Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system

Posted by: Bob

Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 03:37 AM

Just got word tonight that last springs final tally on the Quillayute system for steelhead was only 4700 fish.

That's 1200 fish short of goal ... 20% under.

And that's assuming that the numbers are spot on which we know they probably aren't. This follows a pretty steady decline over the last 7-8 years.

Workin' hard on wiping these out too. Thanks WDFW & Quillayute tribe for managing another run down the tubes.

And to the meatheads that can't figure out that you can't kill everything you catch ... we told ya so!
Posted by: shinything

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 09:05 AM

I got to spend a couple of years playing fish bum out there on the west end.

Got to see first hand what was reely happening to those once great fisheries.I think I have been back twice.It is ruined for me.I do not even feal right fishing them anymore.

It starts with the state allowing the tribes to net so much and ends with way too many guides.

Sad thing is that they are all we had left.
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 10:22 AM

Your paper cup holds no water.

You have more than just one system that is down in numbers. Many of the systems in Oregon are wild only and allow no harvest and have almost no access, yet those runs are almost gone too. How do you explain that.

I'd buy your guess at harvest if it was true accross the board, but it is not. The Nehalem river is a prime example of a C&R fishery that has 100's of miles of untouched waters and these fish go up and down in cycles, just like the ocean.
Posted by: shinything

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 10:42 AM

so what is it kevin???
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 11:25 AM

Lewis and Clarks account of so many fish in the Columbia river they could have walked on there back and not got wet.
Just must of been one one of those good up cycle years with good ocean condition to boot.
Posted by: cobble cruiser

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 12:03 PM

What gets me is after all these years of trying to educate we still consistently see people killing fish out there! Fricken travesty!!!! beathead
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 12:05 PM

Well, common sense would say that every female steelhead taken from a system would take 3000-3500 eggs from the gravel.

But then Kevin has a strong arguement with the Oregon Coastal numbers.

Our SW WA trib numbers have been in the tank for all but the Grays and Kalama and ironically those two have hatcheries and one has a falls with a side channel that they can sort what goes into the upper river and the other has the hatchery on a tributary so "most" of the hatchery fish are out of the main system... Ours have been in the tank since the late 80's.

Another system that has recovered well which I find very interesting is the SF of the Toutle since it was all but wiped out in 1980 with the eruption and it get's hatchery summer steelhead plants.

In my eyes, there's a lot of directions the fingers can be pointed. Hatchery fish mixing in, nets, habitat, predation, harvest, etc. But one that always seems to hold true for all the species of salmonids is when the ocean is in a downward cycle so are our fish returns....

The odd thing about the Olympic Penninsula is back in the 80's-90's there were great #'s of wild steelhead that returned.. It was an area that most people had to travel long distances to get to and it wasn't until that time frame that it became publicly known that the area harbored some of the biggest steelhead in the state.

I know when I first went up there in the early 90's there was some amazing fishing. One thing that amazed me was how far behind the talent levels were with most of the people we came across. I guess what I'm trying to say is since the early 90's the general public has become a lot better fisherman.

In the recent years I've been up there I've never seen an area with so much pressure and pressure from a lot of "great" fisherman. It reminds me of spring chinook fishing in SW WA. To me, there's no way runs of fish can support that amount of angling be it harvest/catch and release. As much as we don't want to face it, we are our own enemy.

I would be interested in what sort of run sizes rivers like the Dean and some others that you have to fly into to access. If those runs are declining then harvest or fishing pressure isn't the answer...

Keith thumbs
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 12:14 PM

Sorry to read that Bob. Of course we realize the issue isn't all harvest. The season was definitely a down cycle for coastal and Puget Sound steelhead marine survival. But harvest never helps a low runsize make escapement, but it's almost like that doesn't matter. Our collective addiction to harvest vastly supercedes our committment to conservation. Harvest trumps conservation, especially on the coast and Columbia, in contrast to the Puget Sound region. It seems like society, and the agencies that represent us, never get seriously interested in conservation until there is little left to conserve.

Addiction to harvest, addiction to electricity, addiction to oil, addiction to extraction of every resource instead of stewardship of the natural resource currency that actually sustains life on this planet. Like Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

Sg
Posted by: Double Haul

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 01:17 PM

The poster child for MSY/MSH as finally succumbed, question is will it be a catalyst to change or will we simple point our finger at something else as the problem.
Posted by: JJ

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/09/09 02:31 PM

Exactly Rich. Finger pointing will definately and you know the WDFW will say they have no responsiblity in this issue the same as always. I am pretty sure that the WSC called this years ago and they didn't want to listen. Wonder if they will listen now. Truely sad news.
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 02:44 PM

Originally Posted By: JJ
Wonder if they will listen now. Truely sad news.


They being "who"?

I'm fully convinced that the WDFW doesn't really run the show over there. The tribe(s) do and it's rather apparent that they want EVERY wild steelhead dead.

We can pretty much kiss the OP wild steelhead goodbye at this point.
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 05:01 PM

If the effects you talk about are a river specific problem, then it is a problem with that river. If the problem is region wide, then it has to be something that every river has in common, like climate, oceans, or fishing presure (harvest).

When you take a river with little to no interfierence from man, and you still have a depleted stock, or an up and down pattern, then you must eliminate the things that can make it wrong.

You can't have harvest be a problem when you don't harvest any fish. Look at the Chum runs in the Tillamook district. I constantly refer back to the Nehalem as an indicator stock for wild steelhead. There are multilple reasons, but the best one is the lack of disruption from man. it is as pure as it can get. This River has good years and it has bad ones.

How can one explain the bumper crop of Coho the last two years? It sure as hell isn't going to be a habitat improvment that made these fish come back in good numbers to all areas. The habitat may have been an improving factor in some of the areas, but not every stream has had habitat improvments.

25,000 wild coho over the Willy falls. That river is a pit. it exceeds 80 degrees in the summer and is filled with raw sewage. You couldn't have a better example of poor habitat than the Willamette, yet these fish are popping up out of the clear blue. Why? The Ocean. It is the only factor that all coho share.
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 05:33 PM

I'm not relying on ODFW numbers as much as personal observation. ODFW has very little data on wild steelhead counts for the Nehalem.

I don't know if coho and steelhead live in the same places in the ocean. I tend to think they are totally different. They are both on two year cycles, but thats about as close as they get.
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 06:06 PM

Here's a question...

How much tribal netting is being done now compared to the 70's and 80's and 90's on the Olympic Penninsula?

Keith huh
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: kevin lund
If the effects you talk about are a river specific problem, then it is a problem with that river. If the problem is region wide, then it has to be something that every river has in common, like climate, oceans, or fishing presure (harvest).




I think you just hit the nail on the head Kevin. The region-wide factor limiting wild steelhead production across the entire OP is OVER-harvest by tribal gillnets.

It is THE singular unifying problem causing the continued decline of steelhead runs in the Westside Olympic Peninsula streams.... streams touted as being the last "healthy" steelhead streams in the entire state.

These runs are like a critical patient in need of a full court press by a hospital ICU , not some podunk country doc making the occasional housecall. They're tanking, and if we don't do something soon, these "healthy" runs will be dead, just like so many other wild steelhead runs across the state. It's just ridiculous WDFW has to wait til the runs are on death's door before they are prompted to prudent action.

BTW many of us acknowledge the whims of the ocean pasture as it relates to adult survival. Yes runs go up and down, as they naturally should. But the population trends for steelhead are just like a failing stock portfolio that yoyo's up and down.... some years good some years bad.... but over time, the overall trend line still slopes decidedly downhill.
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 07:06 PM

Francis,

I think the nets are a problem. how much of a problem I don't know. What I do now is there are streams on the OP that flow directly into the Pacific with no nets. The one I am thinking of has a 100% wild run of steelhead and salmon. I have fished it a little. I know people who have fished it more than I have. The populations of wild fish are no better there than rivers that get nets. How do you explain this? The river I am talking about is the Raft. some of you may have fished it, most don't even know it exsists, as there are no improved roads that follow it.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 07:49 PM

Kevin,
the few small criks that dump into the pacific probably had run sizes that were small enough to be very affected by ANY harvest. There are a couple of those small ones that aren't doing too bad #s wise
Other than those few small criks,
Quilly system-nets
Hoh-nets
Queets-nets
Quinalt-nets
Hump-nets
Posted by: Wild Chrome

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: kevin lund

You can't have harvest be a problem when you don't harvest any fish. Look at the Chum runs in the Tillamook district. I constantly refer back to the Nehalem as an indicator stock for wild steelhead. There are multilple reasons, but the best one is the lack of disruption from man. it is as pure as it can get. This River has good years and it has bad ones.


The Nehalem has been and is being logged to holy hell. It has major recent landslides in important spawning areas and has a railroad bed simplifying half the channel of its most important trib. It has fatally warm temperatures along much of its length during summer and has had frequent record flooding events recently from all the disruption (logging). Recently, the Oregon Board of Forestry decided they weren't logging enough, so they increased the boardfeet targets and acreage open to clear-cutting. The upper river has sedimentation problems from farming.

The 2 things the Nehalem doesn't have are hatchery fish for the last few decades or any netting that I'm aware of.

It is an intersting river to compare to and does have a decent native steelhead run, but it always disturbs me to walk along its mainstem, staring at the gravel beds, knowing the reason I don't see any redds is because the fry can't survive the summers there any more. Oh, what it must have been like before we screwed it up!

BTW, the Native Fish Society had a good article on the Nehalem in their summer newsletter, which I believe is available to view on their web site: www.nativefishsociety.org
Posted by: Steelheadman

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 09:11 PM

Bill Monroe paints a better picture for salmon and steelhead down south.

Bill

I think the runs cycle every 7 ears so things should be like they were in 2002. Last year didn't seem to have a great brat run on the OP.
Posted by: NW Steel

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 09:15 PM

For the first time ever I have to chime in. I stayed away from the great chum debates of '09 along with the pink stories but this one has got me going for some time not not just here.
I think that everyone is trying to blame one thing or another for the decline of our fish runs, especially steelhead, but never as a collective threat to our fish. Yes the tribes and the state are morons for continuing down this path of destruction. The hand writing is on the wall in big letters and we turn the apathetic eye, and blame the ocean, or it was the loggers, or its all the tribes fault. Everybody is right, and if we stick to just one problem everybody is wrong. As for habitat loss, we need to give these fish more credit than we do, the toutle was brought up and that is a great example of the resilience of these fish. They were written off after the explosion and now there back (talk about a clear cut). Harvest to me will always be the big problem. Its not just us its not just the tribes here in washington. Just like our salmon all of these fish migrate up past alaska as part of their life cycle. So we look for problems at the terminal areas as the reason these fish are not comming back. To an extent it is these fish run the gauntlet of nets in the open ocean from Japan to California , although south not as much as it use to be. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that around the time they started to figure our runs were starting to decline is about the same time that the alaskan commerical fisheries really started to boom. Targeted or not they still end up in nets, we all know that nets don't care what get caught in them.
So moral to the story, we reward our fish that surrived terrible river conditions and that just ran the thousands of miles of nets strung around the ocean with even more nets and a catch and kill fishery in the home streach that takes half of the survivors WTF great plan guys. So if your confused as to why less fish are at the redds in oregon look north its the same everywhere. Just because you dont have a commerical fishery doesnt mean that nobody else does.
Posted by: Wild Chrome

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Steel
So if your confused as to why less fish are at the redds in oregon look north its the same everywhere. Just because you dont have a commerical fishery doesnt mean that nobody else does.


Could you provide me some info on ocean harvest of Oregon steelhead please? I'd like to know where the Oregon coastal steelhead are being harvested in the ocean.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 09:27 PM

just gonna put this out here cause I wana hear some other people's opinions:
You look at AK and canada. One of the most notible differences in those two managment styles vs ours is they have semi/hard #'s of fish returns (especially AK). BC has the Tyee test fishery, and while it may not be the most accurate system it at least gives them an idea. AK has alot more weirs and sonar counts to givethem in season estimates on the runs and will make in season regulation changes based on the #s.
Why cant we have some sort of weir of sonar on the Quilluite, Hoh, and whatever other rivers.
People may say lack of funds. why cant we charge an extra $5 or so on licenses to fund the weir or sonar sytem? Having the man power to run it isnt hard, just hire some grad students from fisheries schools to oporate them liek they do for the summer.
I think having these numbers would:
A) give us an ACCURATE # of fish in systems (I just cant believe red counts are all that spot on especially when the tribes are invovled)
B) Allow us to build a data base of better, more accurate run history
C) judging by historical run data be perform a better job of in season management.
D) I think "IF"(very big if and I am aware this wouldnt be as simple as i think it should be) this was in place, it would aslo hold WDWF accountable to fixing problems because there would be #'s shoved in their face of how bad things are and there would be no if ands or buts.

Also pay for extra enfocement to patrol areas like richwine so no "old timmer" can take his one for the day and be back plunking in the line the next day or trying to kill his next fish on the hoh the next.
and last but not least hire someone to sit by the Savage nets and count how many fish Jonas is really killing.

my $.02, any good?
Posted by: SBD

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 09:39 PM

Steelhead don't show up in any offshore American net fisherie, that includes pollock and whiting mid water, bottom trawl or any open ocean seine fisheries.
Posted by: sykofish

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: kevin lund

You can't have harvest be a problem when you don't harvest any fish. Look at the Chum runs in the Tillamook district. I constantly refer back to the Nehalem as an indicator stock for wild steelhead. There are multilple reasons, but the best one is the lack of disruption from man. it is as pure as it can get. This River has good years and it has bad ones.




Please Kevin.....Get a clue!

You need to go for a ride with me around the upper Nehalem and some of it's tribs.

It is anything but pure.

Coastal stocks in N.W. Oregon are in much better shape than they were 20 years ago. CnR of natives is probably the biggest reason.

But now, people think we need to take native stocks out of the gravel to create broodstock fish.

So the decline continues once again.
Posted by: cobble cruiser

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:06 PM

Originally Posted By: OPfisher
just gonna put this out here cause I wana hear some other people's opinions:
You look at AK and canada. One of the most notible differences in those two managment styles vs ours is they have semi/hard #'s of fish returns (especially AK). BC has the Tyee test fishery, and while it may not be the most accurate system it at least gives them an idea. AK has alot more weirs and sonar counts to givethem in season estimates on the runs and will make in season regulation changes based on the #s.
Why cant we have some sort of weir of sonar on the Quilluite, Hoh, and whatever other rivers.
People may say lack of funds. why cant we charge an extra $5 or so on licenses to fund the weir or sonar sytem? Having the man power to run it isnt hard, just hire some grad students from fisheries schools to oporate them liek they do for the summer.
I think having these numbers would:
A) give us an ACCURATE # of fish in systems (I just cant believe red counts are all that spot on especially when the tribes are invovled)
B) Allow us to build a data base of better, more accurate run history
C) judging by historical run data be perform a better job of in season management.
D) I think "IF"(very big if and I am aware this wouldnt be as simple as i think it should be) this was in place, it would aslo hold WDWF accountable to fixing problems because there would be #'s shoved in their face of how bad things are and there would be no if ands or buts.

Also pay for extra enfocement to patrol areas like richwine so no "old timmer" can take his one for the day and be back plunking in the line the next day or trying to kill his next fish on the hoh the next.
and last but not least hire someone to sit by the Savage nets and count how many fish Jonas is really killing.

my $.02, any good?


I like Opie's idea! The only downside is the Tyee Test fishery where they gauge run sizes with gill nets and have been inherently unpredictable at estimating runs. The sonar system makes sense and I would love to hear more input on this.
Posted by: NW Steel

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:08 PM

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/4115/8913.pdf?sequence=1
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/steelhd.php
The first website goes over steelhead migration the second is an acknowldgement by alaska that it accidently catches steelhead in the open seas. You can put 2+2 together.
You can't not prove that open seas by-catch in alaska or other parts of the world is not at all from oregon, all of these fish all follow the same migratory patterns, and like it or not other countries and states end up intentionally or accidently harvesting our fish. Fish runs are very close together its ignorant to think that steelhead are no where near the salmon fishing grounds or for that matter anywhere near the terminal fisheries up north, they also run very close to beaches and in fairly shallow waters. You will never find exact numbers as to how many end up in the nets inside or outside of oregon but to not think that a large percentage of these fish end up as by-catch is crazy its just reported as by-catch, just too many nets in the water to not intercept our fish salmon and steelhead. Im not blaming alaska or any of asia for our fish declines i think that they are part of the problem just as we are in the lower 48. I had the privialge of taking a tribal council member from one of our states tribes on a fishing trip and got the skinny on who and how much people were paying for our steelhead. As for who was buying that river systems fish it was all from asian markets. As for the money It wasnt top dollar get rich quick money but it was still good money, much better than it used to be.

Now i will touch on wilds question, just my opinion if they actually knew what was going on they would have to do something about it, and its not the cost of putting stuff like that in its the cost of what happens after they put that in.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: cobble cruiser
Originally Posted By: OPfisher
just gonna put this out here cause I wana hear some other people's opinions:
You look at AK and canada. One of the most notible differences in those two managment styles vs ours is they have semi/hard #'s of fish returns (especially AK). BC has the Tyee test fishery, and while it may not be the most accurate system it at least gives them an idea. AK has alot more weirs and sonar counts to givethem in season estimates on the runs and will make in season regulation changes based on the #s.
Why cant we have some sort of weir of sonar on the Quilluite, Hoh, and whatever other rivers.
People may say lack of funds. why cant we charge an extra $5 or so on licenses to fund the weir or sonar sytem? Having the man power to run it isnt hard, just hire some grad students from fisheries schools to oporate them liek they do for the summer.
I think having these numbers would:
A) give us an ACCURATE # of fish in systems (I just cant believe red counts are all that spot on especially when the tribes are invovled)
B) Allow us to build a data base of better, more accurate run history
C) judging by historical run data be perform a better job of in season management.
D) I think "IF"(very big if and I am aware this wouldnt be as simple as i think it should be) this was in place, it would aslo hold WDWF accountable to fixing problems because there would be #'s shoved in their face of how bad things are and there would be no if ands or buts.

Also pay for extra enfocement to patrol areas like richwine so no "old timmer" can take his one for the day and be back plunking in the line the next day or trying to kill his next fish on the hoh the next.
and last but not least hire someone to sit by the Savage nets and count how many fish Jonas is really killing.

my $.02, any good?


I like Opie's idea! The only downside is the Tyee Test fishery where they gauge run sizes with gill nets and have been inherently unpredictable at estimating runs. The sonar system makes sense and I would love to hear more input on this.


Ya, I was just kinda using it as a way they keep track of #s not for the fact that there are two of the finest fish ever now sitting in the air port thanks to it smile
Posted by: OPtoKenai

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:28 PM

I cannot say that I trust any info from the Kenai sonar. We have the "Fox in the Hen house".

If there were working sonar stations on the Coast they could really optimize their net schedule!!
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:32 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Steel

You can't not prove that open seas by-catch in alaska or other parts of the world is not at all from oregon, all of these fish all follow the same migratory patterns, and like it or not other countries and states end up intentionally or accidently harvesting our fish. Fish runs are very close together its ignorant to think that steelhead are no where near the salmon fishing grounds or for that matter anywhere near the terminal fisheries up north, they also run very close to beaches and in fairly shallow waters. You will never find exact numbers as to how many end up in the nets inside or outside of oregon but to not think that a large percentage of these fish end up as by-catch is crazy its just reported as by-catch, just too many nets in the water to not intercept our fish salmon and steelhead. Im not blaming alaska or any of asia for our fish declines i think that they are part of the problem just as we are in the lower 48.


I, nor anyone I ever met in fisheries could tell you the exact routes, there's too many unknowns. But I will say you're spot on with some ammount of by-catch in AK commercial fishing nets. One of my best fishing buddies worked on a boat in the 90s and the only steelhead he has ever gotten to hold in his life was about a 30lb two tone salt fish they pursained (sp?) up and he tried to get it back in the water.
I have a highschool firend who spends his summers netting out of SE and he's told me of quite a few steelehad finding their way into the nets frown
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: OPtoKenai
I cannot say that I trust any info from the Kenai sonar. We have the "Fox in the Hen house".

If there were working sonar stations on the Coast they could really optimize their net schedule!!


I trust the Kenai one, spent enough time on that river to say that when the sonar said there werent enough kings in the river, it seemed to be true. same goes for sockeye numbers there too. Dont you think part of it could be the state being smart enough to be careful with such a HUGE money maker for them? the fishery on the peninsula is worth $$$$$ and if they miss manage it they loose out big time!
There are numerous sonar stations and weir that work very well are and key management tools all accross AK.
To fix the savage problem the deffinition of harvistable fish would need to be drawn out or in a perfect world be changed to non.
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 10:51 PM

What or who do we give credit to when our steelhead populations on the OP show numbers above escapement goals? We all know the factors that lead to the demise of the runs.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:00 PM

Just because steelhead are not being harvested does not mean that harvest is not what is clobbering steelhead. If you want a lot of wild steelhead in the rivers, then lay off the coho.

Those who say harvest is not the problem look at harvest on a species by species, stock by stock basis. Overharvest is when too many fish are removed from the ecosystem.

It may be that on some sywstems it is overharvesty of herring, or some other baitfish, that is holding some other stocfk down. It is a system out there, not a collection of independent operators.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:12 PM

we'll figure that out when they make or exceed escapement smile
Posted by: FLEX

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:34 PM

Early to Mid 70's the tribes had a QUOTA!!! once they reached it ,they were done!!!!!! Usually by the first week in Jan... they cried for a few years saying that too many fish were getting by, and then the DAYS OF THE WEEK thing started...In the 80"s 2-3 days was the norm.... the fish were being sold on the East Coast, there was somewhat of a record being kept by the tribes... they followed their day shedule fairly close. The 90'S, Well lets just say the beginning of the end...5 days a week sometimes 7... 2-3 refer vans a week leaving the rez, bound for who knows where... OVER Harvest is an understatement!!!! 2000- 2009 More of the same!!! 5-7 days a week..The introduction and mastering of Drift Netting( 100 times more affective) Ceremonial fishing whenever they want..10s of thousands of pounds a week leave the OP in fish totes... these fish are not counted !!! They are caught and sold right on the gravel bar to your local markets..All over the State of Wa and Oregon, Albertsons , Fred Meyer, Pike Place market and over 25 restaurants in the Seattle area... All in All, whatever we do, CONSERVATION!!! It all starts at the mouth of the river, Period!!!! End of story.... IT will never get any better until the Tribes cut back !!!!!!!!..
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:37 PM

We all agree that our wild steelhead population are down.
We all agree that the reasons are harvest, habitat, human activty, and the Ocean.


When you figure out where those steelhead go in the ocean, you will have a ton of answers to these debates.
Posted by: SBD

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:45 PM

Open ocean is different than inside gillneting and seining, which are targeting local stocks. Yes high sea's gillnetting by Asian countries south of the Aleutian Islands were intercepting steelhead from the Westcoast but except for a few pirates from China most have been shut down by treaties.
Posted by: SBD

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:53 PM

php.ptagis.org/wiki/index.php/Titi_Recovery


I'll see if link works, nice chart of steelhead migration routes
Posted by: Wild Chrome

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/09/09 11:55 PM

Thanks for that UW link, NW Steel. Intersting study, if a little dated and low-tech by today's standards.

I'm not sure what to make of ocean steelhead harvest, in part because I was taught that steelhead school only very loosely in the ocean and therefore are difficult for commercials to target. True? False? Unknown?
Posted by: NW Steel

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:00 AM

Flex,
like it or not with the exception of the random guy that buys it on the beach any fish that is sold by the tribe if not reported by the tribe is reported by the buyers if the buyers would like to continue to buy fish. it is up to the tribes to regulate themselves because we have no say anymore if ever we did. i would say cut the buyers off but that doesnt work ive seen that before there is nothing sadder than thousands of pounds of fish sitting in crates rotting because either nobody will by them or the price is $0.10 or less a pound. That still wont stop them from fishing them.
The other problem that has gone on over in the op is poaching both by the tribe and the white man. i know one tribe that has a new guy who has gone after the tribal side of the poaching, not a well liked man down there but a good man. I wouldnt want to be in his shoes. But we are just as bad, some of the C&R that i have seen (dropping a fish on the rocks 10ft from the water and then kicking it back to the river is not good practice), and just hearing people tell me flat out that they kept more than there one (when they shouldnt be keeping any) is out of control as well. Be mad at the people who set the rules or those that dont stand up for what is right, the tribes have the right to fish, (i know there is some political stuff that went on behind the scenes on this but,) if we continue to keep fish out of the op rivers are we not just as much to blame. For instance just using random numbers dont know exact but im just using this to prove a point. On the Quiluite system lets say there are 3,000 fishermen during the wild winter run and 30% didnt practice C&R and everybody only kept there one fish thats still 900 fish killed by sportsman. 900 fish is too many fish for whiteman or tribe, both parties need to knock this sh$t off let them go for a while and see where it ends up.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:21 AM

look how well C&R worked on the kispiox......................
Posted by: stlhdr42

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:49 AM

How about a river like the Lyre. The bulk of the river flows through the park so the habitat has been fairly stable. I could be wrong but I don't know of any tribal netting there. Yet the steelhead have all but dissapeared there. Can the lyre river decline be put mainly on the shoulders of sporties overharvesting? There could be other factors I'am unaware of but the Lyre really stands out in my mind as a river that has declined due to nothing more than harvesting with no tribes involved.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:56 AM

Excellant thread and at this juncture of critical mass
EVERYBODY ON THIS THREAD IS RIGHT
This thread has gone from fish so thick on the Columbia, Lewis and Clark could walk on their backs and not get wet to present day rivers and creeks in WA and OR to extinction. Well, their is our chess game board of opening move to middle and end game.
The pieces used on this game brought up by people on this thread were: WDFW, tribes, dams, hatcheries, too many guides, over harvest,CnR,Ocean cycles,nets, habitat, hatchery fish mixed in, habitat, predation, better sport fishermen, addiction to harvest, oil, extraction of every resource, sonar of fish runs,logging, climate, cranked up Alaska harvest, By catch from Japan,Alaska, and BC,and over harvest of herring and other forage fish.
At this juncture of the game one or combination of any or all of above pieces used can go straight to the end game so everybody is right.
I know that isn't any fun because now we are all on the same side with no distractions and the powers to be wouldn't like that because together we would probably work out a solution in short order and really screw up everything--- for the good of course.
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:50 AM

Originally Posted By: stlhdr42
How about a river like the Lyre. The bulk of the river flows through the park so the habitat has been fairly stable. I could be wrong but I don't know of any tribal netting there. Yet the steelhead have all but dissapeared there. Can the lyre river decline be put mainly on the shoulders of sporties overharvesting? There could be other factors I'am unaware of but the Lyre really stands out in my mind as a river that has declined due to nothing more than harvesting with no tribes involved.


Uh oh.... Someone else is actually seeing what's going on... In all my years, I've wet a line in most tribs up and down the WA coast, inner Columbia tribs and Penninsula. I've seen some stellar fishing some years, other's it's sucked. Some of those rivers have had tribal harvest, some never a net in it's life... Some have had logging, some haven't in the last 30-40 years. But overall, ocean conditions have played the largest factor of all...........................

It's saddening to see everything deplete before our eyes. So many fingers pointing in so many directions. You have bio's who follow science in the best way they can telling us what direction to go. Then you have the arm-chair bio's calling for no hatchery fish, or habitat loss, predation, gillnets, overharvest, etc...

Too many groups pulling from too many directions. Too many humans and too few fish to support all the user groups. At some point it will be recognized but not before most fish nearly see extinction.... WDFW/ODFW have to supplement harvest or they don't exist and until there's another way to supplement WDFW/ODFW harvest/CnR will always be an issue....

When I "do" land a 30 pound steelhead, I'll be done with Steelhead fishing for good. That's my only goal and I will do it in the lower 48. Until then, I'll be CnR'ing and harvest all I can......

Keith thumbs

Keith
Posted by: cobble cruiser

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 02:36 AM

Originally Posted By: stlhdr42
How about a river like the Lyre. The bulk of the river flows through the park so the habitat has been fairly stable. I could be wrong but I don't know of any tribal netting there. Yet the steelhead have all but dissapeared there. Can the lyre river decline be put mainly on the shoulders of sporties overharvesting? There could be other factors I'am unaware of but the Lyre really stands out in my mind as a river that has declined due to nothing more than harvesting with no tribes involved.


Are we speaking of wild or hatchery in this instance. If wild fish are suffering in this tiny little rivulet I'd guess a major culprit to be overplanting of hatchery fish. Just how is a wild juvenile steelhead supposed to survive to smolt stage when he has competition for food 1000 fold!

Hatchery steelhead? Maybe ocean conditions or maybe they found bypassing the straights to stray up a much more comfortable river like say the Bogie where 3 fish limits are the norm would suit them nicely. All kidding aside however it does bring up the question of smolting timing. Sometimes or correction...many times, wherever the fish was raised from egg to smolt can have an effect on where the fish decides to swim. Case in point mucho adult hatchery steelhead supposedly bound for reiter will show up on the snoqualmie or Wallace rivers instead. Haven't looked into where Lyre river steelhead are raised but it could be interesting to find out. Or not.....just an uneducated theory anyway. smile
Posted by: cobble cruiser

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 02:48 AM


When I "do" land a 30 pound steelhead, I'll be done with Steelhead fishing for good. That's my only goal and I will do it in the lower 48. Until then, I'll be CnR'ing and harvest all I can......

Keith thumbs

Keith [/quote]

Do you really think you'll put the steelhead rod down? From reading your posts over the years, your just as passionate and crazy as any of us diehards. Not to be disrespectfull Keith but I don't foresee that happening! It's in our blood and represents our northwestern heritage dude!......alright I'm done. Scuse me. grin
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Excellant thread and at this juncture of critical mass
EVERYBODY ON THIS THREAD IS RIGHT
This thread has gone from fish so thick on the Columbia, Lewis and Clark could walk on their backs and not get wet to present day rivers and creeks in WA and OR to extinction. Well, their is our chess game board of opening move to middle and end game.
The pieces used on this game brought up by people on this thread were: WDFW, tribes, dams, hatcheries, too many guides, over harvest,CnR,Ocean cycles,nets, habitat, hatchery fish mixed in, habitat, predation, better sport fishermen, addiction to harvest, oil, extraction of every resource, sonar of fish runs,logging, climate, cranked up Alaska harvest, By catch from Japan,Alaska, and BC,and over harvest of herring and other forage fish.
At this juncture of the game one or combination of any or all of above pieces used can go straight to the end game so everybody is right.
I know that isn't any fun because now we are all on the same side with no distractions and the powers to be wouldn't like that because together we would probably work out a solution in short order and really screw up everything--- for the good of course.

I still maintain that we are all on the same side. If so, who should we be concentrating are alliance against? For instance, instead of pointing fingers at each other, who should we pointing the finger at? Hint:Who are the "powers to be" elluded to in the last paragraph of quote.
Posted by: FishBear

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: stlhdr42
How about a river like the Lyre. The bulk of the river flows through the park so the habitat has been fairly stable. I could be wrong but I don't know of any tribal netting there. Yet the steelhead have all but dissapeared there. Can the lyre river decline be put mainly on the shoulders of sporties overharvesting? There could be other factors I'am unaware of but the Lyre really stands out in my mind as a river that has declined due to nothing more than harvesting with no tribes involved.


I feel some relavent facts are in order in the case of the Lyre.

The Lyre is the drainage for Lake Crescent. At one time the lake was open to anadromous fish use. Historically, a blockage occurred (no "hand of man" involved) near the outlet of the lake. SInce that time anadromous species have had use of the few miles below the lake only. There is some habitat for natural production but it is not a lot.

The Lyre River steelhead fishery has been supported by hatchery plants from nearby facilities for many years. These are off-station plants of smolts... arguably the worst kind of plants due to the "extra" straying potential... on-station hatchery releases already having a pretty good stray rate.

Having said all that, we won't have hatchery fish plants to kick around in the Lyre anymore... these were a victim of WDFW budget cuts last spring. Now, we may get a chance to see what the natural production in a non-fished Olympic Peninsula stream will be.
Posted by: custombuilt

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 11:04 AM

Well Bob, I would say nets are a major issue, but I would also say is that YOU and your GUIDE buddies are another major issue. There are a enough of you guys out there now too really make yor voice be heard, but as soon as the state tells you "no" you run back home and cry in your beer. How about this, all you guides quit pounding the [censored] out of our wild fish eight days a week. You cant tell me all you guides catching the same fish over and over again is good for mortality. Get your asses down to Olympia, and don't leave till you get what you want, or just quit your BITCHIN. You guys had your chance 20 years ago to end all this crap, but anybody who has been around hear long enough and done enough reasearch knows that all you guides back at that time were to worried about loosing your "kick back money" from the tribes, so you chose to keep your mouth shut. One more thing and I'm done. You have a real problem with people keeping wild fish. Can you honestly tell me that you have'nt? I would be willing to bet you have, and more than just a few. Quit Bitchin at these guys. It is there right to keep one WILD fish a year, It's what You and your guild buddies settled on with the state.
Posted by: FLEX

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 11:24 AM

I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY... LET THEM ALL GO!!!!!!!!!!!.. People would rather come to catch and release 10 fish a day as apposed to 1 to eat.... Lots more $ in sportsfishing than there ever thought about being in commercial fishing...Living here on the OP I see things that you may not and may never... there are Still guys that are killing these fish... they do need to figure it out!!! You have to remember 1 Indian fisherman can catch and kill in 1 day more than 50 of the best guides in the area.... Water conditions do not matter to a drift net!!!!.. and have 30 guys doing that everyday..... that is the spotscatch and native catch difference!!!.. Numbers are fudged badly to make it all look good on paper.. Proven Fact!!! the 4700 ecscapement... You should prob cut that in half.... the tribe made those numbers as THEY are the ones doing all of the spawner surveys... THey cant tell the difference between a RED or an Elk track!!! You talk about the Random guy buying it off the beach.. well try again!!! A red Ford Pickup with 2 totes in the back sitting at Richwine bar every day!!!! those fish are not taken to the fish house.... He trucks them himself avoiding the middle man... 4 or 5 tribal guys catch them and load them there,hundreds of fish a week... everybody sees it and knows about it!!!! the plunkers that are fishing all day for 1 bite!!! get smoked by a 20 driftnets coming by them all day long....it is like that for 3 miles of river.... As far as the whiteman being to blame, yeah !!!! the percentage is really minimal....remember 50-50%...well 90-10% is more like it... again, water conditions are the big thing here... So many unfishable days for the whiteman.... NONE for the tribes!!!!. the tribes have a right to fish( it is their heritage). BS!!. Not pillage the resource and blame it on the state for the lack of fish!!! It used to be a food source!! that has been gone for over 30 years now!!! its all about the $$$$$.. the only people in this state that have any money are the tribes if you havent noticed!!!!.. SO QUIT PROTECTING THEM!!!!
Posted by: kevin lund

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 11:33 AM

These numbers are not just disturbing for the Quillayute system. They are transparent accross the PNW in streams with and without hatchery influence and tribal netting.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:03 PM

One thing with the lyre and any other closer to puget sound is if they migrate up the inside of vancouver island they could be falling to the same problem the friasier fish are, death by sealice from the fish that are raised in net pens out there.

Custom- mind ellaborating on the kick abck money? I guide out there and was wondering where to pick up mine smile
Also I have NEVER killed a wild fish, No client ever has or will, nor will I ever book a trip or fishing anyone that wants to.
The way I understand the 1 wild retention out there was because at a meeting when someone pushed for all wild release, a tribe member stood up and said if they arent going to kill their's we'll take them. That would boil back to one of the original problems; the deffinition of harvistable fish.
Posted by: sykofish

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:08 PM

Originally Posted By: custombuilt
Well Bob, I would say nets are a major issue, but I would also say is that YOU and your GUIDE buddies are another major issue. There are a enough of you guys out there now too really make yor voice be heard, but as soon as the state tells you "no" you run back home and cry in your beer. How about this, all you guides quit pounding the [censored] out of our wild fish eight days a week. You cant tell me all you guides catching the same fish over and over again is good for mortality. Get your asses down to Olympia, and don't leave till you get what you want, or just quit your BITCHIN. You guys had your chance 20 years ago to end all this crap, but anybody who has been around hear long enough and done enough reasearch knows that all you guides back at that time were to worried about loosing your "kick back money" from the tribes, so you chose to keep your mouth shut. One more thing and I'm done. You have a real problem with people keeping wild fish. Can you honestly tell me that you have'nt? I would be willing to bet you have, and more than just a few. Quit Bitchin at these guys. It is there right to keep one WILD fish a year, It's what You and your guild buddies settled on with the state.


Had to make sure this didnt get deleted.

Hell of a first post.

Incredibly ignorant, but one hell of a first post.
Posted by: WN1A

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Wild Chrome
Thanks for that UW link, NW Steel. Intersting study, if a little dated and low-tech by today's standards.

I'm not sure what to make of ocean steelhead harvest, in part because I was taught that steelhead school only very loosely in the ocean and therefore are difficult for commercials to target. True? False? Unknown?



For anybody that is interested The NPAFC link below has documents outlining all current known information about ocean distribution of salmon. A lot more is known than land based managers would admit or like to know. For specific steelhead information look at 1996 document #192. It is more than 200 pages but figures 121 -132, 150-155, and A-52 to A-60 are steelhead distributions. An interesting PIT tag recovery is reported in 2008 document #1106. For a paper looking at the potential effects of climate change on ocean migration and distribution of salmon look at Bulletins, #4 Topic 2-2A. There are several interesting papers in that bulletin related to ocean salmon ecology. I know all of the authors of these various papers (and the first one linked above), talked to several of them at the UW SAFS holiday party yesterday, and talk about this subject almost every morning over coffee at breakfast. Take a look at the second link, the UW highseas research program has been going on for more than 50 years. It is a science program without political agendas and a good starting point for information on salmon ocean ecology. If you want to understand salmon and steelhead you cannot ignore the majority of their life history.

NPAFC

Highseas

There is no ocean harvest of steelhead though a few are intercepted in coastal fisheries. Alaska fisheries may intercept local steelhead (often kelts), in the Yakutat area fisheries are periodically closed when kelts are expected to leave the Situk. North American steelhead are caught in small numbers in the Russian EEZ coastal fisheries.

One more comment pertinent to this discussion, wild steelhead release and CNR are different management tools. CNR is harvest and is treated as such. Wild steelhead release is a program to reduce bycatch impacts. To assume the two are anything else is a common mistake. CNR will not stop the loss of a declining stock, it will only slow the rate of decline.
Posted by: Bob

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 12:50 PM

Originally Posted By: custombuilt
Well Bob, I would say nets are a major issue, but I would also say is that YOU and your GUIDE buddies are another major issue. There are a enough of you guys out there now too really make yor voice be heard, but as soon as the state tells you "no" you run back home and cry in your beer. How about this, all you guides quit pounding the [censored] out of our wild fish eight days a week. You cant tell me all you guides catching the same fish over and over again is good for mortality. Get your asses down to Olympia, and don't leave till you get what you want, or just quit your BITCHIN. You guys had your chance 20 years ago to end all this crap, but anybody who has been around hear long enough and done enough reasearch knows that all you guides back at that time were to worried about loosing your "kick back money" from the tribes, so you chose to keep your mouth shut. One more thing and I'm done. You have a real problem with people keeping wild fish. Can you honestly tell me that you have'nt? I would be willing to bet you have, and more than just a few. Quit Bitchin at these guys. It is there right to keep one WILD fish a year, It's what You and your guild buddies settled on with the state.



Hmm, someone who thinks he "knows" me, but obviously doesn't.

Custombuilt, I'll agree with you one one point: the guides are a problem. Dozens of guides that take, take, take and don't ever put back in one form or another. There are far too many during the peak of it and that isn't good for the fish.

But, you're way off base in some of your your other remarks. I'll bitch, but I've also put 1000's of hours in to get things changed ... whether you like the final results or not.

Haven't had a drink in 20 years as of Nov., so it's kinda hard to cry in my beer by the way smile

I sure wish I got some "Kickback" money. Maybe if I did, I wouldn't have to put the hours in that I do do make a decent wage. You're flat full of crap.

The Guides' Assoc. did back the wild fish release (by a slim margin) that went through 7-8 years agao that was repealed and changed to one fish annually. It's not what we "settled" on. It's what the brilliant city leaders pushed for.

Lots of the guide crowd still kill way too many of these these intentionally ... it all comes down to the mighty buck.

You're smokin' some wacky tobacky if you think I'm lumped into that group - I've harvested one wild fish in my lifetime, that was in the early 90's and it it still resides on my wall.

Over all the trips I've made down these rivers, my boat has come in with a wild fish on two occasions: both fish that bled out during the battle. In neither case was the fish "intentionally" killed.

I have always had a zero kill policy, and years agao, it cost me some trips. I didn't budge even though it cost me trips when I still only had a few ... unfortunately, most don't have the kahunas and willingness to make a stand.

You can disagree with my reasoning and beliefs all you like ... but U can't call me a liar or a cheat smile
Posted by: cobble cruiser

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:09 PM

Originally Posted By: FLEX
I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY... LET THEM ALL GO!!!!!!!!!!!.. People would rather come to catch and release 10 fish a day as apposed to 1 to eat.... Lots more $ in sportsfishing than there ever thought about being in commercial fishing...Living here on the OP I see things that you may not and may never... there are Still guys that are killing these fish... they do need to figure it out!!! You have to remember 1 Indian fisherman can catch and kill in 1 day more than 50 of the best guides in the area.... Water conditions do not matter to a drift net!!!!.. and have 30 guys doing that everyday..... that is the spotscatch and native catch difference!!!.. Numbers are fudged badly to make it all look good on paper.. Proven Fact!!! the 4700 ecscapement... You should prob cut that in half.... the tribe made those numbers as THEY are the ones doing all of the spawner surveys... THey cant tell the difference between a RED or an Elk track!!! You talk about the Random guy buying it off the beach.. well try again!!! A red Ford Pickup with 2 totes in the back sitting at Richwine bar every day!!!! those fish are not taken to the fish house.... He trucks them himself avoiding the middle man... 4 or 5 tribal guys catch them and load them there,hundreds of fish a week... everybody sees it and knows about it!!!! the plunkers that are fishing all day for 1 bite!!! get smoked by a 20 driftnets coming by them all day long....it is like that for 3 miles of river.... As far as the whiteman being to blame, yeah !!!! the percentage is really minimal....remember 50-50%...well 90-10% is more like it... again, water conditions are the big thing here... So many unfishable days for the whiteman.... NONE for the tribes!!!!. the tribes have a right to fish( it is their heritage). BS!!. Not pillage the resource and blame it on the state for the lack of fish!!! It used to be a food source!! that has been gone for over 30 years now!!! its all about the $$$$$.. the only people in this state that have any money are the tribes if you havent noticed!!!!.. SO QUIT PROTECTING THEM!!!!


Couldn't have said it better!
Posted by: browndog

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:20 PM

Although I have never fished with Bob or even crossed path's with him on the rivers I have followed this site for many,many years'(just recently joined the fray)

I would like to THANK HIM for what he does. I have crossed path's with many guides who were less than respectfull.And probably do nothing to enhance or protect our fisheries.

There are good and bad apples in my opinion Bob is a good one.

P.S. My sister "Big fish Tami" doe's fish with bob in AK and say's A++++++++++++++

Happy Holiday's
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:21 PM

Kevin,

Hate to burst your bubble about the Raft, but according to a QIN bio, it's been stocked with hatchery fish and is gillnetted by the Tribe. And its watershed has been logged just like all the others. Nothing pure about it.

NW Steel,

Ocean distribution of steelhead is better understood than your post assumes. Steelhead are caught on the high seas, but they are not targeted because they are not a schooling fish. Steelhead do not have the same ocean migration path as salmon, and different steelhead stocks have differing migrations. At that point our understanding of steelhead ocean migrations becomes sparse. The best estimate of high seas steelhead catch that I've seen produced a "high" estimate of 3% of North American steelhead, and that was when the high seas drift nets - which have mostly disappeared now - were considered a serious problem.

Sg
Posted by: Driftfishnw

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:27 PM

Originally Posted By: browndog
There are good and bad apples


I have had the priviledge of witnessing some of the bad apple guides on the Hoh, using erasable pens on thier clients catch tags. All for repeat business, I guess.

I'm not going to name names, but I'll tell you it def wasn't Bob.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:33 PM

I will preface this post with a statement that I am as dedicated a fisherman as you will meet. I have other priorities in my life these days that often limit with my opportunities to get out, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be out there every day if I could. Fishing is an important part of who I am, and it is one of a few things that make a life of mostly work and little play worth living. There. Now, on to the soapbox....

It seems clear to me that harvest is far from the only factor in the steady decline of wild steelhead populations. We are all sport fishers, and I think the majority of us believe that sport fishing has probably played only a small part in the presumed myriad of issues that have led to the critical state of wild steelhead stocks TO THIS POINT. Now, however, with numbers of returning adults as low as they are, whatever impact the sport fishing community does represent is amplified significantly, so it seems to me that we have gone from having an almost negligible impact to posing a significant (if still not the greatest) threat to the survival of the species. As long as we can be regarded as part of the problem, we cannot expect other interested parties to respond to our claims that they need to change their ways.

I think it would strengthen our position a great deal if we could clearly and honestly demonstrate that we are not actively contributing to the decline. The only indisputable way to do that, in reality, would be for us all to hang up our rods and reels for a few seasons, sit back, watch the numbers continue to decline, and say "We told you so." As Cobble Cruiser wisely noted, most of us aren't willing, if we're being honest, to do that, so something less extreme, but almost as effective, would probably be a more realistic proposal.

At minimum, I think we need to stop sport harvest on the OP rivers. At some point (and I believe we have arrived), this just becomes common sense in my mind. When populations are healthy (in the tens of thousands, at least), harvesting a few fish for food and trophies should pose no real threat to the species. On the other hand, with fewer than 5,000 fish returning to the most productive system, it seems nothing less than foolish to argue that killing even so much as one wild steelhead won't have a real impact. Realistically, we should probably close those rivers at the end of December and keep them closed until at least mid-April, but that prospect is likely too much for most of us to bear, so I favor designating those rivers as strictly catch and release on all species other than fall salmon.

I know this seems like pointing the finger at the wrong factor, but I honestly think that eliminating sport harvest is the only thing we can do in the short term that will produce undeniable, measurable results. I imagine those results would be less than dramatic (again, I don't think sport fishing has been a significant factor), but that could be a good thing. Demonstrating, through the only practical means available, that sport fishing does not make a significant contribution to the overall decline should make it clear that other factors are the greater problems and lend a lot of much-needed validation to our claims to that effect.

Truthfully, I think the only way to absolutely measure our impact would be to close sport fishing altogether for a few seasons and show that the trend has not changed as a result. Catch and release, of which I am a practicing advocate, does have its flaws (some of which have been addressed in this thread). Recognizing that, I would propose trying that out first, as a measure of avoiding complete closure, but if that doesn't prove anything in the eyes of the other groups with a stake in fisheries, I, for one, would be willing to hang it up for a few years. Sadly, I think this may be the only way to truly vindicate ourselves as an equal contributor to the trend.

The main thrust of my argument is that all this finger pointing among the interested parties produces what are probably a lot of valid points, but until SOME action is taken, things will only continue to get worse. Most of the alleged issues are highly complex, and testing them would require complicated implementations of actions that would directly or indirectly affect large numbers of people (and/or large industries with powerful lobbies) adversely. As long as other parties still have sport fishing impacts to cite as a factor, none of those actions will ever make it past the fish and wildlife governing bodies, let alone the state and federal legislatures. I would hate to see it happen, but closing sport fishing for threatened species would serve two key functions to bolster our position:

1. It would (assuming we are right, of course) produce data that strongly suggest sport fishing plays a minor, if not negligible role in the downward trend.
2. It would let the legislature see, firsthand, how much revenue would be lost without viable sport fishing opportunities.

While number 1 would make it much more difficult for the other parties to convince lawmakers that their practices are still viable, number 2 is probably the one that would motivate the State to make changes. As we all should realize, money is what drives every major decision made in our society. Commercial interests have a lot of money, and as long as we continue buying fishing licenses despite their repeated failure to improve (or even stabilize) the quality of fishing, lawmakers will not have any compelling reason not to let that money do the talking. Only when people stop paying into the same, non-functioning system will the significance of sport fishing revenue become fully apparent. Until those holding the trump cards realize why they need to focus on improving things for sport fishers (and fish, of course), we will continue to be no more than a reliable source of ongoing revenue, and our pleas will continue to fall on deaf ears.

I know, I know, if we stop fishing, we are basically surrendering. I would argue, however, and at least half seriously, that we may need to lose the short term battle to eventually win the war.

Sorry for posting yet another novel to make my point. Perhaps someday I will learn to be concise, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Bob

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:40 PM

Basically Kev, what this boils down to was we missed our bottom number by 1200 fish. IF the sporties had let a greater share of those go AND if the tribe had even cut back a day or two a week ... we would have met it.

It didn't take millions of dollars to replace a culvert or study the sunlight intrusion on the summer waters ... let 'em get on the gravel and let Ma Nature do the rest.

I have one more question for you since you seemed to quickly point the finger for last year to marine survival ... why was survival so string on the Snider brood fish???

Before you try to say that they competed with the wild fish, remember that the Dickey, Bogachiel, and Calawah do not good brood plants, so they did not create any competition with their wild brethren.

Timing is also more stringent on these fish as when "they want to go" rather than a state-mandated date so their time in the river is likely more limited to create any issues there. In addition, the available forage in that time frame is way beyond plenty.

Funny that this latest downturn and utter failure last year follows the increase in net effort at the mouth in the brood years for these returns???

All the more reason for us to do our part ...
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Bob
let 'em get on the gravel and let Ma Nature do the rest.



Best line of this whole thread
Posted by: Bob

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Kevin,

Hate to burst your bubble about the Raft, but according to a QIN bio, it's been stocked with hatchery fish and is gillnetted by the Tribe. And its watershed has been logged just like all the others. Nothing pure about it.


Sg


Glad u confirmed that fact SG ... I also thought that was the case ... there isn't much that the Q's don't net ... even the little Moclips and Copalis get netted too.
Posted by: FASTWATER

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 02:10 PM

Tough for them to stay on their beds when they are getting yanked off them daily in the CnR area's which personnelly I think should be closed not one of the Quil. waters actually has closed waters and with the attack raft mode now in force it is pathetic the harrasment these fish receive we are our worst enemy's and should definitely not be pointing fingers, great topic Bob!!!PEACE
Posted by: shinything

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 02:14 PM

I never thought I would see so many,and this passionate,arguments about what is killing our fish.
Posted by: OPtoKenai

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 02:21 PM

I know the equipment and people opperating it are reliable. My fear is that the numbers that we get (kings) are manipulated to encourage the spending of money on the peninsula. They say there are more coming than there really are. I too have a few days on the Kenai and have been watching the sonar counts my whole life. I do think the Sockeye numbers are more accurate.


Raft river,

I have seen the Raft slithering thick with Steelies when I was in high school, not sure weather they were hatchery or not. Alot of fish a few times that I fished it, I'm sure they don't get returns like that any more.
Posted by: N W Panhandler

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 02:22 PM

It would seem that if we got our house in order, we could ask others to put theirs in order also. Limit our impact to the natives by C & R and less time on the river while stocks rebuild. Consider closing the river to all during the time the native's return. Then maybe we could get the native fishermen to use alternate methods of fishing, meaning no more gill nets and a way to pass on native fish without harm. When and if the stock ever rebuilds reopen to all with a reasonable take with the best interest of the species in mind by all. Just to simple is'nt it.
Posted by: OPfisher

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 03:14 PM

Originally Posted By: OPtoKenai
I know the equipment and people opperating it are reliable. My fear is that the numbers that we get (kings) are manipulated to encourage the spending of money on the peninsula. They say there are more coming than there really are. I too have a few days on the Kenai and have been watching the sonar counts my whole life. I do think the Sockeye numbers are more accurate.


Ya, honesty would make or break that system. Kind like the honesty of the red counts we have today from the tribes have affected our current #s smile
I just think that used in the way it's intended to it would be a very useful and effective tool to help manage runs with some accuracy while still allowing maximum use of the resource.
Thanks for the feedback!!!
Posted by: reelemin

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Bob
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Kevin,

Hate to burst your bubble about the Raft, but according to a QIN bio, it's been stocked with hatchery fish and is gillnetted by the Tribe. And its watershed has been logged just like all the others. Nothing pure about it.


Sg


Glad u confirmed that fact SG ... I also thought that was the case ... there isn't much that the Q's don't net ... even the little Moclips and Copalis get netted too.


The Bio is right but there is more to the Raft. It has an old hatchery on it that is no longer in use. It was netted for Broodstock only as thats were the QIN got its Silver stock. But is not netted anymore even for that and never has been for commercial sales of seafood.

There are no hatchery steelies but a fair number of Nates. Most of the guides practice C and R on this stream only. Some still kill...
The silver run lasts into January on this stream and is very good. Last year we saw Silvers in there in feb looking for Steelies. I have walked all of the river and although it has been logged before, many, many years ago, it has not in along time. Its kind of a cerimonial river for the QIN. At least it dosent recieve the intence, close to the banks logging most others do.
Posted by: Bob Triggs

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 03:26 PM

Bob, This was a great posting.

No doubt all: "Due to Ocean Conditions and other unknown and / or uncontrollable factors"... *

*(why dont you have a "douchebag" emoticon that I can insert here?)

I think that it is important to recognize that wild anadromous fish in the Pacific region have evolved throughout many millions of years over a geographically huge area- from California to Alaska and from Russia to Japan- not just in one river system at a time.

The management of wild steelhead and salmon here has focused on "one river run at a time". And they have collapsed each run in exactly that manner- "one by one". Then applying the same methods to other runs they have repeated the same results. These wild fish should have been enjoying far greater protections long ago than they already do now. And I do agree that far too little is being done for them now.

We sportsfishers are indeed a big part of the problem. Especially now that the overall numbers are so low. And some of the so many guides out here on the Olympic Peninsula are approaching wild steelhead fishing in a reckless and ruthless manner. Sickening. Yes, of course the netting is destructive, tragically so. And we have commercial net and longline fishing on the coasts and offshore too. So many natural and unnatural foes for these fish. All we want to do is go fishing, and most of us release wild steelhead anyway.

So we argue over who should be giving up how much, who is to blame etc. Certainly Catch & Release fishing done responsibly is not a major impact. But what if there are not enough fish left for even that low impact activity to be sustainable now? I have yet to find a biologist who can say what the critical low population number is, the "point of no return" number. Of course if they knew this for sure they would have closed all of the fishing by now, the runs would not have tanked, perhaps it shoold have been closed long ago. But instead they continue deal making with all of the "stakeholders". And the harvest continues. And the runs are collapsed or collapsing. WDFW Managers have defended continued harvest of Wild Steelhead on the Quillayute rivers as "sustainable", similarly they have supportd harvest on the Hoh Wild Steelhead runs as well. The last rivers we have with countable wild fish and they are killing them off faster than they can spawn.

The only solution I can see that would be immediatley impactful would be an all-out boycott on wild steelhead fishing of any kind, and heavy social protest and media perssure on the tribes, harvest guides and sports etc, the fish buyers and brokers and seafood resteraunts, chefs etc.

If the sportsfishermen themselves boycotted the WDFW sanctioned Sportsfishing Season on Wild Steelhead it would put them into a terribly embarrassing public position. How would they write that off?

Something radical has to happen!

As if losing the fish isn't radical enough for us?
Posted by: cobble cruiser

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 03:38 PM

The scary part is the thought of losing support from the sports sector in fighting the powers that be after these rivers have been closed to C&R for long enough. Another words a lot of interest lost over a period of time while the nets continue to kill without the pressure of the sports voice. This is very complicated and the longer the issue is debated the wild runs deplete that much more.
Posted by: N W Panhandler

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 04:47 PM

Join the fight for alternate commercial fishing methods that could RELEASE ALL NATIVES UNHARMED even in rivers.

www.CCAPNW.ORG
Posted by: SlipperyFoot

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 04:52 PM

If we are truly concerned about the health of the fish stocks here on the Peninsula then why don't we just stop fishing for them altogether? No catch and release, no hatcheries, no fishing at all. Shut them down for 10-20 years and eliminate our end of the problem while giving us some ammo to throw at the tribes. Might not work but nothing else is either so why not try it? I would stop fishing altogether if I thought we could get the tribes and commercials to do the same.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Excellant thread and at this juncture of critical mass
EVERYBODY ON THIS THREAD IS RIGHT
This thread has gone from fish so thick on the Columbia, Lewis and Clark could walk on their backs and not get wet to present day rivers and creeks in WA and OR to extinction. Well, their is our chess game board of opening move to middle and end game.
The pieces used on this game brought up by people on this thread were: WDFW, tribes, dams, hatcheries, too many guides, over harvest,CnR,Ocean cycles,nets, habitat, hatchery fish mixed in, habitat, predation, better sport fishermen, addiction to harvest, oil, extraction of every resource, sonar of fish runs,logging, climate, cranked up Alaska harvest, By catch from Japan,Alaska, and BC,and over harvest of herring and other forage fish.
At this juncture of the game one or combination of any or all of above pieces used can go straight to the end game so everybody is right.
I know that isn't any fun because now we are all on the same side with no distractions and the powers to be wouldn't like that because together we would probably work out a solution in short order and really screw up everything--- for the good of course.

I still maintain that we are all on the same side. If so, who should we be concentrating are alliance against? For instance, instead of pointing fingers at each other, who should we pointing the finger at? Hint:Who are the "powers to be" elluded to in the last paragraph of quote.

Times up. The answer is; our alliance should be squaring up against commercial fishing interest instead of pointing fingers at each other.What are they? A constortium of businesses that have started and developed seafood markets around the globe long ago. Our game we started above from so thick with fish to critical mass was cause by global demand over the years.When we hit the middle point just starting to slide down toward critical mass there was public concern. Commercial fishing Interest main tools of choice:
1) Commercial fleet to supply product
2) Money from selling and destroying seafood bio mass
3) Politicians
A. To introduce and support their legislation to try to continue to get more and more share to keep with demand while destroying seafood bio mass at the same time.
$$$ is the driver and in their greed they could care less about fish.
Decade after decade after decade of legislation has been introduced by their interests with little to some resistance.
If you don't like what you see when you go fishing, it's time to find a grass roots outfit that plays at their level, that strikes and adds legislation, has lobbists, and has the ability to play in the
commercial fishing interests arena that is their 'POLITICAL DOMAIN'. All help will be needed if we want the good ol' days back.
Posted by: Bob

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: N W Panhandler
Join the fight for alternate commercial fishing methods that could RELEASE ALL NATIVES UNHARMED even in rivers.

www.CCAPNW.ORG



When the CCA is willing to jump into this fracas ... I'll toss 'em some coin. Right now, they won't touch this stuff with a ten foot pole, so no $$$ from me.

There's lots of avenues to explore ... from accurate counts to going back to a strict number quota rather than a day quota that also has been skewed way out from previous years with the addition of a number of anglers and the extended use of driftnets.

None of these challenge the right to net, but increases accountability which lately seems to have gone out the window.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 05:47 PM

Agreed. If we are going to spend time and money establishing forecasts and conducting counts, we should maximize the benefits of those efforts. Furthermore, I think we need to start planning harvest limits so that they aim to steadily INCREASE escapement, as opposed to maintaining the status quo, which is clearly not working.
Posted by: oneeyebob

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 05:56 PM

I think the point missed is the population of the world, everyone wants a piece of the pie, someone said there were 1.5 millon in the state now 6.5 million and growing. I do remember the older days of rivers with no one or few on them and fish to be had by guys that probably compared to today were not that great of fisherman but as we as humans keep expanding and taking more and more of the resources with the better technology that all use to get their share,its just a matter of time until lots of our resources start fading away and then its remembering the good old days. What we need is a good old fashioned plague, may the strong survive
Posted by: N W Panhandler

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 06:44 PM

Bob, this is how the CCA jumps in with both feet, and we have a lobbiest working behind the scenes at this time. This bill will make alternate commercial fishing methods legal which they are not at this time. Its a start.


HB 2266 - 2009-10

Concerning commercial salmon fishing gear.

Sponsors: Representatives Simpson, Orcutt, Dunshee, Upthegrove, Priest, Wallace


Posted by: SBD

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 07:32 PM

Yup ...GreatGrandpa could catch a hundred fish a year but he had two boys, Grandpa and his brother could still get fifty, still not to bad, but they each had two boys. etc etc etc
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/10/09 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: cobble cruiser

When I "do" land a 30 pound steelhead, I'll be done with Steelhead fishing for good. That's my only goal and I will do it in the lower 48. Until then, I'll be CnR'ing and harvest all I can......

Keith thumbs

Keith


[qoute=cobbler cruiser]Do you really think you'll put the steelhead rod down? From reading your posts over the years, your just as passionate and crazy as any of us diehards. Not to be disrespectfull Keith but I don't foresee that happening! It's in our blood and represents our northwestern heritage dude!......alright I'm done. Scuse me. grin [/quote]

Honestly............... I'll sell out. It's my last goal with steelhead. I've caught my share, more than really. But I've never landed a 30. I'll sell out when I land a 69+ pound king in the lower 48 as well. thumbs

Well..... Call me negative but the writings on the wall. Excuse me for stepping up and saying it.... There's too many people and too few of fish anymore. Hatcheries will be on their way out in a matter of time and there won't be enough wild fish to supplement harvest. Go CCA....... rofl

I'm headed out tomorrow to go and CnR Kings that just a few years ago was an amazing catch and kill fishery, yet another down the drink........................ zip

Aunty......... The Sky is Falling........

Keith thumbs
Posted by: RtndSpawner

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/11/09 01:49 PM

I'm new to this board after following it for some time. This topic seems to have run it's course but before it goes away I have one question that seems to be missing in this discussion.

No one can dispute that our runs (both hatchery and wild) have been declining. Over that time there have been some minor adjustments to harvest policy but overall harvest (both sportfishing and commercial) has remained unchanged. The only expection seems to commercial netting (both tribal and non-tribal). What used to be a couple days a week now ends up being 5-7 days a week. The Boldt decision basically divided the harvest 50-50 between tribal and non-tribal, something we've had to live with like it or not.

Now for the question. Who is doing the counting to ensure that counts are equitable? I've had many streamside discussions with fellow fisherman and with some minor exceptions they agree that the netting schedule takes a far greater number of fish than the sportsman catch. In reality the current system begs for all sides to cheat, especially the tribal netters. The rational being that if you don't get your share someone else will. The additional problem with the tribal netting is they are on the honor system and WDFW can do little to stop them because they little control on how often they can net. Correct me if this is incorrect but tribal netting schedules are set up prior to the season with little regard made to the size of the particular run. Also netting in the lower areas of the river they have their shot at the fish before anyone else.

If we are going to do anything to change the current system all parties are going to have to give an honest account of how many fish are being caught. Otherwise at the present rate it's only the mater of another decade and there won't be any fish to fight over. We need an ongoing and healthy discussion on this or it will become a mute point down the road.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/11/09 06:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie

The pieces used on this game brought up by people on this thread were: WDFW, tribes, dams, hatcheries, too many guides, over harvest,CnR,Ocean cycles,nets, habitat, hatchery fish mixed in, habitat, predation, better sport fishermen, addiction to harvest, oil, extraction of every resource, sonar of fish runs,logging, climate, cranked up Alaska harvest, By catch from Japan,Alaska, and BC,and over harvest of herring and other forage fish.
At this juncture of the game one or combination of any or all of above pieces used can go straight to the end game so everybody is right.


The main driver that tipped the scale on the downward spiral of fish bio mass was from commercial fishing interest to supply ever increasing global demand of seafood to multi national outlets. The issues in the quote above then falls into place with variable degrees of value. All these important issues are now in play today due to commercial fishing interest dominance in the political arena with little resistance. Trying to get their hands on more product to get to market.
Commercial interests over the decades to 1995 referendum 45, even though a sportsman backed referendum that established the commission as a sounding board for sportsman and authority to make fish and widelife decisions, had a majority of appointments going to people with commercial interest in mind. To present day, has been stacked with commercial fishing interest agenda going on 1/2 century+ to mold the laws in their favor. Another words what the commission uses for decisions today has a commercial based foundation, do to no fault of their own,which is the reason we are in this sad state of affairs with fish in general. This foundation has proved to be cracked and the whole house of cards is on its way to come tumbling down.
Posted by: supcoop

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute system - 12/11/09 06:29 PM

They are on the honor system just as WDFW is. One thing lost in a lot of the 50/50 harvest debate is that it isn't necessarily 50/50 of every single run. Some runs are harvested more by non-tribal and others by tribal. Also, the split is 50/50 between tribal and non-tribal; meaning that commercial and sport have to split up their 50%.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: Some disturbing numbers for the Quillayute sys - 12/12/09 11:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie


The main driver that tipped the scale on the downward spiral of fish bio mass was from commercial fishing interest to supply ever increasing global demand of seafood to multi national outlets. The issues in the quote above then falls into place with variable degrees of value. All these important issues are now in play today due to commercial fishing interest dominance in the political arena with little resistance. Trying to get their hands on more product to get to market.
Commercial interests over the decades to 1995 referendum 45, even though a sportsman backed referendum that established the commission as a sounding board for sportsman and authority to make fish and widelife decisions, had a majority of appointments going to people with commercial interest in mind. To present day, has been stacked with commercial fishing interest agenda going on 1/2 century+ to mold the laws in their favor. Another words what the commission uses for decisions today has a commercial based foundation, do to no fault of their own,which is the reason we are in this sad state of affairs with fish in general. This foundation has proved to be cracked and the whole house of cards is on its way to come tumbling down.


We have given the commercial fish interest in this state and around the world a huge head start with some to little resistance and look where it has gotten us.If you don't like what you see and where we are going with the take take take mentality, it's time to change this model. IT IS BROKEN. When you try to add building blocks onto a broken or weak foundation, like the commission of WDFW is trying to do, you are only destined to fail. We need to change the model not the commission.
When negative legislation appears impacting fish in general, there has to be 2 sides of the story not just one. A majority of our state legislators are receptive and want to do right when it comes to the plight of the fish that impacts their families as well as ours presently and for generations to come.

Excellent thread with a treasure chest fortune of hyperlink information by NW Steel with Ocean Distribution and Migration of Steel and WN1A with NPAFC report.