++++=comment lines that were not in print version
*page=page number of original printed version (e.g., page 115=*115), so to
search for p. 115, search for *115.
++++ start of p. *1 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
++++ start of p. *2 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
This monograph series documents the ornithology of Oregon in clear enough detail that the monographs will hopefully still be useful a century or more from now. They are published by Gahmken Press, are numbered consecutively as independent monographs, and appear at irregular intervals. These monographs deal with ornithological research or the history of ornithology in Oregon. All monographs have 8.5 x 11 inch pages and paper covers.
Correspondence concerning manuscripts for publication in this series should be addressed to Gahmken Press, P.O. Box 1467, Newport, Oregon 97365.
COVER: Image of Double-crested Cormorant "drying" its wings.
++++ This image is not included in this online version. ++++
______________________________________________________________________
Bayer, Range D., 1947-
The cormorant/fisherman conflict in Tillamook County, Oregon /
Range D. Bayer
p. cm. --(Studies in Oregon Ornithology; no. 6)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-939819-05-8
1. Cormorants--Oregon--Tillamook County. 2. Cormorants--Control--
Oregon--Tillamook County. 3. Fishery management--Oregon--Tillamook
County. I. Title. II. Series.
SH177.C6B39 1989
333.95'8--dc20 89-80373
______________________________________________________________________
Permission is granted to accurately reproduce this monograph or Studies in Oregon Ornithology Nos. 1-5 wholly or in part as long as each of these monographs is properly credited.
___________________________________________________________________________
++++ start of p. *3 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
The cormorant/fisherman issue is not limited to Tillamook County in 1988-1989 but is symptomatic of a widespread conflict of some fishermen with fish-eating animals.
Predators, specifically cormorants, have been blamed for the "ruin" of the Tillamook fisheries, but the effects of cormorant predation have been exaggerated. Actually, current salmon and steelhead catches are similar to or greater than many catches prior to 1972, when several "predators" (including Double-crested Cormorants) were not protected by law. Although it is clear that cormorants can eat some smolts in Tillamook Bay, it is unreasonable to assume that they eat as many as has been suggested. For example, when figures that appeared in a Tillamook newspaper are added up, cormorants in Tillamook Bay in 1988 were suggested to eat nearly three times as many smolts as were released there!
Because a few Tillamook County fishing guides and fishermen felt that cormorants were destroying their salmon and steelhead fisheries, they pressured the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) into giving them permits to harass (but not kill) cormorants in the spring of 1988 on public waters of Nehalem and Tillamook Bays. The permittees were not supervised to be sure that they did not disturb or harm nontarget wildlife (i.e., wildlife other than the targeted cormorants) or did not kill cormorants.
After the ODFW announced in late November 1988 that they would not be issuing cormorant harassment permits in 1989, a few Tillamook fishing guides and fishermen worked to pass House Bill 3185 during the 1989 Oregon Legislative session. House Bill 3185 would have allowed cormorant harassment along the entire Oregon Coast any time during the year, but the Bill failed. Then, in July 1989, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission refused to consider granting harassment permits to fishing guides and fishermen. Thus, cormorant harassment in 1989 was not legalized, although some harassment apparently occurred illegally.
Cormorant harassment in Tillamook County does not currently meet the requirements to justify an animal damage control program. For example, one criterion of such a program is that there be minimal compensatory predation (i.e., prey saved from the controlled predator is taken by noncontrolled predators). But if cormorants are harassed, there are many other predators that could eat the "saved" smolts, including adult coho and chinook salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and striped bass that may eat millions of salmon and steelhead smolts along the Oregon Coast each year.
Current information indicates that documented smolt losses from cormorant predation may not compensate the economic, biological, aesthetic, and social costs of harassment. Biological costs include disturbance to nontarget wildlife such as waterfowl or threatened and endangered birds like the Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican; disturbance would unavoidably accompany cormorant harassment. One social cost of interest is that predator control of cormorants to "save" salmon is arbitrary and capricious, since salmon are themselves a significant predator of young Dungeness crabs and fish important to other Oregon commercial and sports fishermen.
Alternatives to cormorant harassment exist and would address all smolt predation, not just that by cormorants. These alternatives include changing hatchery practices, so that smolts survive better after release. These alternatives should be at least considered.
++++ start of p. *4 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
Biologists may have somewhat defused the cormorant harassment issue if they were more able to communicate with nonbiologically-trained fishermen, but even so, there are a few fishing guides and fishermen who refuse to believe any information that does not agree with their own opinions.
Keywords: Animal Damage Control, Chinook, Coho, Cormorants, Fisheries, Oregon Legislature, Predation, Predators, Salmon, Smolts, Steelhead.
***************************************************************************
The purpose of this monograph is document the 1988-1989 episode of a few fishing guides and fishermen trying to legally harass cormorants from Oregon coastal streams and estuaries. These guides and fishermen believed that cormorants were destroying their salmon and steelhead runs; salmon and steelhead, however, are a public resource.
Hopefully, this monograph will make the reader aware that decisions about wildlife management can be significantly dictated by politics and emotions, not scientific studies, logic, or reason. What is most important in swaying issues like this are personal contacts and the ability to be personally persuasive, not necessarily facts.
Hopefully, when this issue comes up again, and it will, the reader can use this monograph to be aware of what issues may be involved. I wish I had something like this available before I became involved in this episode of the very old conflict between fishermen and fish-eating animals.
Range (Richard) D. Bayer, 20 September 1989
***************************************************************************
I thank Marilyn Guin, Susan Gilmont, and Janet Webster of the Oregon State University (OSU) Marine Science Center Library for providing some obscure references and for having such a well-stocked fisheries and wildlife library.
I also appreciate the assistance of the following, who kindly provided published or unpublished information: Kathleen Confer, Thomas R. Hoffman (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Damage Control Program), Roy Lowe (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS), Laimons Osis (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, ODFW), Ron Williams (ODFW), Doug Taylor (ODFW), Robin Brown (ODFW), T. Edwin Cummings (ODFW), Christopher N. Carter (ODFW), Michael Davis (OSU), Leslie Schaeffer (ODFW), Ric Brodeur (University of Washington), Deborah Davis (Hardin-Davis), Elzy Eltzroth, W. G. Pearcy (OSU), Dick Severson (Oregon Aqua-Foods), Thomas M. Riley (USFWS), Allen Hutchinson (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife), Diane Highberger (Oregon House staff), Marc Liverman (Portland Audubon Society), Robert G. Anthony (OSU), Bill Haight (ODFW), Russell D. Peterson (USFWS), Rick Klumph (ODFW), Jay Lorenz (OSU), Clair Kunkel (ODFW), Gene Stewart (ODFW), Jo Walin, and Penelope Fields (National Marine Fisheries Service).
I am grateful to Kathleen Confer, Roy Lowe (USFWS), Jon Anderson (USFWS), Laimons Osis (ODFW), Robin Brown (ODFW), Michael Davis (OSU), Bob Olson (OSU), and Sara Vickerman (Defenders of Wildlife) for thought-provoking ideas that have improved earlier drafts of this document.
I am also very thankful for constructive comments on earlier drafts by Steve Johnson (ODFW), Roy Lowe (USFWS), Jon Anderson (USFWS), Michael Davis (OSU), Stacia Sower (University of New Hampshire), and Bill Pearcy (OSU).
++++ p. *5-7 of SOO 6 are in the Contents file
++++ start of p. *8 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
***************************************************************************
Scientific names of animals cited are in Appendix I.
Throughout this monograph, Tables, Figures, sections, and subsections are labeled first by the Chapter in which they occur and then by their numerical or alphabetical order within a chapter. Thus, Table 3.5 refers to the fifth table in Chapter 3. Further, 4-D refers to Chapter 4, section D; and 5-E-2 refers to Chapter 5, section E, subsection 2.
Unless otherwise specified, all locations mentioned in the monograph are along the Oregon Coast. See the following map.
++++ See map (s6_map.gif).
++++ start of p. *9 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
***************************************************************************
*************************************************************************** 1-A. INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------- 9 1-B. HISTORICAL CONTROL OF FISH-EATING PREDATORS------------------------ 9 1-C. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CORMORANT CONTROL IN OREGON-----------------10 1-D. 1985 AND 1988 ADC INVOLVEMENT IN CORMORANT HARASSMENT--------------10 1-E. 1985 AND 1988 STEP INVOLVEMENT IN CORMORANT HARASSMENT-------------11 1-F. 1988 CORMORANT HARASSMENT BY ODFW PERMITTEES-----------------------12 1-G. 28 NOVEMBER 1988 ODFW MEETING ABOUT CORMORANT HARASSMENT-----------12 1-H. CORMORANT HARASSMENT IN 1989---------------------------------------13 1-I. OREGON HOUSE BILL 3185---------------------------------------------13 1-J. OREGON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION--------------------------------14 ***************************************************************************
Because cormorants and other fish-eating birds eat fish, fishermen have suspiciously regarded these birds for centuries. Thus, the cormorant/fisherman issue is not confined to Tillamook County, Oregon, in the 1980's.
Some fishermen have been upset at cormorants elsewhere in Oregon (e.g., Anderson and Gates 1983, Fies 1984, Shotwell 1984, 1989) and elsewhere around the world (e.g., Mattingley 1927, Mendall 1936, Bowmaker 1963: 3-4, 18 [good review], DesGranges and Reed 1981, Maine Cormorant Study Committee 1982, Winkler 1983, Vermeer and Rankin 1984, Craven and Lev 1987, Draulans 1987, Findlholt 1988, Broadway 1989, Trayler et al. 1989). Accordingly, some anglers have sought ways to illegally or legally control cormorants.
Since this issue is not unique to Tillamook County or to the 1980's, the historical control of fish-eating animals in North America and Oregon is examined in the following sections to provide some historical background. In subsequent sections, the legal requirements for harassment in Oregon, the known involvement of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Animal Damage Control (ADC) personnel, Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) volunteers, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) permittees in the 1988 cormorant harassment at Nehalem and Tillamook Bays are listed. Then, efforts in the Oregon Legislature and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 1989 to allow harassment are discussed.
Fish-eating animals have been legally or illegally harassed or killed for decades, if not centuries, in North America.
