CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN RIVER!

[Darian]

I don't disagree that Stripers prey on hatchery smolts due to their availability and seeming gullibility.... However, I'm not sure that Stripers are any more effective than Black Bass or Squawfish in foraging for hatchery smolts that aren't smart enough to leave the area where they're stocked or get away from any predator.... Also, I'd bet that after a short time and disbursement in the river, these smolts are more difficult for predators to catch.

Do Stripers, Large and Smallmouth Bass take lures that imitate Rainbows Yes. I even use a Rainbow Trout pattern for them. But, for most of the year, Salmon/Steelhead just aren't available as a primary foodsource for Stipers....

In addition to stockers, Stripers/Black Bass take spinner baits, Senko's, any number and types of plugs/lures.... Many times, a Rainbow imitation is not the hot lure/pattern.... As Ken hanley has said, on occasion, Crawfish are his number one choice of patterns for Stripers and, according to Ken, this was based on stomach samples....

Stripers and Salmonids have co-existed quite well together using their environments to survive. The main difficulties for each species started when development activities (land/water) began in the CA Delta.... IMHO, it will not change for either species until concerns with those activities are addressed.

[OceanSunfish]

Man, I can't seem to let this one go

Yeah, big fish eat little fish. Big salmon eat small salmon/SH. Big steelhead eat small salmon fry/alevin, and probably SH and salmon smolt devour the suspended striper larvea as well. I think sturgeon and catfish eat anything they can get their lips on!

It's not the fact that stripers are eating hatchery raised smolts that bothers me. BTW, that's the only 'natural' thing about the whole exercise, IMHO. I see the whole exercise as one big waste of money. Even non fisherman friends of mine, when told of this practice, laugh at the pathetic nature of the practice. On the other hand, I'm not sure Gary Loomis' Fish First program would work in front of all the dams in CA and out of reach of the tributaries either. (Another thread)

Seriously, Stripers migrate year around and their diet changes constantly. 6 months out of the year stripers are mostly at sea or in the bay feeding on hard baits like 'chovies, smelt, sardines, etc. That's where the most food is, not upriver. These bait fish travel together and school up. Stripers 'divide and conquer' these schools which offer more substance because there are tons of this bait at hand, typically, each summer.

There is very little doubt that they also eat downriver migrating salmon and steelhead smolt too, but it's really "opportunistic" feeding when the two actually cross paths, which isn't always guaranteed. Like Darian said, they disperse and are tougher to round up vs. traditional hard baits that school up, and get pushed back and forth between the "Brother's", Shag, Harding rocks, and So. Tower all summer.

Hey, how about picking on Squawfish? They stay in the rivers and IMHO, are relentless due to their numbers alone. Add up all the squawfish and they dwarf what is left of the striper population. Squaws eat a lot of eggs, alevins, fry, etc. Absolutely relenteless. And, it wouldn't matter if the dams exisited or not, these squawfish would penetrate the tributaries and lay in wait even on the traditional spawning beds.

There are several reasons why it's not such a good idea to pit one sport fishery against another, especially using the 'non native vs. native' angle. The most glaring reason is that this is exactly what opponents of sport fishery management prefer. They (opponents) want to "divide and conquer" us too. And, its been working for years. Whinning about a few smolt being eaten by stripers where DFG rings the 'chow' bell plays right into the hands of the politicos and opponents alike.

I still believe all of our exisiting sport fish can exisit in healthy numbers, in one form or another, even under today's challenged ecosystem. Proper water management makes the most difference.

[Covelo]

Yes and no. Certainly better water management and removal of some dams would go a lot further torward recovery of these ecosystems. On the other hand, game agencies and "politicos" have been very good at lowering everyones' expectations. IMO, the equating of a non-native game species like stripers to a native species like steelhead does exactly that. It is important that one is not native and is only here because some person did not know better and introduced them. Just because they have been here for over 100 years does not add equivalency to them.

I would like to believe that we can have healthy numbers of sport fish also, but whose definition of healthy are you going to use. Having catchable numbers of a few runs just does not cut it for me. To this end it seems the fishermen have been lowering their expectations of what are acceptable catchable numbers. I have read estimates that placed the steelhead run on the Russian at over 50,000 fish. One old timer told me stories about catching "trout" in Austin Cr with a burlap bag! Historic counts above Benbow on the South Fork Eel River were 10,000 to 20,000 fish for each run -- kings, silvers and steelhead. That was 60,000 fish annually above Benbow. I doubt anyone has that in their definition of healthy.

