Yep, fun water to fish. First hit it back in the 70's.
SF

Spoonfed,

I disagree about WDFW's desire to raise fish. They love, love, love to raise hatchery fish. Why? Because hatcheries are the largest line item in the Department's budget. They spend more license and tax dollars on hatcheries than they do anything else. If you know anything about bureaucracies, then you know that growing the empire ($$$) is job number ONE. The only reason they cut back on hatchery production is because of lawsuits and NMFS requirements for ESA to reduce conflict between hatchery fish and wild ESA fish. The Department loves to raise hatchery fish so much that they will raise hatchery salmon even if most of them are harvested in Canada and WA commercial and treaty and few are harvested by taxpayers and license buyers.

The reason why GH streams are closed and north coast rivers (and Skagit) are open to steelhead fishing is the WA steelhead management plan of 2008 (which is supposed to be updated every 5 years but never has been). The plan says that if a wild steelhead run is forecast to be less than the spawning escapement goal, then that river will be closed to steelhead fishing. It seems to me that a wise fish manager would update the management plan to take note that we now have wild steelhead release regulations statewide, and that rivers could remain open to take advantage of harvestable hatchery steelhead while imposing CNR regulations on the wild fish. And then there is the tiff between WDFW and Quinault. If the Tribe says "No" to sportfishing, then WDFW is going to cave every day of the week.

The Skagit is open because the grass roots group of Occupy Skagit showed the Commission that Skagit steelhead are not endangered or threatened, but just needed an ESA compliant management plan in order to open. The Skagit is open under very strict regulations so long as the run forecast exceeds the minimum threshold level for fishing.

C'man,

The Cedar is open only from June 1 to Aug. 31. If it were open (CNR) in March, April, and May there would be fantastic fishing for larger rainbow trout. As it is, the best fishing for larger trout is the first week of June before they all return downstream to Lake WA. Managing the Cedar and Lake WA for the fish that are there instead of the fish that they wish were there would require a major paradigm shift at WDFW (think also Willapa Bay and tribs.).

Tug 3,

Managing Lake WA for sockeye is so "last century," which is where WDFW keeps its head firmly planted. As long as taxpayers will pay the Department to do things that don't make ecological sense, they will keep doing it. Sadly, I believe the heyday of LW sockeye has come and gone, with fishing opportunity foregone due to that insanely high escapement goal that was not supported by any sane spawner-recruit modeling.

20 Gage,

It wasn't so much seals but sea lions that whacked LW and Cedar steelhead in the 1990s. Also during the 90s, steelhead smolt to adult survival rates, especially in PS, began declining, first significantly, then drastically. Anti-hatchery teachings have next to nothing to do with the problems on the Cedar. WDFW could plant the Cedar with all the hatchery steelhead that General Evo wants, but very few would survive to come back. That's just how the state of things are these days. Yes, there were decent runs of wild steelhead during the 70s and 80s, just like most other PS rivers. But they are all gone from all the rivers now. And it's because marine survival rates have crashed. The causes range from too many harbor seals and sea lions in PS, poor coastal upwelling conditions some years, the "blob" in coastal ocean waters, changing ocean surface temperatures on the high seas, changes in the forage composition on those same high seas, and who knows what else that scientists have yet to figure out. And if there's any upside to any of this, it's that WDFW is not to blame for it and couldn't change it if they tried or wanted to.

C'man,

Interesting hypothesis about LW spring wind causing sockeye fry starvation. I'll need clear, cogent, and convincing hard evidence to believe it. My reason? Salmon fry are amazing swimmers and can disperse quickly over a wide area. When I was working in the Baker River system, we found that fry released at the north end of either reservoir could be down to the southern end in a little over one day. Salmonids are extremely well adapted to periods of starvation, and apparently highly motivated to travel in search of food. But yeah, there are more problems on LW than we likely know about. I just don't think the prevailing wind is one of them. To wit, that wind is analogous to the offshore coastal winds that cause upwelling and bring nutrients from the substrate up into the water column to form phytoplankton and then zooplankton that juvenile fish feed on.

