I just hate it when I've got the day off, and the rivers are blown! I've got a dozen big red and orange winter run flies in my pack and some 1/16th oz. jigs that I want to try on the end of my floating line after reading about it here. But alas, high and muddy water abounds today.

So how about we solve the NW salmon and steelhead crisis today instead? RT's thread got me to thinking about this. Nothing new, as these are ideas I've mentioned before, some here, and some offline to various BBers.

Here they are again, to help address these specific fishing ailments and perceptions thereof:

1) Puget Sound and coastal river steelhead fishing.

The Wild Steelhead Coalition is taking an important first step at changing that which is our ability to control. We cannot control treaty fishing directly, but we can increase spawning escapements and reduce harvests of native/wild steelhead with a statewide wild steelhead release regulation.

The next step might be to increase the supply of hatchery steelhead available to the recreational fishery. The cheapest way to do this is not to build more hatcheries and raise more hatchery steelhead. The cheapest and most environmentally effective method is to make deals with treaty tribes on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. We've seen that the market for fresh steelhead has tanked. In 1979 I saw net caught steelhead delivered to commercial buyers of $2.50/pound. The last couple years have seen prices around $0.65 - $0.75/pound. Nobody's getting rich in this fishery. One tribal biologist told me that only a few members are even fishing steelhead. The buyer isn't taking any; apparently it isn't worth it. Those fishing are catching just enough to satisfy markets they have on the side through friends, the local tavern, or so-called roadside sales. This is legal so long as they get the fish recorded on fish tickets at the tribal fishery office.

The upshot is that the treaty steelhead fishery might be vulnerable to a viable marketing offer. The way this could work would be to acknowledge the tribe's treaty fishing right, encourage them to take what they wish from the treaty harvest allocation for ceremonial and subsistence, and offer to buy their projected commercial catch - if they leave the fish in the river uncaught. That is, if the tribe's projected commercial catch is 1,000 steelhead * 8 lb. each * $1.00/pound = $8,000, with the result that there are 1,000 more steelhead available for recreatinal harvest in that river. Recent WDFW estimates place the cost of putting a hatchery steelhead in the sport creel at $25 each.

The hitch? Of course there is one, or two actually. First, who gets the money paid to the tribe for the fish? The treaty right is the property of the tribe, but individual fishermen are "franchised" by tribal licenses or permits to fish and retain whatever money they receive for their catch. Tribes would need to develop a mechanism for allocating this wealth in a way that could be politically and socially acceptable to them.

The second hitch is where do we get the money to pay for the fish? (Especially since we paid for the hatchery fish once already.) I'd propose licensing fees or extra cost permits to fish rivers where such agreements are in effect. How much extra would you pay to fish a river that has no treaty commercial fishing for steelhead?

OK, that's one partial solution.

2) Lower Columbia River non-treaty gillnet fishery.

Nobody makes a living in this fishery. It exists based in large part on inertia - and the huge glut of hatchery produced chinook and coho. This fishery is also an economic dinasaur. Remember this fall when gillnetters were offered only $0.20/pound for their coho catch? A commercial fisherman can't make expenses in that fishery, let alone any profit.

What to do:
A) Approach the Direct Service Industries & the Northwest Power Planning Council for money. In various ways these entities have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to salmon restoration with little positive effect. How much would it cost to buy out every non-treaty license and boat on the lower Columbia River? Now we could have the gov't do this and spend twice as much, or we could set up a covert operation through RT and Cowlitzfisherman to approach commercial license holders one at a time and try to cut a deal. The licenses shouldn't be worth too much at this time, but let's assume a generous $10,000 for each license and $25,000 per boat (although there are some leakin' Lenas in that fleet that would bring only a fraction of that). $35,000 * say 400 is only $14,000,000, which is a small fraction of what they've been spending on fish conservation that hasn't worked.

Next, cut hatchery production by a huge amount. How about by half? I'm just pulling that number out of the air, but a little modeling would narrow the choice to an optimal number. The commercial fishery on all those hatchery fish is a major factor that contributes to wiping out wild runs and creating no end of ESA problems. Cut hatchery production in the Columbia, and that much of the problem goes away. And frees up some money to use for the buy outs and other conservation measures. And sport fishers won't miss the hatchery cutback, since the commercial fleet that catches most of them won't be in front of you drastically reducing the number of fish you'll get a shot at in the river and tributaries.

And people who don't fish will still have fish available in the markets from the ocean troll (not proposing to buy it out yet, maybe later) and the various treaty fisheries that will still be supplying fish, Alaska fish, and of course the fish farms.

OK, that's the second idea.

3) Columbia River treaty Indian fishery on mixed ESA, wild, and hatchery stocks.

Most of us accept that treaty fishing rights are going to be around longer than most of us. So is it the fishing right that is the problem? Or is it the conflicts between treaty fishing and conservation? On the Columbia, the ESA has re-shaped the fishery, with the tribes getting the lion's share of the allowed incidental take of listed fish. Since sport fishing gear allows the safe release of incidentally caught unmarked, wild, listed salmon, and gillnets do not, a common sense change is in order. One that acknowledges the treaty fishing rights and cultural traditions.

Every salmon that passes Bonneville does so via a fish ladder, but for the few that enter the navigation locks. This is so simple that I cannot believe others haven't suggested it, but remember if you read it here first. 8^)

NMFS, the states, and private engineers in a heartbeat can modify the Bonneville fish ladders to include sorting facilities. All unmarked ESA fish and "restoration" fish would pass through to continue their migrations. The restoration fish are those unmarked chinook bound for the Yakima, Umatilla, etc. The marked hatchery fish could be diverted directly to refrigerated fish totes for tribal pickup if they so desire or - get this - you'll wonder what drug I was on this time -

Harvestable fish could also be diverted to the Corps' newly built replicate of Celilo Falls where treaty tribes' fishermen could exercise their traditional fishing culture and whack all those hatchery fish with no adverse impact to the ESA listed or special restoration stocks of fish. And at lower costs than gillnets and boats, using traditonal but effective dipnets. Expensive as this option would be, it still might be a drop in the bucket compared to all the silly measures the Corps and NWPPC have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in without producing much salmon recovery success. If it was worth building the Dalles Dam for the energy and drowning Celilo Falls, it's probably worth re-creating Celilo as part of an overall effort to recover and restore Columbia River salmon and steelhead.

The recreational fishery could continue pretty much the same - release wild and unmarked fish and creel marked fish.

OK, that was number 3. Now, in these partial solutions, who doesn't get what they want and are legally entitled to? Are these solutions practicable, that is, can they really achieve the desired conservation and fishery allocation outcome? And are the costs actually out of sight? They seem reasonable to me based on current expenses made in behalf of fish produciton, allocation, and conservation. But then, maybe this is just a drug induced haze. Except at my age, it's probably something else.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Excellent post Salmo!

You got my approval, now all you need is RT's D

P.S. You should stay home more often and keep writing such good threads, that way you won't be fishing in my secret honey holes anymore on your days off.


Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]

interesting solutions. now all we need to do is elect some lawmakers that love to fish.
i wonder if we could get native steelhead listed as an endangered species on some rivers ? maybe the feds would then step in and put a stop to netting.

Well, Salmo, you sure said a mouthful there! Here are a few comments...

First off, the rivers weren't too bad today, so you should have been there. However, I guess it's a little too late to worry about that.

1. Puget Sound/Coastal Fisheries

I think your suggestion that we negotiate for a bigger share with the Indians is right on the money. To do that we need the credibility to come to the table as part of the solution rather than part of the problem (implementing WSR and not fearing or hating the Indians), and we need something to offer as a trade. Money is the obvious "something", and it should be easy to measure what each year's half of the harvestable portion of fish should be worth.

The problem is divvying up the booty between the tribal fishers. It looks like that the NWIFC's solution is to say "treaty rights are not for sale", thereby removing the problem rather than creating a solution. The response, I think, is to deal directly with each NWIFC member tribe and get them on board, either individually or as a group. Let them decide how to divvy up the money...

I think this may be a solution to your first potential problem...

Where does the money come from? For me the answer is pretty clear. It comes from either a general increase in license fees (not that great) or as an additional surcharge to fish rivers where the "deal" has been done (much better). I think this sort of "use tax" puts the burden on those who get the benefit, namely the people who fish that river.

The rest of the details shouldn't be too tough...

Unfortunately, passing WSR evidently isn't as obviously necessary as I think it is...there's a lot of opposition out there. Getting individual tribes to go against the NWIFC and/or Billy Franks, Jr., might be really tough. He's definitely "the man" when it comes to pushing the tribal fishing agenda.

2. I really like your counter-intuitive, reduce the amount of fish to get more argument. Since the harvest is generally based on ESA impact, if a higher percentage of the run is comprised of ESA fish due to less hatchery fish, then the season and quota greatly reduced. As it is, it's not very profitable. This would kill it. Hmmm...great idea!

How difficult would the political battle with the gillnet lobby be? Pretty difficult, I'd guess, but because the economic returns are so overwhelmingly in the favor of sport caught fish rather than netted fish, and money talks, it could be done.

There's also going to be a political battle with NMFS, USFWS, COE, WDFW, and ODFW. There are a lot of bureacrats and buckets of contractor pork out there depending on hatchery fish to keep them useful and to justify the last 100 years of (mis)management.

