I've been a member of WSC since the start[from the initial meeting in Ted's basement] and after reading all the insane passion about different hooks
and different rods and magazine writers and snaggers and heat on the river etc. etc. etc.. I was wondering why some of you don't have a little of
that same passion for wild steelhead release statewide year around? If you like the idea, have you joined WSC? ,or why not? It,s my believe that
WSC had alot to do with the reduction in the kill limit. Will you be able to stand in front of the great fisherman above[or children, or grand children]
and say I did what I could to protect the resource. If you aren't a member of WSC I would like to hear why not and if you believe in wild steelhead
release statewide why haven't you joined? Is $40 a year to much? I just can't understand the huge number of passionate posts about personal
preference in tools to fish with and over 3000 Piscatorial Pursuits BB members and at least that many lurkers why WSC has less than 200 members.
I would really like to have some feedback please.

Does any body care?

I care......yet I am not a member. I attented a meeting last year and had the membership forms but never sent them in or paid dues. My only excuse is that I am busy raising two small boys and really just forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder Jerry! And thanks to the individuals that have spent so much time trying to make some changes to a system that obviosly doesn't work very well.

Excellent post, Jerry.

For those of you that work for big companies, keep in mind a lot of them will match your donations to qualified non-profit organizations. WSC is one such organization. I have a very small amount deducted from my paychecks that will double in size by the time it reaches the WSC.

So take a minute to do what you can to keep beauties like these in our rivers:

Bruce

btw - GO HOOSIERS (the lucky hat did it for me on Friday)!

NICE FISH B What a bute!
Tyler

Awesome fish B as close to a perfect steelhead as you'll ever find.

JerryBerry-
I could not agree with you more!!! I've said it before...if we put as much time into preserving wild steelhead as we do b*tching at each other, we might have one less thing to b*tch about...empty rivers

Idaho Steelhead and Salmon unlimited has been a huge voice in any issue relating to sport fishing. Also river management and anything else that affects our sport. It sounds like your WSC group could be the same. Its a good chance to show support. Memebership numbers alone mean a lot.

One thing we don't have in Idaho is Chromers like the one above... That fish is sweet !!!!

jerry,
I have hidden fron the politics of our fishing world untill I got involved in this bourd.I fish the hood canal tribs so hiding has not been easy.You may have noticed that I participate alot in CF,salma,postings to help educate myself on these isues and the truth.

Here comes the flames....

I do not agree with your statewide c/r.I am a c/r fisherman and have been for 9 years now.Alot of the guys pushing for it now can't say that so think about that before ya start beating up on me.I did send in the easy form BOB suplied on this bourd.Since then I have come up against the state wide c/r.two resons

1: I do not believe that the majority of the fishermen in this state want that.I think it is important for an orginization to represent the fishermen not divide them

2:I see c/r as an excuse for fishing a fishery that needs to be closed.It is a great tool to protect a healthy run.It is not the answer for runs that are hurting.Fish die in a c/r fishery, how many depends on which study you want to use.If done right it creates alot of new fly only water.Any time you keep a failing fishery open you leave the door cracked for the bad element that is only there to do harm.

I believe for any of your mission to be acomplished you are going to need more than state wide support.With The sportfisherman as divided as they seem to be in this state getting state wide support is going to be hard enough.I am not saying that you are wasting your time as that is far from what I think.I just believe that the c/r issue further divides...

Also your location is great for city slickers...

I do commend alot of your mission and highly respect anybody that is willing to get up and do something more than complain.

PEACE
Greg

ltlCLEO,
1. How would you feel about a questionaire from the state where the majority of anglers
stated they would like to see a rule change that would allow snagging of hathery salmon in terminal
fisheries? A mandate from the people? or ?

2. Wild steelhead release statewide would still be regulated by the state, so as we have now-
no fishing on depressed stocks.

3.We have had 15 more rivers close in the last 3 years that the state had deemed healthy enough for wild harvest. So are you suggesting bonkers bonk until they are all gone.

ltlCLeol or whatever,
Your comments are the very divider you talk about.
Sounds like you got an inferior complex about those who fish with a fly rod. Are you aware that the majority of anglers in the WSC are gear fishermen and women? We don't see this issue of C&R as fly Vs gear. As for more fly water being created, not over my dead body! Most folks I know that fly fish for steelhead don't want any water fly only. Christ their is too many of us flingers now for the few runs that can be fished.
You say the rivers should just be shut down yet you fish some of the most depleted rivers in the state for steelhead yet you believe in C&R. How much interest you gonna have in the beautiful canal rivers you fish if they are shut down for 5 or 10 years or more? None most likely, you will have died of old age or moved on to golf.
The only division between fishermen comes about with reasoning like yours. The majority of fishermen damn well know Wild Steelhead are in trouble throughout the state. At least those in favor of statewide C&R want to keep the priviledge for all of being able to be on the river fishing doing the least amount of harm without going to the eventual extreme we are headed for of all rivers closed.

Our friends to the north changed to wild release some years ago without backing from the majority
of their fisherman,and now most of us point to their success. I don't understand.

land tuna,
I for one do want the hood cannal streams shut down.C/r is presently being used by the state as an excuse for keeping those streams open.Look at the regs and you will see that the rivers are c/r exept hatchery steel.The state supplies 10,500 steel smolt to the northern rivers.Is this a fishery or an excuse,using c/r,to keep from telling the truth and shutting these streams down?While this fishery is c/r to protect all fish but the few hatch steel that might be there two months out of the year,They have not put any restrictions {single barbless, no bait}to protect these fish.So what do we have a c/r fishery based on salmon and steelhead smolt using bait and trebbles.Usuing c/r as an excuse to keep from giving the public the wrong idea.That is what scares me about c/r.I am all for c/r to preserve our wild fish,but am afraid that it will be used as it is on my rivers.I stated on another thread that my WANT to fish is not a NEED.I am more worried about preserving our wild fish than I am being able to go fishing.I have given up anymore winter steel fishing this season because of the situation that has unfolded.

As it stands now the public is not really that woried about the state of our steelhead fishery.That leaves the sport fisherpeople to carry the weight.The smaller that group of people gets or the more divided we get,the less weight we carry.I am scared by the lack of kids on the rivers now.I watched the differant debates on other bourds concerning the statewide c/r issue and it looked to me like there were alot of good responsible fisherpeople that did not want this for all sorts of differant reasons.I am afraid of loosing there participation as things get worse.

Catch and release as the wsc wants it could be one of the best things for our healthy fisheries.I am just afraid the state will not do the right thing{close unhealthy fisheries}with your proposal.

Hey, everyone.

I'll keep my comments very short, as I'd rather hear what everyone else has to say on this thread. God knows I've done my share of stumping for the WSC over the last year!

The WSC is working on many issues that affect wild steelhead stocks, and the cnr debate is only one of those many. Please go to our homepage, read our mission statement, and then you'll have a better idea of what the WSC is intending to do.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

ltlCLeo,
Your concerns are valid but don't blame the WSC for trying to divide fishermen. They have tried to unite fishermen with good science and reasoning. When the WSC was formed much discussion was about do we need to get the rivers closed down to save wild steelhead or is there another way? Can you imagine the out cry from all fishermen if the WSC decided to fight for closing all rivers? I can only speak as a proud member of the WSC and not for the organization itself. The way it went from my point of veiw was that most felt by going C&R all who fished would still have the opportunity to do so without doing too much harm to the fishery. Things that you brought up like barbless and bait were talked often and there was division amongst members but in the end after going over all the scientific data we agreed it was more important to keep more fishermen on the rivers participating in conservation than to piss off more folks by making un-scientific restrictions on them. The loss to barbs and bait of wild winter fish does not seem drastic enough when compared to excluding those who fish that way from fishing.
You mention where are the young people fishing? If the rivers are closed then the Teen Tylers and the Ryan's who by the way is old by Tylers standards will be lost forever. You are right about not many young people fishing but lets keep ones we got fishing at least C&R. I have not seen any action by the WSC to divide or resrict anyones right to enjoy going fishing they want everyone to be able to fish more. What they want is the end of the deliberate killing of wild steelhead when less and less of them exist. These folks in the WSC are not PETA or some fern feeler group, They wish there was a way to keep wild steelhead too but realize that in the world we all now live in sportsmen are going to have to do something to save them instead of eating them. Soon enough the way it's going all our rivers will be shut down year around, a couple bad years and welcome Uncle Sam and the ESA.

