Is there not some mandate for periodic review at a fixed interval, with readustment of the escapement goal if the best science indicates that is appropriate?

This is a scary concept. As survival conditions get worse (ie ongoing habitat degradation brought on by "progress") the MSY escapement decreases. Sounds like a vicious circle to me... with this philosophy, over time, we just keep justifying greater harvests so we don't overescape the MSY capacity of the habitat.

Run-size projections are just that... projections, with plenty of room for imprecision. If in fact they are shooting for a mid-point escapement ( as in your Skykomish chinook example), that at least helps to compensate for some of that imprecision. But how universal is it that the runs are managed for the "average" MSY escapement from one system to the next?


This works in theory if angling effort is a fixed constant. In practice, however, when the run sucks, people hear about it and angling effort diminishes.... a lot of folks just won't bother with fishing if they think there is a low likelihood of success. Exploitation rates plummet. On the flip side, if the run is exceptionally strong, everyone hears about it, angling effort skyrockets, and exploitation is much higher than anticipated.

So where am I going with all this? Not really sure. I guess my biggest concern is that there's such an emphasis on making sure we harvest every last "surplus" fish so as not to "overescape" the river, when in fact that overescapement concern is just artificially created by fish mangers keeping escapement goals at ridiculously low levels. All the forces at work here, both political and biological, seem to conspire to make sure those escapement goals stay that way!

I was once told that the entire Quillayute system is managed for an annual steelhead escapement of only 5500 fish (someone please step in to correct me if this is a gross misrepresentation). There are much smaller river systems in Alaska that get more than 5500 fish in one tide! Can there be that much difference in what constitutes a healthy escapement in one system and not the other?

OOPS! That last long-winded reply was meant for another thread.... escapement goals and WSR. I'll see if TRBO can fix it for me.

posted a response on the other thread

Tight lines
Smalma

I share Jacob's pessimism but Hey I'm a pessimistic sort from the get go. Every stake holder has sacrificed more and more each year and I think the WDFW plays a juggling act trying to keep all of them happy . Not an easy task.

I'm sure a catch and kill season has some impact, not enough to really have an effect though. Look at the Skykomish and the Snoqualmie. They went to C&R years ago and the runs still and are still declining. That's why they had to shorten our C&R season to the end of February. I ask again, what's the next thing that can be done to improve the wild runs? The state won't do anything that impeeds commerical or tribal fishing so the only thing left would be to limit sportsmen even more. Once the sportsmen can't fish at all and the runs continue to dwindle to non-existance, then what?

I would advocate a C&R fishery on the wild fish because the impact would be minimal to none. Let's face it, even if a river only had 50 returning wild steelhead, the odds of actually hooking one would go way down. The river would get very little fishing presure. If a person was able to land a fish, the odds of it being killed during the realising process is almost non existant.

Now, before someone makes the claim about people who drag fish on rocks and kick them back into the water, I don't buy it. In a situation like the one I am describing, only a hardcore angler who actually cares about wild fish would even bother fishing. The people who do not care about fish only go to places where they can expect to catch lots of fish.

Jacob, I must disagree. Here are the facts (as reported by WDFW in punchcard counts) for the Nisqually.

1980 1414 killed
1981 1349
1982 1374
1983 1263
1984 1916
1985 1960
1986 I don't have the data
1987 2346
1988 1273

These are not insignificant numbers. Keep in mind these were all wild steelhead. I can't remember when the Nisko was closed, and I don't have easily accessed data for other years, but I think you get the idea.

But how many wild fish were killed in nets? Now, I could be wrong here, I don't have the data handy, but, for example, let's say that during those years you mentioned, would the run size have still declined albeit at a slower pace had there been full C&R? That's what it boils down to. What's the point of going full C&R, limiting sportsmen even more, if the run size is still going to decline? Going full C&R for wild steelhead obviously didn't help on the Snohomish system, which is why we are now reduced to a fishery that ends the end of February. I just don't want to lose opportunity when the end result is going to be almost nil. The bottom line is that you can close down every river in this state to sport fishing year round and the runs will still decline because the state and feds refuse to recognize the cause of the problem.

Jacob ... Your observations bring us to the point that many of us have been trying to make all along!

What is "healthy"??

Is it possible that steelhead stocks reach a point where they're just not going to rebound overnight?

Perhaps our data there was skewed and we fished these runs down to a point of essentially no return?

Obviously there's lots of questions and not many clear-cut answers. Frnakly, I don't buy into the oceanic conditions thing that state managers often bring up due the fact that some runs are hangin' in there ... they all go to the same ocean don't they??

The whole point is, there is no clear-cut answer and why not err on the safe side and take precautonary steps to keep those rivers that still have some fish in them that way?

Each year, more and more streams with sustainable runs of fish (I'm avoid to avoid the "H" word) go bye-bye. It's time for the sporties to at least take a step in the right direction before we get to a point where the run is either totally gone or in such sad shape that no one has any business fishing for them!

