Wow, could it be coming to an end? 1841 over on 5/8/08 with 74270 total for the season?

Did the bio's over predict this run that badly????????

Sounds like my pre-season forecast of 130,000 might not be too far off....

Keith <>

The methods used by the "experts" in this state to determine run sizes are worthless. Throw some random numbers out there backed up by "science" and then make excuses later for why the numbers were off say 40-80%. Every few years the numbers will be close to actual so they can justify the paycheck.

We need to get to the point of actually SEEING the fish come back BEFORE we allow user groups to go out and pound them based on predictions and not reality...cheers

I guess this might make my other post about the sheer number of nets in the river above Bonneville a little more relivant in the overall picture. Does anyone know the total catch (reported) by the tribes on this run?

What are the counts on the Willamette and if they are below what was expected, why was there even an open springer fishery on that river?

The Willamette closes Sunday Night...

i'll tell you why..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is all they care about..

Summerrun,

Your suggestion that there be no fishing until we actually see the fish come back would work well for the resource. However, everyone who fishes in the ocean or even a terminal area fishery that has no in-season runsize update mechanism would not be allowed to fish at all. PERIOD. And the Columbia downstream of Bonneville would never be open to salmon or steelhead fishing. Nor would any of the lower Columbia tributaries like the Cowltiz, Lewis, and Kalama Rivers. Is that what you're proposing? If so, I wish you the best of luck, cuz you'll need it. But like I said, it will be great for the wild fish runs, except for the increased straying of hatchery fish from the various hatchery racks.

Sg

I asked one time at a meeting on the Columbia fisheries why they couldn't just allocate a certain number of hatchery fish to the tribes and collect them at the Bonneville fish passage facility. The wild salmon by catch mortality would be 0%. I never did get an answer back from the guy who said it would be taken under advisement. Why would this NOT work? Please enlighten me.

I wonder how many of the springers travel through the locks at Bonneville and therefore aren't counted? I know a large percentage of the shad do that.

Thats actually a great question but The Dalles dam most years has more shad that goes over it than does the Bonneville dam. Putting that into perspective I'd say not many go through the locks considering the amount of springers over The Dalles dam vs Bonneville...

Keith

Laterun,

The treaty tribe fishermen are a lot like us. They want to catch their own salmon.

Personally, for resource protection reasons I favor having all Columbia River commercial salmon taken from traps retrofitted to the fishways at Bonneville, Willamette Falls, the Cowlitz, and Lewis. However the issue of who gets the fish and who profits from their harvest is not easily settled. As a society we ought to be able to settle it for our non-treaty commercial fishing brethren whether they like it or not. But the treaty tribes are legally free to exercise their rights as they see fit so long as they don't jeopardize the ESA listed fish.

Sg

Springers travel mainly during low light and dark hours, at least that's when I see 'em the most in the Bonnie Cam, and the locks are probably not used as much during those hours...who knows? Maybe they do have the locks running all night?

Fish on...

Todd

The locks are operational at night.

Tugg and barge traffic does not work from 9 to 5.

Salmo G.

I am probably not fully understanding what you are saying but...
if we list them all as ESA species then we could regulate as we saw fit regardless of treaty acts. Is that what you are saying?

Salmo g.
Do you think anyone has ever proposed this to the tribes as a serious offer? I could envision the trapping and allocating as a first step, then permitting them to do a net fishery for cerimonial purposes to keep up thier culture without taking too large a toll on the listed runs. Win-Win ?

What's the deal with the ceremonial netting? Was that a tradition they invented or one they inherited with their rights?

Keith

Salmo,

Would using an IFQ model work? Figure out each non trbal fishers average yearly catch and give him that IFQ that would allow him a certain number of fish out of a trap based on abundance.

I have a friend who is married to a Umatilla Indian from Pendleton. At a family gathering one July 4th. she brought a large springer. I asked if they had caught it,netted it, etc.. She said it was from the tribal catch and she was allowed up to 20 fish a year from there. They both do not fish at all, so they get thiers from the tribe. If every member were to take the amount allowed from the total catch, this would be a tremendous number of fish in the catch based on the number of members. I think this idea of giving fish from the ladders/traps is a sound one for helping the endangered runs.

Laterun,
your idea has been brought up many times to them. The problem is it makes way to much sense. For instance I suggested that they let the tribes set up there dipnet stations in the ladder area, then that way they could net there fish there, keep only the clipped ones and a biologist could be present to take a scale sample off of the wildones and release them. Then they could also tag fish there and see where the end up and this also could be a tourist trap where you Big Bear, from the local tribe, could sell fresh caught columbia river spring chinook for about 10 bucksa pound to all the tourist who would come by to see the damm and the fish.

Makes way to much sense dosen't it.

Peace
Fly