http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050206/southsound/82850.shtml

Columbia steelhead kill raised

Conservation groups criticize increase in acceptable 'by-catch' death rate

CHESTER ALLEN
THE OLYMPIAN

Columbia River commercial fishermen will be allowed to kill up to 4 percent of the wild winter steelhead run during this year's spring hatchery chinook season.

Most of the wild winter steelhead in lower Columbia River tributaries -- including rivers such as the Cowlitz and Kalama -- are under Endangered Species Act protection.

Commercial netters were allowed to accidentally kill -- but not keep -- 2 percent of the wild steelhead run during the past few years.

But the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, which oversees the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, decided Saturday to increase the accidental death rate -- called "bycatch" -- on the Columbia to help commercial anglers net their full quota of hatchery chinook.

Sport anglers and representatives of Washington Trout, the Wild Steelhead Coalition and other conservation groups ripped the commission's decision -- and vowed to fight on.

"They didn't meet their responsibility to conserve wild steelhead stocks," said Ramon VandenBrulle of Washington Trout.

Wild steelhead still are struggling in many rivers, and spawning goals aren't being met in many rivers, said Todd Ripley of the Wild Steelhead Coalition.

Activists will go to Oregon next week to lobby that state's fish and wildlife commission to reject a similar move, VandenBrulle said.
A lawsuit also is a possibility, he said.
Oregon and Washington co-manage the Columbia River hatchery chinook fishery.


How it works

While wild steelhead are protected under the Endangered Species Act -- sport anglers cannot keep the fish -- federal regulators allow commercial fishermen to unintentionally kill some fish while netting.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which oversees endangered fish, ruled earlier this year that up to 6 percent of the Columbia's wild steelhead run could die during net fisheries without permanently harming the fish.

Washington commission members listened to more than two hours of public testimony Saturday before voting to accept a staff recommendation to allow state fish managers the option to increase the total kill of wild steelhead to 4 percent of the entire run.
Fish and Wildlife estimates that 27,000 wild winter steelhead will swim up the Columbia and into tributary rivers and streams this year.
Commission members and Fish and Wildlife Director Jeff Koenings were quick to add that they hope the wild steelhead kill remains at 2 percent of the run -- or less.

No one at Fish and Wildlife wants to kill wild steelhead, Koenings said, but some of the fish inevitably die during the chinook salmon netting.

Why the increase?

Why do state fish managers want the option to increase the kill?

Giving fish managers more leeway in allowing wild steelhead deaths will let commercial fishermen get their full share of chinook, said Guy Norman, Fish and Wildlife Region 5 director.

Cindy LeFleur, Fish and Wildlife Columbia River policy coordinator, said managers would allow a steelhead kill greater than 2 percent in a case like this:
Commercial salmon netters have killed an estimated 1.7 percent of the wild steelhead run, but there are still 5,000 chinook left to catch.

Those 5,000 chinook are worth about $1 million to the 150 to 200 netters in the fishery.
But allowing another day -- or hours -- of netting would kill another 0.5 percent of the steelhead run.

Under the old regulations, the netters would not be allowed to go after those salmon, as they would end up killing more than 2 percent of the steelhead run.
Under the new regulations, state fisheries managers would allow another day of netting, as the wild steelhead toll would be 2.2 percent, which is well below the 4 percent maximum.

Several Columbia River commercial fishermen told the commission that spring chinook are the backbone of their struggling industry.
Special nets that tangle in fish mouths let them live until fishermen pull the nets, said Steve Gray, a commercial fisherman from Long Beach.

Fishermen pull the nets every 45 minutes, and there are fish recovery tanks on board every boat to help steelhead revive before returning to the river, Gray said.
"We don't want to kill wild steelhead," Gray said. "This is the most selective fishery in the world."

By the numbers
Increasing the commercial toll on wild steelhead makes no sense at all, dozens of sport anglers said.

Carl Burke of Olympia pointed out that commercial fishermen caught more than their chinook quota on the Columbia during the past two years -- and without killing more than 2 percent of the steelhead run.
- In 2002, 2003 and 2004, commercial netters had no problem taking more than their allotment.

- In 2002, netters were allocated 0.68 percent of the total run, but they ended up landing 0.70 percent.
- In 2003, netters were allocated 0.59 percent of the total run but ended up with 0.62 percent.
- In 2004, netters were allocated 0.80 percent of the run, but landed 1.12 percent.

"In short, staff has recommended a solution to a problem that doesn't exist," Burke said.
At the same time, many steelhead rivers that flow into the Columbia aren't meeting spawning goals for wild steelhead, Burke said.
Bob Tuck of Selah was the only one on the nine-member commission to vote against the increase in steelhead net deaths.

The new rule expires Dec. 31, and commission members vowed to take another look next year. Tuck said he couldn't vote for the increase because a dry winter and troubled ocean conditions will hurt wild steelhead this year.

Wild steelhead also are declining on many Columbia River tributaries, Tuck said.
"In this business, as far as I'm concerned, close calls go to the fish," Tuck said.
Chester Allen is outdoors reporter for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-4226 or crallen@olympia. gannett.com.

I think the wording should be changed to :
- In 2002, netters were allocated 0.68 percent of the total run, but they ended up KILLING 0.70 percent.
- In 2003, netters were allocated 0.59 percent of the total run but ended up with KILLING 0.62 percent.
- In 2004, netters were allocated 0.80 percent of the run, but KILLED 1.12 percent.

I wish the total of ESA listed fish KILLED would have been shown also. And just why didn't WDFW Div. 5 have the impact level for the first year of the gill/tangle nets.

Y'know, somebody should tell these reporters about the value of sport caught fish compared to commercial caught fish. Using WDFW's own figures, a sport caught Columbia springer is worth $869 and a commercial caught springer is worth $119. So that $1 million extra the commercials used to miss because they couldn't kill an extra 2% wild steelhead returns $8.5 million to the economy if left for sportsfishermen to catch. That's all we need, a net loss of $7.5 million on top of an additional 2% loss of steelhead to the spawning beds. I'm really ashamed of our WDFW fish program

Aunty M,

I fish for trout, however, the bastages at WDFW keep killing them as bycatch.
Also, those numbers above refer to wild salmon impacts. Staff replied "I don't know." when asked about the steelhead numbers.
Imagine that, being asked about run forecasts, timing, and impact history at a meeting on that subject. :rolleyes:

Sad, but true.
Guess we'll just have to outlast them.

I strongly disagree with this comment.

Have you fished the Skagit lately?

Back in the 70's this river had huge hatchery runs of steelhead, as well as very healthy runs of wild fish.

Now, the hatchery stocking is way down, as are the wild fish. The NATIVES and COMMERCIAL netters are taking nearly all the wild fish each year.....and while there are a few left over for CnR (currently in March and April, only, as the NATIVE nets are taking them RIGHT NOW from the mouth of the river up to 35 miles inland.

Go ahead..shut down the hatchery on the Skagit...then there will be -0- steelhead in the river. No fishery...period. The NATIVE NETS will take the rest of the wilds and then they too will be gone.

End result...

-0- Steelhead. The river will be dead.

Is that what your saying?

Aunty..I AGREE with most of what you say...but must disagree, as a sportsfishermen, with the idea of closing steelhead hatcheries. IMO, if they would spread out the fish on release from the hatchery (throught the system so as to NOT create a "bubble fishery") then there would be plenty of hatchery fish for the natives and sportsmen.

IF we could get the TRIBES to leave the wild fish alone, we might get a stock of wild fish back.

Otherwise...they are toast...no matter if the hatcheries close or not.


Mike

The Skagit received more smolt plants than the Cowlitz for this year's return. The problem is not a lack of hatchery plants. More fish plants does not always equal more returning fish.

The Skagit may get hammered by the Tribes more than the Cowlitz, so the return may have been lower due to that fact alone. Aside from that, I was speaking of the 70's, not the recent years.

Next year, they (???) have determined not to release any hatchery fish unless there is a fish-trap to catch the returning fish. This, in essence, means they are releasing in about 3 places, creating meat fisheries and combat zones for the returning fish. This sucks, IMO, as IF they would release fish throughout the system it would allow fishermen to spread out over 40 miles of river...

But, some people seem to be afraid of those returning hatchery fish spawning out in the river...making a new "wild" strain of fish. Yeeshh...like there would be enough of them to make a dent? Very doubtful...

Mike

“Next year, they (???) have determined not to release any hatchery fish unless there is a fish-trap to catch the returning fish.”