The extent of predator control has probably been best documented in Alaska. Bounty programs there for salmon predators were used prior to 1960; bounties were paid for more than 100,000 Bald Eagles, about 400,000 seals, and millions of predatory fish (Hubbs 1941, Meachem and Clark 1979). The bounty system there, as has been found elsewhere, was often abused and is not a recommended means of predator control (Hubbs 1941, White 1957, Cain et al. 1972, Meachem and Clark 1979).
Predatory fish in North America have often been considered the most frequent predators of salmon (Meachem and Clark 1979). Accordingly, it is not surprising that there have been many programs of control of predatory fish (including coho salmon and trout)(Foerster and Ricker 1941, Hubbs 1941, Vladykov 1943, M. W. Smith 1968, Shetter and Alexander 1970, Hadley 1979, Meachem and Clark 1979).
Fish-eating birds (particularly Common Mergansers and Belted Kingfishers) have also been subjected to predator control programs in North America (E. R. Hall 1925, Mendall 1936, White 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939a, 1953, 1957; Munro and Clemens 1937, Salyer and Lagler 1940, Huntsman 1941, Vladykov 1943, Elson 1962, Mills 1967, M. W. Smith 1968, Shetter and Alexander 1970, Erskine 1972, Alexander 1979, DesGranges and Reed 1981, Maine Cormorant Study Committee 1982, Vermeer and Rankin 1984, Craven and Lev 1987, Draulans 1987, Findholt 1988, Broadway 1989).
Marine mammals have also been controlled in attempts to increase salmon runs (e.g., Meachem and Clark 1979, Fiscus 1980, Everitt and Beach 1982).
I have not found any records of bounties being placed on either predatory fish or fish-eating birds in Oregon. Bounties for both seals and sea lions or just for seals were paid from about 1919-1933 throughout Oregon and from 1936-1972 on the Columbia River in Oregon (Oregon Fish Commission 1919, 1923, 1972; Everitt and Beach 1982). Bounties were recorded for over 10,600 marine mammals in Oregon (Mate in Everitt and Beach 1982:269). Killing of sea lions, without bounties, around the mouths of nine coastal streams was legal from 1947-1970 (Oregon Fish Commission 1970:9). Today, a major cause of mortality for seals and sea lions is still shooting (Stroud and Roffe 1979), most of which is probably illegal.
The only documentation that I have found for the informal or formal involvement of the Oregon Fish Commission, Oregon Game Commission, or their successor, the ODFW, in fish-eating bird control away from fish hatcheries is in Anderson and Gates (1983:10) and Shotwell (1989). K. Roach reported that in 1938 the Oregon Game Commission Director supplied Roach and three other men with a case of 600 shotgun shells and suggested that they shoot the nesting Double-crested Cormorants at Crane Prairie Reservoir in Deschutes County in central Oregon (Anderson and Gates 1983:10). The four men used all their shells during five hours on one day to shoot cormorants; the men then climbed nest trees and killed cormorant nestlings and destroyed their nests (Anderson and Gates 1983:10). Roach estimated that they killed about 1,300 cormorants (Shotwell 1989).
This may not have been an isolated instance, and there may have been other situations where the Oregon Fish Commission or Oregon Game Commission supplied ammunition or personnel to either kill or destroy nests of fish-eating birds.
++++ start of p. *10 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
Although formal programs for fish-eating bird control away from hatcheries appear to have been lacking in Oregon, fish-eating birds have been harassed or killed for years by private citizens. For example, Gabrielson and Jewett (1940:98) indicate that cormorants were subjected to continual persecution by sports and commercial fishermen along the Oregon Coast. Some of this persecution was legal because all cormorants, Common and Hooded Mergansers, and kingfishers could be legally killed through 1958 (Oregon State Game Commission 1957, 1959). Further, Belted Kingfishers and Double-crested Cormorants could be legally killed in Oregon until 1972 (Oregon State Game Commission 1971). Even today when these birds are supposedly protected, illegal shooting of fish-eating birds is a continuing significant problem (e.g., Eltzroth 1986, Eltzroth letter dated 17 October 1988).
The history of legal or illegal harassment or killing of fish-eating birds is long in Tillamook County. In the early 1900's, boats used to go to Three Arch Rocks for Sunday excursions to shoot nesting seabirds (Mathewson 1986:7). In the 1930's, Reed Ferris noted that fishermen were still killing or destroying nests of gulls, Double-crested Cormorants, and maybe other seabirds on Haystack Rock or at Cape Lookout (Ferris 1940, Bayer and Ferris 1987:108, 111).
Oregon fishermen's concerns about cormorants are not restricted to the Oregon Coast. In the 1980's, some fishermen have been highly upset about cormorants at Crane Prairie Reservoir in central Oregon (Fies 1984, Shotwell 1984, 1989; Anderson and Gates 1983). There, anglers would also like means of controlling cormorants (Shotwell 1989).
In Oregon, all cormorants could be killed without permit prior to 1958; later, Double-crested Cormorants could legally be shot until 1972 (Oregon State Game Commission 1957, 1959, 1971; USFWS 1969, Schmidt 1972).
Since mid-1972, cormorants have been legally protected; however, this does not mean that they have been safe from shooting and harassment. In Maine (Maine Cormorant Study Committee 1982:7), and probably also in Oregon, some fishermen have regarded the illegal shooting of cormorants as their prerogative.
Enforcement of nongame wildlife laws is lax in Oregon because there are too few game police, and enforcement is concentrated on game and fishery violations, not nongame violations. The existence of illegal shooting of fish-eating birds and raptors is indicated by these birds often being brought to bird rehabilitators with gunshot injuries (Eltzroth 1986, Eltzroth letter dated 17 October 1988), and it is unknown how many birds have been injured or killed and not brought to rehabilitators.
Illegal shooting or harassment of cormorants without the violators being caught would be relatively easy during the waterfowl hunting season when shooting is expected. But in April-June (when cormorant harassment is proposed), shooting is "out of season," so poaching of waterfowl or illegal shooting of nongame wildlife would be more conspicuous to police and to the general public. Accordingly, it is wise for people interested in shooting or harassing cormorants to do so legally, which requires that they contact government agencies and acquire the proper permits.
To kill cormorants, permits would be required from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The USFWS was contacted about issuing permits for killing cormorants or other fish-eating birds in the Tillamook area, but the USFWS indicated that such permits would not be authorized (Thomas M. Riley, USFWS Law Enforcement, letter dated 12 October 1988).
Thus, the only recourse to individuals wishing to control cormorants legally is to harass (haze) them. To harass cormorants, permits must only be issued through the State of Oregon because the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 21.4[a]) does not require a federal permit to harass migratory birds unless they are threatened or endangered (Thomas M. Riley, USFWS, letter dated 12 October 1988).
Oregon harassment permits must be authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (see section 1-J) or, in cases of emergency, the ODFW Director. This authority arises from Oregon Statute ORS 498.006, which was passed by the Oregon Legislature and states:
"Chasing or harassing wildlife prohibited. Except as the [Oregon
Fish and Wildlife] commission by [Oregon Administrative] rule may
provide otherwise, no person shall chase, harass, molest, worry or
disturb any wildlife except while engaged in lawfully angling for,
hunting or trapping such wildlife."
If the ODFW Director believes an emergency exists, the Director apparently has the authority to issue such permits under Oregon Statute ORS 496.118 (2), which states:
"In times of emergency, the [ODFW] director may exercise the full
powers of the [Oregon Fish and Wildlife] commission until such times as
the emergency ends or the commission meets in formal session."
(These and other Oregon Statutes relating to wildlife are available to the general public in the "Oregon Wildlife and Commercial Fishing Codes" book at ODFW offices and in some public libraries.)
To authorize cormorant harassment on public waters and lands, the Commission would have to amend or make new Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). The applicable Administrative Rules (OAR 635-43-105 and 635-43-110) only authorizes harassment permits to a landowner (or his or her agents) for harassing animals that are causing damage on his or her personal property.
To reduce wildlife damage, personnel from the Animal Damage Control Program (ADC), which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, can provide some harassment supplies and training in the use of supplies. But their personnel do not do harassment nor supervise the people to whom they give supplies or training (T. R. Hoffman, Oregon ADC Director, letter dated 5 October 1988). Further, the ADC requests users to purchase additional supplies at their own expense (Hoffman, letter dated 5 October 1988).
++++ start of p. *11 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
Although the ADC does not and can not issue permits for harassment, it has been actively involved in the cormorant harassment issue in Tillamook County. In the following sections, ADC involvement is outlined.
The ADC has supplied harassment supplies (cracker shells for 12 gauge shotguns and audio distress calls) and/or instructions for using them to Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) volunteers and private citizens that have harassed cormorants at Nehalem and Tillamook Bays (Hoffman, letter dated 26 September 1988).
ADC records indicate that in 1985, hazing supplies were issued by the ADC to the President of the Nehalem STEP group to be used by STEP volunteers in harassing cormorants (Hoffman, letter dated 13 October 1988). These supplies may have been issued in March 1985 (Hoffman and Hall 1988, which is reprinted in Appendix XI). The ADC does not have any records that indicate if these supplies were used or not. Doug Taylor, ODFW Wildlife Biologist at Tillamook, was not aware of any permit being issued by the ODFW to these STEP volunteers or any other individuals in 1985 or 1986 to legally harass cormorants (Taylor, letter dated 9 December 1988).
Although representing themselves as STEP volunteers to the ADC (e.g., Hoffman and Hall 1988), the harassers acted outside the authority of STEP because harassment has not been a STEP project and STEP staff was not contacted for approval of harassment (Rick Klumph, former STEP Biologist at Tillamook, letter dated 19 October 1988).
The ADC does not have any records in their files that indicate that they assisted anyone in the harassment of cormorants in 1986 or 1987 (Hoffman, letter dated 13 October 1988).
In 1988, the ADC gave two boxes of cracker shells for 12 gauge shotguns to Jim Erickson to be used in cormorant harassment (Hoffman, letter dated 13 October 1988). Also in 1988, the ADC was involved in the following study.
On 27 April 1988, ADC personnel participated in a "study" (Hoffman and Hall 1988, which is reprinted in Appendix XI) that has been used as "proof" that cormorants were eating substantial numbers of smolts (Erickson 1988b, McAllister 1988). The results of this study are also discussed in section 2-F-5.
Unfortunately, this "study" was marred by faulty methods. Although it was publicized that Brandt's Cormorants were collected (Hoffman and Hall 1988, McAllister 1988), color slides of some of the cormorants that were collected during the study and shown by Jim Erickson at the 28 November 1988 ODFW meeting (section 1-G) revealed that many, if not all, were actually Double-crested Cormorants.
