It has been almost a month since Puget Sound steelhead were ESA listed. After the initial press releases public reaction, other than here and and other internet forums, has been business as usual. As anyone who has been reading the posts in this thread can attest to we have shown a lot of passion about the causes of steelhead decline but are having a hard time identifying appropriate actions to reduce that trend. For me it has been motivation to spend time learning more about the science and management particular to steelhead. Forgive this long post, but I would like to share some of my ideas and how I arrived at them.

First, I am pleased to report that as of June 1 full funding for the UW Highseas steelhead research project was provided by Sea Grant. A UW person is now on a Japanese vessel, working through June in the North Pacific / Gulf of Alaska and in the Bering Sea in July. Ocean steelhead research is important to us and also the Canadians. As sports fishermen we can support this research by letting our elected representatives know that funding international research is important. Last Decembers draft "Steelhead Management Plan" has a paragraph stating the importance of international research.

In thinking about steelhead the one thing that I found most important is the variety of life history types. No other Pacific salmon approaches steelhead in the complexity of possible life histories. Atlantic salmon are similar to steelhead so I read as many papers and reports as I could easily find. There is a long history of Atlantic Salmon fisheries management and research and ongoing efforts to restore runs in various countries. I also read similar literature for steelhead in the Pacific. The one report that I founds most useful is "Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington State’s Anadromous Populations and Programs" available for download from WDFW Fish Management web page. Chapter 2, the biology of steelhead, is the basis for many of my comments.

What do I think is important?

1. Steelhead recovery should not be part of the "Shared Strategy" and money for steelhead recovery should not be lumped into "Puget Sound" recovery programs. Shared Strategy is a coalition working primarily on chinook recovery, has a strong NOAA Fisheries input, and is politically popular. It remains to be seen if any progress will be made towards chinook recovery. Habitat improvement work with the goal of chinook recovery may have little benefit for steelhead. Steelhead utilize a part of the freshwater habitat that is not important for chinook. Puget Sound cleanup may help steelhead but it is not critical to their survival. Finally NOAA Fisheries shouldn't be the lead agency for recovery efforts. Their record on the Columbia river is not great, WDFW has spent years developing a comprehensive steelhead management plan that addresses the needs of steelhead recovery. Regardless of ones feeling about the policies of WDFW, the biologists and scientists of WDFW (and the tribes) are as qualified as any in the world to solve the problem. The work the state has done should not be abandoned.

2. Sports fishermen have to maintain a positive input to the process.. We need to be informed and educated, our influence is much greater than if we rely on emotions. We have to support actions that may not be popular (trout fishing bait bans is one that was discussed here and timber harvest restrictions are examples).

3. Sports fishermen can play an active role. Presently sports fishing organizations are purchasing acoustic tags for smolt tracking studies and are helping in the tagging operations. I think acoustic tagging studies should be done on kelts. Presently there is an ongoing study in Cook Inlet in Alaska looking at steelhead kelt migrations to saltwater from freshwater. Many studies have been done on Atlantic salmon. In an earlier post I mentioned the kelt reconditioning project on the Columbia and kelt reconditioning is mentioned in the Washington comprehensive steelhead management draft. Repeat spawners play a significant role in maintaining genetic diversity and they are an important hedge against a poor smolt production year.

4. The much discussed, maligned, and defended CNR fishery can be used to gather information. The CNR fishery in March and April probably has little stress induced effects on steelhead reproductive success because the fish are fully sexually mature, at maximum only a few weeks from spawning, and their migration is essentially complete. Because they are at or near their spawning areas it would be useful if sports fishermen could take scale samples and genetic samples. Population structure, age and growth, and the number of repeat spawners can be determined from such samples. Comparisons between the Skagit system and Olympic Peninsula rivers might be useful to monitor recovery activities. The state does some of this work now but I suspect the samples would be useful though funding to analyze samples would be necessary. Steelhead fishermen in Kamchatka have done this sort of sampling for several years, it does not take extensive training.

5. Stay interested, if you have read all of this thanks. I was pleased with the response to my earlier post about the UW Highseas Research program. Starting tomorrow there is an American Fisheries Society North Pacific International Chapter conference in Tacoma. I hope to hear some presentations about current steelhead research projects and will post comments if anything is useful to this discussion.