Umpqua river needs your help

[bigtj]

Guys,

I agree that there is some language in that link that is a bit out in left field. However, I am willing to overlook that fact for two reasons:

First, the petition has been around since March and was started by Scott Howell and a few other guides. The flowery words were just added by this guy to help get people motivated, I think he meant well but perhaps overstepped his bounds. But if you read his letter to Mr. Muck his points ring true. The bottom line is I have been talking to Scott about this and writing letters to ODFW for a couple years. These guys have level heads and good, sound reasons for the petition. Not all are sceintific...some are philisophical, some emotional, but I think that's OK because these fish are really, really special and need protection.

Second, my gut feeling from the time I've spent on the Umpqua is that it is the sort of fishery that deserves the same kind of protection a national park does. You don't go shooting deer in a national park, nor do you log in it, or strip mine it. And in the more famous fisheries (yellowstone) you don't kill fish in them, easier. That's how I feel about the fishery. Leave the wild fish alone, as God intended them to be, and leave it at that. Plenty of other places to meat fish. Go fish the Cowlitz or the Nestucca if you want to fill the freezer but leave those Umpqua fish alone. Obviously I'm not alone in this opinion as a big section of the NU has been fly only for something like 70 years. How fired up would everybody be to start allowing selected harvest in old-growth redwoods or Sequoia National Park? Sure, the trees will grow back just fine, the forest can stand the harvest and one might even argue scientifically that cutting trees "is healthier for the environment". But on the other hand, why not give some things a bit of a break? Do we have to mess with everything, put our fingerprints on everywhere in the world? I say enough is enough, let's give this river the protection it deserves.

So anyway I'm willing to overlook some overzealous BS for the simple fact that the idea is a sound one...protect the Umpqua and its wild fishery. I'm not gonna let some flowery words get in the way of doing that.

[Covelo]

Nice post Tristan. If you read the entire thread on that other linked board, one poster brought up a good point that this does not need to be an either or decision, ie should not be limited to maintaining the status quo or changing to a 100% CandR fishery. Game agencies are suppose to manage, so if the regs need tinkering to account for an unforeseen threat, then make the necessary modifications. Changing completely to a 100% CandR fishery because you cannot stand the thought of someone killing a fish is not management and removes a large majority of the public who have the same rights to the fish from participating and eating fresh fish if they so desire.

bigtj posted

Leave the wild fish alone, as God intended them to be, and leave it at that. Plenty of other places to meat fish. Go fish the Cowlitz or the Nestucca if you want to fill the freezer but leave those Umpqua fish alone.

Be careful what you wish for. It would be easy to take your position and make the same arguements you have, but apply them to fishing in general. If these fish really need to be protected then I do not want anyone driving a sharp metal spear into their jaw bone, fighting them until they are completely exhausted, dragging their near lifeless body into the shallows, grasping them with their bare hands, wiping off their protective slime and exposing them to future infections just to get a picture that they can hold up as a trophy. How is that for flowery speech?

Lastly, the yearly limit on the Umpqua is 5 natives just like on the Smith River, so the hyperbole of the one guy "bonking" 400 wild fish is likely not true. If it is, then the guy is a poacher and should be treated accordingly.

[fshfndr]

Point of clarification on my post, did not mean to say that the original petitioner for C&R in the NU is of the same philosophy as those who would like to see all sport angling and hunting banned. Just that the language of the person reporting the "abuse" of a wild fish may be of that type. Was not discounting the importance of a conservation ethic or that our freedom to fish trumps scientific managment policy.

What I think is vitally more important for anglers to be passionate about is something I would like to express like this. Our local river had very low flows this year, fish came in later than usual. After the majority spawned we had low rainfall in March and April. Due to human de-watering of this river many of the redds dried up before the eggs even hatched out. The result was 10,000's of wild steelhead eggs destroyed from an entire year class of lower river spawners. So, where is the same revulsion for the loss of eggs? It went unnoticed by that type of "conservationist" . Yet a healthy habitat can lose a percentage of the spawners and still produce its year class of fry that will re-populate the river while the dried up river cannot. So, who is the fish "killer"? What is "overfishing" ? If agriculture or municipalities dominate our water use policy, such is in the Sacramento Delta Diversions, they can and do cause severe fisheries collapses. And in magnitude greater degrees than fishing. Is that not "overfishing"? I believe we as fishermen, voters, conservationists, environmentalists, etc. would be better served focusing our primary "outrage" and effort in protecting the rivers and estuaries wild fish spawn and rear in. Yes scientifically based fisheries management is critical, but meaningless if the basic habitat is already gone.

[bigtj]

Thanks everyone for their input and responses. Agree or disagree at least we're all passionate about our rivers and steelhead and that is a great thing.

