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.