WFL,

I don't mean to single you out, but I will out of necessity at this point.

That quoted statement is flat out false.

It's one of the thirty or so statements made in the last six weeks where folks say stuff about the WSC without doing any research into the WSC.

Go to the WSC website, read the white paper titled "The Biological and Economic Benefits of Wild Steelhead Release"...there is an entire chapter in there written by an economist for a Fortune 500 company regarding the economics of WSR and CnR fisheries, using real world examples from many places around the world.

None of the "economic doomsday" folks I've heard have yet shown me the loss of businesses due to WSR...but they have shown many examples of the economic bust due to closures. WSR is intended to put off closures...to keep fishing, while reducing the impacts we have on the fish, and keeping up the good economic impacts that having a fishery brings to communities, especially those who don't have much else to lean on.

Fish on...

Todd

AM,

If that does happen, the "stewards of the resource" that the anti-WSR folks are leaning on as an ally in the anti-WSR fight will bear the brunt of the blame...as they always have.

You sure didn't hear any good things about the Native Americans out on the OP from OP people until now...usually they are the worst possible thing that could ever happen to steelhead and steelhead fishing...followed up closely by the WDFW...then the urban elitist flyfishermen.

Now...the "stewards of the resource" and the "experts at WDFW" are their friends...and the "urban elitists" are the bad guys...nevermind that those "urban elitists" are the ones who bring all the outside money into those small communities and spend it.

Draw your own conclusions...

Fish on...

Todd

Plunker -
My steelhead guidelines were posted on this board several years ago as a topic and I clearing stated that they were my own ideas and reflect my own personal bias. As is common on this site anyone is free to pull quotes from other posting. Which is what Sparky did.

Regarding the Green River summer steelhead -- I would agree that harvest of any and all those naturalized summer steelhead should be allowed. The production that they represent is a cost to the wild winter steelhead (there is no evidence that the Green ever support native summer steelhead).

I merely mentioned this issue as an illustration of where exceptions to such blanket bans might be considered -Aunty -while that might not be a bite in the rear it is certainly a major nip!

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

In the first reply on this thread I said:
"Smalma,
These ideas would be a lot more credible if you hadn't hired a wet behind the ears kid to post them."

Your ideas and information are always credible with me. In fact I was indirectly addressing Sparkey with that statement, chastising him for posting your thoughts without you permission. I was wrong in addressing that to you and in chastising Sparkey because you confirm that what I considered a breach of privacy was something you considered appropriate. Thank you for the correction.

Smalma quote:
"Plunker - My steelhead guidelines were posted on this board several years ago as a topic and I clearing stated that they were my own ideas and reflect my own personal bias. As is common on this site anyone is free to pull quotes from other posting. Which is what Sparky did."

I therefore apologize to both you and Sparkey and consider myself properly reprimanded.

It all started with Sparkeys newfound manner of bait and run diplomacy. He evaded the Green River introduced steelhead question so abruptly that I felt compelled to toss it back at him.

I have always valued any self-sustaining population of steelhead or salmon equally whether it is of a native or introduced origin. For example the S. Fork Stilly has a wholly introduced population of summer steelhead. Canyon Creek, a tributary, has a population thought to be a mix of native and introduced origin. The N. Fork Stilly has only hatchery-sustained summer steelhead as population and Deer Creek, a tributary, has the only large population of self-sustaining native origin summer steelhead in the N. Puget Sound area.

I regard three of the four populations as being equally valuable but the hatchery population as simply a source of put-and-take fish for harvest.

But now you complicate things with competition for limited resources. I believe that native winter steelhead utilize all four of the streams mentioned and that means that the pre-smolt juveniles must compete.

To me it really makes little difference, which of the competitors wins out except that I would like to see both winter and summer run wild steelhead in every system and in numbers great enough to afford some harvest. I enjoy catching fish but I'm in it for the meat.

But you said you favor the native stock over the introduced. Why?

How would you prioritize between introduced summer steelhead and native origin winter steelhead above Granite Falls where neither existed without mans intervention.

And how do you divide priorities with a mixed (Canyon Creek) summer stock that might compete with a truly native winter stock?

Finally, I would be interested in how priorities might be divided when it comes to competition between the much-revered Deer Creek summer steelhead and Native winter fish that might compete for critical winter habitat.

Please correct my assumptions about where and to what degree competition exists in these situations but also address the prioritization as though the competitions were real.

I look forward to any reply that you might find enough time to provide.

Thanks - Plunk

Plunker-
I apoligize if you felt I didn't fully answers the questions present. I told Smalma given my lack of experience with the Green, I could not answer that question.

I will admit, I am biased towards the SF Sky fish because they've evolved (continue to do so) into a wonderful race of steelhead and it is a fishery I look forward to every year.

...plus I was too busy getting banned from WashingtonFlyfishing.com to truely answer your question to the best of my abilities.

Sparkey,

I'm the one who was in the wrong this time. Sorry about the other board I think. I haven't been there to see what happened. I have noticed that you and sinktip kind of run together though.

Interesting that you also value an established self-sustaining stock of fish whether or not it's genetics are of native origin to its area.

I'm glad we agree on something. It will make it harder for Smalma to talk his way out of his penchant towards harvesting any and all those naturalized summer steelhead we love so much.

Plunker and Sparky are agreeing and apologizing !!!! I will concider this a good omen and go fishing right now while I can still feel the love !!!

Bob,

My proposal is simple. Implementing it might be a bit complex, but mainly because enforcement of and compliance with regs can be lax in some parts of the state.

I think the wild fish regs should be as follows:

1. An allowable impact on wild fish should be
calculated for each system. I would make this a very conservative estimate based on run size forcasts, etc.

2. If the allowable impact =0 then no fishing.

3. Half of the allowable impacts go to the tribes. Half to the sporties as legally required.

4. The sporties should further subdivide their half of the allowable impacts. One half should be allocated to CNK wild steelhead by tag only for a specific river (like deer doe tags). The other half should be used to hold CNR fisheries.

5. With the permit system for CNK, wild steelhead harvest would never exceed the allowable impacts for a given river. Carefull monitoring of the CNR fishery would be needed to make sure that the CNR folks never exceeded their allowable impacts. This is the part that could be trickey. Since we all know that CNR people have nothing but the best interests of the fish at heart, they would always report their catch acurately.


The only real problems with that might arise with this system is the accuracy of CNR reporting and the fallibility of run size forecasting. So long as the forcasting is very conservative things should be ok.


I think this should be workable, everybody gets some opportunity, the CNR folks get their longer seasons and fish impacts are more rigorously controlled. The WDFW won't like it because it would require more sampling and/or more enforcement.

To support this I say chage extra for the wild steelhead tag applications (like for big game).

Why won't this work? All angelers get opportunity and impacts on steelhead are strictly controlled (unlike under the current WSR regs).

My $0.02

Geo,

Are the Wild Steelhead Tags river specific? I guess they'd have to be, or every tag sold could be used on one river, or a few, and that would mess up the intent to put the allowable impacts where they are intended to belong.

Would there be some sort of lottery to get one?

The tag would have to have some sort of a jaw clamp on it, that can only be used once, so that the successful fisherman can fill out the tag and clamp it on the jaw of his/her fish, and must be mailed in within, say, fifteen days after harvesting their fish. Any tag issued via lottery must be returned, filled or not, or you're out of the lottery in the future.

Part of easing enforcement would be to make the penalties for poaching wild steelhead commensurate with those for poaching big game...loss of privileges for a set time (longer the better), monetary penalties that hurt, and fines/penalties that really get worse for repeat offenders. This stuff wouldn't directly make enforcement easier, but hopefully very high penalties would be a greater deterrent for the jerks out there that think it's their right to poach wild steelhead.

More suggestions?

Fish on...

Todd

Geo
I myself like to idea of the tags and have ask for it

It hasn't got to far

Pick one system in a giving area like

Skagit
Kit
Hoh
Ronde

See what happens?

Yes Todd,

Yes, you'd make each tag river specific or the system wouldn't work.

This is how they manage Lake sturgeon in the Wisconsin and it seems to be pretty effective. They use the same metal tags for sturgeon as for deer.

They also have tough penalties against poachers. Something like $3000 fine minimum and confiscation of gear. I think these penatlies are actually stiffer than those that face big game poachers.

I'd say that tags would have to be given on a lottery basis if the demand exceeded the allowances for a given year. One a good year you might allow multiple tags per person depending on demand.

Die-hard wild steelhead elitists could even try to get tags and not use them.

This sort of managment scheme seems a bit over the top to me, but I think its has more fairness and more controlled impacts than the current WSR blanket reg.

Geo
They have a system in Eastern Canada for Alantics

I'll look up what there doing up there and report back Sunday family things going on today

Plunker –
I have always enjoyed your posts and don’t really consider that we have arguments, rather having interesting exchanges of ideas.

Regarding your questions - First let start with I that really enjoy fishing and will fishing any fish that swims and bit a hook. Have even spend considerable time fishing for bass (Gasp!!). However what I really enjoy is fishing for wild fish in their native habitats – wild fish in wild rivers if you will.

Given that my priority of interest and what I feel should be management priorities are:
1) Native fish in their native waters.
2) Wild fish of local species
3) Exotics

While probably not popular here I feel that native resident trout or even whitefish or sculpins are as valuable as steelhead in a natural ecosystem and should be given equal support.

The Green River summer run case:
While the naturalized summers in of themselves may not be undesirable while they impact the native fish in their home waters then I feel they need to go. As I stated earlier any production of summer steelhead in the Green will be at a cost of reduced winter production.

You raised the issue of those composite wild stocks (mixtures of hatchery and native stocks). With the composite stocks as well as non-native wild fish if we are to manage for them in a river system then that management should all those populations to develop into the most productive stock possible. Allow natural selection to occur so that they in sync with the environment.

Regarding the South Fork Stillaguamish and Deer Creek – My priorities are to maintain the habitats as they naturally existed if possible. For example the summer and winter steelhead of Deer Creek have used different habitats due to the partial velocity barriers found in the Canyon. The steep gradient within the canyon typically creates a number of sharp drops/falls that are difficult passage points that limits the fish access to the upper 15 miles of the basin. Since the 1995 flood a falls about 1.5 miles upstream of the mouth of Deer Creek has been a particular difficult passage point with at times hundreds of summer fish stacking up below that point. Dozens even kill themselves in their jumping at the fall. Many anglers thought that the State should step in and blow the falls with dynamite so that the summer fish would have an easier access to the upper basin. However it is that very situation that has made the Deer Creek fish what they are. If the falls were removed then the winter fish would gain access to the upper basin and in time would likely replace the summer fish as the selection factor that favored the summer fish would have been removed. I would prefer to maintain the natural diversity of fish stocks and species that developed in our diverse rivers.

In the situation on the upper South Fork Stillaguamish if we are going to allow steelhead to exist there then we should allow the summer and winters sort out the habitats as to which species would dominate. My guess is that the summers would become the dominant life form of O. mykiss.

Hope that has addressed at least some of you questions.

Tight lines
S malma