End of salmon fishing eventually???

[HuntandFish]

Agreed.  Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate.  Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated.  Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer.  Logging still creates a ton of issues.  Irrigation still creates a ton of issues.  Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

Did you ever stop to think that EVERY road built near Salmon habitat damages it?  EVERY ROAD.  Lets make that clear.  Not just logging roads.  Not just paved roads.  Not just private driveways.  Not just Joe Shmoes crappy dirt road through the creek, EVERY ROAD.  Now before you pull the school vs. industry card I am in the industry of construction/development so I see and know what is going on with all of this.  You dont have to be in the industry to know.  You think that because you are in the industry and have to jump through all the hoops to meet certain criteria set forth by the state you know you are doing little damage.  You arent.  Again, most of these regulations are bandaids on top of the real issue.  The issue is not natural sediment deposits, it is excess sediment deposits created by human actions.  You dont realize how and why the sediment affects the Salmon.  It is not sediment killing adult fish, it is sediment covering reds, choking fry and parr.  It goes beyond natural average sediment flow.  What we are doing is creating a flood condition every year.  Nature has it's safety nets built into the Salmon species to recover from one year of hard natural floods.  It does not however have the ability to recover from year after year of artificial floods.  Natural sediment kills fish when it flows in excess.  Compare how often that happens to how often artificial sedimentation happens as well as how often "natural" floods occur on un touched streams vs. streams altered or effected by human activity.

  It is not only the sediment, but the chemicals, both natural and man made.  Have you seen Moses Lake?  You do realize that it drains into O'sullivan which then drains into the seep lakes which then drains into Crab Creek which is a Chinook recovery area which then drains into the Columbia with MULTIPLE ESA listed Salmon runs.  You do realize this single watershed is created by artificial irrigation from Banks Lake, Billy Clap Lake, Winchester Wasteway, and Frenchman Wasteway, and the natural Crab Creek.  To think for one minute there is not chemicals from crops entering this water system via these artificial sources is ignorant.  Not only that but sediment entering the system.  Hell lets throw NON-NATIVE predators such as Walleye, Bass, Crappie, Bluegill, and Catfish into the situation.

The saying ignorance is bliss is all too true when it comes to the Salmon.  People who work for the Salmon dont understand the people who hinder the Salmon and vice versa.  It is those people who understand BOTH sides of the argument and have done research regarding both sides that know.  I am not saying that I know all the facts by any means.  I do however recognize that there are some things that can not be avoided due to human expansion and that there are some things that effect the Salmon many people do not see.  Oh and by the way, I would like to see you argue how erosion control standards are based on Salmon recovery versus destruction of infrastructure due to natural events.  Keeping the road, house, mall from sliding away in a flood is going to be the main concern in those standards, not the fish.  I would also like to know what you base your assumption on that WSU is wrong regarding the context of Salmon survival and reproduction.

There are volumes of studies and books written to back up our side.  I'd be curious to see the amount of literature to the contrary, and I am talking specific studies and literature, not a mention in a 500 page report.

I am going to make this brief because I am tired of debating a difference in opinion, and I apologize for bringing up the old thread but I was out of town.

As far as the EVERY road damages salmon habitat argument, I don't feel like I have a great way of discussing this with you because it is such a blatantly ignorant statement... Nature has no problem absorbing a moderate amount of unmitigated impervious surface impact, let alone mitigated ones. I understand where you are coming from, the fact that roads create concentrated flows and inundate the natural water system faster then what is natural, especially when these flows are not handled correctly through the use of BMP's and alike. And I agree with you that roads are not ideal, but are a necessary part of the economic growth of this region. The debate we are having, or at least the debate that I thought we were having is that of what needs to be done to save our salmon. Are roads really impacting salmon recovery to the point that it would not recover or even thrive if we stopped the practice of ocean and tribal netting? The answer to this question is a matter of opinion of course, but I really doubt that you could find many well informed people that could tell you salmon numbers would continue to decline. And this is because roads, logging, and development well destructive by definition to habitat is not equally as destructive to the salmon.

Wasn't talking about Moses lake drainages and chemicals but I am sure there is abuse there as well, hell I duck hunt over there and I am sure I leave a tablespoon of oil every year behind due to my 2 stroke motor. Should we ban all hunting and recreation because that MIGHT kill a salmon? Or do we focus on where a larger portion of the salmon are being killed? Well the answer is we focus on the small stuff because it makes people feel good, and it doesn't offend anyone or mess with big money.

