Here's the Tribune's coverage of the WDFW hearings in Pt. Townsend last week.

Major congratulations to the participants in the PSA Crab Allocation Protest.

I'll make my other comment after the article...

Steelhead, crab dominate hearing
JEFFREY P. MAYOR; The News Tribune

The steelheaders want an end to catching and keeping the state's wild steelhead.

The crabbers want an increase in the recreational crabbing allocation.


The boaters - guides and private owners alike - want to kill a proposed prohibition of powerboats on stretches of the Wynoochee and Satsop rivers.


Those were the common themes as dozens of people testified to the State Fish and Wildlife Commission on Saturday in Port Townsend. The commission was hearing comments on the proposed fishing regulation changes for the 2004-2005 season.


Saturday was the last day to submit oral or written comments on the proposals. The commission is scheduled to vote on the final recommendations at its meeting in February.


The most visible group was made up of the crabbers, who stood outside the USO Hall meeting site, waving signs reading, "We crab, we fish, we vote."


Gary Hulsey, president of the East Jefferson Chapter of Puget Sound Anglers and one of the organizers, said recreational crabbers want their share of the record bounty in the Sound.


A 1997 court decision mandates the crab harvest be split 50-50 between the state and Washington's tribes. The issue for the crabbers is the allocation of the state's 50 percent take, Hulsey said.


"Right now, we're going through record crab numbers, and the sport season in the last two years has dwindled from months to weeks," Hulsey said.


"After you take out the state commercial crabbers and the tribes, we get 15.4 percent of the harvest," the Port Townsend resident said.


Doug Williams of the Department of Fish and Wildlife said the state has traditionally split its portion of the Puget Sound harvest at 65 percent for commercial crabbers and 35 percent for recreational crabbing.


"It's just a question of increased pressure on a finite resource," Williams said.


Before the meeting and before the commission, Hulsey said the estimated 150,000 recreational crabbers on the Sound far outnumber the 250 commercial crabbers. He also said the value of the recreational industry is valued at $50 million, outpacing the $6.3 million value of the state's commercial harvest.


"We feel recreational crabbing is a subsistence crabbing, and a Washington State heritage, and that should be the priority," Hulsey said.


The protest was informational and not related to a specific proposal. The crab harvest quotas are not set in the fishing regulations.


"The split in the non-treaty allocation isn't written in stone anywhere; it's essentially the historical split between commercial and recreational fleets," Williams said.


"Up until recently, the split provided for a full-season recreational fishery. It's only been the past few years where sport crabbers had their seasons closed early because they had reached their quota or had gone over. Those early closures have come because of increased participation in the recreational fleet and increased harvest rates," he said.


Release all wild steelhead


For steelhead anglers, the issue was a regulation not among the 104 the state is considering - a statewide rule requiring all wild steelhead to be released.


"We can only be described as outraged that this item was not put on this list," said Bill Redmond of the Federation of Fly Fishers' steelhead committee.


"The harvest of wild steelhead is still supported by this department on 16 rivers," said Jack Berryman, president of the Wild Steelhead Coalition. "How can you kill the wild steelhead seeds and expect the species to survive?"


As part of his testimony, Berryman gave each commissioner a copy of "King of Fish: The Thousand Year Run of Salmon," written by David R. Montgomery, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Washington.


Another member of the coalition, Nate Mantua said the state's policies should make ecosystem management the priority, echoing the views of Montgomery in his book.


"Management philosophies and principles are geared toward harvest," Mantua said. "Everything in the system is important."


Jeff Koenings, director of the department, said he certainly understands the fervor to protect steelhead.


"It's one of the icons of the Pacific Northwest. It's like the orca," he said. "It's almost like a religion. There's a real interest in keeping steelheading going."


Koenings doesn't agree, however, with the call to eliminate the harvesting of all wild steelhead.


"Our position is where you have healthy runs, you should have the opportunity to catch and keep a wild steelhead," the director said.


"It's not a case of one size fits all in terms of regulations," Koenings said.


Powerboat prohibition


The proposal that drew the most comments was the one to make it illegal to fish from a boat with a motor on the Wynoochee River above the city of Aberdeen's water intake dam and on the Satsop River and Middle Fork Satsop above the confluence of the East and West forks.


Albert Carter, a Grays Harbor County commissioner, said that group has gone on record opposing the closure.


"This will have a financial impact on not only guides but the county itself," Carter said. "This seems to be an issue between user groups."


Jeffrey P. Mayor 253-597-8640


jeff.mayor@mail.tribnet.com


Also on the table


Among the 104 rule changes being considered by the commission are:


• Keeping salmon and steelhead anglers from taking their catch out of the water if anglers are required to release the fish.


• A ban on the use of treble hooks in Marine Areas 1-13.


• Extending the closed area for catch-and-release fishing on over-sized sturgeon in the Columbia River, and requiring tags for sturgeon.


What's next


• Now until January: Department of Fish and Wildlife staff will review the oral and written comments and consider changes in the proposed rule changes for the 2004-2005 fishing season.


• Feb. 6-7: The commission will vote on the proposed rules at its meeting in Olympia.


• May 1: New rules will take effect.


(Published 12:01AM, December 11th, 2003)


Back to my comments...I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Koening's comment regarding having kill fisheries over healthy populations, but I think that his comment further begs the ultimate question, which is "Do we have truly healthy populations of wild steelhead".

All of the regression models show that not only do we not have really healthy populations, even on the OP, but that they also have been steadily declining when looked at as a whole, rather than trying to look at a few years of good runs as a successful management result.

