With all of the rivers closed early this year all of the OP regulars are a little bent out of shape, my self included. My Question is this, if wild steelhead retention is closed on all rivers but the few OP rivers. What is keeping them from opening a C&R season for most of the rivers with late wild runs. It seems like every year you hear about rivers closing in Jan or early Feb for low wild fish returns. Then there are rivers like the nisqually are closed for the entire run due to lack of a hachery winter run. Where are the catch and release opportunities? How many rivers were shut down due to lack of wild fish prior to their expected arrival time?

As I said in a previous post IMO the WDFW feels that No Wild Fish Retention= No Season. Why is this, and how is helping. There have been may posts on mortality rates of released fish and that is the only argument I can think of that would prevent the C&R seasons from happening. Out of all of the factors that are leading to the demise of our steelhead (nets, dams, etc.) C&R fishing mortality doesnt seem to be on the same page.

How does everyone feel about our lack of opportunity's, the wdfw's additude about C&R steelhead fisheries, and the chances of the wdfw shutting down the OP rivers early every year if the retention of 1 wild fish per year is put to an end.

I'm not saying I support the lack of a C&R season, but another reason is that it makes enforcement easier.

If there's no fishing, then it's a lot easier to stop people from trying to use bait, or retaining fish, on the down-low.

If C&R is ok, then you're relying on individual enforcement, which we all know WDFW just isn't really able to do well.

Even though all the studies have shown that CnR has no appreciable bad effect on the existing steelhead population, I still don't think that fishing over a run, even CnR, that is not making escapement is something we should fight for in good conscience.

What we should do, however, is stop harvesting wild steelhead wherever they may be, even if they are making escapement...a full blown CnR season may result in a handful of dead fish, but not nearly as many as one good day on the Sol Duc can this time of year during the retention season.

Fish on...

Todd

How do I feel? I'm [censored] pissed. That is how.

To address one of your questions, if the rivers are closed early, they are ALWAYS closed BEFORE the wild fish should arrive. I guess that is the point. What is most frustrating to me is hearing about a "lack" of fish when I KNOW they are there. I don't think that sportfishermen should be the ones making the rules but I do think that sportfishermen can serve as an anecdotal barometer of how many fish are around. If there are no fish around, no fisherman will catch one. If I can go out in mid-Feb and catch more fish in a day than I likely could on an OP river, how bad is it? And how come the WDFW (with experts and snorkels) cannot find the fish that I can find with a humble plastic worm?

In regards to it being "easier" for WDFW enforcement when the rivers shut down, I'd agree that it "easier" to patrol open water since there is less open water to patrol. By definition of them being on the open water more, they are spending less time patroling the closed waters. Also, people that are willing to shred nate-bonkers aren't around on the closed waters to even see what is happening.

On the "pro" closure side of things, I do see some fish being saved by not dealing with CnR mortality or being "pounded on". I can't argue with either of those things. I do wonder if the lack of eyes on the river costs more fish than CnR mortality though.

-AP

So, the west end rivers are making escapement? I did not know that. Maybe just do it, but don't bring it up?

GR, if they weren't...or more to the point, weren't forecasted to make escapement...then they wouldn't be open, either, especially for any harvest fisheries.

Most of the time that a west end stream doesn't make escapement it isn't because the run size wasn't big enough, it's because the run size wasn't a hella lot bigger than the escapement goal, and between us and the tribes (the tribes mostly, but us, too), we caught enough to make the actual escapement turn out to be below the goal.

Fish on...

Todd

You make it sound like they forecast escapement goals while not taking into account "in river" harvest.

I'm probably wrong here, and they low ball this on purpose for political reasons.

Keep in mind that for much of the State and Puget Sound in particular those steelhead are ESA listed. Why would anyone expect that the Feds would approve a wild fish directed fishery (with some mortality) on those fish; especially if they are not expected to make escapement objectives?

Tight lines
Curt

This is how it happens...they forecast the run ("they" being the co-managers...and yes, that number is arrived at by a strange mix of politics and science), and compare it to the escapement goal (which, not surprisingly, is also arrived at by a mixture of politics and science).

If there are any fish available in the forecast beyond the escapment goal, then those are the harvestable fish, which are presumably split 50/50 between the treaty tribes and us.

Then they design fisheries that are intended to capture up to and including every single one of those fish, without going over.

The fisheries, go, and off they go...with no inseason adjustments. If the forecast is wrong on the low side, then we fish right into the escapement...if it's forecast on the high side, we might commit the serious sin of letting too many fish spawn...so we tend to aim at making sure we catch 'em.

This assumes that the fisheries they design will not catch more, or less, than they are intended to...which, by the way, is impossible to do.

Technically, the seasons are set on a quota...and while they count harvested fish during the season, somewhat, they aren't counted against this quota, so to speak.

They design a fishery to catch exactly the quota, and if you catch too many, too bad...or too few...too bad.

Unfortunately "too many" is more likely to happen than "too few".

Fish on...

Todd

There are a couple of points that pertain to your question. First C&R is harvest and as such it is considered in harvest allocation. Certainly there is some mortality and some loss in reproductive fitness due to stress but as Todd pointed out it doesn't have a big impact on wild steelhead runs that are holding their own. That is why the Olympic Peninsula rivers have an extended C&R season. Second there have been several studies that show any fish population in decline, not just steelhead, are not helped by C&R fisheries. The rate of decline will be slowed but it will not be reversed regardless of what factors are contributing to the decline.

Finally one has to decide if it is important to have wild steelhead or is it more important to have an opportunity to have sufficient wild steelhead to harvest (C&R). The fish don't care, they have been in our local rivers since the glaciers last retreated and will be here long after we are gone. That is the question that management is always trying to answer.

C&R exerts some mortality. If the run is below escapment goal (which many here think are too low and some think are criminally too low) then no mortality should be acceptable. Prior to listing C&R was allowed, I believe, if the run was 80 % or more of goal. Doesn't pass the red-faced test to kill fish if the run is below goal.

Second issue is tribal harvest. Most management now, I believe, is on shared impacts. So, of the sporties kill 10, in C&R, the tribes get 10 too.

Bob Hooton, a BC steelhead bio, used to push hard for C&R as the way to restore wild runs. He is reconsidering that, now, as 20 years of C&R haven't bumped the runs up.

Is there a steelhead run that was in bad shape, fishing changed to only C&R, and it rebounded? I haven't heard of one, has anybody else?

I can tell you this...the only stream system on Puget Sound that has, up until the last two years, routinely made escapement was closed to sport retention a long time ago, CnR only for wild steelhead...the Skagit system.

CnR can't save fish from all the other impacts that are affecting them, but compared to harvest fisheries, it's less detrimental...no ifs, ands, or buts about that.

Fish on...

Todd

I agree, the C&R fisheries should be the last things to go only after the comercial tribal fisheries have ended. Compairing C&R to tribal netting is rediculous.

that's a good point

WDFW's state-wide steelhead management plan has some guidance for conducting fisheries on ESA listed populations (like Puget Sound):

1) If wild abundance is less than the escapement objective, in no case exceed a 10% impact from all fisheries or the ESA fishery permit limit(s).
2) If the abundance of wild steelhead is less than the critical threshold, no fisheries directed at steelhead.

I have not been able to find a 4d harvest plan for Puget Sound steelhead anywhere. Does anyone know if one exists, or what the take limits are? It's also important to note that (under scenario 2) if wild populations are less than some critical threshold (also not yet defined), there would be no directed steelhead fisheries, even if hatchery populations are abundant.

OncT -
I do not believe the final 4d plan for Puget Sound steelhead has been developed.

It is my understanding the feds are holding the co-managers to allowable aggregrate impact (from all fisheries) of 4% or less across all the Puget Sound basin's steelhead. That will likely remain the standard until such time as river specific management plans are developed and approved.

In other words the season we saw this season on the Puget Sound will remain the standard regardless of the strength of the wild runs returning to the individual rivers until those specific plans are approved.

Tight lines
Curt

Salmosalar -
As things currently stand (at least until river specific plans are developed) ir is my understanding that the actual or expected wild returns do not matter. Even if there were 10,000 steelhead expected back to the Nooksack or Skagit next year the seasons would remain essentially the same as they were this year. The aggregrate wild steelhead impacts from all Puget Sound fisheries would continue to be held at that 4% level. That is of course unless returns get even worst and then we are likely to see further reductions in allowable wild fish impacts

Whether there would be fisheries allowed to target wild runs above escapement goals will depend on what is approved in those yet to be developed river plans.

With the ESA lisitngs things have changed.

Tight lines
Curt

You forgot, also A bottle of Tequila, joint and magic eight ball...

Salmosalar -
I'm not sure that river basins plans are required. They have a default position - the current situation. Yes I would hope more detailed plans will be developed (and I think they will). However the time frame may be longer than you would hope. With budget problems , significant other demands on the co-managers and the feds time. It took several years of effort to get approval for the steelhead fisheries on the upper Columbia.

Yes in determining the 4% impacts from the fisheries all the wild fish mortalities go into that determination. For the recreational fishery that is the hooking mortality on the wild fish while targeting the hatchery fish. I beleive that a 10% hooking mortatity is used for that fishery.

Bottom line the development of more specific plans will require additional work and the jumping through several bureaucratic hoops before they are approved. The question is and will be how high of a priority is getting those plans approved for all the parties.

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma brings up a good question about how long it might take for the managers to develop alternate plans that NOAA might approve. He correctly points out WDFW's budget problems and what new tasks they can take on in a timely manner. Additionally, for Puget Sound Chinook anyway, these plans have been co-Manager plans developed jointly by WDFW and the tribes. With steelhead returns being so poor around PS for a while, many of the tribes currently show little interest in steelhead fishing, so this might not be front and center for them either.