Hi, all...

Not having the time, nor the inclination, to write comments on all the issues brought up on this thread, I'll throw one more in the pot...

I believe that the Feb. 28, rather than Mar. 15, closure also takes into consideration that all the other area rivers close on the 28th, creating the potential for a two week high intensity fishery on the Green. A high intensity fishery over an under-escaped population.

Yeah, I know, the Sauk and Skagit are still open...and are now the only open PS rivers (or will be next week). I suspect that there are a few differences, starting with the forecast that they will be above escapement (though not by much), and that there is just a whole lot of river to fish up there.

Fish on...

Todd.

Double Haul,

Good point and good question!

Todd,

Absolutely, you're correct about that! -That goes back to my earlier post thoughts on the subject of fishing pressure in the urban/suburban proximities. The Sauk is far a way enough to warrant it's C&R season even though the projection for wild returns is just barely within the estimated goal/limits....(A good number though, thanks in part to it's remoteness and ruralness) Also, there is less likelyhood on a river like the Sauk for there to be people fishing it when they get off work on the weekdays -atleast in an any measurable number..... The Green is very easy to fish in the spring after work for many folk, not to mention the close proximity it has to many peoples homes..... Hey, and why make the trek two hours in early March when it tkes you 5-30min to spend time on the Green -a lot easier decision for many fishermen.
Good Fishing, Darin

Inland,

Thanks for the appreciation; I'm happy to share any useful information.

Wow, and there's even less steelhead fishing opportunity in the Rockies!

You answered your own question in your example. The steelhead run of 1,000 fish is reduced by 5 spawners. Other hypotheses are just as applicable. On a river such as the Green, the harvest rate on native steelhead is very likely to be greater than 10%, for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread. It's close to the metro population center. Much of the good fishing water is very accessible. And anglers can stop by before or after work, so it's not just a major weekend fishing trip. Overall fishing effort is high. The overall catch is likely to be correspondingly high. And the incidental mortality, whether it be 2%, 5%, or 10%, reduces the spawning escapement by that number, whether we're fishing flies only, single barbless artificial lures, and so on. If the run is already less than the escapement goal (which is the MSH goal, which many, if not most, on this BB believe is way too low), then the population cannot possibly benefit from even this slight further reduction.

Your one last thought is very worthy of consideration in my view, perhaps even to the point of extenuating circumstance. It ain't supposed to be so, but in my observation of, and discussions with WDFW agents, closed waters are not patrolled much. Even a CNR season on wild steelhead seems to get a lot more patrol effort than a closed river at its peak with wild steelhead. I do think that CNR seasons, with their incidental mortality, might offset, at least partially, the direct mortality of poaching on an otherwise closed river. It's impossible to know, as it's an indirect relationship, but CNR seasons do put a lot of caring eyes on a river. For example, I've seen a lot of anglers on the Sauk in one day, apparently no one poaching - but some do use bait, in violation of the artificial lure reg, and a few miles away, on the Stilly, a couple poachers were bonking their second native steelhead from one pool. They got caught, but that's the exception; not the rule.

So I'm sympathetic to the notion that a legal fishery on a depressed run can offer a significant degree of protection that otherwise seems unavailable. The debate, however, is that WDFW has to draw a line somewhere. At what point do you discontinue the recreational fishing mortality on a depressed steelhead population? Under the wild salmonid policy, they have set it at 80% of the spawning escapement goal. You could suggest choosing another number, and it wouldn't necessarily be a better or worse number. But I think you have to stop fishing at some point. What would you choose?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G,

Thanks for you professional input here. Very good and worthy information. Maybe there is some way of gathering data and statisics on a single case river regarding the difference between poaching mortality and strict C&R regs?.... Just with an isolated or single sample the WDFW might want to patrol heavily for a few years on a closed stream particular body of water that has already proven itself to be a "poachers dream". Then, they could cross-reference and compare these findings with known or estimated mortality rates from other rivers/streams that have C&R. In fact, they may even be able to gather this data from the same body of water if it's one of the streams that the WDFW manages in some years as a C&R wild steelhead and others as "closed waters"? -Just an idea....They probably wouldn't have the funding or time to do a sample test like this.....It may be better performed on a smaller good steelhead stream that poachers have frequented or be known to have fished in the past. -A ton easier to patrol I'm sure....
Good Fishing, Darin

Salmo,

Yes, steelhead are far and few between in my neck of the woods. And with this year's snow pack they will be in even shorter supply!

Which would I choose? In light of the recent returns to the Puget Sound rivers I would have to choose the conservative route of closure to attempt to hold on to every possible spawner. Hopefully things for the sound take a turn for the better and follow the trend found on the Oregon coast where runs are rebuilding quite well. When that happens I also hope the division takes the same conservative approach by considerably raising the escapement figures that should allow a larger buffer for the next population recession.

William

Am sad to see the Green closed, it is what I'd concider my home waters. I do hate to see it closed but would rather they close it with low returns and all the other rivers closed to see this river over run with people displaced from the closures through out the puget sound. The only problem I have is the many years of harvest of nats on this river that was allowed up until last year through Feb. Does not seem to make sence to allow that kind of harvest. Two a day with no down sized yearly limits and then to come back and say oh sorry we have over fished it and are not going to see the nat returns taditional to this river Oh well I'll get off my soap box and take one more float down it just to last me until June.

Tight lines

Kevin

so jacob have they allowed a netting fishery for the native steelhead on the lower duwamish river..? have you personally seen the nets?

I've heard some comments that the others rivers closing will push the fishing to the Green. I also just read someone saying the Wynoochee is now overfished with hundreds of people fishing it and no where near the fish to support it. This is bound to spread to the other rivers that are still open including the O.P. So, how many would support shutting down all the rivers in the state including the O.P.? I realize this is an overkill but I''m just curious on your response. PS - I am still pissed about the Green closing, I didn't get much fishing time this year and was really looking forward to a few more days on the green during the next couple of weeks.