Best regards,

-John

[Jasonh]

Well said John.

[bubzilla]

The problem with this proposal is that it is specific to the Umpqua. As a longtime fishing acquaintance and quasi-steelhead guru said a couple weeks ago to a meeting of the local fly club, it's already "the most radically regulated" watershed in all of steelheading. Granted, most of the rules apply to the NU, but then the intent of this proposal is really to affect the NU.

It's a shame Oregon permits the harvest of native steelhead on the rivers that enter the Pacific in the southern half of the state. And frankly, it's the coastal streams, where killing natives was only allowed again a few years ago, where there is a potential crisis--especially on the smaller rivers with relatively high fishing pressure and no hatchery augmentation to support a kill fishery.

It is a reasonable argument to suggest that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, or in fact the Oregon Game Commission who actually makes decisions regarding harvest protocols, should use science and allow harvest where it is warranted. Of course, history would suggest that is an unrealistic expectation. What has always happened in Oregon, without exception, is that special interests have prevailed without regard to science. That is precisely how the South Coast reopened to harvest of native steelhead just a few years ago.

I believe, based on conversations with many with much greater understanding of the science than myself, that over-harvest of native steelhead in Oregon is a real problem. When coupled with habitat destruction--including everything from decades of nearsighted forestry practices to more recent property development and coastal community growth--and continued problems with ocean conditions, it's a threat that may well jeopardize what a lot of really accomplished steelheaders know to be the last of the truly great fisheries anywhere.

So, simply stated, my objection to this petition is that once again some in the fly fishing community want to focus on one fishery instead of the health of steelhead in the state generally. It is an unfortunate focus that has every appearance of addiction, as the Umpqua has repeatedly in recent years been focus of efforts that have done nothing to legitimately protect steelhead for future generations. If successful, it will be merely another example of the triumph of special interests in this state without regard to science or wildlife management principles. Accordingly, not only do I not support the proposal, I encourage other anglers to oppose it.

The Umpuqa is always the source of the most proposals for regulation change. So much so, that there is some observable eye-rolling with the Game Commission whenever it is mentioned. Frankly, seldom do those proposals have any basis in science. There is scientific evidence to support the proposition that harvest of native steelhead should be prohibited in Oregon--particularly on the smaller, coastal watersheds of the South Coast. As the anglers who travel up to fish with the spey guides now promoting the fisheries of the North Coast can attest, closures have brought back some of the former glory of those fisheries. But there is nothing to support the premise that the Umpqua is more deserving of protection than the other watersheds where harvest of natives is now permitted. In fact, to the contrary, the Umpqua has one of the most robust native runs of winter fish in the state. That does not mean that protections are not warranted, but it does mean that singling out the Umpqua does not make sense from a non-emotional, non-biased standpoint.

Personally, I feel this proposal is just another example of the Umpqua-only mantra that continues to damage the credibility of fly anglers in Oregon when it comes to issues of steelhead management. I hope others will see this and not support the proposal. Should the authors and proponents choose to focus on all of the fisheries in jeopardy, that would be a different subject entirely.

[SSPey]

I believe, based on conversations with many with much greater understanding of the science than myself, that over-harvest of native steelhead in Oregon is a real problem.

I am guessing that somewhere along the line, ODFW did an analysis showing that limited kill of wild steelhead on those S. Oregon rivers was acceptable biologically. Is their analysis flawed? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Such science would be a great asset to a full frontal attack on this issue across the entire state, instead of dealing with isolated battles waged by concerned interest groups.

In the absence of such broad-scale information, I'm gladly supporting the Umpqua proposal and other individual measures like it. I agree it doesn't go far enough, but at least is goes.

[matt johnson]

Bubzilla,

I was thinking the same thing when I read the proposal (about the need for C&R for wild steelhead coast-wide), I just didn't know how to express my thoughts as well as you did about the matter. Thanks.

SSPey,

I am pretty sure ODFW decided the South Coast winter runs could sustain limited harvest based on juvenile abundance. Apparently they were/are very high. I have also observed ODFW personnel conducting redd counts. I also recall that Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society was behind ODFW's decision to allow harvest again on the South Coast. He felt this was a better management decision than the local pressure on ODFW to provide more hatchery fish.

I find there has been a fairly significant increase in pressure on a couple South Coast rivers I fish. Trespassing issues have increased, and call me sensitive, but I really don't like seeing fresh wild steelhead blood on the rocks. Consequently, I have been spending more time on Northern California rivers the past few winters (not the main-stem Smith!). Matt.

[bigtj]

I just got a hand-written postcard back from Zane Smith, one of the odfw comissioners, thanking me for my letter. Man it was great to hear that they are listening.

By the way the petition is up to 184 signatures...way to go everyone.

-John