A question for all you wild steelhead champions that fish for and bonk salmon.

Much of the debate around the WSR issue has centered on the lack of solid science in steelhead management. This a fair enough issue and heaven knows that are plenty of areas that can be improved. However the question what is the improved science in salmon management that allows you to be comfortable in harvesting unclipped salmon?

Over the course of the summer have seen lots of pictures of unjclipped (many of which are likely wild) salmon on this and other broads. Some are from cases like the Lake Washington sockeye where harvest is allowed on an abundant healthy stock but others are from mixed stock areas (SE Alaska, BC, Neah BAy, Washington coast) which would include individual fish from depresed or even ESA listed stocks. Clearly many of you are comfortable with wild salmon harvest.

So again the question is what can we learn from salmon management that would improve our steelhead management?

Tight lines
S malma

I KEEP ALL FISH CLIPPED OR NOT!! THE INDIANS WILL NET THEM ANYWAY!

GREAT QUESTION SMALMA!!!!
I can hardly wait to read some of the answers.

Smalma asks, "However the question what is the improved science in salmon management that allows you to be comfortable in harvesting unclipped salmon?"

All rules and regulations should be based on whether or not a specific system can sustain it's escapement with the harvest of its wild species (salmon/steelhead). If it can't, then regulations need to be implemented to protect the wild fish. These regulations need to affect all user groups .

But sure, I am aware its not that easy. The science and data is out there. There is no doubt in my mind that managers (WDFW) have a good idea of what the future holds or what needs to be done to sustain our fisheries. The biggest problem is the politics, internal and external. We need our Co-managers to base their decisions, regarding our regulations, with the interest of properly managing our renewable resources. To often decisions are based on personal preferences which often have been influenced by the politics of specific user groups.

So........back to the original question. I harvest wild salmon when WDFW says I can.

LT

No offense, but it seems to me that your question is somewhat loaded/leading (based on the quote, above), especially with your statement:

" which would include individual fish from depresed or even ESA listed stocks."

If there are ESA listed fish in those fisheries then the WDFW needs to call a HALT to all Commercial and Native netting, along with ALL Sportfishing in those fisheries.

Are these same ESA listed fish being hammered by the Canadian and Alaskan commercial harvesters? If so, then that needs to be stopped too.

Seems they (WDFW) doesn't have the brass ones to do such a thing, IF IN FACT your hypothesis is accurate regarding the ESA listed fish.

Not saying your wrong, Smalma, but there is so much crap out there right now about what is, and isn't ESA and so much mis-information that has been spread that I don't know what to believe. What a mess.

MB

Smalma...good question. I think it gets down to the "close to home" syndrone.

When a salmon is caught in the salt or at the mouth or the Columbia, the fisher has no idea where the fish is headed, so "it's probably going to a healthy stock watershed" is the logic. Now, when we catch a non-clipped salmon in a actual spawning river we "know" that this is where the salmon is from, so therefore we "coudn't possibly kill this wild salmon" because "X" River needs all the wild fish it can have.

Therefore, when we catch a salmon when it's "close to home" like the way most steelhead are landed it makes the issue way more black and white. Rather than like catching a un-clipped king at Astoria or Neah Bay, we don't know where that fish is heading and we're pretty sure it's not going to be going to a depleted watershed ("what's the chance of that" is our logic) so it's not "close to home" therefore we justify to ourselves that bonking the "big beauty" is just fine!

So in closing this long winded description, it gets down to most steelhead are caught in their native river, so we know how healthy/unhealthy that river is, where as a large % of the salmon are caught during their migration so we don't know where that fish is going and it's human nature to deny that we're doing any harm to the wild salmon becasue we justify to ourselves that it's probably going to "Hanford" etc (supposed healthy run). It's like some people want Alaskan Giant salmon released but they have no problem supporting the bonking of Washington/Oregon giant (proportional) kings that are probably "native" fish. Just food for thought.

I think it's a good question. I advocate releasing wild steelhead and only keep salmon from rivers with large runs. When the state says that a run of 4000 wild steelhead can support harvest, I'm skeptical. When they say a run of 150,000 coho or 300,000 pinks can support harvest, I'm ok with it.

Smalma, I felt like I have a been p!ssing into the wind on this one for quite a few years. I do not keep unclipped salmon, especially in a mixed stock fishery such as we have in saltwater. There is no way to tell where that fish is destined so how the devil can I tell what the health of the stock is that this fish came from?

Unclipped - let it go - salmon or steelhead. Maybe I'm small minded, but its the only way I can feel like I'm consistent.

I release wild fish. That's just my preference, but I did keep all the sockeye I caught...

There's lot's of coal but few diamonds ...

Lunch Time -
Your philosophy of retaining whatever allowed by the managers has been the traditional attitude by many anglers and likely still represent the most common approach - nothing wrong with it.

Anuty -
Releasing of all unclipped fish is certainly the most consistent way to go if one wishes to limit impacts on wild stocks. However many folks seem to differiate between steelhead and the rest of our food and game fish.

Mike -
While I can understand your feelings on protecting all ESA listed fish however the practical impacts of such an approach is pretty harsh. If one wished to have no fishing impacts on any Washington ESA listed salmon we would need to consider closure of all marine water fisheries from SE Alaska south into Oregon. That would include bottom fish (halibut, long cod etc) as well as salmon and game fish. On the freshwater front all the Puget Sound and Columbia River rivers would have to be closed to all fishing (except possibly the months of January and February. Most feel that the minimal gains in reduced impacts on the listed stocks isn't worth the lost opportunities - especially when the major limiting factors are in the habitat arena.

Snit -
Wouldn't the fact that wild steelhead harvest fisheries limited to rivers with health stocks make steelhead management more robust (conservative) than those salmon stocks where the fishing is on mixed stocks?

Still waiting to hear from some of the folks that find it acceptable to keep wild salmon but whose input on the wild steelhead release issue was that the science didn't support the harvest of wild steelhead. Really curious as to what they may see as the differences between steelhead and salmon management.

Tight lines
S malma

I see the release of wild steelhead in their native river as a good thing no matter the health of the run. As long as we maintain rivers IE: the Cow. where you can bonk away at the brats.

Salmon on the other hand as in the saltwater fisheries is abit tuffer. you have no idea where the fish originated from. To bonk or not to bonk that is the question.

Depending on the mortality rate of relesed wild fish you may be able to support the argument for bonking the first (2) fish you catch regardless of the condition of the adipose.

I personally bonk what I can when legal to do so. I have released many fish with questionable outcome. Pretty sad to see that chromer go belly up.

Kanektok kid -
I have to agree that there is a special "aura" about wild steelhead and steelhead fishing in general. Given what many of us will endure for just the opportunity to catch one it may be unreasonable to expect logic be applied in the management of that special resource. However the nature of management requires that it be based on more than emotion.

An aside - I may be one of those rare individuals who at times have considered steelhead to be a pest!

tight lines
S malma

AuntyM -
I understand exactly what you are saying - I have to agree the more fish one catches the more important it is to be selective in those that we opt to retain.

Tight lines
S malma

Yeah, I see what you're getting at and it is kinda hypocritical to be advocating WSR for steelhead and bonking unclipped salmon.

I think part of it stems from the uncertainty with salmon in a couple respects that you don't see with steelhead, as some have mentioned earlier. Also from the sheer difference in numbers that others brought up.

But really, you're right, and one should be consistent. Wild fish are wild fish and if you don't trust the WDFW to be effective managing them, releasing all the unclipped ones is really the only way for a WSR proponent to stand on solid footing.

An exception I'd be in favor of is one RK mentioned. First two legal fish in the salt. Saltwater, bait-caught mortality rates are so high that releasing 10 wild fish to get a clipped one is just taking two steps back for every step forward.

When this discussion came up last time, I believe the question of the ratio of marked hatchery produced salmon (specifically Chinook) vs. hatchery produced steelhead. Anybody have a rough guesstimate?

First, I don't fish for steelhead, so maybe my comments are immaterial to this discussion:

I keep fish that are legal to keep and I know my family will consume. Sorry to insult all you "internet experts" but I do my best to follow the regulations as defined by the "experts" in charge.

I am a maverick in many respects and known to complain about commercial and indian nets, but exactly whom am I supposed to trust?

Now let's not get too clever here Smalma. The Columbia hatchery run fall chinook are not clipped, as Columbia fall chinook are not ESA listed, only the springs and summers are. None of the Hood Canal hatchery chinook are clipped either - not any returning this year anyway. No hatchery chinook are clipped in Willapa Bay - these are also not ESA listed and are turned over en masse to the non-indian gillnetters anyway. The Grays Harbor system hatchery chinook are also not clipped - not ESA listed either so no one cares that the management isn't fine tuned. I am also not aware of any tribal hatchery clipping fish - maybe you know of some up your way, but the Quinault, Makah, and Elwha sure don't. Finally, WDFW is a long way from 100% mark on chinook even though they are pretty much there with coho and steelhead. That's a lot of non-clipped hatchery chinook in the ocean - perhaps even the majority since again the coastal stocks are not in the trouble that Puget Sound stocks are. So I think it's rather unfair of you to characterize everyone's picture of a fish with an adipose fin as wild - and I take particular exception to this as the fish I posted that my daughter caught on the Columbia last week was not wild for sure as it had a left ventral clip even though the adipose was left on. My nearly 2 cards full of chinook contain adipose clipped fish from the spring and summer Columbia fishery, adipose clipped fish from the selective Sekiu fishery, a few sockeye from LW, clipped coho from B10, and non-clipped most likely hatchery chinook from B10, Hood Canal, and Willapa Bay. The card will get filled up, along with much of my third one, with Grays Harbor chinook and also Grays Harbor wild and hatchery coho, as that is one place where the coho actually have habitat - including some really nice wetlands to rear in on my 80 acres - and can stand some harvest. The habitat up in your region is crap and so are the fish runs - not much fish management can do about that. Since the Grays Harbor coho runs are maintaining themselves just fine during good ocean years I do not feel guilty at all about whacking a few, especially since I do my share to put some back by the way I manage my land. But to get to addressing your point - comparing wild steelhead, which if released bite over and over and provide considerable enjoyment to many anglers, and also do not necessarily die after spawning, to wild salmon, which rarely bite by comparison, lose condition quickly, and always die after spawning, is like comparing apples to oranges. There is a real reason beyond maintaining adequate escapement levels - which is mainly to maintain good fishing - that all wild steelhead should be released. Wild salmon should be released only when necessary to maintain escapement, and the way the fishery is managed today they by and large are, at least as well as can be done with the pittance paid WDFW to do this and the complicated co-management mess with the tribes. I do not whack any wild steelhead, I do not whack any ESA listed chinook, and I do not whack any wild coho unless WDFW says I can, and they are from the Grays Harbor system where I feel I have done my part to put some back.

In response to my question of whom to trust.... I trust Spawnout!

Smalma
Great question, That's one question I can't answer because I don't target salmon. I'm a steelheader.

I would like to hear Duro answer.

Spawnout –
First I would like to thank you for contributing your part for the future by the maintenance of the coho habitat on your property; if only others were as diligent.

I in no way had meant to imply that all unclipped salmon were wild – in my original post I said
“Over the course of the summer have seen lots of pictures of unjclipped (sic) (many of which are likely wild) salmon on this and other broads…” In many fisheries how does the concern angler differ between wild and hatchery? Should they error on the side of the wild fish?

Further like you I don’t have a problem with the harvest of wild salmon from robust populations and don’t believe I have ever said otherwise. My question was that much of the debate surrounding the wild steelhead resource seemed to center around the lack of “science” in steelhead management. Issues like escapement goals to high, exploitation rates to high, management to rigid to respond to changing conditions, etc. It is obvious that many that raised those issues for steelhead don’t feel that they applicable to salmon management, I merely asked the question of what they found different in the science of salmon management that gave than more comfort in bonking wild fish that is lacking in steelhead. management. No matter where we go in steelhead management issues like escapement goals will a key componement of the management.

You mentioned that steelhead lend themselves more favorably to CnR than salmon. I would agree. When this is coupled with the “special aura” that steelhead foster, and the continued developing of the attitude that a “game fish is too valuable to just catch once” (Lee Wulff?) it is unfortunate that the Wild Steelhead debate was not focused on these social and economic arguments rather than the “muddled science” debate we have had.

To date only two of the “science” issues have been brought to the table – 1) the lack of all hatchery fish being clipped. While that should not be an issue in places like your Willapa Bay example in other areas it probably should be. 2) The small run size of steelhead populations.

Here are a couple of examples of terminal salmon fisheries (avoiding the mix stock questions) on wild only or where most hatchery fish are clipped) with run sizes comparable to those of some of our steelhead populations where some of the WSR folks seem to be comfortable in bonking salmon. Run sizes based on the 2004 forecasts – all wild fish.
Hoh River -- spring/summer chinook = 1,450
-------------- fall chinook = 4,240
-------------- coho = 8,000
Quillayute – Summer chinook = 1,415
-------------- Fall chinook = 4,240
Samish ----- coho = 11,300
Elliot Bay --- fall chinook = 10,030

Tight lines
S malma

I haven't caught any slivers this year that are clipped (off of Possession or Shipwreck). The run on the Snohomish seems pretty healthy to me. Anyone have any data as to whether those hatchery fish are clipped?

One thing that I'm doing is putting power bait in my hootchie. My theory is that this will work like the Salmon scenters and attract hatchery fish as opposed to wild.

Jeff -
The coho in those areas would likely be a mixture of Snohomish and Stillaguamish and Tulalip hatchery fish as well some headed towards South Sound.

Preseason forecast (prior to any fishing) for the returns the Snoh/Stilli area was for a hatchery run of 49,000 (as I recall only a 1/3 or so were clipped) and a wild run of 230,000. So yes the coho run is healthy (though marine survival are expected to be low average) and it is not surprising that you are see low numbers of clipped fish.

Tight lines
S malma

The chinook that go up the Klickitat are not cliped. One of the reasons I heard is that way any of those fish that are caught below bonneville have to be realsed and that asures that more fish make it back to the Klick. That allows a better fishery for the Indians and the sports fisherman and women.

Diehard, are you talking about spring chinook in the Klick? Because now you can keep any kings below Bonneville. Or maybe you meant to say coho instead of chinook? I know that a huge % of the upper Columbia hatchery steelhead aren't clipped for the reason that you stated, but I think your comment/wording about the Klick is incorrect. I'm not "picking on you at all" BTW. Have a great weekend!

Smalma, I have been reading the post about the hosing we anglers are receiving by WDFW. I am surprised there wasn't more discussion about the management of salmon vs steelhead on this thread. Do you know if salmon are managed by MSY? Do you think steelhead are getting mismanaged to extinction using MSY?

Fishchaser –
Interesting questions and my answers likely will be unpopular with many on this site.

Both steelhead and salmon are managed under much the same scenarios, which are with escapement goals established at MSY levels. This in most cases is the result of court orders. In the strict sense most of these populations are not managed for MSY. While the escapement goals are at MSY levels year to year management is typically design so that the expectation is that escapement will be at or above the established level; escapements above the goals is not considered to be a management failure in fact is expected. This is contrast by what is considered to be classic MSY management where is fish escaping the fishery above the goal were considered wasted.

Today in most cases the forecasts and exploitation rates established for each run of fish is typically “buffer” to provide some cushion for management error. While many would consider these precautions to less than adequate the fact remains that when run sizes are larger than escapement goals it is more typical for the post fishery escapements to be above rather below the goals.

With any sort of reasonable productivity for a given stock MSY escapement levels are typically well above population viability levels. So no I don’t believe that steelhead are being managed to extinction by MSY management. If the Wild Steelhead Release folks are correct the application of WSR in under escaped runs will prevent the collapse of the population. If the population does not increase then harvest is not likely the cause of the low returns.

The management being attacked in the other thread you referred to is an example when fisheries are managed more by court decisions than biological principles.

Tight lines
S malma