Steelhead Counts for Puget Sound Rivers

I can't seem to find anything about run counts for any of the S Rivers past 2003 on the WDFW website. Does anyone know where to find this information? I'm curious what the numbers have looked like the past 3 years in comparison to the escapement goals, since the early closures have been in effect. Please and thank you...

Steffan-
The following should have some data through 2005

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/puget_snd_esu_pdf


For more recent probably will have to go to the department. I would start with a call to the region 4 office -425-775-1311.

curt

Thanks Curt - kind of disappointing to see this information isn't more readily available to the public through their website and other venues. With all of rhetoric behind why they are managing the S rivers the way they have in recent years, you would think they would be able to gain more public support by being outspoken about the state that these fisheries are in according to their figures and findings.

Steffan,

Converting soft data to hard data records has always had a long lag time, probably due to the nature of bureaucracy. From what I hear, things are likely to get worse due to budget and staff reductions resulting in a lack of personnel to do this sort of stuff.

Sg

Email sent to Region 4 - I'll report back what I find out. Thanks guys.

I can tell you that the Skagit River natural steelhead escapement for this year is showing some promise. While spawners will continue to arrive over the next couple of weeks, we have already seen numbers suggesting a good chance that the 6,000 fish floor could be exceeded. Maybe something like 7,000 spawners???? Given that the escapement has fallen below the floor in recent years, this stands as relatively encouraging news. Don't have any insight to the other S rivers.

Good news about the Skagit but I wonder if the increase is a result of closing the river to all fishing. I bet those responsible for the closure will surely say so.

In some instances I could understand this - like tallying up punch cards. But aren't we talking about redd counts? How many guys could they have doing this? Add up their totals, insert the appropriate fudge factor and give us the sum. You know, like in August or something - of this year maybe! Perhaps if they had a computer it would speed things up. I have an old laptop with Win98 I would make a heck of a deal on. I'd sell 'em my old TI calculator but I'm still using that and am loath to give it up.

Where do you find this information?
andy D

Wern't we fishing the years when these fish were in the gravel - My concern is many of the eco fish groups, NOAA and the State will think that closing rivers is the answer. We have seen increasing numbers on the Skagit since the low in 2009 - 2009 is starting to look like a very weird return year. lets hope the increasing numbers continue

This is the point I was trying to make. You know they are going to say closing the rivers is the cause for the increased numbers. And yes, you are correct we were fishing for the parents of the fish that are returning now. They know that catch and release fishing isn't the cause for the declining numbers. WDFW even admits this but they will still say the closures are working. I can see the press releases now; "Fishing closures bring back steelhead from brink of extinction." WDFW and the other powers that be don't give five shits about fish. It is all about looking good to John Q. Public.

I hope there is a way for this fishery to reopen soon. My marriage may depend on it.

You will hear or read all over the place, fellow fishermen who think shutting down C&R seasons are the way to go. It comes down to factors that you see (anglers) vs. factors that you don't see (nearly everything else).

Additionally, there has been some C&R fishing on the river during the closure. This has created some startling results regarding the red herring of C&R mortality.

Go Sox,
cds

Yes, Kerry I know what you were saying - you are correct not only did the state say that CnR fishing was not the reason for decline, NOAA stated the same thing.

My thought down the road on this is these fish are on a 4 year cycle - so 2009 had 2,125 fish return, if we see over 6000 fish return from that escapement in 2009 - could or will that change the direction of CNR fishing on the Skagit - if in the next two to four years other rivers like the Nookie see good returns (I know they struggle with escapement documentation on the Nook) and the state and NOAA come up with an agreement on a PS Steelhead plan, would we see a CnR fishery at least in March?

Lets hope.

Smalma has reported that key to any re-opening of CNR seasons is an overall PS steelhead management plan. I don't know why that is, since rivers are regulated independently for other species like bull trout. I think a big problem is finding an advocacy within WDFW HQ. Maybe if Jim Scott takes up fly fishing for steelhead . . .

Salmo g

While it is generally true that various rivers/stocks are managed indenpendently the combined effect of NMFS allowable impact guidelines for Puget Sound Steelhead and WDFW policies have combined to insure that is not the case for Puget Sound steelhead.

First per WDFW's steelhead managment plan since Skagit steelhead are part of PS DPS they will be considered a population at risk regardless of their abundance. By difinition "at risk" stocks are defined as unknown or critical SASI stocks or those that are ESA listed. Even if the Skagit wild winter run escapements were to be 20,000 a year for the next decade they would still considered to "at risk" until the DPS as a whole is de-listed.

But more to the point as part of NMFS rules requirements as part an ESA listing they have established an allowable fishing impact for those listed fish at a little over 4% - that is a composite impact averaged over 5 or 6 PS stocks. Basically NMFS agreed with what you and I have been saying - that is recent/current fishing impacts have little to do with the current status of those PS steelhead. In their efforts fix an allowable ESA impact in those fish they looked at what the impacts were in the decade prior to the ESA listing for those stocks where the information was available and estimated it to be in that 4% range. As you know a percent allowable impac does not really change with run changes. A set season (in this case current seasons) will have the same impacts whether the returns are at current levels or they double.

As a partical matter if the Skagit population increase dramatically and the other stocks in the composite remain unchanged the managers may find themselves in the odd place of having to decrease Skagit impacts to get back to the allowable composite impacts.

Now there is nothing to prevent the State/comangers from developing their own estimate of allowable impacts. However that would require that it be based on the best information and then submitted to NMFS for review/comment and hopefully approved. This is a multiple year process requiring a lot of work by both the managers and NMFS.

The ideal in the development of a science base estimate of allowable impacts would basin specific and would include a slding scale of allowable impacts depending on both the recent and forecasted abundances - that is if recent Skagit escapements had been in excess of 10,000 fish and is expected to continue at that level more impacts (maybe a CnR spring season for example) would be allowed than if the situation was the population was at the 5,000 fish level. Unfortunately for such a move to occur soem will have to take the lead. From our prespective as anglers that lead is likely to have come from WDFW.

The cold reality is that neither the managers or NMFS will have much interest in looking at adjusting allowable impacts river by river but rather across the ESA DPS as whole. Further I do not see NMFS adopting and changes unless both the State and the tribal co-managers jointly submit a new plan.

I have accepted the cold reality that it is highly unlikley that I will ever fish for wild Skagit steelhead in the spring again. However that has not prevented me from attempt to influence the processes to start the ball of change rolling so that those younger than me may at some point have the opportunity to experience the joy of those wonderful fish.

While it may be the case I'm just a cynical old fart that is unduly pessimistic I suspect it is more of a case of reality.

Anyway one anglers view/opinion
Curt

Thank you for sleuthing and posting that for me Ed... Way to beat Scoones for the win.

Gees smalma...you're starting to sound like me. Where did our youthful faith (that we had 37 years ago) go? We used to think the fishing was bad back then.