H20

Just out of curiosity, how many memebers does WSC have now?


Cowlitzfisherman

cfm-

Numbers in the sense of the information, mostly graphs and charts, presented in this thread, Plunker v. Bob if you will.

I wonder if you actually took the time to notice that the charts and numbers posted by Bob are very similar and in close agreement with those posted by myself?

I'm proud to know that my numbers reflect what you have "experienced empirically".

i think i noticed....aren't the sources of the information basically the same?

the difference i believe was a comparative one, not one of credibility in numbers or even credibility at all....

...what i really meant is that if you presented me with two sets of graphs and charts, one that says wild steelhead are healthy and harvestable and another that says wild steelhead are in decline and need protection I am going to have a natural inclination to believe the one which most closely resembles what I have experienced myself.

Plunker....how much of a factor in your opposition to the blanket wsr regulation might be due less for whether or not the runs are healthy and more from an erosion of what you truly feel are personal rights?

...its almost as if they are trying to pry the native from your cold, dead, hand if you know what i mean...

Maybe....and you are probably way better at it than I am admittedly from a research/statistical standpoint anyway...if you focused on answering to your satisfaction the question of whether or not the skagit runs are truly 'healthy', perhaps even be willing to redefine what 'healthy' means to you....maybe you'd consider that the overall health of the resource surely outweighs the need to exercise ones personal rights.

Doesn't it?

Should we proceed with a "harvest the resource until proven defintively by 'science' (from at least six non-TU funded studies) that it cannot be sustained" mentality?

I dunno...to me it seems the CONSERVATIVE approach is appropriate and well administered in both the case of the quillayute and skagit systems.

This is a pretty good conversation you and Plunk have going here. I'm enjoying reading it.

Have to agree with Dan S. Excellent thread going here, guys. TRBO and Plunker should be especially commended. That said, hearing well thought-out arguments backed with excellent supporting data from both sides has only solidified my view that WSR is a wise move.

I'm new to your board and I must say that the graphs that were supplied by this group did not convince me that the runs are any worse off than when they started keeping records. I stared fishing for steelhead 5 years ago after I decided to make a change from winter Blackmouth. My time on the river is very important to me but I don't believe that C&R is going to change the way these same graphs will look 20 years from now. I believe the only increase would come from fewer people and no nets. What's the chances of that? The idea of wealthy out of state folk on guided boats isn't likely to increase the runs. I sure don't like the idea of pay to fish rivers but I bet you could find a group to support it . Maybe that was a bit harsh but there out there , you just won't know till the hooks been buried home. Was the first post as tuff for the rest of the group?

Fireman ... you bring up an important point: "...when they started keeping records."

H2O mentions discussions from old timers in the Forks area. Several members of our Guides' Association have been fishing these rivers for more than double the timeframe in which we currently have record for.

Their "stories" of fishing from yesteryear shed more light upon the long-term changes in the runs on the Forks-area rivers. Unfortunately, since records were never kept, we only have the many stories of how many fish, where, how big, etc.

Fewer people is not going to happen. As other runs in the state have fallen by the wayside, anglers have shifted to toher streams that still have some sort of run going ... so we can throw that by the wayside.

No nets? Not in our lifetime. It's quite conceivable though that through a lengthy process to re-assess our management goals and keep tribal harvest to where it should be as madated by the Boldt Decision. So let's throw that one out.

What's left for a management option to support more and more angler days without the harvest going through the roof? Hmmm, it starts with C ...

"Wealthy out of state folk on guided boats ..."

An interesting comment that may perhaps reflect your unfamiliarity with the situation. While I don't know of any source of exact information on this source, I'd likely think that our clientele base in terms of where they come from is pretty much the same as any other guide service in the area. Where do these folks call home? In steelhead season over 90% are from Washington State.

One can only hope that the Quillayute graph will not represent the Skagit graph in another 20 years. If it does, many a business that many may currently know in the Forks area will no longer exist.

We'll see C&R seasons only in the few years that runs may be strong to enough to support the mortality of the fishery ... maybe every other year ... so don't make any vacation plans.

