December 26, 2002

Anglers can harvest wild steelhead again

By MARK FREEMAN
Mail Tribune

After a five-year ban on the harvest of wild steelhead, Oregon
anglers can get a taste of the wild fish again in some south coast streams when a late Christmas present comes Wednesday.

Beginning Jan. 1, anglers will be able to harvest a single wild steelhead a day on the Chetco River, the Elk River and four smaller
streams that flow out of the Coast Range to the sea in Curry County.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in July unanimously adopted
the new wild steelhead bag limit for these streams after Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists successfully argued their wild steelhead populations are some of the healthiest along the coast - and, perhaps, the world.

The effected streams are the Chetco, the Elk, Hunter Creek, Pistol
River, the Winchuck River along the Oregon/California border and
Euchre Creek, which is a small stream near Port Orford.

They all are considered high producers of some of the largest winter
steelhead grown in Oregon. Of these streams, only the Chetco has a hatchery steelhead program, with just 50,000 winter steelhead smolts released annually into the river at Brookings.

The new rule allows an angler to keep one wild steelhead as part of
the two-fish daily limit on these streams. But anglers can keep just five wild steelhead a year.

A similar rule is in effect on the Rogue during the winter steelhead
run.

The wild steelhead ban was part of a deal ODFW cut in 1997 with the
National Marine Fisheries Service to sidestep a threatened species
listing for wild steelhead in Southern Oregon and Northern California.

Russ Stauff, an ODFW biologist in Gold Beach, pushed for five years
for the change because he believes the streams' bountiful steelhead
populations warrant some harvest.

ODFW surveys since 1997 show these streams are teeming with infant
steelhead at concentrations never recorded in the United States,
Canada and Russia.

"We probably have the healthiest population of steelhead in the
world," says Stauff. "I think this is the best way to protect these
populations."

Since the ban on wild steelhead harvest, Stauff had received heavy
pressure from angling groups to increase the stocking of hatchery
steelhead in the Chetco and to expand the program to the Elk River
and other streams mired in an all catch-and-release fishery. But Stauff
thought expanding the hatchery program was unnecessary and expensive,
and instead began working on getting the wild steelhead ban lifted.

The proposal garnered strong support from some of Oregon's most
staunch wild-fish advocacy groups because the research showed these
particular runs can absorb limited harvest.

"I like it," says Bill Bakke, founder of the Portland-based Native
Fish Society. "If you have a robust population where you can allow a low kill, that's less risky than adding hatchery fish."

Stauff says harvest on wild steelhead likely will be low because
many anglers want to release all the wild steelhead they catch as an
ethical choice.

However, allowing the occasional harvest of a wild fish taps into
the heritage of winter steelhead fishing - killing and eating a prized
fish - without jeopardizing the runs.

"I think what we're developing here is a new ethic," Stauff says.
"It's a combination of the new (catch-and-release) dogma and heritage."

The change comes as winter steelhead fishing kicks into gear on the
Chetco, where recent rains have drawn the first steelhead of the year
upriver, says Tony Kronemeyer of the Sporthaven Marina at the
Chetco's mouth.

Fishing with roe and plug lures are popular on the Chetco and Elk,
which are easily traversed in driftboats by even novice rowers. Pistol
River, Hunter Creek, the Winchuck River and Euchre Creek are all fished off the bank by wading anglers who primarily cast roe and corkies.

What a crock!!!!!!

After all that we know up to this point and we take a step backwards.

This will be a win-win....if it can be enforced.

If my only choices were to take a healthy run of wild fish and open up to a limited kill or put in a hatchery to satisfy the meat fishermen, I'd go with the limited harvest.

If I were king, of course, there wouldn't be either.

Fish on...

Todd.

Wow! Could this be the same Todd who has a history of favor towards the hatchery holes at reiter and marblemount?

I'm impressed with Bill Bakke's statement of approval. This seems to be somewhat of a reversal from my past impressions of his stance on c&r for wild fish.

I am curious if the Wild Steelhead Coalition will voice a strong opposition to this breech in momentum towards universal mandatory release of all wild steelhead?

Can any harvest be acceptable?

This is not a question of if given a healthy population, should harvest be allowed...instead, this is a question of if given a choice...limited harvest or an introduction of hatchery fish...which one would us/you choose.