3. A tribal fishery in a manmade Celilo Falls where hatchery fish are trucked in from Bonneville, released into the fake river and falls, where they are then dipnetted to satisfy treaty rights?

Hmmm.....sounds good, but I think it would turn into a tourist attraction second to none in that part of town. Would that be good? Do you want 10,000 tourists with cameras watching you fish?

"Ooohhh, that was a nice cast." "Wow. He's got one!!!"

Maybe just loading the fish into their pickups would be a better plan?

I'd think that since this is a selective fishery (fish with fins keep swimmin'), that they would be able to harvest more fish overall because their ESA impact would be smaller.

Dividing up fish/profits brings the same problem noted above, namely that it's been avoided as of yet. I don't know how CRTFC views this issue, or if they feel the same as the NWIFC, but I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knows. Salmo? SMalma?

BTW, if it was a drug-induced haze, which drug was it? I gotta get some of that!

Thanks for stepping up to talk about legal, ethical, and effective solutions, rather than the opposites that have been running around the BB's lately.

How do you feel about more widespread use of the treaty allocation as a cash cow for tribal guides, a la the Quinault Nation's guided fisheries? This could also work on most of the other reservations. I suppose they could be charter boats for salmon, too.

What about our chances of changing the tribal managers' minds about tangle nets? If this happened, do you think it would also increase the non-tribal ESA impacts that would be allowed due to the decreased tribal impact? Would the tribal fishers rather use gillnets and keep the non-tribal allowable impact smaller?

Fish on...

Todd.

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Todd ]

Salmo -
As always an interesting post and some fodder for thought on a winter day away from the river. Couple of comments:

1) As you have mention before in earlier posts having larger escapements may not necessarily lead to larger runs in the future. Wild steelhead release will almost certainly result in lower harvest, higher escapements, and more fish avaiable for the CnR fisheries but depending on the individual river under consideration the increase number of spawners may not result in consistent larger run sizes. It will depend on the what is limiting the production capacity of the river. Greatly most years on most rivers the production bottleneck appears to over wintering habitat for the parr. Though spring floods, low water in the summer, escapement, and other facts can be the limiting factor at times.

Perhaps the surest way to insure larger wild runs would the maintenance and restoration of the key habitats. The ESA driven discussion currently under way regarding habitat protection on our rivers is an area that warrants some involvement for those who wish to see healthier rivers and the fish resources that they would support. To reach that point we need changes in land management practices which in turn means political involvement (lobbying) by fishers.

Paying the tribes not to fish continues to run into the same snags. How do you purpose the annually share is determined (amount of money due)? Half of the pre-season forecast regardless of the resulting run size? Half of the sport catch? That would be an interesting twist of "they aren't reporting all their catch" rants. The agreeing tribe probably would want some agreed upon creel census which would cost additional $$.

Your "hitches" were right on the money. How the money is divided among the fishers is always a problem. I can remember hearing a similar recommendation from the tribal community (though tongue in cheek)when the state first tried Wild Steelhead Release (anyone remember the fin cards?). The suggestion then was to close the river to sport fishing and have the hatcheries distirbute the returning fish to fisherman with punch cards. In both scenerios the reposne by most fishers would be "unfair".

Creating special river taxes with dedicated funds for a specific use would regard legislative approval. They have consistently demostrated their dislike for any funds that they don't have control over.

Bardo -
The ESA card is a dangerous game to play. Not sure that those that fish the upper Columbia tribs. (Methow, Wenatchee etc) would recommend using that card.

Todd -
The move to tribal guides has appeal. The idea would be to transfer all or part of their share to tribal guide fishery. Like the Quinault situation it might require that there be only tribal guides or some such restriction. Not sure how that would fly with some on this board.

Tight Lines
Smalma

Bardo,

As Smalma said, careful about playing the ESA card. It isn't playing so well on the Columbia R.

Todd,

This isn't a proposal to buy treaty fishing rights. It's a business proposition to buy fish at higher than the market price on the condition that the fish remain in the river and are not caught by treaty fishing. The money is probably the easiest part.

Not sure the gillnet lobby will be a problem. RT and CFM are gonna' own all the licenses and boats via willing buyer/willing seller negotiations. And we keep the hatchery people busy raising fewer fish at lower densities making healthier smolts.

No trucking to Celilo II! This has got to be authentic! The ladder sorting devices shunt the marked fish into constructed channels where they swim upstream to the falls fishing area. And yes, since there is no ESA impact, tribal harvest allocations actually increase! If it becomes a tourist attraction, Indians can charge us a dollar or two to take their photo and make even more money. The profits go to the individual fishermen who dip net their catches.

And this haze was brought to me by Ravenswood North Coast Zinfandel.

