I think everyone around here knows my feelings on this subject, but I'd like to respond to one thought brought up:

Bulldog, you state:

"Surely you do not have a problem with the occasional fisherman that gets out twice a year and is fortunate enough to catch one fish (wild or not)?"

Whom do you think is most often doing the fishing on a guided trip??

It's arguable whether or not guided boats kill more fish than private boats or the bank crowd, but regardless, the unguided crowd takes plenty of fish as well.

How many fish come off the plunking bars every year? How many local anglers do nopt abide by the 5 fish annual limit? I can think of a number of them w/o too much thought!

Bottom line is harvest ...

Smalma made good points. Most importantly, causes other than harvest mortality are responsible for depressed and un productive runs, and catch and release fishing is an allocation tool, not a conservation tool.

Total catch and release fisheries mandate you have hatchery programs to sustain consumption in most fisheries. These hatchery programs are suffering from declining productivity similar to wild fish. They therefore must be large to meet the multitude of harvest expectations. These large, dominating hatchery programs contribute to declining productivity of the entire system, including wild fish.

There are many areas where there is good habitat for anandromous fish, complete catch and release on wild fish, and wild fish populations that are extinct, or near extinct. In these situations, catch and release regulations fit in with hatchery programs that produce enough fish for harvest with complete release of wild fish. The wild fish release makes us feel good, even self righteous about our contribution to conservation, along with a sense of relief that we can maintain our fishery even if the wild ones go extinct.

We can promise to do our part to help the fish, we will release all the non clipped ones without hurting them to the extent feasible, but please don't get so extreme to make us not do our catch and release (so we can catch the hatchery fish), and absolutely, don't touch our mega hatchery, the great and essential conservation tool that allows us to release the wild fish.

Wild fish conservation will be stronger with direct harvest of wild fish. The biological information, when and if applied conservately, can identify where harvest is acceptable. This harvest will not impose a conservation risk, and will decrease future production only a very small amount if at all. Maintaining the value of harvest derived from wild fish makes perfect sense and is good for the future of wild fish.

"Total catch and release fisheries mandate you have hatchery programs to sustain consumption in most fisheries"

IMO, this exactly the kind of mentality that needs to change.....

Fair Hooker, you say that:
"There are many areas where there is good habitat for anandromous fish, complete catch and release on wild fish, and wild fish populations that are extinct, or near extinct."

Where are these rivers?

I am not a believer in any "silver bullet" solutions for bringing our wild steelhead populations back from the brink. Each river and probably each stock has its own suite of issues, many of which we haven't identified and/or don't understand. But the correlation between a bonked wild steelhead and a reduction in the spawning population is no mystery. And because most stocks are being negatively impacted by multiple factors, an appropriate respnse must try to remedy as many threats as possible. Direct harvest is one of those threats. And while some believe that "CnR" is not a conservation tool, it is clearly more conservative than allowing wild fish harvests. The state is faced with the conflicting goals of providing fishing opportunities AND protecting wild stocks, and to me CnR regs offer a much better tradeoff.

NM,
The Duckabush,Dosewallips,Hamma hamma,and the Skoke.Pristine watersheds all except the skoke.

ltlcleo - All of those watersheds have seemingly had a problem with seal predation at the mouths of the rivers. Am I wrong about that? If what I remember is true, then it is apparent that the problems wild steelhead face are numerous. Some we can do something about (Sportfishermen harvest) some we can do nothing about (tribal harvest). It seems to me we should concentrate on what we can do seeking to reduce the number of factors detrimental to the Wild Steelhead. That is why I support WSR.

thanks for the info lil cleo; if it is a seal predation problem in Hood Canal, maybe those transient Orcas will come back next winter and finish up the seal-cleanup they started last winter ...

It's crunch time only a few more days to get those proposals in! July 18th is the deadline! Be sure to request "Statewide release for all wild steelhead, year around, no exceptions" Instead of viewing it as an "allocation tool", think of it more as a "proactive tool" to preserve at least the "deemed healthy rivers" that still allow harvest.

Got mine in. - Thanks for the reminders Rich!

Sent in four proposals...
One concerning the Sauk River,
One concerning the Skagit River and
Two concerning statewide suggestions.

Each addresses conservation issues and I will be hoping for support from yourself and everyone else who values the future of wild steelhead when public comment becomes appropriate.

- Stewardship is realized beyond self-interest. -

The reason that the fish stocks in these rivers are so low is simply over harvest by the sportsmen in the past.

i'll quit applying the wood shampoo when all the nets are permanently out of the water ...

'Long as every one else is gettin' there's, you can bet I'm a gonna git mine!

Are you familiar with the expression: "Ya gotta start somewhere." ???

Salama

I just got back from Montana.. sorry about the delay in responding.

regarding hooking mortality being primarily a fly fisherman fishing on the swing nearly every fish i hook is hooked in the corner of the jaw, thoes that aren't are in the tip of the nose.
I think i have low mortality because mortality occurred in the BC studies when the fish was injured do to how it was hooked. Not from exhaustion or stress.

regarding smolts. the rivers i fish are primarily closed during smolt migration and i use methods to avoid them as best i can. Also we have so few wild fish that I haven't caught a wild juvenile in years.

