One of the biggest points that has been reiterated by folks like Salmo and Kurt is the fact that C&R is only a management tool and not a means to recovery. If a river is underescapment, simply moving to C&R doesn't fix any of the ills. Hence the closure of the Sky et al while sad was the right thing to do....

And for what it's worth Auntie, I'm on your side when it comes to reasonable harvest level on healthy populations. You will not see me complain one wit about harvesting Pinks, Chum, or hatchery steelhead. But on stocks that shouldn't be fished, they should be left along.

The only reasons I do support the C&R season is are admittedly for greedy selfish reasons. The first is for local economoies, the second for myself.


1) When it comes to the money that can be generated from wild steelhead, it seems to me that those fish are better served in a C&R kind of opportunity. Longer season means more people coming and going into Forks, Darrrington, etc for a longer time buying gas, hotels, etc. More time available means a longer booking season for local guides too. Lots of money in that Skagit extended season I say!

2) more fish available in river means that I as an angler will have more opportunities at a trophy sized fish. If every 20lber were pulled out an kept, I would have less of a shot. I can catch my fill of meat during the hatchery run, but the wild season is my shot at a lifetime prize...

Aunty M,

You've asked about wild steelhead spawning behavior and subsequent success after C&R. It's a valid question, but it's slightly off the mark. It's not that steelhead spawning behavior after C&R is irrelevant, but in a fundamental sense, it's not what matters.

First, let me say that I don't have direct evidence regarding the specific spawning success of individual wild male or female steelhead after C&R. What we do have is the indirect evidence of the success of a run, on a population basis, with regard to its reproductive success when that population has been subjected to an extensive C&R fishery. The population evidence from the Skagit River is that the C&R fishery has no measurable adverse impact on the reproductive success of the population. The unit of measure is spawner recruitment.

If C&R or any other variable is limiting a wild steelhead population, then the total recruitment, or recruits/spawner will decline. Unfortunately, there are always other variables in the mix, and the wild Skagit steelhead population is too small, and the effects of one or more of the other variables is too large, for us to statistically tease out the exclusive effects of C&R fishing via multivariate regression.

However, there are some large swings to the Skagit wild steelhead population that occur during the period the C&R seasons have occurred - 1981-present. Some of the swings have been positive, and some have been negative. The population swings up and down appear to be independent of C&R fishing. There is nothing that would correlate C&R fishing with a negative impact to the reproductive success of the Skagit wild steelhead population. While it's biologically true to say that catching a steelhead never did any fish, or its population any good, it's equally true in this case to say that C&R fishing has done no demonstrable harm to the wild Skagit steelhead population.

Further, Todd is wrong about the length of the Skagit C&R season. It's 45 days long on the Skagit and 61 days on the Sauk, but let's not quibble, since it flat out doesn't matter to the biological health of the fish population in question. It can only matter to those who may be caught up in emotional, rather than logical, arguments about this fishery and how it is managed.

The upshot to the situation remains unchanged. The Skagit, and all other steelhead populations, require substantial habitat of reasonable quality measured in terms of productivity and capacity. They require it now and for as long as we wish to have them around. Additionally, the PS steelhead populations may benefit if we can identify the present marine limit on survival, and we are able to positively influence that variable. And even if we cannot, at least we'd advance our understanding of the things that can and do limit fish populations.

I think you also made comments about high seas fishing and bycatch. We been there, done that. It ain't zero, but it also ain't the limiting factor, not by a long shot. USCG and NOAA LE pretty well resolved that in the 1990s.

If this thread is about harping about things that don't matter in any substantive sense, please continue. If there are further questions of substance, I may drop back in.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

We're all in it for greedy reasons.... We just have to admit it and make sure we can all use the limited resources in a manner that provides the greatest benefit...

Aunty,

"Indicates" is about as good as it gets in scientific parlance. Few things are proven beyond doubt. This is why study results to a tested hypothesis are usually given as: "Reject the null hypothesis" or "Fail to reject the null hypothesis." Accept the null hypothesis isn't on the menu of choices. One logical reason for this is that some day another experiment that is better, or better informed, than today's experiment may come along and reject the hypothesis that was accepted today. Hence, if the data indicate something, then it's a pretty good bet that it's real, but there is always, and I mean always, the nagging possibility that it is wrong.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

As a side note, this is the reason why there are so few "law" dictating how science is understood. Physics is a field that is incredibly concrete and highly observable. Even the great "laws" of gravity and energy were completely blown away with the advent of quantum mechanics and Einsteins general theory of relativity.

