The ODFW commission had a couple of presentations this week that I found interesting. The first was on a chemical (6PPD which turns into 6PPD-q) that comes from tires, washes off roads into waterways, and kills salmonids, particularly coho salmon. You can watch a recording of that presentation here. It begins around minute 27 and lasts a little over an hour. The discussion after the presentation was valuable as well. The over simplified summary is that this is a serious problem and while research has been done more is needed. There are some promising potential solutions but individually they are not comprehensive, implementing a truly comprehensive solution would be expensive, and take decades to effect statewide. This is a big and complex problem. Let’s hope that funding for all the agencies and groups working on this continues.

An overview of the hatchery resilience effort was also provided which you can watch here. (The presentation starts at around 1 hour and lasts for 1.5 hours.) This was essentially a repeat of three separate presentations made to the public last year. You can learn more at ODFW’s hatchery resilience website. If you are not familiar with this effort I encourage you to watch and understand what is driving what will likely be a major change in hatchery operations in Oregon.

The part that I found most interesting was the discussion of ODFW’s recently released survey of anglers on their perception of hatchery needs. I think the survey was flawed. Commissioner King also questioned it. Here’s the text of an email I sent to all commissioners following the presentation.

Dr. King, and other commissioners, I have been closely watching the hatchery resilience process from the start.  I have been impressed with the process but believe there is a flaw in one data set you were presented today.  Most Oregonians purchase fishing licenses for trout and this is where the greatest economic benefit is realized.  The loudest and most numerous voices in the process, however, have been advocates of anadromous fish.  The passion around anadromous fishing, while held by a minority of anglers, has driven much ODFW policy for decades.  So, when you look at the survey results discussed today the fact that costs do not matter to many are reflective of a vocal, powerful, organized, and highly engaged anadromous fish anglers but are unlikely to reflect the view of the majority.  The survey respondents were self-selecting, trout anglers are not paying attention as their needs are being met.  Look at the survey data where respondents by county are listed.  The overwhelming majority are from coastal areas or more inland counties where there are opportunities to target anadromous fish, like Deschutes County where I live.

I too am an anadromous fishing fanatic, I am a lifetime member of the Association of NW Steelheaders along with other groups concerned with anadromous fish, and get plenty of communication from them.  On the other hand, I am also a member of Central Oregon Flyfishers, a trout oriented group, where there has been no communication on this topic at all.  When I talk to other trout anglers they have no or extremely limited knowledge of the hatchery resilience project.

I understand that time and money are limited, but a statistically valid survey of fishing license holders in Oregon would be more helpful in your decision process.

Yancy Lind