Todd-Jerry

I was just about to post my response when I read Geoduck post.

Geoduck and I have had our differences in the past on several issues. I had my hands full debating "science" with him because he is a "scientist". It's really hard trying to convince someone that knows their business better then you do, and that they may be wrong at times. I don't know if I ever succeeded in doing that with him. He hasn't posted much in the last two years, but when he "talks about science", he always catches my attention.

WSC seems not to want to talk about "cycles" that our steelhead have apparently gone through forever. Why is that? I think that Geoduck professional opinion on reading charts far exceeded my own. So I will yield to his expert knowledge when it comes to reading charts and graphs.

Can you or Todd please explain how steelhead go through 5-7 year cycles?


Cowlitzfisherman

I have a science degree in fisheries and know how the "science" gets used jerry. That is what I was talking about. You can make the data say whatever you want even just like the rest of us. I guess it is just Idle chit chat.

As a non-scientist my non-scientific opinion here is that the groups emotionally supportive of the feel-good "no keepy no fishy" philosophy grasped at a couple years of tremendously poor survival and called that a trend, put it in a chart and labled it science.

The WSC itself was founded in response to the closures of the North Sound spring C&R fisheries when it became obvious that drastically low ocean survival rates had caused the numbers to plummet... Only they chose to blame the decline on those who offended their feel-good "no keepy no fishy" philosophy rather than face the facts.

When the fish are stacking at their spawning destinations it requires nothing more than common sense to let them spawn in peace.

"You make me feel like______________!"

Dancing, WOO!!

Dancing, WOO!!

I probably could have done better than that....

When I look at the charts and see a decline on a 20 or 30 year average return, that would seem to average out the natural highs and lows and show a trend.

I am a scientist but I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to realize that if the tread (no matter how minor) in all rivers is decreased runs THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!

Again, I ask: Does anyone REALLY think the rivers/runs are in peak condition???

The question at the heart of the WSR issue is not whether the runs are as good as possible, but wheter WSR will help.

The simple answer is no. WSR has been in place in puget sound rivers for what maybe 15 years. Despite this there has been a so called trend of declining runs (I will not argue against this--it is almost certainly true of the puyallup based on the presented graph).

Despite WSR being the law of the land for over a decade in the puget sound basin, steelhead runs are in decline (if you beive the data as presented by WSC).

This is pretty strong evidence that WSR won't help whatever ails the runs on the OP.

To me this appears nothing but a power grab by one user group (C&R people) over another (fish bonkers). BTW I am probably more in the C&R camp than the bonker camp.

Furthermore blanket regulations is not really a good way to go if you like to keep fishing. One hypothetical example, blanket closure of all rivers to protect spawning chinook and juvenile salmon.


So I conclude as I have before that the real issues are habitat related and all this excitement about regulation (ie blanket WSR) is a waste of time.

Well said G'duck. They keep patting themselves and super sparkey on the back. But their vision in narrow and short sighted. Blanket regs= zero fishing. Good thing I live so close to Canada!

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been able to kill wild fish in PS rivers through the end of February up until recently? Seems like that would sure help with the decline....

No Goeduck. I strongly disagree. Just b/c WSR didn't fix the multitude of problems associated with PS rivers doesn't mean it is irrelevant with respect to declining runs. WSR can do nothing but help. What you fail to realize is that WSR is only one small part of the solution...but it is a start. WSR must function in concert with fixing spawing grounds, controlling run off, pulling nets, practicing proper CNR techniques, etc.....

If there are 27 steps to helping wild steelhead runs recover, are we better off doing ONE and then moving on to the next........or are we better off doing NOTHING. Or maybe we should just argue about which step would be best to take, and in the end, dig a deeper hole to crawl out of?

Go ahead......try to make a logical argument for the latter two.

Geoduck,

You are mistaken about the PS rivers. You have been able to kill a wild fish until the end of feb up until 4 years (maybe it was 5 now). So it hasn't had 15 years in the PS rivers.

WSR is actually the State law it is just that there are exceptions to the that law and the PS rivers were on the exception list right up until 4 or 5 years ago.

JJ

It still cant understand how having more fish spawn is a good thing...

My un-scientific mind just doesn't get it?

,



I dont see it as being wrong, it's more how you want to fix it. WSR sounds great to C&R fishermen. It doesnt affect you your ability to fish. To almost everybody else this is like paying your power bill , but not the house payment. WSR will not accomplish the desired result. And in fact, has weakened the sportsfishing voice as a whole. Sometimes it sounds like you C&R guys wont be happy untill all fish are produced naturally, and protected by a C&R policy. That doesnt do much for anyone but you. Just so you can play with the fishy's. Focus on the real problems facing all fish. The obvious monitarily motivated decisions made by the managers of our resource. I would rather put my efforts into exposing the exploitation. IMO, more people would support an effort to change the commercial mandate, as it would have more of a positive affect on the problem than WSR.

Piper, you are too funny....People sure seem to get their panties in a huge knot on this board at times. AS in most things in life...solutions are complicated and the answers to fish problems are a multi faceted approach. My take on it is that you can't support any species survival unless you understand how to manage them and agree on the best way to do so. One of the main reasons that things don't get done with helping fish is that it's like herding cats..Everyone want their own self interests preserved.

WSR is a good idea because it is a positive step in the right direction in preserving the resource.

Ocean conditions play a larger part in species survival than I see mentioned on this board at times.

Netting is the other huge factor in damaging the runs.

Personally I think habitat degradation is also important but is probably the least critical of the others.

If we managed the others, then we could work on improving habitat. Keep the environmental protections in place.There's no sense in focusing on habitat if there are no fish to return to it...Just my opinion...

Over simplified of course....and I have a little background in environmental science..

Wow, here you go again... wonder why you can't get anything done in Washington state... Read all the posts and replys to WSR and its really obvious.. I am no "scientist" but am an engineer and understand SPC. Those charts show an obvious downward trend... But I guess some folks are to greedy to want to understand that. They twist it any way they want so that they can cry about something.. In a few years, you will have something to cry about over there, and its your own fault. In the mean time, the tribes and commercials are laughing their asses off because sportsmen can't agree on a single issue... Not even something as simple as WSR.. If it was not so importaint it would be funny :rolleyes:

I looked at all the charts and it truly portrays a consistent problem. At best things are stable and many times in sharp decline, and this is suppose to be a period of good ocean conditions. It does not look like harvest is the problem, but none the less with these kinds of declines, harvest moratlity should be stopped in the worst of cases and moderated across the board. In the stable rivers, allow catch and release, in the declining rivers, shut it all down- catch and release included.

Guys –
Let’s clear up some terms here. Wild steelhead release (WSR) has been used in the state of Washington since 1984. This management tool allowed various fisheries to target abundant hatchery fish while releasing wild fish when their numbers were expected to be below escapement needs. In the soon to be enact moratorium on the kill of wild steelhead or No Wild Steelhead Kill (NWSK) – wild steelhead cannot be kill under any circumstance (except for hooking mortality). Catch and Release (CnR) is a fishery where all fish must be released. We can have a more meaningful debate if we are more careful about the terms we used – much of the debate earlier in this thread appears to center around different uses of terms.

Regarding blanket bans and their application to steelhead management; the WSC fishery model if you will – lets look at the science used by the Wild Steelhead Coalition (WSC) in this debate and where it will lead us.

A item from the WSC steelhead fact sheet posted by Double Haul in the discussion titled Wild steelhead kill outlaw in Washington-
“Wild Steelhead Coalition
Wild Steelhead in Washington Fact Sheet
February 2004

By Dick Burge, VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP Science/Education”

Item #5
”Washington’s wild steelhead populations are either listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, chronically under-escaped or in periods of recent population declines. Of Washington’s 7 steelhead ESUs, 3 are now listed as Threatened, 1 is listed as Endangered, while the other 3 do not currently warrant listing. In spite of the “not warranted” status, wild steelhead have in recent years been chronically under-escaped in the majority of Puget Sound ESU and Southwest Washington ESU streams. In recent years, only the Olympic Peninsula ESU has wild returns that have usually exceeded escapement goals and are open to harvest.”

Clear the majority of steelhead populations in the state (4 out of 7 ESUs –evolutionary significant units) are in serious trouble with 57% of the ESUs federal listed under ESA. In addition as stated above 2 of the remaining ESUs are now chronically depressed and the third as WSC shows in their population graphs are declining.

The argument advanced by WSC is that state wide moratorium on the killing of steelhead is needed because the majority of the populations are in trouble and no exceptions should be made for stocks returning at or above escapement levels. Based on the status of the Washington steelhead ESU’s the same logic would dictate that are steelhead populations should be managed as if they all were federally listed as threatened. That is no wild steelhead target fisheries. Fishing impacts need to limited incidental impacts and at low levels.

Under this management there should be no fishing related impacts on wild steelhead populations except those that result from incidental impacts directed at either other species or hatchery steelhead. This in effect means that the only fishing where the targeting of steelhead would be only those situations where hatchery steelhead are both marked and present and out numbering the wild fish in a river system.

Clearly under the fishery model being advocated by WSC there should be no spring fishing of steelhead (of any type) in the state Washington due to the federal listed status of the majority of the ESUs. No exceptions allowed meaning no CnR where wild steelhead are being targeted!. I can only assume that this will be the next agenda item for WSC in their efforts to protect the wild steelhead resource.

Sweeping blanket regulations while simple nearly always result in reduced fishing opportunities and the above is just another example. Something to think about.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma-
Nowhere in your quote from the WSC fact sheet do I see anything that would lead me to believe that an agenda for the WSC would be to eliminate catch and release fisheries that target wild steelhead.

I think putting those types of words in the group's mouth is a tad irresponsible as there are a few dead set on believing some sort of conspiracy theory that the WSC is in it just to create botique fisheries/close all steelhead fisheries etc. etc. AND that is not true!

You would be hard pressed to find someone within the WSC that would be opposed to a closure of a fishery/fisheries that target wild steelhead populations that are not expected to meet escapement or populations that are listed as threatened/endangered under the ESA.

However, I believe you will find many that do not have an issue with a catch and release fishery that targets wild steelhead as long as the population is going to meet escapement. And in fact, I would not support a catch and release fishery fishery for wild steelhead if the run is not going to hit a certain level over escapement.

The level that I would propose would be a given number that estimates the potential hooking mortality. Estimate the number of fish going to be caught by estimating angler activity, multiplying that activity by the success rate and then factoring in a hooking mortality percentage. You can now estimate the number of fish that are going to perish due to the catch and release fishery. I would be all for not allowing a fishery to take place unless the estimated number of fish returning exceeds the escapement goal plus the estimated mortality due to a catch and release fishery.

Also keep in mind, along with many others, I believe that prohibiting the kill of wild steelhead is the best way to maximize angler oppurtunity while minimizing the impact on the fish. And if enough wild fish are coming back to a river to allow a fishery for them, all the better, but the dollar value of those fish is much higher if you have to release them then if they you can kill them....in my honest opinion.