No more Skagit Steelhead!

[Rob Allen]

I tend to agree.

They had to make cuts. It is not the departments choice to make cuts. That is dictated by the budget process. Once the department has to to decide what to cut it becomes a game of politics. It generally does not help a department long term to make cuts that do not affect the public. Add to it that history has shown that the group of anglers that fish the Skagit are likely to be a bit more politically active than others and it incentivizes cutting it.

I wonder how this effects tribal fisheries?

It's an expensive fishery.

Someone who suspects that government is a bit more nefarious than the mainstream might suggest that cuts on an activity that has more politically active base might be specifically targeted by such cuts. Eliminate the activity entirely and that politically vocational group of people becomes silenced and they never have to hear it again.

The first cut should be the department directors salary. Maybe cut it in half. Paying more certainly isn't getting us the best talent.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

It’s back to BC then, hopefully HE WHO CANNOT BE MENTIONED on this site, can shut the fuck up about making Canada the 51st state. I’d like to not get my tires slashed and windows broken over something so fucking dumb as a bully running his mouth with nonsense.

 

[speedbird]

With the limited opportunities now for steelhead, maybe they should offer a freshwater license without steelhead.
If you want to fish steelhead, it’s a special endorsement that brings the cost up to what it would normally be price wise for a freshwater license.
I’d certainly opt out of getting a steelhead endorsement.
No reason to pay for steelhead if you don’t intend to target them and with very limited opportunities statewide and especially in the Puget Sound region.
SF

Lot's of places have Steelhead license fees. BC for example. Seeing that Steelhead tends to be the sort of angling that people in higher income brackets pursue over fisheries more likely to put food on the table, I wonder what we would see if we had a higher priced Steelhead license where 100% of the cost went to maintaining or increasing hatchery production, monitoring and enforcing fisheries, and habitat restoration work. If it meant WDFW actually did everything in their power to maximize opportunity, I would genuinely be willing to pay up to $200 for a Steelhead endorsement.

It would also make it a lot harder for people targeting salmon in closed waters to pretend to the warden that they are targeting Steelhead

 

[speedbird]

It’s back to BC then, hopefully HE WHO CANNOT BE MENTIONED on this site, can shut the fuck up about making Canada the 51st state. I’d like to not get my tires slashed and windows broken over something so fucking dumb as a bully running his mouth with nonsense.

Maybe purchase an anti "you know who" bumper sticker just to be safe. Be sure to take it off before heading to Forks or the East side though!

 

[the_chemist]

Lot's of places have Steelhead license fees. BC for example. Seeing that Steelhead tends to be the sort of angling that people in higher income brackets pursue over fisheries more likely to put food on the table, I wonder what we would see if we had a higher priced Steelhead license where 100% of the cost went to maintaining or increasing hatchery production, monitoring and enforcing fisheries, and habitat restoration work. If it meant WDFW actually did everything in their power to maximize opportunity, I would genuinely be willing to pay up to $200 for a Steelhead endorsement.

It would also make it a lot harder for people targeting salmon in closed waters to pretend to the warden that they are targeting Steelhead

The answer is they would fund steelhead the same by pulling non allocated funding away from steelhead for other uses.

 

[Stonedfish]

Does anyone know if WDFW accept money for monitoring from the public?
Also, does anyone know how the $1.6 million dollars for monitoring is broken down? What portion is enforcement, creel checks etc?
SF

 

[charles sullivan]

Does anyone know if WDFW accept money for monitoring from the public?
Also, does anyone know how the $1.6 million dollars for monitoring is broken down? What portion is enforcement, creel checks etc?
SF

Governmental accounting is a dark art. It would likely be very difficult to do that audit. They could probably justify the use of that money for a number of tasks.

 

[DimeBrite]

WA state general fund dollars need to be siphoned into the travel funds of homeless steelhead anglers.

 

[Paige]

WA state general fund dollars need to be siphoned onto the travel funds of homeless steelhead anglers.

I actually do live on the river, but it's not a van though!