Its not a question of "what fisherman want..." Its a question of "what fish need..." Support of C.R for wild fish is the bare minimum effort. I would think that Washington state could give steelhead at least that one concession. If you don't support that.. how can the state and feds listen to you about nets or anything else??? I think the vast majority of people out west "Do want that". It sort of hard to believe that law has not been passed. Really hard to believe...

The future of steelhead fishing is more importaint than anyones BBQ or freezer.. suppose????

I do not blame an orginization as well meaning as the WSC for the division in our fellow sports fisherpeople.I took jerrys original post as a question of why more people were not interested in becoming involved with the WSC and I see the c/r issue as the biggest reason within the WSC.I wish the WSC views and ideas were more of a common ground than it is.

I worked within the comercial fishing industry for long enough to learn that they are a powerfull lobby.The comercial lobby power does not consist of a few local fishermen but a whole WORLD of fishermen.There coffers are bottomless.I see them as the biggest lobby against that which needs to be done.Understanding this,my mind is always mulling for a way to orginize the sportfishermen in numbers that will actually reflect the depth involved.A few thousand sport fishermen in the state of WA. is not enough to acomplish anything.A few thousand fisherpeople per state would!Where is the common ground that is needed?.Even though I would love to see the state go c/r as the WSC wants it,I also see it alianating alot of good healthy members of our beloved sport.For whatever reasons they do not want statewide c/r,right or wrong,I feel that there voice is crucial to have an effect on our ever growing problems.

ltlCLEO, How about some feed back on my other posts.

Sure jerry to the best of my understanding..?

I do not know of any questionares concerning snagging of fish in terminal fisheries.I do know that this does happen way too much.Law enforcement cannot even enforce snagging regulations let alone c/r regulations.I personally do not fish any of these snagfests for varios reasons but I have to wonder who really cares?They are only hatchery fish,if they do not get snagged then they just end up fertilizer.We do not want to loose our native gene pool correct?

2.The state implementing the c/r regulation is what scares me the most!If it was implemented the way the WSC intends ,I am all for it.

3.The last thing I want to see is the last wild steely bonked.I sometimes wonder if the state would like to see that very thing happen!It would sure make there msy alot easiar to work with.I fall back again on close the system down before this happens.I still believe that c/r is a great way to manage a healthy fishery,it is not the answer for our failing systems,It is a means of conservation but not the answer to our problem.If it is used like it is on the canal it will be a means of killing the last steelhead.

B-RUN
The biggest reason I did suport the c/r issue was because I saw it as ground to stand on later in the battle!I am so sick of the attitude of not untill they stop.I too am surprised certain things have not been supported by the public{net ban} and by the wildlife commision{c/r}.Because of these let downs I feel compelled to look deeper into the population to come to some common ground?

Maybe this first time around the WSC was a little green. I feel we should have defened ourselves and explained that our stance was to help save wild steelhead and to keep people on the rivers with as little damage to the fish as possible. It was important to let people know the importance of saving wild steelhead by keeping fishermen on the rivers and interested in the fishery than to have it closed and people going off to other interests. But that's an afterthought when maybe with more help and experience we would have attempted more unifying.
Everyone in the WSC I know had a great deal of respect for those who wanted to keep it volantary C&R and practiced C&R on their own. But maybe we let those others that acused us of being selfish, enviros and only wanting the river for ourselves to get to us. Should have defended ourselves against them better because they were the dividers. To keep wild fish in the rivers and keep people fishing was the goal and that ment keeping those against us fishing a longer season also.
Hey we need people like you and teen Tyler in our organization even if your beliefs are a little different. That's what makes the whole thing work in the end. Some of our most dedicated members come from the Hood canal.

One of the long term goals of WSC is to have local chapters, ltlCLeo, think about that when you are formulating a plan to save hood canal steelhead. Maybe to get more interest in this subject I could use some key words like VISION, GAMMIES, LOOMIS, LAMIGLASS.

Key words I am thinking are "FREE BEER!"

Guys
I think it is important to point out that the WSC stands for alot more than statewide c/r.As listed in a private message by a member they also stand for habitat restoration and protection,by catch reduction, more law enforcment,and more thorough harvest reports and much more!All these things are crucial to preserving our wild fish and are more than worthy of time and money.I believe them to be an outstanding orginization!

I posted that argument because of honest feelings but more so for the sake of argument.I was hoping to give some imput that would help the WSC.I believe that the c/r issue has held the WSC back some as far as enrolement goes.

I am currently looking for a new avenue to focus my fishing passion on and the wsc is on the top of the list.I do want to spend more time closer to home though and am looking into some local orginizations,Bothel makes for a long meeting night!

Please no hard feelings as I was more trying to give some input from the outside looking in!

I love the wild side of our great northwest and dread the day that man ruins it all!

Hillbilly,
If you join I'll bring you up a half rack of Alaskan Amber.

Just a question, Does WSC support keeping in place enough of a hatchery system to keep plenty of catchable fish in the rivers? Also part of the reason I have not really considered membership is that this is more of a local issue. Over here we have had wild steelhead release in place for many years. It seems to work, as the numbers are holding their own, and in some cases increasing slightly. I do not fish on the west side, and really don't see it in my future, so when you say statewide, you are really only referring to some rivers over there. Good luck, but my money will probably be spent on enhancement on my side of the mountains. Before you call me part of your problem, I do spend considerable time, money, and effort working on stream enhancement and fisheries issues over here.

Either side of the mountains the wild fish issue is an item where common ground by all anglers can be the stepping stone for other issues. When the day comes where the retention of wild fish is no longer leagle ( anyplace) then the argument can be made for removal of nets.

A few things are not going to happen for sure. The removal of Dams for instance... just not going to happen. However, with a large lobbie of sport fisherman several things could happen. The buyout of commercial and tribal nets is possible. If its about money , anyone who can do math knows that sport fishing generates a lot more cash than nets do. .005 % of the people catch 50 % of the fish. Thats stupid. The BPA spends enough money each year on B.S that they could simply buy out that whole industry 3x... Sorry, its not an industry, its a disgrace.

The GOOD OL boys are losing their clout. I could go on and on but don't want to rant.

Mike L.,

The WSC absolutely does support providing hatchery fish for harvest and fishing opportunity. Without hatchery fish the great majority of our rivers would have no fishing, and there wouldn't be a good justification to fish some of the other rivers that have wild runs without the hatchery fish being there.

As we speak there are WSC biologists embarking on a project to review hatchery practices, everything from broodstocking, outplanting, and other aspects of hatchery production. The idea is to make biologically sound recommendations to private and public agencies that are performing these functions.

I wish I knew where the idea came up that the WSC is intending to do away with hatcheries. It's been in several editorials and articles in newspapers and magazines. As I said above, if anyone has a question about what the WSC stands for, please...

READ THE MISSION STATEMENT!!!

I think that's the first time I've used all caps in two years of being on this board!

Here's the relevant part of the mission statement:

...

Hatchery programs must be closely examined and be carried out in such a manner that the negative impacts on wild fish are removed or minimized.

The WSC stands for the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead, and for science, not politics, to be the basis for the re-tooling of hatchery practices.

...

Please visit the WSC web site for more information...here's the link to the mission statement:

http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com/mission.htm

Fish on...

Todd
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

Leadership has its price. The WSC may have initially alienated some potential members due to its advocacy of statewide wild steelhead release. I expect that many of those who are really dedicated to their fishing will eventually come around and support the organization.
Consider that when the Skagit River CNR season began in 1981, the rate of angler participation was quite low. People weren't used to it, some thought that if the run couldn't support a kill fishery then the river should be closed, and others probably hadn't formed an opinion. As word began to spread of very successful fishing experiences, many who initially opposed the CNR season became very active participants.

Similarly, when B.C. switched to wild steelhead CNR as a conservation measure, it was not widely supported by the angling public, either. However, people got used to it, and realized that wild steelhead populations could no longer support the combined demands of commercial net interceptions, Indian subsistence fishing, habitat degradation, in addition to large scale angling mortality. Now, unless you travel to Kamchatka, most people belive that B.C. offers the world's premier wild steelhead fishery. B.C.'s steelhead management has stood the test of over 20 years on some of its rivers. One simply cannot say that wild steelhead CNR doesn't work. If there is any habitat left, and other sources of mortality are not excessive, it works.

So WSC has selected that as an initial goal. It certainly got the WDFW Commission and managers' attention. The fact that it wasn't adopted in December is not a failure of purpose. Just as Rome was not built in a day, most conservation measures are successful over time through persistence and just simply being right.

This and other conservation measures will eventually be adopted by society. The alternative is for society to write off wild steelhead as a meaningful element of our state's heritage. WSC can be a powerful unifying force by helping to retain angling opportunity while implementing effective conservation measures. This action helps keep anglers dedicated to conservation, rather than taking up golf and forgetting about the fish. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. If the state simply closes fishing, the majority of anglers who support conservation issues are likely over time to lose interest and move on to other interests and activities. Then who will advocate for wild fish?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks Salmo !!

I don't know why I waited so long. My check is in the mail.

I know that some of you people really get passionate about catch and release (i.e. Salmo and Todd), but will it REALLY resolve our declining wild steelhead runs PROBLEM in the coming future (show us the science)? This isn't a loaded question, and I believe that there are many others out there that would also like this same question answered.

Things like this statement really make many of us wonder what WSC is really up to;

"I wish I knew where the idea came up that the WSC is intending to do away with hatcheries. It's been in several editorials and articles in newspapers and magazines. As I said above, if anyone has a question about what the WSC stands for, please...READ THE MISSION STATEMENT!!!"

I have just reviewed and reread the "WSC mission statements", and I am still very confused on what is its long term goal really are. The way that I read it, it appears that "WSC" wants to protect wild steelhead forever from harvest, Am I correct? If not, when can harvest occur again? I see that the WSC has not yet set any goals for any harvestable fishery in the near future. So what does that mean? Protection to what extent? Is WSC against any harvest of all of Wild steelhead, no matter what their escapement levels may become? If so, why have they not stated so? Is it true, that WSC wants to protect wild steelhead from harvest forever, or is it just the goal of WSC to protect wild steelhead populations until they can reach a "harvestable self sustaining level"?

The WSC mission statement is very unclear to me and others, and I believe that many other fishermen will look at this organization as just another "PETA" type of organization if WSC does not CEARLY STATE what their "long term goal" really is! I say that because of the wording that is listed directly below.

Well, Salmo and Todd, I have reread again the "Policies and Actions of the WSC; to increase fish runs, more wild fish must return to their rivers and spawn. To that end, the WSC promotes year round, catch and release of all wild steelhead in the Pacific Northwest."

Well, how long do you guys propose to promote "that C&R" and will it be needed to do it forever to achieve your goals? What are your numbers that are needed to sustain a harvestable fishery in our state, or do we just C&R forever and forever?

Apparently, your members may have been afraid to state such a long term goal in the very begining, but who in their right mind, would want to just to catch and release, and look at these fish forever other then people like PETA? We are humans, we kill, we eat, and we survive, and yes, fish are part of our survival!

Maybe you guys are one level above many of us, but loose your great paying job, and come back to the real word!

The world is not yet totally run by people who are governmentally supported and who can run down to the nearest fish and chips and buy their dinner, or eat just veggies!

Now please Salmo, and Todd, what exactly are the "WSC long term goals"? If you guys can do it right, you may gain a few new more board supporters. If you can't answer these simple, basic questions, then you guys are fighting an up-hill battle, and you probabaly already know it. Is it always going to be c&r, or is it going to be some type of sport fishing harvest allowed in the near future?

One last question;

"The WSC stands for the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead, and for science, not politics, to be the basis for the re-tooling of hatchery practices." Is that really what WSC stands for?

Give us a break! Isn't WSC just another political organization to inhance c&r of wild steelhead?

Please don't get to pi$$ed off (again), just give us the answers that we all can understand, and maybe, just maybe, we can support the unstated "long term goal of WSC"!

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

Cowlitz, As I'm am just a lowly member, with a job that pays OK[can't retire early like some], I believe hard numbers for escapement of wild fish are impossible to come by[unless we use the states numbers] because as of yet we don't have any unmolested numbers of wild fish in any system to base the science on. My personal believe is to have no harvest until the wild fish reach some sort of equilibrium, enough so to have some science to work with. BC's system works but most of our habitat is more degraded than theirs, we could make wild guesses based on their program but that would be dumb. The fish need to be protected as long as need be to provide recovery. You belong to an organization with[I assume] a mission statement that can be modified by vote of members if goals are reached or goals need to change for unforseen circumstances.I am a little bugged about your comment about great paying jobs, if you could please quantify that for me. It doesn't make sense for me to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to the peninsula for 20#'s of wild fish[maybe if I'm lucky ] when I can go to the store and get some food for sure, I've never come home from the store empty handed because my luck was bad. OPP'S 6 am need to start that great paying job!!

Todd,
I did read the mission statement, and while a bit vague in some areas, did explain your goals. How do you as a group determine what is sound hatchery operation to not impact wild fish? The opinions of scientist vary greatly here, and one will believe whatever fits into their personal agenda. While I do believe in wild steelhead release, and have prcticed it for years, even before it was law over here, I pose this question. I am not trying to be inflammatory here. Do you think the average steelhead fisherman
in this atate cares whether or not there are wild fish, or do they just want fish to catch?
Another question, Are you all, as a group uniting all steelhead advocacy groups, or are you another special interest group that will end up further fragmenting the sport fishermen?
I am not trying to incite heated debate here, just trying to understand the issues and agendas of your group.

Mike L is correct.

Neither Mike L, nor I are attacking your organization, we are only replying to the request that you had asked this board to do. Part of your request was; "$40 a year to much? I just can't understand the huge number of passionate posts about personal preference in tools to fish with and over 3000 Piscatorial Pursuits BB members and at least that many lurkers why WSC has less than 200 members. I would really like to have some feedback please."

It appears to me that $40 dollars a year may be a "little bit" to much for a few members to explain to their wife's. For the vast many, that probably isn't the case here, but it is a factor that your organization must address.

I know that when I was the business manager and treasure of a fairly large sport fishing group (the Friends of the Cowlitz) money was always a big problem and every time we raised our membership dues our membership would suffer to some degree. Every group truly believes that their organization is worth their price to join, and that is normal. But if you look at the bigger picture, i.e. $40 dollars here, $35 dollars there, $25 more hear, etc, etc, a guy may be past his limits, and just can't justify to his other half spending another $40 dollars. That's only one view point.

On your second question; "I am a little bugged about your comment about great paying jobs, if you could please quantify that for me". That was not intend to flame you or anyone else, that conclusion came to me after reading the tread "What pays the bills"

After reading that thread, it sounds to me like there are some pretty good paying jobs out there that members of this board are now holding.

Secondly, if your organization is to grow and survive, you will need to spread out your organization much further then the internet. You will need to hold many meetings outside your "local area". It has been my personal experience that founding members always tend to want to say in their own local area when they hold their meetings. That's not going to cut it if you want new memberships! I don't know if your organization is doing that now, but it's pretty much a common practice among most organizations.

No one wants to travel for 1 to 3 hours for a meeting and then find out when you get there, that you're the only one attending. Believe me it happens all the time. Running an organization is never an easy task. It takes lots of money, lots of volunteer time, and lots of support. Take away any one of the above, and your organization will be very short lived.

Finally, you are probably now realizing that your mission is not overwhelmingly supported by the many (less then 200 members).Your cause may be a noble one, but not one that is widely supported or shared through-out this state. In my opinion, if your organization is to grow, you guys need to change your "mission statement" to gain more public support. Like it or not, running an organization is no different then running your own business. And that requires making hard changes to survive. Sometimes those changes are so tuff that the founders can't accept it and the organization just fades away. Believe it or not most sport fishing organizations fail fairly early because of the demands are just to great. Good luck, it sounds like you guys will need it.

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

Cowlitz, When is your next Seattle meeting about the problems on the Cowlitz and the licensing issues I've only read about those on the internet. We are small and looking to branch out, usually a person from the other area that has an interest will suggest a chapter in their area. If there are those out there that would like for the WSC to hold an informational meeting in their area please ask, I'm sure somebody from the WSC would arrange to be there. We are not a political organization, but a group of people with the survival of wild steelhead at heart. If you disagree with our vieww[mission statement] can you provide a better solution.

I'm responding to two questions that were raised, and I'm speaking only for myself, not the WSC.

1) Do we have CNR seasons to stop and reverse steelhead population declines?

No. Harvest is but one factor responsible for declines in steelhead populations. Stopping harvest removes one of the factors for population decline. Closing a fishery accomplishes this (hypothetically, since poaching may continue during closures). The purpose of a steelhead CNR season is to provide steelheading recreational opportunity when the likely alternative is a complete fishing closure. CNR is demonstrated to have no measurable adverse affect on spawning escapement and subsequent productivity. This is attributed primarily to the low mortality rate associated with CNR seasons and their single barbless hook, artificial lure regulations. Other factors include density-dependent mortality associated with the resulting juvenile population and factors not associated with the CNR fishery.

2) How long do we have to have CNR; when can we expect to harvest wild steelhead?

First, what do we mean by harvest wild steelhead? A basic 2 fish/day, 30/season, like it was a few years ago? Or more restrictive, like 1 or 5/season from a given set of rivers, like on the coast maybe? How about a lottery - you draw a ticket, like for some elk or goat hunts? My response assumes 2/day, 30/season, per angler.

The human population of Washington is 5 1/2 million and growing. The fishing efficiency of anglers has increased over time.

Harvestable wild steelhead will not occur in any significant sense in the Columbia River system upstream of McNary Dam until lower Snake River dams are breached and mid-Columbia dams are removed (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and probably others). So it is unlikely there will ever be harvestabe wild steelhead in those areas while a significant human population remains in the region.

In western Washington, I believe we could achieve a condition suitable for a wild steelhead harvest fishery by satisfying either of the following two conditions:

A) When the human population of WA state declines to 2.5 million, overall impact on natural resources are likely to be reduced to the point where the river systems could recover enough to allow wild steelhead harvest at the level I assumed for this response.

B) Alternatively, permanently remove all humans and most signs of human development within 25 miles, east and west of I-5, from Blaine to Vancouver. The remaining landscape is significantly less suitable to human occupation, and the river systems would stand a chance of recovering to the point of sustaining a meaningful harvest. Especially as there would be no roads, drift boats, or jet boats in these areas to facilitate the harvest of fish.

This was just a long answer that could have been reduced to: never, if human population as we know it remains on the scene. To believe otherwise requires a Pollyanna perspective that ignores the incredible adverse effect humans have on salmon and steelhead even if we did not fish for them. How many of you get over 30 mpg with your fishing vehicle? When the state population was last at 2.5KK, almost no anglers had 4-wheel drive vehicles or drift boats. I think the jet sled had not quite been invented yet (came from New Zealand in early 60s). There were less than 1/3 as many miles of road as today. And there were half to 1/3 fewer dams.

On a statewide basis, we were rapidly running out of harvestable wild steelhead between 1968 and 1972 (my opinion, backed by only some data). Of course, we didn't cut back on harvesting them until begining in 1977, and much later on some rivers. And still harvest them on the coast.

The global population is over 6 billion and climbing rapidly. Some population experts believe the long-term sustainable human population for this planet is less than 3 billion. A growing population gravitates toward employment and resources useful for living, generally in the short term. Most of Washington's population growth if from immigration. The birth and death rates of people already here are about the same.

It is unlikely we can prevent further immigration and population growth. As the population grows, demands on existing resources increases. Under this scenario, all the habitat restoration projects imaginable will not create significant numbers of harvestable wild steelhead. We will continue to degrade habitat, even indirectly, faster than we can restore it.

CNR is a bit player in the big picture. It allows us continued fishing opportunity well into the foreseeable future. That, along with restrictive environmental controls, will allow us to pass a steelheading heritage to a few more generations. Hopefully, the next generation of resource and human managers will address the root cause of population and the unsustainable demand for natural resources. If they don't, the rules of ecology dictate a self-correcting action.

I apologize for the gloom and doom tone this renders, but I believe it is a fairly accurate reality check.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Cowlitzfisherman,

With all due respect, when all is said and done, I'm afraid that I much prefer it when Salmo g. "Makes me think."

What the hell Cowlitz? Why are you ripping on WSC when little is being done to help save our native steel?

Like salmo said, with the worlds population growing so much, you will be able to walk on roof tops from your beloved Cowlitz to my beloved Skykomish without even firing up your truck. The long term goal SHOULD be CNR on native fish FOREVER because there flat out wont be enough native fish around to support the kind of pressure this place can dish out.

I love the pic by B.Gray... You couldnt pay me enough to bonk a fish like that, even if you could walk across their backs...Those bad a** fish deserve to swim

I don't think Cowlitz is in particular, bashing WSC but asking questions about participation by fisherman. We as a group need to ask ourselves these questions and answer one way or another. Please don't make this a forum for bashing. Cowlitz has every right to ask those questions and they have been and will be discussed as this group grows and changes as the steelhead populations grow[I hope] and change. But at the same time WSC will not be a feel good group going nowhere so we can have membership numbers to brag about. I hope and pray we have wild steelhead release before we have no steelhead fishing period. Every year the wild runs decline-tell me WHAT IS YOUR BETTER PLAN!

Jerry, I don't know why you're asking me such a sarcastic question (I guess I didn't give to you the answer that you wanted to hear). You asked all of us for advice and we gave it to you.

You now say that you're "not a political organization".That may only be because of the way that you guys have set up your 501 status (do you even have a status yet?). Believe me, your "political" but only to the degree that your 501 status allows you to be! Maybe the organizers of WSC screwed up and only filed for a 501-3 status.Only your board knows that answer. When I was the business manager for the FOC, I developed a joint 501-C3 and C4 status rating. That way we could take in funds for doing projects (like your proposed studies) and keep that money aside from the main organization funds, and still be somewhat politically active. You can do an awful lot of political stuff under the rules of 501-C4.

It took a lot of time, effort and money to do it but we finally got both our C4 and C3 status. So maybe you guys can do the same as I did with the FOC, and then you can do both. It cost us about $1000 and a lot of my time to get both the 501-C4 and C3 statuses. I hope this information will help you decide what is best for you.

Finally, it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with WSC "mission statement". The fact is that you are complaining that your organizations membership is not reaching your anticipated goal. It's my own personal opinion that there are far more anglers out there that are against c&r then there are those for it (again, it's only my opinion). It would behoove your board to revaluate their mission statement and see if they can reach a larger, broader, range of anglers. It's not my place to put words into your board's mouths; it is their responsibility as board members to make sure that your organization survives and meets its goal. If they fail to do so, so will WSC. Anyway, that just my opinion and you can take it for whatever it is worth.
________________________________________________________
4Salt

Does it really matter if it is me or Salmo g. that "Makes you think"? Re-think what Salmo has politically said so well; "It is unlikely we can prevent further immigration and population growth. As the population grows, demands on existing resources increases. Under this scenario, all the habitat restoration projects imaginable will not create significant numbers of harvestable wild steelhead. We will continue to degrade habitat, even indirectly, faster than we can restore it. CNR is a bit player in the big picture." What do you "think" he just told you?

