Why do you say there would be 5 times as many fisherman ??? Not sure I follow you there. Thats a lot of extra fishing days. It would seem to me that you would have less fisherman or maybe the same amount ???

I've heard many of the supporters of the ruling claim that the statewide WSR ruling will create a bonanza angling opportunity on the OP. If the statewide ruling results in less Angler participation on the OP, which like you B-RUN STEELY I believe it will, then it would make sense why the City of Forks doesn't like it. right? If it creates a bonanza of Angler participation like some claim then it will most likely create a scenario much like GD pointed out.

Hi Bruce,

This is just a convenient hypothetical example.

I doubt initially there will be as many fishermen, but if the econmic argument that good fishing will bring out lots of fishermen is true, then one might expect as many as 5 times as many fisherment as presently fish, especially if these CNR fisheries are heavily promoted to bolster economic activity.

Bruce,

It is not black and white between a bonanza and a drop in angling pressure...there's a LOT of room in between where everyone is happy.

For incidental impacts to equal direct impacts, anywhere from 10 to 20 times the steelhead encounters would need to take place, perhaps even more. (This is calculated using mortality studies that range from 3%-5% for the most part, but adding in 5%-7% additional mortality to both cover any cumulative impacts that Geo is talking about and to be extra conservative, just in case.)

With angling pressure anywhere from exactly where it is now, to quite a bit more, would still be less impact. If the fishing were to get so good that more and more people visit Forks to fish those rivers, then more restrictive regulations to reduce the impacts would probably be appropriate.

You also have to remember that CnR hooking and handling mortality will not take a big leap over there now...there are already lots of folks that fish only CnR on tose fish, and those impacts are already there...it won't just show up now that harvest has been stopped.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks Bob for putting it together one slide. Its easy to see on your post that there are options. Options worth looking into for all anglers/angling. That is the key......

Your comment

"There's happy balance PS. Many of us feel we've found it, perhaps one day you will as well."

Please GIVE everyone the chance to find it and you know what, they probably will. It seems to be a fairly natural progression.....

Legislate it, and they never will.


Your right there is a happy balance. Please see that the happy balance isn't necessarily finding what you and WSC have found. (because we know that will never happen for everyone) But working together to find a lasting solution that doesn't alienate people and that ensures lasting runs of wild fish. That can be done, will it be harder? Yes, but its the right thing to do.

That, I believe is the balance that will most help all wild fish.


Cheers to all of your hard work!!

Keep in mind that the city of Forks Wa was all about logging at one time... that went away for the most part and the town is still there... Logging went away a lot like the steelhead are now. Nobody wanted to accept the fact that old growth forests were being decimated, did nothing about it... and then the Feds got involved and look what happened. You face a similar situation now in the form of an ESA listing which would really make some of you un-happy.

The two issues are very similar when you think about it.

Sorry this is a couple days late, I've been busy.

Bob- So there shouldn't be a coho fishery, where there are hatchery fish for harvest? Thats one of my fears with WSC and their agenda....whats next.

Yet, fishing for an admittedly depressed stocks in their spawning rivers is acceptable? THAT sounds more like a cop out to me. While I agree there is high mortality rates in the salt on silvers, theres more of them, so fishing them is making a smaller impact overall. In the rivers you have a confined, limited population, hammered daily on the way to their redds (and sometimes on the redds). Sounds like a no brainer to me as far as which has the higher impact on depressed runs.

My flyfishing coho in the salt comment was put there to get a reaction. This regulation seems more like a group imposing THEIR favorite way to fish on everybody else. Just like I implied in my comment.

I also have to respectfully say that I feel CFM was given too short a leash. I have seen him and MANY others take it a lot further without being kicked off. I know that this is your sight, and its your choice how you handle it. I have seen other people on the more "favorable" side of an issue be extremely abusive without reprecussion. It seems that CFM's stance got him in trouble here. At least thats the iimpression I have.

Now I wonder if I'll get the boot for disagreeing....

Now I wonder if I'll get the boot for disagreeing....

Very unfair Elkrun.

But most likely true...

That would not most likely be true--- So Aaron you've been registered all of three months and made 6 whole posts and your an expert on what it takes to get booted. You have alot to learn about PP.

Geoduck,

You’re the scientist, and now you’re asking me to consider “mere speculation” about CNR? Why?

“Perhaps on average, a fish that is CNRed repeatedly is not as effective in spawning as a fish that has not been caught ever.”

Perhaps can apply to a lot of things. But I’m not buying into this. I survived an adolescent car wreck, was knocked around more than a few times, and was winded by a few athletic endeavors, but I still managed to “spawn” and raise two outstanding kids. So yeah, perhaps, but I’d bet that most CNR’d steelhead survive to spawn just fine. And repeatedly? The average is less than once, so the fish that is caught two or three times is unusual indeed. If you need to pigeon-hole this somewhere, stick it with the incidental mortality.

“I am not aware of any data that addresses this issue. However, it stands to reason that it might have an effect. Steelhead have limited energy resources (and no way to obtain more in river) and extra energy is burnt every time a fish is caught.”

The data closest to this issue that I know about would be wild steelhead broodstocking. Those fish are truly abused. Caught - and not released - but “tubed” or tethered, man-handled into a tank truck, dip-netted into holding ponds, crowded and checked for ripeness twice a week until finally they are spawned artificially. And although a different situation, they spawned quite effectively. I have absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn’t have spawned effectively in the natural environment. Why does it stand to reason? Everything’s got limited energy resources, but as long as the energy expenditure doesn’t exceed the available supply, the fish should withstand the energy loss of one, or even two or three extra wind-sprint events caused by CNR. This could be analyzed with an energetics equation, but I don’t think you can be appeased by anything positive about WSR or CNR, and I’m not gonna’ waste my time, however, I recommend that you do so, since you think this should be considered.

“Sure a CNRed fish is more productive than a bonked fish, but I bet on average not as productive as an fish that was never caught.”

Since we cannot prove it with what we now know, what’s to bet on?

“I just think the assumption that a CNR season will automatically have less impacts than a catch and kill season is potentially false.”

Every assumption is potentially false. That’s one reason why they’re assumptions. Further, the direct impacts in hypothetical (assumptions) examples have been calculated, and the impacts of CNR are less than CNK. Will you feel better if we manufacture a hypothetical example where the impacts of CNK are less than CNR? I could do that, but it wouldn’t be meaningful.

“I am sure that if you have 5 times as many fishermen and a season 4 times longer under CNR as you would catch and kill, then you will have more impacts under CNR just on hooking mortality. If you assume each fish was CNRed multiple times before spawning, that will probably be a negative impact too. I think we need some data on CNR fish spawning productivity before we adopt it as the permanent managment strategy of the future.”

Just because you are sure doesn’t mean you are correct. And if you’re sure, you should construct a model and calculate the outcome. That might give your “sureness” some credence, provided we don’t think your assumptions are silly. Why would you assume each fish was CNR’d multiple times when the average is less than once (based on run sizes and and informal catch estimates on CNR rivers)?

I think you need a better model supporting your position before I have the time to worry about adopting CNR as a permanent management strategy. Heck, if I need data for that, what kind and amount of data do I need to justify fishing CNK the last best wild steelhead populations of Washington State into the ground?

I think you have decided that you cannot be satisfied with this two year WSR moratorium, and will pick at any and all aspects of its potential flaws while ignoring the flaws continued CNK seasons and ignoring the flaws of not adopting WSR and CNR.

I am taking the time to point it out this time, but it is my last time.

“The method is irrelevant, it is the impacts to the fish that need to be controlled.”

Thank you for including one cogent, relevant thought in your post.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Testy, Testy Salmo.

Just some speculation on my part. Please forgive me. I had forgotten a scientist is never allowed to speculate, especially when it is qualified as "merely speculation" After all its totally inappropriate to think about an issue when no solid data is present addressing that issue . . .

So why is it that you did not comment on my proposed alternatives to WSR for reducing impacts (see my previous post)
Do you think these are not valid alternatives to WSR or did you not see them?

Do you know of some data that suggests WSR is a superior method for helping fish when compared to the other 3 alternatives I proposed?

Please Salmo, you want to compare your reproductive suscess with that of a CNRed wild steelhead? I think that might be an apples and oranges comparison.

At least we can agree its the impacts that are important not how the fish dies.

I've been on a crusade to get people to think about what WSR will mean and what may have been sacrificed to put it in place. I don't think most people realize there are a lot of way to reduce impacts and WSR is not necesarily the only or even best way to do that.

For better or worse, we are looking at WSR for a couple years. I will be interested in carrying on the debate once some more current data become available.