Fishing as a Limiting Factor on
South Fork Trinity River Stocks
The historical record of the specific impact of fishing on South Fork Trinity
River salmon and steelhead stocks is almost totally lacking. Because steelhead
have never been exploited commercially, fishing is not linked to declines of this
species, but salmon harvests may have contributed to reduction of South Fork
Trinity stocks of coho and chinook. Consequently, much of the discussion in this
chapter on the impact of fisheries is based on information relating to salmon stocks
Klamath basin wide and California ocean salmon harvest.
Below is a description of fisheries that affect South Fork Trinity River salmon and
steelhead stocks, the agencies that manage fish harvest, and harvest management
methods. Problems with lack of protection for depressed salmon stock groups, such
as those in the South Fork, in offshore and in-river "mixed stock" fisheries are discussed.
While there is no direct evidence to support the contention that stock declines in the
Klamath basin or South Fork Trinity River are a result of foreign fishing effort (USFWS, 1991),
these off shore fisheries are described because of widespread public concern about this
perceived problem.
Historical Overview of Fishing
The salmon of the South Fork Trinity River were an important source of food for the Wintu
Indian people who inhabited the basin (Wooley, 1993). White settlers in the South Fork
basin also came to rely on the fish of the river as one of the staples of their diet (Trinity Journal, 1873).
While Indian fisheries in the Klamath basin had traditionally avoided salmon stock depletion
(Kroeber and Barrett, 1960), white settlers impacted the health of salmon runs both through
habitat destruction and excessive harvest (Snyder, 1931). Beginning in 1881, canneries were set
up near the mouth of the Klamath River and Indian fishermen were recruited to supply fish (McEvoy, 1986).
The fishery concentrated on fall chinook stocks because spring chinook salmon in many Klamath
sub-basins had been driven almost to extinction by mining activity (Hume, 1892 as cited in Snyder, 1931).
By 1912, the Klamath and many of its tributaries had recovered somewhat from mining impacts
and a tremendous run of fall chinook salmon was recorded (Snyder, 1931). Over 17,000 salmon
were taken in one day that year and the cannery packed 1,384,000 pounds of fish. During the 1920's,
Snyder (1931) noted that Klamath River salmon were being caught in ocean fisheries as far south as
Monterey. He asserted that the combined effort of ocean and in-river fisheries was causing the
decline of Klamath stocks. The canneries at the river mouth were closed in 1933 to halt further
depletion, but ocean fisheries remained largely unregulated (McEvoy, 1986).
According to McEvoy (1986), continued over-fishing of salmon off the California coast caused
declining catches through the 1930's until an all time low was reached in 1938 (McEvoy, 1986).
No information is available about fluctuations of salmon runs in the South Fork Trinity River due to
ocean and in-river commercial fisheries, but press accounts indicate that basin residents were aware
of the large number of fish taken by canneries in the lower Klamath River (Trinity Journal, 1926).
After World War II, logging and road building on unstable terrain in the South Fork Trinity River basin
set the stage for the massive degradation of fisheries habitat that occurred during the 1964 flood
(Kojan, 1974, 1976; MacCleery, 1974). Again, commercial fishing and sport fishing increased after
the war and the trend continued into the late 1970's. Hatcheries were set up on the Klamath and
Trinity Rivers to offset loss of spawning and rearing habitat above dams. The combination of decreased
habitat quality, habitat quantity and intense harvesting of depressed wild salmon stocks with abundant
hatchery stock in "mixed-stock" fisheries caused severe declines in native Klamath basin salmon stocks
by the late 1970's (Rankel, 1980).
The passage of the Magnusen Act in 1976 led to the formulation of the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council (PFMC). The PFMC has focused considerable energy on the management of Klamath basin
fall chinook salmon and has attempted to implement harvest rate management to stop the decline of
natural spawners. Despite this additional effort to improve harvest management and initiation of major
Federal restoration programs to restore salmon, 1990-1992 represented three consecutive all time
record low spawning returns of Klamath River fall chinook. Preliminary estimates for 1993 place
Klamath fall chinook salmon adult run size at 20,880 fish (CDFG, 1993b), which makes the fourth
consecutive year that minimum escapement goals have not been met.
Agencies That Manage Klamath River Basin Salmon and Steelhead
Anadromous fish species, such as salmon and steelhead, are born in freshwater but spend most of their
adult lives feeding in the ocean. Because they range hundreds or even thousands of miles, many
agencies having different jurisdictions must cooperate to manage their harvest. South Fork Trinity
River salmon and steelhead are managed as part of the aggregate unit of all Klamath basin stocks,
with fall chinook salmon commanding the most attention. Management entities include State and Federal
agencies, and Indian Tribes.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
The State has jurisdiction over all non-Indian fisheries in rivers and also controls commercial and sport ocean
harvests within three miles of shore. Regulations are set annually for freshwater fishing by the California Fish
and Game Commission, but the State usually defers to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) for
seasons and harvest levels in the ocean. CDFG collects data on ocean sport and commercial landings, as well
as freshwater sport harvest and adult spawning escapements. All information is shared with the Klamath
Fishery Management Council (KFMC) and the PFMC to help in harvest allocation and setting fishing regulations
annually. The Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife may exercise management authority over harvest of
Klamath salmon stocks in near-shore (<3 mile) ocean waters in Oregon, but generally defers to the PFMC.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC)
In 1976, the Magnusen Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. SS 1801 et. seq.) was passed
by Congress. Regional management councils were set up to insure conservation of U.S. coastal and anadromous
fisheries resources under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Fisheries between three and 200 miles off California,
Oregon, and Washington were placed under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).
Annual salmon fishing seasons are set for Klamath River fall chinook stocks by the PFMC after considering
statistical projections for salmon abundance and comments from the KFMC. The PFMC also regulated foreign
fishing efforts within the 200 mile zone, such as the whiting fishery, before the fleet was replaced with American
owned vessels.
Klamath Fishery Management Council
In 1986 Congress passed the Klamath Restoration Act (PL 99-552), which set up the Klamath Fishery Management
Council (KFMC). The Council has representatives from commercial and sport fishing interests, Indian Tribes, CDFG,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and from the offices of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of
Interior. The function of the KFMC is to advise the PFMC on how to allocate harvest of all Klamath anadromous
fish, consistent with rebuilding the runs. Unfortunately, in most years failure of the KFMC to reach consensus on
allocation has led to no recommendations going forth to the PFMC. Klamath River basin fall chinook stocks are
the primary focus of the KFMC and little management effort has been directed toward other species. Data collection
and interpretation is carried out by the Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT). Most of the statistical
analysis needed for the KRTAT is provided by the Inland Fisheries Division of CDFG. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Klamath River Field Office in Yreka provides basic staff support for the KFMC.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
The basic mission of this agency is to promote the wise and full use of United States marine resources. The agency
is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce.
NMFS has responsibility for enforcement of laws in the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) set up by the
Magnusen Act. The agency has also pursued an aggressive role in recent years to help stop the interception of
U.S. salmon and steelhead in high seas driftnet fisheries (Lewis, 1990). The PFMC is staffed by NMFS personnel
who supply technical information needed for harvest management. The NMFS also has considerable direct
management authority, through recovery planning, over Pacific salmon stocks listed under the Endangered
Species Act. The latter responsibility is shared with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Hoopa Tribe
Reservation lands were recognized for the Hoopa Tribe as early as 1864 through Executive Order. Hoopa treaty
rights have been interpreted by Federal and California courts and the U.S. Department of Interior to include fishing
rights and the power to regulate fishing by tribal members on the Reservation (USFWS, 1991). The Hoopa Valley
Tribal Council operates a fisheries program that assists in the management of Tribal fisheries. The Hoopa Fisheries
Department monitors harvest, provides catch data for management, and conducts a fisheries and watershed restoration
program. The Hoopa Tribe actively participates in both the Klamath River and Trinity River Restoration Programs.
Enforcement of laws on the Reservation is handled by the Tribe and justice carried out under the Tribe's own court
system.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau's mission is to develop and implement a national policy for the conservation of tribal fisheries resources.
The BIA sets fishing seasons on the lower Klamath after consultation with the PFMC and enforces Indian law regulating
isheries. The BIA has sought the assistance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in calculating Indian net harvest and
in fish habitat assessment of Indian ancestral territories. The Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-580)
separated the Hoopa and Yurok Indian Reservations. The Yurok are in the process of forming a Tribal government
and will assume regulation of their own fisheries, similar to the Hoopa Tribe, once their government is in place
(USFWS, 1991).
