Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#986954 - 03/20/18 12:03 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Tug 3]
thaxor Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 08/07/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Olympia, WA
Originally Posted By: Tug 3
You just have to love WDFW's salmon management. This year's return to the Deschutes facility in Tumwater, 29,000 Chinook showed up. Only one hundred were released above the trap (to spawn?). Yep! One hundred! Probably all males. Although not the best Chinook habitat, certainly some successful spawning/hatching could have taken place with a large escapement. I'm sure glad that the watershed got to benefit from those hundred salmon! And I know that the landowners in the watershed appreciate being strictly regulated for the sake of salmon. A bigger escapement of that huge Chinook return would certainly have benefitted the up and down Coho population through nutrient enhancement. Who's running this madhouse, anyway? (Just my continuing disgust with WDFW, so pardon my bitching)


That tumwater hatchery is a head scratcher. Maybe they're going to food bank? It seems like they should release way more up river.

I moved to Oly after they closed Capitol lake but I heard stories about people having fun chucking eggs below the i5 bridges.

Besides an educational experience for kids seems sort of pointless.


Edited by thaxor (03/20/18 12:06 PM)

Top
#986955 - 03/20/18 12:18 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Tug 3]
The Moderator Offline
The Chosen One

Registered: 02/09/00
Posts: 14486
Loc: Tuleville
Originally Posted By: Tug 3
Who's running this madhouse, anyway? (Just my continuing disgust with WDFW, so pardon my bitching)


There's a reason why most graduates of the top fisheries university in the nation do not go to work for WDFW.

If our state really wanted to save our salmon/steelhead they'd be in my building 24x7 recruiting full time.

As is, when I hear what the educational/science experience is of the upper managers in WDFW (if they even have any) makes me cringe.

Don't get me wrong - there have been and are, a few good scientists at WDFW, but their bosses make decisions based off of their own career paths, not good science or the positive future outcome of our fisheries.

WDFW needs to be run like a business, not a bloated and ineffective state agency. Maybe when Trump get's out of office....he can come in as the new Director and drain the swamp. smile
_________________________
Tule King Paker

Top
#986956 - 03/20/18 12:30 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
The ditch running through Oly was once a great salmon and steelhead fishery.

Now it's eye candy for libatards.

Top
#986958 - 03/20/18 12:45 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: The Moderator]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
Originally Posted By: parker
WDFW needs to be run like a business, not a bloated and ineffective state agency. Maybe when Trump get's out of office....he can come in as the new Director and drain the swamp. smile


No swamp was drained in Mr. Fibb's first year in office. He tried to stock a swamp with gilded turds, but many of those found their way to an outlet, and disappeared downstream. Not the expertise you want if you're trying to upgrade the WDFW. Keep looking...

Top
#986961 - 03/20/18 01:52 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
There are, or will be, significant problems with allowing Chinook to spawn in the Deschutes.

WDF actually released adults up there and monitored the returns. The unmarked adults that showed up could be explained as the surviving "drops" (hatchery fish the missed being clipped). The bigger problem is that if you get wild fish spawning up there there are expected to be ESA conflicts. Those conflicts would impact fisheries on the returning hatchery fish.

I do find it difficult to fathom why you had a fairly "pure" opportunity opportunity to harvest the hatchery fish (Tribal or NI) and it wasn't used. There used to be a pretty good Squaxin GN fishery that targeted those fish.

And thank you to Parker for the comments on hiring and staffing...

Top
#986962 - 03/20/18 02:01 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
If I remember right, the ESA issue came up in the past. The state simply stated that if it was an issue, they would pull the fish ladder around the falls. This effectively stops all fish from going up, as historically it was very rare that any could make it up. I believe it was thought possible that some might be able to get around the falls during a high water event, but that is was unlikely and that it would not be consistent enough to produce any viable run. Historically I do not believe there were any anadromous fish present. Last I saw they still have a gill net fishery there, but it is likely that the fish are so dark by the time they start to cluster that the tribal netters focus on other areas for more valuable fish. By not netting as heavily in the immediate area, more might be able to get through.

Top
#986964 - 03/20/18 02:35 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
There were fish a thick in the 70's.
Funny how man has actually forgotten how to make it so again.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Top
#986966 - 03/20/18 02:58 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Krijack]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
The falls were impassible (or nearly?) until the fishway was built on the 1950s, same money that built, err partially built the Sunset falls fishway on the Sky and the Granite falls fishway on the SF Stilly. The push was to get fish up into vacant habitat to make more and free fish!

The Deschutes fish passage issue came about after mass marking had entered the scene and harvest rate management on the unmarked fish became the metric. Like Carcassman indicated, it complicated the fishery in that, you had to manage for these free fish (naturally produced in the Deschutes, as if they were wild ESA fish. Easier to just not pass them.

And yes, all food grade fish end up at the food bank, via the state contracted buyer.

Top
#986970 - 03/20/18 03:34 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549


Meanwhile our state continues to spend millions rebuilding hatcheries like the Puyallup Clark Creek Hatchery.


