The run sizes were using the WDFW run escapement numbers not catch records or harvest rates though on the charts you will see harvest numbers and total run size which are subtracted to get escapement. These are the numbers the state uses they may not be perfect but they are the best we have and they are the numbers the comanagers uses. I believe all steelhead have been marked for going on 20 years now. We didn't use catch rates as an indication of declining runs but rather escapement.

JJ

GD ... I went back at looked at the data I had from the state regarding this year's wild run on the Hoh.

I was wrong

It was not supposed to be 40 fish over escapement, it was projected to be 40 fish under escapement.

That with a projected sport harvest of 668 fish.

Managing a river for a kill fishery and not projected to meet escapement?

Now you might see why so many of us feel that a blanket ban was necessary.

Given the historical troubles of meeting escapement with a kill fishery on this river, there is NO reason whatsoever there should have been one this year given WDFW's projections.

Assinine, plain and simple.

Have a C&R fishery and decrease the sport impact, and we would make escapement and many of the years we haven't met it over the last 12 years that the runs were really down, we still likely would have made escapement even with C&R mortality.

Management to extiction I think ought to be the the decription of the state & tribe's policy here.

Aunty..You are becoming strident again...sorry but I have only been trying to show what you refuse to accept and that is there are reasons many people might disagree with the WSC and you....I have said many times in the past as I do now that I applaud WSC. OK? I just think you folks should not act as if opponents are incredibly stupid and act so shocked that anyone could not agree with you.

why does it say "catch and release" in the regulation book if its a classic example of "wsr" ?

Aunty - I can understand your urge to gang up on the "Bad Guys" but one must learn to understand that "The Gang" does not require 100% agreement amongst every member on every issue. It is possible to work together on important issues without drawing lines to isolate the "Bad Guys."

With the moratorium the end does not justify the means. If what the Commission did was illegal they should be forced to redress the issue in a just and proper manner.


I too wish to know why the rule pamphlet specifies catch and release fishing on the North Fork Stillaguamish? Is that rule different from WSR?

Todd - Please address this simple question before you become too busy eating crow to tend to such trivialities.

JJ

When you guys are quoted as saying this, what are we suppose to think?
Maybe that's half of WSC problem! You guys don't know what you have
already said. Since almost all wild steelhead harvest has been stopped
or prohibited in 2003, one can understand why there were only 3,554 wild
steelhead harvested in 2003!

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040317-110734-1219r.htm


"But the steelhead population has been hit hard in recent decades by
habitat destruction and overfishing. In the mid-1950s, sport fishermen
took more than 60,000 wild steelhead in Washington. In 2003, that number
was 3,554, according to the Wild Steelhead Coalition's review of
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data.

Hatchery-bred fish are still plentiful in many rivers, but native
steelhead thrive in only a few streams mostly in Washington's
northwestern corner such as the Hoh, the Sol Duc and the Bogachiel,
where the protections of the Olympic National Park help protect habitat.


But even here, the wild runs are well below their historic heights.
Conservationists fear a day when only hatchery fish — often scorned as
"clones" by purists — will swim these rivers.

"We need to be very conservation-oriented, assuring that we protect the
fish first," said Dick Burge, the Wild Steelhead Coalition's vice
president for conservation.

The coalition argues that the state's policy of managing fish for the
maximum sustainable harvest pushes steelhead too hard, leaving them
vulnerable to poor ocean conditions, drought and silt-choked rivers.

So the coalition persuaded the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
to impose a two-year moratorium on killing wild steelhead anywhere in
the state, a ban that has many locals up in arms."

Hair
You bring up something important here
How many of us here are on a watershed council

Todd –
Regarding the Deer Creek summer steelhead on the North Fork of the Stillaguamish. The following is short history of them and their management based on my limited information.

You are correct in that historically that Deer Creek (NF Stilli trib at Oso) supported the largest run wild summer steelhead found in the Puget Sound region. There has been various estimates of what the historic run size may have been – my best guess (and it is only an informed guess) was it typically varied from 1,000 to 2,000 annually. They are typical of the summer steelhead found in the Puget Sound region – that is they tend to be smallish (an average fish would 24 to 25 inches in length -range from 19 to 30 inches) and return to the river from late June into September. They have long support and avid group of fishers and were the prime reason that the North Fork Stillaguamish was established as fly only water during the summer season. The uniqueness and vulnerability of the population was recognized early with there spawning and upstream on habitats (Deer Creek) itself has been closed to all fishing for more than 60 years.

The early fishing anglers - Haig Brown and Zane Grey – as well as the list of who is who of the Washington steelhead fly fishing fraternity all fished for these wonderful fish. They are noted for the willingness to take a fly – the dry fly fishing can be as good as any on the coast. They typically are very feisty fish with quick runs and wonderful jumps. The fishing for this fish continued to attract numbers of anglers through the decades into the 1960s. In the mid 1960s hatchery summer steelhead were introduced into the upper North Fork. They so dominated the fishing though not the hearts of many of the fly anglers.