Fisheries and Their Potential Impact
Commercial salmon trollers and ocean sport fishermen directly target Klamath River salmon stocks, including those
from the South Fork Trinity River. Coastal communities in northern California and southern Oregon enjoy considerable
economic benefit from commercial and sport salmon fisheries which rely heavily on Klamath basin chinook salmon
stocks. Other ocean fisheries may catch salmon or steelhead from the basin incidentally as they fish for other species.
As salmon and steelhead return to the river, they are caught by Indian fishermen and sport anglers. Poaching also can
be a significant form of harvest as salmon and steelhead approach their spawning beds or hold during summer in the
clear waters of the South Fork.
Klamath River salmon stocks range from Monterey, California to the mouth of the Columbia River (PFMC, 1980,1984;
Laufle et al., 1986). The approximate range of these fish is depicted in Figure 7-1. Chinook and coho salmon feed in
areas of upwelling along the Continental Shelf within 6-40 miles offshore (Brodeur, 1990), so fisheries that impact
salmon are well within the jurisdiction of the United States. While some steelhead stocks from California range more
widely in the ocean (Ligth et al., 1988), specific migration patterns of Klamath basin steelhead stocks or those of the
South Fork Trinity River are unknown.
Approximate Range of Klamath River Basin Salmon
Figure 7-1. Ocean range of Klamath basin salmon stocks (PFMC, 1984; Laufle et al., 1986). Graphic used with
permission of Klamath River Education Program). NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
In addition to commercial and sport salmon fisheries, the hake or whiting fishery is also conducted in near shore
waters off California and Oregon and harvests a few Klamath salmon, in what is termed "incidental catch" so it merits
discussion below. Long line drift net fisheries, primarily targeting squid, take place over wide areas of the northeast
Pacific Ocean. There is no direct evidence that Klamath basin stocks are impacted, but the fishery is described
because of public concern over its impacts. Indian fisheries and sport fisheries both harvest South Fork Trinity River
salmon as they migrate upstream on their spawning journey
Commercial Salmon Troll Fishing
Trolling is a fishing method where bait fish like herring or bright metallic lures are dragged through the water to catch
feeding chinook and coho salmon. California's first salmon trollers used sail boats as they fished waters off Monterey
late in the last century (McEvoy, 1986). After motorized craft came into use, fishing began to spread north and by 1916,
it had extended to Eureka and Crescent City. Salmon trolling grew to be one of the State's largest industries and
between 1916 and 1980 landings ranged from 2,860,000 to 10,340,000 pounds annually (Rankel, 1980).Landings
in more recent years have fluctuated widely from a low of 1,614,000 in 1992 to an all time record for landings of
14,750,000 pounds in 1988 (PFMC, 1993). A listing of landings from 1960 to 1992 can be found in Table 7-1.
When California salmon catches dropped to a record low in 1938, the number of commercial salmon trollers also
decreased to a total of 570 (McEvoy, 1986). The number of fishermen strongly rebounded after World War II to 1,100
in 1947 (McEvoy, 1986) and by the late 1970's there were nearly 5,000 vessels landing salmon in California
(PFMC, 1993). In 1982, CDFG began issuing a separate salmon trolling permit. The discrepancy between vessels
landing salmon and those holding permits may indicate that some permit holders are keeping the fish for their own
use and not for sale. The number of California vessels landing salmon and those holding commercial salmon permits
is now dwindling rapidly (Table 7-1), because of reduced harvest allocations in consecutive seasons brought on by
low stock abundance of Klamath fall chinook stocks.
Impact of Troll Fisheries
Until 1991 and 1992, the bulk of Klamath River fall chinook salmon were harvested in the ocean, primarily by
commercial salmon trollers. Ocean catch of Klamath stocks was never analyzed during early years of the troll industry,
but fisheries scientists thought that over-harvest was occurring (Snyder, 1931). Schofield (1929) stated that "sea trolling
was the principal cause of depletion and that salmon in the river would have held their own if it had not been for the
development of the sea trolling off the mouth of the river." In-river commercial fisheries were closed in 1933 because
of stock declines but high rates of ocean harvest continued (McEvoy, 1986).
In the early 1960's, Radovich (1967) calculated that 88% of Klamath River fall chinook salmon were harvested in ocean
fisheries with 80% of the catch taken by commercial trollers (70% of total harvest). Despite increasing regulation,
ocean catch of Klamath River salmon continued at high levels in the 1980's, far exceeding takes by in-river fisheries,
while spawning escapements were often low (Table 7-2 and Figure 7-2). The Klamath Management Zone, where the
greatest concentrations of Klamath River fall chinook are found, was completely closed to commercial salmon trolling
in 1992 and short seasons were implemented south to Bodega Bay and north to Coos Bay, Oregon.
Table 7-1.
California salmon troll landings, the value of the catch, number of vessels
landing salmon and number of licensed vessels (PFMC 1993).
Vessels
Year Dressed Lbs. Value Landing Vessels w/
(Thousands) (Thousands) Salmon Permits*
1960 6,221 $3,339 1,365 -
1961 8,638 $4,698 1,615 -
1962 6,673 $4,023 1,563 -
1963 7,849 $3,959 1,611 -
1964 9,481 $5,013 1,774 -
1965 9,674 $4,989 2,001 -
1966 9,447 $4,845 1,929 -
1967 7,402 $3,945 2,137 -
1968 6.952 $4,014 2,249 -
1969 6,151 $3,843 2,125 -
1970 6,629 $5,101 2,065 -
1971 8,117 $4,757 2,221 -
1972 6,423 $4,830 2,392 -
1973 9,669 $8,991 2,848 -
1974 8,749 $8,013 3,185 -
1975 6,925 $6,972 3,150 -
1976 7,788 $10,707 3,526 -
1977 5,920 $12,074 3,797 -
1978 6,788 $11,001 4,919 -
1979 8,746 $19,659 4,593 -
1980 6,017 $13,149 4,738 -
1981 6,012 $14,322 4,102 -
1982 8,000 $19,489 4,013 5,964
1983 2,411 $4,608 3,223 4,617
1984 2,970 $7,562 2,569 4,180
1985 4,600 $11,515 2,308 3,869
1986 7,598 $15,112 2,582 3,753
1987 9,293 $25,623 2,442 3,533
1988 14,750 $41,927 2,571 3,493
1989 5,720 $13,485 2,534 3,464
1990 4,436 $12,056 2,115 3,372
1991 3,697 $9,047 1,769 3,242
1992 1,614 $4,402 1,083 2,970
Table 7-2.
Number of Klamath basin fall chinook salmon harvested by various user groups
from 1978-1992 (PFMC,1984; 1990; 1992; 1993).
In River Total Total Total Year Sport Indian Yurok Hoopa Ocean Spawner Catch Catch* Count 1978 1,694 18,200 N/A N/A N/A 58,492 1979 2,141 13,650 N/A N/A N/A 30,637 1980 4,496 12,013 11,133 880 N/A 21,483 1981 5,983 33,033 31,502 1,531 133,660 33,587 1982 8,339 14,482 12,971 1,511 276,175 31,951 1983 4,235 7,890 6,500 1,390 90,570 30,784 1984 3,340 18,670 17,500 1,170 28,066 16,064 1985 3,582 11,566 9,625 1,941 50,795 25,677 1986 21,027 25,127 20,319 4,806 213,300 113,360 1987 20,169 53,096 48,114 4,982 252,800 101,717 1988 22,203 51,651 46,581 5,070 271,100 78,886 1989 8,775 45,565 42,091 3,474 107,200 43,715 1990 3,553 7,894 6,983 811 111,800 15,536 1991 3,383 10,198 8,918 1,280 9,900 11,499 1992 1,310 5,577 4,631 946 1,500 11,120 * Ocean sport catch has averaged about 10% of total ocean harvest
Analysis of tag data from spring chinook from the Trinity River showed that 70% of the 1968 brood year fish
from Trinity River Hatchery were harvested in the ocean (Rankel, 1980). More recent coded wire tag returns
indicate that ocean harvest of spring chinook is equal to or greater than harvest from all in-river fisheries combined,
with most fish landed by the commercial trollfleet (KFMC, 1992). Little is known regarding troll impacts on wild coho
salmon from the Klamath basin but hatchery coho are harvested in ocean sport and commercial troll fisheries
(KFMC, 1992). No steelhead are taken in troll fisheries and their commercial harvest is illegal.
Figure 7-2. Estimated catch of Klamath basin fall chinook salmon by various fisheries and escapement of natural
spawners 1978-1992
Ocean Sport Fishing
Sport fishing early in the century was concentrated more in rivers than in the ocean. Ocean sport fishing increased
sharply after World War II (McEvoy, 1986) although sport fishing has had much less impact on Klamath chinook
stocks than commercial troll fishing (KFMC, 1992). While large charter boats had formerly accounted for 65% of the
California ocean sport catch (Frey, 1971), today most sport fishing is done from small boats (Waldvogel 1990).
