04-22-2011, 06:14 PM
[#0000ff]Let me start by pointing out that the lion's share of that 1/4-1/3 that disappears, does so between Bonneville and McNary. Basically 100% (or more) of the fish that make it to Ice Harbor and up crossing Lower Granite. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Next, I will adress this comment 1 piece at a time[/#0000ff]:
" you have to factor in the fish removed from the run related to recreational fishing," [#0000ff]- that's exactly what I am saying: when IDFG is counting every "wild" fish we C&R, and closing our season based on estimated "incedental take" of federally listed wild fish, why should Oregon and Washington get a recreational fishery on Idaho-bound chinook?[/#0000ff]
tribal fishing, [#0000ff]- can't say I agree with OR and WA tribes gill netting Idaho chinook in the lower Columbia either, but to be PC I will largely leave this alone.[/#0000ff]
"natural" mortality [#0000ff]- I have a hard time beleiving that adult chinook die in the rivers on their return migration.[/#0000ff]
and the fact that spring chinook have one of the highest straying rates in anadromouse fish ie they end up in the wrong river system. [#0000ff]- Interesting information. I ran a quick check. In 2010, of 9,644 Lower Granite-bound chinook that crossed McNary Dam: 32 of them (0.3%) crossed Priest Rapids Dam (their first ladder on the Mid-Columbia), and 9,136 (94.7%) of them crossed Ice Harbor. The 32 was more than I expectected to see, but a pretty small share of the run made the wrong turn at the Columbia-Snake confluence. . .[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Nothing against you phutch, I'm just frustrated that our seasons are reduced so that WA and OR anglers can waylay a large chunk of the fish that we paid for. . . epecially after they have survived and completed the most difficult part of their life-cycle.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Next, I will adress this comment 1 piece at a time[/#0000ff]:
" you have to factor in the fish removed from the run related to recreational fishing," [#0000ff]- that's exactly what I am saying: when IDFG is counting every "wild" fish we C&R, and closing our season based on estimated "incedental take" of federally listed wild fish, why should Oregon and Washington get a recreational fishery on Idaho-bound chinook?[/#0000ff]
tribal fishing, [#0000ff]- can't say I agree with OR and WA tribes gill netting Idaho chinook in the lower Columbia either, but to be PC I will largely leave this alone.[/#0000ff]
"natural" mortality [#0000ff]- I have a hard time beleiving that adult chinook die in the rivers on their return migration.[/#0000ff]
and the fact that spring chinook have one of the highest straying rates in anadromouse fish ie they end up in the wrong river system. [#0000ff]- Interesting information. I ran a quick check. In 2010, of 9,644 Lower Granite-bound chinook that crossed McNary Dam: 32 of them (0.3%) crossed Priest Rapids Dam (their first ladder on the Mid-Columbia), and 9,136 (94.7%) of them crossed Ice Harbor. The 32 was more than I expectected to see, but a pretty small share of the run made the wrong turn at the Columbia-Snake confluence. . .[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Nothing against you phutch, I'm just frustrated that our seasons are reduced so that WA and OR anglers can waylay a large chunk of the fish that we paid for. . . epecially after they have survived and completed the most difficult part of their life-cycle.[/#0000ff]
[signature]