There is only one way to troubleshoot a problem....you determine all of the *possible* causes of a problem, and eliminate those causes one at a time, with a stabilization period between changes to measure the effect.

The sporties, the commercials, the natives, the loggers, and the developers have ALL been pointing fingers at each other for years. At the very least this is an opportunity for sporties to say, in a few years, "this was NOT our fault, and here's your proof" if this doesn't improve returns.

Everyone agrees that Tribal harvest is a big problem. Some of us disagree that CnR will have a positive impact on the runs as long as the tribes continue to net.

Lets forget about the tribal net factor, now It is safe to say almost all of us agree that CnR for wild steelhead has bennefits.

I think it is also safe to say that a large portion of the group that is against it under the circumstances we have now would support if tribal netting was stopped.

So why go after your fellow sport anglers who have the same goal of more fish. I dont think there are any steelhead anglers out there who wish we had less wild steelhead. Why not focus your attention on the sale of comercail caught steelhead or another factor that has lead us to this point instead of groups that want to improve wild steelhead angling and overall numbers of fish.

I gues if all you want to do is kill and eat some wild steelhead then you cant be reasoned with so just be mad at whoever you want.

I think the statements I made are pretty much true. So my question is this. CnR of wild steelhead is a reality now atleast for the next 2 years, people that did not support it have the right to be upset or oppose it.

I dont understand why people that opposed it are bashing groupls like washington trout and the WSC. The public purposed rule change for wild steelhead release, the commission decided the issue was important even though the WDFW did not feel it needed to be one of the issues that needed change. As has already been said the commission has the right to make amendments.

All the WSC and WT did is make purposals and give testimony on this issue nothing more. The commission made a decision based on the process.

I dont understand why people are mad at each other, this is the american way at work.

I took our fish about 10 years to come back after mandatory Catch and release really started to show its' benefit. It's a great step.

As for Plunker not buying another liscense in Washington. good for him. It's his choice. We had a lot of guys with that mind set many years ago. Don't worry boys, I'll buy a liscense in Washingotn to offset the loss.

Salmo, aren't most of the rivers in this state already managed under a C&R regulation?

Can someone please help me find WSC's postion on steelhead hatcheries. I can't find that info on their site or maybe Todd can post their position regarding hatcheries. Also, I would like to know what Washington Trout's position on hatcheries is.

In addition to their stand on hatcheries, I would like to know is if WSC and WT believe that hatcheries can co-exist with wild steel recovery efforts.

Bruce,

Most WA rivers are managed with WSR, not CNR per se. I don't see the connection, however, with your contention that CNR is a plan to benefit a minority of fishermen.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo ~ here is my fear in a nutshell.

Sport fisherman lose the right to legally harvest wild steelhead even on healthy systems.

Hatcheries get shut down.

Tribes claim forgone opportunity and continue to gill net our rivers.

If fisherman want to eat a fish they will have to buy it, supporting the destrutive commercial and tribal industry.

The ugly cycle of sport fisherman getting screwed continues.

Salmo,

It makes sense that Forgone Opportunity would be a subject to stay away from on the tribal end. Dont see why on WDFW's end accept their record in federal court is not good.

This issue with the CnR management factor for non-tribal allocation was not an issue or even thought about when the decision was written was it?

I remember seeing somewhere that the tribes do not want the Boldt Decision opened for any reason due to fear of loosing additional things or ultimately having the case over turned, could a thing such as management change on wild steelhead for sport allocation which would affect or cause question about Forgone Opportuniy cause the Boldt Decision to be re-opened if there was fighting over the Forgone Opportunity issue?

Im saying this because from what I know it dosent appear the decision answers all the questions on this issue with the factors we now have.

Ok I claim ignorance on this one. What is the difference between CNR and WSR?

Also, to clear things up a little bit. I BELIEVE that the majority of anglers in this state want the opportunity to harvest fish, even if it is very limited and regulated.

Does anyone know how many steelhead punch cards were issued in 2003?

You can CnR a hatchery Steelhead... But you Cant WSR the same fish...

For discussion purposes I see them essentialy the same... Wild steelhead Release or Catch and release wild steelhead...

edit: Although after thinking about it Catch and release would indicate the action of trying to catch the natives to begin with, whereas Wild Steelhead release may imply releasing the unintentionally hooked native?

Consolidating my question:

Salmo ~ assuming that CNR and WSR are basicly the same.

Isn't most of WA state already managed using CNR/WSR regulations?

Can someone please help me find WSC's postion on steelhead hatcheries. I can't find that info on their site or maybe Todd can post their position regarding hatcheries. Also, I would like to know what Washington Trout's position on hatcheries is.

In addition to their stand on hatcheries, I would like to know is if WSC and WT believe that hatcheries can co-exist with wild steel recovery efforts.

Does anyone know how many steelhead punch cards were issued in 2003?

From the Wild Steelhead Coalition's Mission Statement...

*******

Hatchery programs must be closely examined and be carried out in such a manner that the negative impacts on wild fish are removed or minimized.

The WSC stands for the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead, and for science, not politics, to be the basis for the re-tooling of hatchery practices.

***

Here is introduction to the recently introduced WSC Draft Hatchery Policy, and some parts of the as of yet unfinished document.

***

DRAFT Wild Steelhead Coalition Hatchery Policy, January 15, 2004.

by Dr. Nate Mantua, VP of Science and Education

The state of Washington is home to the largest steelhead hatchery programs in the world. In recent years, hatchery fish have supported about 80% of the annual steelhead harvest in this state. Today hatcheries play significant roles in the steelhead fishing in nearly every significant stream or river in Washington. Yet is has long been recognized that hatchery programs throughout the Northwest are ripe for major reforms.

Everything that follows is now in draft form and open for discussion and revision. We encourage WSC members to contribute their comments and critiques of this draft so that our revisions will result in the best WSC position possible.

DRAFT POLICY

Because the mission of the Wild Steelhead Coalition is to increase the return of wild steelhead to the waters and rivers of the Pacific Northwest, I propsed the following as our overall goal:

"to use hatcheries to promote a better future for wild steelhead AND steelhead fisheries"

When we began this effort a committee was formed to undertake our own scientific review of the lastes research into hatchery-wild fish interactions and related topics. We quickly found that the amount of research that has been done in this area is simply overwhelming. In recent months we adopted a strategy that aims to take advantage of recently published expert reviews on the general topic of hatchery reform. These include:

1. The Hatchery Scientific Review Group/Long Live The Kings effort for Puget Sound and Washington Coast hatcheries (HSRG/LLTK) http://www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html

2. The Columbia Basin Artificial Production Review and Evaluation
http://www.nwppc.org/fw/apre/Default.htm
http://www.nwppc.org/library/2003/2003-17.htm

3. The 2001 California DFG and NMFS hatchery review
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/jhr.htm

4. The 2001 hatchery reform report from Oregon's Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team

5. The 1999 NW Power Council review and reform recommendations for the Columbia Basin in Brannon, et al.

6. The NW Power Council's 2003 review of supplementation programs (written by the Independent Scientific Review Board)

7. Trout Unlimited's 2003 report on a "Landscape Perspective" for hatchery operations in the Columbia Basin
http://www.tu.org

The great news is that these review teams have summarized the latest science and they've applied it to specific hatchery programs. For instance, the HSRG reports provide a template we might consider copying by first offering "area wide recommendations" and then following that with hatchery-specific reviews and recommendations. Likewise, TU's recent report on a "Landscape Perspective" offers a new example for how we think about hatcheries at a program level, where fitting individual hatchery projects into the broader ecosystems their fish will be part of is the over-riding concern.

**I'll paraphrase what the rest may look like**

I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

"To provide a vision for operating NW salmon/steelhead hatcheries in ways that promote a better future for wild steelhead and steelhead fisheries"

II. BACKGROUND

This section will contain facts about past and current hatchery operations (number of hatcheries, numbers of smolts produced per year by region, etc.) and their known impacts on wild steelhead. Facts about the value of steelhead for sport fisheries (harvest and catch and release).

III. AREA WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Wild Steelhead Management Zones (as adopted from the HSRG)

2. Clear staement of objectives for each hatchery project: is it a project aimed at fishery enhancement? Supplementing depressed populations of natural spawners? A combination of both?

3. A regional approach to operating hatchery programs with the incorporation of ecosystem considerations: this will shift the focus from what happens inside the hatchery project walls to consider what happens outside the hatchery walls.

4. Guidelines for the use of wild broodstock for wild fish supplementation programs or fishery enhancement programs.

5. Guidelines for a standard hatchery performance monitoring and evaluation program, including: annual reports on economic performance (cost per adult produced); egg-to-smolt survival, smolt-to-adult survival, straying rates, harvest contribution.

6. Criteria regarding outplanting.

7. Requirements that all hatchery fish be marked, and request a more sophisticated marking program than simply fin-clips in order to support improved data collection.

IV. Identify Wild Steelhead Management Zones

V. Recommendations for linking research, monitoring and evaluations to management practices.

*****

While it is still in draft form, that's the outline of it.

Does anyone think that sounds like the WSC is for closing hatcheries and ending sportfishing?

I have a rather lengthy article about Foregone Opportunity and Wild Steelhead Release, too. Should I post it? If so, should I do it here, or in its own thread?

Fish on...

Todd.

"Hatchery programs must be closely examined and be carried out in such a manner that the negative impacts on wild fish are removed or minimized."

Does this mean that some hatcheries will be targeted for closure?

Piper pretty much nailed the difference between "catch and release" and "wild steelhead release".

Wild steelhead release means that any time a wild steelhead is landed, it must be released.

Catch and release is a targeted fishery whereby all fish caught are released, hatchery or wild.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Bruce, I can't for the life of me figure out how you connect WSR with no hatcheries...did I miss something?

"P.S. Bruce, I can't for the life of me figure out how you connect WSR with no hatcheries...did I miss something?"

I'm just trying to figure it out Todd, that's all.

It means exactly what it says...and I don't see anything about closing hatcheries in there. It says that whatever hatcheries do, they must do it in a way that removes, or minimizes, the negative impacts of hatcheries.

Fish on...

Todd

Does that mean that some hatcheries could be targeted for closure?

Bruce,

You seem to be figuring it out by posting on four or five different websites, including your own, that WSR will lead directly to the closing of all hatcheries and the end of sportfishing, and that those two goals are what the WSC is after.

That doesn't sound like figuring it out...that sounds like going off half-cocked.

Sorry if I'm being more offended by it than I should, but the "WSC IS AGAINST HATCHERIES" cry is getting old.

I'm glad you're asking now, but I wish the folks who get on that bandwagon would do a little bit of research, or make one phone call, or send one e-mail, and get the answer before they jump in.

Fish on...

Todd.