We print this for your consideration and then, considerate comment, Buster readers.

In a brief nutshell, recent summer steelhead returns (or lackthereof) on the fabled and highly regulated North Umpqua apparently churned up the idea machine down in Douglas County, Oregon and a few folks are fixing to fix things.

Talk from a number of folks—some of which are high-profile guides, others are anglers with much history on the river—has proposed moving the stocking of hatchery fish up into the flywater to both maximize the economic output of the present hatchery effort (currently below the flywater) and to relieve pressure on the wild fish. Given scientific findings behind hatchery fish genetic introgression into the wild fish life history, this idea is strongly opposed by others. Trust me when I say I’ve attempted to write this last paragraph as objectively as possible.

Whether you’re a proponent of hatchery salmonids or an ardent supporter of wild, native fish, I urge you to read and re-read this. Many interesting points made, a few lines that can be read between and at the end, a calm, thoughtful discussion of opinions. Props to the interviewer for calling the interviewee out on his stance, and at the same time, respect to the interviewee for nutting up and answering the tough questions.

That’s a great example of discussion between opposing parties, folks, and we need a lot more of it if we’re going to get anywhere worth going.

Notes:

-No, not I, nor any of the handsome bastards at Buster were involved with any of this interview. I simply received a copy.

-I’ve removed the names of both the interviewer and the interviewee, as it’s not the people that matter. Its the ideals, motivations and potential for common ground.

Comments on this interview absolutely welcomed and encouraged below. 

Q & A with XXXXNameRedactedXXXXXX, North Umpqua Guide:

Q: I heard through the grapevine that you are advocating bringing hatchery summers back to the fly water. Is that true, and if so, what is your reasoning?

A: Well, I don’t know how much you know about the North Umpqua, but it’s just the last few years that we’ve stopped seeing hatchery summers in the fly water. The hatchery fish that were up there weren’t a problem, since they were mainstem spawners. I grew up on the Umpqua, and I can tell you that 99% of Umpqua summer steelhead are creek spawners. The hatchery fish spawned in the mainstem, where they were acclimated. Back then you might have seen one or two hatchery fish up at Lee’s pool.

My real issue is I don’t think the wild run can handle all the pressure. I mean, we have more guys coming up here every year. But we only have a couple thousand wild steelhead. Without the hatchery fish, guys are figuring out where the natives hang out and they are pounding on them every single day. Meanwhile, ODFW is planting hatchery summers in places where nobody fishes. I’d say 2/3 of the Umpqua’s hatchery fish aren’t even getting fished for. A third of them are planted below the I-5 bridge. Another third is planted at Whistler’s Bend, and the last third at Rock Creek. But nobody fishes below I-5 bridge. Look at Whistler’s Bend. I drive by there every day, and if you see one guy fishing there it’s a rarity. Two guys I know run down there in the fall. The fly water is the only good summer water, and without some hatchery fish up there, the wild fish take the brunt of the pressure.

Q: So you think that by adding a hatchery program above Rock Creek you’ll be decreasing pressure on the wild fish? I don’t think you could find any examples of that correlation. Hatchery programs result in an increase in angling pressure on wild fish. That’s according to Oregon’s leading biologists and decades of research.

A: I think people are over thinking this whole thing. I mean, do we have a true “wild” run in the Umpqua? With all the hatchery influences over the last century, are these fish really wild?

Q: Umpqua steelhead are wild as they come. Has nobody shared with you the DNA analysis on wild steelhead in Oregon? I can send you the graphs that show the distinct genetic groupings of hatchery and wild fish.

A: Well I haven’t seen what you are talking about, but you just said yourself that the wild fish weren’t harmed by all those decades of hatchery mixing, right? So what’s the problem? Your own data says the wild fish are fine. We had hatchery fish all over up here. All the way up to the dam.

Q: What I’m saying is that there has been very little, if any, genetic introgression from interbreeding. But we know the presence of hatchery adults on the spawning grounds reduces overall numbers of wild fish. So you’re going to have a hard time convincing wild-fish advocates that there is an acceptable risk, at any level.

A: I just don’t see it that way. I don’t think there was much, if any mixing. And if the wild fish are as pure as you say they are, that proves it, right? All I’m saying is if you’re going to have hatchery fish in the Umpqua, put them in the places where people fish! Or get rid of all the hatchery fish, and take the money and use it to repair lost spawning and rearing habitat. One or the other. But it doesn’t make sense to spend all this money and resources on a program that nobody can benefit from.

I’m all for wild fish. But right now we aren’t getting the numbers of wild steelhead we used to see. We’re under 5,000 fish. We need 7,000 to 9,000 fish to handle all the pressure on the fly water. The only way we’re going to get that is if they either let us have some hatchery fish or reclaim the lost habitat. Like Canton Creek. There used to be over a thousand wild fish in there. But it was wiped out when they built that road. It’s never recovered. So if ODFW took all the money from hatcheries and used it to bring back wild fish, I could get behind that.

Now our winter steelhead in the Umpqua really need protection. In the winter we get 10,000 to 14,000 wild fish. And ODFW wants to institute a hatchery program and a kill fishery! All of us guides are against it. ODFW makes no sense. You can’t kill wild fish!

Q: But, XXXX, you just said you’re against killing wild fish, but hatchery programs kill wild fish. Isn’t that an inconsistency?

A: I hear what you’re saying, and I could get behind a wild-only Umpqua. But it’s got to be one or the other. The way things are going now, I can’t make any money. I’m not ashamed to say it’s a money thing for me. If we’re going to have hatchery fish, let’s acclimate a third of them from Wright Creek down and offer people a little more opportunity in the summer. We don’t even need to increase the numbers. Just put them where they can be used. Or get rid of them altogether.

Q: Do you think you would feel the same way about this if you weren’t guiding?

A: I don’t know. The summer hatchery program, the way they’re running it now, just doesn’t make good economic sense. So I think I would be frustrated even if I wasn’t guiding. I’d still be up here in the canyon. It’s the only part of the river you can consistently get fish on dries throughout the summer.

Contrary to popular opinion, the active ingredient is AfroSheen™ and a blowout comb.

Good for a little Wild love in the dark.

The great Friday Night Buzzer Beater, as photographed by Chou-dog.

 Want to store some duck to last the winter and have it taste like, well taste about as good as this looks:

Make a duck confit. Courtesy of Michael Ruhlman is the too easy recipe to make a 6 month stash of it.

Not content with just finding a 1′ round of rotted-in-the-middle red cedar, the Banknote, Johhnyload Toker and our ‘landlord’ Don decide to not only source, but engineer, then successfuly set ablaze a chimney log of such immense proportion it could only become known as the Skeena Candle.

Word has it, folks in Quesnel were bracing for evacuation.

Nothing but good times, positive vibes, unapologetic bliss and too damn much beans and cabbage between four guys living in a 20 x 15′ space for a month.

Nothing.

Ol’ Greg, the lifecoach and spiritual leader: Hope your latest fish has you feeling like a new man right about now, and you find a fish for the new man who always wants one too.

The active ingredient is blue.

Progress on the One Mule Team bartender continues.

This reminds me that I need to line up a project for the winter. Too cool man.

Breaking from the good news desk- Stream restoration efforts in Oregon have punk fish running roughshod. Hat tip to The Caddis Fly.

A spate of mysterious disappearances of culverts, logging roads and apparent vandalism to private property has officials scratching their heads and young salmon, trout and steelhead running rampant over areas formerly seldom or never frequented by fish. As many as 10 fish-barrier culverts have disappeared in the last month in the Necanicum River watershed alone, allowing new or vastly improved access to for young fish all hours of the day and night to some 13-14 stream miles. Officials have not ruled out extra-terrestrial activity.

“We’re seeing these young punk fish partying and carrying on in areas they never dared go before,” said a law enforcement official on the condition of anonymity. “It’s almost like someone opened the barn door and said ‘Have at it, you damn young punk fish.’ And by God they did. Our IT folks back east tell us they almost for sure have to be using the Internets and these ‘flashmobs.’ There’s just too many of ‘em showing up to explain it any other way.”

…cause we’re getting incoming links from bail bond marketers.

I first read Michael Gracie’s post regarding a new way of managing the “Dream Stream” when it was first published last week. I’m usually skeptical of anything titled or modified with a “modest proposal” usually because that is a siginifier that the ideas contained within are anything but. Before I comment, I’m posting the MG’s proposal in its entirety for two reasons; the first being that I think they entire idea should be heard out, and secondly I don’t want to misconstrue or misrepresent his idea.

Modesty and Twelve Gauges

Let’s turn the Dream Stream into a permit-only water. Draw for days, just like elk hunting season. And pay dearly just the same. No poaching, no guiding, and no cheating. Guns drawn and off to jail with you if you disobey.

Think of the fees it could generate for protecting those fish. Imagine how those fish might behave with significantly less pressure on their poor souls. $50 per day to park in the lot between May 1st and August 31st. And then, say, a $150 per person rod fee during the spawns – February 1st through April 31st and September 1st through October 31st – would allow those fin finned friends to breed without undue harassment. I suspect the populations would explode, and the need for stocking would be significantly reduced too.

Catching wild fish on an extraordinary stretch of water. One now named after a luminary lost. What would Charlie think about this?

By the way, the same could be said for the Taylor, Frying Pan, and probably a few other sections of water too. Raking the reds with a three fly nymph rig for a digital hero shot? I think you should pay out-the-ass for such guilty pleasures. 

When I first skimmed over it, early in the morning and definitely pre-caffinated, my first reaction was “WTF- another let’s ‘privatize the resource’ and make a shit ton of cash in the process and call it conservation”. Later, I went back and actually reread the idea. I won’t make any specific comments on the rivers in particular, but the idea is worth chewing on. I think it is a valid idea and not at all like my first, coffee deprived, impression. There may be some other ways to accomplish the same ends.

Here are some half formed ideas:

1.  I think a smarter approach would be to close the season, or those sections of known spawning streams / rivers to all angling. We already have good mortality data on C&R and can project the impact on the population even in C&R only waters. Closing those rivers down during the spawn removes that stress from population, although this will be as popular as a fart in church to the headhunters.
2. Perhaps an education campaign about the negative impact targeting spawning fish will have. It didn’t take long, especially in cultural terms, for C&R to go mainstream and although there are still a fair number of bank apes out there, conservation is more in the fore than the old subjugate the wilderness mentality.
3. If the route of extra fees and lottery draws are decided upon, there should be some no shit scientific study of how many “tags” should be issued, etc. Big game management is usually executed well in that the lotteries and tags available usually track to the amount of hunting that a particular population can sustain. There would be a similar need for management of fish stocks which raises all sorts of questions- can it be done for a reasonable cost for instance. If it can’t, and the tags are issued based on throwing darts in a dark room, then maybe alternate management methods should be considered.

Again, I’m an amatuer at this and I think MG raises an interesting question that is worth thinking about. Over to you in the comments.

Buster pal Tosh Brown has a tout sweet set of photos up from an upland trip to Montana. It’s worth the time to check it out. Link corrected and I am as dumb as a bag of hammers

…That a picture is worth a thousand words.

If that is true, I figure that I’m up about 458,000 words in the last 7-day burnout session alone. This is probably a good thing, because I’m still feelin’ kinda fuzzy and disconnected – words will come, but I get the feeling that I’m gonna need to let the dust settle on this trip before I take the time to flex the semi-literate part of my brain again.

As if my punch-drunkenness wasn’t enough, I only have 72 hours to get the gear from the last trip sorted and stowed, launder all the fleece that I own, pack up the steelhead twigs and pretty flies, and head back out on the road – I got a 15-day date with some sexy-lookin’ H₂0 and a few out-of-town fish comin’ back and lookin’ for love.

Oh, yeah. The picture.

See you in a few weeks, Fisha.