 

[_WW_]

Does anyone know if WDFW accept money for monitoring from the public?
Also, does anyone know how the $1.6 million dollars for monitoring is broken down? What portion is enforcement, creel checks etc?
SF

When the Skagit reopened the figure that I heard tossed around for the monitoring on the C&R season was 200k. That seems low to me considering how many chopper flights I saw early on.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

Does anyone know if WDFW accept money for monitoring from the public?
Also, does anyone know how the $1.6 million dollars for monitoring is broken down? What portion is enforcement, creel checks etc?
SF

I asked Grok....here's what I got:

The costs to monitor the Skagit River steelhead fishery are not explicitly detailed in a single comprehensive breakdown within the provided sources, but I can piece together some insights based on available information and reasonable assumptions about fishery monitoring. Monitoring the Skagit steelhead fishery involves activities like in-season catch sampling, test fisheries, genetic sampling, creel surveys, and spawning ground surveys, primarily managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and co-managing tribes under the Skagit River Steelhead Fishery Resource Management Plan (RMP). Below is a breakdown of the likely cost components based on the sources and general fishery management practices:

1. Personnel Costs:
   • Field Staff and Biologists: Monitoring involves WDFW and tribal biologists conducting creel sampling, test fisheries, and spawning surveys. For example, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe employs staff like stock assessment biologists and field biologists for test fisheries, which include boat-based net sampling and data collection on fish size, sex, and spawning status. These roles require salaries, benefits, and potentially overtime, especially during the fishing season (February to April).
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/
   • Creel Surveyors and Enforcement: WDFW conducts daily creel surveys during the fishery season to estimate impacts on wild steelhead and other species, requiring personnel to interact with anglers and collect data. Enforcement officers ensure compliance with catch-and-release regulations. Personnel costs likely form the largest portion of the budget, as these activities are labor-intensive.
     https://nwsportsmanmag.com/feds-ok-skagit-sauk-steelhead-fishery-plan-angling-opens-sat/
2. Equipment and Supplies:
   • Boats and Vehicles: Test fisheries, such as those conducted by the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, use boats for net sampling upstream of Sedro-Woolley. Costs include fuel, maintenance, and depreciation of boats and vehicles used to access monitoring sites along the Skagit and Sauk rivers.
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/
   • Sampling Gear: Tangle nets, measuring tools, and genetic sampling kits (e.g., for scale and DNA collection) are necessary. These are relatively low-cost but recurring expenses.
     https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/steelhead-fishery-open-feb-1-skagit-and-sauk-rivers
   • Data Collection Tools: Notebooks, electronic devices, or software for recording fish metrics (e.g., size, age structure, male-to-female ratio) add to costs.
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/
3. Program Administration:
   • Planning and Coordination: The Skagit RMP requires coordination between WDFW, tribes (Sauk-Suiattle, Swinomish, Upper Skagit), and NOAA Fisheries. Administrative costs include meetings, data analysis, and reporting to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
     https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/skagit-basin-steelhead-fishery
     https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-r...git-sauk-rivers-under-updated-management-plan
   • Public Engagement: NOAA Fisheries conducted a 30-day public review period for the RMP, which involves staff time and resources for processing comments and finalizing decisions.
     https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/skagit-basin-steelhead-fishery
4. Funding Context:
   • Quicksilver Portfolio: The Skagit fishery is part of WDFW’s Quicksilver Portfolio, a broader initiative to restore Puget Sound steelhead and fisheries. In the 2021-23 biennium, the state legislature provided $1.682 million for salmon and steelhead monitoring, including the Skagit fishery. This funding likely covered personnel, equipment, and administrative costs for multiple rivers, but the Skagit is a key component.
     https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-r...git-sauk-rivers-under-updated-management-plan
   • Proposed Budget Cuts: In 2025, proposed state budgets did not fund WDFW’s $1.6 million request for monitoring, threatening the fishery’s continuation. This figure gives a rough estimate of annual monitoring costs for the Skagit and other Puget Sound fisheries, suggesting Skagit-specific costs could be a fraction of this, perhaps $500,000–$800,000 annually, depending on the scope.
     https://nwsportsmanmag.com/funding-...es-steelhead-fishery-cut-in-proposed-budgets/
5. Tribal Contributions:
   • Tribes like the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe conduct test fisheries, which are critical for in-season updates on run size. These efforts are funded partly through tribal resources and potentially federal grants, but specific costs are not detailed. Tribal monitoring reduces the financial burden on WDFW but requires coordination, adding indirect costs.
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/

