Freespool,

Can you give me a reference so I can look up the "peer reviewed" science that indicates the run is healthy and can support a harvest rate, 30% is what is described in this thread?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

The biologist in charge of the basin called it "JUNK" ! One biiologist that is charge of the system takes more weight then you just saying that the science is peer reviewed and says it is healthy. What has been peer reviewed and how they evaluate what is healthy? Can you point me to it? I need to be educated. You seem to think there is science behind this. What I am saying is there isn't science at all to support one way or the other and I will error on the side of fish rather then harvest. I know that maybe the

The 75% number comes from the ODFW saying that if the run dropped 75% that the run would be healthy. Does that pass the straight face test? I made a mistake by saying that it would all be harvest. Any sort of reduction that adds up to a 75% run drop is fine with the ODFW. I am sorry I made a mistake by saying 75% harvest I should not have said it that way.

Would you consider the Umpqua Basin healthy if the runs drop by 75%? The ODFW would.
JJ

The limited retention rule has been in place for well over 10 years, until it was rescinded last year.
If harvesting on a limited basis was such a negative impact to the basin then these stocks would then be listed as threatened.
They have not been listed, so that right there is a very good indication that harvest is jeopardizing the stocks.
Saying the science is junk requires data that would prove such an allegation was in fact true.
SO far it's here say, I just need more information.

No data is good data I guess which what I keep hearing. Saying that the science isn't junk requires data which you can't produce.

Still waiting for peer reviewed science that you referenced?
Still waiting if you could consider Umpqua basin healthy if the run dropped by 75%? That is the science that doesn't add up.

Have you read the BA? I have and it is full of holes the 75% is the easiest to explain. They have no data to support either way. Same situation that has happened over and over again in rivers with no buffers if things go in a down turn like has happened on the sky, skagit, nisqually, etc.

Nothing I say will ever convince you differently if the biologist says they don't have the data to support one way or an other. I am for fish first not harvest. I am for recreation not MSY.

This old way of thinking has got to stop at some point. Harvest right down to the last fish with no buffer has proven it doesn't work time and time again.

JJ

There is data, and ODFW has it, please feel free to research it for yourself.
I'm saying the biological opinion has been that stocks are healthy enough to to sustain a limited harvest, and this opinion has been in effect for a number of years now, stocks have yet to crash.
The burden of proof is on you, your saying they don't have any data, I say hogwash, they do have data, and it says a small harvest is in order.
When this came up last year staff responded that there was no biological reason to end the retention rule, I don't see what has changed.

So only reason to change is after runs have crashed. That has worked for us in the past.

Funny thing is they have a new biologist now and the NEW biologist says the science is Junk. I know hear say.

I am not saying don't have harvest I am saying set a scientific minimum escapement. I have read the BA and it isn't there. I know no data is good data.

You still haven't answered the 75% question. that is the rule that is being opperated on now.

Freespool,

If you want us to get off your bridge you have scream it like the troll you are, " get off my bridge". Offer something up that validates your point, do the work yourself rather than waisting everyones time, look up the data yourself.

I think you have backlashed, enough from me.

Two year's ago staff testified that there was no biological reason to end the limited harvest rule on the Umpqua.
So that would put the burden of proof on you, to prove these opinions were in fact false.

OK how about this.
Page 26 of the Biological assesement says that the exploitation average would be 36% on the North Fork. 26% average from the old regulation and 10% with regulations that were implemented a few years ago. They used an average and it could be 45% (the real max value was 35% page 26 of the BA plus the increase of 10% with the regs).

Then on page 33. "These results and analyses support the proposition that the North Umpqua winter steelhead population could sustain at least a 20% mortality rate (and perhaps even a 30% rate) without suffering any long-term adverse consequences".

So they are managing it above what they say will have will have long term impact. 16% above what they officially will have a negative long term adverse. So I assume support inflicting long term negative impact?

Ok balls in your court to prove that wrong. And answer the other questions that have been asked that you ignored.

I have lots other like there distribution radio survey was done with 92 fish over 3 years. Hardly a representative sample. Figure 9 of the BA.

I don't doubt your data, it has been what they have used for over 15 years now, and the stocks have not crashed, or even come close to crashing.
Here's the deal, many rivers in central and southern Oregon can sustain a limited harvest, it's been working for a number of years now.

I see you ask for data to back my point up that show what I am saying is true. Now when I do You say it doesn't matter. That seems convinient now doesn't it. Why did you ask for data in the first point, if you were just going to ignore it when it didnt' suite your point.

I find it funny you ask the questions I answer them and yet when you are asked to answer some you won't.

Typical.

I would like to introduce myself, my name is Kody Kellom and I reside in Roseburg. OR. I have grown up fishing the entire Umpqua System. I am a very avid weekend warrior and fishing for winter steelhead any chance I get.

I have been following this issue very closely. Last year the decision to stop the retention of wild steelhead was put in place strictly by the public overwhelming support. For someone to say that the regulation change was strictly driven by a "Special Interest" group is a crock. This decision was supported by nearly 95% of the public comment.

Over the last 10 years the Umpqua System has been discovered by many fisherman, this increased pressure has put a much larger threat to our great genetic pool. To overturn last years ruling would be devastating!!!

I was able to attend the meeting in Roseburg last night to discuss the 4-year regulation proposals. The hot topic of the night was yet again the harvest of wild winter steelhead. With not much surprise, there was an overwhelming support was to keep the Umpqua System a C & R fishery for wild winter steelhead. The final vote of the public for the Main Umpqua system was 36 to 5!!! I would like to thank everyone for their support and attendance of last night. This is not the last of this issue as the ODF&W Commission help on August 8th will hear the last of public comment. The final decision will be made on September 12th.

I would like to ask all in favor of keeping this system a C & R for Wild Winter Steelhead to submit your comments to rhine.t.messmer@state.or.us This is our chance to yet again stand up and support the last great fisheries left!!!

Sincerely-

Kody Kellom

Amen!

Just to satisfy my curiosity I called Ms. Jackson.
I explained what you had posted about her saying the biological opinion was junk.
She assured me that in no way shape or form was the science junk.
Nice try with the fear mongering.
Your agenda seems to involve misinformation and deception.
What a load of crap.
Anyone wishing to learn the real truth here can get in touch with Laura Jackson at 541-440-3353.

I guess if you believe that sports harvest at no more than 12% of any run, given that you add the fact that roughly 50% of the run on the mainstem is of hatchery origin, then a 6% harvest rate on the native stocks does seem doable.
I suggest to give Ms. Jackson a call, because she tells a way different story that what has been posted here.
One of the tools Ms. Jackson mentioned as being of the up most importance was the Winchester Dam counts. ODFW has it's finger on the winter steelhead population pulse.
So at this point in time there is no biological reason to not return to a limited native harvest.
This might be hard for some who worship at the alter on the native steelhead, but there are many rivers in southern Oregon that have stocks healthy enough to have a limited harvest.
And not one of these limited harvest streams have ever had any of their managed stocks listed as threatened or endangered, which is proof positive that it can be done with no danger of depleting the native stocks.
So how can southern Oregon rivers sustain such a radically different management style than most of us used to? It's the habitat, or volume there of that makes the difference.

One size fit's all don't work in fisheries management, sorry that's offensive to you, but it's a fact.

The point is to be proactive instead of reactive! Why try and risk the unknown, "Well we guessed that one wrong!" This is one of the last healthy stocks left.

The argument here isn't the debate of how many fish we have currently, there is no doubt we have a great run. The argument is protecting what he have for future generations. I would love to take my kid out and let him catch a 20 lb. WILD steelhead, take a couple of photos and then watch it swim away.

FREESPOOL - Your attitude is very "OLD SCHOOL" and that mentality will not promise a strong future. Here is some food for thought, would you rather have the opportunity to go fish and catch 5 or 10 r 15 or 20 wild steelhead in a day or would rather sit around and reminisce about how the "Good 'OL Days" were. "Were" being past tense!

With the technology and techniques that we have today, it is only a matter of time before push these fish over the breaking point!

Kody Kellom

I think the difference here is basic fisheries mission statements.
In the state of Oregon the mission is to recover stocks so that some form of sustainable harvest can take place.
And that is what has been happening on many south coast streams, if that's old school, then I'm liken it.

I'm sorry the only time I respond to these thrreads are when my wife is at work and I've had to much to drink!!! My creditbilty has gone down the drain, Oh welll. At least you know what state of mind I'm in presently

Where does most of the Native population spawn?
From what I have heard its below the I-5 corridor

How much fishing pressure is below
From what I've heard its pretty hard to reach with out a sled.

How many people fish below I-5
From what I've heard very few. There are a couple drifts below but most take out at cow creek.

Sorry for mentioning cow creek, but I think this is rediculous!!!!

What is the escapement below I-5?
I've heard its (unknown) but majority of fish spawn below.
I've also heard that it is above 20,000. Thats a F load of fish!!!!!, Above cow I have no clue.
I've also been told that that is an estimate!! Check out the boat launches to see how much access there is down below. Right off the I-5 corridor is a crock!! add on 2 hours.....
My bro's live 30 min from the Ump and tell me the lower section is "Forks 30 years ago" I have Absolutly no data to back this but. If they can pick up 30+ fish in a day when the Nates are running that only tells me one thing. There is a F load of fish in that river.

I'm leaving in one week to the Ump to Springer fish for 2 weeks this has nothing to do with this thread but fish on!!!! 15# cookie cutters are not common down there. 25+++++ is. So basically what I'm trying to say is this fishery rocks.

I caught a 24 # steely on the Snoq and I'm still high about it. Nothing to with this post also.






Maybe when I have a couple hours of my time to give I''ll reaseach how many fish spawn below i-5. I'm confident it will above 20,000.

Quit B@#$#@ and thank the lord your not up hear, but with a bunch of yokels fishing your river.

FS,

Can't tell you how many times bios won't go on the record with their real thoughts are after they have told one group something. So if i throw out my their science is junk I still listed 2 other "holes" in their BA but you just want to over look that. Correction the ODFW has their finger on the pulse of winchester counts sometimes 2 weeks late not on the health of the Umpqua basin (smith, main stem, south fork, etc) until after the run is done. Limited harvest is a joke. Every single fish could be harvested out of the mainstem and no one woluld know until after the fact. You also conviently still fail to answer many other questions funny how that happens.

I am done with giving fact to you because nothing that you are told or proved will ever convince you. Harvest the last fish and talk about the good old days.

Kolby and Aunty great posts couldn't agree more.

JJ