Higher spring chinook salmon counts lead to more Columbia River sport fishing dates

The Coho opportunity in Oregon this year is way up also
 
All the BC closures are helping the Columbia fisherman bonk more hatchery Chinook!
To be fair, as per the Pacific Salmon treaty, priority access is given to the country/state of the river of origin. As such, Oregon and Washington should benefit. Our issue should be that not only should we have access to our Canadian hatchery stock, if DFO was serious about weak stock conservation theyd be promoting the harvest of all hatchery fish to minimize hatchery spawning, particularly hatch-wild spawning!

So many contradictions to their claimed conservation closures (transferring exploitation on weak, but not endangered or at risk, sockeye to at risk and endangered Chinook stocks, ongoing endorsement of indiscriminate and acutely lethal gill netting while at risk and endangered stocks are in the river and not maximizing the harvest of hatchery fish to minimize their spawning/recruitment/stock-level genetics of the wild stocks, to name a few). DFO should be taken to court regardless of the fishing decision, the fishing decisions should **** enough folks off to actually act!

But, if history continues to repeat itself, we’ll take it, ***** and complain and next thing you know folks expectations are revised and they’re happy with “what we have”. We modern humans already had a too short attention span, enter the internet and smart phones and we have no attention spans at all (imho).

Cheers!

Ukee
 
All the BC closures are helping the Columbia fisherman bonk more hatchery Chinook!
Not likely in this case; the Columbia River Spring Chinook tend to migrate far offshore from the Columbia river, bypassing BC; straight out, straight back in. As for Puget Sound Chinook, different story.
To be fair, as per the Pacific Salmon treaty, priority access is given to the country/state of the river of origin. As such, Oregon and Washington should benefit.
There us also catch equity in the treaty, AK catches BC Chinook so BC gets to catch a similar number of WA/OR/CA Chinook.
 
Not likely in this case; the Columbia River Spring Chinook tend to migrate far offshore from the Columbia river, bypassing BC; straight out, straight back in. As for Puget Sound Chinook, different story.

There us also catch equity in the treaty, AK catches BC Chinook so BC gets to catch a similar number of WA/OR/CA Chinook.
So the Columbia River Chinook stay away from the gauntlet of Fish Farms. MMMM very interesting and likely why their numbers are up.
 
We have to really watch were not spreading incorrect information. In the recent 2018 DNA onwards data there are some Columbia River fish in summer that are present close in JDF. Also in data composition there are a lot of Washington fish but there also some from island, and different systems.

So if the JDF was open to retention of marked fish they would benefit, so I would counter the claims that they are mostly offshore. They do come down through Renfrew and Sooke probably right about now.
 
We have to really watch were not spreading incorrect information. In the recent 2018 DNA onwards data there are some Columbia River fish in summer that are present close in JDF. Also in data composition there are a lot of Washington fish but there also some from island, and different systems.

So if the JDF was open to retention of marked fish they would benefit, so I would counter the claims that they are mostly offshore. They do come down through Renfrew and Sooke probably right about now.
To the best of my knowledge the migration patterns of spring versus summer Chinook are different. Also, does the DNA data you reference specify that they are spring versus summer/fall Chinook?
 
To the best of my knowledge the migration patterns of spring versus summer Chinook are different. Also, does the DNA data you reference specify that they are spring versus summer/fall Chinook?

Both spring and summer runs are present. Forum science vs what is really happening on water are two different things. Hate to say...
 
Last edited:
SV, there are no absolutes in Biology. While it would be prudent to add that caveat to all reporting on biological sciences, typically something akin to the 90% rule is used. There will always be strays (which can be quite large groups at times) that get mixed in w/ other stock groups or arrive at key migration points during certain moon, tide, current, Wx, etc conditions that can cause them to behave in a way other than the norm. In fact, it would be more concerning if there were a complete absence of these exceptions, as Population Bios will tell you straying between stocks/populations is essential for maintaining gene diversity, which gives the best chance of survival and adaptation.

Regardless of the absence of absolute differentiation of feeding and migration routes and areas between stock groupings, there are very strong differences such as ericl points out. It should also be noted that accelerating Global Warming is disrupting the timing, scale and location of Wx, currents, upwelling, productivity, competition, etc, etc, such that patterns and behaviours that we once thought were predictable and dependable are becoming much less so. Very interesting stuff being investigated by our, and international, Ocean scientists.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
I should add that as predictability of behaviours like migration routes (which allow test fishing stock composition/race data to be collected with significantly less uncertainty/error) and feeding areas (which allows assessment of productivity through plankton trolls, nutrient and water qual sampling, sampling of juve salmon for lipid assessment, etc) erodes, so does confidence in run estimation. Higher uncertainty should result in more risk averse decisions wrt exploitation, natural mortality, etc, which is the opposite of what the sport sector wants.

When the public and industry “wants” are in conflict with the science, that’s where politicians and bureaucrats step in ... and we all know how that works out time after time after time ...

Cheers!

Ukee
 
SV, you have any links to the data in regards to the stock composition in what your are speaking of?
Stock composition is a great interest to myself and would appreciate seeing the data you referring too.
Thanks

On a side note if the borders were open I would have already done a few trips on the Columbia and its tributaries targetting these tasty spring Chinook!
 
SV, you have any links to the data in regards to the stock composition in what your are speaking of?
Stock composition is a great interest to myself and would appreciate seeing the data you referring too.
Thanks

On a side note if the borders were open I would have already done a few trips on the Columbia and its tributaries targetting these tasty spring Chinook!

No it's owned by the Avid Angler program coordinated with DFO. It won't be shared publically.
 
Don't you think if the data was made public it would help our cause?

Don't really understand why we wouldn't be pushing for this data to be made public, especially since our main argument is that we aren't targeting stocks of concern.
 
Yet another possible lawsuit - this is data collected by our Government and its our tax dollars funding the folks collating, QA/QC’ing, analyzing and reporting and yet its hidden from the citizens funding it and the citizens on whose behalf the government is “managing” the resource ....
 
Then why is it not shared publicly? Department knows it’s garbage data (ie data is not in the realm of being statistically Random, meaning no matter how much data of this type is collected it will always have very low confidence in concluding anything about actual conditions), just like they know the halibut rec model and a large number of their other planning/decision making tools are highly questionable/outdated at best, and knowingly giving false results in the worst cases.

In any case, rather than trying to use ridiculous hyperbole to distract from the issue and points being made, feel free to engage in the discussion with your facts, knowledge and /or analysis.

Cheers!

Ukee
Perhaps you should be petitioning the federal government and DFO for that information if you want it so bad?

Instead of arguing on a sport fishing forum with others of like minded?
 
Back to data................

Easy to find REAL data on Colimbia River returns:

Going back to the OP it looks like when Spring Chinook fish counts at the dam just above the area referenced in the OP went from 25% of 10 year average to 50% of 10 year average, fisheries bumped-up the take.

Also, the 10 year average run size is 123571, so SV unless your numbers are significant I would TEND to think that myself & ukeedreamin are correct; they TEND to migrate offshore but SOMETIMES stray.
 
Back
Top