The typical sport fisherman in the KMZ in recent years travels over 200 miles and stays to fish for 30-90 days
(Waldvogel, 1990).
Increasing Impacts Related to Ocean Sport Fishing
Radovich (1967) estimated that approximately 17% of the Klamath River fall chinook harvest in the 1960's went to
ocean sport fishermen. The Klamath River Technical Advisory Team estimates that, on average, ocean sport fisheries
have taken about 10% of all Klamath River fall chinook salmon harvested in the ocean (Alan Barracco, personal
communication). According to coded wire tag returns of Klamath basin hatchery fish, harvest or incidental take of
Klamath fall chinook outside the KMZ is very small. This is a result of only minor chinook salmon fisheries taking place
immediately to the north and south of the KMZ and fisheries further to the north and south have very low contributions
from Klamath fall chinook stocks (Alan Barracco, personal communication). While a complete break down of ocean
sport versus commercial troll catch is not available, harvest totals for Klamath River fall chinook salmon in the Klamath
Management Zone give an indication of changing allocation (Table 7-3).
Table 7-3.
Estimated catch of Klamath fall chinook salmon in by commercial troll and ocean
sport fishermen from 1986-1992 (PFMC, 1993).
Year Commercial Ocean Sport Troll Catch Troll Catch Total
Troll in KMZ Catch in KMZ North of KMZ South of KMZ
1986 34,100 4,300 60,400 114,500 213,300
1987 74,300 7,600 71,100 99,800 252,800
1988 69,500 8,200 41,100 152,300 271,100
1989 7,800 11,800 54,300 33,300 107,200
1990 2,700 11,200 69,600 28,300 111,800
1991 100 2,100 1,600 6,100 9,900
1992 <50 <50 1,100 300 1,500
Ocean sport fishermen catch fewer Klamath fall chinook than commercial trollers when both groups fish within the
KMZ. Fisheries managers perceive greater economic benefit to coastal communities from the increased tourism
related to sport fishing than from commercial landings of salmon. Consequently, salmon allocations in the Klamath
Management Zone in recent years have increasingly favored sport fisheries over commercial fisheries. Commercial
troll fishermen have also chosen to use their allocation outside the KMZ to maintain access to Sacramento River and
Oregon chinook salmon stocks.
Waldvogel (1990) expressed concern about the ethics and sportsmanship of some people participating in the ocean
sport fishery. He noted that, when only one chinook salmon was allowed per day, some anglers were putting dead
fish over board if larger chinook were landed. Waldvogel (1990) also asserted that ocean sport anglers were making
several trips in one day to take more than the limit. A salmon punch card is now required to remedy this latter problem.
Indian Fisheries
As recently as 1920, Indians journeyed to the South Fork to fish with hand crafted, 40 foot long, fir poles which they
used to spear spring chinook in deep pools (Albert Bramlet, personal communication). While there are no written
historical accounts of Indian fishing in the South Fork Trinity River basin, lower Klamath fisheries were well described
by Kroeber and Barrett (1960). They called lower Klamath tribes the richest of all California Indians and asserted that
their wealth was maintained by managing salmon resources wisely.
Early lower Klamath Indian fisheries were governed by a complex system of culture and religion which prevented
over-harvest of salmon and afforded sharing between all tribes in the Klamath basin (Kroeber and Barrett, 1960).
Harvest took place at a weir which was constructed through a community effort supervised by the tribe's spiritual leader.
Many family groups gathered to join in the harvest and the weir was only maintained as long as necessary to harvest
enough salmon for winter food supplies (Kroeber and Barrett, 1960).
Indians began to fish commercially with gill nets for canneries in 1881 (McEvoy, 1986). Between 1912 and 1928,
Indians at the mouth of the Klamath increased their fishing effort and contributed to stock declines (Snyder, 1931).
In 1933, commercial fishing, canneries, and net harvests in the Klamath River were outlawed by the State of California
(McEvoy, 1986). Indian subsistence harvest continued until 1957, although its legitimacy was unrecognized (KFMC, 1992).
In 1957, the State began issuing subsistence fishing permits for take of salmon on the Hoopa Reservation, including
what is now the Yurok Reservation, but the permits did not allow the use of gill nets (Rankel, 1980). Subsequent legal
cases re-established Indian rights to fish for subsistence with gill nets on the Klamath River free of State regulation
(Elser v. Gill Net Number One, 1966; Mattz v. Arnett, 1973; Arnett v. Five Gill Nets, 1975).
The U.S. Department of Interior ruled in 1977 that Indian commercial fishing could take place on the river and set
guidelines for this fishery (Rankel, 1980). Yurok fishermen began fishing commercially in 1987, however, from 1990-1992
commercial fisheries were canceled due to low stock abundance. Hoopa Indian fishermen have intermittently operated
a commercial fishery (George Kautsky, personal communication). In recent years, allocation and consequent harvest
of salmon has been considerably less than that for Yurok fishermen (Table 7-2).
The Yurok Indian fishery takes place within the boundaries of their Reservation, below the convergence of the Klamath
and the Trinity Rivers. In years when it occurs, commercial fishing can only take place in the estuary below the Highway
101 bridge. Various Yurok families fish for subsistence at traditional sites up river with fixed and drift gill nets which are
generally set at night. Hoopa Tribal members also fish with gill nets on the Hoopa Reservation. Most Indian fishing effort
is directed toward fall chinook salmon. Spring chinook may never have been important to the Hoopa and the Yurok
because high flows during snow melt prevented effective fishing and these fish were too oily to smoke or cure before
modern canning methods were available (McEvoy, 1986). At present, spring chinook are highly valued for their excellent
food value and are targeted by Hoopa and Yurok fishermen.
Relative Impact of Indian Net Harvests
Indian fisheries accounted for only 4% the total Klamath River fall chinook harvest in the 1960's, according to
Radovich (1967), with an estimated annual take of 8,000 to 20,000 fish. The portion of fall chinook harvested by Indian
fisheries remained but a fraction of ocean harvest in most years up to 1991 (Table 7-2). Yurok fishermen re-established
a commercial fishery in 1987 and sold an average of 27,500 salmon through 1989. In 1992, in-river Indian harvest
of chinook salmon exceeded ocean catch for the first time. Because of very low returns of fall chinook salmon from
1990 to 1992, the Indian catch was very significant relative to the number of natural spawners. Harvest was 7,794, 10,198
and 5,577 fall chinook adults while adult natural spawners numbered only 15,536, 11,499 and 11,120 (Table 7-2).
Between 1981 and 1986, average Indian harvest of spring chinook salmon was only 2,225 fish (PFMC, 1992). Indian
fishermen began to show interest in targeting spring chinook in a commercial fishery after strong returns of Trinity River
Hatchery fish in 1987 (USFWS, 1988). Average total harvest increased to almost 5,200 spring chinook between
1987-1990. The total Indian harvest of spring chinook in Indian fisheries in 1991 dropped back to 550 (PFMC, 1992).
In years of high abundance, Trinity River Hatchery coho salmon can also make up a significant portion of the Hoopa
catch (Hoopa Fisheries, 1989). Because of the timing of fisheries and large mesh size of nets used to catch salmon,
only a few steelhead are captured incidentally in Indian fisheries (USFWS, 1988).
In River Sport Fishing For Salmon and Steelhead
The Klamath and Trinity Rivers have attracted sport fishermen from around the world to pursue the native salmon and
steelhead. Spring chinook fishing in the South Fork Trinity River was once a popular sport (Trinity Journal, 1936) and
Forest Glen and Hyampom became popular summer destinations. In the 1950's, Coots (1967) estimated that 20,000
to 30,000 families came to the Klamath and its tributaries for fishing vacations.
Today, fall chinook salmon sport fishing is concentrated in the estuary in the early season where lures and bait are
trolled. Drift boats fish for the salmon as they migrate up the Klamath River. Bank angling is popular on the Trinity
River, usually below waterfalls or at the convergence of major tributaries. South Fork Trinity River fall chinook are
exposed to considerable fishing pressure in the main Trinity River. Fishing effort in the South Fork itself has been low
in recent years, but may have been substantially larger in 1985 and 1986 when the last large runs in the basin occurred.
As recently as 1960, steelhead fishing in the Hyampom area drew tourists from throughout California because of the
large fish and the plentiful runs (Trinity Journal, 1960). Increased turbidity in the South Fork Trinity River after the 1964
flood decreased the number of days that water clarity is sufficient for steelhead angling during the winter (CDWR, 1982).