Maybe tribal guides and treaty allocations have merit. It would produce more cash, but I don't know if treaty fishermen would want to guide. It's harder work than set netting, and they have to put up with fishermen they may despise.

Tangle nets can sorta' work, but I believe it's a 2nd rate solution. There is still unnecessary incidental mortality.

Smalma,

WSR does 2 things: 1) escapement insurance against inacurrate run forecasts; 2) released fish are available to be caught a 2nd time. Low harvests (or incidental mortality) and habitat protection & restoration = key to maximizing wild steelhead populations.

I recommend buying a tribe's prospective commercial catch based on the run forecast and re-adjusting up or down the following season.

Divying $ among fishermen is a problem, but I don't underestimate the tribe's ability to solve a problem that is a better deal than what they now have.

And you're right. The legislature isn't easy, but at least they can be bought. I also don't underestimate their ability to fabricate a solution that works for fish and the fishery if they benefit - votes, maybe?

Thanks for your interest and repsonses, and keep 'em coming if you think of more. It's gonna' take out of the box thinking to create workable solutions that satisfy peoples' and the fishes' interests.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Smalma-
Larger escapements may not lead to larger returns when populations are at carrying capacity but can you really say our populations are at carrying capacity?? Does anyone even know what carrying capacity is for our rivers?? I would seriously liek to know because we always speak of escapements goals and what is needed to sustain a population but I really want to know how many indivuduals a population can sustain.

Do you know of any methods that are used to determine carrying capacity?? Is there a general rule that will define carrying capacity if one knows the minimum escapement goal?

Until we know these numbers, all wild steelhead should be released. Where else in society do we strive to be just okay, to just make the grade??? Being pleased with meeting the minimum escapement goal would be like a parent being pleased with their child because he passed a class with a D!! Do you we really want to praise the efforts of our managers/politicians etc. etc. because they achieved a 'D'?? I think we should be scloding them because they can only achieve a 'D' and nothing higher!!

I have heard that the SF Sky is at carrying capacity for coho. Do you know what the escapement goal is for the SK Sky on coho and what the actual carrying capacity is. It seems that since this is a closed system, if we sport fished and killed the catch and netted we could see the effects of those activities on populations that are at carrying capacity vs leaving letting the population be without a kill fishery and obivisouly not nets.

I dunno...its an idea pulled out of left field that is probally riddled with scientific holes but its late and Im tired and that is what happens when its late, Im tired and I start thinking.

Nicely thought out and interesting posts Salmo and Todd (IMHO). BTW, after reading about the 'Zinfandel Influence' I downed a bunch of the red stuff for a second read. Now I see what you are getting at Salmo! Right on man! (jk)

Actually, these are very interesting proposals with a seeming win-win deal. But I have played armchair NBA general manager long enough to know it takes 2 sides to make a deal. Earlier this season I suggested to some buddies that the Blazers trade Rasheed Wallace and Damon Stoudamire to the Sonics for Gary Payton and Vin Baker. My thought was this would get the Blazers over the hump into the finals, while the re-building Sonics could really use a couple of talented younger inside/outside players to build around. Surely the Sonics would go along with that! Nope. It turns out Witsh!t tried that one but the Sonics aren't quite that easy. Neither are the Indians and non-Indian commercial netters! ...

But you can send Cowfish and I to negotiate a buyout of the non-Indian commercial netters license and boats if you like though. Hey Cowfish, I think we could come up with "an offer they can't refuse", eh? ... The fact is that most of them 'get off' big time on the big haul fishing that they do. It's in their special interest blood - most of them love doing it. I have talked with forthcoming netters that have revealed this. And they will hold out for very unaffordable amounts before they would give it up; they have other money to live on. I think it will still take legislation or another ballot initiative attempt to get them out anytime soon!

Also, you would have a hell of a time getting the idea of cutting the hatchery run in half past the Columbia Tribal Commission and the commercial netter lobbies! The Indians have the Feds in their pockets. And they are now demanding that hatcheries on the Columbia system stop adipose fin clipping of salmon and steelhead, along with increased production! That shows they aren't interested in saving the wild runs as much as they are interested in a cultural moral victory of taking back "their" river from us (seems that way at any rate). ... As for the commercials, they have the Mitchell Act (gov. legislation enacted to mandate a certain level of hatchery production on the Columbia River). ... I also think too many money interests such as NSIA (Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association) would lobby against such a huge move that would hurt their industry profits. And this would be the 'coup de grace' of it all - without as many hatchery fish, how much more ESA impact on wild runs do you think the Indians can get? Well, after seeing them stomp on the states by negotiating a whopping 13% ESA impact to our paltry 2% (non-Indian netters and sportfishers combined, at 1% each), I would think the sky would be the limit in such a hatchery cutback scenario! And us sporties would not be allowed to fish at all.

