...Bob Gibbons to speak at the Wild Steelhead Coalition meeting tonight, Wed. March 5.

I know that this is a repeat of DoubleHaul's thread...but it's important enough to repeat.

Bob is the WDFW's Anadromous Fish Manager, and the ranking policymaker for steelhead management.

He has graciously agreed to come and share the goals and processes of the steelhead program here in Washington State.

While some of us may or may not have concerns about some of the policies that WDFW currently adheres to, we can all agree that it's a tough job, and probably one that we all know very little about. Here's our chance to hear straight from WDFW how it works.

This speaker and his topic seem especially timely in regards to the recent threads about the Chehalis fishery issues, and the Sauk/Skagit issues, not to mention the always current Peninsula issues.

Please see DoubleHaul's thread re: March 5th WSC meeting for the details.

Sorry, again, for the repeat post...but I sure hope some of you with comments, concerns, and questions about steelhead management will show up and hopefully we can all learn a few things!

Fish on...

Todd.

Bump!

Here's the summary of Bob's talk at the Wild Steelhead Coalition meeting last night:

Bob Gibbons\' Presentation Summary

Fish on...

Todd Ripley
VP Political Affairs
Wild Steelhead Coalition
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

Todd,

Well done. Thanks for the update. Very interesting. It sounds like good information was shared.

Darin, as close as the meeting was you should have been there. I was looking forward to meeting you.

Skydriftin,

Yea, I would have but I'm staying in Issaquah and care taking a house for a bit. Plus I had planned on attending a Seattle Mountain Rescue training session here in Issaquah. I did read Todd's link and the WSC report/summary on the meeting and learned a great deal.
Oh, also My guns were not operational! -kidding!!!

This is the argument I find most intriquing with regards to the meeting notes:
(As Bob Gibbons put it -I quote)
"WDFW has attempted to address several questions about existing escapement goals, including: 1) do they provide adequate protection? 2) do they allow for the desired level of genetic diversity? and 3) does the spawner abundance serve as a safety net in the face of unexpected run-size declines?"

Run-size declines is most interesting here. Think of it like food supplies or your savings account.... Got an idea now?! Nature AND man can unexpectedly effect future run sizes in the here and now -besides what will happen tomorrow as result of our savings or lack of it today. Need an analogy? Can't we put a little more into that "low-risk" IRA today for savings for tomorrow so we ALL can reap the benefits as it grows and matures?(sorry, I was a business major..) --And furthermore, can't we now ration our "food" more appropriately keeping our sheleves full and stocked but yet still having good quality meals at the same time?
-Ideas anyone.... does that sound o.k. or make sense?

thanks for link, Todd. I found it informative, if not exciting. Somehow policys seem to lack passion, know what I mean?

Thanks for the info Todd.

A thought / question for you and others. As much as many of us would like to see the Boldt Decision pushed aside, that's unrealistic at the moment given the PC attitude of today's society.

That being said, given the fact that 90% (a newly famous Gibbons number) of the streams managed under this decision now don't / barely meet escapement ... is there any chance of having the mandated model set aside?

Reagrdless of what Gibbons has to say or anyone else ... they're not working!

Bob,

I must ask a dumb question, -PC attitude? I be uneducateded. Why doesn't he look at it more realistically at say 82% favor?

Politically Correct - don't dare "take anything away" or challenge tribal fishing rights because they were oppressed 200 years ago , regardless of failing fisheries.

Bob,
Ah ha! Got it! It might have taken me 200 years to figure that one out without your assistance..... Maybe the tribes, feds, along with the states game agencies and policy makers(Wa in particular), privately funded researchers and scientists, volunteer groups along with the local and national organizations supporting or assisting fisheries related issues need at some point(like how about now)to come together in some fashion "have a chit- chat" and "revaluate" resource management issues. It seems to me that it is illogical to "assume" natural resources particularly in the case of fish (which move over wide areas vs trees and shrubs) need to be readdressed continually or periodically as time marches forward. It is foolish to "assume" fish and their habitats remain in a constant state of flux & static motion. The dumbies that wrote and supported such decisions as the Bolt were greatly misguided and uninformed as to evolving conditions.

Hey Bob,

We Irish were oppressed when we came over a couple hundred years ago..What do you think we can get from the deal????

Bob -
Gibbons pointed out that the mandated MSY management can and has been modified with co-manager agreement. When that has occurred those wild populations have not faired much better than those managed "incorrectly".

While it is fashionable to blame mis-management by the State for the current sad state of affairs of some of our steelhead populations that arguement doesn't really pass the red-face test.

How do you explain the crash of all the East side of Vancouver Island winter populations? They have been managed "correctly" for nearly 2 decades with wild steelhead release requirements yet wild escapements have crashed as drastically as those in Puget Sound.

Why haven't populations on the Nisqually and Cedar rebounded even slightly in the last decade? They have been managed even more conservatively with closed fishing and have no hatchery fish planted. The status of those populations remain in even worse shape than those other populations managed under MSY.

Why has escapements in the late 1990s on the North Fork Stillaguamish and Snohomish basins that were above MSY levels (125% in the case of the Stilli and 110% for the Snohomish) produced runs of half or less of the parent escapements?

Why has the return rates on hatchery winter steelhead and wild winter steelhead in the Puget Sound area both dropped of the face of the earth with return rates just a fraction of those a 10 and 20 years ago?

Why is wild salmon management under MSY OK and not for steelhead?

If your beef is that you prefer a different fishery than that produced under MSY management then lobby for those opportunities; at least with the non-treaty share. That is a fair position. In fact that is exactly what has happen on the Quilleyute - recent escapements in spite of all the teeth gnashing about wild kill have been 150% of the agreed to escapement goal.

It would be fair to blame current management for not being as responsive as many would like to changing conditions. Managers are typically a year late in adjusting to poorer or increased survival conditions. It would also be a fair criticism to say that management imprecision often results in escapements other than those targeted. However I see little validity in the arguement that MSY management is the major cause of the recent lost in the productive of various stocks.

Tight lines
Smalma

Gosh - I sure wish I was a biologist or at least had access to the bulk of the data on spawning escapements, out migrations of smolts and the consequent returning adult numbers.

From what little data I have gathered it seems that adult return numbers are not well correlated with parental spawning escapements. Should that be true then the surplus determined by the MSY system of has a poor probability of actually being correct.

That said, I must say that I get tired of hearing some people put down MSY year after year without offering an alternative. I would ask those who condemn MSY as a management tool to suggest a better method.

I'd agree with you there Plunker.

It has been demonstrated that a random numbers table when used to develop a stock recruitement relationship will produce a MSY harvest rate of 69 % almost the same as that projected as appropriate wild steelhead harvest by WDFW.

The answer to the question presented by Smalma on why all the runs are not recovering with C & R fisheries is a depression of productivity due to an overload of hatchery fish.

Fair Hooker -
You are correct in that there is a growing body of information indicating that hatchery fish (regardless of brood source) spawning with wild fish results in lost of productive. However don't think that is the answer to the questions that I posed.

1) The Keogh River on the NE end of Vancouver Island is a site on long term studies. The fishery is CNR, no hatchery fish (just recently started a wild brood program). Escapements of wild steelhead fell from more than 1,000 in the mid 1980s to less than 100 in the mid to late 1990s (before brood program).

2) Both the Cedar and Nisqaully have not been planted with hatchery fish (Cedar a limited number of wild brood stock) in a decadde or more.

3) North Fork Stillaguamish and Snohomish case - In the 1980s the hatchery fish spawned well into March (possibly into early April). It has been estimated that the over lap between hatchery and wild spawning steelhead at that time was 10 to 15% (10 to 15% of the wild fish were spawning at the same time and place as the hatchery fish) yet a spawning escapement of say 6,000 to 7,000 fish would produce runs of 8,000 or more fish. By the late 1990s the hatchery spawning had been altered so that virtually no fish spawn in March. The over lap in hatchery and wild steelhead spawning has been reduced to less than 1% yet recent escapements of 6,000 to 7,000 have produced runs of only 3,000.

Regarding you randomly generated S/R curve - not sure that 69% harvest rate is the same as 40%.

Tight lines
Smalma

Do you think the numbers of sealions and seals could have anything to do with these returns?

herm

Short list of steelhead problems:

1. Decadal Oscillation (i.e., marine conditions)
2. River habitat (water quality, shade, woody debris, dams, other passage issues, plus 100 other)
3. tribal harvest
4. recreational harvest
5. hatchery fish/hatcheries
6. upland habitat
7. shifts in predator/prey relationships

That's a very short list...and blaming it on one or a few things, when the blame lies with 100 things, is a bit shortshighted. That being said, it's no excuse to not fix the ones that we can.

As fishermen, only a few of the issues are within our control, and we should make an effort to make them better. Not only will it make a real world difference for the fish, it will also give us the political clout to point fingers.

It would be a much better world if we all gave back to the system at least as much as we get out of it. We all enjoy steelhead fishing...a lot. How much do each of us individually, and collectively as a group, do for the resource?

Fish on...

Todd

Liked the way ya laid things out in yer list, Todd.

We (some more than others...) all to often, get hung-up on one aspect of the problem.

Did you leave out Dams or do they fall under #6?

OOPS! Re-read yer post and caught the "short list" part. Even if it is a short-list I believe that you managed to list most, if not all of the major factors.

Couldn't agree w/ya more

Thanx

Sincerely,
Roger