Challenges and Gaps:

• Exact cost breakdowns (e.g., percentage allocations for salaries vs. equipment) are not publicly detailed in the sources. The $1.6 million figure for broader monitoring suggests significant investment, but without specific Skagit data, estimates are approximate.
• Costs vary yearly based on run size forecasts (e.g., 7,019 in 2025, 5,151 in 2024), which affect monitoring intensity.
  https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2025/apr/09/steelhead-fishery-to-close-friday-on-skagit-sauk-rivers/
  https://nwsportsmanmag.com/just-over-7000-skagit-sauk-wild-winter-steelhead-expected-back/
• Budget cuts, as noted in 2025, highlight the reliance on state funding, which can disrupt consistent monitoring.
  https://nwsportsmanmag.com/funding-...es-steelhead-fishery-cut-in-proposed-budgets/

Summary:Monitoring costs for the Skagit steelhead fishery likely include personnel (biologists, surveyors, enforcement), equipment (boats, nets, sampling kits), and administrative expenses. The total is embedded within broader funding like the $1.682 million for the Quicksilver Portfolio, with Skagit-specific costs potentially ranging from $500,000 to $800,000 annually, though exact figures are unavailable. For precise data, contacting WDFW’s Mill Creek Regional Office (425-775-1311) or Edward Eleazer (Edward.Eleazer@dfw.wa.gov) could provide further clarity.

 

[charles sullivan]

Someone who suspects that government is a bit more nefarious than the mainstream might suggest that cuts on an activity that has more politically active base might be specifically targeted by such cuts. Eliminate the activity entirely and that politically vocational group of people becomes silenced and they never have to hear it again.

The first cut should be the department directors salary. Maybe cut it in half. Paying more certainly isn't getting us the best talent.

Not much can be done to overcome your strongly held beliefs. I.can however tell you what I have seen having worked through budget cuts in the public sector.
From what I have seen, in times when budgets are shrinking government agencies tend to do anything that they can to not lay off full time staff. First, you save money by not rehiring, then you look to other staffing cuts. Other common cost saving measures include cutting the vehicle budget, and reducing training budgets. The first positions cut are temp positions like fish checkers. Those checkers also use vehicles and require training.
It's an expensive fishery that is dependent on the easiest employees to cut. It makes perfect sense that it would be the first to be cut. If it also means that an active group of citizens may push to restore funding, all the better.
WDFW management did not want budget cuts. They did not want cuts. Cutting the Skagit season is predictable most of all due to who would be laid off.

 

[Stonedfish]

I asked Grok....here's what I got:

The costs to monitor the Skagit River steelhead fishery are not explicitly detailed in a single comprehensive breakdown within the provided sources, but I can piece together some insights based on available information and reasonable assumptions about fishery monitoring. Monitoring the Skagit steelhead fishery involves activities like in-season catch sampling, test fisheries, genetic sampling, creel surveys, and spawning ground surveys, primarily managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and co-managing tribes under the Skagit River Steelhead Fishery Resource Management Plan (RMP). Below is a breakdown of the likely cost components based on the sources and general fishery management practices:

1. Personnel Costs:
   • Field Staff and Biologists: Monitoring involves WDFW and tribal biologists conducting creel sampling, test fisheries, and spawning surveys. For example, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe employs staff like stock assessment biologists and field biologists for test fisheries, which include boat-based net sampling and data collection on fish size, sex, and spawning status. These roles require salaries, benefits, and potentially overtime, especially during the fishing season (February to April).
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/
   • Creel Surveyors and Enforcement: WDFW conducts daily creel surveys during the fishery season to estimate impacts on wild steelhead and other species, requiring personnel to interact with anglers and collect data. Enforcement officers ensure compliance with catch-and-release regulations. Personnel costs likely form the largest portion of the budget, as these activities are labor-intensive.
     https://nwsportsmanmag.com/feds-ok-skagit-sauk-steelhead-fishery-plan-angling-opens-sat/
2. Equipment and Supplies:
   • Boats and Vehicles: Test fisheries, such as those conducted by the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, use boats for net sampling upstream of Sedro-Woolley. Costs include fuel, maintenance, and depreciation of boats and vehicles used to access monitoring sites along the Skagit and Sauk rivers.
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/
   • Sampling Gear: Tangle nets, measuring tools, and genetic sampling kits (e.g., for scale and DNA collection) are necessary. These are relatively low-cost but recurring expenses.
     https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/steelhead-fishery-open-feb-1-skagit-and-sauk-rivers
   • Data Collection Tools: Notebooks, electronic devices, or software for recording fish metrics (e.g., size, age structure, male-to-female ratio) add to costs.
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/
3. Program Administration:
   • Planning and Coordination: The Skagit RMP requires coordination between WDFW, tribes (Sauk-Suiattle, Swinomish, Upper Skagit), and NOAA Fisheries. Administrative costs include meetings, data analysis, and reporting to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
     https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/skagit-basin-steelhead-fishery
     https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-r...git-sauk-rivers-under-updated-management-plan
   • Public Engagement: NOAA Fisheries conducted a 30-day public review period for the RMP, which involves staff time and resources for processing comments and finalizing decisions.
     https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/skagit-basin-steelhead-fishery
4. Funding Context:
   • Quicksilver Portfolio: The Skagit fishery is part of WDFW’s Quicksilver Portfolio, a broader initiative to restore Puget Sound steelhead and fisheries. In the 2021-23 biennium, the state legislature provided $1.682 million for salmon and steelhead monitoring, including the Skagit fishery. This funding likely covered personnel, equipment, and administrative costs for multiple rivers, but the Skagit is a key component.
     https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-r...git-sauk-rivers-under-updated-management-plan
   • Proposed Budget Cuts: In 2025, proposed state budgets did not fund WDFW’s $1.6 million request for monitoring, threatening the fishery’s continuation. This figure gives a rough estimate of annual monitoring costs for the Skagit and other Puget Sound fisheries, suggesting Skagit-specific costs could be a fraction of this, perhaps $500,000–$800,000 annually, depending on the scope.
     https://nwsportsmanmag.com/funding-...es-steelhead-fishery-cut-in-proposed-budgets/
5. Tribal Contributions:
   • Tribes like the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe conduct test fisheries, which are critical for in-season updates on run size. These efforts are funded partly through tribal resources and potentially federal grants, but specific costs are not detailed. Tribal monitoring reduces the financial burden on WDFW but requires coordination, adding indirect costs.
     https://nwtreatytribes.org/tribes-steelhead-monitoring-could-inform-skagit-river-fisheries/

Challenges and Gaps:

• Exact cost breakdowns (e.g., percentage allocations for salaries vs. equipment) are not publicly detailed in the sources. The $1.6 million figure for broader monitoring suggests significant investment, but without specific Skagit data, estimates are approximate.
• Costs vary yearly based on run size forecasts (e.g., 7,019 in 2025, 5,151 in 2024), which affect monitoring intensity.
  https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2025/apr/09/steelhead-fishery-to-close-friday-on-skagit-sauk-rivers/
  https://nwsportsmanmag.com/just-over-7000-skagit-sauk-wild-winter-steelhead-expected-back/
• Budget cuts, as noted in 2025, highlight the reliance on state funding, which can disrupt consistent monitoring.
  https://nwsportsmanmag.com/funding-...es-steelhead-fishery-cut-in-proposed-budgets/

Summary:Monitoring costs for the Skagit steelhead fishery likely include personnel (biologists, surveyors, enforcement), equipment (boats, nets, sampling kits), and administrative expenses. The total is embedded within broader funding like the $1.682 million for the Quicksilver Portfolio, with Skagit-specific costs potentially ranging from $500,000 to $800,000 annually, though exact figures are unavailable. For precise data, contacting WDFW’s Mill Creek Regional Office (425-775-1311) or Edward Eleazer (Edward.Eleazer@dfw.wa.gov) could provide further clarity.