As for your suggestion of separating wild and hatchery fish at the ladders, I love that idea. I have posted that suggestion on a few ocassions on 3 fishing BBs. It would allow the netters to have their quota the easy way - and save the nates at the same time. But do they want it the easy way? ... As for that expensive Celilo Falls replica for dipnetting, I've posted a much less expensive suggestion along with those other posts on the 3 BBs - put up safe Indian dipnet stands right over the heavy water coming out of the fish ladders. That would allow for the Indians to have their quota the traditional heritage way, and enable releasing the nates - albeit very reluctantly. ... And as I alluded to, shoveling a bunch of brats into totes for the commercials would take away their fun of netting large amounts of fish down below the sportfishing fleet. Salmo, if you can talk either group into going for your proposals, let's get you over to Jerusalem right after that for an easier negotiated settlement to the mid-east's 54 year old crisis.

I'm being about 3/4 serious and 1/4 playing devils advocate to your good ideas here. They seem sound enough, but just aren't likely doable in the foreseeable future; at least without getting very gouged in our pocketbooks. I really hope I am wrong about it though! And I do think the chances of pulling some of this off is better with the Oly Pen and other Washington Tribes that the Columbia Tribes.

With that said, let's get after trying some of these proposals; and prove the d.a. wrong. ... How about some Tribal feedback on these solution ideas that Salmo has brought forth. Can anyone contact the Indian leaders for comments? It's a place to start; and we can start it right here.

Thanks for you efforts within Salmo.

RT

RT,

I think you may have missed the point of Salmo's idea about decreasing hatchery production on Columbia River hatcheries.

Mitchell Act, and other, concerns aside, I think this was his point:

1. The amount of hatchery fish in the river does not create the allowable ESA impact. The amount of ESA fish creates the allowable ESA impact.

2. Assume there are 100,000 non-tribal hatchery fish to be caught and that there are 2500 ESA fish to be caught as allowable impact. (There are more hatchery fish than that in the river, but that is the allowable take within ESA impact limits).

3. The tribal fishers get 50,000 fish, sportfishers get, say, 20,000 fish, and the non-tribal commercials get 30,000 fish. (I don't know the actual distribution this year, but it doesn't really change the point.)

4. The non-tribal commercials are barely making any money off of their 30,000 fish, since prices are ridiculously low. The sportfishing industry is making bank off of all the sportfishing taking place in the Lower Columbia.

5. Cut hatchery production in half. Now the tribes get 25,000 fish, non-tribal commercials get 15,000, and sporties get 10,000. The amount of ESA fish in the river, of course, is unchanged.

6. Non-tribal commercials cannot economically justify fishing, so their 15,000 go back to the sporties. Now we have 25K instead of 20K.

7. Since we have removed a non-selective fishery from the mix (non-tribal commercials) that was going to take approximately 1300 ESA fish (2.5% x 30,000 fish caught), those 1300 allowable ESA fish can be used to increase the overall take of available hatchery fish. The increase is all hatchery fish available up to 30,000.

8. Here's the final deal: Tribes catch at least as many as before because they get a chunk of the previously unavailable hatchery fish because a non-selective fishery that took ESA fish is out of the mix. Same with the sportfishermen.

9. Sportfishermen spend at least as much money, but likely more because their take will probably increase. NSIA, etc., should be ecstatic. So should we!

10. Money is saved by the hatchery programs, and may be either reallocated somewhere else where they need it, or used to increase efficiency and productivity on the same hatcheries.

That's pretty simplified, but I think that's what Salmo was trying to say. Salmo?

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Everyone take a glance at the thread about the Wild Steelhead Coalition's February meeting, get the info., and go check it out, eh?

RT & Todd,

Yep, fruit of the vine & crystal ball says that we (sport) & tribes catch MORE fish even if hatchery production is halved. Reason: non-treaty commercials retire on their buyout money - those that don't sell may just get legislated out - and the overall harvest rate on hatchery fish is limited by the allowable incidental harvest on ESA fish. Sport incidental mortality remains low under this scenario, and treay incidental mortality drops to zero (due to fish sorting at Bonneville). Harvestable number of hatchery runs will be about 80 to 90% of the hatchery run. Treaty fishermen can take everything that the sport fishery leaves, which is most of the fish, and the hatchery spawner need which is only about 10, maybe 20% of the run.

Money may not buy love, but it sure influences business decisions. The tribes would get the best of both worlds - exercising their cultural heritage of fishing and making more money from fishing, or at least catching more fish.

