Deerlick,

Since there are few (not no) wild steelhead in the Puyallup to protect, you probably wouldn't do much damage if there were a CNR season. But all of PS wild steelhead are listed as threatened under the ESA, and no directed fishing, even CNR, can occur without an approved steelhead management plan. There is no approved plan. Therefore, no directed fishing.

Gregsalmon,

Yes, WDFW is responsible for managing the fish. I asked the question because I'm not certain the situation would be appreciably different regardless of how WDFW had managed them. Using Puget Sound steelhead as the example, harvest has been so restricted over the last 20 years, that in its listing document NMFS wrote that harvest is basically not a factor affecting abundance. If that is the case, I don't see what WDFW could have done differently that would have caused there to be higher abundance today since the only factor affecting abundance within WDFW's direct control is harvest. They have little environmental enforcement authority.

Misguided,

I'm not a WDFW employee or their cheerleader. I am one of Piscatorial Pursuit's unofficial agitators though.

Hatchery steelhead smolt plants have been on a declining trend. Prior to 2007 I expect that was largely a budget matter. Since then the ESA listing has been dictating reduced hatchery plants. Reduced stocking combined with significantly lower ocean survival makes for greatly reduced adult fish returns. However, WDFW has very limited control over its budget and zero control over ocean survival. So what could WDFW have done differently that would cause there to be more steelhead in the rivers today?

MilkbottleMikey,

It would be nice to have the rivers open to the end of March, but that ESA thing I mentioned above prohibits it. Must have 2 things first: 1. an approved management plan, and 2. wild steelhead runs meeting escapement goals - which almost none do.

2Many,

If I knew, I would have already told you.

Chukar14,

1. ESA prohibits directly targeting listed fish; therefore the rivers must close when the hatchery run is over.
2. Yeah, they could do that.
3. Native broodstock programs might increase "catching opportunity," but what makes you think that hatchery programs using wild broodstock wouldn't also get the same crappy SAR (smolt to adult return) as the current hatchery programs do? And while such broodstock programs might augment catch opportunity, they might work against the conservation of wild steelhead, which would be a bummer, don't you think?

BTW, getting an approved PS steelhead management plan is an elusive task. It's not just up to WDFW. There are about 14 PS treaty tribes that also have to be on board. It's just a guess, but I'm betting that they don't all want exactly the same thing. Which is why basin specific steelhead plans is probably the most viable route, but that is more work for WDFW. Which then spins into the cycle of more work when the budget from the general fund has been cut 40%, and salmon management is a higher priority than steelhead because, a. there are more salmon; b. worth more money; c. attract the attention of more people, fishermen and legislators; and d. it's the legislature that sets the WDFW budget; etc.

I asked the question because the criticisms of WDFW implied that there are things, things that are actually within WDFW's sphere of influence, that WDFW could have done differently that would have resulted in the rivers being full of fish today. But I don't know what those things would be. So I'm crowd-sourcing an answer.

Meanwhile, I haven't fished the Satsop in several years. Too many trees across the channel. And when I float it in my raft I about get run over by sleds. And when I run my jet boat up it, I about run over pontoons or into fallen trees. It's quite a situation going on over there.

Sg

Not in the WDFW sphere of influence but anyone that has pursued with an open mind an education into the biology of anadromous fish will find that the answers to recovery are no big mystery, the answers are just rejected by our society that places no value on anything other that it's value as potential numbers in a bank account.

Let me take a stab at it.
1. Eggs have to survive to hatch. (clean water, remain wet)
2. Juveniles need habitat to hide and food to eat. (clean habitat shelter from predators)
3. Smolt need to out-migrate to the ocean. (avoid predators and don't get the bends )
4. Fish need to eat in the ocean. (avoid predators/harvest, abundant food supply)
5. Fish need to migrate back up rivers. (avoid predators/harvest, adequate passage)
6. Fish need area to spawn. (gravel, clean water)

...and repeat.

Improving any one of these items does not necessarily boost the population as a whole, but hindering any one of these items will decline the population.

How about reducing the predators of steelhead smolt, this would benefit both hatchery and wild steelhead.

Or weirs, they could put weirs on tribs where wild fish are known to spawn to prevent hatchery fish from spawning with them. That should allow for large plants on the mainstream of the river.

Would be nice if some creative solutions were floated instead of just closing down rivers.

Humptulips, Chehalis, Wynoochee, Satsop..........QIN, used to net for not many months in winter time....I seem to remember 12/01 - 1/31, then the closing date just kept getting longer, this year it is May 2.

QIN netting schedule is 5 days a week.......Wild steelhead numbers are decreasing........while I don't know about "redd counts", I do get the trap report off the Wynoochee.........Native counts as of March 14, 2014
was 31.......there have been years when the count for the complete season was under 20.

Qin netting schedule is 5 days a week.....my observation is very few members are netting.......reason, IMO......not many fish.

