Where did you find info on the numbers of summer runs increasing? I know they've had some good years on the Cow with hatchery fish, but the SASI data I can find states they summer run stocks are unknown.

From area biologists. I wrote this quickly, without checking the published figures. My personnal notes from biologists state - "above Sunset Falls and Deer Creek wild summer run numbers have increased". The published figures show something else for all wild summer run in Puget Sound.

If this data is avaiable and can be publish that would be a very useful thing to know. Is there any way that you can put a link to it, or perhaps write down the info you know?

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't know.

Gill Popper - Unless you use the scientific names occasionally most people don't know. In light of the ESA listing it is worthwhile to know because most NOOA fisheries documents will refer to steelhead salmon and it is likely that they will be included in the Puget Sound chinook recovery plan.

The naming story is interesting, Robert Behnke in his book "Trout and Salmon of North America" gives a good history of the naming process. Briefly, the genus Salmo are salmonids of the north Atlantic and Oncorhynchus are the salmonids of the north Pacific. George Steller in the early 1700's recorded the common names used by the Koryak people of Kamchatka for Pacific salmon and rainbow trout. He used phonetic translations from the Koryak language to German. The German was later translated to Russian, then English, then french, and then to Latin. You can see why the scientific names of chinook and coho are difficult to pronounce. The Russian name for steelhead was salmo mykiss so when the name was changed to reflect that they are part of the Pacific population they became oncorhynchus mykiss. What is even more interesting many Russian scientists don't agree with the name change. They think salmo mykiss is better because the life history of steelhead is like that of the Atlantic and not the Pacific salmon.

There may be some use in recognizing the similarity of steelhead and atlantic salmon, which have been ESA listed for several years. Atlantic salmon recovery has been going on for some time, at a high cost and a lot of effort. There has been some success, but not a lot. It might be worthwhile to examine what has worked and what didn't to gain an understanding of what might work here.

I would like to add a bit to my last post, in particular what might be gained by looking at Atlantic salmon recovery efforts. Atlantic salmon like steelhead do not die after spawning, they return to the ocean and can return to spawn multiple times. Canada, USA, and several European countries have programs to increase kelt survival. This could be a useful program in Puget Sound.

In 2001 the Columbia River Inter-Tribal fish commission and the Yakama Nation started a kelt reconditioning research project patterned after the Atlantic salmon programs. Repeat spawner return rates for Puget Sound rivers are low but that may not be historically true. In 1994 -96 the Utkholok river in Kamchatka was estimated to have a repeat spawner rate of 79%. From 1956 to 1964 repeat spawners averaged 58% of the total runs in the Clackamas river and recent estimates for the Kalama have been as high as 17%. Upstream of the dams the repeat spawner rates drop to low levels, 1.5 to 3.5%. There is a detailed report of this project, their 2004 annual report to the BPA, that can be downloaded from the link below.

http://www.efw.bpa.gov/publications/A00004185-5.pdf

I think a similar program would be of some benefit to wild Puget Sound steelhead. The difficult part would be capturing the kelts but it could be done with sports gear. If you fish for steelhead in March and April you know that you catch numerous down streamers. Reconditioning could start in freshwater holding facilities, then they could be moved to saltwater pens and held for varying lengths of time before release. They could even be held until they are almost ready for spawning and then released. Some research on how migration and homing might be effected would be required (there was one question along these lines at the last WSC meeting) but the research could be done with hatchery fish. Reconditioning should not be a big problem because it would be similar to the Atlantic salmon aquaculture brood-stock programs. The payoffs could be dramatic, if, in a few years a 17% repeat spawner return, like the Kalama could be achieved it would be great. Of course the habitat has to be available for the increased spawners.

With the listing of PS steelhead, wouldn't it seem logical to list resident rainbows as well? Resident rainbows can produce juveniles that migrate to sea, and are in effect, steelhead. It may be less likely that a pair of resident rainbow spawners will yield fry that undergo smoltification, but it does happen. It doesn't make much sense to me to list one life history strategy of a species, and not another...especially when the line between the two is so blurry.

Yes, it would have made sense to do so...but NOAA-F didn't think it was necessary.

Hopefully the Recovery Plan will have allowances for that deficiency, and resident rainbow populations will get some protection, too.

Fish on...

