First off - I'm not a fan of the floss and flounder crowd at Swift Creek on the Skagit. When the Chum are in, the vast majority of fishermen on this stretch of the river practice little more than snagging - that includes the fly guys too, of which I am one at times so this isn't a flog the fly guy post. There are exceptions to this statement but many also know what I have posted to be true. All you have to do is keep your eyes open!

That said I definately don't agree with the regs this year. Why the need for the release of Chum salmon on the whole river? Even down on the lower river where the fish actually have food value to their meat. I don't have stats in front of me but from fishing this river there don't seem to be a shortage of Chum Salmon. Most people don't even realize they're in the river until at least half the fish have spawned. When the Chum are running, from rockport to Marblemount every shallow slow water area there is - are alive with Chum spawning. I really haven't noticed a change in numbers in the last 15 years. Besides which they're probably the most tenatious of the Salmon species.

I think somethings rotten here. The regs don't actually state that you can't fish for them but you sure can't retain them. Does anyone know why the regs took the drastic change this season on this River? I think this just may be the tip of the iceberg for things to come on this system. Mis-management at it finest.

Howdy Mark,

I can't make sense of it either. Late last year I was kicking dead Chum off the beach as they were a bit on the ripe side. (big 'uns too).

I don't really see any reason for it, to be honest. Anyone who fishes the Skagit knows the run is a good one...but there may be other factors at work here.

Hey, does this mean no netting of Chum by either commercial or NA groups?

BTW, a gang of us (thanks to Beezer!) got to fish the river yesterday. Finally got one on a plug...ugliest fish I've seen/caught yet...but great battle for a few minutes. Sent him ( about 9.5 - 10 lbs.) back to make lots of babies and maybe he can come back again in a few years (with some real shoulders!)

Ahhhh...next Jan. can't come soon enough!

Mike

Hello Mark

Long time no see

Just look though the regs myself today for an hour not enough time .
To many things going on. By the week end , I should have a handle on some of the new regs not all but some

Brian S.

Could be a mis-print in the Regs. Check WDFW's website for errata statements.

The local tribes figured out they can sell the highly valued chum salmon roe to the Asian markets. Last fall we were given tubs full of disected chum salmon for free.

I seem to remember the local power company dewattering the redds on the Skagit around Thanksgiving or early December about three years ago. Hmmmmmm.

Beezer

TC,

You might want to check with the WDFW folks in LaConner. Skagit chums are anything but endangered, but some years, usually following a flood cycle, the run returns below the escapement goal, and no fishing for them is allowed. Even years usually see the larger chum runs, and I haven't heard anything yet forecasting a return below escapement. Best to find that out first before concluding mis-management.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo, TC:

4Salt posted this on another board..hope its Ok to post here:

"I think that it may also have something to do with the fact that Seattle City Light reduced their outflow from Baker dam to almost nothing 3 years ago around Thanksgiving. (peak chum spawning time) The result was the de-watering of many ESA listed chinook and chum redds, killing millions of eggs.

WDFW may be playing it safe by not allowing chum retention until the full extent of the damage of that fiasco is known. Seems like a good idea to me. "

Mike

Don't think Seattle City Light had anything to do with it, Puget Sound Energy controls the Dam

He's right Mike, PSE owns the Baker river dams. SCL operates Diablo and Ross though, I believe.

Regardless of who owns what, like Beezer also said, the event happened, and it could be a major factor in WDFW's decision to close retention of chums this year.

The reason the regs say to release chums on the Skagit this year is pretty simple.

It is not a secret nor is it rocket science.

Homer - Ask Polly about it. She knows!
Then post the answer here to end the speculation.

I would but I'm kinda full of crap right now so I better go take a dump. :p

BTW: neither the SCL nor the PSE dams were letting water through when the redds were de-watered and they were re-watered soon enough to prevent any loss.

Mike,

PSE owns and operates the Baker dams, which contributed to high spawning flows in 2001 and then ran out of water to incubate eggs downstream of the Baker River prior to their emergence. Most Skagit chinook and chum - the affected species - mature at age 4, so this effect would extend only to returning 3 year olds in 2004. I think it’s unlikely this is the reason for a prospective closure.

Plunk,

You’re incorrect about the dewatering effect. PSE, and the Baker River sub-basin didn’t have enough water to incubate those chinook and chum eggs in the Skagit downstream of the Baker River through emergence. As I recall, about 10% of the incubating chinook eggs in the affected river reach were lost to dewatering and an unknown number of chum because the chum redd distribution wasn’t well enough documented. I made the loss estimate, but would have to go look it up to verify the number. However, I agree, this isn’t likely the reason for restricting chum fishing.

And . . . could you spare us the details of your personal issues in the future. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Gosh 4Salt...got that info from you and here you are...changing your mind!

May a great

Salmo,

Thanks for the explanation. Actually, I just came back from a drive up to Lake Shannon with my daughter. Lots of folks fishing, didn't see much catching going on (unless it was Buddummers being tossed from boat to boat).

Saw that PSE had the dams.

Well, for whatever the reason we have no Chum this year. I am sure there was a good reason for it...just nosy to know what it was.

