I dont know all the details but from what I have heard the WDFW gave all fish above minimum escapement to the tribe for comercial harvest. Sport harvest and CnR impact is suposed to come out of the minimum escapement 2400 fish. Meaning the river is going to be managed for under escapement.

The tribe can nett as many days a week as it takes to harvest predicted # of fish over minimum escapement.

This happened 2 days prior to the commision making its decision on the 1 fish per year.

If this is true the WDFW just set precidence they gave the Hoh tribe twice what the boldt decision gave them and forgone opportunity didnt even have to be claimed.

It appears the state gave our fish away to stay out of court.

Rich, if that's true that SH. What's your source?

There are some people in the Forks area that have the actual release from the WDFW.

It was released to them one week after the commission meeting.

Im not going to mention their names, they can do that when they are ready.

I wasnt going to say anything untill I actually saw the document but It pisses me off so much I couldnt control myself

I didn't expect names, but thanks for further info. I'm sure we'll all be watching this one. If it's true it pisses me off, too.

I failed to mention this is for wild winter steelehad.

It looks bad never the less but it would have looked alot worse if they would have decided to up hold the mortorium.

Do you think this had anything to do with the decision that was made?

It is awful nice the WDFW is looking out for our best interests.

Rich didn't the Hoh get WDFW to give them more fish last winter? The one's that we couldn't harvest.I guess there will be no more wild steelheaad in the Hoh.

The reason the tribes get a larger share of the larger runs is because the non-tribal harvest will not be greater than about 15% because of the restrictive non-tribal harvest rules.

Just be glad that the moratorium was rescinded because there was language in the settlement providing for the re-negotiation of an even larger tribal share if the moratorium had been upheld.

If the one fish annual limit is still in effect the tribal harvest will be increased with the next round of allocation negotiations.

Plunk,

So instead of the state just handing the fish over like they did why are they not trying to protect our interests and our opportunity isnt it the states job to get us the best deal possible?

Was it not the intent of the decision to help protect fish stocks from to much harvest?

I never heard any position from any non tribal angler that they wanted the tribe to harvest the excess fish.

Maybe its time for us to band together and file a lawsuit agianst the state.

Maybe its time for the guides, sport anglers and small towns throught the state where msimanagement and overharvest by the comanagers has lost them jobs and revenue to band together and sue the state of washington and tribes. People need to be held accountable for what has happened and what is still happening.

The state has let the tribes have everything thay want for far to long.

We have gotten screwed for many years by the same government agencies that are supposed to represent our interests.

Nothing in our current fisheries system is working in our state, its all bandades, we need major surgery!

Whereas, the Hoh run of wild steelhead is decreed healthy by WDFW; and

Whereas, the Treaty of Quinault reserves 50% of the harvestable surplus to the Hoh Indian Tribe; and

Whereas, if either the treaty or non-treaty harvestable shares is not harvested by its respective entity, the other party may harvest the foregone surplus; and

Whereas, the non-treaty citizens fish steelhead upstream of the Hoh Indian Tribe;

Be it therefore resolved that the WDFW Commission enact a sport gill-netting season on the Hoh River, open as many days as necessary from January 1 to April 30, to harvest fully the non-treaty share of 50% of the harvestable surplus of wild Hoh River steelhead.

Be it further resolved that the WDFW Commission requires each sport gill-netter to obtain a specific permit from WDFW and to register his or her catch daily with the WDFW regional office so as to accurately assess the harvest, up to, and including, the full 50% predicted harvestable share.

Signed: the gang of 9.

There, don't ya' think that oughta' take care of this problem? Either the non-treaty sector gets its legal allocation, or fish it out, and there won't be anything left to argue over.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

What is the allowed allotment of fall Chinook and Coho for the Hoh tribe to harvest in the fall?
Does the Hoh tribe net the lower Hoh 7 days a week in the fall (Oct, Nov, and Dec)?

Salmo g:

That's certainly one way to do it.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... would the last guy to kill the very last wild Hoh River steelhead please remember to turn the water off?

Didnt you all know that this would happen? This was a for sure thing, most of you whined and cried about how we should release all wild fish, well what did you think was going to happen, thats right, the indians would not only get their shair of the fish, but all the ones that most of you were trying to protect, so it looks like we will all pay for that one, sweet. I am not pointing fingers or even getting upset, I was one of the ones that stayed silent during all the moritorium hoopla, but a hand full of us discussed that this is what would happen if the moritorium passed, would any of you have listened, no not at all. So now we can be sure that those fish will be wiped out, not just a possibility.

Im with matt e. on this one!! (give it away-give it away now)

Git off me paw you're crushin' my smokes.

Frankly i don't care one way ot the other. o consider it no loss whatsoever if the tribe gets all the harvestable surplus or the harvestable surplus is divided between the tribes and the sporties. a dead fish is a dead fish and dead fish don't make baby fish to catch 3-4 years later. any of you who likes to harvest even an occasional wild steelhead should have NO SAY in this matter you are just as guilty..

Here is what i have been trying to tell you guys for years now and it should be painfully obvious now.... WDFW does not give a **** about you, about sport fishing or about wild steelhead! THEY DO NOT CARE!!!! quit playing your little games about whats the best way to manage the resourse in terms of harvest it doesn't matter.. harvest is harvest and harvest has ALWAYS IN EVERY SINGLE CASE ruined steelhead runs.. Harvest is the problem, sport tribal or whatever.. we need to flat out end the harvewst of steelhead PERIOD.. anything short of that is doomed to failure and WDFW is dead set on obeying their God (MSY) They literally worship a mathematical model and trust in it despite all evidence to the contrary. They worship it inspite of it leading every steelhead run in the state of ruin to the brink of extinction ( except thoes now in question).

