CnR Wild Steelhead Mortality and NOAA 4%

#61
Chris -
I probably should have said the recent fishing mortalities have not been the factor(s) limiting Puget Sound Steelhead. Over the last decade the averaging fishing impacts across the Puget Sound rivers has been about 4%. Since that level of impacts doesn't seem to be limiting the Puget Sound steelhead which is why NMFS is comfortable in allowing the continuation of those kinds of impacts.

While I confident that larger impacts on a basin like the Skagit coiuld be allowed without significant increases extinction risk for that population(s). However to allow those increases a proposal must be put forward for evaluation and approval by NMFS. Given the treaty rights in the area that proposal would have to a joint co-manager proposal. Further the feds have been pretty clear that they have no desire to address that evaluation piece meal; rather a proposal covering all the Puget Sound rivers would be the preferred option. Technically it might only take a couple years to complete the necessary modeling and another 6 months to year for the feds to approve such a proposals I don't see that happening in that sort of time frame. Given the current status of most of the area steelhead it is unlikely that the some of the tribes would be willing to commit the manapower needed.

Regarding a fishing from a boat ban - it would be unlikely that such an action would lead directly to a longer season. I 'm sure that the managers would still have to justify what sort of reduction such a ban would make in fish encounters. Not sure that anyone can currently do that.

The perhaps best hope of seeing any increase in fishing seasons over what we saw in 2010/11 is to encourage WDFW to go it alone with developing the needed modeling and determination of potentail allowable impacts with the hope that the tribes will sign on (with that tribal agreement there is no way the feds will approve anything). The risk of course is that State may put in a lot of work and resources without any certainity it would pay off (at least in the short term).

Tight lines
Curt
Thanks for the reply Curt, I appreciate it, and p-lease excuse my little rant as I get frustrated when I read things like " a puget sound wide plan would be the preferred approach". With the steelhead in the rivers of puget sound, in varying states of disrepair, and the Nooksack with different issues than the Puyallup, how can you have a P.S. wide Plan?
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#62
Charles
It all depends - do you think that (if all is true in this Hoh report) that if anglers were not fishing from a boat 80% of the fish in that system would have been contacted/handled? Now you and I agree on where we think the mortaility is on CnR (about 3% on gear caught fish -no bait), but if true and 80% of the Hoh fish were handled that shows that our methods as anglers are getting good - nyphing from a boat and other grear base methods are very productive. We as anglers have to ask - would we limit our contact with these wild fish to keep fishing - that as a fishing community is going to be a very difficult question to answer.
Sorry I missed this.

I love the reg. I do think that the % hooked would be less, especially for winter fish.

I also think that C&R mortality is the largest red herring going. We just don't kill that many fish.

19,
cds
 

Brazda

Fly Fishing guide "The Bogy House" Lodge
#63
Considering the OP rivers only; there is WAY more refuge from angling than most any rivers in the state, miles of closed water or inaccessable by boat water, huge log jams, big rapids, many areas that I know we cant reach fish there, the refuge from angling via a no boat policy is not an issue here on the coast around Forks. It would however be nice as a regulation to promote a different quality experiance, but we all know how WDFW feels about providing a quality fishery through there regulation.

A no boat fishery on the PS rivers is a great idea, I loved the Green when it had the regulation between Witney and Soos crk..Fact it pretty much went down hill at the time of removal of said reg....just my observation...
 

Smalma

Active Member
#64
Chris -
I would think that a "Puget Sound" wide plan would be much like that seen with the Puget Sound Chinook plan. Within that plan for each basin/stock individual allowable impacts were developed . Those allowable impacts vary quite a bit reflecting the individual stock productivity (unfortunately that also includes stocks where hatchery spawners are included). With such an approach one might see something like a 15% allowable impact on the Skagit and say only 2% on soemthing like the Cedar. Given some of the lack of data on some basins I would also expect that there would be a number of basin under some sort of default allowable impact - likely that 4%.

Obvious developing those individual basin impacts requires a fair amount of basin specific data and modeling efforts for each those basin. I could go into more details of what into that Chinook model but it gets pretty technical.

Tight lines
Curt
 
#65
Curt,

Thanks for clearing that up, put in those terms it makes more sense. So then what needs to be done is to get to work on data for individual basins while they come up with a plan.

I would love to see a no fishing from floating devices on the forks of the nookie, as well as re-instating the no bait barbless above welcome bridge. When that reg was in place the dolly fishing was great!
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
#66
Considering the OP rivers only; there is WAY more refuge from angling than most any rivers in the state, miles of closed water or inaccessable by boat water, huge log jams, big rapids, many areas that I know we cant reach fish there, the refuge from angling via a no boat policy is not an issue here on the coast around Forks. It would however be nice as a regulation to promote a different quality experiance, but we all know how WDFW feels about providing a quality fishery through there regulation.

A no boat fishery on the PS rivers is a great idea, I loved the Green when it had the regulation between Witney and Soos crk..Fact it pretty much went down hill at the time of removal of said reg....just my observation...
so it is a great reg.... as long as it doesn't impact you.
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
#67
Agreed as well. As far as angler experience goes, no fishing from a boat is the way to go. It isn't much of a recovery tool though. I think it's well known how much I love to nymph.
it's not a recovery tool, but it could be a way to stop other river systems from being shut down. we are currently pounding fish on the coast, and not all the rivers are consistently meeting escapement. can we be serious about conservation while not being willing to lessen our impact on stocks below escapement. yes, the tribal fisheries harvest more fish but is it wise to behave badly because others do?

as for the deschutes, you also have a huge community devoted and fighting to restore wild runs on that river. groups like the native fish society have worked to place weirs over many (if not most) of the smaller tributaries in an attempt to decrease the impacts of stray hatchery fish. the initial numbers show that this is a good strategy. i also wonder if the way the deschutes is managed creates more community involvement with such incredible public access and equitable fishing regs. it has been managed as a treasure for a long time and i think that shows in the amount of people who financially support real wild fish work on the river.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#68
Topwater,

Agreed on all counts.

If you ever find yourself in B'ham let me know. I'll buy or at least serve you my homebrew. Good luck.

1 out to go,
cds
 

Brazda

Fly Fishing guide "The Bogy House" Lodge
#69
so it is a great reg.... as long as it doesn't impact you.
I just so happen to fish were the regulation on the rivers allows for a good portion of un boatable refuge already, as said before in this thread a basin by basin regulation is better, a blanket regulation is ridiculous not all rivers are the Deschutes or Skagit in character. Did you actually read what I said or are you trying to be a jack ass,,,,, that solves nothing and exactly why sportsmen will never have any political power too many Jack asses.
 

gt

Active Member
#70
brazda, let me amend your comment from my perspective.

the sport angling community lacks political power for two basic reasons: every sport angler knows in their heart of heart what THE solution looks like and is unwilling to join hands with other sport anglers to find any compromise that can be made to fly; the sport angling community lacks any local/nationally recognized organization which is willing to bring folks together and move an agenda forward.

given these two circumstances, the fish are doomed.
 

attack

Active Member
#71
Every river is different and must be treated that way...I can tell you from lots of time on the hoh that a boat ban would do leaps and bounds for the health of that fishery especially in low water years where the fish have no where to hide and get pounded on over and over... the problem we face with all these conservation issues is everyone wants to point the figure at someone other than themselves and jusitfy their own views without ever even considering the others...
 
#72
brazda, let me amend your comment from my perspective.

the sport angling community lacks political power for two basic reasons: every sport angler knows in their heart of heart what THE solution looks like and is unwilling to join hands with other sport anglers to find any compromise that can be made to fly; the sport angling community lacks any local/nationally recognized organization which is willing to bring folks together and move an agenda forward.

given these two circumstances, the fish are doomed.
disagree.
 

Brazda

Fly Fishing guide "The Bogy House" Lodge
#73
brazda, let me amend your comment from my perspective.

the sport angling community lacks political power for two basic reasons: every sport angler knows in their heart of heart what THE solution looks like and is unwilling to join hands with other sport anglers to find any compromise that can be made to fly; the sport angling community lacks any local/nationally recognized organization which is willing to bring folks together and move an agenda forward.

given these two circumstances, the fish are doomed.
Thanks GT and thanks for pointing to the obviouse (to us) on a lot of your other comments too, sometimes I feel as an angler we are regulating ourselves out of fishing and opening the door to more aggrressive kill fisheries to move in (forgone opertunity), we all know whom we speak of, and fortunate for us it has been a great run this year with far less effort by the commercial angling community (reduced market?). I hope its enough to show that the fish are there on the coast they just need to get to the spawning grounds allive. We will see when the escapement numbers come out.
Did not intend to hyjack thread.
 

gt

Active Member
#74
i agree with you jeff. in this state with WDFW focused on MSY, we should expect the sport angling community to take the brunt of shorter more restrictive seasons in order to preserve fish for the commercial sectors. this is not limited to this state by any stretch but there is no end in sight particularly when the sport angling community lacks any disicpline, legal backing or agressive lobby.
 

Lugan

Joe Streamer
#75
brazda, let me amend your comment from my perspective.

the sport angling community lacks political power for two basic reasons: every sport angler knows in their heart of heart what THE solution looks like and is unwilling to join hands with other sport anglers to find any compromise that can be made to fly; the sport angling community lacks any local/nationally recognized organization which is willing to bring folks together and move an agenda forward.
I've thought about this issue myself in the past and came to the conclusion that SPORTfishermen are unable/unwilling to organize into a powerful lobbying force because the activity that unites us is just...sport. Other groups with overlapping fisheries interests are in it for work and money. It's not play time for them, and thus they have greater incentive to pursue their interests in an organized and aggressive fashion. That's just my theory based on intuition about human nature.
 

Latest posts