You know, they saved the California Condor too, but now it looks like "time it's self" will decide if it makes it or not. That is why hatchery fish may be your only savor in the near future. And it also may very well be the only thing that our next generation may be allowed to fish and harvest.

I also personally like Salmo g.(we both know that we represent different view points). But he is not a fish god that can change what is already in place. We must all deal with the reality of what we have left to fish on and make the correct management choices to allow us a sport fishery which must include some form of harvest opportunity.
_______________________________________________________
Bank walker

Have you forgotten who asked for advice on this issue? I did not create this thread, I just gave Jerry an answer, and the answer must have been a big pill for him to sallow! Correct me if I am wrong, but have I posted any threads on this board that "attacked" WSC before? I don't think that you will find a single line where I have "attacked" the WSC. If so, please bring it to my attention and I will apologize. If not, then you owe me the apology, fair enough?

Why in the devil would someone post a question on this board and not expect to get back a verity of answers to their question? Maybe I miss something here, but I didn't see any rules that "all responses had to be in favor of WSC". Am I correct? If WSC can't withstand sensible question here, they are in bigger trouble then you may think!

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

There has been some good information shared in this thread and some even better questions. I would like to offer up my two cents on a couple of the latter and in doing so, hopefully lay to rest any questions about the “true” motivation of the WSC.

Let me start out by saying that the motivation is simple. The WSC is an organization of fishermen and women who are working to increase the runs of wild steelhead in the region’s rivers. Healthy runs equate to fishing opportunity. This is opportunity not just for today but also for the future. And before I get flamed on how the WSC is reducing some people’s opportunity to kill fish, let me state that there is ample opportunity available to kill hatchery fish. That is what they are there for. (More on this later)

It has been asked if the long-term goal is to protect wild fish from harvest forever or “until they can reach self-sustaining levels”. I would first answer by saying that until someone can demonstrate to me what a river’s self-sustaining level is; I would ere on the side of conservation. In a perfect world, both data and management instruments would be available so that a rivers carrying capacity was known and easily monitored. At the current time, such ability is not available. What we have instead is a management tool that places emphasis on maximizing harvest and maintaining a minimum carrying capacity level. Even this might be workable if the predictive confidence intervals were small enough to cover for fluctuations in ocean conditions, repeat spawners, seasonal flow fluctuations, etc. One need only look at the dramatic decrease in “healthy” rivers in the last 5 years to see they are not.

Since we are speaking hypothetically though, would the WSC support harvest of wild fish if a river’s wild fish return had recovered to point it exceeded its carrying capacity? While I suspect recovery to this level to be unlikely anytime soon, should it in fact happen, the WSC would support harvest opportunities.

Statewide catch and release has been the focus for the first year of the WSC because the board determined that before it could address the other issues impacting the health of wild runs, it first had to force movement away from a management strategy which puts a premium on killing them. C & R is not the magic pill to run recovery but it is a way to still allow fishing opportunity while minimizing angler impact. Now that this fight has been fought, and partially won, it is time to move on to addressing the other factors influencing declining runs of wild fish.

Finally, before I get back to my “great paying job” and then head off to my PETA meeting where we plan the downfall of both McDonald’s and the leather shoe industry, let me touch on the issue of hatcheries. As stated above, the WSC is made up of people who fish. In order to do this, we need to have fish in the rivers. In order to have sufficient numbers of fish in the rivers to allow fishing, we currently need hatcheries. No hatcheries, no fishing.

I would love to see wild runs recover to a point where hatcheries were no longer needed. I’m not holding my breath for this to happen though. Until it does, we need to work towards maximizing fishing opportunities while minimizing impacts on wild runs. If the goal is wild recovery to a point hatcheries are not needed, you must logically minimize impacts of the latter on the former. The ways to best minimize these impacts are a hot topic right now. WSC biologists are looking at this as are biologists from WDFW, ODFW, B.C. among others. As is stated in the WSC mission statement, “science not politics”.

In closing, let me say that if you feel there is no difference between wild and hatchery fish and that one is as good as the other, the WSC is not for you. It reminds me of the Doritos’s commercial, eat as many as you want, we will make more. If however, you feel that wild fish are worth saving in this region and you would like your children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to fish for them, the WSC just might be worth your time and money.

Sincerley,

Duggan Harman
WSC Board President

Jerry,
I am sorry if our posts were in between each other. I hope that others can despiser any differences between the two.

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

Jerry;
Make mine Henry's Ale, OK?

Until more than 3 people question the mission statement and motives of WSC I have to believe that our greatest problem is apathy[kinda like me and the Cowlitz]. My questions were two fold 1.Why are we so apathetic about wild steelhead and so passionate about hooks and rods to catch them with. 2 .I am curious as to anybodies hesitation to join.

Did you join Gutz ?

Hey, Jerry,

I'll take some Redhook ESB...whattayathink?

Fish on...

Todd.

Hey Guys,

Haven't put in my 2 cents on the wild fish thing lately and I'm not going to now. Just the same small group of very opinionated people going around and around the wild steelhead issue, just with a new twist. Aren't you guys bored? Don't you see that everyone on this thread's mind is already made up as to what's the right thing to do? How much electricity is being wasted posting these comments? Couldn't that energy be saved for the wild steelhead? I'm going to the coast tomorrow to catch some more wild steelhead. Gotta spend time tonight gettin' ready. Last time my buddy and I fished out there, we hooked 9. Hope to equal that tomorrow. Incidently, I've done well this year on 2 rivers for natives, one that gets hatchery fish, one that doesn't. Both require C/R of wild steelhead. I have a clear concious going fishing for natives tomorrow because I'm active with an organization here in OR that supports C/R. Spent a day last month with them doing spawning surveys (not for pay).

I don't have the time/money to belong to every fish-friendly organization out there, to answer the original question of this post. Sounds like WSC is a good organization, though.

Cheers

Okay Todd, I'll buy you a beer at the next meeting.

My check is in the Mail. See you at the next meeting.

Good discussion, I would like to offer the following perspective in addition to Duggan's without sounding too superfluous.

Keep in mine the WSC has been only in existence for 14 months. We will continue to expand and work to accommodate WSC members out of the area as we grow. As a start we have installed a few Regional Reps to provide support for the WSC in other areas.

In just over a year the WSC has developed, from scratch, a diverse and effective organization, which is advocating positive changes for wild steelhead. As the WSC was being developed into an organization, a statewide wild steelhead release proposal was introduced. In addition to the initial work to develop the WSC, a lion's share of work also went into understanding the issues regarding the SWR proposal, researching and gathering scientific data and preparing for the Commission's public testimony. Since the SWR proposal was the WSC's main focus out of the gate and the WSC successfully did its homework presenting a compelling argument for SWR some uninformed or opponents assumed or accused the WSC of being just a steelhead C&R group and against other things such as hatcheries, etc.

The WSC is not just about the release of wild steelhead, even though it is agreed to as a management tool in the bigger picture that will help conserve them and still provide angling opportunity. The WSC is really about education and working with others to advocate positive changes for wild steelhead to flourish.

WSC members believe the mission and objectives are clear, and hope others will take the time to understand before making assumptions or choosing to become a member. Even if you choose to disagree with the wild steelhead release issue there are other issues regarding wild steelhead you can agree to that need your support.

Being the membership chair I've had the opportunity to talk with various individuals about becoming a member in the WSC. The majority agree with our mission but the excuses are the same; no time, can't make the meetings, dog ate my application, etc.(haven't heard potential members complain about membership dues too expensive, since there are many membership options) Understand by simply becoming a member you are supporting and doing what you can do for your given situation and if you can do more and get involved in a committee, etc. kudos to you.

The new fiscal year is upon us and if you sign up now your membership is good till March 31, 2003. If you have questions about becoming member in the WSC feel free to contact me at wscmembership@yahoo.com

Thanks to all who have become members and supported to make the WSC success!

i think one of the problems you guys face is that there are alot of people, including me that dont fish cnr seasons, i know alot of people who fish for hatchery steelhead and release the wild fish but quit fishing after the hatchery runs wain and the wild fish show up because we dont feel its nesesary to harass them. also, the skagit cnr season going on now is on a run of fish that is at i believe 83 percent of escapment, why didnt the wsc lobby to have it closed down ? i realy dont understand, what am i missing ?