Winter steelhead fishing still attracts some fishing effort during low flow years on the South Fork, but anglers tend to
come predominantly from Trinity County (Wilson and Mills, 1992). Catch-and-release fly fishing for steelhead in the
Klamath and Trinity Rivers during the fall remains a popular sport.
Impacts of In-River Sport Harvest
In-river sport anglers in 1955 were estimated to have harvested 95,000 fall chinook salmon in the Klamath River system
(Hallock et al., 1960). By the 1960's the river sport catch dropped to approximately 28,000 adult salmon annually
(CDFG, 1965) which was estimated by Radovich (1967) to constitute about 8% of all fall chinook salmon landings.
In-river sport harvest since 1978 has varied from 1,310 to 22,200 and has averaged about 10% of the total number of
adult salmon returning to the river (Table 7-2).
Angler harvest of Trinity River Hatchery spring chinook salmon in recent years has ranged from a few hundred annually to
8,000 in 1988 (KFMC, 1992). Spring chinook sport angling pressure in all the Klamath basin is usually light except in
years of high abundance of Trinity River Hatchery fish. Before the 1964 flood, spring chinook were abundant in the
South Fork Trinity River and they were prized as a sport fish, although there is no record of the amount harvested.
In 1992, the South Fork Trinity River was closed below the Hyampom bridge through Memorial Day weekend to protect
migrating spring chinook. Fishing above the bridge has been closed totally to protect spring chinook salmon, whereas
it was open to fishing as far up as Forest Glen previously from the last Saturday in April through November 15.
Historical records of angler harvest of steelhead on the Klamath River are almost non-existent. According to the KFMC
Plan (1992), "Steelhead harvests, including adult and immature half-pounders, are thought to have declined substantially
from levels of 20-30 years ago. The daily catch limit for steelhead, formerly liberal for half-pounders, is now two fish of
any size." Anglers living along the South Fork Trinity River contend that steelhead harvest in the basin has declined
considerably over pre-1964 levels due to reduced abundance (Milt Mortensen, personal communication). The California
Department of Fish and Game has conducted creel surveys in recent years to determine angler harvest of South Fork
Trinity River winter run steelhead (Mills and Wilson, 1991; Wilson and Mills, 1992). The harvest rate estimate for winter
steelhead in the South Fork Trinity Basin for 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 was 18%, 10% and 20%, respectively
(CDFG, 1993).
In-river sportfishermen harvest coho salmon returning to Trinity River and Iron Gate hatcheries annually. According to
Leidy and Leidy (1984), native coho salmon have later run timing than hatchery coho and, therefore, would not be
exposed to mixed stock fisheries. Jong and Mills (in press) found spawning coho in the lower South Fork Trinity River
in December and January, a time period when little sport fishing is occurring in this area.
Poaching and Its Impact
Dear Editor,
I see by your paper that the game warden, Oscar Lewis, is in possession of some wire fencing brought from
Hyampom. I am the owner of that wire, but was not arrested for it as heretofore. However, am I to have the man
arrested who is in possession of stolen goods?
Now is it unlawful to put wire into a creek to catch a salmon? Is it unlawful to spear a salmon to eat? If it is, why
shouldn't it be unlawful to net 3,000 in one haul at the river mouth and sell them all over the world? Our representative
Mr. Anderson allows a bill to pass, sponsored by the fish trust, that would force us to buy our salmon out of a can. -
B.F. Russell (Trinity Journal, 1926)
In the early days of settlement in the South Fork Trinity River basin, people relied heavily on fish, particularly spring
chinook, for part of their subsistence. The method of take was often anything but sporting. Even when angling methods
were used, limits were often ignored. Personal accounts of "trout fishing" in the 1950's recounted catches of 50 to 100
fish per day in Hayfork Creek below Nine Mile Bridge, and on the South Fork below Hyampom. The relatively low human
population and high productivity of the healthy stream habitat prevented depletion of runs.
Decreased depth of the river after the 1964 flood may have made salmon and steelhead more vulnerable to poaching.
However, poaching effort for all salmon and steelhead seems to have decreased in recent years, possibly as a function
of decreased abundance. There is also a growing awareness that poaching threatens some stocks, such as spring
chinook and summer steelhead, with extinction.
Descriptions of more recent poaching activity below are taken from personal accounts in interviews during the scoping
for this project. Neither the person providing the information nor the person who was alleged to have participated in the
act are named. The authors of this report do not wish to place blame or bring recrimination on anyone who shared
information freely. Rather the purpose of these descriptions is to raise community awareness of the problem so that local
solutions can be initiated.
During a recent winter, barbed wire was fashioned into a weir and adult steelhead migrations up Salt Creek were
blocked. Steelhead were taken with pitchforks.
An account was given of poaching activity of fall chinook salmon in the vicinity of Hyampom. As the fish rose to the
surface in a large pool, they were shot in the head from a cliff overlooking the stream.
Young adults were reported to have shot spring chinook with a 22 calibre handgun under water in recent years.
In the fall of 1986, when chinook were abundant in the South Fork Trinity, a drift boat caught and unloaded 37 salmon
at various points along the river in one day.
In 1992, an inscription was found on a bridge over the South Fork: " Bob W. (name changed) shot his first salmon here -
1992." After inquiries were made by a concerned citizen about who might be responsible, a post-script was added
later in the summer to the carved message: "Too bad he missed."
Several people indicated during interviews that even with the extremely low abundance levels in recent years, some
spring chinook continue to be poached from the river.
High Seas Driftnet Fisheries
There have been no tagged Klamath basin salmon or steelhead found by NMFS agents in monitoring efforts of high
seas drift net catches, or any evidence of the overlap of ocean range of Klamath basin stocks and drift net fishing effort.
Considerable international attention has been focused in recent years on high seas drift net fisheries that catch salmon,
steelhead, other fish species, sea mammals, and sea birds (NOAA, 1989). The Japanese have been using driftnets on
the high seas since 1905. Seven different driftnet fisheries are currently operated in the Pacific Ocean and fishing effort
has increased in the last decade. Factors that have led to the proliferation of driftnets are rising fuel costs, reduced
profitability or increased regulation of traditional fisheries, and the high catch rate.
Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese fishing vessels employ long-line driftnets to catch squid in areas of the northeast
Pacific where incidental catch of salmon and steelhead may occur (Figure 7-3). Most of the area being fished is in
international waters so regulations and accords must be negotiated with nations involved in the fishery. The squid
fisheries are regulated by time-area closures based on sea surface temperatures to reduce "by-catch" of salmon
and steelhead. Japan, Korea and Taiwan have all passed laws that prohibit their own vessels from keeping salmon
and steelhead caught incidentally in the squid fishery. Unfortunately, there is also unregulated driftnet fisheries that
have been operated primarily by Korean and Taiwanese fishermen. Illegal catches and sales of salmon from rivers
further to the north are known to occur (Lewis, 1990).
Figure 7-3. High Seas Driftnet Squid Fishery in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Map of where the high seas driftnet
fishery for squid takes place (Graphic used with permission of Klamath River Education Program).
NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
NOAA special agents began to crack down on sales of salmoncaught illegally in driftnets in 1989 (Lewis, 1990). In
1990, Congress amended the Magnusen Act to call for a ban on all long line driftnet use in the ocean (Oregon Coastal
Law Memo, 1990). United Nations Resolution 44225 called for a ban on all long line driftnet fisheries in May of 1992
(Oregon Coastal Law Memo, 1990) but enforcement in international waters remains problematic.
No Evidence High Seas Driftnet Fishing Impacts South Fork Stocks
Although the specific migration patterns of South Fork Trinity River chinook and coho salmon stocks have never been
determined, evidence suggests that Klamath basin stocks of these species range fairly near shore along the Continental
Shelf off California and Oregon (Laufler et al., 1986; Barnhardt, 1986). Therefore, there is virtually no possibility that
salmon stocks from the basin are at risk in high seas driftnet fisheries. Some information gathered by the NMFS
suggests that coastal stocks of large winter steelhead from some California streams may have extended migrations,
as far north as Alaska and well into the mid-Pacific (Light et al., 1988). Steelhead exhibiting this ocean range could
have some exposure to harvest in the squid high seas driftnet fisheries.
The majority of South Fork Trinity steelhead spend one year or less in the ocean and, therefore, most likely exhibit
an ocean migration pattern that does not take them into far distant ocean areas where drift net fisheries are conducted.
Satterthwaite (1988) documented an unusually high rate of straying between Klamath and Rogue River "half-pounder"
steelhead which suggests that fish showing this life history may feed in the rich waters off the Continental Shelf between
these rivers. Adult steelhead scale analysis from the South Fork Trinity River showed that 44% and 39%, respectively,
had returned as half-pounders (Mills and Wilson, 1991; Wilson and Mills, 1992).
Foreign Factory Ships Replaced by Domestic Fleet in Hake FisheryPacific whiting (Merluccius productus), also
known as hake, are a migratory species that spawns off Baja California and central California during January and
February. This species is harvested with mid-water trawl nets. The fishery begins in April off northern California
then moves north through Oregon and Washington and into Canada as the season progresses. (Information provided
in this section comes largely from NMFS, 1992a).
In the 1960's there was little commercial interest in hake by United States fishermen and U.S. territorial waters
extended out only twelve miles. Consequently, factory ships of foreign fleets were allowed to come in to target this
species. The Magnusen Act extended U.S. territorial waters out to 200 miles so foreign fleets needed permission
from the PFMC to fish for whiting. Beginning in 1978, U.S. fishermen began to catch whiting in mid-water trawl nets
for the foreign factory ships. From 1978 to 1989 these "joint ventures" harvested an increasing amount of the catch.
Since 1989, American corporations have built factory ships which have now displaced foreign vessels. Local
on-shore processing of whiting has also increased. NMFS has had an observer program to monitor catch rates
and species of fish delivered to factory ships by "catcher boats."
Whiting Fleet Has Low Impact on Klamath Salmon
Along the entire coast from California to Canada, an average of 221,000 metric tons of whiting are harvested annually,
but by-catch of salmon has averaged less than 10,000 fish since 1987 (NMFS, 1992b). The allowable impact rate is
.05 salmon per metric ton of whiting harvest (KFMC, 1991). None of the salmon may be kept by the factory ships or
catcher boats. The average sport and commercial harvest of salmon off Oregon, Washington, and California in the
same time period was over 1,300,000 fish. The relative impact of the whiting fishery is low when compared to directed
fisheries. In 1991, approximately 8,500 chinook salmon were taken incidentally in the whiting fishery, with most fish
being only one or two years old (KFMC, 1992). Because these fish would have substantial natural mortality before
reaching maturity, the whiting fishery is thought to have little impact on spawning escapement. The KFMC requested
an analysis of how many Klamath Basin salmon were in the by-catch and NMFS estimated the number at only 850 fish
(KFMC, 1991). By-catch in the whiting fishery of salmon is comprised of 82-98 percent chinook salmon; therefore,
impacts to coho salmon are very minor and there is little information that suggests that steelhead are taken.
The PFMC implemented numerous measures in 1992 to reduce the take of salmon in the whiting fishery off California
due to extremely low stock abundance of Klamath fall chinook. The opening of the season was delayed to April 15,
fishing was not allowed at night, no fishing was allowed in shallow water (less than 100 fathoms), and no at-sea
processing was allowed.
PFMC Salmon Management Model Strives To Protect Natural Spawners
Fall chinook salmon from the Klamath Basin became a major focus of management through the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (PFMC) as a result of allocation conflicts and stock declines (Fraidenburg and Lincoln, 1985).
The initial escapement goal set in 1978 was for 115,000 fall chinook, including 97,500 natural spawners (
Fraidenburg and Lincoln, 1985). Natural spawners are those fall chinook that spawn outside hatchery facilities,
although some hatchery strays may contribute to part of what is counted as natural spawners (USFWS, 1991).
In 1980, the short-term goal for escapement was modified to 86,000 to avoid severe disruption to California ocean
fisheries. The PFMC (1980) expected that the goal of 115,000 could still be attained after one life cycle. The PFMC
again proposed an alternative rebuilding schedule in 1983 that would take four brood cycles (16 years) to achieve
rebuilding of the stock (PFMC, 1983). It allowed a minimum escapement of 68,900 in order to allow for more
predictable ocean fisheries.
After the Klamath Fisheries Management Council (KFMC) was created by Congress in 1986 under the Klamath
Restoration Act (PL 99-552), the KFMC influenced the PFMC in 1987 to adopt a rebuilding escapement floor of
35,000 adult natural spawners (KFMC, 1992). This number of spawners was recognized as a minimum viable
population for conservation and this minimum population for conservation was codified into law as Amendment IX
of the Magnusen Act. Also incorporated as the primary management goal is to implement harvest rate management
in order to allow an escapement rate of 34% for naturally spawning fall chinook salmon (KFMC, 1992). This is thought
to be an optimal rate for sustained yield.
Despite considerable effort to manage Klamath basin fall chinook on a sustained yield basis, the stock showed
precipitous declines in recent years. Escapements of adult natural fall chinook to the Klamath River in 1990, 1991,
and 1992 were 15,536, 11,499, and 11,120, respectively (CDFG, 1992). This averages just 13% of the initial target
for natural spawning escapement set in 1980 and just over one third of the absolute floor adopted by the PFMC in
1987 (Figure 7-4). Harvest took place in 1992 "into the floor," which was the first time that the PFMC had
purposefully acted in violation of Amendment IX. Preliminary estimates indicate that the 35,000 goal for Klamath fall
chinook natural spawners was missed again in 1993 (CDFG, 1993b) with approximately 20,800 adult spawners
returning. This now makes a complete life cycle in which under-escapement has occurred.
How Harvest Rate Management is Implemented
The California Department of Fish and Game has marked Trinity River Hatchery and Iron Gate Hatchery chinook
salmon with coded wire tags to aid in the determination of the range and abundance of Klamath stocks in the ocean.
The majority of these marked Klamath fall chinook have been caught between Brookings, Oregon and Shelter Cove,
California, with a minor amount of Klamath fish also harvested by commercial and sport fishermen in areas further
to the north and south. The area between Cape Blanco, Oregon and Point Delgada has been designated as the
Klamath Management Zone (KMZ). Fishing effort in this zone is restricted in years when Klamath fall chinook
salmon abundance is low. Fisheries to the north and south of the KMZ are also cut back in years when Klamath
fall chinook stocks are severely depressed.
Figure 7-4. Klamath River fall chinook adult natural spawners, 1978-1992, including original and revised escapement
floors set by the PFMC. NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
The Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT) serves the PFMC and KFMC in projecting Klamath fall chinook
stock abundance in the ocean. The number of three year old chinook salmon is calculated by using a linear regression
relationship that uses the number of two year old salmon (jacks) which returned to the river in the prior year (Figure 7-5).
In some years the calculated number of three year olds can be off by a significant margin using this method. The number
of four year old fall chinook salmon in the ocean are estimated from a projection based on a linear regression which
uses the combined total of three year old fish harvested and those that returned to spawn (Figure 7-6). Pre-season
estimates of four year old chinook has proved more accurate, as reflected by the closer distribution of all brood
years to the regression line.
Figure 7-5. Regression using the number of two year old fall chinook salmon (jacks) to estimate the abundance of
three year olds. NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
Figure 7-6. Regression for prediction of Age 4 ocean fall chinook. NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
After estimates are calculated, a model called the Harvest Rate Model (HRM) determines the allowable catches
and resultant escapements based on allocations to the ocean and river fisheries. For several years the KMZ was
managed as one large unit with harvest impacts of the commercial troll and ocean sport harvest modeled separately.
In 1988, the KRTAT modified this approach andbegan separating fisheries by ocean area for more refined
management within the range of Klamath stocks. The management of separate time/area cells is known as
the Klamath Ocean Harvest Model (KOHM). The fisheries considered in the model are as follows:
1. Northern Oregon Troll Fishery: From Cape Falcon to Haceta Head,
2. Coos Bay Troll Fishery: Between Haceta Head and Cape Blanco,
3. KMZ Sport Fishery: Between Cape Blanco and Point Delgada,
4. KMZ Troll Fishery: Between Cape Blanco and Point Delgada,
5. Fort Bragg Troll Fishery: From Point Delgada to Point Arena, and
6. Southern California Troll Fishery: South of Point Arena.
Five time periods are considered annually in the KOHM: fall, spring, June, July and August. The combination of areas
and times create a matrix of 30 time area management units in which fishing effort has been shaped to share as
equally as possible in fishing opportunity over a wide area, while still protecting Klamath fall chinook salmon stocks
(Figure 7-8).
Low Natural Spawning Escapement Triggers Over Fishing Report
The Magnusen Fishery Conservation and Management Act promotes "conservation and management measures
that shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuous basis, the optimal yield from each fishery."
In Amendment X of the Act, a clear definition of "overfishing" is provided:
" Overfishing is an occurrence whereby all mortality, regardless of source, results in a failure of a salmon stock to meet
its annual escapement goal or management objective... for three consecutive years, and for which changes in the
fishery management regime offer the primary opportunity to improve stock status.
"Klamath Management Zone and Areas Used in Klamath Ocean Harvest Model Figure 7-8. Area managed as the
Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) to protect Klamath fall chinook stocks and time/area cells used under the Klamath
Ocean Harvest Model (KOHM).
Since Klamath fall chinook salmon have failed to meet the 35,000 escapement floor set by Amendment IX of the
Magnusen Act for three consecutive years beginning in 1990, an overfishing committee was convened by the
PFMC. While the report remains in draft at the time of this writing (PFMC, 1993a), preliminary findings are reviewed
here to help understand the root causes of low fall chinook escapements to the Klamath basin in recent years. It is
acknowledged in Amendment X that some factors leading to under-escapement may not have been related to
harvest, and the committee's findings on factors other than fishing are also discussed.
Estimation Methodology and Harvest Management Contributions
The preliminary findings of the overfishing committee are that problems with estimation methodology and harvest
management methods have contributed to under-escapement of natural fall chinook spawners (PFMC, 1993a).
Pre-season estimates of three year old chinook available for harvest in 1989 through 1991 were high when
compared with post season estimates (Figure 7-9). The committee (PFMC, 1993a) concluded that over-estimation
of three year old fish allowed overfishing in 1991 and led to under escapement in that year. The prediction of abundance
of three year old fall chinook in the ocean from 1985-1992 has been very imprecise, ranging from 31% to 210% of
post season estimates (PFMC, 1993a).
Figure 7-9. Estimates of Age 3 Klamath fall chinook salmon before and after fishing seasons from 1985-1991
(Parker, 1993). NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
Over estimation of stock abundance has also been shown to be a principal cause of overfishing of Oregon coho and
Puget Sound stocks (PFMC, 1992a; 1992b). Estimates for abundance of three year old fall chinook salmon in 1992
showed that escapements below 35,000 could be expected but a fishery was carried out despite this knowledge.
"In 1990, errors in accurately modeling time-and-area fisheries in the ocean were the principal cause of the
escapement shortfall" (PFMC, 1993a). The efforts to model fisheries in the Fort Bragg and Coos Bay areas have
usually under-predicted impact rates, particularly on fully vulnerable four year old fall chinook salmon (Table 7-3).
The seasons in these areas have been partially closed or allowed only short periods of access but the technique
appears to have been ineffective in reducing impacts (PFMC, 1993a). The problem seems to arise because of the
unpredictable way that fishing effort shifts in response to time and area closures. In 1990, the Coos Bay area had
much greater fishing effort during openings than predicted and the catch rate of Klamath fall chinook was much
higher than anticipated. The inability to predict impacts of very limited seasons has contributed to a chronic
under-estimation of impacts on fully vulnerable 4 year old Klamath fall chinook salmon (Table 7-4). Only in 1992,
when commercial salmon trolling was virtually closed in areas managed using the KOHM, did impacts not exceed
the target.
Table 7-4. Preseason estimates of impact of ocean salmon
fisheries on Age 4 fall chinook
compared to post season estimates, 1988-1992 (PFMC, 1993).
Year Preseason Target Post Season
Estimate
1988 39% 45%
1989 37.5% 43%
1990 37.5% 61%
1991 16% 22%
1992 8% 4%
Harvest Rate Much Higher For Klamath Sub-basin Stocks
The PFMC Salmon Framework Plan in Amendment IX of the Magnusen Act calls for a 33-34% harvest rate for
each brood year, as well as a minimum escapement of 35,000 fish in years of low abundance. Fall chinook salmon
for the entire Klamath/Trinity River are managed as an aggregate, but the overfishing committee found that some
sub-basin stocks had chronically low escapement rates. Coded wire tagged fall chinook juveniles released as
fingerlings from Iron Gate and Trinity River Hatcheries are thought to fairly represent vulnerability to harvest of natural
chinook stocks from Klamath sub-basins above Weitchpec and from Trinity River sub-basins, respectively. Analysis
of coded wire tag data from fingerlings released at the hatcheries show that stocks from the two basins may have
substantially different escapement rates (Table 7-5).
Escapement rates of 33-34% are required for sustained yield even for fish returning to healthy habitat; therefore,
low escapements related to harvest threaten the long term productivity of some Klamath fall chinook stocks. Some
Klamath sub-basins, such as the Shasta and Scott Rivers, are known to have very poor habitat conditions so may
have even greater vulnerability to overfishing. The overfishing committee recognized that the failure to meet the
escapement rate for Klamath sub-basin stocks, including all tributaries above the Trinity River, constituted a problem
(PFMC, 1993a). Solutions discussed by the committee included reducing ocean harvest rates and shifting the timing
of Indian net harvest to target Trinity River Hatchery fish.
Table 7-5. Escapement rates of Klamath sub-basin and Trinity River
sub-basin fall chinook stocks as calculated from survival of hatchery releases
of fall chinook fingerlings.
Brood Year Klamath Stocks Trinity Stocks
1979 14% 33%
1980 23% 69%
1981 46% 63%
1982 33% 41%
1983 22% 40%
1984 16% 31%
1985 12% 47%
1986 18% 46%
1987 35% 46%
1988 65% 64%
Ocean Conditions
Adult survival of fall chinook salmon in the ocean was not inordinately low in
1990-1992 when compared to El Nino years, such as 1982-83. Therefore, the
overfishing committee concluded that "poor ocean survival rates for adults were
probably not a primary factor contributing to recent poor productivity of
Klamath River fall chinook salmon" during the years of under-escapement
(PFMC, 1993). However, they did find some evidence that ocean survival of
juvenile chinook salmon may have contributed to low stock abundance in
1990-1992. This conclusion was based on very low survival rates of Iron
Gate Hatchery fall chinook yearling release groups . Studies show that
released yearlings usually migrate rapidly downstream and into the ocean;
therefore, their poor survival was ascribed to poor ocean conditions.
Hatchery Operation
Iron Gate Hatchery and Trinity River Hatchery operation were evaluated as
part of the overfishing committee review. Although evidence was not
conclusive, the committee found that hatchery operation may have contributed
to poor productivity of the 1986 through 1988 brood years and to subsequent
low abundance of Klamath River fall chinook stocks in 1990-1992 (see also
Chapter VIII).
Freshwater Habitat Conditions
The overfishing committee also attempted to discover if any major differences
in freshwater habitat productivity in the 1986-1988 brood years could have led
to declines in 1990-1992 stock abundance. While it is acknowledged that habitat
conditions are very unfavorable in some Klamath sub-basins (USFWS, 1991),
available data did not provide conclusive evidence that particularly poor survival
would have caused declines in recruitment in 1986-1988. The preponderance of
professional opinion on the committee, however, was that drought conditions in
1987 and 1988 exacerbated habitat problems for spawning and rearing and made
some contribution to under-escapement in 1991-1992.
Mixed Stock Fisheries Problems Not Resolved for South Fork Stocks
When fish of different stocks, including wild fish and abundant hatchery fish,
range together they are often harvested in what is termed a "mixed stock fishery."
Hatchery fish are sheltered from natural selection during their early life stages;
therefore, they are much more capable of sustaining harvest than naturally spawned
salmon (Stempel, 1988). If wild salmon are returning to streams with impaired habitat,
their reproductive ability may be further diminished making them even more vulnerable
to exploitation (Lichatowich and McIntyre, 1987).
Hankin (1992) suggested that naturally spawning Oregon coho salmon would exhibit
reduced stock productivity in response to poor freshwater habitat conditions and,
to a lesser extent, to poor ocean conditions in some years (Figure 7-10). It has
also been suggested that the inability to separately manage for hatchery salmon
and depressed wild stocks may be contributing to the extinction of Pacific salmon
stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest (Nehlsen et al. 1991; Wright, 1993).
Salmon stocks in the South Fork Trinity River all spawn primarily in the main stem
of the river. Changes in bed conditions following the 1964 flood reduced suitability
for spawning and rearing (CDWR, 1982) and main river environments still suffer from
lingering flood effects (Haskins and Irizarry, 1988). Consequently, salmon stocks
from the basin may have low natural stock productivity and impacts from overfishing
would be magnified. The following problems with mixed stock harvest in various
fisheries may be impacting South Fork Trinity River stocks.
Fall Chinook
The South Fork Trinity River fall chinook population was at a critical low point
in 1990, when it was estimated that fewer than 20 females survived to spawn
(Jong and Mills, in press). Fall chinook spawn primarily in the canyon area
below Hyampom where Dean (personal communication) noted scour and fill of up to
ten feet in 1991, a year with very low flows. Rearing conditions in the main stem
of the South Fork Trinity River are also poor (Chapter III). Because of severe
habitat problems in the South Fork Trinity River basin, there may be no harvestable
surplus of wild fall chinook salmon stock from the basin.
