Skagit Catch & Release debate.

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
I’m no fish scientist but if you imagine the Skagit basin prior to a dam, diking, and the like look how large the ecosystem must have been.
Jamie, if you do a little research on the dams of the Skagit you'll soon discover that there is a natural barrier to fish migration buried under one of the impoundments. This was used as one of the justifications for dam placement. You can even find old photos of it, although it is very hard if not impossible to deduce any scale to it from those photos. Research was done to try and find any anadromous fish above this 'barrier' but I have to admit that I could not determine who paid for the science.

When I first read Rich's article I had a hard time trying to determine what it was that he was getting at. There are at least two camps obviously. In one camp, rising returns are a "rebound" and lower returns are "slipping" Others with decades of experience with the steelhead of Puget Sound see these fluctuation of numbers as part of the normal cycle of varying conditions of habitat both on land and at sea. And these fluctuations also translate to those streams with severely depressed populations and streams with no hatchery plantings for many many years.

Occupy Skagit has always tried to stick to the facts as we know them. Here's some that keep getting overlooked. Those responsible for the plan at WDFW care about the future of this fishery. How do I know this? I have talked to them face to face - for hours. That is a fact. Without a certain degree of monitoring and enforcement and almost daily accounting, there will be no fishery - period! That is a fact. WDFW has the hammer of emergency closure and will use it when deemed necessary. That is a fact.

Because it is easier to close fisheries than open fisheries on ESA listed fish, the plan is more broad than what many might feel comfortable with. Keep in mind that because they are in the plan, not all numbers and areas will be used all the time, but can be in favorable conditions without seeking another federal permit.

I liked what Nick said at the end of his piece. Fishing through Recovery. It's a great idea! But everyone is going to have a different picture of what that looks like.
 
Last edited:

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
It's super frustrating for me to read stuff that uses Bill McMillan science. I'm quite sure that Kerry is right with where the estimate comes from. The Nooksack was supposed to have over 100,000 steelhead to according to those estimates. It's embarrassingly bad.

There are proposals as far as regulating a fishery that I would support that are likely in line with what Rich is writing about. The problem is that he does not even understand who authored the plan. He's not understanding who comes up with the angling rules (it is not the feds). He does not seem to understand the process or roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved.

His interpretation of the data is questionable and unsubstantiated. He does not even speak to weather/ environmental related causes for the decline at the time of listing. He overemphasizes what role a lack of hatchery fish or angling pressure could have on a rebound. I'm pretty sure that we fished for those fish in 08-09. I didn't land any because it's hard to catch one when the run size is that low. Their offspring more than doubled in run size. Why then would we credit decreased angling pressure in any way?

The biggest issue is that he isn't making a proposal as to what should be done. He does not show how the proposed monitoring falls short, or the rules or anything else. If you want to make a proposal, do it.

It's super frustrating because to those who don't take the time to look themselves, ask bio's, and think, their education will be from pieces like this. I don't think that is good for the resource.

Go Sox,
cds
You have to consider where these scientist get their paycheck from, this influences their science.
 

almostacatch

Let it Angle on the Dangle
I actually think that this is mostly not true. Generally, it is the third party interpretation of the science that is the problem. Mostly scientists are pretty freaking honest from what I've seen.


Go Sox,
cds
If science is "honest" why do the "mega chems" give so much to fund it? Why is there such a chasm between the haves and the have nots? We are all codependent on what we do to make a living and bios want to keep their jobs like the rest of so called "middle class America" and to do that they need funding for trials and data not necessarily solutions. It's a tough road; we all want fish, we all want as much of an unabashed world as we can. Yet the largest contributors to what kills the resources we love are the ones with the biggest lobby's because they've got the most money, Big power, big Ag, big business. If we really want to know how money effects decisions and science let's start with transparency in political funding and work backwards.

Scientists are honest? Mostly, yes. The system they have to survive in? That's the real question.
 
If science is "honest" why do the "mega chems" give so much to fund it? Why is there such a chasm between the haves and the have nots? We are all codependent on what we do to make a living and bios want to keep their jobs like the rest of so called "middle class America" and to do that they need funding for trials and data not necessarily solutions. It's a tough road; we all want fish, we all want as much of an unabashed world as we can. Yet the largest contributors to what kills the resources we love are the ones with the biggest lobby's because they've got the most money, Big power, big Ag, big business. If we really want to know how money effects decisions and science let's start with transparency in political funding and work backwards.

Scientists are honest? Mostly, yes. The system they have to survive in? That's the real question.
The beauty of science is that it begs questioning and requires that the claims predict an outcome.

Whether one chooses to educate themselves enough to understand the nuances of the science and how to interpret them, that’s where chasm is created
 

almostacatch

Let it Angle on the Dangle
The beauty of science is that it begs questioning and requires that the claims predict an outcome.

Whether one chooses to educate themselves enough to understand the nuances of the science and how to interpret them, that’s where chasm is created
Correct and the self restraint and unbiased analysis must be applied no matter how much we want an outcome. Only statistical well gathered data should matter. Unadulterated by personal opinion or self interest.

Biology is the hardest of all science because the scope of the variables. It's because of this, interpretation can be clouded in bias. Not that its diabolical, but human nature wants to be right.

The toughest thing we all want to fish and we all want what is best for the fish so we can have that opportunity. My wife tells me steelheaders live in this ironic dichotomy and have created our own pain.
 
Last edited:
I actually think that this is mostly not true. Generally, it is the third party interpretation of the science that is the problem. Mostly scientists are pretty freaking honest from what I've seen.


Go Sox,
cds
Doesn't matter where you go or who you work for, you learn to toe (spelling error) the line or they will get rid of you. Every organization/agency has an agenda.
 
Last edited:

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
There are many places scientists work without a line to tow. The cynicism towards science belies the amazing advancements society has made due to science and scientists. From medical advancements to communication and everything in between scientists have improved my life.
I have a lot more to say on the topic but it may be best that we not argue the point here.

Go sox,
Cds
 

Latest posts