We had a decent wild run in December and early January this year compared to years past but now it dosent look so good.

After the last high water we had at the end of last month we should have gotten our first big push of nates but they didnt show up. Knowone has been doing very well on any of the Quileute system rivers a couple fish here and there. Which is not good for this time of year.

My cousin and I fished hard all week putting in about 35 hours, hooking only 5 wild steelhead. Two of which were on the Hoh. Three of those fish only came out of the Quileute System where we spent 75% of our time.

The first day we fised the Quileute System we fished the Bogachiel from the 101 Bridge all the way up to Indian creek Thats about 8 miles of river and we fished it hard being the only ones on that stretch of river. We had no bites saw no fish or reds. Something wasnt right it is the wrong time of year for that river to be empty. It had been cold and the conditions were low and clear but i have never fished that river in Feb with those conditions and covered that much water finding no fish. Well we wrote that one Off thing that they must have been there but wernt biteing due to the conditions. In the Back of our mind we knew there were no fish but we didnt want to admit it.

The Next day we did the Sol Duc form Riverside to the Hatchery. Thats about 15 mile of river and we did it from the boat. It was at about 7 boards and at that lever you can see everything in the water. Keep in mind its mid Febuary and there should have decent numbers of fish in the river and should be stacked in the stretch we did. We were all alone agian and had the river to ourselves. In the entire float we hooked two fish and saw one more. As well we saw three or four reds. Thats is not right in most of the float you could see the bottom everywhere we checked out every hole after we fished it for non biters and they wernt there. We didnt spook and fish out of tailouts when we floated over or when we ran plugs the river was almost empty.

Granted the conditions wernt good but even in bad conditions we should have seen atleat 15 or 20 fish in that float hooking 5 on a bad day being the only boat on the river.

The problem is this: its mid Feb and the fish havent showed yet, sure there have been some big fish caught but knowone has had glory days on the system. Its gettin too late and If they dont start showing in big number after the next rain the writeing is on the wall.

Heres the big problem. What if the fish never show. The way the state manages the rivers we wont know till this spring if we got enough fish or not as thats when they find out the run size by spawner surveys.

By MSY the run is projected by the spawning escapement and smolt survival from 4 and 5 years earlier. From that projection they caculate to the exact fish how many will be harvested and they try and make sure we and the tribes take every extra fish.

So if it looks like it does on the Quileute System so far we could be comming way short of what they thought. I dont know what the projection was but im sure it was quite high compared to the last few years projections.

So the jist of it is this. No matter what the actual run size is harvest goes off of the projected run size. If we get a far smaller run than projected and harvest off of the projected run size the Steelhead and the Quileute system take it in the shorts. I think this is happening as we speak.

I may be wrong and might be jumping the gun a little but the fish should be comming and we have had the rain to make them come. There is no excure for them to have not shown yet.

This is how we got to the situation we are in now in the Queets and the North Sound rivers.

Here's another thing that's wrong with the Quileute - the Tribe and the Corps of Engineers has armored basically the whole estuary to prevent the river from forming a delta, and they have dramatically increased dredging to keep the river open for navigation. They also raised the training wall on the boat basin, filled in the last of the high intertidal wetlands on the reservation and built their fisheries center on it, and rebuilt the marina using creosote treated piling. Oh yeah, built a nice new boat launch too, in one of the few areas of the marina that had any saltmarsh left. Basically there is almost no place left for smolts to adapt from life in freshwater to life in saltwater - they just shoot out the armored navigation channel right into the mouths of rockfish and lingcod. I would suspect that survival of juvenile salmon leaving the system has gotten very low. Most of this occurred about 4-5 years ago - just the right timing to cause the depressed run we may be seeing.

It's not just poor management that has caused Puget Sound fish to nearly go extinct - most of the river mouths in Puget Sound have been treated just this way. It's another part of the problem

That can't be true the WDFW says that the Quilliute system is the mother river, the most healthy river in the state.

What if The Quileute system gets a very small run that is over harvested and come Late April or early May we get some big floods that churns up the rivers real bad.

This will equal dismal survival for those eggs in the reds and whatever fry have hatched. This is what can make a system crash. And to boot those April returning 2nd or 3rd time spawning hens which in a cituation where we have a small return even play a bigger part in ensureing the run survives are gonna be harvested as we wont know the actual escapement till its too late.

The management system is flawed and just dosent work.

I can see now that there is some kind of problem with the run this year I can just feel it. But the powers that be are too set in there ways and wont know what the run really was untill it is too late.