Why dont I belong to the WSC?

Because the rivers I fish are already manditory release of all unclipped fish (ie. wild - native)

I dont support C&R fisheries because I see it as an excuse to harass wild fish. How can anyone say they only want what is best for Wild Steelhead advicate any fishery that targets wild steelhead.

Is $40.00 dollars to much for dues?

Probably lets see what other organizations charge and what they provide for the dues / contribution.

DU (Ducks Unlimited) provides a magazine with stories about ongoing projects in habitat restoration and other things related to ducks. They also provide finacial statements to show where your money is being spent. They have local chapters you can be involved with. Oh they also advicate Duck Hunting and this costs $25.00 per year. There work directly benefits you the Duck Hunter as well as the Ducks.

REMF (Rocky Mountian Elk Foundation) They to provide a magazine with information on the enhancement activities as well as hunting information and stories. You can see there habitat enhancement in your local area's. They also release finacial information so you can see where the money is coming from and how it is being used. They have local chapters you can be involved with. They advicate Hunting and Harvest of Elk. This organization charges $35.00 per year and their work directly benefits you the Elk Hunter as well as the Elk.

WSC (Wild Steelhead Coliltion) They provide a web site they lobby the wildlife commision for state wide C&R that the majority of the fishermen in the state dont want. This organization charges $40.00 per year.

Yes I think it might be just a hair to much.

I am not bashing the WSC I am only answering the questions posted. I do believe that Cowlitz has brought up some very valid questions that I would like to see answered. Specificaly the one about managing hatcheries by science not politics, it seems to me that there are quite a few people advicating the elimination of hatcheries because they say studies show them to be detrimental to wild fish recovery and weaken wild fish populations. Personnely I do not care if I was ever able to bonk a wild fish again but I do want to be able to bonk a brat when I want to eat a fish.

Also some of your members need to tone it down a notch or two. I cant tell you how many posts I have read on this board where they jumped down someones throat for saying they didnt have a problem with bonking a native where it was legal to do so. Maybe just maybe the WSC should have stepped into the public spotlight by working with the WDFW on enhancement projects and such rather than pitting themselves against them as the advicate for wild steelhead and pushing for statewide catch and release right out of the gate. You as an organization may have shot yourselves in the foot before you ever got your gun out of the holster by alienating the majority of fishermen and fisherwomen in the state with the C&R issue.

Again before the flames start I am not bashing the WSC I do not know enough about the organization to flame them, I am only answering the questions posed and offering you my opinion based on what I have seen posted on this and other boards.

Now I must go to bed I've been working all night and I'm afraid my spelling has suffered some because of it.

Did anyone here used to fish the Methow, back when it was open for steelhead fishing?

That river is still teeming with hatchery steelhead.

Why is it not open for us to "bonk" all those hatchery fish?

Because the wild fish in there are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

There are two ways that we will be able to fish for and harvest hatchery steelhead in this state. First, a river will have a healthy enough wild run that incidental impacts during the hatchery harvest season will not endanger it, or second, all the wild fish are gone, and we can pump a million hatchery smolts into the river and fish it.

There aren't many examples of an in between, where the wild run is a remnant and hatchery fish are pumped into the system and the river is opened to harvest (maybe the Cowlitz). Technically speaking, the ESA would probably prohibit that.

It depends entirely on your perspective and reason for fishing as to which one of those you'd prefer. Personally, I value wild fish, and I value them enough that I volunteer a lot of time and energy to a group that values them as much as I do.

If you fall into the first category above, then you should appreciate what the WSC is trying to do on behalf of the wild fish. If you fall into the second category above, then the WSC is not for you.

Most folks, it seems, have formed their opinion as to which category they fall into long before this board ever existed, so arguing about it doesn't seem to get any of us anywhere. However, I doubt that'll stop us all from doing it anyway... :p

And please, if anyone has any questions or concerns about the WSC, go to the website and check it out, and if that doesn't answer your questions, go to the contact information there and fire off a question to the board. Someone will get back to you soon about it.

I hope to meet a few of you folks at the meeting Wednesday...please come up and say "hi" if you're there!

Fish on...

Todd
Wild Steelhead Coalition

Meta
lhead: As membership increases in WSC the dues structure could change, there is a minimum dollar level WSC needs to pay it's bills. Those of us who joined initially felt that to get the website up and to get our tax exempt status,to book speakers for our meetings[you do not have to be a member to attend meetings], to lease a meeting place, and to produce a newsletter, was worth the $40. None of the above items are free, and also entail considerable donated time. The speakers we have are biologists and fisheries professionals. We do not have speakers that tell us how to catch more and bigger fish, but professionals that speak of habitat,hatcheries, salmon carcass studies, hooking mortality, wild versus hatchery interaction, etc. etc. Wild steelhead release is the quickest and cheapest way to increase wild fish numbers.

Sinktip, Double Haul and Jerry -

I think that WSC's position on wild steelhead release has been pretty clear. Traditionally WSR has been used to supply access to hatchery fish while minimizing the impacts on wild fish.

Curious as to what your thoughts are on what conditions are needed to support a Catch and Release steelhead season when there are few or no hatchey fish; say March and April in Puget Sound?. At what population level (abundance)is it OK to allow some mortality to support a CnR fishery? How sure do you have to be that the returns will be at that level before you fish?

What would be your guidelines?

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

Are you asking if the WSC has formed an opinion as to what is a safe level to support a cnr season targeting wild fish, rather than incidentally cnr'g them during a hatchery harvest season?

Say, like 80% of target escapement (as it is now)? Or higher, or lower?

The WSC doesn't have an official number on that level at this time, but the WSC does believe that proper management of cnr seasons is, of course, just as important as management of harvest seasons. That being said, there will be WSC bios that will help the WSC form a scientific opinion on that topic.

Did I interpret your question correctly and answer it satisfactorily? If not, let me know and I'll give it another shot...

What do you think of the 80% cutoff?

Fish on...

Todd
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

At what percentage of escapement do we allow a cnr fishery is THE argument against statewide CNR, as I see it. This number, IMHO, has to be 100%. In other words the state is sure a river is going to get ALL the fish back it needs to, to assure perpetuation. CNR on a run that is gettin less then our sad sack figures indicate dosen't work for me. We need to error on the side of the fish. I view the Skagit being open for CNR on a depressed run as a bad thing.

Todd -
I was asking if any of you individually or the organization as a whole had positions on these issues.

The mission statement clearly indicates that WSC considers past management as having failed. To make that assessment you must have some idea what "correct management" must look like. What would likely be an escapement objectives under such management? Throwing around terms like "healthy populations" without defining what that means is not very helpful!

Would CnR (targeted at wild fish with mortality) be allowed at any run size? At some level in relationship to the escapement objective? At runs above the escapement objective? You tell me.

As some of the previous discussions indicate there is a variety of opinions on this issue. Unfortunately this is one of the least controversial factors in steelhead management.

You asked about my thinking on the 80% rule. If the position is that there can not be any harvest on runs under the escapement objective then allowing a CnR at runs at or below that level would be intentional overfishing and in my mind should not be allowed. In the current situation in Puget Sound where the goals were set based on MSH with the actual goals "buffered" to take in account the uncertainity is setting the goals the issue gets a little more foggy. The Skagit was mentioned; here the current goal is 6,000 which is 150% of the best estimate of what the MSH goal might be. How do you want to deal with that buffer? The 80% rule recognizes this buffer and essentially allows this low impact fishing (small mortality). Whether this is appropriate depends on how much one wishes to error on the side of the fish.

This discussion clearly indicates why WDFW is always wrong - no can agree on anything except the current situation is some one else fault.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

You're right about the WDFW always being wrong. There are so many perspectives and opinions out there that no one decision will ever make more than a handful of folks totally happy with it.

I'll clarify my above post.

