What exactly is the WSC (and others) justification for the blanket approach to fisheries managment that is WSR?

Is blanket regulation a trend we should encourage sport fisheries managment? I think not.

Do the ends really justify the means? Should we do whatever it takes to protect wild steelhead (except ban C&R!), even if it means unnecessary loss of future fishing opportunity, or even if it messes up regulation of other fisheries.

I think in the long term, blanket approaches will result in great loss of opportunity. I'm not defending the outgoing 5 wild steelhead a year regulation, I think a more conservation minded approach would be good. However, if the fish can't take some level of harvest hooking mortality impacts aren't acceptable either. A dead fish is dead whether bonked or played to death.

Clearly there are fisheries where one part of the state has healthy populations of a given species, while the same species is threatened in other parts of the state. Does this mean we should quit fishing for a fish even in a healthy population, if that fish is threatened in some other part of the state?
I certainly don't think so.

But the logic of mandatory WSR seems to set a precendent for these types of rigid managment schemes.

Something else to ponder while we are discussing fishing regulations not founded in solid science...Who is doing more harm to wild steelhead? The angler who is lucky to catch and keep a couple of wild steelhead on an Op river or the guide and his customers on the same OP river catching and releasing hundreds of wild steelhead in a single season?
If we were deciding on scientific grounds the answer would be simple.

Geoduck-
Please find me a quote/post/etc. where one who has supported WSR has also opposed the closing of catch and release areas when a certain population is not expected to meet escapement.

And yes, you may find one or two who do support catch and release fisheries even if the population is not expected to meet escapement but those folks feel that a closed river is an invitation to poachers.

btw-A blanket approach such as WSR may not seem all that big of a deal in a few years when we are dealing with the blanket approach that comes along with a listing under the ESA. I heard that a cetain steelhead manager in the WDFW has asked the WDFW to consider petitioning the feds to list Puget Sound wild winter steelhead as threatened under the ESA.

The commission just wanted to look like they were doing something about the problem.

Sparky,

I'm not going to do all that work to find somebody's quote that holds an internally inconsistent opion. I'm sure a few do exist.

That's not the point.

The point is WSR sets a precedent bigger than steelhead managment.

If the same logic behind WSR were applied to all threatened wild fish, there would be no fishing for many species (ie sturgeon, halibut, chinook, coho, dolly varden, cutthroat, resident rainbows, etc etc).

Is that really warranted?

I think with appropriate & flexible managment, all of these depressed stocks can be recovered while maintaining fisheries for healthy stocks (provided overfishing caused the stock to be depressed).

Blanket closures=lost fishing.

And so many of us that support WSR feel the very same way. By implementing WSR now, fisheries for healthy stocks will continue...minimize the impact now to minimize the loss of our fisheries in the future.

The logic behind WSR, I believe, was the same logic that helped eliminate the kill of Cutthroat in the Saltwater. Puget Sound Sea-Run fishing is as big as it has ever been.

I can name many other 100% release fisheries that are as popular as they have ever been...and the fishing is as good as its ever been.

I still do not see why you think WSR will limit your oppurtunity to fish.

BTW-The WDFW's early selective fishery salmon seasons have proved to be a huge success: Allow anglers to properly released depressed wild fish while the hatchery fish are culled out of system.

I thought just about all of the OP rivers are coming in under escapement. I don't remember the data off the top of my head, but didn't some of the WSC charts show that rivers like the Hoh and Sol Duc were under escapement?

Ryan -
I'm not sure that your sea-run cutthroat example is anything like the state wide moratorium on the take of wild steelhead.

Yes the take of sea-run cutts is prohibited in the salt (wild steelhead in the salt have been protected just as long) however in freshwater areas with "healthy" populations the retention of cutts is allowed (typcially a 2 fish limit with a 14 inch minimum size limit). When those rules were put in place in the mid-1980s the cutthroat fish rebounded in many areas of the state. In fact in my limited experience the best sea-run fishing in the North Puget Sound area are streams that allow some kill. I also hear rumors of some good fishing on OP rivers.

You are correct in that it is not uncommon to hear that the sea-run fishing is as good or nearly so as the old days. An example of what can be done when mixed stocks areas are closed to harvest (the sound) and regulations that are biologically based are applied as appropriate given the status of specific populations.

The state of Washington has been blessed in with a wide range of waters and species and it would appear to me that there should be some room for diversity of opportunities. With as many and diverse anglers that this state has a one size fits all management will reduce total opportunities.

I'm interested in your examples of species managed with a state wide ban on the take that are producing these exceptional fisheries. In my review of the 2003/04 fishing pamphlet the only such species that I could find was grass carp. Have you been keeping something under your cap?

Like you I can think of many CnR fisheries that produce quality fishing and are enjoyed by many anglers - the Yak as an example comes to mind. However such fisheries are not everyone's cup of tea. I suspect that Geoduck and others don't have heart burn with such management but feel that there should be other games in town as well.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma hit the nail on the head!

Sparky,

WSR is quite the opposite of the cutthroat managment situation!

Where wild cutthroat are abundant they can be killed, where they are not they cannot. Where the two mix (in the salt) very conservative C&R regulations are in place. This is a very flexible and balanced system. I think the cuttroat mangament model is a triumph of flexible managment practices.

With blanket WSR, it makes no difference how the fish are doing.

Please give me an illustrative example (like the cutthroat managment model), that illustrates how blanket approaches can work to both recovery fisheries that are depressed and provide ample and varied fishing opportunity.

Hmm, I sure can't think of any examples. Can you.

Cowlitzfisherman

Well then....I guess we are facing a revolutionary new regulation. It will be interesting to see how everything pans out...

Yep, I agree.

So much for science based managment.

Smalma thank you for being a reasonable voice here. Sometimes the unreasonable voices are just a bit too much for me.

A good balanced and targeted management plan that works for everyone including the fish is the ticket. This recent statewide ruling is just to divisive and I don't see how it is doing our sport any good at all. I've noticed that this ruling has even managed to have a negative impact on some local Forks high school students.

I think it more revolutionary that we didn't have state-wide WSR, given the regulatory frameworks in adjacent Oregon, Idaho, and BC. These States/Provinces have had WSR regulations in-place since the 1980s (yes, last I heard there was 1 stream in Oregon where wild steelhead retention was allowed). I find it interesting that these States/Provinces have WSR, but have smaller total populations, lower levels of development, and smaller fishing populations (by total license count) then Washington, yet saw fit to institute state-wide WSR nearly 20 years ago.

Washington appears to have been setting a precedent in not having state-wide WSR. Both Idaho and BC found rebounding steelhead populations with no real decrease in fishing effort or fishing opportunities, except of course, for the opportunity to retain a wild steelhead (haven't seen any Oregon data). With our tribal catch, I'm not entirely optimistic of seeing the rather dramatic increases that were observed in some Idaho and BC streams, but I can't understand the logic of insisting that WSR for Washington is not the right thing to do. Comparatively, we have the highest steelhead harvest of the 4 states/provinces, the largest population (hence greatest development and encrouchment into stream basins), and highest number of fishermen--yet were the last to turn to WSR.

I can agree with Smalma when he's stated in the past that WSR is more of a conservation measure than a management tool--for the same reasons above. Not to beat a dead horse, but the state is growing and growing, there is no forseeable reversal in this trend, there is a substantial tribal obligation (unlike the other states/provinces), and long-term fish population trends are for the most part declining. Both in terms of total populations and the number of streams with "healthy" populations. And oh yeah, everyone else is doing it. This has to be considered ample evidence (scientific and otherwise) to warrant WSR as conservation measure to preserve wild steelhead runs.

I believe that WSR is sceince based in that dead fish can't spawn. The more fish on the spawning beds the better.

How about the fact that most of our wild steelhead runs went in the crapper under catch and keep regs?

Noboby was shouting the sky is falling 10 or so years ago, when we were at the peak populations under the same managment conditions that are now villified.

Now that we're down in the trough everyone thinks the sky is falling. Like I've said before, populations cycle naturally. Sure its better for the fish if we don't kill them. Its also better for the fish if we don't fish for them at all. Maybe WSC should start fighting for no fishing when wild steelhead are present. That would certainly benefit wild steelhead the most.


Jerry,
Once again, a dead fish is a dead fish whether bonked or killed by hooking mortality.

Don't try to justify this WSR thing as sound science. Good politics, good economics, I'd agree, but justiying it as good science it is not.

There were people shouting 10 years ago. They were shouting that harvest rules allowing wild fish retention( up until Feb 28th) was devastating the early portion of the wild run. Some of us believe that this management philosophy was used to artificially seperate the wild and hatchery runs. And there are those that believe the early portion was important to the viability of the wild run.
If the runs were just being impacted by only the natural life cycles then I would expect to see the 20 year average to be relatively flat.

Once again simple math befuddles the masses. So say you close one river to retention of wild steelhead, but leave the one up the road open. Both rivers have fish in them... Be a Rocket scientist and figure out what happens next....

The science is there.. the fish won't be. Washington state is not getting any bigger and you wonder where all those sleds and drift boats that get sold wind up at. Fact is, you get a ESA listing handed down to you and you will have your hair in a bunn, panties in a wad... whatever you want to call it. The argument against WSR in light of the data you have presented to you holds no water... its just crying and blubbering.

A lot of you might wonder why people from Idaho care about your regulations... well its this simple... our fish get pounded in the C.R because of the crappy laws you have over there and it would be great if you could get together and do something about it... If you can't get behind and understand something as simple as WSR, what can you do ???

Keep complaining, the tribes and commercials are counting on you to come through for them. Some of you see a glass thats half empty while the majority ( yes thats been established ) see the glass half full.