If you are missing my point here it is..

MSY is wrong and as long as WDFW continues to use it to manage wild steelhead stocks there is no point in arguing any element of harvest.. The same number of fish will die. A surplus if wild steelhead is an ill fated concept, a river knows and naturally limits how many fish it can handle and if there are too many it will work that out on it's own.. but the A..es at WDFW think they know more than God about steelhead..
here is the solution, scrap MSY, fire Bob Gibbons and make it clear that he is being fired because of gross neglegence and incompetence and that his entire career at WDFW is a failure. also can Koenig.. They are failures and need to be canned.. we need a WDFW that cares about wild steelhead and is willing to tell the tribes and us sporties to go to hell and do whats right to save the fish!

Get er done then hot shot, just like you tried to get the moritorium done. I dont think that I said that I kept wild fish did I, thanks for the input though.

I'm afraid that RA3 is right.

Well said RA3.

To clarify this for me as well as others, if a harvestable limit of 1000 fish is declared, then the Indian fishery can take 500 and the non-treaty can take 500. If either side can’t harvest their 500 fish, then the other side can harvest the fish until the 1000 harvestable quota is met. With the “new” one wild fish annual limit, versus the 5 fish limit of previous years, the 4 fish that are not harvested by non-treaty fisherman will now go toward the Indian harvest. Is this a correct interpretation??

You got it, forgone opportunity. I knew this was gonna happen. Probably gonna see it on all the other O.P. rivers also.

If foregone opportunity was really the case than why were all the tribes dead set against the moratorium. Seems to me they could have supported the moratorium and gotten all the fish if F.O. was the case. The Hoh tribe just told WDFW what they were going to do and that was that. The A.G.'s office will not fight the tribes on it's citizens behalf.

About 5-6 years ago the tribes put the WDFW on notice that, unless we liberalize the harvest rules for many of the Olypen rivers including the Hoh and start taking something closer to our non-tribal share, they would consider our opportunity foregone and harvest a portion of our share.

The WDFW proposed setting the rules at 2 fish per day and 30 per year but instead, the Commission set the limits at 1 per day and 5 per year. It was the Commission that failed to follow the legal advice reflected in the WDFW staff proposal.

The result is the lopsided harvest plan we have now. It has been agreed amongst the co-managers that with the 1/day and 5/year limits the non-tribal effort will take a maximum of 15% of the run at best. The current harvest plan is based upon this premise.

The WDFW and F&W Commission were advised that unless some harvest were allowed and the moratorium rescinded that the Boldt Case agreement between the Hoh Tribe and the State provided for renegotiating of an even greater share for the tribes due to even larger foregone harvest by the non-tribal fishermen.

Because some non-tribal harvest has been permitted, as per legal advice, the Boldt Case agreement will stand and the terms of harvest allocation will prevail for the next several years at which time a new plan will be developed according to the harvest rules in effect at that time.

If at that time the 1/day and 1/year rules are still in effect or if all non-tribal harvest is prohibited the co-managers will assume a maximum non-tribal take of 10-11% or less and the division will be in accordance with the greater uncapitalized upon opportunity for non-tribal take.

The tribes should be thanking the WSC, WT, FFF and all the friends and affiliates of these organizations for the windfall.

Plunk what brand do you drink?

Wrong Plunk, You should be thanking those organizations that are actually concearned about the direction our wild steelhead runs are going and bringing to attention their plight. I am sorry but these organizations will not let down and will not be satisfied until change occurs. I hope your organization (whatever it is) is doing something aside from pontificating on a bb.

This is not the first time, please read this from the WSC Fact sheet, it is indeed an outrage that our Commission and WDFW can be bullied. But like Rob A posted does it really make a difference who kills them first, because in the end if the fish loose we all loose. But I guess it is human nature to be greedy.

8. Last year (2002/03) the Hoh River was under-escaped by 800 fish. The run-size would have easily exceeded the escapement goal of 2400 spawners, but the combined sport and tribal harvest drove the escapements well-below the escapement goal. This situation came about because of an overly optimistic pre-season run-size forecast that was used to establish the harvest fisheries for 2002/03. For 2003/04, the pre-season run-size forecast calls or 4453 fish, and the co-managers agreed to a harvest allocation of 1395 fish for the Hoh tribe and 668 for sport fishers. The co-manager’s plan calls for a targeted wild steelhead escapement of 2360 fish, or 40 fish below the escapement goal! We can only hope that this year’s preseason forecast underestimates, rather than overestimates, this year’s actual returns, and that the harvesters fail to achieve their full allocations.

9. The Queets River has been managed for spawners below its desired WDFW escapement for the last 10 years due to tribal demands.

All part of THE DARKNESS OF GREED!!!
Chrome

Rich,

You suggest that I am wrong for not thanking you and your affiliate organizations for your concern about the direction our wild steelhead runs are going and bringing to attention their plight. OK! Thank you for your concern but the attention you have drawn to their plight is reminiscent of the 'Chicken Little and the sky is falling' approach towards promoting your statewide C&R agenda.

You have worked hard to create a sense of need and urgency to impose Mandatory Wild Steelhead Release (MWSR); supposedly to prevent a perceived universal spiraling decline to extinction. You claim that we must stop the killing but at the same time you promote year-round catch and release of wild steelhead with the associated incidental maiming and mortality that is inevitably associated with hooking and handling.

