" However my question for you is what you do with a river system that consistently has runs above goals?"

My response would be to fish the he** out of it, in a catch and release manner of course!

And dont allow any killing of nates in that sysem, so it STAYS that way.

Happy Holidays,

<img border="0" alt="[santa]" title="" src="graemlins/santa.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[santa]" title="" src="graemlins/santa.gif" /> Gusty

Samala,

Do we really know how many fish it takes? Do you think we can figure somthing out in 20 years that has taken thousands to evolve, to safely take the excess for harvest. Do you think we could be wrong?

If it wasnt important to have a massive excess of fish why would nature have done it that way? Did nature manage its rivers on a fine line like MSY?

However my question for you is what you do with a river system that consistently has runs above goals?

if it was my river i would only sell tags for the amount of fish that were available to harvest, wide open free for all fishing would be a thing of the past. i would split it 1/2 and 1/2 for cnr and cnk fisherman, it would be a mail in tag system and the cnk tags would have 1 punch, the cnr would have 10 and when your tag is full you would be done for that river.

Boater ... I understand your logic here. Each fisherman harvests one fish and you're done.

Okay, we have a little glitch though:

C&K is 100% mortality, no possibility of anything higher, nor anything lower.

You've suggested a rate of 10% mortality for the C&R anglers ... although there is loads of information that suggests it's more in the 3-5% range.

The guys that really take care of the fish will probably be lower yet, those than don't certainly would be higher.

How do you fairly address that issue??

bob, awhile back i found where the state said the mortality rate for them atleast on the columbia was 10 percent, no i cant find where i found it so i e-mailed them and asked them.

Looks like some folks have doing some thinking- Very Good!!

Rich G -
The huge "excessive numbers" of fish in populations is the Mother Nature's safety net so that they can survive the worst of times (low point of survival cycle) or colonize new habitats (example would be the opening of rivers as the glaciers receded). If your concern is that we need all the populations productive to survive the worst of times then we should never place any mortality on the them. However if survival trends can be monitored I don't see why most populations can't support some mortality when survival is in the up portion the cycle. How much mortality could depend on how good your information is and how risk avoidance one wants.

Is 20 years enough? I doubt we will ever understand these complex systems prefectly (actually I hope we never do as part of the mystic of steelhead is the unknown) however 20 years is better than 10 and 50 will be better. Somehow I doubt that folks would be willing to wait 50 or 100 years w/o fishing just so the managers have better info upon which to make decisions.

My real concern is that at least in Puget Sound rivers management options such as hatchery only seasons and no targeting of wild stocks (no CnR) doesn't seem to be "protecting" the fish. In the early 1980s when under-escaped rivers where managed with wild steelhead release and early closures the populations repsonded immedialely; escaped doubled. In the last 4 years on the same rivers with management under wild steelehad release and no CnR our escapements have fallen by more than 50% from when some harvest was allowed!

Boater
Like the way you have approached this problem. You clearly would be setting up a system that recognizes the impacts that catch and release has on a population. In a post last spring (Feb/March?) I suggested some guidelines for steelhead managment. It that I suggested a 1 wild fish a year limit where the fish could be taken from a river that had been met criteria that indicate a "healthy" population however I had an additional kicker that if I wished to fish those various spring CnR seasons the angler had to have an used "wild fish tag" - the angler had to choose whether use their impact by "bonk" their one fish or with hooking mortality during CnR. Those interested in such ideas may wish to visit that old disussion.

Bob -
Actually Boater's 1/10 comparison may be right on the money. Bob Hooten, fisheries biologist from BC who was the source of the 3 to 5%, has recent put forth a paper recapping hooking mortality information and fishing impact concerns recommends that because of the way that 3-5% information was collected and the differences between having highly skilled and caring anglers verus the average angler CnR fish that the 3-5% hooking mortality be doubled.

If one wishes to error on the side of the resource then it would seem that assessing a CnR hooking mortality of 10% would be appropriate.

Tight lines
Smalma

Ahhh, do we go the direction of hunting, such as AHE hunts in special areas to provide anglers with proper training to C&R more fish?

A big can of worms here

Bob -
I agree - a big can of worms. I have no desire to go to any form of limited entry fishery. All I proposed and what I think Boater was getting at was system that recognized that all fishing had impacts that some equitable sharing of those impacts is needed. I haven't been avocating a positon but rather providing information upon which folks can make an informed decision and encouraing everyone to do so.

