ltlcleo-
You have hit the nail squarely on its head. We do need something to govern our fisheries. My guidelines were a suggestion of what that "something" might look like.

The trick is to be able to articulate clearly what we want the populations to look like given the biological limitations of the system. Once that is decided then we need "rules" by which to make choices. Science, even when flawed, is the best we have to base those "rules" upon. The only other option is to rely on the self serving desires of the most vocal user group. I would submit that our wild steelhead resource is to important for that.

Tight lines
Smalma

Ok, I will try to make this as short as possible. Ol' Ronnie "I always yell like an idiot" Kovach is fishing sturg on the L. Columbia in the background.

I guess my biggest problem with your philosophy is that it's foundation is based on flawed science that has proven itself bogus time and again. The numbers I have seen stating maximum capacity on several W. Washington streams are absurd. I can't recall exacts right off hand, but an example was the entire skagit system could only support 16,000 steelhead returning, max. Whatever......and I will find the numbers if you need me too.

My philosophy is, extra wild fish are not "wasted" oppurtunity. We need to realize that some things in this world need not come down to the almighty dollar. Let mother nature determine a max carrying load, and once it happens let her and only her determine how to deal with the extra. And if a stream ever really gets back to its actual maximum carrying capacity(yeah, right), I am perfectly content to live with the thought that some wild fish will die without spawning because there isn't enough spawning water for all of them. This would not be a waste of fish, gentlemen.

In a perfect world, state and federal funding would be sufficient enough to fund all the research, tracking, studies, etc. necessary to form an actual, well informed scientific analysis of each and every stream capable of supporting salmonid life. Then and only then would your proposal carry some interesting potential. This will never happen. And even if it did you would still have to deal with the political forces that be that can't ever keep their paws out of the cookie jar.

What we need to deal with is only the cards we have been dealt. Not a bunch of conclusions formed on incomplete data, trying to find a conclusion to a problem for which you don't have the entire question.

Here is what I would propose;

First of all, come to the realization that there needs to be a balance found between wild fish, and hatchery fish. If we are going to still have fishing through this long process of healthy wild population recovery, people will need to realize that it can't happen without hatchery supplementation.
Do a fairly simple analysis of every stream with a fishable, or recoverable population of fish. Determine what streams stand a fairly decent chance of recovering a wild only fish population. Keep in mind when making the final decisions that there will need to be a certain number of streams that are "sacrificed", if you will, to being hatchery fish rivers. Watersheds that have bared the brunt of sustantial damage do to logging, dams, diking, etc. would be set aside as 'hatchery' rivers (the Cowlitz comes to mind). Some rivers may be deemed to be recoverable even if that means removing dams, or spending a substantial amount of money reversing ecological damage (Elwha, and so be it).

The rivers that are designated as the 'hatchery' rivers, are managed as such, with little to no attention payed to wild fish recovery. If you try to recover the wild fish in a river that you are supplementing with hatchery fish, you look like a dog chasing your tail. Smolts competing for food, adults cross spawning, all the issues we already know about. So.....don't do it. Hatchery streams hatchery, wild streams wild. Rebuild to hatcheries(or build new ones) on these streams to be state of the art, using all the knowledge we actually have. And what the hell, build them big. There will be some staying of hatchery fish to some other river, and some wild fish may stray into a hatchery river, but the world isn't perfect, and the effects would be minimal, if any.

Dinner bell's ringin', more to come.............

Mr Dolly Varden,
This WA angler preference survey that you refer to, How many were returned to the state ? Who were they sent to ? How many of these fisherman were actually steelheaders ? Or were they just the occasional fishermen asked if they should get to kill a fish without knowing all the facts ? I never recieved one and I return my punch cards. I can honestly say that I do not know of any one who has recieved a survey . I know a lot of steelheaders and it is no where near 78.1% in favor of wild steelhead kill.

If it is one of the few things we as sportsmen can do to help protect wild fish , why would we be in favor ( 78.1% ? ) of killing them.

The Oly Pen river (3 rivers and the Hoh) have been managed for a kill fishery on wild fish for quite some time. At the State meeting in February in Olympia , wild steelhead release was voted down in the Forks area rivers. The state said no reason to protect them, plenty of fish. Nothing to worry about.

Have you or anyone you know been fishing over there lately ? I have, and the fishing and the reports have been very slow at best . This is primetime . Where are all these great runs of steelhead the state says that we do not need to protect ? Just ask Tom M. The state fish checker over there in Forks , he will tell you how slow things are.

You say that the salmon in the Snohomish system are managed for wild protection ? How come we get to bonk all those wild coho ? Why is it not a fin clipped fishery only ? There are plenty of hatchery marked coho to kill.Why kill the wild ones?

There are a few things that I as an individual steelheader can do to help protect the wild runs and I do the best I can. Collectively as steelheaders there are tons of things we can do to help the wild runs.