Will they hire any 50 year-olds as firefighters? Hopefully, since I too, would be be looking for a new line of work ... although I may have more fun in court suing the pants off a number of establishments that seemed to think these fisheries could never cease to be healthy

Plunker, CowlitzF, and a few brave ones...

Nice to see someone stand up to the bullies on their own turf.........

Good points Bob! Let's hope that in 10-20 years the wild runs on both the Quillayute and the Skagit are good enough to support limited harvest and C&R fishing.


stlhdh2o,

My interest in charts and numbers is not oriented towards making an argument so much as it about finding some basic realities. We all have our views and prejudices and those will be reflected in our arguments but the charts are not the arguments we present although they can serve in substantiating or refuting a position.

My position towards the blanket ban has everything to do with personal preference and to me, without a harvest fishery they are good only as museum pieces. That does not mean that I'm not interested in their sustainability any more than one might be against sustainability because they desire to catch them just for fun. Either way there will be impact in the form of mortality and a reduction in successful spawning numbers. Without sustainable runs we can have neither option for long.

I therefore take the position that if the sustainability of any stock is threatened the fishing for them should stop. I have mixed feelings about fisheries for harvestable stocks when threatened stocks are likely to be caught as bycatch.

C&R only fisheries or fly fishing only fisheries might be useful to provide special or additional opportunity but neither are viable tools for anything beyond allocation. To argue for a lower impact fishery on a threatened stock is to argue for taking a half-a$$ measures to protect that stock. Where do you draw the line?

I do have concerns for the sustainability of the Skagit and at this point wonder just what the numbers are saying. I should take the time to get the smolt counts to better understand what has brought about the low returns starting in the year 2000.

If the Canadian and US experts are to be believed the problem is with low ocean survival throughout the streams in Puget Sound, lower mainland B.C. and the east side of Vancouver Island regardless of management policies and inland environments. Streams with wild harvest, streams with hatchery harvest and WSR, streams with C&R only and streams closed to fishing all saw the adult return numbers plummet to similar degrees despite their being everything from wild and pristine to urban troughs.

On the other hand we can look at the Queets where the tribes argue for an escapement of 2400 and the WDFW for 4200. Excessive harvests there averaging more than half of the returning adults for the last 8 years, partly due claimed forgone opportunity, have caused returns to plummet so far that these fish are very threatened unless the harvest practices change.

So yes stlhdh2o, harvest is important to me and so is the sustainability of the fish. If I were convinced that all steelhead stocks in Washington were threatened I would still oppose the ban on harvest without including a ban on intentionally catching them just for fun.

Should we continue harassing, maiming and killing threatened steelhead until they are irrevocably damaged?

Should we continue harassing, maiming and killing sustainable stocks while we exclude those who would kill and eat them?

My answer to both questions is no. Yours?

We'll you didn't beat me up too bad, you otta try the youth sports boards ! I will say that I was quite suprized at the amount of time and effort all put into their posts on this board . Their are some very knowledgeable people contributing here. I will continue to send the wild ones back and do my part on the water, garbage man etc. I plan to increase my studies on this topic so I might someday battle with the big boys.

"So yes stlhdh2o, harvest is important to me and so is the sustainability of the fish. If I were convinced that all steelhead stocks in Washington were threatened I would still oppose the ban on harvest without including a ban on intentionally catching them just for fun."

Its really the only counter-argument I've heard that I respect. I don't understand it, but I respect it. What I don't understand is why you would deny the 'apparent' majority of anglers that disagree with your position the opportunity to come fish in your town, spend money in your restaurants, sleep in your hotels, hire your guides etc, etcetera....based on ten percent mortality.

At least 90 percent of the fish swim away unharmed plunker, depending of course on whose version of the 'science' you believe its substantially less than that, not maimed and not killed...harassed probably.

I'll answer your questions this way...

Should we continue harassing threatened steelhead....YES! Its proven by credible science that steelhead are vigorous after being caught and released and have a low mortality. Steelhead fishing is an invaluable component to local communities and the opportunity to fish at all is so important it should be preserved in every possible instance.