Secondly, smolts found in the cormorants appear to have been misidentified. McAllister (1988) reported and Hoffman (letter dated 21 October 1988) concurred that most smolts were chinook smolts. However, at the 28 November 1988 ODFW meeting (section 1-G), Hoffman indicated that the ADC's identification of smolts may have been incorrect. Since coho smolts were the only juvenile salmonid released into the Tillamook Basin prior to the ADC study that would have contained 3-4 inch (7.6-10.2 cm) fish (unpubl. data), the "salmon" smolts found in cormorants were probably coho. A further indication that most salmon smolts may have been coho was that they formed the vast majority of all smolts released with 0.84 million released into the Tillamook Basin on 11 and 15 April 1988 (T. E. Cummings, ODFW Staff, letter dated 16 December 1988).
Finally, it is questionable if the techniques of dissection during this "study" were adequate to find otoliths of other fish that the cormorants may have been eating (e.g., see Appendix IX). Slides shown at the 28 November 1988 ODFW meeting (section 1-G) showed cormorants laying on the ground with their viscera spilled out on the grass, which is where they were evidently dissected. Reportedly, a pen knife was used to open up the cormorants. But to find and save otoliths, dissections need to be carefully done in a laboratory. Thus, the assertion in McAllister (1988) that these cormorants were only eating smolts is debatable.
While this study appears to have been done haphazardly, the blame does not rest solely on ADC personnel. Some STEP volunteers (again acting without official approval) had given ADC personnel the impression that this "study" was not only condoned by the ODFW but that ODFW biologists were going to help with the dissections and analysis (Hoffman, letter dated 21 October 1988, pers. comm.). The ODFW did not provide such assistance; it is also not clear if the ODFW knew of this "study" far enough in advance to provide such assistance. One ODFW employee did show up after some cormorants had been collected, but left shortly thereafter (Hoffman, letter dated 21 October 1988).
Part of the confusion in the cormorant predation issue has been the involvement of STEP volunteers in harassment. Supposedly, STEP projects must have the approval of the ODFW (ODFW 1985b) before they can be conducted. But harassment is not included as a project in the STEP objectives (ODFW 1985b).
STEP volunteers apparently first became involved in cormorant harassment in 1985 when the President of the Nehalem STEP group received supplies from the ADC to be used by Nehalem STEP volunteers (section 1-D-2). It is unknown if these STEP volunteers harassed cormorants; if they did, they may have done so illegally because they apparently did not have a permit (section 1-D-2).
In 1988, the harassment of cormorants by permit at Nehalem and Tillamook Bays was neither approved nor requested by ODFW personnel in charge of STEP, and they were not contacted for assistance (Rick Klumph, 1988 STEP Biologist at Tillamook, letter dated 19 October 1988). Participants in 1988 cormorant harassment, who were also STEP volunteers, were conducting harassment as private citizens, not as official representatives of STEP (Klumph, letter dated 19 October 1988).
The problem has been that some private citizens, who are also STEP volunteers, have been actively involved in harassment and have made it clearly known that they are with STEP. The inference then becomes that STEP is actively involved with harassment and that the ODFW implicitly approves all activities of STEP volunteers.
++++ start of p. *12 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
This problem has been clearest in the communication of STEP volunteers with ADC personnel (section 1-D-2). The ADC felt that actions of citizens identifying themselves as STEP volunteers were condoned by the ODFW (T. R. Hoffman, ADC Oregon Director, letter dated 5 October 1988; Hoffman and Hall 1988). But ADC personnel were not the only ones that were told that STEP volunteers were conducting harassment because STEP volunteers were also cited as being involved in the 1988 Nehalem Bay harassment in the Portland "Oregonian" newpaper (McAllister 1988).
In the spring of 1988, the ODFW Director, Randy Fisher, authorized the issuance of a series of permits to allow individuals to harass cormorants at Nehalem and Tillamook Bays. There has been some debate as to whether the ODFW Director had the authority to issue such permits, but as pointed out in section 1-C, it appears that the Director can declare an emergency, assume the powers of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, and issue such permits.
Details about the permits and known details about the harassment are given in the following sections.
WHO.--Permits were issued to Jim Erickson and his crew of two for harassment of cormorants at Nehalem Bay and to Sam Gallino and his crew of six for harassment at Tillamook Bay (Doug Taylor, ODFW Wildlife Biologist at Tillamook, letter dated 16 November 1988). Both Erickson and Gallino are fishing guides in the Tillamook area (Anonymous 1988a).
WHICH BIRD SPECIES.--The permits do not specify what species of cormorants are to be harassed, so all cormorants could be hazed with these permits (Taylor, letter dated 16 November 1988).
WHEN.--A series of permits, each lasting about two weeks, for 8 April-6 June 1988 at Nehalem Bay and 21 April-20 June 1988 were issued for Tillamook Bay (Taylor, letters dated 16 November and 9 December 1988).
WHERE.--The permits were to harass cormorants from "tidewater areas" of Nehalem and Tillamook Bays (Taylor, letter dated 16 November 1988). These are also the areas referred to as being where harassment occurred in newspaper articles (Hendrickson 1988a, McAllister 1988). Thus, cormorants were harassed from public waters.
WHAT.--The permits are for "hazing only" (Taylor, letter dated 16 November 1988). Killing of birds is not specifically noted as being prohibited in the permit, but permittees were probably told that killing was not allowed.
HOW.--Copies of two permits provided by Taylor (letter dated 16 November 1988) state that hazing is to be by "cracker shell only" or "shell cracker only."
Cracker shells (or shell crackers) commonly refer to shells that are shot in 12 gauge shotguns (Hawthorne 1980, Mott 1980, Salmon et al. 1986, McAllister 1988). These shells contain a firecracker that is projected about 50-100 yd (45-90 m) before exploding (Hawthorne 1980, Mott 1980, Salmon et al. 1986).
At the 13 April 1989 hearing before the Oregon House Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Committee (section 1-I-2), Erickson (1989c) passed a cracker shell around to members of the Committee and testified about cracker shells:
"They're a 12 gauge shotgun shell. Inside of them, if you peel back
this tape, is a firecracker that is ignited when the shotgun shell
goes off. It goes about 80 yards and goes off, with a bang. It's
about a M-60 firecracker, is what it amounts to."
Cracker shells were available to permittees. Two boxes of cracker shells for 12 gauge shotguns were given to Jim Erickson (one of the permittees) in 1988 by the ADC (Hoffman, letter dated 13 October 1988), and the Parks Foundation also purchased cracker shells for shotguns for the 1988 harassment program (Loren Parks, letter dated 21 September 1988).
Cracker shells were also used. Erickson and others during the 1988 harassment program were reported as using cracker shells shot from 12 gauge shotguns to harass cormorants (McAllister 1988).
At the 28 November 1988 ODFW meeting (section 1-G), Jim Erickson indicated that a starter's pistol was also used to shoot screamer shells or modified cracker shells to harass cormorants. In Erickson's oral (Erickson 1989c) and written (Erickson 1989d, which is reprinted in Appendix XV) testimony for the April 13 Hearing, he indicated that screamer shells were also used in harassing cormorants. These shells have a shorter range of 35-75 yd (33-69 m) but are less expensive and are easier to handle than cracker shells (Salmon et al. 1986).
In summary, all these shells were shot from firearms, and their purpose was to create enough noise to scare away birds (especially cormorants), not to kill them.
SUPERVISION OF PERMITTEES.--Permittees were apparently not observed by the ODFW to see if they abided by their permits (Bill Haight, ODFW Nongame Management, letter dated 17 October 1988). USFWS personnel also did not watch permittees to see if any threatened or endangered wildlife were intentionally or accidentally harassed (Thomas M. Riley, USFWS Law Enforcement, letter dated 12 October 1988). And as previously mentioned, it is not the policy of the ADC to supervise people to whom they give harassment supplies (Hoffman, letter dated 5 October 1988).
On November 28, the ODFW held a meeting at their Portland headquarters to discuss the cormorant harassment issue. Proponents of harassment (including Jim Erickson and Loren Parks) and opponents (including myself) were represented and expressed their viewpoints.
At the meeting, state, federal, and private biologists explained that while many species of mammals, fish, and birds prey on smolts, the actual impact of cormorants on salmon and steelhead returns is probably very small (ODFW News Release dated 1 December 1988).
++++ start of p. *13 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
At the end of the sometimes contentious meeting, Randy Fisher (ODFW Director) announced that the ODFW would not be issuing harassment permits to private citizens in 1989 as they did in 1988.
In spite of testimony that cormorants were probably causing little damage to smolts, harassment proponents were not satisfied and indicated that this issue might be brought to the Oregon Legislature (see section 1-I).
The ODFW did not issue any harassment permits for the spring of 1989, so any harassment then would have been illegal. Nevertheless, reports have continued of cormorants being targets of shots or harassment at both Nehalem and Tillamook Bays.
At Nehalem Bay, one individual that wishes to remain anonymous reports that some anglers used boats to deliberately chase away cormorants and other water birds. Other evidence that boats were used sometimes to harass cormorants was provided by Loren Parks (1989), a harassment supporter (section 6-I). In oral testimony before the House Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Committee on 13 April 1989, Parks (1989) stated that:
"Now [as of April 13, 1989] a lot of the smolts have already been
released. And we have people that are out there. And what they say,
they're just out in boats, and they can go into where the smolt ball
is and shoo away the birds but as soon as the boat leaves
the birds are right back on them."
At Tillamook Bay in 1989, cormorants have also been reported to have been shot at by fishermen. In mid-April 1989, Jo Walin (pers. comm.) found a dead cormorant that had been shot and that had washed up on the beach just north of Nehalem Bay.
In summary, there appears to have been some cormorant harassment in Tillamook County in 1989, but the degree of harassment is unknown.
Since the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission already had the authority by Oregon Statute to issue cormorant harassment permits (section 1-C) and harassment proponents wanted to start harassment in April 1989, it isn't clear why proponents went to the Oregon Legislature in the spring of 1989, instead of the Commission after the November 1988 ODFW Meeting. The Legislature has never been known for acting speedily, so it is difficult to believe that proponents thought that their Bill would pass fast enough to allow them to harass cormorants in the spring of 1989.
In any case, House Bill (HB) 3185 was introduced to the Oregon House of Representatives at the request of Jim Erickson (Appendix XII). The Bill was sponsored by three Representatives and two Senators (Appendix XII); four of the five sponsors represented coastal districts.
