"Save Blue Creek" - video clip

[Carl Blackledge]

I may not be all that favorable towards all the gill nets but the clip is about working with the tribe and others to help protect the Blue Creek watershed for the future - not much wrong with that concept!!

Rick,

I agree with you about working with the Indians, however they want us to pay for it, then they are going to turn it back over to the Indians to "manage it" I think they are letting the Wolves guard the sheep.

Perhaps the Indian casino could chip in, or maybe donate some of their commercial sales of salmon profits to the project, after all they are the ones who make a profit from the salmon.

Carl Blackledge

[John Sv]

Western Rivers Conservancy is a Land Trust. I believe they are the one buying it.

Rick,

I agree with you about working with the Indians, however they want us to pay for it, then they are going to turn it back over to the Indians to "manage it" I think they are letting the Wolves guard the sheep.

Perhaps the Indian casino could chip in, or maybe donate some of their commercial sales of salmon profits to the project, after all they are the ones who make a profit from the salmon.

Carl Blackledge

[Carl Blackledge]

Western Rivers Conservancy is a Land Trust. I believe they are the one buying it.

Sir,

It doesn't matter who is buying it. Read down at the bottom of the article, they are going to turn it over to the Indians to run it and manage it. That is what I just read. The wolves are going to guard the sheep. lololol

Carl

[John Sv]

I contacted Western Rivers and am awaiting info. I work for a Land Trust and we often turn land over to another entity to run and manage. Prior to doing so we encumber the property with a conservation easement or at least legally binding grant agreements that stipulate how they can manage. Checking with Western Rivers to see if they plan on doing the same, as I assume they are. Will get back to the Board on that.

Sir,

It doesn't matter who is buying it. Read down at the bottom of the article, they are going to turn it over to the Indians to run it and manage it. That is what I just read. The wolves are going to guard the sheep. lololol

Carl

[Carl Blackledge]

Sir,

I found my information by reading the story right down at the bottom.

Good luck

Carl

[ycflyfisher]

Definitely one of the most racially offensive threads I’ve ever read on this forum.

Let’s see some evidence that the Hupa or Yurok people get “paid by the government”.

There are some Hupa and Yurok that are recipients of past settlement agreements (descendants of the Jesse Short case, The 88 Yurok-Hoopa Settlement Agreement, the Citi Bank incident, etc.). There’s also some that get SSI, some disabled and retired vets, retired state/ federal employees, some on public assistance. Aside from those, whom exactly are all these Indians that are getting paid by the government because they happen to be members of Klamath tribes?

The Hupa and the Yurok both did traditionally use spears and dip nets and not drift nets, but they also built weirs that spanned the rivers where they took those fish with spears and dip nets. The largest of which on the Klamath was the Kepel fish dam, a community weir that spanned the entire river near Cappell Creek. There were several similar weirs on the Klamath.

The Hupa also built community weirs in the Hoopa Valley that spanned the entire river, one for each village, 12 in total.

The argument that drift nets are somehow more efficient than traditional methods used by both tribes is pure nonsense.

As far as this “Native nets are imperiling the anadromous salmon on the Klamath” stick, more pure nonsense.

I’m assuming this conspiracy theory is founded in the misconception that higher escapements result in higher smolt production, which in turn leads to greater future in-river abundance. A nice fairy tale, and common misconception, but not usually true unless spawner abundance drops to dangerously low levels.

Viable inland habitat of all types: spawning habitat, fry rearing habitat, parr development habitat, factor into the equation as does both inland and marine conditions. The bottlenecks in inland habitat are the limiting factor for watersheds like the Klamath in terms of smolt production. When the escapement becomes elevated, more spawners does NOT enhance smolt production, but in fact it has a detrimental impact. Density dependent survival begins to work against the fish.

Here’s a link that explains the stock-recruitment relationship and some of the density dependent factors which drive it:
http://www.nap.edu/read/4976/chapter/13#275

Notice how the recruitment curve goes into decline as the stock rises.

The PFMC has applied 3 different models developed over decades in management of the Klamath anadromous fishery: a modified Rickers, the same modified Rickers with projected marine survival and a habitat based model. That said, these models are not perfect and do not always accurately predict future abundance due to a number of factors, the biggest of which I’m inclined to believe, is that marine survival (IMO the biggest influence on future abundance) , and environmental conditions are extremely hard to predict.

Does the actual data support the “Nets are imperiling the salmon?” How well do these models fit the reality of the year to year abundance on the Klamath? How much data is actually available?

Here’s some facts about said data:
There’s 37 years of complete abundance and escapement data going back to 1978 for the Klamath.

The Klamath is the most monitored and studied anadromous watershed in CA.

Here’s last year’s escapement data:
http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u....05Mar2014.pdf
Reports from prior years follow the same format and contain the same info for each year, with the noted differences:

Some years use a 0.084 factor for net mortality.

Years where fish have been sampled for pathogens include a sampling mortality.

Also note the run composition data and the associated confidence levels in aging the fish. In short, NO guesswork is required for what prior year classes contributed to the abundance of any given year.

Some averages for the entire 37 year period 1978 to 2014:

Average escapement: 89,270

Average H&L harvest and mortality (0.0204 correction factor): 10,177

Average net harvest and mortality (0.084 or 0.087 corr. factor): 25,422 (a total myth that H&L harvest is a small, tiny fraction of total net harvest).

Average total in-river abundance: 124,869

Does the data as a whole support the “Nets are imperiling the fishery”? For this to be true, the pressure from the nets NEEDS to be grinding the population down over the timeline. Does the data indicate that’s happening?

The highest abundance recorded since 1978 happened in 2012: 323,582. How many fish is 323k really? How does that relate to historic abundance? Upper window of historical abundance according to Moyle, Israel, & Purdy (2008 for UK/TR fall chinooks, is 250,000. Add in another 10K for lower Klamath fall chinooks and you get to ~260k. In other words, we eclipsed the upper window of what Moyle and Co feels is historic fall abundance BY 24% but yet somehow “the native nets are imperiling the fish”.

But it had to be a boom year for hatchery chinooks right? And that inflated the count right? And without those tons of hatchery fish that made it past the nets we couldn’t have actually been at or close to historic abundance right? Subtract those factory, frankenfish that escaped up river to spawn in 2012, (all 57K of them) and we’re still ABOVE (266K) what Moyle and company are convinced is the upper range of historic fall abundance.

There have been 5 years (1986, 1987, 1988, 2000, and 2012) of the 37 where total in-river abundance was >200K.

Of those 5 runs, 2 years featured run compositions where 84+% of the fish were progeny from years of weak escapement (30k-70k), The 3rd was comprised of progeny of 1 year of above avg escapement: 104K combined with a year of weak escapement. The forth had a run composition where 83% of the fish were progeny of 1 above average escapement year (104K) and a strong escapement year (180K). And the “boom” year of 2012? 93% of the fish were the progeny of weak escapement years (73K &69K respectively).

How did the progeny of the 5 highest escapement years fair?
They contributed to a grand total of 1 year where abundance was >200K (the aforementioned 180K). And the average abundance per year for the rest of those progeny from the highest escapement years was 112,110 which is below the average abundance of 124,869 for the 37 year period.

Does what’s being sold in this thread sound like it’s remotely close to the truth, or does it sound like bullshit?

[ycflyfisher]

As far as Blue Creek itself goes, I think everyone gets the importance of the thermal refugia aspect that it provides to up migrating fish. What these ads/articles concerning the purchase of Blue Creek from Green Diamond do, is actually paint Blue Creek as if it is a pristine, untouched watershed. It isn’t. Blue Creek has been heavily logged and mined in the past decades and its productivity as viable habitat has some issues. It has degradation issues, some moderate to major (in the upper reaches) fish passage issues, and a herd of feral cattle (a remnant of the gold rush era miners) that live in the lower Blue Creek basin, that have and will continue to degrade habitat.

Yurok Fisheries, has completed more restoration projects on the Klamath than any entity I’m aware of. Everything we essentially know about Blue Creek is a result of the studies Yurok fisheries has conducted on Blue Creek. If the Yurok get Blue Creek back, the lower reaches will never be managed for timber production ever again and they will restore it.

The reality is that restoration and preservation is the only path for the continuance of having viable ecosystems that support self-sustaining fisheries. Anyone who wants to support this endeavor should do so without reservation. None of the tribe bashing and blatant prejudice going on in this thread is founded in the truth.

It takes effort to actually understand fisheries issues and they're often extremely complex issues that cannot be understood or solved with "simple logic" because complex issues are not intuitive. Concocting blame placing conspiracy theories based on ancedotal observations and no evidence requires zero effort, IS NOT conservation, and draws attention away from legit concerns.

[winxp_man]

Ycflyfisher.... Facts don't mean pooo when reports are not turned in with under the table fish!! Like I said I have inside native sources that I get my info from not some fact sheet online or reported by the government. It's why I posted in this thread in the first place. This is like the long line issue here is CA. Well............... We can't change the laws because even short leaders are capable of lining fish. This would be a argument from gov officials. We know full well a leader that is 10' 15' 20' is exactly just that snagging and I will tell you this in my 20 years of gear fishing that a leader 6' or smaller will shorten the chances of snagging or lining. But back on point again I personally know natives that I have been friends with over 5 years and we talk about issues up there all the time.

Also to call something racial when it's a something wrong that they are doing does not makes normal sense to me
So if let's say (since I am Romanian) some Romanians are breaking the law is it racial to say they are breaking the law, and there is no way to hand them the keys to a business when they are crooks.

But whatever floats your boat. And your entitled to your opinion after all we still do have free speech somewhat in this country.


PS if the numbers you posted are the real; it's funny that sportfishermen will do more damage then gill nets. This is just common sense thinking.

[Terry Thomas]

YC, thanks for the well detailed post.

[Idadon]

The Klamath needs a good comprehensive plan to keep it going. A plan that includes all users!

I don't live in California anymore but I pay my $130+ to come and fish the Klamath every fall. Trying to regain some of my youth I guess. To be truthful there is likely far more salmon coming up the river now then when I fished it religiously in the mid 60s. I hope something can be done to preserve a very wonderful river. I think the commercial netting should stop as it should all up the coast. It seems to be a problem up into Washington rivers as well. Commercial fish out in the ocean but not inside the mouth.