Hey spawnout that is a great point about no transtion point for the smolt. This could be the problem. I think it isn't the ocean conditions, because the puget sound river that I fish had the best hatchery return in recent memory and the amount of smolts planted has been the same. Also the Nates have arrived in decent #'s right on time. We also saw a larger # of wild fish in Dec. and Jan. I was talking to the hatchery manager and these could be hathchery fish offspring. Just had to post a reply since I couldn't go fishing today.

You got a point that makes alot of sense Spawnout.

Regarding estuaries - Clearly the filling of our estuaries have had impacts on the various salmonid stocks. However all the information that is available indicates that steelhead spend very little time in the esturary. They basically move quickly on downstream and out into the open marine waters. The larger the smolts (steelhead are typcially the largest smolts in a basin) the less time they spend in the estuary. They achieve their early growth in the river; thus are more depend on the freshwater habitat. However the estuary and near shore areas are critical for fish like chinook, pinks and chums.

Rich - given your concern about returns are suggesting that we all voluntarily not fish the system for the rest of the season? Given your worst case assumptions even releasing all the "nates" may not be enough. I'm sure we all will be watching the "reports" from the next several weeks with interest and concern.

tight lines
Smalma

No Im not saying not to fish. Whats the point of stopping fishing. Im tired of it all. Its all gonna be gone someday if things dont change.

When are poeple gonna realize that you cant take 50% or a run year after year and keep screwing up the river habitat. The fish are gonna disapear eventually.

I had no idea what kind of shape our rivers were really in before I made a trip to Alaska last fall. It was awsome to see a complete system working the it was designed too.

The fish up there have way harsher conditions to deal with but yet they thrive in huge numbers.

The rivers down here have way milder conditions better cover and can produce 12 months out of the year compared to Alaskas 6 months but yet we have far fewer fish.

The state says the Op rivers like the Quileute are produceing as much as they can and that there are excess fish.

I fished a river that is the size of the Dungeness but shorter. It ran through tundra and had no cover. It was full from bank to bank with Steelhead, Dollies, Coho and Sockey. It had more fish in it during the time that I was there than the Quileute system gets in an entire year.

You cant tell me that our rivers are produceing as much as they can. They have so much potential that they are not given a chance to show because of all the greed.

That is why things will never change because people are greedy.

Rich -
It must have been awesome to see how healthy, lightly fished rivrs must look like!

I don't think the State is claiming that the river is being managed to "produce as much as possible" but rather so the current harvests can be maintianed and that escapements will be at or above MSH levels. Of course to produce as many fish as possible there can't be ANY fishing induced mortalities including hooking mortality. Don't think we seriously want to go there. Guess the argument boils down to picking a comfortable point somewhere between MSH (bonk lots of fish) and carrying capacity (no fishing).

I wasn't seriously suggesting that fishing be stopped but the continued reliance on WSR as the magic bullet for steelhead recovery diverts us from the real issues. Your example of an unnamed Zipper-lip in AK illustrates some of the issues. The productive of a river system like the one you described is clearly driven by the huge abundance of salmon. Without the nutrients from the spawning salmon the populations would crash.

My point is that if one seriously thinks we should release wild steelhead then why not all wild salmonids. The young steelhead need the nutrients that the return salmon would bring to the river. Many on this board seem to push WSR but seem willing to kill wild chinook, coho, pink, chum, sockeye, Dollies, and/or cutts either here or in Alaska. That seems to me to be very inconsistent, what is good for one species should be good for all. The arguement I hear is that salmon are different than steelhead. Yes they are; the salmon represent a large portion of the nutrient base that drives the system.

I noticed that you didn't name the Alaskan river. I assume that is because folks are concern about fishing pressure. Would not be surprised that the Quillayute receives as much fishing pressure on a December Saturday as your "zipper-lip" did in a month. Out of curiosity were anglers allowed to kill any fish?

I have enjoyed and wish to encourage your zeal for steelhead and their rivers. It will take the interest and energy of our young anglers if we are going to reverse what is wrong with the rivers. My generation has not done a very good job. I just would like to see that effort directed more towards what I see as the real issues which to me means a more holistic approach to ecosystem management.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

An excellent posting and reply! You reflect my personal views to the letter on this issue!!

I would like to see more of the responses to your reply. This issue needs to be thoroughly discussed, and openly debated before any conclusions can be drawn.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Im for wild release of all trout and salmon species no reason to kill any of them. I have killed wild salmon but dont anymore. I dont think you should have the right to kill any wild salmon or steelhead. It would be OK if people wouldnt be greedy but people are greedy and will take as much as they can and then some. Everybody wants to fill the freezer.