First, the WSC has not developed an opinion on what the numbers that justify a targeted cnr season should be. I'd guess that many factors in our mission statement would control that.

While I think that WDFW is using the best information it has available, I think we can agree that run prediction models are fairly accurate at best, at least for steelhead. While 80% of target escapement might not be tenable at current technology, it might be very tenable if there was better confidence in the run predictions.

Most of my personal knocks on management are not based on poor policies as much as policies are based on poor data. I don't mean to say that WDFW chooses to use poor data, but that it may not have access to anything better, whether it be due to cost or technology.

The spawner-recruit models work great in a vacuum, but it seems to me that they aren't so great in the real world. Many variables either aren't accounted for, or are accounted for by a general protection buffer that may or may not have any correlation to the variables they are buffering agains.

MSH/MSY is based on those s/r models, and besides being a shaky model so far as conservation goes, it's further weakened by being based on them.

The last possibility for correction in both of those models would be in-season assessments, but there are only a couple of ways I know of to do that. Those are sonar counting (very expensive, but seems to work OK so far in Alaska) and weirs/traps where fish are actually counted and passed on. The latter would likely be very accurate, but would introduce other problems.

My assessment:

We take faulty numbers, put them into faulty models, toss in a general protection buffer, then start bonking fish.

When the season's over, we go out and count fish again to see how we did. Sometimes we did above average (so far as escapement goes compared to what we thought), which is great. Sometimes we hit it pretty close, which is OK, too. Sometimes we over-estimated the runs, which is not Ok at all.

Our management scheme tells us that if we are over-escaped that somehow we failed to harvest enough. I think that such an idea is funky enough when applied to a commercial commodity such as most salmon, but is extremely funky applied to a statutorily mandated recreational fish.

If we hit it close to target, then we did a heck of a job this year. Can't have those darn fish spawning on top of each other and dying without our help.

If we come in under escaped, then either marine conditions were bad, the river conditions were such that the tribes had greater than anticipated success, or the sporties had really good luck due to nice weather. Or one of many other unmeasured variables took effect.

My conclusion:

If our models are not very accurate, and the safeguards in them only work in pretty much average conditions with average runs, which by definition almost never happen, let's develop new ways to gather data and better models to put that data in.

While we're getting that done, let's stop directly harvesting under the old models.

The idea, for me, is to balance angling opportunity and recreational payoffs to all the businesses that rely upon steelhead fishing for all or part of their income with conservation. The more fish we have, the more days we get to fish and the more fish we get to catch. The more we fish, the more money we spend.

I would immediately cease any wild fish harvest during the hatchery season, say November through February. I'd even consider extending the hatchery harvest season everywhere so that the hatchery fish are more effectively removed from the system. That would have to depend, of course, on the health of the wild fish that would be incidentally caught.

Then I'd have catch and release seasons. Where the balance point comes between opportunity and conservation hasn't really been defined yet to my satisfaction. Perhaps it would be when a river is at or exceeding 100% escapement. However, what model are we going to use to measure that?

Wherever it comes down, I'd want to have high confidence in my prediction models and some sort of in-season assessment that has at least a moderate level of accuracy.

Barring that (which is where we're at now), I'd feel better about fishing over an 80% escaped run if I knew that the run hadn't been subjected to a harvest season already. It's pretty clear that we won't be able to accurately assess the run until after we've bonked on it, if at all. At least if we're cnr'g the wild fish, we can be confident that somewhere around 95%-98% of those we release will still be out there spawning.

I'd prefer to have every river's escapement and capacity measured with great accuracy, I'd like to have models that are fool proof, and plug in indisputable numbers. Then I'd prefer that all the rivers come out to be around 100% escapement and that we all can fish until April each year on each river. I bet all the gas stations, mini marts, resaurants, hotels, and guides that depend on steelhead would like those things, too.

Without those things, I'd stop having kill seasons on wild fish, I'd put my management money into creating better science, and I'd promote cnr as a great way to fish a lot, spend a lot, and do it year after year.

Whew. "I got blisters on my fingers."

Fish on...

Todd.

boater,

I can tolerate you disagreeing with me, and I've tolerated you being a jerk over the course of many threads on the various BB's, but I think I'm done tolerating you putting words in my mouth.

I said that I'd like to see the rivers at 100% escapement for any sort of fishery. I said that I'd rather not see any harvest of fish based on models that aren't accurate, and don't control how many fish are harvested, or when they're harvested, or by whom.

The only possible statement you can base your predictably useful and insightful comments on is that I'd feel better having a fishery over a run that is predicted to be at 80% escapement if those predictions were much more accurate.

There's quite a difference between "feeling better" about something and liking it. I don't think that there's any reason to have directed harvest on wild fish, but I'd sure feel better about it if the runs were accurately predicted to be over 100% and that the harvest would not lower the run below that 100%.

Do you understand the difference that I am making?

At the risk of repeating a fairly obvious statement, here it is, again:

"I'd feel better about fishing over an 80% escaped run if I knew that the run hadn't been subjected to a harvest season already. It's pretty clear that we won't be able to accurately assess the run until after we've bonked on it, if at all. At least if we're cnr'g the wild fish, we can be confident that somewhere around 95%-98% of those we release will still be out there spawning.

I'd prefer to have every river's escapement and capacity measured with great accuracy, I'd like to have models that are fool proof, and plug in indisputable numbers. Then I'd prefer that all the rivers come out to be around 100% escapement and that we all can fish until April each year on each river. I bet all the gas stations, mini marts, resaurants, hotels, and guides that depend on steelhead would like those things, too."

Any more helpful comments? How about some comments, boater, about all the rest of the above post, say, about run prediction models, and in-season assessments, and the generation of more accurate carrying capacities? I'm sure that won't be as fun as your usual nice one-liners, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

Fish on...

Todd.

It's only been ten minutes, did boater's comment already get deleted?

Todd.

**Sorry, double posted!**

Todd.

Folks,

What I don't understand is how/why we got ourselves into this mess in the first place. Once we recognized depleting runs, why didn't we put "controls" in place or at least stress "controls" to the point of exhaustion. It may be too late and now we're complaining. Yes, we are facing a problem at effects all of us. Very few want to take the lead and fix what's right. Even more of a disappointment, fewer want to follow. Question is, "What's right and what do we need to do to fix this?" True we can blame (or should I say claim) population, hatcheries, etc., but ultimately we need to blame ourselves. We need to collectively agree, move on, and do what's right (whatever that maybe).

As a kid, I can remember the Puyallup and the Green number 1 and 2 respectively. Can we get that back? Let me buy a lotto ticket and I'll tell you Wednesday night. (Hopefully, we'll come close to restoring those numbers.)

With the right collective attitude and aggressiveness, we'll all win in the long run.
It is up to us as sportsmen/women to fix this.

Downriggin'

Todd-
Thanks for your thougths!

I could not agree more on the problems with managing with less than prefect data. However that should not be an excuse not to do best we can. We need to continue to make the best decisions we can with infromation at hand, evaluate those decisions and attempt to improve on that data. Fishery management by its very nature has to be a process of evaulating and improving on past actions and information. Of course improving the data with take $$.

One problem in attempting to manage to achieve capacity each year is we can't know what that will be. For example the potential capacity for steelhead spawning this spring will be determined by the freshwater and mairne conditions (the density dependent factors that Salmo g. talks about) their offspring will experience over the next several years. Not being able to see into the future we will likely have to rely on past information. Essentiallly to determine the average carrying capacity we would need to use the same data and models that would be used to develop estimates of MSH. Thus we would have the same data problems whether the reference point is MSH or capacity.

I have see a number of folks from WSC recommmend escapement objectives of "carrying capacity" while at the same time say that CnR would be OK. Most steelhead managers feel that our populations would be best describe by a Beverton-Holt S/R curve. Under such a model by definition any fishing induced mortaltiy would mean not achieving carrying capacity. A Ricker type S/R curve would allow for some fishing and still achieving carrying capacity. What information does WSC and its Bios have that would indiate that a Ricker S/R curve better describes our steelhead populations?

