Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Andrew Lawrence, Apr 1, 2014.
Nice try WW, but apparently a legitimate answer isn't what he wants to hear.
nobody is doing anything about habitat and thus steelhead numbers will not increase therefore talking about habitat is a waste of time, time is better spent complaining about rivers being closed...
You posted, ". . . no matter what I say half the board jumps down my throat..."
That's not true. It's only because of what you do choose to say, and it is invariably extreme, not grounded in reality, along with implying that everyone else should go along with your judgement and values. That ain't the way the world works. So much of what you write is so far off base that people simply dismiss you. That's on you, not them.
Then you posted a good example: ". . . 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.."
Your first paragraph simply doesn't make sense, so I'll stop there. In your second paragraph you equate the persistence of steelhead to something approaching near pristine habitat conditions and population levels. It looks like you have an "all or nothing" attitude. Go ahead, but don't be surprised when people dismiss you for expressing it. I have no illusion of ever restoring steelhead populations to what they were in 1850 or even 1950. I'm confident that PS steelhead populations would be viable enough to persist well into the foreseeable future under habitat and population conditions that existed in the 1980s. We need to restore habitat productivity and capacity to the extent practicable mainly to ensure persistence through periods of low marine survival like we've seen in recent years.
About the only place we agree is that steelhead are more important than steelhead fishing. To that end I support not fishing for steelhead when fishing would reduce the population abundance. I'm not opposed to using natural resources for human benefits. That includes hunting and fishing, to the extent that those activities don't deplete the resource. So we totally diverge when you suggest that no one should kill a steelhead even if population abundance is 1000% of the escapement goal. When you write that, you appear remarkably ignorant and uninformed about natural resource population dynamics, or animal husbandry of any sort. BTW, do you feel the same way about deer, elk, grouse, ducks, and geese? But feel free to go ahead and not fish; I'm OK with that. For you. Not for me.
You are simply wrong. There are a lot of people doing a lot of good work restoring habitat.
What Salmo said. A lot of your statements don't make any sense and some are just alright false. Why should anybody take you seriously?
For the record...freestoneangler is not freestone...
I see a lockdown a coming !!!
I've followed this thread from the start and think I understand everything that's been stated.
Two observations, assuming our objective (WDFW's objective) is to rebuild wild steelhead runs:
1) Rob is correct on everything he's stated, it's mostly pipe dreams but nonetheless he's right.
2) There is no "real" plan or strategy to rebuild wild steelhead runs today! WDFW can't succeed with their current constraints.
and a third observation, most of us want to fish and will do whatever we can to have the opportunity.
EDIT: Rob's philosophy and thought process are correct, words don't always convey the thought or conviction understandably for everyone.
History Salmo G history
what evidence is there that on our current path wild steelhead will persist???
given the opportunities humans will always over harvest we always have and always will.. if by some miracle we restore runs well beyond out wildest dreams and we allow harvest people will harvest them back into nothingness.. therefore no wild steelhead harvest ever.. never in Washington states history have wild steelhead been responsibly harvested never our current situation proves that.
Yes i am an all or nothing kinda guy at least on the surface.. Why? because the factors that have destroyed our fish runs have been all or nothing.. We need much more radical actions than our governing agencies are even willing to consider. We know exactly how to restore these fish runs there is no question about it.. We are however unwilling to do it.
No I do not feel the same way about other animals.. I admittedly care more about wild steelhead than other animals or even other fish... I think wild steelhead protection should be priority number 1 for all our fish and wildlife agencies even to the detriment of other species... but that's just me..
honestly now salmo is habitat on say the Skykomish being brought back to productivity faster than habitat within that system is being destroyed???
please tell me what exactly can you point to for optimism in these regards??? something concrete..
we only disagree about one thing.. I believe wild steelhead are worth EVERYTHING... you do not.
as an example I am 100% for telling Boeing and Microsoft to go away if it would save wild. steelhead.. Obviously that wouldn't do it but that tells you the sacrifices I am willing to make. If i were Bill Gates I'd feel the same way.
I think our efforts to restore wild fish have been window dressing, simply feel good projects because we are unwilling to do what it takes. you can call that unrealistic.. i call it calling a spade a spade.
I understand my viewpoint is unpopular because people prefer comfort to sacrifice but that is the truth of the argument,, We are unwilling to restore wild steelhead because we are unwilling to make people uncomfortable. that is to say we won't kick them out of their riverside development to the property can be restored. Again write me off if you will but that is the truth.
Hmmmmmmmm. You don't know what you are talking about.
if habitat is the problem and habitat is being restored and fish numbers are still declining by definition we are not doing anything.. What good is it if we restore habitat but it takes so long that the fish go away before the work is done???
also you should have noticed that i was being sarcastic.
I am all for doing habitat work... I just think that we are not doing enough and we are taking too long to do it. I fear that we will not get enough done in time to make a difference for steelhead..
I'll take my kids over wild steelhead any day of the week and twice on sunday. I love wild steelhead but they certainly are not worth everything. That's just dumb.
Pretty sure that HBH does habitat restoration. He may even fill you in on the what, where and how if you play nice. Learning is fun.
isn't human life an obvious exception to "everything"
Quick, non-butthurting question here: can someone point me in the direction of some resources to help me understand what needs to be done in terms of habitat restoration? Everyone is all, Habitat Restoration! and I'm all, shit, what does that mean exactly? Total noob question, I know, but whatevs.
Now, RESUME THE INSANITY.
Regarding your point # 1, not true Klickrolf. He's right about some things and dead wrong on just about as many. What makes his points wrong is that he uses no qualifiers on extreme statements. For example, he claims steelhead are worth everything, which literally means that nothing is worth more than steelhead. Then he later comes back expecting readers to intuit that human life is an "obvious" exception, even though his writing style throughout this thread and others leaves no room, zero room, for exceptions. That's not even close to the only time Rob is wrong; it's just the most obvious and closest one I could snag.
Rob is right in the second sentence of your second point. WDFW lacks the authority and jurisdiction to successfully recover steelhead. It's well established that WDFW mainly can impose fishing regulations and has very limited authority to protect habitat, which is the key to recovery and the sustainability of all fish and wildlife resources.
That's a really, really good question. First, what is your desired future condition regarding a specific resource. If it's wild steelhead, then we need to know what population abundance level so we have an idea of how much habitat restoration we're aiming for. If you want 1850 steelhead abundance level, then you need to remove most of the human population from WA state and also most of the infrastructure that inhibits natural watershed function: dams, riverside roads, bridges, diversions. Watersheds need to be less than 10% covered in impervious surfaces, creek by creek. If your desired future condition can accept a lesser abundance, then the restorative measures can be decreased.
When you look at the habitat improvement measures being implemented, culvert replacements, engineered log jams, riparian vegetation planting, reconnecting sloughs and side channels, if you do all these measures, you're looking at maybe a 10 to 15% increase in watershed productivity and capacity, as a rough estimation. Beyond that you'll need massive reforestation at a level that will never occur with continued human use.
Hope that helps.
You might start your reading with Chapter 3 of the following -
Generally speaking restoring the natural function river process through out a river basin (especially in the upper portion of the basin) would be a good yard stick with which measure the appropriateness of potential restoration actions. Unfortunately to date (at least as of late last year) NMFS has yet to establish the "critical habitat criteria" for steelhead - should be a surprise to anyone reading this thread that they are behind their own time table.
To date the vast majority of habitat restoration in Puget Sound basin has been directed to Chinook needs. While there clearly are some overlap between the habitat needs of the various anadromous salmonids species generally speaking each species has evolved to use specific habitats within a given basin (especially when in competition without species). An example is that with Chinook a very high habitat priority is estuarine habitat which goes a long ways in increasing the potential carrying capacity of a basin to produce Chinook smolts. However such projects have very limited benefits for a species like steelhead use such habitats for only a few days as they migrate from the freshwater rearing areas to the marine waters or as they migrate from the salt to their spawning grounds.
If you recall on all these threads we have been constantly discussion the two major factors driving wild steelhead abundances of Puget Sound steelhead; freshwater habitat conditions and marine survival conditions. Over the last several decades we have seen steelhead smolt to adult survives drop from something in the 15% range to 5% or less. As those survivals drop wild abundances will also drop even if the freshwater habitats remain the same or even improves to some degree. We may not see the full benefits of any habitat improvements (at least as measured against early abundances) until we see an upturn in the marine survival conditions (evidence is those conditions are cyclic).
Curt, so that begs the question. What can be done now? I am not convinced we have more dcades to tinker with this issue.. Can you see why many of us say things like "nothing is being done"
we have to do things that will help imediatly. those tend to be the things people don't like.. our managing agencies have failed. it's time they be given the mandate to protect wild fish and give them the means to do it, including stepping on a few necks