us WHOM is it exactly that is blaming the demise and measureable impact in the abundance of SR chinooks/steelhead on stripers that all these pike minnow, pinnaped, Blue Heron and now American Shad baseless conspiracy theories are necessary to deflect the impact that piscivorous stripers have on the SR ecosystem? There's definitely some concern that if the food web in the delta continue to degrade/ shift to IS's that stripers could further imperil the already imperiled SRWRCs.

I've not yet seen any credible source conclusively blame stripers for pushing any CV salmonids towards extirpation. And I'm seeing these baseless conspiracy theories that attempt to shift impact from stripers to something else as little more than a comical strawman defense against an imaginary "battle" that simply does not exist.

You guys seem to be in a state of absolute denial that piscivorous stripers have an impact on fish species they coexist with. All predators and their respective prey by definition, must coexist with one another. And all predators have an impact on the abundance of their prey. In most cases it ISN'T a terminal impact on population abundance or there wouldn't be a SUSTAINABLE predator-prey relationship in the first place. The notion however that the predator-prey relationship is a peaceful or somehow mutually beneficial interaction is completely dellusional.

No doubt about it that CV anadramous salmonids have coexisited with stripers for decades. That isn't the concern. The concern seems centered on if that coexistance is sustainable in the midst of a food web that seems to be shifting from natives to invasives in the delta.

The water apologists have been sucking massive amounts of water out of the delta for nearly as long as stripers have been present. That also hasn't led to extirpation. Does it have an impact? Definitely. But I think it's pretty clear that the entrainment impacts alone have not and are not leading to the terminal imperilment of salmonids, nor the pelagics of the POD. To place the entirety of the blame on the water apologists while simultaneously downplaying the potential impact on piscivorous stripers like you and Tony are doing is comical and is baseless angler rhetoric.

If you're actually interested in educating yourselves on the actual issues imperiling the delta, I'd go back and read some of the science surrounding the POD that Marty Gingras provided last fall. I'd start with the interagency progress report. It's the best science availible. It doesn't overlook anything (water impacts) nor does it overstate the impact of predation. It does not draw any conclusions but does examine all the potential impacts. The picture it paints is pretty dismal, but what it seems to suggest is the root cause, is not what you biased striper afficianados seem to think it is.

I hope we can at least agree that you can't "solve" any problem until you can at least define the problem. Placing blame on everything under the sun, including American Shad, while downplaying the predation impact that stripers have on salmonids and the POD species, from where I sit does nothing to illuminate the root cause of the problem.


As the lone shad biologist in the region, it's really nice to see someone pose these types of questions. Theories abound, but there's no actual data beyond anecdotal evidence and 'angler intuition'. Unfortunately, neither of these are suitable for managing either American shad or striped bass.

[Slice]

Slightly off the topic- how's the new spearfishing in freshwater for Stripes going , anyways ?? Anyone see or hear of the spear fishers having any success yet ?

D.~

What did ever happen with that???

[Charlie S]

Good write Ycflyfisher. Thanks.

[Ned Morris]

Actually Tom Cannon who is one of the most respected fisheries biologists in CA other than Moyle did a study on the lower Yuba River about 15 years ago to study predator/prey relationships on both Native and Non-Native fishers. Samples were taken in the spring from Stripers, Pikeminnows (which are Native), and Shad to see which was the top predator for Salmonids. Shad were observed in the river in the tens of thousands in the river acting almost as a vacuum sucking everything in site just by their shear numbers. To much surprise they were seen actively feeding on Salmon Fry. Same observations have been observed on the Columbia River and being that shad also don't like to migrate over dams and fish passage almost unheard of with them they can literally choke a fish ladder impeding fish passage of migratory Spring Run Chinook. I am sure Dr. Moyle could shed some light on this subject. I have not personally witnessed this myself in my 20+ years of shad fishing, but the case presented bears merit.

P.S. - Give it a rest Darian. You're not that cool.

[Darian]

ycflyfisher,.... Your post brings me back to the thought that I've been mulling over for some time. There're too many entities involved to arrive at solutions to the current condition of our fish (too many cooks spoil the broth, so to speak). I know there's supposed to be someone or some entity, somewhere that has all of this (BDCP, delta, water diversion, rivers, etc, ad nauseum) in mind, but who is it??? What if anything is that persons authority to act???

At last count, there were 35+ federal, state and local agencies, joint powers authorities, water contractors directly involved in some way or another in the BDCP. On top of that, NGO's (environmental, fishing, stakeholder and other groups) trying to participate. The Delta Stewardship Counsel, as Phil Eisenberg has said, extends their authority to regulate activities in all watersheds that connect to the delta all the way up to dams. If their claim is valid, that would include water from the Trinity River as it's connected to the Sacramento thru some tunnels. I'm not aware of any actions taken by that body, yet. Tho I'm not able to prove it, I don't believe his claim is valid; if it were, he would've acted by now.

All of this tends to make me think that in spite of all the planning/organizations/science developed to date, the only plan on track for the this state is the construction of the tunnels. All other state/water contractors resources seem to be directed to this end. So, the other entities involved jump on their horses and ride off in all directions at the same time. Even the so called restoration of a portion of the delta isn't certain as it's not yet funded.

I have to admit that I'm biased towards Striped Bass, Shad and other warm water species (I like Steelhead/Salmon, too). So, that may cloud my view to a certain extent. I'm hoping that attempts to rid the Delta of non-native and invasive species, specifically Stripers/Shad, are not successful. I realize that this is going to be thought of as heretical but Nobody alive today knew the delta when there weren't Black and Striped Bass, Shad and sunfish (of all sorts) in the Delta and a lot of recreational activities from the rivers to the delta and out to the ocean have been built on their being available for fishing.

I Don't think Shad are predators of Salmonids. Also, have no doubt that big fish eat little fish, others and their own. I believe that the relationship between those fish (big/small, predator/non-predator) and their environment is extremely complex and not well enough understood by me. But, the relationship between predator and prey seems to be out of balance for the present. Fortunately, there's a ton of science out there to read/inform on this thanks to guys like Marty Gringas, Peter Moyle and others.

WOW!!! Did this thought wander around.... I'm done (thankfully). :cool:

[Notch]

From what I've read in a journal article written by Alosa (American Shad of the Pacific Coast: A Harmful Invasive Species or Benign), American Shad are planktiverous at sea and do not feed on their annual spawning migrations up river, very much like Chinook. The only known population of piscivorous shad are landlocked behind Friant Dam in Millerton Lake.

[Larry S]

Notch,
Thanks for the info.. "Alosa" is a great user name considering his work. Ranks right up there with
Bill K's "Retired Old Fart."
Best,
Larry S

[Alosa]

Actually Tom Cannon who is one of the most respected fisheries biologists in CA other than Moyle did a study on the lower Yuba River about 15 years ago to study predator/prey relationships on both Native and Non-Native fishers. Samples were taken in the spring from Stripers, Pikeminnows (which are Native), and Shad to see which was the top predator for Salmonids. Shad were observed in the river in the tens of thousands in the river acting almost as a vacuum sucking everything in site just by their shear numbers. To much surprise they were seen actively feeding on Salmon Fry.

Ned, if you could please point me in the direction of this study (I assume it has been peer reviewed and that it is a published work) I'd be VERY grateful.

Just to add some clarification: species introduced to new environments can exhibit modified behaviors/morphologies etc., relative to their native range. So it's concievable that shad *might* consume the occasional salmon fry (passive injestion, not active predation), but the chances that shad are a major predator of salmon in central valley rivers is pretty remote. Stomach contents provide some pretty direct evidence, and based on the pictures provided at the start of this thread, it's far more likely that striped bass have a larger relative impact (in terms of direct preadation). However, the way in which shad might impact salmon may be though competition for zooplankton. A recent study published in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society has demonstrated that juvenile shad feeding in the John Day Reservoir of the Columbia River are responsible for the decline in abundance and size of Daphnia - a zooplankton that is important to sub-yearling chinook. Although we are gaining an understanding of the ecological role of shad in Pacific coast river, to my knowledge, we have relatively little understanding of their role in the delta or central valley rivers. My hope is that this situation will change...but that requires funding some shad research....not exactly a top priority.

[Mike McKenzie]

I’ve been resisting chimin’ in on this discussion because it seems based more on emotions than facts. Anyway I’ve succumbed so here goes..
As one whose has spent an enormous amount of hours involved with predation issues with regard to CA.’s listed species and both native and non-native predatory fish, I will try to separate facts from emotion.

First, let’s decide what we’re talkin’ about. There are two predation issues at hand and only one of them counts with respect to the survival of ESA listed salmonids in the Bay/Delta and its tributaries. The other has to do with hatchery raised salmonid smolts.

One has the weight of the E.S.A and all its attendant issues such as, wild reproduction and survival, which includes predation, water temps and flows as well as spawning and rearing habitat and eventual restoration. The other has to do with the hatchery practices that induce feeding binges by predators, including but not limited to, other fish, birds of all kinds and mammals of all kinds.
The conversation in this thread fails to distinguish between the two and instead, tries to blame one fish species or another for the decline in salmonid populations.

Do striped bass eat wild smolts (listed species) probably yes, BUT science has not been able to show that striped bass predation has any population level effect. Do American shad eat smolts, Yes but they have even less effect than striped bass. To quote Dr. Peter Moyle from his “bible” Inland Fishes of California ( p.118 )…. “on the Sacramento River below the Red Bluff Diversion Dam they occasionally prey on small chinook salmon”. If they eat ‘em there they probably eat them other places too. Pike Minnows are a huge predator of wild and hatchery smolts. All the “introduced” warm water fishes are also predators, especially on those smolts that become entrained in the Delta export system. Has anyone looked at the Cormorant population and the huge increase in their numbers over the last 30 years? How many do they eat?

I could go on and on but my point is yes, there is predation on both hatchery and wild (listed) smolts by all kinds of critters including us humans.

The first question is what are the effects of said predation?
To answer that one has to look at smolt behavior.
Let’s look at wild smolt behavior first in a simplified overview (it would take a book to look at all smolt behavior, especially with all the different runs that have their own behavior). Wild smolts tend to migrate at night and spend daylight hours hiding along weed lines in the shallows, which keeps them relatively safe. Their biggest danger is around water export structures (Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Delta Cross Channel gates, Clifton Court Forebay, etc. etc.) Once they become entrained in the export water through the central Delta their only hope is the salvage facilities at the export pumps (Tracy and Harvey Banks pumping plants) if they don’t get eaten first. Even then there is less than a 3% survival rate in the salvaged smolts..

Hatchery smolts are big dumb fat good things to eat by any predator’s book. They are generally dumped by the hatchery trucks in vast numbers which is nothing but a huge magnet for predators of all kinds. They are big dumb prey that drift down the middle of the river or slough with their eyes lookin’ up for food pellets from the sky and are easily gobbled up. While there is legitimate concern, especially for the commercial salmon industry (who are just barely surviving) about predation on these smolts and the costs thereof with regard to production, it is something that can be rectified with a little ingenuity on the part of our Hatchery systems.

The bottom line here is that the biggest danger to our salmonid fisheries is mankind and the quest for the dollar no matter what the cost. The subsidized (by taxpayers and ratepayers) water exports to the southern San Joaquin Valley land to grow ever increasing acres of Almonds, Pistachios and Pomegranates for personal profit by a select few is a shame and a sham. What do we get out of it? Billions in Bond debt that our grand kids will suffer with and we get selenium laced drainage water back to the Delta for our reward.

Just keep the focus on the Delta water exports which are by far the one true “PREDATOR”.

Note.. My statement above about striped bass predation showing no population level effect comes directly from the science community as was shown by renowned biologists, some active and some retired DFG, during the Fish and Game Commission hearings on proposed new Striped Bass regulations by the then DFG as a result of their “settlement agreement” in a lawsuit by the “Citizens for A Sustainable Delta” (A front organization whose office is in the Paramount Farms Bldg. in Bakersfield.) in which DFG capitulated in a lawsuit that was basically won by two summary judgment’s against the CSD basically stating that they did not make their case in their claim the striped bass predation was the cause of declining salmonid populations in the Delta tributaries. DFG wussed out and came up with the inane settlement agreement which was shot down in flames at the F& G commission meeting by good science.

One more point.. At the State Water Resources Control Board March 2011 Delta Flow Hearings, the Board asked the Anadromous Fisheries Panel the question.. to paraphrase "where would you rank predation as a concern with respect to other problems?" The unanimous answer from the panel was the very bottom of the list!!

Mike

[jbird]

I am so glad we have a handful of well informed individuals to help the rest of us understand whats really going on at a scientific level.

I do not say ths to try to hijack or derail this thread, but Mike this statement summarizes so well why hatchery fish can become a disease to wild stock by interbreeding. Thanks for the very informative post Mike!


Hatchery smolts are big dumb fat good things to eat by any predator’s book. They are generally dumped by the hatchery trucks in vast numbers which is nothing but a huge magnet for predators of all kinds. They are big dumb prey that drift down the middle of the river or slough with their eyes lookin’ up for food pellets from the sky and are easily gobbled up. While there is legitimate concern, especially for the commercial salmon industry (who are just barely surviving) about predation on these smolts and the costs thereof with regard to production, it is something that can be rectified with a little ingenuity on the part of our Hatchery systems.

[Mike McKenzie]

Ned, if you could please point me in the direction of this study (I assume it has been peer reviewed and that it is a published work) I'd be VERY grateful.

Just to add some clarification: species introduced to new environments can exhibit modified behaviors/morphologies etc., relative to their native range. So it's concievable that shad *might* consume the occasional salmon fry (passive injestion, not active predation), but the chances that shad are a major predator of salmon in central valley rivers is pretty remote. Stomach contents provide some pretty direct evidence, and based on the pictures provided at the start of this thread, it's far more likely that striped bass have a larger relative impact (in terms of direct preadation). However, the way in which shad might impact salmon may be though competition for zooplankton. A recent study published in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society has demonstrated that juvenile shad feeding in the John Day Reservoir of the Columbia River are responsible for the decline in abundance and size of Daphnia - a zooplankton that is important to sub-yearling chinook. Although we are gaining an understanding of the ecological role of shad in Pacific coast river, to my knowledge, we have relatively little understanding of their role in the delta or central valley rivers. My hope is that this situation will change...but that requires funding some shad research....not exactly a top priority.

Alosa,

I've talked to Tom Cannon about that Daguerre Point Dam observation that Ned was referring to and he says that there was no study that was specifically looking at predation. When Peter Moyle and Tom were working up there they were basically looking at salmon fry numbers above the Dam and happened to look for fry below the Dam and found very few among the striped bass, pike minnows trout and shad. There were, as usual during the shad spawn, a large number of shad there along with the other fish...There was nothing but a casual observation..As you may know shad can switch from zooplankton to fish fry anytime but more likely during the spawn (sometimes)
The only study on Shad predation that Tom knows about is one done at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam several years ago by the the BuRec which showed that the Dam was detrimental to the salmon fry in that it caused predation by its existence due to it providing cover and security for shad, stripers and pike minnows also the bright lights that adorn the structure helped make it easier for the predators to pick them off. All of which led to the recommendation for removal. If you know anyone at BuRec maybe they could lead you to the paper on the study which showed shad with bellies full of fry as well as the other fish.

Hope this helps..

Mike

[Mike O]

Slightly off the topic- how's the new spearfishing in freshwater for Stripes going , anyways ?? Anyone see or hear of the spear fishers having any success yet ?

D.~

Season opens May 1.

[Alosa]

Alosa,

I've talked to Tom Cannon about that Daguerre Point Dam observation that Ned was referring to and he says that there was no study that was specifically looking at predation. When Peter Moyle and Tom were working up there they were basically looking at salmon fry numbers above the Dam and happened to look for fry below the Dam and found very few among the striped bass, pike minnows trout and shad. There were, as usual during the shad spawn, a large number of shad there along with the other fish...There was nothing but a casual observation..As you may know shad can switch from zooplankton to fish fry anytime but more likely during the spawn (sometimes)
The only study on Shad predation that Tom knows about is one done at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam several years ago by the the BuRec which showed that the Dam was detrimental to the salmon fry in that it caused predation by its existence due to it providing cover and security for shad, stripers and pike minnows also the bright lights that adorn the structure helped make it easier for the predators to pick them off. All of which led to the recommendation for removal. If you know anyone at BuRec maybe they could lead you to the paper on the study which showed shad with bellies full of fry as well as the other fish.

Hope this helps..

Mike

Mike,

Thanks SOOO much for this lead. I'm going to follow up with BuRec on this issue. Also, I appreciated your prior post distinguishing hatchery smolt from wild smolt production and your consideration of other predators (e.g. cormorants). Those we all good points.

[Tony Buzolich]

Mike,

Your input to this discussion really helps and good facts are always better than armchair observations. Without knowing all of the science behind this I can only observe and report what I see. As I am on the water a lot up this way there's always something new to see.

These past few weeks there seemed to be an in-ordinate amount of smolt dimpling the surface and feeding. Just like little trout they'd jump and feed on flying insects and seemed to everywhere. When my buddy said he thought they were smolt coming downstream and then spotting a hatchery truck coming and going on Garden Highway, this got my curiousity up. I thought they had to be "pike minnow" smolt because we were seeing them way upstream above the usual dumping spot for the hatchery trucks. It's then that I called the hatchery and learned that these upstream smolt where in fact natural spawned salmon smolt. This is great because I don't ever remember seeing so many.

As for predation, everything seems to be a predator in some sense of the word including us. Unless we grow crops to feed ourselves we have to eat what we can catch or kill too as we do beef and chicken, etc. Before we raised "beef, etc." we killed deer and wildlife to feed ourselves. I know, I know, I'm getting a little far off the subject but we all have to eat including us predators.

Along with cormorants another bird we see a lot of here is mergansers. They're also called "fish ducks" because that's exactly what they do too ,,,,,,,, eat fish. Between the flocks of cormorants and mergansers there are literally thousands of these birds here and in the American as well. Soon we'll be seeing the white pelicans here too. They take their toll by herding schools of smolt into the shallows, corralling them, and then all in unison dipping their heads into the water and devouring the whole school. Neat to watch, and they are a pretty bird being white and all, but they too are just another predator.

We could keep on going and talk forever about the sea lions that are here too, a hundred plus miles upstream from where they should be. They're in the American, they're at Verona right now, and I'm sure they'll be up to Meridian and Yuba City before long as well.

Is this "natural"? Does it make it "okay" if it's part of the natural scheme of things? :) Remember about fooling with Mother Nature?
Tony

[Ned Morris]

Alosa,

I've talked to Tom Cannon about that Daguerre Point Dam observation that Ned was referring to and he says that there was no study that was specifically looking at predation. When Peter Moyle and Tom were working up there they were basically looking at salmon fry numbers above the Dam and happened to look for fry below the Dam and found very few among the striped bass, pike minnows trout and shad. There were, as usual during the shad spawn, a large number of shad there along with the other fish...There was nothing but a casual observation..As you may know shad can switch from zooplankton to fish fry anytime but more likely during the spawn (sometimes)
The only study on Shad predation that Tom knows about is one done at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam several years ago by the the BuRec which showed that the Dam was detrimental to the salmon fry in that it caused predation by its existence due to it providing cover and security for shad, stripers and pike minnows also the bright lights that adorn the structure helped make it easier for the predators to pick them off. All of which led to the recommendation for removal. If you know anyone at BuRec maybe they could lead you to the paper on the study which showed shad with bellies full of fry as well as the other fish.

Hope this helps..

Mike


Amen. If you read my original post guys I stated water is the main issue. Knew this statement would raise some eyebrows but Shad do feed on Salmon Fry and other small fishes during spawn. Impacts are apparently not conclusive as stated so I would love to talk to Alosa more on what he finds out as he is the true expert in the room. My theory is that during spawn, Shad have a greater impact on Salmon Fry than do Stripers and Pikeminnow, that's all! I have read similar accounts on negative impacts that Dams create on the Columbia by ODFW on how shear numbers of Shad can at times block migrating Salmon passage at Bonneville so BuRec could have some good info there as well. Look as Larry S points out, Shad have been here for 140 years and Stripers 130 years. As I said again in my original post, Salmon and Steelhead runs were just fine 80 years ago so take into account 50+ years of all these non-native fish competing. What I find with great intrigue is that shad fly patterns are not that far off from a small baitfish. Put 2 and 2 together guys, it's fascinating.

Sorry I gave up on my M.S. in Fisheries at OSU to pursue corp. America 15 years ago but I still hold on to bits and pieces of it. Love to understand more Alosa.

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,
I can’t really comment about the structure or authority of any of the entities involved in the Delta, or of the contents of any of the strategic documents (like the BDCP). I haven’t read anything on the delta other than the science documents that Marty provided last fall, the progress reports, and Fred F’s work on Delta Smelt. I don’t really know enough about the topics you mention in your first two paragraphs to have an opinion on most of that stuff. I do highly doubt the DSC has any authority to govern any actions on the Trinity. I don’t know that for certain though.

In terms of the science personnel, I do think it is a good thing that there are numerous scientists from a multitude of agencies and entities working together in the development of the interagency task force that is behind the progress reports. This issues leading to the collapse of the foodweb in the delta are very complex and in most cases involve specialized specie specific science and other science disciplines that are largely unrelated. There’s likely no single agency or entity that has the requisite expertise to fully bring the totality of issues to light, and evaluate the impacts.

In terms of the strategic level of management of the delta, I’ll take your word for it and I’m sure it’s a mess. Anything that rises to the level of concern that the POD has, tends to attract politicians, would be politicians, and a myriad of biased special interests groups who feel they have a horse in the race, and all of whom feel they should be driving the proverbial boat. Most of these types have no actual expertise (my opinion) but are simply endowed with positions of control, or think they can jockey themselves into positions that have influence on the outcome. Most all are driven by their own agendas and if it were an ideal world, they wouldn’t have been allowed in the boat, let alone given access to the rudder.

As far as personal biases go, we’ve all got ‘em. That in itself isn’t ever a problem. What is a problem is when people simply cannot separate rational, fruitful discussion from their own emotional attachment to their own, ill-formed ‘theories’ that are founded in a small sample sizes of anecdotal data, or in some cases nothing at all aside from making one wreckless assumption after another. Making matters worse is their disposition to state these ill-formed opinions as absolute fact and continue to restate them ad infinitum over various threads. That isn’t fruitful discussion, but a straight up blatant attempt to ramrod their own emotion based conclusions down the throats of everyone tuning in.

Disagreement in discussion is generally viewed by most as beneficial. If it weren’t for disagreement and dissenting opinions that foster discussion no individual would ever change and become more knowledgeable and no organization of individuals would ever become more efficient. Arguing points induced of pure emotion, for the simple sake of arguing however, is not good.

[ycflyfisher]

Mike,
First of all, like Larry, I’ve got no horse in this proverbial race. I have no problem living with stripers. I’d have no problem living without stripers. If you don’t believe that, go back and read Tony’s original pike minnow conspiracy theory thread where I was the one who specifically pointed out that that there is no existing scientific evidence that predation by stripers was having a terminal impact on SRFRCs and that there is plenty of peer reviewed science that totally eliminates stripers as a factor in the recent collapse in abundance of SRFRCs.

I’d definitely agree with two of your points:
1- The arguments “for” in this thread require an abandonment of critical thinking and a whole lot of emotional bias. Bong hit levels of induced emotion and comical blame shifting of predation impacts. Nothing more.
2- There’s a strange and curious fixation with pitting and evaluating the predation effects of stripers on Chinooks when this should be a non-issue. As stated there is, as I see it, potential future concern that if the foodweb in the delta continues to degrade, predation by stripers could further imperil the already imperiled SRWRCs. I do think that potential concern is legit, but it’s way premature to hit that panic button on that issue at present.

I do think it’s important to note from whom these comical emotion based claims, stated as absolute fact are coming from. It’s also important to note whom is presenting these predation on Chinook based discussions as valid points of contention. You striper afficiandos are the ones driving the emotion and selecting to hammer topics for which there is no valid opposing view into entire herds of dead horses.

I do appreciate your attempts to elevate the discussion into the realm of reason.
All that said, I’m not remotely convinced that your conclusions are any less emotionally based or more correct, than either those of Tony or Ned. For starters:
1- First PM’s that evolved in basin, then stray pinnipeds, then blue herons, then American Shad, and now cormorants may be having terminal impacts on the population abundance of Chinooks. Really?

Talk me through this rationalization if you will. The median estimate of age 3+ stripers in the delta was about 1 million fish if memory serves. Stripers generally begin to become piscivorous in the last half of their second year of life if memory serves, and head towards being nearly 100 percent piscivorous by age 3. Like Tony and Ned, in one breath you’re telling us that 1 million+++ piscivorous stripers are not having a terminal impact on Chinook abundance (again I buy that) but in the next breath what amounts to a few thousand cormorants are a legit concern? How exactly does one rationally connect those dots that lead to the cormorant conclusion? Where exactly does the crew go from here? Pelicans maybe? I dunno. I hope you can at least respect why I find these impact deflecting views all you striper guys have as being nothing short of comically bizarre.

2- It’s the pumps, the whole pumps and nothing but the pumps. Like Tony and Ned, you place the entirety of the blame on the water apologists. Nothing else seems to concern any of you striper afficiandos. You guys seem to be so single mindedly focused on the top of the food chain down effects (downplaying predation and placing the entire blame on the pumps) that you seem to be completely overlooking the fact that the entire delta foodweb has taken a dump.

Mike, I’ve NEVER seen you or any of the striper crew ever once start a thread about the foodweb concerns. Not here, not on Blanton’s board, not anywhere. Can you point out a single thread where you guys are discussing the invasive benthic filter feeder that blankets the delta in densities that run over 1000 per sq. meter that are volumetrically filtering near twice the entire water column of the delta hammering the plankton abundance down to nothing? Or maybe a thread where you’re discussing how the native copepods have been replaced by less numerous invasive copepods that are harder for the fish to exploit and have reduced nutrient valve? Or how you’ve got an invasive plant species that is both decreasing turbidity and transforming pelagic habitat to littoral habitat.

Are you either completely unaware of those issues or do you simply think they aren’t a concern? If the later, how the hell does one rationally discount those concerns out of hand to the point where you haven’t started a single thread making other striper huggers aware of those issues? Not once Mike, have I seen you or anyone else attempt bring those issues to light as a legit concern. If you’re willing to explain why that’s the case, I’m willing to listen.

All the pelagic species are being hammered down. TF shad, LF smelt, D smelt and age 0 and age 1 stripers. Your beloved stripers are extremely dependent of the other 3 pelagics to maintain and increase abundance. You’re never going to have abundant predators without abundant prey. And you’ll never have abundant age 2+ stripers if most starve to death because there’s no plankton and no copepods for them to feed on in their first months of life.

There’s no one from what I can tell except the linesides congregation, that actually seems to think that your Sea Monkey solution of just adding water and watching everything magically spring back to life is actually going to work.

The water apologists have been sucking water out of the delta for numerous decades. Massive amounts of water for the last 3 decades. The pumps like predation by stripers, have failed to extirpate a single native species over that lengthy timeline. How many more decades exactly is it going to take of no extirpation by the pumps for the linesides congregation to conclude that exclusively placing emotional based blame on the pumps is not going to solve the myriad of very real problems regarding the delta ecosystem?

If you're willing to cite and accept the science that rules out predation by stripers is not having a terminal impact on chinooks, how is it that you ignore the science derived by the same agencies that suggests that diversion and entrainment are likely not driving the POD?

[ycflyfisher]

Apologies in advance for not properly defining the accronyms I've used in this thread.

YOY= young of the year. Baby fish of the species in question.

POD= Pelagic organism decline: Term used to describe the recent precipitous and near total crash in population abundance of the 4 pelagics in the delta: Stripers, longfin smelt, delta smelt and threadfin shad.

SRWRC= Sac River winter run chinook.

SRFRC= Sac river fall run chinook.

SR =CV= species originating in the Sac River watershed.

Pelagic= fish species that depend on open water environs

Littoral= fish species that depend on near shore evirons or cover.

[JasonB]

Stripers and salmon CAN survive together.
Tony

Perhaps the bigger question is can striper and salmon anglers survive together :p

(no dog in the fight, nor horse in the race, but this has been an educational thread so far)
JB

[Frank Alessio]

Perhaps the bigger question is can striper and salmon anglers survive together :p

(no dog in the fight, nor horse in the race, but this has been an educational thread so far)
JB

Big fish eat little fish...Has anyone on this board ever actually found anthing in the stomach of an American Shad???

[Ned Morris]

OK ycflyfisher has effectively put this thread in Marianas Trench from his last posts. Not sure of the true depth or where it exactly goes. How I got classified as a Striper aficionado with my posts or made any comments on avian predators is beyond me. FYI - I fish for Stripers on Marin Coast maybe 3-4 times a year max. I did however get a great contact in Alosa out of this topic who is the real expert here and anxious to learn more.

Frank Allesio - Nope never kept a Shad in my life or a Pikeminnow either so I have not see stomach contents. I have only observed Pikeminnow effectively feeding on Salmon Fry on the Yuba below DeGuerre Dam during low water years at the culvert to the fish screen at the canal but that was 12 years ago and has been relocated to the first riffle so predation has been reduced.

[Frank Alessio]

I have kept a few shad in the past to put on the Smoker and they never have had anything at all in their Stomach....Pike Minnows are a whole different story....

[Mike R]

This topic is approaching dead horse levels as it has been covered ad nauseaum. One theme that is repeated is the conflict between what one faction believes and another faction has years of scientific data to support. I can't get out of my mind the mental picture of striper advocates looking like the little kid with cotton in his ears going lalalalalalalalalalalala while he ignores what is happening around him. Too many times I see an angler tell world renowned scientists they are flat-out wrong because they don't agree with their theories. .

I am surprised it took DFG/DFW to change the regs on stripers. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that we had a Striper Stamp. Are the stripers a major factor in salmonid decline? Not really. Are they a factor? Probably.

Being that so many of the ecological processes in the delta are interwoven. It is extremely difficult to single out one process and then determine it's impact regardless of the other processes around it.

As a matter of procedure and clarification, it has been my experience when dealing with the BDCP and POD that it is wise to think of salmonids separately than the other pelagic organisms.

See ya,
Mike

[ycflyfisher]

If anyone would prefer to read the science surrounding the Delta ecosystem as opposed to the emotion induced attempts at derailment, I'd keep Mike R's third paragraph in mind and start here:


http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/synthesis_reports_workplans.cfm

[Alosa]

Had a great conversation with Tom Cannon this afternoon. Figured I'd get it straight from the horses mouth. Although the data about shad predation on salmon is not included in an report, the work done at the base of the Red Bluff diversion dam did record salmon fry from the stomachs of 280 shad. Because this has not been recorded in a published report, it constitutes anecdotal evidence. Nonetheless, this anecdotal evidence does provide a basis for formally postulating an effect (at some level) of shad predation on salmon. Very interesting.:)

[Mike R]

Had a great conversation with Tom Cannon this afternoon. Figured I'd get it straight from the horses mouth. Although the data about shad predation on salmon is not included in an report, the work done at the base of the Red Bluff diversion dam did record salmon fry from the stomachs of 280 shad. Because this has not been recorded in a published report, it constitutes anecdotal evidence. Nonetheless, this anecdotal evidence does provide a basis for formally postulating an effect (at some level) of shad predation on salmon. Very interesting.:)


To some level, everything eats salmon fry (steelhead smolt eat 'em like popcorn). Many moons ago whe I was working a piscivore study near Ham City, I caught a handful of shad while trolling rapalas for pikeminnow. Does this make me believe shad eat parr? Not really. If they do, I highly doubt that shad have any noticeable effect of salmonids (especially when compared to other non-native predators).

[Alosa]

To some level, everything eats salmon fry (steelhead smolt eat 'em like popcorn). Many moons ago whe I was working a piscivore study near Ham City, I caught a handful of shad while trolling rapalas for pikeminnow. Does this make me believe shad eat parr? Not really. If they do, I highly doubt that shad have any noticeable effect of salmonids (especially when compared to other non-native predators).

Agreed. I'd be more concerned about competition for zooplankton (Daphnia and Bosmina, but also copepods) that are an important dietary component of sub-yearling chinook. My guess is that's a more important factor that direct predation by shad. That does not mean that other species (e.g. striped bass,pikeminnow) have a negligible effect on salmon abundance via predation, only that shad may not play as large a role in that regard. Combine those factors with water diversions and it quickly becomes apparent that salmon are getting hit from all sides.

[Randy Lee]

As all California anadromas fish are in decline, could we assume the ocean part of their lives is taking its toll as well? Over harvesting possibly?
Randy

[bart]

Having been on the original striper stamp and working with the biologist along with Mike M. and doing fish politics for over 35 yrs, I have to support Mikes claims.There have been many studies done on clams and other things that clean the water Many invasive plants have been studied.I have retired and tried to get out of this stuff,but it keeps popping up.Having lived and fished on the Tuolumne river all 76 yrs,i can attest that none of this took place until water export started.My .02

[Randy Lee]

Sadly, It's "another fine mess we have go our selves into Olie."
RL

[ycflyfisher]

RL,

Randy,
I think yes and no to your respective questions. The science regarding the recent fall Chinook decline points to deleterious ocean conditions in the gulf of the Farallones as being where the abundance break down occurred and where vast bulk of the salmon likely perished. It’s supported further by the fact that several oceanic bird species that rely on the juvy Chinooks around the Farallones also couldn’t maintain abundance during the years of the Chinook Collapse. If you google the title “What caused the Sacto River Fall Chinook stock collapse?” that should take you to the appropriate science.
I don’t think commercial harvest can be deemed a significant contributor to the recent collapse because commercial fishing is curtailed significantly or eliminated if abundance levels become critical.

[ycflyfisher]

Going back to what Mike R was saying that the root of these discussions IS really what the striper advocates seem religiously predisposed to believe vs. what the rest of the world interprets as what the scientific evidence really seems to support.

How big of a differential in truth actually exists between the actual entrainment impact of the pumps vs. this whole mantra that the pumps are the mechanical motorhead “Spawn of Satan” that the striper guys make it out to be? I’ve never seen a biometric model of what stripers actually consume and how those prey species breakdown to in the percentages. I’m guessing that would be hard to model and the confidence levels would be a legit point of contention for the accuracy of such a model. We do however know what the terminal effects of entrainment are.

From the 2010 salvage report entitled: “2010 Fish Salvage at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility(TFCF)” here’s how the entrainment body count breaks down for anadromous salmonids:

Chinook: 8,119
O. Mykiss: 3,088

The sampling at the TFCF is a complete time weighted sampling, and as I was told today is mandated by law with numerous checks and balances to insure the estimated total salvage is as accurate as possible. The sigfigs are expressed to the nearest full unit because that is also mandated by law. The caveat with the samplings is that fish smaller than 20mm total FL do not reliably show up in the entrainment samplings. This caveat does not obviously apply to the Chinook or O. Mykiss totals since both of those species likely have a mean length of 70-90mm and 150+mm respectively at the time when outmigration occurs. In other words, they’re both plenty big enough to become entrained and there’s no good reason to believe that the samplings of those two species are significantly underestimated by the sampling numbers. The Chinook and O. Mykiss breakdown is detailed in the report for anyone interested.

The best estimate if memory serves, is you’ve got a median estimate of around 1 million age 3 to 3+ stripers. Let’s get really conservative and reduce the number of potentially piscivorous stripers to 500K for the sake of discussion. To equal the predation effect of the pumps, stripers on average would only have to consume 0.0162 chinook smolts PER YEAR.

Even if you assume only 25% of those striper (100K) are large enough to consume the larger O. Mykiss smolts you get a figure of only 0.0388 O. Mykiss smolts PER YEAR.

How is it that you striper gurus place the entire blame of the decline in abundance of these two anadromous salmonids on the pumps while simultaneously downplaying the predation impact of stripers? What is it that I’m overlooking here that makes you striper gurus act like entrainment is the spawn of Satan?

[Darian]

ycflyfisher,.... Not an expert in this but it seems to me that diversion of water issue is one that we (striper guys) can target without dividing scarce resources to contest. Diversion of water at the pumps is recorded and readily available for review. The impacts (positive/negative) of increased diversion at the pumps is demonstrable. Summarizing, this info and other supporting materials/testimony were used in litigation in USDC, Fresno, over the issue of the volumes of water diverted at the pumps. The outcome of that federal suit recognized the harm caused to several species of fish in the Delta by diversions and imposed restrictions, especially during periods when migration or spawning was occurring.

Diversion at the pumps creates an un-natural current flow through the Delta. Not sure who but someone described this change in flows as "the delta vise" with salt water pushing in from the west, San Joaquin River and tribs pushing in from the east, the Sacramento River pushing across/thru to the pumps. This condition concentrates many fish in the area near the pumps and enables Stripers and other predators to feed on them. Also, the pumps cause increased saltwater intrusion requiring increased volumes to be released from upstream reservoirs. All of this would seem to add up to a changeable mix (maybe unfavorable) of water quality/quantity. After diversion and irrigation water is used, it carries a pollutant load of salts and mix of whatever herbicides/insecticides back to the drains/rivers/streams, untreated. For this note, entrainment of fish is an additional/separate issue.

Granted, we should take all issues/info available into account in supporting our case for Stripers and now Shad and I believe that there are many who already do that. But I understand why the pumps are the major point of concern for Striper guys....

ps. I forgot to mention the impact of ammonia discharge from Sacramento and other cities treatment facilities that enter into the mix of water forced in to the center of the delta by the delta vise.

[Randy Lee]

This thread has been very informative. Some excellent information. I am greatful for every ones effort and oppinions. Regardless of our differences we need to stick together as a team.
Enlightened,
Randy

[Mike McKenzie]

by someone who can't read what was written, inserts their own misguided interpretations of what I said and all done anonymously! The guy's gotta' be proud!


Mike,
First of all, like Larry, I’ve got no horse in this proverbial race. I have no problem living with stripers. I’d have no problem living without stripers. If you don’t believe that, go back and read Tony’s original pike minnow conspiracy theory thread where I was the one who specifically pointed out that that there is no existing scientific evidence that predation by stripers was having a terminal impact on SRFRCs and that there is plenty of peer reviewed science that totally eliminates stripers as a factor in the recent collapse in abundance of SRFRCs.

I’d definitely agree with two of your points:
1- The arguments “for” in this thread require an abandonment of critical thinking and a whole lot of emotional bias. Bong hit levels of induced emotion and comical blame shifting of predation impacts. Nothing more.
2- There’s a strange and curious fixation with pitting and evaluating the predation effects of stripers on Chinooks when this should be a non-issue. As stated there is, as I see it, potential future concern that if the foodweb in the delta continues to degrade, predation by stripers could further imperil the already imperiled SRWRCs. I do think that potential concern is legit, but it’s way premature to hit that panic button on that issue at present.

I do think it’s important to note from whom these comical emotion based claims, stated as absolute fact are coming from. It’s also important to note whom is presenting these predation on Chinook based discussions as valid points of contention. You striper afficiandos are the ones driving the emotion and selecting to hammer topics for which there is no valid opposing view into entire herds of dead horses.

I do appreciate your attempts to elevate the discussion into the realm of reason.
All that said, I’m not remotely convinced that your conclusions are any less emotionally based or more correct, than either those of Tony or Ned. For starters:
1- First PM’s that evolved in basin, then stray pinnipeds, then blue herons, then American Shad, and now cormorants may be having terminal impacts on the population abundance of Chinooks. Really?

Talk me through this rationalization if you will. The median estimate of age 3+ stripers in the delta was about 1 million fish if memory serves. Stripers generally begin to become piscivorous in the last half of their second year of life if memory serves, and head towards being nearly 100 percent piscivorous by age 3. Like Tony and Ned, in one breath you’re telling us that 1 million+++ piscivorous stripers are not having a terminal impact on Chinook abundance (again I buy that) but in the next breath what amounts to a few thousand cormorants are a legit concern? How exactly does one rationally connect those dots that lead to the cormorant conclusion? Where exactly does the crew go from here? Pelicans maybe? I dunno. I hope you can at least respect why I find these impact deflecting views all you striper guys have as being nothing short of comically bizarre.

2- It’s the pumps, the whole pumps and nothing but the pumps. Like Tony and Ned, you place the entirety of the blame on the water apologists. Nothing else seems to concern any of you striper afficiandos. You guys seem to be so single mindedly focused on the top of the food chain down effects (downplaying predation and placing the entire blame on the pumps) that you seem to be completely overlooking the fact that the entire delta foodweb has taken a dump.

Mike, I’ve NEVER seen you or any of the striper crew ever once start a thread about the foodweb concerns. Not here, not on Blanton’s board, not anywhere. Can you point out a single thread where you guys are discussing the invasive benthic filter feeder that blankets the delta in densities that run over 1000 per sq. meter that are volumetrically filtering near twice the entire water column of the delta hammering the plankton abundance down to nothing? Or maybe a thread where you’re discussing how the native copepods have been replaced by less numerous invasive copepods that are harder for the fish to exploit and have reduced nutrient valve? Or how you’ve got an invasive plant species that is both decreasing turbidity and transforming pelagic habitat to littoral habitat.

Are you either completely unaware of those issues or do you simply think they aren’t a concern? If the later, how the hell does one rationally discount those concerns out of hand to the point where you haven’t started a single thread making other striper huggers aware of those issues? Not once Mike, have I seen you or anyone else attempt bring those issues to light as a legit concern. If you’re willing to explain why that’s the case, I’m willing to listen.

All the pelagic species are being hammered down. TF shad, LF smelt, D smelt and age 0 and age 1 stripers. Your beloved stripers are extremely dependent of the other 3 pelagics to maintain and increase abundance. You’re never going to have abundant predators without abundant prey. And you’ll never have abundant age 2+ stripers if most starve to death because there’s no plankton and no copepods for them to feed on in their first months of life.

There’s no one from what I can tell except the linesides congregation, that actually seems to think that your Sea Monkey solution of just adding water and watching everything magically spring back to life is actually going to work.

The water apologists have been sucking water out of the delta for numerous decades. Massive amounts of water for the last 3 decades. The pumps like predation by stripers, have failed to extirpate a single native species over that lengthy timeline. How many more decades exactly is it going to take of no extirpation by the pumps for the linesides congregation to conclude that exclusively placing emotional based blame on the pumps is not going to solve the myriad of very real problems regarding the delta ecosystem?

If you're willing to cite and accept the science that rules out predation by stripers is not having a terminal impact on chinooks, how is it that you ignore the science derived by the same agencies that suggests that diversion and entrainment are likely not driving the POD?

There are far to many misstatements of facts, name calling and stupid innuendo for me to waste my time responding to this post. Come back when you learn how to have a polite discourse and have a real name, Please!
Mike

[Alosa]

Well there's goes that thread....

[Ed Wahl]

If you can't own it you just shouldn't say it. The subject of user names has come up before and now's a good time to bring it up again. What would be wrong with requiring users to submit a legitimate name in order to post? Once the anonymity is gone so is most of the rudeness. Maybe Adam could start a poll on the subject? Ed

[winxp_man]

Throwing internet keyboard bricks is fun :D

Now I shall brake out the popcorn bag again.................. :)

[Randy Lee]

Can't we all just get along. Fish and be happy. Maybe your not fishing enough.
I'm going today! Yahoo!
Randy