WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead this spring unless legal issues are resolved

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Andrew Lawrence, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. DKL Nude to the board

    Posts: 167
    West Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +16 / 0
    So, after reading this thread, it should be safe to assume that Mr. Allen either already has his doctorate and works for WDFW, is in a postdoc position en route to WDFW, or is currently enrolled in an accredited university attaining his PhD and you really have to give him his due for walking the talk. If not the case, well it sure seems to take a lot away from what he has had to say.

    DKL
  2. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 914
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +370 / 0



    first of all my wild fish harvest was a compromise a reasonable one however i feel that no one should ever kill another wild steelhead ever even if we hit 1000% of the escapement goal..

    MSY should be thrown entirely out the window we should not expect our rivers to yield anything at all. we should adopt a new management strategy for Maximum Potential Spawning.

    the hatchery steelhead thing was also a compromise I do not believe that we should allow the state or any other agency to be involved in raising hatchery steelhead for planting within our state.

    use all that money and energy to raise salmon for harvest and use steelhead for conservation or northwest heritage. hatchery steelhead are a complete waste of time and resources.. I'd rather have double the hatchery coho.

    my point is that steelhead are not a prolific species like salmon species are so lets put our hatchery harvest efforts where it'll have the highest yield...


    as for escapement goals I think if we doubled them all we'd have a good starting point...
    Bob Triggs likes this.
  3. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 914
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +370 / 0


    no just 30 years of listening to Biologists and kicking around the block and being acquainted with the history of the northwest and what it used to produce. and I have high expectations of what our rivers are still capable if they were allowed to.

    also education gives you knowledge.. it doesn't make you smart or able to think.. Now i don't claim to be smart but i can usually see through governmental BS.

    that is why i suggest that people wanting to make a difference get the education they say you have to have then get inside WDFW and work your way up.. I can think of one such individual right now. Who i think is on the right track...
  4. Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Posts: 1,787
    Bellingham Wa.
    Ratings: +316 / 1
    Curt, I proposed special regs (no bait barbless hook), in the north fork Nooksack above Welcome bridge for that very reason, to protect the resident trout population and steelhead and salmon pre migrants. The WDFW told me they were already doing enough to protect those fish and did not want to limit harvest opportunity.
  5. dmas New Member

    Posts: 2
    ny
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    There really should be no harvest of native trout or char anywhere on the continent as far as I am concerned, at least in areas that receive any degree of fishing pressure, and particularly in the case of resident fish. Political and social pressures aside, we really need to rethink these harvest fisheries and focus on the selective harvest of salmon as a regional resource, a resource that effectively harnesses the productivity of the ocean and brings it to us. Trout and char should be categorized as non-harvestable sport fish for the simple reason that sustainable healthy populations are more valuable from an economic stand point in this capacity. Not to mention the importance that they hold in any healthy functioning watershed, probably some of which we still don’t fully understand. To me this seems to be one of the rare instances where Lichatowich’s natural economy and our economy might find some common ground.
    sopflyfisher and Chris Johnson like this.
  6. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,015
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +725 / 1
    Fascinating... this forum is a lot like watching a dog chase its tail. One statement I've made before that cannot be disputed is; choosing not to fish over threatened stock introduces no risk whatsoever...and that is a personal choice each of us can make. Those that try and split hairs making arguments to the contrary are simply trying to justify the internal guilt they have knowing they are putting personal gratification in the wrong priority.

    We can argue the hypotheses, mounds of conflicting data, suppositions, theories, opinions, and what ifs till the rivers run dry -- but nothing changes the fact that fishing them introduces risk. And, just because this is a fishing forum, does not mean the position not to fish them (threatened stock) should be disregarded.

    And I still think steelhead are overrated ;).
  7. KerryS Ignored Member

    Posts: 6,712
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +1,753 / 0
    I forgot to add the sarcasm smiley to my post and apparently you were unable to recognize that. Oh well.

    I suffer from three terminal diseases all in a race to see which one will kill me first. I won't be around when you catch the last one but I will do what I can while I am here to help make sure one is left for you to catch.
  8. _WW_ Fishes with Wolves

    Posts: 1,906
    Skagit River
    Ratings: +647 / 0
    Rob, just when you start to make a little sense you type this comment:
    If you want to come off sounding like a zealot, that is your business. But do not expect to be taken seriously.

    Maybe I'm a little tired, I've only had one day off in the last three weeks, but it appears to me that you are NOT listening to two biologists in this very thread.

    I think part of the problem here is that your reference is the Washougal, while mine is the Skagit. Both Salmo and Curt have years of boots on the ground science up here on the Skagit/Sauk and...well...the escapement numbers speak for themselves.

    Earlier you posted something about sub sub sub basin management, (more zealot talk). Good luck with that! We can't even get them to do the paper work for a single basin management plan for the Skagit when we show up with scientific data, records, and scientists themselves giving the testimony!

    But maybe your tactic will work. Try showing up all wild eyed and talking about no fishing year round, (cause steelhead are present year round) even with 1000% escapement, sub sub sub basin management plans, and make sure to yell a lot while you're doing it - they like that.

    And while you are there, maybe you can get an answer from them where I couldn't. Not from the commissioners, the director, Jim Scott, Bob Turner at NOAA, the Upper Skagit Tribe, or anyone else connected to fish management in any capacity...How does not fishing the robust run on the Skagit help the other streams in Puget Sound recover? Simple question - nobody can answer it. Maybe you can take a crack at it.

    Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether you guys ever fish again. If that's what makes you happy, then don't fucking fish! Stay home and feel good, knock yourself out, burn your fishing shit and throw a NOT FISHING PARTY and invite all your friends.
    doublespey and jake-e-boy like this.
  9. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 914
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +370 / 0

    i clearly said that i had no problem with a cnr fishery on the Skagit however the Skagit is not the only steelhead river on the planet not is it the only one in Washington state not the only one in Puget Sound Now can we take that one river out of the argument???... i would however oppose any catch and kill fishery on any river regardless of it's escapement.

    if we are not willing to save small creeks we are by definition not willing to save large rivers. you cannot separate the two...


    Some rivers can support catch and release fisheries however not all of them can. it's very easy to understand

    time to put this thread out of it's misery.... fighting over very small details does not accomplish anything for any of us...
  10. jake-e-boy Active Member

    Posts: 475
    Kennewick
    Ratings: +209 / 0
    posting on this sub does not accomplish much either
    golfman44 likes this.
  11. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,383
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +763 / 2
    Is this the right place for me to ask if nymphing for steelhead is a valid fishing technique?
    the_chemist likes this.
  12. _WW_ Fishes with Wolves

    Posts: 1,906
    Skagit River
    Ratings: +647 / 0
    Only if you use beads instead of splitshot.
    David Dalan and Lugan like this.
  13. bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Posts: 2,271
    m-ville
    Ratings: +681 / 0
    I commend your efforts,there seems to be a lot of talk and very little action ,where steelhead are concerned !
  14. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,400
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,357 / 9
    You get to decide what contribution or contradiction to add to a thread. Let those assigned decide when or if a thread gets put out of its misery. I so enjoy it when others imply, suggest or outright state what others should be doing. Much like this thread of doing things my way or not at all. Hilarious.
  15. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 914
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +370 / 0
    a guy can't even make a suggestion that a debate be dropped in furtherance of unity on the board... great!

    no matter what I say half the board jumps down my throat...
  16. David Dalan 69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E

    Posts: 1,915
    Walla Walla, WA
    Ratings: +740 / 0

    Ditching MSY and doubling escapement goals (which I think could only exist hand in hand) would indeed be cool.
  17. Smalma Active Member

    Posts: 2,800
    Marysville, Washington
    Ratings: +656 / 0
    The sad reality for most of the Puget Sound steelhead populations increasing the escapement goals by at least a factor of two will not add a single wild fish to the populations. Why? The habitat needed to support that kind of increase population numbers just does not exist and is not likely to exist any time in the future.

    Remember those much hated winters escapement goals were established in 1984 and were based on the aggregate productivity seen in Puget Sound and North coastal rivers seen in the late 1970s and early 1980s; a period of above average marine survival. There is ample evidence that under the average marine survival seen over the last 35 years in the region those goals are above the carrying capacity in most cases thus not achievable. The major reason that PS wild winter steelhead abundances are a tiny fraction of the historic levels estimated to have existed 200 years ago is that is all the habitat we as a society left in our rivers to support wild steelhead.

    Keep in mind that steelhead spend an extend time (an average of at least 2 years) in those rivers as juveniles before smolting and heading to sea. Over the course of that freshwater rearing period the young steelhead require seasonally and at various sizes very specific kinds and quality of habitats to survive that period. Those complex and varied habitats are the very habitat features that 150 years of abuse has largely eliminated. The capacity of those rivers to produce steelhead is both determined and limited by those rivers to produce smolts (that is the amount of juvenile steelhead habitat in the basin).

    The tendency is for us to look at a system and think that if the river looks nice and the there is lots of good gravels that it must be able to produce steelhead. That rarely is the case; just one example. With that extend freshwater rearing period in the vast majority of cases the amount of spawning gravels has almost no bearing on the capacity of the river to produce steelhead smolt. Again using the Skagit as an example there is lots of potential spawning gravels in the basin and it has been estimated that gravel could support up to 50,000 spawners. Yet because the other habitat features are so limited that if one could magically put 50,000 steelhead on that gravel they would not produce more smolts (the ultimate test of the habitat productivity) than an escapement of 10,000 fish. Want more fish provide more that complex habitat features that those juvenile steelhead require to survive to become smolts.

    Curt
    jwg likes this.
  18. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 914
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +370 / 0
    Curt increasing escapement goals is more about putting expectation on human behavior in regards to the fish we have left and their habitat not the capability of our rivers in their current condition.

    The only things that humans can control is their behavior.. all the other factors are outside of our control. Humans have to modify their behavior if steelhead are to persist. If we are unwilling to change then all the money and effort we are spending to solve these problems and paying for people to study such things is a complete waste of time..
  19. CLO coho where are you?

    Posts: 753
    Seattle
    Ratings: +312 / 0

    #bringourfishback - my new instagram hash/activism. that will show them.
    jake-e-boy likes this.
  20. golfman44 Coho Queen

    Posts: 1,650
    Kirkland
    Ratings: +998 / 0
    Freestone makes one post on a 2 month old thread and looks what happened.

    Dustin Chromers level of trolling