Over the last year year or so in our discussion regarding steelhead management and CnR regulations it has often been cited that the majority of us prefer CnR/WSR management over "bonking nates". As I recall the number cited was 61% (a super majority).

However today when looking at the creel census reports from the Quillayute

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/creel/coastal/steelhead.htm

it struck me as odd that most folks are keeping the wild fish they are catching. The most recent check showed 30 wild fish caught of which 29 were kept. With a 1 fish limit and assuming that the fish released was not caught by someone who kept a fish it appears that only 1 out of 30 are releasing their fish.

For the season so far the checkers report 179 wild fish caught with 157 kept and 22 released. That is only a release rate of 12%. Looks like at least on the Quillayute folks are "voting" for keep seasons.

Are fish being kept because folk's freezer are not full with the normal amount of "brats"?

Are the CnR boys not fishing?

Are the "bonkers" just catching more fish?

An inquiring mind wants to know.

Tight lines
Smalma

Conservation of our resources is a good thing so I never keep more than I need but it's always nice to have some meat in the cooler before I start releasing the excess.

I sure wish the Skagit had some retention opportunity.

I sometimes think that in our discussions on this board, we assume we are the entire fishing population. In fact, we probably only represent a tiny part of that group.

Having said that, the numbers still look odd compared to what I usually see on the rivers.

I can help you with this one Smalma.

It is true that most anglers that fish on the West End both local and visitors want to kill a fish and they dont care if its wild or hatchery. There is a percentage that is strictly CnR that fishes out here but it is very small compared to the percentage that will kill natives.

It is easy to see that people come here to take a fish home. The majority of anglers fish where you can kill natives id say its 20 to 1 people fishing in non-selective areas verses people fishing in CnR areas.

The Creel samples on the WDFW site are not completely accurate, (Fair and Balanced) in my opinion as most of the samples are done in areas where you can kill natives and not in CnR areas. I know some are done time to time in the CnR areas but not often, then agian there are far more anglers in the non-restrictive areas because they can harvest Natives, and lets face it thats the biggest attractant to the Quileute System..

Rich-
If your estimate is correct that only 1 out of 20 is fishing the CnR areas then the checkers should be checking those upper river areas about 1 day a month. Is that a fair estimate of the frequency that they are they? If so what is the bias?

I would think that if the coast is offering some of the best fishing west of the Cascades it would be just as much of a magnet to the CnR fishermen as those interested in harvesting fish. This is especially true given all the water that is set aside with selective gear restrictions and no retention of wild steelhead. I don't know of any other river system with so much water sit aside with selective gear restrictions at this time of year!

Still confused.

Tight lines
Smalma

I don't have the time this eveing to write you a lengthy reply .. but something's obviously not right with the numbers. First off, I can think of 8-10 fish we reported released on a couple of trips, so that accounts for "half" of the released fish. Something smells a little fishy ...

Secondly, the water has been very high for some time now and the plunking bars have been taking the majority of the fish until the past few days. How many fish get released on the plunking bars??

Thirdly, I know of 15 or so fish released by the "Chin" party we fished over the week-end that were never checked.

Fourthly, I haven't been checked once in C&R only water for as long as I can remember.

Fifthly, fish retained for the Snider program are considered harvested fish, so about 40 or so of these fish that would normally have been released go in the harvest column.

Without trying to be too pissy about this, I think this is a case of the real-world vs. the state office world.

Bob -
Thanks for taking time for this discussion. Know you are very busy at this time of the year, especially with the rivers dropping into prime shape.

I'm not sure that I understand your last comment. Which is the real world - the numbers from the on water creel checks or the preference estimates from the angler survey?

If your comment was directed towards me I freely admit to being "office" bound and have very limited knowledge of the Quillayute system. I just commented that this situation looked odd to me. I'm further confused with lack of effort in the CnR water, especially after your report of 7 or 8 fish days. For folks on the east side of the Sound that is very good fishing and I would have thought it have been attractive to the CnR crowd - even more so this year given the poor (horrible) fishing here. Yet Rich reported very low effort in the CnR - maybe only 5% of the effort in the keep sections. Unless the fishing in the CnR is much worst than that downstream it again appears that the anglers are "voting" for a keep fishery. Is the fishing above hwy 101 anything comparable to that downstream?

Your point about the high water is a good one and it may account for some of the difference. Went back to the web site for numbers from last year and it looks like effort this season is about 80% of last years so maybe the high water is small part of the answer.

Your remark regarding the Snider Creek program is helpful. Was not aware of how the brood fish were counted. The checks without the Sol Duc were 116 wild fish caught with 18 released (15.5%), not much different.

Now I'm curious!

Tight lines
Smalma

____________________________________________________________________
Quote from Bob:
"something's obviously not right with the numbers. First off, I can think of 8-10 fish we reported released on a couple of trips, so that accounts for "half" of the released fish. Something smells a little fishy ..."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Bob,
- I don't understand your implications.
- Are you implying that the checkers are too incompetent to accurately record what is reported?
- Or even worse, falsifying records?

During the period from Dec 6-8 on the Bogachiel/Quillayute 3 wild steelhead were reported released by 86 anglers.

During the period from Jan 27-30 eight anglers reported 4 wild steelhead kept and 6 wild steelhead released on the Calawah.

Those are the only reports of more than 2 wild steelhead released in any given report period.

«» » »« « «» » »« « «» » »« « «» » »« « «» » »« « «» » »« « «» » »« « «» » »« « «»

I find it interesting that so far this year just over 12% of the wild steelhead have been released compared to nearly 35% at this time last year.

This year anglers have, as of Feb 2nd, released about 8% of the hatchery fish caught compared to about 16% at this time last year.

Only 284 hatchery fish have been retained compared to 886 at this time last year.

I wonder how many anglers have decided to postpone their feel-good release ethics long enough to make up for their lack of hatchery fish in their freezers?

Smalma,

The OP is the only place that wild fish retention is aloud in our state, (I think). So everybody from all over Washington and other places for that matter that want to kill natives come here. They cant do it on the Skagit, Sky, Stilly, Lewis, Kalama, Dungi, Elwa, Stilly nope they come to the OP to do it.

CnR anglers dont have to come to the OP if they dont want to but freezer fillers do.

Since the OP is the only place you can bonk natives there are always gonna be more meat fisherman out here than CnR fisherman.

Perhaps what Bob was saying was that the creel census is only a snap shot and does not represent the larger picture. The census takers do not need to be inaccurate or falsifying data to come up with numbers that do not cover all of what is going on. They mostly get data from where they can contact the most anglers in a short time frame. Thusly, most of the floats and bank sections are not being reported in the census.

Also take into account a lot of guys will not report a release (remember when we were "required" to punch them on the card?) because those numbers are added in to the magical mathmatical formula that determines mortality, and our harvest looks higher.

Sounds like too many natives bitin' the dust to me though!


GS

Rich
A valid point. I realize that OP is the only place that wild fish maybe kept. However that has been the case for a couple years now. Has there been a dramatic increase in the number anglers there due to this change?

As plunker points out way is the release ratio only a 1/3 of what it was last year?

Even with the wild fish harvesters outnumbering the CNR folks I would have expect closer parity between the kept and release numbers. The harvesters are constrained by the 1 fish limit (won't pretend that the 5 fish annual limit constrains the harvest) and the area they can fish (downstream of hwy 101) while the CnR folks are not. I would expect that on the average with equally skilled anglers the CnR boys will average more fish caught than those that keep fish.

In my experience steelhead fishermen today are like ball parks in corn fields - if the fish are there they will come. From reading reports from you, Bob and others where for good anglers catches are typically measured in fish/day rather than days/fish as it is in Puget Sound I would think that OP would be attractive to both the CnRs and harvesters. I could see that they may separate themselves by the type of regulation (CnR verus Keep). However you pointed out that few folks are fishing the CnR water. Bob pointed out there has been lots of high water this year - that likely means that those upper sections should have more than normal numbers of fish this year. If it is the case that upper rivers is where all the early wild fish go as many have postulated then it should doubly so this year.

Are all the fishermen there locals or are the guide's dudes and others from east of Forks?

I had another thought on checking the CnR areas. It may be that the Department is not trying to estimate effort but is more interested sampling the catch (scales). In which case they would likely not spend much time (any?) in the CnR areas.

Again thanks for your thoughts. As I stated before I'm not as familiar with your rivers as I am with those on the "dry" side of the Olympics. As such my questions are based on the creel numbers, and observations of those more familiar with those waters such as yourself, Bob,and others on this site.

Still curious!

Tight lines
Smalma

I think its clear that No. 1, the lack of hatchery fish has prompted more people to kill wild steelhead this season and No. 2, frequent high water over the last few weeks has resulted in prime conditions for plunkers, who tend to keep fish as opposed to releasing them and, finally, despite a vocal minority, most steelhead anglers in Washington want the option of taking home a wild fish now and again in rivers that have healthy populations of wild fish -- and I know the issue of healthy populations is highly debatable. Smalma, you troublemaker, may I call you Salvelinus????

Kind of funny. All the Puget Sound rivers used to have "healthy runs" of natives too. Oops, not anymore.

from what it sounds like, with all the killing of native fish (which really sucks) there wont be any "voting" of catch and kill, cuz there will not be any wild steelies to harvest in the future, and they will turn it into another nisqually, i wonder why washington allows wild steelhead harvest and idaho dont, cuz maybe hey see the importance of wild run fish..

Interesting discussion, it does make me wonder just what proportion of steelheaders are truly C&R. I think Plunker and salmonbelly hit on the head; the lack of winter brats has to have an effect on the number of natives being whacked. I think it also brings to light the notion that in order to have a truly successful C&R fishery, you have to have hatchery fish. Without them, folks will either pressure for more and longer native keep seasons, or will quit fishing. The Canadians found this to be the case in the first few years of native release in BC.

Other thoughts: In most Puget Sound and western WA streams (all but the Oly P.) folks are geared toward early brat seasons and late native seasons. During the brat show you have lots of folks fishing, catching, and bonking hatchery fish. Come March, the show thins out considerably, and I find myself fishing with an entirely different set of people. Maybe I'm just used to it, but it seems conducive to switching mentalities.

