Here's the link to the article in the Forks Forum. The City and a few other org's have filed a petition asking the Commission to repeal the WSR regulation.

Forks Files Petition

Fish on...

Todd

Todd I already made the post. See it below.

So sad.... anymore, seems like anytime anything is done to actually help the fish, somebody has to shoot it down.

It's a wonder there's anybody left to advocate for the fish..... it's damn discouraging to watch fish managers drive these stocks into the ground year after year, then finally when there is a glimmer of hope to begin conserving what few are left, a handful of vocal locals want to do everything within their means to block it from becoming reality.

Those who keep arguing that WSR is not the "end all" to solve this issue are absolutely right. The point they miss is that there are so many "status quo" forces working against meaningful conservation that you'll NEVER pass anything that addresses them all in one fell swoop.

This has got to be an INCREMENTAL process, and in that regard, WSR is a small but bold step in the RIGHT direction. With WSR, sports could at least stand tall with a clean conscience that our impact on the resource is negligible, and that we as a group are no longer contributing to the decline of wild steelhead. If WSR is reversed, we will have taken a MAJOR step backward in conserving these very special fish.

Doc -
Once again I'm confused - could you please explain your statement-

"to watch fish managers drive these stocks into the ground year after year"

How do you define: driven into the ground - to my knowledge there is not one example of a steelhead stock in the Puget Sound or Olympia Penisula whose productivity has been limited by harvest - if that were the case they would rebound immediately once WSR was put into place and none have.

Using the fish managers for scapegoats for natural variation in survival conditions and society's general p*** poor protection of our river habitats in my opinion is a cheap cop-out.

A fallacy of this moratorium on the retention of wild steelhead is providing protection for those steelhead stocks in trouble. Roughly 95% of the state's steelhead stocks were all ready managed under WSR. At best it provides for some additional protection for those few stocks were harvest of wild steelhead was still allowed by sport anglers.

For the other 95% of the state steelhead stocks some action other than WSR is needed if we are to see those populations rebuild. What is limiting those populations must be addressed. We have spend our resources putting a band aids on minor cuts on a healthy patients while leaving the severely injuried untreated.

Tight lines
S malma

I'll disagree Smalma. Without sport harvest, in every year that the Hoh has failed to meet escapement over the last dozen ... it would have made it under a no-kill fishery.

That's watching "fish managers drive these stocks into the ground year after year."

Everytime I hear this I just shake my head Smalma... Far too often I hear people laying blame on WDFW for many of our fishery problems. It is a cop-out!

Bob -
I didn't say that we collective were overfishing some stocks some years. What I did say that such fishing has not limited the productivity of those stocks.

You Hoh case makes my point - if we cut harvest levels down we see increases in run size above and beyond escapement levels (one of the few healthy stocks). In the rest of the steelhead populations when harvest is reduced we do not see any reward in terms of increased escapements - a clear example would be the Snohomish system where the last seveal years escapements of 6,000 to 7,000 fish have been producing have been producing runs and escapements of less than 3,000 fish - this is in spite of a sport fishery managed under WSR - the combined sport fishing and trbial netting wild fish imapcts while fishing hatchery fish has been 3.3%.

Lets see- we have WSR so can't blame the urban myth of over harvest by the sport fishing - have less than 2% impact from tribal netting so can't blame the urban myth of tribal netting --- Who or what should we blame? The hatchery fish, bait fishing, competition from the salmon plants, floods, all the jet boats, the fly guys walking on the redds, etc etc.

Tight ines
S malma

Tight lines
S malma

Two counterpoints Smalma:

1) WSR was not implemented in most instances until we started to see runs consistantly not meeting escapement goals in those streams.

You're right, many have not come back so well. Perhaps our goals are too low and we're at a critical mass stage in these populations when we finally start acting to limit our impact.

I'm sure you'll answer "No" as the Gibbons theories seem to be religion at WDFW ... but what if his ideas of carrying capacity are wrong? The success rate of long-term viability of the state's stocks is atrocious.

I know that you give a hoot about the fish, so this takes on a personal side of things to some degree. But just what if the way we've run things isn't quite what the fish need?

Other areas have moved away from lower escapement goals in recent years in their management of steelhead (and salmon), yet in many cases our goals have gone down. What makes the WDFW so right and many others so wrong?

Clearly there are some things about these fish we will never understand. I won't, you won't, the WDFW won't, nobody won't.

Your post regarding the weather and effects on the young fish brought up a thought in my mind the other day: since we'll likley have poorer survival of this year's spawn because of this, do we factor this into the goal we want to have in place to offset such conditions.

We try, try to manage many aspects of these fisheries ... yet, there are many factors outside of our control as anglers or managers that work against the fish in varying degrees. Isn't that all the more reason to grant these fish more protection? Especially in the case of those few stocks that are still above the magic number established by the state ... which in itself is in question to many of us who have watched fisheries fail to maintain themselves under the status quo?