I do not think Bill Bakke in anyway was supporting a wild fish harvest as much as he was opposing the unneccsary introduction of hatchery stock!

Four thoughts on this one:

1) Great to see a recovery of an area after some lean years. C&R certainly played some sort of a role I'm sure ... but it's also imprtnat to note that (as far as I know) there is no influence of tribal nets on these streams, so that what harvest will likely occur will still be very small in relation to total run size. It's a very differnet situation from those few Washington streams that are in okay shape and facing both a large traibal harvest as well the sport harvest.

2) I believe that these streams are more homogenous when it somes to the size of the fish ... so you probably won't see as much of the "trophy-hunting" we do on the OP streams; a big concern even if numbers say the run is "healthy".

3) The article mentions that " ... these streams are teeming with infant steelhead at concentrations never recorded in the United States, Canada and Russia." Yet, there has been "crash" because of this "overopulation". It would be interedting to see exact comparsons with "healthy" streams in this region and I'd also like to understand why these OR rivers can support it while the biologists (especially Gibbons) say they can't.

4) Will be interesting to see if the influx of Orgon-based catch-and-kill guides that have descended upon the Forks-area rivers over the past 6-7 years will decrease now that they have the ability to kill fish in their local area.

A few thoughts that crossed my mind right off the bat ... I'm sure some more will down the road

Don't see why must of you Washington fishermen would have concerns with any of this. When the emergency Puget Sound CnR closures came down a couple of years ago (remember the watershed event that ignited the formation of the Wild Steelhed Coalation) many were citing how steelhead management in other states was far superior to Washington's stone age approach. What is being done is exactly what Oregon's management policies are- where there are "healthy" stocks wild fish harvest is allowed.

Bob -
With your concerns about trophy fishing you must have real problems with Alaskan steelhead management - there when steelhead harvest is allowed anglers can only take fish over 36 inches.

Tight lines
Smalma

Why must people be so concerned with their oportunity to harvest. Why is it that people want to even harvest wild steelhead. I dont understand how people can destroy such a beautiful thing?

I gues it is our heritage as humans to destroy things.

That article makes it sound like Harvest of wild steelhead is what is important CnR is a way to ensure we can rebuild run sizes to harvestable levles when runs are in the dumps yet still have an oportunity to fish.

Like I said before,,,,, WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!

I was talking to some fellow board members tonight and the most compelling opinion was that its wrong to kill native steelhead, but it's ok to kill native salmon. Personally I don't really see the difference in protecting steelhead but then turn around and kill native salmon. Are salmon so much less important to our future fishing that we might as well harvest them to extremely low levels and then protect them, and not allow the native kill? If people continue to believe its ok to kill native salmon they will be in the same boat as the steelhead down the road, I believe that regardless of the fish we shouldn't kill natives.. The people who said it was ok to kill native salmon also said they would kill native steelhead if they were at harvestable levels. SIGH.. those harvestable levels can only last so long..

casey

dangit wheres my flyrod

I have been reading this, and the othr threads, concerning the depletion of native steelhead.

It appears to me the emphasis is only whether to harvest or not, to save the native stock.

Why is no one addressing the allowed logging practices, that are, and have been conducive to the depletion of steelhead and salmon in the PNW.

I read recently that clear cutting has now allowed right up to the river. Why has this been allowed now when that cover is needed for the young fish?

The hills can no longer retain the water, so it runs off as soon as it falls, washing out the redds, flooding the rivers with every freshet.

I started coming out here to fish steelhead in the "70's". The rivers ran clear, even when bank full. Fish all over the place. Then as the hills were being "raped", the rivers became muddy with each freshet, the banks and redds being washed away, and each year, less and less fish in the rivers.

These issues need to be addressed as well, to protect what is left of the native fishes.

Just my 2cents,
Rick

malma … Your statement of Alaska regulations is applicable to only one area, SE … which basically means the Situk River.

Other areas have a one fish per day (no size limitations) limit, others yet like the streams that support native runs on the Kenai Peninsula are strictly C&R, no bait, and not even the allowance of removal from the water.

Yet, it’s interesting that you bring this up: in Alaska, the world of catch-and-kill where C&R is almost considered voodoo by many people (have any questions here, follow the story of first-run Kenai kings) .. yet, anglers here release almost all steelhead, regardless of regulations!

In 1997, only 398 fish reported harvested STATEWIDE in Alaska. An estimated 22,233 steelhead (98.2% of total estimated catch) were caught and released by anglers.

That’s a harvest rate of 1.8% of the total catch.

It’s also imprtant to note that these regs are on rivers that support runs of steelhead that anglers in this region would die to see.

The Karluk River is only 22 miles long, yet supports runs of 8,000+ fish or more. The Situk River, which is more similar to our coastal streams has a darinage area of 36 square miles according to the USGS. That’s 1/7 the size of the Hoh drainage, and 1/4 the size of the Calawah drainage … but it has seen runs of over 9,000 fish and usually exceeds 6,000. That’s a trend towards 10-20 times higher steelhead concentrations in these streams.

You fail to mention, that for a period, even rivers like the Situk were managed under C&R regulations as angler traffic increased and populations decreased. Returns boomed again following these regs and the regs were relaxed, yet as I mentioned before, anglers saw the importance of limiting harvest and release nearly every single fish regardless of what the regs say.

In addition, I think you’re seeing a shift in AK away from trophy-kill fisheries management. The handwriting is on the wall from the Kenai king fishery and you’re seeing less support for this sort of management.

If Washington streams saw these sorts of numbers, I don’t think you’d see this subject even come up for debate in this state, but they don’t.

ChukarNut … you’re right the steelhead face many dangers to their existance. But unfortunately, in most cases there is no quick fix. By releaseing

i think if you read the native fish societys goal page you will see that this is exacly what they want, that is a healthy population of wild fish that can handle a small harvest.

Bob -
You are right of course, the 36 in minimum is limited to SE - though as I recall the SE region has over 300 steelhead streams (though most are small).

I believe in South Central one is allowed to kill up 2 steelhead a year - I would not be surprised that there are exceptions.

My real point is that much of the discussion I have seen regarding the "bonking" of wild steelhead seemed to indicate that only Washingotn allows the "bonking" of wild fish while the reality is that Alaska, British Columbia and Oregon all allow the taking of wild fish.

That doesn't make it more justifiable here in Washington just corrects a common mis-conception.

The later part of your post seemed to indicate that you were comfortable with some kill when steelhead were in high abundance as some of the Alaska streams. Is there is some magic population level (over X number of fish) or some portion of carrying capacity. This seems to be a new position for you or did I mis-understand where you were coming from?

Tight lines
Smalma

Not a new position for me. Personally, I'll always look at steelhead as a sport / game fish that I will not harvest. However, your references of streams with a directed harvest carry concentrations of fish that ours to shame.

And as I mentioned, even though the regs say you can take one, over 98% of the fish are released. That's hardly the case here. The sporties' attitudes are different here: whether it be that because the state says it's oaky, it's oaky, or the attitude amongst some that if "I don't get them the Indians will".

Unfortuately, I guarantee you that a large number of anglers in this area DO NOT adhere to the daily / seasonal guidelines that have put into place.

That's another factor with our fisheries, we have terrible enforcement, and I'm a believer that beacause of it, giving some an inch means they're gonna take a mile.

Enforcement in these Alaskan streams is far greater than what we see here. You don't have dozens of plunkers lined up on lower river bars whacking and stacking them in the Alaska streams. Knowing what happens in real life as opposed to what's on paper is just pne more reason I'd like to see the door shut on it.

The Anchor River, the only SC stream with a really appreciable run of fish is strictly C&R, so is the Ninilchik and Deep Creek. Anglers can keep a steelhead in portions of the Kasilof ... but these are an introduced fish to the system. The few fish that return to Crooked Creek (a Kasilof trib) are protected and the small harvest that does is occur is based on the "natural spawn" following the heavy plants of hatchery steelhead in the 80's into the early 90's. This stocking was eliminated because of straying into the nearby Kenai and the concern over that.

So what harvest is alllowed is basically on hatchery stock.

If the state could prove beyond any doubt that are the runs are healthy, MAYBE I could live with seeing a limited harvest, although as I mentioned before, I don't believe that I'll ever kill another one on purpose.

And this gets me back to my original point. The state says our runs are healthy and can support harvest, yet one by one, stocks fall from a healthy listing to depressed or worse and then all fishing must cease. Our management practices have failed ... it's time to put a finger in the dike to give us time to figure out why and do something about it!

Bob -
I think you and I have more agreement than disagreement in regards to wild fish harvest. I appreciate the time you have taken the time to discuss this issue and have enjoyed the banter.

I do disagree with the role that "mis-management" has played in the sudden decline in the productive of the many of the so-call healthy steelhead stocks in the Puget Sound region.

Using the Snohomish system again as an example - for more than a decade escapement of wild steelhead around or above the goal for the system (6,500) fish produced runs that consistently allow for some limited harvest (typcially in the 10 to 20% range) as well as a pretty nice Catch and Release fishery with escapements continuing to average about 110% of the goal. Suddenly marine survival plummented and the same escapements (6,000 to 7,000) was producing total runs (before any fishing) of only 2,500 to 3,500 fish.

It is hard for me to envision how mis-management could cause such a sudden down turn in productive - especially considering the same thing was occurring throughout Puget Sound and the Georgia straits; including waters that were closed to fishing, managed with wild steelhead release or catch and release and waters that allowed some harvest.

A major criticism I would have of recent management is that collective we have not invested enough in monitoring (creel census etc) so that we can have timely information on the age structure and population trends of our wild stocks. Without that information corrective management actions (ending targeting wild stock fisheries and going to hatchery only seasons) were a year late in coming.

A larger future concern is what should management do if this negative productive continues for another fish generation. If populations drop by half again over the next 4 or 5 years - what to do? I'm afraid that modification or termination of hatchey programs and fishing closures will all have to given serious consideration.

Tight lines
Smalma

What crap! As soon as a run is healthy they, give the "surplus" out! When will D&W understand that surplus is good, let the smolts duke it out, surival of the fittest. Just think of a run so healthy "too many" spawn! Those would be some tough smolts! As a whole I don't think we will ever learn.

I think miss management is the obviouse reason we see the declines in the Pugtet Sound wild steelhead.

Obviously the escapement numbers set for the systems under MSY were set far too low and when nature for whatever reason needed that gross excess of fish spawning in the system to ensure safe numbers of fish the next generation nature got cheated because the safety nett was gone.

The exzact same thing will happen to the Quileute some day if we dont get away from MSY. And people will wonder what happened and try and blame it on everyting else other than over harvest. The powers that be will say "we just cant figure it out it was over escapement every year". Yep it was over MSY's escapement but not natures escapement and natures escapement is the one that counts.

Thanks for the reply Smalma. I think it's healthy to have these sort of discussions even if you don't always agree with the other side ... and I hope a few can use this a perhaps a future example of seeing how we can disgaree with turning it into a bashfest

One question if you will before we finish up:

We keep hearing that in the instances of stocks that have fallen on such hard times that much of the management's blame (whether it be AK, OR, BC, or WA) points towards ocean survival.
Why is it that these oceanic conditions have not appeared to affect populations across the board?? What makes the conditions different for the Puget Sound Stocks vs. a few of the OP stocks? From the best of my knowledge, we know little about their ocean distribution paterns as a whole when compared to salmon stocks ... it doesn't quite make sense to me!

Bob -
As I have mentioned before this marine survival thing is a puzzler. To make things even more complicated for most of the Puget Sound rivers that have had such poor marine surivial problems it has been limited to the winter steelhead. Hatchery and wild winter smolt to adult survival is way down but at the same time in the same rivers summers (hatchery and wild) appear to be doing well (perhaps having above average survival). All the smolt trapping information seems to indicate that summer and winters migrate pretty much at the same time.

The information is known about migration patterns indicate that our steelhead migrate off shore, ride the currents north and west across the North Pacific and then south and east (a large elliptical path). Since the summers and winter return at different times they most have different timing during their high sea migration. The same might apply to your coastal steelhead. They are closer to the high seas than Puget Sound at that slight edge might make all the difference.

To my thinking there must patchy conditions (feed or temperatures) in the north Pacific and some stocks or group of stocks migration timing is such that they are finding better conditions than others.

From the reports that I'm hearing it sounds like those poor conditions are becoming more wide spread with most reports of hatchery returns being poor or worst throughout Western Washington. Definitely not good news.

Tight lines
Smalma