It's getting stale here, so just for fun, take a look into

A glimpse into the not so distant future:

A Puget Sound wild steelhead population averaging 4,500 fish annually and a spawning escapement goal of 4,000. Presently the river is closed to fishing for wild steelhead because they are listed as threatened under the ESA. Despite protection from not just over-fishing, but protection from any fishing, and a host of habitat protections and improvement projects, there is no credible evidence to suggest the population will increase significantly anytime soon, if ever.

The easy alternative is to continue the status quo. Nobody fishes. The run is making escapement, but the recruits per spawner (R/S) equals 1 to 1.125. The population is not and will not increase to any larger abundance. But human nature being what it is – insert your favorite adjectives, greedy, self-absorbed, responsive to constituents, etc. – fishery managers see some potential opportunity. A catch-and-release (CNR) sport fishery could produce significant social and economic opportunity without impacting the escapement, provided total exploitation and incidental mortality is less than 250 steelhead. The local treaty Indian Tribe isn’t interested in a targeted fishery on steelhead where the treaty harvest share is 250 fish. The Tribe is interested in fishing for hatchery spring chinook, which they are being prevented from fishing because of the conservation protection for the ESA-listed steelhead.

WDFW and the Tribe collaborate to develop a management plan that will continue to conserve wild steelhead by achieving the spawning goal of 4,000 and incidentally take no more than an average of 500 steelhead combined in the treaty chinook fishery and the non-treaty recreational steelhead CNR fishery. It seems easy enough. The Tribe proposes to fish for chinook with gillnets 2 days/week beginning with the onset of the spring chinook run, which in this case is March 15 until they have taken 250 steelhead, at which point their fishery closes.

WDFW proposes that the recreational CNR fishery run from February 1 – April 30, inclusive, spanning the timing window of the wild steelhead run, prior to the onset of significant spawning activity in May. The Tribe protests because the collaborative analysis reveals that the recreational fishery would have an estimated CNR catch of 80% of the run, meaning the expected average recreational catch would be 3,600 wild steelhead. No one disputes that the recreational anglers will catch 80% of the run, what with the WA state human population having well eclipsed 7 million people and is well on its way to 8 million, and with anglers and guides operating 20’+ sled with 4 to 8 anglers/boat pounding every piece of holding water for 3months straight. The 80% might be a conservative estimate, what with steelhead willing to hit bait and lures repeatedly and be caught multiple times.

The co-manager’s collaboration hits a snag. WDFW and NMFS had been using a conservative value of 10% incidental mortality applied to recreational fishing where wild or unmarked fish are required to be released. The estimated 360 incidental recreational steelhead mortalities puts the sport fishery over its allocation. Further, the Tribe, which doesn’t believe it’s proper to play with food, asserts for policy reasons that incidental mortality of sport-fishing released fish is 100%. The issue is clouded with recent research indicating that incidental mortality of released steelhead is less than 5%, but that if offset by other research suggesting the female steelhead caught and released multiple times have decreased egg viability. And so it goes.

Without an agreement, there is no fishing plan. Without a plan, NMFS doesn’t approve fishing by anyone, although the Tribe is in the driver’s seat because their side of the proposal is that they will stop fishing when their incidental take reaches 250 wild steelhead. WDFW is under pressure from sport fishing organizations that want the longest fishing season possible, knowing that a conventional harvest season is never going to be a choice because wild steelhead productivity is so low.

The impasse can be avoided if WDFW agrees to regulate the recreational fishery such that the total recreational catch does not exceed 2,125 wild steelhead, which with incidental mortalities would range from 107 to 213 fish, both under the 250 non-treaty allocation. WDFW needs to figure out how to keep the recreational catch under 2,125. WDFW puts a draft plan out for public comment. Here are some of the comments received:

1. Open Feb. 1- Apr. 30 because a sport fishery is never as efficient as a net fishery. “Nuff said.”
2. Open Feb. 1 – Apr. 30, Wed. through Sat. only, selective rules (single barbless hook, artificial lures only), reducing the 80% catch to 2,057.
3. Open Feb. 1 – Apr. 30, no fishing from a boat, reducing the 80% catch to 1,200.
4. Open Feb. 1 – Apr. 30, fly fishing greased line only while wearing a silk ascot and tweed jacket, reducing 80% catch to statistically not different from zero.

In a region where human population growth is uncontrolled, and the healthiest steelhead populations won’t support any significant harvest and only limited incidental mortalities, some choices have to be made about sport fishing, if there will be any. Fishing can only occur if fish per angler encounters are significantly reduced. My real point here is to learn what you would choose in order that there might be recreational fishing for steelhead. Would you just quit and stay home? Would you give up side drifting/free drifting/boondogging/plug pulling and fish off your feet from the bank, where on weekends there are more anglers than rocks to stand on? I created this example to illustrate the very real possibility that angler –fish encounters must be reduced when there are too many of us and we are collectively too efficient for the best populations that the remaining Puget Sound habitat can produce.

Enjoy.

Sg

limited entry draw permits. 200 kill tags on a similar system as the limited draw for hunting tags. you pull a tag you can fish 2 days and/or kill one fish.
Model it after the mountain goat hunts. A once in a lifetime tag.

Sg - Nice representation of a 'real world' scenario and the complexities associated with managing the fisheries in the State of Washington under the current legal framework.

Short answer - combine #2 and #3. #4 is unworkable since my tweed jacket no longer fits.

I hope all who read your post recognize the 'big picture' issues embedded in your post. Uncontrolled population growth in Puget Sound (and elsewhere), urban sprawl, increasing recreational angling pressure, ESA restrictions, policy differences with the Tribes, differing views with the Tribes on the appropriateness of recreational angling, public expectations, and the limits of steelhead productivity in an increasingly urban environment. We can argue about the amount, timing, and seasonality of recreational fishing for steelhead, or whatever, but the 'big picture' issues are driving this on-going debate.

How about no boats equipped with motors at all?

What about not opening the river for recreational angling until March 15?

No fishing under power is a given...and I'd be happy to see no power boats at all.

Selective gear rules is also a given.

What about a "closer to actual" instead of a "conservation number" being used for the release mortality...like 5%?

So far as the Tribes' "no playing with food" stance, the proper response to that is "fuckoff". As a tackle company owner I am of the opinion that they should stop "netting my money"...and as soon as they respect my position then I will respect theirs.

Fish on...

Todd

I wish we had this dilemma on more then just one PS stream.

I think the Tribes saying 'No playing with your food' is their way of saying 'No catch and release'. I don't think they're saying "No recreational angling". That matches with their policy position that all CnR fish die as a result of being hooked, played, landed, handled, and released. They believe mortality is 100%. As such, all fish hooked in a recreational fishery should count against the sport fishing allocation, even if some/many/all of those fish are subsequently released.

Yeah, I know...that's why the proper response is "fuckoff".

Fish on...

Todd

Great concept. needs a few additions, in my mind.

1. Real-time monitoring of both fisheries.
2. Pre-season the catch LIMITS are identified. Tribes land 250 steelhead, anglers kill, through whatever release level is identified and actually killed fish, if that is allowed. when they hit 250. This is even if, say, the rec season closes April 1 and the tribes fish 2 weeks for Chinook and leave a bunch in the river.

Not the current fixed schedule bovine excrement.

It appears the end goal is to simply reduce the number of fish encounters per angler. The rest of the stuff doesn't really matter.

If that is indeed the goal and you are simply trying to figure out how to do it, I see the following as the two easiest solutions:

1) Do not allow fishing from a floating device. For those that have lived this rule in other places, it effectively eliminates certain types of fishing (plug pulling, side drifting, etc.). On larger water, it almost guarantees that some fish will be in water that can't be fished.

2) Lottery/draw system to reduce the number of anglers. You might as well put a giant price tag while you are at it because you will generate a fair amount of revenue while still filling up every angler slot that is allowed. I've predicted for years that this type of system is how things will eventually shake out.

The problem is that some or most will feel "wronged" no matter what is done. Locals will argue they should get a fee-free opportunity to fish "their" river. Many of us will lose out on our "favorite" way of fishing, whatever that may be.

If it was up to me....ha
#3 - No fishing from a floating device, selective gear rules, etc...

WFC would love #4, and AP's #2 Lotto system... Kinda like what has happened to the Atlantic Salmon systems

What would a realistic encounter % be for a CNR season?? 80% seams really high. I would guess more around 10-15% of run would be soar mouthed

WDFW has some information on encounters and it is high. Very high.

Yep, we have met the enemy.... and the enemy is us. Too many of us.... each wanting to assert our "entitlement" to fish a depleted species.

Collectively we are way too big and way overcapitalized to be supported by such a miniscule amount of available fishing opportunity.

It's not just limiting the encounters per rod, but also limiting the number of rods allowed to access the fishery.

This is how any quality sport fishery is managed in Europe.

Fly fishing only. That way even if every angler in Puget Sound participated, only half a dozen or so fish would feel a hook

Great post SG. Quite a conundrum.

Seriously, I'd vote to keep it closed and continue quality monitoring efforts to see what the numbers actually do. I don't understand how they wouldn't improve if given enough time. What are the biggest hindrances to productivity in that basin?

what would I do?

drive to the coast.

The mindset here in America is that most sportsmen would like to believe every fishery (esp in its infancy) would support a seemingly limitless amount of opportunity. There's just so many fish that placing limits on participation seems ridiculous. Afterall, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Where fair access means either we all have access otherwise NONE should have access.

This ecumenical "embrace all styles of fishing" management strategy makes it difficult to manage exploitation with any degree of precision. Certain method/means of fishing are much higher impact than others (bait vs artificial, boat vs bank, gear vs fly) Retention fisheries are clearly higher impact than C&R fisheries. Yet how many (as AP stated) would cry foul if their chosen (high impact) style of fishing is excluded from the fishery?

Folks are just gonna have to come to grips with the fact that fishing has to become more exclusionary as stocks decline. Some folks are gonna have to leave the fishery... they'll forgo participation because they are either excluded by price, excluded by lottery, or excluded by refusal to fish according to the restrictions placed on methods/means.

At some point we're all gonna have to get over it. Change sucks!

Todd,

Many feel your pain. However, without an agreed to plan, the possibility is very real that NMFS would select the status quo. Nobody fishes; it's just so easy, and ESA listings provide the cover.

Bent Metal,

Carcassman is right. On certain rivers the encounter rate can be extremely high. For this example, you might as well assume the numbers are perfect, because management decisions are made on the "best available data" however good that is.

AP,

I thought about including some kind of draw or lottery system, but wanted to see what the PP crowd suggests.

Eyefish,

PNW salmon and steelhead fishermen are decidedly "anti" anything European when it comes to a lot more than just fish management. An easy out would be to just auction off 250 non-treaty permits to the highest bidders, but managers would prefer the status quo over the hell that would break out with that alternative.

Coley,

Fly fishing only works for some of us, but I didn't make it as a serious proposal because Stam would just come back with some anti-government worker retort. As for closing the river a while longer, in this example, it's already been closed 20 years, but let's make it 30, still no difference. The productivity is what it is. The choice is how to deal with it.

Dwatkins,

The above example is coming to a coastal river near you. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

Sg

More people need to take up golf...and no motors on the Sky above Lewis st bridge after the reg closure...

We should probably do what is right for the steelhead... Since that will never happen I vote for no fishing from a boat on both rivers, open Feb 1- April 30 with selective regs. I would also like to see a limit on the number of guides, or number of days guides are allowed to fish clients.

Perhaps opening up more of the rivers to fishing would help spread out some of the pressure. Does anyone know what the reasoning was behind having the sections below Concrete and above Darrington closed? Poaching? Spawning?

It would be nice to be able to fish the rivers during a productive time again.

This was assuming you were talking about the Skagit system.

Does anybody believe that the tribe will stick to their end of the bargain once the nets are in the river?

If it's going to open I'd vote for no fishing from watercraft/selective gear. I wouldn't be opposed to an extra fee if the funds went to better enforcement.

man, that's a bleak post, but it always brings up a conversation i had with an older angler around 2006, saying that 10 years from then, steelhead fishing would be circling the drain. it's a little haunting how right he was, i had a hard time believing him at the time(i figured things would stay level and maybe slightly decline, not like another early '90s crash).

i would take the "no fishing from a floating device" rule. i've got no problems with boats for transportation, and in many rivers, access is becoming more of an issue than even declining fish stocks.

limiting the number of guide permits this state gives out, or clamping down on eligibility for them would make sense. it seems like every other boat on the river is a guide, anywhere you go now.