The main points of the original HB 3185 (Appendix XII) were:
1) The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission shall issue no more than three
permits to haze cormorants in 1989 and in 1990.
2) All cormorants, not just Double-crested Cormorants, could be harassed.
3) Harassment would be authorized in all Oregon coastal rivers.
4) There was no restriction on when harassment could occur during the year.
5) Permits would not authorize killing or trapping of cormorants.
Thus, HB 3185 broadened the scope of the cormorant harassment issue from being concerned with cormorants in Tillamook County during the spring to all Oregon coastal streams throughout the year.
The first reading of this Bill in the House was on March 3, and it was referred to the House Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Committee on March 7.
The first Committee hearing for this Bill was held on April 13. The chief sponsors, State Representatives Paul Hanneman (R-Tillamook) and Larry Sowa (D-Oregon City), spoke in favor of the Bill as did Jim Erickson, Loren Parks, and Jason Boe. Because Boe was President of the Oregon Senate for about eight years, he is quite knowledgeable about maneuvering bills through the Oregon Legislature, where he has been a paid lobbyist since 1983 (McDonough 1980, Ota 1987).
Oral or written testimony given at this Hearing is available in the State Archives or in the Oregon Legislative Library.
On April 20, 1989, the Committee held a work session. In view of some opposition to HB 3185 at the April 13 hearing (section 6-E-4), amendments to the Bill were suggested by Jason Boe.
The important amendments to HB 3185 (see Appendix XIII) were:
1) Items 3) and 4) in the original Bill were changed, so that harassment
would be limited to rivers flowing into Nehalem Bay or Tillamook Bay
from the time of release of hatchery smolts until June 30.
2) Harassment would be monitored by the ODFW.
After some discussion, the amended HB 3185 was passed on April 20 by a vote of 7 to 1 with one Committee member absent.
The language of these amendments is surprising because they were drafted by Hanneman and Boe, but, if passed, the amended HB 3185 would not have allowed harassment in Nehalem and Tillamook Bays, but only on rivers that flow into them. Harassment in 1988, however, occurred within both Bays (section 1-F "Where").
On May 1, the amended HB 3185 passed the
++++ start of p. *14 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | ReferencesOregon House of Representatives by a vote of 56 to 4. A discussion of the reasons for the one-sidedness of this vote is in sections 6-E and 6-F.
On May 2, the amended HB 3185 had its first reading in the Oregon Senate, and on May 5, it was referred to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. When the Senate adjourned July 4, this Bill had not even been scheduled for a Hearing by the Senate Committee.
On June 11, perhaps to broaden support for this Bill and to extract it from the Senate Committee, a misleading article in Oregon's largest newspaper (the Portland "Oregonian") mistakenly indicated that HB 3185 would allow cormorant harassment in central Oregon (Shotwell 1989). Central Oregon fishermen were reported to be excited about the passage of this Bill (Shotwell 1989); this article may have encouraged them to contact their legislators to pass it. Prior to this time, most supporters were only from Tillamook County.
This Bill died, when the Oregon Legislature adjourned, without passing HB 3185.
The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is composed of seven private Oregon citizens that are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Each Commissioner has a term of four years and can be reappointed.
As pointed out in section 1-C, the Commission could authorize cormorant harassment permits by making or changing Administrative Rules. Perhaps because HB 3185 was taking so long getting through the Oregon House, Jim Erickson formally requested the Commission to consider issuing harassment permits on 24 April 1989 (Erickson 1989e, which is reprinted in Appendix XIV). Since there is a requirement that there be a 30 day public notice of such items, the first Commission meeting for which the permit issue could be considered was on June 3, 1989. The hearing on this issue was duly scheduled for June 3 during the Commission's regular meeting, but on May 19 the hearing was delayed to July 21 at the request of a harassment proponent (Rod Ingram, ODFW Staff, letter dated 19 May 1989).
The original purpose of the July 21 hearing was to take oral and written public testimony and to make a decision on whether or not to change Oregon Administrative Rules to allow harassment (hazing) permits to private individuals for coastal rivers and estuaries. Harassment was not proposed to be limited within a year (e.g., spring) or to place (e.g., Nehalem and Tillamook Bays). It was proposed that the harassment would require monitoring by ODFW personnel at a cost of about $8,000/river estuary for 3.5 months.
On 11 July 1989, the purpose of the July 21 hearing was changed by the ODFW. Instead of deciding on whether or not to allow cormorant harassment, the new purpose would be for Commissioners to reconsider (without public testimony) accepting the petition for issuing permits for cormorant harassment. If the Commission decided to accept the petition, then another hearing date would be set up in which public testimony would be accepted about giving permits to harass cormorants.
The ODFW changed the purpose of the July 21 hearing in response to the passage of HB 2735 that directed the ODFW to study the dietary habits of smolt predators and methods of increasing smolt survival rates (Rod Ingram, ODFW staff, letter dated 14 July 1989).
At their July 21 meeting, the Commission decided not to accept the petition to allow cormorant harassment permits.
++++ start of p. *15 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
2-A. INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------15
2-B. CONFLICT AMONG FISHERMEN: A FEW COASTAL STREAM SPORTS FISHERMEN
FEEL THEY ARE NOT GETTING THEIR SHARE OF SALMON AND RESENT
PREDATORS TAKING ANY SALMON-------------------------------------15
2-C. EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT OF STEP VOLUNTEERS IN RAISING SALMON----------16
2-D. PERCEPTION THAT SALMON AND STEELHEAD RUNS ARE APPROACHING RUIN------16
2-E. PERCEPTION THAT PREDATORS ARE DESTROYING SALMON AND STEELHEAD RUNS--24
2-F. PERCEPTION THAT CORMORANTS ARE DESTROYING SALMON AND STEELHEAD
RUNS------------------------------------------------------------24
2-G. PERCEPTION THAT CORMORANT HARASSMENT CAN "SAVE" SMOLTS--------------30
2-H. "PROOF" THAT 1988 HARASSMENT WAS SUCCESSFUL-------------------------30
2-I. PERCEPTION THAT IF PREDATION IS REDUCED, THEN FISHERMEN'S CATCHES
WOULD INCREASE--------------------------------------------------32
2-J. SPREAD OF PERCEPTIONS VIA NEWS MEDIA AND ANGLER'S CLUBS-------------34
****************************************************************************
Taken separately or together, the reasons outlined above form the ingredients that have made cormorant predation of smolts an explosive and unadvoidable issue among a few Tillamook County fishing guides and fishermen. Below, each of these ingredients is examined.
Salmon and steelhead are no longer an unlimited resource, and there is competition among various groups for a better "share" of the catch. Along the Oregon Coast, the various fishing interests include ocean commercial troll fishermen, ocean sports fishermen, ocean charter boat operators, private salmon aquaculture companies, coastal stream sports fishermen, and coastal stream fishing guides.
While sometimes these various groups agree, they often fight among themselves to increase each's own share of the salmon "pie" and are often suspicious of each other's motives (e.g., C. L. Smith 1979, Wright 1981, K. Johnson 1983, Walker et al. 1983, Hanneman 1986a, b; Martin 1986, Anonymous 1988d)(also see Table 2.1).
One example of the conflict between commercial and sports fishermen is the efforts by the Northwest Steelheaders (a sports fishing group) to eliminate the commercial gill net fishery for spring chinook in the Columbia River (Anonymous 1987c). Further evidence of a rift between commercial and sports fishermen is that the Executive Director of Northwest Steelheaders has indicated that salmon should be managed more for the recreational fishery (Anonymous 1988d), which can only happen at the expense of the commercial fishery.
Further, at least one sports fisherman (Dodrill 1989), who formerly resided in Tillamook County, worries that there are too many river guides who commercially exploit salmon and steelhead.
Some coastal stream fishermen are also concerned about coastal stream fishermen overfishing returning fish in Tillamook County. For example, fisherman Dodrill (1989) thought that the Portland "Oregonian" newspaper was too explicit in pointing out good fishing areas and techniques for Tillamook streams. Subsequently, returning salmon and steelhead may not have much of a chance of escaping to spawn because they could be caught by a gauntlet of stream fishermen (Dodrill 1989).
Because there are so many different special interest fishing groups, it is not surprising that they often disagree. For example, some sports fishermen and fishing groups such as Oregon Trout want wild salmon and steelhead to be more protected (e.g., Bakke 1989). In contrast, other fishermen and fishing groups are only concerned with catching more fish now, even if wild fish are irrevocably harmed and the loss of wild fish may result in lower future catches (e.g., see Appendix VIII).
It is apparent that it is impossible for the ODFW to manage salmon fisheries to everyone's satisfaction with such discordant interests. Thus, it is inevitable that the ODFW's management of the salmon and steelhead fisheries will be severely criticized, no matter what the ODFW does (Gunsolus 1980)(also see section 6-D).
Some coastal stream sports fishermen may feel slighted because they get so few salmon (usually less than 3%) compared to the ocean commercial or ocean sports fisheries (Table 2.1). Stream fishermen have tried to get a bigger share of the salmon "pie" without success, so some of them may feel frustrated and, subsequently, resentful of predators. It is easier to take their frustration out on predators than on other fishermen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------TABLE 2.1. Coho salmon catch by Oregon ocean commercial troll, ocean sports, and coastal stream sports fishermen. Data are from ODFW (1987) and McQueen et al. (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of Coho..... % of Total Coho.......
Coho Salmon Fishery 1977 1980 1982 1985 1977 1980 1982 1985
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Commercial Troll 446 383 522 84 68 53 73 30
Ocean Sports 195 326 175 182 30 46 25 64
Coastal Stream Sports 14 6 15 16 2 1 2 6
TOTAL 655 715 712 282 100 100 100 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
++++ start of p. *16 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
Another reason that the cormorant issue was inevitable is the growth of the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) in Tillamook County. Tillamook County volunteers have included individual fishermen, fishing groups, school classes, prison inmates, and interested individuals (e.g., Anonymous 1984a, 1985a, 1986a, 1986c, 1987b, 1988b, 1988c; Hendrickson 1988b, 1988c).
Some STEP volunteers monitor hatchboxes and release juvenile fish. Some of these volunteers, like farmers or parents, are naturally going to feel a strong emotional tie to the fish they raise and are going to be upset if any of "their" fish may be eaten by predators.
