Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Occupy Skagit - Winter Edition

7K views 108 replies 28 participants last post by  gone johnson 
#1 · (Edited)
Occupy Skagit Winter Edition 2014

When:
December 13th @ The Commissioners Meeting 8:00 AM
(show up 15 minutes early to sign in)

Where:
Capital Event Center
6005 Tyee Dr SW
Tumwater, WA 98512



Why?
WDFW is our only advocate when it comes to dealing with the restrictions, listings, de-listings, etc. handed down by NOAA and NMFS. By the time of this meeting it will have been 20 months since we first contacted them about reopening the Skagit system to C&R fishing. The only way it will open, is if all the managing entities submit a basin-specific manage plan which will, in part, remove the Skagit from the Puget Sound Steelhead Distinct Population Segment, (DPS) currently under ESA listing as "threatened"

We believe the forecast for next season's numbers will be above the escapement floor level that was used in the past and is greatly responsible for the numbers that we still have in the system today. Historically, the Skagit has been managed more conservatively, (read that as "fish friendly") than probably any other system in the state. In a recent study found here; http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/wdfw00150.pdf
page 418 / or chapter 8 pg65 Appendix Table 8-B1, the risk of extinction for the Skagit run in the next 100 years is as close to 0% as you can get. This study was done for the Commission in 2008. For six years this information has been available to them, and yet to our knowledge, there has been no action to restore the C&R season.
Our intent this time around is to seek answers to a few questions:
At what stage of completion or approval process is the Skagit Steelhead Management plan?
Will we fish next season? If not, why?
If not next year, when?

What can you do?
Show up. Speak if you want to, but you don't have to.
 
See less See more
#5 ·
This is the link to the Commission's home page:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html
On it you will see a list of the commissioners to the right. There is no personal contact info for each one but you can send a general email to commission@dfw.wa.gov with attention to: (a commissioner close to your area).
Voice your support, indignation, frustration, confusion, etc. with the Skagit situation. In any communications with the commission on this subject please do it in a respectful manner.

As of now, they don't know we are going to show up. But in all fairness to them, we're sending them notice that we plan to attend to try and get some answers.
 
#14 ·
Questions:
If the Skagit River is removed from the DPS, then will release of hatchery steelhead be allowed in that river system?

Is the goal to include the Sauk River in the Catch & Release season?
I agree with doublespey that the 12 yr ban on hatchery plants is part of a lawsuit and totally independent of what we are about. "Skagit" would be the catch-all phrase for the Skagit/Sauk watershed areas that used to be open before the ESA listing.

Removal from the DPS may not be the most accurate term, but it is easier to say than drilling down into the genetic code to the point of basin by basin differences. :)
 
#12 ·
TD - I don't think this will have any affect on the 12 year ban on hatchery plants. And I'm pretty sure the Sauk is managed as part of the Skagit River watershed, so it would likely be included in any future spring fisheries.

Looks like I'll be heading down to Olympia as well - any suggestions from the locals on a good breakfast spot in that neighborhood?

Cheers,

Brian
 
#13 ·
"Looks like I'll be heading down to Olympia as well - any suggestions from the locals on a good breakfast spot in that neighborhood?
Cheers,
Brian"

I used to eat at a cafe in old town with the name "oar" something or another. It was where the politicos hung out in smoky back rooms cutting deals with each other.

Leland
 
#15 ·
TD -
The goal under "Occupy Skagit" is not to change the status of the Skagit wild steelhead or attempt to remove them from the Puget Sound DPS (distinct population segment). Rather it is hoped to introduce flexibility in how NMFS determines the allowable ESA take rules (allowable impacts) for individual populations with in the Puget Sound DPS. Currently the take rule is a one size fits all with an allowable "take" of an aggregate of 4%.

What Wayne and his gang of merry followers have suggested is that the co-managers use the same approach they used for the Puget Sound ESA listed Chinook. That is a population (river by river) approach with individual assessments of each population's status, productivity, and extinction risk to determine acceptable allowable impacts. The result is that the allowable impacts vary among the various Puget Sound Chinook populations; for example for the Skagit summer Chinook the allowable impacts can be as high as 50% while to the north the allowable impacts for the Nooksack early (springs) it is 7%.

In the case of the Skagit steelhead we have a robust wild population that while well below historic levels they have been consistently managed under some of the most conservative conditions seen in the State, consistently shown the ability to rebound quickly from poor survival conditions and as recent as 2008 has been determined to face zero risk of extinction in the next century (remember the conditions prior to 2008 included hatchery releases that at times exceeded 1/2 millions smolts, 25 years of spring CnR season, etc.). Since 2008 there has been a number of additional management changes that should benefit the wild steelhead - extensive wild salmonids management areas, closure or restrictive regulations of many of the spawning tributaries, continue habitat restoration efforts and now elimination of Chambers Creek hatchery (the benefits of those changes will vary).

The goal of Occupy Skagit has been the restoration of the CnR seasons since before 2008 which includes both the Skagit and Sauk seasons.

Curt
 
#19 ·
If you cared about steelhead why wouldn't you leave them alone? Isn't it pretty selfish to go after such a threaten fish. Instead of fishing why don't you guys turn your efforts and time into restoration? The steelhead is a scared fish stop treating it like a resource. If our culture realized not everything is a resource but actually part of us we would still have runs. Find your inner strength and start restoring not fishing.
 
#20 ·
Well Joe, if you are really interested, please look up the previous threads that discuss Occupy Skagit at considerable length and become informed. If you do, you will learn that:
1. While the Puget Sound DPS is threatened, the Skagit population is not;
2. There are numerous venues for restoration; OS is not one of them;
3. Steelhead are neither scared (sic) nor sacred, if that's what you meant;
4. OS has no control over "our culture" or even the culture of the average angler, and in any event, it's unlikely that "our culture" would have chosen habitat preservation over habitat development. OS is dealing with what is, not what you think it might have been.
5. OS doesn't think restoration and fishing are mutually exclusive. OK?

Sg
 
#23 ·
Sorry for spelling got the smart phone that isn't so smart auto spelling and you knew what I meant. The steelhead is a sacred animal just not to the western culture. Connect yourself to mother nature plant a tree on the bank each time you goto river. It's time to clean up the miss our grandparents created. Maybe if everyone saw this scared fish for what it is and not just a resource we would have our runs back.
 
#26 ·
Show up. Speak your mind. If you just want to talk to everyone else, we'll be there. You might even give up some fine tree planting locations. I know a couple real good plant/critical area bios, who could help with plant selection. I got hands, and a little cash.

Go sox,
Cds
 
#38 ·
Show up. Speak your mind. If you just want to talk to everyone else, we'll be there. You might even give up some fine tree planting locations. I know a couple real good plant/critical area bios, who could help with plant selection. I got hands, and a little cash.

Go sox,
Cds
This is a good point, Joe. The car park location I used this weekend on the Pysht was a protected park access for trails, fishing, and tree planting was all along it. I'm sure there are groups that go out and plant, but they are always happy for more help. It's a great field trip idea for local schools.
 
#29 ·
Freestone/Joe -
I respect your right to form our own opinion on whether fishing for Skagit wild steelhead is appropriate or not.

The "Occupy Skagit" effort has bend over backwards to bring to the debate as much information as possible (and attempt to present that information in an unbiased fashion as possible) so that we all can make informed decisions as possible (as suggested a search of past threads should produce lots of information). As often the case in these decision there can be risk to the resource and we each have to make our decisions based on some sort of risk assessment. That said I would argue that based on the available data if the Skagit wild winter steelhead can not support any fishing there are few if any populations in the State can. Obviously those support "Occupy Skagit" have found that any risk associated with a CnR fish is acceptable.

A characteristic of a robust anadromous salmonid population is its ability to bounce back from an "event" that drives the population to low levels. Historically productive populations demonstrated the ability to bounce back in as little as a fish generation. As that productivity declines that recovery time can increase dramatically; in the case of some Puget Sound Chinook population that recovery time has been stretched out 10 or more generations (a time period so long that is almost certain that another limiting event would occur before recovery). Most who saw the condition of the Sauk and Skagit following the 2003 October flood could hardly be surprised that Skagit escapement fell to the low levels seen in 2009. In the entire escapement data for the Skagit winter steelhead (stretching back to 1978) the 2502 spawners in 2009 is the lowest seen.

What is of interest to this discussion is that scale information is now essentially complete from that 2009 brood year. Those 2502 spawners in 2009 have produced an astounding 6,347 adults. Given the general malaise facing the wild steelhead populations of the Salish see a population producing 2.5 recruits/spawner is surprising and a clear indication of a pretty robust steelhead population. I would suggest that few steelhead populations in the State where a CnR is less risk averse that the Skagit.

BTW -
I have not targeted wild Skagit Steelhead this century but that is my choice and has nothing to do with the status or productivity of that population. I would suggest that if one finds risks associated with that fishery is too great they should consider whether it is appropriate to turn their computer on if the use power produced by Seattle City Light or Puget Power, consume Yukon gold potatoes grown in the Skagit valley or enjoy tulips from bulbs produced in the Skagit Valley, etc. There are many activities that represent at least as great a risk to the Skagit steelhead as a spring CnR season. I will continue to argue the fishing is an acceptable use of a population such as the Skagit steelhead.

Curt
 
#30 ·
As often the case in these decision there can be risk to the resource and we each have to make our decisions based on some sort of risk assessment. That said I would argue that based on the available data if the Skagit wild winter steelhead can not support any fishing there are few if any populations in the State can.
this is the crux of the anti-occupy argument. if you state there are not enough fish on the skagit when escapement is met then what river's steelhead are okay to fish for? the hoh is obviously out since it misses escapement 50% of the time. all of the other coastal winter steelhead systems are in as bad (or good) of shape as the skagit with the exception of possibly the sol duc. should we shut down those systems to all fishing?

summer steelhead fishing? what stock in the state is considered "healthy" and/or not listed under the ESA?

if you're against opening the skagit when warranted you have to be against all steelhead angling where one might hook a wild fish.

my biggest concern with opening the skagit has to do with the pressure that will likely be applied to the only open puget sound river. that can be easily solved though with creative regulations that limit encounter rates such as no fishing from boats, no guiding, etc.
 
#32 ·
Chris brings up a good point. With the amount of anglers likely to be fishing this CNR season, the state has to adopt some restrictions to limit the amount of wild fish being caught. I have no ideas of the figures the state uses (Salmo or smalma I'm sure know) to model acceptable levels of "take" on a given population and the associated CNR mortality statistic in use. Last I understood it was a very very generous 10%. But I could be wrong. Anyways if the state doesn't plan on pushing any gear/boat restrictions I'm afraid the bean counters will find a way to keep the river closed, ie too many wild steelhead handled. I'm sure it becomes more complex when you factor in the tribes share of harvest. But I'm not schooled on that.

Anyways as I've been working on my email for the state (since I can't make the meeting) I've put some thought into possible restrictions without singling out any one user group (although to be fair the river is closed now to all user groups and if it's to open at all I think everyone has to be willing to compromise)

1) selective gear artificial only barbless hooks etc
2) no fishing from a boat on the Sauk upstream of the mouth (boats only for transport)
3) no sleds above the Sauk (my thought here is that this stretch is the only part that doesn't ever really blow out and it could give some fish a break from having yarn ball #3,068,221 side drifted over them)
4) no fishing under power, not sure if that's fair for the whole river or if there could be a deadline determined on the lower river.

If you wanna get really idealistic id vote for FF only on the Sauk for the month of April in a heartbeat. No indicators or additional lead (split shot and worm weights) as part of that regulation.

Thoughts experts?
 
#33 ·
I'd close all steelhead and salmon fishing get rid of the giant boats out at sea. These fish need rest look inward and see their struggle. Stop viewing everything as a resource when will our people understand this. We don't own mother earth we belong to her.
 
#35 ·
You bring up an interesting point Kerry. While I don't think it limits certain groups fishing opportunities, rather it puts more folks on foot which could very well crowd the foot access spots on the river. Boats do spread folks out over a greater area. Although on the other hand, they also reduce places where fish can rest unmolested. I guess that's part of an open fishery. Finding the balance in these things ain't easy.
 
#37 ·
I'm curious about the details of the "Basin Management" concept.

Hypothetical case - we have total escapement projected for the Skagit system that is sufficiently high to support a spring C&R season. Maybe we have a very strong return of Sauk River fish, but the number of mainstream (upper) Skagit River fish are very low.

I'm assuming that there genetically distinct runs returning to different parts of the Skagit River system. I know that the fish I used to catch in the upper river between Marblemount and Rockport looked different - the bucks were more streamlined and were typically a bit smaller. The Sauk fish just had a different look- the bucks especially often had 'shoulders'.

Salmo_G/Smalma - Do you anticipate that the health of these separate contributers to the Skagit River's escapement will be considered , or just the aggregate total, in determining whether to open the Skagit River system for a C&R season?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top