As CFM asked, harvest is a part of recreation for many anglers. If wild steelhead populations statewide were generally abundant and meeting ecologically functional escapement goals while also providing some reasonable level of harvest, we wouldn't be having this discussion about WSR. However, the list of rivers with wild steelhead populations deemed healthy enough to support some harvest has continually decreased, and this trend is more likely than not to continue.

The harvest of wild steelhead in Washington State is now insignificant as a component of recreational fishing in our state. Of the numerous steelhead rivers in Washington, we are down to allowing wild steelhead harvest in only 16 - that are deemed to be populations healthy enough to support harvest. Yet, most of those 16 have been underescaped as often as not over the past 20 years. That alone is strong evidence that the wild steelhead harvest policy is ill advised. I think only one river system, the Quilayute, has met or exceeded escapement goals virtually every year. This means that every river basin in the state - but one - is underescaped either every year, or some of the years. I find it difficult to defend this as sound or successful policy.

Some of the other "healthy" wild steelhead rivers, under the sound scientific policy that permits wild steelhead harvest has resulted in under-escapement on the Hoh, Queets, and Humptulips with shortened seasons and even season-long closures in some cases. I know a thing or two about fishery management, and I can't cobble together a smart defense for that type of management. (The actual biological defense is similar to, if not the same as the concept that justifies taking short-term profits in business at the long-term risk of bankrupting the company.) The outcome of the wild steelhead harvest policy results in more dynamic swings in steelhead populations, along with the ill social effects of disrupting the recreational fishery, and the ill economic effects associated with that same disruption.

And consider the management "success" on the Quillayute system. While the basin escapement goal is achieved, the preponderence of that escapement is observed in the Sol Duc sub-basin, with the Dickey, Calawah, and Bogachiel sub-basins generally under-escaped. WDFW still considers it successful, inasmuch as juvenile fish can redistribute in a river system to exploit various rearing niches and strategies. However, those same WDFW biologists know that juvenile redistribution is anything but perfect, and that many hectares of juvenile rearing habitat go underutilized. So overall steelhead prodtivity is kept below its potential in the most healthy, successful, and poster-child of sound steelhead management. That is the state of wild steelhead management in Washington State.

With respect to harvest being important to recreation for many anglers, myself included, the fact is that wild steelhead simply cannot support the harvest that many of us want. What wild steelhead populations can support is angling opportunity, and that is equally important, indeed, more important for many of us steelheaders. Most - but not all - are satisfied to release any wild steelhead we catch for having had the opportunity to be out fishing, rather that being home because of the rivers' being closed.

None of us denies that CNR induces some incidental mortality, generally estimated to range from 2 to 10%, depending on water temperature and other factors. For Smalma, the significant difference between the CNR fishery and the 10% harvest fishery are these: the CNR fishery is likely to produce mortality well under 10%, not that that matters all that much in the overall scheme of steelhead ecology and productivity. The other is that the CNR fishery produces a vastly greater social benefit in the form of ten times greater recreational benefit measured in angler opportunity (angler hours or days) and angling success, with ten times more steelhead actually being caught, but with no greater, and probably a lesser overall mortality to the population. That increased social benefit brings along an associated increased economic benefit in the form of greater economic activity by recreational anglers.

An advantage of the WSR management strategy is that it provides a buffer to poor wild steelhead runsize estimates. By definition, 50% of the pre-season forecasts over-estimate the run size, and consequently over-estimate the allowable harvestable number, resulting in over-harvest and under-escapement 50% of the time. Whereas, the worst case management scenario with WSR is that the spawning escapement would only be 10% less than if there had been no fishery at all. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the management strategies and plans that permit wild steelhead harvest.

The upshot is that WSR, independent of runsize except in extreme cases, would result in an ecological outcome with more stable steelhead populations in terms of productivity, exploiting habitat capacity, and achieving population diversity.

The only downside of WSR is that a small number of anglers will not be able to kill a small number of fish. Looking at the picture of statewide recreational angling, the relative loss is miniscule when contrasted to the benefits.

Please don't bother responding to this post with scare stories about foregone opportunity with treaty tribes. Do a search. That topic has been dealt with here on more than one occasion.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.