Puget Sound Steelhead Petition

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ospreysteelhead, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. ospreysteelhead

    ospreysteelhead Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    In the latest rule change proposal cycle, WDFW has taken further steps to reduce wild steelhead angling opportunity in Puget Sound. With populations at very low levels, reductions in angler opportunity may be justified, however reducing angling will not lead to recovery. As anglers we need to demand that the state take far more substantial action to recover wild steelhead including but not limited to eliminating hatchery programs in systems where populations are deemed too fragile to support C&R angling. We have started a petition, please take a second to sign it today. More information at the blog.

    http://www.petitiononline.com/stlhd360/petition.html
     
  2. Itchy Dog

    Itchy Dog Some call me Kirk Werner

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    3,851
    Media:
    161
    Likes Received:
    493
    Location:
    Doo-vall
    Home Page:
    Done- thanks for initiating this.
     
  3. Ryan Nathe

    Ryan Nathe Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Media:
    64
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Osprey, nice start to tackling this problem.
     
  4. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,855
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Roy, WA
    done.
    fyi all. The idea of selective commercial harvest (the end of gillnets) is gaining some momentum...I have hope, as the evidence builds and the logic is refined, that gillnets will be gone by our old age.
     
  5. Ethan G.

    Ethan G. I do science.. on fish..

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    975
    Media:
    30
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    #13 here.
     
  6. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,085
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    797
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
  7. orangeradish

    orangeradish Bobo approved

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,517
    Likes Received:
    515
    Location:
    Capital City
    Home Page:
    Done. Thanks for posting it.
    Jason
     
  8. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    945
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Ospreysteelhead -

    Before I sign on I need a lot more information and frankly unless folks know more about this situation than I do I'm surprised folks are so willing to sign. I can understand folks frustration with the current status of steelhead but to me this seems as a knee jerl reaction that is likely to have little to no influence in improving that status of our beloved steelhead.

    What sort of action are you looking for? Just the end of all hatchery planting?

    The State's statewide steelhead management plan is pretty clear - if there is not enough wild fish to meet a river's escapement there will not be recreational fishing targeting wild steelhead which of course includes CnR fishing on the wild fish. Do you really have a problem with that?

    However where hatchery fish are available selective fishing for those fish would be allowed. To insure that such fishing has minimal impacts on the wild population in recent years the State has limited their hatchery steelhead egg takes to those fish that spawn prior to the end of January. Without hatchery plants in the various Puget Sound basins recreational steelhead fishing will end.

    Your blog mentioned the hatchery plants on the Skagit. In the last 5 years there have been significant changes in steelhead management in the basin. In addition to the earlier ending date to hatchery steelhead spawning ( The end of January is 5 to 6 weeks prior to the onset of wild winter spawning in the basin) there has been a triming of the number of hatchery steelhead planted by 1/2 and major portions of the basin (the Skagit above the mouth of the Cascade, most of the Cascade and all of the Sauk) have been set aside as wild salmonid management areas - no planting of hatchery fish, CnR for all species except for clipped hatchery steelhead and selective gear rules. All of which I would consider significant movement towards more enlighted management. I would think a more productive course of action would be to encourage more such actions rather than some sort of knee jerk reaction against hatchery fish.

    Of course that is just me. Other than a couple of research projects I have only target steelhead (hatchery or wild) a couple of times in the last decade but that is my decision. Not sure that every one else is ready to give up their local steelhead fishing howver I very interested to hear folks thoughts and ideas. It always has been through those discussions that we all learn which poistions us to make informed decisions.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  9. ospreysteelhead

    ospreysteelhead Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Curt,

    The petition is actually pretty clear. Hatchery plants should be either substantially reduced or completely eliminated in watersheds where wild populations are deemed incapable of supporting catch and release fishing. Period.

    Hatcheries have a much greater impact on populations productivity than sport fishing through both ecological and reproductive interactions. We simply want to see changes in management that will actually result in recovery.

    Its easy for state biologists with alot invested in the status quo to throw their hands up and say, "we don't know whats happening, marine survival is tanking. Its not our fault" but thats total bs. As things stand we're dumping literally millions of hatchery smolts of all species into puget sound. Can you honestly tell me that you don't think current levels of hatchery supplementation aren't adversely impacting early marine survival?
    If early marine survival is limiting adult returns then then why not try to make changes that might actually have a chance of increasing early marine survival. For all we invest in "recovery" hatcheries sure are doing alot to limit productivity meaning we see a very limited return on our investment.

    Osprey
     
  10. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    945
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Osprey -
    Thanks for the clarification. I thought that was the direction you were heading but needed to make sure.