While I don't expect a different comment from someone who wants to kill wild steelhead, or from someone who chooses not to, but doesn't want to be told not to, but to hear it from the Director, who is himself a PhD and has been in the field for a long time, is both discouraging and encouraging.

Discouraging because I expect a better recognition of prevailing science, and encouraging because there are still roads out there to walk, and folks who believe in WSR are willing to keep on walkin'.

Fish on...

Todd.

I agree that we dont have any truely healthy stocks, Id say inconsistantly healthy at best.

I read in an email from the WSC that the Hoh missed escapement by 800 wild steelhead last year, Id have to say I would believe the Hoh is the clossest thing we have to healthy in Washington State.

Oh but wait! The Quileute system is the trophy. It has proven that WDFW and the Quileute tribes use of MSY has been a great success. Not only is it healthy it is over twice escapement every year for nearly the past ten years. And it consistantly has gotten twice the escapement that it did in the hay days of the 60's and 70's. And it has the most harvest of wild steelhead and salmon on the peninsula. The numbers are hard numbers done from read counts, creel checks and tribal harvest, and not to mention smolt out migration counts. How can you argue about hard numbers?

Makes you wonder dont it? Who does all the steelhead red counts, smolt outmigration and documentation of tribal harvest. Who does it truely benefitt the most to always be far above escapement? You just cant argue with hard numbers the WDFW dosent, it dosent cost them anything and it makes them look good to boot.

The Quileute System ia amayzing its the only system in the state or the west coast for that matter that can handle massive comercial and substantial sport harvest. Yet with all the harvest and habiiat degridation the runs are actually getting larger.

It is just a testimate that MSY has worked, and that you cant blame harvest for the decline of wild salmon and steelhead.

I comend the WDFW and the Quileute tribe for the great success of management on the Quileute System.

Maybe the truth will come out someday before it is to late. We can only hope.

"It's one of the icons of the Pacific Northwest. It's like the orca," he said. "It's almost like a religion. There's a real interest in keeping steelheading going."

Koenings doesn't agree, however, with the call to eliminate the harvesting of all wild steelhead.

"Our position is where you have healthy runs, you should have the opportunity to catch and keep a wild steelhead," the director said.

"It's not a case of one size fits all in terms of regulations," Koenings said.

____________________________________

I made sure to hide away the quote when they finally close the Hoh and the big Q down one day, to remind everyone by failing to be proactive now and our continued arrogance will be the resources demiss.

From the Port Townsend Testimony-

Jack Berryman, WSC Past President, spoke of the Historical Failure of Salmonids Management and warned to let us learn from history and not repeat historical failures while we still have a chance. Jack presented each Commission member and WDFW Director Koenings on behalf of the WSC a copy of the just released book by David Montgomery, King of Fish: 1000 Year Run of Salmon. (suggested reading for all)

Peter Dorn, WSC VP Fundraising, testified about Failed Steelhead Escapements. Peter presented information that the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula, which is deemed one of healthy rivers for harvest of wild steelhead, failed to meet its spawning escapement last year. In fact, last year the Hoh fell below its escapement needs by 800 fish and the WDFW is still proposing a kill fishery on this great NW steelhead stream.

Dick Burge, WSC VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP of Science and Education provided the State of Steelhead Resource and Biological Diversity. Dick and Nate provided compelling and sound scientific reasons for protecting of biodiversity and run timing in steelhead waters. They also provided evidence from the first years landing data since the 5 fish limit was instituted that this new limit has not reduced the kill of wild fish. As example, while the Quillayute escapement was declining from 12,500 to 11,200 fish last season, the sport kill increased from 1790 to 1930 wild steelhead. Anecdotal observations suggest sport fishers and guide trips have increased considerably following the closure of the other Washington and Oregon areas and are taking more wild fish. The reduced limit regulation in this case has not effected the reduction of the overall kill rate of wild steelhead and in fact the rate has gone up! Dick and Nate again presented the Commission and WDFW Director a copy of the WSC paper entitled Biological and Economic Effects of Wild Steelhead Release.

First I will say that I am for WSR in principle ..same goes for salmon. There is a problem , however. The flyfishers and WSC tried to dominate the commission meeting with testimony over and over again saying the same thing...Stopping wild steelhead harvest by sportsmen is not their only goal in my opinion. It seems that their common thread is to designate rivers as off limits to all except those few who share their views. Fly fishing only perhaps?

The problem with narrow agendas is that they are pushed by a narrow minority and seek to impose rules and regulations on the majority who may sympathize with parts of their agenda but oppose most of it. WDFW and state government needs to atleast try to rule on things for the most inclusive results. Now I know they fail miserably on that when it comes to commercial fishing bias and boneheaded decisions but I think real change needs to be shown to be inclusive and not exclusive or it will fail.

Just because a bus load of fly fishermen descended on the commission hearing doesn't mean that they represent a majority viewpoint. The show of force by the crab convoy (myself included) didn't seek to dominate the meeting or disrupt it.. We were there to bring an issue to light that is supported by virtually ever person who crabs and a big percentage of license holders who do not. We will follow up with petitons that , although not official or binding on anyone, will show a broad base of support for inclusion....The effort does not seek to exclude anyone it only seeks to bring a fair balance to harvest of a natural resource that belongs to all the people and not to a tiny minority.

The WSR cause is a good one that I support. For me, though,it makes no sense whatsoever to close rivers to harvest of wild steelhead by sportsfishers while allowing commercial harvest of the same fish...no sense at all. Until an all encompassing policy can be enforced I agree with the director.

I hate to say it but a successful campaign to change things has to be for US and not for ME.

Grandpa,

Although many WSC members are fly fisherman, many of the same ones are gear fisherman and there are many others that dont even fly fish.