I killed no fish in Alaska even though it is aloud for salmon. I know it happens on that river I fished but I didnt see anybody kill fish. Steelhead are catch and release on that river. I doubt the river I fished in Alaska gets as much presure in a year that the Bogachiel and Clawah get on a weekend during christmas vacation.

Rich

Am I reading you right? Are you saying that you believe that it is wrong to "kill" or harvest ANY "salmon" or steelhead speice, just because it happens to be what you call "wild"?

If that is so, what is your logic? Do you truly believe that it's "OK" to kill species that are raised by man, but it's not "OK" to kill or harvest any naturally raised salmon or steelhead specie?

What I hear you saying, in your mind is; it's ok to kill salmon or steelhead, but it is only "OK" if they are raised by man. Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding what you had posted? Didn't all harvestable species of salmon and steelhead originate from what you call "wild" stocks?

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Smalma, Smalma, Smalma -
First of all, I must say I enjoy your posts as they bring alot to the table, eventhough I do not agree where alot of your arguements lie...

I have to disagree with your assumption that WSR is being used as a magic bullet to cure our wild steelhead woes. As much as I wish that the WSR was the magic bullet to brining our wild steelhead runs back to their historical escapement numbers, I know that is not the truth. WSR is a relatively simple goal to achieve and will guarentee that more wild steelhead will reach the spawning beds.

The fight for the protection and ultimately, the survival of wild steelhead, is just begining and WSR is just a battle in the grand scheme of things...

Like Rich, I do not have a problem with a total statewide release on wild salmonids BUT is it neccasary?? Will it solve the problems?? I doubt it...

Eventhough I am not sure of the escapement goal and population trend of Snohomish River Pinks, I do not have a problem with the harvest of this species as from everything I read, this year's return was very far above the escapement goal BUT was the 4 or 6 fish limit or whatever it ended up at necassary?? Couldn't we just have left it at 2?

How many pink salmon ended up in the garbage because they were killed just because they could or how many ended up in the trash or eventually will because they were killed just for the eggs...??

When we have situations where it is fairly obvious that a wild population can sustain a harvest, should we not limit it and not promote unneccasary slaughter?

I must agree with you Smalma that the arguement lies where we want our harvest point to be...whether we want it so that we are harvesting for MSH or Carrying Capacity.

Cowlitzfisherman-
That is a pretty ignorany comment in regards to what makes it okay to kill a hatchery fish and not a wild fish. Maybe the Cowlitz doesn't have enough of a wild run on steelhead so that you can tell the differance between a man-raised fish and a nature-raised fish. I invite you to come fish the Sky or the Stilly next winter...we will fish in December for the brats and in Febuary for the nates and I can guarentee you will understand why the release of all wild steelhead is important.

Smalma, I enjoy your posts. You are right WSR is not the magic bullet and cure all to our steelhead whoas, but it is a start and way to strike a balance between conservation and recreation for anglers. But aside from another drawn out discussion regarding WSR, please indulge me this. We know what the broad issues are regarding wild salmonids-the four H's. In your opinion, what are the real issues in details that apply to anglers? What are the actions anglers can take personally to help reverse the decline?(Aside from hanging up their rods)

Ryan -
I'm sure that we both agree that WSR is not a magic bullet for steelhead recovery. My conern is that some do believe so. WSR was first used to gain access to hatchery fish while having low impacts on wild stocks that were in low abundance. The use of WSR outside of the period when hatchery fish is around is just method of allocating the impacts on the wild resource. Restoring wild population productivity lies elsewhere.

You state that you have no problem with allowing harvest of Snohomish pinks; especially when it is "obvious that a wild population can substain a harvest". With salmon harvest has been allowed when it is expected that escapement goals will be met. Over the last decade the Snohomish pinks have met its goal less than half of the time while the Quillayute winter steelhead have met their goal 90% (maybe 100%) of the time.

You stated: "I do not have a problem with a total state wide release on wild salmoids, BUT is it neccessary?? Will it solve the problems?? I doubt it..."

My point exactly. I don't have a problem with total state wide WSR but is it necessary? Will it solve the problems? I doubt it.

There can only be a few if any other anadromous salmonid stocks in the state that have as consistently exceed the MSH escapement goal or by as much (as mesured as a % of the goal) as Quilluyate winter steelhead.

My point is what is biologically unique about steelhead that doesn't apply to the other salmonids?

Tight lines
Smalma

Well Smalma, your knowledge has again, far exceeded mine.

So I guess I must take my statement back in regards to the Snohomish pinks.

Your last question, "My point is what is biologically unique about steelhead that doesn't apply to the other salmonids?" was one raised by a couple of the Commisioners when discussing why there were voting no on Proposal 1.