Thanks
I thought the $1.6 million figure seemed high just for one fishery.
SF

 

[Grandpa Jim]

Well it was fun while it lasted.

State Budget Cuts Will Affect Washington Fishing, Hatchery Production -

WDFW is laying off staffers for 29 positions, not filling many of 170 vacancies, shutting down a hatchery, closing a popular steelhead fishery next year and is being forced to let a predator suppression project largely lapse as a result of Washington lawmakers' recently approved two-year budget.

nwsportsmanmag.com

That's disappointing. I was hoping to fish the Sauk in April for steelhead but wasn't able to. I've never fished the Skagit River system but have read a lot about it and watched a number of YouTube videos.

Stupid thought/question: Seattle Power has dams on Skagit tributaries that have adversely impacted fisheries....both commercial (tribal) and recreational. Any way that "mitigation" funds from Seattle Power be applied to the recreational steelhead fishery to make up for the funds that the State has cut?

 

[BriGuy]

They close a popular fishery, we complain about it, they don't have too and then get money for the popular fishery they closed - while still funding their pet projects - that's the hostage taking

They should have put this monitoring for both the Puget Sound and the Columbia system in their permanent budget, not just look for funding yearly or funding it each biennium as an add-on.

Unfortunately, there really isn't a "permanent budget" for state agencies -- at least for General Fund agencies like WDFW. When times get tough, the legislature may sweep budgets or ask agencies to cut. Sometimes, it's across the board cuts, and other times, the agencies have some leeway on where they cut.

It gets ugly and and times are "tough" again. What I don't get is how quickly it can go from surplus to huge deficit so quickly.

 

[_WW_]

Stupid thought/question: Seattle Power has dams on Skagit tributaries that have adversely impacted fisheries....both commercial (tribal) and recreational.

The dams on the Skagit are at or above what was determined to be a natural barrier to migration.

 

[Pink Nighty]

Unfortunately, there really isn't a "permanent budget" for state agencies -- at least for General Fund agencies like WDFW. When times get tough, the legislature may sweep budgets or ask agencies to cut. Sometimes, it's across the board cuts, and other times, the agencies have some leeway on where they cut.

It gets ugly and and times are "tough" again. What I don't get is how quickly it can go from surplus to huge deficit so quickly.

Culverts.

 

[Stonedfish]

I wonder if these folks or similar organizations could help with some ideas for funding monitoring since this fishery brings dollars into the community.
Engaging the tribes on this may also help with funding.
SF

EDASC Staff

Connect with the Economic Development Alliance of Skagit County (EDASC) staff.

www.skagit.org

 

[Grandpa Jim]

The dams on the Skagit are at or above what was determined to be a natural barrier to migration.

Thanks for the information on the Skagit dams.
All my fishing is out on the OP so know little about the Skagit, although I re-read Dec Hogan's A Passion For Steelhead every steelhead season and dream about what it was like to fish the Skagit for steelhead in it's glory years...with Dec putting me on productive runs to swing with my Spey!

 

[DimeBrite]

https://fiscal.wa.gov/PublicationsAndReports/BudgetUniverse%20Poster%2023-25.pdf

Try to find the WDFW budget in this chart of Washington state spending.

Just imagine the cuts to fisheries and wildlife when WA state is forced to slash spending by recession or rising borrowing costs. In the 2025-2027 budget spending grew substantially. Even so, WDFW had to make many cuts to key programs.