Again your comments regarding safeguards are right on the money. The question remains what those sageguards should be? Does WSC have general guidelines for determine such safeguards?

Tight lines
Smalma

Thanks, again, for your great comments, Smalma.

As I understand it, there is a basic difference between managing using s/r models with MSH and managing for something like carrying capacity.

That difference is likely along the lines of what is most "productive". Productivity, as I'm using it here, is defined as the amount of future adults produced by current spawners, calculated as a percentage. This is very much your expertise, so let me see if I have it straight. None of this includes the tribal harvest component, if it is a river with tribal harvest.

If we have X numbers returning, and X is, say 60% of carrying capacity, the productivity will be very high. If X is 6000 fish, they will produce something along the lines of 8000 returning adults. If we harvest 2000, then under average conditions, the 6000 left to spawn will produce 8000 again, and we can harvest 2000, etc., etc...

Productivity is pretty high, with each year's run producing 133% of itself. Harvest numbers are consistent. These assumptions are the underpinnings of MSH/MSY.

If we were managing at, say, 75% capacity, we would have 7500 adults returning, who would produce something like 9000 returning adults. Productivity is lower, with returns somewhere along the line of 120%. We'd have that lower productivity and we'd only harvest 1500, rather than 2000.

If we managed at capacity, we'd have 10,000 return, they'd produce 10,000 adults, and productivity would be the lowest, at 1:1.

While I'm making up the exact numbers, do I have the concept correct?

If I do, then we have three choices:

1. Highest productivity, highest harvest, and the least amount of fish in the river.

2. Mid-level productivity, lower harvest, and considerably more fish in the river.

3. Lowest productivity, little or no harvest, and a lot more fish in the river. (Harvest is only due to incidental mortality and poaching).

These are my opinions about those choices:

1. While we have the opportunity to harvest more fish, we have less opportunity to actually encounter any on the river, nearly half the chance of #3. Less encounters equals less opportunity.

Additionally, a poor return for any number of reasons, whether they be inaccurately measured or unanticipated, reduces the opprtunity much more quickly, and fish are harvested further reducing the amount of fish spawning.

2. There are less fish to harvest, but harvest opportunity is still pretty high. Encounters increase by another 20% from #1, so opportunity is somewhat increased, but not significantly.

Again, poor returns may take a larger amount of the needed spawners, be it weather, ocean conditions, whatever. Harvest is taking place without knowing what those other bad effects might be until after harvest takes place.

3. No directed harvest. Encounters are now 167% of what they were at #1. Seasons are longer, more rivers are open, and unanticipated poor runs are less likely to create really poor recruitment. Even if they cause an actual run that is 60% or 70% of predicted, there is no directed harvest to further reduce those numbers, and those numbers will have very high productivity, likely returning to 100% again within two or four years.

The additional opportunity and reduced chance of overfishing under #3 is still based on the s/r models we use now, and with no in-season assessments. If raw data, models, and in-season assessments are improved, it just gets better and better from there.

Another bonus of #3's longer seasons with more open rivers is that since budgetary concerns render enforcement nearly quadrapalegic when they try to do their job, there are more eyes on the river to keep the poachers more under surveillance. On a river that's closed, the only ones there are the poachers...

My final opinion on number 3:

1. More rivers open, longer seasons, and more fish in the rivers.

2. More fishermen days, equalling more money spent on gear, tackle, vehicles, boats, guides, gas, food, lodging, etc., etc.,...

3. A much better chance that I'll be able to take my grandkids steelhead fishing with me (assuming I have some. I'll have to have some kids, first )

As noted above, these options work even with the same models we use now. So far as choosing between existing models or creating new ones, that's outside my personal expertise. There are WSC bios that have been and continue to research the possibilities.

When are you going to come to another WSC meeting? It looks like we're going to have Dr. Pess come and talk about the preliminary results of the log jam engineering on the Stilly on Wednesday. We'd all benefit from your attendance and comments.

Thanks for the opportunity to have such a good sharing of perspectives and opinions.

Fish on...

Todd.

todd, i deleted the post a few minutes after i posted it, i admit, was to harsh of a post.

I reread all the posts[Whew] and not counting current members of WSC there was 6 people for wild steelhead release, 2 against, 5 asking some excellent questions about who we are, where are we going, what will we do when we get there. I want to thank those of you that took the time to respond, I know these are items we will talk about and ponder. Oh, and boater1, thank you too,sometimes what you say is so off line it helps others make up their minds.

Todd -
Go the head of the class; very good.

Couple comments. Notice in your third example( the low productivity, high escapement) that once you have a CnR fishery the actual escapement would be less than 10,000; say 9,500 with hooking mortlaity. Close to but not carrying capacity. Once we start down that path why not 6% or 10% or 20% below capacity? Assuming we picked a 5% impact would you support a lottery system that allowed the killling of just 500 fish? Same impacts, high quality fishing, same future runs - the same biological impacts. I believe the challenge will be to establish allowable impacts and then deciding with allot that among the diverse users.

Also notice that it makes no different whether in your example one uses MSH or capacity as the reference point. 90% of capacity is the same as 150% of MSH.

I'm not sure that it is true in the last example that it would produce more fishing days. It would depend on the number of anglers that would fish. Clearly 20 years ago the CnR seasons did not produce anywhere near the man-days as a kill fishery- hardly anyone fished. Interest has certainly increased in recent years but to that point; I don't know. Do you see the crowds on the river during CnR that you saw last December on the Sky? Folks are talking about the pressure this year on the Skagit/Sauk CnR season but even that pales in comparion to what might be seen during a wild bonk season downriver; for example in February on the lower Skagit (downstream of the pipeline at Sedro Woolley) angler counts (plunkers) might show 50 to 100 cars and 25 or 30 boats (of course there be many more up river). Not to offend my plunking friends but I doubt that many of those anglers would have much interest in CnR fishing. It is certainly fair to say that CnR fishing would produce more man-days per dead fish, it may or may not produce more total man-days of fishing, and it would not support as many different anglers (users).

As a side note I shudder to think what the CnR fishing would be like with that kind of pressure. Is that what kind of experience you have in mind? Historically the value of the CnR has been two fold. The first in certainly demostrated that there are differences between hatchery and wild fish (circa 1980 most folks believed that a fish was a fish) and secondly it provided diverse opportunity and some real quality angling (this can and is being destroyed by fishing pressure).

Another note - often folks point to the trout catch and release example as what could happen with steelhead. Lets look at that. On the Snohomish carrying Capacity might be something like 7,500 to 9,000 adults. There are about 250 miles of steelhead habitat in the basin for about 30 to 35 fish per mile. In good trout waters the density is much higher, the Yakima it is 20 times higher (600 to 800/mile) and some of the better tailwaters of the west it is 100 times higher (thousands/mile). Further more the trout often are actively feeding and are available 365 days a year. In steelhead the fish are there for a short period with most of the fish in the system together for a week or two tops each spring. While steelhead are in the system they have other interests than feeding.

I would be happy to attend/talk to the group again. Anytime that there are interests or issues that the group would be interested in my limited knowledge and "old-school thinking" it would be my pleasure. Give me call.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

You're crackin' me up with your "limited knowledge" and "old school" comments. If you're old school, then some of your compadres must be ancient!

We'll take you up some time, soon I hope, on your offer to come and talk again. Thanks.

Fish on...

Todd.

I know on the Sky the # of folks fishing does drop when it becomes C&R season. As good as that is for those who fish the C&R it is not good for the sport. Why does F&G not allow the harvest of hatchery fish in the C&R wild fish season? There are still hatchery fish around from the winter run and the last few weeks of April when the season was open the summer hatchery fish are showing up. Could it be that the F&G are fearfull that increased pressure will result in higher mortality on released fish? If the studies out there are right and it's 3 to 5% or so mortality on C&R of wild fish and the run is healthy enough to suport a C&R season on wild fish then let the harvest of hatchery fish continue. It's important to keep everyone fishing if we can do it without doing too much harm to wild fish. Somewhere there needs to be a trade off.