Are OP steel headed for ESA listing?

WA wild steelhead are in deep doo doo. It's been 20 years since the first iteration of the wild steelhead moratorium. ESA is probably next...

"We find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating the listing may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of OP steelhead to determine whether listing is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party."

https://www.federalregister.gov/document...ZZNC2x2xZmkDv7Q

ESA has worked so well for WA's Chinook, other steelhead and SRKWs. Let's jump on that bus.

Now, if these were stocks of Condors, Peregrines, Whooping Cranes, even wolves I'd have more hope. Too many deep pocketed interests in the status quo.

The answer is yes. The writing was on the wall when they closed our hatchery fisheries to protect wild fish, right?

Sort of. They closed the hatcheries and did nothing for the wild fish.

These streams represent the best of the best anadramous habitat left in Western Washington. Yes, logging has left its mark...but there are no dams, no metropolis, and much of the headwaters are in federally protected park lands. There is no better stronghold for salmonids to take refuge to weather the stresses of climate change. As far as ocean conditions... well that's not anything we possess ANY semblance of meaningful ability to change. The only substantive factor remaining within direct human control is to curtail harvest.

Treaty right to fish pre-dates and therefor supersedes ESA. I don't see the tribes giving up their treaty right to fish for cultural ceremonial and subsistence purposes, but ESA could certainly cut into their allowed days and significantly squelch take for commercial purposes. Under ESA the days of 5 days a week netting are probably on their way out, but let's not delude ourselves that it would be ZERO.

The limited rec fishery? Hard to deny it's going to continue circling the drain toward inconsequence. As long as these runs remain depressed, rec fishing will take a back seat. At best, it might resemble something like our fishery for ESA-listed CR upriver spring chinook. A predetermined limited percentage of allowable impact or ESA "take" shared by the users as directed treaty harvest balanced against H&R release mortailites of wild fish plus directed rec harvest of hatchery fish. Under no circumstances would the NON-treaty take of hatch steel plus release morts exceed the number of "a fish is a fish" taken by tribal gillnets.

Hard to be optimistic about recovery when ESA protections for salmonids have such a dismal record virtually everywhere they've been listed. The real goal seems to be preserving as much of "business as usual" as possible, while just barely allowing the listed fish to NOT blink out. Human activity (in terms of ongoing fishing, land use, and water use) continues at the maximum possible level as long as the remnant salmon populations can still be maintained on life support. Actual recovery of populations as the end game? Well, that's a horse of a different color.

You hit that nail hard, Doc. If we can't have huge wild runs of anadromous salmonids on the OP then we can't have them anywhere in WA. Damn few dams, much in NP or wilderness, few hatcheries.

To me, there is a real risk that failure on the OP closes the door for the rest of the state. And maybe even further south and east.

This may have been discussed in the past, but on systems without a native population of summer run fish, would this mean potentially curtailing planting of hatchery summers?

I think steelhead depend a lot more on rotting salmon than is understood (or perhaps acknowledged). In places where steelhead live, the numbers seem to be best where the salmon escapements are best. Granted, that's a relative comparison at best, because there ain't a whole heck of a lot of either left much of anywhere....

How is OR coming out unscathed?

In answer to seabeckraised's question about summers, I would say no planting. Summers have shown a greater ability to go feral than winters. In OR, the laddered a barrier that allowed winters into summer habitat. Summers declined (competition). I would expect the summers to similarly compete with and lower the winter population. Unless, of course, the summers settled in tributary/reach(above a barrier) that was naturally devoid of winters.

As to where there are lots of steelhead one can loo at Kamchatka where they are abundant in the streams they inhabit. Couple pieces of additional information is that the fraction of repeat spawners is well north of 50% and the Russian managers aim for a minimum of 1 kg/sq metre of spawning pinks and chum. That's the baseline. We, on the other hand, like to shoot for about 0.1...

OP steelhead appear to be "more likely than not" headed for an ESA listing. Unlike PS, I expect that the coastal tribes may push back harder at NMFS to avoid the listing because they do target harvest of wild steelhead. The PS tribes focused their steelhead harvests on hatchery fish. The listing has had less of an effect on PS treaty fishing in general.

If listed, I expect nothing less than the highest quality lip service given to OP steelhead recovery, because that is what the fishery agencies do. Measures that might actually move the needle forward toward recovery impose too severe of social and economic impacts that are not acceptable to society at large. So many consultations will be held, and many biological opinions will be written that conclude with "non-jeopardy" determinations while the populations continue to decline. At least we will provide the cover of saying, "Hey, we gave it the good old college try."

Recreational fishing will be even more restricted than it is now, if PS is an example. Curtailing fishing is simply the low hanging fruit. It won't matter. I've written before that fishing is not the proximate cause of the declining steelhead populations in WA. To be sure, fishing has contributed to steelhead population abundance in the past, but not in recent years (with a few previously noted possible exceptions). I'll allege again that if zero steelhead fishing had occurred on WA origin steelhead anywhere since 1980, the run sizes would be pretty much the same as we are observing in these most recent years. Because recreational fishing regulations have become sufficiently protective to ensure that spawning escapements have been sufficient to seed freshwater habitat to its contemporary carrying capacity, strange as that would seem in many cases. Again, that is because fishing, as visible and easy to blame as it is, isn't the limiting factor for wild steelhead population abundance.

I like "highest quality lip service". Along with "process is our most important product".

Isn't it strange that there are heavy restrictions on fishing OP winter steelhead, yet they are NOT listed (yet), but Columbia River streams (Kalama, etc.) HAVE listed steelhead in them, with liberal seasons. Just the normal consistently inconsistent management of steelhead in our state.

Gee, Tug. You worked with WDFW folks and you expect logical consistency?

Just ask what is present on the OP rivers that is missing in the Kalama.



I having been seeing tons of photos about how great fishing has been on the Quinault, Salmon and Cooke creek.

Good points Krijack and Tug. The rivers that have closed steelhead seasons are tribal netted. The Columbia tribs and Willapa rivers are not tribal netted and have normal steehead seasons. Interesting to say the least.

More specifically, they are netted by one tribe. The Hoko, Pysht, Sekiu and Sooez are all open. Small rivers with mostly wild runs. Makes one wonder. Just of Clarification, I am not sure that the tribe puts any hatchery fish above the fish barrier on the Sooez.

Why dictatorial closures by the Quinaults only?

Good question. I would love to see how may Salmon river fish are taken by recreational fisherman below the reservation, compared to what are being impacted by those on tribal. I would be surprised if it is any thing less than 15 to 1 in favor of the upper river impacts. Of course this year, the impacts are 100% reservation based. The tribe is requiring catch cards this year, so it would easy to see what they took this year, but for some reason I doubt we will ever hear the numbers.

Definitely, there is a problem between WDFW and the QIN. Wild steelhead run estimates between the two must be a problem or at least one of the problems. Something needs to be ironed out between them. It looks like WDFW will continue to plant normal numbers of hatchery steelhead in the Chehalis system tribs and the Humptulips. Lots will be going to the food banks and some will be planted in a few of the lakes which has proved to be pretty unsuccessful.

Regarding the Quinault and Queets, according to a member of the Quinault Fisheries Committee, "they never heard back from the State." So the Tribe went ahead with its management plan, and they assume the State went ahead with its plan. That the two plans are different may be due to not closing the communications loop.

Looks like the State's plan was to close the season completely on the Humptulips and Chehalis seasons. If what Salmo says is true then it is another example of total mismanagement by WDFW.

WDFW requires punch cards and the punch cards are suppose to be returned but last time I checked, return of punch cards was in the 40% range. So I'd say the QIN return, of punch cards, would be about the same.

Of course!!! But if I mention it, then .......

“ but last time I checked, return of punch cards was in the 40% range. So I'd say the QIN return, of punch cards, would be about the same. “

Hmm, maybe if the the punch cards were given to the tribe’s fishing clients to complete, and mail to the tribal punch card coordinator, you’d be correct.

Now if the tribe requires It’s own Tribal fisher folk to do the punch card shuffle themselves , maybe the punch card returns could be higher...

The total collapse of conversation with the QIN goes back to the early 1980's but revolves around what locals called "gotcha management" for salmon. Which is by definition the comanagers (both) go about their business but if one of the comanagers makes an error the other sees an opening to screw the other.

When it really blew up it was about a salmon forecast way below what showed up so the Nation wanted to update and fish and WDF said nope and put the screws to the tribal fishers. Unless it has changed from the 2000's the QIN / State agreement still has in it NO IN SEASON ADJUSTMENTS to the preseason forecast in the agreement due to this.

Now the Nation remembered this on down the road and when they wanted to target Springers and WDF staffers DA & BE figured what the hell they would not get many, which is correct. Now the Nations real target was sturgeon and it was a slaughter. Management by gotcha!

Steelhead management is no different just what and why actions were taken is lost in the fog of time except for the fact that both sides more or less detest each other but politely.

And because of this infighting between the two sides, the recs suffer because of it. Unless I read the QIN website wrong, it looks like the QIN is not netting the Chehalis this winter.

The QIN website says the last day of netting on the Chehalis was 12/14/22.

Another aspect was in the early 80s when QIN was expected to achieve SH catch and close. WDG set a closure for 9AM and the Nation for Noon. WDG went in and busted netters. Not only did WDG lose in court but the lost the ability of the state (WDF and WDG) to impose conservation closures on any Boldt Case Area Tribe.

02/13/2023

WDFW needs to "pull head out of butt", and its way of doing business.

1. Over all ability's to deal with tribes, for a long time, act like "we big boys on the block". Just a comment on Wynoochee Mtigation. example of nothing getting done for, now over 30 years....

2. Meetings with the public need to get at levels before covid. WDFW now dictates what they want to do......grrrrrr REMEMBER, WDFW works for us!!!!

3. Sturgeon, fishery allow on Columbia River for sports, tribe, and NT. Chehalis River, NO sports fishery, tribe and NT fishery allow, well for sure Tribe, watched pull set net.

4. Smelt, how could a State department allow what used to be a year around fishery to get to a level where its down to "maybe a 1 day sport fishery", but allow commercial "test fisheries". How about pull commercial nets, allow sports to do the "test fishery".

5. Buy back commercial license.....persons that head that program, should be fired, $14 million spent and not much got done, or getting done.

And it keeps coming back to the demonstrable fact that people keep supporting them by buying licenses. People (here and other forums) complain but still support them.

We're well trained; they have learned that what they do to the users has no consequences for them.

Not completely true Carcassman. I was by definition a die hard fisherman for almost forty years owning 3 drift boats and 3 sleds over the years. I fished eleven months each year with over half of that time having pretty damn good fishing. I've hooked and landed lots of fish over the years with at least 3 Steelhead over 20 and largest at 28.5 pounds on the Quinault. One of my best days was hooking 18 summer runs on the South Fork Nooksack, all catch and release. Now all of that is gone and likely never to return in my life or anybody elses. I've got tons of fishing gear but have not wetting a line nor bought a fishing license in over five years. Other friends have put their rods away too and what has happened during that time? Fishing has gotten worse and now in my neck of the woods the tribe has enough clout they even close the Skagit down for rec's while they net it at certain times of the year. How did that ever happen?

I do not see any "bright" future for rec fisherman or the fish. I have come to the very sad conclusion that the fishing I once loved and enjoyed is done. I have replace my love of fishing with hiking but I sure miss stomping around on the rivers this time of year.

It's a tough pill to swallow and I agree with Fishbreath that it is indeed over. "Over" being the operative word, to some, the tiny bits of opportunity are great and they will downplay it because they weren't around fishing 30+ yrs ago to make an apt comparison. I'm not going to go around touting all the great planter lake trout, warm water, and other misc time killing fishing that so many enjoy, I'll learn to adapt and do less fishing, more traveling to destination [Bleeeeep!]. I don't care how good Idaho, Oregon, Great Lakes , etc....WA State will always be the King, it just so happens he has been dead for awhile.

Yours truly,

Disgruntled Fisherman

This is referred to as shifting baselines. The longer one has been doing something the further back they remember the past. Some here go back to pre-Boldt when "sharing" was 100-0. Given what I hear from my steel heading buddies, somebody beginning today might not find the fishing "poor". Work hard, get a fish or two on. To somebody who never fished streams that have been closed for 20 years, there is no loss to them.

Now, add in managers who have the same experiences; few waters open and modest catches. A little up-tick looks great.

It is the same with hunting. Last house I lived in in Sacramento was built in fields that I pheasant-hunted a few years prior. That was 50 years ago. I doubt anybody living in that neighborhood now even knows that hunting grounds. And, the hunters see no problem in driving a couple hours to hunt not knowing that where their house is now used to be prime hunting area.

Shifting baseline is a very real phenomenon in my profession as well.

My predecessor used to get paid ~ $3500 for a cataract surgery in his prime. He decided to retire when Medicare cut the fee to ~ $1300. "NOT sustainable" is what he figured, so he sold out to some hungry young buck almost 30 years ago that would do it for the discounted rate.

And now as my career is winding down after 5 presidential administrations that have taken seemingly innocuous "little" bites out of our fees every year, Medicare has continued to erode the value of my services. Even though I deliver a better more elegant faster-healing visually superior cataract operation than 30 years ago, they only pay about ~ $500 for what is often life-changing micro-surgery for the patient.

Some young buck is gonna take over at some point thinking the $500 cataract is "normal"... cuz they haven't ever experienced anything better. If Medicare suddenly decided to throw them a $600 bone to keep their loyalty, they'd be thinking they got a 20% raise, "Hell yeah... sign me up!"

Ain't that the truth. My (since retired) Internist said that Medicare payments were so bad locally that the docs were going to not treat Medicare patients for a week (emergencies excepted).

According to NerdWallet, that "unsustainable" $1300 I started out with in 1994, compounded annually at a measly 3% inflation would be $3155 today.

Medicare now pays me 1/6th of that. Talk about shifting baselines!

My Internist also told me that the medical community in WA, at least years ago, was way more efficient at delivering services. So WA started out getting less than other areas. Skill sometimes screws you.

FishDoc - I won't quibble about eye surgery or Medicare payments, but your second post in the thread needs some clarification.

You stated that "Treaty right to fish pre-dates and therefor supersedes ESA."

That's not quite right. Tribal treaty rights are the "law of the land" but so is the ESA. The Federal agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have stated many times that their job is to uphold both Tribal Treaty Rights and Federal law (e.g., the ESA). Neither supersedes the other.

This is the operating principle under the U.S. v Oregon and U.S. v Washington Fisheries Management Agreements. The Tribes would certainly prefer to have their Treaty rights supersede other Federal laws (the ESA and beyond), but they are cautious about trying to test that in court. I don't blame them. An adverse ruling might have serious repercussions for Tribal rights nationwide. So the States, the Tribes, and the Feds try to work together to avoid lawsuit where, in most instances, someone wins and someone loses.

The steelhead situation on the OP appears dire, and likely falls squarely within the ESA. Ideally, the Tribes, WDFW, and NMFS can reach agreement on how to proceed if an ESA listing is warranted. That might be possible given the recreational harvest restrictions implemented by WDFW, and low incidence of steelhead mortality in the State-sanctioned commercial fisheries.