The 25 year plan…..

Thanks but no thanks….. I don’t believe I have ever read a document (ODFW plan) full of more half truths, and false science than the 25 year plan.(when I use the term “false science” I am referring to – skewing that scientific data to your political will, instead of letting it stand on it’s own merits. And that I think a 25 year plan should be moving towards more wild fish management instead of more hatchery management – (have we learned nothing in the last 40 years). Or, if your on the other side of this fence – you might say this- “best science available” as they do several times in the 25 YP. (it seems to me, that the only time they use the “best science available” is when it fits into the “Hatchery Management Plan”(HMP) – Also remember, this is my opinion only. And should not be attached to anyone else.

It does however explain (at least to me) why the “public input process” went the way it did. The reason why we started hearing rumors about kill regs on the Umpqua, why the ODFW have been dragging there feet on invasive species (namely bass), the brood stock program, the up coming license fee increase, and the sacrifice zone thang to promote more angler opportunities “ie – license sales”…..

It seems to me, that after reading this – and being more involved with what was going on around me for the last few years. That my opinion is this, it basically comes down to – Are you in favor of more wild fish management or more hatchery fish management. If you want more emphasis placed on wild fish – then this 25 year plan will scare the hell out of you. If you want more emphasis placed on hatchery production, then you’re going to be really happy.

But, this time it’s not about just the McKenzie…. This is the Oregon plan, this is the direction, and this is the plan for all of Oregon’s waters for the next 25 years….
So you know how I feel, please do yourself a favor and read this. Don’t let me or anyone else tell you what to think. You got to decide how you feel about it, especially since this is what you’re going to get, this is the odfw management plan for your water for the next quarter of a century.

Here it is – 25-Year Angling Enhancement Plan





BTW – the NFMP and HMP so mentioned and referenced so often is the Native Fish Management Plan & the HMP = Hatchery Management Plan. Both available for down load and should be read. Also, if you get into this – your district office will have a basin management plan for your area. (that you should read)…

NOW HEAR THIS – Though I do not like the direction of the HMP, and I understand that more “wild fisheries management” is in the minority. I do like a lot of what I read in this plan as to the educational opportunities, reducing barriers to fishing participation and such. But, I think that this could also be used to educate more about our collapsing wild fisheries here in Oregon and not just promoting hatcheries. And why I think the state should pick up the pace in moving that direction. I also like the mention of “public user boards”. The people of Oregon who believe in the conservation of wild fisheries (though in the minority) should have a seat at the table too.

Seriously, do you feel comfortable with another 25 years of this?

As a simple minded layman, I can only go off my own experiences, what I hear and see and what I can dig up to read, just a few examples are –

The afore mentioned twenty-five year plan.

The Native Fish Conservation Policy (NFCP)

McKenzie Subbasin Plan (MSP)

McKenzie Fish Management Plan (MFMP)

Fish Hatchery Management Plan (HMP)

Leaburg Hatchery Operations Plan

Staff summary of the Oregon’s 2006 Angler preference Survey of Annually Licensed Anglers.

And that’s just to name a few. (as a matter of fact) I have a chit load of “self imposed” homework to do the rest of this week.

Plus all the data I’m getting ready to get into from Montana about the wholesale changes made in that state.

Anyway guys check it all out and decide for your selves.

LiGE
Moon

Oh Noooooooooooooo, I already have enough toilet paper from the last 25 year plan!

It is highly unlikely the ODF&W was concerned with the minority of fly anglers in this State when they wrote the plan. They are targetting the folks on other fishing sites.

one major problem i see is that their first two goals are diameterically opposed to one another...
1. to increase the quality of angling opportunities
2 . to increase parrticipation in amgling in the state

the places in the state where the opportunity for a quality fishing experience exsists are already overpopulated with anglers and thereby decreasing the quality of the angling experience..

Here's the main problem for me: shouldn't the state fish and game office be funded independently of license sales? If they didn't have to depend on angling participation, they might be more inclined to do the right thing in relation to wild fisheries. But maybe I'm just a pie-in-the-sky hippie liberal...

Dave

I've always suspected that they set the catch limits based on the maximum number of fish you can kill without making a population go 100% extinct. But to see it from them in print is shocking. What's even worse is they're incredibly optimistic on what "maximum sustainable catch" is. We've seen it with North Umpqua steelhead in the course of just a few years (but it's ok, let's keep killing them and supplement them with hatchery fish!), and will see it with SRCs soon enough.

I read the first few pages of that and I feel sick...

Dan

In my opinion, what’s even more incredulous is that they (ODFW) are more in tune to creel surveys and angler preference data – than actual science.

If you don’t believe me, check for yourself….. Drop by your local ODFW district office anywhere in the state and ask for any data they have on your favorite wild fishery in any of your favorite waters.

I did, but look what that started……

LiGE
Moon

25 year plans:

How long would a business in the private sector last if it spent the man hours & money to produce a 25 year plan and tried to follow the plan? This concept is a waste of tax payers money.

Did the last 25 year plan meet its objectives? If not, why? What has been done to meet the failures of the last 25 year plan? Is Orygun government brave enough to take an honest look?

The 30 years or so providing food, clothing, and shelter for my family meant: "My employer demanded projects completed ahead of schedule, under budget, & high reliability facilities on stream no less than 99.5%." Anything less than this, the customer was not happy & someone would be looking to update their resume!

As a tax payer, I'm not a happy camper!

Hoopie,

Let's see

....Increasing ODFW staff
....Increasing Hatchery output
....Search for new angling opportunities

The bottom line is wild salmon, trout and steelhead are screwed!

And another thing... $150,000 for a marketing specialist plus another $200k for marketing expenses? That's a WHOLE lot of money over the course of just a few years. I don't have a problem letting people know about potential opportunities--especially for kids or newer anglers. But why the hard sell? Do other states have marketing budgets, or do they just concentrate on being stewards of the environment so that they don't have to "sell" an inferior product?

At this point, I don't see the ODF&W giving a ratz-ass about any native fish in Oregon. As far as their income is concerned, I've been told that license money is not neccessarily dedicated to the ODF&W but goes into the General Fund. I've tried to track this down in the past but Oregon spending of the General Fund is difficult to find.

Regardless, as with the USFS, they are pressured by government to create dollars. The absolute only way the ODF&W can create dollars is to sell fishing licenses. I'm not exactly sure how you can change that. The USFS started selling every tree they could to provide money for the government (with no regard for the environment) and I suspect the ODF&W is doing the same on a State level.

Perhaps attacking the head of the snake (the Legislature) could be the answer. I don't know. But it is unlikely we can stop the ODF&W from doing anything they can to generate money even when that means the destruction of wild fisheries -- same as the USFS destroying old growth forests for money. Money rules.

If an organization can prove to the Legislature that money can be made and licenses will be sold by going the way of wild trout, as have other States, THEN you have some leverage on the ODF&W.

Oh please quit picking on those poor no sense idiots siphoning the last wild fish from the system. The humor in all of this if there is any is that we have only one agency to blame for the problem.

Without the wild trout, coho, chum, spring chinook, summer chinook, fall chinook, winter steelhead, summer steelhead and how many others we have no fisheries. This years fall chinook return on the coast could be the canary tipping over on the perch but not quite letting go. This fishery made up of 95% wild return is in TROUBLE, the lack of anglers is also impacting the many businesses that rely on the fishery and the hords of people it brings. The decline in angler participation will continue as well as the decline in the wild fish stocks.

Does ODFW care about wild fish, I think we all have our opinions and accounts of what they have done wrong, what I want to know is what have they done right to even think the fisheries are O.K. Please I don't want to hear about all of those factory garbage fish that returned into the Other wasteland fishery known as the ONCE Mighty Columbia. This is the fishery that they are working for.

Another little fun fact, would anyone like to know what high priced piece of equipment will help in the recovery of the wild fish in the Tillamook District? It isn't new waders or fishing glasses.

This BS has been going on way to long. Forget about education for the meat creeps, it aint going to happen. They have to have kill fisheries and hatch fish for all these lost soles who leave their crap scattered all over the river. It sells the licence. The only way I see it is they need to devide the rivers up. Some need to be all wild flyfishing only and the other catch and kill everything you can hook. The cowlitz in washington is a prime example of the perfect kill fishery. Some day it will burn out because they cant find the original wild fish genes that started it all but they have the hatchery thing going well. So I want smaller runs if it be. But let it be wild. Keep the meat badguy off the select rivers. Now how would we select the right rivers? The Clack, Mecenzie and Santiam would be a good start.

Easy goes it there big guy…. I started this fight, and I understand the passion bro. but, let’s not get into fishing technique as opposed to fly versus gear water. This is solely about our wild fisheries collapsing and us losing what little remains of said fishery on our watch. The gear guys kids and fly guys kids are the ones who are losing this fight, not us or them. It’s the future we got to protect, and it’s got to start now. The passion is good, the direction is wrong….. Redirect and fire at will. Good luck and good hunting.

LiGE.
Moon

Circle Spey, brings up a good point about the Columbia. The mightesty river in the country is strictly a catch and kill zone. Those false numbers over Bonneville and all upstream dams are ~90% pellet heads.

Which brings me to The riffleman's point, since some river's (i.e., the NF Alsea) is a pellet head manufacturing machine, keep that one of the many meat holes for the Catch and Kill Carson's on the coast. and say create the Nestucca as a wild fish only zone?

These are just ideas and not necessarily what I firmly believe.

thewetnet