No one in their right mind has, or could, deny that past harvest issues have played a significant role in depressing wild runs.

Now what? Go back and find those guys from the 60's and put them out of business again? They're already gone, and so is most of their fishing.

GBL, the steelhead taken in the coho fishery on the Skagit are predominately hatchery fish...there are wild fish in there, and there are also waaayy too many coho in there, but there aren't that many wild fish.

I agree that the earlier timed portions of the runs are in serious trouble, and that they need extra protection, but their very rarity makes for very few of them ending up in tribal nets on the Skagit.

Salmo, I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on, but I can't see it if we are...past harvest problems have significantly reduced wild runs all over the PNW...all steelhead and salmon species have borne the brunt of them.

That being said, so far as steelhead go, that harvest has largely been shut down already...if folks want to continue raping the environment while blaming the lack of recovery on overharvest, then prepare to be fishing for bass soon...there isn't hardly any overharvest to stop right now, and with the habitat degradation that exists now, and the degradation that continues to increase every day, you could stop all fishing 100% and the runs would continue to decline.

If they can't eat, spawn, or grow, then they will go extinct. Current land use practices have, and will continue, to decimate the remnants of our wild fish...unless we as a society buck up and stop it.

That will never happen, I am afraid...we can't even get most fishermen to agree that habitat degradation is the predominant limiting factor in salmonid production in most areas of Puget Sound, even though the science is quite clear on that issue.

We'll carry on as usual, and like the Chinook plan, we'll "fish our way to recovery", and the wild steelhead will soon be gone...and everyone will continue to blame it on everyone else.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

I think we have it clear now. Over-harvest contributed to prior run reductions, which steelhead rebounded from in the 1980s. The reductions in the 90s occurred even tho harvest restrictions were still in place, as they are today. That can only be explained by habitat, either freshwater or marine, or both.

GBL,

I've also fished the Skagit since before Boldt, and as convenient as it is to blame treaty gillnetting, the data simply don't support that as a significant contributor to wild steelhead harvest except in 1974 and 1975. After that, there weren't enough steelhead, hatchery or wild to support a significant sport or treaty fishery. Since most wild steelhead are 4 years old, it's pretty silly to blame treaty gillnetting for losses that occurred when there was no gillnetting.

Sg

I'm just a layman, but I'm curious. Why are the runs of chums, pinks, and most years coho spawing and returning well and steelhead and chinook aren't?

It has to do with freshwater habitat needs. Chum and pinks migrate to sea, or estuaries, as fry, only months after the eggs were laid in the gravel. They also tend to spawn lower in river systems. Steelhead and Chinook migrate as smolts, much larger and older, up to a couple of years. Since they spend much more time in freshwater, steelhead and chinook are more dependent on a healthy freshwater habitat.

viigfish -
great question!

Pisco hit part of the answer dead on. Pink and chums are much less depenedent on the freshwater habitat. But equally important they have difference ocean migration patterns and conditions preferences (temeratures etc) in the ocean. Recent years have seen well above average survival for pinks and chums and below average for the steelhead.

The situation with the coho is much the same as with steelhead. Some of the data I have seen is that for more than a decade they have experience well below average survivals. We are seeing more coho (at least most years) in the terminal areas because of major reductions of catches of Puget Sound coho off the west coast of the Vancouver Island. That reduction (overall catches reduced from 1 to 1.7 million/year to less than 100,000) has masked the declined in survival as measured by what we see locally.

Bottom line the salmon/steelhead world is extremely complex with a large number of variables in play and each species having different needs and preferences. The net result is that it is common over a serveral decade period to see survivals of individual species to flucate more than 10 fold and for different species to respond differently to the same conditions.

Tight lines
Curt

For me at this point the facts have been beaten to death and the reality is it doesn't matter. We have three folks here with their very lives wrapped up in this so: salmo, smalma and Todd.

Enough explanation... what is a viable solution.

Give me something I can hang my hat on, I am willing to raise money for something that will work.

Thoughts?

Jim

I think that identifying the problem usually gets us a fair bit down the road to solving it, but that's not the case here. The "solution", of course, would be to send about 2/3 of the people in Pugetropolis back to wherever they came from, tear out 3/4 of the pavement, and quickly grow a few million acres of old growth timber...yanking out a handful of dams wouldn't hurt, either.

SInce it's not so likely that will happen, I can say that the overall solution is a societal one...not a biological one. It would require a change in mindset of the people of the PNW to do more than just pay lip service to habitat protection and restoration. Right now the best we get on habitat is a promise to slow down the destruction, which just delays the inevitable.

We as a society have the technology and ability to stop destroying the environment that salmon and steelhead depend on, and not only that, but we have the ability to start restoring some of what has been destroyed.

All of that, however, takes money and political will, and most people, no matter what they say in opinion polls or in op-eds, aren't willing to part with anything to get salmon recovery.

The approach has to be holistic...fixing habitat while harvesting all the fish doesn't help...there are no fish to use the fixed habitat. Stopping harvest where it can be stopped won't do a damn thing if there isn't habitat for the fish to spawn in when they arrive at the rivers. Fish and habitat can only go so far if there isn't any water in the river, and the remaining water is too warm, too low, or too full of pollutants to be useful.

Sometimes I think that the whole "grass roots" recovery efforts are, at best, just delaying the inevitable, and not delaying it by much, either.

I don't think actual salmon recovery is impossible, but I do think it will take a lot of hard work and significant changes in perspective and mind set not just of fish managers and politicians, but of the regular folks that live around here, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Good point on that, Aunty...there are only two ESU's left with viable runs, and they both need our help to stay that way.

Fish on...

Todd

I totally agree with you here. ACTION and work is the key. As far as perspective and mind set is concerned while watching the King 5 news cast last night about the listing they referred to puget sound Steedhead as "Steelhead Salmon"? For those of you out there who are going to just sit back to see what happens, it's not rocket science, get involved and get busy.

MRey- over 90% of the activities of the Green River Steelhead Club revolve around Green River enhancements projects and the yearly Trout Derby we put on last weekend. The State controls the broodstock program and quite honestly as a club member for about 4 years, we have never as a club debated the science, state goals and the virtues of wether or not the program is acheiving it's intended benefits. Not a bad idea though and I think I'll bring it up at the next meeting.

JimB,

Viable solution? I honestly wish I knew. Consistently harvestable runs of wild steelhead occurred when the human population of WA state was about 2.6 million. Actions that would re-create as many of the environmental attributes that existed then may be the best shot at recovery. Since the price of a 3,500 square foot home on a 5 acre hobby farm in Pugetropolis suburbia is beyond the economic reach of most citizens, high density housing is becomming as much an economic necessity as an environmental one. Smaller homes on smaller lots served by fewer roads and less deforestation aid recovery. Say no to building more roads and the expansion of existing ones. Grid lock may be bad for us, but it will be better for fish, if fish are going to have to co-exist with 7 million people. If the grid lock is bad enough for long enough for enough people, then more environmentally friendly transportation systems will become economically viable. One of the problems is us, as anglers, who want to drive single occupant 3/4 ton trucks towing a 21' river sled from the Seattle urban area to the Snohomish or Skagit River basins to fish for steelhead, whose runs we claim we want recovered. As long as society wants mutually exclusive attributes, steelhead and chinook cannot recover. If society changes its mind about what it wants, collectively, not individually, then steelhead and chinook recovery becomes viable.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Incredible answer Salmo...

I don't see society changing do you??

I think we had better choose what rivers get tremendous focus and attention on helping remnant wild runs and which rivers get tremendous focus and attention on hatchery runs. Am I nuts? And I know this is a tremendously pro wild board and I have no problem with that...but I think your answer sums it up.

Jim

Unfortunately these are the same kinds of rationalizations that the various industries in the midwest used to try to designate areas as "industrial" and "protected". The end result was a river that caught fire, and the begining of the environmental movement. I'm not bashing you, but it is a mindset that will generally end up with too much compromise as long as a single remenant of wild remains. It would be best to do it the other way around. Make them make a general concession, then put the screws to them and change things incrementally in a global sense. From what I understand this is a lot of the strategy of the WSC and American Rivers....

Also, if we are interested in wild fish, we'll have to address the total package, as we don't understand enough about the fish to say that we can protect a single river, but not another. Case in point, if we pump up the Cowlitz plants to 2mill or so fry, what is the affect on the mid ocean food sources for wild fish? They may have better fitness, but against overwhelming numbers, they may get lost.

Finally, what would people say if we decided the Sky is easier to say than say the Sauk, and we lost all those large beautiful fish? Do you want to be the one to make those decisions? I certainly wouldn't want to, and IMO we shouldn't.

At some point rational thought will have to prevail and our rampant development will have to change to a less impactful manner. After all, the steelhead are just the tip of the iceberg. Once they are gone and reasonable habitat for them is removed, how much longer before we begin to feel the affects of the degredaded watershed that we rely on for drinking water or irrigation?

Gillpopper and others, to set the record straight I did not Say PROJECTS I said the Enhancement PROGRAM to wich it has been referred to for 35yrs I also never said the club does nothing for the community plain and simple I questioned the private April fishery. Its great that you guys do other things for the community and I know clean ups on the river are considered enhancement and appriciated (Thank you, I pick up garbage myself when fishing)but that does not refer to the program... Also it has only been a broodstock program for the past 4 or so years with a somewhat of a model after the Satsops success. I commend you for suggesting that the club should debate the goals of the program ... thats a start, In the past the goals changed so much and so fast the members couldnt even tell you why they were doing it and today most still dont know why.
And why not??? it's great to fish the river while it's closed and have many hook ups and no boat traffic ...not necessarily in the name of enhancing our native fish stocks, a little selfish wouldnt you say????

A little history for the rest of you (Greg I know you know this)
Origanal plans for Howard Hanson Dam included a fish ladder that the city of Tacoma did not build, so the State solicited the help of the club to prove to the city it had cut off tens of miles of native spawning habitat. After many failed attempts to trap,truck.plant fry over the dam the plan changed, it may have been a good idea 35 yrs ago but somewhere the goal changed the State and particularly the club held on too tight all the while we were still takeing 55 pairs of native Steelhead off "their" spawning beds in the lower river. Futhermore for the past several years the club has not been able to reach the goal of 55 pairs from the lower river ...mmmmm Makes you think huh? 110 a year X 35 = 3850 wild Steelhead.
I have had these debates with club members over the years and they will defend the April private fishery as if they are doing me some kind service. I am a realist ... show me some benifit while its open during my season and I'm all for it as long as there is proof that it is not damageing the native stocks. I know there are other reasons that ALL stocks in Puget Sound rivers are suffering, many of you have mentioned them here ... with all of the other problems out there here is something we can control I just question this one that has been failing miserably ...are we doing the right thing here?

The ESA listing was long overdue, unfortunately I don't think it will do much to change the decline of wild steelhead populations. I share the sentiments of Todd, Salmo g., and others that recovery is a nice idea but unlikely to happen. Steelhead will probably become part of the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound plan to recover chinook. As Salmo g. pointed out this is popular politically but doesn't have much promise for success. We only have to look at the Columbia for a model not to follow. BPA was directed by congress in 1980 to take steps to recover fish and wildlife impacted by the dams. In the 20 years between 1982 and 2002 about $1.2 billion was spent directly on recovery work (not including the cost of fish passage facilities) and additional costs such as lost power sales and debt interest brought the total cost to about $6.5 billion. A large part of the money went to local groups for recovery projects and how well has it worked? The good returns of salmon in the past few years can probably be attributed to good ocean conditions and not billions of spent dollars.

Salmo g. also points out that his analysis indicates Skagit (and the other Puget Sound watersheds) steelhead runs may have been at their historic highs in the early 1970's and then crashed around 1975. I had the good fortune to fish all the Puget Sound streams in that period and I agree. It may be hard to imagine but it was not unusual to dig clams at Dosewallips state park, take a nap, then get out the steelhead gear and and expect to catch a fish or two on the incoming tide, just above the highway bridge. About 1976 fishing dropped off everywhere. It is easy to blame WDFW or the tribes for policies that lead to over harvest. They can't be blamed for letting shopping malls, subdivisions, and all the roads be built in the Puget Sound region. And they are not responsible for the one big thing that happened at that time. In 1977 the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) flipped and ocean waters in the southern Gulf of Alaska went from a cold phase that had persisted for about 30 years to a warmer phase. This was good for Alaska salmon but not for Washington and Oregon fish. Add global warming on top of the PDO flip and it doesn't look good for steelhead and chinook in our region. It is not just that warmer ocean temperatures effect fish survival, it also effects the weather systems that can lead to low rainfall in summer and then flooding rains in the fall and winter. The PDO has happened for an unknown number of years, probably as long as there has been salmon, and the fish have evolved to survive it. The added stresses of global warming and habitat loss may be too much. These stresses are human caused and it takes all of us and a lot of time to begin to reduce them.

Gill Popper - "Steelhead Salmon" is the correct term. Several years ago Steelhead were added to the salmon genus, Oncorhynchus, from the trout genus, Salmo. Also, the scientific name of steelhead changed from Salmo gairdneri to Oncorhynchus mykiss.

This action may be a day late and a dollar short for PS wild steelhead. I'm not usually this pessimistic, but I find it difficult to rationalize how these fish can be anything other than "toast".

This should be a wake-up call to managers and politicians in the two remaining "healthy" ESU's.

A complete inventory and survey of existing habitat should be completed so we have an idea of where "ground zero" is. Without some benchmark for where we are and where we want to be, there is ZERO accountability for society and industry to exercise responsible development and/or resource extraction within these ecosystems.

Habitats should be critically evaluated for carrying capacity with the goal of managing steelhead populations so as to maximally challenge the available spawning and rearing habitat.

There should be a complete overhaul of harvest practices with an emphasis on maximal sustainable abundance rather than continuing to rely on a fatally flawed MSY model. All non-selective gear should be removed from the rivers... yeah that means the ****in' gillnets. The purposeful harvest of wild steelhead should be banned statewide. The sale of wild steelhead should be banned statewide with the stiffest penalties allowable by law.

Call it the fNp model for recovery... oh to be the state fish Czar for a day!

OK, time for my anti-delusional meds.

Wouldn't you hope Keen that the studies have already been done or they have a pretty good idea. I think commissioning more studies just creates "burnt toast" in regards to the fish.

I am not sure where to go from here but I can tell you that in my nearly 30 years of being involved in this states fisheries this is the first time I see a group of people dealing with the reality. Now it is a question of where do we go from here. What do I want those who come after me to have? Fish to look at that we can't touch or fish to harvest...or is there some inbetween.

My fear is that somehow someone will be successful in putting wild steelhead back on track only to be harvested to the brink again....

Jim

FNP -
In the late 1970s the state tried to prevent the tribes from selling steelhead in this state because it was against state law which prohibited the sell of steelhead. Washington lost that case in Federal court which said in effect that prohibiting the sell of steelhead was in effect prohibiting the tribe from fishing for steelhead. Somehow I don't think the court would rule any different today.

What the heck is "maximal sustainable abundance" and how would you achieve that?

Tight lines
Curt

Aunty, How about making those sovereign nations pay for their own sh!t? Oh, and how about a passport to make a grocery run into town...


T

My bull$hit meter just went to redline! Prohibiting the sale of wild steelhead does NOT prevent anybody from fishing for them. It just keeps them from turning the fish into a commercial commodity. The sympathy factor for the purposeful harvest of wild steelhead might reasonably come into play if the fish were taken for individual consumption/subsistence or cultural value. For me personally, the sympathy factor for their wholesale slaughter is ZERO if the fish become nothing more than dollar bills with fins.

Surely some lawyer with even half a brain could articulate that argument and make it stick in a court of law?



I believe we had that discussion once before:

maximum sustainable abundance

It took a while to agree on the terminology, but if you read thru that whole thread, you will realize that what I initially referred to as MSR could just as easily have been called MSA.

There are other runs in the Puget Sound that have been doing well, SEARUN CUTTHROAT and WILD SUMMER RUNS. They live in the streams a similar time frame to winter runs. Yet through MANAGEMENT (thanks Curt) they have come back, the cutts in large numbers.

Also I understand in the Strait of Georgia there are streams with high quality habitat and zero harvest that the wild winter run steelhead numbers have dropped 10 fold. What’s going on?

Why are wild summer run numbers increasing in the PS basin?

My opinion of the mass of society impact on the Snohomish system is exaggerated. Running the Snohomish and Sky from Everett to the High Bridge the obvious run off impacts appear small. The Everett area is industrialized, but it has been for 100 years. We had big runs of wild fish here when the saw mills were dumping without regulations. Logging practices were nonexistent until the 1980’s. It will be argued how wrong I am, but, the incremental changes on this system appear slight.

My point is the problem of local habitat, past harvest practices or hatchery practices may not be the major issues. Something is going on to our fish else where that isn't effecting chums, pinks, searuns and summer runs.
My 2 bits
Rog