By your reasoning we need to wait several more years and view the returns to see what effect we had on the spawners while we were fishing.
2023 Skagit/Sauk season is a go
- Thread starter GOTY
- Start date
This blows my mind.
THERE IS A MEAT FISHERY FOR BULL TROUT ON THAT RIVER.
Can't someone mention that to who whoever wrote that paper?
Did a little searching for this BiOp. Not sure I found it yet, but I did find this:
"Under the Alternative 5, the co-managers estimated that under a scenario with the steelhead run size 6 over 8,000, which would allow up to a 25% harvest rate, the likely full season timeframe and 7 potential increased effort of the fishery could result in up to 201 bull trout being killed during the 8 fishery from catch and release in the recreational and tribal fisheries. The most recent bull trout adult 9 breeding population estimate is between 1,000 to 1,500 breeding adults for the Lower Skagit River 10 bull trout core area population (USFWS 2022). This estimate does not include subadult bull trout 11 abundance." (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3//...talAssess_SkagitRiver_SteelheadFisheryRMP.pdf)
201 dead bull trout from the CnR steelhead fishery seems a tad high to me. I'd be curious to learn the assumptions that went in to that calculation.
It goes on: "Of the other fish species in the action area, bull trout are likely to experience the greatest harvest 26 impact. These impacts, which may be moderate, are not expected to be substantial significant because 27 the Lower Skagit River bull trout core area population is generally healthy...When combined with the cumulative effects of 33 habitat modification, climate change, and hydropower facilities, the changes associated with 34 Alternative 5 would comprise a small increment of the overall impacts on other fish from past, 35 present, and foreseeable actions." (p. 55)
Is there a current Biological Opinion out there that differs with the conclusions of the 2022 draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) consideration of the Skagit River Steelhead Fishery Resource Management Plan (RMP) regarding minimal impacts to bull trout as a result of a CnR steelhead fishery? The season is going to be significantly curtailed at this point; don't that count for something? Maybe that was the point.
No. This is not about reasoning that carries on from a year where a permit app needs to be reviewed and one where there is an approved plan in place. In fact, any effect of fishing or anything else is what the plan addresses.
In several more years, there will be an approved plan at that time (hopefully). Now in 10 years, this could very well happen again because their will be a plan to submit. That plan will need to have all of the available data in order to be complete.
I am pissed off too. I understand.
Think of the comments that would have happened if the plan was submitted without last years run size. "How can you make a decision without all of the data?" The Department always loses on things like this, whether in court or the eyes of public opinion. I, for one, am not going to pile on. This is an issue of another agency and bull trout. Like Josh said, bull trout have a kill fishery!
Fellas, I'm not going to lie, I'm a bit disappointed that you're not all out fishing the Skagit system.
No one on this forum is going out to bonk a wild fish, the season should have been open for damn near 6 weeks already.
If I still lived in SnoCo...well, I'd be fishing the Sauk unapologetically, barbs pinched, and grinning ear to ear.
Someone's gotta be the first to toe the line!
No one on this forum is going out to bonk a wild fish, the season should have been open for damn near 6 weeks already.
If I still lived in SnoCo...well, I'd be fishing the Sauk unapologetically, barbs pinched, and grinning ear to ear.
Someone's gotta be the first to toe the line!
Ianpadron.
I agree, go fishing, life is short.
I travel over the speed limit, i jay walk and i cheat on my taxes. I break a lot more laws.
I go fishing when i find the time and i also C/R.
I will pay the consequences if caught speeding, tax evasion, fishing etc.
I agree, go fishing, life is short.
I travel over the speed limit, i jay walk and i cheat on my taxes. I break a lot more laws.
I go fishing when i find the time and i also C/R.
I will pay the consequences if caught speeding, tax evasion, fishing etc.
iapadron/peyton00-
While I can understand the desire to fish and ignoring the established seasons in today's world with ESA listed fish such lawless behavior put legitimate fisheries at risk. I have to look no further that the Stillaguamish last flow where a few folks target closed water Chinook deprived the rest of the legitimate coho and cutthroat fishers of much of the season.
Curt
While I can understand the desire to fish and ignoring the established seasons in today's world with ESA listed fish such lawless behavior put legitimate fisheries at risk. I have to look no further that the Stillaguamish last flow where a few folks target closed water Chinook deprived the rest of the legitimate coho and cutthroat fishers of much of the season.
Curt
Hillbilly Redneck
wishin I was fishin
I take issue with this. Not giving a pass to fly fishers targeting Chinook but I witness folks fishing illegally all summer/every day when the river is closed. Then, when it's open to legally fish, they shut it down because some fishermen told them they encountered a Chinook.
The infamous Joe Brown would have loved the new regulations on the Stilly.
HauntedByWaters
Life of the Party
I know… It’s infuriating. I go to the local rivers to walk with my boy and have a look around and there is almost always someone fishing illegally on the weekends. One of my friends said the North Fork Nooksack had tons of fishermen weekend before last. One guy even had a GoPro so take note law enforcement, check YouTube for evidence.