Life history information as well as genetic information indicates that there has bee little or no introgression between the hatchery and the Deer Creek fish. The abundance of the Deer Creek steelhead varied from year to year as natural populations will with some good years and some poor years until the 1970s when the population began to slide. This is believed to have been the primary result of degraded habitats from logging. This continued into the 1980s when a large landslide/erosion event (Deforest Creek slide) aggravated the all ready dire habitat situation during the winter of 1983/84. At the time harvest of the wild fish was allowed. Remember that this pre-dates the mass marking of the hatchery steelhead. Recognizing the need to protect these fish a minimum size limit of 30 inches was placed on the North Fork during the summer season. The 30 inches was determined based on newly available life history information that found that most years more than 99% of the returning Deer Creek adults were less than 30 inches. In effect this began what we now recognize as a WSR regulation – though the hatchery fish were unmarked the fact that many of the wild fish (nearly all 1 salt fish) were smaller than the hatchery fish (mostly 2 and 3 salt fish). With the return of marked hatchery fish in the mid-1980s the regulation was changed to prohibiting the retention of unmarked fish during the summer season. It should be noted that neither regulation was universally accepted.

In spite of this protection the population continued to declined until by the late 1980s less than 100 adults were returning annually. This was due to the continued degradation of the habitat. Summer stream temperatures in the upper basin were reaching into the mid 70 degree levels with afternoon temperatures at Oso sometimes exceeding 80 degrees. In addition there was severe increases of streambed loading with unstable spawning gravels, limited rearing and over wintering habitats for the parr. At the peak of activity of the Deforest Creek slide it has been estimated that an average of 100 dump truck loads of material (silt, sand, and gravel) a day (for more than a year) entering Deer Creek from the slide. The situation looked very bleak for this wonderful resource and many including me thought that they were head for extinction and were likely to be gone by now.

The large floods in 1990 and 1995 moved substantial amounts of material from Deer Creek re-establishing some deep pools and in stream channel complexity that allowed increased survival of the steelhead parr. As a result an increase in run sizes was noted – by the late 1990s WDFW was estimating that 600 to more than 1,000 adults were returning annually (based on visual counts from the air with some ground counts to verify the air counts). The returns appear to have remained at those levels until this past season where there was a drop in abundance as was noticed elsewhere in the region.

Sorry about the long-winded history – you know how us old gray breads are when it comes to recounting the past!

However this history indicates how WSR has been applied in steelhead management. The regulation changes in the 1980s allowed anglers to access the hatchery summer steelhead – both in fishing for them as well harvesting the hatchery fish. In addition the long cherished sea-run cutthroat fish found in the lower North Fork was also allowed to continue. The manager at the time felt that the Deer Creek fish were limited by the habitat conditions and certainly could not support harvest but that the limited loss from hooking mortality in the fly only WSR fishery was acceptable to provide access to the other fisheries. That decision was certainly and could still be second-guessed. Certainly it would be safer for the Deer Creek fish to close the North Fork and main Stillaguamish to all fishing during the summer.

Clearly in this case the WSR regulation was a fishery management tool to provide access to abundance other stocks while providing increased protection to the stock of concern. Just as clearly it was less of a conservation tool. It also illustrates that WSR didn’t allow the population to recover – any rebound in run size did not occur until there were improvements in the habitat caused by the flooding. WSR regulations only aid in the rebuilding of stocks when over fishing is the major cause of the population decline.

I see that there is some confusion with the Catch and release regulations on the North Fork – in this case the CnR regulation is in effect during the winter season. A regulation designed to provide recreational opportunity to the wild winter steelhead. It occurred at times when the Deer Creek summers are not in the river.

Hope that is what you were looking for Todd.

Tight lines
S malma

S malma
Thanks

PSA is an excellent organization, which has done more for sportfishing than most other groups. I am an active member and was a voting member on the PSA State Board meeting issue on the steelhead moratorium. I voted against the moratorium for the plain and simple fact in which it was done. I was at the Port Townsend commission meeting when the busloads of fishermen came in and one after another had their three minutes say to ban keeping of all wild steelhead. This was not even on the agenda. But then again commission meetings can be about anything. None of us were ready to comment or had any other input to share on this topic. I figured that there would be an outcome of information to review, study, and comment on later. This never happened. There are avenues that things of this nature are supposed to go down to make sure that the best sound science is used. Once again the commission went around it to make the decision without sound science or full review. Lets look at this another way, If those fishermen at the commission meeting had all been environmentalists and came in busload after busload and said to ban all steelhead fishing, period, in Washington State, and close all rivers, would your opinion still be the same? These are factors that need to be addressed in the proper manor. I love catching steelhead just as much as anyone. I don’t have a problem with releasing fish. I personally enjoy catching much more than eating them. We need to make sure our checks and balances are just that. River by river should be rated case by case. If almost all rivers are not sustainable runs, then we should shut them down. Leaving a few rivers left to keep would surly decimate the ones left. This vote was more on the way the mandate was done rather than the issue.

So its fine to have issues, just do it quietly????

If the next outcome through this process is something you disagree with, you'll be quiet?

I doubt it.

Just because you like this decision doesn't mean you'll be so happy about the next one. Maybe the process could be improved.....

If you have concerns about this issue, don't tear down PSA, attend a local PSA chapter meeting and talk to someone about your concerns. We listen, after all we are all sportfishers. Why else would we spend so much time and effort on keeping fishing alive and well in Washington. Believe me a lot of your fishing is kept open by PSA and RFA. We are doing something about it. Talk to a local chapter and we can make arrangements to take up what you say to the PSA stateboard or better yet let you come and voice your concerns. We are not out there to tear down any sportfishing groups. You catch a lot more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.

sorry but this is a fishing forum, not a "ping pong" forum.

I agree with Fishinut...He is a hard (tireless) worker for sports fishing and never has torn down another group. I think the process we are talking about is not the process WSC followed but the course the commission took. Too many time they hijack the review process to the exclusion of many user groups. This process is supposed to be balanced and is supposed to inclusive and so many times it has not.

AuntyM could borrow that honey jar any time.

Okay ... this "process" thing.

I'd liek to know if it's the "process" that so many are taking issue with then why wasn't there an outcry 2 years ago when this issue came before the commission then?

Thousands of letters in support of the regulation and oral testimony at the meeting was over 90% in favor of WSR. I belive of all written testimony, it was still over 80% in favor.

Yet, it was not implemented at that time with even that heavy a push of public input in one direction.

Why aren't all those concerned with the "process" so vocal when they (WDFW) clearly went against the public input they had??

So the process hasn't worked right either time then....

That sort of helps the "process" argument! When it didn't go your way were you happy with the same process then, or is it different when the decision is favorable?

I want again clear up one thing...I have been trying to help you see the "other side"...I was out of state when PSA voted to support the stand of the NOP chapter....that would be the chapter on the North Olympic Peninsula who seem to be the members most touched by the moratorium they object to. I'm not sure what I would have said had I been in the meeting where the 100% consensus vote occured after some debate.

I have been at plenty of meetings where WDFW was at odds with the commission. The same meetings where the commission was at odds with most of the public input. So the process to me means the commission system. The system has seemed to be broken for some time with unbalanced advocates for commercial fishing ruling the agenda. Lately it seems that sports fishing has gotten the commission's attention for better or worse. That doesn't mean that the "process" is all fixed or even on the right track. Too many arbitrary decisions still abound and I suppose that is what many object to.

Frankly I see interaction with the legislative process far more important at this time. I hate to see so much animosity back and forth over a decision such as WSR. Releasing wild steelhead and salmon is a proven smart bet whether it cures all the ills in fish country or not.

Believe me if the commission had made a snap judgement on crabbing based on our show of solidarity and presentation of facts I know a bunch of folks who would have called the process flawed and raised a real ruckus. As it turned out our efforts raised awareness and helped open doors in the legislative arena which ultimately resulted in the new CRC for crab. Hopefully this will result in a more fair allocation of crab between sports and commercials. We did not stage our protest and then speak to the commission and have a snap decision made to change the allocations even though data would have supported such a move.

If there were previous meetings where WSR was discussed then the Port Townsend meeting could have included WSR on the agenda for further debate before a binding decision was reached. That did not happen and it doesn't matter if the issue was discussed 50 times before the official meeting. Having an important issue on the public agenda well in advance of the meeting would have resulted in atleast the opportunity for those who now voice so much opposition to be heard in a timely fashion and would have allowed preparation for the short presentation times allowed. By stacking the deck with pro WSR folks testifying at the meeting and not hearing from the other side made the decision seem one sided and unfair.

And, again , many issues have been decided in this same manner and each time the system failed to live up to its mandate.

I guess I wasn't clear enough before. So we shake on it then?

Pass the honey...........

ER... No, we weren't happy. But we didn't cry in our beers either.

Those in support didn't threaten lawsuits or circulate petitions ... they worked harder to to get their point across and of bigger issue more than likely, runs continued to dwindle downward before the next push to the commission.

My point is: we saw the support for WSR 2 years ago as it was very well publicized amongst troops in both sides. More public input likely wouldn't have changed a bit from the last go-round with it ... so if you're going strictly on public input for the decision-making process, it should have occurred 2 years ago and had it gone through the exact same process this year. There would NOT have been a differing opinion on the public's stance thsi time, so the outcome should be the same either way

,


Too bad we never got the chance.......


That's the point.