On the Peninsula, however, you have native runs that begin much earlier, and its my impression that there is not near as much temporal separation between runs so you get bonkers and releasers out at the same time. I also get the impression though, that like in Puget Sound basins, the number of C&R anglers increases dramatically as you get past mid-February (is this true?)

It would be nice to get creel data by month to compare keep/release trends over the course of a season and over a number of years to compare years where hatchery runs are large vs. lean. I hope the department doesn't use the data that Smalma cited to determine the will of the people. Can't help but think that the thin brat year has something to do with native harvest.

Personally, I am less confused, or surprised, by these statistics than I am by the complete LACK of statistics on rivers that have had their fisheries closed for the protection of the resource. And why is it, that we rely so heavily on such unreliable and incomplete information as creel reports to understand and manage our wild steelhead fish populations anyway?

Sadly, it seems that once fishing (selective or otherwise) is no longer allowed on wild fish we consequently have no idea as to the relative health or viability of these runs. Or so it would seem. Perhaps WDFW knows more than they are saying but I'm not convinced of that either.

Stilly says "not anymore". I have to wonder, especially on a few of these PS rivers, where strong runs had more to do with quality than it did quantity. On some of these rivers their habitat may be as good or better than before they were closed. You'd think without pressure that these runs would be on the rebound. Rivers like the Cedar and the Nisqually to cite a couple. But does anybody truly know the current status of these runs?

My point is simply that if protection of wild fish is that critical to the state then why don't we hear more about the condition of these runs, particularly where they were so "depressed" that it required a complete ban on fishing. It appears however that once fishing is discontinued on a fishery all interest in the resource is lost never to be heard from again. Maybe never to be fished again. Am I missing something here? Or are there other mitigating factors that are not being discussed openly as part of the "wild steelhead" issue?

No wonder I am confused.

As to the creel reports for that day, we all know that the numbers are open for interpretation and although interesting, they do not present a complete picture. It would be unfair to assume that they are dishonest. But while I would expect someone who has legally harvested a native to be "proud" enough to honestly report it, I find it incredible that anyone who has C&R'd a fish would be disingenuous enough to not report it, thinking that this would in some way help to keep a viable fishery, selective or otherwise, open. That is lunacy; because if you don't speak up then you might not have the opportunity to "report" in the future. Plus how would C&R ever be seriously considered as a monitoring method on rivers that might be potentially reopened if the success of capture and release is not reported.

By the way that "Catch & No Release" moniker, is intended for my wife and brats only. No similarity intended, of course.

Glad I'm not the only one who's confused...

By Mooch:
[QUOTE] [ But while I would expect someone who has legally harvested a native to be "proud" enough to honestly report it, I find it incredible that anyone who has C&R'd a fish would be disingenuous enough to not report it, thinking that this would in some way help to keep a viable fishery, selective or otherwise, open. That is lunacy; because if you don't speak up then you might not have the opportunity to "report" in the future. Plus how would C&R ever be seriously considered as a monitoring method on rivers that might be potentially reopened if the success of capture and release is not reported. QUOTE]

Exactly where the WDFW gets all of their numbers (creel census is one way), and what exactly they do with them, are on-going mysteries to many, myself included. There is a lot of distrust. But then maybe I'm just overly jaded and have a bad attitude after witnessing decades of horrible and on-going mismanagement.

Maybe they are using C&R data in some way that is positive to the fish and/or anglers, but I have yet to see evidence of this.

I think its a pretty big stretch to say that they're shutting down entire fisheries because of unreported C&R. From experience, observation and association I KNOW it not a stretch to say that many anglers may not be honest all of the time with WDFW fish checkers.

Possible motives?
Takes us back to that "lack of trust thing". What are they going to do with those numbers?...escalate tribal harvest...shut down early because of C&R mortality...Who knows? Certainly not I; and I'd like to hear the story from someone who does. I know that when they ask you how many "shakers" you catch in the salt a huge % are written off as mortality! If nothing else, full reporting to the checker (who talks to LOTS of fishermen, and is probably one him/herself) is a great way to have your hotspot pinpointed by a horde of other anglers the next day.

Last time I checked, disingenuouness and lunacy were not crimes. Nor is it a crime to not report to a "checker". Right or wrong it happens all the time. I would probably frown on it more if I was not so CONFUSED!

GS

GS,
It would have been a stretch indeed. I apologise if I lead you or anyone to believe such a thing. Far from it, but I think that C&R may have the potential to be used as means of monitoring certain rehabilitating runs of steelhead that are currently closed to fishing, maybe indefinately. But this could only be seriously considered if the practice continues to be legitimized by those who practice it. And this will only happen if there is a trust and understanding that comes from honest reporting and a repoire that is cultivated with the proper authorities, in this case the WDFW. Although the practice of C&R is not new to fishermen by any means, it is only fairly recently that authorities like the WDFW have begun to look favorably on the practice as part of their overall management schemes. And frankly as a group, "steelheaders" have not done nearly as much as others, like our flyflicking lake and stream fishermen, to legitimize the practice of C&R. While "native" steelhead fisheries become more prevalent with the demise of hatcheries, which is inevitable (like it or not folks), it behooves us as fisherman to be honest and work together with these folks to maximize our fishing opportunities.