The real truth is that the Hoh River and many others have healthy populations very capable of sustaining a prudent amount of harvest. On the Hoh River the average returns over the five-year period ending in 2003 have been about 198%, or nearly double, the spawning escapement goal and after an average harvest of 41% of the total return the escapement goal has been exceeded by an average of 17%.

Let's assume that you are correct about the 2003/04 pre-season run-size forecast calling for 4,453 fish, and that the co-managers agreed to a harvest allocation of 1,395 fish for the Hoh tribe and 668 for sport fishers. They knew that with the current non-tribal harvest restrictions a maximum of approximately 15% of the total run or about 668 fish for total non-tribal harvest out of a total harvestable excess of 2,053 might be realized.

The 2003/04 season is now water under the bridge but it is interesting that the 15% non-treaty maximum harvest rate continues into the harvest management plan in the Boldt Case Settlement signed on July 13, 2004.

If you bother to do your addition you will notice that the tribal share you mention as being 1,395 fish is sufficient to provide for an escapement of 2,390 fish or just 10 less than the goal of 2,400, not 2,360 as you suggest. Except for the an 10 fish anomaly the tribal harvest is very much like that which would be provided for under the Boldt Case settlement or specifically 1,385 and 668 fish for tribal and non-tribal allocations.

The tribe was allocated roughly double the non-tribal allocation because of the non-tribal harvest limitations. You can use whatever terminology you want to describe how the tribe got the bigger half but I call it the re-allocation of missed harvest opportunity.

So unless it does make a difference to yourself and the WSC who kills the fish you are wasting time and resources pushing for sport harvest restrictions that only serve to shift the take from the non-tribal to the tribal fishermen.

Consider that you could accomplish something closer to your goal of getting more fish on the spawning beds by negotiating with the WDFW and the Tribes for higher escapement goals. Again, the federal court rulings provide that MSY is the 'law of the land' but, because of the small monetary value of the steelhead, the Tribal leaders might be amenable to agreeing to higher escapements for ascetic reasons and the non-tribal stakeholders might also agree.

Well, at the least it is food for thought.

The Skagit also once had a harvestable amount of wild steelhead.. well we harvested them now they are gone and the Skagit no longer meets it escapment goals..
it's not because of fish that have been maimed by CnR it'e because of harvest plain and simple

Harvesting wild steelhead anywhere in the state is a stupid and greedy thing to do.
the state spends millions to make sure that there are millions of hatchery salmonids to harvest and eat.. NO ONE NEEDS TO HARVEST WILD ONES.. It's a freaking no brainer!!!
you take them out of the river put them in your freezer and they don't spawn. DUH!! it really is that simple!!

Anyone who harvests a wild steelhead in the state of Washington cannot claim to care about the future of the species..
you cannot kill what you are trying to save. Duh again it's a no brainer..

there were once hundreds of rivers that had healthy populations of wild steelhead then there were 34, then there were 16 and now how many half a dozen?? the MSY model has failed in every instance it has been used and is beginning to fail on the penninsula.. how many emergency closures the last few years???

again harvesting a wild steelhead is a stupid and selfish thing to do..

As far as CnR mortality goes.. thoes anglers who catch many steelhead at all are more skilled anglers who know how to handle fish.. when was the last time you saw an unspawned floater??? CnR mortality is so small that it isn't an issue. you can cry about it all you want but thats the truth..

I am convinced that the Anti CnR groups are that way simply out of revenge for having catch and kill seasons limited..


If all you want from a day on a river is a cooler full of meat then you don't get it and should take up golf and buy fish in the market...

2003/04 pre-season run-size forecast calling for 4,453 fish, and that the co-managers agreed to a harvest allocation of 1,395 fish for the Hoh tribe and 668 for sport fishers. They knew that with the current non-tribal harvest restrictions a maximum of approximately 15% of the total run or about 668 fish for total non-tribal harvest out of a total harvestable excess of 2,053 might be realized.

Here is the perplexing part of the whole thing. What a pathetic small number of fish your wanting to harvest.... With the Hoh being one of the main rivers on the OP would it be out of line to think that the entire OP probably only gets like 20,000 steelhead total returning ??? if that many ??? Hard to figure out who is the dumbest group you have over there in Washington state... Your completely greedy tribes... your totally ignorant WDFW or the 30 percent or so of sport fisherman who want to put a stick in the spokes of any effort to correct the situation....

If God would have had the Arc built in Washington state and asked for 3 of each kind of critter to be put on it you guys would have figured out a way to eat the third one instead :rolleyes:

RA3, Plunker, etc.,

Interesting discussion, to say the least.

I have no problem with a 1 or 2 fish per day limit, I also have no problem with a -0- retention policy on Wild Steelhead, either.

RA3: It does seem, based on the submitted facts, that before we make any attempts to get a "no retention" policy on wild fish that we FIRST have to get the tribes on board. Without that, any efforts on the fishes behalf will most certainly back-fire.

Seems the tribes attitude is: "If the Sportsmen don't catch them, we will."

The "0 Retention" team fought a great battle against other Sportsmen (in essence a "civil war" scenario) to get the 1 fish limit.

What none of us realized was that there was an entirely different, and far more powerful enemy, just over the hill, waiting to come in and take all the spoils of the war. Neither side (WSR or no wsr) wins.

And there's not a thing we can do about it.

At one time I was fairly anti-Native fishery. I was anti-Boldt amendment. I still hate any gill net.