What could help......WDFW and QIN, sit down and work out a schedule....ie 3-4 days a week but not past February. Might have to have cut sport seasons/restrictions......maybe deadlines...Wynoochee, No fishing above White Bridge, Satsop, No fishing above West Fork , Humptulips, no fishing above 101 Bridge.

No easy answer.....gone are the Pre-Bolt days........25# steelhead were common, even a few 30's were caught.....not anymore....

As of 5 minutes ago the jam was still there

With no management plan put in place and hatchery plants reduced to collection facilities only, it seems like something has to give?? If hatchery fish are cut out, and most PS systems are not anywhere close to capacity, then basically all rivers will be closed for foreseeable future? Hatchery plants are so low that most systems are stuggling to reach escapement and it provides very little sport unless you are fishing the terminal zones.

I don't see how early timed hatchery fish have much of an effect on the natives... how does a December brat effect a feb/march/april nate?

I guess that's why I do most of my steelheading out of Washington now, plenty of fish(nates/hatch) and no crowds... Although I hate to see what Washington steelheading has become.

How about now. . .are they still there?

still there... wait......, no still there

Salmo g. speaks the truth, as usual. That having been said, the fact that that the fish managers have no management plan is a bit ironic, if not comical. The angry hoard needs a scapegoat and WDFW is an easy target. In reality the problem is much bigger and seems to be a juxtaposition between 2many and 2few.

what's with swanny?

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

RCW (place any number here) doesn't mean sh!t. It's all open to interpretation and manipulation which keeps our obscenely vast number of lawyers and lobbyist in business. Ya,I'm one cynical SOB. Didn't use to be, got that way by watching all this crap over the years.

SG...Some have already been answered.

1. Years ago, when the PS runs still had a chance, the WDFW could have negotiated/FORCED the Tribes less days per week to net, based on the first sign of decline! Instead, and it continues on the coast, let them net 5-7 days a week Feb., March, and April, the peak of the wild runs.
2. Years ago! Should have FORCED, even under sports opposition, CnR and selective gear rules to protect wild fish, STATE WIDE! BC did. Harvest continues to this day, on the coast.
3. Should have educated and enforced #2.
4. Should be continuing and expanding, at more locations, brood stock enhancement programs, not stopping them! ie. Sol Duc. IMO Sandy R. study not represenative to every location and should not be used as the guide.

How many more examples do you want? I'm sure I'm missing some.
I am no expert and mean no disrespect, for you provide much insight and expertese to this board. Many on this board have lost faith in the WDFW to manage Steelhead in the future, based on how it exist today. I know I am disgusted and have little faith. Sometimes a little common sense instead of politics or science could go a long way.

Deerlick,

"Since there are few (not no) wild steelhead in the Puyallup to protect, you probably wouldn't do much damage if there were a CNR season. But all of PS wild steelhead are listed as threatened under the ESA, and no directed fishing, even CNR, can occur without an approved steelhead management plan. There is no approved plan. Therefore, no directed fishing"

Than the WDFW should develop one and approve it!

Runngun,

Regarding your posts:

1. WDFW negotiated a number of things with treaty tribes, but the federal court was more than clear in establishing that WDFW has no authority or jurisdiction to force the tribes to net less. I thought that was common knowledge on this forum. Further, to the disbelief of many, treaty gillnetting is not a factor affecting the abundance of PS steelhead in roughly the last 20 years. (There may be some debate about that in regards to some HC tribs.) You will have a hard if not impossible time finding one qualified biologist who will state differently regarding PS steelhead.

2. Just as treaty fishing has not been identified as limiting wild PS steelhead abundance, the same applies to sport fishing. It has been constrained such that harvest hasn't been a factor affecting population abundance for years now.

3. ibid.

4. I posted in another thread that broodstock programs can be used in some cases to restore severely depressed populations or to augment harvest where wild populations are healthy, but it is misleading to think that mining wild fish from their populations to create new hatchery fish will automatically restore the wild population, especially if it is being used to augment harvest.

Your next post about Deerlick's post: It's not up to WDFW alone to prepare the draft plan. They need to get 14 PS treaty tribes on board, and contrary to your apparent wishes, WDFW cannot force them to adopt it. And the plan is for NMFS' approval, not WDFW's. Sorry for not being clearer about that.

Sg

To all: I think that the RCW is straight forward and easy to understand. It means just what it says. And I'm going to disagree with Salmo G. in that WDFW DOES have the ability to regulate/negotiate with the treaty tribes, but they haven't used it! Years ago in the aftermath of the Boldt Decision the courts established a Fisheries Advisory Board to mediate or arbitrate disagreements between WDFW (then the Department of Fisheries) on salmon and steelhead management conflicts. Conservation will always win in court. WDFW has never utilized that "tool" to hold the tribes feet to the fire when any of the individual tribes exceed what is their fair share of the steelhead catch. Look what is happening on the Queets, Hoh, etc., to the last vestiges of healthy wild runs. Many times the tribe there has nets in the river 5, 6, and 7 days per week! We anglers gave up our privilege to harvest (I did it gladly) in order to allow more wild steelhead to spawn. Our "share" must be allowed to go to the gravel! Who is/is not making sure that happens?

Those people are right when they say that the tribal netting on the PS rivers has been minimal the last decade. There's nothing left to fish for let alone spawn. And our brilliant WDFW plugged those rivers for 50 years with Chambers stock that was so inbred that it would take decades for that stock to re=establish through natural selection and evolution.

The tribes certainly must share the responsibility of conservation, but look what happened on the Columbia River for decades with non treaty netting. About ten years ago, WDFW authorized "Tangle Net" gillnet seasons for Spring Chinook. The nets that the biologists selected were coho size mesh!!! Did they intercept wild steelhead? Heck yes! About 21,000 steelhead were taken as bicatch AND TOSSED OVER THE SIDE DEAD. Don't WDFW biologists realize that coho and steelhead are close to the same size? Apparently not. And we have these same people entrusted with salmonid recovery?

For years WDFW and Oregon conducted gillnet fisheries in the Columbia during February, March and April. That's when wild winter steelhead migrate. The bad thing about gillnets is that they kill fish on both sides of the net. Those steelhead that survive spawning and are returning to the sea can also be taken on the upstream side.

Glad to see that Tacoma City Light has changed their fish run timing on the Cowlitz so that should any gillnet seasons occur on the Columbia downstream of the Cowlitz, that they'll intercept the peak of the new hatchery run in March.

As far as brood stocking goes, it doesn't have to be about harvest increases, but it has to be used to recover wild steelhead genes. For educational purposes, one of the reasons that OP rivers were left open to multiple wild fish harvest for so long, is that the primary fish manager for those streams liked to eat them! He told me so himself, and so did a Commissioner! I was incredulous! We should have mandated wild fish release years ago, but the F&W Commission was too slow or too stupid to react.

Has WDFW done a good job about doing something about seals, sea lions and bird predation? Heck no. Too politically volatile! Where in the statues does it say that they should keep their collective mouths shut if the politics are too hot?

Habitat? For example the Queets has enough steelhead spawning potential to support about 30,000 spawners. The Queets Band of the Quinaults says the escapement goal of 2,500 is enough. WDFW says it should be 3,500, if I remember right. Huh? The Hoh has failed to meet escapement goals for Steelhead how many of the last 10 years? Why is it still being fished so heavily? The Quillauete, which has been identified having the best steelhead habitat remaining in the state, had an average of only 8 spawning pairs per mile a few years ago! Is this really co-management? Who is advocating for us? No one when it comes to steelhead. They can't spawn if they're dead. They need to spawn, die and become river nutrients. It's a natural cycle.

Our over all fish habitat is in better condition now than it was years ago, yet we are failing to put spawners on the gravel. I realize that there is some mysterious affliction affecting Puget Sound steelhead the past couple decades, and that needs to be identified. I suspect part of the problem is with hungry seals and sea lions, along with the rare porpoise and orcas that are just trying to stay alive being a pinniped. When we cut back on steelhead hatchery plants, they've got to eat something between salmon runs.

If we can fix the harvest issue, jump start rebuilding wild steelhead populations with genetically appropriate hatchery supplementation, and eliminate much of predation we can get back on track to rebuilding steelhead runs instead of just watching them go down the drain.

The RCW is straightforward and simple to understand. But it's motherhood and apple pie with many conflicting goals. For starters "Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property." That seems to state that WDFW can do little to mitigate/control property decisions that may impact the fishery. Look at the limited size of the "buffer zone" for tree harvest on rivers like the Hump. One good wind storm a few years ago and the buffer zone blew over resulting in massive erosion, bank loss and silty gravel.

"The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters."

BUT

"The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state."

So the WDFW must simultaneously protect the fish AND improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state. (emphasis added). It seems to me that all this RCW does is set up a bunch of conflicting, impossible to satisfy goals. We see this in the continuing fight between recreational fishing and commercials. It's time that the state get real and set some PRIORITIES. This RWC doesn't even come close to doing that.

I don't think the goals are conflicting at all. The first priority is clearly conservation of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish. WDFW has the responsibility to promote fishing (and the taking of game for that matter) "in a manner consistent with this goal." So, the only time fisheries should be promoted is if they are consistent with conservation goals. It seems pretty clear to me.

The priorities are set in policy by the F&W Commission. Then they are filtered through the director to the staff.

I have to agree with SeaDNA somewhat, but the confusion as to what the priorities are is a failure of the staff to carry out policy and follow the statutes. For example: some years ago (10?) wildlife biologists planted Lynx fur in the Gifford Pinchot N.F. so that certain logging plans would not be carried out. Those that did the illegal act (Lynx have yet to be proven to exist in G.Pinchot) weren't even fired.

The fish biologists who designed a season that killed the 21,000 steelhead on the Columbia about 10 years ago weren't even disciplined, and on it goes. These things happen in WDFW too often. Look at the Chehalis Basin Chinook under escapement the past decade? The person who managed that got promoted!

The department's management can be fixed. It'll take some new blood and a stronger conviction from the Commission.