What could replace west coast stripers?

Salmon and striped bass have not coexisted peacefully anyway.  A VERY large number of salmon are consumed by striper, but that doesn't necessarily mean that striper are responsible for the decline in salmon.  But if striper where not here we would have more salmon...but they're here right.  The issue about striper management and the Sport Fishing Alliance lawsuit against F&G is that we used to augment the striper population with hatcheries, but that has politically fallen out of favor....due to to the rise in ethics for native species.  ONe big reason why they have declined is the lack of hatchery fish and net penning in San Pablo Bay.  The other reasons striper are not doing well is due to pumping so much water out of the delta, which disrupts pretty much everything.  White seabass may become more common in SF bay as our climate warms over the next decade so stay tuned. 
I have to agree with Brian, that if we could go back and do it all over again.....we should not have introduced species into wild habitats...they should have been restricted to man made lakes...but someone would have moved them anyway.  So the long of the short of it is that stiper will not be managed FOR period.  However they will likely benefit from actions to help native species.  I just wish the bay wasn't so polluted that any normal human being could eat more that 8oz a month. 

.  I just wish the bay wasn't so polluted that any normal human being could eat more that 8oz a month. 

agree with you on that one- in hindsight we never should have used tons of mercury to help pull all that shiny stuff out of the ground, commercial fertilizers...well there's another one

 

In my opinion striped bass belong on the East Coast and if they had to be stocked on the West Coast they should have been limited to man-made fresh water reservoirs like Lake Mendocino.


Brian

but you would not go and exterminate the ones that are there would you? it really irks me that anybody could claim to have an opinion on this sort of thing. who died and made you god?

I wouldn't bother to exterminate striped bass in SF Bay, rather I'm not in favor of continued stocking of striped bass (I believe this is the current management strategy).  I have however worked on other eradication projects (e.g. European Green Crabs and some marine mollusks) in the past.

but you would not go and exterminate the ones that are there would you? it really irks me that anybody could claim to have an opinion on this sort of thing. who died and made you god?

It really irks me that anybody could claim to have an opinion that my having an opinion meant I was suffering from some sort of god complex.

Salmon and striped bass have not coexisted peacefully anyway.    

They coexist as well as Bass and Bluegill or Sturgeon and Herring.  Stripers feed on smolt but smolt are not their primary food source.  There would be a problem if they were both competing for the same food source and salmon were dieing off as a result but that isn't the case.  As I stated, they've been here for over a hundred years, both salmon and stripers were co-manageable before we influenced them too heavily.  

Is it just because you guys have a romantic vision of preserved natural ecosystems that makes you want to de-introduce stripers?  




  

One of the biggest things that we have "influenced heavily" is putting striped bass in SF bay in the first place.  I highly doubt they have ever coexisted peacefully because striped bass weren't be here in the first place.  Sure they were "comanageable" when the salmon actually outnumbered striped bass.  But what is happening once striped bass outnumber salmon and now the ecosystem is out of balance with an introduced predator?

I was wondering if you could explain to me which fish/crustacean salmon smolts eat and which fish/crustacean striped bass eat, to explain how striped bass are not competing for the same food source.

So if everyone agrees that it was probably better before man f'ed with it, than why is it so wrong to have a romantic vision of preserving ecosystems to their natural state?

I think you know my opinion already, but there should be no limit, size or quantity, for striped bass in the ocean or SF bay.  I think you'd find that most CDFG biologists would agree, although they might fear what there boss would say because higher up CDFG appreciate the revenue of striped bass fisheries in SF bay, even at the expense of salmon and the ecosystem as a whole.

Just a seemingly minute point of semantics, but -- can someone define "natural state" for me?

That would definitely help me form an informed opinion of the arguments here.

Just to stir the pot some more as far as eradication goes , know it is side stepping the salmon / striper debate , what about all the other introduced species in this state ? Let see , that would be and I'm sure I'll miss a bunch ; large and smallmouth black bass , all catfish , white bass , all panfish with the exception of about three species of river perch , crappies , more than a species or 2 of trout . Hell that about takes care of everything commonly fished for in freshwater in CA .

I personally think stripers are great and we've had record salmon seasons while stripers were in the system . Mismangement , habitat changes and commercial / overfishing is why our salmon are in a hurt , not because of striped bass ! Just my 2 cents worth and maybe thats an inflated value in todays economy !

One of the biggest things that we have "influenced heavily" is putting striped bass in SF bay in the first place.  I highly doubt they have ever coexisted peacefully because striped bass weren't be here in the first place. 

I think a bigger influence is completely wrecking their spawning habitat, damning up river systems and not allowing enough water to flow for them to survive but hey thats just me.  You're completely ignoring the fact that Striped Bass really only affect the Sacramento San Joaquin run yet salmon up and down the west coast have had run issues at some point in time that are completely unrelated to Bass.  And  you can reread my posts, nowhere did I say they existed peacfully, I say they co-existed.

Sure they were "comanageable" when the salmon actually outnumbered striped bass.  But what is happening once striped bass outnumber salmon and now the ecosystem is out of balance with an introduced predator?

Way off base.  Striped Bass outnumber salmon by how much? I'd really be interested in reading where you pulled that from cause my own personal observations (as well as that of the entire bay area sportfishing industry) is that the contrary is occurring. Over the past few years they're declining at a rate similar to salmon which to me says, habitat issues (read water diversion).  I reiterate, if they were such a devastating predator why did the sacramento run not disappear 50-60-70 years ago.  With the millions of bass that existed it shouldn't have been too hard for them to just hang out at the river mouths and pick em off as they swim out like the sea lions do. Hell, look at the job they do on the pen released salmon in the bay right now, they were conditioned to hang out and wait for the release there, it wouldn't have taken 100 years for them to figure it out on a river system.  Delta run stripers predominant forage is shad, not salmon smolt. Not to mention striped bass have no problem predating on pikeminnows which wreak havoc on juvenile salmon in other watersheds.

I was wondering if you could explain to me which fish/crustacean salmon smolts eat and which fish/crustacean striped bass eat, to explain how striped bass are not competing for the same food source.

I've never read any published scientific data on the diet contents of salmon smolt, or seen competition for food cited as a major problem.  I also don't believe that a significant number of bass charge upstream with salmon to spawn at the same time on the same beds leaving the fry in competition with each other.  I don't know everything though, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why don't you go ahead tell me what they're feeding on, salmon corpses, insects, shad, minnows?  I'd be really interested in comparing that to what I believe the stripers are eating.

So if everyone agrees that it was probably better before man f'ed with it, than why is it so wrong to have a romantic vision of preserving ecosystems to their natural state?

Because its unrealistic?  Don't get me wrong I still have dreams that Eva Longoria is gonna come to her senses and track me down but I have a contingency plan that covers all bases and leaves everybody happy or satisfied.  In all honesty, you (much like myself) do not have anywhere near the money, power or influence to ever return things to their untouched state.  Even if you eradicate striped bass you still have water issues (both quantity and cleanliness), hydro power, and habitat issues.  Those factors....you will never ever win.  On the positive side, once the bass are gone we can focus %100 of our efforts back on targeting salmon (and halibut which I doubt you care much about cause they're not salmon).

I think you know my opinion already, but there should be no limit, size or quantity, for striped bass in the ocean or SF bay.  I think you'd find that most CDFG biologists would agree, although they might fear what there boss would say because higher up CDFG appreciate the revenue of striped bass fisheries in SF bay, even at the expense of salmon and the ecosystem as a whole.

Yeah CDFG Biologists, the same people that brought us crooked fish counting techniques and told us the entire ling cod population was wiped out and wouldn't rebuild for 10 years.....then announced it recovered 2 years later.  While I'm sure they employ some great bio's I don't exactly consider that a ringing endorsement.

Sorry but I haven't mastered responding to a quote responding to a quote.  Here is my response to agarcia, again apologize if its hard to follow.

Part #1:
Your right, I do think that logging and damning up river systems along with not letting a significant amount of water flow are bigger issues than striped bass being in SF bay, but I also believe that a striped bass population in SF bay isn't helping out salmon populations.  I don't really understand where your coming from with the  "You're completely ignoring" line, I understood "west coast stripers" as mainly "SF bay stripers."  Believe me, I'm well versed in west coast salmon run fluctuations, in fact I've devoted my life to studying salmonids.