Should we continue maiming and killing threatened steelhead until they are irrevocably damaged?....NO!

Should we exclude those that would kill and eat wild fish from the fisheries in question?

Yes....unfortunately for you. The high moral ground you've taken on the issue does preclude your participation in a cnr fishery and that's a shame plunk 'cuz dammit, fishing is fun....to so many of us its about way more than the kill, which forgive me if I've got it wrong again, IS what its all about for you.


Talk about having a huge economic impact, imagine the effect of an all out closure? You think the Forks Forum was big this week....

Bob,

You know very well how inflammatory this topic has become. All this talk about backward hillbilly folk, with their neanderthal mentalities, who just want to kill nates until they're gone is the very thing that irritates locals. I'm one. My friends and I have been fishing the west end for the last 25 years. And though we do keep some fish, most are returned to the river. We all know when this web site began, and when everyone from Sitka to Minneapolis started discussing holes on these rivers like they had fished them all of their life.

Sure, these rivers need to be properly managed, as does any river system. As someone on this topic stated earlier: 'I can't tell by looking at any of these charts if the fish are any better/worse off now than at any other time.' I agree, and with an undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering (UW) I've looked at thousands of graphs.

Are my opinions biased? Sure they are. But given any information(graphs,opinions,facts,etc...) found on this board I think that I should be able to continue to catch and keep a few fish per year without impacting any of the previous graphs.

Comments such as 'suing the pants off of some establishments' only adds fuel to this inflammatory topic. I was surprised when I read the comment. Despite all the boats these days you know how small the community is.

Despite what many on this board suggest, nobody wants to maintain healthy steelhead runs more than my neanderthal friends and I.

Okay I burned my eyes trying to read thru most all of the reply's on this subject! Even with all of the scientific data posted, those in favor of C$R were unable to change my mind. I am 43 and I changed my catch and keep policy just as many of you did and so will the 20's something crowd ! It seems that there is more to this discussion then meets the eye. I will continue to support the right to keep an occasional fish if one chooses but i guess that's a mute point now or is it? Good luck to all for whats left of this season!

There is not more behind WSR than meets the eye. The river systems in this state that used to have wild retention and are now closed to wild harvest are not rebuilding their numbers. The Wild Steelhead Coalition felt that the Quilliyute system is headed down the same path as the other rivers and we should be a little more proactive in stopping the downward slide in wild fish numbers.

BD .. Perhaps my choice of words was misleading as to my intentions. "Establishments" was not directed towards businesses in town, but rather the co-managers of these fisheries.

However, the back-of-the mind idea that I may one day wish to seek legal recourse if my line of work goes by the wayside due to poor management decisions is always a possibility.

Thousands of anglers have asked for more conservative appraoches to the management of the resource and many biologists have done the same as well.

I certainly don't have any sort of grand plan, but I also can't say that the thought is 100% toungue-in-cheek either. If I lose my livelihood in spite of well-documented attempts to help preserve it, there's always a chance that I might not sit around quietly

Ah ah, Jerry brings up a point

NO ONE can answer why for sure, but it's an observation that seems to hold true in most cases of a run's collapse. There seems to be some point of "critical mass" in which the population gets so messed up, that immediate recovery does not occur.

Perhaps it's because of the unique life cycles and importance of repeat spawning in a steelhead population that is modeled along the same lines as a salmon population without these characteristics?

The town of Forks will suffer tremendously should we lose these runs. One can look at the small towns along the lengths of some of the Puget Sound streams as to the impact of the closures. But one thing to keep in mind that will play even more of a factor is that in the winter months, we don't have the traffic already coming through town on 101 to help keep things going. In the case of the PS streams, many of these businesses still get outside dollars from being on a pass route or the thousands of skiers passing through as well.

Forks does not have that in the wintertime.

How is it that on the east coast where steelhead were introduced from the west coast the steelhead fishery has been overwhelmingly successful?

The rivers are smaller and 1000s of people flock to them every season yet they are still packed with fish.

Micro- simple answer to that question... No nets, no dams, no tribes... no kidding