The biological sciences are even less firm, as they rely purely on statistical data and statistical modeling to show trends. In some cases the models are good, strongly peer reviewed, and the corresponding data is excellent. In other cases, you end up with false correlations (like skirt height and the political climate) that *seem* to make sense, but are only weakly linked.

I guess a lot of the issue around the understanding of this data is purely based on nomienclature. (Not directed at you Auntie) But when someone asks the question of what is affecting the steelhead they want a black and white answer, not one that says "We have strong evidence that...".... That strong indication is how things are spoken and in laymen terms means it the way it is. It can't be written any other way because those other statements would perclude good peer review.

Here is some data associated with ongoing research at the University of Washington

http://www.fish.washington.edu/research/highseas/

Lots of funding goes there for the fisheries program and they work closely with goverment agencies.

Additionally one of the better know researchers and authors associated with salmon/steelhead research Thomas Quinn is a faculty member there.... Lots of reading... lots of good stuff....

In fact it's Quinn's book that changed my mind about harvest of wild salmon, from never harvest to judiciously restrained harvest... Great book...

I normally wouldn't put this in a post, but because Kingjamm posted a link to the UW Highseas Research Program I suggest taking a look at the key links, Current Research Topics, and A Day in the Life of - - - - - . My wife, and fishing partner, has been part of the program since 1980. The focus of the program has always been towards Alaska salmon but in the many cruises over the years she has taken every opportunity to learn about steelhead ocean ecology. This year Sea Grant awarded funding for possibly the first ever directed high seas steelhead research. Because of budget problems only enough money has been provided up to this point to get a person on board the cooperating Japanese research vessel. The ocean is not the "black box" that is so often blamed when fish runs don't go as predicted. There is information that can be valuable to formulating recovery plans.

The POST acoustic array project is good for tracking steelhead smolts in Puget Sound but is not effective in the ocean because steelhead seem to move directly offshore rather than along the coast. The North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) and other international cooperative research can provide significant information about steelhead ocean ecology, in particular the effects of climate change and ocean acidification. The Alaska Region of NOAA Fisheries eliminated funding to the UW for high seas research and participation in NPAFC. WDFW and the Washington NPAFC commissioner have recognized that the NPAFC provides a forum to learn about steelhead in the ocean. My wife attended the last years annual meeting as a volunteer representing Washington in the USA delegation with the goal of discussing steelhead research. As a result of the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead I think it would be reasonable to ask our representatives in Washington DC to push for funding for highseas steelhead research.

WN1A,

Can you send me some information about the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC)?

Actually...I'll send you a PM instead.

Fish on...

Todd

Dear gawd! Did something useful happen in this thread!!???

AuntyM,

Commercial fishing, like recreational fishing, does become more sophisticated all the time. Like WN1A said, the ocean isn't a black box. The knowledge base increases all the time as well. What happens specifically to steelhead there isn't persued because there hasn't been an economic incentive to do so.

We know some important things about steelhead however. They don't school up in the ocean; they migrate solo or in groups numbering a few fish. They don't migrate north and south along the coast like chinook and coho. They migrate far west, well beyond 180* lg.

Unless the Russians have changed where and what they fish for, they aren't intercepting many steelhead. The primary intercepting fleets, according to the early 1990s investigation, were mainly the Taiwanese, followed by the Poles and Japanese if I recall correctly. At that time there was considerable speculation that high seas intercpetions were the proximate cause of significantly reduced steelhead returns. As it turned out, some steelhead were intercepted as bycatch in high seas squid fisheries. Although the data weren't particularly strong, I think I read that the worst case estimate was that high seas fishing MAY account for interception of up to three percent of US steelhead runs. That's not a whole lot more than statistical noise, and in any case isn't enough to explain sustained run reductions in PS and inability to rebound if all other variables remain the same.

Although I've only glanced at it, I recommend you buy Tom Quinn's recent book. Lotta' good stuff, and you might really like it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thank You Auntie, That has been my point for a week of this.

Washington is a mess and Oregon is in better shape than Washington and Northern California is in even better shape, Todd, explain that? Habitat? Bull. Yes it is important, I just know from the inside that the State uses habitat to keep sport fishermen off the real problems with the mighty State of Washington fisheries. The management has been a mess for years and add 20 years of uncontroled netting and ocean commercials and yes, sport C&K, it has made a mess of our state.

GBL,

They have had, and still have, catch and kill in Oregon and California, but that is irrelevant.

Coastal streams...west side of Vancouver Island, Washington coastal, Oregon, and N. California, are not suffering the same marine conditions bottleneck as Puget Sound and Georgia Straits fish...that's the theory, anyway. I'd sure like to find out what the story is with that.

Maybe this is the fifth, sixth...twentieth...time in this thread, but here it goes for the last time:

It is not relevant what may have caused past problems. There is no "uncontrolled netting" going on in Puget Sound streams...as a matter of fact, when it comes to wild steelhead, there is virtually NONE.

It is not a problem right now.

If it were, wouldn't the OP streams, where there are 4 to 7 netting days per week right through April, be the ones in the biggest trouble.

They're not.

Why not?

Well, habitat, for one...all of the streams come out of the ONP.

Two, they are on the coastal marine paradigm...just like the coastal Oregon and California fish are.

If you wish to be part of the solution, you're going have to accept some irrefutable facts...especially that there is virtually no harvest going on with wild steelhead in Puget Sound...or you will do what you have likely been doing for the past forty years; banging your head against a wall, and the wrong wall at that.

How effective has that been for ya?

Fish on...

Todd

Hood Canal streams come right out of ONP too. Where are those fish?

So lets say this now, netting *has* been an issue in the past. And in no uncertain terms if netting isn't managed properly, it can be a problem in the future. BUT the PS rivers in question Puyallup, Green, Sky, Sno, Nisqually have seen *very* little netting pressure for quite some time.

There are lots of ideas on why the HC rivers haven't recovered. Some of them include lower river productivity having to do a lot to do with it. The rivers are *very* short and are very cold for long periods of time. Because of this, there has (from what I've been told) limited sized runs on those rivers, meaning that for a river of that specific volume the numbers of fish would be smaller than those on say the OP of a similar size. It's not to say there were lots of fish, but to say it would be a percentage smaller than the "idealized" steelhead stream.

Some other ideas have to do with poaching/harvest on those rivers. I'm not sure what the current regs are on those rivers, but it's amazing how few folks know what 12" or 14" inch fish look like.

Finally and this is the most controversial idea I've heard. The idea is that the HC rivers were actually netted and fished so hard for so long that there populations feel below some critical threshold. T Quinns book goes into detail on this, but for Salmon and Steelhead the populations are amazingly resilient to loss. It has to be that way cause our fish had to deal with volcanos, huge floods, earthquakes, etc. Because of this natural resiliance you can continue to loose fish until you hit a tipping point. After that, populations crash and have a hard time recovering. If it gets too low, then there is the possibility of them never quite recovering.

The past is the past and the HC rivers and if the populations have crash due to netting, it's a moot point. We need to learn from those lessons and manage how it's done.

But even this is just a hypothosis, and the biologists from what I know are kinda in a quandry. Without further study not a whole lot can be said for certain. Perhaps the listing can help by dedicating resources to a fish that didn't have the same commercial appeal as salmon.

Personally if there are bio's on this board that have more insight, I'd love to see it....

I am a biologist, and I personally think that the genetic impacts of hatchery outplanting over many generations is under appreciated as a potential explanation for slow recovery of some populations. Fish populations maladapted to their river systems would show many of the same symptoms of a habitat-limited population, and it would take many generations of selective pressure to re-build a population well-suited to any specific system even if habitat was pristine. So if more adults spawning does not result in more smolts produced, perhaps is isn't necessarily the habitat that always is the only culprit to blame. And before I get jumped on here, I'm not saying that habitat isn't also a big player in low freshwater productivity. In fact I think habitat always limits populations. But there are quite a few systems that used to support decent runs, continue to have good habitat conditions, yet don't seem to be recovering as might be expected.

Hopefully this doesn't divert the thread from the habitat preservation as an issue thing. PS rivers are NOT the HC rivers, so just to make it clear, it seems the problems of the PS urban rivers are significantly different than the HC rivers in question.

So it seems that you feel that this is one of the reasons why the HC rivers are depressed? If so, I've got a couple of questions.

As far as I know didn't they stop any hatchery plants on the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewolips a while ago? If the genetic dilution of the fish were something that depressed the stocks, wouldn't the fitness of the fish be addressed after a few generation such that they would start to at least *rebound*?

If Quinn is correct and there is a tipping point (wished I had the book here as reference), will the population ever rebound naturally? I'm assuming it would as however long ago there weren't anadormous fish in those streams....

Finally, is there a way to do broodstock injection on those streams to help the fish recover? This is a dangerous proposition, but if say a good cross section of wild fish were released (Sauk fish, Hoh fish, Queets fish, etc...) for a couple of cycles, would this help bolster the genetic of the fish in question via genetic diversity?

Anyways lots of questions!

I'm not saying this is the case, and I have no data at hand to demonstrate this for the HC streams. Just that it might provide an explanation for populations with what appears to be good habitat not faring well. There have been millions of smolts dumped in the majority of steelhead streams over the years, most coming from fairly unique brood stocks with unusual run timings. PS and HC rivers are or were among the most heavily planted for a very long time. I don't think anyone can say what the magnitude of the influence of the practice has been, or how long it would take to be ameliorated though time on any given stream. However, I think it would be unwise to ignore the potential impact an allow for it in our recovery planning.

I also think humans have done enough damage with well-meaning attempts to bolster populations that we should be extremely cautious about rushing in to "save" the fish with injections of multiple brood stock lines or other heroic intervention. It took a century to bring the runs to their current crisis. If watersheds can be maintined sufficient to allow for natural processes to maintain and recover functioning habitat, populations will fill the available habitat in time. Can we mantain watershed functions, and can we be patient enough to allow fish populations to recover on their own? I am skeptical that we can do that in many PS basins.

I believe that the HC streams will eventually rebound but it maybe because of strays from other systems mixing in with a residual population. The initial seeding (by nature) was no doubt a smaller number than the runs are now.

Milt Roe -
I understand what you are saying about the massive numbers of hatchery fish planted in Puget Sound Rivers. However it is intersting how little of a "foot-print" those hatchery fish have left in those river systems. What little genetic sampling information that is available has shown that in many of the PS basins there are still significant genetic differences between their wild fish and the Chamber's Creek winters. Equally important there are considrable phenotype differences between the hatchery and wild fish.

Also in areas here the hatchery planting have been discontinued (Nisqually and Cedar0 or with a shorter history of planting (Nooksack) or with no history of planting those Chambers Creek fish (Vancouver Island) have all demostrated the same poor returns of fish. Could there be a genetic factor in some areas - probably though the evidence available suggests that it is not a dominating factor in the status of the Puget Sound fish.

It is really interesting that the status of the fish on Vacouver Island (especailly those on the East side mirrors foudn in Puget Sound. Those streams have not been netted by the tribes and have been managed under wild release for decades. As with the Puget Sound fish the clear indication is that those fish and their smolts are surviving poorly.

The poor survival points to two major factors - poor freshwater habitats and terrible marine survivals. Based on what have seen of the habitats on the North Sound Rivers (Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish and Snohomish) the poor quality of the over-winter habitat for the fry and parr is the most obvious missing factor.

Sorry but all this ranting about factors other than those directly afftecting the freshwater survival of the young fish or the marine survival of the smolts is in my opinion diverting attention from where the discussion needs to be if there is to be constructive actions for improvement of the resource status.

While there may be exceptions most familar with the habitat situations on most Puget Sound Rivers (fsih biologists, habitat biologists, ecologist, etc) agree that there major problems in that arena. Teh net result is that two of the major VSP facotrs that the feds talk about are lacking - capacity and productivity.

Tight lines
Curt

In this particular case I think it's germaine as it's describing why and how the HC rivers are different than PS rivers. Our PS stocks are definately on the decline (and as far as I know HC rivers are included in the threatened status), but aren't where the HC rivers are currently at. Knowing a bit about how we got there will probably help come up with a more comprehensive solution overall.

I will agree though, the long term viability of our steelhead is purely based on having good habitat available, and that really should be a major portion of the focus for urban rivers systems.