I guess I will have to admit there is nothing. Steelhead do though, bring anglers from around the World to fish for them. The sport qualities of steelhead are unmatched by but a few other species. The history behind the sport, the flies, the literature, the passion that steelhead evoke far exceeds any other species in the PNW. And to me, I spend 95% of time on the water in pursuit of steelhead...so maybe my passion for WSR goes much farther then just science but the science shows that WSR will help our populations and preserve them for the future. Please take a look at the WSC's Biological and Economic Impacts of Wild Steelhead, although I am more then sure you have read most, if not all the studies that paper is based upon. And let me hear your rebuttals!

Thanks for the excellent discussion and putting up with my rambly posts!

Just spent 2 days on a bar on The Quill. One wild fish caught about an 8 pound buck with net marks. We usually catch 5-6 this time of year, so maybe Rich is right. Queets was down this year too, hope something isnt up......

Double Haul -
Sorry I was posting a response to Ryan.

I'll try to respond to your questions. Please be aware that we are moving beyond sharing information and what follows are just my own opinions and views.

First and foremost I believe that folks need to honestly evaluate are own impacts steelhead -no more hiding our heads in the sand. That is why I have been such a b***head about the true role of WSR.

Secondly we need as many anglers as possible with a passion and zeal for the resource. It really doesn't matter whether they are bonkers or releasers. Everyone just needs to care and being willing to fight for the resource.

As for the 4 Hs-
HARVEST - By harvest I mean dead fish and don't really care how the fish dies. Harvest basically equates to impacts. I believe that continued fishing is important - without anglers we'll lose our potential political power base. We need to be able to demostrate to habitat managers that we are willing to put fish into habitats that they may protect or restore. That means holding impacts levels to less than that allowed at MSH management levels so new or improved habitats will quickly be taken advantage of. Bottom line manage for escapements above MSH but below carrying capacity (remember at capacity there is no fishing).

There is a component to harvest that is federally mandated which we need to recognize and then move on and not let that side track us.

HATCHERY - Again we need a honest assessment of what anglers want with a realistic evaluation of impacts (hatchery/wild interactions). Hatcheries best supply fish for harvest. We need to be careful that wild fish needs are placed first; continue to develop strategies to reduce hatchery/wild interactions). Marking of all hatchery production is a must. In the river systems that I'm familiar with there is virtually no use for wild or native brood stocks. Wild brood stocks from a genetic, biologically or harvest management view have way more negatives than positives. Planting fish where they can be caught and at levels that are in line with the fihing pressure (put fish where people fish).

HABITAT - This is where the real work will be. What we are talking about is protection our river systems; we can't approach at a single species level. It means that folks have to get involved in the dirty process of lobbying and learning to play the American politic game. Have to learn how the games are played and hold decision makers accountable for protecting the publics resources rather than caving in to special interests pressure. Folks need to get involved at the local, state and federal levels demanding "greener" laws and regulations as well as enforcement of existing laws (example ESA). Part and parcel with this will be the willingness to pay more for everything. Protecting our rivers means that power, water, and most everything else will cost more. It also may mean less growth or jobs.

All the above applies to steelhead as well as the other salmonids. They are really just thumbnail sketches all which could be developed with much more detail. However I need to tie a fly or two for tomrrow so that will be all for now. Hope it helps to provide some food for thought..

Tight lines
Smalma

You heard me right Cowlitzfisherman.
Yes I think its wrong to kill any of the wild species of salmon or trout. Why? Because you cant tell the difference between wild and true natives. Its a copout to kill a wild fish because it might be a wild fish from hatchery spawning. its a bad excuse to kill a wild fish just because you whant to bonk something.

Another thing. I dont care what WDFW says about any of our rivers being heathly. The truth is that that none of them are. There is not enough historical data avialable to know what any of our rivers are capible of produceing and that is the truth. It is easy to see that our rivers are not produceing anything near thier potential.

If you go up north you will see rivers with much harsher conditions produceing 50 times the fish. How do you explain that?

I bet you would say nutrients.

Think back 100 years ago when our rivers had the nutreints that the rivers in Alaska had. But other than the nutreints they had much more: 12 months of milder conditions to produce fish and more potential for bug life for juvenile salmon and trout to eat.

Our resident trout have all but dissapeard unlike Alaska but yet we have better conditions for them.

We only have Dollies in Glacier rivers here and in only sparce numbers. In alaska they are like a desiese in every river and stream and roadside ditch just as the salmon. When was the last time you saw salmon in a ditch along side the road here because ther was no more red space in the main river or stream?

I rest my case our rivers are sick all of them.