Regulation change for fly only water rivers only

RCF said:
Sshhhhh....
Click to expand...

I think you'd actually want more folks fishing SRC on a meat factory like the Cowlitz then on smaller, less pressured streams. Besides that, off the top of my head I can’t think of another stream that has hatchery searuns, which are great eating if someone wants some trout for dinner.
YMMV.....
SF
 
Last edited:
My statistics class is bringing up a very good question: Is there a statistically significant increase of Stillaguamish Chinook successfully spawning as a result of fishing closures, both in river and in the sound?
 
Kashf said:
My statistics class is bringing up a very good question: Is there a statistically significant increase of Stillaguamish Chinook successfully spawning as a result of fishing closures, both in river and in the sound?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I’d guess most in river sports closures for anadromous fish couldn’t statistically be shown to increase numbers. With all the nets and predators in the salt, that is the primary impact and as was stated earlier, this particular Chinook is doomed by changing climate and habitat alterations.

The only reason sport fishermen lose fisheries so frequently is because they can easily curtail us without serious push back. All the other impacts like commercial fishing, development, are significant engines of economy with powerful lobbies, so meaningful changes to their activities are far more difficult achieve.

You can look at society as a whole and find countless examples of changes meant to do good but will ultimately have little effect while the huge capitalistic impacts, the elephant in the room, get a slap on the wrist at worst and any changes to their activities will clearly have little impact. Just start paying attention and you will see it everywhere. It is so easy to address the small impacts and ignore the big impacts, it is the path of the least resistance, it is why most problems continue to get worse.

The whole “environmentalism starts at home”, and “you do whatever you can to help” type of messages that began at the start of the environmental movement were actually pushed by large powerful companies that stood to lose. For example, should we recycle cheap plastic? Or should we make a law that forces the companies making profits off cheap plastic related products find another type of material for their product? I know it sounds cynical, but we the people, are continuously being burdened with the job to do good by the world, while companies, capitalists and billionaires are being made by doing the opposite. It makes me sick how often this happens and the solution is to get money out of politics, but we already all knew that…
 
Last edited:
HauntedByWaters said:
Not at all. I’d guess most in river sports closures for anadromous fish couldn’t statistically be shown to increase numbers. With all the nets and predators in the salt, that is the primary impact and as was stated earlier, this particular Chinook is doomed by changing climate and habitat alterations.

The only reason sport fishermen lose fisheries so frequently is because they can easily curtail us without serious push back. All the other impacts like commercial fishing, development, are significant engines of economy with powerful lobbies, so meaningful changes to their activities are far more difficult achieve.

You can look at society as a whole and find countless examples of changes meant to do good but will ultimately have little effect while the huge capitalistic impacts, the elephant in the room, get a slap on the wrist at worst and any changes to their activities will clearly have little impact. Just start paying attention and you will see it everywhere. It is so easy to address the small impacts and ignore the big impacts, it is the path of the least resistance, it is why most problems continue to get worse.

The whole “environmentalism starts at home”, and “you do whatever you can to help” type of messages that began at the start of the environmental movement were actually pushed by large powerful companies that stood to lose. For example, should we recycle cheap plastic? Or should we make a law that forces the companies making profits off cheap plastic related products find another type of material for their product? I know it sounds cynical, but we the people, are continuously being burdened with the job to do good by the world, while companies, capitalists and billionaires are being made by doing the opposite. It makes me sick how often this happens and the solution is to get money out of politics, but we already all knew that…
Click to expand...
This would be a great thing for us to all bring up at public comment meetings
 
Kashf said:
My statistics class is bringing up a very good question: Is there a statistically significant increase of Stillaguamish Chinook successfully spawning as a result of fishing closures, both in river and in the sound?
Click to expand...
Hope not to pile on HBW's post, but Hah! Not even close. Closing recreational fishing will not result in even ONE additional adult Chinook recruit in subsequent years. In fact, it's more probable than not that closing the Stilly and all marine waters where a Stilly Chinook might venture, closing all those waters to all fishing of any kind, would not result in ONE single additional adult Chinook recruit showing up 3 to 5 years later. It's that bad. It's as if the Stillaguamish River habitat were toxic to Chinook salmon such that 100 adult spawners cannot replace themselves with 100 recruits in subsequent year cohorts. The only thing that has kept Stilly Chinook around these last 40 years is the small hatchery program operated by the Stillaguamish Tribe. Absent that, the Stilly Chinook population likely would have winked out some time ago.
 
Salmo_g said:
Hope not to pile on HBW's post, but Hah! Not even close. Closing recreational fishing will not result in even ONE additional adult Chinook recruit in subsequent years. In fact, it's more probable than not that closing the Stilly and all marine waters where a Stilly Chinook might venture, closing all those waters to all fishing of any kind, would not result in ONE single additional adult Chinook recruit showing up 3 to 5 years later. It's that bad. It's as if the Stillaguamish River habitat were toxic to Chinook salmon such that 100 adult spawners cannot replace themselves with 100 recruits in subsequent year cohorts. The only thing that has kept Stilly Chinook around these last 40 years is the small hatchery program operated by the Stillaguamish Tribe. Absent that, the Stilly Chinook population likely would have winked out some time ago.
Click to expand...
Does WDFW not like getting license revenue or something then?
 
Salmo_g said:
Hope not to pile on HBW's post, but Hah! Not even close. Closing recreational fishing will not result in even ONE additional adult Chinook recruit in subsequent years. In fact, it's more probable than not that closing the Stilly and all marine waters where a Stilly Chinook might venture, closing all those waters to all fishing of any kind, would not result in ONE single additional adult Chinook recruit showing up 3 to 5 years later. It's that bad. It's as if the Stillaguamish River habitat were toxic to Chinook salmon such that 100 adult spawners cannot replace themselves with 100 recruits in subsequent year cohorts. The only thing that has kept Stilly Chinook around these last 40 years is the small hatchery program operated by the Stillaguamish Tribe. Absent that, the Stilly Chinook population likely would have winked out some time ago.
Click to expand...
I remember a video years ago detailing the spawning carrying capacity for stillaguamish chinook. I cannot find it but my recollection is with the diminished habitats, its something like 300 fish. And that was just suitable  spawning habitat, not accounting for if there was enough rearing habitat for the offspring of those 300.

It is functionally extinct, but exists most prominently today as a means of restricting fisheries.
 
Kashf-
The answer to your and your class question like more things in fisheries management is complex. I'll try to clarify a bit without getting too far into the weeds.

With the ESA listing of Puget Sound Chinook Washington salmon fisheries are governed by the Feds and co-managers agreeing on allowable impacts that would not jeopardize the status of the list Chinook. For this discussion the key piece is what is called the allowable impacts in Southern United State fisheries (SUS fisheries). Recent fisheries plans capped those SUS impacts at 13%. However, with the declining status of the Stillaguamish Chinook (more about that in a minute) that cap has been lowered to 9% SUS impacts. Essentially that is for all Washington (and Columbia) fisheries and typically is divided equally between the tribal and non-treaty fisheries. Clearly that reduction in allowable impacts equates to less fishing somewhere. However, even with those closures there is still fishing to use all 9% of the impacts.

To Salmo g's point -
from the Stillaguamish Stock profile in the draft 2022 Puget Sound Chinook management plan the run reconstruction for the 10 year period (1990 to 1999) prior to the ESA list of the Chinook the average NF Stillaguamish escapement was1,284 spawners which on the average produced 1.05 recruits (adults prior to fishing) for each spawner. Bottom for every 20 spawners put on the gravel 21 recruits were produced.

Since the listing there is run reconstruction for a 14-year period, 2000 to 2013 available. In that period the average escapement 1,481 (a 15% increase over the previous decade). Those spawners produce only 0.66 recruits per spawner. Those 1,481 spawners were only producing 977 fish or the same 20 spawners were producing only 13 potential spawners. Without that continued hatchery infusion into the population it would not be long the population would disappear.

Curt
 
I would like some suggestions on how to set the gamefish flyfishing regulations on the Stillie and even the skykomish. I have posted what I thought would give us an opportunity to continue to fish gamefish and minimize our impacts on stressed stocks. I have communicated how I think we’re getting the screwed by this close everything policy and I reel that if we show that we can come up with a legitimate regulations change the state may work with us. Having put a lot of thought into this with some very informative posts I think this possible. This involves participation in the NOF comments and meetings and sending emails to the commission and your local senators. I have done this before with success, if we don’t let them know we exist then it’s our fault for not speaking up. Smalma and Salmo g and everyone that worked hard to get the skagit opened back up showed the speaking up works. So I plan on setting time aside to attend these meetings and try to make a difference so we can still fish cutthroat and steelhead on our local rivers. I challenge everyone to send an email,call and make yourself known to the parties that make these decisions and be positive. Sorry for the rant, Tight lines Dennis
 
Smalma said:
Kashf-
The answer to your and your class question like more things in fisheries management is complex. I'll try to clarify a bit without getting too far into the weeds.

With the ESA listing of Puget Sound Chinook Washington salmon fisheries are governed by the Feds and co-managers agreeing on allowable impacts that would not jeopardize the status of the list Chinook. For this discussion the key piece is what is called the allowable impacts in Southern United State fisheries (SUS fisheries). Recent fisheries plans capped those SUS impacts at 13%. However, with the declining status of the Stillaguamish Chinook (more about that in a minute) that cap has been lowered to 9% SUS impacts. Essentially that is for all Washington (and Columbia) fisheries and typically is divided equally between the tribal and non-treaty fisheries. Clearly that reduction in allowable impacts equates to less fishing somewhere. However, even with those closures there is still fishing to use all 9% of the impacts.

To Salmo g's point -
from the Stillaguamish Stock profile in the draft 2022 Puget Sound Chinook management plan the run reconstruction for the 10 year period (1990 to 1999) prior to the ESA list of the Chinook the average NF Stillaguamish escapement was1,284 spawners which on the average produced 1.05 recruits (adults prior to fishing) for each spawner. Bottom for every 20 spawners put on the gravel 21 recruits were produced.

Since the listing there is run reconstruction for a 14-year period, 2000 to 2013 available. In that period the average escapement 1,481 (a 15% increase over the previous decade). Those spawners produce only 0.66 recruits per spawner. Those 1,481 spawners were only producing 977 fish or the same 20 spawners were producing only 13 potential spawners. Without that continued hatchery infusion into the population it would not be long the population would disappear.

Curt
Click to expand...
Has reducing our fisheries impacts to 9% statistically significantly altered how many fish return to the basin?
 
OK, so if we agree that poor logging practices, ocean morbidity, climate change, and deep sea netting are the real big picture culprits on the demise of Salmon, why are we wasting our efforts and disdain on WDFW, otters, etc.?

Spinning thoughtful wheels on whether or not closures increase/decrease stocks seems like a waste of time. Closures are the only tool WDFW has left. WDFW can't fight piss poor logging practices, ocean morbidity, and ever warming oceans! That's "OUR" job. I would love to see a concerted effort to take the fight where it belongs. Again just my opinion on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Kashf said:
Has reducing our fisheries impacts to 9% statistically significantly altered how many fish return to the basin?
Click to expand...
In the models the managers use, reducing fishing impacts increases the escapement by the number of fish not caught in fisheries. However, as Curt pointed out, each spawner produces only 0.66 recruit. So the population is on an extirpation trend, regardless of whether the river is open to fishing for trout or not. As I've repeated several times, the one and only way to maintain Stilly Chinook into the foreseeable future is to continue the Stilly hatchery Chinook program. Closing the river's cutthroat and steelhead fisheries is nothing more than an appeasement and feel good exercise that has absolutely zero positive impact for the Stilly Chinook population.
 
Salmo_g said:
is nothing more than an appeasement and feel good exercise that has absolutely zero positive impact
Click to expand...

You so eloquently describe the problem with every “solution” to any problem. If it doesn’t have teeth and doesn’t piss off a lot of wealthy powerful groups, it is not going to do any good.

But I am just a cynic at heart so I’m biased I guess.
 
Denwor54 said:
I would like some suggestions on how to set the gamefish flyfishing regulations on the Stillie and even the skykomish. I have posted what I thought would give us an opportunity to continue to fish gamefish and minimize our impacts on stressed stocks. I have communicated how I think we’re getting the screwed by this close everything policy and I reel that if we show that we can come up with a legitimate regulations change the state may work with us. Having put a lot of thought into this with some very informative posts I think this possible. This involves participation in the NOF comments and meetings and sending emails to the commission and your local senators. I have done this before with success, if we don’t let them know we exist then it’s our fault for not speaking up. Smalma and Salmo g and everyone that worked hard to get the skagit opened back up showed the speaking up works. So I plan on setting time aside to attend these meetings and try to make a difference so we can still fish cutthroat and steelhead on our local rivers. I challenge everyone to send an email,call and make yourself known to the parties that make these decisions and be positive. Sorry for the rant, Tight lines Dennis
Click to expand...

If changing the regs gets us the summer and fall fishery back again, I say: FF only with the current regs June 1 to June 30. Floating line only July 1-October 16. Unweighted fly, no tips and no additional weight attached to your leader, no indicators, however that needs to be worded. I’m good with a hook restriction as long as I can fish a little hairwing or skater? Do you measure hook gap? Like 1/2”? I’m unaware how that may work on other fisheries?

From Oct 17 to the all tackle season go back to current regs. Just a thought.
 
Flymph said:
OK, so if we agree that poor logging practices, ocean morbidity, climate change, and deep sea netting are the real big picture culprits on the demise of Salmon, why are we wasting our efforts and disdain on WDFW, otters, etc.?

Spinning thoughtful wheels on whether or not closures increase/decrease stocks seems like a waste of time. Closures are the only tool WDFW has left. WDFW can't fight piss poor logging practices, ocean morbidity, and ever warming oceans! That's "OUR" job. I would love to see a concerted effort to take the fight where it belongs. Again just my opinion on this topic.
Click to expand...
Agriculture is a huge culprit too. I notice how often everyone forgets it on the list. On my local stream, I would venture to say that it is the #1 culprit. No one likes to speak the truth about agriculture. It is a true sacred cow.

I totally agree with your sentiment. Remember too, that it is ESA (feds) and the tribes who force the closure. You can fault WDFW for not fighting. It is not their direction though. If left to WDFW no reg's would ever change, I do not think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top