Okay more on all of this

The majority of the returnees do come back early which is the goal of the project ...

Smalma, at 5 days a week, we're pretty sure the Quillayutes taking more than 55-60% of the run ... lots of fish go bye-bye w/o fish tickets so we'll never know those numbers for sure nor will we know the exact return we get off Snider since that timeframe is netted so heavily.

One only needs to listen to some of old timers and even some of the younger community members to see how things have changed. I'm not talking tall "fish stories", but more down to earth visualzations of what was present many decades ago (before many fisheries actual suffered some lower returns in the 60's on the heels of terrible logging practices). We're talking of how local residents would simply go down to pretty much any hole on any of the rivers in the days before Christmas to obtain a couple of steelhead for dinner ... and not our typical Chambers fish ... many many recount tales of mid 20's fish on the table for Christmas. There are few of these around anymore.

Until we see some reduction in harvest pressure on our early fish NM, I don't think we'll see the desire on this end to end the program. We have however, "voluntarily" (with some state prodding) cut the plants back to 50,00 the past few years.

Given we generally use less than 50 fish nowadays, we're certainly seeing more back than we're taking. There is no objective for fish of a ceratin size like a tribal program down the coast ... we're simply looking to maintain a certain timing of the run that is under tremendous pressure (partially because of the Chambers fish). Some Snider fish are big, some small, some inbetween, different life cycles are being observed, some repeats ... that's what we're trying to do ... keep things as close to what Ma Nature intended as possible. If there comes a day we have no kill for sporties and we can get the tribe to back off the 5 day a week schedule ... perhaps there will no longer be a pressing need to help this portion of the run as much.

B Gray ... I forgot to mention that the Calawah portion would be an entirely separate program. There is no intention of planting 'Duc fish elsewhere.

Smalma ... As I mentioned, Snider is above the fishing deadline on the 'Duc so there is no hatchery meat hole ... although more than a few anglers have been caught poaching there. Lots of folks watch it closely and many know the warden personally (as in home & cell number) and he's been known to make runs up there on any report of illegal activity

Bob -
Sorry - missed the fact that Snider creek is in a non-fishing area - my limited knowledge once again exposed!

I seem to recall that during the 1990s the total Quillayute Chambers hatchery smolt plant was in the 150,000 range. If that is correct then the Sol Duc brood program should be producing 25 to 40% of the total hatchery escapement from the net fishery (assuming that the non-reporting problem is the same for either group).

Having that many hatchery produced fish spawning with the wild population causes me some concern. Especially with a depressed portion of the wild population. Sounds as if the majority of the early spawners would of hatchery origin and likely have hatchery induced behaviors that would affect the survival of the offspring of hatchery-hatchery and hatchery-wild crosses. If the two groups of about equal size only a 1/4 of the spawning population of the early fish would be wild-wild crosses. Not sure that is the best way to protect those fish of concern.

Tight lines
Smalma

Ceratinly a concern Smalma ... but not really the case I don't think. As you pounted out earlier this year, the harvest rates of all caught fish in the early portion of the run are very high. Most anglers consider these hatchery fish and do keep them (we treat them as wild fish) ... so I don't think we're seeing a massive influx of these fish spawning on their own, but I'm happy to see some of them that do due to the harvest placed on the runs in that timeframe.

It's funny that we often see so much concern over the brood programs from the state. Frankly, the way I look at it, if the state & tribe moved away from such a harvest-oriented fishery (especially in that timeframe), there'd likely be no need.

Beacsue of the offical state policy of counting all redds prior to March 15 as hatchery fish, it's tough to provide hard data for our early stocks, but I think regardless of the future of total C&R on these rivers, there should be little argument that it should at least be in place through February to help the early portion of the run.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this idea Smalma, especially in respect to one of your local streams ... the Pilchuck that has seen "decent" escapement numbers at season's end but few early returners according to a number of knowledgable anglers I know in that area.

Thanks Smalma, can't argue with any of your thoughts on a broodstock program on the Sky system. I do think it has its place on some systems however.

Smalma, I really appreciate your participation on this BB. I don't think anybody has a better perspective on the complex problem of allocating fish here in WA. Besides your biology/fisheries knowledge, you know the dilema inside-out from the Olympia/politics/budget angle, the unfortunate Boldt case implications, and the intense passion that we sporties have for the fish. And how long have you been at in WA.....28 years?

Bob, you might as well be fishing for Yellowfin Tuna in the Pilchuck in December, the early component is long, long gone. The state began trapping the Pilchuck in the early 1920's for these magnificent native December fish. Even though it is my favorite river and I live only minutes away, I don't even wet a line until the beginning of Feb.

I think you could say the same thing about the whole Snohomish system. Until 2003 you could kill any native on the Pilchuck and most Snohomish system rivers through December. Even in the no kill years the ban did not take effect until Jan. 3rd at the earliest. December is also the month the tribes have historically harvested almost all their fish since the Boldt decision.

Catching a native fish in December on Snohomish system rivers has become impossible.

Can you say extinct?

Ike

Bob -
Are you suggesting that substantial numbers of wild fish in the Quillayute spawn prior to March 15th? If so how many? Does that mean that the escapement of wild Quillayute steelhead is actually large than what the State has reported (Have they erred on the side of the wild fish?)?

The Snohomish system is my home turf and I know a little more about it than the Quillayute. It is there that I learned to fish for these additive steelhead. Like you have talked with the old-timers about what their fishing was like. The old gentlemen that taught me to fish in the early 1960s developed their skills prior to World War II. During the Great Depression they would pool their nickels to buy gas so they could make a run to the river. They literally were fishing to feed their families. I had a number of conversation with them and they consistently reported they didn't bother with steelhead fishing until after the first of the year - there was not enough fish in the river to risk their $$ on not getting fish.

What is the difference between the experience of those on the coast on those on the Snohomish. I believe it is related to the hydrographs of the systems. The Quillayute is a rain dominated system with fall flows occurring starting in March. While the North Puget Sound river's hydragraphs are drive by spring run-offs fed by snow melt. Typically they have their highest daily flows in the late May, June and July - the coast streams highest flows are in the late fall/early winter. This influence the timing of the wild spawning. The timing of the spawn is such that the fry emerge from the gravels during periods of favorable survival flows.

On the coast the fry find good conditions in June while in the North Sound the fry don't find similar conditions until late July or early August. As a result the Quillayute fish begin spawning in early February and continue through May. The Puget Sound fish beginning spawning in early to mid-March and continue thorugh June. I have observed that wild fish tend to arrive near their spawning areas typically 6 weeks or so prior to spawning. The would mean the onset of the significan wild runs would be in mid-December on the coastal (a few fish would be even earlier). While in the Puget Sound region the onset in late Janaury/early February.

A common wild fish myth was the Thanksgiving run of wild fish in the Puget Sound region. Until the mid-1980s these early wild fish were common. I remember those fish well. They were in fishable numbers around Thanksgiving, were larger than the hatchery brats (typcially 10 to 14# - some larger) and were fairly mature fish -spwaning in late December/early January. Following "Bolt" scale sample revealed that they were hatchery fish and with the onset of mass marking of the all hatchery plants these early wild fish disappeared. They were of course the 3 salt hatchery fish that tend to return earlier than the 2-salts.

To the Pilchuck -
Much of the above applies to the "Chuck". In the mid-1980s escapement had fallen to just a few hundred fish with the wild catch being mostly in the month of March. With March closures and wild steelhead release required when runs were below escapement goals the numbers of fish rebounded until the escapement was well over a 1,000 fish. When harvest was again allowed (harvest rates in the 10 to 20% range) the wild catches in Janaury and Febraury were larger than the old catches in March. Of course that is due in large part to larger run sizes. The point is with March closures the run size increased and we saw more early fish. If the wild population would there have been more early fish - I think so. For decades the steelhead seasons on most Puget Sound rivers closed the end of February - however beginning in the 1960s and 1970s there were more liberal season resulting in over fishing of the wild populations (note that occurred prior to the tribal fishing).

It is interesting to note on those river system that have been either closed or managed under Wild Steelhead Release all season (Nooksack) have not seen large increases of early fish.

Tight lines
Smalma

Ike -
Thanks for the kind words.

See my comments to Bob about early wild fish.

I have fished the state waters for more than 50 years have been in the "business" for more than 3 decades.

Tight lines
Smalma

A good question Smalma, plus more ...

Why are even counting redds before March 15 on these streams if they're only hatchery fish?

Why are we marking every single scrape on the bottom of the river as a redd? Obviously, many are test reds, yet they're being marked with ribbons?

It probably cancels one another out ...

What I'm trying to get at is that you CANNOT judge the health of any run by the final number you get at the end of the season (thus my mention of the Pilchuck) if you've simply wiped out the early portion and boosted the latter portion.

That's not good for the fish or the fisherman ... both an important part of the management circle!

Bob -
Two of the points that you have made in this discussion are;
1) The catches are being under reported &
2) Escapements are being over counted.

Further you seem to feel that those errors are substantial. Just for discussion sake let's assume that both are off by 20%. In addition let's see what that means on a hypothical river whose MSY levels were determined form river specific data that yielded an escapement goal of 10,000 and potential fishing impacts (nets. bonking, and hooking mortality) of 6,000. The impacts would be 6,000/16,000 or 37.5% of the run. (For this discussion I'm assuming that the state hired a couple of the steelhead experts on this site as management biologists so each year the escapement and impact goals are precisely achieved).

If we correct for the estimate errors the actual catch would be 20% higher - that is 7,200. The actual escapement would be 20% lower or 8,000. The fishing impacts would be 7,200/15,200 or 47.4%. While it looks like over fishing has occurred what it really means is that the MSY escapement goal was over estimated and the allowable impacts at MSY were underestimated.

Since the information from the Quillayute was a major component in the determination of escapement goals in most Western Washington rivers if your allegations are correct then maybe the State should consider adjusting what the MSY levels would be for those rivers -that is lowering them.

Bob - the roar you are hearing is the "bonkers of the world" applauding you for pointing out the errors of the State's approach. LOL!

Tight lines
Smalma

And the silence now is the closure / collapse of another one of Washngton's steelhead streams ... no clinking of oarlocks, or singing reels, nor even the splash of a fish's tail soaking the angler as he sends his quarry back into the river.

But you're right Smalma, we give. The WDFW knows all and has done a perfect job with the fisheries in this state.

I'm only thankful that we have have the ultimate harvest-based fisheries manager here on the coast ... it's the very reason I'm back home right now ... it's called incessant rain!