Those V.I. streams looked healthy once too. I wish I had your optimism Geo, but I would much rather me wrong(that the runs need help/ no harvest) but what if your wrong Geo, what is your fallback position?

The Clean Water Act may make it very difficult to fertilize rivers here in the states.

JG,

Yeah, the CWA may actually get in the way of some stream fertilization projects.

The problem is that we have rivers that are very barren of nutrients up top (cold water, no salmon, no bugs), but very high in nutrients downstream (farms, people's lawns, golf courses). If fertilizer is put in the upper river to raise the nutrient level there, by the time it gets downstream, CWA levels for phosphorous and nitrogen will have been exceeded.

I would guess it would be easier to not permit a fertilization project than to try and regulate farm outflows and lawn fertilizers for lawns and golf courses.

Those pollutants have, and will continue, to help create a very unbalanced nutrient gradient in the rivers.

Fish on...

Todd

Well Jerry,

It seems that whether you fish or not on some rivers, the run will decline due to habitat issues. On those rivers, I would not waste the effort. If I were in charge, I would take the rivers that have hopeless habitat issues (it would appear the puyallup is in this class) and turn them into hatchery fish factories (like the cowlitz).

In return, I would stop putting hatchery fish in rivers with relatively intact watersheds like the skagit and put down restrictive harvest rules (ie C&R only, or 1 wild fish per season).
I would spend all of my conservation effort on habitat preservation on these wild only rivers.

I realize this would never fly with the ESA, but I think some rivers are too far gone to easily fix. It is clear that at best half measures will be taken to fix these problems. Why waste the time and resources.

It takes very little time or resources to protect existing intact habitat. We should focus on this first as we get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of helping fish.

Tremendous amounts of time and resources are needed to restore degraded habitat. (It can be done, I have seen it on midwest trout streams.) This should be done only after we have protected everything that is still intact that may be threatened to maximize the benefit to fish.

As for the vancouver island streams, I seriously doubt a 20 fold decline in populations was due to an increase in fishing pressure. I suspect that something has changed in the stream ecosystem. Whether that was caused by logging or depleted salmon runs or natural parasites/predators I don't know. If I am not mistaken, this happened under a WSR policy.

Show me a stream where WSR has created population growth for a steelhead stock in serious decline before the WSR policy.

I'm not aware that such a precedent has been set, yet WSR has been in place in many rivers for many years.

So because it sounds good, we are going to statewide WSR, for lack of a better plan to help steelhead.

Then we as sportsfishers pat ourselves on the back for having "helped the fish".

I think the best thing we can do to help the fish is to leave their habitat alone (ie prevent development, logging, etc). This approach has a proven record of maintaining healthy wild fish populations. It is not glamorous, but it works. It is about the only thing that really does.

It is clear that when we overfish, the population takes a dive, but when we stop they come back (at least salmonids). This has been demostrated repeatedly over the past 100+ years. Therefore overfishing is a temporary, relatively easily fixed problem.

What has also been clear is that when you radically alter the habitat the fish suffer (ie the columbia dams). So, habitat distruction is a permanent, difficult to fix problem.

So I think that all this talk about WSR is at best a half measure aimed at a short term problem.

We would should take the long view and presreve as much habitat as we can while we can, because once its gone, it doesn't come back.

Given the right conditions animal populations will grow exponentially. Habitat doesn't. It is essentially fixed.

There's a nice little friday rant.

As for the vancouver island streams, it is simple. If they were overfished stop fishing and wait a few generations. If the habitat is intact, the fish will come back. If the habitat is degraded they will not.

You cannot have healthy wild fish populations with degraded habitat.

Isn't it a little strange that this topic is supposedly about the precedent that WSR sets for managing other fisheries, but nobody has said much about this precedent.

Todd or any other WSC member,

can we get you at least to comment on the precedent that WSR sets as it pertains to other fisheries?

It doesn't set a precedent for other fisheries here just as it hasn't in Oregon, Idaho and B.C.
Your plan for the fisheries is strikenly similar to the plan the HSRG is working on and one that the WSC is going to sign onto.