Sometimes the desires of the most vocal self serving user groups (WSC) should be heard and acted upon.

WSR may not be a management tool, but can you honestly tell me what good comes out of hitting a wild steelhead over the head ?

BTW I really like your steelhead hatchery program guidelines. Especially # 5.

You seem to watch this board closely. I feel that this board consists of some of the best steelhead and salmon fishermen in the state. There is a lot to be learned from them. This group, I believe represent much more than a random sent out survey ever would. This group is well worth listening to.

Backlash2 -
Your idea of managing some rivers exclusively for hatchery fish and others for wild is certainly a valid way of approaching some of the issues that we have been discussing. Clearly it would present some different fishing opportunties and folks need to be aware of what the realistic conditions might been. With that said if folks wish to buying into such a system I would not have major heartburn.

In taking about realistic expectations of maximum carrying capacity you mentioned the Skagit river as an examole. Very interesting and insightful case. Over the last 20 years the Skagit has had escapements of wild steelhead of 10,000 or more fish for 4 times. In every case the resulting returns fo the adults produced by those larger escapements was less than the parent run and if fact each return was less than 8,000 fish. That would seem to argue that the average capacity of the Skagit is less than 10,000 fish, probably between 8 and 9,000. Does that mean I believe escapement over 10,000 are wasted? I say NO!! I never proposed that having more fish is wasted but rather that we need to attempt to hold fishing impacts to level so that wild escapements would remain above MSH and below the capacity.

The maximum capacity on system such as the Skagit would be achieved only when both freshwater and marine survivals were well above average. Likely a very infrequent event. How would you manage we conditions were less than ideal?

To find the potential maximum carrying capacity are you proposing no fishing so that we can see that large runs possible? My read from most folks is that they wish to continue to fish (even a Catch and release fishery results in mortality so the maximum can't be reached).

I would be interested in what you would consider acceptable imapcts from a fisheries?

Reiter Rat-
The preference survey is the same one that the WSC and others cited so frequently in the arguement for WSR. It was the result of a phone survey, the survey experts say the sample size and returns were more than enough to be a statistically valid. I'm accepting their word as I don't have the time or interest to check that.

It is heartbreaking if indeed the OP returns this year are as poor as you and others are saying. Let's hope they are late. That said it does point out the need to have guidelines in place so that when poor conditions occur we have a framework to make decisions.

I didn't say that the Snohomish salmon are managed for wild salmon protection but rather for wild salmon production with exploitation rate guidelines similar to those proposed at the start of this post.

AS far as kill some wild coho in the Snohomish. I personally have no problems with selective fisheries but if folks wish to kill some wild fish where better to do that where have large runs. The traditional (MSH?) escapement goal for Snohomish coho has been 70,000 fish. This makes it one of the largest populations in Washington. The 2001 escapement of wild coho was 262,000 fish.

Are there any conditions where you would feel comfortable allowing that the taking of wild coho?

I have no doubt that those on this board represent some of the best salmon and steelhead fisherman in the state and that you all are much better fishers than I. And I sure that there is great passion for wild steelhead. My proposals were designed to cause folks to think and learn so that your collective understanding of management issues would as good as your angling skills. Hopeful then your passion and zeal can be effectively directed.

Ltlcleo -
The proposed guidelines were an attempt to move from past management, hopefully learning from past failures. It represents an attempt to manage for wild escapements well above MSH. Attempted to place the wild fish needs first and foremost; that was what summer bait bans etc were all about.

What does a functional fishery mean?

Guys - thanks for your interest and obivous concern.

Tight lines
Smalma

Were these declines incosistent with other declines in out Puget Sound river systems?? To say that these declines were due to an escapement that excedes carrying capacity is ludicrous...unless other rivers in Puget Sound did not experience the same declines. And also were there any other cicumstances that could have effected escapement other then "too many fish spawning"????

Secondly, what if it was 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5??...its been too long since statistics to do the math in my head but wouldn't that not be a significant enough of a differance to make a far reaaching biological decision on??

I can undestand 10 out 10 or 19 out of 20 as I believe there would be a significant differance...but 4 out of 4????

When you say that we must manage for a return between MSH numbers and carry capacity...how about we manage for a return that is over MSH and let Mother Nature take care of a population that is exceding carry capacity, which She has done for millions of years.

If that means closing down even C&R when the hooking mortality of fishery would push the escapement below MSH, then so be it.

We must put the fish first, the sport that we love is a privelage and is not a right. We gave up that right when we tore down the forests, damed the rivers, polluted the waters, overfished them, created this animal that is global warming that is screwing with ocean survival (PDO aside) etc. etc. etc.

Thanks!!

Smalma you ever feel like a punching bag? I am sorry you saw last nights post in that context.It came upon hearing that there might be a closure of some sort on the Quillayute system due to low native returns opposite of the states scientitic predictions.Frustrated.

