I know there are a ton of people on this site supporting CNR of all wild steelhead statewide. I do not support the statewide thing, I think each river has different needs and should be governed accordingly, generalizations are bad. The following link clearly shows examples of two rivers that can support wild steelie retention and one that doesn't.
Just throwing this out there for information, not to piss people off.
http://www.steelheadclub.com/statistics.htm

We'll close all the rivers that are in trouble and leave the others open. Were do you think this will get us? It will have the meat hunters on the rivers that are left open for killing! Do you see the added pressure figured into the problem? Not!

Not only that, if I'm not mistaken, those harvest numbers are derived using mathematical models. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that EVERY fish is physically counted. What about the unreported tribal catch being sold out of the backs of pickups. What about the poachers keeping more that their limit, or not marking the fish on their catch record cards. My point is, there is NO SUCH THING as absolute data when it comes to fish numbers. They basically amount to nothing more than a "Best guess". Also, statistics can be skewed in a myriad of ways to support whatever agenda a specific group is trying to put forth.

Hey no everyone lets just settle down before this gets way out of hand. Now given there are a few rivers that can support the C&K form of fishing there are plunty of hatcheries out there to support the meat hunters and thus there is no real reason to have a C&K season.

There is only one reason that I could think for having a C&K season and that is trophy fishing but even that is not a very good reason to have C&K on wild steelhead.


There are a few river's that I know of that used to have huge runs of wild steelhead and now they have nothing because of over fishing. These rivers are perfect systems but no fish and if this is what you want to happen to all the river systems then go for it but other wise I would check up on more then just three rivers before you come to your conclusions
Dances Out

It's funny that the catch & kill advocates can make statements, but never have any data to back it up. I think danceswithfish presented a viable point to the lame excuse that certain rivers are ("deemed") healthy to allow wild steelhead kill. I remember seasons on the Dungeness, Humptulips, Hood Canal streams and others lasting well into March & April. They all had wild steelhead "deemed" healthy enough to support harvest, where are they now? Closed at the end of February, to protect dismal returns of wild steelhead.

Let's be proactive for once and preserve the "healthy" streams we have now and work to bring back the streams we messed up on.

It's simple.There is getting to be too many people to go around.If you close some open others than you get what happenned last year.They closed the skagit and every body came over to the west end.Now I have no problem with that, but if everybody keeps their limit and all of a sudden the fishery can't support a catch limit.The fishing population isn't going to get smaller only bigger.Make it all catch and release now and all we can complain about is the combat fishing conditions not the lack of fish.The combat fishing will actually get better because people will be more spread out.It has done wonders with cutty's now lets do it with steely's.We are not just talking about our short life time but generations.We have seen what we can do to a fishery in a generation.

Why not reduce the limit on wild fish as a first step? And then in addition, what about reducing the number of wild fish a person can keep per year from these rivers that still have "strong populations"?

I personally don't keep any wild fish, period. However, that doesn't mean that I don't "take" wild fish. A fish that is hooked and released (fly caught or otherwise) is worse off for the experience.

And by the way, does anyone out there know of any studies showing that CnR is less lethal with a single barbless hook that a barbed treble? Other than what I consider common sense, I do not know of any studies supporting this. On the contrary, there have been some studies that explored this question, but many of the folks on this forum wouldn't be happy with the data.

well, i checked out the stats and noticed a couple interesting things (for the quillayute). one is that since harvest has been reduced recently, escapement has been consistently higher than any other time during the 20 year period they posted. while there was a bump in the mid-80's, it wasn't as high or as consistent as the current trend with reduced harvest. seems that if we reduce harvest even further, we might be able to get a better handle on the carrying capacity of the quillayute which might help the state biologists come up with better models for managing wild steelhead (i know, it's a pipe dream). also, full c&r will probably help the earliest returning natives, which once made up a large portion of the entire run (some figures from pre-hatchery catch data put the figure around 35%). while harvesting the hatchery fish that return early, releasing the few remaining natives will hopefully add up and create additional opportunities for fishermen.

and as others have stated, most of these numbers are educated guesses.

