More Idaho river crap - MFS permit changes - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-20-2010   #1
 
lhowemt's Avatar
 
at my house, Montana
Paddling Since: 2020
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,604
More Idaho river crap - MFS permit changes

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/news/2010/Chinook_MF.pdf

Idaho seems to be going crazy lately with river issues happening without any public input. This may not affect many Colorado boaters as late season cancellations are more commonly used by those with proximity, but none the less, changes to river management and permitting should go through a public process. No???

__________________
Living in Montana, boating in Idaho
lhowemt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-20-2010   #2
 
Dave Frank's Avatar
 
Boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,825
kind of seems like a weak effort to protect endangered salmon. If the redd beds are in fact so sensitive to boat traffic, it would seem that cutting back on planned use, instead of just not reissuing cancellations might be warranted. They've also implemented a limit of 12 crafts per trip, not a limit of people. If they are worried about rafters walking heavy boats off the beds, encouraging trips to run fewer heavier boats doesn't seem to make sense. Not that you se too many trips with over 12 boats, unless most are kayaks, which would seem a lot less likely to get stuck in the first place.
__________________
Dave

(seven two 0)-298-2242
Dave Frank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #3
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
It doesn't appear to be grounded in reality. A quick look indicates that nearly all Chinook don't spawn in the mainstem MF Salmon, they spawn in tributaries. The following is from the most recent study on the subject:

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=P117384


"We have observed redds at elevations between 1100 m and 2100 m and a majority
were constructed between 1500 m and 2000 m (Figure 6). Although Chinook salmon
spawn in both the mainstem MFSR and tributaries, about 99% of redds were
constructed in ten tributaries (Figure 5)."

The bottom line is this is a non-issue, something else is going on here and we need to get to the bottom of it. I find it very curious that there was no data or study presented in the press release to justify the closure. Everyone interested needs to look at the link to the report above and see what is reality.
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-20-2010   #4
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
Please note on the link to the Chinook spawning report, it is 12 MB so takes a while to download
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #5
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
So I looked into this a little further to see how the distribution of Chinook redds may have changed over time. Thurow (2010) referenced Hauck (1954) regarding Chinook spawner distribution in the 1950s. I found Hauck (1954); link below:

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries%20Research%20Reports/Mgt-Hauck1954%20Spring%20Chinook%20Salmon%20in%20Idaho %20Waters.pdf

I summarized the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin Chinook redd data from Hauck (1954) and compared the % distribution by stream reach to Thurow (2010) for 2007, 2008, and 2009 (only years redd data was reported by stream reach).

The bottom line is that few redds were counted in the mainstem Middle Fork Salmon back in 1953, a similar percentage as in recent years. What stands out in Figure 1, is not that redds have decreased in the mainstem Middle Fork, but that there has been a huge decline in Sulphur Creek. I would suggest the Forest Service focus on Sulphur Creek to aid Chinook, not the mainstem Middle Fork.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MF Salmon Spawning figure.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	61.2 KB
ID:	3013  
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #6
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
updated chart, found some data from the 1990s from Thurow (2000), same trend (little spawning in mainstem Middle Fork)
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. 2000


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	updated MF chart.jpg
Views:	150
Size:	67.9 KB
ID:	3014  
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #7
 
phlyingfish's Avatar
 
Moscow, Idaho
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 269
So perhaps dragging boats in the mainstem has little effect on the redds themselves. What about the Chinook making their way to spawning sites? Shouldn't we, as boaters, be concerned about our potential impacts on endangered species?
__________________
"A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes writing for the majority in New Jersey v. New York
phlyingfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #8
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
Obviously we should be concerned (as an angler, boater and fish bio I am very pro-fish conservation), but there is a large variation in total chinook spawner escapement in the Salmon River (and every other river) over time (lots of ups and downs) that are attributable to a whole host of sources. Boating use levels in the MF Salmon have been contolled at a similar level for a long time, and over that time there have been large ups and downs in spawner escapement, which leads one to conclude boating has nothing to do with population productivity. I don't think penalizing the few folks who want to boat the MF during low water is the solution to the problem or even part of the problem.

Was there not boating in 2001 to 2003 when excapement levels were near all time highs in the last 50 years in the MF Salmon (see figure below). Was it boaters that resulted in the precipitous decline thereafter? Was it boaters in 1953 that resulted in nearly no redds in the mainstem?

Would it not make more sense to ban harvest all together? Ban gill netting in the lower Columbia, etc. etc. etc. Or is it easier to come up with some non-sensical actions that can be implemented that make someone feel better, but which acutally does nothing to address real issues.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Escapement over time.jpg
Views:	128
Size:	50.6 KB
ID:	3015  
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #9
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlyingfish View Post
So perhaps dragging boats in the mainstem has little effect on the redds themselves. What about the Chinook making their way to spawning sites? Shouldn't we, as boaters, be concerned about our potential impacts on endangered species?
Please read the FS decision and rational. They indicated distrubance of actual redds is the issue of conern. How can this be? The data are pretty clear that very few redds are present
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010   #10
 
lhowemt's Avatar
 
at my house, Montana
Paddling Since: 2020
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,604
It's a lot easier to change boating rules, and claim that they are doing something for the Salmon, than remove the dams, which are the real problem. If there were no boaters, would they improve? Doubtful, esp with Shapp's data. I haven't read it yet, but I'm curious if the '54 report includes multi-year data vs a snapshot. I plan to read it later.
__________________
Living in Montana, boating in Idaho
lhowemt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
San Juan River Permit available eastcreek Whitewater Kayaking 8 05-08-2010 10:33 AM
April 25 Salt River Permit evanslowande Kayaking | Trip Planner 6 04-24-2010 11:54 PM
Salt River Permit Fees swimteam101 Whitewater Kayaking 8 01-08-2009 02:51 PM
CW Annual River Permit Party 1/11/08 PattyNYCO Whitewater Kayaking 0 01-02-2008 05:47 PM
FYI...MFS Permit Holders...Boundary and Indian Creek Closed tuberslickmysweatyballs Whitewater Kayaking 1 08-15-2007 01:44 PM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.