WDFW did not request funding for a 2027 Skagit-Sauk season

Not surprised the least bit. Is monitoring even legally required for a catch and release steelhead fishery? No other state does that.
 
Yes, it's legally required.
 
The backstory on why monitoring and enforcement are required--above and beyond other steelhead fisheries because Puget Sound Basin steelhead are still listed under the federal Endangered Species Act--as well as the dire state budget situation is detailed here:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/steelhead/puget-sound#skagit

None of this is new. WDFW, steelhead orgs, guides, and fishing media have been telegraphing these challenges and the looming shutdown of this fishery since last February when state reps and senators cut this line item from their 2025-2027 budget proposals.

Given the state legislature is currently proposing MORE cuts to fish and wildlife programs in the 2026-27 Supplemental Budget, as opposed to restoring funding cut in 2025, it may well be too late for funding to be restored in time for a 2027 Skagit/Sauk season.

The best bet at this point is securing funding for Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring (official description from WDFW's budget webpage copied below)--which includes the Quicksilver Portfolio and Skagit/Sauk fishery--as either ongoing or dedicated (proviso) funding in the 2027-2029 state Operating Budget.

TU's action alerts are a great resource for contacting legislators on behalf of that funding.

Another option for 2025-2027 could be a dedicated "Puget Sound Steelhead Endorsement", similar to the Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement. It could be a $20 fee to fish for steelhead anywhere within the Puget Sound Basin DPS (which starts at the Elwha River and includes Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and eastern Straits). I'd happily pay it. I bet most steelheaders would.


"2025 Legislative Session: Budget Information
Salmon & Steelhead Monitoring, $1.6 million
Robust fisheries monitoring and planning efforts are critical to species conservation and recovery, co-management with Treaty Tribes, and fishing opportunities. This package includes support for Puget Sound freshwater fisheries monitoring efforts, including steelhead spawning estimates and angler surveys, and fishery planning efforts, including preparation of fishery management plans for steelhead fisheries. With ongoing support for monitoring, WDFW can safeguard the health of imperiled fishery stocks, meeting federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and tribal co-management requirements while providing diverse and accessible recreational fishing opportunities for all Washingtonians.

The Conference budget does not fund this request."
 
Nice summary Spoonchucker. The only thing I have to add is that DFW needs to find a way to accept outside/private funding for specific monitoring issues like the Skagit spring season. I'm told the private $$$ were there to fund the 2026 monitoring costs but the dept had no way to process these funds.
 
Sometimes I think that maybe I should just go fishing. I mean, why should I really be concerned with whether it's open. I am not sure that I have any ethical concerns with going fishing. There are impacts available. The only issue is that it isn't monitored. Oh well, that's sort of not my problem. I would be happy to report hooked fish etc. I'd be happy to pay a pretty preposterous sum to fund monitoring. I'd be happy to volunteer to do some monitoring. I'm just not given a chance.

It may be difficult to relax if I went fushing now, but with the right meds maybe I could get that done too.
 
Not that I want to give the state any ideas and not suggesting this as any kind of a serious policy proposal - but given what I pay in gas, lodging, out of state license, and shuttle fees to fish several hours away in other states I'd fork over $100/day to fish the Sauk/Skagit and consider it money well spent. Particularly after paying ~$400+ to take a family of four to a two-hour Kraken game via upper-level Costco tickets....
 
JayB said:
Not that I want to give the state any ideas and not suggesting this as any kind of a serious policy proposal - but given what I pay in gas, lodging, out of state license, and shuttle fees to fish several hours away in other states I'd fork over $100/day to fish the Sauk/Skagit and consider it money well spent. Particularly after paying ~$400+ to take a family of four to a two-hour Kraken game via upper-level Costco tickets....
Click to expand...

The state is already run as if everyone is a millionaire, that’s one more thing.
 
I hear you. I'm old enough that I'm starting to count the years that I can fish the way I enjoy (lots of deep wading, hiking, etc) I've got left if I'm lucky, and for me if it was a choice between paying that sort of a fee to fish or not fishing at all, I'd gladly fork over the money, but I totally get why most people would categorically object to that sort of arrangement.

Even if it was possible to hypothetically come up with an arrangement that the majority of anglers wouldn't object to ($250/seat fee for guided anglers, 50% of the rod-days up for grabs in a free lottery, the other half available at $100/day, or some combination) it wouldn't matter because I would imagine that the state has to have the cash in-hand well in advance of the season to handle budgeting, staffing, etc.

Most likely path forward for me is that I'll continue to pay at least $100/day all-in to fish at locations many hours away from my home and count my blessings every time I'm able to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M_D
Spoonchucker said:
The backstory on why monitoring and enforcement are required--above and beyond other steelhead fisheries because Puget Sound Basin steelhead are still listed under the federal Endangered Species Act--as well as the dire state budget situation is detailed here:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/steelhead/puget-sound#skagit

None of this is new. WDFW, steelhead orgs, guides, and fishing media have been telegraphing these challenges and the looming shutdown of this fishery since last February when state reps and senators cut this line item from their 2025-2027 budget proposals.

Given the state legislature is currently proposing MORE cuts to fish and wildlife programs in the 2026-27 Supplemental Budget, as opposed to restoring funding cut in 2025, it may well be too late for funding to be restored in time for a 2027 Skagit/Sauk season.

The best bet at this point is securing funding for Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring (official description from WDFW's budget webpage copied below)--which includes the Quicksilver Portfolio and Skagit/Sauk fishery--as either ongoing or dedicated (proviso) funding in the 2027-2029 state Operating Budget.

TU's action alerts are a great resource for contacting legislators on behalf of that funding.

Another option for 2025-2027 could be a dedicated "Puget Sound Steelhead Endorsement", similar to the Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement. It could be a $20 fee to fish for steelhead anywhere within the Puget Sound Basin DPS (which starts at the Elwha River and includes Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and eastern Straits). I'd happily pay it. I bet most steelheaders would.


"2025 Legislative Session: Budget Information
Salmon & Steelhead Monitoring, $1.6 million
Robust fisheries monitoring and planning efforts are critical to species conservation and recovery, co-management with Treaty Tribes, and fishing opportunities. This package includes support for Puget Sound freshwater fisheries monitoring efforts, including steelhead spawning estimates and angler surveys, and fishery planning efforts, including preparation of fishery management plans for steelhead fisheries. With ongoing support for monitoring, WDFW can safeguard the health of imperiled fishery stocks, meeting federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and tribal co-management requirements while providing diverse and accessible recreational fishing opportunities for all Washingtonians.

The Conference budget does not fund this request."
Click to expand...
Could you explain why north Coast steelhead of Northern California aren’t subject to the same monitoring requirements even though they are also ESA listed? Particularly the Middle Fork Eel summer steelhead and other rivers with very distinct subspecies where fishing is still allowed on a limited basis?
 
ChrisC said:
Could you explain why north Coast steelhead of Northern California aren’t subject to the same monitoring requirements even though they are also ESA listed? Particularly the Middle Fork Eel summer steelhead and other rivers with very distinct subspecies where fishing is still allowed on a limited basis?
Click to expand...


Bolt for 1
 
Paige said:
Bolt for 1
Click to expand...
If that’s the case why was there no monitoring to the same degree when the Skagit/Sauk was open back in the 90s and before? Ditto for other rivers like the Skykomish when escapement was met? And why isn’t there a similar layer of monitoring overhead on the Columbia tributaries today?
 
ChrisC said:
If that’s the case why was there no monitoring to the same degree when the Skagit/Sauk was open back in the 90s and before? Ditto for other rivers like the Skykomish when escapement was met? And why isn’t there a similar layer of monitoring overhead on the Columbia tributaries today?
Click to expand...
They weren't on the ESA back then, and they also had hatchery fisheries until the WFC sued them for violating the ESA on account of those hatcheries and seasons. Wdfw decided the cheaper option was discontinuing those seasons and hatcheries, and then some intrepid fishermen made a stink about the Skagit/sauk, got political momentum and bobs your chromer.

Has the state of California been sued about their fishing seasons violating esa protections on steelhead? If not, just hope they don't.
 
Pink Nighty said:
They weren't on the ESA back then, and they also had hatchery fisheries until the WFC sued them for violating the ESA on account of those hatcheries and seasons. Wdfw decided the cheaper option was discontinuing those seasons and hatcheries, and then some intrepid fishermen made a stink about the Skagit/sauk, got political momentum and bobs your chromer.

Has the state of California been sued about their fishing seasons violating esa protections on steelhead? If not, just hope they don't.
Click to expand...
It's (CA's fishing regulations) been that way for at least 3 decades and I highly doubt anything is going to change that as there are several river systems that have rebounded despite the management regime they have.
 
ChrisC said:
It's (CA's fishing regulations) been that way for at least 3 decades and I highly doubt anything is going to change that as there are several river systems that have rebounded despite the management regime they have.
Click to expand...
Yup. Wait til they get sued.
 
ChrisC said:
Could you explain why north Coast steelhead of Northern California aren’t subject to the same monitoring requirements even though they are also ESA listed? Particularly the Middle Fork Eel summer steelhead and other rivers with very distinct subspecies where fishing is still allowed on a limited basis?
Click to expand...
Fishing is still allowed on the Skagit and Sauk Rivers on a limited basis. There is in fact an agreed to a fishing plan that has received the blessing of both NMFS, the treaty tribes and WDFW. Part of that limitation, in the limited basis, is careful monitoring of the fishery. The people who do the monitoring activities, just like you, want their f****** paycheck.

So how did we get here from the point when the winter steelhead fishing was completely closed from the mouth of the Elwa all through Puget Sound to the Canadian border. We protested, went to the top dogs at wdfw 3 and 4 times a year or over 6 years, overpowered them with some of their own science to make our case that the Skagit fishery could exist. Not only that but we provided them with the answer, basin by basin management instead of regional management. It seems like such a simple solution but it seemed to have escaped the agency that could do that very thing with regulations and catch limits. However, the monitoring of The fishery was an important part of the plan to revive the season. I doubt that it will be given up easily, therefore it needs to be paid for.

Moving forward it is my opinion that once again you are going to have to provide them with the answer to the problem, and convince them to move in that direction. It won't be easy, it will take a lot of time, it will take a lot of dedication by a handful of people with broad public support. It will need to be done, respectfully, within the confines of the established methods to work with the department. Without that, all of the internet forum whining is just pissing in the wind and will lead nowhere.
 
ChrisC said:
Could you explain why north Coast steelhead of Northern California aren’t subject to the same monitoring requirements even though they are also ESA listed? Particularly the Middle Fork Eel summer steelhead and other rivers with very distinct subspecies where fishing is still allowed on a limited basis?
Click to expand...
Different NMFS offices wrote the Biological Opinions for CA rivers and WA rivers, respectively. That's the main difference. Same ESA, but different authors from different offices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top