Here is one last log for the fire. I know most of the fence sitters are already on one side or the other but for those who have not yet read enough, here is an op-ed piece that I recently released to the media. -- DH

Wild Steelhead: Conservation Can Turn The Tide

As we head into the holidays and the autumn rains give way to winter's snow, once again wild winter-run steelhead begin nosing into their natal streams. Unfortunately, dwindling numbers of these remarkable fish, some weighing more than 20 pounds, are returning to spawn while this state's management agency considers retaining a management strategy that has helped contribute to their decline.

Like salmon, steelhead are anadromous, meaning they are born in fresh water but go to sea to feed and grow before returning to their home river to spawn. Unlike salmon, steelhead do not die after spawning and often return to spawn a second and even third time.

Wild steelhead share the river waters with hatchery-raised steelhead, introduced to provide harvestable numbers of steelhead for both tribal net fisheries and sports fishers. Hatchery fish are identifiable by a clipped adipose fin on their back. As wild and hatchery fish head upriver, both are targeted by anglers. The majority of hatchery fish return from December through January and wild fish enter the region's rivers from December through April.

For years the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has managed wild steelhead using a model called Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Under MSY, fish that survive to spawn in excess of the minimum needed to ensure survival of the species are targeted for harvest. Failure to harvest excess fish is called wastage.

Of course the effectiveness of this formula depends on the department's ability to
predict escapement. Yet, escapement is influenced by such factors as variations in ocean conditions, river flooding, and changes in freshwater habitat; factors that cannot be accurately reflected in the MSY formula. The result is that wild stocks are being managed to maximize harvest and not to maximize the health of the species. Under this plan, the runs suffer.

The current WDFW policy allows harvest of wild steelhead on rivers the agency considers to have healthy runs. Until the early 1980s, there were no restrictions on killing wild steelhead in Washington rivers. Since then, through combination of ocean condition cycles, habitat degradation and the accumulated effects of harvest, steelhead runs in the state have fallen on hard times.

In 1999-2000, 35 rivers were considered to have runs healthy enough to allow harvest. Currently, only 16 rivers in the state meet this designation. Faced with steep declines in wild steelhead escapements last November, the WDFW imposed emergency closures on 19 area rivers. According to WDFW biologists, poor ocean conditions caused
escapement levels to drop off the table. It is expected that these closures will remain in
effect for the foreseeable future.

Despite claims to the contrary, MSY is not working and the health of wild steelhead runs continue to deteriorate. An example of this is the condition of runs in the rivers of North Puget Sound. For many years, from December 1 to February 28, it was
legal to catch and kill wild steelhead on the Skagit, Sauk, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Snoqaulmie and Skykomish Rivers.

It was determined these rivers had healthy stocks of wild fish and as such would support harvest of excess fish. During the 1998-99 steelhead season, approximately 1,000 wild fish were legally harvested in the Snohomish River system. Two years later, the FW announced an emergency steelhead closure of these rivers because of astonishingly low estimates of returning fish.

Department data shows an estimated Snohomish River escapement of only 3,089 fish last spring. That number is far below the 80 percent of minimum escapement levels needed for spawning to sustain the run.

The closures ended not only the catch and kill seasons but also the popular catch and release spring fisheries. The state determined the
danger to these runs was so severe they could not withstand even the incidental mortality from a catch and release season.

While poor ocean conditions probably are responsible for the much of the decline,
previous harvest levels have doubtlessly contributed to the current poor health of the
runs. How could this happen if our fisheries are being managed with the future of the fish in mind?

I believe it is time to move beyond the arrogant belief that we can do a better job of managing fisheries through harvest than nature has done and can do if left alone.

This past summer, a state survey of fishing license holders showed 61 percent favored mandatory release of all wild steelhead. This is a super majority and demonstrates that anglers believe wild steelhead harvest should stop and that the fish should be put first, that we can't continue to kill our catch without the resource suffering.

A minority of those surveyed continue to believe they have a right to kill and eat all the steelhead they catch. I contend that no one has a right to kill wild steelhead when that harvest will contribute to the decreasing health and possible extinction of a run.

Catch and kill advocates claim a mandatory catch and release policy for wild steelhead will keep them from feeding their families. In this day of expensive fishing tackle and $30 fishing licenses and access stamps, subsistence is not a viable argument. Besides, with the abundant numbers of hatchery fish in the state's rivers, there exists
ample opportunity for harvest. Hatchery fish are put there for the table. Wild fish should be put back in the rivers for the future.

Wild steelhead are a legacy of the Pacific Northwest that in prior years have made our rivers world class fisheries and destinations for anglers from all over the world. Every winter and spring, anglers pour dollars into small towns like Rockport, Marblemount, Forks and Sultan. These dollars help keep guides, tackle shops, restaurants, gas stations and motels in business. Unless the killing of wild steelhead stops, this financial influx will soon be a thing of the past and with it, the many small businesses that depend on fishing related income.

On September 22, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission sponsored a symposium on steelhead management that featured expert panelists from British Columbia, Oregon, Idaho and California. British Columbia data showed that the province's switch to catch and release fisheries resulted in increased numbers of wild fish in the rivers and increased fishing opportunities for anglers. Testimony from the other states echoed these findings. Washington stood alone in supporting continued wild steelhead kill seasons.

When will we learn from our neighbors and stop allowing the killing of these magnificent gamefish?

Now is the time for Washington to move away from an attitude of unlimited resources and towards one of conserving the gifts given us by nature. It is time to realize that more fish in a river is a measure of successful stewardship and not wastage. Finally, it is time to join the rest of the Northwest and adopt management strategies designed to save wild fish rather than kill them.

On December 7 and 8, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will take public testimony in Vancouver, WA on a proposal to eliminate the sport harvest of all wild steelhead. Public input is encouraged.

Written comments may be submitted during the Dec. 8 commission meeting, or mailed before the meeting to Evan Jacoby, WDFW Rules Coordinator, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia WA 98501-1091, or emailed to Jacoby at jacobesj@dfw.wa.gov.

Duggan Harman
WSC Board President

Sink tip Great Post.. As we are testifying tomorrow i think only prudent that we continually and continually harp on the MSY factor! They wont get rid of MSY this year like WSR it will take many years of constant reminding *badgering* of the comission to get them to take eliminating MSY seriously. Might I also suggest that to the extent possible we obtain front row seats tomorrow.

Just so you know, since the mandatory C&R became an issue, the tribes are now pushing for a 7 day a week fishery and you can bet your fishing equipment that if mandatory C&R gets put into place, the tribes will get that fishery and they will do far more damage than all the sport anglers combined.

Jacob,

What I know is it is about time we sportfishers stopped mouthing that pathetic line about if we don't kill them the tribes will.

Who knows, maybe you are even right. Either way they are gone and I for one don't want it on my conscience.

What we are doing now is not working. Continuing the same is not only stupid, it is selfish.

Duggan

JacobF, The tribes have been pushing for 7 days a week for years. The facts are that current and past management policies have failed to protect native steelhead. The policies of the state is not the reason some native runs are healthier than others, it's just that some runs take longer to fail than others. Look at the facts.

It's not about that at all. Think about it. I'll even give you a clear example.

A river gets 600 returning fish. This river needs 500 to meet escapement leaving 100 for harvest. By law, the tribes get 50 of these fish and sportsmen get the rest. Now, due to the method the tribes use, they will easily kill their 50 and probably more whereas the sportsmen would only kill (assuming everyone killed every fish they caught) a small percentage of their allotted 50. Face it, hook and line is no where near as effective as netting. In this scenario, let's say the sportsmen kill 20 of their allowed 50. That leaves 30 more fish to go spawn above and beyond what's needed for escapement. I think we all can agree that is a good thing. However, if the tribes are able to target all 100 fish (which they will) not only will they catch all 100, preventing any extras at all, but because of mismanagement, and the ability of nets in general, they will kill far more than their allowed 100. So in reality, the run is hurt worse.

Jacobf,

I think the point where your rationale gets questionable is in the assumption that we can accurately predict the escapement. In your example, your math is correct, and the logic holds IF, and this is the big if, we can accurately predict and measure what the return and the escapement will be. What has happened in the last few years, through the el nino cycle, is that we have seen how variable the returns can be. Since the tribes and commercials net at the beginning of the river, and we fish higher up, we will inevitably be at the short end of the stick if the run gets mismeasured. It doesn't matter if we don't get our share, if the run has been over harvested to begin with.

Now, as to the beef that if we don't get 'em, the indians will. I have watched this argument get used to justify poaching and killing of wild fish for over twenty years. I don't know you, so I can't speak to your ethics or motives. I can say however, that most people I have heard use this line were not someone I would call a sportsman. To a person, I would frankly classify them as greedy, ignorant shortsighted fish hogs. Again, I don't know you, and am not going to paste that label on you. The last guy I heard use the line however, did so just after he gaffed an endangered Columbia river summer salmon (closed fishery for YEARS). Yes, gaffed. Not even the pretense that he would release the fish.

And yes, I called the cops on him as fast as I could get to a phone.

But let's see, I got distracted.

Jacob, that rationale you described is of the type that leads to what is called the tragedy of the commons. This refers to how the common grazing land in England got destroyed as population grew. Basically, it refers to the part of human nature and self interest that leads people to maximise benefit to themselves, even as it destroys the resource, because they pereceive that even if they do the right thing for the resource, someone else will simply consume what they don't. Which is what you describe.

Which is why we need to start changing our focus on the resource from consumption to restoration. Because if we don't, who will?

Kept my opinion to myself on this one but time to enter the fray. I fill my freezer with salmon every year....what I don't freeze I can or pickle. Can't see the need given the huge availability of salmon nearly every year for anyone to desire to kill a wild steelhead? Only arguments I've seen so far for killing wild steel is ones based on principles of "Right's to kill before someone else does." How sad. There's always going to be hatchery steelies available (another argument for later) so why can't these satisfy the need to kill? Is it an issue of bragging rights? Buy a camera and a cloth tape measure. I'd be in hog heaven to see our upper watersheds saturated with wild spawners to the point where they actually have to compete for mates and spawning gravel.

Gooose

Did you even read my post? Apparently not.

I'm not advocating C&K, I'm telling you that if there is mandatory C&R, more natives will be killed in every river system than there is currently. Do you want the tribes netting every single day? I don't. How many natives do you think will be killed by 7 days of netting compared to 7 days of sportfishing? I'm not trying to say, the tribes can kill them so I can too. I'm saying, and history proves me correct 100%, that tribal netting will do far more damage than sport fishing every could. But maybe I'm the only one who wants more natives to survive. . .

JacobF read every inch of your post...and I don't disagree at all with your warning about the tribes. It's gonna happen. But by choosing the higher ground don't you agree that we can now righteously as a united force point the finger at the practices of the tribes when it comes to protecting and restoring wild steelhead? Ultimately this battle is going to come down to politics and the power of taxpayers who won't appreciate their money protecting and restoring a Northwest heritage so someone else can kill it. Tribes are already starting to get the clue that there's a whole lot more dollars to be gained from sportfishing than commercial fishing. This will only accelerate the process. This is the best strategic move sportfishers have made in decades when it comes to the politics of salmon and steelhead. Several more painful battles to go.
Whatever your thoughts about me JacobF I found your posts well reasoned and valuable to the issue.

Gooose

Management, since we are on the subject one of the things that erks me is everyone on this pro c&r caption never seems to come up with the facts of c&r mortality! Wouldn't be great if their was more closed waters for these fish to spawn in totally unmolested!! I have talked to a lot of people about how I would like to see for example the upper Hoh,Boggy, and Soleduc closed to all fishing above 101. Talk about getting a bunch of flak back instead ocommon ground makes me sick!! After guiding for years in already c&r rivers I have seen what a devil it is. Hopefully after the state makes c&r manditory this will be some of the future discussions brought up and sure not without heated debating!!!PEACE

Fastwater, have to agree with you on closeing the upper portions of most Steelhead and Salmon rivers. If memory serves, I think the upper Kalama and Washougal are both closed to protect spawning.
Of course we have to first convince the state to protect the wild fish with a mandatory catch and release regulations that are inforce year round.