Post OS brainstorming

nomlasder

Active Member
#92
Going back to the original idea

Lobby the WDFW Commission to close a salmon hatchery that mainly raises fish for Canadian interception and returns few to WA fisheries;

I do not see much use spending time here, besides being a political football, any action would take too long

2. Lobby the Legislature for some kind of Skagit Endorsement, similar to the Columbia River Endorsement, that covers the costs of monitoring in that river basin. Unfortunately the earliest this could take effect would be 2019;

This is a great idea for long term use. Requiring a special endorsement on your fishing license would generate funds, but would only be as good in controlling pressure as enforcement. Again not a good short term solution, but a great long term approach to be used as a selling point to the powers to be.

3. Raise money privately from outside sources, and provide a grant to WDFW specifically for Skagit monitoring. The means for this alternative could include soliciting contributions from manufacturers and vendors of equipment and gear used in the steelhead fishery. Maybe also guides that work the river. A Go-Fund-Me account to receive contributions from anglers and others with an interest in the fishery.
This a great approach to get the ball rolling. I agree with some posts that would be best to tag along with a current non profit. WSC comes to mind.
4. (This is where you offer up your constructive ideas.)

To start, a charter or memo of understanding needs to be drafted laying out the purpose, approach , methods and benefits of the proposed fishery. What science can be gleeneed from monitoring the fishery and the benefits? What value of this information for future management and why this information is indespensible.

If the purpose is only to provide some fishing opportunity to a few folks it's gonna be a tough sell.

If it can be demonstrated to reduce congestion and pressure on other stocks the fishery will have a better chance of convincing the regulators.
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#93
To start, a charter or memo of understanding needs to be drafted laying out the purpose, approach , methods and benefits of the proposed fishery.
That's been done already. It's called the The Skagit River Fishery Resource Management Plan which you'll find a copy of below.


The purpose to raise funding is to pay for the monitoring that will be required by NMFS. Why? Because WDFW's proposed budget was shot down. Included in that budget you'll find the funds that were supposed to pay for the monitoring.
 

Attachments

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#95
One thing to keep in mind when discussing additional fees, permits, endorsement cards is this:
WDFW cannot impose any additional fees such as these without approval from the state legislature...the same legislature that denied their proposed budget. We can throw all these ideas at WDFW, but without legislative support nothing will happen. Absolutely nothing.

Contact your lawmakers.
 

nomlasder

Active Member
#96
Ok, I scanned the proposal. I believe this covers tribal commercial and subsistence along with sport retention fishery. Although the proposal does note native fish are to be released. Please correct me if I misread the document.

The proposal I suggest is a private funding submittal. You can't just drop a pile of cash on someones desk without a plan how the money is to be spent.
Also I think the proposal is to be specific to a c&r sport fishery.
The proposal should also lay out a plan to secure legeslative approval for permanent funding.

Ross
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#97
Not to be argumentative but I think all your concerns have been addressed. Who would do this proposal? Who would get this proposal? Would it have any teeth? Would it take another six years?
Ok, I scanned the proposal. I believe this covers tribal commercial and subsistence along with sport retention fishery.
It covers all steelhead fishing in the Skagit by all parties.
proposal I suggest is a private funding submittal. You can't just drop a pile of cash on someones desk without a plan how the money is to be spent.
A grant? Spend it on monitoring the C&R fishery. That's what this whole thread is about!
Also I think the proposal is to be specific to a c&r sport fishery.
A grant to fund the monitoring of a C&R fishery for 2018? As I recall, the tribes self report.
The proposal should also lay out a plan to secure legeslative approval for permanent funding.
Call, email, snail mail your lawmakers to accept the WDFW budget.

We have a plan approved by WDFW and all the co-managers that simply awaits federal approval. The assumption is that they will require monitoring. Hell, if they don't, then we're home free. Perhaps they'll give us a pass the first year because our state government is so dysfunctional!
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#98
Freestoneangler-
Nothing wrong with wanting to protect a threatened species. However I draw a different conclusion from the graph you presented in post # 64 of this thread. I believe it is very important to take such information and put in the context of what is going on in the big picture.

Anyone that has been paying attention that there has been a massive change in marine survival (smolt to adult survival) for Puget Sound steelhead between the 1980s and this century. I believe that is driving you so-called trend. Consider that on the Keogh river on north Vancouver Island where there is an excellent long term data base on both wild steelhead smolt production (smolt trap) and adult returns from the late 1970s to today. During the 1980s the average Keogh river smolt survival was in excess of 10% and this century has been around 2%. A recent paper looked at the changes in smolt to adult across the region comparing the 1980s survival with that of this century. Their finds showed that Puget Sound survivals had declined 53%, Strait Juan de Fuca survivals had declined34%, the Washington coast survivals declined 22%, lower Columbia survivals declined 13% and the Georgia basin declined43%. In the face of that survival paradigm shift the Skagit numbers look pretty good; I would argue that the trend this century is at least stable.

In 2008 (using information up to 2006) a look at the long-range (over the next 100 years) risk of extinction of Skagit wild winter found that there was zero risk. The information since then has only confirmed that low risk of extinction. The historic low escapement in 2009 was particularly insightful. That brood year produced more than 3 adults for every spawning; a remarkable productivity for steelhead and a clear indication of the resilience of the wild steelhead of the Skagit basin. I think we will find that the feds will find that the Skagit fisheries management plan will not represent a significant increase in long term risk of extinction.

Given the obvious low smolt survival it is likely that the average Skagit wild steelhead escapements this century have been more than adequate to seed the available juvenile habitat in the basin. If we collectively are interesting in improving the lot of the ESA threatened Skagit wild steelhead it is pass time to re-focus our discussion from hatchery and harvest issues to one that may actually improve the capacity of the Skagit basin to support more juvenile steelhead (produce more smolts). That of course means focusing the discussions/actions on the hydro and habitat "Hs".

Our collective ability to re-focus that discussion will largely be dependent on passionate advocates for that resource. One of the surest way to develop and strength that advocacy will through allow anglers access to that resource; especially if that access does not threaten the long term viability of that resource.

Curt
Appreciate your comments and perspective. As with much of this discussion, there is considerable uncertainty. The trend line data I provided would be much worse were historic return numbers included. That's concerning in that it softens the severity of what these fish and the system is experiencing. If the Skagit is, by all accounts in better shape than many others in the region, that's all the more reason not to add additional pressure and risk.

The plan/lawsuit agreement (if I recall correctly) was no hatchery steelhead for 12 years - giving the native fish a chance to reverse the trend. I do think these same folks can be passionate advocates for the resource without fishing them and introducing unnecessary risk. If the trend line reverses, open it up for C&R, otherwise I'll continue to support keeping it closed.
 
Appreciate your comments and perspective. As with much of this discussion, there is considerable uncertainty. The trend line data I provided would be much worse were historic return numbers included. That's concerning in that it softens the severity of what these fish and the system is experiencing. If the Skagit is, by all accounts in better shape than many others in the region, that's all the more reason not to add additional pressure and risk.

The plan/lawsuit agreement (if I recall correctly) was no hatchery steelhead for 12 years - giving the native fish a chance to reverse the trend. I do think these same folks can be passionate advocates for the resource without fishing them and introducing unnecessary risk. If the trend line reverses, open it up for C&R, otherwise I'll continue to support keeping it closed.

Post of the year.

I'm starting to believe the mods keep you around for comedy gold. Is this one of those big stances you are taking for the elusive silent majority who struggle with the arduous process of typing words into chat boxes? Way to fight the good fight keyboard warrior. Erin Brokovich would be proud.

You made your point. What are you looking for besides attention? Decision has been made.

By the way before you try to dismiss me as part of the "group", I have concerns with the opening more so with monitoring and the guide influx. I just find it sad that you dive bomb so many conversations and prevent good information on BOTH sides of the coin from having a thoughtful, useful conversation.
 
Not to be argumentative but I think all your concerns have been addressed. Who would do this proposal? Who would get this proposal? Would it have any teeth? Would it take another six years?

It covers all steelhead fishing in the Skagit by all parties.

A grant? Spend it on monitoring the C&R fishery. That's what this whole thread is about!

A grant to fund the monitoring of a C&R fishery for 2018? As I recall, the tribes self report.

Call, email, snail mail your lawmakers to accept the WDFW budget.

We have a plan approved by WDFW and all the co-managers that simply awaits federal approval. The assumption is that they will require monitoring. Hell, if they don't, then we're home free. Perhaps they'll give us a pass the first year because our state government is so dysfunctional!
My apologies if I made the impression to redraft the
Not to be argumentative but I think all your concerns have been addressed. Who would do this proposal? Who would get this proposal? Would it have any teeth? Would it take another six years?

It covers all steelhead fishing in the Skagit by all parties.

A grant? Spend it on monitoring the C&R fishery. That's what this whole thread is about!

A grant to fund the monitoring of a C&R fishery for 2018? As I recall, the tribes self report.

Call, email, snail mail your lawmakers to accept the WDFW budget.

We have a plan approved by WDFW and all the co-managers that simply awaits federal approval. The assumption is that they will require monitoring. Hell, if they don't, then we're home free. Perhaps they'll give us a pass the first year because our state government is so dysfunctional!
I was not suggesting to rewrite the Skagit Fishery Management Plan. I am suggesting a short narrative to accompany donated funds, stating the purpose of the grant and possibly some conditions on how the cash is to be used.
Who would write it. Certainly someone smarter than me. Most likely an individual or small group from the Occupy Skagit core of volunteers.
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
I see, I'm pretty sure that any grant handed over would come with explicit directions. And as has been mentioned before it would probably have to go through one of the tribes with them hiring another co-manager, (WDFW) to do the work.
I just find it sad that you dive bomb so many conversations
I've been told that God has a plan for everyone and works in mysterious ways. The two guys on my ignore list are the living proof...
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
By the way before you try to dismiss me as part of the "group", I have concerns with the opening more so with monitoring and the guide influx. I just find it sad that you dive bomb so many conversations and prevent good information on BOTH sides of the coin from having a thoughtful, useful conversation.
I'm glad you have concerns about the river being opened up for steelhead fishing and hoping a good many of the forums lurkers do as well.
 

Latest posts