So tell old wise one…

Are we to believe that all our problems with salmon and steelhead can now simply be resolved by yours and a couple others math equation?

Isn't that what got us to where we are NOW??


Cowlitzfisherman

No......it's WAY more likely that our problems will be solved by doing nothing.

Dan!!!

What about your small scrambled eggs


Cowlitzfisherman

Jerry, with the exception of the puyallup, the twenty year average IS essentially flat.

Certainly for the OP streams it is flat. If you look at the trend up through the late 90s, the trend is slightly up. If you look at the trend through last year it might be slightly down. But, this is just because the past few years have been bad years.
It all depends where on the cycle your graph ends.

Ate 'em with some bacon.

Now I'm gonna sit back, relax, and just talk about ways to help our fish.

I was actually going to DO something, but I figured half the people would think it was based on junk science, and wasn't worth trying.

Damn it Dan!!!

Don't be so damn wimpy!

Go for the gusto, and try some of them there "brains and eggs" instead of that same old pork fat!

You can do it

Drinking beer takes WAAAY less effort.

Are you saying I should use my brain for something besides holding my ears apart?

This is what you are calling essentially flat. This info is from the y-value on the charts.

Skagit) -1.0% per year for 26 years
Snohomish) -4.0% per year for 22 years
Green) -1.6% per year for 26 years
Puyallup) -7.4% per year for 20 years
Quillayute) +2.4% per year for 24 years
Hoh) -0.9% per year for 26 years
Queets) -2.0% per year for 30 years
Quinault) -2.1% per year for 24 years.


If that was your wages instead of fish you might be a little more concerned over a 20+ year "slight" downward trend.

Jerry,

I'm befuddled by the math!

Can you or anyone here explain in plain and simple language, either mathematical or otherwise, just how these "y-values" are derived?

OK, here's a "Y" value. Y the hell do we keep re-hashing the same arguments?

I know it's fun to argue on the internet and all, but a quick utilization of the search function should glean any and all supporting data from BOTH sides of the issue, and allow us to get back to more productive fare such as personal attacks and folks leaving the board.

Cow- Its like Dan says... maybe you should just do nothing.

About the math... I could spend some time explaining +/- 3 sigma etc, but Jerry covered it best ( if that was your paycheck avg over the years you might be pretty pissed)

About beating this to death... Your right. I am like a moth to a flame.. I guess it takes a fool to argue with one.

So whats your plan ??? I have never seen a post on this board that supported nets. Got a plan of any kind ??? You all seem scared that the tribes are going to take your fish... the way you pull together that could happen. So moving forward, how are you going to make it better ??? Whats a fish worth ???

Did you get the part in my last post that asked " what happens when you close one river and leave the one up the road open ".. Thoughts on that ???

4 Salt you are a wise man

Wise Indeed! Nothing that makes one uneasy or raises concepts difficult in that they might upset ones mindset should be talked about in good company.

Something easy to understand like, "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...", might better explain why statewide mandatory release is needed to protect the wild steelhead on the Columbia where recreational harvest of those fish has been illegal for many, many years.

Or how their is nothing unique about the moratorium because it is similar to the rules everywhere else where same rules allowing harvest that Washington had before the moratorium have been in effect for years.

Idaho has been the only oddball on harvest policy and that is because their wild steelhead are all threatened. The rules in California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska all allowed some harvest of wild steelhead but only from healthy stocks. That is why we in Washington have for years disallowed any harvest of wild steelhead bound for Idaho where all the stocks need protection.

Plunker, the point is this. Its the nets that are killing our fish, not the sport fishing in the C.R-
As far as nets are concerned, wild and hatchery are all the same.

In order to take on the tribes and commercials, retention of wild fish would have to be unacceptable. The Dams are staying.. thats a fact that has to be realized. Nets on the other hand, if people got together - those could be eliminated. Protection of wild fish is the one tool you have to leverage that decision down the road. A fish brings more money to the state ( Washington state ) on the end of a line than it does in a net... but thats all been covered before.

The commercial netters are putting on a big push to be allowed even more netting. Sure their opportunities have declined but so have the opportrunities to kill buffalo and eagles. Their opportunities should be dwingling right along with the fish. Then it will be only the tribes who indiscriminately net the crap out of your wild steelhead.....then whaddaya gunna do?

We have a handle on our tribes, hoping you guys could get a handle on yours. Make them a deal, we will trade them 100 wolves that can be introduced in Wa state, no make that 300 and all they have to do is stop netting fish that sell for way less than the cost of producing them. Its a well documented fact, that these wolves we want to send you eat sea lions and seals ( only !!! ) Its a win win deal baby !!!! We get our fish, you get our wolves... how could you say no to that

Yes Jerry, I still maintain that for a dynamic population the trend is essentially flat.

Nobody said close the state for pink salmon in 95 after the last big skagit flood. Nevermind the skagit run took to an 80-90% hit. Two generations later it was above escapment. Four generations later it was at historic high levels. Salmonid populations are dynamic and change rapidly reflecting changes in their environment.

Were pink regulations changed statewide to protect skagit pinks. No, because that doesn't make sense.

The strongest case against WSR is that it hasn't solved any of the problem of declining steelhead populations in this state.

There is nothing revolutionary about WSR, it has been in place on the skagit, green, snohomish, and puyallup since 1984. Yet you say they are declining (I still won't argue the puyallup that is the only clear trend).

So if WSR is going to be the magic cure for depressed steelhead, how come these rivers haven't shown any significant recovery in 20 years of WSR?

Don't blame the tribes either, on puyallup, the river with the worst trouble, there has not been any significant tribal harvest in 10+ years.


The simple answer is that harvest isn't actually the problem. If there is a problem for steelhead it is with habitat. If you really want to help steelhead, don't worry about harvest or WSR or anything but the habitat.

There are a lot of agencies and the tribes all worried about harvest. We should focus on protecting the habitat, because that is where steelhead are vulnerable.

Geoduck,

Just a correction You have been able to kill wild fish until March 1st on the Green, SKagit, Snohomish up until 4 years ago so please don't say there hasn't been a sports harvest since 1984 on those rivers.

JJ

Nobody said it's a magic cure. It's one step to stop the bleeding. And as mentioned above, WSR has not been ineffect on the S rivers for 20 years.

Wow, likening Pink runs to wild steelhead. Talk about an apples to oranges comparison.

Keep talking Geoduk, between comparisons like that and a continued misunderstanding/mischaracterization of what the regs for PS rivers have been during recent history, you lose credibility every time you open your mouth.