Salmon Season Has Begun - Word on the Street Version...

Good luck tomorrow brother! And the next day and the day after that....
We're all hoping you hook into a big bright missle of pink flesh in that plastic boat of yours!

Thx, PK.   

And, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, an anadromous fishery that is any more than 15% supplemented by hatcheries is unsustainable.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole wild vs hatchery DNA was garbage science by the left trying to shut down salmon and steelhead  fishing.

I goes well beyond that.  Some of the most sustainable fisheries are 100% hatchery "terminal" fisheries.  People get to catch fish in salt that spent there life in the ocean, with no real place to return.  Folks get to fish and pressure is removed from wild stocks altogether.

And, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, an anadromous fishery that is any more than 15% supplemented by hatcheries is unsustainable.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole wild vs hatchery DNA was garbage science by the left trying to shut down salmon and steelhead  fishing.

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Are you a scientist? Geneticist maybe? Didn't think so. Hatchery fish and wild fish are genetically different and I can point you in the right direction if you actually want to read a few papers which can prove the genetics to you if you'd like. It's really not that complicated nor debatable. What is debatable is whether or not hatchery fish play a part in fisheries and I'd have to agree with Sean that they in fact do in certain cases. They are raised to harvest and that's what you should do with all hatchery salmonids. When steelhead fishing, I feel great bonking the adipose-clipped hatchery fish I catch and equally great carefully handling and releasing the wild fish. The problem with salmon is you can't really tell a hatchery fish from a wild one in CA. They don't clip them which IMHO is really stupid. Washington clips +90% of their Chinook in Puget Sound and a mark-selective fishery is a great measure while the wild stocks try to rebuild themselves. Marking their hatchery Chinook was mandated without issuing any additional funds and was quickly achieved. The same should be done in CA if we want to fish for Chinook in the future.

Sean, I'm curious to hear more about wherever you just were but you have to admit that salmon in the lower 48 are not in prime shape. When ESA listings have been handed out across the board like they have, there's a problem. It's not a "left-wing conspiracy". You point to the Klamath as having a great run. Yeah, this year. It was only a couple years ago that the Klamath was the river limiting fisheries for salmon coastwide! Even the Smith which is always touted as so robust in numbers has had 2 straight shitty steelhead seasons and I'd have to guess this has something to do with the ridiculous amount of pressure on the river in recent years. Too many people are harvesting those wild fish and it isn't sustainable. That river is as pristine as it gets and without any dams so you can't really point the finger in any other direction if and when that river adds itself to the list of collapsed populations.

I, like Sean, worked in the salmon world for about 7 years before moving down here to work on tuna, sharks, and billfish. I spent that time in Marin, Santa Cruz, Humboldt County, and Seattle. It's a very interesting time in salmon and steelhead management and, depending on your level of optimism, the fisheries for both species could go either way. The jury is still out. Brendan, I agree with you that many salmon and steelhead stocks are in bad, bad shape but there are ones in good shape (at times) as well. What we can probably get used to in the near future is more variability in numbers. Some years will be high, some will be very low. This will probably not change any time soon.   

I never said great shape, it can definitely be better, but they aren't exactly on the brink of collapse. 

While I agree that their is no conspiracy to list fish, the data for the listing in most cases is a joke.  The Status Reviews for the Russian where I worked is nothing short of a joke.

The Smith had some weak years recently, but for the same reasons elsewhere...sorry smolt survival offshore for 2 years.  That document is out there and beat to death, and with a list of authors no one can dispute.  Conversely ocean survival has been sweet the last 2 and I expect the Smith to be full blast this winter, and next.

Ya well golly gee I do happen to be a scientist and work in science every day. I went to school to be an ichthyologist and because of no jobs at the time switched to wildlife management and then picked up a business degree along the way so as to help get a job in the field. But in the early 80's it was all about hiring people to fill AA requirements and having the wrong sex and skin color sucked big time.

So I invented some technology got four patents, and started a company made and lost several millions, made them the honest way lost them defending my patents from the big boys who used to courts to break me, when i ran out of money.  Sold my business in 02, because my wife is a ivy league educated epidemiologist who got sick of being a housewife and wanted to do cutting edge research, which she was constantly being asked to do by a couple of big labs.

So now I run kids help her with her research and dive, fish and hunt.

