Wow things are looking pretty bleak used to be such a wonderful Fishery believe me I'm not a rocket scientist but the numbers just don't lie I can only believe that we have made some major mistakes and it will be our grandkids that will pay for it I feel for the guides nobody wants to pay big bucks for a boat ride I feel for the town of forks you think they went through enough with a spotted owl

Fixed it for ya

I don't think we'll have to wait for grandkids to realize the ramnifications.

First, they took away my fishing license. Then, they came for my poetic license...

You can't seriously have come to this understanding just now..?

It's been a disaster for several seasons now. And why on earth would you pity the guides?

Do you live under a rock?

Well yes I am serious everyone makes mistakes including the Fisheries and a little FYI steelhead smolt usually stay in the rivers for 2 years and then two years out to sea that's four years before a return just hopeful we learn from our mistakes but doesn't seem to be the case. And as far as two guides go most of the Guides of met on the peninsula have been great people doing what they love to do fishing and sharing fishing and it's sad when your job goes away at no fault to you just my opinion

lostboy lostpunctuation

Look at my quote from me next to my avatar. Never would have thought it would have happened in my lifetime!

There's to many people!

Just look at bc steelhead, And you can see the future of OP steelhead. There are only so many fish. And only so many people that (REALLY) give a [Bleeeeep!] about them.

The town of Forks and the local guide community should have taken the moral high ground way back in 2003 when we passed the ORIGINAL moratorium on wild steelhead retention.

The writing was on the wall way back then.

A lot of guys on this board (at least the ones that were here at the time) can feel vindicated. It's just so horribly unfortunate that it had to go down like this.

I remember well..........politics took over, a closure of the OP rivers for wild steelhead, got overturned!!!!!

[quote=eyeFISH]The town of Forks and the local guide community should have taken the moral high ground way back in 2003.

Spot on. Why do you insist on killing two fish everyday? because I can.

Let me get this straight Doc, you feel vindicated because a small town’s enconomy is going to take a hit? Real classy dude

Doc, you are so correct. In fact, because I'm a petty man, I have not set foot in Forks since that meeting in Bremerton.

Since 2003 I fished steelhead about once every other year, and I only do it when I visit my in laws in forks. I would not even waste the money to go out there just to fish. Way to many people since the Puget Sound Closures on an already supper stressed fishery.

I got to see it from all sides working for the tribe from 1999 to 2003 and spending all my free time fishing.

from 1984 to 1999 me and my dad would make around a dozen trips a year out there mostly to fish the upper Bogie and Goodman Creek, sometimes the Hoh or Sol Duc.

Honestly it probably should close to all User Groups, let the tribes fish for subsistence, (food only), but no gill nets, some alternative methods. Definitely no commercial sale whatsoever should be legal for anybody.

It is really sad that honestly it is over.

Not at all, Mark.

It's simply tragic what was allowed to happen to the fish, and consequently the community. BAD BAD BAD any way you slice it. No one is celebrating the outcome.

Some of us are merely pointing out that it was largely avoidable.... if only more reasoned minds had carried the day 15 years ago.

Like old George Jones (R.I.P.) once sang so eloquently.... life's full of tough choices, and we all live and die by the ones we make. The City of Forks and the guide community actively killed the responsible choice.

They made the bed they're now left to lay in.

Well said, Doc!

I’m going to boycot Aberdeen because I don’t support over fishing of the grays harbor area, and also because it’s an absolute shithole...


See how dumb that sounds... you’re better than that, orrrrrr maybe you’re not

Having the rec fishery go to C&R might not have saved any fish at all. First, the C&R fishery would/should have been structured to encounter enough fish to cover the share. So, that number dies. IF the modeled kill was lower the Tribes could/would claim foregone opportunity and those fish would die.

Going to C&R would have sent the message that conservation was the most important factor. I agree with Doc that Forks made a decision, in the face of good science, that killing those fish was the most important factor. They get to live with that decision.

