Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#913031 - 11/12/14 04:29 PM What would you do?
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
It's getting stale here, so just for fun, take a look into

A glimpse into the not so distant future:

A Puget Sound wild steelhead population averaging 4,500 fish annually and a spawning escapement goal of 4,000. Presently the river is closed to fishing for wild steelhead because they are listed as threatened under the ESA. Despite protection from not just over-fishing, but protection from any fishing, and a host of habitat protections and improvement projects, there is no credible evidence to suggest the population will increase significantly anytime soon, if ever.

The easy alternative is to continue the status quo. Nobody fishes. The run is making escapement, but the recruits per spawner (R/S) equals 1 to 1.125. The population is not and will not increase to any larger abundance. But human nature being what it is – insert your favorite adjectives, greedy, self-absorbed, responsive to constituents, etc. – fishery managers see some potential opportunity. A catch-and-release (CNR) sport fishery could produce significant social and economic opportunity without impacting the escapement, provided total exploitation and incidental mortality is less than 250 steelhead. The local treaty Indian Tribe isn’t interested in a targeted fishery on steelhead where the treaty harvest share is 250 fish. The Tribe is interested in fishing for hatchery spring chinook, which they are being prevented from fishing because of the conservation protection for the ESA-listed steelhead.

WDFW and the Tribe collaborate to develop a management plan that will continue to conserve wild steelhead by achieving the spawning goal of 4,000 and incidentally take no more than an average of 500 steelhead combined in the treaty chinook fishery and the non-treaty recreational steelhead CNR fishery. It seems easy enough. The Tribe proposes to fish for chinook with gillnets 2 days/week beginning with the onset of the spring chinook run, which in this case is March 15 until they have taken 250 steelhead, at which point their fishery closes.

WDFW proposes that the recreational CNR fishery run from February 1 – April 30, inclusive, spanning the timing window of the wild steelhead run, prior to the onset of significant spawning activity in May. The Tribe protests because the collaborative analysis reveals that the recreational fishery would have an estimated CNR catch of 80% of the run, meaning the expected average recreational catch would be 3,600 wild steelhead. No one disputes that the recreational anglers will catch 80% of the run, what with the WA state human population having well eclipsed 7 million people and is well on its way to 8 million, and with anglers and guides operating 20’+ sled with 4 to 8 anglers/boat pounding every piece of holding water for 3months straight. The 80% might be a conservative estimate, what with steelhead willing to hit bait and lures repeatedly and be caught multiple times.

The co-manager’s collaboration hits a snag. WDFW and NMFS had been using a conservative value of 10% incidental mortality applied to recreational fishing where wild or unmarked fish are required to be released. The estimated 360 incidental recreational steelhead mortalities puts the sport fishery over its allocation. Further, the Tribe, which doesn’t believe it’s proper to play with food, asserts for policy reasons that incidental mortality of sport-fishing released fish is 100%. The issue is clouded with recent research indicating that incidental mortality of released steelhead is less than 5%, but that if offset by other research suggesting the female steelhead caught and released multiple times have decreased egg viability. And so it goes.

Without an agreement, there is no fishing plan. Without a plan, NMFS doesn’t approve fishing by anyone, although the Tribe is in the driver’s seat because their side of the proposal is that they will stop fishing when their incidental take reaches 250 wild steelhead. WDFW is under pressure from sport fishing organizations that want the longest fishing season possible, knowing that a conventional harvest season is never going to be a choice because wild steelhead productivity is so low.

The impasse can be avoided if WDFW agrees to regulate the recreational fishery such that the total recreational catch does not exceed 2,125 wild steelhead, which with incidental mortalities would range from 107 to 213 fish, both under the 250 non-treaty allocation. WDFW needs to figure out how to keep the recreational catch under 2,125. WDFW puts a draft plan out for public comment. Here are some of the comments received:

1. Open Feb. 1- Apr. 30 because a sport fishery is never as efficient as a net fishery. “Nuff said.”
2. Open Feb. 1 – Apr. 30, Wed. through Sat. only, selective rules (single barbless hook, artificial lures only), reducing the 80% catch to 2,057.
3. Open Feb. 1 – Apr. 30, no fishing from a boat, reducing the 80% catch to 1,200.
4. Open Feb. 1 – Apr. 30, fly fishing greased line only while wearing a silk ascot and tweed jacket, reducing 80% catch to statistically not different from zero.

In a region where human population growth is uncontrolled, and the healthiest steelhead populations won’t support any significant harvest and only limited incidental mortalities, some choices have to be made about sport fishing, if there will be any. Fishing can only occur if fish per angler encounters are significantly reduced. My real point here is to learn what you would choose in order that there might be recreational fishing for steelhead. Would you just quit and stay home? Would you give up side drifting/free drifting/boondogging/plug pulling and fish off your feet from the bank, where on weekends there are more anglers than rocks to stand on? I created this example to illustrate the very real possibility that angler –fish encounters must be reduced when there are too many of us and we are collectively too efficient for the best populations that the remaining Puget Sound habitat can produce.

Enjoy.

Sg

Top
#913033 - 11/12/14 05:00 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
cncfish Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 258
Loc: whale pass
limited entry draw permits. 200 kill tags on a similar system as the limited draw for hunting tags. you pull a tag you can fish 2 days and/or kill one fish.
Model it after the mountain goat hunts. A once in a lifetime tag.


Edited by cncfish (11/12/14 05:17 PM)

Top
#913035 - 11/12/14 05:10 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
Sg - Nice representation of a 'real world' scenario and the complexities associated with managing the fisheries in the State of Washington under the current legal framework.

Short answer - combine #2 and #3. #4 is unworkable since my tweed jacket no longer fits.

I hope all who read your post recognize the 'big picture' issues embedded in your post. Uncontrolled population growth in Puget Sound (and elsewhere), urban sprawl, increasing recreational angling pressure, ESA restrictions, policy differences with the Tribes, differing views with the Tribes on the appropriateness of recreational angling, public expectations, and the limits of steelhead productivity in an increasingly urban environment. We can argue about the amount, timing, and seasonality of recreational fishing for steelhead, or whatever, but the 'big picture' issues are driving this on-going debate.



Edited by cohoangler (11/12/14 06:16 PM)

Top
#913036 - 11/12/14 06:11 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: cohoangler]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
How about no boats equipped with motors at all?

What about not opening the river for recreational angling until March 15?

No fishing under power is a given...and I'd be happy to see no power boats at all.

Selective gear rules is also a given.

What about a "closer to actual" instead of a "conservation number" being used for the release mortality...like 5%?

So far as the Tribes' "no playing with food" stance, the proper response to that is "fuckoff". As a tackle company owner I am of the opinion that they should stop "netting my money"...and as soon as they respect my position then I will respect theirs.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#913038 - 11/12/14 06:21 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
stonefish Offline
King of the Beach

Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5201
Loc: Carkeek Park
I wish we had this dilemma on more then just one PS stream.
_________________________
Go Dawgs!
Founding Member - 2023 Pink Plague Opposition Party
#coholivesmatter

Top
#913039 - 11/12/14 06:23 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington

I think the Tribes saying 'No playing with your food' is their way of saying 'No catch and release'. I don't think they're saying "No recreational angling". That matches with their policy position that all CnR fish die as a result of being hooked, played, landed, handled, and released. They believe mortality is 100%. As such, all fish hooked in a recreational fishery should count against the sport fishing allocation, even if some/many/all of those fish are subsequently released.

Top
#913040 - 11/12/14 06:29 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: cohoangler]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: cohoangler

I think the Tribes saying 'No playing with your food' is their way of saying 'No catch and release'. I don't think they're saying "No recreational angling". That matches with their policy position that all CnR fish die as a result of being hooked, played, landed, handled, and released. They believe mortality is 100%. As such, all fish hooked in a recreational fishery should count against the sport fishing allocation, even if some/many/all of those fish are subsequently released.


Yeah, I know...that's why the proper response is "fuckoff".

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#913041 - 11/12/14 06:40 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Great concept. needs a few additions, in my mind.

1. Real-time monitoring of both fisheries.
2. Pre-season the catch LIMITS are identified. Tribes land 250 steelhead, anglers kill, through whatever release level is identified and actually killed fish, if that is allowed. when they hit 250. This is even if, say, the rec season closes April 1 and the tribes fish 2 weeks for Chinook and leave a bunch in the river.

Not the current fixed schedule bovine excrement.

Top
#913047 - 11/12/14 07:58 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
AP a.k.a. Kaiser D Offline
Hippie

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 4533
Loc: B'ham
It appears the end goal is to simply reduce the number of fish encounters per angler. The rest of the stuff doesn't really matter.

If that is indeed the goal and you are simply trying to figure out how to do it, I see the following as the two easiest solutions:

1) Do not allow fishing from a floating device. For those that have lived this rule in other places, it effectively eliminates certain types of fishing (plug pulling, side drifting, etc.). On larger water, it almost guarantees that some fish will be in water that can't be fished.

2) Lottery/draw system to reduce the number of anglers. You might as well put a giant price tag while you are at it because you will generate a fair amount of revenue while still filling up every angler slot that is allowed. I've predicted for years that this type of system is how things will eventually shake out.

The problem is that some or most will feel "wronged" no matter what is done. Locals will argue they should get a fee-free opportunity to fish "their" river. Many of us will lose out on our "favorite" way of fishing, whatever that may be.


Top
#913049 - 11/12/14 08:21 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D]
Bent Metal Offline
Carcass

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
If it was up to me....ha
#3 - No fishing from a floating device, selective gear rules, etc...

WFC would love #4, and AP's #2 Lotto system... Kinda like what has happened to the Atlantic Salmon systems

What would a realistic encounter % be for a CNR season?? 80% seams really high. I would guess more around 10-15% of run would be soar mouthed
_________________________




Top
#913052 - 11/12/14 08:59 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bent Metal]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
WDFW has some information on encounters and it is high. Very high.

Top
#913053 - 11/12/14 09:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Yep, we have met the enemy.... and the enemy is us. Too many of us.... each wanting to assert our "entitlement" to fish a depleted species.

Collectively we are way too big and way overcapitalized to be supported by such a miniscule amount of available fishing opportunity.

It's not just limiting the encounters per rod, but also limiting the number of rods allowed to access the fishery.

