Deerlick,

Since there are few (not no) wild steelhead in the Puyallup to protect, you probably wouldn't do much damage if there were a CNR season. But all of PS wild steelhead are listed as threatened under the ESA, and no directed fishing, even CNR, can occur without an approved steelhead management plan. There is no approved plan. Therefore, no directed fishing.

Gregsalmon,

Yes, WDFW is responsible for managing the fish. I asked the question because I'm not certain the situation would be appreciably different regardless of how WDFW had managed them. Using Puget Sound steelhead as the example, harvest has been so restricted over the last 20 years, that in its listing document NMFS wrote that harvest is basically not a factor affecting abundance. If that is the case, I don't see what WDFW could have done differently that would have caused there to be higher abundance today since the only factor affecting abundance within WDFW's direct control is harvest. They have little environmental enforcement authority.

Misguided,

I'm not a WDFW employee or their cheerleader. I am one of Piscatorial Pursuit's unofficial agitators though.

Hatchery steelhead smolt plants have been on a declining trend. Prior to 2007 I expect that was largely a budget matter. Since then the ESA listing has been dictating reduced hatchery plants. Reduced stocking combined with significantly lower ocean survival makes for greatly reduced adult fish returns. However, WDFW has very limited control over its budget and zero control over ocean survival. So what could WDFW have done differently that would cause there to be more steelhead in the rivers today?

MilkbottleMikey,

It would be nice to have the rivers open to the end of March, but that ESA thing I mentioned above prohibits it. Must have 2 things first: 1. an approved management plan, and 2. wild steelhead runs meeting escapement goals - which almost none do.

2Many,

If I knew, I would have already told you.

Chukar14,

1. ESA prohibits directly targeting listed fish; therefore the rivers must close when the hatchery run is over.
2. Yeah, they could do that.
3. Native broodstock programs might increase "catching opportunity," but what makes you think that hatchery programs using wild broodstock wouldn't also get the same crappy SAR (smolt to adult return) as the current hatchery programs do? And while such broodstock programs might augment catch opportunity, they might work against the conservation of wild steelhead, which would be a bummer, don't you think?

BTW, getting an approved PS steelhead management plan is an elusive task. It's not just up to WDFW. There are about 14 PS treaty tribes that also have to be on board. It's just a guess, but I'm betting that they don't all want exactly the same thing. Which is why basin specific steelhead plans is probably the most viable route, but that is more work for WDFW. Which then spins into the cycle of more work when the budget from the general fund has been cut 40%, and salmon management is a higher priority than steelhead because, a. there are more salmon; b. worth more money; c. attract the attention of more people, fishermen and legislators; and d. it's the legislature that sets the WDFW budget; etc.

I asked the question because the criticisms of WDFW implied that there are things, things that are actually within WDFW's sphere of influence, that WDFW could have done differently that would have resulted in the rivers being full of fish today. But I don't know what those things would be. So I'm crowd-sourcing an answer.

Meanwhile, I haven't fished the Satsop in several years. Too many trees across the channel. And when I float it in my raft I about get run over by sleds. And when I run my jet boat up it, I about run over pontoons or into fallen trees. It's quite a situation going on over there.

Sg