This thread delivers, folks!

I think as far as Lake Wa goes and Sammamish for that matter, both could be world class cutthroat fisheries but not with the current regs.
Very cool to have native trout in such a urban setting. I'm not sure WDFW has a clue as to what the populations really are based on one discussion I had with them.
On Sammamish, you've got some guides taking out two clients and keeping 15 fish. Two client limits plus a guide limit.
The cutts also get a bad rap for eating the sockeye fry. Sure, stuff a lake with millions of hatchery fry and then ask the native fish not to do what they naturally do.....ridiculous.
The last sockeye fishery was what, 2006? Its a waste of Seattle taxpayer money when only one group gets to enjoy a fishery. I doubt there will ever be another sockeye fishery unless they come off that 350K escapement number.

As far as searun cutts go, I think the population is fairly stable. I do see some fluctuations in fish sizes over the years. I think some of the bigger, older fish phase out of the populations. Right now, I'm seeing a lot of various sizes in the fish I've been catching. It isn't always like that. It will be interesting to see what WDFW does the new native trout policy they've been having meeting about.
SF

Salmo

I don't have the data at hand but the discussions were that the fry pretty much disappeared after hitting the mouth of the Cedar. Some, obviously survived, but lots didn't. Initial thought was predation by Yellow Perch but when they actually looked the predators weren't there and water temperatures were too cool for them to be active.

Salmo, i said raise more fish. They still raise and stock like the 90s with not much effort to get to the root of the problem. Too many cooks in the kitchen. What's wrong with with wild broodstock programs? They have been shown to work well. And of course they like to raise the same fish they have been. Without, they'd be outta job. Everything you described is a big part of where we are today. The kids cant play nice together and the taxpayer gets bent. I swear i just said that. That is exactly why that why some fisheries are open. Wouldn't be nice if the state had the pride to tell the sportsmen why gh really is closed. Or would it put something else in the spotlight that the state doesn't want to be known by the general public. Im just trying to make 2and2=4, couldn't get it out of your statement salmo. Lots of finger pointing on the taxpayers dime. Cheers

We should start an "Occupy Queets" movement.
F'ing QIN.
fb

“ back. That's just how the state of things are these days. Yes, there were decent runs of wild steelhead during the 70s and 80s, just like most other PS rivers. But they are all gone from all the rivers now. And it's because marine survival rates have crashed. The causes range from too many harbor seals and sea lions in PS, poor coastal upwelling conditions some years, the "blob" in coastal ocean waters, changing ocean surface temperatures on the high seas, changes in the forage composition on those same high seas, and who knows what else that scientists have yet to figure out. And if there's any upside to any of this, it's that WDFW is not to blame for it and couldn't change it if they tried or wanted to.“

Seals, sea lions, whatever. Eating returning fish, or smolts, coming in, going out. My point stands. And for the rest of your opionion, blobs, water warming, then cooling, ( like El Niño and his sister wasn’t happening from the first daze folks started fishing here in this area.) It’s just another opined excuse that a lot folks still sow seeds for.

Now, it’ll be too many pinks, or chums eating all the available food, then it’s the Russians, then it’s the next whatever you can’t prove excuse.

Sad really...

Make

It already is the AK hatchery pinks eating all the food up in the N Pacific. Apparently pinks are very strong competitors with most everything else that wants to eat their preferred food.

Sheer numbers game, and a perfect example of why planting more hatchery fish isn't always a great idea.

Cut marine salmon harvest in half, give commercial harvesters an ex-vessel price reflective of the actual market (not the 1950 market), and watch the magic happen. Even if it doesn't result in a real recovery, it would result in more fishing opportunity and better stream productivity close to home.