Ocean fisheries have constituted the bulk of the harvest in all years until
1991 and 1992; therefore, they would pose the greatest threat to South Fork
fall chinook stocks. Sport harvests in the lower Klamath and Trinity Rivers
that target abundant hatchery fish may also create mixed stock fisheries pressure
on South Fork fall chinook salmon. Problems already noted with regard to low
escapement in Klamath River basins above Weitchpec (PFMC, 1993a) may lead to
a shift in timing of Indian net harvest to target Trinity River Hatchery fish
instead of Iron Gate Hatchery stocks. Since South Fork Trinity River fall
chinook have a similar run timing to Trinity River hatchery fish, this effort
shift may have an undesirable impact on the depressed natural stock of the
South Fork.
Estimated Changes in Sustained Yield Curves in Response to Freshwater
Habitat and Ocean Conditions
Figure 7-10. Estimated difference in sustained yield of Oregon coho
salmon in response to impaired freshwater habitat conditions and
years of poor ocean conditions (from Hankin, 1992).
Spring Chinook
There are no specific escapement goals for any stock of naturally spawning
spring chinook salmon in the Klamath basin. Ocean harvest monitoring of
this stock group is not routinely employed to achieve harvest rate management,
as it is for fall chinook salmon, yet they are known to be impacted in ocean
fisheries, particularly by the commercial troll fleet (KFMC, 1992). South
Fork Trinity River spring chinook also are experiencing problems with their
freshwater habitat and the population has been at critically low levels
since 1964 (see Chapter II). Healed ocean hook scars were seen on South
Fork Trinity River spring chinook in 1990 (Dean, in press), confirming
that the stock is vulnerable to ocean harvest.
USFWS (1990) expressed concern that increased Indian fishing effort, in
response to abundant Trinity Hatchery spring chinook, could potentially
impact depressed wild stocks. Dean (in press) found that 25% of South
Fork Trinity River spring chinook had gill net scarring in 1990, but
the rate dropped to 8% in 1991. Dean (in press) also found that 12%
of spring chinook returning to the South Fork Trinity River in 1990 had
fresh hook scars indicating some harvest by in-river sport fisheries.
No fresh hook scars were seen in 1991 when fishing within the South
Fork itself was restricted.
Coho Salmon
No management effort has been expended by PFMC or other entities to
determine if there is a harvestable surplus of coho salmon from California's
rivers, including Klamath basin stocks (PFMC, 1992). California coho
salmon are thought to range along the Continental Shelf from Monterey,
California to the mouth of the Columbia River (Hassler, 1985). Take
of coho salmon is governed by estimated abundance of Oregon coastal
natural coho stocks (KFMC, 1992). Oregon wild coho were over-fished
from 1989-91 (PFMC, 1992a). High production of hatchery fish,
over-estimation of abundance of wild fish, and poor freshwater habitat
conditions were all cited as contributing to the over-fishing problem
on Oregon coastal natural coho (PFMC, 1992a).
South Fork Trinity River coho stocks may be at extremely low levels
(see Chapter II), but the contribution of harvest to low abundance is
unclear. The number of coho harvested annually in the California ocean
troll increased after 1963, supported largely by artificial production
in Oregon and Washington (O'Brien and Lesh, 1975). Studies by Nickleson
et al. (1985) showed that Oregon coho stock composition changed from
50:50 hatchery/wild ratio to 85:15 as a result of an intensified mixed
stock fishery targeting hatchery coho. Similar problems with mixed stock
harvest would exist for any remnant wild South Fork Trinity River coho
stocks after 1964 and would continue to the present. Catches of coho
salmon are far higher in the sport fishery in the KMZ than in the commercial
troll catch (KFMC, 1992).
Leidy and Leidy (1984) noted that native Klamath basin coho have a
significantly later run timing than Trinity River and Iron Gate Hatchery
coho. In-river sport and Indian fisheries are not significant during the
time that native coho are thought to be migrating.
Possible Solutions To Harvest Threat To South Fork Stocks
The major escapement shortfall of Klamath River fall chinook salmon in
1990-1992 has led to discussion of several possible remedies to prevent
the recurrence of this problem. Universal marking of hatchery fish and
selective harvest in all fisheries, where feasible, is one potential
solution that is under consideration. Poaching problems in the Salmon
River basin in Siskiyou County have been partially remedied through
community education and that example may have some potential for transfer
to the South Fork Trinity River basin.
Mass Marking May Be Solution To Mixed Stock Fishery Dilemma
Current Klamath River basin fall chinook salmon management does not have
the capability to specifically protect South Fork Trinity River fish.
Even when overall escapement goals are met for the aggregate Klamath
basin stock group, some sub-basin stocks may be under-escaped (PFMC, 1993a).
Neither spring chinook or coho salmon from the Klamath basin are specifically
managed for any harvest rate or escapement goal. If more stocks of salmon fall
under protection of the Endangered Species Act, fisheries may be closed to
prevent extinctions. Conversely, continued harvest of weak stocks in mixed
stock fisheries may contribute to extinction of some stock groups in the
Klamath/Trinity basin.
Universal marking of hatchery salmon and selective harvest in all fisheries
where feasible may be a viable management alternative to allow continued
fishing of abundant hatchery fish while relieving pressure on weak stocks
and permitting them to recover. If mass marking is employed to protect weak
stocks of fall chinook salmon, it would also protect wild spring chinook salmon.
Universal marking of coho salmon is currently under consideration by the
U.S./Canada Technical Committee of the PFMC (1993b) and, if implemented would
afford protection to remnant wild coho stocks in the Klamath basin.
Below is a discussion of the pros and cons of mass marking that relies on
a recent CDFG (1993a) analysis.
Marking Methods Available Are Limited: Clipping the adipose fin, a small
fleshy fin between the dorsal and tail fins, would be the most desirable
mark to help recognize hatchery fish. Adipose fin clips cause less mortality
than clipping other fins and are the easiest to see for fishermen trying to
release unmarked wild fish. Currently the adipose fin clip is used only in
conjunction with implantation of a coded wire tag in the nose of salmon
species. The heads of adipose fin clipped fish are retrieved after harvest
at many locations to provide information on harvest management and on the
effectiveness of various hatchery methods.
To make mass marking feasible, the international convention of mandatory coded
wire tagging of all adipose fin clipped fish would have to be abandoned. New
technology now allows smaller tags to be implanted in the cheek of juvenile
hatchery fish that can subsequently be detected by an electronic sensor similar
to ones used in grocery stores. An electronic sensing wand could be used to screen
harvested salmon to gather the same information currently available from coded
wire tags, but only a fraction of the adipose fin clipped fish would have to be
tagged.
Cost and Logistics of Marking Are Substantial: Costs of marking all salmon released
from hatcheries throughout the Pacific Northwest would run in the millions of dollars.
Iron Gate and Trinity hatcheries produce an average of ten million juvenile chinook
salmon annually and Central Valley hatcheries produce approximately 40 million
juveniles each year (CDFG 1993b). It is much less expensive to mark only with a fin
clip as opposed to a fin clip and coded wire tag. Thus, repealing the international
convention of requiring coded wire tags for all adipose fin clipped fish, as discussed
above, would be essential to contain the costs of universal marking.
Fingerlings can only be marked after they attain a certain size, and they must be
released by late spring. Marking crews might have to operate around the clock to a
ccomplish universal marking in the time frame required. Both the logistical problems
and cost could be reduced if the number of hatchery fish released were also reduced.
Hatchery production is known to sometimes have deleterious side effects on wild fish
(Steward and Bjornn, 1990), and may be a contributing factor to stock losses region
wide (Nehlsen et al., 1991). Consequently, the level of hatchery production should
probably be re-evaluated to insure that impacts to wild stocks are minimized.
Mortality Associated With Marking: Any marking program can be expected to increase
mortality due to handling stress. CDFG (1993b) anticipates up to 5% mortality from
adipose fin clipping and suggests that mortality could reduce hatchery production by
as much as 5-10%. The greatest problems associated with handling stress are when fish
that have disease problems that are in remission are handled. Excessive mortality often
thought to be related to marking may actually be indicative of fish health problems that
need to be remedied regardless.
Incidental Hooking Mortality On Unmarked Fish: Whenever a fish is hooked and brought
to the boat it may suffer mortality from stress or be more subject to predation.
Ricker (1976) estimated that incidental hooking mortality of under-sized salmon in
troll fisheries might be as high as 50%. More recent studies suggest that realistic
hook and release mortality is more in the range of 20% (Wertheimer, 1988). Since
large scale hook and release type regulations have never been attempted for commercial
and sport salmon fisheries, a great deal of innovation would be required to make such
an effort succeed. Therefore, fisheries management would have new challenges such as:
1. Re-evaluation of hooking mortality to confirm that prior studies
are accurate,
2. Determination of impacts to fish with an older age at maturity
(eg. chinook salmon) due to multi-year exposure to fisheries,
3. Shaping fisheries so that effort was discontinued when the
ratio of unmarked to marked fish became too low, and
4. Shifting fishing effort away from areas with a large proportion
of unmarked fish.
Cooperation Could Be Problematic: For mass marking to be successful, all
hatcheries throughout the Pacific Northwest would need to cooperate.
Changing the convention on coded wire tagging will also take international
cooperation. There is considerable resistance to mass marking at present
from the California Department of Fish and Game and the government of Canada,
among others. The problems of fishing access to stocks resulting from
Endangered Species listings and low abundance of some natural stocks is
spurring re-evaluation of this option at present (PFMC, 1993b).
Angler Acceptance To Selective Harvest and Enforcement: Traditionally,
anglers and commercial fishermen have been able to keep all fish over
a certain size limit; therefore, they may react adversely to selective
harvest of hatchery fish. Would anglers stop fishing if they were able
to keep only a portion of fish hooked? Release of bleeding fish that
were almost certainly going to die might produce adverse reactions to
this strategy. CDFG (1993b) is apprehensive that selective harvest might
suffer rejection by anglers.
Recent regulations requiring release of coho salmon or chinook salmon
in various years has already accustomed anglers to some selective harvest.
A large scale education program would be necessary, if selective harvest
were implemented, to help improve survival of released fish and to gain
acceptance for the program. If anglers were aware that without selective
harvest there might be much less fishing opportunity, they might be open
to this new approach. As consumers become concerned about endangered salmon,
they may reduce consumption unless commercial fishermen can assure them that
salmon harvested were of hatchery origin.
Any major changes in management and regulation are always accompanied by
significant challenges to enforcement personnel. Commercial processing
facilities and docks where sportfishing boats returned would need monitoring
to assure that only fin clipped fish were being landed. This effort is no
different than monitoring use of salmon punch cards by sport anglers, reduced
bag limits, or selective harvest of chinook and release of coho salmon in recent
years. Preventing unauthorized clipping of fins by commercial or sport fishermen
of released wild fish would be a considerable challenge.
Application of Selective Fisheries: In some years it is possible that there
might be a harvestable surplus of some wild stock groups leading to lost fishing
opportunity on some populations with a harvestable surplus. Hopefully, restoration
efforts in freshwater habitat would proceed as selective harvest was implemented,
making harvest of wild fish possible again in the future. It is also possible that
no harvest of hatchery fish might be allowed in extremely low abundance years.
For instance, in 1992 only 7,600 fall chinook salmon returned to Iron Gate and
Trinity hatcheries despite almost complete protection from ocean fisheries.
In these years of extremely low abundance, hatchery marking costs would seem like
a waste.
Policy Issues Need Consideration: CDFG (1993b) suggests that managing fisheries
only for hatchery production might lead to increased pressure to boost hatchery
output and lessen incentives to protect wild fish and to restore their habitat.
However, increased hatchery output of salmon will likely be precluded under the
Endangered Species Act because of the undesirable side effects on wild fish.
CDFG (1993b) also puts forth the hypothesis that gill net fishing might come
under fire because it is not compatible with selective harvest. Conversely, if
selective harvest in the ocean were implemented and it led to a tremendous
resurgence in returns to the river, Indian harvest might become much less
significant relative to escapement.
Community Education Helps Decrease Poaching In Salmon River
Adult education by the Salmon River Concerned Citizens, funded by the Klamath
River Task Force, has been successful in reducing poaching in the Salmon River
basin (Pete Brucker, personal communication). Workshops were held in the rural
communities along the Salmon River (Sommes Bar, Forks of the Salmon and Sawyers
Bar) to alert local residents of the critically low population levels of spring
chinook salmon and summer steelhead. It was pointed out that listing of these
species under the Endangered Species Act could lead to further restrictions of
local land management such as timber harvest and mining.
Local residents in the basin have responded positively by decreasing poaching
activity. Because fish have been an important supplement to the diet of basin
residents in the past, poaching has been acceptable behavior. That social
acceptance has now shifted so poachers must now be much more secretive because
they are under scrutiny from their neighbors.
The Forks of the Salmon Elementary School has joined in the anti-poaching
educational campaign and has produced a poster saying "poach eggs not fish."
In the South Fork Trinity River basin, educational efforts for school children
are already underway with the Hayfork Adopt-a-Watershed program (see Chapter XIV).
Adult workshops on poaching in the basin might also be worthwhile.
Wild Trout Regulations in Hayfork Creek a Potential Benefit
Continuation of the current rescue rearing program for winter steelhead on Tule
Creek could help provide "hatchery" fish for sport harvest, while helping to
build community support for restoration. This program could have maximum benefit
if it leads to a fishery on Hayfork Creek that poses minimal threat to wild fish
while allowing economic development related to tourism. If the community had legal
access to a fishery in Hayfork Creek, poaching might also decrease. Such a fishery
could be based on "Wild Trout" regulations with one fish in possession, and use of
artificial lures only. Release of wild fish could be stipulated, with only
fin-clipped fish allowed for harvest. This would insure that wild fish populations
were only minimally impacted. Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all now manage
their steelhead fisheries on a limited kill basis. Hatchery fish may be kept but all
wild fish must be released.
Hayfork Creek has clear water conditions compared to other northern California streams
that have winter steelhead. An economic development program based on tourism related
to winter steelhead fishing might be an outcome of this effort. Drawing anglers that
are primarily interested in catch-and-release fishing stimulates the local economy but
takes nothing from the local resource base. Hayfork Creek would only be open in its
lower reaches (below Salt Creek) during high flows in winter and provisions would be
necessary for closure during drought or low flows. If fishermen begin to release wild
fish in the main South Fork Trinity River, then wild escapement and production might
increase since repeat spawning by steelhead is common in the basin. Conversely, CDFG
(1993) feels that harvest of winter steelhead in the South Fork Trinity River is minor
and, relative to habitat problems, inconsequential in terms of altering run size.
Therefore, further limitations on harvest regulations would not necessarily achieve a
measurable positive effect (CDFG, 1993).
The Indirect Impacts of Fisheries On Salmon Food Resources
The National Marine Fisheries Service has never conducted a full environmental review
as to what effect large scale fisheries, such as the whiting (hake) fishery or the anchovy
fishery, might be having on the food web that supports salmon stocks in the Pacific
Northwest. Recent ocean productivity for chinook salmon has been low even in years when
there are no effects from El Nino events. Some prime salmon food sources, such as the
Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), have been almost wiped out (Figure 7-11). Another
important forage species is the northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) which is at the
lowest biomass since the species began to be monitored by NMFS (Figure 7-12). This
species has continued to decline in recent years even though fisheries have been
reduced (NMFS, 1992). Other potential forage species, such as the eulachon or candle
fish (Thaleichthys pacificus), are greatly diminished from historic levels (USFWS, 1991).
Juvenile whiting are also of a size that would be suitable for salmon as a food source.
It may be desirable for NMFS to begin large scale efforts to determine ecological
consequences of other fisheries with regard to depletion of food resources for Pacific
salmon.
Figure 7-11. Harvest and biomass estimates for Pacific sardines
from 1932-1990 showing near extinction (NMFS, 1992).
NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
In the early days of ocean commercial salmon fishing, salmon remained
abundant in the South Fork Trinity River (Trinity Journal, 1936). Healthy
habitat in the basin seemed to allow the population to withstand heavy
fishing pressure. Habitat degradation drastically reduced all salmon runs
in the basin after the 1964 flood, yet ocean harvest continued to rise.
Hatcheries increased production levels to support increased fishing effort,
leading to over-harvest of wild fish in the mixed stock fisheries (Rankel,
1980). Because habitat is still impaired in the South Fork Trinity basin,
stock productivity of coho salmon, fall chinook salmon and spring chinook
salmon may all be low which increases vulnerability to overfishing.
Despite major investments of time and money in management of Klamath River
fall chinook stocks, returns in recent years have been among the lowest on
record. The overfishing committee report (PFMC, 1993b) may result in some
modification of harvest management methodology yet incremental adjustments
may not be adequate to address fundamental mixed stock fisheries problems.
The lack of ability to govern sub-basin stocks through harvest rate management
or escapement goals means that South Fork Trinity River stocks could be driven
to extinction even while Klamath basin wide goals were being met.
Figure 7-12. Declines of northern anchovy from 1965-1990 (NMFS, 1992).
NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
To protect depressed stocks of native fish, universal marking of all hatchery
salmon may need to be implemented with selective harvest in all fisheries
where feasible. Many problems and challenges will confront fisheries managers
if such a major shift in management strategy is attempted but clearly the
present system is not working to protect gene resources that will be necessary
if restoration is to succeed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml