Dave

Since you are one of the "old boys" that have been around here for almost forever, tell us what you recall as being the historic run timing of our native winter steelhead runs in Washington. Like when do you remember wild native steelhead entering ours local rivers, and when do you remember the peaks to be.

The Boldt decision had experts testify that the "peak" of our winter steelhead runs where from December to January. Do you agree or disagree with their testimony? Now, it appears that the only run of natives now appears to be from March to April. I have fished some of our smaller unadvertised rivers, and I too have a found that a fairly large number of native steelhead to be present in December and January.

To the best of your limited knowledge, what is you recall of when these true native fish returned to the Olympic Peninsular Drainage?

Cowlitzfisherman

They are watching us...
--------------

By GREG JOHNSTON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A two-year moratorium on the killing of any wild steelhead in Washington waters, enacted by the state Fish and Wildlife Commission last Friday, has raised a storm of debate among anglers.

The moratorium, passed on a 5-3 vote, requires that anglers release alive any steelhead with an intact adipose fin from April 1 through March 31, 2006. The adipose fins of hatchery-reared steelhead are clipped before release.

Anglers are already required to release wild steelhead in most Washington rivers, but are allowed to kill one per day on a handful of north coastal rivers where state biologist say wild stocks are healthy and abundant.

Despite those claims, many anglers have been clamoring for the past few years for a statewide ban on the retention of wild steelhead, arguing that the state's record of protecting wild runs is pitiful and that with increasing angling pressure, the few remaining robust runs could be over-fished. Other anglers argue, however, that state surveys show north coastal runs are abundant well beyond spawning needs and that if anglers quit taking the fish, treaty tribal net fishermen will seek to catch them.

"There's a lot of anger on the river,' said Tom Mathews, state catch sampler on the Quillayute River system. "People are very angry and talking about lawsuits."

The vote, which was not on the commission agenda and came as a surprise to many, is sparking debate not only on the river but also on local Internet fishing forums.

"It's really divisive, and if we want to save these fish, steelheaders should be pulling together," said Curt Kraemer, Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist for north Puget Sound rivers.

CFM: Jeesh, I'm not sure I like being one of the old timers, but I guess that's an accurate assessment. I have some catch statistics form the 60's that I will try to dig out, but based strictly on memory, I would agree that before Boldt many rivers saw peak runs in December and January. My belief is that we have wiped out those fish perhaps intentionally, by focusing our hatchery efforts on early returning fish and by encouraging heavy netting on the early returning hatchery fish, which in turn put tremendous pressure on the wild fish component of the run.

Short answer. Yes, runs did peak or at least come on strong in Dec. and Jan.

keep 'em coming boys...we are almost to 500.

In his book, Steelhead Fly Fishing and Flies (which contains much interesting and "scientific" data on historic runs and life histories), Trey Combs states that the historic peak of wild runs on most peninsula streams was February.

He shows some catch data from 1970, which shows catches fairly well spread out from December to March, with an early peak in Dec/Jan and a later one in March. He also states that even though no plantings were occuring as of the writing, plants of early returning hatchery fish had already been made in the Quillayute system and Hoh. Catches for rivers he made no mention of receiving plants were spread fairly equally, with catches only about 10-15 % higher in Feb/Mar than in Dec/Jan.

This is not conclusive, but is nevertheless interesting.

We need some REAL old-timers to give some info. Anyone know of any retirement homes in Forks?

I found this in the Boldt Decision;


e) Skwowl (steelhead).

"83. Dr. George Suckley, who reported information respecting salmon which he recorded from the Indians while he resided at Puget Sound between 1853 and 1856, reported that:

"* * * the salmon known to the Nisquallies as the skwowl, which I consider identical with the Klutchin of the Clallums, * * * arrives in the bays and estuaries of Puget Sound about the middle of autumn, and towards the first of December commences to run up the larger rivers emptying into the sound. Their ascent of these streams continue through December and January. This arrival of the species in fresh water is not as simultaneous, neither do they arrive in such great numbers at any one time or in 'schools,' as is the case with the skourtz and several other species, but the 'run' being somewhat more 'drawn out' affords a steady moderate supply to the Indians during its continuance "

When I started fishing for Steelhead in the 50s this was pretty much the run timing that existed at that time, the fishing would slow down in feb. then pickup again in March and April

CFM,
It would be interesting to see the bioligists answers to those questions.You have brought up some valid points there.

CFM, dear Buddy,

The December - January peak steelhead run timing referred to in the Boldt Decision encompasses the aggregate return of both hatchery and wild steelhead, same as the timing of the peak aggregated return of hatchery and wild fish today. In that context there is no change in the peak run timing. I've got, or use to have laying around somewhere, steelhead run timing before the state hatchery program began. While the wild run began in December - or even November or January, depending on the river system, the peak run timing for winter steelhead was March for pretty much every river system.

Most rivers have lost their early timed component of the wild runs due to the greater harvest pressure that occurs during the early season on most rivers. Are early winter run timing genetic lost? Perhaps some, but not entirely, in my opinion. Let me use the Skagit as an example (since Yellowstone cutthroat are not relevant to run timing 8^).

When the Skagit closed the March and April fishery in 1977, the wild run began to increase, but mainly with March and April steelhead. As the run size increased, more fish began to show up in February. And now we see some wild fish show up in January, but it depends mainly on how large the run size is. So I think the message is that the environment will nudge the genetics of these fish - as it did in the first place - to assume behaviors like run timing and spawn timing that best contribute to overall survival. In order to see earlier timed fish consistently year after year, we need for more of those early timed fish to reach the spawning grounds. However, a wild fish in the river in January, or especially December, faces a lot of opportunities to eat a hook and end up in a cooler.

The new WSR regulation may contribute to more of that small number of early timed fish actually suriving to spawn, which would then place both genetic and environmental pressures on offspring to exhibit an early run timing. We'll see, but we probably won't have much science, just anecdotal observations reported among the angling community.

(BTW, you may not have appreciated the Yellowstone example of some days ago, but I maintain that it was relevant with respect to the key issues of mortality rates (and it was over harvest in the recreational fishery in that case) and population response when mortality was reduced. That one population is an inland resident and the other anadromous is not relevant to the point I was emphasizing or I would have used a different example. In regards to steelhead, reducing harvest mortality will contribute to increased productivity whenever over harvest is the limiting factor for the population. So on some rivers it could make a difference, and on others it won't.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Me!

Cowlitzfisherman

Salmo

As you know, I have done my homework on the fish runs of the Cowlitz. So I will use the Cowlitz as an example to show the readers what numbers are used to represent the portion or number of fish that lead up to the what some refer as the "peak" of a run of native steelhead. It will then be easyer for them to compare "peak" numbers to that of the fish that return through out the normal run timing of native steelhead.

The problem is glaring!

Beforee 1950, the Cowlitz received hatchery plant similar to other rivers in the state. Even though it received hatchery plants, the true native run started in med November. The first record of hatchery planed steelhead occurred in 1938. In 1947, creel records showed that Native steelhead return fairly early in the Cowlitz. Creel checks showed that 27.2% of fish retuned in December, 15.2% retuned in January, 11.2% returned in February, 30.4% in March and only 15.2 % in April.

I suspect that this pretty much represented the native run timing in most other river too.

That means that about 50.6% of the natives returned before March. Salmo, I had noticed in the comments that were sent in by BPA on the BiOp that they had stated that there is a biological theory that for every year that a fish was reared in a hatchery, it would take as least the same amount of time for a natural reared fish to genetically adapt to its natural environment again. If that is true, then many of those rivers that you are referring to which had hatchery influences and interactions would take at least 30 to 40 years to recover, and that's if they were to shop all hatchery plants today.

I am afraid, that those wild steelhead runs are just as doomed as the runs that they are now trying to reestablish on the Cowlitz. They have waited way to long in my opinion to recovery the genetics that it will take for recovery. Add onto that, the lack of spawning grounds, degraded habitat, and all the other good stuff that man adds to the big picture, and ain't looking good buddy!

I wish I was wrong, but deep down inside, you know as well as I do, it over for those wild run in the coming years. It just a matter of time before the last one dies in a net, by a hook, or in the jaws of a seal. The count down has already started an people don't even know it!

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

I can't question anything you say about numbers and statistics on the Cowlitz, as it's not a river I worry about much, and it's a river that you have a lot of knowledge and concern about.

I will say, however, that any comparisons between Cowlitz steelhead populations and pretty much any other population, especially those that have significant numbers of wild fish, are comparing apples and oranges.

While most streams have one or more of several issues to deal with, like dams, habitat destruction, downstream interceptions, high fishing pressure, massive hatchery plants, water withdrawals, etc., the Cowlitz has every single one of those things, most of which it has to a greater extent than almost any other river has to deal with even one or two issues.

Be careful when you compare pretty much anything about steelhead population dynamics from the Cowlitz to anywhere else...most of them just don't apply.

Most other rivers have wild fish that return from late November through April, some even into May. They also generally have a quick influx of wild fish in early to mid-February, followed by a bit of a lull, then a full force invasion starting the second or third week of March. On rivers like the Skagit there are fresh from the salt fish entering the river up into May.

When you combine those facts with the preliminary conclusions from Chilcote's and Hooten's studies regarding cross breeding between wild and hatchery fish, wild fish are still wild fish, and they still return throughout the winter, albeit not at historical numbers, especially early in the season.

My first wild fish of the year this year came the day after Christmas on the North Fork of the Skykomish.

Again, I won't dispute your opinions or numbers about the Cowlitz, but don't try to apply them to the rest of the steelhead populations in the state...it just doesn't fit.

Fish on...

Todd

CFM,

The "What to do about tribal netting?" thread has the answers to your questions regarding the excerpts you posted from the Boldt decision above dealing with mix-stock fisheries.

As I said above, I don't dispute anything you say about the Cowlitz. However, the stuff you are saying about the Cowlitz does not apply to the OP or PS streams.

You asked for opinions, Salmo, Smalma, and I gave them to you. I know they weren't the opinions you wanted, but they are our opinions. I also don't find it a coincidence that all three of ours are consistent with each others.

The genetic bank to recover wild fish is still out there in the fish that are left.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. A lot of the scientific facts in the Findings of Fact in the Boldt decision were either facts then that have changed now, like run data that was accurate in 1971 but isn'tnow, or scientific assumptions that based on what they did know that would be incorrect based on what we know today.

CFM,

Regarding recovery, like Smalma says, it depends on your definition. I agree that most wild steelhead populations won't recover to support harvest levels like the good old days because there is less habitat and of lower productivity. But populations can recover to a self-sustaining level if we give them the chance. I believe it for the reasons Smalma cites - there are specific examples of recovery.

Regarding BPA's comment on the number of years to "wild" recovery, well, it's a theory. Fact is, nobody knows. I'm OK with that. Populations can recover with less than 100% of the genetic diversity they formerly had, and we aren't likely to notice the difference. But if it takes 30 or 40 years to recover all of it, might as well start today, rather than next year, or the year after, etc.

Even the Cowlitz can recover steelhead populations you could be proud of, but they won't support the harvest that they could 50 years ago, for all the usual reasons.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

CFM,

I'll take a shot at a few of your questions.

Endangered means in imminent danger of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future.

Threatend means, well, in imminent danger of become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Those are pretty much the definitions in the ESA.

I hope you weren't actually suggesting that we should go on with business as usual until fish get listed, and then just stop fishing?

The point of aggressive management is to put off the ESA and its draconian restrictions on everything that could possibly happen anywhere near a listed animal or its environment.

*Editorial Comment* Draconian restrictions everywhere except the Columbia where they allow man in its various activities to actively kill upwards of 90% of the spawning adults of several listed animals.**End of Ed. Comment.

They haven't been listed because they are not endangered or threatened on the OP. As noted above, that's certainly no reason to protect them.

You get yourself all twisted in a knot when you consider all the crap going on on the Cowlitz due to the Lower Columbia Steelhead being listed. Wouldn't you have rathered something was done to put off the listing, rather than have to deal with it in the context of the ESA?

Most management flexibility goes away, and so do other opportunities.

The ESA is so last ditch effort to save animals that you can guess that most listed animals will only leave the list after extinction. It's much more helpful to the animals and those who enjoy them to stop the decline of the fish now, while they still can be recovered.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Don't forget my responses to your questions about mix stock fisheries, among other things...still waiting... :p :p