The one yard line

Well none of the species currently listed will ever recover and become unlisted so might as well fish for them.
Keep painting with that big brush, Rob. I actually agree with a fair amount of what you post, however, alot of it is wtf material. I guess you could say the same about me....
 
Keep painting with that big brush, Rob. I actually agree with a fair amount of what you post, however, alot of it is wtf material. I guess you could say the same about me....
Fair enough. Let me ask this then. What has occurred in the last 30 years gives you a sense of encouragement that there is a future for wild steelhead in the Puget Sound region?

What evidence of recovery or promise of recovery is there?
Not trying to be a downer just tryong to be a realist.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the ESA hasn't helped wild steelhead, maybe it's been a boondoggle for steelhead! Maybe it's concentrated anglers on "open" rivers? We all know it has, which makes those rivers and fish suffer additional pressure. Rob has made so many obvious points recently that can't be disputed. Here's one of his best in my words.

If all steelhead rivers were left open year around for C&R on wild steelhead and no hatch plants ANYWHERE we'd end up with many benefits, as would the steelhead! The harvest oriented anglers would bail on steelhead and switch to salmon or quit. Diehard steelheaders would figure out when and where over time, but the angler numbers would drop bigly...or spread out bigly or both! Natural productivity would take over regardless of habitat conditions. Natural is good for steelhead, even if it isn't completely or even close to natural!

I think the Skagit should be open year around for C&R of wild steelhead with no special monitoring. I also think the rest of the state's steelhead rivers should stay open year around and reasonable monitoring should be expected. All the rivers would see the pressure they deserve, some too much some too little and it would change over time which would keep steelhead and each river special.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. Let me ask this then. What Azv c have occurred in the last 30 years gives you a sence of encouragement that there is a future for wild steelhead in the Puget Sound region?

What evidence of recovery or promise of recovery is there?
Not trying to be a downer just tryong to be a realist.
I am not encouraged much with what has transpired in the last 30 years that has lead us here. It doesn't mean you throw your arms up in the air and have a defeatist attitude for the future. You have said repeatedly that broad brush closures have not brought back the fish, so what makes you think opening up everything year round would do the same? It won't!

If you haven't noticed, humans are good at breeding and taking up space and resources.....We just so happen to like steelhead and the places they inhabit, so let's open it up for a free for all? I know.....I know....CNR only

The steelhead has played this game enough


37ur107.gif
 
Thanks!

I guess I had let the three-letter acronym "ESA" slip out of the scope of my reasoning. For that matter, I thought the Skagit run was slightly better off than that; hence the proposal to open fishing. That was poor form, letting this topic go so far without understanding that.

Indeed, ESA explains the enforcement requirements, but I still question what we expect to learn that we didn't already know. I'm not sure how interested I am in proving how "safe" it is to C&R endangered fish. I would never intentionally target an endangered species. If that's what we're lobbying for, I'm out.
Puget Sound steelhead populations as a whole have been listed as threatened since 2007. How in the hell did that just slip by you?:confused:
 

Shad

Active Member
Puget Sound steelhead populations as a whole have been listed as threatened since 2007. How in the hell did that just slip by you?:confused:
I actually knew that they were listed as threatened. Curt's post said "endangered," which is a small, but very important degree more grave than threatened (though both may carry the same consequences for resource management, for all I know).

Threatened means in the toilet; endangered means circling the bowl. As long as we're only talking in the toilet, that's a potential quality fishery by Washington standards.

Carry on.
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
but I still question what we expect to learn that we didn't already know.
We'll find out how long it takes X amount of anglers to hook X amount of steelhead with a projected run size of X and a total angler effort of X. And we'll find out how many enforcement actions there are.
I would never intentionally target an endangered species. If that's what we're lobbying for, I'm out.
Technically they are listed as "Threatened" and not "Endangered"

Each and every person will have to find their comfort level with the season and act accordingly.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
I am not encouraged much with what has transpired in the last 30 years that has lead us here. It doesn't mean you throw your arms up in the air and have a defeatist attitude for the future. You have said repeatedly that broad brush closures have not brought back the fish, so what makes you think opening up everything year round would do the same? It won't!

If you haven't noticed, humans are good at breeding and taking up space and resources.....We just so happen to like steelhead and the places they inhabit, so let's open it up for a free for all? I know.....I know....CNR only

The steelhead has played this game enough


View attachment 163978

Well it's a free for all whether we allow CnR fishing or not. Rivers are still getting clearcut and urbanized streams are still getting poisoned. The fish are still being harvested.
Not allowing catch and release fishing is just taking the least lethal user of the resource and essentially calling them the worst by ONLY eliminating them.

Thos would be like taking bb guns away from 10 year olds and calling it crime prevention.

Eliminating CnR fisheries is literally the absolute least they can do. It increases fish numbers as much as picking up aluminum cans from along side the road.

I honestly believe that having responsible anglers on the rivers reporting problems would save more fish than it would harm. Right now it's a free for all for poachers.

and as far as giving up? It's impossible to give up something you have never even tried.
That's right there has been zero effort to restore or even preserve wild steelhead. Why? because trying to restore wild steelhead in Puget Sound requires actions that for political reasons cannot be accomplished.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Active Member
It's not bazare its a question, that's what the ? Means. Do you fish on the Olympic peninsula? Hell any steelhead river in WA?
The picture in my avatar is from the Hoh, circa 2003. The last wild steelhead I caught on the Peninsula was three seasons ago. I've tried to fish for them twice since, and the experience was not what I remembered, nor one I particularly enjoyed (more anglers than fish, to your point). My decision this year to stop trying was based as much on the poor quality of the fishery as any moral obligation.

I now target only hatchery steelhead. If things change in Puget Sound and the crowds on the Peninsula thin out some, I might start fishing there in the spring again. For now, it's pretty much a waste of gas, not to mention a bit of a moral dilemma.

I should clarify that I am not opposed to the Skagit C&R fishery, provided the run designation is "threatened." I was unintentionally led to believe we were talking about endangered fish. As I said before, there's an important difference between those designations.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
[QUOTE="_WW_,

Each and every person will have to find their comfort level with the season and act accordingly.[/QUOTE]


This is exactly right. Scarcity keeps low population from receiving too much attention. Southwest Washington proves this to be true.. East Lewis Washougal Kalama Elochoman and Grays rivers. Nobody fishes them for wild steelhead even though they are open.. It's self regulation we do not need government interference it does not help.
 
The Hatch piece was an op-ed from one individual. This is Wild Steelhead Coalition's message:

"It is our hope that we will soon see a sustainable, conservation-oriented late-winter and spring wild steelhead fishery in the Skagit Watershed – a fishery that balances angling opportunity and the continued recovery of this important run of wild steelhead. The Wild Steelhead Coalition is generally supportive of the designation of Skagit-origin wild steelhead as an independently managed component of the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS). However, if management of this watershed is to be differentiated from the Puget Sound DPS to include harvest, striking a balance between fishing opportunity for both recreational anglers and tribal co-managers and the continued recovery of wild steelhead in the Skagit must be a vital requirement."

Sg, you may desire more detail, but the above responds to your question. WSC is not the prime group to point fingers at if you're pissed about technical comments slowing down this fishery. And we had the integrity to post and publicly stand behind our feedback on the RMP, something WFC did not do with their tome of criticism.

My chiming in here was to reiterate that while WSC offered what we saw as reasonable feedback during the comment period, perhaps contributing to the delay, we are not standing in the way of a fishery now.

You may soon see another org do so via legal means. I'd encourage folks to pick their targets appropriately.
Im pretty sure people are going to pick there targets based on fact. That is exactly what has gone down over the last 8 plus years this fishery has been closed. And yes its complicated. It doesnt need to be by any means. Our rules and regulations for the Sauk/Skagit fishery that existed in 2009 were perfectly fine. It worked, regardless of a low return year in 2009. Which I personally think is bullshit. Just how accurately can you count wild fish with out a wier expanding the whole river. Red counts? After season test fisheries? Fuck that these are large rivers and unless you establish a barrier to count fish you can not come up with a accurate number. So basically its an estimate. Im going to estimate that your little group of fish conservationists is going to go by the way side very soon. Because it has little to do with actual wild fish conservation through a large angler base. Yes, that includes the plug pullers, the plunkers, the side drifters every method that falls into the legal means of fishing these rivers. Thats a much larger base then you want to comprehend but it all has to be taken into consideration. I get that Rich Simms had a Trump moment in his article. Everyone fucks up, just own it and move on.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
Just how accurately can you count wild fish with out a wier expanding the whole river.
The subject of accurate spawning escapement estimates gets mentioned from time to time, so I thought I'd pick that part out of your post and respond to it. The answer is that escapement estimates are not a count, they are not accurate, but they are precise. I say precise because the method used to make the estimate provides a point estimate (with a substantial confidence interval), and it is systematic from year to year. That point estimate is really an index value. It's accuracy doesn't matter very much. What does matter is the relationship (whatever it is) between the index value and the real, but unknown, value. An underlying assumption in the fairly simple spawning escapement estimation model is that the relationship between the index value and the real actual value is the same, or about the same from year to year.

So long as that underlying assumption is valid, the index value for escapement, which is an estimate, and the actual or estimated number of fish harvested (or assumed mortality for CNR recreational fishing) are accurate enough to satisfy conservation and harvest management goals. I'm not certain, but I think many or most of the world's fisheries are managed using lower quality data that is used to manage Skagit steelhead. Maybe that's not saying much for fish management, but it can add some perspective about how accurate or risky Skagit steelhead management is.

Sg
 

Latest posts