Overharvest leads to what we have hear in south west. our best rivers get maybe 3-4 hundred fish a year in an extremely good year!!! For instance most years the washougal gets 200 or less wild summer runs. up until the 1960's it had 1500 every year and that number just from index pool counts, a more realistic number is 2,000-3,500.

The Kalama is the healthiest river down here getting returns around 400.

I fear the day when the Sol Duc returns 150 wild winter runs and if we keep harvesting them that IS exactly what WILL happen. That is exactly what happened here!

Rob -
Hope the Montana trip was productive - I find trout fishing a nice change from chasing anadromous fish.

a couple points -
This discussion started with a state wide proposal - in many areas wild juvenile steelhead are common (even in underescaped systems) thus they need to be considered. By the late summer/early fall these pre-smolts can be in the 5 to 7 inch range. I still maintain that hooking mortality on these fish needs to be considered. While my fly fishing skills are likely limited compared to yours my experience with flies while fishing for steelhead/sea-runs/Dollies is that 1-2% of the pre-smolts that I catch accidentally are dead when landed.
(bait caught much higher - in excess of 30%).

I have had the unpleasant experiecne of hooking adult steelhead in critcal areas with swung flies as well as skated and drag free dries. While those encounters are less frequent than most other methods I have used they were not much different that my critical encounters with drifted eggs on winter steelhead - perhaps 1 or 2 out 500.

Your comparison of the collapse SW steelhead with that potential on the coast is an apple and orange comparison. Steelhead management on the coast and on Puget Sound has been with minimum escapement goals - harvest is limited when escapements aren't likely to be met (we an argue about escapement levels later if you wish) while in SW at the time of the population's collapse escapement goals for those system had not been established or rigorously managed for- the populations didn't have protection of escapement goals.

If over-harvest was the sole or major cause of population one would expect that all or most of the populations would rebound when the harvest pressure was removed. In my little corner of the world a couple examples of this rebound has been with sea-run cutthroat and Dollies/bull trout which both have rebounded to levels not seen in decades in most North Puget Sound systems. The fact that many of our steelhead populations haven't rebounded with simiar or greater harvest restrictions indicates that other factors are limiting the populations.

Please take the above to mean that I don't feel harvest issues shouldn't be address; just that I don't expect much (any?) benefit unless freshwater and marine survival conditions improve. Our collective efforts need to diorected towards what I consider large issues and not diverted by these endless arguements over harvest on "healthy populations".

Tight lines
Smalma

Salama
I don't disagree with anything you have said, however. We have 0 ability to improve the ocean enviroment. There is 0 ability because of political concerns, for us to do much with tribal harvest, commercial harvest and in most cases freshwater habitat.
The only thing we can address in any meaningful way is sport harvest.

It is my firm belief that it will take a comprehensive approach to save our wild fish however i see absolutely no political will to do so in any government agency or any elected official.. I have 0 faith in any of the managment agencies. I do mean 0.
Salmon revovery is a complex problem with very simple answers. The problem is that no one is willing to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done.
The Bio's at NMFS came up with the 4 h's and they were absolutely dead on with that. However no one is following through on any of it.

Hydro.. BPA spends millions on various fish bypass systems only hoping that they will work. They don't care if they work at all they just have to spend X amount of dollars to say they tried. So basically hydro is not being addressed in a meaningful way.

Habitat.. some habitat is being restored but not enough to compensate for habitat that is still being developed and destroyed. and Most habitat projects have coincided with hatchery plants which totally negates any benefit of the habitat restoration to begin with. Most habitat restoration is done in the same manner as the hydro is addressed.. Make an areal look good and say we tried with very little actual benefit to wild fish.. So basically the habitat card is not being afddressed..

Harvest.. Columbia river tangle net fishery for spring chinook catches 20,000 wild winter steelhead.. enough said harvest is not being addressed in any meaningful way.

Hatcheries... nearly every steelhead river in the state is pumped full of hatchery fish. I have seen nothing to indicate any government agency is doing anything to address the impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish. If anything the agencies are trying to increase hatchery programs by passing them off to the tribes and letting them do what they want.. So no one is addressing hatchery issues..

All this leads me to believe that there is no will in any government agency to save these fish. As far as i am concerned they are and have been failing at their jobs for decades.
managers in WDFW need to be fired because they have failed so miserably . If this were the private sector these people doing extremely poor jobs would have been canned years ago.
I have no faith at all in anyone in managment positions in any of the govorning agencies. They do not have the best interests of the fish in mind. They are the enemy..
I cannot find words strong enough to convey how i feel about these people. some of them should be in jail for their gross mismanagment of our resources.

So when it comes to regs if i can get a few people to stop killing wild fish then by God thats the right thing to do..
anyone opposed to WSR year around without exception hates wild steelhead and wants them to go extinct. This issue is black and white..

Salama
Montana was great.. great things happen when you have catch and release going on over naturally reproducing stocks of wild fish. Even in completely dewatered, damed up streams with cattle running through them..
None of my anger is towards you at all just venting frustration. I agree with most everything you say just at this point WSR is better than nothing..

an interesting note about the Washougal...

the wild summer steelhead run collapsed at a time directly correlating to the opening of and the increased production at the Skamania hatchery. They planted fish, people came to catch them. People caught the wild ones and took them home and the hatchery fish spawning in the wild took care of the rest. Habitat has imporved since the 60's and wild steelhead release regs were adopted in 1985. The wild summer steelhead still have not recovered. The problem is not harvest, not hydro, not habitat.. whats left? THE HATCHERY!
That is the only thing preventing the recovery of wild summer steelhead in the Washougal.
in my stupid little opinion

Just a couple of thoughts about the politics of anadromous fish management in Washington State:

My next door neighbor is a prominent state senator whose kids I take fishing (along with Dad) with me - Especially when the pinks are in and hookups are more common.

He supports and practices WSR personally. When we talk of this, however, he's educated me as to the politics of anadromous fish management in this state. Politicians, including my neighbor, don't want to touch this issue with the proverbial 10' pole. That's why they've fobbed it off to the bureacrats.

According to my neighbor, the vast majority of voters in this state (1) Do not fish, (2) Don't read fishing magazine editorials (2) Don't access the internet to read the myriad fishing forums, and (3) Think that the difference between steelhead and, say, catfish lies in the gear one uses to catch 'em.

For a politician to take up this issue (mandatory WSR) would require a substantial and sustained lobbying effort. Logic and/or emotion will not prevail. Period. Numbers of voters are what rule the day in Olympia.

As for me personally, I am a strong proponent of mandatory WSR. However, I believe, and I think the science suppports the observation that the real culprit in the demise our once plentiful anadromous fish is watershed degradation.

WSR notwithstanding, with a pristine watershed I believe our fisheries could sustain a harvest (of hatchery fish) that would exceed our wildest expectations.

We need WSR, but most especially in the absence of aggressive habitat restoration.

Cheers,

Michael

Luv2Spey,

With all due respect to your neighbor, he is wrong about politicians being unwilling to tackle WSR. Those who oppose WSR have had no problem trying to force their agenda through the various House committees. For example look at the shot fired across the bow of the WDFW commission when they were considering wild steelhead release without exception. I will agree with you though that the greater public doesn't know or care about the subtlies of steelhead management.

I also agree that habitat is a major component but am confused at your comment "with a pristine watershed I believe our fisheries could sustain a harvest (of hatchery fish) that would exceed our wildest expectations". In my experience the watershed has about as much to do with the hatchery return as what type waders you wear. Hatchery return is a factor of # of smolts released, predation and everyone's favorite; ocean conditions.

Unless you are thinking that given pristine conditions hatchery fish would be able to spawn in greater numbers. I seem to remember that you feel this would be a good thing.

sinktip

>With all due respect to your neighbor, he is
>wrong about politicians being unwilling to
>tackle WSR.

Well, he speaks from explicit (and long term) experience and, as such, I am inclined to attach to it a greater weight.

As for my own observations, in general, the political will to take the tough stances required to effectively manage Wild Steelhead (and Salmon) does not exist - To any appreciable extent. If it did, you'd see a much more active role played by the various oversight committees and individual [elected] politicians.

>Those who oppose WSR
>have had no problem trying
>to force their agenda through
>the various House committees.

Precisely my point. No political courage/will is required to go with the crowd. It's really easy for a politician to accept the argument of the [uninformed] majority.

Political courage is standing up and advancing the cause of conservation in the face of the overwhelming majority of voters who associate conservation with denial and harvest with plenty.

My speculation about pristine watersheds leading to greater harvests of hatchery fish presupposes that some rivers might be safely designated as "wild" and would support only WSR year around - No hatchery fish whatsoever.

Others might support a mix of hatchery and wild, while still others might be only hatchery fish.

However, after thinking about your skepticism, I think you're correct and I don't think this would result in increased harvest of hatchery fish. I do believe it would take pressure of the wild fish in those waters known NOT to have hatchery fish and in which WSR was the law.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

It appears for the most part, we are arguing the same point. It is not that politicians are ambivalent to fish management issues, it is that the majority are old school wack em and stack em types. It only takes a few of them in key comittees and WSR becomes a pipe dream. Don't think that they are all uninformed though. There is a current ban on the banning of bait in this state simply because one of the bait companies greased the skids of the legislature some years back.

As for your ponderings about various types of rivers: hatchery only, mixed and wild only, I think you are dead on. I fear we are coming to that sooner than later. It might be the only thing we can do to save some wild stocks.

sinktip

Sinktip

You said that; "There is a current ban on the banning of bait in this state simply because one of the bait companies greased the skids of the legislature some years back."

Where did you here that? Are you referring to law, or are you just passing on something that you have heard?

I have never seen any law that relates to your statement, so I would like to find out where such a rule can be found. Since there appears to be several rivers and areas that already have bait bans at certain times and places, how does this proclaimed rule work?

Cowlitzfisherman