Plunker: I'm with Salmo. Don't care to hear of your bodily functions... :rolleyes:

Mike

Titanium -
Yep -another example of mis-management

check: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/northfalcon/chum.htm

The forecast for Skagit chums for this year is 118,000 fish. As I recall the even year escapement goal is 117,000.

Heaven forbid that anglers be required to set on the bank when there aren't hravestable numbers of fish.

Salmo -
Think that the flow condition the guys are referring to is the low flows that occurred Thanksgiving weekend. The flows dropped over the holiday weekend to or near historic lows. My foggy mind seems to recall that being in 2000.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Thanks. I was thinking that was 2001, but I track too many events for too many stocks on too many rivers to trust it all to memory any more.

Pretty rare for a "drought" to be limiting for chums, but then that was no ordinary drought. Unfortunately, it's going to be quite a few years yet before that condition can be corrected at lower Baker dam.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I remember that drought. I was fishing for the hatcher steelies and man there was NO water or fish for that matter. It lasted longer than just a week too. I was down at the end of Wylde Road and walked across a channel I usually cant even wade a quarter of the way through. There were biologists from the SCL up there looking the damage over. They were marking the Chinook redds with PAINT because they were dry as a bone. I can't tell you how many were destroyed but I can tell you that there were probably 10 to 12 areas that they marked in a quarter to a third of a mile of river. It was sad!

I spoke with Phil Diaz at Northern Sales (Mount Vernon) about this. He's been discussing this with some of the WDFW guys. Apparently it's not a mis-print. There is going to be a meeting about this close to a month from now. Phil is trying to get the Tribe to attend - I'm not to sure but I think he said Brian Claduesby (sp). I'll try and get more info so that some of us can attend and hopefully find out first hand what's going on. Maybe voice an opinion or two also!

Is this the first time the Skagit has been closed for chum? I've been around here for a long time and I can't remember it ever being closed before.

Here is an old article about the Baker dry up.

NW Fishletter

.nSKAGIT Chums, Chinook Take Possible Hit

Concern over another chum stock made the news recently, after hydro operations on the Baker River, a tributary of the Skagit in northwest Washington, inadvertently dewatered several hundred chum and chinook redds near the town of Concrete. Flows in the river slowed to a trickle after Puget Sound Energy began refilling a reservoir over the Thanksgiving holiday when power demands were down. Redds near the confluence of the Baker and Skagit Rivers and some length downriver were possibly affected.

The state Department of Ecology told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that mostly chums were affected, but a DOE spokesman said more than 220 ESA-listed chinook redds were de-watered as well. Biologists were not able to tell whether the eggs were destroyed. Environmentalists have threatened to sue over the issue, saying that PSE had "previously exhausted its reservoir to take advantage of high power rates in California."

PSE spokesman Roger Thompson said the notion that high market prices are the reason for the lack of water is not accurate. "The region has been faced with a serious lack of rain," said Thompson, who noted that streams in the Skagit Basin have been at half to one-third of their average flows. The Baker River only normally contributes about 15 percent of the flow to the Skagit below the town of Concrete, Thompson said.

Since PSE has only enough generating capacity for about 20 percent of its customers, he said it's not fair to characterize his company as profiting from the problems in California. "We have a commitment to keeping the lights on for our own customers first," he said.

Thompson said PSE and Seattle City Light have been pulsing water from their projects in an attempt to keep redds wet and confer on an almost daily basis with fish management agencies on their operation. He also noted that PSE will defer project maintenance at the Baker facility that would have cut flows even further until March.

WDFW biologist Pete Castle told NW Fishletter that one-quarter to one-half of the redds below Concrete could be lost, but he said about 85 percent of the salmon spawn above the town. He also noted that a "mostly tribal" fishery harvested about 15,000 chums bound for the Skagit last fall. "In hindsight," Castle said, "maybe they should not have fished." B.R.

3:02/01. Ferc to Consider Strteamlining Dam Licensing, Hydro Industry Pushing to Eliminate fish Protections: In accordance with directions from the 106th Congress, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) - the U.S. agency responsible for regulating all private hydropower dams - will hold a series of public meetings around the country, from 8-18 January, as it prepares a report to Congress outlining ways to reduce the cost and time of obtaining a hydropower dam license. The vast majority of the nation hydropower dams, many of them highly destructive of river resources, must be relicensed by FERC within the next two decades. The hydropower industry has long chaffed at current requirements that fish and wildlife needs require equal consideration with power production, and in fact helped draft bills in the 106th Congress (H.R. 2335 and S. 740) that would have streamlined the licensing process at the expense of fish and wildlife protections. The industry and some members of Congress have also sought to eliminate the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) and US Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFWS) independent review authority over dam relicensing when a dam affects species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One industry "streamlining" proposal has long been to carve out ESA exemptions for relicensing by stripping ESA trustee agencies of that ESA co-jurisdiction. FERC's report is expected to play a role in the incoming Bush Administration's efforts to craft a national energy policy and to influence Congress in that debate.

The only west coast FERC meetings will be: 17 January in Portland (Airport Holiday Inn, 8439 N.E. Columbia, Portland, OR (503)256- 5000) and; 18 January in Sacramento (Vagabond Executive Inn, 2030 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA (916)929-5600), both meetings commencing at 0900. FERC will also be accepting written comments until 1 February 2001.

For more information on this process see: http://www.ferc.fed.us/hydro/docs/section603.htm.

For more information on the FERC relicensing process generally and the need for fish and wildlife protections in that process contact:

Matt Sicchio, Coordinator, Hydropower Reform Coalition, American Rivers, msicchio@amrivers.org, (202)347-7550 x3021

Brett Swift, Associate Director of NW Hydropower Programs, bswift@amrivers.org

The morning TIDE the top ten links from Tidepool for February 05, 2001

Dang Smalma! Now you went and gave it away.
Ruined the guessing game while it was just getting fun.

See guys, it wasn't a secret nor was it rocket science.


Titanium Cranium,
You are right about Brian Claduesby (sp.) representing the Swinomish at the meeting next month. Jeff Koenings and the news media will also be there but please allow the proper people to make the announcements through the proper channels at the proper time.


Oh Yeah! Salmo g. and Mike B. Sorry if you were offended by my inside joke in reference to an idiotic insult on another thread.

We know the escapement goal is being met by too small of a margin to allow retention. The question is why is it suddenly not meeting goals. What is causing the problem? This run has been considered healthy until now.

Caught me way off guard here too!!

Especially since I was the one hired by PSE the past few years to shuttle & help do redd counts and surveys for both chum and kings from the Baker River down to Sedro as part of their re-licensing project. Our area WDFW Biologist at the time was invited out on many occasions to join us and see things for himself,...but sadly declined.

Was kinda like watching paint dry after the first week or two, but I can tell you this much,..there were redds everywhere Fall of 2002!! Bar just below the Dalles Bridge we counted & surveyed close to a hundred redds of which maybe 10-15 were dewatered in extremely low flows. About a half mile below that 128 redds in a 200 - 300 yard section of the river of which close to 30 were on the brink of being dewatered, in low flows. (spent a whole day here just on this one bar) Remember too 2002 was the year the OP was shut down due to extremely low flows and fishing here was out of this world!! Water was low here too so the fish adjusted, if anything their redds were covered with too much water during the winter (if thats possible) We also did some fry and smolt surveys in the Spring of 2003 and the numbers were impressive enough to easily catch them with a fish tank net for studying and identifying!!

Surveys included redd counts, depth measurements, water velocity readings among other things and were done at high, medium and low water flows at different times of the year. The job was very thorough and intensive!!

Most Redds effected by the Baker River are from Concrete to just above Hamilton. Only a handfull below Gilligan Creek in spots not usually fished at all and mostly in side channel areas. If the WDFW wanted to protect one of the largest Salmon runs on the Skagit that could definately support a sport fishery than they should have it open from Gilligan Creek down river at the least.

JohnnyCoho,

How would a fishery downstream of Gilligan Creek protect fish? Not to mention that all fish spawning in the middle and upper river must migrate through the lower river first. Further, the large abundance of 2002 doesn't address the loss of redds in 2000/2001, although it portends excellent returns in 2006.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo, ask and you shall receive. Reason for a down river fishery rather than mid to upper river; ( One of my pet peeves actually ) Too many people targeting Chums while on their redds, on the upper river especially!! And I mean blatant targeting of spawning fish, especially in the area just below Swift Creek. Should be a law against knowingly doing this, but then again with lack of any visible enforcement up here, would it really matter. (sorry, this is a touchy subject with me)

Trying to find my fishing logs here for 2001 & 2000, but cant at the current moment, can give you numbers of fish caught, redds seen, & days I was hired to do redd surveys, along with water conditions, temps, ect. going back 5 years or so, if yer ever interested in seeing them. E-mail me if you are

Still, this is one of the healthiest runs on the Skagit. No reason for such a closure.

Hey, Johnny,

Long time no see...how's it goin' up there?

I think that it is already against the law to target actively spawning fish...but that sure doesn't stop all those yahoos up at Switft Creek, now does it.

I don't mean to start up another fly vs. gear argument, but there is usually a big crowd of "River Runs Through It" fishermen up there...you know the ones, guys who never fished before the movie, but worked at Microsoft or some other .com boomer, and went out and spent three grand on a whole fly set up. They line up at Swift Creek and snag spawning chums all day...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Fish on...

Todd

I'd like to see a barbed and bait ban above The Cascade as well. It's closed to all salmon retention up there, so why not ban the eggs and barbs?

Todd

Sad

"I don't mean to start up another gear vs. gear argument, but there is usually a big crowd of fishermen up there...you know the ones, guys who never fished before but worked at Microsoft or some other .com boomer, and went out and spent three grand on gear set up. They line up at Swift Creek and snag spawning chums all day...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad."

It is just sad!

Todd I had to change it a little

Thought this topic was done!

Johnny -
Have to disagree - there are many anadromous skagit stocks that are healthier than its chums - pinks, coho, sea-run cutthroat, bull trout and winter steelhead. Rather than rely on opinion I have based my position on the frequency that that a stock meets or exceeds the co-manager's agreed escapement goals over the last 20 years.

Chums - have an escapement goal of 40,000 on odd years (pinks) and 116,500 on even years. Has met its goals 6 times (30%) over the last 20 years.

Chinook - summer/fall - goal of 14,900 - made goal 5 times or 25% of the time.

Chinook - spring - has not met the combined goal of 3,000 once in the last 20 years.

Coho - goal 60,000 - has met the goal 10 times or 50% of the time.

Pinks - goal of 330,000 - met the goal 8 out of the last 10 years (odd year only) or 80% of the time.

Winter Steelhead - goal of 6,000 - met goal 13 times or 65% of the time.

If the chums are fishable and can support harvest why are not the steelhead which is meeting its goal twice as often?

Johnny/Todd -
understand you concerns about fishing on spawning fish. I notice on a web site of a popular Skagit guide this week - while fly fishing the last day of the season he had pictures of 3 steelhead - to my eye they apeared to be a spawned out female, a male running milt, and a male that look as if it were ready to spawn or had all ready spawned.

Would you recommend that the CnR season on the Skagit/Sauk be shorten to get the anglers of the spawners? If so how much? A month?

Tight lines
S malma

Tx for the figures Smalma. I would argue that the way the CnR is managed may be flawed. They open the upper river only which puts unnecessary pressure on the redds in that area year after year. I have fished this fishery over the last 20 years and it has declined significantly, at least from memory. Yet I have friends that live down river (Capehorn and Birdsview) and they say they see several steelhead rolling in the evenings at the headwaters and tailouts. I havent' seen that occur on the upper river in the last seven or eight years. It used to happen every morning and every evening on Sauk Bar, but I can't remember a day it has happened in recent years. If they're going to run the CnR I think they should cycle it between upper river and mid river every few years. It would average the pressure out.

TC:

"I havent' seen that occur on the upper river in the last seven or eight years. It used to happen every morning and every evening on Sauk Bar, but I can't remember a day it has happened in recent years. If they're going to run the CnR I think they should cycle it between upper river and mid river every few years. It would average the pressure out."

Seems like sound wisdom to me, as well.

There is a bar below our place, and I fished that spot probably 4 days a week from Jan. through April. Never once did I see a Steelhead roll in all the water from there to the house. (and many, many hours were spent just sitting and watching the river roll by). Coho, Pinks - Yes, Steelhead never.

Splitting the river at the Dalles bridge and rotating the fishery on two year cycles - 2 above the bridge then two years below - makes sense to my illogical brain.

Would it help the situation? I don't have the education to know, but it would take some pressure off the fish that get above the Dalles Bridge...they seem to get hammered year after year.

Mike

Smalma -

Great stats. Do you have any stats on harvest for chums? Lets say, commercial, tribal and sport? I would be very surprised if the sport harvest was more than 3% on even years. The chum fishing on the skagit is a recreational fishery that generates a lot of income for the local economy. Far more money than will be generated from commercials (we won't bring tribal slitting into the topic). These rule changes need to be addressed and reviewed long before implementing them (at least a year in advance). WDFW probabaly new for some time (3,4 years) that escapement goals would not be met. This would allow for public input and lobbying which could help the sportsmen/women retain their rights. Instead of getting the shaft year after year.

All others concerned about swift creek/ snagging. Stopped stewing about something you can never change unless you close the river to fishing (every where). Look at the big picture, those involved are affecting probably .005% of the population. Half of the fish they catch are spent and their effect is quite irrelevant.

LT

Great points LunchTime. I don't see what's so difficult about going selective rules in areas where fresh and spawning fish mix. That way we still get fishing opportunity, while minimizing hooking mortality. The "kill it or close it" mentality just shafts the sportsfishers. The fish pictures Smalma points to make that point perfectly- you will catch downstreamers and ripe fish when winter steelhead fishing- everywhere and anywhere on the Skagit, even when staying away from tailouts and spawning areas. With C&R regs the fishery stays open, and the fish get a quick barbless C&R.

"the co-manager's agreed escapement goals" maybe where the problems start?

Smalma, The fish that you are refering to caught on the fly the last day of the season were definately not fished for or caught off of spawning water and were caught in more fast moving traditional holding type water as Nailknot could attest to. Both males had not yet spawned, although one was indeed milting.
( I would not ever purposely fish on or target spawning fish and can distinguish spawning water from holding or traveling water )

Lunchtime, didn't mean to stew about things I know I cannot personally change, ( try not to be negative about things) just a sore spot with me; and I wasn't pin pointing the Swift Creek Drift or pitting fly vs.. gear, said the "area" meaning actually the area from Swift Creek down to Rockport where redds are far more visible than in the Swift Creek Drift. (especially the dewatered ones)

Run timing was also pretty screwed up this year on our wild fish, (pretty much all our runs)
They came, but in their own due time,..seems to be getting a little later each year.

We traditionaly see our first push of upper Skagit system Natives in late January & the first few weeks of February,...then it goes dead for a few weeks. These fish are upper trib fish. This year they just didn't materialize till' a bit later, either that or they screamed right by us and we didn't see em'. Generally they are the bigger fish. This year, a good sign perhaps, over 80% of the fish caught were in the 6-10 pound range, another 10 + % 10 to 12 pound range.

And I also personally agree with Nailknot on the upper Skagit above Marblemount going to no bait & barbs, right along with the upper Sauk above Darrington starting in Feb. ( BUT THEN AGAIN,.. how much more govt. control in our lives do we really need?!?! How's about educating the masses first on the fragility of somthing we take so precious, and after that letting us make our own decisions on how we live our lives. Hopefully integrity will win over!!)
:rolleyes: Aw man,...there I went and did it,..starting to jones already. Only 3 more weeks till AK, only 3 more weeks till AK

My 2 cents!!

Johnny Coho,

I see. I don’t think very well of fishing for fish on their redds. Some folks do it; I don’t know why. However, I’d hate to see a stream closure because over the years I’ve fished for Dolly Varden and early winter steelhead during the same time that chum salmon are spawning in the middle and upper Skagit River. Most fish I see on redds have already spawned, and the damage done by those who target them for fishing is negligible. I’m not defending that action, just saying that in the greater scheme of things, very little actual harm is done to the chum population. I’d rather see a focus on educating anglers and let enforcement agents ticket those they observe actively snagging salmon on redds. My preference is to retain angling opportunity whenever it’s consistent with fish conservation objectives.

Smalma,

You asked Johnny/Todd, but I don’t support shortening the season, CNR or otherwise, to keep some anglers from fishing on redds. Two reasons. First, as I mentioned to Johnny above, the actual damage to the fish population, if any, is negligible (like we once thought the entire CNR season was!). Most fish observed on redds have already spawned. The eggs are in the gravel. The resultant fishing activity is harassment, but doesn’t reach the threshold of damaging the fish resource. Second, when the river is closed, there continues to be fishing, based on my personal observations. That fishing is not CNR, and does meet the threshold of damage due to the slight reduction in spawning escapement. I’d rather risk the negligible harm of dolts who fish on redds than accept the certain harm of post-season poaching.

TC & Mike,

Why would it make sense to rotate the late season steelhead CNR fishery between the middle and upper Skagit River? You’ve seen less fish rolling in the upper river in recent years because the run sizes have been smaller. More fish were rolling on Sauk Bar 20 years ago because run sizes were larger, and Sauk Bar had more preferred steelhead holding water - and less fishing pressure. Those conditions I think better explain the difference in your observations.

Those steelhead in the middle river don’t stay there. The vast majority of them migrate to the upper Skagit and Sauk Rivers and their respective tributaries to spawn. A relatively low percentage of the Skagit basin steelhead run spawns downstream of the Dalles bridge. At least they did when I used to help do the redd counts, and I haven’t heard of any significant shifts in spawning distribution. But all the steelhead do have to migrate through the lower and middle rivers. And particularly, since this is a CNR fishery, with a very low overall exploitation rate, I can’t see how this action would improve steelhead productivity in any way. As Smalma points out, the steelhead run meets its escapement goal most of the time, although that goal is the legitimate subject of debate.

Lunch time,

Great question. Terminal area run size and escapement are not the same thing. The even year chum runs are usually forecast as above, to well above, escapement, and fishing seasons are set. Sometimes the fishery “over achieves,” and the escapement goal isn’t quite met. Even with the increase in popularity of fishing for chums, the effect of the recreational fishery is likely between negligible and small. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not computed as a factor in chum management. Maybe that’s changed in recent years; perhaps Smalma would confirm or refute.

Unfortunately, sport anglers have no rights - at law anyway - at stake in this issue. As far as getting the shaft, well there’s a lot of perception driving that. The more terminal a fishery is, the greater the likelihood that it will be shut out of opportunity due to the excess of a prior fishery. The U.S. v. Washington case law has greatly reduced that likelihood, but it cannot eliminate it.

I agree with you about the probably effect of the snagging activity and fishing on redds. My preferred approach is education. Most anglers don’t want to be perceived as dirtbags, but I never argue with a fisherman about it. Any who would argue, or tell me to mind my own business (albeit in more direct language), clearly need that snagged spawnout more than I need to tell them about sportsmanship and the rules of fair chase.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

lunch Time -
Looked at the in river sport harvest - see report listed at this site -
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/harvest/99sport.htm

Found that for the years 1997 to 1999 the last three years easily available to me (sorry to lazy to do additional work) found that in:

1999 the sport harvest was estimated to have been 884 chums or about 6.97% of the total harvest.

1998 the sport harvest was estimated to have been 2,158 or about 8.58% of the total harvest.

1997 the sport harvest was estimated to have been 583 or 22.76% of the harvest.

The three average was 12.77% of the harvest occurred in the river sport fishery.

Remember that is just the harvest and I would guess that the number of fish released would be an order of magnitude higher. Clearly the sport fishery is having some impact.

