They've been mean and lucky so far ... but not today!

Our turn at the springers is coming! Here's our first of the year that didn't get away!

I think Roger is still half asleep, and he's definitely a little wet from some boat-side tail slaps ... but he'll be eating good now!



We'll be hangin' a little later than normal this year and will be running a fw more springer trips before we head north, so if anyone wants some dates in the latter part of the month or the first two weeks of May, drop us a line After that date, you can also email us and we'll give you some names of fellas to call that will be running trips all summer for both springers and the summer kings

Well maybe I will have a chance too land one on Saturday Bob!

She's a purdy, all right!

two questions...fin clip? ventral fin other side, maybe?
what kind of line is that?

Looks like Maxima Fiber Glow. The hi-viz pink line. I really like that line, but I've noticed that after a couple uses the color washes out.

Nice Springer! I was also wondering about the fin though.

Given your recent post on your board ( http://www.gamefishin.com/gfboard/forum_posts.asp?TID=6048&PN=1 ), I know you are just salivating to attack...

...but no worries, they are all hatchery fish!

Did you notice Sparkey that I said "what appears to be wild salmon" Never the less my question in the thread that you pointed out still stands.

So they don't clip salmon wherever Bob caught that fish?

Nice try Bruce. You should know better!

SA

It is a legit question! If I posted a picture of a dead wild steelhead here you guys would be all over me.

Sparky -
Actualy I beleive that a fair number of the hatchery spring chinook returning to the Sol Duc don't return to the hatchery and spawn in the wild so how do we know whether hatchery or wild?

Best release them all don't you think? (tic).

Tight lines
S malma

a wild fish shouldnt be caught just once.

Smalma-
I think Bob would be the better source then myself regarding what percentage of Sol Duc springers actually spawn in the wild and thus what percentage of the returning fish are wild.

But given the chewed up dorsal and ventral fin, I would say hatchery fish all the way!

...plus from what I've heard, a certain number of the Sol Duc springers are marked but not 100% (again, Bob would be the more accurate source for that information).

But given the fish are there purely for tribal and sport catch (Rogue River stock I believe), I do not forsee anything wrong with harvesting them. I would look at them like I look at the vast majority of lakes that are managed under put and take regulations. The fish are there strictly for the reason to be caught and killed...if the fish is killed then no problems. If the fish is released, great, someone else will get a chance to catch and probably kill it.

...but then again, this is whole 'nother can of worms!

Sparky -
Then it is OK to kill some wild fish?

Would you support allowing the retention of wild summer steelhead above Sunset Falls on the South Fork Skykomish? - much the same

As you say another can of worms

Tight lines
S malma

Jeeeese Smalma, I know you all too well. I knew the second I posted that last post, you were going to bring up the SF Sky. So I've had extra time to think of a proper response.

I believe we must look at what the intended goal of that fishery is. Some hatchery programs are designed strictly around harvest, some are designed strictly around rehabilitation and some are a little both.

From what I understand, the Sol Duc fish are there strictly for harvest. However, was the WDFW's intent with the SF Sky to create a harvestable fishery up there?...to supplement a current population?...or to create a somewhat self-sustaining stock of wild summer steelhead. Also, from what I've heard, the SF Sky fishery was developed to create a playground of sorts for WDFW employees (but thats just a rumor).

I guess I would be being hypocritical in asking the WDFW to continue the no-kill fishery on the wild steelhead of the SF Sky but at the same time, having no issues with the kill of wild Sol Duc springers.

Given that the SF Sky has show the ability to sustain a good population of wild summer steelhead (via trucking), I would ask that we continue the no-kill management on these wild fish. Plus the addition of the wild summer steelhead to the watershed (along with salmon) has helped the resident rainbow population in the SF and its tributaries flourish.

And last but not least, you have contended that in a few generations, the SF Sky wild summer steelhead have quickly developed attributes typical of Puget Sound native summer steelhead. This evolution of sorts would not only provide for great research but I think it would provide a great backup stock (as a very last resort) just in case disaster struck on other Puget Sound native summer steelhead populations

Smalma,

Were there any native summer runs below Sunset Falls prior to the trucking program?

Would it make a difference if there were?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -
There were no summer fish below Sunset on the South Fork however there were (and still are a few some really rainbows above the falls.
The only summer fish were in the upper North Fork Skykomish.

