A DRAFT of the WSC White Paper 2 titled "The Status of Wild Steelhead and Their Management in Western Washington" is available for download on http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com in the documents section. It is large at 2 MB and is a Draft so if you would like to comment on it send them to wscmembership@yahoo.com

thanks
JJ
VP Membership WSC

I have read through most of the document. It is a very professional look at our wild steelhead managment. Those who want our fisheries managed in accordance with the best available science should read this document.

Mental Note: Parker may or may not be joining, but will still donate to the WSC.

-htt

Back to the top, if you are for or against the moratorium, please spend the time to read this document for a perspective of the direction of wild steelhead stock

I haven't had time to read the new paper in its entirety yet so I'm wondering...

Does it explain why the wild steelhead numbers on all of the Canadian C&R rivers that empty into the Straight of Georgia have plummeted despite the fact that they are all "protected" with mandatory wild steelhead release?

Or why the wild steelhead populations on the Quillayute have remained stable despite the fact that thousands of wild steelhead are harvested annually?

Thanks!

What's your definition of stable? Are you suggesting that the more fish we harvest the more fish that will come back? Do you think that the tribes aren't netting enough fish?

Jerry,

By stable I mean that the most recent 5-year average adult run size of nearly 18,000 fish per year is almost 3,300 fish or 22% greater than the 25-year average of around 14,700.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the more fish we harvest the more fish that will come back. I am asking why, with a harvest averaging 4,500 wild fish per year during the last 25 years, the Quillayute has seen a 5-year average return of triple the escapement goal while the numbers have plummeted on the "protected" Straight of Georgia rivers that have mandatory wild steelhead release?

This suggests that a conservative amount of harvest is not detrimental and might possibly be beneficial to healthy native stocks while mandatory release of wild fish offers little if any protection to a wild stock when challenged by cyclic or adverse circumstance.

Do I think that the tribes aren't netting enough fish? That is certainly an irrelevant off the wall question! Regardless, I think it is a judgement call that only they can answer. The tribal 5-year average harvest has been estimated at roughly two-thirds of their allocation.

So now that we have gone full circle sans any defensive gut reaction to this diversion I am still left wondering...

Does the new status and management summary explain why the wild steelhead numbers on all of the Canadian C&R rivers that empty into the Straight of Georgia have plummeted despite the fact that they are all "protected" with mandatory wild steelhead release?

Or why the wild steelhead populations on the Quillayute have remained stable despite the fact that thousands of wild steelhead are harvested annually?

Thanks!

Don't forget that the Quinault hatchery dumps tons of unmarked hatchery steelhead into the system, using it as a example is a bad idea.

Thanks for pointing that out Jerry. You have astutely provided an excellent reason for leaving the Quinault out of this comparison.


I am still left without an explanation as to why the wild steelhead numbers on all of the Canadian C&R rivers that empty into the Straight of Georgia have plummeted much like the north sound rivers despite the fact that they are all "protected" with mandatory wild steelhead release?

Or why the wild steelhead populations on the Quillayute have remained stable despite the fact that thousands of wild steelhead are harvested annually?

I'll get back to you next week Plunker.

"This suggests that a conservative amount of harvest is not detrimental and might possibly be beneficial to healthy native stocks while mandatory release of wild fish offers little if any protection to a wild stock when challenged by cyclic or adverse circumstance."

If you could actually establish a connection, rather than a coincidental occurrence, of harvest and increased run health, than we can talk about this.

How about this one? I wonder what, with the increase in population size during harvest of several thousand fish per year, the populations would be if those fish weren't harvested? Maybe it would be even higher...

With no way to establish (right now) what the relationship between harvest and population size has been on the Quillayute system, either scenario is just as likely as the other...and I'll go out on a limb and say if we had killed less, there would be more, seems to make more sense intellectually.

Try this one, too...while the runs in Georgia Strait are in the sh!tter, I wonder how much worse it would be if folks had been bonking those fish before the (as of yet) not understood phenomena that caused their decline had happened?