Hooten's recommendation (as I recall) was based concerns that during brood stock captures all the "bleeders" were inlcuded in the collection (for example to give the fish the best chance of survival they were immediately release) those the mortalities were artifically low and some the problems associated with using bait.

If folks think that 10% is too high then perhaps folks might want to consider recommending gear restricitions. Examples might include bait bans or use of circle hooks with bait. That would certainly be giving the wild fish the benefit of doubt. One of Hooten's interesting points was that while using bait/scent anglers were much more effective per hour fo fishingthus the encounter rates were up (more fish caught more mortality).

Tight lines
Smalma

Amen Rich! Mother-nature is not an exact science. Personally I feel biologist can't accuratly know what a river is caplable of. Once again too many is fine, too little we're hurtin'. Its beyond me why we would want to jeopardize the few "healthy" native runs we have.

Lots of good ideas here. I just have onequestion though. If the noble talk here is sincere about being really concerned for the fish and not the fishing then why not just accept the best way to care for the fish and that would be not fishing for them at all? Afterall Washington is one of the few states that sanctions the capturing and killing of endangered species. How about catch and release on bald eagles? Hell we might only kill 5% of them.

You don't know whether an unclipped fish is wild or not because the hatcheries only clip about 1 out of every four fish. Besides there is no genetic difference between a "wild" fish and a hatchery fish. Where did the hatcheries get fish in the beginning?? I keep every fish I catch hatchery or not, you just have to make sure no one is watching. They all end up being eaten gladly.

Well Grandpa, I think we agree on this. How can anybody think that killing fish is not contributing to the problem? Yes,we have some runs that are in O.K. shape. But, would it hurt to shut EVERYTHING down for a full cycle? I know the guides would hate it, but maybe something could be worked out. I know I'm not on the "subsistance" wagon or whatever some guys think their on. I jsut enjoy the sport and think we would be much better off giving up a few years to gain a whole bunch. Letting fish spawn is the best thing we can do for them. This should get some of the bonkers going nuts!

I don't think it should be a "badge of honor" to practice catch and release nor should it be something to apologize for to keep a fish. There seems to be a little "one-upsmanship" going on here. I'm smarter than you because I fly fish....I'm smarter than you because I practice catch and release...I'm against hatcheries so that proves I really care only for the fish...I am much more informed than you because I REALLY understand the issues better than you so therefore my way of doing things is best...The bottom line is that discussing the issues is helpful and spending time learning about fishing issues is valuable..A real important part of all of this is the end result which is the outdoor experience which we all continue to enjoy in our own special ways. Happy New Year!!

Smalma,

While I think it is important to point out that Oregon and B.C. do indeed have limited kill fisheries over wild fish, and I understand your point in expressing that here and on the other BB's over the last week, here's why most of us refer to them as being more progressive than Washington's kill fisheries.

"Even a dog knows the difference between being stepped on and being kicked."

On the surface, one a day and five a year on a few streams does look the same in the regulations. However, there is a very big difference.

In Washington, we have limited kill fisheries on a few streams as a reaction to reduced runs, some reduced to the point that it's unlikely that direct harvest will ever be justified in our lifetimes. If we had a couple hundred "healthy" rivers, we'd have kill on a couple of hundred streams, as we did just a few years ago.

Selling that as progressive regulation is the "kick" in the above cliche.

Other jurisdictions have implemented the exact same regulations, but for very different reasons. Those regs were implemented to protect existing healthy wild runs, to stop killing the fish before it became a survival necessity to do so.

Some rivers are still open in those places to satisfy trophy or meat fishermen. While I still feel that that's a bad idea, it's merely being "stepped on" rather than being "kicked".

It's not the similar looking regulation, it's the very dissimilar reason for the regulation.

It's the same as characterizing wild steelhead release advocates as folks who don't care about the fish, but as folks who want only to have catch and release fisheries.

WSR advocates, in the main, aren't arguing that CNR seasons need to be opened because we want to fish. We're arguing that the reason CNR seasons are closed is due to poor management decisions. Closed seasons are the symptom of the problem, not the problem themselves.

Other than those two things, you and I have agreed on pretty much every other aspect of these issues, both here on the BB's and in our personal conversations. I have a great respect for you and the job you have done...and i view you as a strong ally in the battle to protect and preserve wild fish runs in our state.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Luke, your comments here are almost as ignorant as the ones you made in the "punchcard" thread. In a case like yours, a little education can go a long way. When you're starting at ground zero, the learning curve is very rapid. This BB is a great place to start learning about the truths behind the science, politics, law, and sociology involved in steelhead management. I'd recommend using the search function and doing a little reading.

Could it be any easier to understand!
Native fish have been selected over thousands of years to their river of origin.
Hatchery fish came from who knows where?
Just release all natives or be stupid and let the fishery go to hell.
How hard is that one to figure out.
Or ask any B.C. fisherman if they would trade native stock Dean river fish (insert any B.C. river) for some stupid, return all at once to the same spot, hatchery idiot fish.

Amen!, Granpa. Agree w/yer post 100%!

Happy New Year

Sincerely,
Roger

Well since this debate comes up sprt of regular I guess I will put my two cents worth in. I can remember the last time the bogey and sol duc were shut down to catch and kill fishing for a couple of years and not to long ago as the run predictions were not sustainable so it was c&r!!! All I can say is unbelievable on a weekend you might see two or three boats just sweet, and talk abouy fish on I remember one weekend four of us in two boats landing over a hundred fish serious!!! All I can say is tell me it doesn't make a difference? True data since I have continued to keep fishing these systems since then what I have seen is some decent years after it went back to catch and kill to just a struggle to boat a couple of fish a day, yeah lets wait to it is to late then we can just wish we were fishing!!! PEACE!!!

Todd-
Guess I see Washington's management differently than you do. My understanding of WDFW policies is that wild fish harvest is to be allowed only when the expectation is that run size will be above estalished escapement goals (no goals no wild fish harvest - for example many of Puget Sound's summer steelhead). The amount of harvest (usually based on adjusting season length) to limited so that expected escapement (run size minus harvest) is at or above the goal. Clearly such an approach places the priority in achieving escapements over providing harvest.

When I compare the details of Washington's approach to that of Oregon (I only looked closely at the North Umpqua - the only readily available plan electronically) I found significant differences. Based on my read of the informatin I found Oregon allows wild fish harvest under the following conditions (of course I could have mis-read the Oregon information in which case I'm sure that some of our Southern friends will correct me)

On the North Umpqua wild fish harvest is dependent on the dam counts at Winchester Dam. As far as I can tell harvest is allowed based on total run size and not the expected escapement after harvest. Harvest is allowed only on healthy populations which in turn is defined as one at equilibrium abundance without fishing which is further defined as where the spawner/recruit line intersects the replacement line - in other words carrying capacity.

I can hear you all now - aha!! managing for carrying capacity - exactly what we want. However the plot thickens a tad as what was used on the North Umpqua was the lower end of the 95% confindence limit of the point estmate of the carrying capacity.

What does that mean?
For the N.Umpqua the estimated equilibrium abundance was:
Wild summer steelhead = 3,900
wild winter steelhead = 7,800
or a total wild population of 11,700.

The lower limit was 1,700 summer steelhead and 3,400 winters or a total of 44% of the point estimate.

Fishing would be allowed if the running six year average is above that threshold. When fishing is allowed the limits are 1 wild fish a day and 5 per year with a season length that runs from the first of January through the end of April.

The recent Oregon news release on the emergency opening of wild fish harvest on the Chetco and elk rivers (as well as 4 smaller streams) that started some of this discussion seem to indicate that the decision to allow harvest was based on high abundance of steelhead parr - not expected run size or escapements.

Just for fun I used the estimated redd density (redds/mile of habitat) from the North Umpqua at carrying capacity and applied that to the Snohomish system - Now I full realize that kind of comparison is very much like comparing apples and bananas but is interesting never-the-less.

When I did that comparison I got an estimate of carrying capacity of 6,324 wild winter steelhead for the Snohomish with a harvest run size threshold of 2,783 (lower end of the 95% confidence interval). For comparison the established escapement goal for the Snohomish is 6,500 and last year is the only year in the data base that the wild run size was below 2,783.

Perhaps because I'm more familar with the Washington approach I'm more comfortable with it than Oregon's.

For any who may still be with me - Wish you a happy New Year and may it bring you clear rivers and willing fish.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,


Happy new year to you too!!

I enjoy reading what you have to say.

Im a bit extreme sometimes and not real open minded towards parts of your science but I do enjoy reading and respect what you have to say.

These types of debates and question answer sessions such as this are important for our wild fish and are nothing but benificial.

Thanks for your posts.

Rich.