Geoduck -
The decline on Vancouver Island clearly a marine survival issue - Hooten was reporting on the smolt to adult survival that is the survival from the time the fish leave the river until they return. It is true that they have experimented with adding nutrients to the system and have demostrated increased freshwater production but that apparently has not translated to increased marine survival.

There has been suggestions that the putting more salmon on the spawning grounds would result in increased production. If that is indeed the case I would have expected better production from the Snohomish. The wild salmon escapements have been among the largest in the State and that last couple of years essentially off the charts (more than 1 million pinks in both 2001 and 2003). Could supply more details if anyone is interested.

Jerry -
As you may know neither B.C. or Oregon have blanket bans on the retention of wild steelhead. The majority of the waters have such bans but not all. In fact the Oregon streams are being managed much as the recent norm for Washington - that is on streams that have "healthy returns" wild fish harvest (1/day and 5/year) is allowed (at lest the last time I checked). One reason there are not more such opportunities is that until recently many systems had not been monitored to deteremine the population status.

Of course there is no wild steelhead retention in Idaho as all the populations are ESA listed.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma, Thanks for the info. I for one would always like to learn more about salmonid populations and their dynamics.


Jerry, I respectfully disagree.

Clearly under the blanket WSR, sports harvest of wild steelhead is banned on all washington rivers. This is despite robust healthy populations in some streams that can (and will under the tribes) withstand some controlled harvest.

Using the exact same reasoning, the WDFW would be justified to close all retention of wild halibut, sturgeon, dolly varden/bull trout, black rockfish, and chinook salmon (they are all but extirpated in certain parts of the state where they were historically abundant). There are local populations of each of the above species that are certainly in worse shape than any OP stream steelhead population. Nonetheless, there are healthy populations in other parts of the state that can and do support fisheries.

The problem is that now, whenver it is too difficult, expensive, or inconvenient, the WDFW can throw down a blanket closure statewide as it sees fit. Clearly, if steelhead, the most popular fish in the state, can be managed in such a way so can all other fish.

Now, if WDFW gets budget cuts in the future, maybe they put down a statewide ban on retaining chinook and let the comercials and tribes split the catch. They are much easier to monitor than the zillions of sport fishers in the state.

The danger of this sort of precedent, is that a vocal minority (WSC, and others) have convinced the commission to give away some steelheading opportunity supposedly for the sake of conservation (based on dubious science at best). Not only that, they have potentially jeapordized other unrelated fisheries, but setting a regulatory precedent.

Essentially the sportsfishers are not allowed to harvest, while other parties continue to do so. This may be politically expedient for taking the moral high road against the tribes on steelhead managment, but it sacrifices some opportunity for steelhead and potentially opportunity for many other species.

Clearly the steelheading community is split on the value of such a sacrifice.

I doubt most non-steelheaders appreciate the ramifications of WSR, but when they find out they will be most displeased.

There is already a closer on yelloweyeout in the salt, has been for two years. I believe there is also a closer on six gill sharks for three years. So has the sky begun to fall, did you miss the beginning of the end?????

NO, so far as anyone knows there are no healthy populations of sixgill or yelloweye anywhere in the state.

The logic of WSR is close all independent populations of the same species in the entire state to retention whether healthy or not, because some populations are unhealthy.

This doesn't apply to yelloweye or sixgill because there is either no data, or the data that exists indicates there are no healthy populations anywhere in this state state.

If they close wild upriver brite chinook on the big C (a healthy population) because of puget sound wild chinook ESA status that would be using the same logic as WSR.


Or close the sturgeon below bonneville becuase the fish above the damms are in trouble. Or halibut in the rest of the state because central and south puget sound don't have halibut like they did 100 years ago. Or pacific cod in the rest of the state because puget sound cod are totally depleted.

Closing a healthy fishery to help an declining fishery doesn't help the declining fishery at all.

Sure its better for the healthy population but so is not fishing at all.

The logic for WSR seems flawed to me, unless you don't care about angler opportunity.

If all you care about is steelhead populations and angler opportunity is irelevant, then close all fishing. THat's clearly better for the steelhead.

