Tying a few posts together in this thread for discussion.

If a high percentage of out migration loss is proven historically or not,-- it is happening. This would prove mother nature is right in historically trying to flood the rivers with fish to spawn. In the infinite wisdom of man, MSY/MSH and carrying capacity does the polar opposite. Instead of flooding the spawning grounds with fish these manmade devices flooded the bottom of boats with fish.

MSY contributed to declines and is known today as voodoo science and IMO the jury is still out on carrying capacity since we can see how carrying capacity has been manipulated by non tribal and now tribal trying to get more fish in their boats instead of the spawning grounds. Escapement (over a different number per river is considered waste) could very well be the mechanism that needs to be looked at and improved dramatically for more redds leading to more smolts to compensate the out migration loss. (would you want 20% of 100,000 or a million There is a big difference between 20,000 and 200,000 just using for example only.)

So many rivers with low escapement contributes to depensation and supplementation in this Hamma Hamma study shows an increase of 10x more redds which could help even though we need the capability to be able to flood the rivers with fish again. It looks like we are at a point if great numbers of escapement (waste) aren’t allowed back to spawn then this is just could be a exercise in futility.

It was also brought up that the correlation between certain species depend on each other, so all species of fish should be considered to flood the rivers again.

Good luck changing current policy since the powers to be believe that mother nature is just plain wrong, which under current conditions should be under scrutiny. With every fish earmarked for harvest over escapement goals, even if these extra HC steelhead occur they are already going to tribal C&S according to PS HC harvest plans.

Look what we have managed the fish into here in Washington state.

I have seen places on Kodiak mainland Alaska where the fish spawn ontop of each other. Species after species displacing the fertiized eggs from the ones before, because there are too many fish. We certainly dont get that with MSY/MSH, no we get one system after another to crash.

Why do you think that nature designed things the way they did. Why do you think that things evolved so that there was such an over abundance of fish, far too many for any given streams prime habitat that they had to spawn ontop of each other four or five times in a cycle.

But Rich many of those Alaskan species that are spawning on top of each other are indeed managed under an MSY approach. Ever check out the Alaskan catch of sockeye or pink salmon.

Maybe the Alaskan managers are more effective at that MSY management or maybe the habitat supporting those waves of salmon is more intact than here in the lower 48. I do agree that for the most part the rivers we have here in the Washington do not look much like they way they did when "nature" made them.

One again I'll say that the largest failing of the so-called MSY management here in Washington with our salmon and steelhead stocks is two fold. First the managers failed to recognize and respond appropriate either the cyclic nature of the marine survivals or the declining productivity of the freshwater habitat. Secondily we as a society have opt to use much of the habitat that supported that sustained yield of salmonids for uses other than producing those salmonids or the fishing that productivity once supported.

However as pointed out several times in this discussion that may have little to do with the topic at hand.

Tight lines
Curt

Another problem with MSY management, has been shown up and down the coast with salmon, is that the calculations are based on what you see. That is, say, if you cap escapment at around 50K, MSY calculations will show that uou are managing well. If, for some reason, you screw up and get 100K on the grounds, recalculation will show that MSY just went up.

AK has seen this with pink and sockeye, WA with pink and chum. Look at the Puyallup. The MSY goal for pinks was 19K. Does it strike anybody as odd that the recent years' runs of 500K to a million are still producing surpluses.

Also, MSY management is always looking backwards. Say that salmon do have ocean cycles of high and low survival. Well, if you calculate MSY on the recent years and survival was low, you will overharvest. Or, if you are like WDFW you set a goal and then never evaluate it again (chum, for example) regardleess of what is actually going on. You get the good years, and then hammer them right back down.

When the Chinook escapment gopals were set back in the 70s, they were based on recent year averages. In the document where they set them they acknowledged that this level of sp[awners did not use the avaialble spawning habitat.

The system is broken (FUBAR). so our goal as sports fishers should be to take control of the whole mess (In my opion).
Dump MSY. Manage each river, each individual stock seperately. And Error very much on the conservative side. Make sure each stock has numbers for over spawning abudance, and if not: NO HARVEST.
Yeah like thats gonna happen. ha ha.

Skyrise,

Great idea man. Do you mind sharing with the rest of us how we can do this "take control" thing? I've been wanting to become benevolent dictator for years, but can't seem to pull it off.

Sg

Salmo you were correct, I did find a couple surveys that did mention harvest as a limiting factor, however given the overall picture, it would appear that these Hood Canal steelhad are having an issue with outmigration.
I also found this link that shows a very bleak picture for Washington salmon and steelhead populations.

http://wcssp.org/WCSSP_library/regional/LFA_Washington_State_2005.pdf

They call me Tator, Tator g..........

Gotta get rid of that gray hat!

Freespool,

Current research suggests that all Puget Sound steelhead, not just these HC fish, are experiencing low survival while migrating from their river of origin to the Pacific Ocean. However, we don't know what the survival rates were when the respective populations were healthier.

Sg