This is how any quality sport fishery is managed in Europe.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#913055 - 11/12/14 09:14 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
ColeyG Offline
Ranger Danger

Registered: 02/08/07
Posts: 3098
Loc: AK
Fly fishing only. That way even if every angler in Puget Sound participated, only half a dozen or so fish would feel a hook wink

Great post SG. Quite a conundrum.

Seriously, I'd vote to keep it closed and continue quality monitoring efforts to see what the numbers actually do. I don't understand how they wouldn't improve if given enough time. What are the biggest hindrances to productivity in that basin?
_________________________
I am still not a cop.

EZ Thread Yarn Balls

"I don't care how you catch them, as long as you treat them well and with respect." Lani Waller in "A Steelheader's Way."

Top
#913057 - 11/12/14 09:18 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
dwatkins Offline
I'm Idaho!

Registered: 08/15/14
Posts: 3624
what would I do?

drive to the coast.
_________________________
Mods = hall monitors

Top
#913060 - 11/12/14 09:45 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
The mindset here in America is that most sportsmen would like to believe every fishery (esp in its infancy) would support a seemingly limitless amount of opportunity. There's just so many fish that placing limits on participation seems ridiculous. Afterall, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Where fair access means either we all have access otherwise NONE should have access.

This ecumenical "embrace all styles of fishing" management strategy makes it difficult to manage exploitation with any degree of precision. Certain method/means of fishing are much higher impact than others (bait vs artificial, boat vs bank, gear vs fly) Retention fisheries are clearly higher impact than C&R fisheries. Yet how many (as AP stated) would cry foul if their chosen (high impact) style of fishing is excluded from the fishery?

Folks are just gonna have to come to grips with the fact that fishing has to become more exclusionary as stocks decline. Some folks are gonna have to leave the fishery... they'll forgo participation because they are either excluded by price, excluded by lottery, or excluded by refusal to fish according to the restrictions placed on methods/means.

At some point we're all gonna have to get over it. Change sucks!
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#913061 - 11/12/14 09:52 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: dwatkins]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Todd,

Many feel your pain. However, without an agreed to plan, the possibility is very real that NMFS would select the status quo. Nobody fishes; it's just so easy, and ESA listings provide the cover.

Bent Metal,

Carcassman is right. On certain rivers the encounter rate can be extremely high. For this example, you might as well assume the numbers are perfect, because management decisions are made on the "best available data" however good that is.

AP,

I thought about including some kind of draw or lottery system, but wanted to see what the PP crowd suggests.

Eyefish,

PNW salmon and steelhead fishermen are decidedly "anti" anything European when it comes to a lot more than just fish management. An easy out would be to just auction off 250 non-treaty permits to the highest bidders, but managers would prefer the status quo over the hell that would break out with that alternative.

Coley,

Fly fishing only works for some of us, but I didn't make it as a serious proposal because Stam would just come back with some anti-government worker retort. As for closing the river a while longer, in this example, it's already been closed 20 years, but let's make it 30, still no difference. The productivity is what it is. The choice is how to deal with it.

Dwatkins,

The above example is coming to a coastal river near you. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

Sg

Top
#913062 - 11/12/14 09:55 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: eyeFISH]
RognSue Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 2508
Loc: edmonds
More people need to take up golf...and no motors on the Sky above Lewis st bridge after the reg closure...

Top
#913068 - 11/12/14 10:21 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: dwatkins]
Brent K Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 08/12/13
Posts: 108
Loc: Arlington, Washington
We should probably do what is right for the steelhead... Since that will never happen I vote for no fishing from a boat on both rivers, open Feb 1- April 30 with selective regs. I would also like to see a limit on the number of guides, or number of days guides are allowed to fish clients.

Perhaps opening up more of the rivers to fishing would help spread out some of the pressure. Does anyone know what the reasoning was behind having the sections below Concrete and above Darrington closed? Poaching? Spawning?

It would be nice to be able to fish the rivers during a productive time again.

This was assuming you were talking about the Skagit system.


Edited by Steelhead Grub (11/12/14 10:27 PM)

Top
#913077 - 11/12/14 11:52 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Brent K]
Bigskyx Offline
Parr

Registered: 01/29/12
Posts: 42
Does anybody believe that the tribe will stick to their end of the bargain once the nets are in the river?

If it's going to open I'd vote for no fishing from watercraft/selective gear. I wouldn't be opposed to an extra fee if the funds went to better enforcement.


Edited by Bigskyx (11/12/14 11:53 PM)
_________________________
Give a man a fish, he'll eat it and fall asleep.
Teach a man to fish and he'll endanger an entire species

Top
#913085 - 11/13/14 12:38 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bigskyx]
Chum Man Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/07/99
Posts: 2691
Loc: Yelmish
man, that's a bleak post, but it always brings up a conversation i had with an older angler around 2006, saying that 10 years from then, steelhead fishing would be circling the drain. it's a little haunting how right he was, i had a hard time believing him at the time(i figured things would stay level and maybe slightly decline, not like another early '90s crash).

i would take the "no fishing from a floating device" rule. i've got no problems with boats for transportation, and in many rivers, access is becoming more of an issue than even declining fish stocks.

limiting the number of guide permits this state gives out, or clamping down on eligibility for them would make sense. it seems like every other boat on the river is a guide, anywhere you go now.

Top
#913087 - 11/13/14 12:48 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bigskyx]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
I want them to go to bank fishing only, eliminate all public access to rivers, make licenses very expensive, and only allow people that own property on a river, and those willing to pay those property owners a great deal of money, the right to fly fish that section of private property.

Then tell those fly fisherman that they are going to continue planting the Sky with hatchery fish (and charge them an enhancement fee) so those that participate actually think they have a chance of getting a bite. They don't need to actually put any hatchery fish in the river because there is only a slight chance of them every catching one in their lifetime anyhow. And from their past experiences, fishing where there are no fish will seem normal and won't change their hook-up rate.

They could put an optional ten fish limit in place just to generate interest (and false hope) and charge a fee for each potential fish on the limit past one.

Top
#913088 - 11/13/14 12:48 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bigskyx]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...

Age limit, 70 and above.......


Edited by DrifterWA (11/13/14 12:50 AM)
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#913089 - 11/13/14 12:57 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: DrifterWA]
wolverine Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 12/10/02
Posts: 439
Loc: Everett, WA
No fishing from a boat and NO bait.
_________________________
It's wonderful to be good. But it's better if you're lucky and good!

Top
#913091 - 11/13/14 01:16 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Brent K]
bhudda Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 04/06/11
Posts: 224
Loc: S River central
Basin capacity was brought up as a reason the numbers will not rise..I totally agree with that idea. Skagit winter fish will be the unicorn of the ages...sadly. I had hopes of some kind of opportunity but that is slowly fading. Like stonefish said I wish this was a problem on other systems, but the stump in the road is not gonna budge for access to OUR fish. I believe that fish of wild origin is just as much my fish as it is their fish, depending on who hooks it first. ..but i don't have a 80 ft net!
I like the no motor cause I don't have one rule.
I also like the no motor rule:)
If it goes to no fishing from float device..so be it..I was strongly against this before but Im bending for the opportunity side.


Edited by bhudda (11/13/14 01:21 AM)
_________________________
salmonsteelsox rod covers
check it before you wreck it!
#hatcheryfishhavenospiritname

Top
#913093 - 11/13/14 01:46 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: bhudda]
ColeyG Offline
Ranger Danger

Registered: 02/08/07
Posts: 3098
Loc: AK
The best thing for the fish is clearly to leave them alone. Anything other than than is a compromise that harms them for our benefit. If the question is, as it should be, can the run sustain whatever final form this harm takes and continue to "succeed" I think the answer in this case should be no. Fishing over an imperiled run with a theoretical 500 fish buffer between success and failure is too small a margin. Give the fish the benefit of the doubt and make a conservative decision.

I for one would happier knowing that they are there than I would be fishing for the last one.
_________________________
I am still not a cop.

EZ Thread Yarn Balls

"I don't care how you catch them, as long as you treat them well and with respect." Lani Waller in "A Steelheader's Way."

Top
#913095 - 11/13/14 02:51 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: ColeyG]
Sky-Guy Offline
The Tide changed

Registered: 08/31/00
Posts: 7232
Loc: Everett
Originally Posted By: ColeyG
with a theoretical 500 fish buffer


The way fish are automagically counted, it kind of cuts this whole debate off at the knees. How do we really ever have a bead on how many fish will show up in a river? Counting smolts to estimate adult returns isnt a viable method to draft policy on. User groups with financial incentives to automagically find and count reds when there aren't any? Please!

The data is really dirty, and will forever remain that way IMO. This issue alone will never allow good decisions to be made.
_________________________
You know something bad is going to happen when you hear..."Hey, hold my beer and watch this"

Top
#913096 - 11/13/14 08:35 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Sky-Guy]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Salmo g.


Fun exercise with more or less predictable responses/suggestions. It seems that folks mostly want to protect their own fishing. Thanks for provide some hope that there might be a steelhead future.

As Sg implied the cited example is a bit of wistful thinking and would require a significant change how the allowable ESA impacts are determined for a given PS steelhead population. Under current ESA impact rules as determined by the feds structured on Salmo's river the impacts would be limited to 4% (180 fish for a run of 4,5000). In order to have the kind of discussion this example presents there would have to be paradigm change where the ESA allowable impacts would tailored to individual populations based on its specific productivity and some assumed risked assessment.


This example is a generic PS case and definitely not the Skagit. Skagit wild winter steelhead is a much more robust population with a long history of conservative fisheries management (at least from the Washington norm). As ESA rules are currently structured fishing for Skagit wild steelhead maybe akin to unicorn hunting the population appears to be secure and reasonable productive in its available habitat. The Skagit population is one of few in the state thought to have a zero risk of extinction over the next century.

To your question Salmo - If indeed this situation comes to pass it would mean that efforts like "Occupy Skagit" has been successful in shifting that steelhead paradigm. Since that effort is driven by a small handful of "feather tossers" it would seem reasonable that any potential fishing benefits would go to those that did the heavy lifting.

Selective gear rules prior to the first of March (aid in the removal of potential hatchery fish) and fly fishing only (single barbless hook) March and April for systems with the kind of run and spawn timing in the example with tweaks for systems that vary from that template.



Curt

Top
#913099 - 11/13/14 09:05 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Sky-Guy]
Bantam Offline
Skytucky Redneck

Registered: 03/17/07
Posts: 1425
Guide/tour restrictions, allotted rod days, lottery system for guiding/tours, no out of state guides..... give that a start!

I agree 100% with no power boats on the tribs. Yes for selective gear.... maybe fishing from a floatation device in the lower 3-5 miles.

We can't just open one single system for the metro masses to rape and pillage again, multiple systems need to be opened otherwise overfishing will likely take place rapidly in a matter of a few years.
_________________________
Steelhead fishing as I know it is GONE.....

Top
#913100 - 11/13/14 09:11 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Smalma]
topwater Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 06/28/00
Posts: 452
Loc: Rocky Mountain High
i think a no fishing from boat rule is the only way to not limit the type of gear (of course we're talking about selective gear only).

chum man mentioned reducing guiding and i think this needs to be part of it with a real discussion on banning all guiding on the skagit during this proposed opening. since the river has been closed for so long now there is a real opportunity to structure this opening in new and thoughtful ways that provides the most opportunity to the largest number of anglers.

another mention was of catch monitoring. maybe there should be a puget sound endorsement license fee (like the columbia tribs) that would only fund fish checkers and enforcement for these openings along with robust population monitoring.

i think all steelheaders would love to see the skagit reopen in the spring. not only to fish it but to provide a slight release valve on the pressure on the coast.

Top
#913101 - 11/13/14 09:21 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: topwater]
CraigO Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 03/30/02
Posts: 1409
Loc: Lake Stevens
I think number 2 is the choice and I would like to see no motors at all during this window. Obviously no bait and selective rules as well. I guess by choosing one of these it is kind of selfish but I think the reason all of us want healthier stocks of fish is so we have an opportunity to fish for them. These wild fish are such a different cat than their hatchery cousins it is dissappointing to not have a chance to encounter any on my home rivers.


Edited by CraigO (11/13/14 10:17 AM)
_________________________
Go Dawgs!!!
Fishing MVP

Top
#913102 - 11/13/14 09:26 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Sky-Guy]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Fish them to extinction. Create a hatchery only river. High fives for everyone.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#913105 - 11/13/14 09:56 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bantam]
cncfish Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 258
Loc: whale pass
I am glad more folks than I see this as a need to go to a permit draw system.
given the facts as stated in the question I see this as the only logical decision. I was short on time when I posted, but was able to pick the land game animal I think best mirrors the data set.

"Between 2,400 and 3,200 mountain goats are estimated to live in Washington."
"Females (or nannies) do not breed until at least 2.5 years of age"
" longevity is normally 10 to 13 years"
" Kid and yearling survival may be less than 50 percent depending upon the severity of the winter."

" Current permit levels are conservative and represent no more than four percent of mountain goat populations that are surveyed regularly and are stable or increasing"

"Mountain goat populations have declined overall in Washington relative to estimated historical levels. Goat populations within the state were considered to have exceeded 10,000 animals (including those within federally-managed areas) as recently as 1961."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/mountain_goats.html

I also found that they give birth normally to one kid each.

using those numbers the recruit to parent ratio would be something less than 2. (average lifespan, one offspring, <50% survival= less than 4 adults per breeding pair)

Permit draw is tried and has been working for a lot of years. if we want the chance to kill a wild steelhead (rather thru catch and release or for the meat) on this river ever again it is the only option that makes sense.

Here's the kicker as I see it. Will it save the steelhead population for generations to come? NO. there are to many other stresses on the Steelhead's Habitat be it ocean, river, or estuary. the reason the goat population stays as stable as it has is the simple fact that it's habitat is relatively untouched. We don't yet build houses on top of mountains, or dump our toxic waste on them, or spill oil on them. but we have pushed them to the fringe. hence the population shrinking as the human population has grown.

It is time to face the fact that Steelheading as we have known it is at an end. without augmentation there will be no fishing for them except for the lucky few or the criminal. With augmentation it is still going to crash, only in a different way. My 1st "Home river" has a decent population of Native Steelhead. with no hatchery plants for several years now. I am going to fish it this year for the first time in a few years because it is still open, but I don't expect to catch anything til January. My 2nd "home river" gets a nice hatchery run but in the last 10 years it has gone from 8 guys fishing the areas I fish to 30 guys these are daily numbers. the catching level has mostly stayed the same. 0-10 fish a day depending on water level and luck. that made for some great days for the 10 of us. but even a good day for the 30 of us leaves many skunks. It is simply the way it is now. get used to it or get out.

Top
#913106 - 11/13/14 10:05 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: cncfish]
deerlick Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/30/08
Posts: 585
Loc: around
Open all puget sound rivers and spread the masses. Send the fish counters to the eye doc a d teach them to count.

Top
#913113 - 11/13/14 11:06 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: deerlick]
chukar14 Offline
Fry

Registered: 10/07/11
Posts: 23
Loc: Duvall
Open Mar 1 through April 30th, selective gear rules, no power boats, must stop fishing after cnr 2 fish

Top
#913118 - 11/13/14 11:59 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: chukar14]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Ondarvr,

Your post reads like that of an English overlord of a Scottish river! Riparian rights and big money wins, getting to be the American way in more and more ways.

Drifter WA, Make it 66 and over, and I'm with ya'. It would work, fewer angler-fish encounters, keeping incidental mortality low.

Bhudda,

The no motor concept is two-pronged. First, motor boats with multiple anglers can repeatedly pound a productive stretch of water until it has given up every fish contained there, resulting in higher instead of lower angler-fish encounters, so that doesn't work. Second, guides represent a large % of that profile, putting many lines through the productive water until all available fish have been hooked. So that high efficiency option needs to be the first to go, but it is preferred by many anglers specifically because of its efficiency.

Coley,

While the example is a generic PS case, I'm going to borrow from the ESA status report for the Skagit, and under recent management and habitat conditions, there is almost 0% chance of the run going extinct in the next 100 years. So yes, it does come down to whether we manage fish for human benefit or not. All options that satisfy conservation needs are on the table for the non-treaty fishery.

SkyGuy,

I don't know about dirty, but the data are not perfect, never have been perfect, and never will be perfect. But one thing we do know is that reasonable estimates, like what we've had the last almost 40 years, are "good enough" to manage populations for their conservation and limited human use, if that is what society wants.

Smalma,

Good point. One one conventional gear angler showed up at Occupy Skagit last spring. Therefore featha' chuckin' only regs would be fair, based on demonstrated interest. Based on what I read here about the inefficiency of fly fishing, all of PS could be re-opened. Where do I sign up?

Bantam,

I think the idea on guide limits as practiced in B.C. has merit. Guides with standing in a particular fishery, based on their tax returns, are issued x number of rod days for specific rivers only. That could work; it limits total guided fishing pressure, which would then limit angler-fish encounters.

Topwater,

Catch monitoring that is more intense that what we've had might be a requirement for re-opening rivers. If it is, then there needs to be a way to fund it. For example, OS has considered it and decided not to propose it until shown it's necessary.

Dogfish,

That smartass alternative is not on the menu. It's not even on the menu for the Cowlitz, of all places.

Chukar14,

I like that idea of a CNR catch limit, but the downside is that it's not enforceable. However, back when steelhead fishing was a universal 2/day, that meant the 2 included any steelhead that were released. So the idea could still have merit.

Thanks folks! It's good to know what the constituents think. I don't think we got any responses from guides or the Wildcat Steelhead Club however.

Sg



Edited by Salmo g. (11/13/14 12:01 PM)

Top
#913120 - 11/13/14 12:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Sky-Guy Offline
The Tide changed

Registered: 08/31/00
Posts: 7232
Loc: Everett
Salmo, but is the data really good enough, considering we haven't been able to manage our way back to a favorable state of recovery?

In my world if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. Right now we have a ton of talented people trying to do the best they can to formulate recovery options, draft management plans, set seasons for all users groups, etc...but they use a broken yardstick and the data they work with is very error prone and subject to constant revision.

Accurate data collection, while very hard to achieve, is key to all aspects of fisheries management. All the season adjustments, harvest quota's, impacts, etc can the trickle down after you have good data duality to begin with. As you know Salmo, if you start with bad information in the beginning, it's quality only gets worse the more you use it.

Absent of good data, considering the resource we should consistantly err on the side of caution, and opt for something #4ish a lot more than we do today.


_________________________
You know something bad is going to happen when you hear..."Hey, hold my beer and watch this"

Top
#913122 - 11/13/14 12:22 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Ondarvr,

Your post reads like that of an English overlord of a Scottish river! Riparian rights and big money wins, getting to be the American way in more and more ways.

Sg



I figured I would jump over all the intermediary steps and get right to where it will be in the not too distant future. And this model will selfishly benefit me, it's a win win, almost zero impact on the resource and retirement money in my pocket.

I don't like fishing on runs like presented here, I feel that I'm part of the problem and no matter how I try to justify my participation, it really only makes things worse.

Top
#913128 - 11/13/14 01:24 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Todd,

Many feel your pain. However, without an agreed to plan, the possibility is very real that NMFS would select the status quo. Nobody fishes; it's just so easy, and ESA listings provide the cover.

Sg


I am just fine with that...for now. Sporties spend far too much time being the ones who bear the brunt of the restrictions, while committing the least of the offenses.

If the proper response to "don't play with food" isn't "fuckoff", then what is it?

To be honest, saying "fuckoff" is a lot milder than how I feel about that ridiculous stance...especially since the tribes sure as hell aren't eating all the fish they catch.

What they really mean is "don't play with our money"...and I am telling them the exact same thing back.

Anyone here knows that I have spent plenty of time defending the tribes against unreasonable attacks on their treaty rights...but that doesn't mean I have to accept their bullschit name calling for the way we like to fish, and how we like to extract money from our share of the fish.

I still think that we as the recreational sector deserve a real number for what our release mortality is...and 10% is not it.

I have lots of friends and customers who are guides, but there's no doubt that guide restrictions are going to come along sooner or later. It's an easy way to reduce encounters and the guides are an easy target, like it or not.

I am not into the "fly vs. gear" debates so far as access to fish and waters goes, but I have noticed that fly guys are quick to get on the "no fishing under power" bandwagon to outlaw boondoggers...which I agree with, by the way...and the "no fishing from a floating device" bandwagon, since none of them but the bobber and jig guys...I mean "nymphers"...do that...but are oddly silent on outlawing themselves running up and down the river in sleds.

