It has come to my attention that as of this Spring there is a good possibility that both the Snohomish and Stilly systems will be closed down under an emergency closure during March and April ending are catch & release seasons. If this closure goes through are biggest concern should be whether or not we will ever get these seasons back. This closure would affect more than just the Sky and Stilly fishermen it would greatly affect the amount of traffic on the Sauk, Skagit, and Forks area Rivers that are already over crowded. If you feel this emergency closure is not right e-mail or call the Biologist at the Mill Creek office and contact the fish and wildlife commision for they have the final decision on this matter.

Where did you get this info? I hope it's not true, but if it is, we need to find out why. My basic impression is that while hatchery stocks have fluctuated wildly over the past 10 years, the wild (March/April) fish populations have been relatively stable and healthy in the Puget Sound rivers. Any more information any of you may have on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

from my inside sources-it is true. the past few years they have not achieved the native escapement that they need on these two systems.

------------------


[This message has been edited by RPetzold (edited 11-14-2000).]

RPetzold is correct the word from the Bio is that they have not met spawning levels in a few years on both these systems, Yet they allow a kill fishery through feb. that took an estimated 300 wild fish last spring from the Snohomish system.

[This message has been edited by jg (edited 11-14-2000).]

I sit here in shock. That the native spawning returns are low, I can believe. That they are considering closing off the catch and release while keeping a catch and kill native fishery I find un****ing believeable!!! Curious to see the numbers they are basing these decisions on as well. As many of you are aware, the nates didn't show in good numbers last year until the last week of April. Were the collection methods designed to measure bunched arrivals or are they based on a sampling methodology? I'm sure I will have more thoughts on this once I overcome the shock of hearing that a river I spend 60-70 days a year on might be closed. Go figure.

That was my first thought, jg. If they're so concerned how can they allow a killing season on nates in these rivers?

I should have also stated that with this closure would also come the c&r of wild Fish through the month of February to protect all wild steelhead. My complaint is would we have met spawning levels if these early fish had not been harvasted.

jg

Well, Rather than asking why and complaining on the board about I challenge everyone on the board and your buddies to start writing letters and e-mails. If the runs are truely that low, I guess I would support it, but if they are still allowing a kill fishery early in the season, like the they have been, and tribal netting is not curtailed than I have a big problem with it. My letter is in the mail.

After reading this, I had to get on the horn and call some of my inside sources. There will be an emergency closure on all "wild" steelies in at least the Snohomish system starting December 1. No tears over that one, here! Don't stress over a kill fishery this year, it just ain't gonna happen. Now, as Joe stated, the C&R season is looking like it is not going to happen either but no decisions about March & April just yet. Right now the bio's are going off of spawning escapements from the last several seasons. This can be a factor in determining run size but it isn't everything. Remember how they closed the Snohomish Coho season and then it mysteriously opened up? Sometimes you just have to play it safe and see what happens. We have time to fight this one out and keep the C&R season.

Justin
CEO, Sauk River Steelhead Ranch




[This message has been edited by SAUKit2em (edited 11-14-2000).]

My opinion is: I am happy that there is not going to be a kill season for native steelies. It sucks about the C&R thing though. Tight Lines.
Ct

My friggin dog can predict run size better than the Bios, these jokers have no idea. Please, timing is everything on these runs. Every run from sockeye to Chum this year was way off from the predictions. If we get an early shot of fish, all the bios shoot their wad all over themselves and claim we will have a record run. Well, as it turns out that early shot was it and they end up with %^&* on their faces. I bet this years Wild Steelhead run is fantastic. LAst years stunk it up.

Catch and Release all Wild Fish Statewide!!!

It's a huge run!.............test fisheries have been hammering them and the run won't peak for another 3 weeks...........bring on the nets and sporties!............wait!........no more fish are coming in...........quick, close it down before someone catches the last fish!

Hey guys, here is the link to Mill Creek branch. I sent my fax with my concerns to them yesterday. I implore all of you to do the same. Its a real simple issue. They have let a catch and kill fishery exist, and now the escapement numbers are not looking good. Its call GROSS MISMANAGEMENT!
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/reg/region4.htm

Just got off the phone with Curt Kraemer (sp?) himself, and the word is that there will be no March/April season in 2001 on the Snohomish or Stilly. Period. The decision has been made and it will be signed into law early next week. He also said that since there is no way to do an "in-season" assessment, there is no chance of a last minute opener. No word on the Skagit/Sauk system yet. According to Curt, the projected run size is based on low returns the last two years, and poor stream conditions for smolts on the returning 2 and 3 salt fish. I guess they're taking a "better safe than sorry" approach, which we should support, but it is a little hard to swallow after allowing a catch and kill policy through February the last couple years--when numbers were down. Their goal is 6500 fish in the Snohomish system, and last year they only had 2800. Of course, the run-size assessment could be flawed, but since it is the same year to year, relative to the target number, it was a lousy year. In our conversation, he explained how there survey works, and I can explain this in detail if anybody cares, but I won't go into it here. As somebody above asked, it does take into account run groupings and last year's late push. Man, am I bummed. On the positive side, he did seem to feel that if the run is better than expected, we will get this fishery back--just not this year. Still don't know what I will do with those extra 40 days I will now have in March and April.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That is, allowing a kill fishery the last several years on weak populations doesn't justify allowing incidental mortality (via C&R) on a weak run this season. Or incidental mortality during a fishery targeting the hatchery run.

Having said that, I share your concern about closing the C&R fishery on one or two systems, thereby increasing the pressure - and incidental mortality - on the rivers that remain open. I'm also concerned about narrow views of conservation.

The issue would seem to hinge on predictability and risk. Oh, yeah, and policy, which may, or may not, be well informed.

About predictability, how does wild steelhead run size correlate with brood year escapements? From what I've seen of data, run sizes only correlate to brood year escapements when escapements are extremely low, likely below some critical threshold that reasonably seeds a system with fry. Escapements well below the official escapement goals have produced excellent returns, and high escapements have produced low returns. This is one reason, I think, why the Skagit tribes don't agree with WDFW's escapement goal.

Steelhead run sizes are a product of much more than brood year escapement. Freshwater rearing conditions and ocean survival are as important an indicator as escapement of run size. These are significant variables. The 90s generally saw low ocean survival coupled with either flood or drought or both, which depressed those runs. Ocean survival is increasing this past year or so.

Further, this year's 4 year olds experienced no floods or droughts. Five year fish would have experienced the Feb. 96 flood. It is important to note that flood effects don't correlate nearly so well for steelhead as salmon. (Spring vs. fall spawners. Juvenile steelhead are relatively safe if they find flood refuge.)

My thought is that 2 of 3 significant indicators of run size point to increased production over the last decade. I don't know what the brood year escapements were, so I can't comment on that variable.

After considering predictability comes risk assessment. What is at risk? The risk of not meeting the escapement goal. Just what is the escapement goal a measure of? If it is a measure of the number of spawners, on average, that is required to maximize production or harvestable surplus, on average; do the availbable data support that declaration? I doubt it. Escapement goals for steelhead have been set either arbitrarily or through composite habitat parr productivity estimates. I don't think any steelhead escapement goals have been set through spawner-recruit analysis, which is the only method that empirically supports its conclusions. However, I digress; S-R MSY/MSH analysis usually picks escapement goals that maximize short term harvest that is not sustainable over the long term because the environment changes and long term data don't exist.

What I'm trying to get at regarding the steelhead escapement goal, is that it doesn't deserve its high regard given how it was developed. And it is important only because the managers and many of the constituents (anglers) are incredibly devoted to killing as many wild steelhead as possible every year.

The state has choices. They say they must implement the legislative mandate of "preserve, protect, perpetuate, . . . allow utilization . . ." like there isn't much choice. Preserve, protect, perpetuate seem clear as my favorite stream. And the state has done these so well that several steelhead stocks are now ESA listed. As for utilization, we know there is more than one way to utilize. Killing wild steelhead might be a traditional use, but that doesn't inherently make it the highest and best use under contemporary social values and conservation circumstances. The only choice the state has no voice in is meeting treaty fishing obligations. Fine, the state and we are not obligated to hold that same value. We are free to choose differently for the non-treaty share of the resource.