The DNA research has shown that most rivers with hatchery fish have commingled with the wild strains and that most salmon and steelhead in hatchery supported rivers are the basically the same fish, weather they have been spawned in the hatchery or in the river.

I never said great shape, it can definitely be better, but they aren't exactly on the brink of collapse. 

While I agree that their is no conspiracy to list fish, the data for the listing in most cases is a joke.  The Status Reviews for the Russian where I worked is nothing short of a joke.

The Smith had some weak years recently, but for the same reasons elsewhere...sorry smolt survival offshore for 2 years.  That document is out there and beat to death, and with a list of authors no one can dispute.  Conversely ocean survival has been sweet the last 2 and I expect the Smith to be full blast this winter, and next.

It just sounded a bit like you were saying Brendan was completely off by saying that salmon are in trouble. I just wanted to make the point that they are in fact in bad shape in quite a few places, and in a few they are on the brink of collapse. Several once prominent coho streams on the coast in Marin and south of SF are now missing year classes. Isn't that a collapse in your opinion? You also said look no further than the Klamath for a strong run. You wouldn't have used the Klamath as an example of anything but a collapsed run as recently as 2006. Yes, it's a good year but I'd hardly call that river one that's in great shape.

I always thought CA was in much worse shape than Oregon and Washington until I moved up to Seattle. It's not too great up there in many places either. Here's a fun fact for you - did you know that all 20+ major rivers combined in Puget Sound average ~35-40,000 adult spawning Chinook since "decent" data collection started in the 80s? That includes the Skagit system which in my opinion should be producing something in that ballpark by itself. 35,000 Chinook is the escapement goal for the Klamath! That was an eyeopener for me that the Klamath escapement goal was roughly equivalent to the average escapement for all of Puget Sound! And yes, yes, I'm all too aware of all the error inherent in counting adult spawning salmon. But still, not where things should be at all.

While I agree that their is no conspiracy to list fish, the data for the listing in most cases is a joke.  The Status Reviews for the Russian where I worked is nothing short of a joke.

Yeah, well CA wasn't too good about doing decent monitoring over the years for many rivers. I think the Status Reviews were a product of a lack of data. They did what they could I guess but you are certainly right. What would you like to see done on the Russian though? Allowable harvest of Chinook? I'm curious.

The Smith had some weak years recently, but for the same reasons elsewhere...sorry smolt survival offshore for 2 years.  That document is out there and beat to death, and with a list of authors no one can dispute.  Conversely ocean survival has been sweet the last 2 and I expect the Smith to be full blast this winter, and next.

I hope you're right about the Smith b/c it is certainly a gem and a wild fish refugia. I would be heartbroken if it didn't come back strong. We shall see. Regardless, you won't ever see me harvesting a wild steelhead in that river or any other for that matter. Hatchery fish, well they'll be promptly bonked.

Sorry for the hijack Abking! I just thought your thread opened up this interesting topic for discussion. I'm all for recreational fishermen heading out and getting after it this short little salmon season. If I still lived up there, I might be right there with you. Let's hope the seasons get longer over time as the fish make a comeback. That's what we all want. 

Yes, salmon on the west coast are experiencing a decline in populations; they have been doing so for the last 100+ years. And sadly, it is a common trend among many saltwater fish (especially highly-prized gamefish like Chinook salmon).
So…if you subscribe to the logic that we shouldn’t target a specific fish (salmon) based on the fact they aren’t on par with historic records…then ya might as well go to Parkway. Or Safeway. Because none of the fish are as abundant as they were 100 years ago (except thornback rays lol).

Admittedly, we’re probably just arguing over semantics. I believe the whole term “collapse” is a divisive element…used incorrectly to describe the state of the Sac’s meager returns of fall Chinook in ‘07 and ‘08. A collapse is defined as a sudden failure; from which one is unable to recover. Please consider that the previous low was 79K fish in 1992. Did that mean it collapsed? No, because just 10 years later, there were 768K fish.
So, maybe in 2017 we'll have 700K fish again, and the numbers will prove that 07-09 wasn't a true "collapse."
Time will tell. And I can't travel through time. But I can donate my $$$ and time to salmonid-friendly organizations like MBSTP (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) or CRSA (Carmel River Steelhead Assoc), in an effort to make a difference/help them recover.
Simply abstaining from targeting them isn't enough to make a significant contribution to their recovery efforts. [And I'm not talking solely to Brendan here because I know he does much more to aid their recovery; I am merely pointing out that if people really want to "save the salmon" they can do it through proactive, meaningful contributions.]
PK

They did what they could I guess but you are certainly right. What would you like to see done on the Russian though? Allowable harvest of Chinook? I'm curious.

Having counted a zillion fish for 10 consecutive years and chased every reference in every Status Review this is my view on the Russian:

Coho: Really on the brink and absolutely deserve to be listed

Chinook: Not that rare, but the population is too small to support angling as a 100% wild population. That said on a busy day my traps would catch up to 1500 smolts a day running at 5%...if you do the math thats a lot of smolts.

Steelhead: Not rare at all, some years are just down right ridiculous.  I never sampled a single trib (and we sampled lots) where we didn't find fish.  They don't deserve to be listed at all.  Get your fish on and if you want to bonk a clipper do so guilt free.
 

Great input from across the board..   Its a great discussion and its interesting to see the different educational backgrounds and their take on things... I appreciate everyones opinion here, and hope I wasn;t to intrusive with mine. The last time I was in Alaska was 9 years ago and you could walk across the rivers on salmons backs. Maybe things have changed. I think catch and release steelhead fishing is kinda lame, and won't do it myself, but won't look down on anyone else who does, though I think the steelhead poachers in our San Lorenzo Valley should be given a month at the farm. Abking-I hope I didn't burst your bubble at all. I had had a beer or two when I first replied to this post and, all in all, its very educating to see where it has gone. We can nitpick this one to death, with everyone having valid arguments and data to support their points, but like you said earlier, this issue is much bigger than just fish and extends way beyond the ocean. All over the world the natural systems are out of alignment and people are beginning to feel the results of it. Who knows... maybe the oceans warming from who knows what (man induced or biorythmic) will result in the Humboldt Squid eating all the salmon and then all of our efforts were in vain. The tragedy of the commons (god bless Aldo Leopold) has depleted our fish stocks and dried up most of Californias groundwater supplies. In addition to looking at the fish, we need to look at our ethics, and our relationship to our natural resource heritage. We need to apply as much foresight so that our future generations enjoy the same quality of life that we do. Catch a fish and eat it, or release it to breed for the next generation. No one is right or wrong in their attitude towards the salmon fishery, and how they practice that.I just hope that this newer generation of fishermen applies a bit more of a conservative ethic in their hunting and gathering. Our marine resources are starting to recover from the overfishing that occurred through the 80's and early 90's, and its up to us to promote its continuation in that direction. Back in the 90's the rockfish pops off Santa Cruz were next to none. I know a lot of folks think there are no fish in Santa Cruz, and back then there weren;t as many, but over the past few years the bottomfish fishery continues to get better and better. You just have to know how to fish that zone right and you can catch as many big lings and rockies as you want!.  Just another example of positive fisheries management. As far as the science is concerned, it can go in a number of different directions. I personally believe that the best fish counts come from the commerical fishermen that are out on the water day by day. You won't get an accurate count if your with DFG or an interest group, but if your dialed into the network of locals that have been on the water for 30+ years and spend 4-5 days a week out there you can get a really accurate picture of the scene. DFG and NMFS have been given the task of estimating fish populations with the best science possible, a very difficult task at best, an even harder one with all of the unknown variables effecting each year class. I admire the work you guys do... keep on doing it, and working to develop better methods of measure, and please apply the precautionary principle in your PFMC decision making processes.  
A few questions for the reputed fisheries scientists on this board:
1) What, if anything, happens when a hatchery and wild fish cross breed? Are their genetic codes absolutely the same, or are we producing some sort of genetically mutated salmon having either positive attributes that result in a higher survival rate or genetically weakened salmon that are weaker, more susceptible to disease etc.. I have seen where genetic abnormalities occur from crossbreeding, and an unstable genetic can occur unless backcrossed over for a few lifecycles... I guess that could potentially occur if successive generations of wild/hatchery crossed fish return to their tributary to produce babies. It would be really interesting to monitor this one into the future...
2) When a wild fish is taken from the wild to harvest its roe for a hatchery from, lets say, the Eel River, is that genetic code then reintroduced as a blanket strain to all of the Eel Rivers tributaries?...
3) When you are counting smolt that are returning to the sea, how many days a week do you sample, what is your average return, and what statistical analysis are applied to account for all the factors that can end up in a dead fish throughout its lifecycle.
4) How accurate would you say your fish counts are? The NMFS go out and try to count rockfish every year, by taking bottom trawls, doing line transects over reefs, and doing surface trawls for juvenile fish and are constantly having to refine their science after finding that they have disproved themselves.
Thankyou for your time!
p.s. I've caught my fair share of salmon from the kayak and know what a sweet pleasure that is... If I see the evidence that the fishery is healthy enough, maybe I'll go out and smack a couple more out of Moss in the next few years... if not, its all good.

And, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, an anadromous fishery that is any more than 15% supplemented by hatcheries is unsustainable.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole wild vs hatchery DNA was garbage science by the left trying to shut down salmon and steelhead  fishing.

Maybe the DNA is the same, but it is the simple fact that the hatcheries are being used to sustain a fishery that could not sustain itself on its own.. why not shut it down for ten years with the same amount of hatchery effort being applied, or with a very limited season, lets say 5 days a month, May-October, to let the fishery recover a bit more... Yes, the left wing can come up with some garbage science, but so can the fishermans side. like, yeah, the rockfish and calico bass populations off La Jolla are fine... make one comparison to an area that gets less effort and you'll see a huge difference... Don't get me wrong, I;ve been an avid fisherman since I was 4 years old, and have caught way more big fish then most people ever will in their lifetime. Every fish I have killed has gone to feed my friends and family. Overall, not all, but most fishermen I have met tend to be a bit shortsighted. The gist of my opinions here is not conservation for the sake of getting my own jollies (i.e. catching fish), but conservation for the sake of maintaining a healthy ecosystem that can sustain itself and a conservative fishery for many generations to come. Call me left wing if you want... I call it environmentally sensible.  

And, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, an anadromous fishery that is any more than 15% supplemented by hatcheries is unsustainable.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole wild vs hatchery DNA was garbage science by the left trying to shut down salmon and steelhead  fishing.

Maybe the DNA is the same, but it is the simple fact that the hatcheries are being used to sustain a fishery that could not sustain itself on its own.. why not shut it down for ten years with the same amount of hatchery effort being applied, or with a very limited season, lets say 5 days a month, May-October, to let the fishery recover a bit more... Yes, the left wing can come up with some garbage science, but so can the fishermans side. like, yeah, the rockfish and calico bass populations off La Jolla are fine... make one comparison to an area that gets less effort and you'll see a huge difference... Don't get me wrong, I;ve been an avid fisherman since I was 4 years old, and have caught way more big fish then most people ever will in their lifetime. Every fish I have killed has gone to feed my friends and family. Overall, not all, but most fishermen I have met tend to be a bit shortsighted. The gist of my opinions here is not conservation for the sake of getting my own jollies (i.e. catching fish), but conservation for the sake of maintaining a healthy ecosystem that can sustain itself and a conservative fishery for many generations to come. Call me left wing if you want... I call it environmentally sensible.  

thats not a good idea. If you shut down the fishery and the big runs of salmon return to the hatchery rivers like there where in 02-06,(these are the years i fished the feather river)  on the sac system then the hatchery will take their eggs and so many salmon will be spawning in the river that they will be digging up the redds of other fish that spawned before them.
Now that the ocean currents are back to normal and F&G are using the floating pens you sill see big returns of salmon this year.
The reason for the decline of the slivers is that they are the easiest of the salmons to catch in the ocean. The silvers live in the top 30 feet of water and are easily caught. kings are generally deeper around 80 feet and take some more skill and equipment to catch. With the complete ban on fishing for slivers everyone is now fishing deep for kings and the silvers are thriving in the ocean. You will start to see big returns for these fish as well now that the ocean currents are back to normal.
Remmember the big runs on the russian when we saw 5,000 kings, they where packed on the spawning riffles digging up the redds of fish that spawned before them. Although the salmon eggs are very tough and hard to destroy after they harden, i wonder how many got eaten after they where dug up by other salmon.
We have had two bad years, both for salmon and all the creatures that live in the ocean, but just watch the returns this year and next.