New Hoh creel data has been posted. Most CPUE is 0.25 - 0.5 fish per angler. A couple days got close to 1 fish per angler. Kinda wonder how they could have the original numbers

They just pulled the numbers out of the air - or somewhere else. Last year the WDFW bios closed Area 13 when one of their friends had trouble catching salmon. Problem was, there were plenty of salmon. Perfect example of WDFW "Best Available Science" application! After retired WDFW Officer Greg Haw called them on their stupidity( lies?) They re-opened the season. My experience says the Hoh should be about as good as its going to get this time of year, depending on weather. But, some people can catch steelhead and others can't. The old pro guides from Forks can find them for clients when us part timers sometimes struggle. I no longer trust WDFW stats when it comes to steelhead. The bios will likely concentrate their attention on the guide's catches and extrapolate that number to everyone fishing on the river thus getting exagerated catches. True or not, I had heard that some bios on the O.P. counted encounters as harvest. Dunno if that's true.

SpoonFed,

I don't know what you mean by not trying to get to the root of the problem. Researchers have verified that high predation rates by seals and others are preventing many steelhead smolts from ever reaching the ocean. They are being preyed upon from the Nisqually to the north end of PS and at the HC bridge. Solving any problem requires first figuring out what's causing the problem. The ocean issues I described above correlate very highly with reduced ocean survival. I know that correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation, but when it's repeated and correlation coefficients are high, it's as strong as scientific evidence gets short of going out on the ocean and watching smolts die of starvation or predation.

What is wrong with wild broodstock programs is that none, I repeat none, have collected data that could prove that the program produced any more returning adults then just letting the broodstock spawners spawn naturally in the river system without capturing them for broodstock programs. Does this mean they don't work? No, it doesn't. But it means that those who undertook them never managed them in a way that could prove that the work or how well they work. So I'm not sure where you get your ". . . they have been shown to work well . . . " because they haven't. They have been shown to produce returning adults, but no one knows how many or what the smolt to adult survival rate was. I conducted one such program on the Skagit where we released the smolts from the Baker River which has an adult fish trap. One year we got 6% back which was much higher than estimated for Chambers Ck hatchery fish in the same river basin. So I can say that for one brood year, yes it worked pretty well. But the fish returned at the same time as the wild run, which one should expect. The treaty tribes couldn't fish for them due to being a mixed stock with wild fish, so they discontinued the program.

I was trying to describe how we got to where we are today. I'm glad I succeeded. My observation is that WDFW doesn't like to admit that they close sportfishing because a tribe or tribes demand it, so they put out the best conservation story that sorta' covers their action. I don't like that they do that, and it diminishes my respect for the director and managers. I'd rather have the truth even if I don't like it. Hmmm, I thought I did make 2 + 2 = 4, so I'm confused that you didn't get that from my explanations. Tell me how I can do better.

Fishbadger,

Occupy Queets is unnecessary. It is closed to sportfishing under WDFW regulations because, like I posted above, the WA wild steelhead management plan says that fishing will be closed if the forecasted run is less than the escapement goal, which it has been these last 3 years. I'd rather see an "Occupy WDFW" where we persuade the Commission to direct the Department to update the steelhead management plan. My observation is that is how one gets the Department to get off their ass and do something for constituents.

20 Gage,

Your point stands? You mean that when the Cedar was well managed in the 70s and 80s wild steelhead were fairly abundant. And now they aren't? Yes, now they aren't. And they are not abundant for the several reasons that I listed. Are you trying to say it's for some other reason or reasons? Cuz if so, I'm not sure what you meant.

Tug 3,

From what I gather, the Department is monitoring in order to document differences in catch and catch rates between boat and bank, guided and unguided, and maybe different gear types since creel monitors ask anglers what type of gear they are using. I don't think encounters are being counted as harvest because harvest is restricted to hatchery fish. Remember, all wild fish must be released. I think an encounter means a fish "handled" or landed.

Salmo g.

Good response that covers a lot of ground. I'm disappointed in the info about broodstocking results not being quantified. I thought Oregon had kept track of results.

My personal observation of a highly successful broodstocking was on the Kalama. When I moved to that area in 1973, the late, great John Clayton had just moved to the Kalama Falls Hatchery from Klickitat. The return of spring chinook to the river and the hatchery was low. Within a cycle John had increased that run to the river/hatchery several fold. In a couple cycles there were about 5,000 springers returning. Fishing was great, including some gillnet landings early. All this was unfortunately or fortunately prior to ESA listings. So in those days there weren't complications from that. A fish was a fish. People caught them and smiled a lot. John Clayton was a hatchery genius. And a very nice man.

Good responses Salmo g, you must have had some time on your hands yesterday.

Two things come to mind. First, I would want to occupy Queets right now, not so that I could go yard on those poor beleaguered steelhead with my homemade spinners, but to pressure WDFW (and the feds) to get on the same page regarding escapement numbers, data and a management plan. If the only upside was to get the QIN nets out of the river for a year, then that would be a win.

Second thing, which might be at odds with the first, is that I'm not sure that I (as a rec angler) would be thrilled with the opportunity afforded by a revised management plan.

It's just such a tough spot,

fb

Tug,

I knew John Clayton when he worked at Clark Creek Hatchery at Marblemount on the Skagit system. I must admit, I learned some things about hatchery practice that weren't included in Fish Culture when I was at UW. He's the one who got the Skagit hatchery spring Chinook program off the ground and running successfully.

Fishbadger,

The Feds are not involved in setting escapement numbers on the Queets or any river that I know of. The management problem on the Queets and Quinault is that WDFW and the Tribe have derived different escapement goals, with the Tribe's being very significantly lower. Hence, the Tribe has a fishing season on those rivers while WDFW does not. No one can force the state and the Tribe to "get on the same page." If there were any coercion, it would most likely be WDFW capitulating to Q's lower values.

Salmo,

Couldn't the courts require it. Boldt established ways to make the tribes get on the same page. The state just decides not to force the issue.

The decision to end the season is an emergency regulation. In my mind, that means there is a situation that is strong enough to require an over riding of previous rules. It seems strange that the reason is strong enough to over ride the agreed upon season, but not strong enough to stand up in court. Either the concerns are biologically sound, or they are not. Either it is an "emergency" or it isn't.

from my eyes, it almost seems that around the time they were allowed to become "co-managers", a huge bunch of problems came about...

maybe we should reverse that, if they want to not allow us to fish on rivers like the Queets and Salmon and Quinault unless we have a tribal guide, well then if they want to net our fish, they can pay for it, or not net them...

last year they were killing every fish that came to the boat on the Quinault, and i will never go again because of that... those up river fish are being hammered on, and it has nothing to do with the recs...

The kicker is that Boldt recognized QIN, and only QiIN, as capable of self management from the time of the decision. They had an established fisheries management program even then.

What seems to have been lost to history is that Boldt put the State (WDF and WDG) solely in charge of conservation. There were numerous FABs over escapement goals but unless the court specifically over-ruled the State's position was it. But, the escapement goals, by another court order, were for MSY and not, among other things, ecosystem needs.

Then, under Director Wilkerson and the Spirit of Port Ludlow, the State agreed not only to co-management but also to the idea that the state would manage the state fisheries (yeah, funny-isn't it) and the Tribes would mangage the tribal fisheries. That shared management would insure conservation needs were met as nobody was explicitly responsible for conservation any more.

What I remember about the "Port Ludlow Accord" as it was so proudly named, was it was agreed by the state and the tribe to "Cooperatively" manage the fisheries. That wording is subtely diffrent from "Co". At the time Wilkerson did what's right because the state was being taken to court regularly and losing almost every case. When Dennis Austin was in the upper levels of Fisheries he talked wth me about having to close some tribal seasons due to conservation needs. I think he was serious about doing that but was over ruled by politics. I've always wondered why, if the state is really concerned about endangered segments of runs why it couldn't prevail in court? There is a dispute resolution process already established, and its not being used. Why?

This is because the governor's office has given orders to play nice with the tribes and not get into disputes with them. This likely has something to do with the large amount of funds contributed each election cycle by tribes to democratic governor candidates. These orders will likely not change until a republican governor is elected.