We could choose to exercise a high degree of preserve, protect, and perpetuate and offer extensive utilization in the form of recreational opportunity via C&R fishing seasons. We could ask for the application of some common sense in this judgement. For instance, the Deer Creek summer steelhead population would qualify for ESA listing if it were its own ESU. Yet anglers C&R fish for them all summer and fall year after year on the Stilly because there is a wild steelhead release regulation. And this is an under-escaped population. Would a ban on fishing on the Stilly year round improve the Deer Creek population? No, not really. A handful of fish that are lost to incidental mortality would survive to spawn. And that would be good, but it wouldn't make a significant difference ecologically. The reason is that the Deer Creek population will recover at about the same rate as its horribly degraded habitat recovers.

So what are the risks of allowing the customary C&R season? If the risk is that the escapement goal may not be met again, but that the steelhead productivity is about as good as it is going to be under extant environmental conditions, then what purpose of regional ecology and conservation and contemporary social value is served by closing the C&R season on the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River systems?

And if by chance there is some redeeming biological value, then how can we justify allowing incidental mortality of wild steelhead during the hatchery target season and closing the March-April C&R season. Surely an early season wild steelhead is as valuable (in the form of diversity) as a late run fish to the population as a whole. Making a decision to allow the hatchery season with a wild fish release regulation is an arbitrary determination that the early season wild steelhead is more expendable than his later running brethren. Simple biology and genetics rejects that argument - Patooey!!

I hate to seem to be arguing against conservation. I prefer to think of myself as more a conservatinist than self-centered angler. But I just can't help but think this proposed closure is based on a rather narrow view of biology, escapement goal concepts, incidental mortality, and conservation.

Thank you for tolerating my rant. Perhaps some of this will be useful to you as you prepare your own arguments to Region 4 and the WDFW Commission.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g--thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post. I'm also concerned about the policies and politics involved here, as well as my personal loss of the fishery. I think it's clear based on history that the WDFW's mandate is to find "harvestable" numbers wherever and whenever they can--even if it results in emergency closures and the "oops" syndrome. It's also apparant that they are determined to separate the hatchery and wild returns by callendar, thereby making the two runs easier to manage. Why else have they allowed a systematic destruction of the already depressed early wild fish on the Snohomish system? For some reason in this state "healthy" runs translate into "good let's kill some fish." As we now see on the Penninsula rivers, they continue to allow a harvest of "surplus" fish. The fact is, there is no "surplus" in the natural order of wild fish population, and certainly not now in this age of habitat destruction, development and increased pressure. The true value of these fish, as you say, lies in the only sustainable fishery we have--catch and release. I would be curious to know what the incidental mortality rate is in a well-enforced C & R--it must be significant if it's worth closing the season for. Anyway, we could go on and on about run assessment methodology and the very notion of escapement goals, but my question is, who's listening? According to Mr. Kraemer, we are free to contact the commission before this is formalized, but he didn't think it would do any good. Salmo g., I hope you can send your excellent arguments to the powers that be, and I will be interested to hear what they say. If there's anything you think I, or any of us can do, let me know. Good luck.

ya think da indians will stil be netting? Ahhh, I betcha they will. Those gill nets sure are selective.

What a friggin Joke!!!!!

Good point, salmontackler.
Skookum, did you ask the WDFW biologist if nets are going to be allowed on those systems?

Here is the response I got from my fax to the Mill Creek office...Funny how they dont talk about the wild fish killed in these systems every year...as I said...GROSS mismanagement.

FROM: Curt Kraemer, District Fish Biologist

SUBJECT: Spring steelhead season in the North Puget Sound Region.

Received your recent letter regarding the closure of the spring catch and release seasons on the Snohomish and Stillaguamish. Hopefully the information listed below will answer most of your questions. If you have addition questions feel free to contact me at the Mill Creek office, (425) 775-1311 ext 101.

The forecasts for the wild winter steelhead returning to the Skagit, Stillaguamish and Snohomish River systems this winter (2000/2001) are the lowest on record. These forecasts represent a continuing downward trend in overall steelhead survival in the North Puget Sound region. Last year both the overall wild run size and the spawning escapements for all three river systems were the lowest seen since before 1980. This year's forecasted run sizes are well below established escapement goals, see Table 1.

Table 1: North Puget Sound Wild Winter Steelhead Forecast

River Escapement 2000 2001 Run size
System Goal Escapement Forecast
Skagit 6,000 3,780 2,400
Snohomish 6,500 2,790 4,600
Stillaguamish,
(N.F. above Deer Creek) 950 463 700


The poor returns in the 1999/2000 season are due in large part to declining marine survival that has been noted over the last decade throughout the Puget Sound area. Studies conducted on the Keogh River on the northeast tip of Vancouver Island have shown a decline in average smolt to adult wild winter steelhead survival from 15% in the 1980s to less than 3% in the 1990s. Similar declines have been noted on the east coast of Vancouver Island, the lower mainland of British Columbia as well as the Puget Sound region for both hatchery and wild winter steelhead. Even though the fish returning in 1999/2000 were generally from escapements at or above goal, the poor marine survival contributed to the poor overall runs. For example the total estimated run that returned to the Snohomish system last year was only about 3,000 fish, even though the escapements of the parent years were more than twice that level.

The composition of each year's run of wild steelhead can be thought of being made up of three general components: repeat spawners from the previous year, age 5 fish returning mostly after spending 3 summers at sea (3-salts), and age 4 fish returning mostly after spending 2 summers at sea (2-salts). The poor returns during the 1999/2000 season means that it is likely that there will not be very many repeat spawners (normally about 15% of the previous years escapement) or 5 year old fish (generally less than ½ of a brood year returns as age 5 fish). With the expected poor contribution of repeat spawners and age 5 fish to these runs it would take a return to better than average marine survival conditions for the age 4 fish (smolts in 1999) to have even a remote chance of meeting the escapement for these river systems. Smolt trapping in the Skagit basin indicates that the survival of the 1997 brood year (this season's age 4 fish) was below average. This likely was influenced by the unusually high flows experienced in local rivers during late May of 1997, which is thought to have limited the survival of the eggs spawned that spring.


The co-managers (state and tribes) felt that it was necessary to take management actions that would minimize the incidental take of wild steelhead. This will mean restrictions on both the recreational and commercial fisheries. The focus of both fisheries will be directed towards the early returning hatchery steelhead. Tribal fisheries managers have agreed to concentrate their fisheries during the early season when the vast majority of the catch will be hatchery fish. The Stillaguamish tribal in-river fishery will be completed by the end of December. The Tulalip area 8 fishery is scheduled to be completed by the 6th of January. The concentration of these fisheries early in the winter period has been very successful in the past in reducing the catch of wild winter steelhead. Given the expected tribal effort, these seasons are expected to have less than a 5% impact on the wild resource.

In the case when the expected wild steelhead run is well below the escapement objective, Department policies (the Wild Salmonid Policy and the Draft Steelhead Management Plan) call for the planning of no recreational fisheries that would target wild steelhead. To harvest the co-mingled hatchery fish the policies require that recreational fisheries fish under a wild steelhead release schedule, that is only hatchery steelhead may be kept. Hatchery steelhead are identified by missing adipose or ventral fins and a healed scar in the location of the missing fin. Based on these policies "wild steelhead release" will be in effect throughout the Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish River systems during this winter season. These rules will be in effect from December 1 through the end of February. By the end of February virtually all the winter hatchery steelhead will have been either caught or spawned thus few hatchery fish would be available after this time. With the wild runs expected to be below escapement needs and few winter hatchery fish available during the spring period all areas of the river systems will be closed to all fishing during the spring (March 1 through May 31). This will included the very popular spring "catch and release" seasons on all three systems. As with the tribal seasons the expect impacts on the wild stocks will be less than 5%.

Low numbers of fish is one thing, bad enough having kill seasons on wild fish in the past and the last sentence really bugs me.

Taken from last sentence of Curt Kraemer's letter in the previous post by Gusty:

"As with the tribal seasons the expect impacts on the wild stocks will be less than 5%."

Yeah F%#&*$! right!!!