The most extensive study yet on the effects of catch and release on salmon/steelhead has been done the previous 2 years on hundreds of Willamette R. hatchery springers - fish which are not quite as tough and hardy as large native steelhead. This study was conducted by ODFW under supervision by the NMFS, and the results were used to justify a sportfishery on Columbia spingers this year; opened for the first time in 28 years. The Feds wanted certain verifiable evidence that the survival rate on C&R'd springers would be high enough to allow fishing among the ESA (Endangered Species Act) protected native springers being caught and released during this fishery last April. >

The results of a variety of release types (combining proper and improper release methods and tagging as such) showed an overall survival rate of 93%. Keep in mind these C&R'd fish had to make it over the Willamette Falls fish ladders afterward, and then some 100+ miles up to the Middle Fork hatchery. Interestingly, they found a higher survival of fish that had taken bait deep and had the leader cut for a release method than fish that took treble hook lures and had the hooks pried from their mouths. So yes 'Pirate, even taken deep the single hooks were less lethal than barbed trebles yanked out.

Those are factual study statistics; obtainable from the ODFW or the NMFS. What specific LEGIT studies would make many of us by unhappy hearing about? And what were the verified results?

If there is anything that has been learned the last 50 years it is that wild steelhead need to be realeased to keep their runs healthy over the long term! Please take a quick picture and measurement of any trophys and carefully release them. If there are indeed healthy runs left somewhere LET'S KEEP THEM THAT WAY.

RT

RT:

Thanks for your thoughts. There are two major studies I am refering to--I know there are others looking at non-anadramous salmonids. One was done in Michigan, by researchers at the University of Wisconsin (1990 I think). The other was done by NMFS staff and the University of Idaho (TC Bjornn) in the mid-1980's (I believe it was in the Clearwater and Pahsimeroi Rivers). In both studies (I'll see if I can get you the reference in the published papers; one was CJFAS or TAFS and the other was NAJFM) it appeared that hooking mortality was not related to the numbers of points or barbs, but rather water temperatures and handling time (R^2 values above .8 in their linear regression model!). The caught their fish repeatedly, and varied methods (including snagging), handling time, water temperatures, size of fish, depths, etc. Both of these studies were quite interesting.

It seems to me that netting a fish at all, holding it up for a couple of photos, unhooking a large treble, dropping it in a boat, etc, will all increase this handling time. In fact, I think that these fish should not be touched at all, much less targeted by CnR seasons.

Who should I contact at ODFW or NMFS with regard to the Willamette study? Or if you have a website, please let me know. I'm really interested in this topic, and would love to learn from the experts. Feel free to e-mail me at FishPirateynk@yahoo.com with any info, I'd apprecieate it.

If there is one thing that I've learned from these types of studies (and a background in statistics), it's that figures don't lie, but liars figure.

I'm not sure that anything has been learned in the last 50 years about wild steelhead. Please, if you know otherwise, let me know, especially with respect to CnR seasons. To me, it isn't the answer and it won't get us to where we NEED to go. We need action, based on facts not feelings.

Follows are data that relate to steelhead

Actual data of steelhead hooking mortality.

Followed are data from British Columbia as complied by Hooton, R.S. in 2001 titled Facts and issues associated with restricting terminal gear types in the management of sustainable steelhead sport fisheries in British Columbia. As published by British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks.

Data shows river specific hooking mortality then gear specific mortality.

By River:

Cowichan
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 509
Hooking Mortality: 16
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.1

Englishman
Basin Years of Record: 5
Number of Steelhead Angled: 240
Hooking Mortality: 9
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.8

Heber
Basin Years of Record: 1
Number of Steelhead Angled: 70
Hooking Mortality: 3
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 4.3

Gold
Basin Years of Record: 1
Number of Steelhead Angled: 30
Hooking Mortality: 0
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 0

Nanaimo
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 378
Hooking Mortality: 7
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 1.9

Puntledge
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 481
Hooking Mortality: 9
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 1.9

Salmon
Basin Years of Record: 6
Number of Steelhead Angled: 464
Hooking Mortality: 27
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 5.8

San Juan
Basin Years of Record: 2
Number of Steelhead Angled: 49
Hooking Mortality: 3
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 6.1

Somass
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 1,174
Hooking Mortality: 43
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.7

Tsitika
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 320
Hooking Mortality: 10
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.1