2) If the Hoh run is so healthy, then why have we had a number of years in which we had to close the fishery ENTIRELY early? I have no issue with the closures, it was in the interest of the fish, but the management scheme that allowed for harvest all season long until we got to a point where the WDFW says "Oh, oh ... there aren't enough fish, we have to close it completely." is not the sign of a truly healthy stock in my book

Without getting into it too much on this thread...I think that there is some validity to "managing them into the ground"...and it does include the cyclical weather patterns, and habitat, and harvest issues...

When the cycles push the fish populations down, or the habitat destruction does, or harvest does, or whatever else does...we have two options; fix the problems, or...

...lower escapement levels so that we still have harvestable amounts of fish, and then harvest those fish.

If you look at the e-goals vs. the actual escapements on the Skagit, they are mirror images....almost...as populations drop to around the e-goals, we artificially lower the e-goals, and "Voila!", we are now making escapement again, and can have harvest seasons.

Now that certainly doesn't happen everywhere, but that indeed is managing them into the ground, in an effort to maintain harvest. It's the same thing that the Quinaults have done with the escapement goals vs. actual escapement on the Queets.

Not making escapement enough to have the harvest they want? No problem...lower the e-goal, instant healthy run, harvest.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd/Bob-
Regarding the lowering steelhead escapement goals.

First a little history may be in order - Washington in the Boldt Case area sat about establishing steelhead escapement goals for those rivers in the early 1980s - long before many other areas had even attempted to do so. In the process the State had to make some assumption on some of those values use to develop those goals. In that process every attempt was made to error on the side of the fish. The result was that in most rivers it was expected that the resulting goals would be above the MSY levels. As those goals were revisited (often because of tribal interest or resource needs) it was found with the new information collected over the interving years that indeed those goals were above the MSY level. Thus with tribal agree some goals were lowered.

Are either of you suggesting that management should not be updated or reviewed as new information because available? Or that changes based on the new information should only be made if it agrees with your or mine personal bias? Somehow that doesn't seem to me to be management based on the best science.

The Skagit example - with the recent declines in marine survival it became apparent that the more protection was needed for the Skagit populations than just the cap on the fishing exploitation rate (16%). Remember that the co-managers had never agreed on an escapement goal before - in part because of the conservatism in the setting of the goals. In reviewing the available science on what the appropriate MSY goal should for the Skagit 3 studies were available that had estimated the MSY goal using Skagit specific information - they ranged from 2,800 to 4,800 fish with a middle value of 4,000 - the 4,000 was developed by a consultant for Washington Trout. Given the skepticism of WT of WDFW management it would not be unreasonable to consider the 4,000 as the best estimate of the Skagit MSY escapement level. The co-manage choose an escapement goal of 6,000 or 150% of the WT developed value.

Todd - you know all this so I don't understand why you bring up the Skagit example. While you both may have a problem with using MSY as an escapement reference point (a differrent kettle of fish than managing for MSY harvest) chastising the co-mangers for not being concern with the wild resource using as evidence their selecting goals considerable higher than that called for in the Wild Salmonid Policy is some what disingenuous.

Clearly most of the escapement goals on the Puget Sound rivers are well above the MSY levels. Review the graph of Puyallup run size and composition. For nearly 2 decades that escapements have been below the goal. In fact since 1990 with virtually no harvest - run size and escapement nearly equal the population has continued to declined. For 3 steelhead generations the each cycle has produced run sizes less than its parent escapement - a classic indication of a population at or above its current carrying capacity. That the escapement goal is higher than the carrying capacity of the system at its current its productive. In fact the Puyallup could be called a poster child of management at carrying capacity. It also illustrates that no harvest or management at carrying capacity doesn't necessarily guarantee a robust population.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

I promise I am not picking a fight! It is just that you are by far the most knowledgable biological contributor to this never ending debate.

"Using the fish managers for scapegoats for natural variation in survival conditions and society's general p*** poor protection of our river habitats in my opinion is a cheap cop-out."

I think to be fair, you should have said fish 'harvest' managers. But I have a major problem with them NOT being held accountable. That is their job. Does a fund manager get to keep his/her job, when the shareholders are losing $$$, (OR not making enough) because of circumstances out of anyone's control? I could not agree more with your statement about the habitat problem. But I won't let the department off the hook because of it. There are biologists out there that have foreseen this doom and, due to the politics of it all, nothing was done to change the harvest management schemes to PREVENT and/or minimize the collapse.

"How do you define: driven into the ground - to my knowledge there is not one example of a steelhead stock in the Puget Sound or Olympia Penisula whose productivity has been limited by harvest - if that were the case they would rebound immediately once WSR was put into place and none have."

