Annual Bonneville passage thread/thoughts

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Klickrolf, Jun 12, 2014.

  1. I know most of you guys don't put much stock in early numbers, I do. This is looking good as of late.
    Numbers building nicely, thinking this will be a good year for Columbia this too early to predict?
    I predict better than last year fishing...much better than last year!
  2. In June 2009 34,000 fish came over the dam in 1 day. Today, 300 fish came over... sweet.
  3. I remember that and it wasn't only one day, 3 or 4 if I recall. Nonetheless, it looks better than it did last year and who knows, we might get numbers like that again, call it a 5 year hope.
    David Dalan and CLO like this.
  4. higher numbers = more people = less me...
  5. I had a good year last year, looking forward to an even better on this year. Only thing that never really showed in my usual haunts was factory fish. I'd like to kill a few more this year. My yummy civic duty.

  6. Same same
    David Dalan likes this.
  7. Last year was pretty good for me on some lower Columbia tribs. I'd be interested to see how this year goes.
  8. Love the positive outlook Rolf! We could use a big year.

    I gotta wonder if the early returns is a reflection of the mild spring/low flows we are seeing? Maybe the fish think its July already!
  9. Well that is one less person
    Drifter, JonT and CLO like this.
  10. I just saw a steelhead on the cam.
  11. The shad fishing is pretty decent on the columbia now.
  12. The big numbers were in August of 2009, not June.
    JonT likes this.

  13. DART says you're right, thanks for correcting me. 2009 was a long time ago.
  14. Just saw two steelhead and a bunch of shad.
  15. FYI, the steelhead counts have been gradually increasing and finally broke the 1000 mark yesterday (7/2).
  16. Yeah, they are building, as they always do...falling closer to the 10 yr. avg. though...ain't looking as good as I'd hoped. At least the wild numbers are doing better, very little better.

    If this year becomes good it's still likely be half of 2001, 2009 and 10 were also good but we keep trending downhill so something is wrong within the management regime...and please, don't bring up ocean conditions! If you do I'll reply with "you don't know what you're talking about"!
  17. Dear Klickrolf,

    You don't know what you're talking about.


  18. Dear Salmo_g,

    Thanks for your kindness and thoughtful response! I thought you knew about freshwater impacts to steelhead populations? What percentage of importance would you pin on ocean conditions?.. Ocean conditions are a non-issue! We should concentrate on what is happening in freshwater and places like Puget Sound, we can get to ocean conditions after we've solved the freshwater issues.


    Edit: Bonneville passage might be getting stronger, the wild numbers jumped nicely yesterday.
  19. Deleted
  20. Klickrolf,

    I know you think ocean conditions are a non-issue, which is why I replied so thoughtfully. I figured you have enough sense of humor to appreciate a poke with a stick as long as it isn't in your eye. Nonetheless, my response is not without reason.

    Barring extreme flood scour, which can reduce egg to fry survival to as low as 2%, ocean survival, through good times and bad, is where the highest mortality rates occur. Ocean survival (SAR) seldom exceeds 10%, and is typically far lower for almost every stock in the last decade or more. Even smolt survival through the Columbia River dam death traps has been trending upward as new fish passage technologies are employed. Previous smolt survival from the Snake to Astoria was as low as 15%, but that's still higher than ocean survival. So saying that ocean conditions is a non-issue seems highly misplaced if not outright mis-informed.

    Quite interestingly - to me anyway - some recent multi-variate regression correlations found no significant correlations between summer low flows, winter flood flows, and spawning escapement, three variables that are generally thought and found to be highly significant for salmon survival, with wild steelhead abundance. To be completely forthcoming, it didn't find any correlation with PDO either, but I'm convinced PDO is to coarse of an ocean metric to tease out effects on steelhead ocean survival.

    You said something is wrong within the management regime that is adversely affecting steelhead abundance. Since the main function of management is to regulate fishing, I take it that you mean that management is allowing too much fishing. So if fewer steelhead were harvested (already near zero in PS and low in CR), are you suggesting that steelhead abundance would increase? Remember - no significant correlation between spawning escapement and wild steelhead abundance, suggesting that contemporary escapements are adequate for most streams carrying capacity.

    More sincerely than last post,

    sk8r and JesseC like this.

Share This Page