The truth is closing rivers to sports fishing doesn’t stop fishermen and it likely doesn’t help fish anyway with the commercial fishing industry all over the PNW.
Charles,
I'm pretty sure your analysis is flawed. That number might be desirable, but it is not necessary. By law, NMFS analysis must use ". . . the best available scientific and commercial information available." If a number has not been calculated at the time of application or during the review period, then it is not among that best available information. Let's take a slightly deeper dive. From experience we know that the co-managers can't or won't finish the prior season's escapement estimate and the forthcoming season's pre-season runsize forecast until some time between mid-December or early January. Arbitrarily I'll select an amount of time, say 5 months minimum (typical) for NMFS to review and approve - with public comment opportunity - an application and issue its BO and or Section 4(d) rule, NMFS has bureaucratically created a pathway where you literally can't get there from here for a fishery intended to open February 1, given when this crucial latest season escapement and runsize data will be available and when the projected season is expected to begin. You sure as hell don't see Puget Sound Chinook fishing shut down for months or years awaiting the compilation of data and NMFS' analysis and approval. No, it's because the Skagit steelhead fishery is such a small niche, unaffected by big money and political influence, so WDFW and NMFS can bureaucratically afford to just not give a shit.
Ergo, I'm back to having Occupy Skagit issue an official declaration to NMFS, cc: WDFW; that the Skagit and Sauk are hereby open under WDFW's previously proposed CNR selective regulations. Fvck it.
Thanks Steve for clarifying what I've been trying to say. Curt said he didn't think applying earlier would make any difference. How do they know if they don't try? To placate Charles and like minded folks the RMP could have been approved earlier "pending 2023 forecasts" I mean that's what the whole plan is - pending each years forecast when it becomes available. Perhaps with an earlier start this Bulltrout BS could have been worked out by Feb 1.
Thinking outside the box is what got the Skagit reopened to begin with. This is not the time to crawl back in the box. That being said, it's also not the time to fish illegally. Occupy Skagit was successful because it was respectful. Maybe what's needed is another pretend to fish event for the fish they pretend to manage.
Thinking outside the box is what got the Skagit reopened to begin with. This is not the time to crawl back in the box. That being said, it's also not the time to fish illegally. Occupy Skagit was successful because it was respectful. Maybe what's needed is another pretend to fish event for the fish they pretend to manage.
When I lived in the Wenatchee valley, I can guarantee there were more chinooks poached out of the Wenatchee, than were caught in the legal icicle river springer fishery. With no eyes on the fishery, that s#it happens.
I'm sure Bill is out there test fishing the Skagit with all the poachers. You all need to send him back to the washougal to fix it.
When was the chinook permit submitted without the most recent data?
What other plans are submitted to the feds without a full data set?
This whole thing is a usfws/ nmfs issue yet everyone has to blame wdfw.
This is the outcome of listing. End of story.
If you want to be angry, I understand. Be angry at the groups who pushed for listing. Be angry at the groups who are so willing to sue over anything
At least listing has affected shoreline permits and logging buffers and wetland buffers and.......oh, no it didn't. It did get in the way of "fish management" even when we have a habitat management issue.
I think highly of both of you. You are both fantastic humans. There is no way the plan could be submitted and approved without all of the escapement data. It would also would have been approved in early Feb. (at the latest) if not for usfws concerns over by catch. Those are the actual facts.
Screaming at WDFW for this makes no sense. It's like that Norm McDonald joke about Weinstein.
At this point, I don't think the plan will gain approval for months. This is an issue of avoiding a lawsuit. WDFW is not suing anyone. I can't see where they are to blame.
This is the outcome of listing. End of story.
If you want to be angry, I understand. Be angry at the groups who pushed for listing. Be angry at the groups who are so willing to sue over anything
At least listing has affected shoreline permits and logging buffers and wetland buffers and.......oh, no it didn't. It did get in the way of "fish management" even when we have a habitat management issue.
I think highly of both of you. You are both fantastic humans. There is no way the plan could be submitted and approved without all of the escapement data. It would also would have been approved in early Feb. (at the latest) if not for usfws concerns over by catch. Those are the actual facts.
Screaming at WDFW for this makes no sense. It's like that Norm McDonald joke about Weinstein.
At this point, I don't think the plan will gain approval for months. This is an issue of avoiding a lawsuit. WDFW is not suing anyone. I can't see where they are to blame.
That's the problem though, this IS a legitimate fishery. Nothing about the run or forecast has changed, it's a bunch of taxpayer funded pencil pushers that feel zero repercussions for not doing their job, that are holding things up.
If this isn't the biggest eye opener for all the bleeding hearts calling for ESA listing the coastal runs...well idk what to say.
DimeBrite
Saltwater fly fisherman
Is it time for civil disobedience and Fish Wars 2?
Full data set at time of application? All of 'em!
Perhaps you missed this part:
The last season we fished was two years ago. The progeny of those fish are smolting right about now. If we want ALL the data then we should wait for their return...in fact we should wait for next year's smolt to return also because they are from a season we didn't fish.
All available data at time of application. <- This is important.