There are no losers, except for the loss of "psuedo" cultural heritage of non-treaty gillnetting. But they get bought out at fair market value. It's hard to call that hurt.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo -
Personally I find your basic plan on the Columbia to cut hatchery production while maintianing sport and tribal catches by eliminating the non-tribal commerical fishery to be an excellent example of thinking outside of the box. However it would be well to remember that such an approach would be flying in the face of several long standing traditions.

First the non-treay commerical fishery has a long history of successfully lobbying and maintianing their intrests in the political and public arenas. To date the sport fishing interests have only been remarkable in our inability to present a unified front in either area. Just quickly review the infighting on this board between boaters and bankies, drift boat verus sleds, bait verus no-bait etc., etc. All we seem able to agree about is "someone else is limiting my ability to fish where I want to or is catching my fish". Until the sport fishing community can put the "how do we divide the pie" arguments aside and focus on the larger issues such you are attempting to address I don't see how society as a whole will take us seriously.

The last century of fishery management has taught the lesson that a fish is fish only too well. It is just too convenient for many folks to continue to accept that myth (look at the recent Oregon coastal coho mess). It has only been very recently that enlighted managers and fishers have recognized the differences between hatchery and wild fish. Until larger segments of society recognize these differences the selling hatchery production cuts could be very tough sledding. This is doubly tough because so many people have vested interest in maintianing the status quo. Perhaps we need T. Eyman to start an initiative showing that there would be tax savings in such cuts.

Implementation of your "solution" will require not only a vision but a long range plan on how to address these and other issue. This will take patience and the willingness to build the case block by block; step by step.

My pointing out tht Wild Steelhead Release may not necessarily result in large run sizes is just an example of those small steps. I point this out not that I disagree that most runs would be more robust under such management but to make the case that WSR is not the magic bullet for large steelhead runs and better fishing that some seem to think. This just tends to deflect focus from of what I feel are larger issues. At best it will only buy us a little time to address these larger issues. The question is are we willing to use that time productively. While it is difficult to be very optimistic about success I'm willing to till windmills in the hope that it may lead to success.

Ryan -
Perhaps the simplest definition of carrying capacity is it is that population level at which escapements will not on the average produce large runs. Escapement below carrying capacity will genreally result in a larger run sizes while those above will produce smaller run sizes. Or to put in another way it is the population equilibrium point with no fishing.

It is important to note that to manage for carrying capacity there can be no fishing induced mortalities. Certainly a fishery managed under WSR would result in a population closer to (but not at) carrying capacity than it would with a high harvest rate.

How one would go about setting "optimum escapement" will depend on your objective as well as what shape the spawner recrui curve may look like (this gets a little techincal). Most steelhead managers feel that a Beverton-Holt curve most closely fits steelhead populations though the data from the Skagit looks more like the typical Ricker curve. This is important because with population that behaves like a "Ricker" the largest average runs size would result in managing for escapements significantly below the population equilibrium point while with with "Beverton-Holt" the largest run would be at the equilibrium point.

What this means for the Skagit information that has been looked at to date the is:
1) Ricker model using Bayesian decision analysis (work done by L. Reed for Washington Trout) found that MSY escapement was about 4,000; carrying capacity capacity or equilibrium would be about 9,500; maximum run size (about 11,000) would occur at escapements of about 5,500. She had recommended that the optimum escapement would be in the 8,000 to 9,000 range and that managing for escapements of 9,000 would allow for an average harvest of 13%.

2) Beverton-Holt model (tribes and WDFW) estimated that MSY escapement was about 4,500 with capacity and maximum run size at about 10,000.

One reason the two are so different is that in the past high escapements have produce small runs. For example an escapement of 11,100 produced a run size of only 6,300 adults (fish tht returned 3, 4,5, and 6 years later) and an escapement of 13,200 produced a run of 5,600. Of course all these numbers are just estimates but they are what is available.

Side note: current mangement has an escapement goal of 6,000 with a maximum harvest rate for those runs above 6,000 capped at 16% (repeat spawner rate). In practice the harvest rate over the last decade has averaged less than 10% with highest rate any one year being 14.7%.

The above is way too much so if you don't mind we'll skip the SF Sky coho example except to say that looking at species other than steelhead would provide some insights in general population dynamics but to get at the nuts and bolts of steelhead populations we need to look at steelhead case studies.

To any other readers who still might still be attempting to follow all this I apologize for a way too technical discussion.

I'm tried - so good night.
Tight Lines

Smalma

I really hope you guys are right. It sounds great. So now I will only play devils advocate with likely to inevitable obstacles to overcome.