But, how many of the folks who made that decision are still in office in Forks? How many have to deal with the fallout?

Except the 10% figure for C&R mortality isn't anywhere close to 10%.

Therefore, the X hundred fish the C&R guys "killed" didn't really die - but were counted as if they did. That means fish on gravel.

I'm pretty sure the X hundred fish that got whacked in their heads DID actually die. That means fish in human turds.

You do the math.

I feel bad about any negative impacts Forks has to endure going forward - but they did kinda lean into the punch.

C&R is not 100% survival. Some die. Regardless of the % used, the tribal half died and some fraction of the rec half died. If survival was better than 90% then some of the fish thought to be dead did make it to the redds. And, if the Tribes figured out the number was lower they would go after the live fish.

Finally, the part we don't know about steelhead but do know about Atlantic Salmon is that released females produce fewer smolts than fish not C&R'd. If the is true for steelies, the a C&R fishery requires a higher EG to reduce the same number of smolts as a kill fishery.

Note that BC went to C&R, without many of the net fisheries, and steelhead did not respond.

I feel for the folks affected by situations like this, the same exact thing happened in Aberdeen with logging. People waited until the very last mill closed and then acted surprised. With logging, the writing had been on the wall for years, and some of them did nothing to prepare, they just waited until it was done and then they were in a bad spot. Similar situation.

How would the tribes "figure out" that the state and they assumed 10 of 100 caught and released died, when in reality only 2 died? You're just being ridiculous now.

Smolt mortality of a hen caught and killed is 100%. Is smolt mortality of a hen caught and released a couple times less than 100%?

Is there some reason you're trying to peddle the idea that there isn't any difference between C&R fisheries and C&K fisheries?

Brood stock fish obviously experienced a lot more handling stress, but here's the data from one of the district bio's.

Mortality data from the now defunct Snider Creek program shows 11.4% loss of males and 31.7% loss of females. (Michael Gross, WDFW - 2012)

Actions and words have consequences, some are short term, some are long term. The Forks Mayor sealed her town's fate.

I would imagine the handling process of a broodstock fish is alot more extensive than a rec cnr fish, considering the 31% mortality vs 11%. A broodstock fish is caught by hook and line, put in a tube, transported to a holding facility, and held captive until ripe enough to remove eggs? Quit the process if I am correct. The numbers Eyefish posted does raise some concern on female reproduction from the rec cnr side. Rec cnr mortality may be half of the Snider Creek mortality, 15% females and 5% male? Interesting......

A dead fish is dead, regardless of how it dies. As to the question on smolt numbers, they counted fewer smolts produced under C&R on Atlantics. Plus, the point that in BC C&R did not seem to work. There are three options. C&R, C&K, and closed.

C&R obviously works on resident trout. Where the track record is weak is on the recovery of depressed steelhead.

Duh me, I must have missed something.....was there a "news event" or a new change in the OP fishing rules, that got "lostboy" to write the opening post?????

I haven't fished any of the rivers North of the Humptulips since 1987....reason I remember that year....bought, 6/30/87, a new Chevrolet 3/4 ton, 4 x4, that I used to pull drift boat to Allen Bar....made the floats G & L and Nolan Creek. We caught fish.....never saw any nets in those areas, at that time.

Did trailer to Allen Bar in mid 90's......nets were in the river at Allen Bar at that time......I've not been back to that area....

A few flashbacks of where we were in this discussion about wild steelhead release (WSR) 15 yrs ago...

Just how BAD is it?
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/189397/1.html

The DEBATE begins:
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/222359/2.html

Escapement goals and WSR:
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post226642

The Call to Arms:
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post228079

The DECISION and ensuing BACKLASH:
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post231323

The plea to STAY THE COURSE:
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post253249
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post250473

The REVERSAL:
http://www.chronline.com/news/wild-steel...dfeeda8e75.html

Doc:

I remember all the press at that time................but was there something recent that set lostboy off. A meeting in Forks????? A new article in the Forks paper?????

or was it just that lostboy wanted to get something "off his chest"????

I have not heard anything in the local news, He probably came out here and saw the pressure that's being put on the rivers out here and [Bleeeeep!] himself.

paguy

Thanks...

Having broodstocked salmon and tracked steelies I can say this with certainty, females can be a problem. It is about when, where, and how you catch them. It is a simple problem to figure out and is this. Females pour everything they have into egg development and as Harry taught me they do not rebound well from capture. Energy level is low and many just can not get themselves back to where they were naturally. It is best to get them above holding and staging areas as they are pretty resilient by then and hook and line is not a safe capture method if you do not avoid these two things. One can reduce holding mortality but it is always about stress and the solution is mostly going to be site specific. Most state facilities are designed for making the process manageable for the workers which usually 100% in conflict with the needs of the fish.

Mortality is not the "only" problem. C&R on gravid female sturgeon may/does cause them to not spawn at all that year. We really have no idea the effect that C&R has on the eggs and resulting to adulthood prognosis for the fry. Certainly better than simply killing them but there is much we need to know.

My bad on mortality. For me mortality is not just dead fish but eggs. The fish can live but the eggs will not be viable. In the Chehalis Chinook the first 10% of run will have about 15% of the hens ending up sour. Sour is when you pick up the hen the ovarian fluid will have a odor that is not normal and when you smell it you separate it into a separate bucket. Prior to doing that we ended up with trays ( incubator ) with a huge % of blank eggs. So we we learned to simply discard those fish or separate them and identify them so we could kinda track it. Thing is anything that adds stress or physically impacts the body of the female will be detrimental to the eggs that she will produce. Fact is everything that the female experiences after leaving the ocean will effect the viability of spawning. No pluses only minuses from any encounter be it nature ( critters ) or human.

Thanks Rivrguy. WDFW needs to document, in the literature, that very thing. If it happens to a brood stocked fish, what happens to the selectively-released wild female? On the Kenai, for example?

Crickets.

Man just cannot help but fish on runs that he shouldn't.

The Kenai is the perfect example.

The tug is addicting and the fish are the ones that suffer by man's addiction.

I will use my stupid as a example. Captured by 8 in mesh ( tangle ), custom boats, net pens to place tubes in, 500 gallon tanker oxygen & aerator equipped capable of holding 9 tubes. Loaded up 9 fish into the tubes to a net pen in the middle of the river and allowed them to stay for six hours. After transport when we dumped them from the tubes into the pond all 4 hens were dead. Tried twice more same results and stopped dead. It was Harry Senn that instantly knew the question and answer and it was stress so we went back to basics. The solution? We had to wait until the water temp dropped and the fish started move and problem mostly gone. It required fine tuning but we solved it. Harry described it as egg development under stress took the fishes clock way down and simply could not get themselves back to OK. The closest he could come to something human was how shock can kill a human. C&R is a tool not a silver bullet and to think it solves the question is more than a little reach. It can be successful and a total failure just depends on circumstance.

Now, if you had taken those those fish from the tangle net, revived them in a box, and released them live would they then be counted as a "live" release for (mis) management purposes?

Seriously, if the fish swims away is it considered a successful release?

Not sure how big the tubes are, but I know if I just sprinted a 400m race (assuming I actually finished it and didn't blow an achilles) I'd want something larger than a snug coffin to warm down, stretch out, and circulate all the lactate out of my spent muscles. That might contribute to the broodstock model mortality, but then again, I'm outside my area of expertise. INteresting discussion though.

fb

I've always wondered what the poaching kill rate was once C&R is removed from a river.

As long as they have enough room to fully function the gills, it should work. Plus, probably, cool water.

