While this issue has been debated to death I thought this example would supply some insights.

North Fork Stllaguamish Example:

Winter Steelhead Escapements on North Fork Index
Year Number of spawners (goal 950)
1985 1,542
1986 2,226
1987 1,892
1988 1,222
1989 1,718
1990 na
1991 950
1992 na
1993 1,178
1994 1,118
1995 1,556
1996 1,094
1997 na
1998 1,185
1999 917
2000 463
2001 630

Due to the turbid conditions found in much of the Stillaguamish basin-wide spawning surveys and escapement estimates are not possible. To track the status of the Stillaguamish winter steelhed the state began surveys in an index area in 1985. The index is the North Fork Stillaguamish and its Tributaries upstream of Deer Creek. While this is not ideal it is what is possible and hopefully the index counts are somewhat representative of what the population is doing in the basin. The MSY goal for the just the index area was estimated to be 950 adults.

As you can see the average escapements during the first three years (1985 through 1987) was 1,887 or nearly twice the goal. With escapements that far above the goal it was predictable that the State would make regulation changes. Up until that time the regulations (in effective form 1978 to 1988) allowed the retention of steelhead (including wild fish) until March 31 on the main Stillaguamish. On the North Fork from the mouth to Boulder Creek was open until the end of February; from Boulder Creek to Swede Heaven was open until the end of March. Again wild fish were fair game on the North Fork.

The new regulations that went into effect April 16, 1988 and were adopted with little comment from the public either for or against the changes. The changes eliminated the March keep season on the North Fork and allowed fishing all spring under wild steelhead release (WSR) requirements. The North Fork became a year-round stream with WSR regulations in effect from 1st of March until the end of November; fly fishing only from April 16 to November 30.

The average escapement for the period 1988 to 1998 was 1,253 fish with all escapements at or above the goal. The "nas" on the table were years where water conditions were such that complete surveys (conducted from early March into June) were not possible (high and turbid conditions). A number of emergency regulation actions were taken in that period. During the winter of 1991/92 adn 1992/93 WSR was instituted beginning on 3/16 (only the maijn river- NF already WSR in March). During the 1993/94 season WSR went into effect on 2/1 (whole basin). For the seasons from 1994/95 to 1997/98 WSR went into effect on 3/1. Also beginning with the 1994/95 season the in-river tribal fishery (Stillaguamsih Tribe) was limited to the month of Decemver (occassionally carrying into the first couple days of January). Bootom lne: even though the seasons during this period were more restrictive than before 1988 the average escapement fell by a third (1,887 to 1,253).

The average escapement for the period 1998/99 to 2000/01 was only 670 adults. Regulation changes in the 1998/99 season inlcuded making the March WSR a permanent regulation (included in the pamphlet) and changes in the summer season. During the summer both the main river and the North Fork became catch and release for all game fish except hatchery steelhead. This incluuded the change to selective gear (single barbless hooks with no bait) on the main river. Again these changes came from the State with little comment during teh public comment period. I'm sure we all remember the emergency regulations for the 2000/01 season (WSR all season with no spring season).

While the change in the summer season may not seem to have a major impact on wild winter steelhed the opposite is the case. A sea-run cuthtroat hooking mortality study conducted in the early 1990s on the Stillaguamish found that for every legal cutthroat caught (at that time a fish over 14 inches) 18 steelhead parr were caught. With bait the hooking mortality on the parr was 35% or more (depending on hook size). This meant that for every legal bait cuaght cutthroat 6 steelhead parr (all wild) died. Who knows how many died during steelhead or salmon sport fisheries. Given typcial survival factors (35 to50% over winter parr to smolt survival and 10% smolt to adult survival) saving a few thousand parr can quickly equal the entire harvest of wild steelhead adults during the winter season. The average catch of unmarked steelhead for the Stillaguamish for the years 1995/96 to 1998/99 (the year available on WDFW's web site) was only 127.

Sorry about the long winded background. Several observations based on the above include:

1) Those "slaves to MSY" aka "the clowns" working for the State have consistently allowed numbers of "harvestable" steelhead to reach the spawning grounds. In fact in the years through 1998 every regulation change has been in favor of the wild fish. Every regulation change in that period originated at the desk of a state biologist. While some may argue that the changes were too little too late the fact remains the wild steelhead escapements at the decision points (in-season emergency changes as well as the permanent changes in 1988 and 1998) were such that it is hard to argue that conservation was being jeopardized. The average escapement in 1988 was nearly 200% of the goal and in 1998 it was 130% of the goal.

2) In spite of a history of reducing harvest pressures on the wild steelhead resource the recent escapements (1999 to 2001) are only 35% of the escapements of those in the mid to late 1980s.

3) Adult escapements in the mid to late 1990s were typiclly between 1,000 and 1,500 fish however the resulting runs produced from these escapements have been less than 1,000 fish. Basically for 3 spawners only 2 adults were being produced.

4) Making rules permanent for what is currently being done on an emergency bases is unlikely to change the population status.

Some opinions:
1) It appears that harvest issues have little to do with the decline of wild winter steelhead in the North Fork Stillaguamish. Declining freshwater habitats adn extremely poor marine survival are the real issues.

2) The recent discussions about CnK verus CnR has been very interesting and hopefully we all have been forced to the issue some thought and learned more about steelhead and the management of steelhead fisheries.

It was especially gratifying to see the number of people involved in the debate. Long term survival of steelehad will depend on the passions of all steelhead anglers regardless of which side they were on regarding this issue.

The distressful aspect of the debate was the issue focused on how to divide fishing impacts - how to slice the impact pie. At the same time the size of the pie has been steadily growing smaller due to non-fishing impacts. Are we going to continue to fight among ourselves over a decreasing resource or step up a address the larger more difficult issues.

Catch and release has been popularly protrayed as a conservation tool. In fact CnR is just a fisheries management tool that allocates fishing impacts; in this case mortalities due to hooking mortality.

May the New Year find your rivers full of wild fish and tight lines to all.

Smalma

Outstanding research I commend you.I have always belived comercial and native netting practices and environment factors have a greater impact on fish than any other. If we could as much energy in to fixing those problems as we do fighting maybe we could get something really accomplished.

my $.02 worth.

Smalma, Interesting post, has anglers it's my opinion that we need to take more personal responsibility & look at our own fishing practices that will lessen our impact on wild steelhead. Your example of incidental steelhead smolt & parr mortality while targeting other fish is often over looked and a important point to bring up. I also believe C&R is not a total cure all, but it is a important start and has been proven to be a successful management tool in other fisheries has long as it is practiced correctly. But the purpose of this post is not to go into that debate.

You have provided interesting data and opinions pertaining to the NF. I am interested to hear your opinions what anglers can do to help conserve the resource and lessen our impact?

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: Double Haul ]

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: Double Haul ]

This case study on the Stilly just reflects that there is something very wrong with Puget Sound's steelhead. Aside from this winter, we have seen closures of our terminal to assure that hatcheries recieve their escapement. And with the dismal returns of wild steelhead to Puget Sounds rivers, there has to be some factor within Puget Sound that is severly impacting Puget Sound winter steelhead.

The factors impacting Steelhead are too numerous keep track of on a daily basis. But since a total year round catch and release has not been done ever, c&r should be applied first. Who knows in 5 years time we might look back and think "why wasnt it done sooner". We know it works in other places (B.C. , Montana, South America, etc.)

Smalma,

Both a good and interesting observation, comparable to trends throughout the Puget Sound region. Clearly there is more to the status of a wild steelhead population than recreational harvests. Lots of variables influence the size of the returning adult steelhead run. Marine survival, most of all; then fry to smolt survival; egg to fry survival; then smolt to adult survival. Generally in that order. Those are variables that humans have little ability to influence, except by protecting habitat quality and quantity. The one variable we have the most control over is harvest. Once all the natural mortality factors have played themselves out, a wild run of unknown size returns to the river. Based on an uncertain estimate of the size of a run, and without really knowing with much, if any accuracy, what the spawning escapement actually should be (it varies according to management objective), a manager can choose to impart additional mortality through recreational angling.

The fact that NF Stilly runsizes have been smaller during a period of increased harvest restrictions is not a testament to the failure of of C&R regulations. It's mainly an indication that survival rates vary.

Regarding my comment above that spawning escapements, along with run sizes, vary according to management objectives. Recall that both run size and spawning escapement will be significantly lower under an MSY/MSH strategy. A maximum sustained recreation strategy with C&R takes advantage of the maximum productivity of a river ecosystem, whether the natural mortality facotors are high or low. I know of no management strategy that would yield more fishing opportunity in the long run. So it depends what you want, and clearly, not all anglers want the same thing.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.
I could not agree more than the two major bottlenecks for our steelhead runs are fry to smolt and smolt to adult (marine) survivals.

In fact several months ago while have lunch along the North Fork I was struck with the changes (all bad) that had occurred over the 25 years that I have been fishing that river. The steelhead redds that are dug in May used to be visible (pit and tail spill still detectable) well into the summer now they fill with sand within days of being made. But what really caused me concern was the nearly total lack of what would be consider over-winter habitats (refuges from the high waters of winter). Today the deep pools have filled with sand, the spaces among the larger stones in the stream bottom have filled in, and there is a major lack of stable log jams, root wads etc. What little wood that is around is smaller and hasn't been embedded in the bars or pools. Rather, with every high water the wood is pushed on downstream (likely killing any parr hiding there). As I continued hiking along the stream I began mentally noting the spots that the young fish could find refuge during the winter and found very little that I thought would full fill the fish's needs. Clearly what is needed is habitats to support 10,000s of parr; in my mental review of the North Fork from Deer Creek to Fortson I doubt that currently there is enough quality over-winter habitat to support more than a few thousand parr. If there were major floods even less would be available.

You raised the concept of maximum sustainable recreation (MSR). My understanding the means producing as much fishing (fishing days) as possible. That would mean that anglers have to like (use) the fishery. That seems to be a pretty slippery idea to get a hold of. An example, the first established catch and release steelhead fisheries that I personally fished was the North Fork Nooksack in the late 1970s and the Sauk in the early 1980s. In both cases the amount of fisherman using those fisheries were so low that I doubt that we could argue that they were appropriate under MSR. At that time as I hiked and fished those areas it was not uncommon that the only boot tracks were mine from my last trip. Does that mean that the fisheries were inappropriate - I think not; it was through those kinds of opportunities that most us learned that CnR is a viable alternative to CnK. Another example - I doubt that a catch and release halibut season would produce anywhere near as much interest as a keep season. It all depends on angler preferneces.

While it is easy to conceptually endorse ideas such as MSR I do find that I often resent other fishermen on "my waters". Clearly that is selfish on my part but given the recent postings regarding the "blabbing" of "zipperlips" it isn't an uncommon response. Before we fully endorse such ideas we need to examine our own "ethics" and preferences and decide how much we are willing to give up for the "greater good". Are we all willing to post directions to all our "zipperlips" so we can get more fishing activity thus coming closer to MSR?

Skyrise -
You stated that CnR works in other areas. First we need to define what "works" means. No question that catch and release almost always results in a change in the type of anglers using the fishery (depending on ones view point that may be good or bad). Whether such management increase or maintians abundacne of wild fish depends on what management options one compares it to. For example complete clousres would be expected to provide for at least as many fish as CnR. From my prospective CnR generally works; I have access to wild populations in that kinds of abundances I like though I'm less than thrilled with the amount pressure on our (my?) steelhead rivers.

It is a little unfair to compare trout CnR (Montana) to steelhead. Most of the good trout examples are working with fish densities of thousands of fish per mile while nearly all steelhead streams have less than a 100 per mile. By the way Washington has had season long CnR on some troutb waters since the late 1980s (1986?). The example that comes quickly to mind is the Middle Fork Snoqualmie.

Steelhead management in British Columbia is often held up as an example of what enlighten steelhead management should be. But even there CnR is no guarantee healthy populations can be maintained. I'll quote Bob Hooten (One of BC's premier steelhead biologist) "Throughout much of southern British Columbia, most notably among stocks entering the Georgia Basin between Vancouver Island and the mainland, steelhead are far below target sescapements (data on file MELP, Nanaimo). In fact, almost all the historically popular fisheries along the eastern Vancouver Island hve been either partically or totally closed to fishing for the past three seasons to conserve remnant populations....
A commonly held view on the primary reason for the impoverished status of many southern British Columbia steelhead stocks is that survial of smolts entering the marine environment has been at historic lows in recent years (Wasrd, 2000; Welch et al. 2000). The evidence in support of low survival is striking and conclusive. What tends to escape notice is the fact that the numbers of smolt produced in freshwater has also been at historic low levels over this same period." (Hooten, 2001).

It remains my opinion that CnR is a management tool to allocate fishing impacts and not a concervation tool. As suggested by Hooten we should be focusing our efforts on: angling regulations and their impacts on adult and smolt recruitment, habitat issues, and hatchery/wild interactions. The single minded pursue of CnR has diverted the focus from the larger issues.

Double Haul -
See the above for suggestions where we can focus our efforts. The recent ESA listings of chinook and bull trout have given us two federal agencies (NMFS & USFWS) with which we can form alliances with whom we can work towards recovering conditions in our rivers that would be compatible with robust production of all salmonids. If we can restore our rivers to support chinook and bull trout everything steelhead need would also be in place. To do this we have to be willing to potentially accept less fishing, increased cost of power, water, etc. Is society as a whole or us individually willing to pay that price. The cynical side of me says no. However that has not stopped me from trying to fight the good fight.

Thank you all for reading my rambling post and taking the time to comment.

To the future health of our steelhead.

Smalma

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: Smalma ]