That's my problem with the logic of WSR

The difference with steelhead is the wandering factor that makes them such good colonizers. The fish from healthy stocks wander to help rebuild unhealthy stocks.

Geoduck,

It appears you equate WSR with a reduction in angler opportunity. It is a reduction in harvest opportunity, altho the harvest opportunity in question may in many cases be ill-advised. I think WSR actually maintains or increases angler opportunity, particularly when the alternative would be total stream closure.

At times, like recent years on Puget Sound rivers, WSR doesn't contribute to increased steelhead population size, it does maintain, and even increase angler opportunity. Most WA rivers have had WSR, or late winter season CNR, for many years. My own observations on the Skagit River in particular are that more angler days occur by far during the 2 month CNR season than during the 3 month CNK season. I apologize for mixing a CNR comparison with WSR, but my central point is that the lack of WSK opportunity doesn't keep anglers away, once the word gets out that there are fish to be caught. Therefore, I think it's misleading to characterize WSR as reducing angler opportunity. At worst, it's a kill reduction opportunity that maintains and or increases angler opportunity.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Well said Salmo g!

Salmo -
In your Skagit example have you included the substantial punk fishery during the keep season? When there was an ongoing creel census on the Skagit it was common during the keep season that 60% of the total number of anglers counted on a given angler count were plunkers. Often more than 50% of the total Skagit angler effort was downstream of the pipeline at Sedro Woolley.

Most up river anglers never see that effort so in their mind it doesn't exist. The first time I ran a boat from the lower North Fork to above Rockport I was shocked at the extent of the plunk fishery. While you and I may not care to fish in that manner many do and they represent significant angler interest. For some reason they are not be fans of CnR.

Tight lines
S malma

Salmo & other WSC memebers.

You may be right about WSR leading to more potential angler opportunity (ie more potential days to fish). To bad it wasn't justified as such, that arguement makes much more sense to me.

However, I think for many fishermen (not myself, but others I know of) they would rather catch and kill one fish for the table, than catch and release ten fish.

The impacts are equivalent for the fish (using the 10% mortality rule of thumb 1 fish dies in either instance). Why can't the regulations reflect that in some way? (maybe some rivers are CNR and others have wild fish harvest until the allowable impacts are reached).

Clearly, WSR was justified on a biological argument. Biologically speaking it makes no difference if a fish dies by hooking mortality or by being bonked. As long as the same number of fish are dead it is a wash from a biology and management point of view.

Why should the bonkers be the only one's to sacrifice opportunity for the sake of fish?

IF WSR had been justified on a maximization of recreation argument, then I think it would make sense for the bonkers to sacrifice opportunity so that more C&R opportunity was available. But WSR was put forward as being scientifically sound managment (A position I think most dubious). In terms of fisheries managment does it make any difference how the fish dies? I don't think it does.

Thus, WSR could appear to be a fishing opportunity grab by CnR fishers from bonkers.

Even if this is completely untrue, the mere appearance is a very devisive state of affairs. Clearly this is very bad for sportfisher unity; not our strong suit in the first place.

Also, why doesn't anyone want to comment on the potential ramifications of WSR for managment of other species with populations in decline? I have brought this up repeatedly and only Jerry has even acknoweledged the issue (albeit he denied it was an issue). Clearly the logic of WSR could be applied to other species in local decline. If it were significant statewide reductions of angler opportunity would result.

The WSC has been so single-minded on getting WSR rammed through that I don't think some of these things have been fully considered. If they have, nobody seems wiling to express what WSC's position on the issues I described above.

GD ... Your profile says you've been reading since Aug of 2002. If you go back to a number of discussions, you see that angling opportunity has long been an argument for C&R of wild steelhead. In fact, look back to the formative threads of the WSC and and that's where most of the ire of anglers laid ... the loss of any fishing opportunity at all.

Precedent setting? Not sure you could call it that. Please refer to the 5 questions for the WSC thread to learn why some of us feel that a "blanket nban" was needed ... specifically for the Quillayute as whole issue as well as the Hoh numbers. I didn't even bother to touch on the fact that it also ionvolves ceratin portions of the runs that are clearly weak - the early component for example that led to the formation of the Snider Creek Project over 20 years ago.

