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.