Town of Forks and Wild Steelhead Release

Please go to the Forks Forum website and post your opinoin in the poll regarding wild steelhead release.

Forks Forum Website

Fish on...

Todd

Boy thats a one sided vote.

The poll is on the right hand side of the page.

This auta help their case for opposition if they take it to court.

For sure they will get a bunch of compassion about the issue of no one will come to Forks and fish anymore because of this decision.

I would be supprised if they keep this on long with the way it is going.

I would be even more supprised it it gets published in the Forum.

Gotta love a scientific poll!

so... you figure everyone that voted in this poll had a Forks zip code??

If so, I have a bridge that's for sale.

How many members did you say that WSC had?


What are you going to do once they have all voted?


Cowlitzfisherman

Along similar lines, the following was posted by a member of the WSC on another board.

On Friday I stoped in and talked with Diane Schosak who runs the Forks chamber office. We talked for an hour about fish runs, science and Forks future. I let her know that there were many of us out there that want to help.

I did get a better understanding of their fears when she showed me a thread over on the WFF site. This thread had 4 or 5 posts of calling the Mayor a killer many other names that were not very positive to the folks of Forks. Ever notice when your thinking one way you have hard time seeing anything else. That thread did have many posts where fishers told the hot heads to cool their jets. I don't think those following all this see that though.

We talked about ideas and I believe many of them were new ideas to this very isolated communitty. Some of my ideas were the advertising in countries like Germany, England and Japan. S.E Alaska has done this and done very well indeed with tourists who will never have the money to fish for Alanatic Salmon in their own countries. I met a guide this winter who makes 100K a season just dealing with German Fishermen in Alaska.
I hope those in power here at Flytalk and other sites will allow a free link for the town of Forks Chamber of Commerce. I brought up that idea that such a thing might be able to be negociated and they really liked that idea.

Diane told me that the chamber is not into suing at this time and does not think that is the way the town will go. She told me that they want a meeting with the commission, the state, and Jim Buck and go over the procedure that was involved in making the two year moratorium possible.

I also let her know about Kush and the board of Directors of the BC Steelhead societity and the possibility that they may come down to fish these new waters and how Forks can be a closer destination to the Vancouver BC fishing crowd than much of their home waters are. They have never thought of BC crowd fishing OP waters before and she likes the idea.

CFM-
Do not take offense but what sort of experience do you have aside from anything directly related to the Cowlitz?

What sort of fishery/policy issues have you dealt with aside from those that deal with the Cowlitz?

Where have you fished recently aside from the Cowlitz/Lower Columbia and nearby tributaries?

I do not what to sound combative but you are telling all of us how it is when it seems like your experiences, battles etc. have all came from one river-a very unique river (in many ways) that does not resemble the vast majority of the rivers (again, in many ways) we are dealing with under the new WSR regulation.

Cowlitz, you have no idea what you are talking about when you relate it to Forks.

You know fellas it just might be possible that we are at the begining of the end of fishing as we know it. There are so many people that have to sacrifice alot so those of us who love fishing can continue to fish. So many that are detached from the world we live in. Maybe they will say heck with all this crap and divert funding to other things that perhaps serve a bigger percentage of the population. Just a thought.

I hope the city of Forks does not use that poll to gauge participation. If the poll only has a couple hundred total votes and the city of Forks uses that poll to gauge participation then they could be making a big mistake. The poll is flawed big time, it is very easy to cheat in that poll and vote more than once and the poll questions are also far to vague. The poll is interesting but thats about all it's good for.


The questions should read something like this:

A) Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish and can support a managed sport fishing harvest without negative impact to the resource. Do you feel that you should have a choice to retain up to five fish a year from those rivers?

B) Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish and can support a managed sport fishing harvest without negative impact to the resource. Do you feel that you should NOT have a choice to retain up to five fish a year from those rivers even though tribal harvest will continue and most likely increase on those runs?

Thats really what their asking isn't it?

No, its not.

That is what YOU are asking.

Looks like they don't want to answer YOUR question, likely because it too is flawed. It assumes that all rivers closed had a healthy run.

False...especially placed in historical perspective....

Where are all the early componenent Sol Duc, Bogachiel and Hoh fish runs then? Healthy? Tell that to that the guys that have been fishing in this town for forty years and they will laugh in your face. They died out because of their health?

Poor question and more skewed than the one posted in the Forum...

"It assumes that all rivers closed had a healthy run."

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion?

A: "A) Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish..."

B: "Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish..."

I'm no rocket surgeon....but that definitely seems to indicate you are asking the poll user to assume that the runs closed are healthy, which is laughable, at best.

The questions don't ask anyone to "assume" anything.

Based on your reasoning then your assuming that there are no healthy runs or harvestable fish available. If that is indeed the case then the river(s) should probably be closed to all fishing.

Maybe they should.

We'll know for sure in about two years.

...and retread arguments like 'if a river is closed for wild steelhead retention, it should be closed for cnr' are very poorly though out....

cnr mortality = arguably anywhere from 3 to ten percent.

bonked, dead native mortality = 100%

you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to do that kind of math.

Following YOUR line of reasoning, because there is a cnr only fishery in the upper hoh it should also be open for retention.

If the releasers can fish, so can the bonkers.

If the indians can kill 'em, so can the sporties.

You see that these are some pretty shallow arguments, don't you?


To me, its tears on a table full of spilt milk.

Face it Bruce, you are going to have to put the bonking stick away for a lil while.

Bonking stick?? I choose not to target wild fish that can't sustain harvest. I don't like catching those fish over and over again.

{edit}
Oh yea... You won't know anymore in two years than you know now.

"Following YOUR line of reasoning, because there is a cnr only fishery in the upper hoh it should also be open for retention."

Wrong again. CNR/WSR is a valid management tool and should be used when needed.

Here's a response I got from the editor of the Forksforum.com regarding the poll.

This is strictly an informal poll with limited ability to phrase questions. I'm limited to just a few words and couldn't use your questions on it. This poll has nothing to do with the City of Forks and I hope no one over there, or anywhere, is naive enough to use the results in any way.

Bruce, Had a WSC member (works at Microsoft) email me and said he couldn't vote because it said he had already voted. I told him that somebody from Microsoft with the same IP had already voted, so no more votes from that IP.

Just tell him to get on a dial up connection Jerry. That way he can cast as many votes as he would like.

Only one vote from each IP. Some one else from my office tried to vote from a diferent computer and they couldnt as we are on the same line. It told him he had already voted.

That's right Rich, your internet connection is going through a router or Gateway. The poll is getting the IP from the router or gateway not each individual PC in your office.

The fact that some people can't vote (your case) and some people on dial up can vote more than once is one of the reasons why this poll is bogus but entertaining.

I moved this over to the other board yesterday and it has been deleted.

I heard tha petition is not doing well out in Forks. Not too many signatures.

Rich - I'm not sure the petition asks for signatures.

Not having been out there to see a copy for myself I'm only guessing that it simply asks that the readers contact the WDFW with their concerns.

For example:
"Catch and release is not needed for conservation. It will only allocate away from the current class of fishermen who may want to keep some of their fish, to another class of fishermen who do not. Neither group has it necessarily wrong, and the present system of extensive catch and release sections plus the five fish annual limit is a good and working compromise."

Plunk,

The majority of people out there that oppose WSR unfortunately for your stance are not the type to do anything more about it then talk amongst themselves over a beer.

Unfortunately that is true Rich.

Those guys just want to catch a fish for the table. They're just fishermen and not activists by an stretch of the imagination.

Their interest is in kicking back, relaxing and catching fish rather than getting uptight and involved in politics in their free time.

Plunker,

Its just priorities, most of those people dont have steelhead on the brain.

Fishing for steelhead for them is just not a priority in life. I know the type well and have many friends that feel this way.

They think completely different about the resource. Since Forks is in their back yard it is convenient to fish for a couple of hours, catch and bonk a fish and bring it home.

Not that they are wrong in how they vew things but there view is different.

On the flip side the group that is pro WSR take wild steelhead as much more of a priority gererally and have joinded together on the issue and have spoken out. They also outnumber the other side.

It is just the way things are going as for as the resource goes. Many are happy about it and some are not as with anything else.

There is another group that is more like the WSR group that also likes to retain fish but that is also a much smaller group than the WSR crowd.

This poll seems to be representing things just about right I think.

Zen Leecher

Wild steelhead in the forks area do not belong to the people of forks.. I live in Vancouver WA and my opinion on thoes streams mattrers as much as anyone there.
the notion that " the locals" somehow have more right to have their opinion heard than anyone else is absolutely false.. SO what zipcode the people who voted in that pool have is completely irrelevant....


Plunker.. all the forks area rivers are leaded with hatchery fish all winter long. it will not hurt a single person to harvest hatchery fish instead of wild fish...
wild fish for food agruments are completely false....

Hey I like that Plunker!
Very well said.

I hope you don't mind but I am going to borrow your sinature line for awhile on a different site.

Plunker,
The first thing said by Mayor Reed was wrong the rivers out there are not well! look at the numbers!
Bruce,
You took this off your board because you know you don't have a leg to stand ON!
DFW just sent me numbers on those rivers if people would take the time and read the info, they would see it differently!!

If Mayor Reed would look at the numbers from the state this might have been different. She must of ask Bruce and Cowman and Plunker!

FYI,

Wild Steelhead Coalition
Wild Steelhead in Washington Fact Sheet
February 2004

By Dick Burge, VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP Science/Education

1. In 1996 NOAA fisheries divided the west coast wild steelhead populations in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho into 15 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs), or discrete areas with similar genetic, life history and evolutionary traits. This was done for the purpose of evaluating the status of separate metapopulation units under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2. As of January 2004, eleven ESUs were either listed or a candidate under review for possible listing. Two of the 15 units were listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction), eight of the units were listed as threatened (in danger of becoming endangered) and one coastal Oregon Unit remained under further review.

3. In the mid 1950's, over 125 Washington rivers were producing catches of wild steelhead. Recently there have been only 15 to 18 Washington rivers open to wild fish harvest due to ESA listings and low spawner escapements. In the mid 1950's, about 60,000 to 90,000 wild steelhead were annually harvested by Washington sport fishers (harvest estimates are based on WDFW data and correction recommendations). In 2003, Washington sport fishers harvested 3,554 wild steelhead.

4. Hatchery fish now comprise 97.7 percent of the Washington sport steelhead harvest. In western Washington (Puget Sound and Coastal catch areas), hatchery fish comprise 90.4% of the sport harvest.

5. Washington's wild steelhead populations are either listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, chronically under-escaped or in periods of recent population declines. Of Washington's 7 steelhead ESUs, 3 are now listed as Threatened, 1 is listed as Endangered, while the other 3 do not currently warrant listing. In spite of the “not warranted” status, wild steelhead have in recent years been chronically under-escaped in the majority of Puget Sound ESU and Southwest Washington ESU streams. In recent years, only the Olympic Peninsula ESU has wild returns that have usually exceeded escapement goals and are open to harvest.

6. Most of the Olympic Peninsula wild runs have been in a downward trend between their individual run-size peaks in the early/mid 1990's and the latest run-size estimates from 2003. As the Columbia River and its tributaries, Puget Sound, Southwest Washington, and Oregon rivers closed to wild steelhead fisheries and/or harvest, many guides and fishers have relocated their fishing activities to the Olympic Peninsula.

7. For the past few years, the Pysht, Quinault, Hoh, Queets, Dickey, Sol Duc, Quillayute, Calawah and Bogachiel River total runs and escapements have all been in a downward trend from their recent peak run-size returns.

8. Last year (2002/03) the Hoh River was under-escaped by 800 fish. The run-size would have easily exceeded the escapement goal of 2400 spawners, but the combined sport and tribal harvest drove the escapements well-below the escapement goal. This situation came about because of an overly optimistic pre-season run-size forecast that was used to establish the harvest fisheries for 2002/03. For 2003/04, the pre-season run-size forecast calls or 4453 fish, and the co-managers agreed to a harvest allocation of 1395 fish for the Hoh tribe and 668 for sport fishers. The co-manager's plan calls for a targeted wild steelhead escapement of 2360 fish, or 40 fish below the escapement goal! We can only hope that this year's preseason forecast underestimates, rather than overestimates, this year's actual returns, and that the harvesters fail to achieve their full allocations.

9. The Queets River has been managed for spawners below its desired WDFW escapement for the last 10 years due to tribal demands.

10. Sport catch data since the 5 fish annual limit was established in 2001 indicates the regulation change has not reduced the total annual sport harvest of wild fish. For example, between 2000/01 and 2001/02, the Quillayute escapement declined 1300 fish while the sport kill increased from 1790 to 1930 fish.

11. Harvest models have failed wild salmonids in the 20th and 21st centuries as they are too simplistic and do not account for environmental variations, the role of life history diversity in population resilience, and other factors that are critical for sustaining healthy wild salmonid populations (freshwater habitat degradation, negative impacts of hatchery programs, etc).

12. Ocean and terrestrial productivity continually changes without notice or prediction, and this has major impacts and changes in salmonid populations. The only way to plan for these changes is to manage wild stocks much more conservatively than they have been with “maximum sustained harvest (MSH)” guidelines.

13. The life history of wild steelhead is far more diverse than most other salmonids. Seasonal runs, multiple year classes within a run, repeat spawners, juveniles that spend 1 to 3 years in the river, a riverine only component (rainbow trout), and river specific genetics, if protected, will provide resiliency and stability to these fish, even during poor environmental cycles.

14. A growing majority of sport fishers clearly prefer a non-harvest plan for wild steelhead. In 1995, 42.3% preferred CnR, 14% preferred harvest, and 43.4% had mixed opinions. In 2001, 49.3% preferred Wild Fish Release, 11.5% preferred releasing all steelhead, 2% preferred to close the fishery, and 33.9% preferred continued harvest (with 3.4% having no opinion). Combined, 65% of those with an opinion in 2001 preferred either CnR or closure for wild fish, even when a river would meet spawning escapement needs.

Data Sources: Washington Department Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries.

Or you could ask them to talk to similar small communities like "Packwood" and ask them how much these WSR rules have brought economic growth into their community. They were told the same thing that when wild fish were restored back into there area; that tourists from all over world would be coming there seeking to fish on these c&r "wild fish" and that there hotels, stores, and gas station would all prosper. They have had this type of "WSR" fishery in their streams and rivers now for over 10 years, and they are still waiting for that big promised "economic wave" from the "fishermen". There are always two sides to the coin Dave. I am afraid that for every one success story, that there is 10 failure stories.

PS; I wouldn't want to take my brand new truck to "Sparky's fish in" either (especially since its been posted on the internet). Maybe his followers can rent one of those armored prison busses (along with the guards ). If they were smart, they would post Sparky picture in their windows and ware shirts (the one with the bulls eye around it) and that would almost guarantee them that none would mess with them or their rigs Maybe Sparky can even talk Bob into posting no shooting signs along the local rivers

Sparky's new fishing vests are now available!

A`m I missing something? The WDF wants to protect wild fish on OP rivers at the same time it has asked NOAA to raise the wild kill on the Columbia! I can`t figure that one out.

CFM: As I said in my post, I don't know for sure what will happen with the Forks area streams. That is really my point. They don't know either. But I do know that there have been numerous B.C. small towns that have prospered either because of, or in spite of, C&R.

I question your assertion that there are ten failures for every sucess. What was the science behind that statement?

Well, I have thought and thought and still will do more research. I believe it will indeed hurt Forks economicaly. I love small towns and don't wan't them to be hurt but there will be less fisherman if there is mandatory release in effect. I will be one of them. I just pictured myself catching the HUGE steelheed of my life. Oh, it;s a native, damn't! It must go back in because I want the run to survive. Moral issue. Then, the guy 20 yards up catches the same fish. Keeps it because it is his right and now I am mad. It was my fish first! I can see the arguments now. Bash me as you will, but I think the rules should be black and white. Leaving the moral issues to some will cause for as much fights as the snaGGING ISSUE. I'd be truly interested in hearing the Forks feelings on this. I don't want their town hurt, but am more concerned with others harvesting fish , while we fight each other!

NOW AFTER LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS!
Do think this is a bad or what!

Angg: The real question here is will the C&R rules increase the opportunity for sports anglers to catch steelhead? If so, Forks will make out fine. I have seen this time and again.

It takes some time for some anglers to get into the idea of releasing a fish. But given time the idea becomes so ingrained that most anglers would not consider killing a wild steelhead.

In B.C. they id the mandatory C&R province wide in one swoop, (yes there were and are some VERY insignificant exceptions) the sport s fishers were very angry and many did indeed quit fishing. BUT as the steelhead recovered the fishermen came back and now many of the B.C. Rivers are world-class destinations. There are several top-flight lodges in B.C. that cater to wealthy worldwide steelhead anglers. And there are many motel, guides and restaurants that owe their existence to the top notch fishing opportunities on those C&R rivers.

I do not claim to be certain that the C&R will increase returns of wild steelhead, but I am certain that if the fish come back, so will the fishermen. C&R will not be a deterrent for the vast majority of steelheaders.

Oh, Dave, how could I argue with anyone that fishes BC? My actual point was opposite of most. I'd really like to catch all fish, but if there is a moral choice, I don't want to leave it to all.I will let them go(biggest one ) and educate myself on the life of a steelhead. I just hate to watch another catching a native. Is it right, wrong , maybe issue? It is too grey to decide.Forks is a great area to ask about the fallouts. Their business depends on fishermen, will the fishermen return , yes, but how soon?

Oh, Dave, how could I argue with anyone that fishes BC? My actual point was opposite of most. I'd really like to catch all fish, but if there is a moral choice, I don't want to leave it to all.I will let them go(biggest one ) and educate myself on the life of a steelhead. I just hate to watch another catching a native. Is it right, wrong , maybe issue? It is too grey to decide.Forks is a great area to ask about the fallouts. Their business depends on fishermen, will the fishermen return , yes, but how soon?

Loafer, the difference is that the Fish & Wildlife Commission enacted the Wild Steelhead Moratorium, WDFW Region 5 petitioned the NMFS for a higher impact on ESA listed steelhead. Man, it would be good if the agency(WDFW) and its Governing body (Fish & Wildlife Commission) could get on the same page, but sometimes I think they just don't like one another.

Plunker

I do respect the amount of work and research that you do for this board. Truly you do care about fish and fishing!

I also understand the huge amount of work and effort that you do when you make your posts! I wish that I could focus as well as you do when you do your research. I guess some of us have too many pokers in the fire at times.

Good job!

Cowlitzfisherman

Okay some quick food for thought before I run off to a meeting in town tonight:

Plunker, #1 - you have to assume that the 5900 number is the the correct level for the Quillayute system. Given the track record of MSY models with over 95% failure in this state, please enlighten why it will be any different for the Quillayute system.

#2 - one key word here is "system". These numbers do not reflect the shortages in some parts of the drainage that have been made up for in the total count by other areas, ie Bogey vs. Sol Duc.

#3 - Timing. Does having a bunch of fish at the end of the year to meet a "goal" mean the run is healthy?? Regardless of how earlier returning fish ar doing? I think not ... graphs and such do not reflect the fact that the early component is down.

#4 - Let's put these numbers on a graph:



There, now we see the five straight years of declining returns in a big drop at the end of this chart. Jusdging from what we've seen so far this year, we're well on our way to year 6 in a row of decline. Do we wait until we're at some piss-poor point before we act again?

Lets compare the Quillayute graph to a river you love. Slide the timeline around about ten years and you see a similar trend perhaps?



Looks like the Skagit was doing well for a while before it fell on its tail too! Green and Snohomish charts look pretty similar.

Let's show one that never seems to be brought up by the opposition to mandatory C&R:



2003 was the lowest escapement on record in over 25 years.

6 out of the past 11 years the river failed to meet escapement. Probably would have been more save for two years of closures / C&R restrictions on the couple of years that it made it (barely).

Would be even more than that if original goal for the river is used. How come WDFW escapement goals always seem to drop when most other fisheries on the west coast have seen the goals bumped in the past 10 years?

Ah heck, I give up, let's kill the last ones in here too

Cowlitz..

You are exactly right.. the kind of slime that keep wild steelhead are the kind that would slash the tires on someones new truck if they knew that person supported the wild harvest ban.. and some of them might even fore off that pop shot your talking about in the need for bullet proof vests..
I saw that exact attitude and HATE for catch and release fishermen at a ODFW meeting a few years ago down on the North Umpqua..
The ANTI WRS guys are not concerned about hooking mortality.. they aren't concrned about any other enviromental issue they are only pissed off that it's now illegal for them to kill everything they catch. They are bitter and vindictive.. That's why no one in roseburg has a trout unlimited sticker on their vehicle..

Dave.. i don't think anyone sees catch and release sport fishing as a solution in and of itself. However it is in my opinion the only way to maintain any kind of fishery on dwindeling steelhead stocks.. CnR is the balance between the needs of the fish and the desires of the sport fishermen..

See what happens when you go to meetings!

Thanks BOB

I was hopeing one of them would take the BAIT!

Bob thank you for posting those charts it saved Todd or me the time of doing it. The Queets is an other nice downward slop.

Plunker I don't see how you can say that we haven't had a downward trend for 5 years in a row we have just follow the green line on your charts.

What everyone that I know has always said is the quillayute is the only river that we have seen with a wild winter run that is going up yet in the last 5 years it has seen a steep decline in fish numbers.

Thanks for posting the charts. Nice to see what the actual raw numbers are saying

JJ - The Quillayute Run Size has declined for the last four years (the escapement for five) but the decline has been from an exceptional peak in abundance. What goes up goes back down.

it's notable that last years returns were near precisely average for the last 25 years and the average includes those exceptional returns.

The average run size for those last four declining years was about 3000 fish above average and double the escapement goal.

--- --- ---

Bob,

Thanks for posting those charts. I highly appreciate someone putting up actual facts rather than simply "claiming" that the runs are declining somewhere.

I do have a copy of the Skagit Chart you posted but mine is older, "doyle 12-7-01 Rev C". I copied it from an interesting study that I found online a while back. I'm pretty sure it was on a TU site that has been removed and that the link to it was obtained here.

It does seem that the study is no longer publicly online, has been updated and that you and JJ and some others have electronic copies. I was very impressed with the data and analysis in that study and would love to have a copy.

If you or someone has a electronic copy that you are willing to share then please let me know and I will send you my ISP email address.

Thanks for your consideration. - Plunk

PS: Did anyone but me notice that the Skagit Run size has been increasing for three years straight? It has made or exceeded escapement for two years and that is a good sign but my more detailed charts reveal that the production rate was still below average for 2003 but it looks to be far above average this year.

Here is a Skagit Chart that needs some updating:



The "Predicted Run Size" here is simply the average 1.25 X the escapement from four years earlier. That line will soon be replaced with one tht considers the average production and return rates of the three main components, 2-salt, 3-salt and 2nd time spawners.

It seems apparent that without smolt out-migration numbers that drawing any conclusions about the systems "health" would be somewhat of a guess.

I do believe that much of the variation is cyclic in nature even when no repetitive pattern is discernable. For the returns to be average it would be unusual as is true with the weather.

Plunk...

Its hard to tell how much consideration you are giving to the thought of run timing, which to me is the most crucial aspect the wsr regulation addresses. Out here, especially in the quillayute system those early fish suffer tremendous pressure due to the infamous early 'brats' season.

It was ironic to me to overhear in the coffee shop a guy complaining about the new wsr rules....and then to have him notice me wearing waders, proceeding to tell me how good it used to be on the upper bogie for nates this time of year.

Do you know how many times I've heard the stories about what it used to be like? I'm sure you get them out your way too...the blame/resentment for change always gets placed externally...."city folks", "guide pressure", "wdfw"......etc.....if you want to have a really good conversation like this, try allens bar when the river is out but dropping.

IMO, the majority of the political opposition in Forks doesn't come from the 'fishing businesses', is coming from the general population itself. I think the businesses know that in the end, even if they have to suffer a bit in the short term, they will survive and maybe even benefit. Especially if they start using the rule to their advantage from a marketing perspective........

Its the townspeople though that are most up in arms. The average guy, which for me is way easier to understand. Its the dude who grew up fishing in the creek in his backyard with a pitchfork and had his ability to harvest fish diminish from THAT kind of limitless freedom to what amounts to nothing now...

Basically, all the guys I couldn't ever really invite to go fishing because i didn't want to have them killing nates out of my boat.

...and the hardcore subsistence families will also suffer, although truthfully there are very few of those left any more.

Graphs and charts irritate me a lil in spite of their ability to genuinely educate. It seems like for every chart one guy throws up there another guy can post one that counters it. The WSC holds a high degree of credibility with me though and their numbers are more reflective of what I have experienced empirically.

stlhdh2o,

Nicely Said!

H20

Just out of curiosity, how many memebers does WSC have now?


Cowlitzfisherman

cfm-

Numbers in the sense of the information, mostly graphs and charts, presented in this thread, Plunker v. Bob if you will.

I wonder if you actually took the time to notice that the charts and numbers posted by Bob are very similar and in close agreement with those posted by myself?

I'm proud to know that my numbers reflect what you have "experienced empirically".

i think i noticed....aren't the sources of the information basically the same?

the difference i believe was a comparative one, not one of credibility in numbers or even credibility at all....

...what i really meant is that if you presented me with two sets of graphs and charts, one that says wild steelhead are healthy and harvestable and another that says wild steelhead are in decline and need protection I am going to have a natural inclination to believe the one which most closely resembles what I have experienced myself.

Plunker....how much of a factor in your opposition to the blanket wsr regulation might be due less for whether or not the runs are healthy and more from an erosion of what you truly feel are personal rights?

...its almost as if they are trying to pry the native from your cold, dead, hand if you know what i mean...

Maybe....and you are probably way better at it than I am admittedly from a research/statistical standpoint anyway...if you focused on answering to your satisfaction the question of whether or not the skagit runs are truly 'healthy', perhaps even be willing to redefine what 'healthy' means to you....maybe you'd consider that the overall health of the resource surely outweighs the need to exercise ones personal rights.

Doesn't it?

Should we proceed with a "harvest the resource until proven defintively by 'science' (from at least six non-TU funded studies) that it cannot be sustained" mentality?

I dunno...to me it seems the CONSERVATIVE approach is appropriate and well administered in both the case of the quillayute and skagit systems.

This is a pretty good conversation you and Plunk have going here. I'm enjoying reading it.

Have to agree with Dan S. Excellent thread going here, guys. TRBO and Plunker should be especially commended. That said, hearing well thought-out arguments backed with excellent supporting data from both sides has only solidified my view that WSR is a wise move.

I'm new to your board and I must say that the graphs that were supplied by this group did not convince me that the runs are any worse off than when they started keeping records. I stared fishing for steelhead 5 years ago after I decided to make a change from winter Blackmouth. My time on the river is very important to me but I don't believe that C&R is going to change the way these same graphs will look 20 years from now. I believe the only increase would come from fewer people and no nets. What's the chances of that? The idea of wealthy out of state folk on guided boats isn't likely to increase the runs. I sure don't like the idea of pay to fish rivers but I bet you could find a group to support it . Maybe that was a bit harsh but there out there , you just won't know till the hooks been buried home. Was the first post as tuff for the rest of the group?

Fireman ... you bring up an important point: "...when they started keeping records."

H2O mentions discussions from old timers in the Forks area. Several members of our Guides' Association have been fishing these rivers for more than double the timeframe in which we currently have record for.

Their "stories" of fishing from yesteryear shed more light upon the long-term changes in the runs on the Forks-area rivers. Unfortunately, since records were never kept, we only have the many stories of how many fish, where, how big, etc.

Fewer people is not going to happen. As other runs in the state have fallen by the wayside, anglers have shifted to toher streams that still have some sort of run going ... so we can throw that by the wayside.

No nets? Not in our lifetime. It's quite conceivable though that through a lengthy process to re-assess our management goals and keep tribal harvest to where it should be as madated by the Boldt Decision. So let's throw that one out.

What's left for a management option to support more and more angler days without the harvest going through the roof? Hmmm, it starts with C ...

"Wealthy out of state folk on guided boats ..."

An interesting comment that may perhaps reflect your unfamiliarity with the situation. While I don't know of any source of exact information on this source, I'd likely think that our clientele base in terms of where they come from is pretty much the same as any other guide service in the area. Where do these folks call home? In steelhead season over 90% are from Washington State.

One can only hope that the Quillayute graph will not represent the Skagit graph in another 20 years. If it does, many a business that many may currently know in the Forks area will no longer exist.

We'll see C&R seasons only in the few years that runs may be strong to enough to support the mortality of the fishery ... maybe every other year ... so don't make any vacation plans.

Will they hire any 50 year-olds as firefighters? Hopefully, since I too, would be be looking for a new line of work ... although I may have more fun in court suing the pants off a number of establishments that seemed to think these fisheries could never cease to be healthy

Plunker, CowlitzF, and a few brave ones...

Nice to see someone stand up to the bullies on their own turf.........

Good points Bob! Let's hope that in 10-20 years the wild runs on both the Quillayute and the Skagit are good enough to support limited harvest and C&R fishing.


stlhdh2o,

My interest in charts and numbers is not oriented towards making an argument so much as it about finding some basic realities. We all have our views and prejudices and those will be reflected in our arguments but the charts are not the arguments we present although they can serve in substantiating or refuting a position.

My position towards the blanket ban has everything to do with personal preference and to me, without a harvest fishery they are good only as museum pieces. That does not mean that I'm not interested in their sustainability any more than one might be against sustainability because they desire to catch them just for fun. Either way there will be impact in the form of mortality and a reduction in successful spawning numbers. Without sustainable runs we can have neither option for long.

I therefore take the position that if the sustainability of any stock is threatened the fishing for them should stop. I have mixed feelings about fisheries for harvestable stocks when threatened stocks are likely to be caught as bycatch.

C&R only fisheries or fly fishing only fisheries might be useful to provide special or additional opportunity but neither are viable tools for anything beyond allocation. To argue for a lower impact fishery on a threatened stock is to argue for taking a half-a$$ measures to protect that stock. Where do you draw the line?

I do have concerns for the sustainability of the Skagit and at this point wonder just what the numbers are saying. I should take the time to get the smolt counts to better understand what has brought about the low returns starting in the year 2000.

If the Canadian and US experts are to be believed the problem is with low ocean survival throughout the streams in Puget Sound, lower mainland B.C. and the east side of Vancouver Island regardless of management policies and inland environments. Streams with wild harvest, streams with hatchery harvest and WSR, streams with C&R only and streams closed to fishing all saw the adult return numbers plummet to similar degrees despite their being everything from wild and pristine to urban troughs.

On the other hand we can look at the Queets where the tribes argue for an escapement of 2400 and the WDFW for 4200. Excessive harvests there averaging more than half of the returning adults for the last 8 years, partly due claimed forgone opportunity, have caused returns to plummet so far that these fish are very threatened unless the harvest practices change.

So yes stlhdh2o, harvest is important to me and so is the sustainability of the fish. If I were convinced that all steelhead stocks in Washington were threatened I would still oppose the ban on harvest without including a ban on intentionally catching them just for fun.

Should we continue harassing, maiming and killing threatened steelhead until they are irrevocably damaged?

Should we continue harassing, maiming and killing sustainable stocks while we exclude those who would kill and eat them?

My answer to both questions is no. Yours?

We'll you didn't beat me up too bad, you otta try the youth sports boards ! I will say that I was quite suprized at the amount of time and effort all put into their posts on this board . Their are some very knowledgeable people contributing here. I will continue to send the wild ones back and do my part on the water, garbage man etc. I plan to increase my studies on this topic so I might someday battle with the big boys.

"So yes stlhdh2o, harvest is important to me and so is the sustainability of the fish. If I were convinced that all steelhead stocks in Washington were threatened I would still oppose the ban on harvest without including a ban on intentionally catching them just for fun."

Its really the only counter-argument I've heard that I respect. I don't understand it, but I respect it. What I don't understand is why you would deny the 'apparent' majority of anglers that disagree with your position the opportunity to come fish in your town, spend money in your restaurants, sleep in your hotels, hire your guides etc, etcetera....based on ten percent mortality.

At least 90 percent of the fish swim away unharmed plunker, depending of course on whose version of the 'science' you believe its substantially less than that, not maimed and not killed...harassed probably.

I'll answer your questions this way...

Should we continue harassing threatened steelhead....YES! Its proven by credible science that steelhead are vigorous after being caught and released and have a low mortality. Steelhead fishing is an invaluable component to local communities and the opportunity to fish at all is so important it should be preserved in every possible instance.

Should we continue maiming and killing threatened steelhead until they are irrevocably damaged?....NO!

Should we exclude those that would kill and eat wild fish from the fisheries in question?

Yes....unfortunately for you. The high moral ground you've taken on the issue does preclude your participation in a cnr fishery and that's a shame plunk 'cuz dammit, fishing is fun....to so many of us its about way more than the kill, which forgive me if I've got it wrong again, IS what its all about for you.


Talk about having a huge economic impact, imagine the effect of an all out closure? You think the Forks Forum was big this week....

Bob,

You know very well how inflammatory this topic has become. All this talk about backward hillbilly folk, with their neanderthal mentalities, who just want to kill nates until they're gone is the very thing that irritates locals. I'm one. My friends and I have been fishing the west end for the last 25 years. And though we do keep some fish, most are returned to the river. We all know when this web site began, and when everyone from Sitka to Minneapolis started discussing holes on these rivers like they had fished them all of their life.

Sure, these rivers need to be properly managed, as does any river system. As someone on this topic stated earlier: 'I can't tell by looking at any of these charts if the fish are any better/worse off now than at any other time.' I agree, and with an undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering (UW) I've looked at thousands of graphs.

Are my opinions biased? Sure they are. But given any information(graphs,opinions,facts,etc...) found on this board I think that I should be able to continue to catch and keep a few fish per year without impacting any of the previous graphs.

Comments such as 'suing the pants off of some establishments' only adds fuel to this inflammatory topic. I was surprised when I read the comment. Despite all the boats these days you know how small the community is.

Despite what many on this board suggest, nobody wants to maintain healthy steelhead runs more than my neanderthal friends and I.

Okay I burned my eyes trying to read thru most all of the reply's on this subject! Even with all of the scientific data posted, those in favor of C$R were unable to change my mind. I am 43 and I changed my catch and keep policy just as many of you did and so will the 20's something crowd ! It seems that there is more to this discussion then meets the eye. I will continue to support the right to keep an occasional fish if one chooses but i guess that's a mute point now or is it? Good luck to all for whats left of this season!

There is not more behind WSR than meets the eye. The river systems in this state that used to have wild retention and are now closed to wild harvest are not rebuilding their numbers. The Wild Steelhead Coalition felt that the Quilliyute system is headed down the same path as the other rivers and we should be a little more proactive in stopping the downward slide in wild fish numbers.

BD .. Perhaps my choice of words was misleading as to my intentions. "Establishments" was not directed towards businesses in town, but rather the co-managers of these fisheries.

However, the back-of-the mind idea that I may one day wish to seek legal recourse if my line of work goes by the wayside due to poor management decisions is always a possibility.

Thousands of anglers have asked for more conservative appraoches to the management of the resource and many biologists have done the same as well.

I certainly don't have any sort of grand plan, but I also can't say that the thought is 100% toungue-in-cheek either. If I lose my livelihood in spite of well-documented attempts to help preserve it, there's always a chance that I might not sit around quietly

Ah ah, Jerry brings up a point

NO ONE can answer why for sure, but it's an observation that seems to hold true in most cases of a run's collapse. There seems to be some point of "critical mass" in which the population gets so messed up, that immediate recovery does not occur.

Perhaps it's because of the unique life cycles and importance of repeat spawning in a steelhead population that is modeled along the same lines as a salmon population without these characteristics?

The town of Forks will suffer tremendously should we lose these runs. One can look at the small towns along the lengths of some of the Puget Sound streams as to the impact of the closures. But one thing to keep in mind that will play even more of a factor is that in the winter months, we don't have the traffic already coming through town on 101 to help keep things going. In the case of the PS streams, many of these businesses still get outside dollars from being on a pass route or the thousands of skiers passing through as well.

Forks does not have that in the wintertime.

How is it that on the east coast where steelhead were introduced from the west coast the steelhead fishery has been overwhelmingly successful?

The rivers are smaller and 1000s of people flock to them every season yet they are still packed with fish.

Micro- simple answer to that question... No nets, no dams, no tribes... no kidding

Add to that...
no seals/sea lions
no fish going through the gauntlet of nets that is the pacific
do they have cormorants?

First of all you have huge hatchery programs...

BUT anyways, most importantly the Great Lakes do not exerpience the temperature and productivy cycles that the Pacific Ocean does.

I highly doubt Great Lakes steelheaders understand the term 'ocean condtions' like we do. Pollution and introduced species have an effect on the fishery and I am sure lake survival does vary but that system is so much more static then ours PLUS their variabilities are much easier controlled.

I doubt they have the Great Lakes Decadel Oscillation.

Do you ever get tired Cowlitz?

Not really!

How dare you use an unscientific poll to support your position.

If they'd have bothered to ask, I wonder what percentage of those same fisherman, you know...the ones who stay in Hotels because they don't live there...practice wsr in spite of allowable harvest?

CFM!

I know you have more to say!! With exclamation points at the end of each sentence!! But asking the Commission to reconsider their position is not the same as suing the WDFW!! :p


There is a period of time after rules are passed that people can ask the Commission to reconsider decisions!!!

Fish on!

Todd!

Todd you are correct. You can't sue until the Commission denies your request. No reason to sue, if the Commission accepts there request

But if I was a betting man, I would bet that the Commission will wait to the last minute, and then formally deny the request. I was under the impression that Forks had already made a request to rescind the decision. Are you hearing different?

I know if it was me, I would assume that they are going to turn my request down, and I would be fully prepared to litigate the minute that I received their denial. It would be a good thing for all if the Commission rescinded it descision early, and address the issue when it was originally scheduled to do so. It's appears by all the testimony, that it wouldn't really do much for fish recovery this year anyway because its at the bottom of a five year decline that has always occurred in the end of these 5 year cycles, so why take the heat?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

If they do intend to sue, then if I were them I would be getting my ducks in a row so that I could get started as soon as the denial came.

I was just ribbin' ya about the exclamation points...and then you go and do an entire post without one!



Fish on...

Todd

I'm curious if when you say "asking the commission to reconsider" it means the same as formally appealing the decision as provided for in laws such as the Administrative Procedures Act?

I'm not trying to play Perry Mason here, just wondering if a formal appeal might be the proper first step for potential litigation?

Exactly what are you saying here Cow
"It's appears by all the testimony, that it wouldn't really do much for fish recovery this year anyway because its at the bottom of a five year decline that has always occurred in the end of these 5 year cycles, so why take the heat?"
From what I've heard so far this year might be the 6th year in a row with a decline, so if it's not a 5 year cycle, what is it?

Rob is right. S.W. Washington has been under wild release for about 10 years now and we are finally starting to see some fish returning. When our regulations first changed, we didn't cry and whine and ***** about a bunch of "big city liberals" trying to tell us what to do. In my opinion, Forks is dealing with wild release in the same way they dealt with the end of logging old-growth timber. With their head in the sand.

I suggest that the mayor of Forks look at the C&R section of the Yakima river and observe the economic benefit which can accrue with a well managed catch and release fishery. Or she could look at my checks to Canada, where I fly in to catch and relese wild fish on the Dean River.