Keith, I don't think increased fishers on the OP is so much the cause as the effect. It is most likely that the same things that are causing decreased returns on the OP are the same things that caused the declines on the mainland and that fishers have left the most depleted areas in search of less depleted. Declined OP runs are most likely not caused by the relatively mild increased pressure.

Seriously though. I remember in the younger years seeing people fishing, 90% of them were clueless and not a threat on any river for any species of fish. Now in 2010, there are a lot of skilled anglers (self taught/internet savvy/etc)... Just the sheer #'s of increased anglers/better anglers is crushing the #'s of wild steelhead.

The trend is there if you want to recognize it, if you don't then no biggie........

Keith

No question on the trend and I think you know what you are talking about. It is what is causing the trend that I question. Is it mainly pressure or are other things involved? I think legal sportie pressure as the answer is not complete.
What are the other things involved that also contribute? Has there been increased tribal harvest? Illegal harvest? Changed ocean conditions? (everybody blames this when they are clueless, a nice scapegoat,). Changes in logging/habitat? Weather? Hatchery release numbers?
Prolly not dams.

And Keith, I understand your thoughts about the next 5-6 years events and I can't disagree. But I just can not roll over, and I don't see you doing that either.

The only thing I can do is come to the most complete understanding possible, work with others, and do what I can. I am feeling really down about the directions of the fisheries right now but am too involved to back off and find another "pastime."

Not my happiest mood. My dark side.

Scientifically speaking, if they knew wtf they were talking about our rivers would be flooded with wild steelhead...

It's not that the science is lacking or unknown, the problem is the political will to make the sacrifices needed for recovery. The biggest limiting factors are OFF THE TABLE. We're left with tinkering around the edges.

Keta is spot on, the problem with recovery is a political will issue, not a scientific short fall.
FYI numbers 1-3 are are a direct result of poor logging and land use practices.

I understand what Keith is saying we've gotten alot better at catching fish, cell phones, internet and constantly improving gear and people holding seminars on how to use them are taking there toll..Sorry but I didn't used to be a fan of MPA's ocean and inriver but I don't see another way around it. This idea that we can go out and catch every fish and them sort through them is going to be short lived at the best..

Over fishing, Over harvest whatever you choose to call it gets my vote along with all these other factors mentioned including ocean conditions starting with A in the alphabet of Acidification http://www.ocean-acidification.net/OAdocs/SPM-lorezv2.pdf and moving on to the other letters of the alphabet from there. I'll add disease and pollution to the list started.

Cancer harms the body when damaged cells divide uncontrollably to form lumps or masses of tissue called tumors.

IMO overfishing was the start of this cancer that began the weakening process and all the other factors or pieces of the puzzle could be the death blow if not managed correctly.

So weak, that since we have moved out of the CR to the OP I’ll add PS to the list where a quilt of woven gill nets across these tribs or rivers could and has extirpated runs of fish.

So why would fisheries scientists ignore over harvest as a limiting factor for recovery?
Clearly hundreds of scientific stock assessments show habitat as the limiting factor for recovery, yet you say it's over harvest.
Other than a gut feeling, can you show any data that shows where this is really a factor.

Its one of the problems but if you look at listed steelhead from California to Washington there's alot more going on than tribal nets. Large population area's and associated habitat loss, pollution and of course its convenient to fish close to home seems to be the key.

I'm not rolling over.....

But face the facts, when the higher powers get involved and hatchery #'s get cut for the sake of assumed wild fish then everyone suffers. It's pretty simple, you start going gung-ho to save the wild fish by cutting hatchery fish plants and there are less hatchery fish to fish on which result in shorter seasons and less hatchery fish that return.

Keith

Are you serious? That's the real problem with our fisheries. They're managed by paper.... It's accepted that these LCR tribs meet low escapement #'s set on paper....

Shut down a LCR trib or two for 6-8 years and see what happens. The Wind River is a prime example. Eliminate gear fisherman and you'll elimate 75% of the pressure... Not that I want to see it happen, I've come to realize you can't have your cake and eat it too....

So much goes on in these tribs that people don't see, it's sick. Everyone assumes as an honest fisherman the fish just come back, some get CnR'd and then they spawn and go to the ocean. Over the years being on the rivers 250 days a year you see a lot of [censored].... Examples, people fishing closed waters, people retaining wild steelhead, finding gillnets in rivers actively fishing and gillnets along shore lines that had been fished... So much goes on that people don't know about, it's sickening.

Keith

Shut down fishing and see what happens? Isn't that exactly what we did with wild steelhead?
So what do you think happened?
Nothing, that's what, in spite of over 25 years of no retention and no commerical harvest, no ESA listed steelhead stock has been delisted.
So why in the world would we try that failed recovery option again?

no, habitat loss is the reason we are where we are at today.

History .

Fishing was in full swing in the 1800’s on the CR in the NW territories. Before the time WA entered into the union there was already cries of more fish being caught than could be replenished from spawning grounds. WA became a state in 1889. The beginning of building of hatcheries to supplement the runs occurred before 1900.

The CR fish were only intercepted terminally, with no dams, plenty of habitat ,water quality, no urban sprawl.

I’m not here to dismiss your top 5 list would be nice to see again, but the documented tonnage taken from the CR was over fishing according to the people of that time and also F&W starting 1889 and supplemented with hatchery fish.

It's not rocket science, I don't know what's so hard for most to understand....

People are on this kick that if we take hatchery fish away, the wild fish with come thriving back.... One limited factor though, we're still fishing for them and handling them...

Keith

What about the healthy southern Oregon steelhead stocks that have been harvested for over 20 years, yet their numbers are robust compared to other stocks in the PNW.
What set these stocks apart from ones on the edge of extinction?
It's clearly not harvest, or ocean conditions, could it be a river with a high carrying capacity?
The answer is right there in front of us, why the blinders?

over harvest would be a problem if all natural habitat was intact, the problem is it wasn't all intact and the carrying capacity was going down and they were still trying to harvest the same amount as if that wasn't happening.

Give it time... As populations increase in those areas, that will change.... Oh and what's the last time they commercially fished those rivers?

Keith

Dr. Rick,

On page 3 you asked about WDFW's near and long range plans for fisheries. I regret to inform you that gov't. does not lead; it follows; or more accurately it reacts. WDFW doesn't have any long range plans for our fisheries, and what planning it has is developed around variations of the status quo. Presumably when the status quo doesn't pan out, as it won't, then WDFW will react to the then extant prevailing condition. To be clear: WDFW does not have any long range plan for either commercial nor recreational fishing in WA state. The Department has the existing RCW for guidance, and we here recognize it as obsolete, but that recognition changes nothing.

Keith,

If overfishing is limiting any wild population, then by definition eliminating or reducing overfishing will result in population increases. For most of SW WA rivers, where fishing mortality has been reduced for two decades, the expected increases haven't occurred. That is pretty strong evidence that habitat is the limiting factor. It gets more complicated to parse out the factors when both habitat and overfishing are contributing at near the marginal rate, whatever that happens to be, to population limitation. Perhaps it's the latter condition you're observing with respect to the Wind, Toutle-Green, EF Lewis, Grays.

I do believe you're correct however, in that reducing steelhead hatchery plants in Col. R. tribs won't have any measurable effect on recovery, while having remarkable social effects on recreational and treaty fishing.

Sg