Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1058446 - 12/21/21 09:03 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: Tug 3]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Tug 3
And now those of us who love the fish, and volunteered at every level, complied with the regulations whether they made sense or not, are left with what? The history of weakening steelhead runs goes back more than ten years!


+1

Originally Posted By: Tug 3

Simple questions like "What is the carrying capacity of this watershed"
are never addressed. An entire ecosystem is damaged when fish runs decline or disappear.


Similar to my comments re: habitat above, "carrying capacity" only means what someone wants it to mean...

Current carrying capacity? If we include the ocean, Puget Sound, estuary, and the river...well, we're at it, always. Holistically it is literally exactly how many fish we have at this moment.

Carrying capacity in 1855? I'd wager it was a bit higher wink

Carrying capacity if we did X, Y, or Z, or some or all of them?

Plant 10 billion trees in the watershed, but don't fix the dike-straightened last 5 miles of river before it blasts into the saltwater with no estuary to speak of? I doubt we added much CC with all of those trees.

Go out to the coast, where we have "pristine" habitat...but cold, clear rivers with zero nutrients without a mountain of dead salmon carcasses littering the bottom? There's nothing pristine about that habitat. That habitat sucks for raising fish.

I spent a lot of time throwing hatchery coho off of bridges on small tributaries up on the Skagit, and while it certainly didn't hurt, looking down and seeing a few hundred fish in the river sure didn't look like the tens of thousands littering the bottom and bank when I was a kid.

I agree with Jim, in that we failed to do the right thing a LONG time ago, and we are now reaping the rewards of that failure.

The problem is that anyone who has a "simple" solution is almost always 100% wrong.

"Remember in 1977 when we had so many fish? We should just do what we were doing then!"

Well...what we were doing then is why we are where we are now.

If we want historical levels of fish runs, I think we all know what to do...move 90% of the population somewhere else, remove all of their houses, most of the roads, take out all of the fishing, from Japan to Alaska through BC to here, in Puget Sound and all of the rivers, and wait for the forests to grow back and the fish to grow back.

Outside of doing that, it's going to be all techno-fixes, and we have a long long long history of failing at those.

Other option is that we have almost no fish, and no fishing at all. That sure as hell doesn't satisfy me, or anyone else, I think.

If we want steelhead, we need salmon, lots of them, and lots of spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead young.

If we want salmon, they need forage fish to eat.

If we want salmon, we need to have a lot more than half of them get past the SEAK/WCVI fisheries, commercial, guided, and recreational.

If we want salmon, we need much larger pieces of healthy rivers full of spawning and rearing habitat than we have now.

We need cleaner water, more trees along and in the rivers, and healthy and productive side channels, beaver ponds, and unpolluted functioning estuaries.

Every one of those things are essential, doing all of them but one...any one...and it won't work.

Our society will continue to attempt to "save" salmon by doing exactly zero of those things, and we will get the salmon...and steelhead...runs that you would expect.

My optimism level is not very high.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#1058447 - 12/21/21 09:30 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Salmo g. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Amen! Good summary Todd.

Top
#1058448 - 12/21/21 10:02 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Here is a link to some of the Keogh river steelhead studies

https://www.keoghriver.net/marine-survival-time-series.


I think figure 11 supports some of what Tood is saying. I would expand a bit on Todds point, with most of our stocks that are in trouble there are critical production bottle necks that are limit the populations. The fastest track to stock improvements is addressing those bottlenecks.

Curt

Top
#1058449 - 12/21/21 10:12 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
On The Swing Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/03
Posts: 783
So I guess it would be allowed to say that poaching is still an issue out on the OP all because a warden out there in the 70s or 80s didn't do their job.
_________________________
Fish gills are like diesel engines, don't run them out of fuel!

Top
#1058450 - 12/21/21 10:26 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
It was the late Jeff Cederholm said "Salmon are habitat"

Top
#1058452 - 12/21/21 03:38 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: Smalma]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Smalma
Here is a link to some of the Keogh river steelhead studies

https://www.keoghriver.net/marine-survival-time-series.


I think figure 11 supports some of what Tood is saying. I would expand a bit on Todds point, with most of our stocks that are in trouble there are critical production bottle necks that are limit the populations. The fastest track to stock improvements is addressing those bottlenecks.

Curt


I agree with your statement about bottlenecks...but I would say that entails taking the entire mountainous list of factors that limit steelhead runs, rank them in order from #1 the worst to #1,000,000 the least worst, and get to work. As soon as #1 is done, then #2 will now be your bottleneck, and so forth.

As a society our plan is to start with # 987,321, and do it halfass, and then blame it on someone else.

If our inner Puget Sound bottleneck is getting fish from rivers to the ocean without dying, then adding a million fish to the river...hatchery fish or wild fish...doesn't even remotely address the bottleneck. They all die, too, just as fast as the ones getting out of rivers into Puget Sound are right now.

That's why that simple "plant more fish" plan isn't just simple, it's simple-minded. It would be more cost-effective to just take the money to the nearest bridge and throw it in the water and then go fishing...at least it will be a quicker way to throw away all of our money for zero results.

For Hood Canal steelhead, it's become abundantly clear over the last decade what their bottleneck is...it's the Hood Canal Bridge.

I haven't heard anyone talk about removing it.

For the Elwha it was clearly the dams...and they have been removed, and salmon and steelhead head are on the rise in there, dramatically even, considering how short of a time they have had access to the river.

For Puget Sound, it's 3,000,000 people, and everything that comes with them.

A feel good culvert project that costs $5,000,000 is sure great, probably results in a couple hundred more smolts reaching Puget Sound, all of which die just like the rest of them...because that culvert was number 987,654 on the list of 1,000,000 things bottlenecking PS steelhead.

There is no will, and there is no money, to address what is right now causing the end of steelhead runs, and steelhead fishing, in Washington State.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#1058453 - 12/21/21 04:41 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
fishbreath Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 270
Loc: Bellingham,WA
Good example of throwing money away with "plant more fish" and getting zero results is the Nooksack River. There is a complete closure on the river, (tribal and sport), for Steelhead fishing. Of a plant of 89,000 fish they are forecasting 74 returning fish this year of which they need 160 just to meet broodstock goals.

Top
#1058456 - 12/22/21 08:02 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
While I was working, WDFW did a review of hatchery programs and calculated the rearing cost to put a fish in the creel. Some were over $100 a fish. The Commission should set a standard, and hold them to it, that no program can cost more than (pick a number, say$.50 each) to put a fish from that program in the creel.

Any sort of accounting like this, though, would push production to the release of very young fish. Pink and chum would be the most cost-effective while yearling steelhead, coho, chinook, and large trout the most costly. Bit I think there should be a public, transparent accounting.

Another option would be something like the westside pheasant card where the user bears most of the cost. In this idea, there might be separate "cards" for steelhead, coho, chinook with the buyer bearing the cost of raising that species. This might move WDFW away from raising fish for AK, BC, Tribes, and nets. The Tribal "share" could be paid out of the General Fund, as the whole state benefitted from the swap of land for fish.

Top
#1058457 - 12/22/21 09:05 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Whether a $100/fish is worth the cost would depend on the economic value that such a fish would generate in various fisheries.

Just one example during the summer of 2020 WDFW in their mark selective monitoring estimated that during the summer Chinook fishery in MA 9 there was 45,376 angler days of effort harvesting 3,786 Chinook. The anglers were spending nearly 12 days on the water to harvest a fish. Even at the minimal value of $50 expenditure/day that $100 production cost of a Chinook would be an economic win; enough so to even help support other fisheries.

I would suggest that a better metric for the commission to consider would be whether the cost of production to produce a fish to the creel will generate a positive Cost to Benefit ratio. In my example above it would seem that even at $100/Chinook in the creel is a clear winner. Remember by Commision policy in Puget Sound non-treaty harvest of Chinook has been given a priority to recreational fisheries.

Curt

Top
#1058458 - 12/22/21 09:18 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
While that makes sense, Smalma, there is a problem I see in using the overall economic benefit as a driver. Your example of the MA9 fishery shows it to be extremely beneficial economically while biologically it remains a marine mixed stock fishery with all those ills. Same as with the ocean fishery. They obviously are economically more valuable but biologically more damaging.

Top
#1058459 - 12/22/21 11:30 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
Is anyone happy spending 12 days to harvest a fish?

So many factors, but doing a return on investment should be required for any project.

In the south sound, predator control would probably be the cheapest and first step. Let the tribes take control and simply reduce the number of seals. Give then a hundred bucks a seal and I bet you there would be a line out the door of tribal members wanting to take part. Make them try to utilize the carcass and its a win-win for everyone.
Predator control at the hood canal bridge could also help.
There are hundreds of ways that could help and are a lot cheaper, but no one seems to want to do them.

https://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org/2020...rom-hood-canal/

Top
#1058460 - 12/22/21 12:28 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
Planting inflation??????

LOL

Go Joe Go!!!

Top
#1058467 - 12/23/21 09:36 AM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
Tug 3 Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 03/06/14
Posts: 260
Loc: Tumwater

Remember the old axiom: "Beware of those who know the cost of everything, but know the value of nothing".

Ask me how much I would value a productive steelhead fishing season again on the O.P. if the science and funding were even available.

Twenty years ago a guy on the Steelhead Committee with me remarked that "Forks could be the next Livingston, Montana". Something to think about, but of course it didn't happen. Tragic.

Top
#1058469 - 12/23/21 12:14 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
Believing in wild steelhead recovery at this point is like believing in Santa.

Plant fish WDFW elves.

Top
#1058470 - 12/23/21 02:27 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
If wild and hatchery steelhead are not surviving after smolting just how in the world does planting more fish accomplish anything?

Top
#1058471 - 12/23/21 02:46 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: Carcassman]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
If wild and hatchery steelhead are not surviving after smolting just how in the world does planting more fish accomplish anything?


You don't believe in Christmas magic?

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#1058472 - 12/23/21 03:06 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Christmas Magic is more real than steelhead recovery.

Top
#1058473 - 12/23/21 04:48 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: Carcassman]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Christmas Magic is more real than steelhead recovery.


Ouch. So sad, but so true.

You know, the concept of angling with hookless lures that sounded so silly to me a couple years ago sounds like frigging heaven right about now....

Top
#1058474 - 12/23/21 05:36 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
steely slammer Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 02/24/00
Posts: 1526
ok just for the hell of it...

how do u know the the low hatchery returns are mainly caused by the ocean conditions and not low plants??? maybe there not planting the numbers they say!!

GO
_________________________
Where Destroying Fishing in Washington..

mainly region 6

Top
#1058475 - 12/23/21 06:50 PM Re: chehalis river - any state wildlife agents here [Re: larryb]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
So your idea is that survival increases as numbers planted increases? Somewhere on one of the threads here was the numbers from the Nooksack. Planted number and forecasted return. Damn close to 0 percent survival expected.

That said, back about a decade ago I was at a steelhead conference and it seemed that the "best" programs, with what appeared to be the highest survivals/returns, were for the programs that released a couple hundred thousand or more. My thought was that the smaller the program the fewer the spawners so the greater chance of poor genetics.

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
3 registered (Carcassman, Salmo g., 1 invisible), 1070 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645299 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |