I want them to go to bank fishing only, eliminate all public access to rivers, make licenses very expensive, and only allow people that own property on a river, and those willing to pay those property owners a great deal of money, the right to fly fish that section of private property.

Then tell those fly fisherman that they are going to continue planting the Sky with hatchery fish (and charge them an enhancement fee) so those that participate actually think they have a chance of getting a bite. They don't need to actually put any hatchery fish in the river because there is only a slight chance of them every catching one in their lifetime anyhow. And from their past experiences, fishing where there are no fish will seem normal and won't change their hook-up rate.

They could put an optional ten fish limit in place just to generate interest (and false hope) and charge a fee for each potential fish on the limit past one.

Age limit, 70 and above.......

No fishing from a boat and NO bait.

Basin capacity was brought up as a reason the numbers will not rise..I totally agree with that idea. Skagit winter fish will be the unicorn of the ages...sadly. I had hopes of some kind of opportunity but that is slowly fading. Like stonefish said I wish this was a problem on other systems, but the stump in the road is not gonna budge for access to OUR fish. I believe that fish of wild origin is just as much my fish as it is their fish, depending on who hooks it first. ..but i don't have a 80 ft net!
I like the no motor cause I don't have one rule.
I also like the no motor rule:)
If it goes to no fishing from float device..so be it..I was strongly against this before but Im bending for the opportunity side.

The best thing for the fish is clearly to leave them alone. Anything other than than is a compromise that harms them for our benefit. If the question is, as it should be, can the run sustain whatever final form this harm takes and continue to "succeed" I think the answer in this case should be no. Fishing over an imperiled run with a theoretical 500 fish buffer between success and failure is too small a margin. Give the fish the benefit of the doubt and make a conservative decision.

I for one would happier knowing that they are there than I would be fishing for the last one.

The way fish are automagically counted, it kind of cuts this whole debate off at the knees. How do we really ever have a bead on how many fish will show up in a river? Counting smolts to estimate adult returns isnt a viable method to draft policy on. User groups with financial incentives to automagically find and count reds when there aren't any? Please!

The data is really dirty, and will forever remain that way IMO. This issue alone will never allow good decisions to be made.

Salmo g.


Fun exercise with more or less predictable responses/suggestions. It seems that folks mostly want to protect their own fishing. Thanks for provide some hope that there might be a steelhead future.

As Sg implied the cited example is a bit of wistful thinking and would require a significant change how the allowable ESA impacts are determined for a given PS steelhead population. Under current ESA impact rules as determined by the feds structured on Salmo's river the impacts would be limited to 4% (180 fish for a run of 4,5000). In order to have the kind of discussion this example presents there would have to be paradigm change where the ESA allowable impacts would tailored to individual populations based on its specific productivity and some assumed risked assessment.


This example is a generic PS case and definitely not the Skagit. Skagit wild winter steelhead is a much more robust population with a long history of conservative fisheries management (at least from the Washington norm). As ESA rules are currently structured fishing for Skagit wild steelhead maybe akin to unicorn hunting the population appears to be secure and reasonable productive in its available habitat. The Skagit population is one of few in the state thought to have a zero risk of extinction over the next century.

To your question Salmo - If indeed this situation comes to pass it would mean that efforts like "Occupy Skagit" has been successful in shifting that steelhead paradigm. Since that effort is driven by a small handful of "feather tossers" it would seem reasonable that any potential fishing benefits would go to those that did the heavy lifting.

Selective gear rules prior to the first of March (aid in the removal of potential hatchery fish) and fly fishing only (single barbless hook) March and April for systems with the kind of run and spawn timing in the example with tweaks for systems that vary from that template.



Curt

Guide/tour restrictions, allotted rod days, lottery system for guiding/tours, no out of state guides..... give that a start!

I agree 100% with no power boats on the tribs. Yes for selective gear.... maybe fishing from a floatation device in the lower 3-5 miles.