My post did jump out of context especialy after a pat on the back!

I guess a functional fishery is one that is stable.A fishery that does not have red flags popping up all the time or is near death or going up and dow like a roller coaster.

I have to agree with sparky on escapments above msh.

I also agree that my WANT to fish is not a NEED.I will put down my pole right now to preserve a fishery for the generations to come!That is what I see needs to be done with my homeport rivers to bring smolt survival up!There are no trout to be caught but it is open catch and release withno bait restrictions.So we are alowed to c/r fish salmon and steelhead smolt with bait?STUPID!!

I need to stop now my wife says my eyes have turned black

Thanks for the great thread smalma

Smalma-
Curious if you had a response...

Thanks!!

I do not understand how science can figure out the carrying capacity of a river?How does somebody turn something as complicated as that into a number?This is I believe the weakest and most manipulated step of the msy.You can count returning fish.You can count spawning fish too some extent.You can presume to count and track smolt.Those are numbers straight simple.But how do you turn 40 miles of watershed into a number to work against?

Is this not the number that the rest of the data works against?

Smalma,
I have been thinking about a functional river and what is it?I first get a picture of me on my favorite river and that is it. No nets no nothing else just me and mother nature.That is a functional river.Seriosly they functioned only before our intervention.

So that brings me to the relisation that there are no functional rivers in the state of washington.Our rivers canot Be functional with the ever growing impact of man.This will give me something new to think about this next week up in the woods.

Ryan & ltlCLEO -
Thought folks might have gotten tired of this thread but if you are still interested here is my best shot at your quetions. Some may wish to skip the next 2 paragraphs; doing so would not hurt my feelings, its pretty dry. Salmo G. has done a better job.

Regarding carrying capacity -
Yes, it does seem like Vodoo magic. Values like carrying capacity and the associated MSH point are typcially developed from what folks in the fisheries management field call stock/recruitment (S/R) curves. These typically are based on a time series of information (hopefully over several decades) that includes estimates of the number of spawners and the resulting production (could be smolts, adults etc). These relationships would be valid for the average conditions of the time series. For steelhead management in Washington those curves use number of adult wild spawners and the number of returning wild adults (catch and escapement).

What has been noted is that the relationship between escapement and resulting runs sizes is not linear - in other words doubling the escapement does not mean the resulting run size would double. The reason is that more and more of the habitat is taken the additional fish begin using less adn less productive niches until adding fish over capacity yields no increase in run size. Typically the S/R curves are one of two types (Ricker or Beverton-Holt) and it is fairly straight forward fit the data points to which ever curve appears to best discribe the population. Once the curve is available carrying capacity would be that point where an escapement produces run size equal to itself.

And yes you are correct ltlCLEO that all the above is limited by the quality of the data that goes into it.

A more common sense way to look at carrying capacity is to see how various escapements perform. Escapements above carrying capacity will on the average produce smaller runs, those well below capacity will on the average produce larger runs and those around carrying capacity would produce runs of about the same size.

Lets return to the Skagit example - as mentioned all the escapements above 10,000 have produced smaller runs, all those below 6,000 have produced larger runs and those in the middle have been a mixed bag. This would imply that Skagit capacity would be somewhere between 6 and 10,000. The S/R curves indicates it would be around 8 to 9,000.

Ryan -
Of course having more information from larger escapements would be desirable. If there are only 4 large escapements over 20 years it clearly may take quite sometime to get another 16 points. Since we would need average or better conditions it would likely take 30 to 50 years. The question becomes what to do until then? I think you and I agree the answer is to manage conservatively. I believe the discussion guidelines I proposed did that.

Having fixed low exploitation rates for those runs above MSH does pretty much what you were proposing. With decent survival conditions escapements would be above the MSH point and if runs were larger most would be allowed to spawn thus allowing Mother Nature to care for the population. For example if the run was twice the MSH point and we allowed 20% exploitation then the escapement would be 160% of MSH.

ltlCLEO- Rivers that are functional form a fish's need is a tough one to get ones hands on. For me it a question of allowing rivers to do what rivers should. Historically our rivers have been very dynamic with channal changes, log jams coming and going, etc. Each river has its own characteristics and each with its own mix of fish. Altering flows, constraining banks, etc aren't part of the natural processes.

Prehaps it is important to note that a "non-functional river" with a substanial hatchery program can produce some good fishing and perhaps even better fishing than a functioning river; the Cowlitz comes to mind. The flip side of course is that for some the quality of the fishing is more important that the quantity. It is more important to me to be able to wade a river that is "alive" with a diverse fish resource than to consistently catch fish elsewhere.

Tight lines
Smalma

Thanks for the info Smalama!!!!!

BTW-
I, atleast, never get tired of these discussions!!!