BTW, squawfish are native to the Sacramento system and the Russian River so steelhead and salmon evolved with them. Yes their numbers are higher now due to the dams but to compare them with stripers is not valid. 100 years is not much time to evolve to avoid a new predator such as the striper. Additionally, I have never heard of squawfish in the bay, which was probably a huge nursery for all the salmonids at one time, but is now a guantlet of stripers and largemouth bass. And when these species are not eating the smolts directly, they are eating the food base which used to support them and the other native species such as sturgeon and halibut.

The catfish are not native either, though they have a bag limit also.

[OceanSunfish]

So, why not focus all steelhead restoration efforts on the coastal rivers (Eel, Klamath, Smith, Russian, San Lorenzo, and their tributaries, etc.) which are not impacted by striped bass, BASS, and other predators? These locations are not as convenient as the central valley rivers, but there's more good to that vs. bad. Coastal streams are more conducive to the restoration efforts by Gary Loomis, etc. that seem to be working in Washington state.

I know one thing, being that stripers are fishable 365 days a year (and if the population were extremely healthy to support year around pressure,) that's a lot of angling pressure NOT standing next to you on the the river and stomping all over the redds, etc. In other words, if Steelhead were the only healthy 'game' in town, you either going to have a lot of company standing in 'your' river or fishing as a whole, becomes a lot less mainstream, meaning less votes, no funding and no resistance to development, water exportation, etc.

So , why not have:

1) 100% steelhead restoration on coastal riverways only. (rivers that don't connect to the SF Bay and out of reach from the predation that seems to bother you) Steelhead fishing seems so much more fulfilling on a coastal river anyways and my car probably won't get broken into either.

2) Hatcheries on central valley rivers continue to mitigate the effects of dams on salmon to support commercial and ocean sportfisherman interests. (They don't seem to care if the fish was born under a rock or in a vat)

3) Enchance striped bass, BASS, and sturgeon populations in SF Bay where the higher percentage of fishing enthusiast spend time and lots of money 365 days a year. (Boats, launch, tournaments, bait, tackle, guides, etc.) Lets face it, BASS is one area where there is actual growth in the fishing tackle industry. ($90 Triple Fish swim bait! )

[Darian]

OK,... Once again I find something to agree with and much to disagree about. I do respect the opinions offered. However, I believe that we've reached a point of impasse.

The main point of divergence, here, is based on the proposition that a native species is always more valuable than non-native; regadless of whatever standard is used to measure that value. I do not concur with that position.... Under that presumption, all indigenous peoples of this country would be worth more than all others. After all, we've only been here since sometime in the 14th century (or thereabouts).... Native Americans were here long before that.

At this point, I'm worn out on this subject. Thanks, everyone, for the mental exercise and good conversation.....

[Covelo]

Sunfish - You missed the point. If the non-native species were gone, the runs of salmon and steelhead would probably be large enough to withstand the extra fishing pressure. They alone would not have to shoulder it anyhow, as pops of sturgeon and halibut would most certantly be higher also. Think of it in terms of total biomass in the bay. Something is going to have to eat all that food currently being consumed by all the non-native fish. Personally I would like it to be steelhead and salmon, but the sturgy people can have some also.

Darian -- Certainly non-native species are not always less valuable (however you want to measure that) than native species. Voluntary and involuntary migration played an important role in how species are currently distributed throughout the world. These are "natural" events though, and while the actions of humans are categorically "natural" also, the recklessness and motive driven ways we have accelerated the dispersal of so many species makes it tough to view them as the same. In the end, the real issue is too many people and their "good" intentions, the first of which nobody seems willing to address.

[OceanSunfish]

Well put Darian. I agree with your point of view as well.

Enough said.

[Ed Wahl]

Hmmm, what's going on here? This thread's taken on a life of it's own, and it's got nothing to do with the original post. I could understand if the weather was miserable and all the waters blown out and brown, but things are warming up folks, get out there. We're all easier to get along with after some fishing time. Bring back the really relevant debates, beads, bobbers(oops, did I call 'em that?), scents, split shot, trolling, stream ettiquette, litter, you know, the really heavy stuff. Tell ya what, lean in next to your monitor, sniff, smell that? that's fish smell off my hands,( or was it off my dog who had just rolled on a dead fish?) doesn't that just make you want to get out and hit the water? If you smelled that either I'm a genious or your insane, you tell me. God I hope this puts an end to this monster of a thread. Let's see some fish pictures instead. Please? Ed