    Since the State uses WSR and CnR differently the logical place to start with the implication of your petition would be the ending of the all summer steelhead in Puget Sound. There are no CnR summer steelhead fisheries in Puget Sound. Actually makes some pretty good sense given the origin of those fish and that would certianly reduce the number of smolts being planted.

    In regard to the winter steelhead since only the Skagit/Sauk has had a CnR season in the last decade it would follow that you would be expecting the State to eliminate or significantly reduce the winter plants in the rest of the basins in Puget Sound. Given the escapement of wild steelhead in the Skagit basin this spring (42% of its goal) the near future of even that CnR has to be in question.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  11. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,479
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    639
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    Curt,

    I'm not going to reiterate Will's points about the ecological impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish. He did that quite well. I would like to discuss some other points that this thread brings up.

    More restrictions on sport anglers is unlikely to have any positive effect. Quite frankly, I think the constant focus on incidental mortality is possibly the largest red herring ever. We just don't kill the amount of fish that is reported. I don't believe for a second that we hit 5% mortality on hooked fish. I'd truly be surprised if it was over 1.5%. I've heard of one study recently where 32 of 32 recorded C&R fish lived to spawn. The fish live through nets for Christ's sake. I've caught them with big gashes on them.

    Winter hatchery fish are damn near useless to flyfishermen. They provide me, personally, with no real oppertunity. They don't bite worth a lick and certainly don't help in recovery of the wild fish. Why in the hell should I support hatcheries?

    Without C&R wild fish seasons, I don't believe the fish will have the amount of people supporting them that they need. We need people who depend on wild fish to stick up for them. By and large that is flyfishermen. Not because we're ethically superior or better but because wild fish bite. They take a swung fly. Without wild fish there is no reason for me to fish for winter steelhead. We need seasons when we can get them for this purpose more than any other.

    Go Red Sox,
    cds
     
  12. ospreysteelhead

    ospreysteelhead Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    We're no advocating for catch and release fisheries on depressed populations. However closing fishing is a reactionary measure, not one which will allow for recovery of wild steelhead.

    The other thing to ask ourselves given the weight of the scientific evidence that suggests that robust wild populations are fundamentally incompatible with large scale hatchery supplementation is...are we willing to sacrifice 4 months of catch and release fishing on wild stocks for a 2 month (tops) terminal fishery for hatchery fish. I don't know about the rest of the steelhead fly anglers on the board but I have no intention of ever fishing at Reiter.
     
  13. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    945
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    cds -
    Let's be very clear I'm not advocating the elimination of the WSR and CnR seasons. It is my opinion that Ospreysteelhead and those signing his petition in combination with exisiting State steelhead policies that advocating that position. By the way we all had a chance to comment on those policies.

    I do not disagree with most of what you have to say about CnR type fisheries. In fact most that have examined the steelhead situation in Puget Sound would also agree that the steelhead seasons we have seen over the last 10 or 15 years are not the problem or determining limiting factor with the current status of our steelhead. Though given the recent effort by a couple Puget Sound tribes to harvest up to 10% of the wild winter steelhead runs not sure that will continue to be the case - but that is a topic for another discussion.

    BTW I'm very familar with the hooking mortality study you alluded to. Whether that is reprsentative or not I continue to support using hooking mortalities for such fisheries in that 5 to 10% range. Why? Because as has often been the case in the management of Puget Sound wild steelhead it assures that the managers and the recreational fishers are erring on the side of the wild fish.

    I'm not so sure that the case for some of these ecosystem interactions is as clear cut as some would like. In basins where steelhead plants have ended (Cedar and Nisqually for example) the status of their steelhead is no better than elsewhere in Puget Sound. In the last couple of years the state has stopped planting a number of major tributaries to our river systems and if that is to make a difference we should seen increases in steelehad numbers in those unplanted tribs compared to the areas planted.

    Ospreysteelhead did refer to the increase numbers of smolts in our river basins due to excessive hatchery programs. While I may well agree with the assessment that some (most?) of those programs are excessive I don't think that the belief "that there are more smolts in our rivers than every before is supportable". For most Puget Sound basins it has been estimated that the wild Chinook numbers are only typically only 10 to 20% of historic numbers. EVen with the hatchery production tha total numbers of smolts are likely below what was seen a couple hundred years ago. If that was indeed the case I wonder where the heck all those pinks we saw this year came from. Fianlly there are those in steelhead conservation circles that are confide that historically wild steelhead numbers were much higher than what most think. The example commonly cited is the Stillaguamish where commercial catches were alledgedly as large as 90,000 adults . Assuming that represents the entire run (no escapement) and those fish were seeing well above average smolt to adult survival (I'll use 20% for this example) it is likely that the number of wild steelhead leaving the Stillaguamish was 450,000 or more smolts or roughly twice what the current combined hatchery and wild numbers are. If the ecosystem can not support those numbers of smolts it would be another idication that the system is not what it once was.

    However once again I must repeat that reason that I raise these questions is to foster these types of discussion so that we all can make informed decisions. I'm comfortable with my own decisions and if after considering the available information you or others opt for something different I can respect those decisions.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  14. ospreysteelhead

    ospreysteelhead Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    The situation on the Cedar is unlike any system in the state and it really isn't very valuable for comparisons sake. With a giant lake in the system, and a predictable supply of hatchery sockeye fry to feed resident rainbows why would fish smolt and risk high mortality in the sound? Other systems simply cannot support anywhere near these numbers of resident fish.

    The southsound is completely hosed. Even the HSRG expressed concerns that the numbers of hatchery fish in the southsound exceed the ecosystems capacity. Given the history of overharvest and the continued ecological effects of huge numbers of hatchery fish in the southsound it is not surprising the fish haven't recovered. Lets look at another example, the wind river. Hatchery fish were discontinued and wild fish have recovered. Certainly ending outplanting can't hurt (on the Sauk for example) but outmigrant sauk smolts still interact with half a million hatchery steelhead smolts, and probably at least as many coho and chinook.
     
  15. The Quan

    The Quan member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    fishland, WA
    Great thread ! I will sign that in a heartbeat !This has been bothering me for a long time. To the point where I wanted to get some people together on this too, go to Olympia and start stirring the pot. The constant re-regulating the sport fisher is a joke not to mention a distraction from the real problems. This state has had it screwed up for a long time. I am 41 yrs old now and half if not more than half of the places I have to fish locally are off limits now. OH, But they sure want me to still run and buy a license every year don't they ! They have played politics too long at the expense of the people who really just enjoy the time outdoors to fish. I really miss fishing at different times of the year at will. Now you have to rush just to get some fishing in and when the fishing is actually good it is shut down. A totally JOKE !! I won't name the rivers, but there are 3 rivers in particular that I loved to fish, now I can't because they close in August and September. They used to be open until Jan,. 31 . And if you really dig back in time they used to be open until march. It is quite obvious that all of these strict regs have done nothing to improve fishing, ZERO !! At least not at the rivers I go to anyway. Why do you think everybody races to all of the hatchery rivers now. Like the Quilcene on the Canal or the Grande Ronde for steelhead. They pump these systems full of fish. They spent way to much time pumping the Hood canal rivers full of chum. That is all there is now. Chum. Don;t you think that is bad for the rest of the species fighting for food supply. Imagine a river full of millions of chum fry.....Good lord it does not take a Biologist to figure out that this can not be good. Years ago I expressed my concerns about our completely CNR cutthroat fishery. I know people are going to cry and wine about what I am saying. But common sense tells you you don't overprotect one species for a long period of time. The cutthroat catch and kill ban has been around I believe since the early nineties now.......way too long. For those of you that don't get it........Cutthroat eat tons of fry !!!!!! Both salmon and steelhead fry included !!!!!!!! Now I can't even use a barbed hook if I wanted too. Not good. Trust me this is not good.
     
  16. The Quan

    The Quan member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    fishland, WA
    .. the whole system needs to be tackled not just steelheading. I have grown up on the Hood canal since I was first born. I remember when people used to enjoy fishing with their sons and daughters, Ya know how many people fish now in my area......NONE, ZERO. I never and I mean never see anybody throwing out a line for even fun anymore. Nobody evens bothers. If this state was really commited to getting the fish to come back they would have went after the real problems. We all know what they are by now !! They are using us the average sport fisher as a distraction, the same technique that is used in politics for a distraction from the real issues driven by politics, mismanagement and money. The regs are so bad now that I am seriously considering fishing at will this year. Making my own schedule. I am not kidding. I am tired of it. I am tired of not looking forward to the new reg book and bleak season around the corner. Most of us only have so much time to fish anyway. I am at the point where it makes more sense to fish and take the hit of a fine. Screw it. This is coming form a guy who does nothing but use fly rods and releases 99% of my catch no matter what the rules are. I use my moral judgment. I used to be able to go out and breath the fresh air of winter, spring and fall or whenever I wanted to get away from the rat race of life. Fishing can be such a Zen thing. That is why I really go and I am sure that is why most go also. Now there is barely any time or any where to go without breaking some new regulation out there. So to the fish cops out there, I guess you will just have to find me out in the deep woods hiking rivers this year. Or are you too lazy to do the work ! Or if I get caught fishing "off season " I will be more than happy to take a hit for the team, It will be worth every penny !! I can afford it !!
     
  17. ospreysteelhead

    ospreysteelhead Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    definitely not encouraging people to fish out of season. Hood canal steelhead are extremely depressed
     
  18. The Quan

    The Quan member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    fishland, WA
    Fist off I said what I said to make a point. I will be responsible for my own actions. People are getting so tired of the B.S. that they are going to do what they want to do. I have run into quite a few of them over the years. Good people too ! They are fed up. And I am not talking just about Hood canal rivers. Ask yourself why the canal rivers are so depressed in steelhead and kings and silvers but are over run with CHUMS !!! It is no coincidence let me tell ya ! I actually had a lead canal biologist tell me years ago that he believed that a lot of the steelhead headed in the Hood Canal were inadvertantly being NETTED with the chums. He said this because the chums can be followed closely by steelhead into the Winter :eek: That is preety sad if true. I have had it up to my ears with all the talk about it too. That is for a whole new topic that is for sure. By the way I caught a native steelhead in the Canal over the summer, quite the treat I must say. I had never caught one in this river, ever ! Maybe in the next reg book June will be off limits to fishing too ! ;) :eek: Anyway what you are doing is a good thing. Atleast it is moving in the right direction. I've signed it and good luck !:)
     
  19. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    945
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Ospreysteelhead -
    I continue to think that while the Cedar may not be typical Puget Sound system its history is of value to this discussion. It at one time had a robust wild population with escapements well above 1,000 wild spawners. With the sea lion problem during the late 1980s/early 1990 escapements fell to less than 100 spawners. In the early 1990s the river was closed to fishing, the hatchery plants ended and the worst of the offending sea lions were "removed". Within a steelhead generation escapements increased to the 600 range. However since then escapements (with no fishing) have fallen to only a dozen or two a year.

    However if you want to look at other examples lets look at the larger picture. Most folks agree that extremely poor marine survival of steelhead smolts has become the norm across Georgia/Puget basin. As result we are seeing very poor returns through out Puget Sound and lower BC mainland and the east coast of Vancouver Island. While this whole situation is pretty depressing what makes a look at the large picture interesting is that of the steelhead collapse in the region those rivers south of the border mostly had siginificant steelhead hatchery programs while those north of the border were mostly hatchery free. The steelhead popualtions on both sides of the border have gone into the tank with the notable exception of the Vedder; the one river north of the border with a large hatchery program whose steelhead population for some reason seems to be holding its own.

    In short the steelhead collapse occurred regardless of the status of various basins's hatchery programs. If the hatchery programs are not the root cause of the collapse I'm not seeing how changing those programs is going to reverse the situation in significant ways.

    To those that still may be reading all this I'm not saying that folks should not be asking for changes in management direction and some sort of action. I just saying that looking at the hatchery programs is not likely to provide much benefit. As an alternate I would such that our steelhead populations would benefit from a more holostic approach to the management of the species. That begins with the recognization of a couple critical factors -

    1) our beloved steelhead are just a part of the diversity of O. mykiss. In discussions of recovery of any of our other salmonids first and foremost in those discussions the importance of the divesity within that species is key. Yet with our O. mykiss we continue to focus on a single life history. And yes I recognize that the feds purposely excluded all but the anadromous life history from their ESA listing but that should not preclude us from looking at the larger picture.

    2) It is the norm to see wide swings marine survivals of the various anadromous salmonids with those swings often lasting several decades. Once we recognize that these swings are normal (though we may question whether our actions as a species have altered the timing and magnitude of those swings) the question becomes how has the fish survived those cycles in the past and how can we modify "management" to be reponsive to those swings.

    I would argue that the resident form of O. mykiss (aka the rainbow) are an important population safety net for the species providing a genetic resevoir for the population as well as providing some smolts to jump start the anadromous form when conditions improve. I find it interesting that where the anadromous life history becomes a poor survival strategy we see the development of robust resident populations if given a chance. It does seem to matter whether the selection against the anadromous form is from diverting the smolts to corn fields (the Yakima), kill them at our dams (the Methow) or the smolts disappearing at sea (the Cedar) when the rainbows become successful when given a chance.

    Again one man's thoughts
    Curt
     
  20. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,805
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Tacoma
    The biggest argument against this line of reasoning is based on the same "holostic" approach you are advocating. Regardless of the origin of the steelhead, they are still competing for the same forage resource and escaping the same predators. So if you have a population that is near historic levels, but lower forage and potentially greater populations of predators, it seems that the entire population will be affected across the board.

    The problem with this concept is that it doesn't follow any logical basis, only a political one. If you only have a few variable you can control in an experiment AND there is a strong correlation that leads you to believe that it may be causation, you SHOULD modify the variables you have, rather than just giving up and blaming things out of your control. We can play what if's all we want, but if we don't control the things we can, we are just basically saying the entire issue is out of our control when we don't even fully understand the entire problem.
     

Share This Page