Flawed rationale in WSC's proposed boat bans? (Part 1)

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ChrisC, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. ChrisC

    ChrisC Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    .
    In a recent post on Doug Rose's blog, he brings up several good points on WSC's proposals to the WDFW on a number of rule changes for 2012. Primary is that these proposals divide the sport fishing community by disproportionately lessening opportunity for those who fish gear. Doug makes a very valid point that many of those who fish gear are as vocal and passionate about protecting wild steelhead as those who swing the fly and why alienate that community of allies and advocates with rule proposals that significantly impact their fishing? Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a unified coalition of sport fishermen advocating mandatory statewide wild steelhead release and selective gear as first and foremost priorities?

    If you read WSC's submissions to the WDFW this year, they consistently make this argument as justification for the boat bans: "Wild steelhead are caught and released (CnR) in large numbers, often while in their spawning phase. Repeated and high levels of CnR can negatively influence behavior, reproduction and survival of many fish species, including steelhead."
     
  2. ChrisC

    ChrisC Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    .
    Part 2:
    To me, the only reasonable decision that the WDFW commission can make from the argument above is to limit opportunity for everyone by closing the OP rivers earlier as they have with the PS rivers. Maybe that ultimately is the right decision when poor returns dictate that . . . but I really think the boat ban proposals and the rationale only helps reinforce the line of reasoning within the Commission that their only conservation tool is to close rivers early or entirely (and not consider important foundational actions such as statewide wild steelhead release and selective gear).

    Wouldn't at least some consideration of how the Commission typically acts support a completely different set of submissions that would drive lower risk outcomes (with regard to limiting opportunity for everyone) but have comparable impact and much greater support across the steelhead fishing community?
     
  3. nutsack angler

    nutsack angler newb

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Dedmonds, WA

    Bottom line is something needs to be done but I would be more nervous about the commission adopting these proposals than closing rivers early because it would be an easier pat on the back for the state that does more harm than good for reasons some of which Doug Rose mentions. I would hope these proposals ultimately fall back on WSC and not fly guys in general... yeah right!
     
  4. Yard Sale

    Yard Sale Huge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,886
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Location:
    The Hood
    This is why it's difficult to lump all these rivers together in one proposal. For the section on the Klickitat they are talking about I would say this change affects the fly guys more than the gear guys. Spey guys are few and far between. It's a fairly even split between nymph and gear boats. Gear guys can still hit all of the river from shore. They might have to adjust tactics a bit but they can still hit it all. Nymph guys will be more limited to what water they can actually fish. So for this piece of water I'd say the fly guys actually get a worse deal than the gear guys.
     
  5. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    91
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    Chris,

    Without addressing any particular angling technique, one can make a very scientifically defensible argument for limiting angler efficiency in a fishery, provided one objective of the fishery is to distribute allowable catch among anglers and mimimize monopolization of the fishery by a small minority of anglers.

    The rationale is this:
    1. A fishery has a mortality limit (biological goal) that must not be exceeded.
    2. This translates to a limit on the number catch and release events or killed fish
    3. Certain fishing methods catch fish at a much faster rate than other methods
    4. There is enough fishing effort that the mortality limit may be exceeded.

    You now have two options:
    1. Allow the free-for-all any technique goes continue and shorten the season.
    2. Limit angler efficiency so that the allowable impacts are spread across more anglers and more time, allowing the season to stay open longer.

    If distribution of the catch among anglers is not of concern at all, why not open the fishery to wild fish harvest with no limit and close it after only a few days or weeks when the catch limit has been met? Clearly we all value distributing the allowable impacts to some extent, the question being how much. The creel data unequivocally shows that boat anglers have a higher catch rate. It therefore stands to reason that limiting fishing from boats would be the first place to start if one wanted to spread the allowable impacts across more anglers and time. With angling effort rapidly increasing, making tough decisions about how to spread limited fishing opportunities among anglers is a reality of fisheries management.

    -Tom
     
  6. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    9,868
    Likes Received:
    5,445
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Good reply Tom!

    Sg
     
  7. nutsack angler

    nutsack angler newb

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Dedmonds, WA
    Tom,

    Thanks for sharing, it's always nice to hear from someone that really knows what's going on. I am curious about mortality limits and had a couple questions.

    Are mortality limits established for each river or regionally?

