I was over fishing the peninsula recently and had a great time. I usually enjoy fishing the selective fishery areas of the Quillayute system and the Hoh and remember writing letters about five years ago supporting the development of these areas. Then I started thinking on the way home-What would it take to develop a quality wild steelhead C&R fishery regulation for the entire Quillayute and Hoh river systems for February, March and April? (I would like to see the whole year). I think I know what the challanges would be, but I would like to hear from Bob and others on the board your perspectives on the challanges and the action it would take to do it.

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 04-14-99).]

Without going into it too much, a major problem that is occurring on the Queets right now is the "failure" of the non-tribal fishermen (us) to harvest enough of the steelhead. The Quinault tribe argues that, much like salmon fishing, if the non-Indians don't harvest their half, then they should be harvested by Indians so they don't go to "waste", which means more than the bare minimum are left to spawn.
Since all those streams have tribal fishing for steelhead, this would become a large issue there. The "opportunity" to harvest those fish, i.e., leave it open for kill but don't kill our share, would not lead to this problem (maybe, that's what is being decided on the Queets right now), while a mandated C&R season would do it in a heart beat.

A kill fishery with voluntary C&R of natives probably avoids the problem, but there are too many crackers out there who would never voluntarily release a fish. It's kind of a Hobson's choice: Are more natives killed by a kill fishery or by a C&R fishery that leads to increased tribal harvest of natives?

We'll see how it pans out on the Queets and perhaps management can be adjusted for other coastal streams at that point.

Fish on...
Todd.

It is panning out great on the Queets if you like to fill your freezer with big natives. The park has decided to leave it up to anglers to decide wheather or not they want to kill two natives a day with no yearly limit. Of course this is not how they worded it, but its the effect the new laws will have. Some one on another site pointed out that these are probably the most liberal steelhead regs in the world. I didn't realize that Washington was such a liberal state. Here it is if you havent seen it. Advise anglers to release all wild steelhead from nov. 1 to through the end of Jan. Two hatchery fish could be kept and would be identified by a missing adipose or ventral fin or deformed dorsal. But wait, it goes on- Since interpretation of dorsal deformities is somewhat subjective, a regulation prohibiting the the retention of wild steelhead may not be enforcable...Park personnel would monitor compliance, (but not enforce it.) So in effect it goes like this-
--HEY JETHRO, GOT ME ANOTHER 20 POUNDER! Do you think his dorsal looks weird? LOOKS WEIRD TO ME, BETTER KILL IT AND ASK THE RANGER TO BE SURE.

yep, the queets will become a shadow of what it could be. also, the nov. 1 opening on retention of wild steelhead will make the queets THE ONLY river in washington state that allows wild-fish retention during the month of november... in a national park no less.

i thought the national park's purpose was to preserve and protect our natural resources... not kill em' all like Olympic National Park wants to do. i don't know who's in charge of the fishing regs in the national park, but he should be summarily FIRED! this is a sham, and the national park founders would be rolling over in their graves if they saw how these yahoos were playing russian roulette with our biological heritage.

also, the native's thoughts that too many fish are spawning in the queets or any other river in washington state is absolutely insane. THERE IS NO FISH RUN WHERE WE HAVE TOO MANY FISH IN WASHINGTON STATE!!!! i wish there were.

the tribes, state, and park service should all be ashamed at the treatment of our fish stocks in the queets and everywhere else in washington state. it's amazing that with all the talk of saving our fish runs, esa listings, and money being taken from taxpayers to save salmon that the tribes would even attempt to make the arguement that the queets has too many fish.

i feel sick about all this.

cab

Todd,

i would love if you could give me any specifics on what is being decided on the queets right now between the tribes and state/park. i'm working on finding out on my own by making phone calls, but it's awfully slow <G>.

would appreciate any info i can get, feel free to send e-mail if you like (i lost your e-mail address).

cab

Cab, I sent you an e-mail. Sorry I couldn't do more...

Fish on...
Todd.

I must say that I am terribly disappointed with the decision to reallow the slaughter on the Queets ... although I do not guide on the river, I do fish it every so often with friends and enjoy the river ... just when it seemed that our management policies were making steps(albeit baby) forward, they just took one giant leap backward.

Why ... because the magic formulas that the biologists use say that there are too many fish in the river ... personally I say BS.

This is the way I look at it: Mother nature takes care of excess ... those that are weak and diseased, don't make it, those that are strong do ... as it stands, we (humans) try to make it so that there is ample room for all of the offspring of a particular year's spawning adults ... no competition, just like a hatchery where they all get fed ... the weak make it, the stong make it ... you get a mix, and now you start getting a blend of fish that is far from what mother nature intended. I say let every last one spawn and let nature take care of the rest.

Don't like my thoughts? Perhaps because I'm not a "certified biologist" ... well so be it, but, where have the biologists got us in terms of the overall health of the state's fisheries?? I need say no more other than plain and simple: THE FORMULAS (MODELS) DO NOT WORK ... show me one watershed in the state where they have in the long run!

This is the one stumbling block to a C&R season ... and what will ultimately become the demise of our wild steelhead stocks ... the falacy that the runs in the current stae are healthy ... until the state feels that the numbers are too low, it will never happen. How to solve this? Simply change our models in use to those that allow for more escapement allowing nature to run its course instead of trying to maximize harvest amounts. While this is easily said, the implementation of such a management strategy will be a tough sell ... despite the countless collapses of fisheries managed by current models and the evidence and changes in management models used in other areas ... ie Canada and perhaps most recently, the Kenai peninsula of Alaska.

The time has come to stop trying to manipulate these runs as we have done ... let the fish spawn, and they will come back, in numbers that many of us have likely never seen ...

well said bob!

i've been on the phone over the last couple days just trying to get some straight answers over what is going on in the queets, and i haven't been able to get any.

i've been told that a spawning figure of around 2,500-3,000 wild steelhead is fully seeding the queets... which i find very hard to believe.

what we have on the queets river is habitat as good as we're gonna find in this entire state. yes, some of the lower tribs have been impacted by logging, but the mainstem is entirely in a national park, and the upper tribs are pristine. if all we can expect is 3,000 wild steelhead and 5,000 wild fall chinook (both deemed healthy by the tribes and state) then i have to believe that there is no way we will ever see abundant wild fish runs in washington state.

the tribe refuses to mark the steelhead out of the salmon river facility, even with outside funding (which has been offered, and refused). because of this the park goes with an advise to release fish because only a tiny portion of the run is marked (coded wire tags).

so we sportfishers release fish, the runs start exceeding escapement by too much... and this is a bad thing because fish are being wasted... this must be some parrellel evil universe.

remeber too, we are losing selective fishery water on the queets. the entire queets below the sams river will be open to bait and kill fisheries the entire winter. the park might institute a 2 fish yearly limit from feb-apr, but they might not. this is a river who's dolly varden/bull trout population might be listed on the esa. this will be the only national park water in the nation managed not for the fish, but for the harvest based fishermen. a truly sad time in fish management.

i hope people concerned will contact the park service (452-4501) and let them know how you feel about these rule changes and anti- native fish management.

chris

Makes me sick. Its our 50% of the harvest. If we decide to let everyone go, too bad. Those our fish. If they don't get a salmon quota they sure don't call up the sportsmen to fill it!

It's an outrage to allow the Queets to continue a C&K for wild steelhead. We should all write and call the ONP to express that killing wild steelhead in a National Park is not conservation oriented. They Don't allow native trout slaughter in Yellowstone. I feel my original post turned into a forum about the Queets. Cool, but let's talk a little more about the streams in the original post, maybe some of the same things apply? I would like to hear a bit more on the actions it would take for us sportsmen to band together and make those streams a total C&R fishery like the Skagit, Sky & Sauk.

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 04-22-99).]

While several of us went off on the Queets tangent, I think my point there applies to all of our WA rivers ... the state still says they are healthy in those areas where C&K is allowed, but then the WDFW turns around and closes yet another river every year due to poor returns that they blame on all other factors other than overharvest ... they seem to still have the 'faith' that many people share in thinking that fish will just magically return every year. As to ONP, I'm getting word that it is very important to bypass the biologist and make sure you get your info to the park superintendant ... makes sense to me ... if the bio is anything like the state bios ... we're in deep trouble!!!

One of the challenges with the Queets management is Salmon River. This river runs through National Park land, National Forest land, and then in and out of Quinault Indian land. Since there is a huge hatchery plant in Salmon River and since the lower Queets is used by the Quinaults to target the returning hatchery steelhead (as well as wild fish), the Park has always kind of thrown their hands up in the air. The National Park has declared that hatchery fish should not be included in the National Park but Salmon River really complicates the situation. Having said all that, here is a proposal that might fly. Catch & Kill on hatchery steelhead only below the mouth of Salmon River and only until February 28th (when Salmon River closes). Now I know that the Quinaults do not fin clip the hatchery steelhead, but my 7 year old son can tell the difference between a hatchery fish and a wild one by looking at the dorsal. We can not allow the fact that the Quinaults do not clip fins to be our excuse to kill everything we catch. By the way, I have caught fish in the Clearwater that I was certain were hatchery fish. As we propose ideas to protect the Queets, let's bear in mind what the National Park Service may use as their excuses and cut them off at the pass. Thanks for the opportunity to vent.