CnR Wild Steelhead Mortality and NOAA 4%

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Chris DeLeone, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. Thanks for the reply Curt, I appreciate it, and p-lease excuse my little rant as I get frustrated when I read things like " a puget sound wide plan would be the preferred approach". With the steelhead in the rivers of puget sound, in varying states of disrepair, and the Nooksack with different issues than the Puyallup, how can you have a P.S. wide Plan?
  2. Sorry I missed this.

    I love the reg. I do think that the % hooked would be less, especially for winter fish.

    I also think that C&R mortality is the largest red herring going. We just don't kill that many fish.

  3. Considering the OP rivers only; there is WAY more refuge from angling than most any rivers in the state, miles of closed water or inaccessable by boat water, huge log jams, big rapids, many areas that I know we cant reach fish there, the refuge from angling via a no boat policy is not an issue here on the coast around Forks. It would however be nice as a regulation to promote a different quality experiance, but we all know how WDFW feels about providing a quality fishery through there regulation.

    A no boat fishery on the PS rivers is a great idea, I loved the Green when it had the regulation between Witney and Soos crk..Fact it pretty much went down hill at the time of removal of said reg....just my observation...
  4. Chris -
    I would think that a "Puget Sound" wide plan would be much like that seen with the Puget Sound Chinook plan. Within that plan for each basin/stock individual allowable impacts were developed . Those allowable impacts vary quite a bit reflecting the individual stock productivity (unfortunately that also includes stocks where hatchery spawners are included). With such an approach one might see something like a 15% allowable impact on the Skagit and say only 2% on soemthing like the Cedar. Given some of the lack of data on some basins I would also expect that there would be a number of basin under some sort of default allowable impact - likely that 4%.

    Obvious developing those individual basin impacts requires a fair amount of basin specific data and modeling efforts for each those basin. I could go into more details of what into that Chinook model but it gets pretty technical.

    Tight lines
  5. Curt,

    Thanks for clearing that up, put in those terms it makes more sense. So then what needs to be done is to get to work on data for individual basins while they come up with a plan.

    I would love to see a no fishing from floating devices on the forks of the nookie, as well as re-instating the no bait barbless above welcome bridge. When that reg was in place the dolly fishing was great!
  6. so it is a great reg.... as long as it doesn't impact you.
  7. it's not a recovery tool, but it could be a way to stop other river systems from being shut down. we are currently pounding fish on the coast, and not all the rivers are consistently meeting escapement. can we be serious about conservation while not being willing to lessen our impact on stocks below escapement. yes, the tribal fisheries harvest more fish but is it wise to behave badly because others do?

    as for the deschutes, you also have a huge community devoted and fighting to restore wild runs on that river. groups like the native fish society have worked to place weirs over many (if not most) of the smaller tributaries in an attempt to decrease the impacts of stray hatchery fish. the initial numbers show that this is a good strategy. i also wonder if the way the deschutes is managed creates more community involvement with such incredible public access and equitable fishing regs. it has been managed as a treasure for a long time and i think that shows in the amount of people who financially support real wild fish work on the river.
  8. Topwater,

    Agreed on all counts.

    If you ever find yourself in B'ham let me know. I'll buy or at least serve you my homebrew. Good luck.

    1 out to go,
  9. I just so happen to fish were the regulation on the rivers allows for a good portion of un boatable refuge already, as said before in this thread a basin by basin regulation is better, a blanket regulation is ridiculous not all rivers are the Deschutes or Skagit in character. Did you actually read what I said or are you trying to be a jack ass,,,,, that solves nothing and exactly why sportsmen will never have any political power too many Jack asses.
  10. brazda, let me amend your comment from my perspective.

    the sport angling community lacks political power for two basic reasons: every sport angler knows in their heart of heart what THE solution looks like and is unwilling to join hands with other sport anglers to find any compromise that can be made to fly; the sport angling community lacks any local/nationally recognized organization which is willing to bring folks together and move an agenda forward.

    given these two circumstances, the fish are doomed.
  11. Every river is different and must be treated that way...I can tell you from lots of time on the hoh that a boat ban would do leaps and bounds for the health of that fishery especially in low water years where the fish have no where to hide and get pounded on over and over... the problem we face with all these conservation issues is everyone wants to point the figure at someone other than themselves and jusitfy their own views without ever even considering the others...
  12. disagree.
  13. Thanks GT and thanks for pointing to the obviouse (to us) on a lot of your other comments too, sometimes I feel as an angler we are regulating ourselves out of fishing and opening the door to more aggrressive kill fisheries to move in (forgone opertunity), we all know whom we speak of, and fortunate for us it has been a great run this year with far less effort by the commercial angling community (reduced market?). I hope its enough to show that the fish are there on the coast they just need to get to the spawning grounds allive. We will see when the escapement numbers come out.
    Did not intend to hyjack thread.
  14. i agree with you jeff. in this state with WDFW focused on MSY, we should expect the sport angling community to take the brunt of shorter more restrictive seasons in order to preserve fish for the commercial sectors. this is not limited to this state by any stretch but there is no end in sight particularly when the sport angling community lacks any disicpline, legal backing or agressive lobby.
  15. I've thought about this issue myself in the past and came to the conclusion that SPORTfishermen are unable/unwilling to organize into a powerful lobbying force because the activity that unites us is Other groups with overlapping fisheries interests are in it for work and money. It's not play time for them, and thus they have greater incentive to pursue their interests in an organized and aggressive fashion. That's just my theory based on intuition about human nature.
  16. and yet the majority of people involved in wild fish protection have no financial interest. agree that is why the commercial lobby is so strong. the sport lobby is divided due to real differences in how we want things managed. someone who thinks the cowlitz is the way to manage fisheries isn't going to find much common ground with someone who wants wild fisheries.

  17. and as a result, the sport angling community represents the low hanging fruit anytime, and everytime further restrictions are to be imposed.
  18. I think more and more the state, local communities and our Fish and Wildlife are understanding that we as the sport angling community bring more economic value to the state then the commerical fisherman. I hope we see more of a trend of departments "self funding" their programs. I hope our DFW look to ID and how that wildlife agency does not depend on the general fund as much as our DFW does - thank you Gary Locke.

    While I agree with points from both Topwater and gt in this regard - we as anglers should support a change to more of a self funding approach. It will bring up fees and we will not be able to support the whole program - but 60 to 70% would be a nice goal to shoot for over time. With that we could demand more in the form of management and have much more "skin in the game" with the Co-managers and our friends in the Commerical community. It would be nice to see thier fees double or triple for the amount of resource they comsume.

    Pipe Dream maybe - but who knows

    Man it would be so nice to discuss who hit fish with last weeks drop, where and see how a nice nate looks in April - instead of going over this stuff over and over. Oh well you have to eat your crust to get to the pie I guess
  19. i think you are right. change comes slowly but the department has moved quite a long ways in the past 30 years. wild fish management and hatchery reform are being seriously discussed within the department... where 30 years ago they really weren't even on the department's radar. we've seen very conservative closures put in place over the past couple years (puget sound tributary closures, strait of juan de fuca steelhead season closures). it's too bad that often conservative management requires a crisis, but there has been some decent decision making for wild fish in some instances.

    the change is too slow imo because the fish are in imminent danger of being functionally extinct in many drainages, but progress has been and continues to be made. the head banging against the wall has started to create cracks.

  20. Chris,

    Before the 1996 merger, there was a separate WDF (fisheries) and a WDW (wildlife, and formerly WDG, game). The old WDG got no state general funds. It was fee funded with hunting and fishing licenses, vanity license plates, federal fish and wildlife funds, and mitigation funds. That department had a lot of autonomy. However, because the Gov and Legislature had little control over it, they wouldn't do much for it either. So that part wasn't so good.

    WDF was financed by state general funds, with license fees (what little there were) and landing taxes on commercially caught fish going to the general fund. WDF always got a lot more from the general fund than the department generated for it and was the better funded of the two agencies, with hatcheries invariably more up to date and better equipped. And WDF existed primarily to service the commercial fishing industry, even though sport fishing for legislatively labeled "food" fish had been steadily growing since the end of WWII.

    The upshot is that there are problems and advantages both ways. I like the fee funding, commission based model that is more responsive to its constituency, but it's pretty obvious that it's critical for a state agency to have friends in the Governor's office and in the Legislature (that makes the laws and establishes the agency's mandate). And an agency that is deemed "too" independent assuredly won't have friends in government offices. There is no avoiding politics. Finding and maintaining balance is what it seems to be about.


Share This Page