Rogue Steelhead Graph 1994-2005

[Langenbeck]

These are the numbers of steelhead, both summer and winter, over Gold Ray Dam from 1994 through 31 Dec 2005.

[Darian]

Gordon,.... is there some reason the chart reflects such a wild swing in numbers between the years 2000 and 2005 It would seem that there was a population explosion for the early part and a crash for the last year.... Is there something that the Oregon wildlife people attribute those events to Water level fluctuations

[Langenbeck]

Darian: The main reason for the very big fish years was attributed to optimal ocean conditions. Am sure there are others in Southern Oregon who know much more than I on this subject.

[sculpin]

Nice chart Gordon good job. It would be interesting to a see chart of wild vs hatchery over the same period and also what years regulation changes allowed bait in November locally known as the steelhead slaughter.Mainly to se if it affected runs later on.

Mark

[bubzilla]

Favorable ocean conditions are the generally accepted conventional wisdom regarding the much larger than normal runs. Not just steelhead saw above average runs. Other rivers saw big number too which would support the ocean conditions theory. Unfortunately, that cycle has purportedly changed.

They added the November bait ban in 2000, Mark. First summer season affected would have been 2001. Of course, they've continued to soften the ban, by extending the boundary downstream, pretty much every year since.

[Jasonh]

A couple of related questions on ocean conditions and steelhead. Would favorable ocean condtions refer to water temps, surf, etc....? Also i have never heard about anyone actually catching steelhead in the ocean. Where do they typically hang out and do they travel much like other species of salmon and tuna? Never heard much about steelhead in the ocean. Hatcheries should try tracking devices on them or something and we might be able to learn even more about these amazing fish.

Jason Hartwick

[PaulC]

Hey Jason,
I also haven't heard of too many people catching them in the ocean too often. Occasionally someone will incidentally catch one in the surf down here.
http://www.garybulla.com/forum/viewt...d=1489#pid7514

Salmon also...but its pretty rare.
One friend landed a salmon near the SB harbor a couple years back.
Steelhead down here in general are pretty rare.
BTW, I had a friend catch a steelie with a tag on it this year in the Trinity. I wasn't aware there was even a tagging program on the river?
-Paul

[OregonSalmon]

Jason,
I actually witnessed a steelhead caught in the ocean. We were casting herring off the Columbia River jetty for silvers and my buddy caught a summer run probably headed for Idaho. Poor critter ended up on a dinner table in Seaside.

[hookn em up]

hey everyone I've often wondered the same thing about steelhead in the ocean. Very few ever get caught. I asked an old commercial skipper and he said the steelhead are too smart to take the junk that we troll for salmon. Obviously theres not as many steelies as salmon but you would think they'd get caught once in awhile out there. I guess they really are smart. But they're suckers for a good fly in the river!!!

[bubzilla]

Catching a steelhead in the ocean may be a rarity for recreational anglers, but commercial bycatch is not uncommon. Just did a real quick Google, and here's a site that references a range of annual commercial bycatch of steelhead in Alaskan waters that was as high as more than 11,000 per year. I'd assume this is happening during the purse seine fishery. Obviously, such an incomplete statement doesn't prove much--other than bycatch does occur.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/dis...s/steel_ed.htm

Jason,

Defining “favorable ocean conditions� could be pretty tough. We know that marine survival rates of salmon and steelhead are not uniform from year-to-year, and the variations in ocean productivity appear to be enormous. Of course the differences in ocean conditions and their effects can be seasonal, annual, or can occur over long periods of time, and they seem to be very regional as well. For example, here on the West Coast cool ocean conditions, like those associated with a La Nina, seem to correlate with higher productivity. Warmer conditions, like those associated with a El Nino, are believed to generally correspond with a reduction in run numbers. What’s strange is that the exact opposite regarding water temperatures is considered to be true for Alaska.

Not trying to dodge your question, but "favorable ocean conditions" can mean different things in different places, and the idea itself can encapsulate a lot of different conditions. Just in terms of temperature, for our runs a colder ocean is generally thought to bring increases in certain species of zooplankton, which is supposedly beneficial to baitfish, which in turn allegedly increases both size and survival rates of our salmon and steelhead. But obviously that’s an incredible oversimplification of even just one factor.

If you do some research online, there’s a ton of information that is relatively new regarding theories about the relation of marine environment to anadromous fish populations. Most of the stuff is set in the context of fisheries management. Some of it is also pretty politically charged, as there is an argument brewing that if ocean conditions are so determinative, and also so uncontrollable, our continued focus on improving river habitat may be ineffective and therefore not justifiable in terms of a cost benefit analysis. Personally, I think that is carp, but the theory is out there just the same, and it has appeal to those who’d like to justify eliminating many current restrictions and expenditures.