Personally, I think you're comparing appleas and oranges. With many other species you're referring to, the models seem to work to some degree. You've got some seriouys habitat issues in some areas that will never allow any of the species to thrive ... so a blanket policy will not do them any good.

Let's take the Queets for example ... superb habitat, the same oceanic conditions as Quillayute fish yet they're not doing well at all. While there is some hatchery influence, I'd venture a guess that your primary factor here is likely harvest ... yet we've seen kill fisheries there off and on for some time.

Something isn't working ... perhaps the goal issue there between the state and the tribe is a mahor factor. Perhaps the tribe's goal is too low, perhaps the state's goal is too low.

Over the next two years while we reduce harvest to a fair degree .. perhaps we can figure out what's happening. Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me ... and it certainly can't hurt the fish population now can it?

Wasn't it just a year or two ago that the river had to be shut down totally earlier than normal becasuse the run was so low? Is that what we'd like to see in all streams down the road? My guess is most would answer 'no".

Well said Geoduck. I agree that most likely it wasn't well though out by its advocates. We will not know the full extent of imposing our own blanket regs for years to come. But rest assured, we haven't seen the end of it! All we know for sure is that the tribes and commercials will be getting more fish....

I would guess that Chinook will be next to fall under a blanket closure.

Bob,

I agree that at this point the best thing to be done is to give WSR a whirl and see what happens. I think the process used to get WSR done was irregular at best, but we might as well make the best of the situation. And see how the experiment turns out.

The only problem is that we really won't know if WSR has done anything until five years from now (when the progeny of the first WSR protected spawners return), but two years from now we'll have to decide wether WSR should be extened.

What was the logic for two years of WSR, or is that all WSC could get the comission to commit to?

I predict (my crysal ball sometimes works) that steelhead runs will take an upswing in the next year or two making WSR's shakey scientific justification even wekaer.
If that does come to pass, WSC better put together some stronger maximization of recreation arguements forward if they want to see WSR extended.

Smalma,

Yes, I was thinking back to the period of the regular creel census. Plunkers on the lower river made up most of the effort during the early season. They continued to be a significant presence as late as the river was open. The big difference was the large increase in middle and upper river effort in March and April (upper river only for April). Once the word was out that good fishing was available on the Skagit and Sauk, anglers came out of the woodwork, it seemed.

An important note in this regard is to Geoduck who thinks CNK anglers are foregoing opportunity for the benefit of CNR anglers. That presumes that one is either a CNR angler or a CNK angler. Bad presumption. By the mid-1980s, many of the participants in the Skagit CNR fishery were Wildcatters, whose club policy was CNK, or close the river. But many of the members found CNR fishing was so much more satisfying than staying home working in the yard. It turns out that a lot of the anglers participating in CNR fisheries are not opposed to CNK, and would kill their catch if legal to do so.

Which leads me to ask: just who are these high-falutin’ CNR, expensive sunglass-wearin’ anglers, any-dam*- how? Speaking for myself, it didn’t start out that way. I kept fish, hatchery or wild, because it stroked my ego, and they were good to eat. Eventually, I became more of a fish snob, and preferred not to eat frozen fish. Also eventually, I became lucky enough or skilled enough to occasionally catch more salmon or steelhead than I could eat before it went bad. But I liked to fish, so I began releasing my catch. Not for conservation reasons, just for a purely pragmatic reason.

After watching the Skagit wild steelhead run rebuild in the 80s from its low point in the 70s, I decided not to keep any wild steelhead, whether it was legal to do so or not. I had no problem with the continued harvest of “surplus” wild steelhead on OP rivers when some of my friends opposed wild steelhead harvest anywhere for general reasons. But the more I consider the OP rivers, the more I think, as Bob also suggested, it’s just a matter of time, and those rivers won’t be able to meet the demand for harvestable wild steelhead. We anglers grow more numerous every year, and technology makes us ever more effective (maybe this could be titled “curse of the pink worm.”). The OP rivers are our best last place, and unfortunately, it’s our best, last, chance to make a stand for this treasured resource before the OP joins the long list of Washington State has-beens.

