Speak your mind 'Fly.
Cow, You seem to be confused over what is best for the resource and what some of the people want. WSC believes that it is time to be extremely conservative with the resource. The more wild fish there are in a system the more wild fish there will be that wander(steelhead wander at about a 15% rate) to other systems that need a boost. If we keep harvesting the fish to the bare minimum no wonder we are down to 11 rivers that the geniuses at WDFW think are "healthy" enough for a wild kill season.

Also Cow WSR doesn't have to be popular to be the right thing to do. And I don't believe that WDFW has to check with the co- managers to CUT seasons and limits for us sporties, only to increase seasons and limits.

Jerry,
You are absoluteley right, those wandering fish are what saves some rivers own natural stocks and by killing them we are slowly depleteing all of our wild fish stocks, not only the rivers were you kill them at.
Peace
Superfly

I also like the moon dudes concept of too many fish in the river. Look at some of the rivers in Alaska, you know the ones, you can walk across the stream on the backs of the salmon and never touch the spawning beds with your boots. Poor fish, nowhere to spawn. GIVE ME A BREAK!! Nature will take care of how many fish can spawn successfully in a river and it is more than what any of our rivers have seen in a long long time. I can tell you exactly what the tribes are going to do. They are going to net until the resource is nearly gone and then when they aren't making any more money then they will start looking for answers and greater federal assistance to fill their nets again. Only then when they have exhausted their and OUR resource will they start looking at conservative options to save a species and bring populations back up in hopes of someday harvesting again. I am afraid that the wild native steelhead is headed for near extinction in many river systems and it won't take long. A shorter period of time than setting new guidlines that are agreed upon and then finally acted on by the greedy and the ignorant. To set the record straight, I fish with some tribal members (who use rod and reel and actually practice C&R) and they are absolutely disgusted at other members of their own tribes' decisions to harvest steelhead with nets. In fact, they told me that it really pi$$es them off. I wish all tribal members felt as they do but the fact is that most tribal members feel we took their land so it is their reserved right to take the fish but just wait and see, when the fish run out and their revenue gone, then and only then will things start to look "favorable", relatively speaking that is, for the fish. I just hope it won't be too late.

According to WDFW's harvest data, the tribal and sport harvests of wild Hoh river steelhead were about equal from 1991-2000, while in the past 3 years the tribes have been harvesting about twice as many as the sporties. The co-managers' Hoh River harvest plan for this season calls for a tribal allocation of 1395 wild fish, and a sport allocation of 668 ... and with their run-size prediction, that would allow an escapement of 2360 fish, which is 40 fish below the escapement goal. I guess that'd be a much better outcome than last year when the combined harvest exceeded escapement, and the escapement was 800 fish below the e-goal. Based on these numbers, it seems like the moratorium might be like cutting off your leg from the knee down because your leg hurts, not just a little toe.

I wonder, is there any other wild steelhead run on Earth that's now targeted for harvest rates as high as those now being used for the OP rivers (Hoh, Queets, Quinault and Quilllayute)?

"Also Cow WSR doesn't have to be popular to be the right thing to do. And I don't believe that WDFW has to check with the co- managers to CUT seasons and limits for us sporties, only to increase seasons and limits"

Actually WDFW cannot open a catch and release season without approval by the tribes. I said this before. Just witness what we were told at Mill Creek about the C&R salmon season in areas 5&6...no additional opportunities like that will be considered this year and the reason given was the objections voiced by the tribes. I do think that applies to steelhead as well as salmon.

grandpa

grandpa, that is illogical! Are you saying that WDFW must "consult" with the tribes to "open" a c&r fishery, but they (WDFW) do not have to consult with the tribes to close it?

Do you think that the rules/law for steelhead are different then the rules/law for salmon when it comes to the tribes being consulted?


Cowlitzfisherman

CF..I was quoting JG who is the one who said that tribes do not have to consulted. What I am referring to is the meeting at the WDFW office in Mill Creek last week. JG was sitting in front of me and we both heard Pat Patillo say that there could not be any more C&R seasons for salmon because the tribes objected. I think the logic was that they claim we cannot account for our catch like they can. Maybe JG can recall the statement. I took it to mean that the tribes are not all for C&R but have "reservations" about them. Draw your own conclusions. Personally I think they don't like the growth in C&R seasons because it makes them look bad.

The state and tribes have to consult with each other regarding any season setting, whether it be a harvest season or a catch and release season. This is how they assure that the proper allocation takes place.

They do not have to consult on passing a rule such as "no bait", or "no fishing from a motorized boat", or "wild steelhead release", however. Those rules do not lead to non-tribal fishers possibly overharvesting their allocation.

So, in answer to your question CFM, the state does have to consult with the tribes to set a CnR season (which has an associated mortality directed at a particular run which must be figured into the allocation), but does not have to consult to close a fishery over that same stock (no allocation issue).

The tribe's concern that this will lead to more resentment of their treaty fishing is probably true...but so what? Just because they are going to kill their allocation and look worse than us because we choose not to is not our problem...it's theirs.

"Oh no! We're going to look bad if we're the only ones harvesting wild steelhead!"

Damn right you are. That's part of the deal, we get more political power, at least on the PR end, then we've ever had on this issue. God forbid they lose their "stewards of the resource" status with the general public.

If they actually claim that we need to harvest wild fish so that they aren't resented for doing so, then they really are not much of a steward of the resource, in my opinion.

Also, there is a very big difference between carrying capacity and escapement. Escapement is set based on MSH, while carrying capacity is the amount of fish that the stream can support. On rivers like those on the OP where there are large runs of fish the difference between carrying capacity and escapement might be several thousand adult fish. I doubt the non-tribal catch which will now stay in the river will actually get anywhere near carrying capacity.

Mother Nature seemed to do fine with balancing the amount of fish spawning with the runs for a long time before we came along and "managed" them better. The idea that there could be too many fish in the river is not a biologicial argument...it's an economic one.

Dead spawned out fish deliver nutrients to the river from the sea. That's if they die...an average of just over 12% of steelhead don't, they return to spawn again.

Even if they are "extra" fish, which I doubt, they are clearly not wasted.

As far as some dude from Sequim calling the Hoh "our river", that's just plain BS. It's all of "our" river.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd


You tell us that

Can you give us a couple of case laws that support your assertion about the tribes rights? If so, can you post them, or at lease show us a site where we can read them?


Cowlitzfisherman

I think including wild steelhead release in the category of issues WDFW does not have to consult with the tribes on is incorrect. That is a catch and release policy and the tribes demand to be consulted. Steelhead catch and release is in the same realm as salmon catch and release. The tribes may not have been in the loop on the commission's decision on C&R of wild steelhead but I bet they wanted to be. I bet also they will push the issue on future C&R plans much stronger. Hopefully they will realize the benefits and not continue to always want something in return for everything they agree to.

There is a big difference between CNR and WSR. They are not the same thing.

JG..First let's approach this from being on the same side....that way you won't assume I am arguing .

I see the difference being that a "season" or opening such as the marine area 5 & 6 opening for Chinook that requires wild (unclipped) Chinook to be released is a specific time window with a quota of clipped fish that can be retained ....and WSR which is a rule that requires release of unclipped steelhead all the time.

That is a pretty skinny difference. In both cases fishing is allowed and unclipped fish are to be released. IN both cases a mortality impact percentage is assigned to the fishery and in both cases the tribes have concerns that we cannot adequately measure the mortality and/or the catch. That is the new mantra of the tribes. Sports fishers cannot adequately measure their "share" while the tribes are spot on.

I guess I'm trying to say that WSR doesn't mean that there will be a CNR season. I think we are mostly in agreement.

grandpa,

A skinny line, indeed, but a line nonetheless.

I think that though the rule wouldn't be any different for salmon or steelhead fisheries, it would have pretty big differences in application for an ocean fishery rather than a river fishery.

If there is a selective fishery in Neah Bay, for example, where only clipped fish are kept, the amount of fishing will be controlled by the amount of unclipped fish encountered, similar to the fisheries on the Columbia going on right now.

That would clearly need the tribes' consultation because the amount of unclipped fish that could be encountered is an allocation issue that would have to be dealt with at NoF. The unclipped fish would be headed for many different streams under many different jurisdictions.

If there is, say, a 10% mortality on releasing the unclipped chinook, and our allocation of the unclipped chinook is 1000 fish, and the encounter rate is expected to be 50/50 between clipped and unclipped, our fishery would be based on catching 2000 fish total so as to not exceed our allocation of unclipped fish. This would be to ensure that their 1000 unclipped fish make it to the river so they can net them.

For a CnR fishery in a river, we would be directly targeting the wild fish, with an associated mortality. We would have to make the same type of calculations about how many fish would be encountered to make sure that they get their share without us cutting into it or the necessary escapement, as allowed under the WSP, which has already been negotiated with the tribes.

Under a general WSR regulation, with no associated CnR fishery, we wouldn't be cutting into the wild component any more than usually happens during the Nov. thru Feb. hatchery steelhead run...as a matter of fact, it would be less since there would be no directed harvest of wild fish during those months. Our hatchery regime has already been used to separate wild and hatchery fish temporally, so the encounter rate of wild fish would be low, and we have every right to access our half of the hatchery fish.

So this is where I would see the "skinny line"...

Selective fishery in the ocean:

Very high encounter rate of wild fish, with those wild fish being the limiting factor on how many clipped fish we can catch.

Limiting factor: Proper allocation of the wild component of the run. This will have to be done with the tribes.

CnR fishery in the river:

All wild fish encountered (pretty much all, at least), with a knowable mortality rate. Models showing how many wild fish will be caught, thereby showing how many will suffer mortality. That number will be part of our allocation, and will be limited by what our half of those fish is. We need to determine what our share is, if it's high enough to open a CnR fishery, and how long such a season would be to ensure that the associated mortality does not exceed our allocation.

Limiting factor: Proper allocation of the wild component, plus needed escapement. This will have to be done with the tribes.

General WSR in rivers:

Fishery is designed to harvest our share of hatchery fish, without directly harvesting wild fish. We have a right to half the hatchery fish that the tribes cannot take away. The encounter rate of wild fish would be quite low, and the amount of mortality would be correspondingly low. The only limiting factor on the length of the season would be making sure we don't harvest enough hatchery fish to miss escapement at the hatchery or cut into the tribe's allocation.

This is how all of our Nov. thru Feb. fisheries have always been done, at least for the last few decades, and as long as the hatchery gets their fish, and the tribes get theirs, we can pretty much fish to our hearts' content.

The tribes fish below us on the rivers, so we can't catch fish that are heading to their nets, so that's not an issue.

If the hatchery is getting shortchanged, we close the terminal areas, or close our fishery, to make sure they do get what they need, as we had to do again this year on most hatchery streams.

Limiting factor on our fishery: Fish needed for the hatchery. No tribal/non-tribal allocation issue.

I don't think we need to consult to do this, as it doesn't have any effect on what the tribes do or do not have access to.

Is that the way it will work out? I don't know, but in my opinion, that's the way I see it.

Fish on...

Todd