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.