Again, no science...but intellectually, it seems that it would be an even worse situation if there were less fish there when the bomb hit.

An enlarged buffer amount of fish when cyclical or adverse situations come around is one of the benefits of wild steelhead release.

While the "critical" point of steelhead populations may not be known with exactitude (the point where a population cannot ever recover, and will decline to extinction), that point does exist, and a few fish up or down could make the difference when those cataclysmic phenomena come around.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks for the diversion into fantasy and absurdity Todd! Your imagination is eccentrically interesting and your propaganda provides considerable embellishment to the conversation yet, witticism excluded, ignores the questions:

Why have the wild steelhead numbers on all of the Canadian C&R rivers that empty into the Straight of Georgia plummeted much like the north sound rivers despite the fact that they are all "protected" with mandatory wild steelhead release?

Or why the wild steelhead populations on the Quillayute have remained stable despite the fact that thousands of wild steelhead are harvested annually?

Plunk,

Did you even read the post? Do you ask questions because you want possible answers, or are you trying to make a point just by asking?

The reason for the decline of Georgia Strait and Puget Sound steelhead is not known.

The reason for the population sizes on the Quillayute system is also unknown.

However, it is likely that WSR on the GS and PS fish, and harvest on the Quillayute fish, are factors that are not related to either population dynamics.

You want to hear absurd? How about implying that WSR caused the GS and PS declines, and that harvest has been the cause of high Quillayute population sizes.

Now that's absurdity.

Fish on...

Todd

That last post was priceless, Todd!

My eight year old gets it, why can't Plunker and Company?

Keep the faith brother.

Some peoples children just cannot be taught

It's my feeling Plunker that without the protection afforded the Canadian fish by WSR and CNR those fisheries would have gone into the crapper sooner and would take longer to recover.

Right On fishNphysician!

Todd admitting that he doesn’t know the answers to those questions is indeed priceless!

No one knows exactly why the wild steelhead numbers on all of the Canadian C&R rivers that empty into the Straight of Georgia plummeted much like the north sound rivers despite the fact that they are all "protected" with mandatory wild steelhead release.

What is known is that the mandatory release of wild fish did not protect those wild stocks when challenged by adverse circumstance.

It is also known is that the mortality from CnR fisheries there was probably not a factor nor was the mortality associated with harvest on the north Puget Sound rivers likely a factor. It is known that despite decent spawning escapements on these rivers the "Production rate," number of returning adults per spawner, dropped suddenly and dramatically.

It is known why the wild steelhead populations on the Quillayute have remained stable despite the fact that thousands of wild steelhead are harvested annually. The reason is that the spawning escapements and the "production rate" have remained adequate. It is not known if the harvest there has contributed to that successful "production rate".

I agree with Todd that "it is likely that WSR on the GS and PS fish, and harvest on the Quillayute fish, are factors that are not related to either population dynamics."

Sorry Jerry G. but "protection afforded the Canadian fish by WSR and CNR" appears to be somewhat of an illusion. I can understand that releasing a fish to spawn can be beneficial in the right circumstance but how can catching them (as in CNR) be helpful in any way that harvest is not?

FishNphysician? You ask, "My eight year old gets it, why can't Plunker and Company?"
Let me point out that I have a bit more experience and knowledge than a pliable eight-year-old child does but aside from that I must ask you...

Just what is it that I don't get?

Almost everything from what I can tell.....

"What is known is that the mandatory release of wild fish did not protect those wild stocks when challenged by adverse circumstance."

This is most emphatically NOT known.

Who knows how bad it might be now if the parent years of the now existing dwindling stocks had been subject to harvest and whatever environmental stresses they are subject to now?

Again, as noted above, the more fish there when the "bomb" drops, the more likely the fish are to recover.

Fish on...

Todd

And the more that we JUST DON'T FISH for them the better they would be also.Close the rivers!!!!