There is probably a whole lot that we don't know about how a fish recovers from stress. Obviously, the fish must have some coping mechanisms as they have to escape seals and such, making explosive moves.

All too often we try to extrapolate results. At least partly because we don't want to spend the money to repeat studies. We know, for example, that C&R works really well on resident trout. It also seems to work pretty well on anadromous cutthroat. Among the big differences is that the trout fisheries give the fish a break over winter when they can recover and they are not ripe or even maturing when C&R'd. The Cutties might be caught as they ripen but since they are actively feeding all through the process maybe they can recover. Or, we simply don't C&R a significant number of the population.

Tubes were 10 in PVC ventilated with 1 to 1 1/2 holes perforating the entire tube caps both ends. The move in the boat was in a portable tank out of water time 10 to 20 seconds. Net pen was brought to shore so it was a 100 ft move from net pen to tanker truck. The entire work area was lit up by halogen flood lights. If experienced other than the capture the fish were kept in ideal conditions. The process worked well for years in all efforts with this exception, Staging & high stress environment you will loose fish with hens taking the biggest hit.

Think of it this way. Fish start transition in the bay from salt to fresh but where they pull up and stage waiting for eggs to develop and optimum spawning conditions to materialize differs greatly. It could be low in the river or much further right to the spawning reach. Never the same each year and not all do the same thing which means the only way to reduce the hen mortality is get as close to the spawning area as possible.

As was noted by the Chahalis folks, there was a portion of Grays Harbor where released fish simply died. Quantified by ADFG with coho wherein 100% of the coho C&R'd in rec fishery in an estuary became crab food.

It's getting really old that there is all sorts of information on problems that managers seem to want to avoid admitting because they make conflicts or the require actual piloting of the plane rather than autopilot.

Interesting to know, thanks for that info.

fb

It was bad (scary bad, really) but not 100% bad. Tidewater coho suffered a 69% release mortality with sport gear on the Little Su...

http://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=28&docid=1949

Coho are BAR NONE the worst C&R salmonid in tidewater. ADFG research studies on coho captured by fish wheel traps showed a 47% handling mortality.... WITHOUT the added risk of a hooking wound and the physiologic stress of being exhausted by rod/reel.

If this is true, how bad must it be in the Marine areas where the C&R is many times greater?????? Marine area fishery is much longer, has the charter fleet, and a large sports fleet.... just asking !!!!!!

Surprisingly there’s been no comparison to the Oregon winter steelhead fisheries. If I’m not mistaken there is still a retention reg on the south coast, fairly robust hatchery programs up and down the coast.
With rivers like the Queets/Hoh/Quilliute drainages being every bit if not more pristine as our Oregon neighbors coastal drainages, yet we continue to struggle to get spawners on the gravel. What could the problem actually be? Could it be......SATAN!
Seems bizzare to me that this conversation has drifted off into the virtues of C&R and have ignored the most obvious culprit. One strategically placed net at the right time can decimate a push of fish.

In discussions with some OR bios they said that, at least in some of the more southern streams, the base geology is very different and provides significantly more nutrients into the water. This leads to more productivity.

WA base geology is nutrient poor. Rather than erosion providing the nutrients at some level, we need spawning salmon. Oops, can't do that.

This base geology thing shows up in trout fisheries where, like in the Idaho batholith, fish need to be 5-6 years old to mature while the same species may take 3-4 in a productive (limestone) stream.

Ah I would urge you to ask for the preseason forecast model for the stream you think that is the case on. It has a RR tab ( run reconstruction ) and will list the harvest impacts by user. What they are differs from stream to stream but seldom are what one would think and not having the N Coast one I will not venture a guess. I do however have the Chehalis Basin and it breaks like this for 2015 - 16 which is the last year I have.

QIN W 2164 H 4179 = 6430

NT share ( Chehalis tribal is part of NT share )
Che W 476 H 743 = 1219
Sport 9142 ( only 142 W with C&R )
Total 10361

As you see the NT share outpaces the QIN then you must add the Summerrun Steelies in ( I do not have that number ) and the in balance gets much much worse. Also it is the aggravate of the Hump and Chehalis that the QIN have to work to and the imbalance gets worse again. I am not a fan of nets but frankly the QIN do not have the greatest impact on harvest as a total, NOR's yes. Which brings the thing back around to why C&R was being discussed. I guess this is rude time. If you think any tribe accepts the C&R % that WDF&W uses you would be wrong. If you think C&R rates used by WDF&W are correct one should buy better drugs, weed is legal you know.

So the fish suffer because we ( I am part of we ) refuse to accept that you cannot have the hordes of urban based folks pouring into the rural areas for the outdoor experience and have the fish not suffer. Yup the tribes fishing methods are problematic but they pale hugely when compared to the NT side of things with anything that has selective fishing in the mix be it Commercial or Rec.

I was frustrated with the community of Forks in 2003, for the same reasons many here decry. Now that the no kill rule is in effect, we are learning what those folks in Forks already knew: any allotment the sport side relinquished would get sucked up by the neighboring treaty tribes on the basis of "foregone opportunity." That is happening. The Quileute Tribe is scheduling additional gillnet days to scoop up what we have (only in theory) given up.

I'm not sure it makes any difference how much anyone harvests, as regards steelhead. They seem doomed to extinction unless every stakeholder makes the painful sacrifices it would take to recover them, an no stakeholder has a good track record of making necessary sacrifices to help fish.

Their problems are clearly different from what salmon face, but like Carcassman, I believe MSH salmon management has gradually reduced stream nutrient levels to the point where the steelhead we've got are all the rivers can support.

I still say no kill was the right decision, but it's going to take a lot more to save wild steelhead.

Years ago as I was pounding away on the decline of a single species and a rather smart lady destroyed my day. Seems she took the time to explain to me that streams that have Chinook, Coho, Chum, and Steelhead are interlocked with one being key. You see if Coho crash we stagger on but if you blow Chum it will be followed by Coho followed by with Steelhead just diving in the dumpster. Thing about it is Steelhead are a taker in the natural order. They only take from the watershed while Chum and Chinook carcasses put more into the natural order with the very short fresh water cycle and basically are a watershed fertilizer. Coho can cover their take in a watershed but it is limited by our desire to harvest them. Steelhead can not and will not prosper until the natural balance is restored and not planting twigs or broodstocking to boost numbers but by restoring the nutrient level which requires that salmon harvest be drastically reduced.

I simply have never been able to understand why folks do not get the fact that humans messed up the natural order to be sure but on the coast habitat has stabilized. Simply put we have a harvest problem that many think we can " restore " our way out of and frankly is a load of BS of epic proportions. Healthy Steelhead populations require that we kill less salmon as they are all interlocked in the ability to survive and prosper.

I'd like to meet her.

Stream productivity is the key and in such nutrient poor systems as WA that is salmon delivered. Not only that, but the more salmon you put in the stream the cleaner the gravel is after having all that excess sediment dumped in. Less sediment, more fry per redd. Rather than the death spiral we see we could have a growth spiral where each addition piggybacks on the previous and gets us more.

Ah good point, we all know that Portlandia only targets the hatchery components of the Wilson. When was the last time you floated the Chetco during prime conditions on a holiday weekend. Not drinking the koolaid man.
Oregon river got more bugs. Nets got nothing to do with it.

Gotta understand that dead fish don't spawn and it really doesn't matter how they die. Dead is dead. You can argue the accuracy of reporting but that sword has two very sharp edges. The number of dead fish is controlled by the management objectives. Quite possibly OR believes that more fish should spawn than WA does.

When I started out, the steelhead minimum escapement goal, as stated to me by the head of the fish program in WDG, was a pair of fish per mile of creek. That means, like for S Prairie Creek, we need about 30 steelhead to adequately seed it. While that may have changed, most managers still hold to a concept that anything above MSY (which is fairly low versus the run size or habitat capacity) is not only wasted but leads to catastrophe by excess escapement.

Not doubting that hens are more fragile or even less fertile/fecund after the stress of a C&R encounter with hook/line, but I am more than a bit curious how they were able to quantify the degree/severity that this occurs. What was the study design? Got a link to the paper?

....

Anecdotally, whenever I've had a bit of trouble getting a fish to perk up after the battle, I would have to say it's much more likely to be a hen than a buck.

Even the Kenai H&R study on chinook showed a differential mortality.
Small males (under 20-25#) perished at a rate of over 11% due mainly to mortal hooking wounds from the oversized gear. Females perished at a rate of 6.8%. Large males (20-25# or more) had the lowest mortality at 1.9%.

BIG BUCKS were clearly better able to tolerate the H&R encounter. Average for all comers was 7.6%.

The reference was in Fisheries, I'll see if I can find it. They were obviously running a whole stream study as they quantified the smolt number.

You point out the problem, though, with how release studies are conducted. Simple survival, generally over a relatively short time, is the metric. One problem is that you can't both catch a fish and not catch it.

Say a caught hen spawns at RM 50. It spawned, Great. That same fish, is unspawned, would have spawned at RM 60. Or not. But if that is what would have happened had the fish not been caught, then the resulting fry lose 10 miles of habitat to live in. Important if rearing is space limited.

I grew up in Portland and fished the coastal rivers (Wilson, Trask, Nehalem etc.) from 1960 until my job transferred me out in the mid 70's. I still go down there usually once each winter for Steelies, again on the Willy for Springers and sometimes to Tillamook Bay in Sept since I have a friend who owns a cabin at Garibaldi. The OR north coast rivers are still pretty good.

It always seemed to me that the OR north coast rivers produced better than any of the Puget Sound rivers but I never knew why. Their rivers do seem richer, more plant growth, more insect evidence etc.

Better sources of nutrients. Possibiities are the base geology, spawning salmon, or lots of sewage inputs. All have been shown to work. Higher productivity gives you bigger fish populations, to a point.

I can remember that when I worked with Harry, He always said that some of the most productive streams had dairy farms nearby. He explained to me as best he could that the leaching effectthrough the soil not only enhanced the nutrient base of the stream banks but also the river as well.

Harry is resting no more than 900 meter to the east of me in Claquato.
Last time we visited last fall, I told him about how the Twin Harbors Advocacy is coming along with their efforts.

I swear sometimes that as the wind rustles the conifers I hear an old familiar voice. Near as I can tell it's calling out something that sounds like ... Daaa - Veeed Hamil - toooon !

Kinda simple concept. Increase productivity, increase production. Took a long time to learn that.

Ah BB you know I truly miss that man. He would always greet me with that long drawn out of ones name. Always followed a genuine look of pleasure to see you again. Wealth of knowledge and always willing to share and teach at the same time. Qualities that are in short supply now a days.

Mentors......

Harry had retired before I got involved in hatcheries. So, I have to learn from others..

All you need to know about hatcheries these days is how to turn off the main breaker and shut the door.

Sad.

Uh Uh. All the Steelhead hatchery employee needs to know is open the valve to release every last one raised to the system that's ready to not go into some lake somewhere. Oops? "Did I do that"?

Plant growth might be important BUT THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE is NO NETS !!!

If no nets hammering the steelhead was the cause then the Willpa would be full of steelhead, as would the streams on Vancouver Island.

If you spend just a few days watching the tribes net on any Olympic peninsula stream in Feb, march or April when the wild fish are really running strong and there are no hatchery fish, And see the fish being taken and don't think the nets are hurting wild steelhead, You are fooling yourself.

And there is nobody netting WB in those months. That mean the steelhead are doing wonderfully there?