Johnny -
I in no way meant to imply that the anglers were targeting spawning steelhead. Rather you and Todd were suggesting that the chum fishery be moved down river to get anglers off the spawning chums. I'm suggesting that if fishing on spawning fish is a concern that adjustments to the CnR steelhead should be considered - Please not I did not suggest that those changes be made but rather asked you how to address your concerns.

I see no reason why management of our wild salmonid resources should not be based on consistent principles. That would apply to either fishing on spawners or runs expected to be underescaped. I find your desire to fish on underescaped chums runs inconsistent with your stance on wild steelhead.

Salmo -
Generally speaking the expected impacts from freshwater fishing is modeled into the expected total impacts for each season.

I share your concern about the willingness of some of our anglers to target a given species even when the season is closed. This type of unethical behavior (at least in my opinion) seems to getting more common. This may be due in part to some anglers and guides willingness to put their own fishing needs above that of the fish. The newbies that Todd referred to see this and accept such behavior as the norm.

Tight lines
S malma

Thanks,

Smalma

Smalma and Salmo- thanks! I agree with Smalma that we need a baseline to have consistency and measure effects. We can and should keep an eye on the baseline- but you guys have the knowledge. Keep us in the loop? That said, I'm all for sport opportunity (thanks you Salmo), and I believe regs could be modified to account for holding upriver fish, and spawners in the same water, by using the same established baselines for hooking impact- barbless C&R works according to science.
I see a number of waters that are obvious candidates for this reg- particularly on the Skagit. If kelts are of concern, why open a bait season on the Sauk June 1? If salmon are closed, and no hatchery steelhead planted, above the Cascade, why open a bait & barber season up there? We have tools to mitigate sport impact, why not use them where appropriate? Just give it a chance and see what happens? My understanding of this years minor reg cycle says we need to find an advocate inside WDFW for regs change. Fitting with the economic benefits and wild & scenic designation of the Skagit drainage- I'm all for year round selective on the Sauk, and selective above the Cascade. The only legal take in those waters are Dollies and steelhead (and "trout"). We could run a "whitefish season" but for Dollies... but that doesn't work well- too complicated. Seems like a win-win to have clear C&R selective rules in place where so many species are around but off limits. I have no anger towards anyone just looking for good solutions that allow me to keep fishin... Worth a try?

A couple things here:

Salmo -
While I don't have baseline statistics in front of me I can reflect on psych 101 and Pavlov’s dogs. After a while an animal will become conditioned to environmental impacts. If getting hooked and the resultant struggle disturbing, even if the fish are released, I would suspect that eventually the fish will become behaviorally modified. Behavior in psychological terms meaning the resultant action or reaction to a given condition or set of circumstances. Maybe I'm giving the fish too much credit for reacting to being jerked around by the lips but I think I'd learn pretty fast. I believe it is possible that some of the fish would react to their set of circumstance and determine that it was safer to migrate back downstream to remove themselves from potential harm, spawning in the mid river. Consequently the fish that results from a downriver redd would then continue to return to that area. At least that was my understanding of the process, though I don't profess to be a certified professional in this field.

This would also explain the observation made by my friends over the past couple of months.

I completely agree as you are reading this that it is conjecture on my part but that's my somewhat educated opinion.

Additionally I have been told by seemingly knowledgeable people that the Steelhead in this river spawn pretty much all up and down the river. So I think all things taken into consideration that cycling the CnR to a different area of the river may have a positive effect of re populating the upper stretch of the river during March & April.

I would agree that the holding water on the Sauk Bar this year has changed dramatically and that very little on that stretch of river exists as it did 20 years ago. However I have made my observation over the past 15 years and I assert that before the last flood the Sauk Bar did have good holding water, just not many fish.

Nailknot -
As a side note: I'd like to see an advocate as well but I'm pretty sure this ruling may have had significant input from the tribes as this river now sports the "triangle" indicating that the river is NOW co-managed with input from the tribe.

I believe this is why Brian Cleduesby has been asked to attend the upcoming Wildcat Steelhead Club meeting.

Todd,

Not going to disagree with the fact that the fly guys on the Skagit are flossing chummers but they are not the majority at Swift Creek. The gear guys snagging there pretty much make it know they don't want the flossers around. The fly flossers take up to much of their snagging water with all of room needed to huck out those weighted flies and all. Take a look above the 101 hole or power lines and you will find more fly flossers. Although I have seen them on the river from Sedro to Marlbemount. What I don't understand is why? Once you have hooked a couple of chums you pretty much know what to expect. Big pull and thats it. Boring! If they are after the meat there isn't a chum worth taking home after it passes Burlington.

TC,

I don’t believe either Psych 101 or Pavlov’s dog are directly applicable here. Fish psychology is decidedly different than human psychology because fish have less brain, and what parts they do have in common with humans is still less developed than the human brain. The result is that to the extent that fish “think,” they think differently. While it’s reasonable to believe that fish don’t enjoy being hooked, they don’t experience it mentally the way you would, and consequently they don’t learn from it the way you would. Trout, and therefore probably steelhead, do become more selective after having been hooked several times. However, only a few steelhead are hooked more than once, altho individual steelhead have been identified as having been hooked and caught 3 times. (An exception might be the Thompson River, where the run size is often small over the past decade or so, fishing conditions optimal, and angling pressure quite intense.) I think the result is that steelhead don’t learn very much from being hooked because it doesn’t occur frequently enough for most of them. And to the extent they would learn from it, they would become more selective about biting bait and lures - that is what trout, for which there is more direct knowledge, are known to do. I see no evidence that steelhead would turn around and migrate back downstream to the middle Skagit River. The steelhead do not know that the Dalles bridge is the fishing boundary line. I suspect the observations made by your friends over the past couple months is the result of being observant, or coincidence. Skagit and Sauk steelhead have been holding in the middle river - often until after the April 30 closing date - for many years. They do so because it’s good holding water, but it is not where the preponderance of them will spawn. Yes, steelhead do spawn as far down as the bar below the Hwy 9 bridge, and very occasionally the Johnson bar near Burlington, but well over 80% of the steelhead run spawns upstream of the Dalles bridge. They probably always have and probably always will. That’s because that is where the best spawning habitat is, and importantly, the best early juvenile colonization habitat is. Biology and ecological necessity far outweigh the effects of steelhead fishing activity and the CNR fishing regulations in determining where and why steelhead spawn in the river system.

Another consideration about where the CNR fishery is located relates to the uncontrollable effect of the Miner’s Creek slide on the Baker River. If there is a flood year, the Baker will puke turbidity into the Skagit, causing fishing conditions downstream of the Baker to be marginal or worse much of the time. If a flood year and a middle river season coincided, then the fish would have no worries that year from anglers.

Regarding Sauk Bar, the major changes there occurred from the 1990 and then the 1995/96 floods. The quantity of good holding water has been less ever since, but it’s still one of the better pools on the river, just not the premier place it once was. I didn’t notice much change from the October 2003 flood, but I was only up there once this season.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Guys,

Great discussion and input for this topic: Chum, endangered on the Skagit? http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=017720

Smalma - I have one more questions. I did some math with then numbers you provided.




Now, I do not have the actual escapement numbers for the years, so I used the target numbers you provided. I also understand there may be significant variation. I calclulated the average estimated harvest compared to the escapement is: Sport 1.84%, commercial/tribal 19.90%. The numbers forecasted for 2004 were derived from the data of previous years, they are purely speculation.

Also, you stated, “The three average was 12.77% of the harvest occurred in the river sport fishery.” I don’t buy this number. It was calculated with out any deviation. The 22.76% sport harvest (which is way off from the standard deviation) is a result of a low commercial/tribal harvest. Not an over harvest by sport fisherman. Besides that, it doesn't represent the harvest in relation to the escapement.

Now, with this data maybe you could give me an explanation to the benefits of closing the Skagit to the sport harvest of chums.


Thanks,

Lunch Time

Smalma & Salmo, Please don't group me with the WSC. (Sorry WSC guys.) While I do agree with much of what they stand for as far as the love & protection of our Wild Steelhead goes, I disagree with many of the ways they're going about to protect the fishery & habitat. I know they keep saying, "baby steps" first, and the goal is "Wild Steelhead" with the group, but I also agree with Smalma on the Salmon issue as well. I do consider Todd & many others in the WSC as friends, but do not wish to be grouped with them at this time.

I challenged the WSC on the Excavation done on the Sauk this year in an earlier post, and also said it many other times including earlier in this post, "educate the masses first" on our resource. Offer solutions on somthing everyone has input on and can help with and let us make our own decisions. Let personal integrity make our decisions & not the govt, (that's supposed to be speaking for us.)

Integrity means, "To thine own self be true" from Shakespeare's Hamlet. In other words know the difference between right and wrong, and chose "right" over wrong.

I quite often, when not booked on the weekends, take local kids out fishing (many who fish the Skagit regularly have seen my sled filled with kids on many occasions). It's a huge learning experience for them along with mass amounts of fun. They observe spawning fish & learn why we leave them alone, they also learn about C&R techniques & principals and why it's so important to their futures among other things.

WSC...I put forth the challenge once again: (I think it would have a huge impact as far as public input & support go rather than having whole towns against what you are fighting for. i.e. the whole thing with the town of Forks right now) Put together a group of speakers to offer a class or seminar to go in front of town meetings & schools and educate the people on the value and preservation of the resource. Then put together work groups to work with the towns & kids to make a difference.

This would have been a great opportunity as I said with the Sauk Excavation Thing if instead of condemning, someone attended a few town meetings, "listened" to the concerns of the townsfolk and then offered educated solutions and hands-on help.

As far as the current regs stand for Chum right now;( I'm going by my fishing journals and what I've observed over many years fishing the Skagit.) I just hope that an emergency opener will be considered if runs do apear to be exeeding escapement by a fair & reasonable number. I also hope that our new area biologist will take an interest in keeping in contact with those on the river on a daily basis to find out just exactly whats going on as far as conditions, run timing, spawning, observations on current smolt migrations ect. While I know much of the decisions made are in the office and time is limited, you do have eyes and ears on the river with those that fish it daily.

Johnny,

The WSC's sum total of participation in the Sauk excavation issue was to send a letter to the county, cc'd to WDFW Enforcement, asking them to investigate the source of the investigation and to encourage them to find out exactly what happened, and why.

That was all...

Are there any other habitat issues you're concerned about, as far as the WSC goes?

I have seen your sled full of kids before...and chums and pinks provide an excellent opportunity to get them out there and catch them some fish and let them observe lots of fish in the river doing their thing. I hope that there aren't any closures, other than those that are necessary for conservation, that would prevent you from providing that educational experience.

Catch ya later...

Todd

Lunch Time -
Don't have the figures in front of me (on the Sound today looking for halibut/lings). However recall that the Total chum run in 1997 turned out to be less than 15,000 fish. One of the reasons that sport % of the catch was so high - the commercial seasons were closed for chums and the harvest was just those caught incidental in other fisheries. Thus the 1997 average is revalent to the discussion.

The reason I feel that there should not be a sport fishery when the runs is low is the same reason I feel there should not be commercial seasons. What is the point of having escapement goals if the managers aren't at least attempt to manage for them?

While I understand the value of the sport fishery and not having a season represent a loss. However that is not good enough reason for me. If you use that logic the not-treaty gill netters would argue that they should have a 2 week season every year on the spring chinook so they can remain economically viable. We would get the same from the Puget Sound purse seiners, tribal fishers and guides. When the economic value of those fisheries is put ahead of the fishes need we will soon have darn few fish over which to argue.

Don't see any need to address your other post in more detail.

Johnny -
did not intent to lump you with WSC. It was my understanding in my conversations with you that required your cilents to release all wild steelhead regardless of whether it was legal to keep them or not. If I mis understood my apologies. If my understanding was correct then I'll stand by my statement.

Tight lines
S malma

Salmo:

Your comments (RE: splitting the Skagit at the Dalles bridge for steelhead seasons) make sense, also.

I guess in my mind I was thinking that we would get better spawn % rates by taking the pressure off of the fish that are spawning upriver. If the majority are indeed spawning upriver and in the smaller tributaries (as your research + experience show) then would it not make sense to pressure the fish less the closer they are to their spawn beds?

By restricting the fishing to an area far below their spawn area, fishing success should be about the same with less CnR going on just as they are entering their respective spawning areas. (not trying to make argument, but asking this as a question)

Unlike Titanium, I don't have the years of fishing experience to go on, rather just what seems logical to me. Seems that common mans logic can not always apply to fish reproduction..:-)

Mike

Smalma,

Thanks for the reply, point well taken.

LT

Mike -
FYI - there fair numbers of wild winter steelhead that also spawn in the lower Skagit tribs -Alder, Hansen, Day etc.

Something to consider - If indeed as you think a CnR is reducing the success fo the spawners why in the heck are you fishing at that time of the year? Even if the females in a CnR area are 95% as successful at spwaning as unfished females that is a substantial lost in the population viability - the same effect on the population as a 10% havest rate.

Tight lines
S malma

Howdy Smalma,

I understood from Salmo's post that the majority of the spawn was done above the Dalles Bridge. If the fish are spawning below the bridge that's great, too!

I'm not sure that the CnR is reducing the fish population up here...it is just my first year fishing wild steelhead. My thoughts were that maybe the suggestion of switching the open fishery area to below the Dalles Bridge for a time would allow an even better spawn rate. I have no personal expertise to go on here, but was wanting to open discussion on the subject as a chance to learn more.

I would guess 80% (or better) of folks that fish that fishery (Skagit CnR) don't really understand all the issues involved, but like most fishermen IF the regs say it is OK then it must be based on good fishery science.

I am very cautious about the catch and release of any fish I am not planning for the table, and to my knowledge have done no permanent harm to any that I have released. That would include close to 100 Dollies this year.

If we had a healthy CnR fishery, and 95% were successful at spawning then the issues of smolt depredation and survival would be equally as important, no?

Mike

Mike,

I think the distinctions between steelhead fishing upstream or downstream of the Dalles bridge are mostly in people's heads. Whether a steelhead that is holding below the Dalles will spawn upstream or downstream of that location is not relevant to its exposure to fishing pressure, regardless of whether that fishing occurs in the upper river or middle river. The distance involved is not great in terms of a steelhead's migration potential, and there really isn't an appreciable difference in spawn timing in the upper and lower Skagit rivers - Mar 15 - June 10 with the peak around May 18. The Sauk, however, peaks roughly 2 weeks earlier than the Skagit.

The main difference with the fishery restricted as it is, is that steelhead that spawn downstream of the Dalles, and enter the Skagit after March 15, don't get fished on, except by plunkers in the lower river - which is a pretty fair angling rate in some years.

The upshot, in my opinion, is that the steelhead productivity advantages previously alluded to of alternating the location of the CNR season simply will not acrue. However, it would provide a change of scenery, which can be nice, as I enjoy fishing many, many places on the middle river, and never cease to be amazed at the odd places I've found a good piece of steelhead holding water.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.