Salmo, what I'm saying is curtailing harvest didn't recover the steelhead, yet when ocean conditions up tick stocks rebound.
Doesn't that say seem odd? When spawner numbers crash due to bad ocean conditions, yet when ocean conditions turn good these same stocks almost instantly increase.
So if harvest was in fact a real issue, curtailment of harvest would have similar results, but we know that doesn't happen.
Curtailing harvest hasn't done anything but reduce angler opportunities.

Freespool,

Yeah, so no one is saying the ocean conditions are not important. However, ocean conditions are on the list of things we can't do anything about (near term anyway). So just because harvest isn't the proximate cause or main limiting factor, are you suggesting that wild steelhead harvest should be allowed on LCR tribs? If so, I disagree. Allowing such harvest on severely depressed stocks would reduce escapements to such a low level that the rebound you see when ocean conditions are good wouldn't be so unfluential. We need to maintain some base level population so that populations can recover, or at least temporarily increase, when ocean conditions are good. Consequently I think that curtailing harvest does more than reduce angler opportunity; it also assists in maintaining a base level population so that there will be a reasonable number of smolts to take advantage of improved ocean conditions when they occur.

Sg

NO I'm not advocating the harvest of wild steelhead, I'm saying the fact that we stopped harvesting these stocks 25 years ago, yet none has recovered, seems to indicate that harvest isn't the deciding factor for recovery.
Knowing this fact makes harvest as a recovery tool seem weak and ineffective policy for recovery.
Why advocate for a method of recovery that has proven to be a failure?

I doubt that you or Todd would want to hear what I think. Certainly freespool doesn't. BTW, I just reviewed my post about planned increases in harvest rates (to 70%) based on increasing hatchery production. It caught my eye that you were unaware of planned increases in URB's and the managers' plans to increase harvest rates. That didn't make sense to me, but now I see that I incorrectly identified URB's rather than summer Chinook as the populations that would be affected by this planned increase in harvest, I see your (actually my) confusion. What I meant to say was that it would affect summer Chinook (same ESU, different populations). I apologize for the incorrect information, but sometimes I get crazy when I think about some of the stuff that is going on. The concern for the unmarked hatchery production of URB's and masking of the real population status remains. (For some reason, I still have in my mind a plan to increase hatchery production of URB's. John Day mitigation? Maybe I'm just crazy)

Freespool,

Other than Lucky Louie, I haven't seen anyone else advocating harvest restrictions as being key to recovery. So are we on the same page yet? That harvest restrictions are just a necessary part of responsible managment for threatened stocks, and that sustained recovery isn't likely until habitat conditions improve?

OncyT,

I'm always interested in what thoughtful people have to say. A good idea doesn't care who has it. Naturally, good can be relative to one's perspective.

I don't follow the status of various Columbia River stocks very closely, so I'm far from up to speed regarding what's going on with springs, summers, URBs, even Tules for that matter. I track the steelhead runs a little bit because, well, that's what a fly fisherman does.

Sg

Lets finish the overharvest thing with a recent example, Columbia River Smelt, the stock was known to be very low, WDFG and or ODFG turned the commercials loose anyway. They took approx 3500 lbs of spawners. I remember reading somewhere that they had to net them to find out how many were out there. I see true genius here, bioligist in charge of this should be fired. Yes because of past practices OVERHARVEST must be considered PART of the problem. PS...Smelt are now listed ESA I think, and now its time to watch what happens to Sturgeon. None of this is salmon or steelhead but is part of the whole.

http://www.nwcouncil.org/news/2010/08/4.pdf


http://www.nwcouncil.org/news/2010/08/6.pdf

More good news about the Natural Gas Buisness from NWPC..

Hey Nice fish your holding there NW Panhandler..

probly was caught with a smelt...

That fish was caught years ago at the Church Hole and believe it or not, not with smelt. I always preferred to fish with sandshrimp. Not long ago you could catch five plus fish a day from the beach at the church hole, try that now. I am guilty of catching SALTWATER SMELT in Sinclair Inlet, wonder how the ESA listing will affect them. We had a good year on them last year.

I have a feeling that there are many supporters of harvest reform that also feel it's a recovery tool.
And they might have second thoughts on the issue if it were pushed as a status quo recovery option.
Oddly status quo recovery methods have produced the mess we now have, hard to believe that more of the same is a good thing.

So just how does over harvest become one of the H's, when in fact it's not a real recovery option?

Yes I did advocate to get my point across in this thread and had to do a little globe trotting to Russia to show what could happen if we in the PNW allowed salmon to get back to their spawning grounds like the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Also what could happen to steelhead if overfished even in a pristine environment. A Russian environment equivalent to the PNW territories 200+ years ago with no dams, logging, and little human activity.

I’m for balance and have no problem with habitat restoration. I’ve even done a little volunteer work to help out, but we need to get a much larger escapement back than we are getting in many rivers in the PNW.

That’s what I enjoy about PP--- the in depth knowledge shared by others. --Thank you all

YGTBFK, right?

No I'm not kidding, I want a scientific opinion that says harvest reform will in fact help recover threatened and endangered stocks.
If wild steelhead are any indication, then it won't do squat, just like 25 years of no harvest has done squat in recovering wild steelhead stocks.
From Salmo's post it appears to be only a status quo move.

FS,

As long as you continue this ridiculous tangent, who is gonna take you seriously? A multitude of posts by the gracious members here proved your point invalid, several times over. You cannot continue to make broad-stroke statements as you have, and use steelhead to qualify your point incorrectly about salmon, while retaining any shred of credibility. Knock yourself out bro, but you don't come off looking real sharp because of it.

Like LL said, thank you all.

I hesitate to say this, but what the Hell.......

Anyone consider the ramifications of false reporting of harvest numbers?
Not that they exist or have existed for decades now. I believe it may skew the importance of the Harvest numbers just slightly. (tic)

Are there any rivers containing wild steelhead that nets haven't ravished? And the stocks there have fared differently?.... just asking...

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat
you with experience."

Half the problem is we 50% of the people on this thread talking about PS issues and the other half Columbia..Many ways to screw up fish and they have all been covered..

if you look at area 9 and 10 in puget sound it was closed for chinook fishing for years and now there is a 2 month hatchery only sportfishery for chinook in the summer, i have not seen a model that says this will lead to recovery, has anyone else ??

Strangely enough, the WDFW plan to 'recover' PS Chinook is titled "Fishing our way to Recovery"...no kidding.

Fish on...

Todd