We can't just open one single system for the metro masses to rape and pillage again, multiple systems need to be opened otherwise overfishing will likely take place rapidly in a matter of a few years.

i think a no fishing from boat rule is the only way to not limit the type of gear (of course we're talking about selective gear only).

chum man mentioned reducing guiding and i think this needs to be part of it with a real discussion on banning all guiding on the skagit during this proposed opening. since the river has been closed for so long now there is a real opportunity to structure this opening in new and thoughtful ways that provides the most opportunity to the largest number of anglers.

another mention was of catch monitoring. maybe there should be a puget sound endorsement license fee (like the columbia tribs) that would only fund fish checkers and enforcement for these openings along with robust population monitoring.

i think all steelheaders would love to see the skagit reopen in the spring. not only to fish it but to provide a slight release valve on the pressure on the coast.

I think number 2 is the choice and I would like to see no motors at all during this window. Obviously no bait and selective rules as well. I guess by choosing one of these it is kind of selfish but I think the reason all of us want healthier stocks of fish is so we have an opportunity to fish for them. These wild fish are such a different cat than their hatchery cousins it is dissappointing to not have a chance to encounter any on my home rivers.

Fish them to extinction. Create a hatchery only river. High fives for everyone.

I am glad more folks than I see this as a need to go to a permit draw system.
given the facts as stated in the question I see this as the only logical decision. I was short on time when I posted, but was able to pick the land game animal I think best mirrors the data set.

"Between 2,400 and 3,200 mountain goats are estimated to live in Washington."
"Females (or nannies) do not breed until at least 2.5 years of age"
" longevity is normally 10 to 13 years"
" Kid and yearling survival may be less than 50 percent depending upon the severity of the winter."

" Current permit levels are conservative and represent no more than four percent of mountain goat populations that are surveyed regularly and are stable or increasing"

"Mountain goat populations have declined overall in Washington relative to estimated historical levels. Goat populations within the state were considered to have exceeded 10,000 animals (including those within federally-managed areas) as recently as 1961."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/mountain_goats.html

I also found that they give birth normally to one kid each.

using those numbers the recruit to parent ratio would be something less than 2. (average lifespan, one offspring, <50% survival= less than 4 adults per breeding pair)

Permit draw is tried and has been working for a lot of years. if we want the chance to kill a wild steelhead (rather thru catch and release or for the meat) on this river ever again it is the only option that makes sense.

Here's the kicker as I see it. Will it save the steelhead population for generations to come? NO. there are to many other stresses on the Steelhead's Habitat be it ocean, river, or estuary. the reason the goat population stays as stable as it has is the simple fact that it's habitat is relatively untouched. We don't yet build houses on top of mountains, or dump our toxic waste on them, or spill oil on them. but we have pushed them to the fringe. hence the population shrinking as the human population has grown.

It is time to face the fact that Steelheading as we have known it is at an end. without augmentation there will be no fishing for them except for the lucky few or the criminal. With augmentation it is still going to crash, only in a different way. My 1st "Home river" has a decent population of Native Steelhead. with no hatchery plants for several years now. I am going to fish it this year for the first time in a few years because it is still open, but I don't expect to catch anything til January. My 2nd "home river" gets a nice hatchery run but in the last 10 years it has gone from 8 guys fishing the areas I fish to 30 guys these are daily numbers. the catching level has mostly stayed the same. 0-10 fish a day depending on water level and luck. that made for some great days for the 10 of us. but even a good day for the 30 of us leaves many skunks. It is simply the way it is now. get used to it or get out.

Open all puget sound rivers and spread the masses. Send the fish counters to the eye doc a d teach them to count.

Open Mar 1 through April 30th, selective gear rules, no power boats, must stop fishing after cnr 2 fish

Ondarvr,

Your post reads like that of an English overlord of a Scottish river! Riparian rights and big money wins, getting to be the American way in more and more ways.

Drifter WA, Make it 66 and over, and I'm with ya'. It would work, fewer angler-fish encounters, keeping incidental mortality low.

Bhudda,

The no motor concept is two-pronged. First, motor boats with multiple anglers can repeatedly pound a productive stretch of water until it has given up every fish contained there, resulting in higher instead of lower angler-fish encounters, so that doesn't work. Second, guides represent a large % of that profile, putting many lines through the productive water until all available fish have been hooked. So that high efficiency option needs to be the first to go, but it is preferred by many anglers specifically because of its efficiency.

Coley,

While the example is a generic PS case, I'm going to borrow from the ESA status report for the Skagit, and under recent management and habitat conditions, there is almost 0% chance of the run going extinct in the next 100 years. So yes, it does come down to whether we manage fish for human benefit or not. All options that satisfy conservation needs are on the table for the non-treaty fishery.

SkyGuy,

I don't know about dirty, but the data are not perfect, never have been perfect, and never will be perfect. But one thing we do know is that reasonable estimates, like what we've had the last almost 40 years, are "good enough" to manage populations for their conservation and limited human use, if that is what society wants.

Smalma,

Good point. One one conventional gear angler showed up at Occupy Skagit last spring. Therefore featha' chuckin' only regs would be fair, based on demonstrated interest. Based on what I read here about the inefficiency of fly fishing, all of PS could be re-opened. Where do I sign up?

Bantam,

I think the idea on guide limits as practiced in B.C. has merit. Guides with standing in a particular fishery, based on their tax returns, are issued x number of rod days for specific rivers only. That could work; it limits total guided fishing pressure, which would then limit angler-fish encounters.

Topwater,

Catch monitoring that is more intense that what we've had might be a requirement for re-opening rivers. If it is, then there needs to be a way to fund it. For example, OS has considered it and decided not to propose it until shown it's necessary.

Dogfish,

That smartass alternative is not on the menu. It's not even on the menu for the Cowlitz, of all places.

Chukar14,

I like that idea of a CNR catch limit, but the downside is that it's not enforceable. However, back when steelhead fishing was a universal 2/day, that meant the 2 included any steelhead that were released. So the idea could still have merit.

Thanks folks! It's good to know what the constituents think. I don't think we got any responses from guides or the Wildcat Steelhead Club however.

Sg

Salmo, but is the data really good enough, considering we haven't been able to manage our way back to a favorable state of recovery?

In my world if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. Right now we have a ton of talented people trying to do the best they can to formulate recovery options, draft management plans, set seasons for all users groups, etc...but they use a broken yardstick and the data they work with is very error prone and subject to constant revision.

Accurate data collection, while very hard to achieve, is key to all aspects of fisheries management. All the season adjustments, harvest quota's, impacts, etc can the trickle down after you have good data duality to begin with. As you know Salmo, if you start with bad information in the beginning, it's quality only gets worse the more you use it.

Absent of good data, considering the resource we should consistantly err on the side of caution, and opt for something #4ish a lot more than we do today.

I figured I would jump over all the intermediary steps and get right to where it will be in the not too distant future. And this model will selfishly benefit me, it's a win win, almost zero impact on the resource and retirement money in my pocket.

I don't like fishing on runs like presented here, I feel that I'm part of the problem and no matter how I try to justify my participation, it really only makes things worse.

I am just fine with that...for now. Sporties spend far too much time being the ones who bear the brunt of the restrictions, while committing the least of the offenses.

If the proper response to "don't play with food" isn't "fuckoff", then what is it?

To be honest, saying "fuckoff" is a lot milder than how I feel about that ridiculous stance...especially since the tribes sure as hell aren't eating all the fish they catch.

What they really mean is "don't play with our money"...and I am telling them the exact same thing back.

Anyone here knows that I have spent plenty of time defending the tribes against unreasonable attacks on their treaty rights...but that doesn't mean I have to accept their bullschit name calling for the way we like to fish, and how we like to extract money from our share of the fish.

I still think that we as the recreational sector deserve a real number for what our release mortality is...and 10% is not it.

I have lots of friends and customers who are guides, but there's no doubt that guide restrictions are going to come along sooner or later. It's an easy way to reduce encounters and the guides are an easy target, like it or not.

I am not into the "fly vs. gear" debates so far as access to fish and waters goes, but I have noticed that fly guys are quick to get on the "no fishing under power" bandwagon to outlaw boondoggers...which I agree with, by the way...and the "no fishing from a floating device" bandwagon, since none of them but the bobber and jig guys...I mean "nymphers"...do that...but are oddly silent on outlawing themselves running up and down the river in sleds.

I'd be far happier to see power boats kept on lower rivers for the most part, and off the rivers entirely during wild fish only seasons.

We don't need the tribes to sign off on how/where/when we want to fish...yeah, we "co-manage", but that term has morphed into something that is a bastardization of anything like "co-managing" anything at all.

As long as we aren't taking more than our allotted half of the fish then their opinion matters to me exactly "zero"...approximately the same amount that my opinion of how they do it matters to them so long as they are not taking more than their half.

Why their opinion should matter more than ours is the fundamental problem with "co-management"...especially when their opinion on how we manage our half is such bullschit.

Fish on...

Todd

The problem is basic: Despite overwhelming evidence that history repeats itself, humans are too stupid (greedy?) to accept that doing the same thing that doesn't work, over and over again, leads to the same downfall, time and time again.

Lots of talk here about pay to play, lottery-based fishing opportunity, much like what is done in much of Europe, but what isn't being discussed is what led those countries to the point at which that management paradigm became necessary, which was, without reasonable question, chronic overharvest of the target species in commercial fisheries. Sound familiar?

How about another option for those of you willing to pay to play; one that wouldn't necessarily limit who gets to fish? Instead of paying for tags or lottery tickets, how about pooling those dollars and making a few campaign contributions that might inspire some of our noble and incorruptible legislators to back legislation that limits non-tribal, commercial salmon harvest by 50%, in the name of "conserving our state's most iconic natural resource?"

Let's face it: if you want results in our system, you let your wallet do the talking. I don't like it, but I accept it as reality, and unless you're hopelessly naive or flat-out stupid, you should do the same. The commercial lobby understands this, and it explains why 90% of whatever fish are out there get allocated to their fisheries.

So what benefit do steelhead get from increasing wild salmon escapement by 50%? Maybe none at all, but in theory, the nutrients the additional carcasses provide should improve the overall productivity of each stream, which should mean some improvement in fry ans smolt survival, for salmon and steelhead alike, and, subsequently, better adult returns. If no meaningful benefit is realized, we can return to the business of figuring out how much it will cost prospecting anglers to get in a drawing that gives them a chance to be allowed to fish over numbers that won't produce bites on most days. Can you tell I think that's a chitty solution? I realize it's very likely where we're headed, but I'm not at a point where I'm ready to settle for that just yet.

I've also proposed figuring out how to redesign hatcheries to support maximum, terminal harvest, in locations where the hatchery fish can be largely segregated from wild fish, then turning over the cost of operating hatcheries to commercial interests. That way, they get out what they put into it, and they can stop killing wild salmon in the open ocean, which should significantly increase the numbers of spawners returning to our rivers. It really seems to me like this would be a win-win-win scenario (for commercial interests, sporties, and the fish). Of course, this solution, assuming it's even possible, would be extremely costly up front, which means it's not likely to be considered seriously.

Reducing commercial harvest in the open ocean to increase escapements, as I proposed above, would carry very little cost (virtually none, by comparison), and the decreased supply of salmon in the market would drive the price up, establishing salmon as the premium, luxury food item they realistically should be. As in most premium markets, there would be buyers lining up, and they would pay whatever would be necessary to make the seafood processors, buyers, and fishermen whole.

Absent a drastic change in course, the writing will indeed be on the wall for our wild salmon and steelhead. I'd like to think we might change the course of human history by doing what is necessary to ensure a meaningful future for these species, but given our track record, I'm not altogether encouraged, as that would mean sacrifice, which is a concept often uttered, but rarely undertaken.

Well said and completely fair, IMO.