That is a tricky one. How do you know? Is there an example that completely exonerates harvest? The magic cure for the current stock crisis might have ended up in somebody's freezer.

However, lets use the Skagit as an example since it came up later in this thread. Wasn't the record kill over 30K, in one year, back in the 70's? And did the river not average way more fish killed/year back then compared to what is now the entire escapement? How much genetic material was lost during this 'sport harvest' popluation bottleneck? I could hypothetically argue that the critical alleles needed for this population to overcome what ever is currently killing them in the ocean was lost during that time. How much have we interferred with the species reproductive potential from a century of overharvest?

From what I have read the Kamchatka rivers carry upwards of 18 separate year classes of fish. Where are we sitting at, right now compared to historically, on our least depressed rivers on the OP? Now compare that to the Sky and Skagit. How many river specific 'sub-races' of steelhead have been unknowingly wiped out due to the sports over-harvest?

I do realize that the ocean is the X factor for these anadromous fish. And that the freshwater habitat is just as important. And I understand the recent sport harvest is not the smoking gun that killed the stocks overnight (Yet I do hold it accountable from the long term impacts of the past century). But I firmly believe that strictly limiting sport harvest to incidental mortality is the first step in getting the ship turned around to tackle the other sides of the problem.


William

Inland-
Interesting discussions we are having - you are asking some interesting questions however I must get to work so I'm just giving you a condensed version to them.

You are right a better term would be fisheries managers (manage all sorts of fishing as well as the fish).

Regarding whether the stocks would respond to harvest. -- In the early 1980s when the then Department of Game first introduced WSR to Washington steelhead managmenet (mainly on Puget Sound rivers) there was little doubt that the wild stocks had been and were being over fished. By establishing escapement goals for the wild fish and using WSR (any remember those fin cards) the numbers of wild fish reaching the spawning grounds increased dramatcially on nearly every river - the increases as I remember were typcially about 1/3. Recent when WSR was applied to the same rivers due to declining run sizes there has been virtually no response.

Another example using the Skagit - in the late 1980s and early 1990s the developed a concern about the status of bull trout/Dolly Varden throughout the State of Washington (and most of the West). The local fisheries manager during the middle and late 1980s looked into the life history and char fisheries on the Skagit and concluded that they were being overfished. The overfishing was primarily occurring on the sub-adult immature fish. As result of the information collected a minimum size limit was established of 20 inches. This allowed virtually all the fish (99+%) to spawn at least once prior to entering the fishery. In the early 1990s is was decided what was needed was state-wide ban on the fishing for bull trout/Dolly Varden to protect the fish. The local fisheries managers in several locations include the Skagit argued that it was not needed in those specific locations because the limiting factors had been successfully addressed. They were allowed to have exceptions to the standard state wide rule. On the Skagit since that time the abundance of spawning bull trout in the Skagit has increased 10 fold, the number of large older fish has increased just as dramatically (more than 5% of the adult populations spawns 5 or more times and some fish are living to be teenagers and achieving some remarkable sizes). Clearly Harvest was the limiting factor - it was addressed and the fish reponded. In fact it could be argued that there now exists a world class fishery that would be unavailable to the ethical angler without that state wide exception. At the same time the winter steelhead managed with WSR have not responded nearly as dramatically.

Regarding the large harvest during the 1970s. Several factors were in play 1) exeptional marine survivals were occurring, 2) lots of hatchery fish were being harvested and 3) the wild stocks were being over fished.

Regarding the diversity of the Kamchatka steelhead - I assuming rather than 18 year classes (which would mean that some fish are 18 years old) you are talking about 18 various life histories (different smolt ages, time at sea, multiple spawning etc). In which case I have looked at those kind of factors for the Skagit wild winter steelhead. In scale samples collected in various winter steelhead fisheries I found 17 such combinations. Those didn't include the resident rainbow component of the population nor the few fish that exhibit the 1/2 pounder type life histories that I have seen in the basin. In other words not much difference. Now certainly there are not nearly as many repeat spawners (we can get into my theories as why that might be later if you wish). Clearly I have spend some time thinking about such issues.

You are correct of course that over fishing for all our anadromous fish have been and may still be a problem with some stocks. However we can't change the past; only learn from it.

Tight lines
S malma

all of you know more about e-goals then i do,but can you tell me why after passing wsr rules did the wdfw give those fish to the gill nettes on the bigg c? i just read that the wdfw handed over the steelhead that where gained by the wsr rule and upped the % of wild steelhead that the gill netters can keep by ,i **** you not 250% so what gives with that . I read it on another board that deals with the big c much more. did we all just give are steelhead allotment to the netters? if i want to eat steel head i want to be the one catching it.