In an effort to better understand and educate myself especially on the Peninsula rivers...I looked up Steelhead Harvest summary for for the 98/99 Season. According to the WDFW figures a little over 7000 unmarked steelhead were harvested state wide and almost 3000 of these came from the Chehalis river North. I do fish the Chehalis alot, the Wynoochee and the Hump occasionally from there on I don't seem to get there much. Enlighten me...are these native runs so strong that they can continue a harvest rate this high...anyone know what the escapement floors are on say the Hoh, Quillayute and Queets sytems. And I am still searching for the answer to how the WDFW and commission can have a no harvest of unmarked fish and continue to harvest?

Thanks,

Jim

Jim,

In a word, probably. The peninsula rivers are the most productive steelhead streams in the state. Also, the Quinault Tribe doesn't mark its hatchery steelhead, so many unmarked steelhead harvested in the Queets are of hatchery origin. That would tend to reduce the 7,000 unmarked steelhead slightly. The escapement goal for the Quillayute system is 5,000 as I recall. Ignoring the merits, or lack of, of a harvest oriented management approach, the harvest rate is only too high if it results in a harvest that returns an escapement of less than one fish per spawner of the previous generation, on average. I have heard that a healthy wild steelhead population can support an average harvest rate of about 35% with no subsequent decrease in run size. So if those 7,000 harvested unmarked steelhead were from runs averaging 20,000, and the 35% harvest rate assumption is an accurate one, then yes, they likely can sustain that harvest over time. If any of the assumptions are false, then the conclusion is also false.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,
That is precisely the type of intelligent educated information I was looking for in this post...now what to do with it. To be honest, part of my problem with the whole Salmon/Steelhead issue is that the science of anadromous run size management is flawed and thus in a death spiral. What do you think??

Thanks!!

Jim

The harvest number of 7000, where is that substantiated?
Correct me if I am wrong, but if an angler does not complete and send in his catch record, WDFG counts that as a full card of harvested steelhead and or salmon. I believe the number I was told was 30.
Is there any truth to this? I would imagine the number of incomplete catch records, not sent in is pretty significant. This would really scew the numbers in an adverse way.

I do not believe the science is flawed, but there are tremendous data requirements to actually find out where that 1 returner for each spawner lies. The survival rate of the anadromous salmonids is also highly variable. This means that you either have to set buffers such that harvest is fraction of the 1 returner:1 spawner ratio, or you manage for overharvest--seasonal closures, C&R, or living with the notion you took too many fish in a particular year.

The latter may sound irresponsible, but remember, that highly variable survival rate can be a friend as well as foe. A very poor run can spawn a highly successful run in the future depending upon how they survive. Living with overharvest is something that can be done, but it CAN'T be policy if you expect the run to sustain itself on the long-term.

The problem I believe lies with the data and the models used to predict run sizes. They are insufficient or out dated. The solution of course is $$, which is perpetually in short supply. And given the declining number of license sales (i.e. less $$), there may be the belief that restricting runs further (e.g., State-wide C&R) may cause further declines in license sales, so thereby rationalizing a management policy that is not conservative enough for the data. This may be your death spiral.

About the punchcards inquiry: no, WDFW doesn't assume a non-returned card is full or empty. They use some equation to estimate the number. In the past, they have conducted follow-up polls on non-returners to build the equation.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-11-2000).]

Salmo G.

Not sure where you got your info regarding the quinault not marking hatchery fish on the queets, however, I fish it regularly, and I can assure you there are plenty of marked fish on the queets. The majority of these are coming from the hatchery on the Salmon River which is a tributary of the queets. I believe this is run by the quinault tribe. Thought you would want to know. Tight lines!

Fishaholic,
Not sure where you get your Imformation.I fish the salmon quiet a bit with a particular Indian guide who's cousin works at the hatchery on the salmon and he say's a very small percentage if any at all some years actually get marked.