Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Chris DeLeone, Apr 8, 2011.
is there are report somewhwere?
Agreed that it could occur when the late component of the Skagit run doesn't materialize, but that IMO is an anomoly unlikely to occur except under some kind of extreme condition. A run as low as 2010 is an extreme condition that could explain most to all of the exception. I think you shed the light on the principle logic at work in this estimation: treaty and non-treaty take are equal, which is the best possible outcome for the co-managers without having to take a serious look at what's going on.
If you go where GT's comments lead, it just makes you appear as ignorant as him. Just sayin'.
If NOAA has a study it should be public.
I have a client that was very high up in NOAA fact the director at one time for many years, we speak of these issues every time we fish.
There is a percentage of NOAA that is against fishing,,, period, being a government agency there apt to be ran as government in some areas of operation, hence the rediculouse red tape.
There are officers in that organization that until a few years ago never herd of a C/R guide service, no,,, really,,, never herd of the concept. I would bet your guy is an anti angler and is filling you with BS. If not he can and should produce the study.
Also it is totally like any agency to react too late to an issue then over react when they get around to it, exactly why WDFW should have NEVER let the steelhead issue go FEDERAL!
Thanks for the thread Chris it is the next issue at hand and if we do not demand an exact study on the mortality rate we may loose fishing for steelhead all togeather by federal over reaction and poor timing.
I personally feel 10% is a LIBERAL number when bait and barbs are NOT used. Not to stir the pot but there is some difference in mortality between angling styles and its not allways going to be higher the more you catch.
OMG! My head hurts just reading some of this crap. Do you suggest they close selective rivers or selected rivers? And what's that going to do? Bug, not picking on you but put some thought into your suggestions and maybe do some homework before typing crap on a keyboard.
The answers seem very simple until you take all variables into account. I say close the rivers down to all user groups other than me.
I'm not sure what you are getting at PT. It's been suggested before, and has been done in other states including Montana for cutties with great success. Please enlighten us. You seem to be so smart, give some reasons why this will not work rather than just bash my suggestion.
I'm not sure that you have done your homework. I don't remember you trashing the idea when it was brought up before a while back. Again, please do enlighten us oh wise one.
Excuse me for butting in, but I couldn't help but notice you are lacking in the homework department. I thought about commenting earlier, but thought your suggestion might just disappear, which is where it belongs. If you read the many threads (you'd have to search given your join date) about steelhead management and conservation, you would be aware that any detailed analysis of the steelhead data on any WA river shows that present harvest levels has little or no effect on the run sizes, meaning the proximate cause of steelhead run sizes is one or more factors other than harvest. That being the case, closing selective or selected rivers on any three year rotating basis would have no measurable effect on any of those rivers' productivity of steelhead. That being the case, what would be the point in executing your suggestion?
If it was done for cutthroat in MT and was successful, that means that harvest was a proximate cause or influence on population size. However, that doesn't mean that the same condition or situation is applicable to WA steelhead runs. Or as they say, what's that got to do with the price of milk in Chicago? Not really trying to be a smart ass; just trying to mix some up to date fish management sense with your suggestion.
Thanks for the reply Sg, at least someone is willing to enlighten me. However, I would like to see the data but I have a hard time navigating through the links to know what to find. Maybe you could point the way for me. I'm very interested in seeing the data on rivers that have been closed for three years, or even two, if it's been done.
I was not aware that this has even been attempted before. If the mortality rate is as high as they claim from CnR, then I don't know how it couldn't help. Still would like to know where this has been done before in WA.
Thanks again for replying! :thumb:
I forgot to mention that there is a river in Eastern Washington that was closed, reopened, then shortened the season by two weeks just for the sake of spawning steelhead. This closure was to support the returning numbers of fish.
So, if by closing a river for just two weeks can make a difference....how could it not help for a few years? If I'm missing something please help. If you going to respond like PT, never mind. An adult response would be appreciated.
It would be wonderful if your theory of closing rivers leading to recoveried stocks actually worked. The current management trend will assure that we will see more and more closures (one of the few actions available WDFW) that however that does not address the dominate factors limiting steelhead populations in areas like Puget Sound.
Not sure what sort of report you are looking for but here is a link that might get you started.
The lit cite section should give you lots of references. Of even more interest may be the appendices for the various ESUs where the available run reconstruction for various rivers is given - just click on the region (ESU) of interest. Unfortunately in most cases the data ends with 2005.
In the Puget Sound region there are several rivers that hvae been closed (at least for the winter seasons) for some time - of the top of my head that list includes the Cedar, Nisqually, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, Dosewwallips, and Skokomish. The above referenced data as well as a call or email to the local or headquarters WDFW office requesting the lates (through 2010?) on steelhead escapements might prove interesting. Again off the top of my head (I'm too lazy to go pull the data together) the escapements in all but one of the "D" rivers have not impoved (some actually declined). The one case where there was an improvement there has been enchancement studies using some new wild brood stock techniques however it remains unclear what will happen if those enhancement efforts end.
Via the link provided above I see there was a year on the Hoh where the recreational harvest was 38% of the sport harvest plus escapement. Since I have not fished the Hoh is it possible that under good conditions that the numbers of steelhead CnR released match or exceed the number harvested?
So if they don;t believe that harvest is the reason for P.S. steelhead decline, #1: why close CnR seasons #2: Why is there so little dfw time and money going toward habitat, and #3: is this just the easiest political route?
Good morning Johnson,
1.) The decline seems to stem from the smolts not making it out of the sound. That seems to be the most cited reason at least. It also seems at least to me that the longer the fish have to travel in the sound the worse off they do. That is the north sound rivers are doing a bit better than the south sound.
2.) I don't know. It seems that freshwater habitat is not the reason for the most current decline though.
3.) Yes. DFW and NOAA can easilly trim our seasons. Other actions are either hard or out of the norm. When was the last time you heard of either of them commenting on a development proposal? See that gravel pit right next to the Samish? Curious if that required SEPA and if there were comments from either group. Hell, they allow gold mining in the spring on S. Fork Nook. If SEPA was required was it sent to either group?
I try to keep the tin foil hat on the shelf, but it often seems that WDFW has no regard for flyfishermen, especially when steelhead are concerned.
Go Red Sox,
It is my personal opinion that if it doesn't come from a concrete tank, then wdfw has no idea what to do with it! I ageree with you about Puget sound being a big factor ( like 40% of the fertilizer you put on your yard, which enters a storm drain that all end up in puget sound, along with alot of other shit) but river habitat is huge in my book. I think that Salmon are the bigger concern for wdfw and they are hooked on the hatchery drug!
Oh, good morning Charles, sorry
yes, the magic angling styles where your mortality decreases with the more fish you catch.
mortality always increases with the number of fish encountered.
the fact is that fishing has become much more efficient with recent developments in techniques used among both gear and fly anglers.
I don't know if it is a good idea to step in here but it seems like people are throwing around percents without understaning what they mean (literally mean). When a researcher uses a percent it is not a deterministic number it is a random number. This has a very specific and technical meaning. For example if they use a catch rate of 50% they are saying that 'on average' the catch rate is 50% some years it could be as low as 10% and some as high as 70% (for example). The spread around the number is the variance and the number stated may not even be the average but an upper end estimate of the average. You can not take the 50% literally and just start crunching the numbers and then make claims. Because random numbers are so complex they most often can not be caluclated directly at all, so anyone trying to do so will likely be very wrong in their prediction.
Researchers use simulation to answer questions like 'how many fish spaw?' I have not done any fish research directly but do in other areas and this statistical nuance plauges communication in every area. For example when you buy a two pack of light bulbs at the store the box says something like 'lasts for 3000 hours' then you put them in at home and one lasts for 2000 hours and the other for 4000 and the 3000 number you where quoted is never realized at all. Hope that makes sense so you can see in this light that when a reseracher quotes a number (though I am not vouching for the crediability of the biologist reference here) it is not straight forward.
Biology simulation is among the most complex and is often done through a new field called 'agent based simulation' and from the looks of it there is no easy way to easily figure out what causes fish runs to increase or derease or that thing would be done. Even if you banned boats for one year and the runs improved there is still not much evidence to prove that that one change caused the increase. Here is a link to a book with some simulation done on trout populations: