Spear Fishing

[JCam]

/yawn.
Where you always this ill-bred or does the internet bring it out in you?

[JCam]

Invasive species that eat salmon and low water level can both negatively effect salmon populations. It is not an either or. The argument should be made that because invasive species are already stressing native populations even more water should be conserved for the fisheries....

[ycflyfisher]

/yawn.
Where you always this ill-bred or does the internet bring it out in you?

I always love these childish responses that shed NO light where the disagreement lies. Clearly you don't agree with some or all of what I said. I don't have a crystal ball so let's recap.


You asked the following questions:

What do juvenile SB eat?

Are smolt not competing for much of the same food as juvenile SB?

Dont SB also live in the ocean and are they not preying on smolt their entire journey up the coast?

I answered your questions, taking the time to do so in some detail. What specifically is it that I said that you don't agree with?

[ycflyfisher]

Invasive species that eat salmon and low water level can both negatively effect salmon populations. It is not an either or.

What does that have to do with anything I've stated in this thread? By 'low water level' I can only assume you actual mean diversion. Where in this thread or my entire posting history on this forum have I ever stated anything that would possibly lead you to believe that I've ever downplayed the effects of either predation on native species by non-native species or the impacts of diversion?

I'd suggest you go back and read some of the prior discussions on this forum on those subjects to get an idea of my actual opinion on predation by SBs and diversion. The one of which is here, post #6:

http://www.kiene.com/forums/showthre...410#post132410

As far as predation of Chinook by Striped Bass it IS an 'either or' whether you elect to believe that or not, and that applies even if it was known with certainty that that SB are collectively consuming 10+ miilion Chinook smolts annually.


You want some facts, here's some more, all referenced to peer-reviewed science that forms my opinion:


There are a total of 17 native fish species that are still extant in the Sac-SJ delta and its tribs. There are 31 non-native fish species in said ecosystem. (Grossman 2016)


Of those 48 species there are 8 that are confirmed definitive predators of smolting Chinook salmon. (Grossman 2016, Moyle 2003).

There's several others that are known to be piscivorous on fish up to the size of smolting Chinooks. (Grossman 2013 and 2016)

That doesn't even include all the fish known to consume pre-smolting Chinooks (eggs, larval and free swimming fry). Keep in mind predation from these fish impact natural (not hatchery) Chinooks exclusively.

Striped Bass are generalist predators that have been documented to be predators of all of those fish species. (Grossman 2016 and dozens of various other sources).

They also are known to consume virtually every other fish species that don't or physically cannot prey on Chinooks that could have a detrimental impact on Chinooks via interspecies competition. I.e. -That thing you mentioned that isn't just limited to comp for food resources but numerous other factors like comp for optimal developing habitat, displacement from optimal predator evasion habitat and a myriad of other factors. All of that stuff factors into the equation.


As previously stated if SBs were to become less abundant either via natural course of action or by deliberate efforts, predator control or abatement on SBs , I'd expect some release and you have the potential to put more smolts in the salt. Call that number X.


But you also run the risk of increased loss of production by an increase in the impact on Chinooks from the totality of ALL the species SB are potentially limiting. Call that number Y. If X minus Y is not a positive number attempting to control Striped Bass abundance has a net negative result on Chinooks that live long enough to hit the salt.

How is it exactly that you seem to be so certain that this cannot be an 'either or'?


You also said: 'The argument should be made that because invasive species are already stressing native populations even more water should be conserved for the fisheries....'


That's a silly and untenable argument. Decisions and factors that limit or alter the schedule of diversion are made at the court level by judges that possess expertise in both water law and the State and Fed ESA. There never has been and never will be a decision made that impacts or reduces diversion without accompanying peer reviewed science that indicates that said diversion is negatively impacting a listed species that is protected under the respective ESA.