I don't know whether I am confused because I do not trust or if I distrust because I am confused. But I don't think that being "disingenuous" will make matters any better. Not telling the truth may not be against the law, but it certainly doesn't make it right. The fact that there it is not "crime" is all the less excuse to have to lie. If someone has a problem with giving information then have the huevos to say "I refuse to report". Let's stop pi**ing in our own water. There is absolutely no good reason why C&R fisherman should not have as much or more integrity as "bonkers". But lying and deceiving won't make it so.

Salmonbelly-
I'd be honored to be called Salvelinus - an honorable fish - I have been called much worse.

Obsessed -
It may well be that you are on the right track. Last year the creel checks showed that the release rate was 33% in Janaury, 41% in February, and 55% in March; increasing just as you suggested. It well may be that many of us need to keep several fish before becoming comfortable with practicing CnR.

Mooch -
Regarding your concern that once waters are closed to fishing that they are never opened again. Most of our Western Washington steelhead populations are monitored measuring the numbers of wild steelhead spawning through spawning surveys. If populations rebound we have see fishing opportunities restored. In the early and mid 1980s many of the steelhead populations were managed with wild steelhead release (WSR) regulations all season. As the populations rebounded to levels above escapement goals WSR was relaxed; to the chagrin of many on this board.

You asked about the Cedar (sorry don't have Nisqually info handy). During the sea-lion predation activity at the locks the number of wild spawners fell sharply. After the problem animals were taken carry of the population numbers rebounded some but have once again fallen (like most of the Puget Sound populations). The escapements the last 3 have all been less than 50 fish (less than 40 in 2002). These are shocking low numbers. It is unlikely we'll see steelhead seasons on the Cedar until the population rebuilds to at least 10 times (likely even more are needed) the current levels.

In your last post you mentioned that "it is only fairly recently that authorities like the WDFW have begun to look favorably on the practice as part of their overall management schemes". I Don't know how long you have been practicing CnR of wild steelhead but there have been CnR steelhead seasons in the North Puget area for 25 years (going back to 1977). I doubt that there are very many readers that have practiced total wild steelhead release for that length of a time.

Gsiegel-
I found your post(s) to be most troubling. How in the heck can we expect our managers to do a good job when anglers are actively sabotaging the system by giving false information. If they are supplied "crappy" information we are apted to get "crappy" management. As far as I'm concern if someone is giving mis-leading information (PC for lying) they have forfeited their right to complain about management actions or the results of those actions.

If you have trust issues with WDFW I suggest that you call your local region office and talk with one of the biologist. Who knows you might be surprised - one may actually engage in a conversation with you. Honest conversations and exchange of ideas often result in both parties learning something.

Tight lines
Smalma

A quick note on Obsessed's post and then I'll save the rest for when I get my hands on all the creel data from the fish checkers out there:

Most early season traffic is local or PA ... the vast majority of which still regularly harvest wild fish. In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the PA clubs still holds their season-long derby ...

As we get into the later months, and other rivers close across the state, we do see more out-of-town boats and that may very well account for much of the increase you see there.

As I mentioned, I'll be talking with the local counters and I'll see if I can get exact locations (plunking bars vs. open kill vs. C&R water) of sampling ...

Smalma,

Thanks for clearing up a few things for me. I can honestly say I am a bit less confused than I was. I appreciate that.

It is tragic about the Cedar and I would be blown away if it was the case on the Nisqually. What ever happen to the effort to get fish from captured wild stock into the upper watershed? I think the first plant we did was back in the mid 80's with the cooperation of a number of agencys. Same on the Upper Green. All for naught evidently.

Yes I am aware of C&R regs on our streams since the 70's. Frankly it was what got me started on the practice years ago. But as I recall it was far more limited practice until much more recently when it has become more universal. My point was that the practice needs to be embraced by fisherman more if they want to keep fisheries open in the face of declining stocks.

Thanks again for clarity. By the way, maybe I should know this already, but are you with the WDFW by any chance?

Out.

Mooch -
Unfortunately my understanding is that the wild steelhead situation on the Nisqually has not improved - it remains chronically under-escaped. Both the Cedar and Nisqually are if interest in that they both closed to fishing (the Cedar year-round) and are no longer planted with steelhead smolts. Even with the elimination of the two "evils" of steelhead management (killing of wild fish and inappropriate steelhead stocks planted) neither population has rebounded. Fingers remainded crossed that marine survival conditions will improve and these and other wild stocks will bounce back.

You are correct in that until the mid-1980s there were not many CnR waters. However there also was very little angler interest as well. I recall many days during the prime of the fishing with the river in prime shape, the fishing willing, the scenery outstanding and other than myself and my partners virtually no one on the water. There was no need for additional waters. As interest in this type of recreation increased more opportunities were provided. Unfortunately the recent decline in wild survivals have led to the closures of some of those - the fish needs must come first.

Yes - I'm a biologist. Does it make a difference?

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

Only that it helps me know you better.

Thanks,
Mooch

Mooch,
Smalma,

Sometimes I have a tendency to get a bit carried away when I'm typing. Looking back on my posts regarding honest reporting to fish checkers, I see that may be the case.

My original intent was not to defend anglers who may neglect to report released fish, but rather to provide maybe a partial explanation for why the "released numbers" reported by the checkers were so low and to give possible reasons for innacurate reports to checkers. That's pretty much what my first post indicated; I was more or less "fishing" for a response with the second. Believe me , this does go on. I don't recall personally having misinformed a checker; I do have first-hand accounts of this occurring on a regular basis.

Accurate reporting would indeed be important to whatever plan the WDFW was devising. There remains a high amount of distrust for the management policies that direct our fisheries (particularly toward the Commission). Many fishermen are unaware of the Dept.'s plans or truly do not see them doing anything positive for our wild fish situation. I was merely pointing out the realities of the situation!

If indeed trust is to be built, the WDFW needs to adopt policies and systems that not only inform the angling public, but also listen to their ideas and are more responsive to their review. I know PR is a big issue for WDFW right now, and while they seem to be working on improving trust "we're not there yet," so to speak.

GS

Hey, all...

Wow...nice thread. Smalma, I have to admit that when I see your name as author on a thread titled "Confused!!", that it makes me chuckle. I haven't found you to be very confused, or confusing, in all of our conversations, either here or in person!!

I wish I could have have chimed in earlier in the discussion, but here goes anyway. If I repeat stuff from above, as I'm sure I will, it's only for clarity in my own mind...

Reasons for creel check results...

1. Specifically inaccurate

If the data is used to extrapolate harvest predictions/results...then it makes sense to collect it in harvest areas. Many CnR fishermen won't be checked, even if those fishing in in CnR areas are greatly outnumbered by those downstream.

Just as the gamies are faced with the dilemma of more responsibility with less resources, creel checkers would do well to check in areas of high angler concentration so as to collect more data points. Those areas tend to include popular bars, terminal areas, and popular takeouts. For reasons already posted above, accurate data taken at those places may not extrapolate out well for the entire river, much less the entire watershed or region.

2. Generally inaccurate

This naturally grows out of the "specifically inaccurate" heading. Taking data collected and using it to make more general assumptions could be very misleading in this case. The rivers cited in the creel checks are the only ones open for harvest in our state. At this point in the season (mid-February), a fisherman that wants to harvest any steelhead, especially this year, would be fishing those rivers. There just flat out aren't many to catch anywhere else.

Also, at this time of year, fishing is still open statewide. I personally do not even start fishing out on the coast until March, after my local rivers close. As Obsessed pointed out, the relative concentration of CnR fishermen will rise sharply in a few weeks.

As Bob pointed out, since the other rivers are all still open, most the OP fishers are locals. At the Commission hearings last winter, while the overall support for WSR was overwhelming, the small minority of harvest advocates were very concentrated in two areas: the OP and Sedro Wooley. If the majority of anglers are local at this point of the season, then it makes sense that samples taken in those areas will be very skewed.

Sample the Skykomish River and you'll find that the release rate of native fish is 100%. Of course, this is by regulation, but if it were open for harvest, I think you'd still find it to be a very high number.

3. Inaccurate data providers

This probably should have gone first, but since I'm here, I'll write it here. This deals with inaccurate data being given to the creel checkers. Without examining the relative merits/demerits of the reasons, there are reasons why some fishers would give inaccurate data.

First, folks with fish in hand are more likely to be proud of their catch and want to show it off. Second, a lot of fishers just don't want to advertise at all where they are catching their fish, or the numbers they are catching.

This results, respectively, in increased likelihood of harvested fish being reported, and decreased likelihood of released fish being reported. When we're talking such a small sample size, these fundamental inaccuraces are greatly magnified.

Conclusions

If we start with data providers whose data is skewed to harvest, then give it to creel checkers who are more likely to run across harvested fish rather than released fish, and do this in a region and time that is greatly more likely to be a harvest-oriented region and time, we are faced with results that don't likely show the whole picture, perhaps don't even come close.

More accurately, I suppose, is that the data very accurately reflects the amount of fish being retained on the Quillayute system the first week of February on the more popular fishing bars and at the more popular takeouts that are downstream from 101.

What it doesn't show at all, however, is what the general preference of steelheaders is in the state of Washington.

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Smalma, are you coming to next month's WSC meeting? Bob G. will be there as speaker, and it would be great to have you, as usual.

GS,
Please do not take my comments personally. I did not think you were defending dishonest anglers. I recognise that: I just wanted to comment on the lack of wisdom I see in this behavior. It's not that I don't do stupid things too, but they aren't worth defending either.

Smalmo sure straightened me out on a few things. This board has great potential to enlighten when the egos are checked at the door.
Good on ya mate.

Gsiegel-
One of the sources of my confusion was how dramatically the CnR rate had delcined from last year. Is for some reason more anglers not reporting their released catches?

It would be interesting to look at what portion of the people catching wild fish are released all the wild fish caught. An example - say a person keeps his first wild fish and continues fishing hoping for a hatchery fish and in doing so catches and release 2 more wild fish. Clearly 2/3 of the fish were released but he has kept what he could legally - he is a wild fish releaser or a "bonker"?

Mooch -
If you are interested in where I'm coming from and what my ideas on steelhead management you might want to look at an old post -"Steelhead guidelines" from about a year ago (late Feb/early March of 2002).

Todd -
I understand where inaccuracies of the numbers might come from but as mentioned above "why the change this year?" Is it as suggested by others that without the usual number of hatchery fish and some folks replacing them by "bonking" the occassional wild fish?

I'm not surprised that early season anglers were mostly locals and that they are mostly interested in keep some fish. The is the situation on virtually every river I'm familiar with. You mentioned the Skykomish. On those seasons where the taking of wild fish was allowed as I recalled the majority of the wild fish caught were kept. Remember there is a lot of fish that goes on downstream of the Sky and most aren't interesting in playing with the fish.

I'm sure that Plunker would confirm that the vast majority of the anglers fishing the lower half of the Skagit (up stream to Lyman) are very interested in retaining a wild fish or two. When WDW had creel census on the Skagit consistently 50 to 60% of the anglers counted on any given day (Dec to March) were on that section of the river.

It is my observation that CnRs tend to be more mobile than those interesting in keeping fish. While there are lots of exceptions but as a rule plunkers tend to stay close to home while CnR steelhead bums tend to show up where ever the best fishing is (that may or may not be water with restrictive regulations). The result is those areas (often late season) have pressure skewed to the CnR crowd - doesn't prove that is the preferred management. If the Skykomish were made fly fishing only I would expect it would be very popular with the feather fling crowd and it would attract anglers from over the place - however that would be evidence that fly only is the preference of most Sky steelhead anglers or the state steelhead anglers.

No I do not expect to be at the WSC meeting. Expect both Bob G. and WSC membership will not have any difficultly in stating their respective positions. Listen carefully to what Bob has to say with an open mind, ask good questions and some learning may occur.

Tight lines
Smalma

Great line Smalma, this is the kind of discussion that keeps attention.


Bottom line is that managers receive data from technicians on the river and make management decisions based on this information regardless of its precision or accuracy. I find it very unlikely that anglers simply aren't reporting their wild catch. Its much more likely that anglers think reporting their catch will limit their fisheries. And in some cases this may be true. Not sure about OP but some fisheries compare the relationship between catch data during the season and the preseason forecast to test the accuracy of the forecast (in season update) (Any OP mgmt Bios out there?). In this case it would be in anglers best interest to report all released fish.

Many of you have identified a deficiency in the management process but have not offered a
solution. How can we be sure the reporting of released fish is accurate? Bottom line is that creel data provides managers with a number. This number coupled with other indices of stock strength is used to manage future stocks and in some cases avoid unknowns. If for some reason this number is not an actual reflection it will surely limit managers ability to accurately detect changes in stock densities over time.

Well, what does the latest count say for harvest percentage?

89% on the Bogachiel / Quillayute River
57% on the Calawah
46% on the Sol Duc
0% on the Hoh

Total for all streams: 50.6% harvest. A little different from what Smalma points out in earlier weeks.

I've got an offical request in for all creel data, but I had a chance to speak at length with the head checker for our area.

He noted that the efforts are concentrated in C&Keep areas ... you can see the number of anglers interviewed on the Bogey / Quil ... most of that came from the two major plunking bars. He also noted that plunkers are easier to check because they're always in the same spot and they can easily check them throughout the day.

He also stated that a couple of guides (both fairly busy) will give data regarding kept fish only and two others he could think of will give him (also both fairly regular) no data at all.

I'll post more on this as it become available

Smalma,

I just printed out this 22 page tome, I meant thread. I just wanted you to know that it's either going to cost me a day away from work or fishing to get through it all. But hey, I figure you're worth it. A day away from work that is.

Tighter lines,
Mooch

Mooch-
A day away from work is one thing -
But missing a day of fishing is a serious matter.

Tight lines
Smalma

I'm pursuing a biology degree at the moment. From most of what I see by example, and hear from my teachers, the actual number of organisms removed completely from a system is the primary concern when researching the general health of a given system. This is of course not the only aspect of a system that should be researched, especially when looking at a controversial issue such as survival rates of released fish, but in general, the amount of fish entering a system vs. the amount that actually spawn vs. the amount that leave are considered the most important aspects when looking at the health of the system. Because of all of this, the researchers involved here are probably focusing on the C&K areas, because they want to get numbers on how many fish are killed for sure. I don't nescesarily agree that this is the best way to perform the survey, but it's a good first step, and each individual researcher is at will to choose which aspects of the run he or she thinks the most important to its continued survival.

david

Wow a very good read. While I pretty much stay out of these debates anymore, figuring you all have heard my opinions ad nauseum in the past, this one is too good not to follow.

Great questions Smalma and a lot of good supposition as to why. As you have told me a couple times in the past, the release data is junk and that is why WDFW took it off the punchcard. Still doesn't account for the changes this year though.

Nothing else to add to what has been stated above except that this data does seem possibly suspect. There is the old three types of lies definition: lies, damn lies and statistics. And with it being a major rules cycle year and all. If the data is skewed, what a bad time for that, huh?

Oh by the way, wasn't the Angler Preference Survey conducted by WDFW? Maybe the research design was flawed? I know WDFW is very well qualified in run forcasting but maybe not so in survey design.

Heading back to my cave now.

sinktip

I too try to stay out of this stuff these days (as my presence tends to get some folks riled), so I'll try to just put in my two cents and then go away.

First, it's an interesting but almost meaningless question. What's going on on the Quillayute is not necessarily reflective of angler attitudes and practices statewide. I'm not a statistician, but it seems to me that theoretically, if 100% of anglers on the Quillayute kept 100% of the legal fish they caught, 60% of anglers statewide could still be supporting and practicing C&R. (I'd also be interested, like sinktip, to see the survey design; it should probably surprise no one here that I'm skeptical of WDFW's interpretation of almost any data.)

Secondly, without meaning to put too fine a point on it, so what? Whatever the "constituency" believes that it "wants" does not relieve the state of its responsibility to manage wild fish resources for the conservation of the resource itself above the desires of anglers.

(Well, looking over this post, I have to be fair and admit that maybe it's not just my "presence" that makes some of you so mad. any room in that cave, sinktip?)

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Communications Director
Washington Trout

Wow! What an exhausting thread! Some gr8 things said throughout! I especially liked RVB's comment:

"If indeed trust is to be built, the WDFW needs to adopt policies and systems that not only inform the angling public, but also listen to their ideas and are more responsive to their review. I know PR is a big issue for WDFW right now, and while they seem to be working on improving trust "we're not there yet," so to speak."

I have yet to hear WDFW publicly say, "Boy, we, your trusted public servants, have really screwed up the fishing, and we need your help." Instead, I've heard, "The habitat is the problem." or "The ocean is the cause." or etc., etc., etc. Always pointing a finger elsewhere, instead of stepping up and accepting that the responsibility of mismanagement of the fishery rests SOLELY on the sholders of the state.

How can I respect that?

While I have no doubt whatsoever that many respectable employees of WDFW are in their employ, apparently no one of power is willing to verbalize the obvious. I think it's a "The King has no clothes.....shhhhh" thing.

Outlaw bait...it's not needed....Another obvious thing.....sorry.

Sinktip/Ramon
You both are always welcome to any discussion that I'm involved in. What would be the fun if we all agreed?

Regarding the angler preference survey - as I recall the agency hired a private firm that specialized in that type of work to conduct the survey. The "experts" assure me that the results were statistically sound. The question of course is whether the questions asked were understood by the respondents. One question indicated that in a given situation the majority of the anlgers preferred that management be either CnR or wild steelhead release while another indicate that even a larger majority preferred a daily limit on wild steelhead of 1 or more.

Clearly the two results are not compatible - do I dare say there appears to be some confusion!

Tight lines
Smalma

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fun5Acres:
[QB] I have yet to hear WDFW publicly say, "Boy, we, your trusted public servants, have really screwed up the fishing, and we need your help." Instead, I've heard, "The habitat is the problem." or "The ocean is the cause." or etc., etc., etc. Always pointing a finger elsewhere, instead of stepping up and accepting that the responsibility of mismanagement of the fishery rests SOLELY on the sholders of the state.

How can I respect that?

C'mon Fun5Acres. You must be looking for a scapegoat here. Don't get me wrong, I'm more suspicious of government than most.

However, the state doesn't solely manage the runs. They co-manage with the tribes. The state doesn't control many aspects curcial to healthy runs How can the state be solely responsible?

You try to downplay habitat and other factors as not being important; anyone that faces the biological facts will realize that habitat is paramount to healthy runs.

You're right, habitat is not under the control of the state (although I think it should be); development has in the past and continues to run rampant in our Westside watersheds.

People on this board often blame the state for mismanaging the runs when a run is depressed (ie steelhead this winter), but never give them any credit when there is huge run (like the humpies and silvers 2 years ago). If you blame them for mismangaging a run when its depressed then you have to give them credit when there is an bumper run. Personally, I don't think they deserve blame or credit for either. These are due to habitat issues and natural cycles.

I think the long term decline in our steelhead and salmon runs is almost certainly more due to habitat degradation rather than overfishing. Salmon populations can recover from poor managment much more rapidly than habitat destruction.

I think political efforts of fishers like you and I should focus on protecting and restoring habitat rather than second guessing run managment issues. I think we can all agree that protecting spawning and rearing stream habitat will help fish.

Just my $0.02

Smalma,

If you're asking if there is a difference this year due to the poor hatchery run, then I touched on it in my last post, but missed mentioning another part when I got caught up with other stuff...

Obviously, there is a difference...and I think you and others hit on it in the first few posts.

Those who are absolutely not going to keep a wild fish aren't going to, no matter what.

Those who are going to kill any legal fish, no matter what, are going to do so.

I guess that puts the reason for the difference squarely on the shoulders of those who would like to harvest a specific amount of fish, say a couple of shelves in the freezer.

If that means ten fish, then an average, perhaps a bit above average, fisher should be able to get all of them in November through January, and have them all be hatchery fish.

This year, to get their ten fish they may have to fish into February and keep a few nates to get there.

I wouldn't call it a case of situational ethics of CnR fishers, and I wouldn't call it an increase of catch and kill fishers.

I'd call it a season that may take someone a little longer to fill their freezer, if that's their goal.

That being said, I think that by the end of April you'll find that the numbers will be more reflective of the real situation.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Sinktip and RVB, nice to see you...haven't seen you around in a bit.

Oh, yeah, Geoduck, while I agree with a lot of your assessment, your examples are a bit lacking. The humpies and chums are pretty much UN-managed...some might say that it's their best chance for survival. Coho are heavily managed, but a tremendous hatchery return can be a problem if folks allow it to mask their view of problems with the wild components of the run. Otherwise, I agree that habitat is vital, and disappearing...and that the state certainly has a hand in that happening.

Todd,
you think Chums are unmanaged? What about all those hatchery chums in the south sound and canal. I think by definition a hatchery fish ins a managed fish. Just because they aren't managed for sports catch doesn't mean they aren't managed.

I disagree, the saving grace for chums and humpies is not the managment or lack thereof, but the fact that they go directly out to sea after hatching and don't have to rear in our degraded stream habitat. Instead they rear in our costal waters, the sound, and/or open ocean.

do they have a report of how many of the nates that are killed are hens????

Did I hear it said that WDFW isn't wholely responsible for the control of how many fish return to the river and spawn? I respectfully disagree.

I do not disagree that habit, ocean changes, nets, sport fishery, etc., etc., are impacting factors on the decline of game and food fish. And I'm sure dozens of other reasons can be listed as well......my point is simple....so is the solution.....if there are not enough fish many years, why are we killing them? If returns of fish cannot be accurately predicted, why not leave the fish alone until escapement and adequate natural reproduction are assured? It seems painfully obvious to me that WDFW has a huge responsibility in fish management and it is by definition extraordinarily difficult.....so what?!

WDFW's attempt to micro manage every little aspect of a fish's life is ridiculous.....there is nothing complicated about a freaking fish. Leave it alone and it will do what it needs to do. Don't kill mom and dad fish....you get lots of babies....not difficult.

My wife and I live on a salmon and steelhead creek that has been closed to fishing for very nearly 30 years. WDFW closed the creek and set up a weir to "study" the wild steelhead run in this creek. I checked with a friend today who's wife works with the biologist who has made this creek his career. So far this season, there have been ZERO returning steelhead......ZERO! Habitat is not a huge factor here as there is very little development. Fishing has had no impact as the creek is closed.

There was a good chum run this year and a few were allowed to spawn naturally, and the silvers were very late (they arrived around Christmas and none were noticed by me spawning naturally). Perhaps some steelhead will yet arrive....I hope so. But at this point, it is hard to believe that WDFW hasn't studied this creek to death.

Any other outfit with a bottom line that looks like the one the State has produced would have been sent packing long ago.....don't you think?

Enjoy your fishing and respect your catch....
_____________________________________
Ban bait....it's a good start

Your illustration of the small stream running though your property is a perfect example of the complexity of managing anadromous fish. The streams been closed going on 30 years now--i.e., no fishing or netting pressure, yet it has had 0 steelhead this year. If your property is in the Puget Sound basin, your stream is experiencing what many Puget Sound and BC Georgia Strait streams are experiencing this year with the winter-run--very few fish. And in your case, management had nothing to do with it because there is no fishery on it!

Anadromous fish populations fluctuate wildly from year to year, even with no fishing pressure. If you look at historical numbers for streams with little pressure, you see populations numbers fluctuate by as much as an order of magnitude--e.g., 100 one year 1,000 the next. Why does this happen? This type of population structure occurs so that fish runs have the capacity to recover from even catastrophic conditions. For example, Mt St. Helens and the Toutle River. This run (and river) was destroyed completely by the eruption, but within two decades, what few strays that entered the river and reproduced when the river sufficiently recovered, were able to grow into populations that approach pre-eruption levels. Its only been in the past half decade or so, that WDFW has supplemented the Toutle River with hatchery fish and allowed a fishery. Prior to this, the strategy was hands off except to monitor.

From a management perspective, wide population fluctuations are difficult to handle. You say, leave them alone, and they'll recover. If there's nothing substantially wrong with the watershed, then you're probably correct. The complexity arises in the definition of whats a healthy population when it can fluctuate by an order of magnitude in any given year. If management agencies develop strategies that allow fisheries to occur only at the high ends of normal population densities, you can bet there's going to be substantial public pressure to allow more fishing opportunities. Set escapements too low for too many years in a row, you eat into the populations gene pool and its ability to rebound.

Topping things off, these management decisions are made with insufficient data due in fact that you really don't know what escapements you have until after it happens. All along letting people fish using historical numbers that fluctuate.

Fisheries can be managed much better,....if opportunities to fish are drastically reduced. And oh yeah....50 percent of the harvest is allocated to the tribes through Federal actions, which is largely beyond the control of the State.

Obsessed.......THAT was a great post! Very informative and straight forward and I do appreciate it.

thank you

_____________________________________
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it