To be PC, and clear, about it, I have no prejudice against the native American tribes. I do have a problem with their fisheries practices when they destroy work non-natives have done to preserve a potentially endangered shared resource.

Mike

p.s. RICH: Even though this thread is about where we got screwed by WDFW, etc. I find the language your "Title" a bit harsh. We know what the word is. So did my young daughter and her friend as they watched me as I showed them catch pic's on the board. We (board readers) can understand, just as well, someone saying "We got screwed", or "We got hosed". etc. Just an opinion from one who has/does respect for your posts.

Plunker, I believe it is futile to discuss this topic, you can spin it any way you want.

No chicken little, I will let the record of the strategy you agree with speak for itself, it just a matter of time. But it has never been a trait of aggressive harvest management to be proactive, just reactive. If we don't look at history we are doomed to repeat it.

I am sure there are other issues we can agree with, but with this we have to simply agree to disagree, hopefully without placing your blame on some organizations who are least trying to do something proactive. If your not involved in an organization, I hope you find the time, if you are I would be interested on the activities your involved with. Perhaps the WSC can offer support on a project your group is working on for wild steelhead.

RA3 wrote:
“there were once hundreds of rivers that had healthy populations of wild steelhead then there were 34, then there were 16 and now how many half a dozen?? the MSY model has failed in every instance it has been used and is beginning to fail on the penninsula... how many emergency closures the last few years???”

We’ve been telling them for 3 years, I will not name any names they just don’t see it happen. I guess all they want is to eat every last Wild Steelhead!

RA3 wrote:
“I am convinced that the Anti CnR groups are that way simply out of revenge for having catch and kill seasons limited…”

Me too!

When do these so called healthy runs become unhealthy, when the last willd fish is netted????

Dr Ricker and his disciples sold the entire establishment of salmon/steelhead managers a bag of rotten goods with his concept of managing runs for MSY. Like RA3 said, the track record speaks for itself.... wild runs are being managed to extinction!

Any non-biased observer can see that over the past 6 decades, watershed after watershed has been depleted of its wild runs using this archaic strategy, and yet it persists.... passed on academically thru the up and coming ranks of new fish managers as if it were Biblical truth. And yet ironically, it is the law of the land that runs be managed for MSY, despite its obvious flaws!.

MSY is a theory that looks good on paper, but fails to deliver on its promise in the real world. Seems to me the part that's missing is the "S" for sustained, leaving us only with MY. Funny how "maximal yield" is the war cry of the most greedy and sellfish user groups... me me me , MY MY MY... the fish be damned!

First of all I want to say that I am not for harvest of wild steelhead. With that being said here goes:

As I have said before I have great doubts that the kill fishery is the main and only problem here. Many rivers have be on emergency closures for years and many rivers have closed for harvest before the runs were in real jepordy. However many of these runs haven't returned or even increasted one iota, Why? I don't have the answer but it seems the WSFW don't either.

We've taken taken away the dreadded and greedy sport killers and the runs aren't returning? May be the C&R guys estimates on incidental kills are too low may be it 80 to 90 percent not 20 percent. Even at 20 % mortality how do you C&R guys live with your self if that fish you just released is the one out of five. Maybe it's the non-tribal netting taking hundreds of fish in one set. Tribal netting where the 50/50 split really dosen't apply,with them taking fish for ritual purposes and taking what we don't take. Maybe it's environmental with the growth and chemicals we pump into the water and air dayly. The list could go on and on we all have a hand in this NOT JUST ONE GROUP. We need to band together to stop the greed. Top to bottom.

One other thing I have been wondering about is this catch and release regulation. There has been some debate over the mortality rate of C&R I don't really know the estimates but I here anywhere from 5% to 20%. . So the C&R guys could be killing as many as 5 to 20 in 100 fish. As I read the regs when you harvest your one fish you are done fishing for the day go home no more fishing. A C&R guy can fish all day say he catches 10 fish at 10% he's killed one fish also.?????? Also the native killer now has to become a C&R guy the rest of the year. So I believe the C&R guy is to blame also. I believe compromise is a good thing, maybe one fish is a good compromise to make a native killer a C&R guy. Maybe this is the common ground we can band together on not fight over while the other factions take an even stronger hold.

Remember when you point fingers: one points to the other guy while three points at you.

I love people who bash CNR they are great

If everybody is concerned about mortality about CNR then why dont they just shut down the rivers!!!!!!!!!! Like they do to the Sky. I mean you do have a ligitimate arguement but think about it. Do you practice CNR. If you do then you are a hypocrite that is the way I see it. You wouldnt rather catch and release than not fish at all. It just shows who the real fisherman are. People go out there to enjoy fishing for the peace and quiet and the serenity that most rivers provide. I practice CNR on Nates. Never kept one in my life.

Does anybody know the true percentage for mortality in the rivers for CNR so we can finally get this straightened away and end this conversation.

Ron and stlhead, Here is some info on hooking mortality percentages:

http://www.psmfc.org/workshops/shconf98.html#Hooking%20Mortality%20of%20Adult%20Steelhead

http://www.members.shaw.ca/adsaclub/fishing%20study.htm

Also from the first WSC White Paper:

WSC Articles - Steelhead Hooking Mortality Studies
A chapter from the Wild Steelhead Coalition Whitepaper

(please forgive formatting of tables)


Hooking Mortality in Steelhead

Proponents of catch and keep fisheries for wild steelhead offer the notion that steelhead caught and released by anglers die or do not spawn successfully, and that the percentage of fish succumbing to the stress of hook and line capture is unacceptably high. Published or available hooking mortality data sets that relate specifically to steelhead or salmon in freshwater are scarce (Mongillo 1984; Muoneke and Childress 1994). Consequently, catch and keep proponents have invariably applied hooking mortality studies of other species, usually resident salmonids, to anadromous steelhead in rivers.

