I think you should ask Jack Berryman what the ultimate management goal of the organization is rather than try to come up with your own interpretation on a fishing bulletin board.

Sounds like somebody is mad at his commissioners and feels like popping off.

Goinfishin.......

Ryan –
I thought I was clear in that it was my assumption that the next step would be looking at the spring CnR fishery. While that statement was largely rhetoric it would have been better on my part to have stated that “the logic extension of the WSC’s fishery model would be to close all fisheries targeting wild steelhead”. Thanks for calling me on that and I hope this clarifies my intent; I surely didn’t intent to put words in the WSC’s mouth. For those dedicated WSC members that I have offended my apologies.

In my read of the arguments put forth by WSC and their allies in the support of the statewide moratorium of the killing of wild steelhead the fishery model is very simple and straight forward (has to have some appeal). The argument or if you will the fishery management model is to “use the “best science” to determine the status of the steelhead populations, determine the appropriate management that fits the status of the majority of the steelhead populations and adopt that management statewide.” In my example the “best science” should not be even debatable – the Feds have refereed much of it in their decisions on listing or not listing the various ESUs in the state. WSC itself has made the recent status case for the non-listed ESUs in their presentations to the Commission. As you stated: “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.”
Therefore we agree that the appropriate management of threatened or endangered stocks would be no target fisheries. Ergo we have a statewide ban on any fishery that targets wild steelhead.

You are correct of course that nowhere that I have seen has WSC advocated such a position. The question I have is why not? If we are to manage with single statewide rules that seems to be the logical option given the status of the statewide resource.

You stated:
“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 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.”

I’m sorry but biologically the management model that you have proposed is no improvement over the harvest model. You are allowing fishing impacts on the resource down to the escapement goal. For the resource it makes no difference whether those impacts are from “bonking”, hooking mortality or so combination of the two. The proposal just allocates the fishing impacts to hooking mortality only.

You further stated:
”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.”

I believe that you need to be careful to define what opportunity means. If you mean that with current angler interests that more man-days of steelhead fishing can be generated per dead fish with CnR rather than with a harvest then I would agree. However the impacts from such fisheries may not be minimal, see your suggested management above. Unfortunately the argument for a statewide moratorium on the killing of wild steelhead was not based on this social/economic argument but rather on the “biological needs” of the fish, which brings us back to my original posting on this thread.

Tight lines
S malma

I have a question regarding escapement goals. On rivers where the tribes have a say, who decides the escapement? Do the state biologists measure this and does it supercede the tribes data? Or do the tribes decide that they want to fish a river regardless of the state's opinion on it? Seems that this came into play on the OP a while back where the state had set a rather high one of several thousand fish.

The tribe countered with a lower number (something like 2200 as opposed to the states of 10,000) The state later announced that they worked an agreement with the tribe of 2,600. I am researching this because I received this info second hand.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Goinfishin - I'm not certain that your numbers are totally correct (the 10,000 vs. 2200) but I remember that they are close to the actuals. The reality is that in those rivers that are managed to the Boldt model, the State & the Tribes are designated as co-managers. They negotiate and come up with an escapement goal. Neither one trumps the other, however, it is important to remember that the State has rarely won in Court and that has to have an obvious impact on the negotiation.

Goinfishin,

Generally WDFW and the Tribes come up with an escapement level together...though it doesn't always work out.

The example you're remembering above is the Queets, where the Quinaults and WDFW fish under GREATLY different escapement numbers.

Smalma,

I don't think the above statements are accurate.

The intent is to change the current model that gave us "healthy" fisheries all over the state, until they just weren't healthy anymore.

Are there a multitude of problems that have contributed to the region wide demise of wild steelhead?

Of course.

Is sport overharvest one of the problems.

Of course it is.

It's surely not the only one, and I'd say it's surely not the most significant one. However, it's the one that we can stop cold right now.

On a federal level, with, say, the western spotted owl, how many different management schemes could there have been to keep their populations up, thereby taking that card out of the enviros hands to stop old growth logging?

It seems there were two...do nothing, with business as usual, until they are listed...then stop all logging, and anything else that affects them. They don't recover, and activities that affect them don't, either.

I'm not comparing that scenario directly to the situation at hand, because plenty of things have been done to help protect wild steelhead.

However, it seems to me that the predominant management scheme, no matter what it actually was, has manifested itself as such: harvest the fish until the run falls down too low to replace itself, then close fishing. The fish don't come back, and neither does the fishing.

This is absolutely NOT the best provision of fishing opportunity, at least not after the fishery is just flat out closed.

There are levels of management between harvest and closure, ones that provide opportunity and protection to the stocks.

Wild steelhead release with appropriate catch and release fisheries provides much more protection to the fish than does a harvest fishery, and provides a lot more opportunity than a closed river.

I think that the state, with a few very notable exceptions (spring CnR fisheries) had managed on an either/or basis...either we harvest them or we don't fish at all.

Just because WSR is not on the "harvest them" end of that two ended stick, doesn't mean it is on the "don't fish at all" end.

This is not a blanket policy where a standard is set for the "majority of the populations" that is applied to all populations, this is a blanket policy that applies to ALL populations and will be applied to all populations. That policy is...

We will not manage by closure. We will manage fish by striking a balance between opportunity and conservation.

Management on the OP streams has been as such...is the river over escapement? Yes? Ok, fish and harvest fish. There are no in season fish counts, other than creel checks, and I can't recall a steelhead fishery EVER being stopped because sporties were catching too many.

That's the same management we've had everywhere else in the state, too, until the answer to the escapement question was "no", in which case the next step is "don't fish".

How about somewhere in the middle for a change? Something like fish, keep the hatchery fish, release the wild ones. If the wild run is enough over escapement, keep fishing and releasing the wild ones.

More days to fish, and more fish to spawn.

Also, I find the "reallocation of impacts" from harvest impacts to incidental impacts argument to be a little tired.

Let's use the Quillayute for an example, since it's the most healthy river we have. What was sport harvest last year? Something like 2500 fish, right?

Using the most conservative, and likely well beyond the actual, hooking mortality rate of 10%, that means that sporties would have had to caught and released 25,000 steelhead to have the same "reallocated" impacts as the harvest impacts.

Criminy, the entire run was only 12,000 fish. Do you really think that it's possible that the sporties would have caught each and every fish more than two times?

Unless I'm mistaken, your "reallocation" argument hinges on your answering "yes" to that question, which I'm sure you can't do with even a semblance of a straight face.

Not only do I think the "reallocation" argument is tired, I think it is the basis for a lot of the divisiveness between release and harvest advocates, one that harvest advocates especially cling to because it makes them look better than the release advocates.

It's the reason that Mayor Reed says something as preposterous as "it's just a bunch of urban elitists who want to make the OP into their own personal playground".

It's the reason why the guy from Sequim in the last AP article calls the Hoh "his river", and definitely not "our river". (Like a guy from Sequim has any more right to the Hoh than some guy from Portland, or Florida).

Why do the anti's always pull out the "stealing OUR fish for your own playthings" argument?

Because it's the only one they have.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

Sounds like you're having another one of your "bad days" again

Not to worry…. I am sure you will be having more in the future

Good stuff Todd.

No bad day, CFM,

Just more of the usual, not letting the motivations and results of the WSC's work be boxed into someone else's idea of what they think those motivations/results might have been.

Probably just a "spin", though...

Fish on...

Todd

Gotta Love It! Seemed like something a tweaker might call an intellectual orgasm.

Smoke and mirrors... Spinnin' gears.

Or maybe it mirrors what's been smokin'?

I especially liked the conclusions that the guys against harvest are opposed by the the pro harvest anti's. :rolleyes:

Thanks Todd! Entertaining to say the least.

Todd, don't expect these guys to " do the math "... Facts are never as fun as conspiracy theorys, and math is really hard for some people.

Thanks Todd!

Todd –
I’m not sure what it is that you found not to be accurate? Maybe I’m just confused again.

In what I have chosen to call the WSC harvest model was it incorrect to say that it is based on:
1) The best science? Or
2) That the management option that best protects resource given its status be selected? Or
3) Adopt that management option statewide? Or
4) That we should not be targeting ESA listed fish?

All that I have done is expand the issue from the Boldt Case area to a state wide level. Clearly at the statewide level steelhead populations are in serious trouble (as evident by the population conditions referred to in the fact sheet). As you so clearly stated earlier in this discussion: "whattayasay we don't manage the fisheries into oblivion like we did to the rest of the state?"

You mentioned the Quillayute and used it as an example. In this arena perhaps a more interesting example would be a river system that had a run size that was just a few hundred fish above its escapement objective. In this case the hooking mortality could just as easily produce impacts that would reduce the run to less than the escapement objective just like the harvest model. Where is the resource protection cushion in this example?

Clearly as I have argued for more than 25 years a CnR fishery is likely to produce more angler days of recreation per dead fish than a harvest only fishery. However the argument for the moratorium has been the needed to rebuilt depressed populations and to prevent a slide in the populations that are not currently depressed.

Many folks seem to feel that the moratorium will result in more fishing opportunities. I don’t see how unless folks expect to target wild fish on populations expected to be less than escapement objectives. Certainly on runs above goals by allocating fish that would previously would have been harvest to a CnR fishery should result in better fishing (more fish to catch) for those that participate in that type of fishing. Whether that will produce more over all fishing trips is still an unknown – it depends on whether the better CnR catch rates will attract enough increased angler trips to off set those lost from the “bonkers” dropping out.

Tight lines
S malma