WA. Fish Commission want to put a stop to sturgeon C&R...

DrTheopolis

Well-known member
On the one hand, we lose a C$R fishery. On the other, lower river stocks are in huge trouble, so maybe leaving them alone is a good idea.
 

jamisonace

Well-known member
I'm too lazy to look. Does it say what they believe the mortality rate is for c and r'd sturgeon?

Washington and Oregon are both really adept at creating policy that sounds good but has no real impact.
 

pinstriper

Well-known member
The mortality rate of sturgeon eaten by furbags while hooked, or while recovering from a long exhausting fight is probably hard to determine, but real, I would think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Once again, King county, aka Seattle tree huggers are trying to push their way of thinking on us down here. Problem is that those who have the loudest mouth and biggest bank account usually win. Get the furbags out and change a couple things with the tribes and commercials and the population will rebound.
 

jamisonace

Well-known member
If by real you mean it has happened at least one time, I agree with you. If by real you mean the numbers are significant I would be surprised.

And I think they probably do have data, extremely over estimated data.

The mortality rate of sturgeon eaten by furbags while hooked, or while recovering from a long exhausting fight is probably hard to determine, but real, I would think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Modest_Man

Well-known member
From what I know the big issue isn't mortality. Sturgeon are tough SOB's. The issue is that catching and releasing spawner sized females can stress them to the point that they reabsorb developing eggs, and then don't spawn. Essentially removing them from the gene pool while they're still alive. As they take a long time mature and only spawn once every three to five years every spawner counts.

It has been conclusively proven in the aquaculture of sturgeon that excessive handling will cause egg re-absorption. The link between angling stress and re-absorption is not as clear, but from a common sense standpoint makes sense to me. Especially if these fish are being caught over and over (fall chinook gill-nets handled ~660 oversized sturgeon in 2012).
 

jamisonace

Well-known member
Interesting:

https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa154

"The capacity of the egg to undergo final maturation can be adversely affected by the animal's own physiological or metabolic response to unfavorable environmental or husbandry conditions such as abrupt temperature changes and rough or frequent handling. Eggs can also be overripe, a condition of degeneration or reabsorption of yolk nutrients (atresia). Like immature eggs, overripe eggs can also be induced to ovulate but are often of poor quality. Overripe eggs often correlate to low fertility or a high percentage of embryo and larval deformities, accompanied with low survival."

I'm far from an expert but I suspect that environmental conditions such as an over population of predators stressing the sturgeon could effect this condition.
 

pinstriper

Well-known member
I think that we may all have different views of the impact of C&R, but are probably mostly aligned on the issue of Furbags Must Go !!
 
Well, I have been wondering if this was going to happen within the next few years or so. Even though it seems like sturgeon are ridiculously abundant in the lower Willamette and Columbia systems, they are an endangered species. With the increased amount of poaching of these fish both for meat and caviar, it would seem WA and OR could make it much easier to catch poachers if C&R became illegal too. This breaks my heart though, as I spend countless hours fishing for sturgeon in both my kayak and in friend's boats and I really enjoy it. Having caught a bunch of giants in my time, I really don't enjoy fighting oversized fish anymore and get a much bigger kick out of big days with lots of keeper sized fish. I would rather not stress out the big spawners and I definitely don't target them, but they seem to bite on small baits just like the smaller ones.
Having said this, it seems like the impact of sea lions and gill-nets would pose a much bigger threat to the species than sport anglers by a long-shot, and it kind of angers me that we are always hit with the restrictions (barbless salmon hooks, for instance) while the states seem to have this romantic notion that commercial gill-netters are part of our history and therefore must be allowed to harvest and pressure massive amounts of fish according to an unwritten grandfather-clause despite current statistics. I'm pretty sure sport angling is more important to the states in terms of jobs and revenue than commercial netting as well. In summary, I think gill-netting in the Columbia should be banned. I also feel like these sea lions need to be controlled. Then maybe the sport angling pressure on the white sturgeon population should be looked at. First things first.
This is just my two scents. I am not a fish biologist but I do trust science over politics, so whatever good science discloses about this issue, I will agree with that.
Also, this forum is full of cool folks and I trust that if anyone totally disagrees with what I have said or would simply like to educate me and others concerning the issue of C&R sturgeon fishing, they will do so in a polite and constructive way.
 
