The rivers that are being ripped up good by the tribal netting are pretty familiar to me...and the fishing days and catch data are both there to back up my concerns. Mostly this is happening on the Chehalis and Queets Rivers by the Quinault Tribe, on the Hoh River by the Hoh Tribe, and to a lesser extent, but still significant, by the Quileutes on the Quillayute system.

I have not seen any significant catch on the Snohomish or Skagit systems...I don't think that there are any fishing days whatsoever on the Snohomish system, and while there are a few on the Skagit, the numbers aren't high and the system is still making escapement.

May or may not like the tribal netting there (I don't, that's for sure), but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is overharvesting the runs on the Skagit or Snohomish systems.

Fish on...

Todd

Kids, Kids Kids, You have been brainwashed to blame someone else instead of the Indians. The skagit is a perfect example as now we all blame logging, and yes, Sauk logging has done some extreme damage, but there are still Native fish making it back only to be intercepted in the lower rivers.
Now, I have fished those systems for over 40 years, much longer than any of you.
Without going into to much detail, I have personally pulled over 20 nets out of the Skagit over they years. (times when they had no "fishing days" as you said)
They put in and pull nets whenever they want, they have no schedule or time. All you have to do is hang out in the lower river long enough to see the action.
I will dig up my pictures of the 4 or 5 nets we pulled that had sunk with over 200 salmon and Steelhead each in them.
Join the Steelhead club and talk to the guys that live along that river, they will tell you what really goes on.
Obviously you have never fished the lower river and watch an Indian drift a net through the hole you were fishing and take every living thing out of that hole.
Please stop deflecting the Indian poblem, it is real and just becuase the federal courts made a bad decision years ago, does not mean we should walk awat from the problem and try to fix it using a different formula.
You say habitat, but the Skagit and Snohomish have good habitat and the Skykomish has the best, but yet the Native population continues to decline. Everything has an affect on the fish, but to let 1/100th of the population take 50% of all the fish is not only bad, it is stupid and only gets all of us fighting each other while the Indians go drop a net for a few hours while we argue.
In the old days we would drop 90lb hay bails in the river to take out the net, but it was much harder to get them out of the river so it became a night mission to pull the nets and chop them up while the owner either was not their (local bar) or was alseep in their trucks. I am to old anymore to do those type of missions, but it was quit effective. It forced them to at least tend their nets instead of letting them sink.

GBL,

I'm hardly a kid, and I'd appreciate that you not talk to me like one. OK, you've fished the Skagit longer than I. I didn't discover that great river until 1972.

If I've been brainwashed, it's to let objectivity rule over my emotions. I've watched treaty Indians set and drift net all over that river system, from the Jetty drift at the mouth, upstream to the old government bridge on the Sauk. I'm well aware of the effectiveness of gillnetting. I've also flown the Skagit and Sauk doing spawning surveys of chinook and steelhead, and seen that, in spite of the interception fisheries of treaty and non-treaty fishing, thousands of salmon and steelhead nonetheless survive the gauntlet and return to their spawning grounds.

I know the situation isn't perfect. I've talked with both WDFW and tribal enforcement officers, and seen the poacher nets they pull from the river (and not all of them are owned by Indians, BTW). Poaching occurs, but less happens now than did 20 and 30 years ago. But you say the Indians have wiped out the steelhead. I've seen and counted the steelhead on the spawning grounds that disprove your allegation. Like I said, it's incumbent on you to prove that your views and opinion are indeed facts. Can you prove that the WDFW escapement estimates based on redd counts are faulty? It's your opportunity to put up, . . . or . . .

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Kids?

GBL, you're not going to get anywhere acting like an adult child, or treating anyone else here like a child, either. Fishing the Skagit for 40 years doesn't make your right, just as fishing it for over 20 years (as I have) doesn't make me right.

That being said, the river is still making escapement. No, there aren't nearly as many as there should be, nor are there nearly as many as I'd like to see...and I'd like to see none of them end up in the bottom of a cooler, whether it be a tribal net, poacher net, or "sportpoacher"...the type that are fishing up there right now on the Sauk, as we all know.

There are, however, fish spawning...lots of them...thousands of them, as a matter of fact...not only that, but they are spawning at a level beyond the set escapement level.

Do the Skykomish River fish swim up to Burlington and get caught in a net? How are they getting netted?

When you mention "steelhead club", if what you mean is the Wildcat Steelhead Club, then you might want to get your information from a few other sources...yes, they mostly live there, and yes, they have been active for a very long time.

They also, however, aren't exactly "reality-based" when it comes to what is going on up on the Skagit system...if it was up to them they'd be lining their coolers with those fish, too, and they have somehow concluded that it is the tribes' faults that they can't do so.

There are a lot more objective, rather than emotional, sources of information out there...avail yourself to them.

Fish on...

Todd

GBL,Gasoline is much more effective on the net material than chopping them up.

Ok, now I got your attention-Read this, I have a relative in the fish and wildlife department, so don't start making excuses---This was an Indian net, not in season of course! This goes on every day under our noses and little is done to stop it. Even the fish and wildlife admit it.
http://www.king5.com/localnews/environment/stories/NW_052507ENBfishbpoachersKC.da1bd64.html
Kids is a nice way to get you to wake up. It was not a slam although you both seem to think so. We would probably have much in common, I just can't stand to see fishermen make excuses for something that has obvious ramifications. I was out there on the Skagit starting in the 60's when everyone thought those 30lbers would keep coming back. Yes, the sportsman killed them, but for every one a sportsman took the Indian nets took 25, that is the hard truth.
Now you are bashing the steelhead club, so now you have an issue, not all members of the Steelhead club want to kill Natives, they just want everyone to be treated the same and when you release a 28lb Navite (good thing) and watch it end up in a net, what is the point?
So Todd-You come down and spend a few days with me next year on the mighty Snohomish system and we will go and do a little looking for nets in the lower river, If we don't find one I'll buy you breakfast.
Your hearts are in the right place, but you have to look at the whole problem, not just the easy answer.

"but you have to look at the whole problem, not just the easy answer."

I'd say that out of hand blaming problems on tribal netting has been the "easy answer" for sportsmen for going on forty years...and though it's been pointed out above a few times, those fisheries from the '60's, where the nets were in like crazy and sportsmen were harvesting upwards of 25,000 wild steelhead per year from the Skagit....those days are long, long, long gone...neither of those has been happening for a very long time, so looking to those as the current problem is waste of energy.

I'm not bashing the Wildcatters, just noting that you should do more research than just asking them...you're only getting a very small piece of the picture.

No one, and I mean no one, thinks that tribal netting is good for fish...no one. Going from that directly to "they are overharvesting", however, is not supported by the facts.

Sportfishing also is not "good for fish"...that doesn't mean that sportfishers are overharvesting on those streams, either.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd-
Point taken.
I will say that the Wildcat Steelhead club ( I am not a member) has done many good things for the Skagit, yes there are bonkers in the club as there are everywhere.
Their point, and I agree, is that those spawning beds that you say have thousands spawning, used to have tens of thousands and the fisheries numbers as well as the Federal numbers support a sharp decline in the Native population within 3 years of the Bolt decision. Just because the our fiseries agency say we are meeting escapment does not mean a darn thing, they will tell you whatever they want to appease the masses.
Remember my brother in law is one of them and has over the years shocked me with what goes on behind closed doors among themselves as well as what they have done with the Indians.
We are all saying the same things, just a different delivery. You are a lawyer, how many times has the same story been spun a different way to make a point?
I just want to make sure everyone keeps an open mind and remembers that places like the Skagit were in decline right after Bolt and before the logging community screwed up the Sauk.
Before the Bolt decision, I was there for years before Bolt and the sportsman had little affect on the fisheries, in fact the runs stayed strong for 25 years, now I know that fishing preasure increased about the same time and that does have an effect, but those nets (and the ones still there today) have had the biggest impact on the Steelhead, not Habitat.
Habitat is the States way of deflecting the stupid management they have done over the years.

The state while culpable for the mismanagement of the fishery, can't be blamed for the nets. If anything, the generous harvest limits are quite a bit to blame, but once again with wild fish release if the numbers were to rebound, the would have done so by now....

I don't think anyone has suggested the netting is good, quite the contrary. But in terms of things that can be done, habitat is such a crucial element that it must be addressed. Debating whether netting is a bigger problem is completely moot. Unless someone wants to come up with a compelling argument that it's wrong and take it to court and see if it passes the litmus test of our legal system, habitat fixes are where we are at.

Besides all of that, if you *really* want to save the fish, the long term issue at hand is habitat. With the quickly expanding SeaTac metro area gobbling up all cheap land, it is an *IMPERATIVE* to start working now to maintain that habitat rather than waiting for it to get better...

Finally, I've *very* surprised that everyone keeps saying the Sky is great habitat. The entire lower stretch has been completely diked via rip-rap, and within the last dozne years the sleep town of Monroe has turned into a gigantic strip mall resplendid with impermeable surfaces and all sorts of run off associcated with it. While the upper stretch is still pretty good, it's obvious to me that encroachment is well under way.....

I don't know much about this topic but, from what I read wouldn't it be easier if you had a season for netting and a season for sportfishing. The sport fishermen would get the prime times because they have to actually go out and find the steelhead. While the Netters get the early spawners and the late spawners. I don't know if this would be at all possible or effective. I am just throwing something out there.

GBL-

Your timeline for the status of steelhead production in the Skagit is right on. The reasons for the decline are not so obvious though. More than just the Boldt Decision occurred in the mid-seventies. After the Boldt decision, 2/12/1974, it took the tribes a few years to build up their fisheries. At the same time the state made no new restrictions on the commercial or sport fisheries. Catches remained good. At about the same time the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) switched from a cold phase to a warm phase. The cool regime, which is good for salmon production in the pacific northwest, persisted from 1947-1976. Since 1977 the warm regime has dominated which is good for salmon production in Alaska but not in the northwest. A third factor of interest is the annual population change in the Puget Sound region which can be linked to habitat degradation. From 1970 to 1973 it was negative with almost 40,000 people leaving in 1972. In 1975 the trend had reversed and the annual population growth was about 25,000. Since 1975 the annual growth has varied but has remained above 20,000 and averaged about 50,000 people per year.

Unfortunately the Boldt Decision, ocean conditions, and population growth cannot be reversed. At best their effects on steelhead production can be understood and accounted for to some degree in any steelhead recovery plan. An interesting fact I recently read is that total tribal salmon and steelhead catch is less now than it was before the Boldt Decision. The catch in all fisheries has declined since the mid-seventies. I was one of those fishermen in the early seventies that thought catching 20 pound steelhead would last forever, not just in the Skagit, but in all the rivers of Washington. Times change!

WN1A--
Very well said. As you and all of us know, there is not one specific finger that can be pointed to show the number one killer. As you have said, it is all of them together.
I have just had allot of experience with gill nets and the river and am floored by the lack of understanding of the toll it has taken. As I was part of the protest against the Bolt decision, I know first hand the effects.
It is true that the Indians take less today than when they first got their licence to kill, becuse there are way less fish.
But they did it while baiting the media into how they were the "stewards" of the river while wipping out whole runs. God I remember all the tribal leaders on TV telling the public it was all our fault for screwing up the habitat. They have convinced a whole generation of that and turned the visability away from them.
Green, Skagit, Snohomish, Stilly systems just to name a few local systems filled with nets for 15 years.. I sat in the late 70's and watched over 50 nets go into a river during Native Steelhead runs. (stewards you know)
No amount of Habitat damage can have as big an affect on a sytem than that, no matter how much damage the loggers did or growth.
My point has always been, the damage was done way before most people on this board even knew about Steelheading. I just hate to see everyone talk habitat without understanding that habitat will not fix the damage done by 1/100% of the population. We need to make sure everyone keeps a keen ear to that because as soon as you fix the habitat and return Steelhead to one of these rivers, guess who will use their "rights" with the States blessing.
It is a crime, I don't care what the courts said. Should we still be fighting it in court, I don't know, but nothing has gone right since that decision!

There have been lots of legal challenges to the Boldt decision, as well as offshoot decision since 1972.... At this point no compelling argument has been made.

As for the nets being an the majority issue, if that were the case, the Nisqually, Hamma Hamma, and other rivers that have been closed would be back to normal escapement. But they aren't, kind of proving that the nets while definately a big deal still aren't the biggest.

As for the tribes taking steelhead on "rehabilitated" rivers, that's a fight that will have to happen when we get there. I personally would hope that the tribes would show restraint in this matter, but since I'm not a native american, I can't really say anything about it.

I have a hard time understanding why so many people want to focus on the past problems, rather than on the future solutions...the nets are not overfishing now. Period.

Complain about how much damage they did in the '60's...fine.

Complain about how much damage they did in the '70's...fine.

Tell me that complaining about nets that aren't even there anymore, or if they are, they are taking very few fish, is going to solve any problems, well, then you are wasting my time.

If you want to restore the fish in any way, shape, or form, attack the current problems that are limiting the populations...if you want to sit around and complain about the past, then you will be there forever, and nothing will get done.

Fish on...

Todd

GBL -
Let's think about this a moment. We have been talking about the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead. Remember that this is the second time that they had been petitioned for listing under ESA. With the first listing the feds determined in 1994 that PS steelhead did not warrant listing. What has changed since that time?

Most would have to agree that both tribal and recreational impacts on wild steelhead in the period between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s had been substantially less than the pervious 2 decades. It seems to me that blaming either fishery is a very large reach to account for the change in status for PS steelhead. There just were not enough fish being killed (especially when compared to the 1970s and 80s) to account for the change in status.

The one factor that did occur in that period has been a significant decline in marine survival for winer steelhead returning to the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. That coupled with the loss of habitat placed the resource in trouble.

I know that you don't feel that habitat is much of an issue but all the assessments that I have seen would indicate otherwise. Take your home river where the historic capacity and productivity has been seriously compromised. Historically the second largest steelhead tribuatary of the Skagit was likely the Baker. Today the hydro complex on that system has all but eliminated its steelhead. As a long time fisher of the Skagit I think you would have to agree that the major tribs have been serious impacted by logging. In addition to the Sauk basin the side tribs of the Skagit that were major sapwning tribs included Diosbud, Illabot, Finney, Day, Jackman, Hansen, Alder , etc. All of those named as well as a host of other smaller streams habitats have been seriously compromised.

For steelhead with their extent freshwater rearing their habitat requirements are pretty complex. Typcially the most limiting factor is the lack of complex habitat sturctures that would provide safe over-wintering habitat for the young fry and parr. They need that habitat to survive the winter floods and to provide a safe heaven from predators.

We need to keep in mind that the habitat in the Skagit is by far in the best shape of any of the Puget Sound systems with many of the other basins have substantailly less productive habitat.

While it may be the easy way to blame over fsihing by the tribes the reality is that the info from the last decade does not support that case. Rather for any substantial increase in steelhead returns we will likely need to see increases in the quality of their habitats or better marine survivals. For long term population stability and any hope of future fishinig by anyone improvements in both areas will be needed.

Tight lines
Curt

Nope, not in the least bit. This was brought up at the beginning of this thread. We know that there are issues associated with ocean survial at this point, and we know that netting is an issue, and we know that habitat is an issue along with hydro, etc... None of them are easy problems to tackle, it's just that habitat is something that we can do something about now, without having to deal with supreme court rulings. As a citizen we can vote, we can use our money and resources and time to help out. In the other cases. Additionally like I said before, habitat is something that needs to be done to ensure long term viability. It doesn't matter one wit if there isn't a net in the river or no dams on a stream. If there isn't reasonable habitat they won't make it

But thanks for the heads up on the Nisqually, it's good to have that info out in the open

Past practices does not automatically equal current problem.

Fishing does not equal overharvest.

Say it ten times Marsha...slowly.

Repeat as necessary, which means repeat until you stop repeating the same irrelevant stuff over and over again.

The Nisqually was overharvested down to almost the point of extinction...but there is no harvest there now. How much time should we spend whining about the "overharvest" there? The folks who would actually like to see the fish restored don't have time to waste to b!tch about stuff that isn't happening.

Fish on...

Todd

I haven't read any doom and gloom about the hatchery complexes, but I have read about some of the less than good practices concerning wild fish survival.

Their return rates on the fish are running at 1.7%. This is an okay return rate, but not great. All of this is being funded via our tax dollars and the cost per fish returned is probably running more than $10 per returning adult. I don't know about you, but even with a reasonable wholesale cost of $2.00 per pound, that hatchery isn't doing anything but keeping things afloat.

Additionally, the tribes hatchery practices are potentially weakening wild genetics. Without those strong wild genetics, their programs may end up with significant crashes similar to the Cowlitz or Puyallup on smolt to adult returns.

Finally, you can't just flood the ocean with smolts. If you don't know what's going on in the ocean, flooding it may only limit food available for wild fish and potentially expand the population of predator fish artifically.

Marsha, no matter how many times you say that harvest that isn't happening is the problem to focus on, it won't make it so.

The Quinault Tribe has a thriving hatchery program...but it has really phukked up the genetics of the upriver wild fish...what that will do in the long term to the health of that run is not yet known...it will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens there to those fish.

Who's predicting "doom and gloom" for that hatchery program?

Note that the OP streams are not the Puget Sound streams, and comparing the two for purposes of this thread doesn't answer any questions...they have their own set of cirucumstances and problems, with overharvest being the primary problem over there.

Fish on...

Todd

With only 2 data points a scientific argument can't be made. If you can plot this over the entire PS region, you'll find that there are other issues at hand not related to harvest. And as for the ocean survival, this has been mentioned at *least* 3 times on this thread.

As for the insults, can we please keep this out of it? One one person has the answers, as we don't have all the data. What we *can* do is look at all the available data and extrapolate out how to do things.

Finally, as for the debate, this is a good healthy thing to do. I personally do other things to help out (vote, recycle, etc), but debating and understanding helps me be a more informed fishermen so I can help shape policy via comments and voting.