The upshot is that none of the WSR and CNR advocates that I presently know started out that way. Most of the advocates gravitated to this philosophy based on severe wild steelhead population declines throughout their North American range. I find it much harder to understand the mentality of the person who would choose to kill one of the last few. Perhaps they adhere to the Boldt-case theory of conservation; as long as there’s more than two, it’s surplus.

Geoduck, for the last few years I’ve thought that WSR was justified on the OP mainly for the increased recreational benefit more than conservation. However, after looking at the “charts” that have been posted here, and I realize there’s room for differences of opinion, the conservation position wins out in my opinion. I understand that WDFW biologists didn’t support that position, but I also understand that they are under pressure to provide opportunity to a diverse constituency that includes an element that doesn’t comprehend or accept fishing without harvest. Heck, that describes some of the biologists I know. Nonetheless, given the direction the state’s human population is going and the direction that the state’s wild steelhead population is going, it’s just a matter of time until WSR and CNR will be the only wild steelhead fishing opportunities available in this state. If you think we are not there yet and should continue to harvest wild steelhead, see the paragraph above.

You asked for a response about the precedent this WSR action sets for other species statewide. I didn’t respond because I wasn’t sure what you meant, and I haven’t thought about that. My first thought is that no matter what WDFW does, it will be wrong. Time and time again, anglers have complained about the complexity of fishing regulations that differ among the many rivers and lakes, etc. The public and the department have usually preferred blanket regulations. Remember the days when the fishing regulation pamphlet was only 20 small pages? But things change. There are too many people and too many people angling today, and our knowledge of the fishery resource has increased. The combination require more complex regulations if the goal is to maximize or optimize angling opportunity. WSR might seem like a step backward to you, since it is a “blanket” regulation. But it is a statewide regulation that allows exceptions, except for the next two years. I don’t see any particular adverse ramifications. WDFW could suggest a blanket ban on chinook fishing because there are many ESA listed chinook populations and because many hatchery chinook are unmarked. However, I don’t think they will. And if they propose it, it will go through at least all the back door channels that this latest ruling did, giving astute followers of the Commission an opportunity to question and even oppose it, or at least offer less adverse alternatives to it. So no, I’m not concerned at present about potential adverse ramifications of this statewide WSR policy.

I agree that the WSC has been rather single-minded in pushing this policy through. I think that was a wise choice on their part, not that the issue is necessarily finished yet. I think WSR represents the best choice as a first step in a longer-range plan that would maximize recreational steelhead angling opportunity statewide. I generally favor actions that would result in there being more steelhead in rivers, and especially so if that results in increased angler opportunity.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Geoduck, I've been part of the WSC since its inception, and we have always included economics and opportunity, in addition to science, as part of our argument in support of statewide WSR. Back in 2000 members of our group wrote a white paper titled:
The biological and economic benefits of wild steelhead release: seeking a balance between conservation and recreation, the case for wild steelhead release

Our white paper has been highlighted on the WSC homepage for about 3 or 4 years now. We gave copies of our white paper to each of the commissioners 3 years ago before the rules meeting, and again this year in Port Townsend when they were taking public testimony.

Our white paper does have some flaws and some opinions not shared by others. For what I felt was a very constructive discussion about my article titled Maximum Sustainable Yield: an antiquated and high-risk concept for wild steelhead management, see this old thread on the WSC forum:


http://www.flyfishingforum.com/flytalk3/...c&threadid=7690
(I've bumped this to the top of the WSC forum)

This details a critique of my chapter provided by WDFW's Curt Kraemer. We went back and forth a few times in what I felt was a very constructive dialogue.

To learn more about what the WSC has been arguing, I encourage you to read our white paper.

As noted on our web-site, 1 copy is free with a WSC membership and 5 copies free with a club membership. Copies are availible to non-WSC members for a donation of $7.50 per copy.

To order a copy please send check or money order to:

Wild Steelhead Coalition
218 Main Street, Box 264
Kirkland, WA. 98033


sincerely,
Nate Mantua
Wild Steelhead Coalition VP of Science and Education