Keogh
Basin Years of Record: 2
Number of Steelhead Angled: 336
Hooking Mortality: 17
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 5.1

Total
Number of Steelhead Angled: 4051
Hooking Mortality: 144
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.6

Gear Type:

Percentages are listed first followed by total number in parantheses.
Year: 1985
Barbed/Bait: 12.5 (6)
Barbed/No Bait: 7.7 (2)
Barbless/Bait: 3.6 (2)
Barbless/No Bait: 0 (0)
Total: 7.7 (10)

Year: 1986
Barbed/Bait: 5.9 (3)
Barbed/No Bait: 2.5(1)
Barbless/Bait: 2.6 (2)
Barbless/No Bait: 2.6 (1)
Total: 3.4 (7)

Total Mortality:
Barbed/Bait: 9.1 (9)
Barbed/No Bait: 4.5 (3)
Barbless/Bait: 3.0 (4)
Barbless/No Bait: 2.6(1)
Total: 5.1 (17)


BTW-FishPirate, why wouldn't members of this board be happy with these data??

FP,

Contact Steve King, head of the Clackamas office of ODFW which manages the Willamette and lower Columbia salmon and steelhead fisheries, at (503)657-2000. His assistant Craig Foster would be a good one to talk to also, and is in office more often.

I will say I agree about the time and handling factors of those Michigan studies FP. But what we have now is a much more educated fishing populace in general, with a higher percentage of fishers knowing proper C&R techs. Of course there are C&R crackers too; as with any aspect of life.

Petz, without trying to dispute the figures, I do think those older BC studies seem to be a little low for mortality rates. The former head of ODFW and one of the foremost expert anadromous fish biologists, Jim Martin, now has his own fisheries study consulting firm. I wish I still had his e-mail/number, because he too was involved in the intensive C&R studies mentioned above, along with many other studies. (anyone have his addy/number?). He contends that the overall average mortality rate on wild steelhead that have been C&R'd one or more times is around 10%. He also contends correctly that during C&R fishing periods late in the winter steelhead runs when the brats are fewer, that the level of sportfishing pressure drops off significantly enough that the 10% figure will not harm a wild run potential. This was in letters he sent to me when I was moderating another fishing discussion board (I still have them among a large stack of papers somewhere in this room); in conjunction with similar debates last year, as are occuring here now.

Those BC study figures of mortality by tackle type are significant for us all. I switch to barbless hooks, and swiash on plugs and spinners, for the second half of the winter steelhead season when the native fish are more prevelant. I think this should also become a mandatory regulation in both WA and OR from Feb. 1st to Mar. 31st in all steelhead rivers - in addition to the proposed WA regs to release all nates.

RT

I'm against statewide C&R because the tribes will just take more under foregone opportunity.

What would you rather have, sportsman kill a few hundred fish or tribes kill a few extra thousand when they extend their netting season and locations? In every single fishery and hunting area in this state, everytime something is taken from sportsman, it's given to the tribes. The government wanted to increase the bull to cow ratio on elk in easter WA so they make it so we can only hunt spikes. But it's doing now good because now the indians are just killing more branch antler bulls.

Jacob,

If for every nate not harvested by sport anglers were actually going to give the Indians many more times the nate allocation per that one nate, of course I wouldn't want that. It seems just too absurd to be credible. Even as unfair in favor of the Indians the Treaty rules have been implimented, I just don't see how such a rediculous scenario could be brought forth!

I have heard of this 'foregone opportunity' reason before, to not have C&R regs on nates. Can someone please explain the documentation of such rule, or 'spirit' (excuse) of such a rule if it's not a law, and how that could be pulled off? What actual significants does it carry?

Besides, from so many sources, including the ones the Indians actually keep count of, I keep hearing that they already get more than their mandated 50% share of the fish, and net out of season and keep all they want or can already. If that's the case that needs to be addressed and changed; and it makes it even more important to release the nates that are getting by the nets go spawn. If the above claims are correct, it wouldn't leave any more room for thousands more netted fish if a few hundred aren't harvested by sport fishers.

Also, I cannot imagine the WDFW would propose the nate C&R regs if what you are saying about 'foregone opportunity' were true. Anyone from the WDFW, or in the know, here to address this question?

RT

I've heard a lot of pros and cons on this subject. I am definately against a broad ban ban on c&r of wild steelhead. It has to be a case by case basis, based on biological data from a given system. The regulations imposed on the Quillayute system the past few years are great! If there is a need for more protection then fine......if needed.
The biggest beef I have on this issue is the people who are pushing it the hardest. Who?....the guides! I have lived on the West End of the Peninsula my whole life. Every year there seems to be SEVERAL new guides using the Peninsula rivers as their income source. Why should somebody be able to make a living catching wild fish day in and day out....netting them....pulling them onto the beach for a photo or two then releasing them hoping they survive? I like most locals I know who have fished these rivers for years do not keep a small percentage of the fish they hook. It sure is nice though to be able to legally keep a fish caught for a weekend meal when company comes to town in late winter or early spring....not to mention the ones hooked in the gills.
As stated earlier....if there is a biological reason to protect a certain run then do it! I don't feel catch and release is the answer though. If a run is in need of protection then shut the system down completely. Don't let the poachers have a chance to be on the river and don't let the guides harass the depleted run day in and out for a profit.
Somebody said it in a earlier post.....pressure getting heavier all the time.

As proven by past failures in protecting native steelhead the state hasn't the data to support kill seasons on native steelhead. The state has been wrong in their guesses to many times to support their management theories.

The problem that occurs is that the tribes have won in court that even if there is no sports season allowed, they still get to harvest the remaining harvestable fish. If a river has 600 returning fish and needs 500 for escapement, that leaves 100 harvestable fish. Tribes get 50 and non tribal gets 50. Due to the techniques used it's easy for the tribes to net their 50 fish. Where due our limited catch rate of hook and line, sportsman might only catch 10 of their 50. The tribes call this forgone opportunity because we had the chance to catch them, but didn't. In this same scenario with full C&R, the tribes can and will claim all 100 harvestable fish under forgone opportunity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote C&K, I think education is key and that people should be encouraged to C&R but if it becomes mandatory, I believe it'll hurt runs more because it gives more to the tribes than the sportsmen would ever catch.

Jacob makes a good point! And frankly that is a grey area I have. I never new about this "forgon opportunity" If thats true then what is the C & R sides argument against that? It does seem we'll miss more than the indians do!

Bob D

One more!
Does anybody no if Canada has "forgon" clauses in there treatys?

Bob D

I believe that the following succinctly addresses the issue of 'Forgone Opportunity'.

This is a copy/paste from another discussion board concerning this issue.

Thanks to Todd Ripley.

posted 11-06-2001 09:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtsey of Todd Ripley:


2. Foregone opportunity: The tribes will catch and kill all the fish we release, so we should kill them first. This is exactly what WDFW steelhead managers want you to believe. Even if it were true, what would be the motivation to kill them ourselves? Again, greed is the only one I can come up with. "If you're going to kill them (tribes), then I'm going to do it first."

It seems that sport fishers are quick to criticize the WDFW managers when they make management and harvest decisions, and to claim that they are in with the tribes, and that they're selling us out, and that they want to modify hatchery practices to minimize the impacts to wild fish, and that their regulations are confusing with limited openings here and there so as to allow mixed stock fisheries while attempting to reduce impacts on depressed runs, etc., etc., etc., ....and then to accept wholeheartedly with nothing legal, biological, or historical to back it up, when they say the tribes will kill all the ones we c&r. Why does this happen? Unless someone has an argument to change my mind, greed is the answer again.

Anything done that is perceived to limit our opportunities to fill our freezers is grounds for distrust and anger for WDFW, even if it has justifications that are easy to realize. Anything that makes it easier for us to fill our freezers is the WDFW finally putting fish first (in our freezers), and is accepted even if there is no justification whatsoever.

3. Political issues with c&r: In spite of the high horse that every non-tribal steelhead fisherman seems to place himself on, due to the fact that they don't use nets to kill fish, but do it the "honorable" way by catching them with hook and line and hitting them with a stick or a rock, everyone else in the northwest who doesn't steelhead fish thinks we are at best no different, and in most cases worse, than tribal fishers. We are perceived as greedy racists who want to kill fish and we're mad because every fish the tribe kills is one that we didn't get to.

Why is that perception there? Because it is pretty close to the truth. And don't for one minute think that that perception doesn't exist and doesn't have a basis in truth.

How do we change that perception and gain political clout with the rest of the world that doesn't fish (i.e., the great majority of the people in the NW)? Take away the basis for the perception. Stop being greedy. Put the fish first. Leave the tribal fishers being the only ones who intentionally kill wild fish.

4. Collateral anti-c&r issues: Lots of these exist, and they look like extensions of the "me, me, me" greed principle.

The high mortality associated with c&r is unacceptable. Why release them when they all die anyway? We may as well just put them in our freezer so they don't get wasted. Yeah, right. All credible studies put the mortality, depending on gear types and release techniques, between 3% and 7%, give or take. WDFW would have you believe it's more like 15%, though there is no justification for that number. Even if it is 15%, that equals and 85% non-mortal release. I haven't seen any studies, but I think I can confidently say that somewhere near 100% of fish hit with sticks and stuck in coolers are incapable of successful spawning. Why is this 100% mortality acceptable when 3%-15% mortality associated with c&r is not? Because one puts fish in our freezers, and the other doesn't. Unless there's another answer, greed is it again.

WDFW will lose license sales if we don't have kill seasons. First, anyone who's launched a boat at Howard Miller, Marblemount, Government Bridge, or anywhere else on the Sauk or Skagit, in March or April, knows that there are LOTS of folks who are fishing c&r seasons. They bought licenses, not to mention hundreds of dollars of other items to be there for a chance to c&r a magnificent wild steelhead. Second, license sales have nothing to do with WDFW budgetary concerns; the money goes into the general fund, not to WDFW. Their budget comes from the general fund, not from license sales.

How do we as sportsmen improve our lot in life? We educate ourselves on the science, history, and laws that control fisheries. We apply what we have learned to our own actions. Without the credibility lent from a little self-inspection and self-control, we are both no better than other user groups or perceived as being any better. We put fish first, and then instead of paying lip service to that, we actually do it. It is very transparent to everyone when sportsmen are "fish first" when it comes to nets, but "freezer first" when it comes to our fishing.

The science shows that c&r kills very few fish, and that catch and kill does. It also shows that more fish spawning equals more fish in the river, better fitness, greater genetic potential, and greater ability to deal with environmental shifts (i.e., marine conditions).

The history of fisheries managment in Washington shows that whatever we're doing now flat out does not work. Fish have been managed to extinction or near extinction throughout the NW. History has also shown that foregone opportunity has never been shown to be the hobgoblin that our steelhead managers would have you believe. History has also shown that every time non-tribal fishermen have fought against the tribes they have been sent home with their tails between their legs. Back in the late '60's sportsmen complained that the tribes were catching too many (6%-10%) salmon and steelhead. The final result? The Boldt decision. That means 50%. This is what happens when sportsmen get greedy.

The law and the history are somewhat intertwined, what with the Boldt decision controlling the relationship with tribal co-managers. The law does not support the fear of foregone opportunity, in fact is supports our ability to c&r without fear of tribal reaction.

Todd.

----------------------------------
Again, courtsey of Todd Ripley:

Challenged asked:

1) Why is the state so concerned over the "foregone opportunity" issues? Will this increase the tribes catch before it reaches the CnR fishing grounds?

I can't help but feel that the state is so wedded to catch and kill because that's the way they have always done it. To change pace now would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong in the first place and that ocean conditions and Indians weren't the only causes for declining fish runs. Therefore, when all credible science points to the validity of cnr as a scientific, economic, and sociological factor in returning our native fish runs to anything at all like historical levels, scare tactics and questionable justifications must be used to defend their untenable positions.

The proposal language lamenting the fear of foregone opportunity smacks of 1950's moms telling their daughters that they'll get pregnant if they kiss a boy in the back of a car. The only published case that ever even remotely dealt with this issue said that the 50/50 split rule from the Boldt decision requires only that each party be given the opportunity to harvest their half of the fish, not that they necessarily get harvested. If more than half of the harvestable portion of a run is netted in the lower river by tribal fishers then non-tribal fishers have been denied their opportunity.

The foregone opportunity doctrine at worst doesn't mean anything, and at best supports our ability to have cnr seasons.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: 4Salt ]