    Assuming this is something that can only be monitored in fisheries that are heavily creeled, do you know if these limits are being exceeded on the Hoh, and Quillayute river systems?

    Thanks!
     
  8. bhudda

    bhudda heffe'

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,902
    Likes Received:
    909
    Location:
    low holing
    Home Page:
    Shorter season...+1
     
  9. Freestone

    Freestone Not to be confused with freestoneangler

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes Received:
    4,786
    Location:
    Central WA
    From what I have observed, one of the reasons boats are so successful is that they cover a lot of water, find the fish and then hammer the same spot. They often either anchor up or row laps in the hole until they have caught a bunch of fish. Is this possible from shore? Absolutely, but on foot, it is harder to find the fish.

    So, one variation I have thought of is if boat fishing isn't banned, try to level the playing field by 1. no fishing while anchored 2. one must continue downstream while fishing and can not row/motor back upstream to fish the same spot again

    It probably wouldn't fly though as enforcement would be difficult...
     
    David Dalan likes this.
  10. Patrick Gould

    Patrick Gould Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    692
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    It would be easier to enforce a ban on fishing from a boat, but not ban boats on the river. Other state have success with this regulation.

    I know at least one local guide service that already limits their Steelhead guiding on the Methow to drive and wade. Maybe enough pressure from the angling community will push others in this direction.
     
  11. ChrisC

    ChrisC Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    .
    Tom, I appreciate the rationale. I hope the Commission is able to appreciate these finer points and act in that regard - though I'm wondering if they have ever in the past or would even consider a similar ban on the Skykomish to restore opportunity.
     
  12. jeff bandy

    jeff bandy Make my day

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    2,932
    Location:
    Edmonds, Wa.
    How about going after the real problem. Gill nets!
     
  13. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,620
    Likes Received:
    4,627
    Location:
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Not interested in getting into the BAIT debate. I do feel if you use a method of fishing to fool a fish that is cool (please read my intended meaning of flies, lures, jigs and those non-bait methods). Gill netting is a method that just can't be allowed. Fish have to swim and those nets are placed, legally or not, in a manner that the fish just can't win.
     
    Derek Young likes this.
  14. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Location:
    The Salt
    i agree and disagree with the proposals. i agree that the fish need some sanctuary water from an increasingly effective sport fishing fleet. at the same time i do know that we still allow wild fish retention (bad) and bait fisheries (worse) in the lower rivers. the reason i classify bait as worse is the impacts to non-targeted species such as sea-run cutthroat, resident rainbows, and smolts.

    as for a united sport fishing community, i would also like ice cream that tastes great and makes me thin for dessert and unicorn meat sandwiches for dinner. there will never be this utopian united front as long as we all have very different reasons for fishing and different ideas about the importance of wild fish. we should work towards finding things to work on together that we all agree on, but should not sacrifice the health of our wild fish runs solely for unity.

    i still think something needs to be done to alleviate boat pressure with less rivers being open statewide for winter steelhead. managing an area independently of what is going on elsewhere is not smart and will lead to more river closures in the future. do you like how the spring fishing for steelhead in puget sound is? the same managers are making the same mistakes on the coast. thank god we have organizations and wild fish activists making a difference in trying to preserve not only the wild steelhead runs, but also our ability to fish for them.

    chris
     
    Jonathan Stumpf likes this.
  15. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    9,868
    Likes Received:
    5,445
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    WDFW has always had a hard time managing a scarce resource sought by a large number of people.

    One of the downsides of CNR steelheading becoming popular is that good anglers, with increasingly better technology and improved technigues, is that these fishermen who used to catch two steelhead a day and kill them and then go home, now spend all day catching as many steelhead as they can - double digits and then some, has become the expected result of many high-liners when water conditions are favorable. At 5% incidental mortality, some of the CNR high-liners are killing almost as many steelhead as if they kept a limit AND reducing the opportunity of fellow anglers who don't float or jet boat or use the most efficient fish-catching methods.

    The boat fishing targeted by the regulation suggestion wouldn't even be thought of if only a CNR limit of two steelhead a day were enforceable as a regulation. Catch two, and put your rod away. How do you think that would go over?

    If there is no limit on the number of anglers and no limit or restriction on the effectiveness of the methods they may use, it's only a matter of time before reduced seasons will be necessary to limit the total impact on what remains of the steelhead resource.

    Sg