What are the "other" issues? Also, for those who may not know. WSC originally tried to get 6 years and the commission would not agree to that, but they did finally agree to 2 years.

I think the next step should be getting the WDFW fish checkers that wont be needing to check sport fish steelhead down to the tribes watching, counting and taking scale samples of the daily catch.

We need to know for sure how many fish they are taking since we want the maximum opportunity out of our allocation! Anything else should not be tolerated! We should not be trusting any numbers without our own counter!

Rich Tribal fishing is a Federal issue, the state has no control over them. You just handed over our harvest allocation to the commercials and the tribes. Most of this state is already managed with C&R regulations and it hasn't worked, why will it work now?

This blanket approach is designed to satisfy a group of minority fisherman. If after two years of this nonsense our rivers are full of wild fish and the tribes quit gillnetting, I will be the first person to applaud your efforts. Do your seriously think that will happen?

SMALMA: I think your points are well taken, and why shouldn't they be, you are on the front lines. PLEASE never think I do not respect your work. I do! It drives me crazy when some guys argue that WDFW is trying to mismanage our resources. I see you and others on the front lines doing all you can to help and getting constantly attacked. If it looked to you like I was attacking you, I am truly sorry. I know you were instrumental in the Skagit system bull trout recovery. We seldom hear much about WDFW's success stories.

Please tell us, in your educated opinion, why so many wild salmon and steelhead runs are continuing to decline in rivers with little catch and kill, no dams and relatively intact headwaters. I have been asked the question many times, but never have felt I knew the answer. If there is no one answer. What do you see as the major factors?

Bruce,

In two years we arnt gonna see any difference on the sport fishing end. Unless there are more fish and a few more get by tribal netts. But more fish in the next two years would have nothing to do with CnR and thats a fact.

No doubt we will see a few more wild steelhead spawn. And no doubt we will see the tribes continue to harvest when we cant. Its possible the tribes may take our fish too since we wont be harvesting them.

What it comes down to BP is that this is a huge step in the direction of resoration and new management. It is a risk thats for sure but if we didnt take it nothing would ever change untill all the fish were gone.

CnR is a very small part of the cure, but on our end as users it is the base of the issue of wild steelhead conservation.

Dave we are in agreement about WDFW management. I too think that WDFW is often a scapegoat for failures and rarely gets credit for their success's. I would also like to hear Rich's response to your question.

Look at the WSC web site BP!

I thought it was one of the commissioner that proposed total CnR. I think I read he origionaly proposed it to be perminent, then six years, then the commission agreed on two years and then they voted on it ant it won 5 to 3.

Thats how I read it anyways. You make it sound like the WSC was also on the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners were apointed by the Govenor not by WT or the WSC.

BP,

In my opinion as for as the coast is concerned harvest has been the largest factor in the declines.

Now yes its tribal harvest, but not long ago sport fishers harvest of wild steelhead rivaled and sometimes surpassed tribal harvest on the Quileute system and other coastal streams. Look back at catch records from the 80's. Look and see how many wild steelhead year after year sport anglers were killing on the Bogachiel and Sol Duc. Compare it to what the tribes are taking today.

Rich you and I both know that WSC deserves a lot if not most of the credit for this ruling.

As for the member of the commission proposing this rule, I think you are talking about Fred Shiosaki, Fred is a member of Trout Unlimited and the Inland Empire Fly Fishing Club. He has been a flyfisher for more than 30 years and is involved in his clubs educational and conservation programs.

I've already stated that Trout Unlimited (Fred) is also in support of this ruling.

If someone catches a state recors steelhead they should WANT to let it go!!!

The rest of the world has accepted catch and release as a valid and effective way of maintaining high quality fisheries with limited populations of fish.. Why is it so hard to wrap your brain around the concept of it being a good idea here too???

you can catch and kill all the hatchery fish you want to. Every person in the state has more than sufficient opportunity to catch and eat hatchery steelhead. Harvesting a wild one is a stupid thing to do PERIOD!

There are NO healthy runs od wild steelhead in Washington inspite of what WDFW says..
anyone who harvests a wild steelhead shows by their actions that the future of wild steelhead is NOT important to them.. The act and the words are at odds with one another and your actions spak louder than your words... Period! it is impoosible to have it both ways.. In my opinion this ban on killing wild fish should be permanent with no option of ever having it listed ever under any circumstances.. and if that means you can't keep a fish from a healthy run.. well too stinking bad.. I am sick of the mentality of people who think the only good fish is the one they keep in their freezer till it's burnt..

ok now call me all kinds of names ,, make references to PETA call me a liberal and whatever else you want I don't care. you have had your way for 100 years.. The tables have turned and now we are doing things in a way thats better for fish .. Deal with it...

I dont know which one it was.

I think we agree on the cause of the problems but we do not agree on how to fix it.

You and I both know something has to be done about tribal harvest to make a real difference but we have to clean our closet before we can complain about someone elses.

Smalma - apology accepted but not needed. Your point was not lost on me when I killed that fish and it is not lost on me now.

Bruce - One of the things that would help your arguement would be if you got your facts straight. R.P. "Van" Van Gytenbeek introduced this motion, not Shiosaki. It's up to you, but if you want folks to look at your opinions favorably, you should try to have your facts correct.

"The rest of the world has accepted catch and release as a valid and effective way of maintaining high quality fisheries with limited populations of fish.. Why is it so hard to wrap your brain around the concept of it being a good idea here too???"

----
The rest of the world, really? I also never said C&R was not a good and valid tool for management.
----

"You can catch and kill all the hatchery fish you want to. Every person in the state has more than sufficient opportunity to catch and eat hatchery steelhead. Harvesting a wild one is a stupid thing to do PERIOD!"

----
If some groups get their way our steelhead hatcheries will be shut down.
----

"There are NO healthy runs od wild steelhead in Washington inspite of what WDFW says..
anyone who harvests a wild steelhead shows by their actions that the future of wild steelhead is NOT important to them.. The act and the words are at odds with one another and your actions spak louder than your words... Period! it is impoosible to have it both ways.. In my opinion this ban on killing wild fish should be permanent with no option of ever having it listed ever under any circumstances.. and if that means you can't keep a fish from a healthy run.. well too stinking bad.. I am sick of the mentality of people who think the only good fish is the one they keep in their freezer till it's burnt.."

----
No healthy runs? Simply not true. This is a pretty good emotional response, however I try to avoid giving too much credit to ruling's based on emotions rather than good sound science. Do you seriously believe that most Anglers only want to kill fish and let them rot in their freezer? I'm sorry but I just can't get in tune with you on this.
----

"ok now call me all kinds of names ,, make references to PETA call me a liberal and whatever else you want I don't care. you have had your way for 100 years.. The tables have turned and now we are doing things in a way thats better for fish .. Deal with it..."

----
Sorry but I don't believe that sport fisherman have had their way for 100 years, again your emotions over ride the ability to use common sense.
----

Thanks for clearing that up Eddie.

I am not saying that I am for or against what the Compressions have just done, but I will bet you that their action will be challenged legally, and that they will likely have to reverse their decision on the 2 year Moratorium that they just passed.

The reason why I say this is because if you read what goal and guide lines are in the Wild Salmonid Policy, (the guides lines that the commissioners must follow) it appears that their "blanket action" violates the WSPguide lines.

Read it yourself, and make up your own minds! My opinion is they have violated it!

Goal of the Wild Salmonid Policy

Performance Standards
1. Harvest management will be responsive to annual fluctuations in abundance of salmonids, and will be designed to meet any requirements for sharing of harvest opportunity.

2. The allowable incidental harvest impact on populations shall be addressed in existing preseason and in-season planning processes as described in policy number 1.

3. Where a population is not meeting its desired spawner abundance level, the State, in managing the non-treaty harvest, may give priority to non-treaty fisheries that can minimize their impacts on weak stocks and increase their harvest on healthy stocks by: (1) using gears that can selectively capture and release stocks with minimal mortality, or (2) avoid impacts by eliminating encounters with weak populations (proven time/area closures, gear types). This must be done consistent with meeting treaty and non-treaty allocations and in accordance with agreed mass marking policies.

Fish Population Management

Spawning Escapement Policy

2. Policy Statement
The wild populations or management units to which this spawner escapement policy applies will be defined on a comprehensive, statewide, or regional basis, recognizing scientific uncertainty, in accordance with policy statement #1. The parties will review existing court orders, joint agreements, and management plans to determine if it is agreed whether modifications are necessary to be consistent with the goals of this Policy. Within this context, sufficient escapement of appropriate naturally spawning fish will be provided to encourage local adaptation and maximize long-term surplus production that sustains harvest, and to provide for recreational opportunities and ecological benefits.4 Exceptions to this general policy may be developed on a regional basis through agreement of the Department and affected Tribes to provide for recovery and rebuilding of wild stocks or where natural productivity is low.

Performance Standards

1. In each watershed region, for each species, populations and/or management units to which MSH management will apply shall be identified and the pertinent management agencies shall establish escapement goals designed to achieve MSH. MSH shall be calculated by using long-time series of accurate spawner and recruit statistics for each population. When such statistics are not available, MSH may be calculated by using historical production, habitat availability, or the best available methods for calculation.

2. The State and Tribes will seek agreement on the total escapement rates, escapement levels, or escapement ranges that are most likely to maximize long-term surplus production for wild populations or combinations of wild populations or management units. These rates, levels, or ranges will be based upon achieving MSH and will account for all relevant factors, including current abundance and survival rates, habitat capacity and quality, environmental variation, management imprecision, and uncertainty, and ecosystem interactions.

3. For other resident and anadromous trout and char, managers may employ wild fish release and other approaches that can maintain high abundance as agreed upon in watershed or sub-regional management plans that may be developed between the Department and the affected Tribes after consultation with affected stakeholders and pursuant to applicable law and court orders. Where an affected Tribe has not chosen to participate in such management, the Department may continue to rely on the escapement approach for wild managed populations contained in A Basic Fishery Management Strategy for Resident and Anadromous Trout in the Stream Habitats of The State of Washington adopted in 1986.

4. It will not be necessary to physically measure spawner abundance for each and every stock, though every stock will need to be covered by the inventory process. Index stocks that are typical of stocks within an area may be used to estimate abundance for the entire area. Surrogate measures such as standing stocks, random samples, stock composition or other measures may be substituted for actual measures of spawners. Evidence of the utility of such surrogates will need to be established for their use.5

5. If spawner management goals are not achieved for three consecutive years, or if the five-year moving average of spawner abundance falls below 80% of the goal, a management assessment including all factors responsible for the failure to reach this goal (e.g., forecast harvest rate estimates, environmental variation or spawner enumerations, appropriateness of spawner abundance goals, loss of habitat quantity and quality) will be completed within six months to determine the cause(s). The Department and affected Tribal parties will cooperatively design and implement appropriate actions to return spawning levels to, or above, the goal. Actions will include any necessary measures to meet the goals of this Policy.


Cowlitzfisherman

I fish the Smith river in California and the Chetco in Oregon. There is no tribal netting in these rivers. No dams and the headwaters are in good shape. Still there is a decine in the native steelhead. This poses the question: Whats happening offshore? I commercialy trawled for shrimp in Oregon and Washngton for number of years and took major tonnage of shrimp out of the Biomass. We also had a little thing called bycatch. Out of 3,000 lb tow we would have 500-1,000 lbs of shrimp the rest would go overboard. The rest being smelt, small rock fish, hake and God knows what else. The juvenile steelheed leave the river into a desert. This is a mutifaceted problem with no simple solutions, but "the jouney of 1,000 miles begins with a single step" I DON'T KILL WILD STEELHEAD. I can do one thing then take the next step.

Regard

IB

"Keep your on the donut not the hole"

Cowlitz,

I think you are missing the big picture of this.

I also agree the decision goes agianst and looks like it violates thier guidlines they must follow.

I think it was the intent to go agianst the policy and guidelines. I think the intent was to show we needed new policy, new management. I think the intent was to show sport fishers want our wild steelhead to be managed for CnR and conservation not harvest.

The Policey says nothing about wild stocks being managed for CnR as a priority its clear goal is harvest. It was written so decisions could only be made with harvest as the main goal utilizing other management tools such as CnR when harvest was not acceptable or could not be supported by independant populations.

This decision shows a strog clear message that current policy, guidlines and management is completely unacceptable, outdated and non-condusive to CnR wild steelhead fisheries as a policy. The decision shows management and the goals of management of our wild steelhead stocks has no choice but to change with the change in the will of the users on how they want to use their allocation and what their priorities are.

AuntyM,
It is truly sad to see that you have went over to the Washington Trout side on the issues.Has Ramon got your check yet?? I bet it will surprise him too.

AuntyM, I've been watching you fight hatchery closures for a long time now. Based on watching you post over the last several years, I've come to the conclusion that you need to be on my ingore list.

Dave -
In spite of what AnutyM may believe there are holes large enough in my knowledge to drive any hatchery truck or fishing boat one may wish through! (LOL). However I'll try to give you my assessment based on that limited knowledge of what may be behind the lack of positive response to harvest reductions on our salmon and steelhead populations.

The short answer is that have experienced reduced capacity and productivity of our rivers. Let's use Puget Sound chinook as an example (may be a little less emotion). Habitat modeling seems to indicate that throughout Puget Sound the capacity of our river's habitat to produce chinook has been reduce by at least half (Skagit) on the best rivers to substantial more than a factor of 10 (Nooskack). In the case of chinook this reduction in habtiat has occurred in the both the freshwater (spawning and rearing areas) as well as the estuary. Estuaries are an especially important componment in chinook production as it provides habitat for additional rearing once the freshwater has been filled to capacity - if chinook can find either freshwater or estuary rearing habitats so that they can grow to that 2.5 to 3 inch before entering the marine waters their survival increases greatly. A quick look at the modeling on the Snohomish for example shows that about 1/2 of the loss has been in freshwater areas and 1/2 in the estuary (this mix varies greatly between river systems).

Historical a pair of spawning chinook were much more productive than they are today. For example it is believed that at low abundance chinook historically produced 15 to 18 returning adults per spawner. Today that return per spawner (or productive) has been greatly reduced until in places like the main stem North Fork Stillaguamish or North Fork Nooksack it is down around 1. That is given what the fish have to work with they are at near the river's capacity to natural grow fish. Even our best Puget Sound rivers are at less than 1/2 of their historic productivity.

Another major factor has been low survival conditions. That can be either freshwater (poor egg survival due to flooding for example) or poor marine conditions (reflect in smolt to adult survival). I realize that many consider that placing blame on such factors is a "cop-out" however the impacts are real. Here is a hypothical steelhead example on how low marine survival afters the popualtion.

Let's assume that after solving all the problems (WSR and no nets) we have a winter steelhead population at carrying capacity. Lets further assume that the freshwater portion of that capacity allows for the production of 100,000 smolts (makes the math easy) and for this example lets assume that the capcaity is fixed (we are not having floods, droughts, etc). We know that smolt to adult survival varies however a Puget Sound average might be around 10%. That means
we would expect 10,000 spawners and they all are needed to produce the 100,000 smolts. Notice what happens when the marine survival falls below the average - the current rates appear to be in the 3 to 5% range. Instead of getting 10,000 adults we get only 3 to 5,000 adults which in turn produce less than 100,000 smolts. If the low survival conditions persist for any length of time (currently in the Puget Sound area we have been in those conditions for a number of years) the population will continue decline until some new equilibrium for the population is reach (atr some fraction of that under average conditions). The decline will continue regardless of what actions we may or may not take. Though it is fair to say that some actions -such as no fishing mortalities - would buffer the decline some.

The opposite of poor survival would greater than average, say in the 15 to 20% range. Obviously the populations can "bounce" quickly under such conditions. That appears to be what happened in the early to mid 1980s. The wild runs we saw in that period which many of us thought were the result of the "wild fish" management changes insititute at the time and we could expect those good times to continue well into the future were in fact the product of acceptable marine survival conditions. It is unknown when we may see those conditions again. However it would be safe to say that the mid-1980s were the good old days for Puget Sound wild steelhead in your an my life times.

I'm sure this is way too long but I hope it helped some. If you wish some clarification or have additional questions I'll try address them.

Tight lines
S malma