There probably is some wild rainbow genes floating around in those SF summers. Does that make a difference? - you tell me.

Sparky -
Another example just for fun.
Some of the hatchery summer steelhead have successfully spawned in the Green River (King County) and there are now some wild summer steelhead returning to the Green. Prior to the moratorium folks were allowed to harvest those fish - much like your Sol Duc springs. Is it right to protect those fish.

The point of course is that fisheries management is rarely black and white issues and a one size fits all management has the potential to bite one in the rear.

Tight lines
S malma

Nice fish!

(stop yer b!tchin)

Yeah, nice fish.

Yea what Dogfish said!

Smalma-
I am not totally familiar with the situation on the Green but I am guessing they do not have the potential for the self-sustaining population that the SF Sky does...or maybe they do. But anyways...

Most importantly, I understand just where you are coming from and just where you are headed. But at this time, given the overly large number of threads dedicated to the subject, I would rather it not begin again in this thread as well.

Nice fish.

Onto clipping, I doubt there is anywhere near a decent percentage clipped. And the deformed fins don't always cut it. I know before the big "wild fish release" push in recent years, I've had checkers scan some very nice king and silvers that were perfect in everyway including all fins intact and perfectly shapped. Plus big to boot. Almost all had chips. Watched the snout cut and off they went. So, think only real viable way to know is to have one of those wands on board and scan the fish in the water. LOL. How do we get one of those wands anyways?? LOL

YUM YUM! Thanks for sharing!

Wait, I just have one question. This is intended to be part of the argument or anything but when I went springer fishing on the Duc/Quil with JD Love and Herzog, Bill told me springers were introduced on this system so every fish is really a hatchery fish? just wondering.

Looks like it's time to bust open a beer and fire
up the Q.
If it bright it's alright. Nice chromie!
Chrome

Smalma-

To anwer you question about these so called 'wild' steelhead.

Did man put them above the falls? I believe the answer is yes. Then at that point the population is not native it is naturalized. The one comment you said that really disturbs me is the steelhead are taking on the characteristics of the native rainbow trout. If that is true, then aren't these naturalized steelhead now a genetic pollutant that could destoy the local native trout population? Since these steelhead in question are no longer stocked or marked, why not just elminated them from the upper watershed and that will be that? They don't belong.

William

Inland-
I'm a little afraid to reply as the answer might be view as "the WDFW answer" which of course would not have any credibility with you.

However I give it a stab.

Yes, you are correct in that the the wild summer steelhead population is the result naturalization of hatchery fish. Since they have been produced by naturally spawning fish most would consider them to be wild but not native steelhead. However they would cover under the WSR regulations - it is not Native Steelhead release after all.

I could not agree more that those steelhead don't belong above Sunset - it was trout water (actually a quite good fishery). However in 1958 the State (Department of Fisheries) decided to open that water (as well as the South Fork Stillaguamish above Granite Falls) to anadromous production - that is salmon. There is roughly 100 miles of coho habitat above the falls. That portion of the watershed currently supports roughly 20% of the basin's coho and chinook escapements. The folks interested in salmon recovery, the tribes, and possibly several federal agencies have no interest excluding salmon from the area (it is sused both ESA listed chinook and bull trout - naturally colonized the area). It has been estimated that that area produces about 1/4 million coho smolts. With that competition is it better to attempt to management the game fish populations (trout etc) with an anadromous fish (steelhead) or a resident fish - a tough call.

By the way there are still good numbers of trout upstream of the majority of the anadromous fish use zones as well some large trout that have dropped down into the anadromus zone.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma-
What is your opinion regarding the effect of anadramous fish being placed above Sunsey on the resident trout population?

I know there is great trout fishing to be had up there but then again, I can not compare it to prior the trucking.

Smalma,

Thank you taking a 'stab' at it. My beliefs towards credibility of management agencies is totally related to their function of harvest management and politics. Problem is, your employer has been in charge of this situation for 'several' decades now and look where we are? The results more than speak for themselves. A handful of rivers on the OP are now the "Least Depressed" in the state. And here we sit arguing politcs of a rule change that will do nothing measurable for another 7-10 years (If the rule is upheld). My best guess is that it would take at least 2 full generations of several year classes to be able to study the affects of getting more spawners on the beds. I only pray that when this rule comes up again, that the foot is firmly planted in the door, and it will be renewed for a legitimate length of time to really show the difference it can make. Either way I will pray every night for the next decade that the returning progeny from the next two seasons are the highest runs to hit the OP in nearly 50 years. That would pretty much prove the point.

Back to the point at hand:

"However they would cover under the WSR regulations - it is not Native Steelhead release after all." Simple to fix- Rule exception: all steelhead above sunset falls can be harvested.

But if I am understanding this correctly- the bull trout and salmon above the falls are native to the sky drainage, but not to that particular area. They have now colonized the habitat because of something man changed? Did WDFW build a fish ladder or are they lifted over the obstruction? Are the 'recently' established populations in the Sky totally dependant upon that area to survive cutting it off?

William

Inland -
And that is the rub - there can be no exceptions to the state wide moratorium!

The fish are trapped and hauled around a series of 3 impassable falls. Both the chinook and bull trout are included in the listed ESA/DPS for those speices.

Sparky -
While robust resident trout populations are often assocaited with salmon populations it is usually with pink, chum, and/or sockeye salmon. This fish return in large numbers bring lots of marine nutrients to the system as well as dislodging substantial numbers of eggs due to their mass spawning habits as supplying incredible numbers of fry in the spring. The salmon population above Sunset is dominated by coho (20 to 50,000 per year). This aren't typcially mass spawners. In addition will the pink, chum and sockeye leave the river shortly after hatching the coho and some of the chinook spend at least a year in the river (about 8% of the coho 2 years) rearing before leaving the system. These parr are direct competitors with the trout parr. In this case I would say that the trout population is limited by the salmon (coho) abundance.

Remember this reach of the river has been managed with selective gear restricitions and a 14 inch minimum size limit. Such management in a trout water would be expected to produce a decent biomass of trout.
While there are trout found in many of the runs and pools and some of them are pretty nice (14 to 20+ inches) they are nealry as abundant as I would expect.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Then I don't think there is much of a rub on the WSR. Don't allow the steelhead over the falls and there is no problem. They will cease to exist.

As for the extremely sticky situation that has been created by allowing listed native species to successfully adopt non-native habitat, I don't know. But that is just politics. The biological answer is pretty short and simple- don't allow them to access the river above the falls.

William

Inland -
Could not agree more the biological is simple - the difficulity is implementing the solution in the morass of political, economic, and social issues.

In this case many folks have a pretty high stake in keep putting anadromous fish above the falls - the steelhead fisheries want the steelhead, the salmon fisheries (tribal and non-tribal) want that extra 20% in run sizes (catches?), the folks abusing the habitat want the fish there so that it is easier to continue to abuse the habitats downstream and the politicians want the fish there because it keeps lots of people happy and doesn't cost much.

If things were so simple that all one needed to do was what was biologically the best life would be very simple for the fisheries managers. It sounds as if you have been around these wars long enough to know from first hand experience it is not that simple. If you wish for managers to successfully take on those issue I suggest that we look for people would are social, economic, and political miracle workers rather than biologists.

If the goal is to have the healthiet wild steelhead population as possible the biological approach is indeed simple. All that needs to be done is eliminate the hatchery program, set escapement objectives at a carrying capacity level for above average conditions, close all fishing (except maybe for those rare years of exceptional survival conditions). There done!

Of course such an approach levels a whole host of social, economic, and political issues unsatisfied.

Tight lines
S malma

k-kid alittle louder i dont think they heard you. first off nice fish looks tastey. second what k-kid said. third, what rivers are open for springers right now where i can take my new drift boat ,say on sunday?

Just in case some of you are still thinking about wild springers, I'll just pass on this little illustration for you.




Nice hatchery Jerry, Bob! Go get 'em!

I thought the same thing Aunty

Parker's right on:) Bruce, the answer to your question was right there the entire time.

Frankly, I see it as another example that those that don't know much about these fisheries should perhaps step aside when it comes to saying what is best for them.

'Duc springers have been clipped like this for some time.

There is a very small percentage that spawns in the wild ... but the only true wild fish we have here (Quill) for a king run before the fall are the summer fish that return to the Quillayute system in very small numbers.