That is the almost the cold truth. I'm pretty positive the cause of the problems have been recognized, just not acted on.

Unfortunately, I think it will be a cold day in hell when we see the end of tribal netting, commercial fishing, and the end of hatchery raised fish. Not to mention a *real* effort to restore our rivers, waterways and estuaries.

Oh sure, I'll happily "take that step in the right direction" and support a state-wide C&R, but I'm afraid that if we take any more steps forward, we're all gonna fall off of Vedder's Cliff while the "other half" laugh all the way to the bank.

Jacob, I don't disagree with your conclusion, I disagree that sports fishers are not contributing to the problem. The 4 H's really sum it up for me and I will try to order them in the priority that I feel is correct (although really they are equally important).

Habitat - It's pretty easy to see the challenges here, one only needs to look at the population increases to see this one.

Harvest - Here is where we as Sports Fishers contribute to the problem. For the year spanning 5/1/1999 - 4/30/2000 (the last year I can find data) here is the breakdown:

Tribal catch: 43025
Sport catch: 77986

The sport catch total included 6,802 wild (unmarked) fish. We do not know how many wild fish were caught and released to even make an approximation of mortality. Now there is a legitimate arguement to be made on the accuracy of these figures and clearly the tribal catch is not broken down by wild & hatchery but to say that we are not part of the problem makes us, as a community, look silly. We must own up to our part of the problem before we can credibly ask anyone else to do anything.

Hydro - Clearly a huge factor on the Columbia/Snake system.

Hatcheries - We need to get a handle on this part of the equation as well. I believe that well run hatchery programs can contribute to succesful recovery of our fish, however, there are not enough well run hatchery programs to point to. I would recommend that you look at Long Live the Kings as a possible blueprint for success.

So, that is my position. If we point to one part of the Harvest situation as being a "magic bullet", I believe we are kidding ourselves. And I would say that CnR falls into this category of not being a magic bullet equally with Tribal Harvest restrictions. All 4 H's have significant challenges associated with them. Do we as a citizenry have the will to tackle all of them? Some days I doubt it, other days make me feel confident. Time will tell....

Does any one have an idea of how many wild fish make up the 43,025?

Please tell me that information is recorded down by an impartial observer.

I'd really like to see some compiled data of yearly harvested wild fish totals by river.

Of the X-percent being wild fish, what rivers are they coming off of? Who's getting hit the hardest and why?

If that information is *not* available, why?

How do we even begin to manage a fishery where we can't even get basic information from all the participants?

I have to punch my fish and record down if it's marked or not. Do the tribes have to do such a thing for every one of their fish? If not, they should be.

Smalma,
one way to deal with "imperfect" pre-season forecasts is to simply set our sights lower than an MSH harvest plan. For an "ideal" case (average productivity) the target MSH harvest rate is ~40% of the total run size. If the target harvest impact was lowered to something like 10%, it would incorporate a lot more wiggle room than currently exists. Such an approach would have avoided the overfishing that occured on the Hoh last winter/spring.

With regard to "overescapement", it apparently did no harm to salmonids for something like 2-3 million years. The overescapement concept is only valid in the MSH worldview -- it's only a "problem" if you equate optimal management success with the maximum number of fish harvested. For wild steelhead that perspective simply doesn't hold up in any economic or scientific assessment I've seen, and I doubt it would hold up to a popular vote of steelhead anglers or the general public.

Lots of spawners is probably a good thing for many reasons. One of the key components of a healthy wild fish population is its diversity, where there are lots of fish using lots of different habitat. As others have noted on this board, diverse habitats force a diversity in the behaviors of salmonids through natural selection. The MSH approach is all about numbers, giving zero regard for how natural variability (in climate, stream and ocean habitat) influences the evolution of diversity in wild animal populations. MSH would be a great idea if it worked, but it simply doesn't account for the complexity of the real world.

It seems to me that if we don't take significant steps in a more positive direction soon the cliff is going to crumble beneath our feet. There is some good news around the region about real habitat restoration and at least some very promising talk about significant hatchery reforms. I know that a lot of the folks that read and write on these pages are already on board and are helping it happen, but there is plenty more room for people to get involved ...there are already mountains of papers written about the causes for the declines. The real mystery in all this has to do with why fish-advocates (sports, tribal and commercial) fail to speak with a single loud voice to get our local, state, and federal governments (they represent "we the people", right?) to do the right thing.

Parker, here is the link to the report that I cited: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/harvest/99-00/harvest99-00.pdf

Tribal harvest is broken out on pages 36-38. It is an interesting read. Biggest single month of harvest is September and mainly comes out of the Columbia - not surprising this is probably bycatch from salmon fishing. If we look at WR only what we see is this:

November total catch 1452
Westside 1000
Columbia 452

December total catch 9123
Westside 8903
Columbia 220

January total catch 6629 (no Columbia R. fish in this total)

February total catch 2325 (again no Columbia fish)

March total catch 2682 (once again no Columbia fish)

April total catch 770
Westside 367
Columbia 403

So, as you have correctly pointed out, no reporting of wild vs. hatchery, but we can probably make some assumptions (here is where I probably get myself in a lot of trouble )

If I look at the total tribal catch of WR SH by the tribes as 22981, I will assume that 10% of the November, December, & January fish are wild, the balance hatchery. February 50/50, March and April 90% Wild, 10% hatchery. Here is how the numbers break out.

Total WR catch 22981
Hatchery 16,990 0r 74%
Wild 5,991 Or 26%

Contrast this with the Sports catch from the same report.

Total WR catch 33,304
Hatchery 27857 Or 84%
Wild 5447 Or 16%

Now, my assumptions may be very faulty, if so, go ahead and get the flamethrowers warmed up. However, using my assumptions it looks like to me that we as sports fishers have close to the same impact on the wild SH as do the tribes. It is even closer when we factor in the mortality on released wild fish.

Once again, I do not disagree with all the valid points that you make Parker. I also know that you spend a fair amount of time fishing with members of the Quinault tribe so I'm fairly certain you do not have a knee jerk reaction to this issue. I'm saying that it is always hardest to look in the mirror and admit that I'm part of the problem rather than point the finger of blame at someone else. And I don't believe that I carry any credibility if I only point that finger of blame.

I wish that we could have more confidence in the raw data, but once again, I think that is a double edge sword. There are plenty of folks that I know that will not report their sport catch. Don't ask me why, never could understand it, but there you have it.

Peace.

Bob -
Have to agree that blaming the recent poor steelhead returns in much of Puget Sound and lower BC appears to be a cope out. However if not poor marine conditions then what is the root casue.

Consider the following information from the Snohomish system. In the later half of the 1990s the return of wild steelhead to the system has been only a third of what it was in the 1980s. This is in spite of escapements that had been more or less constant at about the escapement goal of 6,500. Recent returns from those escapements has been less than 3,000 fish.

At the same time the return of the hatchery winter steelhead from the Snohomish has fallen about the same. The smolt plants have remained relatively constant. During the 1980s the average catch (sport + tribal) of hatchery fish in the system was about 12,500 fish a year. In the late 1990s the catch fell to only 4,300 fish a year.

Whatever has happened to the Snohomish winter steelhead seems to be affect both the hatchery and wild fish. It must be occurring at or after the smolt stage.

Also consider the situation with summer steelhead in the same basin (Snohomish). Again the hatchery program has been relatively constant. The average annual catch of summer fish in the 1980s was 3,900 fish. In the late 1990s it was 3,800. In addition the wild summer population has appeared to have remained constant or increased during the 1990s (based on Sunset Falls counts and spawning surveys on the South Fork Tolt).

Since the summer and winter smolt migrate from the system at the same time it is hard to image something (a predator) that would be impacting winter smolts and not the summer fish. Therefore it seems likely that whatever is hammering the winter fish is outside of the river and its estuary. We do know that the summer and winter steelhead migrate through the ocean at different times and places.

While my knoweldge is limited after considerable thought I have been forced to conclude that the ocean is less than a constant environment and the summer fish going to areas with better survival conditions than the winter fish. Since the Washington coast fish and the West side of Vancouver Island steelhead have continued to survival at high levels while the Puget Sound fish and those on the East side of Vancouver are doing very poorly it would also appear that nor only where the fish are going to feed but the timing of when they go are very important.

Am I missing something?

Tight lines
Smalma

AMEN BROTHER AMEN!

NM --
regarding "over-escapement" being a problem. What I said in the other discussion was
"5) Regarding over-escapements - In the past it was common to consider that managment of a run that had escapements larger than its goal to be considered to be a management failure. Genreally today that is not the case. Most would consider goals to targets to match of exceed."
I for one don't view any "over-escapement" as a problem.

I would certainly concur with your statements regarding the need for protecting diversity of the populations. However you did mention that current management does not account for the complexity of the real world. In reality fising is one a small part of the assault on our steelhead's productivity and diversity. Water withdrawls, power generation, forestry, agriculture, and fishing all are taking a piece of the resource.

To totally reduce any impacts on the diversity or productivity of the steelhead populations from fishing really means no fishing! Even a CnR fishery has some impact on the resource so that ultimately management is a question of risk assessment. Are the risks from fishing worth the potential benefits - man days of fishing/ #s of flesh etc. Those of issues for each of us to wrestle with and decide for ourselves.

My purpose in starting this thread was not to adovcate a position but rather raise some of the complexities of these issues for our collective thought and discussion.

Tight lines
Smalma

Thanks for jumpstarting this discussion. We are all learning a lot from these posts as well as the ones in the parallel thread. Great input one and all!

Was my analysis so incredibly convincing that no one can offer a comment? Hey, I put a lot of work into that - someone tell me I'm nuts or something.

It's possible to be nuts and still be right Eddie.