I gear fish and fly fish, (mostly gear fish).

In my opinion I believe comercial harvest is what is stopping WSR without exceptions. if WSR was put in place the next fight would be agianst comercial harvest. I believe comercial harvest would be the target by all steelhead fisherman once they stop fighting about WSR. I believe the WDFW knows this and dosent want to fight the tribes because its not politically correct and the sport fishers are easier to screw than to actually try and save wild steelhead.

I think they find it easier to keep the fight between the sport fishers than to take it to tne next level and fight for the fish.

I truely believe that once WSR goes through it will be only a matter of time before we as a whole force WDFW to stop the rape of our rivers.

The WDFW keeps calling foregone oportunity if we dont harvest fish, (thats what they want us to believe to scare us away from total WSR). I think it is time to make it WSR for a conservation measure. If it is done for conservation under the Boldt Decision by federal law the tribes have to participate. I dont see why this would be so hard to argue? Nearly all of our rivers are not meeting escapement. And the ones that are need to be conserved to maintian them and stop them from meeting the fate of the rest.

If we take away harvest of wild steelhead the State will be forced to change management. Maybe not overnight but if it goes to WSR and the runs continue to drop, (as they will), sport anglers may not unite over everything but Im sure they will unite agianst comercial harvest of wild steelhead.

Grandpa,

I'll have to make this really short...

No one was trying to disrupt the meetings, not anyone outside at the crab convoy nor anyone inside giving public testimony. Folks were exercising their right to give public testimony when they governing agency is making decisions that affect things that are important to them.

And by the way, I'm a founding board member of the Wild Steelhead Coalition, the WSC's VP of Political and Legal Affairs...and pretty much the only time I flyfish is for trout. I'm a die hard egg fisherman...always have been.

Every time WSR comes up folks start tagging it as an idea put forth by a small minority of fly guys to create a fly only fishery. The most ironic thing is that they usually follow it up by saying WSR advocates should be more "inclusive". WSR advocates are very inclusive, and include people from all walks of life and all walks of gear types. And surveys show...they are not a minority, either.

Misrepresenting those things is being exclusive, not inclusive.

Fish on...

Todd.

Boy, I think many of this board's participants are missing the point when it comes to fishing rights and co-management between the State and the Tribes. It is very simple, really. A given resource either has harvestable numbers or it does not. You can argue all you want about what constitutes "harvestable" and/or "conservation" and what does not. You can argue all you want about what resource is "healthy" and what is not. Currently, MSY is the approach used. It is admirable that we have highly educated people devoted to educating us about new approaches. Perhaps, one day we will change. For now, we define what is harvestable using MSY techniques.

Once the harvestable portion of a given return is determined, assuming we are talking about a system within the Boldt Case Area, the Tribes can harvest half the harvestable and the State can harvest the other half. Management plans are agreed to and thats that. Methods chosen to harvest each share are typically included in the plans. There is little use arguing over what one side's harvest methods are vs. the other. A dead fish is a dead fish.

For example, if a "catch and release" or a "mark selective" recreational fishery is in place, there will be mortality associated with that fishery; hatchery and wild mortality. The best available data is used to calculate that mortality. There will also be mortality in the Tribal fisheries; whether in river net fisheries or guided sport fisheries. Fishing moratlity data from both Tribal and State managed fisheries all count towards the "harvestable" amount.

Arguing about how "the other side" harvests its share of the resource is pointless.

Boy, I think many of this board's participants are missing the point when it comes to fishing rights and co-management between the State and the Tribes. It is very simple, really. A given resource either has harvestable numbers or it does not. You can argue all you want about what constitutes "harvestable" and/or "conservation" and what does not. You can argue all you want about what resource is "healthy" and what is not. Currently, MSY is the approach used. It is admirable that we have highly educated people devoted to educating us about new approaches. Perhaps, one day we will change. For now, we define what is harvestable using MSY techniques.

Once the harvestable portion of a given return is determined, assuming we are talking about a system within the Boldt Case Area, the Tribes can harvest half the harvestable and the State can harvest the other half. Management plans are agreed to and thats that. Methods chosen to harvest each share are typically included in the plans. There is little use arguing over what one side's harvest methods are vs. the other. A dead fish is a dead fish.

For example, if a "catch and release" or a "mark selective" recreational fishery is in place, there will be mortality associated with that fishery; hatchery and wild mortality. The best available data is used to calculate that mortality. There will also be mortality in the Tribal fisheries; whether in river net fisheries or guided sport fisheries. Fishing moratlity data from both Tribal and State managed fisheries all count towards the "harvestable" amount.

Arguing about how "the other side" harvests its share of the resource is pointless.

Todd...I didn't mean to imply that your group tried to disrupt anything..sorry if I did. Maybe dominate the testimony time would be more fair. I think you had 54 people lined up to talk and all of them said basically the same thing....release wild steelhead. Many others had one person make their case short and sweet. That saves alot of time and might get the point across better.

I guess my core point is this:

The tribes are allowed to harvest 50% of any run using estimates and the rest of us get the other 50%. That is the scenario. The 50% allocated to non tribal fishers is then divided up between commercial and sport under various formulas with sports usually getting less than half. If the sports sector is regulated to nonretention of wild fish then it seems the other sector should follow that rule. The problem is that when sportsfishers drop a percentage of fish via C&R the forgone opportunity seems to divert to the tribes. So you want to save wild steelhead by releasing them but then they are still fair game for the tribes. Saying that this is the best we can do because the tribes govern themselves is a cop out and should not be allowed to stand. If we must stop harvesting fish for true conservation then we should stop harvesting fish period with no strings attached that favor any group or other. C&R is considered part of harvesting because of the mortality percentages.

