MetalHead,

The reasoning? Philosophy, religion, science, ethics, and caution come to mind as plausible reasons. The responses your post elicited certainly demonstrate that not all BB members agree with WDFW’s assessment of the health of OP steelhead runs, let alone the north Puget Sound rivers. The state’s assessment is that on average, more than twice as many spawners escape to the Quillayute system as are required to seed the available rearing habitat to capacity. Given that assessment, they feel compelled under the agency’s legislative mandate to allow a recreational harvest. WDFW policy doesn’t require that the full population diversity be represented in the spawning escapement, so they are satisfied with fishery management that basically extirpates early returning native steelhead in the interest of fully harvesting the hatchery winter runs. Managers I’ve spoken with believe this management style is sustainable. It may be, but the truth is no one really knows.

We do know that when the state believed a recreational fishery couldn’t over-harvest a wild steelhead population, they allowed recreational over-harvest in Puget Sound and southwest WA rivers. It resulted in extensive closures in the north Sound area over several years and only re-opened under C&R regulations and then a small kill season was also allowed. Some anglers believe even that is not sustainable. For this season at least, they are correct.

Here’s my observation and opinion. WDFW has demonstrated that it will manage in ways that wipe out native steelhead on Puget Sound rivers, nearly all southwest WA rivers, and all tributaries above Bonneville on the Columbia. The coastal rivers are “the last best place” for native steelhead. Should WDFW use the same models, attitudes, and lack of measurement and statistical precision that gave us depressed steelhead stocks everywhere else be used to manage the coastal rivers? What confidence should I have that the same depressed stock status that characterizes the rest of the state’s steelhead won’t occur on the coastal rivers as well? The habitat? Sure, the OP rivers headwaters are in the national park, and that counts for a lot. And it usually rains like hell, and that counts too. Those lend toward higher productivity, but they don’t prevent overfishing.

Another reason is you and me. Not that long ago, there were only 2.5 million folks here in WA. Now there are 5.8 million, and more than twice as many miles of roads (many along rivers), 10 times more drift boats, 100 times more jet boats, more trails, more access of every type. There’s not many places for steelhead sanctuary these days. We could have a harvest fishery on wild steelhead, and when the harvestable number has been taken (assuming we could know this information) close the river(s). Give it an historical context. Puget Sound used to be open year round. The ocean season opened April 1 and closed when the weather got too snotty to go out. Over the years, seasons, both commercial and recreational, have become shorter and shorter. Some commercial openings have been for like 4 or 6 hours. Conceivably, we could eventually see sport fisheries with regulations like that, because a longer opening would be projected to result in over-harvest.

Or, there’s another scenario. We know that C&R fisheries have the lowest adverse impact to a fish population this side of a complete fishing closure. C&R mortality estimates range from 1 to as high as 10%. Nothing else comes close, unless we have a kill season measured in hours, rather than weeks. C&R seasons mean there are more fish in the river on any given day than the same river under C&K regulations. Curt Kreamer explained how a C&R regulation doesn’t necessarily result in more fishing opportunity (the Skagit plunkers who expend many days in C&K, but pack up and go home during C&R). However, C&R increases the opportunity to actually catch a fish, because that fish is still in the river instead of having been caught and removed from the population the day or week before. C&R makes for better fishing for those anglers who desire the opportunity to fish and have a high expectation for catching a fish, even though they would have to release it, since there will be more fish in the river. C&R makes for worse fishing for those who choose not to participate.

C&R also provides a buffer against imprecise fisheries management statistics. The fundamentals of probability suggest managers would underestimate runsizes just as often as they overestimate them. Historical runsize records indicate, however, that runsizes are overestimated more often than underestimated. I think that suggests a flaw in the model and or an important variable that isn’t accounted for. Sort of an historical footnote: it’s called “harvest management”, not conservation management. The Department has its legacy in harvest. Managing harvest only came about in the first place due to overharvest. The notion of managing for something else really isn’t on WDFW’s radar screen in any official capacity. The quality lakes and rivers regulations are still outliers in the overall scheme of fisheries management in WA state. The Department’s legislative mandate for management dates to about 1935, and it was outdated then. Given the population growth and development in our state since then, the growth projections for the next 20 and 50 years, it’s patently silly, if not embarrassingly foolish, to contemplate harvest fisheries on wild fish like the good old days. Having the “good ole’ days” would mean serving eviction notices to 3.3 million residents.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.