I think the buyout and/or legislating out of the commercial netters is a realistic possibility. But as I mentioned, it will come at a very gouged price. Even without higher fish prices now, these prices will pick back up again when the ocean cycle inevitably changes downward (another El Nino is on the way), and the comm. netters know this. And your formula does not account for their joy and heritage of comm. gillnetting - it's there just as strong as it is for the Indians. With that said, I think it ought to be gone after aggressively trying to get it done. They do have a possible new anti-netting ballot initiative to face some day in the future; even though they won big with the first one (not enough people sportfish among the voting populace - and they are easy fodder for inaccurate election commercials). But it is somewhat of a mediocre card to start with. It is also countered by the comm. netting state's mandate to restrict them to tooth tangle nets, making it harder to get them off the river.

As for the Columbia Tribes actually going along with any of this; I just don't see it - despite the good intentioned proposals you've presented. Why? Many complex reasons; only some of which I can reveal publicly and not get blasted by the Tribes or some behind the scenes negotiators. Some I can. For one, the Tribes aren't likely to go for the reduction in hatchery fish guaranteed to them (because of the loss of fish numbers due to decades of dams). For another, the 2 states have now mandated the new and BC proved tooth tangle commercial nets for the non-Indian netters (as I mentioned above), so as to allow some survival of the trapped native fish in them. The states pleaded with the Columbia Tribal Commission to ditch their 'kill all nates that swin into them' gillnets in favor of these better nets. The Indians responded with a total rebuff to that proper request. And they don't have to go along with it. It goes hand in hand with their demand that Columbia system hatcheries stop fin clipping fish for identifying them from native fish! They do not want any non-Indians fishing 'their' river if they can possibly get it to that point. Killing most of the remaining native fish will undoubtedly cut sporties off the river if they get their way on the clipping issue. And since they had zeeero interest in the more selective tooth tangle nets, I would bet my GL3 flyrod they have zeeeeeeeeero interest in harder more work intensive dipnetting or hatchery ladder sorting in place of their easier unattended gillnets. Or loosing their important battle for their netting heritage! (Even if saving nates used to be a big part of that heritage, and gillnets were not). A person close to the state's negotiations (you may know who that is Salmo, via our e-mails) has said off record that he thinks the Col.Tribal.Comm. would not mind seeing all the native fish go extinct and get a multi-billion dollar payoff settlement from BPA and the Federal Government (both ultimately out of our pockets!). And in addition to that, forced increase again of hatchery runs so they can continue with their 'netting heritage' - ya right, netting out of the back of their hord of yachts. Now that's just off the record conjecture - no direct accusations. But can anyone think of why else they would advocate eliminating the adipose fin clipping of hatchery fish? And rebuffing the tooth tangle nets (other than they are a bit more work and attendant intensive). I can't think of any good these agendas would do for the native fish at all! But I can think of some of these other things that could be accomplished for them. And I have to say 'I could be wrong' and hope I am (for disclosure purposes).

Also, when the inevitable decline cycle of fish comes back in the not-to-distant future, even if the comm. netters were out of the picture, the lesser amount of overall fish, and lesser returning native fish for ESA purposes, will bring Sec. Order No. 3206 right back to the front of it all - keeping the Indians last from any fishing restrictions. And with half the hatchery plants you've proposed and declining ocean survival rates, it's highly likely that us sporties get the shaft again. And highly likely the plants go back up for the Indians (if they were to ever go along with that in the first place). That's why I have called for the letter writing campaign to review and reverse No. 3206; which flys in the face of the Federal Court decisions of Judges Belloni and Boldt in the 70's landmark cases. I still see that as the key for us. Especially for the Columbia, but also for the NW Indian netting situation. >

With all those possible scenarios, I still hope you can break down the obstacles to your proposals Salmo. I would cheer and do cartwheels with all the other sporties. ... Can you get some of your colleagues to get after the Dept. of the Interior to rid us of the wrongful 3206? We could use your help there.

Until we can get the comm. netters off the river (before the runs go back into decline and the price per pound goes back up for them), let us know how far anyone gets with the Tribal leaders/lawyers/netters concerning changing their ways. I will remain hopeful. How far we got with the Columbia Tribes is a matter of public record though (we got no where - you can access much of it via the Oregonian archives or oregonlive.com archives or the states records open to the public). I don't expect it likely at all to get the long ways with them the you propose, even in the event the comm. netters go away ...

Importantly, how far has anyone got with some of these ideas with the NW Washington tribes, where the comm. netters are not a factor? Oh. Well, we should still keep trying and remain hopeful.

Excuse me being a bit cynical about this issue - it was brought on by reality. Geeez I hope it all changes for the better somehow. I haven't seen any Native American response on the BB about these ideas yet. A few Indians are members. Others can be contacted to give their responses to these good proposals.

RT

Guys,

Rome was not built in a day. Yeah, my suggestions seem a little wild - - today. But will they looking back at today from 20 - 30 years in the future? We can do this via sharp organizations like Washington Trout and the Wild Steelhead Coalition. The pendulum will swing the other way. It always does to check and counter-check swings in social and political policy. Steadfastness. One small step; one small well placed lawsuit; maybe even one small well-heeled initiative drive.

I've been involved in fish conservation for nearly 30 years. If you had told me 20 years ago that 27 salmon and steelhead populations would be listed as ESA today, I would have thought you nuts. There have been a lot of changes, but mostly of the tweaking and twitching kind, when major overhauls are called for. Major overhauls become easier when tribes and commercials - or sports for that matter - are pushing too far. If the Columbia tribes keep pushing too hard, that is more likely to bring about a major shift. Somebody influencial is going to check the law and agree that as a nation of laws, we'll stick to that and not something else.

There may be spurts of good prices for these fish, but the long term trend will be downward. Fish are sold in a finicky market, and they will never be able to compete with the higher quality available from other vendors. I think we've only begun to see the trend in which river-caught salmon are more valuable for their roe than their flesh in the marketplace. Certain of these commercial fisheries are dinosaur industries. Like making buggy whips.

Be steadfast. Build strong coalitions about one small common-sense step at a time. The longest journey begins with a single step. We need to learn to walk. The Washington Wildlife Commission meets and votes in 3 weeks. Let's just take this one step at a time.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.

Sound advice.

This is a great thread


POS Clerk

Don't have time to post too much tonight. But with respect to the Columbia, something is missing. It seems as if everyone is failing to take into account the ocean fishery (not applicable in the spring run). A decrease in hatchery production may, in theory, improve overall sports quotas for the in-river fishery, the same can not be said for the fishery off the coast. Since the fish are not constrained geographically, sucessfull fishing is directly related to total fish available.

Good post Salmo. Lots of good first steps are available now. Joining the RFA, WSA, NSIA, or ANWS is one good step. Writing your state and federal reps to eradicate 3206 in another good step available now. Starting up another anti-commercial netting ballot initiative is another good step; done right this time.

I particularly like this quote from your post, "If the Columbia tribes keep pushing too hard, that is more likely to bring about a major shift. Somebody influencial is going to check the law and agree that as a nation of laws, we'll stick to that and not something else." ... Somebody influential can read a lot of letters about how 3206 is breaking Federal Court mandated law, and help get us back to sticking to that. I don't mind the Indians getting their 50% share at all. But let's stick to the law and get our share too.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: RT ]

All great input and a great thread. Its going to take a while to digest all the thoughts expressed here. Salmo G. The Idaho fish and game director quit today. You should come over and fill his spot.

Salmo,
I have read most of your posts over the past year with interest. You seem to be very well versed in the ways of anadromous fish and don't tend to be a knee jerk reactionary, although I got concerned regarding the knee jerk part in a recent post. Your knowledge is vast and seemingly precise, one can only deduce that you a fish biologist or something of that nature. It seems like most of the time I feel like I am ending where you are just starting. Fisheries management is a huge frustration for this Native and yet I personally lack the knowledge to effectively impact anything. I belong to organizations but they seem uneffective. I guess what I am saying is are you in a position professionally to have a positive impact on our recreational fisheries?? You probably can't answer that but I for one sure hope you are. I personally know Tim Flint, hope this isn't you Tim! And am thrilled with his new position as top dog for anadromous fish in this state. Imagine that, a fisherman as top dog! Thats the kind of leadership I am in favor of. Anyway, thanks for your input, maybe someday we could go stick a hook somewhere together.

Doc

Everyone keep the good thoughts coming. But I'm just wondering if we sportsmen just don't get it as far as the Native Americans go. When we talk about buy out of their gillnets do we understand the insult? Would we sport fishermen except a buy out from Native Americans of our liscence to cast a fly or bounce some lead for steelhead? Money is not the issue here or if it is it's secondary. Don't know if any of you know the issues in Hawaii with Native Hawaiians or not but asking the Native Americans for a buy out would be like telling a Native Hawaiian that we the tourist board of Hawaii will give you money to stay off the Pacific Ocean because the tourist want to use more of it for tourist purposes. Native Americans want to be on their river just as we sportsmen want to be on the river. Native Americans fish with gillnets as we fish with grafite rods. Native Americans used to fish with traps and dip nets we sportsmen used to fish with cane poles. Why would a Native American want to go back to a dip net when they can use something that catches more fish. We sportsmen say because it's destroying our chances of catching fish, the state and indisn biologists say they can catch this many without hurting the run. Why as a Native American would you care what a sportsman wants? The sportsman here is sort of like the tourist is in Hawaii always *****ing wanting to change the local ways.
I guess what my rambling is about here is that we will never be sucsessful changing Native American ways if we think only about our sportsmens wants and needs.

Smalma-
Thanks for the claification.