Todd

What sort of protection do you think resident rainbows need that they would not get with the steelhread listing? There would be no difference in anadromous waters, and in resident waters above barriers they seem to be in pretty good shape where they occur - largely in forested basins with HCP coverage and reasonable harvest policies. Ocean conditions and gillnets are not an issue for those fish/ The data I've seen don't suggest any problems with isolated resident populations. So what would be the point?

milt roe -
Any habitat protection or hatchery changes aimed at aiding the anadromous form of O. mykiss (steelhead) would be of a benefit to the resident rainbows. However if one is going to be serious about providing protection to the resident rainbows some major overall would be needed in the harvest arena.

Remember these rainbows are year-round residents in the streams and can be expected to live to at least 10 years old if protected. As resident fish until like steelhead they will be feeding for most of the year and will be vulunerable to any sport fishery beginning the second summer when as parr they reach that 5/6 inch range and become "catchable" with most sport gear. As with the steelhead they would likely need CnR protection which means that they would be exposed to the potential of hooking mortality over the rest of their lives - 2 to 8 years.

Virtually every study I have seen established a hooking mortality of released bait caught trout in that 30 to 50% range. It should be obvious to all that any protection of the resident fish will require the use of selective gear rules year round. While it may not be absolutely necessary for that restrictive regulations everywhere in the basins it is my feeling that it would be needed in significant portions (at least 1/3 to 1/2) of the anadromous waters. The obvious place to start thinking about such protection "zones" would be above the hatchery rearing areas.

I'm sure such approaches will not be popular with many however it should be equally clear in issues such as this changes in our past behaviors are likely needed and such changes; whether in the habitat or harvest arena are likely to be painful.

Tight lines
Curt

Makes sense from a harvest perspective if your objective is to increase resident populations. Where the two forms overlap, the regulations should be sufficient to allow for meeting the management objectives of both forms. Juvenile steelhead would benefit from the same fishing regulations that protect resident rainbows, so it may make sense to push for that now. Where they don't overlap, populations can be managed a bit more liberally to reflect the angling opportunities the populations can support. The listing is based on analysis of the anadromous form, and hi-jacking the listing as a blanket excuse to expand further restrictions to benefit resident rainbows everywhere could have unintended consequences for anglers with little in any benefit to steelhead.

I think we are saying the same thing.

I, for one, would be highly supportive of CnR selective regs on all our rivers. The rivers I know with those regs, the Yak and the Methow, are special because of it.

I'd be up for that, but there would be a lot of (unfounded) anger about it...anyone who fishes with barbless hooks in rivers knows that your success rate at landing hooked fish will not dip appreciably, and besides that, your hookup rate will go up using hooks that don't require a barb being driven home.

Fish on...

Todd

Steelspanker -
Going barbless would not be a big issue for me. I kept careful records of my fishing years ago and found that I actually landed as many or more fish barbless than when I fished with barbed hooks (the barbless hooks seem to hook more fish). I was such a believer in barbless that I used them when introduce others to the sport include my son as young as 6 years old. Those beginners had virtually no trouble with landing steelhead that had been hooked on barbless hooks.

However in terms of protecting parr, smolts, resident rainbows, or even adult steelhead the evidence is that the difference between barbed and barbless hooks in the survival of released fish is slight (not satistically significant) though I continue to use exclusively barbless hooks in my anadromous fish fishing for any of the marginal benefits they might provide. On the other hand the banning of the use of bait would have a documented significant increase in survival of the released fish, especially juveniles, spawn-outs, summer adults and resident trout.

I realize of course that many folks will have a difficult time giving up their bait (just think of all the female salmon and steelhead that might have been killed just for their eggs) however short of not fishing for those fish the single most benefiical thing we can do for fish that we release is to fish without bait.

Tight lines
Curt

I see a few different factors coming into play here...

The first is that studies show that using bait, or not, doesn't make that much of a difference on the release mortality of adult steelhead, specifically winter runs or cold water fall summer runs.

Second, studies show that using bait when catching smolts and residents, and warmwater summer runs, does indeed affect release mortality...more than that, I'd say that for the juvenile non-target fish it really increases the encounter rate, too.

So...no bait, and no barbs?

The no barbs part is easy...as mentioned a few times above, though the evidence is anecdotal in natue, myself and others I know, including Smalma, have noted that overall barbless hooks will result in more fish landed...any decrease in landing rate is more than made up for by an increase in hookup rate.

The no bait part, while being pretty devestating to small juvenile and resident fish, and kelts, too, is the part that would be hard for some anglers to shake...

For wild fish, and for summer runs (wild and hatchery), I don't think a no bait rule matters much...yeah, a good bait angler can catch more with bait, but a good artificials angler can catch more with lures...not a significant step up, that's for sure.

For hatchery winter runs, bait can be considerably better in some situations. Besides wanting anglers to have a high success rate so they can bring some of those brats home, I'd also like to see as many of those hatchery brats bonked, bonked twice for good measure. I don't want to see any of those fish even turning spawning colors in a stream, much less actually spawning.

Some sort of numbers could probably be generated to determine what is worse...the mortality rate on non-target fish using bait in the winter, or in stream spawning by hatchery runts...it would probably be significant to note that the encounter rates of trout and juvenile salmonids seem to be much lower in the winter than in the spring and summer, too.

The next issue is that of fall salmon runs...what about using bait for them?

For spring and summer, I personally see no problem with banning bait for steelhead fisheries in the spring and summer, when bait is less necessary, and when encounter and mortality rates are most high for non-target fish.

For the fall and winter, it might not be necessary to ban bait...hooks can be barbless all the time, though...that's a no brainer.

Fish on...

Todd

For the fall salmon runs while bait definely helps with the catching it also increases the potential impacts on the non-target fish - various ages and life histories of O. mykiss so if we are serious about doing something for the steelhead then serious consdieration is needed about bait bans for even those fisheries.

As we all know both salmon and steelhead can and will be taken with the same gear. And there are certainly enough anglers around that are more than willing to bend rules to use bait for steelhead while saying they were targeting salmon.

I agree Todd that bait is not much of an issue with adult winter runs (pre-spawn) as far as hooking mortaltiy however there are other issues even that time of year - resident rainbows, bull troout, etc that warrent consideration of banning bait as well.

It is pretty easy to talk the conservation talk until it comes down to modifying how one traditionally fishes. Are we going to talk the talk or walk the talk?

Tight lines
Curt

I'm personally willing to walk the talk...but I think it will be a very hard sell for many, if not most, of our fishing compatriots...far too many of them would rather ignore their own impacts and change the subject to tribal netting or commercial fishing, or seal predation, rather than discuss what role they may play in recovery.

Fish on...

Todd

Good effort, Marsha...but not good enough. We're not talking about habitat, or nets, or anything other than what role sportfishermen can play in reducing our impacts.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd and Smalma,

It seems bizarre, to me, that we have selective regs for fishing over stocker trout, in lakes, but allow bait and barbs when fishing over ESA-listed stocks. (We're sending the message that hatchery fish in lakes are more valuable than native fish in rivers.) The way to sell selective regs is to say it's that way, or no way (to fishing). My home river first had a total shutdown, then a short CnR season was allowed (and an occassional brat season). It's amazing what selective regs can do for wild residents.

I'd really like to see science drive seasons, and methods, of fishing rather than politics (fear of a hard sell).

I wouldn't be afraid to do what we need to do, to save fish stocks. More ineffective incrementalism is the last thing we need.

Aunty -
Excellent idea - let's end any and all activities that are causing mortalities to the listed fish.

Mortalities on the smolt from going through the power turbines - just stop generating power.

Fish bing killed in irrigation diversions - stop irrigating.

Watersheds losing hydraulicaly maturity for forest activities - stop all logging.

ETC, etc.

Pretty drastic actions and I suspect that you and others would not support should measures (rather modify those activities to reduce mortality) except for fishing which needs to end.
How come?
Is it your position that use of some of a fish stock's productivity to support fishing isn't a legimate use of some of that productivity?

I'm sorry but some of us are not willing to throw our passion for fishing under the bus just to make things easier (cheaper) for those that want to use the stocks productivity for other uses. Rather I support a holistic approach to recovery efforts that stress all the Hs with each shouldering equitable and reasonable shares of the burden of those efforts.

If one looks at the harvest rates on wild steelhead in Puget Sound over the last 25 years it would difficult to say that they fishers (sport and tribal) have not step up to the plate. Equally if the other uses of those fish's productivity had contributed even a portion of that sacrifice to the cause the resource would be in much better shape.

Tight lines
Curt