Fine Salmo, I won't argue with you on the trends. I think everyone can agree that the trends for some rivers are very clear while the trends on others are more ambiguous.

My point is that each river is different and maybe the science doesn't really support a one size fits all regulation. I think the managers could come up with something better if they were allowed to try.

How come nobody will address the precedent this sets for fisheries managment?

Surely you are not a fan of blanket regulations in general.

The logic of WSR is clear and there are other species of fish that are worse off than steelhead in parts of the state.

Shouldn't we take equal mesures to protect those wild fish? Or is there something sacred about steelhead that they deserve special treatment?

Maybe its time for C&R halibut seasons . . .

One other question for Salmo (sorry, I guess I have to argue this morning).

If one or two data points can define a 20 trend of decline, if the next data point or two are way up what does that say about the so called trend?

The only good thing about this discussion of trends is that we will find out which was right as time goes on.

I suspect for some rivers the WSC rightly has identified real trends of decline, but for other rivers they have just caught the population down in a valley and they will cycle upward.

Your rant about population growth, human impacts, and the environment were dead on as far as long term threats to steelhead.

Overfishing is easy to fix. Stop fishing. no problem in a few fish generations

Habitat degradation takes many human generations to fix.

I just think all this WSR talk is a waste of time. If it weren't justified as being mandated by strong evidence, I wouldn't care. OUr time would be better spent trying to prevent human encroachment into steelhead habitat.

As for the science the evidence for statewide delcining populations isn't particularly strong.

Furthermore, the evidence that WSR will help is also weak. It certainly doesn't seem to have helped the puyallup.

I

And how it reads from your other guys...

step one. stop killing wild steelhead.
step two: talk about how wild fish are now saved, and bask in the glory of our victory..
step three: wonder( five years from now) why the numbers are still declining and other fishing opportunities have been taken away.......

I haven't killed a wild steelhead since the early 80's. I rarely kill a brat. So dont throw me into the CNK group. I always thought they were just to pretty to kill.

We have set a precident that we will regret. We have taken away our own choice under the guise that it will make a difference in the long run... how will we argue it when they make blanket rules later that demolish other fishing opportunities?

My take is that many feel that WSR IS the answer, and they will ignore the real issues....

dont forget....there are nets out there RIGHT NOW killing your Wild Steelhead before they get the chance to spawn.

Here is an email I received about Vancouver Island wild steelhead stocks:

By MARK HUME
> >
> >
> > UPDATED AT 12:19 PM EST Tuesday, Mar. 23, 2004
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Advertisement
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Something dreadful is happening to the rivers on Vancouver Island. Pool
>by
> > pool, riffle by riffle, they are dying.
> >
> > To a casual passerby, glancing down from one of the slick new bridges on
>the
> > Island Highway, nothing seems amiss. Rivers like the Cowichan, Nanaimo,
> > Little Qualicum, Englishman, Trent and Tsable look just as beautiful as
> > ever, running from under the mossy, green forests to the blue waters of
> > Georgia Strait.
> >
> > Mike McCulloch knows better.
> >
> > Mr. McCulloch, a fisheries technician with the B.C. Conservation
>Foundation,
> > helps organize small teams of swimmers that are responsible for taking
>an
> > unusual annual census. They pull on wet suits against the bone-numbing
>cold,
> > and snorkel the rivers that flow out of Vancouver Island's rugged
>mountains.
> > They are looking for an increasingly rare species of salmon known as
> > steelhead. They aren't finding many.
> >
> > The Gold River, on Vancouver Island's West Coast, historically had runs
>of
> > as many as 5,000 steelhead.
> >
> > Last year, swimmers counted 900; this year they found 35.
> >
> > "The magnitude of decline is overwhelming," said Mr. McCulloch. There
>are
> > worse statistics. In the little Trent River, which should have 100
> > steelhead, the snorkel team found only two. Both females.
> >
> > In Goldstream, a small river just outside Victoria that spills from one
> > dappled pool to another, there should be several hundred steelhead
>waiting
> > to spawn. The swimmers found none.
> >
> > The trend is repeated in river after river. The fish population data,
> > compiled by swimmers who peer under banks and dive into the gloomy
>darkness
> > of deep pools, is mathematically plotting the path to extinction.
> >
> > "When you get down to one or two fish in a stream we call it
> > quasi-extinction," Mr. McCulloch said. "At zero, it is termed
>extirpation,
> > meaning the species is extinct locally."
> >
> > Steelhead rivers on Vancouver Island have been in trouble for several
>years,
> > but never have the numbers been so low. "It's a situation that's getting
> > quite desperate," Mr. McCulloch said. "We're only a life cycle away from
>a
> > spiral into oblivion."
> >
> > Steelhead aren't like other salmon on the Pacific Coast. They are
>believed
> > to be the progenitor species, the fish that spawned all the other kinds
>of
> > salmon.
> >
> > There are six species of wild Pacific salmon, each filling its own niche
>in
> > the ecosystem. Some, like pinks, are small but prolific. Others, like
> > chinook, are fewer in number but grow to immense sizes. But only one,
>the
> > steelhead, survives spawning. The irony is that, for reasons not fully
> > understood, steelhead, the survivors, are now dying out as a species.
> >
> > Mr. McCulloch said habitat destruction is part of the problem. Vancouver
> > Island watersheds have been logged and many rivers run through heavily
> > urbanized areas. Some watersheds are dammed. Poor ocean survival, due to
>a
> > shift in temperatures, is a major factor affecting all salmon species.
> > Steelhead, which have been tracked all the way to the coast of Russia in
> > their Pacific migrations, have been the hardest hit. Because they live
> > longer in their freshwater phase, they have also suffered the most in
>the
> > rivers.
> >
> > The B.C. Conservation Foundation, a non-profit group, is working jointly
> > with the provincial Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection to
>restore
> > Vancouver Island steelhead. One plan, not yet funded, is to fertilize 15
> > rivers where nutrient levels are low because of declining salmon runs.
> >
> > When salmon die after spawning, their bodies decompose, enriching the
> > watersheds and stimulating the growth of aquatic insects, which feed
>young
> > fish. But overfishing and habitat problems have robbed many rivers of
>the
> > massive salmon runs they once had, stripping the streams of nutrients.
> > Steelhead usually live for two years in freshwater before heading to the
> > ocean. If they are underfed, they will be too small to survive when they
>run
> > to the sea. Mr. McCulloch has been scrounging dead salmon from federal
> > salmon hatcheries and placing them in rivers as fertilizer, hoping to
> > stimulate the growth of baby steelhead. From the dead bodies of one
>species
> > they hope to revive another. In one experimental program, artificial
> > fertilization saved the Keogh River, where steelhead runs are stable and
> > salmon stocks are increasing.
> >
> > Mr. McCulloch calls the Keogh "a beacon" in the darkness, but the
> > restoration project can't be copied without more money. The foundation
>and
> > government fisheries agencies need $4-million a year in excess of their
>core
> > funding, about double what they have. BC Hydro and some forest companies
>are
> > helping with corporate donations, but the federal government, which has
> > $1-billion to help beef farmers, which squanders millions on sponsorship
> > scandals and which dithers over endangered-species legislation, seems
> > oblivious to the steelhead crisis.
> >
> > "There are too many rivers in trouble and not enough money," Mr.
>McCulloch
> > said.
> >
> > Meanwhile, in the Trent, two females wait alone -- the last hope for a
> > river.
> >
> > mhume@globeandmail.ca
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Isn't it strange that the two salmon stocks that are doing the best(pinks and chums) are the stocks that spend little time in the rivers---- they hatch and leave.

Because steelhead are such good colonizers(up to a 20% wandering factor) shouldn't you strive to protect the last few semi healthy runs.

Jerry

That story makes a lot of people think…..

that maybe WSC should have proposed Wild salmon release instead of wild steelhead release. So is that one next?


Cowlitzfisherman

The name of the group is Wild Steelhead Coalition-----

Here is an email from Bob Hooten-- a very well known and respected B.C. biologist.


Sure hope the Dean return of the summer to come is not a reflection of what
we're experiencing with winter fish. Information continues to trickle in
since Fort Worden. Our Keogh research facility on the northern tip of
Vancouver Island has the 2002 steelhead smolts surviving at 0.23% for fish
returning after two ocean years (usually the majority). That is the worst
return rate in 28 years of record. Recent anecdotal reports from the Queen
Charlotte Islands indicate dismal winter runs there as well. West coast of
Vancouver Island off the bottom of all previous charts. I'm reminded a bag
of decent golf clubs costs lots less than the double handers I own!


Bob Hooton
Senior Fisheries Operations Specialist
Environmental Stewardship Division
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection
2080-A Labieux Rd, Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 6J9

Please find me atleast one quote on this board that actually supports that claim. I have yet to run across anyone that beleives WSR is the answer.

But there are many who think it has complicated the problem! Where's all the attention focused currently? Right now theres a beautiful slab hen native hung up in a net somewhere on the OP, along with a lots of her buddies. This is a far bigger impact ....

This has just been a nice smokescreen for the bigger issues to hide behind, a distraction that will have minimal impact at best. The potential precident of blanket regulations has far greater impacts on the future of fishing than WSR, or the "keep em wet rule", and they wont be good.

As for your quote: "never give away what you wish to keep"

Jerry - Here is a more readable version...

B.C. salmon: something\'s not fishy

Vancouver Island's rivers no longer leap with steelhead. Populations are dwindling to record lows, prompting worries of extinction, says MARK HUME

By MARK HUME - Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Something dreadful is happening to the rivers on Vancouver Island. Pool by pool, riffle by riffle, they are dying.

To a casual passerby, glancing down from one of the slick new bridges on the Island Highway, nothing seems amiss. Rivers like the Cowichan, Nanaimo, Little Qualicum, Englishman, Trent and Tsable look just as beautiful as ever, running from under the mossy, green forests to the blue waters of Georgia Strait.

Mike McCulloch knows better.

Mr. McCulloch, a fisheries technician with the B.C. Conservation Foundation, helps organize small teams of swimmers that are responsible for taking an unusual annual census. They pull on wet suits against the bone-numbing cold, and snorkel the rivers that flow out of Vancouver Island's rugged mountains. They are looking for an increasingly rare species of salmon known as steelhead. They aren't finding many.

The Gold River, on Vancouver Island's West Coast, historically had runs of as many as 5,000 steelhead.

Last year, swimmers counted 900; this year they found 35.

"The magnitude of decline is overwhelming," said Mr. McCulloch. There are worse statistics. In the little Trent River, which should have 100 steelhead, the snorkel team found only two. Both females.

In Goldstream, a small river just outside Victoria that spills from one dappled pool to another, there should be several hundred steelhead waiting to spawn. The swimmers found none.

The trend is repeated in river after river. The fish population data, compiled by swimmers who peer under banks and dive into the gloomy darkness of deep pools, is mathematically plotting the path to extinction.

"When you get down to one or two fish in a stream we call it quasi-extinction," Mr. McCulloch said. "At zero, it is termed extirpation, meaning the species is extinct locally."

Steelhead rivers on Vancouver Island have been in trouble for several years, but never have the numbers been so low. "It's a situation that's getting quite desperate," Mr. McCulloch said. "We're only a life cycle away from a spiral into oblivion."

Steelhead aren't like other salmon on the Pacific Coast. They are believed to be the progenitor species, the fish that spawned all the other kinds of salmon.

There are six species of wild Pacific salmon, each filling its own niche in the ecosystem. Some, like pinks, are small but prolific. Others, like chinook, are fewer in number but grow to immense sizes. But only one, the steelhead, survives spawning. The irony is that, for reasons not fully understood, steelhead, the survivors, are now dying out as a species.

Mr. McCulloch said habitat destruction is part of the problem. Vancouver Island watersheds have been logged and many rivers run through heavily urbanized areas. Some watersheds are dammed. Poor ocean survival, due to a shift in temperatures, is a major factor affecting all salmon species. Steelhead, which have been tracked all the way to the coast of Russia in their Pacific migrations, have been the hardest hit. Because they live longer in their freshwater phase, they have also suffered the most in the rivers.

The B.C. Conservation Foundation, a non-profit group, is working jointly with the provincial Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection to restore Vancouver Island steelhead. One plan, not yet funded, is to fertilize 15 rivers where nutrient levels are low because of declining salmon runs.

When salmon die after spawning, their bodies decompose, enriching the watersheds and stimulating the growth of aquatic insects, which feed young fish. But overfishing and habitat problems have robbed many rivers of the massive salmon runs they once had, stripping the streams of nutrients. Steelhead usually live for two years in freshwater before heading to the ocean. If they are underfed, they will be too small to survive when they run to the sea. Mr. McCulloch has been scrounging dead salmon from federal salmon hatcheries and placing them in rivers as fertilizer, hoping to stimulate the growth of baby steelhead. From the dead bodies of one species they hope to revive another. In one experimental program, artificial fertilization saved the Keogh River, where steelhead runs are stable and salmon stocks are increasing.

Mr. McCulloch calls the Keogh "a beacon" in the darkness, but the restoration project can't be copied without more money. The foundation and government fisheries agencies need $4-million a year in excess of their core funding, about double what they have. BC Hydro and some forest companies are helping with corporate donations, but the federal government, which has $1-billion to help beef farmers, which squanders millions on sponsorship scandals and which dithers over endangered-species legislation, seems oblivious to the steelhead crisis.

"There are too many rivers in trouble and not enough money," Mr. McCulloch said.

Meanwhile, in the Trent, two females wait alone -- the last hope for a river.

Again Elkrun, please find me a quote where a supporter of WSR actually states that he/she thinks WSR is the magic bullet steelhead solution.

I don't think any of us are ignoring any other issues as I know that many of us are involved in projects and such in addition to WSR.

Just out of curiousity, what would you propose to do?

Sparks - Why not go fishing?

I know I would if there was something good that I could keep without going all the way to the North Coast.

Please elaborate.

Like several others have said... Nobody says that WSR is going to solve all the problems...

" Sitting back and basking in what"... Elkrun, that was stupid, and you don't seem to be.

Your right, there are a bunch of fish hung up in nets right now. If your not willing to stop killing them, why should they ????

I think Jacob answered your question for you early in this thread Geoduck ...

Why are some streams that are not doing quite so well still open to kill?

If it takes a blanket policy to stop the trend of fishing until the fish are all gone then I'm all for it.

The Hoh is perhaps the best example. It has not met escapement in a number of years .. however, had there been a WSR policy in place on that stream, it's more than likely the reduction in sports impact would have allowed the river to make the goal. Wonder why I've spent less time there in the past few years than I used to? The fish aren't there in the numbers they used to be, plain and simple!

And because we have our own blanket policy in place to judge the health of the run my a magic little number on the Quillayute system, I think the "new blanket" is appropriate because of the poor health of the first half of the run.

Perhaps over the next two years we can look at the little things that the models don't really seem to address and go from there.

I'd also like to address Grandpa's mention of the difference between 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."

First off, the customer in front of that guide boat is an angler who likely only fishes here several times a season ... no different than the other "non-guided" that you mention.

Secondly, you're assuming that the guides here that allows guest to keep fish stop fishing after they've killed their wild fish. This simply isn't the case. Even though an angler must stop fishing after retaining his / her two hatchery fish early in the season, because f the mythical latter season hatchery fish, clients in these boats continue to fish. So ... not only do they kill one for sure, they also play C&R the rest of the day just like the those in boats like mine, with one important distinction ... rarely do you see the the higher mortality methods used by many of these anglers change after the one wild fish is retained. there is a big difference, thank you

I try not to be stupid, hopefully it works sometimes.

read my other posts B-run, I released nates before it was fashionable or politically correct.... back in the 80's along the puyallup where WSR has been a dismal failure. Haven't killed a nate in 24 years intentionally anyway. I live on the OP. I fish on the OP, I dont have the passion for steelheading I once had. It became to trendy, too crowded, and to generally depressing. I watched the Puyallup go from a great winter steelhead fishery to nothing, under the "protection" of WSR. I am not against it on a Stream by stream basis, IF it is the real problem. All that I see being accomplished is to create opportunity for a larger tribal harvest. IF numbers were to go up, their "half" goes up too... so really it turns out to be a lot of spinning your wheels so to speak. We also have given the WDFW liscense to create other blanket regulations in the future.... hell we proposed one on ourselves, why should they force one on us later. I dont like it when opportunity to fish goes bye-bye. It becomes harder to get it back again.

Sparky asks what I suggest people do next. Its simple. If you feel that strongly about saving the nates, stop fishing when they are running! Put up or shut up I guess. Fish your a$$ of for the brats, then voluntarily put the rods away in march and april..... if you really care about the fish . WSR is a token rule change at best, and most likely not going to a measurable difference except to divide an already divided user group. Nets and habitat are the only things that once changed will make a real difference. By the way, Since I have lived on the OP, I haven't fished one time for steelhead in April. If that's stupid, so be it.

On what scale do we in WA fertalize our rivers? And I keep hearing phrases like "a major factor" used in describing the percentage of decline caused by habitat. Can anyone put an @ number on what percentage is habitat like spawning grounds and low water levels, vs water temps at sea and factors outside of local river areas? These rivers, as bad as they are, can be excellent case studies for future recovery efforts. I hope they choose more than one method for recovery so we can see what method has the greatest affect.

Sure does open my eyes.....

Jerry -
The recent email from Bob Hooten (and thanks for sharing it) regarding the state of steelhead to our North is dire indeed. The return of 0.23% for the two salts is nearly unbelievabe. To put it in context the average smolt to adult survival during the 1980s as I recall was 15% with at least one reaching 25%. alowing for some addition returns of 2 salt this year and the 3s next year we are looking at as much as a 20 fold decrease in marine survival.

Tight lines
S malma

Elkrun,

Well put.


Smalma,

A twenty fold decrease in one generation is a trend even I would recognize.

Do you think it is really marine survival, or do you believe this stream fertilization business?

Hey you guys that claim the sky is falling on the OP for steelhead. It is not.

If you want to know what a falling sky looks like see Vancouver Island streams.

My 0.02