And yes I can argue very effectively that erosion control standards are set in place almost entirely for the purposes of habitat in respect to residential construction. If you knew anything about building you would understand that erosion is not a factor for residential construction unless steep slopes are involved? Civil road construction and other large scale projects take erosion of the structure into account for sure but it is not what you would call the design criteria? Again with exceptions to certain circumstances. I believe this is probably another liberal line that was told to you in college?

Sorry to not address every issue you brought up but I have actual work to do. But I do like healthy debate, and realize there is a difference of opinion here.

Let me know what you think?

H&F

[HuntandFish]

Agreed.  Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate.  Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated.  Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer.  Logging still creates a ton of issues.  Irrigation still creates a ton of issues.  Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

Here is a study/summary that describes the affects of logging and road building associated with logging.  According the study (and those cited therein), lands can occur 23-27 times more often in logged areas.  River scouring occurs, runoff is drastically different, the transport of sediment (both fine and large) is increased.  Read this one, and I will find others describing many of other non-problems you mentioned. 

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1

WSU- 

You have cited a study on clear cutting? This practice has not been allowed for years. I know companies "select log" now which is basically clear cutting... But anyway, very good you found a very dramatic and colorful study. And as I have stated previously I believe logging and some of its practices can still be fine tuned. But is it the root cause of the issue?

I can tell that you are college educated because you are good at using google But in all seriousness we as a society have to start thinking outside the box and addressing the real issues here. We have good practices enacted now for logging to mitigated allot of its very necessary function. We have to get guys like you on the band wagon of the other issues now, like netting and the poor management by our government of the fish and wildlife in this state and stop blaming it on what is the easiest thing to attack? If it helps you are not wrong in what you are saying. Do I think logging roads are declining salmon numbers, no I don't, do I think they are responsible for the death of salmon on a small scale, sure.

Anyway to summarize my thoughts.
Tribal and commercial netting BAD.

Roads/logging/construction SUSTAINABLE.(not good, but a necessary and sustainable evil)

My opinion anyway, I may be the only one out there 

H&F

[cohoho]

Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline...   They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed....  Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not...  Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle......  Hmmmm!  Get rid of the nets...

[buckhorn2]

I have read everyones idea as to what caused the fish decline you would think if we know the reason we could come up with a plan to fix it. The federal goverment had a buy back program to buy back drag boats and licenses and those boats cannot be used in any other fishery of any type and sit at the docks. There is No gillnetting in the open ocean there is state and fedal regulations making it unlawful to do so not by wa boats anyway. As far as netting it is  different they have seasons for different species. We can;t order the state to do anything and the indians manage there own seasons. There are also a lot of other reasons for declining runs as have been stated but what can we do. The best way I think would be for us to try and push for a buyback program to get the netters or commercial trollers out of the fish business then we could work toward better fishing. The buyback worked in canada and in california and the oregon coast to stop the draggers so why can;t we organize to push for a federal and state buyback of commercial fishing. The state is already wotking on a crab fishing buy back with the feds.  Just my idea not everybodys.

[FC]

Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline...   They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed....  Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not...  Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle......  Hmmmm!  Get rid of the nets...

My thoughts exactly!!!!!! Look at the way the numbers of pinks have increased too! Pretty amazing how it's everything but the nets that supposedly affects the fish but the ones that haven't had the crap netted out of them are still thriving....As a matter of fact the Skykomish had a hell of a chum run until just a few years ago, must be a coincidence that they got the crap netted out of them for a couple years and the entire run got shut down for fishing afterward.

I know the Snohomish system pinks got netted bigtime by the indians this year...any bets on future numbers?

[WSU]

Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline...   They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed....  Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not...  Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle......  Hmmmm!  Get rid of the nets...

My thoughts exactly!!!!!! Look at the way the numbers of pinks have increased too! Pretty amazing how it's everything but the nets that supposedly affects the fish but the ones that haven't had the crap netted out of them are still thriving....As a matter of fact the Skykomish had a hell of a chum run until just a few years ago, must be a coincidence that they got the crap netted out of them for a couple years and the entire run got shut down for fishing afterward.

I know the Snohomish system pinks got netted bigtime by the indians this year...any bets on future numbers?

You guys didn't read the studies, did you?  That is the entire problem with debating this on the interwebz.  Nobody reads anything, but is damn sure they know the answer even they are uneducated on the subject.

A big reason that pinks and chums continue to do relatively well, especially in puget sound, is that they do not remain in the rivers more than a few days.  They hatch and head straight to the salt.  Other species stay in the freshwater habitat much longer.  Since the habitat sucks, so does their survival. 

And, the chums get the $hit netted out of them in northern PS.