British Columbia Steelhead Brood Stock Program Data

The British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands, and Parks produced a multi-year study of summer and winter-run steelhead hooking mortality (Hooton, 1987, Hooton 2001). Seven years of hooking mortality data were published between 1981 and 1987 on Vancouver Island streams. During this period, over 4,000 steelhead were caught on conventional gear (bait, barbed hooks), most to provide brood stock for hatchery programs. Of these angled steelhead, 144 mortalities occurred, representing a study-wide average of 3.6 percent hooking mortality (Table 1).

Table 1. Stock specific hooking mortality among winter-run steelhead on Vancouver Island, 1981-1987.

Basin Years of Record Number of Steelhead Angled Hooking Mortality Hooking Mortality percentage
Cowichan 7 509 16 3.1
Englishman 5 240 9 3.8
Heber 1 70 3 4.3
Gold 1 30 0 0
Nanaimo 7 378 7 1.9
Puntledge 7 481 9 1.9
Salmon 6 464 27 5.8
San Juan 2 49 3 6.1
Somass 7 1,174 43 3.7
Tsitika 7 320 10 3.1
Keogh 2 336 17 5.1
Total 4051 144 3.6
Source: Hooton 1987.

Hooking mortality of winter-run steelhead was studied more rigorously on the Keogh River on Vancouver Island in 1985 and 1986 (Table 2). Among 336 steelhead angled on various combinations of terminal gear, a total hooking mortality of 17 fish, or 5.1 percent occurred. Use of natural bait produced higher mortality (mean = 5.6 percent) than did artificial lures (mean = 3.8 percent). Mortality while using barbed hooks was higher (mean = 7.3 percent) than for barbless hooks (mean = 2.9 percent) regardless of whether bait or artificial lure was employed. Examination of all combinations appear to indicate that barbed hooks were the largest contributor to mortality.

Table 2. Percent hooking mortality (number of fish in parentheses) on various terminal gear types in the Keogh River in 1985 and 1986.

Year Gear Type
Barbed/Bait Barbed/No Bait Barbless/Bait Barbless/No Bait Total Mortality
1985 12.5 (6) 7.7 (2) 3.6 (2) 0 (0) 7.7 (10)
1986 5.9 (3) 2.5(1) 2.6 (2) 2.6 (1) 3.4 (7)
Total Mortality 9.1 (9) 4.5 (3) 3.0 (4) 2.6(1) 5.1 (17)
Source: Hooton 1987.

A study evaluating the degree of injury of winter steelhead was also undertaken on the Keogh River (Table 3). Fish were caught with hook and line just downstream of a weir located in the lower river. The degree of injury was observed, followed by tagging and immediate release upstream of the weir. Later, after the spawning season, out-migrating kelts were trapped at the weir to determine post-spawn survival of angled and non-angled fish. Of the 336 steelhead originally caught by hook and line, 84 were later recovered in post-spawn condition at the weir, representing 27.5 percent of fish that had recovered enough to migrate back down to the lower river. Post-spawn recovery of non-angled fish was 32.9 percent, a difference of 5.4 percent. These data indicate that the majority of caught and released fish not only made it to spawning grounds, but spawned and out-migrated.

Table 3. Number of hooked fish (percentage in parentheses) and non-angled fish later
recovered as out-migrating post-spawners in the Keogh River in 1985 and 1986.

Year Hooked Fish Recovered as Kelts Non-Angled Fish Recovered as Kelts
1985 25 (22.3%) 56 (24.0%)
1986 59 (30.6%) 403 (34.7%)
Totals 84 (27.5%) 459 (32.9%)
Source: Hooton 1987.

Interestingly, Hooton (2001) provided a cautionary note to his earlier study, reporting that hooking mortality was measured as mortality occurring in the first 24 hours after capture. Mortality observed after 24 hours was considered holding mortality related to the holding and transport of fish in artificial environments for brood stock programs. Unfortunately, holding mortality was not recorded during the brood stock program and could not be evaluated. However, the above kelt recovery data on the Keogh River provide evidence that delayed mortality resulting from angling injury is minimal.

Comparison of the degree of hooking injury with mortality rates revealed, not unexpectedly, that mortality was highest among fish that sustained severe blood loss when the hook pierced or tore a major blood vessel (Table 4). In these cases, 53.3 percent hooking mortality occurred. An instructive feature of these data was that despite extensive blood loss, 47 percent of the most severely injured fish recovered and were released in what appeared to be a healthy condition. While the number of fish in the most severe injury groups was small, their recovery as post-spawners did not differ substantially from the least injured fish.

Table 4. Number (percentage in parentheses) of hooking mortalities among steelhead of various hook injury categories and the percent of individuals of each category
recovered as out-migrating post-spawners in the Keogh River.

Hook Injury* Fish Landed Hooking Mortality Number Post-Spawners Recovered
1 257 0 (0%) 51 (20.6%)
2 49 1 (2.0%) 7 (15.9%)
3 30 16 (53.3%) 4 (28.6%)
All 336 17 (5.1) 84 (27.5%)
* 1=Superficial wound, no blood loss. 2=Moderate wound, some blood loss but no major blood vessel ruptured. 3=Severe blood loss associated with rupture of major blood vessel.
Source: Hooton 1987.