Well, I have been wondering if this was going to happen within the next few years or so. --------- they are an endangered species. ----------With the increased amount of poaching of these fish both for meat and caviar, it would seem WA and OR could make it much easier to catch poachers if C&R became illegal too. -------Having said this, it seems like the impact of sea lions and gill-nets would pose a much bigger threat to the species than sport anglers by a long-shot, and it kind of angers me that we are always hit with the restrictions (barbless salmon hooks, for instance) while the states seem to have this romantic notion that commercial gill-netters are part of our history and therefore must be allowed to harvest and pressure massive amounts of fish according to an unwritten grandfather-clause despite current statistics. I'm pretty sure sport angling is more important to the states in terms of jobs and revenue than commercial netting as well. In summary, I think gill-netting in the Columbia should be banned. I also feel like these sea lions need to be controlled. Then maybe the sport angling pressure on the white sturgeon population should be looked at. First things first.
This is just my two scents. I am not a fish biologist but I do trust science over politics, so whatever good science discloses about this issue, I will agree with that.
Also, this forum is full of cool folks and I trust that if anyone totally disagrees with what I have said or would simply like to educate me and others concerning the issue of C&R sturgeon fishing, they will do so in a polite and constructive way.
I agree with Minn. on parts of the quote Tony
 

bass

Well-known member
Most Featured
Well, I have been wondering if this was going to happen within the next few years or so. Even though it seems like sturgeon are ridiculously abundant in the lower Willamette and Columbia systems, they are an endangered species. With the increased amount of poaching of these fish both for meat and caviar, it would seem WA and OR could make it much easier to catch poachers if C&R became illegal too. This breaks my heart though, as I spend countless hours fishing for sturgeon in both my kayak and in friend's boats and I really enjoy it. Having caught a bunch of giants in my time, I really don't enjoy fighting oversized fish anymore and get a much bigger kick out of big days with lots of keeper sized fish. I would rather not stress out the big spawners and I definitely don't target them, but they seem to bite on small baits just like the smaller ones.
Having said this, it seems like the impact of sea lions and gill-nets would pose a much bigger threat to the species than sport anglers by a long-shot, and it kind of angers me that we are always hit with the restrictions (barbless salmon hooks, for instance) while the states seem to have this romantic notion that commercial gill-netters are part of our history and therefore must be allowed to harvest and pressure massive amounts of fish according to an unwritten grandfather-clause despite current statistics. I'm pretty sure sport angling is more important to the states in terms of jobs and revenue than commercial netting as well. In summary, I think gill-netting in the Columbia should be banned. I also feel like these sea lions need to be controlled. Then maybe the sport angling pressure on the white sturgeon population should be looked at. First things first.
This is just my two scents. I am not a fish biologist but I do trust science over politics, so whatever good science discloses about this issue, I will agree with that.
Also, this forum is full of cool folks and I trust that if anyone totally disagrees with what I have said or would simply like to educate me and others concerning the issue of C&R sturgeon fishing, they will do so in a polite and constructive way.
Great comments MM. Bums me out to think about the closure but not horribly surprising. I think they should open a K&R (Kill and Release) season on fur bags if they close sturgeon though :)
 
Good points guys and I completely agree. I was told however that if a furbag jumps into your boat, you have the legal right to shoot it to defend yourself. So I guess if we can find a way to get em to jump into your boats.........:thumb:
 

DrTheopolis

Well-known member
It seems that the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the ESA are at odds on the issue. The folks in DC need to do something about it, but they don't care about the NW. Seems to me, salmon stocks are trying to rebound, and sturgeon numbers are dwindling, while furbag numbers are through the roof (if you've never fished the Lower Willy or Columbia, it's hard to imagine). Might be time to thin the furbag herd a bit.
 
Top Bottom