"Might be a good time to admit, we don't REALLY know the answers huh? "

Yes, and no.

No, we don't really know what is going on with the marine survival of Puget Sound Steelhead...there are some POST studies that are going on now. The WSC has helped fund some of these studies, and further funding will be coming down that road as more tags and streams are added to the system.

No, we don't exactly know what the wild/hatchery interaction problems will do. Yes, we do know they are a problem, but to what extent is still up for review.

Yes, we do know that habitat is one of the limiting factors.

Yes, we do know that harvest hase been virtually at a standstill in Puget Sound for many years, and is not the problem.

Fish on...

Todd

Doesn't matter. Unless you can affect the oceans in a meaningful way, you can only control habitat. In any scientific experiment, you control what you can and measure what you can't. The difference is the affect your controls had on the total test environment.

And as for the not knowing the answers, it has been repeated several times. We don't know everything, but we do know that we can make the fastest changes to dams, habitat and harvest. In PS rivers where there are limited dams, and low or zero harvest, that only leaves habitat.

BTW, just out of curiosity, what is your point? I mean, the nets are out of the rivers and we aren't catching wild steelhead in any significant numbers during the height of the run, so what are you after? What are you suggesting auntie? I'm very confused as to why you are arguing that doing habitat protection or restoration is anything but a good thing....

So essentially you're saying that habitat isn't the issue? No one on this board has said that habitat isn't the *ONLY* limiting issue, but rather it is the thing we have the most control over beside sport fishing pressure, and is the MOST important concerning the long term surviability.

Case in point, fishing in international waters is a wild west kind of proposition, and enforcement would be ridiculous to manage. Do you have any good inexpensive ideas on how to deal with it? I don't....

In respect to the ocean issue, we know that it has something to do with a warm/cold cycle, and we are starting to understand that hatchery fish may actually have an adverse affect on ocean survial (both for wild and hatchery returns).

In terms of spending billions, the real cost is the hatchery mitigations that we are doing. In some respect we should have some for the sport fishing aspect of it all, but do you have *any* idea how expensive it is to keep fish making it to the Clearwater? It's absurd, and mostly because of issues we have around habitat and hydro.... Want to save some money? Get rid of some of the huge subsidies we give to a minority population for minimal benefit.

As for the heart of the matter, that's why we use the H's as our mantra, harvest, habitat, hydro, hatcheries... Those are the big things that we can control. Most everything else is an act of god, and personally I don't think I have the power to change that!

Please note that I had a question mark at the end. I'm asking for clarification, not telling you what you said. From the statement you made it was ambiguous as to what you were saying you though. The statement you made was we need to get to the heart of the matter. You didn't state what your belief was, just something that was left to the reader to interpret.

While this is a heated thread, I'm not out to try to piss anyone off, just understand what the heck is going on. Obviously you've got your opinions, but at this point, I'm not quite clear as to what you are suggesting.....




Yes, total agreement.... Getting more data is going to help....

Finally, can we at least agree on what we are talking about? At this point here are the major things that I would like to say bound this discussion.

1) We are talking about PS rivers
2) Harvest of wild PS rivers is minimal (not zero as is ideal, but close)

-- Cheers
-- James

"1) We are talking about PS rivers
2) Harvest of wild PS rivers is minimal (not zero as is ideal, but close)"

That point has been the bone of contention for a month, so I don't suspect it will be received any better now...

Marsha, you have said repeatedly that those who are pointing at habitat as the major issue have been "brainwashed" into thinking that, so don't act as though you have downplayed habitat all along...you've used those exact words in several threads on at least three different websites.

Fish on...

Todd

Actually, I think if you read this thread and the other six on the various BB's, you'll find that no one who says habitat is the limiting factor...no one...says we should throw up our hands and do nothing about it.

As a matter of fact, you'll find that everyone who has said that...everyone...says that is exactly where we have to put in some serious work...habitat.

Fixing the current situation by pointing at problems that do not currently exist is a cop out...you keep saying "harvest", but harvest has been all but stopped...now what? Are we done? Do we do nothing else?

There is no "cake and eat it, too", problem...I know you don't like CnR fisheries, but that in no way changes the scientific fact that stocks that are over escapement are in no way harmed by CnR fisheries...if that's what you are alluding to, then you are continuing to bark up the wrong tree.

In all of Puget Sound there is one, single, CnR fishery...it is a 30 day fishery on the Skagit system, which is making escapement, and has done so repeatedly and consistently.

Fish on...

Todd

Okay, so it is the catch and release of the fish on the Skagit that is the issue at hand? If it is, then if C&R were such an impact the river would have cratered long ago with the other PS rivers. The same could be said of the OP river (but that's a different argument for a different time).

If it isn't the C&R issue, then what is it?

Marsha, I can assure you that no one gives a rat's ass about you "coming down hard" on anyone...and I spend more time than most, way more than most, working on all sorts of things involving our fisheries, which you already know.

Lip service? Gimme a break.

Fish on...

Todd

I think that is a rather flippant remark considering what I have tried to do. While I could do more, assuming that I don't do anything is a rather rude thing to do. When it comes to habitat, and dams and harvest I do my best to vote, restore, and conserve. There is lip service, but if this entire debate has been about you believing that I'm not doing anything, then I'm rather offended.

Hopefully that's not what you meant, as it's rather hard for me to hear that.

The impacts of a 30 day CnR fishery on a stream making escapement is not an "unknown"...whether you like it or not...it is a "well known"...well known to have no effect on the population or its productivity.

As always, do the research...don't just go off half-cocked because you don't like a steelhead CnR fishery...or probably more accurately, you don't like the people who participate in the one single CnR fishery.

If this one single CnR fishery in all of Puget Sound is what is really causing the burr in your butt, why don't you just come out and say so, rather than the six threads and three BB's full of "harvest! harvest! harvest!" that doesn't exist?

Fish on...

Todd

I'm asking, not telling...what is your problem with it?

Do the research.

Fish on...

Todd

One point of data is 3 successive years of higher escapement numbers on the Skagit following the wild steelhead release being enacted. This is according to the SASI data off the wild steelhead coalitions website. In this particular case it there is some affect due to the fact that all wild fish had to be release, but at this point the C&R season isn't enough to depress the numbers to the point where there is a flatline on the curve.

This is a diversion...this is one single stream, with the demostrated success of CnR being used as a management tool that has worked.

This is clearly not the poster child for Aunty's harvest rants...so what is it? Where is this coming from?

Fish on...

Todd

Is that limited to PS rivers? Or are you opening up the discussion to a broader audience of rivers?

Sure, dozens...considering that only one system in all of Puget Sound makes escapement, and I fish in many, many of them.

Throw in the Hoh, too, for that matter...it would make escapement if it weren't being overharvested.

How 'bout you? Fished in any streams in the last three years that haven't made escapement, Aunty?

Fish on...

Todd

Escapement numbers are the heart of saying whether a run healthy or not. There clearly is some argument over what are reasonable escapement number, look at the Queets and the Quinault tribe versus WDFW, but either way, they are essential numbers. I'm assuming you bringing this up must be a part of history between you and Todd, so I'll just leave it at that.

As for MSY, as far as I know that is a system that has been abandoned for steelhead, except what I believe the Quinault tribes are doing. The state still uses it as a model for salmon (Kurt if you can correct me), but different models are being used for steelhead.

As for that last comment on C&R opportunities, can we just avoid the digs for now? There are precious limited fishable rivers at this point, and sour grapes from both sides aren't helping anything.

As a part of what you think of C&R, is released mortality the biggest reason for that negative opinion? Just curious....

As for excesses, I can guarantee as the C&R season gets going, I'm pretty much crippled I swing flies the whole time, which I can assure you, it ain't that effective! Maybe the answer to this whole thing is to have Todd give up his evil pink worm ways and take the path of those who "Spey"....

Man, this thread reminds me of something I'd see over on that other board. Kinda good, kinda funny, not as viscious as over there, keep it going.

It's not under the radar...it's part of the research. There's stuff out there from Canada and from here in Washington talking about the effectiveness of CnR as a management tool that provides opportunity without harming the productivity of the target stock.

I'm not sure which river the study you quoted was conducted on, but similar studies have been done all over the place...the broodstock collection fisheries are the most obvious places to look.

In those the fish were not just caught by hook and line, but were stuffed into a PVC tube and left sitting in the shallows. Somebody came along at the end of the day and collected all the tubes, brought them to the hatchery, and the fish are placed into cement raceways...to swim in circles...until they are ripe.

They are weighed, measured, poked, prodded...and when ripe, hand spawned. The mortality on those fish is minimal...very, very low.

If a steelhead can survive that experience, you'd think it would be a piece of cake to survive being caught on hook and line, and then released back into the river...and it is a piece of cake.

Like I said, CnR as a management policy does not reduce the productivity of the target stock...like I said repeatedly, and so has Salmo g., and so has Smalma, here and on the other sites.

I'm just one dude, fishing some, catching some, and releasing the wild ones...if that's "excessive", sorry...but I don't think it is, and I sincerely doubt that I'm responsible for the destruction of any fish runs.

Fish on...

Todd

You two will have to do your sparring off line, you will have to agree to disagree. I don't have the energy for this, if you can't help but dig at each other you'll have to ignore each others posts.