In the early 1990s, it was called the "federal bogeyman argument," and it weighed on the minds of anglers looking to mend declining wild steelhead runs without applying the heavy hand of the Endangered Species Act.

The argument: It's better to accept Oregon's proposed catch-and-release rules on wild Rogue River steelhead than to invite federal agencies to list these fish as threatened and dictate their management.

Now the times have changed, with early-run spring chinook salmon replacing steelhead as the Rogue's wild fish du jour. And the bogeyman's official name has changed from the National Marine Fisheries Service to NOAA-Fisheries.

The bogeyman argument has resurfaced among some Rogue anglers as they begin accepting sweeping changes to when and where they can target wild spring chinook on the upper Rogue, much like they did with wild steelhead 16 years ago.

Local sport-fishing leaders appear resigned to doing something about the depressed wild spring chinook now before bigger cutbacks in fishing opportunities surface on the radar screens of regulatory agencies.

Advertisement

"Personally, I'm all for conservation, to get the wild fish back," says Roger King, political director for the Rogue Sportsmen and Guides Association. "I'd hate to see the river shut down by the federal government because of lack of fish.

"We have to have a healthy river, keep the feds out of it and fix it ourselves," he says.

But just like before, the federal government isn't the real bogeyman here — NOAA-Fisheries isn't created or equipped to micromanage a subpopulation of the Rogue's chinook runs or any river's single run of anadromous fish.

"What the feds may or may not want to do is not really relevant," says Todd Confer, an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist in Gold Beach. "We want to do it because we want to maintain a healthy population of spring chinook that contribute to fisheries."

The propped-up bogeyman may just be the angling community's way of preparing to swallow a bitter regulatory pill in hopes that it cures a greater ailment.

Anglers now recognize that the old adage of "kill them all, large and small; eat the best and smoke the rest" is just a recipe for sending Southern Oregon's only wild spring chinook run the way of the dodo bird.

"There isn't a whole lot of comment that we should go back to allowing the harvest of two wild spring chinook and see what happens," Confer says. "It's more like, how do we get to desired status with the least amount of pain?"

The levels of pain are spelled out in the draft spring chinook management plan currently floated by the ODFW for public comment.

The draft plan steers anglers away from catching and keeping early-run wild spring chinook, whose numbers have plummeted since the 1990s.

The plan looks to revive the wild springer presence in the Rogue while keeping the popular fishery alive by focusing anglers on hatchery spring chinook and wild fall chinook for their barbecues.

The goal is to revive wild springer returns over Gold Ray Dam so they average at least 15,000 annually, almost twice what recent years have averaged.

The draft's two main alternatives — labeled Alternatives 8 and 9 — both list changes to management strategies at Lost Creek Lake as well as changes designed to reduce angling pressure on early-run wild spring chinook. Intensive catch rates on wild springers and the presence and operation of Lost Creek Lake are the main reasons behind the precipitous decline in wild Rogue spring chinook.

The alternatives differ slightly in how to get to that 15,000-fish level.

Mainly, the alternatives differ in where to draw the catch-and-release deadlines and whether to expand usable spawning habitat and the spring chinook hatchery program.

Also, Alternative 9 calls for opening chinook fishing during July and August downstream of Dodge Bridge, an area sporting a surplus of fall chinook that encroach on spring chinook spawning beds.

The lack of public outcry on the draft plan so far is deafening.

The little public discourse to date is not so much whether changes to angling rules are necessary. It's which set of proposed changes provide the best route to success.

"This is being done by fishermen because they want to have these early-run wild fish," says David Haight, an ODFW biologist in Gold Beach.

"We need to strengthen that run and take some sort of (restrictions) now so, down the road, things can improve."

At a Tuesday public meeting in Gold Beach, anglers were more interested in forging their future than pining for the past.

"Everybody's for Alternative 8," says Mark Lottis, president of the Curry Sportfishing Association and a member of an advisory committee that helped craft the plan.

"It still allows us to fish on the lower Rogue and still keep the occasional wild fish," Lottis says.

Another public meeting is planned for Tuesday in White City.

When Rogue Valley anglers take their shot at the draft Tuesday, they may realize there is no bogeyman here.

There's simply a depressed run of desired wild fish that probably is easier to revive now than later. Whether that means protecting wild spring chinook today or wild steelhead in the early 1990s, the answers are the same.

"The debate has changed quite a bit," Confer says. "There hasn't been a lot of grandstanding.

"I'd like to think that, at least within the fishing community, there's more knowledge of the situation now than what we've seen in the past."

Reach reporter Mark Freeman at 776-4470, or e-mail mfreeman@mailtribune.com.