Why?????????

Top
#986971 - 03/20/18 04:20 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Trout. A pathogen free, spring fed water source allows the facility to raise trout and transport them outside of the Puyallup watershed. If you moved the production to, say, Voight's then trout could only be planted in the Puyallup watershed.

Top
#986985 - 03/20/18 07:20 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: IrishRogue]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Originally Posted By: IrishRogue
FleaFlicker -- my kind of a-ha moment with this tool is trying what you're suggesting -- which is "letting more wild fish spawn" and seeing that it doesn't really do anything. That's, to me, the point of all this. The gravel is effectively incapable of doing anything with those spawners. The escapement is (at least apparently) directly linked with habitat carrying capacity. You can increase escapement by cutting fishing, but not in a way that leads to recovery. You just get more fish escaping and not finding good habitat for their redd.

I agree that cutting sport fishing in Puget Sound won't save $hit. I have thoroughly enjoyed the handful of trips I've taken in Puget Sound, and I support you guys keeping whatever opportunity you can. Fantastic place to be on the water.

That said, the problem I see with the (neat, if depressing) model is that (through no fault of its own) it includes ZERO data from multi-year periods of INTENTIONAL escapement over MSY. That, in my humble opinion, is at least a significant part of why it paints such a bleak picture.

Ask yourself if current escapement goals will EVER, even in Garden of Eden habitat, produce anything remotely resemblimg a "recovered run." I think the only logical (or perhaps even sane) answer to that question should be a resounding "No." That's my point. Unless the ocean fisheries reduce their level of impact, we'll only enjoy good fishing inside when the forecasts are underestimated. Same as it ever was....

Top
#986996 - 03/21/18 09:01 AM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Fleaflickr02,

In an environment where a salmon population cannot replace itself, meaning that 1 spawner always produces less than 1 recruit, there is no such thing as an MSY escapement goal. The management concept of MSY assumes both population productivity and an environment that facilitates that productivity. That is what allows "surplus production", that number of fish over and above spawning escapement that can be safely and reliably harvested without threat to future production.

In a case like the Stillaguamish, or the model's Simuguamish, the spawning population, no matter how small or how large, simply cannot replace itself on an average annual basis. It's an environment that necessarily leads to extinction. Were it not for the Stillaguamish Tribal hatchery program, Stillaguamish Chinook would have likely gone extinct before now, or would be hovering dangerously close to it.

At extremely low population levels, like the Stilly, it can be possible to a population to hang on for years. This can happen by the few spawners using the very best of the overall poor habitat, and the resulting fry using the very best of extremely limited juvenile habitat. In such a case, the population is functionally extinct, but not factually extinct.

Sg

Top
#987007 - 03/21/18 10:55 AM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Sg:

Thanks for putting the focus on the Stillaguamish (where it belongs when discussing most Puget Sound fisheries), but it leads me to a question I've asked many times, and to which I've never received what I understood to be an answer:

I accept that the Stilly's escapement goal is driven by its severely compromised habitat. That said, if habitat is the driver of ALL escapement goals, how come the habitats in the Queets, Quinault, Hoh, and Sol Duc (not pristine, but excellent by modern standards) aren't assigned much higher escapement goals than the rivers thought to be all but destroyed (Stilly)?

My guess is that, because achieving higher escapements, whether for one river or 100, would require meaningful, across the board limits on mixed stock ocean fisheries, that's simply not considered a real option. The largely unsubstantiated, over-generalized argument that the habitat won't provide a return on any investment in escapement does much to keep that status quo intact, methinks.

Top
#987010 - 03/21/18 12:00 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Habitat is (at least was) not the driver when the Chinook, pink, chum, and LW sockeye escapement goals were set by WDF. They are all averages. Chum was the highest 3 years in the days base. They have no relationship to habitat.

As I have noted before, when WDF set the Chinook goals they clearly stated that these goals would not utilize the available habitat. When chum escapements significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, valuations by WDF using the Ricker Curve, showed that the MSY goal should be raised as productivity went up with the escapements. The sockeye goal was "experimental", based on some recent escapements. When WDF discovered that they had miscalculated the number and it should have been 400-500K instead of 350, they left it at 350.

Top
#987017 - 03/21/18 03:29 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Fleaflickr02,

As Carcassman indicated, habitat was not used to set any of the salmon spawning escapement goals in the early 1970s. As far as I know, there were no escapement goals for any species prior to US v WA. My recollection is that escapement goals for Chinook, chum, and pink were based on the average escapements for the period of record, which I think went as back as 1968 at the most (for Chinook). I don't think any serious spawning escapement estimates were made for anything prior to that time.

The exception to averages was coho. Zillges used and developed a habitat based model in 1976 that actually wasn't and still isn't half bad. Turns out it under-estimated habitat because a lot of small water bodies that coho use weren't included in the Williams stream catalog of 1975.

As co-management evolved, both state and tribal biologists agreed that escapement goals should be based on something more solid than average escapements that occurred more or less by coincidence. The Ricker model was generally preferred, and the intent as I recall was to "probe" with high, medium, and low escapements to determine the best or "correct" goal. The thought was that since run size escapements are usually high or low, the needed range of escapements would be observed within the coming years.

Well it was easy to get medium and low escapements with predicted returns, probably (IMO) because over-fishing of Chinook and coho in Puget Sound was an already established pattern. But in order for the model to give a good fit to data, you need some really high escapements, not just medium, low, and slightly higher than medium. No party was willing to give up the amount of harvest for a number of years that would be necessary to really fill the graph with some high escapement numbers. The Ricker curve can only give a value based on the data points that are entered, and since few or no high points are included, the curve is skewed lower than it might otherwise be. I don't know if any PS Chinook escapement goals have been changed from the original averages or not. My guess is not, because status quo is nearly always more comfortable in the human condition than change, especially change that might be accompanied by pain, as in not harvesting some hypothetical paper salmon.

C'man,

I thought the Lk WA sockeye escapement goal was based off of the estimated smolt capacity and productivity of the lake, which was based off Lk WA prior to METRO and the lake clean up that began in 1968, which significantly reduced its productivity. There is plenty of spawner-recruit data to make an estimate, and I believe the model kicks out a number in the 100,000 to 150,000 range. The co-managers could change the goal if they wanted, but again, it's about that human condition thing, and not science after all.

Sg

Top
#987018 - 03/21/18 04:02 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
stonefish Online   content
King of the Beach

Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5203
Loc: Carkeek Park
They put a lot of money into that Cedar sockeye hatchery.
What a waste of money for poor returns and fish you'll never get to fish for.
SF
_________________________
Go Dawgs!
Founding Member - 2023 Pink Plague Opposition Party
#coholivesmatter

Top
#987023 - 03/21/18 04:45 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Salmo g.]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The 350K was based on some recent observed escapements and was set up for the Cedar River ONLY and as a test to see how it worked. As "management" evolved, the goal was applied to the whole basin. Which actually lowered the Cedar goal.

But, recalculation a year later showed that there had been a significant under-estimate that was used to set the 350K.

At the time that goals were being set the IPSFC bios looked at the lake and river and suggested that if Lake Washington was a Fraser trib that their goal would be a million.

As is noted, recent evaluations show that the goal could/should be lowered. But, the same argument about not loading up with spawners (try half a mill, a mill) to see how that works.

You are right that PS coho were all that was actually based on habitat. Again, to show the intransigence about raising goals, the Skagit system was physically surveyed (not taken from maps) and about twice as much habitat was found to be there. Goal remained the same.

The creek I worked on was mapped at half the available anadromous area used to set the coho goal.

Top
#987024 - 03/21/18 04:48 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: stonefish]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: stonefish
They put a lot of money into that Cedar sockeye hatchery.
What a waste of money for poor returns and fish you'll never get to fish for.
SF


I pointed this out repeatedly, here and elsewhere, and received a ton of pushback from those that thought there would be a miraculous return of sockeye that would be open every summer.

Hasn't resulted in one additional season yet, we'll see if it ever does.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#987025 - 03/21/18 05:07 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
At its best, LW was for some reason very marginal for sockeye. Returns were generally not much better than 1:1. Another interesting aspect is that the smolts are about 2-3x Fraser smolts for size. This suggests, to me, that there is significantly under-used capacity. BUT, it is also quite possible that the bottleneck is when the fry first hit the river. Few survive but what does then grows well.

LW sockeye have one of the longest spawning seasons for any salmon. They should spawn in about a month. I suspect that they are still evolving to adapt to the lake. They've been there only about 80 years.

The other aspect is that the really big runs that set off the frenzy came about the time that Metro came into being. Or, to put it another way, the lake was cleaned up and became less productive.

Top
#987028 - 03/21/18 05:39 PM Re: Fisheries Management for Dummies- Part 2 [Re: Sky-Guy]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

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

Do you suppose that part of the issue with lake Washington is the complex species array that lives in the lake. At last count more than 40 species are now found in the lake. The stickle backs and long fin smelt as well as the juveniles of nearly all the rest of the species would be direct competitors with the juvenile sockeye for the daphnia and other zooplankton.

I would be surprised if there is another sockeye lake in the world that has such array of species; the majority of which are exotics.

While I have not looked into the LW in depth in a while there where several years when 50 million or more juvenile fry made it to the lake but experienced very poor survival. Suspect that food competition during the first few weeks/months is great and many of the sockeye starve. Those that survival may well find abundant food later in the summer accounting for their larger size. Maybe Sam Wright was right the best hope for consistent sockeye smolt production would delayed release of larger fry in the fall.

The good news is that fewer sockeye is good for the Chinook!

Curt



Edited by Smalma (03/21/18 05:39 PM)

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

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
1 registered (stonefish), 1099 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
645294 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 |