I agree that we sports fishers need to unite against the nets and not against each other. Wild steelhead have become an icon much more so than wild salmon and I think we need to look at the overall picture. This is a tough challenge and it is great that groups such as the WSC focus on one part of the problem as the big picture is too much for one small group to tackle. No matter what position you take or what cause you champion there will be many who will disagree and oppose you. That's ok with me so long as we keep up the fight. If we must get spit on by commercial fishermen so be it. Taking on the tribes is what this must come down to. No one wants to do that but stop them we must. They are the ones getting in the way of every good idea for conservation. They do some good I know but netting wild steelhead and salmon erases all the good in my book.

By the way alot of the really smart guys on this subject won't be heard in forums like this because they are afraid of alienating someone. Well alienating is inevitable in politics, religion and fish issues.

Agreed Grandpa,

The Tribes are indeed the real problem and I do believe their harvest rights is what is standing in the way of any real recovery.

Do they really do anything? I really dont think so.

The Quileute Tribe for instance is 100% funded for services and Natural Recources by the federal government. And they do not pay taxes so where does the money come from?

Sure they are the ones out there doing the work but on taxpayer dollar's.

I would much rather have a group doing all the reasearch and work that is in it for the fish and dosent have comercial interests.

Remember last year when Bob posted the photos of the tribes drift netting on the OP on a river with the emergency closure signs? They were herding fish into the nets in real low water...remember? That is what I am getting at. We stop fishing to save the runs and they figure they have it all to themselves with their own set of rules which have nothing to do with conservation. It seems to me that some of the really smart guys on here could investigate the laws and prove that WDFW has alot more clout than they are willing to use with the tribes. Maybe we should include this angle in our debate?>

todd, what if koenings said that he wants to eliminate the "harvest" of wild steelhead statewide and it was accepted and passed, wouldnt that put an end to every targeted catch and release wild steelhead season in the state on rivers where there needed to be an amount of fish available to harvest to have a "targeted" cnr season ?

Grandpa,

I think WDFW has alot more power than they let on.

Oregon and Alaska dont take [Bleeeeep!] from the tribes. But Washington lets its Non Tribal fisherman and hunters get bent over and butt probed with a totem pole.

I've got a clue for ya... there were numerous populations of fish in trouble well before Boldt. Your reasoning is not washing here. Why would the Tribes stand in the way of recovery? A healthy population is in ALL of our best interests, theirs included.

Hate to tell ya, WDFW gets a BIG part of their budget from the federal government too. So, are we splitting hairs just to bang on one of the co-managers? Many Tribes are spending their own money on salmon recovery as well as federal funding. Don't paint all Tribes with the same brush.

"Do they really do anything?" You yourself said the Quileutes are doing all the work. Of course they are really doing something. Many Tribes are alone in collecting the basic stock assessment data that affects ALL fisheries, not just theirs. What do you think co-management stands for? One side collects the data and the other side catches all of the fish? Come on. Don't believe me? Ask your favorite WDFW Region 6 bio and see what they have to say. Don't ignore what the Tribes are doing becasue it suites you. Look around, ask others, educate yourself. There is a ton of information out there, you just have to open your mind a bit.

I dont ignor what the tribes are doing!

I watch them rape and pillage the rivers of the OP first hand!

Those must be code words for "breaking the law?" And I am assuming this law breaking is conducted by any indian that puts a net in the water? Or is it just some of the indians? Of course those of us fishing under State regulations are all law abiding citizens?

Just thought I'd ask.

Grandpa, Sound s like Todd corrected you on Fly Fisher label. But I would like to correct you in the above quote. The WSC was not responsible for lining up 54 people to say the same thing. I certianly don't remember that many, but I do rember many attending, because of the crabbing protest and motors on the Satsop & Wynooche.

The WSC did, however, coordinate a total of 6 board members, three minutes apiece, to present compelling and scientific evidence of the status of wild steelhead. We worked hard on our testimony and were well prepared. If you call that dominating, so be it, I'll take it has a compliment. The others who testified may have been a few other WSC members (Les Johnson is a Trustee and Dave Bailey is the Steelhead Summit Chair) and others who were excercising their privilage to testify at the public testimony.

On another note, in fact the WSC is working together with other organizations, including yours. In the Steelhead Summits, we have hosted, we are working together on other issues regarding steelhead, in fact that was my testimony to the Commission.

FYI,

November 8, 2003, Bellevue, Washington --

Twenty-six steelhead advocates from more than 20 angling and conservation organizations met for a third Steelhead Summit, working together once again on behalf of the northwest's very special seagoing rainbow trout.

Summit I and II, also hosted by the Wild Steelhead Coalition, were conducted in November 2002 and May 2003, respectively. At the earlier events, key steelhead issues were identified, and committees formed to draft policy and action plans on each. Examples are habitat, harvest, hydropower, hatchery practices, research, education and public outreach. Summit III continued these, and other, discussions, and inter-organizational liaisons were strengthened.

A summit group steering committee was established, a communications network was refined, and future goals were outlined. Another summit meeting is tentatively planned for spring of 2004.

Organizations represented at Summit III were: Wild Steelhead Coalition, Trout Unlimited, Puget Sound Anglers, American Rivers, Washington Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation, Federation of Fly Fishers (and several FFF clubs), Washington Trout, Northwest Women Flyfishers, Willapa Anglers, Olympic Peninsula Guides Association, North Umpqua Foundation, Steamboaters, Little Bear Creek Protective Association, and the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Other groups involved in the Summit's "umbrella" organization are the Sierra Club, NW Sportfishing Industry Alliance, Native Fish Society, Wild Washington, Save Our Wild Salmon, and several British Columbia fishing clubs.

Summit groups will continue to collaborate between meetings, and are expected to make significant input to WDFW and other agency policy processes, as appropriate.

Rich..I am not slamming WSC's efforts at all. I was merely saying that the same point was made over and over again..that is fine. I guess I should regroup and restate my position. I am for wild steelhead release and C&R in general as long as it is not used to create exclusionary fisheries. If it just means no harvest of wild fish for EVERYONE then that is good. If it means a statewide ban on retention of wild steelhead by sports fisheers only then that is BS. This is a small piece of the puzzle and I applaud all of you for sacrificing the time as I have to voice your opinions and get involved. Keep it up. I am searching for more answers here and not trying to belittle any of the efforts to improve fisheries....

As far as the tribes go ....pacificnw which tribe are you a member of?

This is the same old wine in a brand new bottle. (Points for the musical group that coined that phrase). Let me see if I can answer some of the questions that have been brought up here.

1. Rich, Oregon and Alaska are not governed under the Boldt Decision. The Boldt Decision was actually fairly narrow and defined treaty rights for a group of Indians that were covered by a number of treaties signed in the early 1850's in what became Washington State. I will admit that I am surprised that the tribes in Oregon and Alaska have not attempted something like this (Maybe they have, enlightenment anyone?).

2. I am for Wild Steelhead Release and Wild Salmon Release as well. I do not fly fish very often so trying to paint WSR as a fly-only initiative is not accurate I think.

3. One way to take care of the Wild Steelhead retention problem by the tribes would be to have the co-managers of the resource (WDFW and the Tribes) negotiate a new method of fishing in the rivers - actually an old method - the fish wheel. There would be mortality. I'm not certain if the mortality would be less or greater than that of C&R - but all could be negotiated. My guess is that even if the State financed the placing of the fish wheels and associated infrastructure, it would be significantly less than the amount of money spent on raising Hatchery fish in those rivers where a healthy run of Wild Steelhead could exist.

4. As long as salmon are managed as a food fish, we will never see Wild Salmon Release. Grandpa makes a good point that without complete marking of Hatchery Salmon, Wild Release is impractical at best. Once again, the State pays a huge amount of money to create Hatchery Salmon so that they can be caught by the Commercials, Tribes, & Sports Fishermen. Once again, I reccomend the book King of Fish by David Montgomery for some interesting ideas about how we can improve habitat and survival of Wild Salmonids of all types.

There are ways to solve this problem. Economically for both the Tribes and the Commercial fleet, the trend is unmistakable - it is not economically viable to catch these fish. My concern is that when the bottom falls out of the salmonid catching economy - there will be no Wild Fish left to save. One hedge to that would be to manage one river system in each of WDFW's regions as a Wild Fish sanctuary - no fishing of any kind allowed. That could be insurance for the future.

Thanks for informing me.

I was under the impression that every state in the 9th district was under the Boldt Decision.

If Washigton State is the only one I am puzzled why treaty tribes in these other states have not filed class action suits?

Sorry, guys, but I only have about two minutes...so I'll have to make it extra brief.

Rich, Oregon is bound by the U.S. v. Oregon case, which is a sister case to U.S. v. Washington (the Boldt decision). Alaska, and B.C., too, for that matter, are not at all.

Grandpa, I generally agree with 90% of what you say regarding the politics of fisheries. Whether you think it won't wash or not, we don't have any legal way to stop the tribes from harvesting their half of the harvestable fish however they want, with a few restrictions that I'll have to save for later.

We do, however, have a political way to change their fisheries. You mentioned the pics of the OP rivers being closed for sporties, while tribal guys were still fishing. If you remember, those pics came from a protest, a protest where the tribes eventually voluntarily stopped fishing. If we were still fishing, too, there would have been no political protest to make.

If we get our own house in order, first, then we can talk smack about somebody else's. As long as we're directly harvesting steelhead, we can't realistically ask another group to stop directly harvesting them.

Believe it or not, outside the angling world steelhead fishermen are viewed exactly the same as Indians...whach 'em and stack 'em. There's only one way to change that perception and get public sentiment on our side, and that's for us to stop whackin' 'em.

More later...

Todd.

Well said Todd.

Exactly.

How about mutual cessation of steelhead harvest? If you really think that the tribes will follow suit if we do something good think again

Folks please keeping in mind that Wild Steelhed Release (WSR) is a management scheme designed to allow access to hatchery fish while holding impacts to wild stocks to just hooking mortality (hopefully a low impact).

Does that mean when there are no or few hatchery fish around (say after March first on those systems planted with early hatchery fish) that there should be no fishing? After all there would be few or no hatchery fish tp be caught.

On fisheries targeting wild stocks (spring CnR seasons etc) the hooking mortality associated with such fishing is just another form of harvest. A fish killed during fishing whether bonked or release is a dead fish and will not spawn. How does one reconcile the position of allowing no wild fish harvest due to the biological need of the population with allowing wild fish impacts during a CnR fishery?

Not sure that I see a biological difference between allowing say 10% harvest on a run above escapement levels and allowing a fishery with a 10% hooking mortality from a CnR fishery on the same run.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

there is a difference, WSR is not just how we want to allocate our harvest opportunity it is how we want our streams managed.

We want to get away from the harvest mindset of our current management or the rivers.

No more MSH, We want our rivers to support as many fish as they can and still allow recreation. We want that safety nett of excess fish to be in place to ensure healthy runs even with bad ocean conditions, floods, droughts and so on. We want our wild steelhead to be aloud to live up to the legend they are. We want our local depressed communities to be able to reep the benefits of robust wild steelhead runs that can draw people from around the world to enjoy the beauty and excitement these wonderful fish have to offer at their full potential.