STEP supervisors can explain to volunteers that predation is a natural process and that many of the fish will survive and produce the good catches of recent years (Figs. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 in 2-D-7). However, some volunteers may intellectually understand but not emotionally accept this and be resentful of predators.
Some Tillamook fishing guides and fishermen have argued that control of salmon predators is necessary to save salmon and steelhead runs from ruin (e.g., B. C. 1986, Erickson 1986, 1988a, b; Hendrickson 1987, 1988a). For example, Loren Parks (1989) testified at the 13 April 1989 House Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Committee Hearing:
"At first, I think that a lot of people don't realize what the
problem is. The problem is that fishing stinks, the fishing for
steelhead salmon and for silver [coho] salmon. The steelhead fishing
has been especially bad. It's gone downhill year after year. The
silver salmon seasons have been shortened until they were really very
short last year."
Fishermen may feel that the runs are declining because the total number of fish caught is declining, because the number of fish per fisherman is declining, or because the length of the seasons is decreasing. Each of these possibilities is examined in the following subsections.
Recent catches of salmon or steelhead are not at disastrous levels at Nehalem or Tillamook Bays (Figs. 2.1, 2.3, and 2.5 in 2-D-7) or along the Oregon Coast as a whole (Figs. 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6). For example, current ocean catches of coho generally surpass those before 1970 (Appendix III) and are similar to those of 1966, 1968-1969, 1972-1973, 1975, and 1977-1979 (Fig. 2.2, Appendix III). Recent commercial and sports catches of chinook are better than most years since 1970 (Fig. 2.2, Appendix IV). Further, the value of commercial troll caught coho and chinook in 1988 had only been surpassed in two of the previous 17 years (Fig. 2.4).
Recent winter steelhead catches are also better than in many past years, and summer steelhead catches are similar to many other years during the 1970's and 1980's and are higher than those in the 1960's (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6).
The only "problem" salmon or steelhead fishery along the Oregon Coast is the coastal stream sports fishery for spring chinook, but even recent catches for this fishery are at levels comparable with several other years beginning in 1969 (Fig. 2.3, Appendix IV-D).
Some fishermen may dwell on being gloomy about salmon fisheries because they may fondly remember the exceptional coho catches of some of the 1970's and especially the outstanding coho catch of 1976 (Fig. 2.2, Appendix III). What has been forgotten is that these catches were an anomaly due to very favorable ocean conditions that are infrequent and irregular (see section 2-I-5). Fishermen may also forget that current coho catches are similar to those of 1966, 1968-1969, 1972-1973, 1975, and 1977-1979 (Fig. 2.2).
Fishermen may disagree among themselves on what constitutes a "good" fishing year. For example, commercial troll fishermen would have thought 1985 was disastrous compared to 1982 because their 1985 coho catches were low, but ocean sports and coastal stream fishermen would both have regarded 1985 as somewhat better than 1982 (Table 2.1). Further, in spite of similar total coho catches for 1977, 1980, and 1982; commercial troll and coastal stream fishermen would have considered their 1977 and 1982 catches better than in 1980, but ocean sports fishermen could vigorously disagree because their coho catch in 1980 was markedly better than in 1977 or 1982 (Table 2.1).
In summary, salmon and steelhead catches fluctate from year to year, they are currently in reasonable condition, and it is probably impossible to simultaneously satisfy all salmon and steelhead fishing interests.
Even if the total number of fish remains relatively unchanged, fishermen can believe that there are fewer fish. This can result if the number of fishermen increases so that each fisherman catches fewer fish or if fishing effort increases without a commensurate increase in catches.
Using the number of ocean salmon fishing trips as an index of fishing effort, the number of trips dipped in 1984 but has increased since then to levels still below that of 1979 and 1980 (Fig. 2.7) The number of coho or chinook caught per fishing trip has remained relatively constant since 1979 and is certainly not declining yearly (Fig. 2.7). Data on the number of ocean fishing trips prior to 1979 are available but are not comparable because those trips includes nonsalmon fishing trips (McQueen et al. 1988:40).
There are no data available to determine if the salmon catch per unit effort for coastal stream sports fishermen has declined in Oregon. There are, however, data about steelhead catches and fishermen's effort for one Oregon coastal stream, the Alsea River (Kenaston 1987). For the Alsea, it is clear that the total number of steelhead caught and the number of steelhead caught/100 hours of fishing is not declining, even though the number of fishing hours has been increasing in recent years (Fig. 2.8). The strong
++++ start of p. *17 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | Referencesrelationship between catch and fishing effort is apparent from Alsea catch data because for the 1960-1961 through 1986-1987 seasons, there was a significant correlation between the total number of steelhead caught and total hours fished (r=0.84, two-tailed P<0.01) or between total steelhead caught and steelhead caught/100 hours (r=0.77, two-tailed P<0.01)(calculated from Kenaston 1987:5).
Unfortunately, data about commercial troll fishing effort and catch per unit effort (CPUE)(i.e., coho or chinook per boat day) are not available prior to 1979. Nevertheless, it is apparent that fishing effort (Fig. 2.9) and CPUE's for coho or chinook (Fig. 2.10) are not declining. In fact, fishing effort was greater in 1988 than in 1979-1987 (Fig. 2.9), and recent chinook CPUE's have increased (Fig. 2.10). In spite of poor coho CPUE's in 1984 and 1985, recent coho CPUE's are similar to 1979-1983 CPUE's (Fig. 2.10).
There is no question that commercial and ocean sports salmon fisheries are currently more restricted and shorter than in the past (e.g., McQueen et al. 1988:4-7, 34-35). So even though total catches and catches per unit effort are not approaching ruin, some fishermen and charter boat owners perceive the shortened seasons as evidence that salmon runs are poor and want longer seasons.
Although obvious short-term solutions to this problem is to extend seasons, increase harvest rates, or increase the number of salmon; these solutions all have problems. For example, extending seasons without having more fish will just lead to a bonanza 1-2 years and then a marked decline in available salmon because of overfishing. Increasing the percentage of salmon that are caught will lead to overfishing of wild fish, which may be detrimental to the long-term health of the salmon fisheries (Appendix VIII: section D-4). Finally, increasing hatchery releases has not led to an increased number of returning adults (e.g., Pearcy 1988), so increasing the number of available salmon may be more under the control of nature (e.g., upwelling, section 2-I-5) than of humans.
Another reason that just increasing the number of salmon for fishermen won't help solve this problem is that if there were more salmon to be caught, fishing effort and the number of sports fishermen would increase commensurately (see section 6-K). The result would be the same: regulations and shortened seasons would have to be reinstated to save salmon from overfishing, and some fishermen would again be complaining that the runs are poor.
Public relations and communication are the most important ways of dealing with the problem of restricted seasons and regulations. ODFW fisheries managers need to inform fishermen that total catches and catches per unit effort are good and that the ocean doesn't have an unlimited supply of salmon. Fishermen need to be made aware of the concept of carrying capacity, and the fact that the supply of salmon will probably never be adequate to satisfy their demand.
When catch statistics are examined, it is apparent that fishermen's catches along the Oregon Coast are not approaching ruin as some fishermen claim. On the contrary, catches in some salmon fisheries are at levels higher than when predators were not protected. However, facts such as catch statistics make no difference, if a few fishermen refuse to believe them because they don't support their feelings or if they want unlimited fishing seasons.
++++ start of p. *18 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
1970-1986 NEHALEM COHO
6-|
| X
T -| X X
H | X X
O 5-| X X
U | X X
S -| X X
A | X X
N 4-| X X
D | X X
S -| X X 1986
| X X X X LEVEL
O 3-| X X X X |
F | X-X-X-X-X-----------------------X
-| X X X X X X X
C | X X X X X X X
O 2-| X X X X X X X
H | X X X X X X X
O -| X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X X X
1-| X X X X X X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
|__________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | *
1970 1975 1980 1985
1970-1986 TILLAMOOK COHO
6-|
|---------------------------------X
T -| | X
H | 1986 X
O 5-| LEVEL X
U | X
S -| X
A | X
N 4-| X
D | X
S -| X
| X
O 3-| X
F | X
-| X X
C | X X
O 2-| X X X X X X
H | X X X X X X X X X
O -| X X X X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X X X
1-| X X X X X X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
|__________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | *
1970 1975 1980 1985
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 2.2. Oregon ocean commercial troll, ocean sports, and coastal stream sports catches of coho or chinook. Data are from Berry (1981), Mullen (1981), K. Johnson (1983), ODFW (1987), and McQueen et al. (1988); preliminary 1986 coastal stream sports data are from Ron Williams (ODFW Biologist, pers. comm.), and preliminary 1988 ocean catch data are from Laimons Osis (ODFW Biologist, pers. comm.). Coastal stream data do not include catches in the Columbia River or its tributaries. 1987-1988 coastal stream sports catch data are not available, so 1987-1988 records underestimate the total catch in 1987 and 1988. For separate analyses of ocean commercial, ocean sports, and coastal stream sports catches, see Appendix III for coho and Appendix IV for chinook.
1966-1988 OREGON COAST 1971-1988 OREGON COAST
COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND SPORTS
SPORTS CATCH OF COHO CATCH OF CHINOOK
2400-| 600-| ?
| X | ?
-| X -| 1988 ?
| X | LEVEL ?
T -| X T -| | ?
H | X H | ----------------X??
O 1800-| X X O 450-| X X X??
U | X X U | X X X??
S -| X X S -| X X X??
A | X X A | X X X??
N -| X X X X N -| X X X X??
D | X XX X X D | X X X X??
S 1200-| X XX X X 1988 S 300-| XXXXX X X XX??
| XX XXXXX X LEVEL | XXXXXXXX X XX??
O -| XX XXXXX X | O -| XXXXXXXX X XX??
F | -XXXXXXXXXXX-XX--------? F | XXXXXXXXXXX XX??
-| XXXXXXXXXXX XX X ? -| XXXXXXXXXXX XX??
C | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X ? C | XXXXXXXXXXXX XX??
O 600-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X ? H 150-| XXXXXXXXXXXX XX??
H | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X?? I | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX??
O -| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX?? N -| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX??
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX?? O | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX??
-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?? O -| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX??
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?? K | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX??
0-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?? 0-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX??
|___________________________ |_________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990
++++ start of p. *19 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | ReferencesFIGURE 2.3. Sports fall or spring chinook catches in the Nehalem or Tillamook Basins for 1970-1986. See Fig. 2.1 legend for areas included in these Basins. There is no spring chinook run in the Nehalem Basin. Data are from Berry (1981), ODFW (1987), and Nicholas and Hankin (1988); 1986 preliminary data are from Ron Williams (ODFW Biologist, pers. comm.).
1969-1986 NEHALEM 1969-1986 TILLAMOOK
FALL CHINOOK FALL CHINOOK
T 2-| 20-|
H | |
O | 1986 |
U | Level | X
S | | | X
A -| ----------------X 15-| 1986 X
N | X | Level X
D | X X | | X
S | X X | --------XX-X----X
| X X | XXX X X X
O 1-| X X 10-| X X XXX X XXX
F | X X X | X X XXXXXX XXX
| X X XXX | XX XX XXXXXXX XXX
C | X X XXX |XXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX
H |X XXXX X XXX |XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
N -|X X XXXXXXXXXX 5-|XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
O |XXX XXXXXXXXXX |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
O |XXXX XXXXXXXXXX |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
K |XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0-|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0-|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|__________________ |__________________
| | | | | | | |
1970 1980 1970 1980
1969-1986 TILLAMOOK
SPRING CHINOOK
T 4-|
H |
O | XX
U | XX
S | XX
A 3-| XX
N | XX
D | XX
S | XXXX
| XXXX
O 2-| XXXX
F | XXXXX
| X XXXXXXX
C | X XXXXXXX
H | X XXXXXXXXXX
N 1-| X XXXXXXXXXX X 1986
O | X XXXXXXXXXX X LEVEL
O | XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX |
K |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-------
|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0-|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|__________________
| | | |
1970 1980
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 2.4. Value to Oregon ocean commercial troll fishermen at landing of coho and chinook catches for 1971-1988. 1971-1987 data are from PFMC (1988), and preliminary 1988 data are from B. Hall (1988). The value for each year, except 1988, are in terms of the value of 1987 dollars.
30-| VALUE OF OCEAN COMMERCIAL TROLL CATCH OF COHO AND CHINOOK
|
M | $
I | $
L | $ $
L 25-| $ $
I | $ $ 1988
O | $ $ LEVEL
N | $ $ |
S | ---------------$--------$--------------------------$
20-| $ $ $ $
O | $ $ $ $
F | $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $
D | $ $ $ $ $ $ $
O 15-| $ $ $ $ $ $ $
L | $ $ $ $ $ $ $
L | $ $ $ $ $ $ $
A | $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
R | $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
S 10-| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
5-| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
0-| $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
|____________________________________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * *
1970 1975 1980 1985
++++ start of p. *20 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | ReferencesFIGURE 2.5. Sports winter or summer steelhead catches in the Nehalem or Tillamook Basins. Data for winter steelhead are for the 1970-71 through 1984-85 run years; data are not yet available for the winter steelhead 1985-86 run year. Data for summer steelhead are for the 1970-71 through 1985-86 run years. See Fig. 2.1 legend for areas included in these Basins. The summer steelhead catch in the Nehalem Basin is negligible (i.e, less than 100/year). Data are from Berry (1981) and ODFW (1987); 1986 preliminary data for summer steelhead are from Ron Williams (ODFW Biologist, pers. comm.).
NEHALEM TILLAMOOK
WINTER STEELHEAD WINTER STEELHEAD
T 10-| --------------X 25-|
H | | X |
O | 1984-85 X | X
U | LEVEL X | X
S | X | X
A 8-| XX 20-| X
N | XX | X
D | XX | XX
S | X XX | XX
| X X XX | XX
O 6-| X X XX 15-| XX X X
F | X X XX | XX X X
| X X XX | XX X X X
S | XXX X X XX | XX XX X X 1984-85
T | XXX X X XX | XXXXX XXX LEVEL
E 4-| XXXXX X XX XX 10-| XXXXX XXX |
E | XXXXX X XX XX | XXXXX-XXXX----X
L | XXXXXXXX XX XX | XXXXXXXXXXX X
H | XXXXXXXXXXX XX | XXXXXXXXXXXX XX
E | XXXXXXXXXXX XXX | XXXXXXXXXXXX XX
A 2-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
D | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|_________________ |_________________
| | | | | | | |
1970- 1980- 1970- 1980-
1971 1981 1971 1981
TILLAMOOK
SUMMER STEELHEAD
T 5-|
H |
O |
U |
S |
A 4-|
N | X
D | X
S | X X X
| X XX X X
O 3-| X XX X X 1985-86
F | X XX X X LEVEL
| X XX X X |
S | -XX-XX-XX--X---X-------
T | XX XX XX X X
E 2-| XXX XXXXX X X
E | XXX XXXXXXXX X
L | XXX XXXXXXXX XX
H | XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX
E | XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX
A 1-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
D | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0-| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|_________________
| | | |
1970- 1980-
1971 1981
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 2.6. Oregon coastal stream sports catches of summer (S) or winter (W) steelhead for 1962-1985. Data are from ODFW (1986) and do not include catches in the Columbia River or its tributaries.
1962-1985 COASTAL STREAM SPORTS CATCH OF SUMMER (S) STEELHEAD
T 40-|
H |
O | 1985 S S S S S
U | LEVEL S S S S S
S | | S S S S S S S S S S
A 20-| ----------------S-S-S---S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S---S-S
D | S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S | S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
| S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
| S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
0-| S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
|_______________________________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * |
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
1962-1985 COASTAL STREAM SPORTS CATCH OF WINTER (W) STEELHEAD
120-|
| 1985 LEVEL W
| | W W
T | ------------------W-------W-------------------W
H | W W W W W W
O 100-| W W W W W W
U | W W W W W W
S | W W W W W W W
A | W W W W W W W W W
N | W W W W W W W W W
D 80-| W W W W W W W W W W W
S | W W W W W W W W W W W W W
| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
O | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
F | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
60-| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
S | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
T | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
E | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
E | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
L 40-| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
H | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
E | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
A | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
D | W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
20-| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
0-| W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
|_______________________________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * |
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
++++ start of p. *21 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | ReferencesFIGURE 2.7. Number of salmon fishing trips and number of coho or chinook caught per fishing trip by Oregon ocean sports fishermen. 1979-1987 data are from McQueen et al. (1988:40); preliminary 1988 data are from Laimons Osis (ODFW Biologist, pers. comm.). Data prior to 1979 are available but are not comparable because they include nonsalmon fishing trips (McQueen et al. 1988:40).
T 400-| OREGON OCEAN SPORTS FISHERMEN'S FISHING EFFORT
H |
O |
U |
S |
A 350-|
N |
D | X
S | X
| X X
O 300-| X X X
F | X X X
| X X X NUMBER OF SALMON FISHING TRIPS
S | X X X
A | X X X X
L 250-| X X X X X X
M | X X X X X X
O | X X X X X X X X
N | X X X X X X X X
| X X X X X X X X
T 200-| X X X X X X X X
R | X X X X X X X X X
I | X X X X X X X X X
P | X X X X X X X X X
S | X X X X X X X X X
150-| X X X X X X X X X X
|____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | |
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
OREGON OCEAN SPORTS FISHERMEN'S COHO/FISHING TRIP
1.20-|
-| X
1.10 | X
-| X
1.00-| X X
-| X X
C 0.90-| X X X
O -| X X X
H 0.80-| X X X X
O -| X X X X X X X
0.70-| X X X X X X X
P -| X X X X X X X X X
E 0.60 | X X X X X X X X X X
R -| X X X X X X X X X X
0.50-| X X X X X X X X X X
T -| X X X X X X X X X X
R 0.40-| X X X X X X X X X X
I -| X X X X X X X X X X
P 0.30-| X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X
0.20-| X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X
0.10-| X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X
0-| X X X X X X X X X X
|____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | |
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
C OREGON OCEAN SPORTS FISHERMEN'S CHINOOK/FISHING TRIP
H 0.50-|
I -|
N 0.40-|
O -|
O 0.30-|
K -|
0.20-| O O O
P -| O O O O O
E 0.10-| O O O O O O O O O
R -| O O O O O O O O O O
0-| O O O O O O O O O O
T |____________________________________________________________
R | | | | | | | | | |
I 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
P
++++ start of p. *22 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | ReferencesFIGURE 2.8. Total steelhead caught, steelhead caught/100 hours of fishing, and total hours of fishing on the Alsea River for the 1960-1961 through 1986-1987 fishing seasons. These data are derived from Kenaston (1987:5). There are no data for the 1970-1971 through 1974-1975 seasons.
15-| TOTAL STEELHEAD CAUGHT
-|
-| X
12-| X
T -| X
H -| X X
O 9-| X X
U -| X X
S -| X X X X
A 6-| X X X X X
N -| X X X X X X X X X X X X X
D -| X X X X X X No X X X X X X X X
S 3-| X X X X X X X X Data X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
|______________________________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | *
-| STEELHEAD CAUGHT/100 HOURS OF FISHING
STEEL- 9-| X
HEAD -| X X X
-| X X X
PER 6-| X X X X No X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X Data X X X X X X X X
100 -| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
3-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
HOURS -| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
|______________________________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | *
150-| TOTAL HOURS FISHED FOR STEELHEAD X
-| X
-| X X X
120- X X X
T -| X X X X X X X
H -| X X X X X X X X X
O 90-| X X X X X X X X X X X X
U -| X X X X X X No X X X X X X X X
S -| X X X X X X X Data X X X X X X X X X X
A 60-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
N -| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
D -| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
S 30- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0-| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
|______________________________________________________
| * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | * * * * | *
1960- 1965- 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985-
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986
++++ start of p. *23 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index |FIGURE 2.9. Fishing effort (thousands of boat days) by Oregon ocean commercial troll fishermen.
T 60-|
H -| OREGON OCEAN COMMERCIAL TROLL FISHERMEN'S FISHING EFFORT
O -| X
U -| X
S -| X X
A 45-| X X X
N -| X X X
D -| X X X X X
S -| X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X
O 30-| X X X X X X X
F -| X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X
B -| X X X X X X X X X
O -| X X X X X X X X X
A 15-| X X X X X X X X X
T -| X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X
D -| X X X X X X X X X X
A -| X X X X X X X X X X
Y 0-| X X X X X X X X X X
S |____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | |
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 2.10. Coho or chinook caught per boat day by Oregon ocean commercial troll fishermen. 1979-1987 data are from McQueen et al. (1988:14), and preliminary 1988 data are from Laimons Osis (ODFW Biologist, pers. comm.).
