As CDFW Scientists Look at Salmon Numbers, Klamath River’s Stock ‘Well Below’ Historical Levels

Chinook salmon. [Photo from CDFW]

Chinook salmon. [Photo from CDFW]

Press release from CDFW:

At the annual Salmon Information Meeting held virtually [yesterday], state and federal fishery scientists presented updates on the numbers of spawning salmon that returned to California’s rivers in 2021 and shared the expected abundance for the upcoming fishing season. The 2022 ocean abundance projection for Sacramento River fall Chinook, a main salmon stock harvested in California waters, is estimated at 396,500 adult salmon, higher than the 2021 forecasts. The Klamath River fall Chinook abundance forecast also came in slightly above the 2021 value, with 200,100 adult Klamath River fall Chinook salmon predicted to be in the ocean this year, a value that remains well below the stock’s historical levels.

During the meeting, recreational anglers and commercial salmon trollers provided comments and voiced concerns to a panel of fishery managers, scientists and industry representatives. Stakeholder input will be taken into consideration when developing three season alternatives during the March 8-14 Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) meeting. Final season regulations will be adopted at the April 6-13 PFMC meeting.

Following several years of poor returns to the Klamath River Basin, Klamath River fall Chinook salmon were declared overfished in 2018 and have not yet achieved a rebuilt status under the terms of the federal Salmon Fishery Management Plan. The PFMC may decide to take a conservative approach when crafting 2022 ocean salmon seasons to provide additional protective measures to this stock.

To access materials and information presented at today’s meeting or to learn more about the salmon season setting process, please visit the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Salmon Preseason Process web page. General ocean salmon fishing information can be found on CDFW’s Ocean Salmon Project web page or by calling the CDFW Ocean Salmon Hotline at (707) 576-3429.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

15 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dirty
Guest
2 years ago

I’m way more worried about all the aircraft they left in Afghanistan and 160 different countries coming across open boarders

Huh?
Guest
Huh?
2 years ago
Reply to  Dirty

Have you ever spent a significant amount time on the Klamath, either at the mouth or on the river? That place is beyond special and the fish are sacred. You should be worried about the fish too, in addition to all the weapons that Biden handed over to the Taliban, and the weapons that Eric Holder gave to the Mexican Cartels, etc.

Brent peeck
Guest
Brent peeck
2 years ago
Reply to  Huh?

I have was peacefully fishing there when threatened by Native Americans saying I should leave. Then this last season there was a crazy native guy on methamphetamine that climbed seal rock and adopted 2 osprey chiclets in full view of cdfw officers who did nothing to enforce the numerous regulations about endangered species. If I had done any of these things I would be in jail or federal prison. The natives were also elbowing aside large numbers of sport anglers making over 10 people withdraw their poles so the could run thru with a gillnet. I cleaned up a pile of their trash and left it at the tribal office.

point bar
Guest
point bar
2 years ago
Reply to  Brent peeck

Speaking of garbage, Kym, can you please delete this racist garbage post? I didn’t see any way to flag or report it or I would have.

Nick
Guest
Nick
2 years ago

I believe the CDFW as much as I believe any other alphabet agency. Remember last years halibut quota? Don’t forget their end game is to stop fishing. I’ve fished the Trinity for 30 years and it’s as good as it’s ever been.

ABA
Guest
ABA
2 years ago
Reply to  Nick

Well, Nick, this article is about the Klamath, not the Trinity. The Trinity has hatchery fish. I work on the Klamath and the salmon numbers are way, way down.

Also… “Don’t forget their end game is to stop fishing” is just 100% false. I’m not very pro-CDFW, but I am pro-getting your facts right.

Guest
Guest
Guest
2 years ago
Reply to  ABA

I’ve heard it directly from a CDFG Warden…

One of their goals is to, “limit entry”.

That means that they for sure are trying to stop, (“limit”), some people from fishing, because the fisheries cannot support everyone that wants to “fish”.

One way they did this was delaying the start of abalone take to “8:00 AM”, instead of “one half hour before sunrise”.

What was the purpose?

To eliminate the large numbers of, “rock pickers”, that depended on the earlier opening to be able to “reach” the abalone, when the tides were lowest, “at the crack of dawn”, effectively eliminating them from the “game”.

“This was a plus”, they said, and “necessary”, because it reduced the “pressure” on the abalone fishery.