Other Steelhead Data
As reported, other than the British Columbia steelhead brood stock program, hooking mortality data for steelhead are scarce. However, several other hooking mortality data sets were identified in which steelhead were captured for study or brood stock collection (Table 5).

Table 5. Other hooking mortality data sets for steelhead.

Study Hooking Mortality (%) Comments
MELP1, Kamloops 1.61 436 steelhead collected from the Thompson R. for brood stock between 1982-1995

MELP1, Surry 0.31 306 steelhead collected from the Coquihalla R. for brood stock between 1985-1995

MELP1, Surry 4.31 209 steelhead collected from the Squamish R. for brood stock between 1985-1995

Lirette, 1988 7.9 76 summer steelhead collected from the Somass River R. for brood stock in 1984 and 1985

Lirette, 1988 4.1 195 winter steelhead collected from the Somass R. for brood stock in 1984 and 1985

Lirette, 1989 8.7 69 summer steelhead collected from the Campbell R. for brood stock in 1988 and 1989

Thomas, 1995 4.6 21 steelhead collected from the Skeena R. Terminal gear not specified

Nelson et al. 2001 0.9 226 steelhead were angled and tracked in a radio tracking study in 1999 and 2000.

1 Ministry of the Environment, Lands, and Parks, British Columbia (unpublished data).

Average hooking mortality for Table 5 is 3.54 percent, which is within the general range of that found for the British Columbia steelhead brood stock program.

Other Hooking Mortality Data
In contrast to the relative scarcity of mortality data in freshwater anadromous fisheries, there is an abundance of data on resident salmonids, for which a consistent pattern is apparent. Specifically, resident fish caught on bait experienced significantly higher mortality compared to anadromous fish in rivers. This result is confirmed repeatedly in numerous review papers (Table 6). Studies also show that hooking mortality of resident salmonids with bait is consistently three to nine times higher than mortality associated with artificial lures or flies. The typical observation was that baited hooks were taken deeply and that rupture of blood vessels was the primary cause of mortality (Hooton 2001). Most studies with resident fish indicate hooking mortalities between 25 and 50 percent, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Hooking Mortality in Resident Trout.

Species Hooking Mortality (%) Study
Multiple Species 25 Wydoski 1977
Atlantic salmon (landlocked) 35 Warner and Johnson 1978
Rainbow trout ~30 Mongillo 1984
Cutthroat trout ~50 Mongillo 1984
Several resident trout species 43.6 Taylor and White 1992
Several resident trout species 31.4 Trotter 1995

It is clear that hooking mortality data from resident salmonids are not applicable to non-feeding steelhead in rivers. Equally clear is that the hatchery steelhead programs in southwestern British Columbia provide evidence that angled steelhead have a high survival after capture by angling.

Conclusions
Overall, the data indicate that wild steelhead release fisheries on winter steelhead stocks exert a minimal influence on the ability of the fish to spawn and refute claims that caught and released steelhead were effectively lost from the population. The following conclusions can be drawn:

· Hooking mortality of steelhead ranged between 0 and 6 percent in 11 Canadian river basins over a 7 year period with a Province-wide average of 3.6 percent.

· Hooking mortality of winter-run steelhead averages between 2 and 3 percent using barbless hooks, regardless of whether bait is used.

· Barbed hooks appear to be the largest contributor to hooking mortality.

· The great majority of released fish make it to spawning grounds and spawn.

· Use of resident salmonid hooking mortality data is not applicable to steelhead in freshwater.


References

Hooton, R.S. 1987. Catch and release as a management strategy for steelhead in British Columbia. Catch and release fishing, a decade of experience. A National Sport Fishing Symposium. September 30-October 1, 1987. Sponsored by Humboldt State University, American Fisheries Society, California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, and California Trout, Inc.

Hooton, R.S. 2001. Facts and issues associated with restricting terminal gear types in the management of sustainable steelhead sport fisheries in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks. Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Lirette, M.G. 1988. Telemetric studies of summer and winter steelhead in the Stamp and Somass Rivers, 1984-1985. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Program, Fisheries Report No. VI 881. Nanaimo, B.C.

Lirette, M.G. 1989. Monitoring of tagged summer steelhead in the Campbell River, 1988-1989. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Program, Fisheries Report No. VI 882. Nanaimo, B.C.

Mongillo, P.E. 1984. A summary of salmonid hooking mortality. Washington Department of Game, Fish Management Division. Olympia, Washington.

Muoneke, M. I. and W.M Childress. 1994. Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2(22):123-156.

Nelson, T.C., J. Rissling, and C.E. Mussell. 2001. Vedder/Chilliwack River steelhead telemetry program 1999-2000. Report for the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Lower Mainland Region, Surrey, B.C.

Taylor, M.J. and K.R. White. A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of non-anadromous trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 12:760-767.

Thomas, J.O. 1995. 1995 Skeena River sport fish coho and steelhead catch and release study. Unpublished report. J.O Thomas and Associates Ltd. Contract No. FP 95-5049-170H-0315. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Prince Rupert, B.C.

Trotter, P. 1995. Hooking mortality of trout. Fly Fisherman 26(3):16-27.

Warner, K. and P.R. Johnson. 1978. Mortality of landlocked Atlantic salmon hooked on flies and worms in a river nursery area. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:772-775.

Wydoski R.S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality and sub lethal hooking stress to quality fishery management. In: R.A. Barnhart and T.D. Roelofs (eds.). Catch and Release Fishing as a Management Tool. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

DH,

Thanks for the info it is greatly appreciated. I can say one thing I do fish with barbless hooks when fishing nates but I might want to start practicing using artificial lures though also. Thanks again.

fish on
Kevin

I wasn't starting a discussion on mortality rates. It was a post on coming together, finding common ground and we all have a part in the state of affairs with the fisheries. Some perhaps more than others. But stop pointing fingers. let's work together.

I know a guy that stands on his soap box and pushes CNR constantly, how it's plain wrong(not argument here) and confronts people all the time, At the same time he parks down on the river bank, lives in Snoqualime ridge( which the surface over flow goes right into the snoqualime river, golfs on the nine golf courses on the river, uses fertilizer on his lawn, harvest deer and elk, harvests native salmon and works for one of the biggest polluters on the Duwamish river. He's probabbly done more to harm the native fisheries in his short time he's been here than the 60 year old fisherman his is constantly *****ing at. Who by the way can't harvest one native, more than likely because of the impact him and all the others that have swarmed into the valley.

RB:

How can you not point fingers when the sports groups have battled to minimize the impact on these runs, and the greedy tribes loby for the sportsmans share of the fish? Seems to me this is one case where we have tried to do our part.

Something to ponder and think about: If the two year moratorium went through there would of have been minimal doubt that the state would of had to take the Hoh tribe to court to settle this issue once and for all.

Why do you think the tribes were so against the mortorium? Fear of public resentment, the possibility of going to court and looking greedy going after the sports anglers 50% when we are trying to put the conservation hat on. But since the we caved to a one fish limit it let the state off the hook going to court.

I am surprised that the opposition to the moratorium were not PO'd that the tribe had the power to bully us and tell us what we are allowed to do with the sports share. Instead they choose to make strange bedfellows. In short, the fish lost.

Double Haul, I agree.

Hello, I have been reading posts on this board for several years. The subject of WSR, CNR, hooking mortality, fishing opportunity allocation, and the science supporting fisheries management choices is critical to continuing angling opportunity in the Northwest. With this in mind (and seeing that long posts are acceptable) I am posting excerpts from a letter I wrote for the recent WSR moratorium hearings. My opinion is that the stress effects on reproductive fitness of hooking and releasing maturing fish should be considered in management decisions. Note that this is my opinion. As I am often reminded by my fishing partner of the past 35 years sport fishermen, unlike fisheries scientists, don't have to let the facts interfere with their opinions. I hope the following will be a positive addition to the discussion.


Mandatory wild steelhead release is an effective management tool to protect depressed wild steelhead populations caught in a fishery targeting hatchery steelhead. It does not insure restoration of depressed or threatened populations but it is a necessary first step. My concern is not about the wild steelhead retention moratorium. If wild populations are judged to be depressed to a point where it is necessary then it should be implemented. My concern is about targeted catch and release fisheries on these same wild populations

Catch and release fisheries is a management tool for managing people, to create opportunity for people to fish, and to maintain a stable population of fish. There are many examples of successful catch and release fisheries. The cutthroat trout fishery in Yellowstone National Park is often cited as one of the most successful. The potential problem with steelhead catch and release fisheries is that the fishery targets maturing fish unlike catch and release fisheries in rivers for resident trout that take place post spawning. The 5% to 10% mortality associated with release is well known. What is not well known is the stress-related effect of catch and release fisheries on reproductive fitness.

The effect of stress on reproduction is a recognized and studied phenomenon. It is a driving force of evolution and an important component to the understanding of ecological interactions. There are many studies that have looked at the effect of stress on the growth and reproduction of fishes. In a July 24, 2000 news release the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife outlined plans to study the effects of catch and release stress on the reproduction of sturgeon in the lower Columbia River. The aquaculture industry has a strong interest in understanding the effects of stress on salmonid reproduction. The effect of stress on fish in hatcheries has been recognized for some time (***erlund et al. 1981).
When a fish (or any animal) is subjected to physical stress a two-part response occurs. One is a catecholamine release (adrenaline rush) and second is the cortisol response. The adrenaline has the immediate effect of increasing activity, the fight or flight response. The cortisol response has a much slower response time and is similar to the maturation process (Powell 2002). It is the cortisol response that effects the reproductive process.
Elevated cortisal levels are particularly important because they can effect the progeny of stressed fish. In the early development stages of fertilized eggs the steroids in the eggs come from maternal sources (Hwang et al. 1992). High levels of cortisal in eggs from stressed fish decreased from fertilization to hatching. At some point in development maternal hormones are replaced with hormones synthesized in the egg. The maternally produced steroids can effect the embryonic development (Schreck et al. 1991), even to the point of altering the sexualization of the gonad.
In an investigation of stress at various times during the maturation of female rainbow trout (Contreras-Sanchez, et-al. 1998) reports that repeated stress significantly affects reproductive traits. Mild acute stress administered early in the maturation process, 3 months to 1.5 months before final maturation did not effect the time of ovulation with respect to a control group. Fish that were subjected to stress over the entire period and also the last 1.5 months ovulated on an average 2 weeks earlier than the control group. Relative fecundity was significantly different and egg size and swim-up fry were smaller in fish subjected to stress early in the maturation process. Observations of the progeny of the stressed fish indicated they performed as well as the progeny of the control fish with respect to juvenile growth and disease resistance. In this study eggs from stressed females were fertilized with sperm from unstressed males.
In a study (Campbell et al. 1991) eggs and sperm from both stressed females and males was used. They observed a delay in ovulation, reduced egg size and lower sperm counts. The egg survival was 63.4% from the stressed fish and 84.8% from the control group.
The focus of the research discussed above was to evaluate the effect of stress on reproductive fitness. The fish were exposed to long term low-level stress or repeated short-term acute stress. The stress-induced inhibition of reproduction can have consequences for both wild and domestic populations. Short time acute stress from exposure to fishing gear may interfere with reproduction (Pankhurst et al. 1997). They express a concern that the impact of fishing on natural populations may be greater than just mortality. Catch and release fisheries should be evaluated for effects on reproductive success. A study looking at steroid levels in rainbow trout captured by angling (Pankhurst et al. 1994) found high cortisol levels increasing for a few hours after capture then recovering to resting values after 24 hours. They state that this may not affect reproduction at an advanced stage of maturity but could be important at earlier stages.
Chronically stressed fish have prolonged cortisol elevations (Pickering 1993). There many factors that can expose wild fish populations to stress, warm water, low level pollution, and natural environmental stresses. The acute stress of catch and release angling in addition to these other stresses could have a severe impact on the reproductive success of wild steelhead and salmon populations. A recent study (Meka 2002) of catch and release angling of Alagnak River rainbow trout in Alaska indicated some of the possible problems. The focus of the study was hooking injury and mortality but blood samples were taken from the fish before release. The time for capture and handling and the water temperature were recorded. The results of the blood chemistry indicated that the cortisal level increased significantly relative to the duration of the angling process, the water temperature, and the size of the fish. The time to land and release a fish was related to the size. In all cases there was a significant increase in cortisol levels. The increase was greater at higher temperatures. This study divided the anglers in to two groups, experienced anglers and novice anglers. Novice anglers injured more fish (70%) than experienced anglers (56%) did. Experienced anglers took significantly longer to land their fish than did novice anglers. One could surmise from this that even though the hooking mortality is probably lower with experienced anglers, the time that they spend to land the fish could lead to greater cortisol levels and potential loss of reproductive capability.

LITERATURE CITED

Campbell, P. M., T. G. Pottinger, and J. P. Sumpter. 1991. Effects of acute stress on time of ovulation, fecundity, egg size, egg survival, and sperm counts in rainbow trout. Biol Reprod. 47:269.

Contreras-Sanchez, W.M., C.B. Schreck, M.S. Fitzpatrick, and C.B. Pereira. 1998. Effects of stress on the reproductive performance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Biol Reprod. 58(2):439-447.

***erlund, U. H. M., J. R. McBride, and E. T. Stone. 1981. Stress related effects of hatchery rearing density on coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:644-649.

Hwang, P. P., S. M. Wu, J. H. Lin, and L. S. Wu. 1992. Cortisol content of eggs and larvae of teleosts. General and Comparative Endocrinology 86:189-196.

Meka, J. 2002. Evaluating the effects of catch-and-release on hooking injury and immediate physiological response of Alagnak River rainbow trout captured by catch-and-release angling. Report at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/Fisheries/Alagnak/catch_and_release.htm

Powell, J. 2002. Broodstock Health: Stress Effects. Salmon Health Report in Northern Aquaculture. Mar:2002

Schreck, C. B., M. S. Fitzpatrick, G. W. Feist, and C. G. Yeoh. 1991. Steroids: developmental continuum between mother and offspring. Pages 256-258 in A. P. Scott, J. P. Sumpter, D. E. Kinne, and M. S. Rolfe. Reproductive physiology of fish. Proceedings Fourth International Symposium on Reproductive Physiology of Fish, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (7-12 July 1991).

Pankhurst, N. W., and G. Van Der Kraak. 1997. Effects of stress on reproduction and growth of fish. In G. Iwana, A. D. Pickering, J. P. Sumpter, and C. B. Schreck, editors. Fish stress and health in aquaculture.
School of Experimental Biology Series. Volume 62. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.

Pankhurst, N. W., and M.Dedual. 1994. Effects of capture and recoverey on plasma levels of cortisol, lactate and gonadal steroids in a natural population of rainbow trout. J. Fish Biol. 45:1013-1025.


Pickering, A. D. 1993. Growth and stress in fish production. Aquaculture 111:51-63.

Double Haul,

I knew thats what happened the whole time.

There are strong ties between many of the WDFW employees and the tribes,

I made someone mad once when I made a comment about this but it is true.

1 fish is worse than 5 a year, as soon as the 1 fish a year came out and the tribes had a back door meeting before the decision I knew what happened.

I also agree with you a hundred percent that if the Mortorium stood the WDFW would have had no choice but to go to court. The truth is they didnt want to go to court because they are friends with the tribes. You see the tribes and the WDFW have much in comman. They agree on the science and management that is used and dont see a need for change. To both groups hatcherys are the answer not perserving wild fish.

Thats the truth like it or not, we have a bunch of pukes working for us down in Olympia Taking care of our fish and wildlife. 75% of them got their start with the tribes and have strong ties.

Rich -
I see you are beating the drum that one can't trust any bio that had worked for the tribes previously. I'm the one that called you on that position before. I guess you didn't get the gentle message so I'll be a tad more blunt.

As I recall early in your chosen profession you had worked for one of the coastal tribes. Does that mean that we can not trust any of your positions or posting on this or other issues? Or is just your position that one can't trust former tribal employees that we should reject?

Either way it would seem that we should not assign much creditability to you and your rants.

Tight lines
S malma

Being "a tad more blunt," is stripping Rich of all credibility? Come on.

Gotta agree with Smalma on this one. Could not have said it better myself.

Peace out.