Smalma,

I in no way intended that statement to only run in one direction...two years ago when the push for WSR resulted in the current 1 per day, 5 per year limit there were lots of anti's who were claiming victory over us "elitists" and I was much more gracious in making my responses to that than I've seen this time.

However, your comment is taken to heart...I have strived to keep facts and logic foremost in my arguments, but in such a contentious issue it may be hard to do it 100% of the time. I think I've done pretty good?

SSF,

Good point about the commercial fishery on the Columbia. There is no sport harvest of wild steelhead there, nor has there been for a while, due to multiple ESA listings.

When the commercials, along with both Columbia River harvest managers from WDFW and ODFW, proposed the 300% increase in ESA steelhead bycatch, I was one of the first ones here to jump all over it. I put as much info on the BB as I could over the three days before the hearing, and I even offered rides to anyone who wanted to go to Olympia with me in my van to take place in the testimony.

Not one person took me up on the offer.

Now I realize that it is hard to make plans for that on only three day's notice, but I did, and so did several others that I met there.

That battle is ongoing...and it looks like it will be for a bit more. Last I heard NOAA Fisheries had asked ODFW/WDFW for more information, again, to help them to justify their newest Biological Assessment justifying the increase.

Go to this thread WSC Letter re: Steelhead Bycatch to see the letter that I wrote, and the thread about it, to see what sportsmen are doing on that angle.

The fact that the harvest managers are asking for that increase, whether they get it or not, shouldn't be a reason why we can't also take other actions on behalf of steelhead, should it?

We all as sportsmen have lots to do...habitat, hatchery issues, hydro/water issues, and harvest are all important.

Fish on...

Todd

Smalma, Tip o the hat to you!

Todd, sorry i was not around to see that post or to accept a ride to help with that matter, I have a very limited time, at times, to really get into the meat of what goes on here on this board.Tis nice to know that you are willing to extend the welcome mat to others in helping out with the fight for our resources.

Todd -
I would agree that you as well as many of the others involved in this discussion (on both sides of the fence) have done a good job of trying to stick to the facts. However this is not a back and white issue and there are valid arguments on both sides. How one sides on this issues is dependent on the one's priorities and willingness to accept various risks.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Doubtlessly true...

Fish on...

Todd

SSF,

Here's a piece from the letter I wrote on behalf of the WSC...I bet you and I can agree on this one!

Fish on...

Todd

Exactly.... I dont know how many times this has been said, and left out of the discussions. This is ALL I care about on this issue. I wouldn't care if the fishery being restricted was carp. In fact I started a thread a while back about closure of a year round clam area for ease of enforcement that expressed similar concerns. The bottom line is opened the door to future loss of opportunity.

The irony of it is, it most likely will lead to a complete stoppage of fisheries targeting wild steelhead. So in that respect, maybe it will make an impact.

What does a new set of golf clubs go for anyways?

What is your basis for that arguement?

That sounds like something a politician knee deep in a scandal would say!

Todd are you really an ex president???

When the numbers do not increase as they haven't on many rivers that WSR has been in effect on over the years, the next logical step in protecting the fish would be to stop fishery completely... wouldn't it? Lets take the next step here Sparkey.... WHAT IF it doesn't make a difference? What do you see as the next step to save WS? Or what do you think the next step the government will take is? This of course would be purely speculation, but it might be interesting.....

elkrun-
I think the disagreement amongst the two factions on this board lies in a fundamental disagreement in fisheries management.

Those that support WSR believe that, in the long run, conservation will lead to oppurtunity. I do...
However, yourself and many others believe that conservation leads to a loss in oppurtunity.

And also the fish come first. My oppurtunity comes second. If we are to have wild steelhead to fish for in 50 years, we must be conservation minded anglers.

elkrun-
Then the next step is to close the rivers. WSR release or not, if the steelhead runs continue to decline at an alarming rate then the rivers will be closed.

It happened in the Upper Columbia Basin and it just may happen in Puget Sound (WDFW may petion NOAA Fisheries to list Puget Sound Wild Winter steelhead as threatened under the ESA).

Sparkey, you and I have already been down this road. I am conservation minded. I dont fish for wild steelhead period. Saying fish come first is one thing, backing it up is another. It still seems like hyprocracy to me to say that and continue to target them. Sorry if that is offensive.

In my mind, this was a big risk to take for something that might not have a significant effect. Someone asked earlier for an example of where this has worked in washington...I'm still waiting for someone to answer.

You are far over estimating our impact on the fisheries by stating that we must conserve if we are to have WS in 50 years. Do you believe as sportsfishers we have that great an impact? Do you think this rule will ensure there will still be WS in 50 yrs? If I thought it would, I'd be right there supporting it.

If wild steelhead were to make a 10% increase over the next few years, how much will that increase will be given to the other user groups? Wouldn't their share increase with any population increase? Considering that, how long would it take to get a sustained 10% increase in escapement like that? (Talk about one step forward, two steps back... ) Perhaps that should be the next major effort; pass a law that would prevent an increase in take with an increase in production.

Sorry, I'm not convinced this will do much to help the situation. It is more of a gesture than anything else. It sounds like the hope is that the other user groups will be pressured into folowing suit... That just wont happen, theres too much money at stake.

Smalma said:

"Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium. "

Todd....You always reference the legality of the commission's action to initiate the 2 year moratorium. That would be looking at technicalities in my opinion. Whether the move is legal or not I think opponents see that the open commission meeting process was highjacked in this case as the moratorium was not even on the agenda. WSC and some fly fishers organized themselves with a show of force at the meeting and were able to get their agenda heard and passed with very little discussion by potential opponents. And by the way I was there.

I know there are many other complaints opponents have but I am focusing on the process complaint which I think is where the PSA people were coming from. I only bring this up to point out that folks like me who do not kill wild steelhead and are on your side in that regard also can oppose some of your ideas and methods.

I still am convinced that many WSR advocates are interested not only in the fish but in the quality of the fishing experience as they see it. That is to say that they prefer solitude so by restricting the fishery they will weed out a large group of "crackers" who they think don't belong on the river in the first place. That may be where the "elitist" label is coming from.

A "process" is supposed to include those "crackers" if they want to be included, it is supposed to include the fly fishers along with the bait fishers...etc. I know I have felt excluded at commission meetings many times when the commercial fishing bias takes over and decisions are made that totally ignore science and biology and public comment.

Posted by Smalma
"“There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.”

This clearly is just an opinion that is not supported by any information or data. To my knowledge no one has established what such a critical level might be. Clearly we have examples of runs rebuilding from populations much lower than we are seeing in most of the populations of concern – SF Toutle after St. Helens would be an example. In the run size/escapement graphs present by WSC the most recent returns of concern were from parent escapements at levels at or above levels previously seen (the Puyallup being the only exception). This argument doesn’t seem to be supported by either fact or logic."

I certainly agree that we don't know where the critical bottom line for wild steelhead populations is at, but my OPINION is that we have fished stocks below that level even though WDFW models showed those stocks as being healthy 5 years before.
The example of the Toutle is interesting because I believe there was NO fishing in river on the fish as they rebounded. What has happened since is a different story for a different time.

As posted by Smalma
"
Of course it doesn’t set a precedent for either Oregon or B.C. as both allow the harvest of wild steelhead in some areas (they don’t have a state or providence wide moratoriums or prohibition on the talking of wild steelhead). In fact Oregon’s harvest of wild steelhead is much the same as Washington’s before the moratorium – that is harvest of 1 wild fish a day, 5 per year on systems with healthy populations (above established escapement levels). It is my understanding that there has been serious consideration given to expanding the opportunity to harvest wild fish. His argument again doesn’t seem to be support by either fact or logic."

This again is my opinion but I vaguely remember that in the case of Oregon that there was a complete moritorium for some years until the stocks rebuilt in a couple of southren Oregon rivers to the point that OFW felt those stocks could handle some harvest. I don't know what models OFW uses.

I agree with AuntyM.

Unfortunately, WSC was just playing by the rules of politics that govern resource managment.

Anything goes as long as its legal (or nobody catches you). Backchannels are the way to get things done quickly. If people raise a stink, spin, spin, spin.

WT knows this, WSC has learned this, certainly the tribes and commercials know it. They have all been sucessfull getting what they want.

Unfortunately for the common angler it has yet to sink in. Something to do with a lack of information and apathy. As long as this contintues the common angler will get the shaft . . .

Todd, your quote;heres something we can probably agree on.
Absolutely. Very well written letter and that was the gist of the whole reason for starting this discussion.

Back, WAY back in this discussion, Bob, TRBO, asked why there was a catch and kill fishery on the Hoh when there were only an estimated 40 fish, over and above escapement goals? I have to ask, "Why was there even a fishery allowed at all?" Trying to micromanage our resource to the n'th degree has not worked all that great for us in the past.Closing the resource for conservation measures to ALL user groups "Should" be the most appropriate action.

Actually the Hoh is being managed below escapement levels. If there was no sport kill fishery it would be plenty above it even with hooking mortality.

There was a question of where WSR worked, I assume that you mean CnR worked. How about the Deer Creek steelhead on the Stilly I believe they have been coming back nicely. Not exactly sure when they went to CnR but I know they were way down and now are making a comeback with a CnR fishery on them.

JJ

I'm not sure which is the "right" way to look at the Deer Creek fish, but I see it this way...

First, Deer Creek is a tributary to the North Fork Stillaguamish River...Deer Creek is totally closed to fishing, and boasts one of the very few significant wild summer steelhead runs in PS.

The N.Fk. Stilly has some, but not many, wild summer runs...it does, however, have a large hatchery summer run.

This is not a CnR fishery, this is a classic example of what WSR is.

You don't fish Deer Creek, because they are all wild. You do fish the Stilly, because it has all the hatchery fish. If you catch a clipped one...BONK! If you catch a wild one, you let it go.

When the water conditions were such that Deer Creek fish were stacking up at the mouth of the creek, but staying in the Stilly, WDFW closed the area surrounding the mouth of the creek to protect those fish.

When a significant group of unethical anglers were targeting ESA listed chinook in the deep holes with weighted flies, WDFW put in a restriction to prohibit weighted flies to help protect those fish.

The Deer Creek fish were intitally pushed to the brink of extinction due to very poor logging practices that ruined its watershed. As that situation has improved, so have the fish runs.

While that was going on, there was still significant fishing opportunity in the Stilly, though fishermen were required to release any wild ones they caught. Besides closing the Stilly around the mouth of Deer Creek, I believe there were times when the river was closed from a ways above Deer Creek all the way to the mouth to protect those fish when even incidental impacts were too much for the fish to handle.

I see that as an example of how WSR allowed fishing opportunity, including harvest opportunity on hatchery fish, while leaving the wild fish to spawn and continue to re-colonize the Deer Creek watershed as the problems caused by habitat destruction improved.

Smalma? In spite of your modesty, you know more about this river and these fish in your little finger than I know total...how accurate is that assessment?

If there's any substantial "truth" to my assessment above, then that is an excellent example of how the use of WSR provided significant fishing opportunity while allowing wild fish to recover along with their habitat.

For the folks who are still having a hard time seeing the difference, that's what a WSR fishery is, and what a CnR fishery is not. If it were CnR, there would be no retention of any fish...the example above is what WSR is, providing harvest opportunity on hatchery fish while requiring the release of wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

While I do not claim to have the vast knowledge that you supposedly
claim to have about the causes of the declines of our "wild" steelhead
runs, I am becoming very concerned that some of WSC information may have
been incorrectly used to support its desire to have a 100% statewide wsr
enacted.

You have stated that I find this information very deceptive to say the least. One of WSC
strongest cases for making and supporting a statewide wsr has been due
to the "declining numbers" that have shown up over the past years in
WDFW catch record statistics. WSC has continually stated that Wild
steelhead" runs have declined from roughly 90,000 fish 50 years ago, to
some 5,000 fish being harvested now.

That may sound like a huge cut in the harvest of wild steelhead if ones
point of view is a narrow view. There are likely many causes for our
steelhead declines, but I do not believe that it was or is due to sport
harvest. Obliviously, WSC has overlooked that in the 1940's and 50's
that WDFW hatchery programs contributed heavily to the number of
retuning winter run steelhead numbers to many of these rivers. As late
as 1973, (30 years ago)WDFW was producing well over three (3) million
winter run steelhead smolts and releasing them into no less than 60
rivers in Washington State. At that time, the survival rate was
estimated to be at a 5% return rate.

As you know, WDFW did not mark the majority of the hatchery steelhead
until the early 1990's. For the most part, all of these winter steelhead
were counted, or included as "wild" fish when they were recorded on a
fishermen's catch card. It would make logical sense that if those 3
million steelhead were not marked as "hatchery" steelhead, that there
certainly would be a decline in the wild fish runs now. To me, it is
just simple math! 5% of 3 million is a lot of unmarked steelhead!

Now all of these hatchery fish are marked, and only counted as hatchery
fish instead of "wild" fish. So what am I missing here? Don't you think
that just maybe many of those 100 streams that you are talking about
were heavily supported and influenced by those 3 million un marked
hatchery winter run smolts that were being planted in those earlier
years? In the early 1970, In the Game department determined where to
plant those steelhead and how much to plant in each river system. At the
time, the Game Department consider the relative size of the river
system, the punch card records of sports catch in previous years, and
the Department's capacity to produce steelhead smolts and the
amenability of the river system to sport fishing. The capacity to
produce smolts at that time was consider the most decisive factor and it
didn't matter if it was from the gravel or a race way.

Let's not forget Todd, that it was the "general policy" of the Game
Department at that time to plant at least 20,000 steelhead smolts in
each planted river. Do the math and divide up 3 million winter run
hatchery smolts in your 100 top rivers up north. I do not know how many
smolts went into each one of the OP rivers at that time, but one could
certainly assume that they got their fair share. Especially since rivers
like the Lewis and Cowlitz steelhead runs were being mitigated for by
the large power companies in the early 60's.

To me, it just sounds logical that our wild runs of winter steelhead
would certainly now show a huge decline over that time period when all
hatchery fish were at that time being counted as "wild fish".

I know that not all river systems that were sustaining natural steelhead
runs were planted, but I believe that your figures were applying to all
wild steelhead that were caught in our state.

So if I am wrong, how so?