Role of WSMZ

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Smalma, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. " a true WSMZ would have zero hatchery plants from saltwater to headwaters"...

    Does such a river system exist here in WA?
     
  2. At present the Samish qualifies.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  3. Looks like we have the test case then. Much to the chagrin of these folks, I suspect this will have to go bye-bye, but everything comes with a price. Are those sunken weight lifting benches I see?
     
  4. Freestoneangler -
    As I mentioned in an early post on this thread besides the Samish. the NIsqually, Cedar/Lake Washington, Dosewallips and Hamma Hamma would all qualify.

    Chris B.
    While I understand your (and others concerns) about hatchery fish being planted elsewhere in the basin that concern is equally validate for the Sol Duc as the Sauk. The Quillayute system gets about as many hatchery steelhead smolts as the Skagit and more importantly a lot more hatchery adults. I notice at least through 2011 the Sol Duc was planted with 20,000 summer steelhead smolts; does anyone know whether that plant has been discontinued?

    Curt
     
  5. Those are salmon anglers. There are still salmon plants.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  6. I realize that. I also think any candidate river needs to be completely shut down from all fishing to minimize any disruption and allow m-nature to work her magic.
     
  7. With all due respect, it's difficult to determine what you realize.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  8. Charles,
    The AA is more or less chisled in stone at this point--until the next update(4yrs). However, steelhead recovery plans, where this WSMZ will likley manifest are going to be written on a basin by basin basis (using 'an all H aproach'), likley by existing salmon recovery groups. The Puget Sound Partnership is leading the process, and will shop the work out to local groups (probably the salmon recovery lead entities). They will likley look much like the 'shared strategy' for PS salmon recovery--as a lot of the shared strategy floks got recylced to PSP. I believe that it is still pretty nacent, however, thier definition of WSMZ is not likley to change without serious pressure. I figure that the no rec fishing is the only way to get the tribes to agree to have wsmz in the first place, 'If we can't fish to feed our families, you can't play with them' [100% pure speculation on my part]. The NWIFC is pretty involved in a lot of the PSP processes/committees. I would bet that there are already plans for which rivers.

    Just when you thought you were getting your head wrapped around the DFW process--Meet the Puget Sound Partnership!

    Bottom line, I think that DFW should begin to at least partially divest itself from hatchery supported steelhead fisheries. WSMZ would be a great way of doind that, if they allowed recreational fisheries. Without rec fisheries it will only reinforce the perception that no hatchery=no fishing.
     
  9. DD,

    I spoke w/ Bob Leland today. He seemed to be unaware of how much power PSP had in the process of coming up w/ a recovery plan or of defining what a WSMZ is. He said several time that if goals were being met on a consistant basis then a C&R season was possible. We'll see.

    I also looked at who was participating in the PSP. It appears by the number of tribal rep's that they have the majority there. I had the exact thought you did regarding why a WSMZ would be defined as it is being by that group. Frustrating.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  10. Suspect that would be a problem for you...and a few others on this forum who believe you have all the answers. Still, we probably should start the Samish project by at least getting the weight benches out of the water ;).
     
  11. Don't tell me what I believe. Understand? If you want to know what I believe, ask and I will tell you. I'm fairly good with the language and perfectly able to communicate my beliefs. That's not your job and it's intellectually dishonest for you to do it for me.

    Read my posts. It's pretty clear that I have strong ideas with regards to wild steelhead and potential hatchery impacts. I am always clear however that the impacts we aren't looking at are potential impacts because they are at best under studied and at worst intentionally ignored. Either way they are unknown. This is in sharp contract to believing that I have all the answers, which as usual is an insult from you.

    It truly is hard to determine what you understand as I have instructed you to not put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head before. Yet you do it once again. I suppose it's easier than arguing the merits of my actual thoughts but it's dishonest. I would think at some point you would want to elevate the level of content that you put forth in the discussion.

    Please step up your game or step out.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
    TallFlyGuy likes this.
  12. the sol duc summer run plants will be discontinued as part of the WSMZ according to my understanding of what was proposed and passed when snyder creek was discontinued and the sol suc made into a WSMZ. the other option for the coast (clearwater) was also a tributary of a heavily planted river. my point was stating that none of the current WSMZ's do not have serious hatchery issues still in effect due to the tributary effect.

    yes, some of the worst returning rivers (such as the nisqually, cedar, hood canal) have seen plants stopped (some very recently) i think many of us would prefer we choose WSMZ's with actual runs of wild steelhead. we also have recently seen many of the small creeks have their plants stopped so hopefully we can see what happens over the next 5-15 years on these waters that have no tribal netting (i would like to see if the early returning life history makes a strong appearance).

    chris
     
  13. Chris -
    Thanks for the clarification on the Sol Duc summer plants - about what I woud expect.

    I'm not so sure that given the behavior of steelhead smolts, the size and condition of the smolts and how quickly they migrate downstream I'm not sure how much interaction there would be between the hatchery and wild smolts sharing the same main river as a migration corridor from their juvenile home to the salt for a few days. Just don't believe in situations such as a Sauk or Sol Duc WSMZ that there is much of freshwater impact in that brief they are using the same section of river.

    Noitice that I just referred to the freshwater overlap. I know that some belief that once they reach the salt there may be significant interactions. That has largely been unstudied and potential impacts undefined. Regadless even in the marine water there has been progress made in reducing that potential interaction. For the period from 2002 through 2008 the average number of hatchery steelhead smolts (summers and winters) from Puget Sound rivers was 2.2 million fish. For the years 2009 through 2011 that number has been reduced to 1.55 million smolts or about 30%.

    I can understand and appreciate the desire to have WSMZs that actually have wild steelhead which is why some have pushed so hard for changes we have seen on the Sauk, most of the Cascade and upper Skagit (where not only have the planting of hatchery fish end we have CnR for all species with selective gear rules anytime it is open for fishing). They produce a significant portion of the wild steelhead in the basin, represent a diverse cross section of habitats and in additon to the anadormous O.mykiss produce all the other species and lfie histories (except adfluvial) found in the basin.

    BTW
    For steelhead the Samish while a smallish basin it produces a significant number of wild steelhead every year (500 to 1,000 fish a year) and over the last 15 years or so as measured against the established escapement goals it may have the most robust wild winter population found in the Puget Sound basin.

    Curt
     
  14. I used to catch alot of fish out of that ditch( Samish), we would start fishing it in early December. There is alot more habitat there than people think, between the upper Samish and Friday creek. It will be an entire basin with no hatchery fish, and no strays from one trib to another, which is a concern for me with a WSMZ in part of a system.
     
  15. i consider net fisheries targeting hatchery fish "significant hatchery impacts", especially in systems with historically large early returning wild runs.
     
  16. It seems pretty obvious something is happening to the smolt....How do we get approval and or funding for research and studies done to find out/fix the problem? Do we all need to stand in front of walmart and ask for signatures ;) ?
     
  17. It's pretty clear that you're impressed with yourself...those ideas and thoughts are not my doing. I simply asked the question what river met the "has never been tainted with hatchery stock" for which you responded the Samish. My reply with the video was to suggest that any system selected to be a test case should, IMO, be closed down to all fishing. It was also to add a little humor...sorry you did not find any. Your opinions, like everyone's, are welcomed.
     
  18. FreeStone - What is your basis for having all fishing closed down in a system like the Skagit and a WSMZ - I assume that a C&R fishery would be included in that. Im very interested in why you think that would need to be done.

    Is there a system out there that has successfully stopped hatcheries, hatchery strays, closed fishing, made habitat improvements and rebuilt the runs.

    Chris
     
  19. This is just a flat out lie. WTF is the matter with you?


    Go Sox,
    cds
     

Share This Page