I'd be far happier to see power boats kept on lower rivers for the most part, and off the rivers entirely during wild fish only seasons.

We don't need the tribes to sign off on how/where/when we want to fish...yeah, we "co-manage", but that term has morphed into something that is a bastardization of anything like "co-managing" anything at all.

As long as we aren't taking more than our allotted half of the fish then their opinion matters to me exactly "zero"...approximately the same amount that my opinion of how they do it matters to them so long as they are not taking more than their half.

Why their opinion should matter more than ours is the fundamental problem with "co-management"...especially when their opinion on how we manage our half is such bullschit.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#913130 - 11/13/14 01:33 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: chukar14]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
The problem is basic: Despite overwhelming evidence that history repeats itself, humans are too stupid (greedy?) to accept that doing the same thing that doesn't work, over and over again, leads to the same downfall, time and time again.

Lots of talk here about pay to play, lottery-based fishing opportunity, much like what is done in much of Europe, but what isn't being discussed is what led those countries to the point at which that management paradigm became necessary, which was, without reasonable question, chronic overharvest of the target species in commercial fisheries. Sound familiar?

How about another option for those of you willing to pay to play; one that wouldn't necessarily limit who gets to fish? Instead of paying for tags or lottery tickets, how about pooling those dollars and making a few campaign contributions that might inspire some of our noble and incorruptible legislators to back legislation that limits non-tribal, commercial salmon harvest by 50%, in the name of "conserving our state's most iconic natural resource?"

Let's face it: if you want results in our system, you let your wallet do the talking. I don't like it, but I accept it as reality, and unless you're hopelessly naive or flat-out stupid, you should do the same. The commercial lobby understands this, and it explains why 90% of whatever fish are out there get allocated to their fisheries.

So what benefit do steelhead get from increasing wild salmon escapement by 50%? Maybe none at all, but in theory, the nutrients the additional carcasses provide should improve the overall productivity of each stream, which should mean some improvement in fry ans smolt survival, for salmon and steelhead alike, and, subsequently, better adult returns. If no meaningful benefit is realized, we can return to the business of figuring out how much it will cost prospecting anglers to get in a drawing that gives them a chance to be allowed to fish over numbers that won't produce bites on most days. Can you tell I think that's a chitty solution? I realize it's very likely where we're headed, but I'm not at a point where I'm ready to settle for that just yet.

I've also proposed figuring out how to redesign hatcheries to support maximum, terminal harvest, in locations where the hatchery fish can be largely segregated from wild fish, then turning over the cost of operating hatcheries to commercial interests. That way, they get out what they put into it, and they can stop killing wild salmon in the open ocean, which should significantly increase the numbers of spawners returning to our rivers. It really seems to me like this would be a win-win-win scenario (for commercial interests, sporties, and the fish). Of course, this solution, assuming it's even possible, would be extremely costly up front, which means it's not likely to be considered seriously.

Reducing commercial harvest in the open ocean to increase escapements, as I proposed above, would carry very little cost (virtually none, by comparison), and the decreased supply of salmon in the market would drive the price up, establishing salmon as the premium, luxury food item they realistically should be. As in most premium markets, there would be buyers lining up, and they would pay whatever would be necessary to make the seafood processors, buyers, and fishermen whole.

Absent a drastic change in course, the writing will indeed be on the wall for our wild salmon and steelhead. I'd like to think we might change the course of human history by doing what is necessary to ensure a meaningful future for these species, but given our track record, I'm not altogether encouraged, as that would mean sacrifice, which is a concept often uttered, but rarely undertaken.

Top
#913132 - 11/13/14 01:46 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Originally Posted By: Todd
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Todd,

Many feel your pain. However, without an agreed to plan, the possibility is very real that NMFS would select the status quo. Nobody fishes; it's just so easy, and ESA listings provide the cover.

Sg


I am just fine with that...for now. Sporties spend far too much time being the ones who bear the brunt of the restrictions, while committing the least of the offenses.

If the proper response to "don't play with food" isn't "fuckoff", then what is it?

To be honest, saying "fuckoff" is a lot milder than how I feel about that ridiculous stance...especially since the tribes sure as hell aren't eating all the fish they catch.

What they really mean is "don't play with our money"...and I am telling them the exact same thing back.

Anyone here knows that I have spent plenty of time defending the tribes against unreasonable attacks on their treaty rights...but that doesn't mean I have to accept their bullschit name calling for the way we like to fish, and how we like to extract money from our share of the fish.

I still think that we as the recreational sector deserve a real number for what our release mortality is...and 10% is not it.

I have lots of friends and customers who are guides, but there's no doubt that guide restrictions are going to come along sooner or later. It's an easy way to reduce encounters and the guides are an easy target, like it or not.

I am not into the "fly vs. gear" debates so far as access to fish and waters goes, but I have noticed that fly guys are quick to get on the "no fishing under power" bandwagon to outlaw boondoggers...which I agree with, by the way...and the "no fishing from a floating device" bandwagon, since none of them but the bobber and jig guys...I mean "nymphers"...do that...but are oddly silent on outlawing themselves running up and down the river in sleds.

I'd be far happier to see power boats kept on lower rivers for the most part, and off the rivers entirely during wild fish only seasons.

We don't need the tribes to sign off on how/where/when we want to fish...yeah, we "co-manage", but that term has morphed into something that is a bastardization of anything like "co-managing" anything at all.

As long as we aren't taking more than our allotted half of the fish then their opinion matters to me exactly "zero"...approximately the same amount that my opinion of how they do it matters to them so long as they are not taking more than their half.

Why their opinion should matter more than ours is the fundamental problem with "co-management"...especially when their opinion on how we manage our half is such bullschit.

Fish on...

Todd


Well said and completely fair, IMO.

Top
#913136 - 11/13/14 02:32 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: FleaFlickr02]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
It really isn't just the fish, it is all natural resources. Who here used to duck hunt the Green River valley? Or deer hunt in what is now Issaquah? Or? Or?

All of our resources are at risk as we continue to expand into their range. We have a choice, but it the same one that all previous generations have had. That is, to share the world with natural resources. It may have been "easier" to ignore the problem when there were less people, but the first people to the New World certainly aided, if not caused, the extinction of a lot of big mammals.

The choice is to limit our total impact to the world and I suspect that short-term profits have determined the answer.

Top
#913139 - 11/13/14 03:05 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.



Dogfish,

That smartass alternative is not on the menu. It's not even on the menu for the Cowlitz, of all places.

Sg



It was more of a guess of what will happen than what my plan would be.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#913142 - 11/13/14 03:35 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
WN1A Offline
Spawner

Registered: 09/17/04
Posts: 594
Loc: Seattle
Originally Posted By: DrifterWA

Age limit, 70 and above.......

I like the age limit 70 and above idea but even that won’t help wild steelhead.

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
It really isn't just the fish, it is all natural resources. Who here used to duck hunt the Green River valley? Or deer hunt in what is now Issaquah? Or? Or?

All of our resources are at risk as we continue to expand into their range. We have a choice, but it the same one that all previous generations have had. That is, to share the world with natural resources. It may have been "easier" to ignore the problem when there were less people, but the first people to the New World certainly aided, if not caused, the extinction of a lot of big mammals.

The choice is to limit our total impact to the world and I suspect that short-term profits have determined the answer.


Management agencies manage people, not fish. At the extremes of manage options there are two possibilities. One is no harvest, already discussed, wild steelhead numbers will be determined by our actions, pointed out by Carcassman. The other extreme is no management, harvest continues until the costs outweigh the rewards. There will still be steelhead, the short term profits will be just exactly short term. For myself the cost has exceeded the quality of the steelhead sport fishing experience. I might feel differently if I lived on a river where I could sit by the fire and plunk all day but to join the crowds, no.

Top
#913148 - 11/13/14 04:26 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: WN1A]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
SkyGuy,

Yes, with respect to steelhead, the data are generally good enough. Neither catch data nor escapement data are perfect, but they don't have to be. The estimates need only be close enough to offer consistency over time as index values. And they do that. It is different than the world of your industry. If fisheries management required the kind of precision you seem to be alluding to, there would simply be no fishing, anywhere in the world, period. Except maybe Baker Lake; even Lake Washington uses estimates.

But that isn't the point of this exercise. Here we assume the data are, if not perfect, then entirely adequate for the task at hand. The issue is that there are lots of fishermen and only a few fish. And in order to have fishing, angler-fish encounters must be limited to within the allowable impact. You can talk about data quality until you are blue in the face, but the world is going to go on by, and select a fishing management alternative that matches up with the allowable take.

Ondarvr,

The premise of these prospective fisheries is "do no harm." It's obvious that fishing won't make things any better for the resource. It never has, and it sure won't going forward. The object, if we want to fish, is how to go about it without making things worse, meaning limiting take to only those fish over and above the escapement goal when that number is not large and there is approximately zero prospect of it ever becoming large.

Todd,

Yeah, it does seem like co-management has become less than co-equal. As for incidental mortality rate, the issue continues to be muddy. I find the lack of professional interest interesting, but my guess is that it's because CNR fishing is such a small niche market here on the coast where fishing still means killing fish. Fish management without killing fish must be a foreign Rocky Mountain concept still.

It can be fun to flog the fly v gear debate over beer, but it's generally unproductive. The thing about conventional gear fishing is that anglers wanting to be ten-percenters have increasingly gravitated to more efficient and effective methods of garnering hook-and-line angling success. And that becomes the crux of this issue, where, in order to have prospective fishing, angler efficiency has to be reduced. (Fly fishing at least has that going for it.) And fishing from boats has very significantly higher CPUE than fishing from foot, it's an obvious target. Using boats (motor or drift) for access only is probably higher than walk-in access, but I don't know that it would make the kind of difference necessary for PS steelheading.

Sg

Top
#913153 - 11/13/14 05:01 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.

Todd,

Yeah, it does seem like co-management has become less than co-equal. As for incidental mortality rate, the issue continues to be muddy. I find the lack of professional interest interesting, but my guess is that it's because CNR fishing is such a small niche market here on the coast where fishing still means killing fish. Fish management without killing fish must be a foreign Rocky Mountain concept still.

It can be fun to flog the fly v gear debate over beer, but it's generally unproductive. The thing about conventional gear fishing is that anglers wanting to be ten-percenters have increasingly gravitated to more efficient and effective methods of garnering hook-and-line angling success. And that becomes the crux of this issue, where, in order to have prospective fishing, angler efficiency has to be reduced. (Fly fishing at least has that going for it.) And fishing from boats has very significantly higher CPUE than fishing from foot, it's an obvious target. Using boats (motor or drift) for access only is probably higher than walk-in access, but I don't know that it would make the kind of difference necessary for PS steelheading.

Sg


I think there is plenty of information out there already that has un-muddied the incidental mortality related to catching and releasing steelhead, and it's been out there for quite a while.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the data we have now on incidental mortality is probably more accurate than the fish forecasts we rely on right now.

So far as anglers wanting to be more efficient and effective at catching fish...well, let's just say limiting that to "conventional gear anglers" is about as smart as saying CnR fishermen "play with their food"...and is, contrary to your stated position, making an unwarranted distinction between gear anglers and fly fisherman.

I have not ever seen an advertisement in a flyfishing mag for the newest and best...

$1700 rod
$693 reel
$94 best line ever
$899 must have waders
$249 only boots that work
$132 Ascot made from the silk from virgin silkworms

...touting its ineffectiveness or its ability to help you reduce your CPUE...as a matter of fact, I'd say that most the ads say quite the opposite, and judging by what many flyfishermen are buying I'd say they believe it, too.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#913154 - 11/13/14 05:05 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
P.S. I'm out...heading off to points unknown to very effectively knock a few more coho right out of the ranks of the living wink
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#913155 - 11/13/14 05:14 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
luckydogss Offline
Smolt

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 92
Loc: Renton
I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion but I would vote no C&R season at all. As was pointed out, the tribe will take an unknown amount to get their spring chinook. The run will get hit harder than we expect and there won't be a run to talk about in a few years. We've had zero success maintaining a wild run with the "minumum escapement" strategy.

If we leave it alone and can keep the tribes nets out of the river, there will still be fish in the river for years to come. If we let our greed get the best of us, this run be gone before we know it.. The fish just won't survive the combined tribal/rec mortality. I don't care whether you limit boats or bait or just let old fukers fish it- any combination with nets will doom the run- period!

The good ole days of spring fishing are no more. It's really sad but it's the way it is.

Top
#913169 - 11/13/14 09:20 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Wild Chrome Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/14/01
Posts: 646
Loc: The Tailout
This is the single best argument I've ever heard for hatchery fish or at least for having hatchery rivers.
_________________________
If every fisherman would pick up one piece of trash, we'd have cleaner rivers and more access.

Top
#913175 - 11/13/14 11:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Wild Chrome]
Bent Metal Offline
Carcass

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
Being able to use a resource but in a limited fashion seems to be the overall theme here. Flyfishing obviously has its disadvantages from an efficiency standpoint by not being able to reach water or cover depths that conventional tackle can.(insert spey argument here)
Limiting boats and the ablity to fish out of them is another limiting factor, along with a tag system. I guess what I don't understand is; to limit the user of a resource you have to know what their impact is.

Knowing what % encounter rate a wild steelhead faced would go along ways to managing the use of the resource. I've fished long enough to know there are three types of steelhead; 1) Kamakazee - Hit almost anything
2) selective to size, color, scent, action, etc... 3) won't bite anything

So, out of a run of 4,500 steelhead...How many will encounter an angler and when they do you take into account hooking mortality, etc...
_________________________




Top
#913181 - 11/14/14 01:52 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bent Metal]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Todd,

Point or no point, the people who make the recommendations don't agree on incidental mortality, so it remains a variable that is important because whatever value is settled on would significantly affect fishing opportunity.

Wait, are you suggesting that fly fishermen actually catch steelhead? That's not what I usually read on this forum. If this place isn't an accurate source of information, I'll need to recalibrate some models. (t.i.c.)

Luckydogss,

Whether you believe it or not, most PS steelhead populations are presently at or near the carrying capacity of their respective river systems. PS wide, tribal and sport anglers are catching fewer than 4% of the wild steelhead. That is not having any significant effect on the populations. Go ahead and live with the delusion that tribal nets are the root cause of steelhead population status, but I don't have the time to waste talking about it.

Bent Metal,

It varies, but for this hypothetical example, sport fishing as previously regulated would result in an average of 80% of the wild steelhead population being hooked once or more during the season. There are places and seasons where this is really possible. Consequently angler opinion that it can't isn't going to have any effect on prospective regulations. The entire point is whether to have fishing or not, and if so, then how to regulate it so that total angler-fish encounters doesn't exceed 2,125 for the season. There are many ways to do it. I wanted to find out what methods for achieving that objective are most preferred by anglers.

Sg

Top
#913182 - 11/14/14 02:34 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Highest and best use of those available impacts is to generate maximum revenue from them.... sell 'em to the highest bidder.

On the NON-treaty side, that would essentially exclude all participants EXCEPT the very wealthiest steelheaders.

Look, in order to keep exploitation in check most of us would be left out regardless. As it stands now, we're ALL left out anyway
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#913185 - 11/14/14 08:12 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: eyeFISH]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
eyefish -

I think in your economic argument you are underestimating the impacts of the "common man".

In Salmo"s example we would expect the non-treaty recreational fishery to catch/handle 3,400 fish in a CnR fishery -0.80 x (4500-250)=3,400.

Even in the hay day of Puget Sound steelhead fishing the average catch/angler was less than 0.2/angler for the season. Use 0.20 fish/angler (a high value) we can expect the fishery to generate approximately 17,000 angler trips. That kind of effort could be expect to produce something like a million dollars (maybe more) for the local economies!

Do you think you could sell a 1,000 days for a $1,000/day to fish say the Skykomish? If so who would get the $$$? Somehow I think there is significant value in spreading that economic windfall among the local business.

Curt


Edited by Smalma (11/14/14 08:12 AM)

Top
#913186 - 11/14/14 08:19 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Smalma]
Jerry Garcia Offline



Registered: 10/13/00
Posts: 9160
Loc: everett
in the Doc's example the money would be spread amongst various commercial enterprises with tax money going to the state. In smalma's example the bulk of the money would go to the state.
_________________________
would the boy you were be proud of the man you are

Growing old ain't for wimps
Lonnie Gane

Top
#913191 - 11/14/14 10:26 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Jerry Garcia]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
I'm not to sure what to do in this 'hypothetical' situation but I do have some ideas for the real world Skagit system.

Foremost would be the forecast: above 6,000 fish

1. No motors on the Sauk
2. No fishing from a boat on either Skagit or Sauk
3. Guides limited to two weeks per guide and no more than ten at a time
4. Selective gear rules
5. A rule for mandatory record keeping of fish encounters w/serious penalties
6. Special endorsement fee for fishing Feb - April
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#913200 - 11/14/14 11:53 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: _WW_]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
We really don't need more government intrusion into a recreational activity, like tracking fish encounters under threat of punishment.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#913217 - 11/14/14 02:41 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Dogfish]
Backtrollin Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 10/18/07
Posts: 174
Loc: Duvall, WA
Great post, one thing I notice is that nowhere has anybody mentioned the impact of poaching. In years past poaching has been contributing reason for closing the C&R fishery. Curt, are there estimates as to how many fish are poached in a C&R season? How does poaching impact the decision making process?

I fear that the recent reduction in hatchery planting will have the greedy fisherman using the "entitled" term and killing wild fish.

Lets face it, with no hatchery steelhead to mitigate the impacts on wild fish the number of angler encounters cant be measured. We don't know how many fishermen will be fishing. Most anglers will have near zero opportunity to fish for Steelhead except for a C&R season on one river system. This will skew the forecasted angler encounter numbers that we are currently using. Steelhead are like a drug for the folks that love to fish em' and they are all gonna want to get their fix.

If a limited season were to happen its gonna be a crowded river!

Top
#913255 - 11/14/14 09:53 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
deerlick Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/30/08
Posts: 585
Loc: around
Stam speaks the truth

Top
#913256 - 11/14/14 10:14 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: deerlick]
Wild Chrome Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/14/01
Posts: 646
Loc: The Tailout
One important aspect of this hypothetical river is what other rivers are nearby and how they are managed. The impact and fishing pressure on this river X has a lot to do with what's available in the next river down the road. The health of the wild fish in the next river down the road has a lot to do with how this river should be managed too. I think we've reached the point that we need to set aside certain rivers for the well-being of the fish: likely those with the best habitat, and set aside other rivers for the fishermen.

Without fishermen, who really cares about the fish?
_________________________
If every fisherman would pick up one piece of trash, we'd have cleaner rivers and more access.

Top
#913258 - 11/14/14 10:53 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Wild Chrome]
Bent Metal Offline
Carcass

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
Originally Posted By: Wild Chrome
I think we've reached the point that we need to set aside certain rivers for the well-being of the fish: likely those with the best habitat, and set aside other rivers for the fishermen.


Wild steelhead management zones.. I like the idea, if it pertains to a river having native steelhead. A river such as the SF Sky that has shown to be a mixed stock and isolated by a falls should NOT be a WSMZ, the upper NF should based on genetics and location.

Since summer runs are non native in 95% of our streams, why couldn't we outplant summer fish and keep the winters to hatchery facilities, so we can atleast spread the pressure out in the summer and have a 1/2as* fishery?
_________________________




Top
#913262 - 11/14/14 11:52 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Brent K]
Saundu Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/25/08
Posts: 590
Get off of the rivers, especially the Skagit. Too many downriver spawners are picked up in their gill nets during the May Springer fishery. However these stewards of our declining fishery seem to think it is no big deal to kill a downriver possibly three salt fish.

Also, I have caught steelhead during the Sockeye fishery in June and seen others caught as well..there is no in between with them catching their 2,500 and others. Too many white man poachers too that will feel entitled to their fish of a lifetime...shut it down!

Let it be a national reserve...

How cool would that be with only limited seasons during salmon season...ie: the fall, and early winter...

Whats the idea of a brood stock fishery on the Skagit someday....any word? Just curious

Top
#913272 - 11/15/14 11:37 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
1. Lottery
2. No Motors and No Fishing From Boats
3. Swing Fly Fishing Only w/ No Bobbers.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#913282 - 11/15/14 03:48 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
fishtale Offline
Spawner

Registered: 05/04/99
Posts: 522
Loc: Kng
I have to agree with Stam 100%. The tribe has proven to be far better at raising fish then the state and we as sportsman need to be aligned with them to help improve our fishieries on the Green. But it is not only the Green they also help other river systems in our area like the White river,Clearwater,Greenwater!

Top
#913304 - 11/15/14 09:31 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: fishtale]
mitch184 Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/02/05
Posts: 337
Loc: Lake Stevens
Whatever the regs, we NEED to get recreational sportfisherman back on the river. Just our presence deters a good portion of illegal harvest by the locals and illegal netting by the tribes. With the declining amount of enforcement, WE become responsible for upholding rules and regs. Don't believe me, float the Sauk in March or April. I used to say float the Sauk in May, when Tarheel season opens up, but now we've opened it up a few months earlier for them.

As far as regs, given the length of fishable water on the Skagit, it seems like a PRIME candidate to be sectioned and allow every group to get their fix. Something like...

-Sleds and everything from the dalles bridge down
-No fishing under power dalles bridge to Rockport
-No gas motors above Rockport or in the Sauk
-No fishing from a floating device above Darrington or Cascade Bridge

No bait, single barbless everywhere and NO anchoring in the water by anyone any where.

It seems like a good way to reduce conflicts between sportsfisherman and creates something we can all get behind. Plus is spreads everyone out and creates a bigger presence out on the water.


Edited by mitch184 (11/15/14 09:49 PM)
_________________________
Team Haters

Top
#913346 - 11/16/14 03:30 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
WDFW can only regulate fishing and hunting. So, you can't fish from a boat, you can't fish from an anchored boat, and so on. If you are not fishing, they can't regulate your activity. Same as you can't hunt ducks from a boat under power. You can use it as transportation, use it to rescue other hunters, etc.

Top
#913382 - 11/17/14 07:28 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
GBL Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 1879
Loc: Yakutat
So what is with all the bashing on boats with motors or floating devises?
What do they do so much more wrong than a bank fisherman...?

Top
#913383 - 11/17/14 08:58 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: GBL]
Supertrout Offline
Fry

Registered: 06/03/11
Posts: 35
In a large stream boats allow you to effectively cover ALL holding water in the stream. Fish in large streams inherently hold in locations that are difficult to make good presentations from the bank, even if you can cast there. Ever watch a bank fisherman with nearly same gear as you hook fish from the other side that you already cast to?? (I have) Even on smaller to medium sized streams there some less agressive fish that will bite when you get closer and make better presentations. If you can stop your boat (or use a motor) to hold it in place you can litereally stop nearly anywhere (depending on the vessel) and make effective presentations. If there are only bank anglers just by virtue of where you can stand and wade to, MANY fish will never be fished at. The goal here is to reduce hook-ups (LOL) but still let a lotta people fish!


Edited by Supertrout (11/17/14 10:33 AM)

Top
#913387 - 11/17/14 11:08 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Supertrout]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
No hooks, you get to fish with a piece or yarn (wool for those across the border), this should cut down on the number of fish landed or harmed.

I tend to bail on a fishery that becomes this restrictive, mainly because it means you shouldn't be pestering them in the first place.

Top
#913391 - 11/17/14 11:56 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: ondarvr]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
GBL,

It's not what boats do wrong, but what they do so well. Fishing from a boat permits more hookups per angler day fished. The objective in this exercise is to limit the total number of wild steelhead hooked to keep the incidental mortality below 250. You either need fewer anglers in the fishery or else make each angler less efficient, on average. No fishing from boats is one way to decrease overall catch.

Sg

Top
#913399 - 11/17/14 01:38 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
GBL Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 1879
Loc: Yakutat
I guess you can look at it that way, Or, I can hook 5 Steelhead, land them in under 5 minutes.....in the water and they go free while the bank fisherman or Fly guy spends 30 minutes trying to land the same 20 lber running up and down the bar or bank and takes the life right out of them.
Watched it many times on the Skagit and Skykomish, I have even run over and picked up bankies with large Steelhead on and take them out and chase down the fish to land it or release it.
The whole motorized boat things is just a way for one user group to feel better standing in the water....alone. Next they will outlaw drift boats because they catch more fish, where does it end, with one guy permitted on each gravel bar for 2 hours at a time and the whole time the Indians run by with their drift nets?
If it is that big an issue, shut it completely down and let the Indian have it until they either manage it correctly or the fish are gone. Of course, if it gets shut down you would hope the Indians would leave it alone and let the river heal, but not much chance of that.
And before someone goes off about Indian bashing, I have been around them for 60 years and watched what "their" nets do to the Skagit, don't care how you spin it, a full net of Native Steelhead is not good for river...and when it is 15 nets, it just makes it that much worse and that is what you find in the Skagit every year.

Top
#913400 - 11/17/14 01:55 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: GBL]
mitch184 Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/02/05
Posts: 337
Loc: Lake Stevens
GBL,

I completely agree with you regarding sleds. You almost always land fish quicker, even if you're using lighter gear. Plus, as long as you release it while floating, its basically the ideal scenario for releasing a fish. No netting needed, no dragging it up on the beach, no reviving it in fast moving water.

I say no anchoring because the Skagit is a prime example where people drag their anchors so they can all fish. This KILLS me when I see it. That being said, dragging an anchor through a redd is no different than dropping an anchor on a redd.

Although these would seem like very complex regs, it gives everyone a chance to fish using their own favoritie method. Everyone should have the opportunity to fish for them if they want. Completely eliminating opportunity for one specific group (jet sleds) based on your own beliefs is not only ignorant, but very hypocritical. No matter what group you fall under, there will always be another group wanting you off the water for their own 'beliefs'.
_________________________
Team Haters

Top
#913401 - 11/17/14 02:17 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: GBL]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
1.) A PS steelhead permit should be appropriately priced for a season, say $120, from which the revenue must go towards improving the efficacy of escapement estimates. Some (most?) PS rivers are using outdated indexes: some estimates do not account for main stem spawners and some do not realistically account for highly productive tributaries. This results in an artificially low escapement every single year.

2.) Work with the tribes, some of which (i.e., Lummi, Tulalip, Muckleshoot) are more willing than ever to find common ground with anglers, to improve the season for anglers. WDFW won't willingly lead the charge on this one so angler groups will need to tackle this.

3.) Restrict access in known highly productive tributaries, sub-basins, or sub-basin sections to reduce encounters.

Top
#913407 - 11/17/14 03:25 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
GBL Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 1879
Loc: Yakutat
So what Steelspanker?
I hook 5 fish in a day and release them all within 10 minutes of hooking them, they all live while one bankie plays a fish for 30 or 40 minutes and it dies after being completely exhausted.
I'll take the 5 hook and quick release any day!
Ever watched a Fly Guy on a 20lb fish from the bank? I have and it is painful to see a fish run in and out in and out for an hour and then released in triumph. Anyone that knows fish and exhaustion knows that fish has little chance of survival.

Top
#913408 - 11/17/14 03:50 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: GBL]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
GBL,

Good thing or bad thing, but the fish management regulations are based on the data, not on what you think you know. As you say, you catch 5 fish in your sled to the bank angler's one. Therefore the incidental mortality rate says you kill 5 times as many fish over the course of the season, and therefore the regulations will be adjusted to decrease the total number of fish caught. What better way to do it than to restrict fishing from boats? Just because you say that the bank angler's fish dies and yours live doesn't make it so.

Sg

Top
#913444 - 11/18/14 12:02 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
GBL Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 1879
Loc: Yakutat
And the mortality rate is based on the same data and people they use to predict fish runs, and that is such a good system.
If you are really worried about the fish and not your opportunity to hook one, then you shut the whole thing down and go golfing for 10 years and let the run heal.
Simple as that, but no one wants to do what is right for the fish unless it is easy on their ability to use the resource.


Edited by GBL (11/18/14 12:04 AM)

Top
#913445 - 11/18/14 12:03 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
Salman Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/07/12
Posts: 806
How about pull your head out of your @ss and leaqve well enough alone. That extra so called expendable 250 steelhead sure would be nice throwin some rocks around instead of sittin upside down a half mile downstream from where it was released. C&R can wait steelhead can't. These dumb profiles of people who think a mortality of 250 fish for a c&R season is reasonable is just frickin stupid.
_________________________
Why build in the flood plain?

Top
#913455 - 11/18/14 08:25 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Jump in your sled, run down the river, find a good place to fish, park the boat, jump out and fish.

So simple a caveman could do it.
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#913458 - 11/18/14 09:53 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: _WW_]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Flyfishermen advocating for no fishing out of boats on the Skagit should prepare themselves for sharing the handful of good bars with every spoon and drift fisherman on the river...that's gonna be fun.

Don't complain about it when it happens, not if you ask for it.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#913459 - 11/18/14 10:05 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Originally Posted By: Todd
Flyfishermen advocating for no fishing out of boats on the Skagit should prepare themselves for sharing the handful of good bars with every spoon and drift fisherman on the river...that's gonna be fun.

Don't complain about it when it happens, not if you ask for it.

Fish on...

Todd


If the choices are that or no fishing - I'll take the fishing!
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#913465 - 11/18/14 12:01 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: _WW_]
I'm So Metal Offline
Parr

Registered: 05/20/13
Posts: 44
Loc: Hamnation
Seems like every group/angler is only looking out for their own interests. Fly fisherman want bank fishing only, Drift boaters want no fishing under power and BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Too many SELFISH fisherman and not enough fish.

Same story, different pile.

Top
#913468 - 11/18/14 12:21 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: I'm So Metal]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Uh, one second here please. It's not fly fishermen wanting bank fishing only. It's the fishery manager having to regulate so that fewer fish are caught. If, using GBL's personal example, the jet boat angler catches 5 fish to the bank angler's 1 fish, how is that not the perfect method to look at restricting when the goal is to have fewer fish caught?

It's perfectly natural for a fishery to evolve to where fishermen develop more effective methods of catching fish. This works great until it reaches the point where there are not enough fish to fulfill the fleet's ability to catch fish. At that point, management has no choice but to reduce harvest (or incidental mortality in this hypothetical example). The ways that is done are:

1. Limit the methods and or gear allowed in the fishery;
2. Limit the time on the water via open periods (like commercial fishing that gets 1 or 2 days per week, etc.;
3. Limit the number of anglers participating in the fishery.

The reason I started this thread asking for feedback is if "having it your way" is not one of the choices on the menu, then what alternative way would you prefer. And for those who suggest keeping it closed another 10 years until the run rebuilds to the point where the good old days are back again may as well get over it. It won't happen in 10 years, it won't happen in 50 years. Maybe something slightly better than what is currently available is what the "good old days" are going to be like in the coming decades. The only choice on the menu is deciding how to manage that. Welcome to the future in Puget Sound and WA state.

Sg

Top
#913497 - 11/18/14 08:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Bent Metal Offline
Carcass

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
Method of fishing should be the last thing to be regulated/argued. I enjoy and partake in flyfishing, drift fishing, float fishing, plunking, and of course throwing metal. There is a time and a place for every method, to limit yourself and call yourself _____ fisherman is comical, it means you've got about 20% of the game figured out.

By selective gear rules and not fishing from a floating device you can still deploy just about any method you chose.
_________________________




Top
#913521 - 11/18/14 10:47 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bent Metal]
Salman Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/07/12
Posts: 806
Keep it closed forever or until the run comes back. If you want to c&R go to the trout pond it's what it's there for you dumb turd.
_________________________
Why build in the flood plain?

Top
#913526 - 11/19/14 03:16 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salman]
bhudda Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 04/06/11
Posts: 224
Loc: S River central
Turd would be the guy who doesn't get it. .the Skagit run has exceeded escapement time and time again. But turds don't fish ...they just float:)
_________________________
salmonsteelsox rod covers
check it before you wreck it!
#hatcheryfishhavenospiritname

Top
#913534 - 11/19/14 09:14 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salman]
CraigO Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 03/30/02
Posts: 1409
Loc: Lake Stevens
Originally Posted By: Salman
Keep it closed forever or until the run comes back. If you want to c&R go to the trout pond it's what it's there for you dumb turd.


The run is back, its back to a place that has been acceptable and for the most part sustainable. I think what we are trying to solve is managing to fishable numbers not managing fish we will never fish for.
_________________________
Go Dawgs!!!
Fishing MVP

Top
#913544 - 11/19/14 12:20 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: CraigO]
Beezer Offline
Spawner

Registered: 06/09/99
Posts: 855
Loc: Monroe WA
How about this one?

Puget Sound basin river system as stated in original post with 250 allowable recreational impacts on wild steelhead.

If said system has brats then it is open November thru February 15th selective gear rules no bait.

If said system does not have brats it is closed November thru end of February to appease the FREAKS and save the early run wild steelhead from eternal damnation?

Wild steelhead c&r season runs from March 1 thru April 30 selective gear, no bait, Sparky’s rule and all that other sh!t.

You are allowed 2 days fishing…..any 2 days within the open period….you pick.

Day 1) as soon as anything you brought with you gets wet from river water; i.e. presentation, rod tip (aka $300 water clarity indicator/depth sounder), boots, trailer tires etc. you have to mark your fishing license with that days date. Then go fishin’ and grinnin’.

Day 2) same rules as day one, you mark your license with that days date, go fish your brains out and when that day is over you’re done fishing steelhead for that river for the rest of the season.

Riley check my math below before Smalma does….

250 allowable impacts at 10% hooking mortality gives us 2,500 fish to get a glory shot of while keeping one fin in the water.

Angler success rate, which is the number of fish the average angler will c&r per day. I’m guessing 0.75/angler would be real high (these are wild steelhead remember)….so 2500 fish/0.75 would equal 3,333 angler days allowable. So at a two fishing day limit this allows 1,666 angler seasons.

Do you think that many would participate???

You know the bonkers (Wild Cat Steelhead club, etc.) won’t fish cuz they can’t hurt anything.

The FREAKS won’t fish cuz they might hurt something.

Francis would probably be the only one coming over from the coast.

I could be wrong but I don’t see it being that crowded.

You can always tweak hooking mortality and angler success rate but you get my drift pardon the pun.


Edited by Beezer (11/19/14 01:13 PM)

Top
#913563 - 11/19/14 04:14 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Beezer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Beezer,

You've chosen a variation of "limit the number of angler participants." This could work as long as the total number of anglers who decide to fish doesn't exceed your estimate. That would sure tend to discourage out of area, out of state anglers who generally only travel to the area to fish if they can stay and fish for a week.

Sg

Top
#913577 - 11/19/14 06:41 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
Fear_no_fish Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 09/25/10
Posts: 291
Loc: Lake Stevens
I think a program like the masters hunter in this state would be pretty cool. Pretty much the whole program copied over to a fishing situation. Have the volunteer work range from various hatchery work to restoring stream habitat. It would generate money from class fees to support itself. I don't know if it would knock down the actual number of fish caught. But I would much rather see something like this then just a large fee or No motor/boat fishing, anchors, lures, bait, barbs, waders, fishing pole, reel, must wear a blind fold while fishing, and so on.
_________________________
My rod and reel, they comfort me

Top
#913634 - 11/20/14 01:26 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
The Catcherman Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 06/24/99
Posts: 1246
Loc: Ellensburg, WA
I would accept option 4 if it got me on the river. However, my preferred option would be a modification to #3 (see below).

I would propose a C&R selective gear fishery (no bait, no barbs, no scent) and no angling from boats under power. These regulations would substantially minimize the number of encounters with wild steelhead compared to a normal harvest fishery, which is the intent of the fishery in the first place but still allow considerable opportunity for those willing to pay/play. This option was selected as a "middle of the road" scenario based on the fishers likely to participate and conveniently corresponds with my fishing preferences. wink

Next I would run some figures, estimating how many encounters with wild steelhead this fishery would generate and apply some sort of mortality rate. Say you open a 45 day season (March 1 to April 15 for example) and you have 50 anglers per day participating, generating 2250 angler days. Then you apply an angler success rate of 1 fish per day, thereby exploiting 2250 fish and less than 50% of the return. Next apply a C&R mortality rate of 5% and you will kill 112 fish with the fishery. Even if you double the success rate or double the angler days, your still at 225 dead fish and under the allowable threshold.

I would charge $100 for a 45-day seasonal pass, not unlike an expensive Columbia River endorsement. If you sell 500 (I have no idea if that is realistic or not but that would correspond to about 4.5 days per pass sold, using the 2250 angler days figure) you would generate a little revenue to help with creel checkers and enforcement issues, thereby satisfying NMFS compliance with the take permit. Regarding guides, I'd want to put some sort of limit on the number of guides and the number of rod days but that would be open for discussion.

Finally, (this is probably not feasible), I'd pass some laws, substantially increasing the poaching penalties and fines, say with a $10,000 fine for possessing any wild steelhead and forfeiting all equipment/vehicles, etc.

I'd jump at the opportunity if this were applied to the Skagit/Sauk.


Edited by The Catcherman (11/20/14 01:48 AM)
_________________________
www.catchercraft.com

Top
#913678 - 11/20/14 03:35 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: The Catcherman]
Kingjamm Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 176
As much as a like the enhancement fee idea (ala the Columbia), I'm also a bit sensitive to the fact that some folks just couldn't afford a $100 fee to fish local waters. I'm all about allowing either a lottery for access or giving locals first dibs on the water. Obviously you still have the Seattle/Bellevue urban centers as a main sticking point for this, but details could be worked out on that IMO. It would suck for me, but it would still spread out fishing efforts a bit.

Additionally I believe this is how all guiding licenses should work also. The details would need to be fleshed out, but the general idea is that we tier the access for rod guide days. Locals (perhaps by fishing region), state residents, then out of state. If the licenses are gone for any one of the tiers, then no other permits would be issued.

Top
#913684 - 11/20/14 04:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: ]
gooybob Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/01/11
Posts: 993
Loc: Tacoma
True. As someone else said too many people, too many hazards and too much greed. It's not going to get better. Global warming is the newest and most ever present danger. It's not looking good boys. It may be that after the nates all disappear then then the rivers will be filled with zombie hatchery fish and that will be that. It's a shame and it's pushed this old timer to giving up on (South) Puget Sound Rivers. I will still fish the coast and a few others until they become too crowded and then I'm done. I miss the old days but I'm glad I got to fish then. The memories are good but at the same time sad.

Top
#913688 - 11/20/14 04:43 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: Todd
Flyfishermen advocating for no fishing out of boats on the Skagit should prepare themselves for sharing the handful of good bars with every spoon and drift fisherman on the river...that's gonna be fun.

Don't complain about it when it happens, not if you ask for it.

Fish on...

Todd


No problems. Swing Fly only! No spoons!
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#913694 - 11/20/14 05:37 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
Kingjamm Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 176
Originally Posted By: Todd
Flyfishermen advocating for no fishing out of boats on the Skagit should prepare themselves for sharing the handful of good bars with every spoon and drift fisherman on the river...that's gonna be fun.

Don't complain about it when it happens, not if you ask for it.

Fish on...

Todd


Much like lesser stags who see full racks on superior specimens, so shall the gear fisherman scatter when they see full grown ascots....

Top
#915478 - 12/14/14 01:47 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Kingjamm]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Nice turnout of Skagiteers at todays Commission meeting in Tumwater. Compelling points made, and sounds like WDFW is receptive to the message.

Action will likely be SLOWER than desirable.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#915506 - 12/14/14 01:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Good article re C&R of endangered species...

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/assets/Cooke_et_al._Fish_and_Fisheries.pdf

Meant to post this last week but the site was down.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#915510 - 12/14/14 01:40 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: eyeFISH]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
The following is from "Gordie Frear's" Northwest Fishing Guide and Hunting Guide" no copy right but must have been mid-60's

Just the show what catch totals were like in the "old days"

1964-65 Winter Steelhead season..

1. Skagit River...........20,030....... 11. Toutle(all Forks 5,088 ....... 21. Grays.............2,449
2. Green River-----------11,666....... 12. Chehalis ............ 4,891 ...... 22. Bogachiel........2,396
3. Cowlitz Rv............ 10,317....... 13. Kalama.............. 4,721 ........ 23. Willapa.......... 2,367
4. Puyallup.............. 8,566....... 14. Snoqualmie......... 4,341 ........ 24. Nooksack........ 2,356
5. Skykomish............ 8,035....... 15. Lewis ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4,298 ........ 25. Dungeness....... 2,309
6. Humptulips.......... 7,084....... 16. Washougal ......... 4,219
7. Snohomish........... 6,810....... 17. Hoh ................. 4,101
8. N.Fork Stillaguamish 5,720....... 18. Naselle ............ 2,817
9. Main Stillaguamish 5,491....... 19. Nisqually .......... 2,730
10. Lower Columbia....... 5,451...... 20. Samish.............. 2,723

About 50 years ago.....fewer fishermen, fishing gear not close to current items.....

I never started fishing steelhead until 1968. There was LOTS of fish everywhere in western WA.....just see how bad it is, in only 50 years.

Would have loved to have "bobber/jig", in my early years.

Not a answer for the Skagit....but just how far down this once great river has decreased.

"Go Hawks"...........



Edited by DrifterWA (12/15/14 11:18 AM)
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#915516 - 12/14/14 02:19 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: DrifterWA]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Look at 7000 on the HUMP!
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#915526 - 12/14/14 03:08 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: eyeFISH]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
Quote:
Action will likely be SLOWER than desirable.


I believe the Director said two years for the EIS itself.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#915533 - 12/14/14 03:33 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: DrifterWA]
Bent Metal Offline
Carcass

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
Originally Posted By: DrifterWA

5. Skykomish............ 8,035
7. Snohomish........... 6,810


Nice to have those kind of numbers to spread out pressure and provide good fishing for the whole system, not just a few batches of hatchery turds that blast back to reiter/tokul in 5 days. Surprised the Crummy didn't crack the top 10.

Would love to turn the clock back to those days. Give me a handful of corkies and a few hammered brass....
_________________________




Top
#915550 - 12/14/14 06:10 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bent Metal]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Those pre mid-1970s sport catch estimates have been pretty well accepted as being somewhat inflated. They were based on punch card returns (successful anglers much more likely to return their cards). Numerous studies have fund that actual harvest general are only 50 to 60% of those based on punch card returns.

Regardless there were lots more fish harvest 50 years ago than today. There were not efforts to separate hatchery and wild fish (a fish was a fish).

Curt

Top
#915591 - 12/14/14 11:18 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Smalma]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
One thing that can be done with much of the old punchcard data is to divide the catch estimate by the expansion factor. The factor was often listed on the catch data page. That way, you have the number of fish that were actually reported. So, for example, you really don't know if 20,000 were harvested in the Skagit, you do know that a minimum of (say) 9,876 were caught and you can also know the number taken each month if monthly catch were reported.

Top
#915608 - 12/15/14 10:25 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
It seems to me that back in the sixties, the Skagit had the equivalent of three hatcheries operating, or possibly more...but I don't know for sure.

Quote:
I believe the Director said two years for the EIS itself.

One guy at NOAA to do all 100+ plans.
two years = 500 work days.
Less than 5 days per plan.
Start the Skagit today - finish by Friday. smile

Why would we have to wait on the other 99 to fish the Skagit?
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#915609 - 12/15/14 10:32 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: _WW_]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
But in the 60s there were separate agencies and hatchery systems. WDF ran the salmon hatcheries and WDG the steelhead. I think the Barnaby Slough operation was the only steelhead facility, but Smalma would know for sure.

Top
#915610 - 12/15/14 11:32 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
I added the remaining 15 Rivers, that were in the article. Now remember, that there are many rivers that aren't listed.

People didn't have to go far from where they lived to fish for steelhead AND chances of catching a fish were very good.

Doc-----because you "are young"....I remember the Humptulips, had a 3 fish limit, at the upper train bridge, xmas time of the year, there would be what seemed like 100+ fishermen and steelhead stacked on the bank.

Not many boats, in those days.......and access to the river for bankies was about everywhere.....from the Forks clear to tide water. If you weren't a drift fisherman....seemed that much of the lower part of the river had plunker places that always had people there.

Glad I got to fish.....THE OLD DAYS.......
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#915616 - 12/15/14 01:04 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
Met'lheadMatt Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 723
We would float the hump in 79 and it was still a great fishery all the way through 90, many days we would put in below the 101 bridge and be done by the railroad bridge. Those early 80's where special for me, I can only emagine what the 60's where like.

Top
#915617 - 12/15/14 01:20 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Bent Metal]
Met'lheadMatt Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 723
How about Broodstocking the early portion of the run, to try to get more returners prior to the nets going in. You may not like the idea of broodstocking, but it will surely yield a better return then 1-1.25.

We always bring up nets and the WDFW and what are they going do. The fish are split 50-50. Have our member organizations, set down with the tribes and tried to make a better situation.
Maybe upper river boundries, if they make it past this line they are not to be harrased, or limit both net and fishing days on the water per week. They, like us understand that 50% of nothing is nothing...
If we can't get the nets out of the water, we need to work with them to make a more viable situation, concessions on both side need to be made

Top
#915690 - 12/15/14 08:39 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Smalma]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: Smalma
Those pre mid-1970s sport catch estimates have been pretty well accepted as being somewhat inflated. They were based on punch card returns (successful anglers much more likely to return their cards). Numerous studies have fund that actual harvest general are only 50 to 60% of those based on punch card returns.

Regardless there were lots more fish harvest 50 years ago than today. There were not efforts to separate hatchery and wild fish (a fish was a fish).

Curt


You mean "The great hatchery hoax"! Every fish that came from returned cards were multiplied by a multiplier that changed from year to year. Sometimes 2x. Like Smalma said, still lots more around then.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#915697 - 12/15/14 09:41 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: RUNnGUN]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
R&G,

It wasn't a hoax. There was no perceived need for steelhead data for a long time, let alone precise or accurate data. So when someone asked what the steelhead catch was, they did the simple math, multiplying the catch on returned cards by the total number of cards sold. The usual multiplier was three point something. Then, after US v WA, more accurate catch data was needed because the treaty fishing tribes intended to harvest 50% of some number. That was when WDG needed a very good number for the steelhead catch and the projected steelhead return based on hatchery plants. At that time there was zero data regarding wild steelhead run sizes, but that soon changed.

And yes, there were way more steelhead, hatchery and wild, around then.

Sg

Top
#915699 - 12/15/14 09:54 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
SG:

If punch card data is important.....why not require all punch cards be returned?????

The computer age makes this very easy.....no returned card

1. Charge a fee for each card not returned

2. No license until #1 is paid.

Might not be the complete answer BUT sure better than what is done now...IMO
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#915703 - 12/15/14 10:10 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: DrifterWA]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Requiring all cards to be returned would require that WDFW hire sufficient staff to process them.

"Back in the Day" WDG/W used to get the season estimate, from the just concluded season, out to the public by mid-summer/fall, if memory serves. They did this with two people doing the analysis. Obviously, given the delays we see now they would need how many people to match what was accomplished in the pre-computer age.

Top
#915705 - 12/15/14 10:12 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
If they can manage to charge me $10 when I report my crab catch a day late they can manage to charge me $10, or $20, or whatever if I fail to report my steelhead catch, too.

The best thing, of course, would be to allow online reporting of all of our punchcard data.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#915710 - 12/15/14 10:55 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Todd]
speymont Offline
Fry

Registered: 01/07/12
Posts: 22


Edited by speymont (12/15/14 11:01 PM)

Top
#915711 - 12/15/14 10:56 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: speymont]
speymont Offline
Fry

Registered: 01/07/12
Posts: 22


Edited by speymont (12/15/14 10:57 PM)

Top
#915714 - 12/15/14 11:03 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: speymont]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Oh, they could do it. But there are higher priorities.

Top
#915715 - 12/15/14 11:16 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
FishDoctor Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 527
Not an easy fix, but pollution is what is killing most of the PS Steelhead. The toxins in our waters need to be cleaned up, pollution standards are too lax in my opinion. The fish will not recover until PS is cleaned up, and that is a HUGE problem.
_________________________
FishDoctor

Top
#915740 - 12/16/14 07:19 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Salmo g.]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
R&G,

It wasn't a hoax. There was no perceived need for steelhead data for a long time, let alone precise or accurate data. So when someone asked what the steelhead catch was, they did the simple math, multiplying the catch on returned cards by the total number of cards sold. The usual multiplier was three point something. Then, after US v WA, more accurate catch data was needed because the treaty fishing tribes intended to harvest 50% of some number. That was when WDG needed a very good number for the steelhead catch and the projected steelhead return based on hatchery plants. At that time there was zero data regarding wild steelhead run sizes, but that soon changed.

And yes, there were way more steelhead, hatchery and wild, around then.

Sg


Was referencing a Salmon Trout Steelheader Magazine article written about this subject. I think back in the late 80's. The article exposed how catch numbers were inflated. Not that the sportsman was being decieved. Out of inner circles, it was never really known how the Dept. of Game came up with the numbers back then.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#915741 - 12/16/14 07:20 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: FishDoctor]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
One of the realities is that it took us 150 years to get to this point and we want it fixed before the next election. Our attention span is simply too short to fix anything major.

Top
#915745 - 12/16/14 08:20 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
Chum Man Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/07/99
Posts: 2691
Loc: Yelmish
i don't know about that, unless you're referring that it was 150 years of screwing things up that gets us to this point. i think that if we could even put things back the way they were 20 years ago, most of us would consider it to be a resounding success.

Top
#915747 - 12/16/14 08:24 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Chum Man]
RB3 Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/24/10
Posts: 1383
Just make an STS game on the wii. Snag and floss away. Create different modes when you can be a co-manager or even dictate plant numbers as wdfw's supreme steelhead czar. Wholesome family fun for all ages.


Edited by RB3 (12/16/14 08:30 AM)

Top
#915773 - 12/16/14 10:29 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Chum Man]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Set the bar low enough and even WDFW can get over it.

20 years ago was the beginnings of the listings in WA.

Top
#915787 - 12/16/14 11:51 AM Re: What would you do? [Re: Carcassman]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Set the bar low enough and even WDFW can get over it.

20 years ago was the beginnings of the listings in WA.

CM, time really does fly when your having fun, doesn't it?

Top
#915797 - 12/16/14 12:53 PM Re: What would you do? [Re: OncyT]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Yeah. Shifting baselines are a b*tch.

There are some species/stocks (pink/chum) that increased during my career so "the good old days" were not always back then. The Fraser sockeye, when I was involved there, were significantly better that they had been in 50-75 years. But, in order balance things out, we knocked down other species..

Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
2 registered (Excitable Bob, 1 invisible), 1098 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645292 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |