http://olympicpeninsulaflyfishing.blogspot.com/2014/02/olympic-peninsula-wild-steelhead-why.html
From my good friend Bob Triggs,
Leland.
From my good friend Bob Triggs,
Leland.
Let's also not forget the core problem effecting the harvest management of spring chinook on the Hoh....One look at the hoh chinook fishery reveals sport angler pressure has nothing to do with plummeting runs. The market value is 3x or more higher per pound than steelhead. End result tribal OVERHARVEST. Along with understated by catch of a fragile wild summer run population, late returning winter steelhead and actively spawning wild winter fish...
my understanding was that the quillayute did not see hatchery steelhead plants until sometime in the 70's (post Boldt). i'll do some digging as i always thought the peninsula was far behind puget sound when it came to hatchery steelhead (although the 60's would be far behind)Chris B.,
The 1970s were not pre-hatchery steelhead on the OP. The hatchery stocking programs were well under way in the 1960s, although I don't have the numbers close at hand. Good quotes from Sid, but maybe that's because I've long felt the same way. And you're probably right about the Sol Duc hatchery spring chinook program. In hindsight, a mistake.
Sg
I think I meant to imply the same thing in regards to logging that you are saying. Just didn't come out that way.David D.,
The OP is not unlogged territory. Logging has been and continues to be the primary industry there. And just as it has in other parts of western WA, when the lowland timber was gone, forestry moved upslope, logging ever higher elevation timber. And that's where the real damage to stream habitat happens. Thanks to gravity, the effects of erosion and mass wasting are exponentially more severe, and long lasting. Reasonable estimates put Puget Sound area streams at about 10% of their historical productivity. It may be as high as 20% for many OP watersheds.
Ocean conditions are whatever they are. And while harvest is obvious, both the state and the tribes are in agreement that most of the OP rivers are productive enough that there exists a harvestable surplus most, if not all, years. And productive enough means the productivity under existing environmental conditions, not historical or any other environmental conditions. Certainly we see this with the Puget Sound and lower Columbia River tributary populations, where harvest hasn't been a factor affecting population abundance for the last 20 or 30 years or even more. Yet those populations are currently at low levels of abundance. And that is because that is what the current status of productivity, capacity, and diversity is, combined with the effects of ocean survival. If that were not true, then by definition the populations would necessarily be at a different level.
The OP, like rivers elsewhere, lost most of the early run component because of the introduction of hatchery steelhead. The hatchery winter steelhead run timing is early, and the fishing pressure that is focused on that run timing causes a higher harvest rate on early returning fish. Add that to the fact that early returning fish are in the rivers for a longer period of time before they spawn, and they are more likely to be caught and removed from the population before they can spawn than are the latest returning winter steelhead.
Chris B.,
The 1970s were not pre-hatchery steelhead on the OP. The hatchery stocking programs were well under way in the 1960s, although I don't have the numbers close at hand. Good quotes from Sid, but maybe that's because I've long felt the same way. And you're probably right about the Sol Duc hatchery spring chinook program. In hindsight, a mistake.
Sg
Yeah, nature did such a shitty job of keeping things in balance before we came along.Your statements regarding capacity make sense. Philosophically I think I'm still averse to the harvest of wild steelhead, but in this context I suppose I see some rationale. If the escapement is above capacity, then the extra fish "do no good" for the population. I mean one could argue ancillary benefits of the extra carcasses, baby fish, etc. but maybe not a direct benefit to overall abundance. I get that.
If memory serves, escapement for the Hoh has recently been 2000-2500 fish.Hey Chris Bellows,
I am curious about what the escapement level was set at? Was escapement a benchmark that stayed steady over 37 years or did the state adjust it lower and lower as the runs diminished?
I used the same number throughout... so if it has been lowered the Hoh missed even worse 20-35 years ago. The number is approx. 2400.Hey Chris Bellows,
I am curious about what the escapement level was set at? Was escapement a benchmark that stayed steady over 37 years or did the state adjust it lower and lower as the runs diminished?
And a light goes on in my head. Sounds like the tribes should just install a weir and sort out the brats, and distribute them to the members that want them. Would probably make harvest cheaper, and completely discriminatory. I hear tell that "tribes" (not sure who it applies to and to whom it does not...if at all) tend not to see much difference, if any, between wild reared and factory reared fish are concerned.David,
Because the tribes won't selectively harvest, and the hatchery fish return early, early timed wild fish will continue to be heavily selected against. Sport fishing regulations now prohibit retention of wild steelhead until Feb. 15, but since the tribes take the greater portion of the harvest, I doubt this regulation will have much effect.
Sg
But if the fishers would be payed far more for the released wild fish (via a scheme where recreational anglers would pay the tribes for their "rights" to harvest wild fish), wouldn't the conflict be less acrimonious and the fishers (via the tribal administration) would still receive value for these fish? It is always easier to divide up a generous pie.David,
The second problem is "who gets the money?" With the extant gillnet fishery the money goes to the fisherman who catches the fish. If a tribe were to install a weir and operate a complex fish trapping system, it would have to decide who gets the money and divide it among several fishermen who each believes they are the high liner under current conditions. Third, if you keep only the hatchery fish and release the wild ones, you forego the revenue of the released fish. A commercial fisherman's job is to catch fish, not let them go.
Sg
Yup, for sure. In the corporate world, we call it Business Ethics and Conflict of Interest.Great read, thanks Leland.
Few people here actually practice what they preach, including some people who have posted in this very thread (a particular 17 fish day on the Methow by someone here comes to mind). Bob is one of the few that actually walks the walk. I asked him about potential guide days on the OP and he was quick to turn down my $$ for the sake of the fish.
Forum posts are one thing, actually acting on them is another. Whether you agree with his specific points or not is irrelevant, hats off to the man.
I see your point; when one reads about other over-exploited fisheries around the world, similar attitudes are present even if it appears to be against their economic self interest in the long run. A key is to not totally suspend fishing, just reduce the effort but improve the economic return. For some things, some individuals would never sell at any price; however, you doesn't know that (or what the price is) until you ask. And it wouldn't be necessary to convince all the treaty tribes to try this approach, just one. If it proved successful, others will join in.Cabezon,
Yes, that's possible. However, depending on who you ask, the money is only the first or second reason for fishing. Some just like to fish, and they want to fish in the way that most satisfies them, and they'd rather do that for less money than release a wild fish so that it might be caught and released by a non-treaty sport fisherman. I think there's a huge trust and respect chasm that has to be crossed for that to happen.
Sg
Who is showing business ethics and who are the conflict of interest?Yup, for sure. In the corporate world, we call it Business Ethics and Conflict of Interest.