Being a “rock picker”, I wasn’t too happy about it.

How is that not, “their end game is to stop fishing”?

It is not 100% false, to be sure.

There is much truth to it.

Abalone “fishing”, they eventually ended.

The writing is on the wall.

It has been for quite some time.

On many rivers, there is no, “take”, whatsoever.

It’s effectively, the same thing as it is to, “stop fishing”, in the sense of, “stop taking”.

Last edited 2 years ago
ABA
Guest
ABA
2 years ago
Reply to  Guest

“It’s effectively, the same thing as it is to, “stop fishing”, in the sense of, “stop taking”.”

So catch and release is not fishing?

“Limit entry” is not the same thing as “their end game is to stop fishing.” Like you said, it’s to reduce pressure.

The intention is to get stocks back to a point where fishing is possible again, and frankly, if that isn’t possible, I’d rather have un-fishable salmon in the river than no salmon at all.

Guest
Guest
Guest
2 years ago
Reply to  ABA

To “Stop fishing” and

To “Stop fishing”, “for some”, have much in common.

I agree with what you said, as far as, If it is imperative enough to stop take, it is imperative to stop “fishing”, as well, at all.

Many fish will perish from “catch and release”. No sense in that.

Leave the wild fish alone to hopefully recover.

Catch and release is only half of fishing, but it only allows that some people will still purchase a fishing license, gear, etc.

As to your statement:

“I’d rather have un-fishable salmon (and steelhead), in the river, than no salmon (and steelhead), at all”…

I couldn’t agree more.

Leave them completely alone, until such time as they may hopefully, recover in sufficient numbers.

🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟

Old school.

FogDog
Guest
FogDog
2 years ago
Reply to  Guest

Abalone stopped because the species is in massive decline due to urchin infestation, kelp die off, ocean acidification in addition to over fishing and poaching. I dove for them for many years and witnessed their numbers sadly dwindle. I wish it wasn’t that way, but fishing every one to extinction isnt going to help matters. Cdfw attempts to manage fisheries in a way that is sustainable for the future. There are valid arguments about how effective some of their policies have been, but saying they want to eliminate fishing makes absolutely no sense. If that was truly their goal they’d let species be fished completely unregulated to extinction and then there would be absolutely no fishing. Seems in our current predicament that could be achieved in a few short seasons if it were the goal. If you’ve fished the northcoast for decades, you’ve seen changes in the numbers of different fish species and it isnt from over regulation by f&g. Policies like the 8am start time you mention are attempts to reduce takes passively rather than restrict a whole season or taking even more off the bag limit. Rock picking in the dark or twilight makes catching poachers difficult. I suspect that was also the motive behind that move at that time.

deadmanwalkingwmd
Member
deadmanwalkingwmd
2 years ago
Reply to  FogDog

I have been a state bureaucrat and the last thing we usually want is activity that ends the need for us. If we stop fishing and hunting altogether, there is no longer a need to manage fishing or hunting and our agency is no longer needed. I don’t think their end is to stop fishing or hunting but more to maintain it the best they can. I remember the days when after school I could go down to the Eel river and catch a mess of legal fish for dinner and be home by 5 pm. That was when the river had water in it and was a helluva healthier than it is now. We had no need to go to the Klamath, the Mad or the Trinity. The hope is that these rivers and their fish stocks can all be revived. It will not happen if we don’t pay attention to climate change and environmental issues. All the fighting and bitching and no one seems to understand the basic issues. In 1960, the US has nearly 181 million people. We now have in 2020 nearly 330 million people. All those people and their needs put a huge amount of pressure on current resources but we like to act as if they are infinite resources when they are not. We have finally polluted the last great resource and that is the oceans to the point where they cannot sustain us anymore. My old man taught me to not defecate where I ate but as a people we do not seem to understand this.

ABA
Guest
ABA
2 years ago

Amen!

FogDog
Guest
FogDog
2 years ago

Couldn’t agree more with this.

Martin
Guest
2 years ago

I think maybe it is time to stop fishing in those areas for several years to help replenish the salmon stock, as well as in the ocean. I sure don’t want to see the number of fish drop to zero. I know it will probably hurt the commercial fishermen in the wallet, but no fish will put them out of business.

Karl golledge
Guest
Karl golledge
2 years ago

Kill the seals and sea lions…