Puget Sound steelhead declared "threatened"

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Nick Andrews, May 7, 2007.

  1. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    99
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Are they being netted during steelhead season? The Nisqually is netted during the late chum season, but that winds up in mid Jan....
     
  2. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Olympia
    My question is will there be much impact on the tribes? What has been the impact of other listings on tribal netting? Recently tribes are being treated with more and more regard for their autonomy. I assume their bigggest impact on wild steelhead is in bycatch. Does anyone have numbers on the tribal impact on different species?

    Development is probably the biggest threat, it's easy to point to netting, but netting wouldn't be a problem if the streams could produce larger runs. But then again, should netting even be occuring on rivers with fragile populations? Probably not. Development will have to be slowed and improved. We'll need higher percentages of pervious surfaces, restrictions on what you can put on your lawn (lawns are stupid!), systems for dispersing run off over a longer period of time, mandatory rain gardens, anything happening in the watersheds will need to be monitored. It would be great to see a moritorium on further development, until the impacts were assessed and plans were made to mitigate them. We have seriously needed responsible development measures in the area for a long time. The thing is that a lot of these things are manageable and would help tremendously, the issue just doesn't have the saliency in the area, or the political will. I really doubt that anything substantial will come of listing--there's just too much money moving things in the opposite direction.

    Retro fitting would be important too. You could give tax breaks for those who choose to make fish friendly improvements on their house or property, and tax others for blatantly harmful practices.
     
  3. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,718
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    This listing is an inevitable outcome of nearly two centuries of abuse of habitat and the fish directly. I would agree that, to the non-fishing public and most legislators and managers, we sport anglers of any ilk come off as being just as self-serving and fatuous as the rest of the resource "user groups", including the tribes. We protect our turf. We want our fishing. We are all fighting over the very last fish to come home. I dont find this listing coming now as being as significant as all of the devious political management crap that has been pulled off for years in the lame attempt to prevent it from happening. And this has been as much by warring sport-angler groups as by wdfw it's self. And while we are "bashing the state", let's not forget what a federal judge did for this situation thirty plus years ago.

    Someone here mentioned that we should "forget the Olympic Peninsula streams", (as they aren't a part of this listing etc.) But every serious closure and limit placed on the Puget Sound river system Steelhead and Salmon fisheries has had a direct and nearly immediate impact on the Olympic Peninsula rivers and fish. With each new closure hoardes of anglers, not to mention the troop of whiz-kid-shiny-faced-overnight-expert-Olympic-Peninsula-guides, have come out to the Peninsula in droves to hammer the last viable runs of fish by all means possible- including "Catch and Release".

    River by river, run by run, the anadromus fish runs of this region are being pummeled into extinction. Yes, we know that harvest, habitat, hatcheries etc are a huge problem- That the human race is in general the problem. But what are we willing to give up personally to make the real difference? All of this points to the individual and to personal choice and lifestyle. It also points to getting involved on a committed basis and working as individuals to create change. Not just for our fishing, but for the health of the ecology of the entire region. If you think of it as an investment, rather than as a sacrifice, we will make more progress.

    And yes- maybe it is time to stop fishing for these fish too.
     
  4. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Washington
    There already are federal tax breaks for building "Green Homes". Developers aren't including these in the crack house culdesac quadrant erector set mansion homes because it costs the "Developer" more per lot to build. Only the consumer gets the tax break.
     
  5. Chris DeLeone

    Chris DeLeone Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    215
    Location:
    Monroe, WA
    With this listing will Steelhead now be counted by non-tribal commerical fishing or will they still be "Bi-Catch"?? The only harvest numbers I see are Tribal and sport, I have never seen non-tribal commercial counts.

    What will this listing do with the Puget Sound fish that are harvested in Canada - do we have a program for negotiating harvest in the Canadian waters or even Alaska? What is their impact on our rivers?

    In their current state what could our rivers hold now (Sky, Skagit/Sauk) in wild steelhead population? Two Three Four more times the fish?? All we say is the habitat is poor - what more could these rivers hold?

    People who care about steelhead are for the most part people who fish for them, or could and choose not to - if we, as anglers, loose the choice to fish for steelhead over the next years, we'll all go on to other things and nobody will have the passion for the fish. If no one has the passion for steelhead who will stand up for them? No one will care. My opinion is we, as anglers, need to fish hard and stand-up for the resource. Duffs example of the Wenatchee is great - only the old guys know how good that river was. The next generation will never know what its like to hook a Wenatchee dry fly hen. If we lose it now its gone forever. The generation before us failed to see what the impacts would be on the fish, its our generation's responsiblilty to make sure we keep fishing and stand up for the fish. Just my thoughts.

    Chris
     
  6. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,986
    Likes Received:
    318
    Location:
    Bellingham
    You noticed this too! iagree
     
  7. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    .
    Smalma, thanks for the link. The data is pretty old, so needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but assuming no major changes in the last 5 years the conclusion I would draw from this is that the tribal impact on Puget Sound steelhead populations is negligible. (Clearly, the coastal streams are experiencing significant tribal catch, but the catch reported on Puget Sound streams looks to be pretty minor.) In fact, if the data is accurately captured, its probably safe to assume that the incidental mortality from the hordes of sport C&R fisherman is more of a factor. Would sure love to see more recent data on this, but if the pattern holds, it's time to point the fingers of blame at factors other than tribal harvest.
     
  8. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    99
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Yeah, that's the ugly part. At some point in the past things fell apart in some streams and haven't been put back together again. The rivers I'm most interested in are the Hood Canal rivers, and the Nisqually. The habitat degredation isn't as severe there, but still no fish... Last SASI data I remember for the N was that it was around 300 wild fish. Considering that quite a bit of it is running through Fort Lewis, and that it's going through a pretty nasty canyon, I'm amazed it doesn't have more fish. Apparently in it's heyday, it had something like *7000* fish returning to it.

    One *could* argue that this points to habitat not being a limiting reagent, but there are lots of other rivers systems where it's pretty much a beautiful curve fit between population growth and decreasing steelhead numbers.
     
  9. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    tribal catch in puget sound is negligable????????????? are you kidding me??????????????????

    latest PSA newpaper puts the tribal catch at somthing like 60-70% of allowable harvest in PS. since there don't seem to be any current data, we all have to take this with some degree of skepticism. but even so, the indiscriminate fishing practices of the native americans guarantee the continued killing of listed fishes. with no one monitoring their activities, we have the fox in the hen house while all of us keep arguing about whether or not we will stop fishing to save wild fish.

    good grief, lets level the playing field, FIRST with all of us who touch fish. after that happens lets all start in after the developers, ranchers, irrigators, dam builders, loggers and the rest of the citizens of this state.

    get the damn nets out first!
     
  10. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    .
    GT - did you bother looking at the data in the WDFW report that Smalma linked to? I'm not talking about the Olympic Peninsula, where the tribes obviously net the crap out of the rivers. Look at the friggin' data on tribal steelhead harvest in what Smalma linked to and then tell me the tribes are the problem on Puget Sound streams. I don't know, maybe you could convince me that 0, or 22, or even 292 (which numbers presumably are a mix of wild and hatchery) fish on a particular river are what has led to this ESA listing, but I doubt it. If you're so cocksure that tribal netting is such a huge factor when it comes to Puget Sound steelhead stocks Why don't you post a link to data that shows that? Maybe you could start with a link to anything that indicates that tribes are taking 60 - 70% of the "allowable harvest" (and what numbers the allowable harvest represents) on Puget Sound streams.
     
  11. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    231
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    James,

    The Skagit is netted through April, so to answer your question, yes, tribal netting is having an impact on the Skagit's and Sauk's wild steelhead. The Skagit, Nooksack, Snohomish, Green, Puyallup are netted December through February specifically for steelhead. I think the Tulalips have been netting the Snohomish into March; but I'm not sure. In other words, yes, the tribes are targeting steelhead in Puget Sound Rivers.

    However, habitat degradation, diking rivers, ditching small streams, building on floodplains, poaching, poor fish handling when releasing fish, and bi-catch all have an impact. It isn't just the tribes who are killing wild steelhead in Puget Sound rivers.

    gt,

    The state cannot get the tribal nets out because of Bolt's ruling, which made the tribes and state co-managers of the fishery. And neither side can tell the other side what to do with its share of the fish according to the judge's ruling. It would take NOAA-F or National Marine Fisheries to do so with the justification that it is needed to prevent the loss of the fish.
     
  12. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    9,866
    Likes Received:
    5,438
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    GT,

    It's important to define the catch area as PS rivers, and also to consider that hatchery fish are not part of this ESA listing. PS Tribes do gillnet steelhead, mostly in Dec - Feb specifically to limit the number of wild steelhead that are harvested. Just as the sport steelhead harvest in PS is aimed at hatchery steelhead, so is the treaty harvest.

    FT,

    While the Skagit is netted into April in recent years, the number harvested is a small fraction of that harvested during the period when the hatchery fish return, same as with the sport harvest. Just because some wild steelhead are netted doesn't make that the proximate cause of population decline. Frankly, I wish tribes would totally stop netting steelhead so that when the runs don't suddenly increase, those anglers who are holding on to their treaty netting anger issues will maybe finally let that excuse go.

    Sg
     
  13. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,986
    Likes Received:
    318
    Location:
    Bellingham
    I think anyone who believes the numbers reported by Native commercial fishermen is living in a pipe dream. I have seen some CRAZY SHIT at the mouth of the Nooksack River done by some dirt poor looking Native peoples. It made me feel sorry for them and sorry the steelhead.

    I used to be a commercial fisherman in the Puget Sound and it definately wasn't an honest game either. Commercial fishermen want the $$$$$ just like everybody else. Max dollars come from dishonesty ALWAYS.

    Why would a comercial fishermen want to report honest numbers if it most likely means losing more rights and making less money.....It seems totally retarded to count on their honesty as they are absolutely the most biased people in this situation.

    Again I am saying this from first hand experience and not as a dumb shit in the big city who prefers his salmon charred lightly.
     
  14. inland

    inland Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    .
    'Max dollars come from dishonesty ALWAYS'

    There is the root, trunk, and branches of the problem.

    William
     
  15. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    .
    Probably true, but no more suspect than harvest numbers reported by non-tribal recreational anglers, not to mention the fact that even well-intended C&R anglers kill fish from poor fish handling and overplaying. If the problem really is harvest (in all its myriad forms, including incidental mortality), then it seems to me the only answer is to ban all fishing and step up enforcement in a massive way to make sure that no one is taking fish.