Geoduck,

You’re the scientist, and now you’re asking me to consider “mere speculation” about CNR? Why?

“Perhaps on average, a fish that is CNRed repeatedly is not as effective in spawning as a fish that has not been caught ever.”

Perhaps can apply to a lot of things. But I’m not buying into this. I survived an adolescent car wreck, was knocked around more than a few times, and was winded by a few athletic endeavors, but I still managed to “spawn” and raise two outstanding kids. So yeah, perhaps, but I’d bet that most CNR’d steelhead survive to spawn just fine. And repeatedly? The average is less than once, so the fish that is caught two or three times is unusual indeed. If you need to pigeon-hole this somewhere, stick it with the incidental mortality.

“I am not aware of any data that addresses this issue. However, it stands to reason that it might have an effect. Steelhead have limited energy resources (and no way to obtain more in river) and extra energy is burnt every time a fish is caught.”

The data closest to this issue that I know about would be wild steelhead broodstocking. Those fish are truly abused. Caught - and not released - but “tubed” or tethered, man-handled into a tank truck, dip-netted into holding ponds, crowded and checked for ripeness twice a week until finally they are spawned artificially. And although a different situation, they spawned quite effectively. I have absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn’t have spawned effectively in the natural environment. Why does it stand to reason? Everything’s got limited energy resources, but as long as the energy expenditure doesn’t exceed the available supply, the fish should withstand the energy loss of one, or even two or three extra wind-sprint events caused by CNR. This could be analyzed with an energetics equation, but I don’t think you can be appeased by anything positive about WSR or CNR, and I’m not gonna’ waste my time, however, I recommend that you do so, since you think this should be considered.

“Sure a CNRed fish is more productive than a bonked fish, but I bet on average not as productive as an fish that was never caught.”

Since we cannot prove it with what we now know, what’s to bet on?

“I just think the assumption that a CNR season will automatically have less impacts than a catch and kill season is potentially false.”

Every assumption is potentially false. That’s one reason why they’re assumptions. Further, the direct impacts in hypothetical (assumptions) examples have been calculated, and the impacts of CNR are less than CNK. Will you feel better if we manufacture a hypothetical example where the impacts of CNK are less than CNR? I could do that, but it wouldn’t be meaningful.

“I am sure that if you have 5 times as many fishermen and a season 4 times longer under CNR as you would catch and kill, then you will have more impacts under CNR just on hooking mortality. If you assume each fish was CNRed multiple times before spawning, that will probably be a negative impact too. I think we need some data on CNR fish spawning productivity before we adopt it as the permanent managment strategy of the future.”

Just because you are sure doesn’t mean you are correct. And if you’re sure, you should construct a model and calculate the outcome. That might give your “sureness” some credence, provided we don’t think your assumptions are silly. Why would you assume each fish was CNR’d multiple times when the average is less than once (based on run sizes and and informal catch estimates on CNR rivers)?

I think you need a better model supporting your position before I have the time to worry about adopting CNR as a permanent management strategy. Heck, if I need data for that, what kind and amount of data do I need to justify fishing CNK the last best wild steelhead populations of Washington State into the ground?

I think you have decided that you cannot be satisfied with this two year WSR moratorium, and will pick at any and all aspects of its potential flaws while ignoring the flaws continued CNK seasons and ignoring the flaws of not adopting WSR and CNR.

I am taking the time to point it out this time, but it is my last time.

“The method is irrelevant, it is the impacts to the fish that need to be controlled.”

Thank you for including one cogent, relevant thought in your post.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.