[PolarBear]

The tribes net chums for their eggs mainly.  They sell them to Japan ot to bait companies.  Chums will also destroy any other salmon species nests when they enter the rivers, therefore killing of other salmon runs.  I have seen this first hand in Totten inlet over the years.  Kennedy and Skookum Creeks use to have good silver and king runs but the chums are about the only ones making it back and taking over.   

[WSU]

Agreed.  Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate.  Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated.  Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer.  Logging still creates a ton of issues.  Irrigation still creates a ton of issues.  Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

Here is a study/summary that describes the affects of logging and road building associated with logging.  According the study (and those cited therein), lands can occur 23-27 times more often in logged areas.  River scouring occurs, runoff is drastically different, the transport of sediment (both fine and large) is increased.  Read this one, and I will find others describing many of other non-problems you mentioned. 

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1

WSU- 

You have cited a study on clear cutting? This practice has not been allowed for years. I know companies "select log" now which is basically clear cutting... But anyway, very good you found a very dramatic and colorful study. And as I have stated previously I believe logging and some of its practices can still be fine tuned. But is it the root cause of the issue?

I can tell that you are college educated because you are good at using google But in all seriousness we as a society have to start thinking outside the box and addressing the real issues here. We have good practices enacted now for logging to mitigated allot of its very necessary function. We have to get guys like you on the band wagon of the other issues now, like netting and the poor management by our government of the fish and wildlife in this state and stop blaming it on what is the easiest thing to attack? If it helps you are not wrong in what you are saying. Do I think logging roads are declining salmon numbers, no I don't, do I think they are responsible for the death of salmon on a small scale, sure.

Anyway to summarize my thoughts.
Tribal and commercial netting BAD.

Roads/logging/construction SUSTAINABLE.(not good, but a necessary and sustainable evil)

My opinion anyway, I may be the only one out there 

H&F

I don't disagree that there are many issues that need to be addressed.  Salmon management is terrible, since the entire structure is designed to make sure that every allowable fish gets harvested.  Any excess fish are bad as far as the managers are concerned.  It occurs every year at NOF.

Netting and commercial harvest definitely needs to be curtailed, especially north of us.  However, a big part of our problems are logging and development.  That part is just as undeniable as arguing that nets kill fish. 

[Dhoey07]

If the freshwater is more of a problem then why can't hatcheries get their released smolts, that spend little time in freshwater, to come back in decent numbers? Seems to me like a bigger problem would be the river mouths.  That's where smolts hangout for a good amount of time and eat until they really head out to the ocean.  Look at the the mouths of the Puyallup and Green rivers.  It's probably just another issue on the laundry list..... 

[Dhoey07]

Interesting artice http://www.adn.com/2012/06/23/2517571/decline-in-king-salmon-is-rooted.html

[JimmyHoffa]

Thanks for that article.

I saw a similar one that was pointing out the catch totals.  It only gave me two years using data from National Marine Fisheries.
Totals (recorded) for King,Silver, Sockeye, Pink, Chum, Steelhead
1950  149,071 tons with 80% caught in Alaska
2007  401,338 tons with 97% caught in Alaska
The graphs and numbers I've seen on their site show that in the past it was the kings that made up a huge part of the harvest, then the silvers were the main fish, then the sockeye, and now it is the pink that are the big numbers caught.

[jackmaster]

Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline...   They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed....  Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not...  Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle......  Hmmmm!  Get rid of the nets...

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER, it doesnt get any simpler than that...... dogs and pinks arent as sought after so they dont net them, bang proof is in the puddin....

[singleshot12]

They've been netting the hell out of them in the north Puget sound area. Chums were netted so much that the Skagit and Stilly were shut down for retention. The last Pink run was netted hard too, we'll see if the next run will be big or not?
There is a high demand for Chum and Pink roe in Asia plus the Bio's say they need to be thinned way down to give the endangered Chinook more room for a chance at a comeback. Chums and Pinks apparently interfere with the Chinook's spawning beds

[WSU]

Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline...   They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed....  Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not...  Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle......  Hmmmm!  Get rid of the nets...

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER, it doesnt get any simpler than that...... dogs and pinks arent as sought after so they dont net them, bang proof is in the puddin....

Again, check out my post above responding to cohoho.  Chums and pinks only spend a few days in the freshwater habitat, and the effects of the screwed up habitat therefore don't have as great of an effect.  Also, chums get netted plenty and aren't doing all that hot.

[FC]

Right up until they started getting netted hard the chums were doing very well, same with the pinks.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you in that habitat does make a difference, it just doesn't make nearly the difference that netting  half (or more) of the returning fish does.