So now it's the inside job? Get real JJ, I followed up on your bogus claims, and the lady said you were wrong.

No one is bringing up another point, one that is independent of the "my lack of science is better than your lack of science" argument...

There's no reason to harvest those fish.

None.

There are a bunch of justifications for why you can without destroying the run, but those aren't reasons why you should.

There are plenty of reasons why you shouldn't.

To harvest wild fish there provides absolutely nothing that isn't already provided by thousands upon thousands of hatchery fish...a meal.

Whenever you ask someone why they feel the need to harvest the wild steelhead, they never have an answer for you...they'll tell you a bunch of justifications for why it's not bad for the run, but they'll never tell you why they have to do it...

Forget about all the "lack of science" arguments for a second...

Why do you feel the need to harvest those fish when there are plentiful hatchery fish around to harvest instead?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Please don't answer the question with justifications as to why it won't hurt the run...I don't care...tell me why you feel the need to kill those fish.

I have thought about what I have writen and I feel I owe Ms. Jackson a public appologies about her saying the science is junk. It came from a source I trust very much but I should have known better then to bring it out publically knowing full well it could never be verified one way or an other. I care so much about the basin that I hear things like that and I run with them rather then just sticking to the facts. I am sorry i was wrong for say that and for bring it up attatched to your name. My arguement looses steam when I don't stick to facts.

Facts that have been laid out in the BA.
1) There was no good scientific escapement set specfically for the Umpqua basin. Page 31 they picked some average of the 30 not specific to the Umpqua basin.
2) The ODFW will consider the run healthy unless it drops 75% for a 6 year average. Page 58
3) They say that the North fork can handle a 20% exploitation rate with no long term damage but their own data and estimations tell them that the rate will be higher then that 5-15%. Citations give earlier.
4) No recruitment survey done for the main stem. Page 28
5) Run estimates have a wild variation almost 9K dependant on what model you use so who knows which one if any are correct. Table 4 of the BA

But i know for a lot of people this doesn't matter that there are holes. heck I am not even sure I understand them all. I feel like there are enough holes to warrent erroring on the side of the fish and fishing opportunity rather than the side of harvesting fish and hope that everything goes Ok in the future. No amount of stats is going to change that for me or for the other side either.

So I am done with this thread unless someone has some question about things and I will only try to respond with facts that I can site. Hopefully some of these holes that have been called out will help people make up some of there mind.

JJ

Todd I understand what your saying, but if your going to question ODFW's motives on the limited harvest of native species, then you need to become familiar with goals and wild fish policies.
It is their goal to manage wild fish species to the point where they are healthy enough fore a limited harvests.
This policy can be observed on the Wilson Rover wild fall chinook fishery.
OAR 635-007-3353 spells out the native fish management policy, please note that the ultimate goal is for self sustaining runs healthy enough for a limited consummative harvest.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/nfcp.pdf

Instead of backstabbing others on another board, why not call them out here?

"...they are only looking out for their best interests, not yours..."

Yeah...the major contrast being how you are looking out for everyone, not just you and your special interests...right?

Looks like, as usual, the "special interests" represent about 90% of the angling public, and the "non-special interests" represent about 10%...

"Thinning out the competition" is a conservation measure...it certainly leads to less fish being encountered.

Fish on...

Todd

I was trying to be nice, but since you brought it up, Cody is a guide, and he'd like nothing more than to thin out the competition on the Umpqua.
This doesn't have a thing to do with saving the poor wild fish, but rather making his living a little bit easier.
And what a load of crap that JJ was peddling, junk science my eye, this is a ploy by guides to push out the competition.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Todd, they did the very same thing on the middle Rogue River a few years ago, under the rouse of conservation they got a bait ban pushed through, the only problem was it's Sept. and Oct. which coincides with the peak of the half pounder run, net result was less competition for the guides.
If this is your idea of sound fisheries management, then by all means keep it in Washington, cus it ain't flyin in Oregon.

Every group is a special interest group--- it just depends which one you belong to.

You didn't answer the question freespool....even if ODFW allows wild steelhead retention on the Umpqua it doesn't mean that you will be required to harvest wild fish; you will still have that choice. I can pretty much guess what your choice will be.....why?

Apples and oranges......there is no comparison between Wilson Rover wild fall chinook and wild winter run Umpqua steelhead. Different species, watersheds, life cycles, etc.

Ike

I guess it would be a different comparison except for the fact the ODFW only has one wild fish doctrine, they manage all wild species the same, I was using the Wilson as a example. Or are wild salmon different than wild steelhead?
Just to set the record straight here, I have not harvested a native steelhead since Oregon changed the rules on retention, I think it was in the mid 80's.
My point is ODFW does have a recovery plan in place, and yes they do have latitude for a limited harvest, if the stocks are healthy enough to sustain such harvest.
And as the bio I talked to Roseburg said, the biological opinion to have a limited harvest is sound.
What I'm trying to convey here is that a small vocal group is masquerading the notion we need to protect these wild fish, even though they are already being protected.
But the real reason is the local guides want to cut down on competition on the river, just like they successfully did on the middle Rogue River.

For the occasional person that posits this question, the only answer to give back is this...

If you have to ask, then you wouldn't understand the answer anyway.

Fish on...

Todd

Now that's a funny answer Todd, thanks for brighten up my day.

Fish on

I find it very interesting of being accused of guiding. Just b/c my best friend is one and I oversaw the "guide program" at a boat builder doesn't mean that I am a guide. If I recall right, you jumped someone's case for lack of research and trying to influence other's without confirming the information. Maybe you might check with the source before you flame others!!!

This type of behavior is exactly why I haven't ever posted on a forum before.

I hope I was able to get my point of view on the Umpqua system out for others to see. It is one of the last gems left and I would hate to see it go. I guess I will enjoy it while it lasts.

Thanks,

Kody

AuntyM -
Why isn't an equally moral and ethical issue to kill wild female Chinook salmon?

Does doing so also prevent her from providing a genetic contribution to the future population?

Tight lines
Curt

A wild fish is just that, wild, to think that certain species should get special treatment is just ridiculous, unless your a member of the Kill No Wild Steelhead Unification Church.
This fanaticism makes zero sense, when the same people who are up in arms about a limited kill fishery on a healthy run of steelhead, are out there torturing and killing the very same fish, the only difference is they call it C&R.

So killing wild fish for fun is OK, but killing them for food is taboo.
Interesting mindset.

C&R fisheries do kill wild fish, I think it's around 8-10%.
So to be true to the Kill No Wild Fish Doctrine, you shouldn't be fishing at all on wild stocks.
Or is a little killin OK?

I was waiting for freespool to apologize to Kody for saying he was a guide who was only interested in protecting wild for fish for his own selfish interests.

Turns out that isn't the case.

And yet, no apology.



No. Killing a wild fish intentionally is taboo. Killing one incidentally is just the nature of the blood sport we participate in.

It's the mindset of an angler.


8-10% mortality? Sure.

And we're supposed to believe anything else coming out of your mouth?

You "think?"

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I'll tell you what I do know.
Just got off the phone with a friend that works for ODFW, they are well aware of the special interest ploy to eliminate the competition, disguised as a conservation method to save the wild steelhead.
They also said the special interest two month bait ban on the Rogue River would soon be lifted, due to lack of any science.