Cowlitz wild fish

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Dan Page, Dec 24, 2013.

  1. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797
    Likes Received:
    954
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    I don't understand why a river needs to be shut down if it's managed for wild fish. All this does is require a hatchery in order to have fishing, making all fishermen hatchery addicts. This is fine if you want hatcheries on every river. I prefer the approach that we allow C&R when we can. I also prefer to have hatchery catch and kill oppertunities when we can minimize their interactions with wild fish and when they make financial sense.

    TomB's assesment of the Wind river was pretty darned good. The reasoning for a C&R season when escapement is met was solid. I don't see how giving an oppertiunity to C&R anglers there is anything but pro-angler, yet it's attacked by other anglers. It reminds me of the wildcat steelheader initial opposition to the old Skagit C&R season.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  2. Jerry Daschofsky

    Jerry Daschofsky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    8,395
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Location:
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    I rarely get into these threads, they border on political sometimes (and pure craziness others LOL). I rarely will go back and read a complete thread to catch up. Too much work to do on here sometimes.

    Onto the freezer full of fish. It's actually kind of nice. We actually canned all ours. But I grew up subsistance living (not by choice, but because my parents refused to take WIC, welfare, or a handout growing up). So we kept A LOT of fish. Some eaten fresh of course, some frozen to smoke later, and then of course canned a ton to use for salmon patties. I'd love to go back to more of a subsistance living (by choice now since I make pretty damned good money at my job).
     
  3. FinLuver

    FinLuver Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    265
    Location:
    Oregon
    "I prefer the approach that we allow C&R when we can. I also prefer to have hatchery catch and kill oppertunities when we can minimize their interactions with wild fish and when they make financial sense."

    No attack on your statement, but Is this not the "approach" that is being managed currently??

    How are the runs fairing?

    ODFW...is trying propose such a "management style" to the (whole of) Oregon coastal streams. (Public Input Meetings are taking place this month...for those interested)
     
  4. FinLuver

    FinLuver Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    265
    Location:
    Oregon
    I would too Jerry, but my hometown was around 25,000 in "those days"; it's now over 50,000. I'm sure the number of anglers have grown proportionately as well in the area. ;)
     
  5. Jerry Daschofsky

    Jerry Daschofsky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    8,395
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Location:
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    Nope, not even close IMHO. Regs have been shut down hard for so long now, I don't see it being set to "harvest harvest harvest" like people think. I personally feel it's being managed so the netters have fish to net, not for the sportsman to harvest. Mind you, that's how "I FEEL" from what I've seen over 4 decades of fishing here.
     
  6. Jerry Daschofsky

    Jerry Daschofsky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    8,395
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Location:
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    LOL. My home town only had about 800. Hell, we were a farming community back then (almost all those farmlands are under housing tracks, business developments, or new schools) and has grown exponentionally. My high school only had like 500 kids in it for a 4 year high school (and we pulled kids from a few different towns and a few big cities that were overflowing).
     
  7. FinLuver

    FinLuver Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    265
    Location:
    Oregon
    You got a point and it makes sense...I think that's exactly who's (commercial and guides) behind the push for this style of management practice in Oregon (under the guise of "opportunities" and "wild fish").
     
  8. _WW_

    _WW_ Fishes with Wolves

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,356
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    Location:
    Skagit River
    If you want to talk about me it's okay to mention me by name. For the record, this is what you said in the other thread:
    My objection was to the use of the word "ALL" and that you called them "steelhead saviors".
    The truth is that many of them were not involved in the political arena of saving fish. Some of them were well known anglers who were in fact 'asked' to write books because of some of the things they might have pioneered. Back in the day, taking a photograph was a much more involved process than whipping out your cell phone and taking a quick snapshot...which explains the many poor quality photos you see in those books.

    I would also like to point out that having known and fished with a few of those 'steelhead saviors' and having met and fished with some of their surviving relatives I can tell you that not every fish caught was killed. The fact that it would take longer to prepare for a photo than to land a fish explains why there are few photos of fish being released but plenty of the ones that were killed - dead fish allow for plenty of time to get out the light meter, set the exposure, pose the subject, and take the shot.

    Now you know the rest of the story.

    Somebody is going to be waiting for a really, really long time. We have invaded their territory and we aren't going away. The main goal is to manage the fish populations that the basins can support in this day and age of billions of people.
     
  9. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    601
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    Finluvr, the circumstances were that back in the day there were a lot more fish and it was common practice to keep what you caught. I was ignorant of the impacts that were occurring at the time, like many others I'd suppose, I wish I would have come around sooner. However it is what it is, so rather than point fingers I will be " dedicated to the great task remaining before us".

    Mark K, I feel like you have the wrong idea about Tom's statement. What I get from that is that right now they feel that 500 fish will provide enough fish to seed the river and so some impacts are allowable. It is not that they are managing to only get the 500, but that that is what is needed to maintain the run, and so some impacts are ok.
     
  10. Drifter

    Drifter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    852
    WW, The Sandy river has a wild returning fall chinook run that was known to have 2,500 to 3,500 fish return and I used to fish over them and take - yes, kill wild fall chinook on the sandy river. The wild fish people had it shut down citing that it wasn't enough fish to fish over. This was about 12 to 15 years ago, now the wind say's 500 for steelhead is the number to be able to catch and release over them. I myself do not like that number and believe they should be left alone for faster rebuilding of the population.

    Another problem is poaching = I used to fish a river that was fly fishing only for steelhead and have to kick gear fisherman out constantly. Poachers would go in and slaughter fish at night. Pissed off gear fisherman will still fish and kill the fish Illegally it's just history. when rivers are brought down to catch and release and now all the fish being killed illegally will be on a horrible return of 500 fish. And catch and release does kill fish period, maybe not as many as a bait fishery but does take it's toll.

    I also have a friend who lives in Washougal that checks the counts every year and and wants me to float the river when counts get good enough, he only lives 1/2 mile from the lower takeout and I used to run three different floats on the river. I haven't floated it or fished it for at least 6 years because of return numbers. A few hundred fish is not enough for me to enjoy fishing over them catch and release or not!

    And yes it will take years like 20 to 50 and I am willing to wait = but I will be dead in that time. just doing my part as I see it I guess.

    I would also like to share an experience I had at an ODFW meeting in Salem when a man brought the fact that Illegally introduced strippers were feeding on out migrating wild chinook smolt on a river system in the southern part of the state and wanted some kind of management to keep numbers down. ONE....1... member on the high panel liked stripper fishing and smacked his hammer and it was the end of all discussion on the matter. last meeting I ever went to and showed me just how ruthless fisheries management can be.

    The wild Chinook numbers is for reference to 500 steelhead numbers. Reason why I do not like the 500 number!

    So I guess we agree to disagree.....
     
    FinLuver likes this.
  11. FinLuver

    FinLuver Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    265
    Location:
    Oregon
    CJ...I understand where you are coming from; but also understand that the "message" will be most likely go "unheard" by the masses, from a messenger who has partook in the "blood lust".

    :)
     
  12. Jason Rolfe

    Jason Rolfe Wanderer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    the beach
    That is not true at all.
     
  13. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797
    Likes Received:
    954
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    We can't even get people to understand that having 5 trillion returning adults to the Wind river won't result in 1 more smolt. Those that don't want to understand the message won't.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  14. Jason Rolfe

    Jason Rolfe Wanderer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    the beach
    Math is hard

    Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
     
  15. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,639
    Likes Received:
    2,990
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Mark,

    It looks like you think WDFW is managing for only 500 steelhead on the Wind. That's not really the case. It has to be a minimum of 500 in order to allow any fishing. Otherwise it's closed. Then you posted, " I myself do not like that number and believe they should be left alone for faster rebuilding of the population." This is a recurring problem in explaining fish ecology to many folks. There persists a false assumption that runs will rebuild larger and larger, if only we allowed greater spawning escapements to occur. It doesn't work that way. Every river has a carrying capacity, and the Wind River's capacity is met with 500 spawners. 1,000 spawners doesn't cause future runs to be any larger than 500 spawners. So not only will the run not rebuild any faster, it won't rebuild to a number any higher, or at least not significantly higher than what has been observed in recent years. The only thing that could produce an outlier and larger run would be from exceptional ocean survival, which can and does happen from time to time, but it is certainly not average.

    This idea that wild runs will be rebuilt to levels that can sustain harvests is somewhat duplicitous. Of course, any time the run is greater than an ecosystem based escapement goal, there are fish that could be harvested. What I see the management agencies as avoiding like the plague, is sharing the information that future harvestable numbers under "recovered" conditions will be low. That is, if we don't screw up the habitat any worse than it already is (which is doubtful when you look at what we are actually doing), then when recovery reaches the point of "as good as it gets," the number of harvestable fish may be enough to be taken in incidental fisheries before the run reaches its natal stream and through the incidental mortality from allowing CNR recreational fishing. Any idea that wild steelhead runs will recover to the point that the future population of steelheaders will be able, as in days gone by, to go fishing and kill 2 wild steelhead per day and 30 per season, is nothing short of delusional. Ain't going to happen. Under the very best of future conditions there will still be too few wild fish and way, way too many people who want to fish for them. CNR of wild steelhead is the most positive outlook for future fishing that I can predict. All other alternatives offer worse outcomes.

    Sg