Wild Steelhead Coalition

Wild Steelhead in Washington Fact Sheet

February 2004



By Dick Burge, VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP Science/Education



1. In 1996 NOAA fisheries divided the west coast wild steelhead populations in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho into 15 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs), or discrete areas with similar genetic, life history and evolutionary traits. This was done for the purpose of evaluating the status of separate metapopulation units under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2. As of January 2004, eleven ESUs were either listed or a candidate under review for possible listing. Two of the 15 units were listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction), eight of the units were listed as threatened (in danger of becoming endangered) and one coastal Oregon Unit remained under further review.

3. In the mid 1950's, over 125 Washington rivers were producing catches of wild steelhead. Recently there have been only 15 to 18 Washington rivers open to wild fish harvest due to ESA listings and low spawner escapements. In the mid 1950's, about 60,000 to 90,000 wild steelhead were annually harvested by Washington sport fishers (harvest estimates are based on WDFW data and correction recommendations). In 2003, Washington sport fishers harvested 3,554 wild steelhead.

4. Hatchery fish now comprise 97.7 percent of the Washington sport steelhead harvest. In western Washington (Puget Sound and Coastal catch areas), hatchery fish comprise 90.4% of the sport harvest.

5. Washington's wild steelhead populations are either listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, chronically under-escaped or in periods of recent population declines. Of Washington's 7 steelhead ESUs, 3 are now listed as Threatened, 1 is listed as Endangered, while the other 3 do not currently warrant listing. In spite of the “not warranted” status, wild steelhead have in recent years been chronically under-escaped in the majority of Puget Sound ESU and Southwest Washington ESU streams. In recent years, only the Olympic Peninsula ESU has wild returns that have usually exceeded escapement goals and are open to harvest.

6. Most of the Olympic Peninsula wild runs have been in a downward trend between their individual run-size peaks in the early/mid 1990's and the latest run-size estimates from 2003. As the Columbia River and its tributaries, Puget Sound, Southwest Washington, and Oregon rivers closed to wild steelhead fisheries and/or harvest, many guides and fishers have relocated their fishing activities to the Olympic Peninsula.

7. For the past few years, the Pysht, Quinault, Hoh, Queets, Dickey, Sol Duc, Quillayute, Calawah and Bogachiel River total runs and escapements have all been in a downward trend from their recent peak run-size returns.

8. Last year (2002/03) the Hoh River was under-escaped by 800 fish. The run-size would have easily exceeded the escapement goal of 2400 spawners, but the combined sport and tribal harvest drove the escapements well-below the escapement goal. This situation came about because of an overly optimistic pre-season run-size forecast that was used to establish the harvest fisheries for 2002/03. For 2003/04, the pre-season run-size forecast calls or 4453 fish, and the co-managers agreed to a harvest allocation of 1395 fish for the Hoh tribe and 668 for sport fishers. The co-manager's plan calls for a targeted wild steelhead escapement of 2360 fish, or 40 fish below the escapement goal! We can only hope that this year's preseason forecast underestimates, rather than overestimates, this year's actual returns, and that the harvesters fail to achieve their full allocations.

9. The Queets River has been managed for spawners below its desired WDFW escapement for the last 10 years due to tribal demands.

10. Sport catch data since the 5 fish annual limit was established in 2001 indicates the regulation change has not reduced the total annual sport harvest of wild fish. For example, between 2000/01 and 2001/02, the Quillayute escapement declined 1300 fish while the sport kill increased from 1790 to 1930 fish.

11. Harvest models have failed wild salmonids in the 20th and 21st centuries as they are too simplistic and do not account for environmental variations, the role of life history diversity in population resilience, and other factors that are critical for sustaining healthy wild salmonid populations (freshwater habitat degradation, negative impacts of hatchery programs, etc).

12. Ocean and terrestrial productivity continually changes without notice or prediction, and this has major impacts and changes in salmonid populations. The only way to plan for these changes is to manage wild stocks much more conservatively than they have been with “maximum sustained harvest (MSH)” guidelines.

13. The life history of wild steelhead is far more diverse than most other salmonids. Seasonal runs, multiple year classes within a run, repeat spawners, juveniles that spend 1 to 3 years in the river, a riverine only component (rainbow trout), and river specific genetics, if protected, will provide resiliency and stability to these fish, even during poor environmental cycles.

14. A growing majority of sport fishers clearly prefer a non-harvest plan for wild steelhead. In 1995, 42.3% preferred CnR, 14% preferred harvest, and 43.4% had mixed opinions. In 2001, 49.3% preferred Wild Fish Release, 11.5% preferred releasing all steelhead, 2% preferred to close the fishery, and 33.9% preferred continued harvest (with 3.4% having no opinion). Combined, 65% of those with an opinion in 2001 preferred either CnR or closure for wild fish, even when a river would meet spawning escapement needs.



Data Sources: Washington Department Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries.

finaly, some one who makes real sence!

Plunkers Petition? :rolleyes:
You never were good at honesty Rich.

Please note that the petition to follow the recommendation of the WDFW to recind the moratorium is not mine but I do support it.

The Petition is worded as follows:

`

It is important to note that the managers of the resource, both the WDFW and NWIFC, recommend recinding the moratorium and assert that the science indicates that it is not a good conservation measure.


Please read the following letter:

LETTER FROM LEGISLATURE TO WDFW COMMISSION
The following letter was written by a group of legislators regarding the Commission's actions concerning the steelhead Moratorium.

April 13, 2004

Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
ATTN: Commission Members
600 Capital Way North
Olympia , WA 98501

Dear Members of the Commission:

We are writing to express our disapproval of the commission's action to institute a two year ban on the retention of wild steelhead on western Olympic Peninsula rivers. We believe the commission's action violated the Administrative Procedures Act, is unsupported by fish management science and is contrary to state law expressed in RCW 77.

This letter will clarify the relationship between the legislature and the commission and then explain the reasons for the opposition to the ban on wild steelhead retention.

RCW 77.04.012 defines the mandate of the department and commission when it states:

"The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish and shellfish only at times or places or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission, does not impair the resource."

"The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens... ."

RCW 77.04.013 further clarifies the legislature's intent saying:

"The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996 , the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department."

"The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

RCW 77.04.055 sets out the duties of the commission:

Commission - Duties,

(1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:

(a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to those policies; and

(b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies. The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations.

(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.

(3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.

(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.

(5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.

(6) The commission shall have the final approval authority for the department's budget proposals.

(7) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission.


Conversations with commissioners reveal the commission believes it is a policy making body. This is not the case. The state constitution clearly gives the legislature the job of creating public policy. The commission has the job "In establishing policy to preserve, protect and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat" of meeting with the governor annually to review and provide basic goals and objectives; and to review the performance of the department in implementing those policies. Changes in policy direction are to be presented to the governor and the legislature for enactment into law. The commission has no ability to create its own policy and is limited to the role of a consultant in presenting new directions it feels the state should follow. Changes from existing legislative direction to those new directions are not to be pursued unless legislation is enacted giving the commission authority to implement the change.

With this in mind, the commission's decision to ban retention of wild steelhead for two years is a policy change made without legislative approval. In fact, legislators have consistently told the commission over a two year period that a rule of this type would be considered a policy change and further indicated that legislative approval would not be forthcoming unless WDFW fish management showed the runs were in trouble. Wild steelhead runs on the western Olympic Peninsula rivers are not endangered. According to WDFW and tribal biologists they are not impaired and are capable of supporting the limited retention called for in 2003-2004 fishing regulations. Therefore, the decision violates the legislative directive that the commission "SHALL" attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens..." AND the commissions duty that it "shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations."

The commission's failure to consult coastal Indian tribal co-managers when considering the ban violates federal court requirements for co-management of the runs under US v Washington .

The commission's failure to provide adequate public notice that the rule would be considered is at least a violation of the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act if not an outright violation of RCW 77.04.130. It is also a violation of the public's intent for an open commission process as expressed in R-45 (RCW 77.04.013) that specifies "The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

The legislature spends a good deal of taxpayer money to employ wildlife managers at WDFW. The ban ignores the science presented by these managers and in doing so brings into question the commission's commitment to sound wildlife management. The legislature has also spent a great deal of money on salmon recovery. One must question why, if the commission is going to prevent fishers from retaining fish from healthy runs.

In conclusion, we feel the commission short circuited the legislative process when it adopted the rule. The rule should be rescinded and if the commission still believes it is necessary should be submitted to the legislature as request legislation in time for the 2005 Legislative session. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Representatives who have signed: Buck, Sump, Blake, Schoesler, Pearson, Kessler, Orcutt, Armstrong, Hatfield, Hinkle, Clements

Senators who have signed: Sheldon, Morton, Hewitt, Hargrove, Doumit, Honeyford, McCaslin

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Also note that most of what is in the so-called fact that Rich posted above is selective information n contradiction of the true facts that are ignored and the rest is total BS but I don't have time at 2:00 AM to refute it all.

"All his facts are bogus.....I don't have to time to prove it with my real facts, but trust me."


I think the election year is getting to you Plunk.

So Plunker, just so I understand your position I have a couple questions. If the legislative process had been followed and the ban on wild steelhead retention had still passed what would your thoughts be? And if the moratorium had covered any and all fishing methods by any and all people, including tribes, what would your thoughts be?
Just curious.
If what is stated above in your post is true regarding legislative protocol then I agree that this was passed improperly but I don't think any of the sporties that really love the sport or resource want to give up any more, after all they are only left with hatchery fish now. Rescinding this ban will in many peoples minds be a step backwards for the fish, even though it may be proper political protocol.

What this should have read was:

"In conclusion, we (your ass-kissing politicians), feel the commission ignored us, and since we (ass-kissing politicians) want to feel important (and wanted) on all issues, feel the need to impress our voters by raising a stink on this controversial issue, not to mention that we (ass-kissing politicians) will get a lot of press time!

What a crock.

I say thanks to Plunker and Ybnormal for kicking me in the butt and making me send my letters to the commision, etc "NOT" supporting Plunkers "said" petition.
I urge all the rest of us to do this now, don't put it off like I did. This is important to the future of our Steelhead.

What really perturbed me was that petition was sent by one of our officers of the GHPSA as a heads up. I sent him back a letter informing him of my position as a PSA member and that I hoped that was not the position our organization. I know that many of us would not support it and will be bringing it up at the next meeting, hope its not too late. I also informed him that this was "my" view, as I was sure that this was not everyones opinion, as evidenced on this board.

Why not ERR on the side of the steelhead, not politics.

Steve

See Steve even PSA groups are all different in what they think on this.I wonder what mine thinks.
I would rather stop all fishing for nates 0 ,tribes and c&r.WSC can post all they want on the science doesn't make a diff to me.It's how they did it that tics me off.
I fish therefore I vote

Plunker wrote:
“Also note that most of what is in the so-called fact that Rich posted above is selective information n contradiction of the true facts that are ignored and the rest is total BS but I don't have time at 2:00 AM to refute it all.”

WDFW works with the same numbers that are reflected in the “FACT SHEET”.
And I do believe (WDFW) they work with these numbers every day, now Plunker do you work with the numbers every day? (I’ll pull a Cow on this one) NO you don’t work with the number every day.

Start “refuting” numbers and bring all your info to Olympia (WDFW) and share it with them, they have people in the flied working on them!

Oh by the way; how many people do you have working in the flied (rivers, streams, and lakes) in these issues? (I’ll pull a Cow on this one too) NONE!

Parker wrote:
“What this should have read was:

"In conclusion, we (your ass-kissing politicians), feel the commission ignored us, and since we (ass-kissing politicians) want to feel important (and wanted) on all issues, feel the need to impress our voters by raising a stink on this controversial issue, not to mention that we (ass-kissing politicians) will get a lot of press time!

What a crock.”

Parker even if you’re a gear guy, your OK (I think?)
You hit the nail on the HEAD!
Politicians are going to be hard press on this Issue!
This will divide a lot of folks, we will get to see both sides of people.

"Show me the facts and data, they scream, but if they if they don't like what it says there's always politics"

If following through the Commission process that is available to everyone is crime, then the plead is "guilty as charged" Embrace the fact that there is a process to go through

Tribal netting is the spawn of satan. All of the science and all of the bickering about science doesn't measure up to jackola to thousands of fish being slaughtered. C&R is a good but to little too late action to solve a huge problem. Try stopping tribal netting for a year or two on a stream and see what happens. I would like to see the science report on that.

If I am not mistaken, there is no tribal netting for steelhead on the Snohomish System, and hasn't been for a few years now. Last time I checked, the spring native steelhead population was still in the dumps, and not showing any signs of recovery. I'm almost positive the WDFW has, and still is doing, and creating the "science report" on that system.

Smalma will probably chime in to tell me that I am (somewhat) correct, or maybe that I'm smoking crack again and have it all wrong.

I guess my point is - it is foolish to just blame tribal netting for the decline and/or loss of native steelhead. The White Man and his destructive nature almost certainly played a larger role in the decline of our native steelhead populations than the Native American Man, did, or has done.

Hey, I'm just giving credit, where credit is due. Us White Men are damned good at raping our own enviroment, doing whatever we feel like, and when it all goes down the shiatter, *THAN* maybe start to do something about it - or blame someone else.

How come I never see anyone pick on the loggers, or the river-front property owners, or the farmes that let their cows on the river bed? How many native steelhead do you think they destroyed????

never saw an Indian build a minimall or a smelter or a forest service road - and if they did they learned it from the white man. who do you think invented gill nets?

BTW: If you think that the "WDFW" is not a rule making body go lookup the RCW's that are in the letter at the top of the page. The way "I" read the RCWs there is no question that the WDFW/Commision were well within their power to put the "Moratorium" in place.

I also did a little bit of checking to see how many people were licensed to fish for steelhead in Washington this year. It is roughly 540,000 according to their online database. So if we take 1% of those, and each of them catch and kill 5 fish we no longer have a run on the Hoh at all! Is that scary enough for you? Well that is what we are looking at without the wild fish closure.

IMHO what we really should do is make it so that NO ONE can fish for at LEAST 3 life cycles if we want any chance of saving our fish. Do I want to do that? NO WAY! But I would certainly do that if it meant that my grand kids would actually have a chance to fish for reasonable numbers of fish.

BTW: IMHO, "Escapement Goals" are simply a scientists estimate of how many fish are required to spawn to keep a certain number of fish returning each year. They IN NO WAY are what it takes to keep a fishery healthy!

2 weeks ago my son floated the Snoqualmie from Fall City to Neil Rd. He said he was able to see 10 fish in that section of river. A healthy river would probably have 10 fish in each hole!

Parker: You talking about me??? I live on the banks of the Raging River... And no I didn't build there. And no I don't use anything that might get into the water system and do damage. But I know what you mean.

I agree to some of this Parker but not all. The problem is that nets are non discriminitory. They kill everything that gets caught in them. So what we really need to do is not allow ANY NETS ANYWHERE in Washington waters. This would also have to include tribal nets as well. This would have so much benefit you wouldn't believe it. For proof go look at the fish numbers in the other states that have put simlar laws in place.

You are correct that we all are responsible for what has happened to our environment. Unfortunately those with money (I'm thinking Commercial Fishing Lobbies and Tribes) cloud the issue when they think they will no longer be able to rape the land/sea to make that money such that the public just doesn't get a chance to see how badly we have been raped. I would venture a guess that with a ban on Nets and similar regulations on logging, farming, building in our watersheds that in 20 years the fishing for all species would improve drastically. And this includes the bottomfish that have had their habitats destroyed by bottom nets that dredge the bottom for halibut, sole, cod, etc. Those are actually some of the worst nets out there as they not only kill the fish but also destroy the habitat as well.

Personally I feel that the letter at the top of the page was created because the tribes didn't want to look bad because they were the only ones fishing for Natives. They then put a bug in their politicians ears and told them they would no longer be supported if they didn't do something. Politicians have to have the support from the people with money or they won't get/keep their jobs come election day. The letter has nothing to do with the legality of the WDFW setting regulations(policies if you wish). They have been doing so since they were created as that is what they were created to do!

Plunker: The interesting RCW is the following The last line states what I feel this whole thing is about. Maximizing opportunities of all citizens to be able to fish for a steelhead. It doesn't state Killing a steelhead. So tell me how the moratorium impairs the resource and keeps you from fishing for steelhead? If you can then I'll support the removal of the ban. But if not there is no way that I will and in fact I would propose to make the ban permanant rather than just for 2 years.


Also the following is kind of fun.

So isn't that what the Commision did when it made the moratorium? Hmmm

And then we have
And
WOW! Guess that is the trump card huh? They really do have the power to do what they did!


Isn't the law fun??? I'm sure glad I'm not a lawyer cuz depending on how you read the laws you can have 2 different views in many cases. However in this case I think the lawyers that said the commision didn't have the power to make the moratorium are just plain wrong.

I will not even begin to go over this back and forth crying game, about who is right and who is wrong, only to say that without a pull of nets from these said rivers on our coast, the change in numbers will not drastically change as so many think they will. Only time will tell and I figure I have about 50 years to see. And yes I did keep 1 wild fish last year, but released 20 more, it was a small at that. So go ahead and give me an ear full.

I support the wild steelhead morortorium due to the low abundance of wild steelhead. if the species is listed under the ESA then the tribal netters will be unable to harvest them. If we continued to harvest them to low numbers then the point elliott treaty tribes would sue the state because under the 1974 Boldt Decision it is the states responsibility to provide them with fish to catch. thats my 2 cents