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????