They are already doing this (last two years) on the Skagit.

“This, in essence, means they are releasing in about 3 places, creating meat fisheries and combat zones for the returning fish.”

There are 4 release stops on the Skagit System.

Is there a fish-trap at Grandy Creek? Nope, but they released fish there last year.

They could release there, Pressentin, and about every other creek that runs the south side of the river, as they are all accessable.

Mike

Aunty M...you made my point for me.

I hate to be argumentative, and really am not that way.

At least, if they released 2-3 MILLION smolt into the sytem each year we would have something to fish for. The WDFW is quite capable of doing this, but are afraid to upset some folks who want it pristine and wild like it was 100+ years ago. Ain't gonna happen.

Fact of the matter is, the fish are screwed, and so is just about any hope of recovery for them, and without hatchery stock (if they closed all the hatcheries as you suggest) then there will soon not be enough wilds to recover the run..then we finally get part of our wish...there won't be any netting going on.

At least we can still CnR the Dollies that come in after the salmon; of course then it will be fly fishing only.

Mike

Mike,

The problems with your proposal to put two or three million smolts in the Skagit are numerous...but here are few to chew on;

There are ESA constraints, and hatchery plants of that magnitude have profound effects on listed fish.

More smolts does not autmatically mean more steelhead...quite the contrary, on the Skagit sixty years of history shows that increased smolt planting generates no more hatchery fish, but does cause wild fish populations to decrease.

Outplanting (putting fish where there are no collection facilities) is a very poor idea. The fish are much, much more likely to attempt to spawn in the wild...very bad for wild fish.

Hatchery fish on the Skagit have a terrible time finding the hatchery or collection trap as it is, and broodstock needs are routinely not met due to not enough fish returning (500k smolts producing one to four hundred returning adults).

Per HSRG recommendations, this type of activity ought to be completely stopped, statewide, and most certainly will not have much use any more on rivers that have wild steelhead populations.

If you want a ton of information on the Grandy Creek Acclimation Pond project, shoot me an e-mail or a PM and I'll hook ya up.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Any fish this weekend?

Well said AuntyM! It's not co-management, it's "co-dependence".... with both parties "hooked" on hatchery fish, and neither with much genuine consideration for wild populations.

Manufacturing fish at will on one end and harvesting them indiscriminately on the other. Excesses in the latter being used to justify similar excesses in the former... and in a warped sort of way the converse is also true. Whenever excesses in hatchery returns are encountered, harvests are liberalized to take maximum advantage of the surplus hatchery fish, wild fish be damned.

Until the advent of ESA-listings, concern for wild impacts were largely ignored. We're finally on a more responsible path on the Columbia, but only because runs were driven to near-extinction first.

Mike

I think you should ask the people at the Marblemount Hatchery about there release site. Grandy isn't one of them.

As you know I spend alot of time working with them.

Don't beleive word on the street, go straight to the people that do it.

I hear what your saying, Todd, but in talking to a number of fellows who have been fishing this river, almost exclusively, for the last 40 years, they tell me of times when the hatchery fish were far more plentiful...and the Tribes were netting just as many as they do now.

So, what is the difference between then and now? LESS hatchery fish being released.


Why is it bad for wild fish? These hatchery fish are in here in Dec. and early Jan. Not one to be found right now, and the wild fish are yet to enter the river in any kind of numbers. The Natives had such bad luck they even pulled their nets out...NO FISH.

The Tribes were netting the mouth of the Skagit up to Ovenels all last week. I talked to one "trio" of native people who had one (1) fish in two days of netting.

Point is, the returning hatchery fish have done their "thing" before the wilds ever get to the river. In times past, it may have been that the wilds came in earlier...not so now, as those early wild fish have been pretty much cleaned out by the Tribal netting in the months of Jan. and Feb.

Really? Gosh, I talked to the guys at the Marblemount hatchery just a couple weeks ago and they were thrilled with the return this year. Those fish just blasted right to the home water of the Cascade and right into the hatchery.

There were also a number of fish that returned to the Baker...and they (WDFW) took over 100 of them back downriver and released them into the system again..and they were back at the Baker trap within 36 hrs.

Seems to me they found their way home just fine.


Don't know what an HSRG is, Todd, I'm a fisherman not a biologist or attorney.

I can tell you right now...you close the hatchery on this river and within 5 years (or less) there won't be a steelhead of any variety to be found in it, by any fisherman. The Tribes will just net what remains of the wild runs, and that will be it.

Fishing was CRAP this weekend. Spent over 16 hrs. plugging, working the best spots from Rockport to Hamilton. Didn't get a single steelhead takedown or hook-up. Fished Sunday with a fellow that knows this river as good or better than any guide on it...came up with bupkis.

Maybe...just maybe we can get a decent CnR season...IF the Tribes will let any fish by the nets.

Mike

Brian:

http://www.washingtontrout.org/GrandyDEIS.shtml

See paragraph 3 of the attached article.


Mike

To all: I am sick of this debating crap, and have better things to do with my time, as do you. You are all my friends, and none of us are going to change our positions in these discussions. Please excuse me if I choose not to reply. It really won't change anything, anyway.

ISO -
2 million steelhead smolts is a huge number of fish - that total number of steelhead (summer and winters combined) planted in all of Puget Sound is less than 2 million.

In addition to the conerns that Todd brought up it would take a huge increase in size/number of hatcheries to do what you suggest. It would take a 4 fold increase in the hatchery space in the Skagit basin and even larger increases in rest of Puget Sound systems.

FNP -
At least with steelhead I will have to take seriously take exception to your statement that conern for wild fish is a recent concern. The old Department of Game began talking about differences between hatchery and wild steelhead in the early 1970s. By 1978 sciencitic studies were underway (Kalama River, Snow Creek and Skagit River) looking at wild steelhead issues. In the Boldt Case area attempts to address wild steelhead over fishing issues began in the early 1980s.

Escapement goals were established for wild steelhead (hatchery fish were not included in the escapements - a huge change in a world where a fish was considered a fish and hatchery and wild fish were inter-changeable) throughout the case area. While it is popular to attack those goals to my knowledge that attempt represents the first attempt anywhere to set goals for wild steelhead over such a large area. Even today WSC has not purposed altenate goals for any of those systems except they need to be larger. By 1983 wild steelhead release type regulations were being used on systems expected to be under escaped. Attempts had been made to establish CnR seasons to provide diverse fishing opportunities.

This all has been ongoing 20 to 25 years. And I must say that virtually all those changes were initiated by Department of Game bios with little support from anglers of this state. I In fact most anglers, guides and even Trout Unlimited actively fought those changes. Those bios were fighting for the wild resource long before being a wild fish advocate became popular with much of the fishing public.

Sorry for the rant but such balant off the wall comments does push one of my buttons.

Tight lines
S malma

Still think you should talk with them

Smalma

I think you mischaracterize my post. My comments were framed in the context of WDFW being "enablers" for the tribes. In those same 25 years that you speak of, the Boldt decision has sanctioned tribal netting of every WA stream with a fishable run of salmonids.

The presence of harvestable hatchery fish guarantees the presence of nets.

The more hatchery fish, the more nets, and the more days they are deployed. You and I and your bio buddies may be able to tell hatchery from wild, but those nets can't! The more they fish, the harder it is on wild populations... salmon or steelhead.... because a net can't tell the difference between those either. One need only look to the recent December tribal net fishery supposedly "targeting" hatchery steelhead on the Chehalis. What few remnants of wild steelhead were toast, as were the bulk of the late coho stock returning to the Satsop.

Not meaning to push your buttons, but I wonder if anyone else on the board thinks that's so "off the wall?"

ISO -
I thnk the answer to better fishing on hatchery steelhead is better returns - not necessarily more releases. Regardless the recent releases (last decade) on the Skagit are generally higher than any during to so-called haydays of the fishing on hatchery fish. To look at the release numbers go to the Washington Trout site your provided, go thier document scroll down to Table 1, page 103 I think and you find all the releases by year in a data packed table provided by Bill Mc. Once you review the data you can decide for yourself.

Good luck with the fishing and enjoy the boat this spring!

FNP -
The button was "Until the advent of ESA-listings, concern for wild impacts were largely ignored" - my point was that wild steelhead in the Boldt case area has been a concern and focus of management actions for decades. One can certianly argue whether those concerns or actions were effective or appropriate.

AuntyM -
I love simple just am not very good at it

BTW - sorry about hy-jacking this thread into another discussion about steelhead management.

Tight lines
S malma