We want to change the way things are. WSR is just one of the tools we feel will help start this action.

Rich -
I'm not trying to be combative but rather seeking that folks clarify what it is that is desired.

It is important to remember that WSR has been in the steelhead fishery management tool kit in Washington for 20 years and CnR has been around for 25 years. Until very recently the support for such management (at least as expressed by angler lobbying) has been luke warm at best. For much of that time period the source of such management orginated within WDFW. Since the late 1970s/early 1980s the steelhead angling community has been largely drug kicking and screaming into a fishing world that inlcudes something other than bonking everything caught.

I have to disagree - biologically there is not difference in a fishery that allows a 10% harvest rate and one that has a 10% impact in a CnR fishery - either way 10% of the population died. There is a large social difference, especially in who gets to have the impacts.

Having the population as large as it can be while allow a recreational fishery is not possible. Any fishing mortality will reduce the population by some fraction. The question then becomes is how much of an impact is one comfortable with or as you put it how much of a safety net does one want to provide the population. How large of a safety net do you want?

Remembering that populations naturally vary in abundance over time due to variable survival conditions. Do we manage differently depending those variations (more conservative at low population levels)?

Do any of the other advocates of statewide WSR have any input or thoughts into these issues?

Tight lines
Smalma

Rich

You say; Isn't "harvest" a big part of "recreation" to many sport fishers?

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz,

It is very important to some people. But we have proven it cant happen under the current way we manage our rivers. To many wild fish have been harvested and continue to be harvested, but most not by sport fishers.

The way I see it the only way we can still have long term oportunity and still have a resource is to go total CnR.

I believe our real fight is agianst comercial harvest and as long as we are still harvesting wild steelhead we are going to have a hard time convincing that they are the problem standing in the way.

Too see the big picture you need to look below the serfice to see what total no exceptions CnR would start rolling.

Smalma,

I dont think WDFW ever put CnR in place on wild steelhead anyways soley for increased sport fishing oportunity.

Looking at the big picture I believe it was a way to help ensure the runs could sustain MSH. Some of the harvest had to be taken away as the runs just couldnt sustain what was happening between the massive sport and tribal harvest.

Smalma is correct. There is an old saying in the fisheries management business... a dead fish is a dead fish. Or, stated another way, mortality as a result of fishing is still mortality. It can occur in a directed, indirected, gillnet, seine, C&R, mark selective, or in any other type of fishery you care to think of. ANY fishing effort results in mortality and that mortality must be accounted for if fsiheries are to be managed properly.

Rich -
Your lack of familarity of many of the issues of steelhead management state wide is showing. To my knowledge in just the north puget Sound area catch and release seasons designed to provide anglers increased opportunities at wild winter steelhead was first put into place in 1977 on the North Fork Nooksack. The second opportunity was the Sauk which went into place in 1980. Seasons on the Skagit, Skykomish and North Fork Stillaguamish soon followed.

WSR regulations were first applied again in the North Puget Sound region in 1983 on the North Fork Stillaguamish during the summer to protect the Deer Creek fish - this was prior to having marked fish and a large minimum size limit was used (the limit was 30" based on infomation indicating that 99% of the wild fish were less than 30"). Widespread use of WSR began in 1984 on basically all the Puget Sound rivers.

As you can see CnR and WSR has been around for sometime and each of the those seasons referred to above originated within WDFW. Each recieved very little support for the steelhead anglers and in somecases very vocal dissent from anglers - the "urban legend" of the time was that released fish would not survive.

If you desire is end all gill netting of steelhead you need new federal legislation. I don't think that is likely but I wish the best in that effort. In the interim do you have a concrete suggestion for escapement goals and under what conditions impacts from a recreational fishing would be allowed? From what I have read to date my interpretation of what management would look like under your ideas would be no fishing on wild fish anywhere in the state with the possible exception of a couple of places currently under management that allow wild harvest. My interpretation of what you have stated is no fishing on runs less than carrying capacity.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

We want change from what we have now.

We are tired of getting screwed and yet watching or wild fish populations being decimated.

I dont have the answers but myself and many other people have watched our wild runs go down the tubes while no drastic measures or real changes have been done to make things right.

I was born and raised in Washington state and 3 generations ahead of me the same. Fishing for wild Steelhead has been part of my like forever, it is a part of my culture and a custom.

Alot of things have been done wrong over the years and many have been without intention. Now we know what is wrong but these same mistakes and decimation continue.

All I see is the groups with controll trying to maintain things the way they have been. All I have seen is them throwing the scraps to the sport fishing community in order to keep them from crying. No real change has ever happened.

It is very easy for us to sit here and bad mouth the way things are being managed and entities that manage. These groups have done nothing for us but push us to the side. For years now we have been speeking out and we are ignored.

Our disenchantment is warranted

Really my lack of knoledge or experience is not the point.

Sport fishers in general dont like what is going on, we have been done wrong over and over and want change. We may disagree on many things amongst ourselves causing us to fight and bicker which has stopped us from joining together.

In general all of us want more wild fish in our rivers and on the spawning beds which would benefit all of the sport fishers interests. We are the largest user group and what we want is what we should get!

Being the largest user group we should be the ones who choose how our resource is managed and make sure we have the people working for us that make decisions that benefit our interests.

As CFM asked, harvest is a part of recreation for many anglers. If wild steelhead populations statewide were generally abundant and meeting ecologically functional escapement goals while also providing some reasonable level of harvest, we wouldn't be having this discussion about WSR. However, the list of rivers with wild steelhead populations deemed healthy enough to support some harvest has continually decreased, and this trend is more likely than not to continue.

The harvest of wild steelhead in Washington State is now insignificant as a component of recreational fishing in our state. Of the numerous steelhead rivers in Washington, we are down to allowing wild steelhead harvest in only 16 - that are deemed to be populations healthy enough to support harvest. Yet, most of those 16 have been underescaped as often as not over the past 20 years. That alone is strong evidence that the wild steelhead harvest policy is ill advised. I think only one river system, the Quilayute, has met or exceeded escapement goals virtually every year. This means that every river basin in the state - but one - is underescaped either every year, or some of the years. I find it difficult to defend this as sound or successful policy.

Some of the other "healthy" wild steelhead rivers, under the sound scientific policy that permits wild steelhead harvest has resulted in under-escapement on the Hoh, Queets, and Humptulips with shortened seasons and even season-long closures in some cases. I know a thing or two about fishery management, and I can't cobble together a smart defense for that type of management. (The actual biological defense is similar to, if not the same as the concept that justifies taking short-term profits in business at the long-term risk of bankrupting the company.) The outcome of the wild steelhead harvest policy results in more dynamic swings in steelhead populations, along with the ill social effects of disrupting the recreational fishery, and the ill economic effects associated with that same disruption.

And consider the management "success" on the Quillayute system. While the basin escapement goal is achieved, the preponderence of that escapement is observed in the Sol Duc sub-basin, with the Dickey, Calawah, and Bogachiel sub-basins generally under-escaped. WDFW still considers it successful, inasmuch as juvenile fish can redistribute in a river system to exploit various rearing niches and strategies. However, those same WDFW biologists know that juvenile redistribution is anything but perfect, and that many hectares of juvenile rearing habitat go underutilized. So overall steelhead prodtivity is kept below its potential in the most healthy, successful, and poster-child of sound steelhead management. That is the state of wild steelhead management in Washington State.

With respect to harvest being important to recreation for many anglers, myself included, the fact is that wild steelhead simply cannot support the harvest that many of us want. What wild steelhead populations can support is angling opportunity, and that is equally important, indeed, more important for many of us steelheaders. Most - but not all - are satisfied to release any wild steelhead we catch for having had the opportunity to be out fishing, rather that being home because of the rivers' being closed.

None of us denies that CNR induces some incidental mortality, generally estimated to range from 2 to 10%, depending on water temperature and other factors. For Smalma, the significant difference between the CNR fishery and the 10% harvest fishery are these: the CNR fishery is likely to produce mortality well under 10%, not that that matters all that much in the overall scheme of steelhead ecology and productivity. The other is that the CNR fishery produces a vastly greater social benefit in the form of ten times greater recreational benefit measured in angler opportunity (angler hours or days) and angling success, with ten times more steelhead actually being caught, but with no greater, and probably a lesser overall mortality to the population. That increased social benefit brings along an associated increased economic benefit in the form of greater economic activity by recreational anglers.

An advantage of the WSR management strategy is that it provides a buffer to poor wild steelhead runsize estimates. By definition, 50% of the pre-season forecasts over-estimate the run size, and consequently over-estimate the allowable harvestable number, resulting in over-harvest and under-escapement 50% of the time. Whereas, the worst case management scenario with WSR is that the spawning escapement would only be 10% less than if there had been no fishery at all. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the management strategies and plans that permit wild steelhead harvest.

The upshot is that WSR, independent of runsize except in extreme cases, would result in an ecological outcome with more stable steelhead populations in terms of productivity, exploiting habitat capacity, and achieving population diversity.

The only downside of WSR is that a small number of anglers will not be able to kill a small number of fish. Looking at the picture of statewide recreational angling, the relative loss is miniscule when contrasted to the benefits.

Please don't bother responding to this post with scare stories about foregone opportunity with treaty tribes. Do a search. That topic has been dealt with here on more than one occasion.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thank You!! Salmo

Smalma, Here is another question and something I believe the WDFW does not take into account regarding the mangement of the Q , Hoh and other consider "healthy" coastal wild steelhead stocks- Please read the brief from the testimony provided by Dick and Nate below:

Dick Burge, WSC VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP of Science and Education provided the State of Steelhead Resource and Biological Diversity. Dick and Nate provided compelling and sound scientific reasons for protecting of biodiversity and run timing in steelhead waters. They also provided evidence from the first years landing data since the 5 fish limit was instituted that this new limit has not reduced the kill of wild fish. As example, while the Quillayute escapement was declining from 12,500 to 11,200 fish last season, the sport kill increased from 1790 to 1930 wild steelhead. Anecdotal observations suggest sport fishers and guide trips have increased considerably following the closure of the other Washington and Oregon areas and are taking more wild fish. The reduced limit regulation in this case has not effected the reduction of the overall kill rate of wild steelhead and in fact the rate has gone up! Dick and Nate again presented the Commission and WDFW Director a copy of the WSC paper entitled Biological and Economic Effects of Wild Steelhead Release.

Again....Anecdotal observations suggest sport fishers and guide trips have increased considerably following the closure of the other Washington and Oregon areas and are taking more wild fish.

Does the WDFW takes this into account? Since these are considered the only streams "healthy" to allow harvest we are simply putting more anglers and more kill pressure on wild steelhead stocks?

This added pressure is also, in my opinion, bringing down the quality of the angling experience, creating a increased competitive/nonsportsman like atmosphere.

Shouldn't angling pressure also become part of the equation? I also personally don't believe that the punch card data on these streams is terribly reliable, I hear of a lot of " cheating" going on, but I lack a better suggestion for recording the data.

Rich,

From my experience and knoledge I know there is also alot of harvest of wild steelhead going on in Goodman Creek that is both not recorded and poached after the season is closed.

I dont understand why they are not considdering this one for CNR. It gets far more presure than the other ones that are being considdered.

Gentlemen --
First the general crash of wild steelhead populations in much of western Washington/southern BC has had little to do with how those populations were managed. Populations crashed on rivers where harvest was allowed, on rivers closed to fishing, and rivers managed "correctly" (that is strictly WSR with no hatchery fish). The underlining problem appears to be that we have entered a period of very low marine survival and a continue decline in our river's habitats. Clearly conservative management is needed and that is just what is currently being provided in those areas of poor returns - WSR while the hatchery fish are in the river and no spring CnR if the expected run is less than 80% of the escapement goal. There are no magic wands to correct poor survival conditions.

A further Illustration - When WSR was first applied to western Washington streams in the early and mid 1980s populations respond quite positivity. Escapements often double in less than 5 years. Today the recent returns continue to decline rapidly regardless of the management. WSR is not a silver bullet - just a tool to alocate fishing impacts.

Many seem to feel that all steelhead management needs is just WSR for management. Would you allow WSR fishing under all conditions? Would the amount of CnR be influenced by the status of the poplation? Are escapement goals needed?

In determining the status (health) of a wild population what escapement goal would you measure returns against? Rich suggested carrying capacity as a goal - my difficulty with that is no fishing would ever be allowed as any fishing would cause a short fall in reaching the goal. Salmo suggest an "ecological functional escapement goal". How could anyone disagree with such a motherhood and apple goal however Im not sure that I know what that means?

Salmo -
In my 10% example I stated that if both fisheries had the same impact (in this case 10%) there was no biological difference. However as you point out there are potential differences in amount of recreation being produced. I'm suggesting that maybe if your arguments may be on sounder footing if approached from that direction.

WSR is not by itself a buffer for poor run sizes unless there are management action to be taken in the event of forecasted poor runs. In all the talk of WSR I have heard no firm suggests of the management adjustments to be used with WSR. Again what sort of escapement bench mark to be used? What management actions to be taken if the goal is not being met?

Double haul -
Nate's and Dick's input seems to imply that the 2003 escapement (11,200 with a goal of 5,900) on the Quileyette was not good enough. If 190% of the MSY is not enough what would be?

The testimony indicated that there has been a substantial increase in interest in harvesting wild fish on the coast. How can that be if few anglers wish to harvest a fish? Could it be that the great mass of anglers is less than unified in their desires?

They indicated that there is a concern about the decline in the quality of the fishery. Is that the goal -fishing by like minded anglers? If so what is next - limited entery?

Regarding WSC's steelhead paper - shortly after it was released (by the way a nice job) detailed comments were provided via a forum on WSC's web site and the Fly fishing forum. It generated very little interest or comments either from the WSC membership or the public. Does anyone care? Apparently not!

In short I woud like to see something more to a proposal than just never harvest a fish and things will be OK. As with other anadromous salmonids I expect we will see shifts of abundances and when (next year or several decades from now) we enter a period of high steelhead returns -say 5 to 10 times than today's returns why preclude the potential for some harvest if anglers desire?. If the expectation is that most anglers are to buy into your proposals then an increase understanding of WSR, its role in management, when it would be applied and when would there be no fishing, etc. It is my opinion that the resource benefits when anglers become informed and think about these issues.

Less anyone questions where are my proposals I would refer any interested reader to the first post that I ever made on this site were I put forth a detail set of proposed steelhead management guidelines.

Tight lines
Smalma

While it is hard to argue with WSR or even the proposal not to lift C&R species from the water, neither of these proposals seem to have much "real" impact on the longer term health. It would be great to see a deeper understanding of the biological needs and patterns of specific watersheds and look at all "players." I'm not suggesting sportfishers shirk their own responsiblities, but we can do a lot more as a group when looking at habitat destruction (development etc), commercial fishing trends and the other more impactful things affecting fish. While I wish WDFW would do more with certain regs, they do have to understand and work with the bigger picture. Considering how difficult it is to get any of the other trends (development) and parties to commit to any long term plan, I understand why WDFW looks to manage river systems individually and (somewhat) short-term, and why we don't have sweeping legislation to improve things for the fish. It is a complex problem!

I think it could be argued we have never seen our rivers at carying capacity, even to so called jewel the Quileute so how do we have any idea what that is. I have been all over the quileute system drainage and have seen miles and miles of spawning habitat not used by either salmon or steelhead especially on the Bogie and Clawah.

Another thing I would have to say is I do not believe the steelhead escapement numbers referenced on the Quileute are anywhere close to the truth but thats just my opinion that I share with many others. I know how they come up with the numbers and I know who many of the people are out there gathering the information. Couldnt say I have much faith in alot of them nor would I trust them. Im my line of work I have had many contacts with many of them.

Another point is I know for a fact that some of the tribal fisherman down their catch as many wild steelhead individually in a season than are seen in the total reported tribal catch that is seen by the public. The buyers have bragged about the numbers to me as well as the fisherman. In addition to the bragging I have seen it first hand.

Another interesting thing I have seen that has always puzzled me is this. The runs are forcasted ahead of time correct. The tribal and sport harvest is complete before the actual run size is even known. Its funny that the QUileute tribe year in and year out always harvests its 25% allocation of the run. It has always puzzled me that they catch exactly the amount of fish they are supposed to when everything is said and done. In addition to good science they must have a psychic on staff down at the QNR.

No I dont know which science would be best for management of our rivers.

I do think everything needs to be looked at as a whole in our management sceme. I thing the co-management theme also needs to be looked at. There is far too much curruptionin the tribes.