Part #2
Do you really think I'm way off base when I say that stripers outnumber salmon right now in the bay area ecosystem?  So the contrary is happening?  Salmon outnumber striped bass in the bay, I wish.  Water diversions, I believe are hurting both species in the bay, but definitely not the only reason.  As far as striped bass not wiping out salmon a long time ago, because maybe 50-60-70 years ago the bay was a lot different, as in water diversions, forage fish populations, etc.  And as far as striped bass sitting at the mouths of river systems waitning to devour runs of salmon, maybe striped bass didn't need to while they were feeding on other abundant food sources/forage fish.  If striped bass have no problem eating juvenile pikeminnow which are native to the Sacramento River then why wouldn't they eat salmon?  Pikeminnow are native to the Russian and Sacramento Rivers, not the Eel and Columbia Rivers.

Part #3
Salmon smolts feed heavily in estuarine environments (ie. the same place most stripers hang out) before making a movement out to the ocean for that phase of their life.  I posed the question to you because you seem to think at no point do they compete for the same food source, which I just don't believe. 

Part#4
I've devoted my life to studying fisheries research and your right I'm not rich or care to be.  Right now I'm working on a project to help restore silver salmon to the Russian River, which has its own set of issues.  Even though I don't have those superficial things you've mentioned, I'm doing my best to right a lot of wrongs.  I not one who will just give up because it seems we can't do anything about it.  Of course if striped bass were gone you'd have other issues.  My job would be a lot easier if wrongs that occurred over 50 years took 50 years to fix, in fact it might take 100, who knows, its a fight I don't mind fighting.  And the line about halibut, uncalled for, you have no idea, I just think striped bass in the bay was a horrible idea of which I don't think we are finished seeing the consequences.

Part #5
I guess your correct, I'm not giving CDFG a ringing endorsement in regards to striped bass in the bay.

Part #1

Do stripers help.  I don't disagree with you on this, No. 

Are they a significant enough threat that they now need to be eradicated and fished as an unregulated species. 

You obviously think so and give non-nativism as the basis for your argument. Given the sentimental attachment one develops as they dedicate their life to studying something I can understand where you're coming from.  I've seen it alot in myopic religous zealots who believe that there is only one right way to do things and everything else is wrong.  I get it.
 
Based on historical fact, I believe that on the grand scheme, they are not. Employing striped bass eradication techniques at this point in the game and in the manner you described is rash and best compared to applying a bandaid on a mortal wound.....or for the less politically correct....pissing on a forest fire.  While I commend the pisser for running into the fire, I beg to ask, exactly what will be accomplished without adressing the bigger issues? 

If Striped Bass were completely removed from the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta system we would not be fisherman with hordes more salmon, we'd be fisherman without salmon and bass. And that, I attribute to habitat and water. I also look at economical and recreational factors, there's 300,000 sport anglers that chase Stripers in the river, bay and ocean, which generates $24 million for the sportfishing industry and DFG....which is ironic considering that may be allocated to fund the F&G Bilogists that despise them.  I cannot say with any level of certainty that this money would be made up for by a failing salmon fishery, or people dunking powerbait for truck trout at the local hole in the ground. There's also a nice lot of displaced fisherman targeting/pressuring other fish.

So, perhaps you can now see where I'm coming from.  (The whole, "you're ignoring" thing was my half assed attempt to eek out a post on my brief evening break.  What I meant is that if you look at the entire coast, striper predation is not very high on the priority list.)


Part #2

Anectdotal evidence and sportfishing counts and size demonstrate that bass are on the decline as bad as salmon.  I'm pretty sure DFG netting samples showed that they're populations were pretty dismal last year as well. Their population is way down just like salmon.

Diet studies show that a Bass's primary forage is shad and juvnile bass and its been that way for decades.  I don't discount that they're oportunistic feeders and smolt get lost in the process.  I do not believe they're taking a significant number of smolt.
 

Part #3
"I posed the question to you because you seem to think at no point do they compete for the same food source, which I just don't believe"

Did I really say that, or did I say this?

would be a problem if they were both competing for the same food source and salmon were dieing off as a result but that isn't the case.

I've never read any published scientific data on the diet contents of salmon smolt, or seen competition for food cited as a major problem.

Please keep me in context. Thats die offs, competition resulting in die offs (significant numbers of fish, not just the slow swimmer that couldn't catch a shrimp), of which none have been documented. From what I've seen striped bass fry are distributed throughout the delta system not just the rivers, I don't think there's that many of them mingling amongst the salmon.  But like I said, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong.  Point me in the right direction. 

Part #4

Very commendable and I didn't say to give it up. Simply suggesting that we get realistic and start managing the fisheries not like an aquarium but in a manner which will promote healthy populations with adequate sport and commercial angling opportunities. Its possible with a little out of the box thinking not just a knee jerk to preserve.

and

You didn't just say you think Striped Bass was a horrible idea, you said you'd like to see them de-regulated and that most DFG biologists would agree.  While you didn't say it exactly the only possible outcome of such de-regulation would be a wiped out fishery.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly and believe it to be a great example of the current state of our fisheries. Ignore the real problems and go after the quick fix.

I can see both sides on this one.  I think an important note is that the bay delta system is completely an artificial system managed by humans.  It could even be argued that the Chinook population is an "introduced" species.   Ninety-five percent of the the Sacramento fish caught in the ocean come from one of the 7 hatcheries on the Sac.

Due to the tremendous changes in the hydrology of the Central Valley from the dam and aqueduct system, which resulted from the Federal "Reclamation" agency and the State Department of Water Resources policies, the salmon stocks (at least) are completely dependent on human management.  And there's no going back.

Us 30 million Californians are completely dependent on the cheap food, water, and power produced by this system.  It will never be "natural" again as long as humans have not destroyed themselves and still inhabit this area.

So to attempt to bring the system back to pre-European conditions is not realistic, and the argument can be made that we should just manage it for how we want it.  It is a completely artificial artifact anyway that bears little resemblance to it's historical condition.

On the other hand, it would tragic to lose species like the delta smelt.  Like I said, I can see both sides on this one.

I think this thread is about done, but I'll reply to a few things.

I said I (as in my opinion) believe that striped bass should be fished as an unregulated species.  Do I believe that we should start large scale eradication programs for striped bass? NO, definitely not as they have proved in the past to be very costly and not work anyways. 

Just because I work with salmonids (believe me I wished I worked with tuna) doesn't mean that I form my opinions out of sentimentality.  My opinion on striped bass in SF bay (and Coos Bay as well) was formed mainly by negative interactions that nonnative organisms usually have in their new environments.  Comparing my feelings about striped bass in SF bay to myopic religious zealotry?  Easy there.

No where in my posts did I say we should employ large scale eradication efforts with striped bass.  And before you compare that to my idea of deregulating recreational fishing for them, let me explain that I think of large scale eradication efforts in terms of money and I think they are a waste, except in special circumstances.  Deregulating striped bass limits in the bay would cost nowhere near the amount of money as a large scale eradication effort.  If recreational fishing groups (charter boats and private groups) deemed them important enough they regulate themselves. I know this probably wouldn't work either, but again, my opinion.

I agree with you that this is not the main problem with salmonids and eradication efforts would be a bandaid.

As far as losing recreational fishing dollars from striped bass that pay for CDFG biologists.  True that would probably happen.  I attribute that saga to CDFG's organizational problems and not being able to manage fisheries with their current structure.  The people in CDFG that decide the very things citizens of CA care about are ... elected officials, not biologists, scientists or economists.

Striper predation is not the root cause for salmonid declines, but they are not helping when salmonid populations are this low.  Significance of how many smolts they are eating only increases as salmonid populations decrease. 

I agree with you about managing fisheries in which promote healthy populations with adequate sport and commercial angling opportunities.  I've worked on all sides of these types of issues and take in all sides feelings (that includes: state and federal gov't, commercial fishing, Native American tribes, universities and I'm an avid recreational fisherman).  I just side with healthy populations first, as you probably do as well.  My feelings about striped bass are far from a knee-jerk reaction.

The outcome of deregulated striped bass fishery might be a wiped out fishery.  But one idea could be that fisherman could keep it going by making it a catch and release only fishery (that much mercury in your system probably isn't good anyway) because there is no way you could get rid of them anyway, the bay is just too big.

As far as this being a "quick fix." I wish it was easy to tear down dams, stop diverting water and stop pollution it would make a lot of this a moot point.  I do agree that all to often CDFG goes after the quick fix in other fisheries, it just sucks that the people with power are elected politicians, not biologists.

DaveW,
I definitely agree that the bay will never be like it was (pre-Europian).  Its just that I believe that striped bass populations should be kept low as they are the one large predatory fish that is nonnative here.  Ultimately I believe striped bass will stay here as long as fisherman want them to.