20-| OREGON OCEAN COMMERCIAL TROLL FISHERMEN'S COHO CATCH/BOAT DAY
-|
-|
-|
F -|
I 15-| X X X
S -| X X X X X
H -| X X X X X
-| X X X X X X
P -| X X X X X X
E 10-| X X X X X X X X
R -| X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X
B -| X X X X X X X X
O -| X X X X X X X X
A 5-| X X X X X X X X
T -| X X X X X X X X X
-| X X X X X X X X X
D -| X X X X X X X X X X
A -| X X X X X X X X X X
Y 0-| X X X X X X X X X X
|____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | |
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
F OREGON OCEAN COMMERCIAL TROLL FISHERMEN'S CHINOOK CATCH/BOAT DAY
I 15-|
S -|
H -| O
-| O O
P -| O O
E 10-| O O O
R -| O O O O
-| O O O O O
B -| O O O O O O
O -| O O O O O O O
A 5-| O O O O O O O O
T -| O O O O O O O O O O
-| O O O O O O O O O O
D -| O O O O O O O O O O
A -| O O O O O O O O O O
Y 0-| O O O O O O O O O O
|____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | |
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
++++ start of p. *24 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | References
Smolt "predators" that have been publicly mentioned by a few Tillamook County fishing guides and fishermen as possibly needing to be controlled include marine mammals (Anonymous 1986b, Erickson 1986, 1988a; Hendrickson 1987), cormorants (Erickson 1988b, Hendrickson 1988a, McAllister 1988), Brown Pelicans (Tillamook Anglers 1988), and Great Blue Herons (fisherman at the 28 November 1988 ODFW meeting, section 1-G). Another fisherman (B. C. 1986) writes that even ducks are a problem:
"The biologists seem to forget about all the smolt they release to the
fish, ducks and seals. The predators get most of them before they get
to the mouth of the ocean."
At Tillamook and Nehalem Bays, one fishing guide, Jim Erickson, recognizes that gulls can also be smolt predators. During a video presentation at the 13 April 1989 House Hearing (section 1-I-2), Jim Erickson (1989c) testified:
"Now you can see the cormorants. Now these are coming in from out in
the ocean and also flying in, and you got the sea gulls right on top
of them. The cormorant is the key element in this smolt predation
because they drive them [the smolts] to the top, and the sea gulls are
in there along with the cormorants and eating them up, like you can't
imagine it."
What Erickson has overlooked is that gulls can also prey on smolts, even if cormorants were absent. After smolt releases in Yaquina Estuary, I commonly observed gulls feeding on smolts, without any cormorants or other diving birds being nearby. Gulls would often just sit on the water, look around, and grab a smolt when it jumped nearby. Further, predatory fish can also drive smolts to the surface where they are available to gulls.
Since fish-eating birds attracted to a smolt release are so conspicuous but predatory fish are not visible, some proponents of cormorant harassment fail to realize that many smolts are also being eaten by predatory fish. For example, striped bass and adult and subadult salmonids are known to prey extensively on salmon smolts (section 3-E); in fact, adult coho predation of coho smolts has been suggested to be a major reason for reduced coho smolt survival (e.g., Nickelson 1986). Although some fishermen feel that striped bass should be controlled because they are a smolt predator, other anglers disagree because they like catching striped bass (Monroe 1989).
Paranoia about smolt predators is not borne out by Oregon catch statistics of salmon and steelhead, since catches by fishermen do not appear to bear any relationship with predator protection. Elsewhere, control of bird predators of Atlantic salmon has not been found to increase fishermen's catches of adult salmon (section 3-A).
Protection of marine mammals, Belted Kingfishers, and cormorants by Oregon or U.S. law did not become fully implemented until the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and changes in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in May 1972 (USFWS 1969, Anonymous 1971, Schmidt 1972).
Catch data actually indicate that some of the best Oregon Coast catches of coho, chinook, and steelhead came after marine mammals, kingfishers, and cormorants were fully protected by law in 1972 (Figs. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, Appendices III and IV). Similarly, some recent sports catches of coho at the Tillamook Basin, chinook at Nehalem or Tillamook Basins, winter steelhead at Nehalem Basin, and summer steelhead at Tillamook Basin have also been higher after predator "protection" (Figs. 2.1, 2.3, and 2.5).
Recent coho catches at the Nehalem Basin and winter steelhead at the Tillamook Basin, however, are not as great as 1970-1971 catches (Figs. 2.1 and 2.5). The reason for the lower catches is unclear but may be unrelated to predator "protection." If data prior to 1970 and data for 1987-1988 were available, it might be clear that current catches are comparable to or greater than some of the pre-protection catches for these fisheries, also. Neither fishery appears to be anywhere close to "ruin" (Figs. 2.1 and 2.5).
As just pointed out, some catches have been greater since predator protection. Nevertheless, there has been some concern in the Tillamook area about predators, chiefly about marine mammals. Since authority for marine mammals rests with the federal government and not local or state government, a few Tillamook fishing guides and fishermen have concentrated their concern on cormorants because the State of Oregon and its agencies has the sole authority to allow cormorant harassment (section 1-C).
To make a case for harassing cormorants in May 1988, fishing guide Erickson (1988b) suggested that cormorants at Tillamook Bay were taking $93,750/day worth of smolts during the cormorant's nesting season. To support the need for Oregon House Bill (HB) 3185, State Representative Paul Hanneman has written that cormorants were taking up to 80% of hatchery salmon and steelhead smolts (Hanneman 1989b). These figures appear to be based on controversial data and assumptions, which are discussed below.
To determine the daily consumption of salmonids (Table 2.2 in section 2-F-15) by cormorants, it is obvious that the identity of the predator has to be known. Double-crested, Brandt's, and Pelagic Cormorants all occur in Tillamook County and along the Oregon Coast, and each differs markedly in size and subsequently in the amount of food that each can eat daily (Table 2.3).
Erickson (1988b) did not specify which cormorant was the "problem" at Nehalem or Tillamook Bays. Hoffman and Hall (1988) indicated that Brandt's Cormorants were the cormorant of
++++ start of p. *25 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | Referencesconcern; however, they misidentified these cormorants and most (if not all) of their cormorants were actually Double-crested's (section 1-D-3). Since it is not clear which cormorants are at issue in Tillamook County, the daily food consumption rates for all three are examined in Table 2.3.
Erickson (1988a) implied that there were one million cormorants along the Oregon Coast. This seems doubtful because U.S. Fish and Wildlife aerial censuses indicate that there were only about 38,000 nesting cormorants along the Oregon Coast in 1988 (Roy Lowe, USFWS Biologist, unpubl. data).
For Tillamook Bay, Erickson (1988b) indicates that there were 1,000 cormorants every day feeding on smolts; his estimate appears high. Although not trying to census cormorants accurately, Hoffman and Hall (1988)(which is reprinted in Appendix XI) estimated only 250-300 on Tillamook Bay on 27 April 1988, which was within 16 days of when 0.84 million coho smolts were released into the Tillamook Basin (T. E. Cummings, ODFW Staff, letter dated 16 December 1988). Hoffman and Hall's (1988) rough estimate of 250-300 cormorants demonstrates that many less than Erickson's 1,000 cormorants were observed within a month of large hatchery releases.
Another indication that Erickson's (1988b) estimate is high is that after salmon smolt releases in the summers of 1982 and 1983 at the Yaquina Estuary, averages of less than 50 and less than 82 cormorants, respectively, were censused (Bayer 1986).
Because Hoffman and Hall's estimate for Tillamook seems more plausible than Erickson's figure, 300 cormorants are used in Table 2.3 as the number of cormorants that may sometimes be present in Tillamook Bay.
Fishermen concerned about cormorants may see cormorants feeding at different times during a day and assume that they are the same cormorants feeding continuously throughout the day. There is no evidence to support this belief.
Although small birds may seem to feed continuously, large birds such as cormorants actually spend most of their days resting. For example, at Yaquina Estuary, Bald Eagles spent 92% of their time perched at foraging areas (calculated from Bayer 1987). Further, several species of cormorants have been observed to forage only 18-26% of the day (Birkhead 1978, Whitfield and Blaber 1978, Tindle 1984), forage an average of only four hours a day (Cooper 1985b), or spend 2-5 times as much time resting as feeding (Morrison et al. 1978, Hobson and Sealy 1985).
Although capable of feeding throughout the day, most cormorants seem to feed mainly in the morning (Bowmaker 1963, Birkhead 1978, Whitfield and Blaber 1978, Hobson and Sealy 1986).
When not fishing, cormorants often leave foraging areas to go to diurnal roosting sites (e.g., Hobson and Sealy 1985, 1986; Cooper 1985c), where they may be present for many hours.
% of BODY WEIGHT.--Some fishermen have estimated that fish-eating birds may eat over 100% of their body weight daily (Mattingley 1927, Bowmaker 1963). But recent research indicates that large fish-eating birds may only average 9-25% of their body weight daily (Bowmaker 1963, Skokova in Mills 1967:382-383, Junor 1972, Duffy and Siegfried 1987:340, Duffy et al. 1987a:781). Further, stomach contents of some cormorants have averaged 14% or less of the species' average body weight (Bowmaker 1963, Birkhead 1978, B. Miller 1979 [using weights in Winkler 1983:196]). Cummings (1987) may also have estimated daily food consumptions for Double-crested Cormorants, but I have not seen her thesis.
The difficulties in estimating daily food consumptions are discussed in Appendix IX.
POUNDS/DAY.--Some fishermen indicate that a 2.8 lb (1.2 kg) cormorant can eat an incredible 21 pounds (9.5 kg) of fish daily (Mattingley 1927); other reports indicate that a cormorant eats a pound (0.45 kg) of fish a day (e.g., Bartholomew 1942, Erickson 1988a, Anonymous 1989a). All these reports are based on conjecture or rounded off data.
Currently accepted cormorant daily consumption rates (i.e., 15-16% of body weight) indicate that a cormorant present along the Oregon Coast could average 0.6-0.8 lb (0.3-0.4 kg) daily, depending on the size of the cormorant (Table 2.3 in section 2-F-15).
SMOLTS/DAY.--Calculations based on average consumption rates indicate that each cormorant could eat an average of 1.9-9.5 smolts/day, depending upon the species of cormorant and species and average weight of salmonid eaten (Table 2.3). Double-crested Cormorants, which appear to be the cormorant of concern in Tillamook County, could eat an average of about four steelhead or eight coho smolts per day (Table 2.3). But these estimates must be viewed sceptically because cormorants may not eat smolts each and every day (section 2-F-14).
ADC STUDY.--Using the stomach contents of birds to estimate daily food consumption rates is tenuous (Appendix IX). However, Erickson (1988b) seemingly based his estimated cormorant consumption estimates on the ADC study, so an examination of the ADC's results is appropriate, even though the methodology of the ADC study is suspect (section 1-D-3).
Unfortunately, Hoffman and Hall (1988) did not determine the number and species of smolts found in each cormorant at Tillamook Bay on 27 April 1988, but most were predominately 3-4 inch (7.6-10.2 cm) salmon smolts, not 7-8 inch (18-20 cm) steelhead smolts (McAllister 1988; T. R. Hoffman, letter dated 21 October 1988). The identity and size of the smolts has to be known to determine the weight and numbers of smolts eaten daily by a cormorant because smolts differ greatly in size (e.g., a coho smolt only weighs about half of a steelhead smolt) and cost (Table 2.2).
Cormorants leaving Tillamook Bay feeding areas late in the morning or early in the afternoon of 27 April 1988 had an average of 8.0 smolts per cormorant (range 4-16)(Table 2.4). This average is similar to the estimated average of 8.3 coho smolts eaten daily by Double-crested
++++ start of p. *26 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | ReferencesCormorants (Table 2.3). This is not surprising because several species of cormorants appear to feed mainly in the morning (section 2-F-4), so cormorants collected during the ADC study at 10:30 AM and 12:30 PM (Table 2.4) may have finished their daily feeding and were going to a roost (section 2-F-4).
Of the seven cormorants collected leaving feeding areas, one had 16 salmon smolts, and another had six steelhead smolts (Hoffman and Hall 1988). This seemingly indicates that these two cormorants took more than their average daily food requirements (Table 2.3). Two cautions need to be noted in making this conclusion.
Firstly, since the weights of smolts found in these cormorants were not specified, smolts found in these two cormorants may have weighed less than the average for the smolts that were released. If the smolts weighed less than average, the total weight of smolts found in these two cormorants may have been closer to the average daily weight consumed by cormorants (Table 2.3) than the number of smolts would indicate.
Secondly, a cormorant may eat more than its daily requirement one day and less the next day (see following subsection). Thus, finding a cormorant with more smolts than its calculated daily average does not indicate that a cormorant would eat that many every day (also see Appendix IX).
MAXIMUM SMOLTS/DAY.--Daily consumption estimates have often been exaggerated by using the maximum number of smolts that a cormorant could possibly take in a day. Using a maximal daily figure for cormorant consumption is not valid in debating the need for harassment because what is at issue is the amount of smolts that each cormorant can eat over a week or more.
Over several weeks, the number of smolts eaten would be much lower than a cormorant's capacity for a single day. For instance, although a starved fish-eating bird can eat much more than the daily average for 1-2 days, it eats much less than average on subsequent days (White 1937, Sanford and Harris 1967, Junor 1972). For example, one starved cormorant ate 36% of its body weight one day, 23% the second day, and didn't eat available food for the next two days; the overall average during the four days was 14.8% of its body weight (calculated from Junor 1972). Thus, a starved Brandt's Cormorant that ate 36% of its body weight one day could eat 22 coho smolts, but it would not sustain this for a week or more.
25 SMOLTS/DAY.--For Tillamook Bay, Erickson (1988b) indicated that each cormorant daily ate 25 smolts during the nonnesting season, but he did not specify what kind of smolts were eaten. Since the ADC found that seven cormorants leaving smolt feeding areas averaged 8.0 smolts per cormorant (Table 2.4), it is unclear how Erickson derived his estimate; it was clearly not directly from the ADC results, as Erickson (1988b) implies.
45-60 SMOLTS/DAY.--Although Erickson (1988b) wrote that each cormorant averaged 25 smolts per cormorant a day, Erickson (1989c) gave oral testimony at the 13 April 1989 House Hearing that implied that each cormorant may be taking 45-60 smolts each day. Erickson's (1989c) testimony during his video presentation was:
"So you get each one of those birds [cormorants] is eating about
15-20 smolts, and this is only once a day. You let those birds feed
three times a day, and you can see that we got a helluva big problem
out there."
It is not clear how Erickson figured that each cormorant was eating 15-20 smolts, since only one of 22 cormorants collected at Tillamook Bay had eaten 16 smolts and no other had eaten more than nine smolts (Hoffman and Hall 1988, which is reprinted in Appendix XI). Erickson implied that cormorants were eating three times daily, but this appears to be unfounded. As pointed out in section 2-F-4, cormorants usually spend little time foraging during a day and appear to eat mainly in the morning. Thus, it is unwarranted to assume that a cormorant would eat three times as much as found in its stomach in late morning or early afternoon, when it was collected by the ADC (Table 2.4).
Another indication that Erickson's (1989c) figures are inflated is that a Double-crested Cormorant weighs an average of 4.5 lb (Table 2.3). Based on weights of ODFW smolts at release (Table 2.2), 60 coho smolts would weigh 5.2 lb (2.4 kg) and 60 steelhead smolts would weigh 10.2 lb (4.6 kg). Thus, if a Double-crested Cormorant was eating 60 smolts daily as Erickson (1989c) suggests, it would be eating 116-227% of its body weight each day, which is untenable (section 2-F-5).
Erickson (1988b) stated that cormorants ate three times their normal daily diet during nesting periods, so that they would need 75 smolts per cormorant each day. His estimate appears unrealistic for several reasons. Firstly, his daily (1988b) estimate of 25 smolts/cormorant during the nonnesting season is too high.
Secondly, the daily food requirements for an adult Double-crested Cormorant feeding a brood of nestlings is approximately doubled (Dunn 1975, Walsberg 1983:186), not tripled as suggested by Erickson. Small birds such as sparrows may triple their food requirements when raising nestlings, but large birds such as cormorants don't have such heavy demands (Walsberg 1983:186).
Thirdly, the possibility that cormorants would be feeding exclusively on hatchery smolts during their nesting season is doubtful. Cormorants don't need more food than their own daily maintenance diet until their young have hatched and are growing. Along the Oregon Coast, Double-crested Cormorant chicks begin hatching in late May, and Brandt's and Pelagic Cormorant chicks start hatching in late June (Scott 1973:23, Roy Lowe, USFWS Biologist, unpubl. data). Thus, cormorants would not need extra food to feed their growing young until late May or June, which would be several weeks or more after coho and steelhead smolts were released into the Tillamook Basin (Table 2.2). By June, most smolts have probably either migrated to sea or have learned how to cope with predators. For example, most coho smolts remain in estuaries less than 14 days after release (Nicholas et al. 1979, Myers 1980, Myers and Horton 1982), although chinook smolts may
++++ start of p. *27 in SOO 6 (S6a.htm) | Contents | Index | Referencesremain longer (Reimers 1973, Nicholas et al. 1979, Reimers and Concannon 1977, Myers 1980, Levy and Northcote 1982, Myers and Horton 1982). Further, Bayer (1986) found that the abundance of bird predators of smolts in 1983 decreased markedly in the first few days following a hatchery smolt release at Yaquina Estuary; this suggests that smolt vulnerability to predators may be greatest only in the first few days after a release (Appendix II:section II-B).
Using Erickson's (1988b) estimates of 1000 cormorants each eating 25 smolts daily, cormorants would have eaten 1.53 million smolts in April and May 1988 (i.e., [61 days] X [1,000 cormorants] X [25 smolts/cormorant each day]) and 2.25 million smolts in June during part of the cormorants' nesting season (i.e., [30 days] X [1,000 cormorants] X [75 smolts/day]). This would be a total of 3.78 million smolts eaten by cormorants in Tillamook Bay in April-June 1988!
That is an awesome figure, especially since the ODFW only released a total of about 1.3 million juvenile salmonids into the Tillamook Basin in March-June 1988 (Table 2.2), which is only about 34% of Erickson's estimate that were eaten by cormorants. It is unlikely that cormorants ate 2.48 million wild smolts because most Oregon smolts are from hatcheries; for example, 84-89% of coho smolts in Oregon in 1978-1981 were hatchery fish (Nickelson 1986:534), and Oregon hatchery steelhead smolts now appear to support the steelhead fisheries (ODFW 1986:III.A-17). Thus, it appears unrealistic that cormorants could have found, let alone ate, 2.48 million wild smolts at Tillamook Bay after eating all smolts released by the ODFW.
If 1800 cormorants each ate 60 smolts a day, as Erickson (1989c) suggests, then cormorants would have eaten 3.2 million smolts in 30 days and 9.8 million smolts in April-June. Thus, if true, cormorants ate 7.5 times more smolts in April-June than were released.
At the urging of cormorant harassment proponents, State Representative Paul Hanneman (R-Tillamook) became very concerned about cormorant predation and was the chief sponsor of House Bill 3185 that would allow cormorant harassment (section 1-I-1).
In oral testimony for the 13 April 1989 House Hearing, Rep. Hanneman (1989c) testified about ODFW smolt releases:
"Our resource [smolts] isn't even reaching the ocean. The cormorants
come off the ocean at daylight in the morning, and they don't return
back to the ocean again until dark at night. And they work the river
until it's a bloody froth all the way down for three or four weeks."
There are several problems with Hanneman's testimony. Firstly, it is untenable that cormorants were feeding continuously throughout the day as Hanneman implies. Cormorants spend more time resting than feeding during a day (section 2-F-4). Secondly, cormorants swallow their prey whole without tearing it up (e.g., Bartholomew 1942, Bowmaker 1963), so it is difficult to imagine where the blood comes from that could turn the water into a "bloody froth." But "bloody froth" does evoke a powerful and persuasive image before a House Committee.
Rep. Hanneman believed that cormorant harassment was necessary. In a letter dated 21 February 1989 to K. Confer (Appendix X), Rep. Hanneman wrote:
"The purpose of the bill [House Bill 3185] is to provide some relief
for downstream migrating salmon during their four-week period. We
suspect and believe that we can prove that less than 50 percent of our
expensive, publicly-produced salmon and steelhead are able to reach
the ocean."
The tortured language of "We suspect and believe that we can prove..." indicates that Hanneman's figure may be an estimate based more on faith than fact.
Since HB 3