#242642 - 05/05/04 07:57 PM
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13615
|
Johnny Coho,
I see. I don’t think very well of fishing for fish on their redds. Some folks do it; I don’t know why. However, I’d hate to see a stream closure because over the years I’ve fished for Dolly Varden and early winter steelhead during the same time that chum salmon are spawning in the middle and upper Skagit River. Most fish I see on redds have already spawned, and the damage done by those who target them for fishing is negligible. I’m not defending that action, just saying that in the greater scheme of things, very little actual harm is done to the chum population. I’d rather see a focus on educating anglers and let enforcement agents ticket those they observe actively snagging salmon on redds. My preference is to retain angling opportunity whenever it’s consistent with fish conservation objectives.
Smalma,
You asked Johnny/Todd, but I don’t support shortening the season, CNR or otherwise, to keep some anglers from fishing on redds. Two reasons. First, as I mentioned to Johnny above, the actual damage to the fish population, if any, is negligible (like we once thought the entire CNR season was!). Most fish observed on redds have already spawned. The eggs are in the gravel. The resultant fishing activity is harassment, but doesn’t reach the threshold of damaging the fish resource. Second, when the river is closed, there continues to be fishing, based on my personal observations. That fishing is not CNR, and does meet the threshold of damage due to the slight reduction in spawning escapement. I’d rather risk the negligible harm of dolts who fish on redds than accept the certain harm of post-season poaching.
TC & Mike,
Why would it make sense to rotate the late season steelhead CNR fishery between the middle and upper Skagit River? You’ve seen less fish rolling in the upper river in recent years because the run sizes have been smaller. More fish were rolling on Sauk Bar 20 years ago because run sizes were larger, and Sauk Bar had more preferred steelhead holding water - and less fishing pressure. Those conditions I think better explain the difference in your observations.
Those steelhead in the middle river don’t stay there. The vast majority of them migrate to the upper Skagit and Sauk Rivers and their respective tributaries to spawn. A relatively low percentage of the Skagit basin steelhead run spawns downstream of the Dalles bridge. At least they did when I used to help do the redd counts, and I haven’t heard of any significant shifts in spawning distribution. But all the steelhead do have to migrate through the lower and middle rivers. And particularly, since this is a CNR fishery, with a very low overall exploitation rate, I can’t see how this action would improve steelhead productivity in any way. As Smalma points out, the steelhead run meets its escapement goal most of the time, although that goal is the legitimate subject of debate.
Lunch time,
Great question. Terminal area run size and escapement are not the same thing. The even year chum runs are usually forecast as above, to well above, escapement, and fishing seasons are set. Sometimes the fishery “over achieves,” and the escapement goal isn’t quite met. Even with the increase in popularity of fishing for chums, the effect of the recreational fishery is likely between negligible and small. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not computed as a factor in chum management. Maybe that’s changed in recent years; perhaps Smalma would confirm or refute.
Unfortunately, sport anglers have no rights - at law anyway - at stake in this issue. As far as getting the shaft, well there’s a lot of perception driving that. The more terminal a fishery is, the greater the likelihood that it will be shut out of opportunity due to the excess of a prior fishery. The U.S. v. Washington case law has greatly reduced that likelihood, but it cannot eliminate it.
I agree with you about the probably effect of the snagging activity and fishing on redds. My preferred approach is education. Most anglers don’t want to be perceived as dirtbags, but I never argue with a fisherman about it. Any who would argue, or tell me to mind my own business (albeit in more direct language), clearly need that snagged spawnout more than I need to tell them about sportsmanship and the rules of fair chase.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Titanium Cranium
|
04/30/04 12:26 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Anonymous
|
04/30/04 12:58 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Homer2handed
|
04/30/04 01:15 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Easy Limits
|
04/30/04 09:21 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
db_cooper
|
04/30/04 09:57 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Beezer
|
04/30/04 10:42 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
04/30/04 04:03 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Anonymous
|
04/30/04 04:28 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Homer2handed
|
04/30/04 06:34 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
4Salt
|
04/30/04 06:43 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Plunker
|
04/30/04 08:00 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
04/30/04 08:13 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Anonymous
|
04/30/04 08:32 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Smalma
|
04/30/04 09:57 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
05/01/04 01:17 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Titanium Cranium
|
05/01/04 01:54 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Titanium Cranium
|
05/01/04 02:04 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Keta
|
05/01/04 02:32 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Plunker
|
05/01/04 03:53 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Keta
|
05/01/04 04:20 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
JohnnyCoho
|
05/02/04 02:14 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
05/02/04 04:51 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
JohnnyCoho
|
05/03/04 12:28 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Todd
|
05/04/04 03:36 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Nailknot
|
05/04/04 03:47 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Homer2handed
|
05/04/04 07:58 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Smalma
|
05/04/04 08:21 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Titanium Cranium
|
05/05/04 05:16 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Anonymous
|
05/05/04 10:17 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Lunch Time
|
05/05/04 11:41 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Nailknot
|
05/05/04 12:11 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
JohnnyCoho
|
05/05/04 01:46 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
05/05/04 07:57 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Smalma
|
05/05/04 08:53 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Homer2handed
|
05/06/04 02:13 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Nailknot
|
05/06/04 03:28 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Titanium Cranium
|
05/06/04 04:55 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
KerryS
|
05/06/04 10:59 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
05/06/04 11:44 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Lunch Time
|
05/06/04 12:57 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
JohnnyCoho
|
05/06/04 01:10 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Todd
|
05/06/04 01:55 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Smalma
|
05/06/04 11:27 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Anonymous
|
05/06/04 11:46 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Lunch Time
|
05/07/04 02:46 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Smalma
|
05/07/04 09:18 AM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Anonymous
|
05/07/04 04:25 PM
|
Re: Chum, endangered on the Skagit?
|
Salmo g.
|
05/07/04 11:43 PM
|
|
|
0 registered (),
759
Guests and
4
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11505 Members
17 Forums
73018 Topics
826031 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|