Something Needs to Change.

wetline dave

Steelhead
WDFW's policy for many years if there is a larger than expected run of fish has been to allow either a roe fishery or an all out commercial/tribal fishery based on a number of days rather than on take of fish.

One striking example is several years ago a bonus number of chum showed up bound for north sound rivers and WDFW opened up a roe fishery for days not numbers. The Snohomish system, Snoqualmie in particular had a large chum run. I haven't seen more than a handful of chum in at least 6 years. No spawners, no eggs no returns.

Now getting to my point. It appears that the Coho and King runs may be bigger than predicted this year. Will WDFW just open up the gate and let unrestricted fishing occur? If there is an over abundance then let it be, or have a very restricted numbers harvested fishery very closely monitored, rather than X number of days all out harvest.

WDFW has always taken the easy way out and just allocated the number of days fishing is allowed without regard to numbers of fish harvested.

This has to end and is no way to manage the resource.

I am 75 years old and watched this nearly all my live and the runs decline and excuses made and yet go net all the fish you can harvest is the policy as the state mandate is maximum sustainable harvest where that changes every year in order to maximize harvest..

Can anyone explain to me why more fish caught with declining populations is promoting the growth of the run.

Dave
 

Brian Miller

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Cutthwoat Twout
Forum Supporter
The WDFW 10 year Draft Recreation Plan mentioned in this thread appears to be influenced by user demographics that conflict with angling and hunting so that might curtail overharvest.


I wasn't aware of this until just now but in reading it it appears that a number of proposals, if enacted, would have an effect on us.
Starting on about pg. 29 there appears to be changes mentioned on the use of undesignated roads and trails along with streamside access.
Unfortunately, the comment period closes at 5 p.m. tomorrow, 2/28.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02293

This is the link for public input.
https://publicinput.com/10YearRecStrategy
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
WDFW's enabling legislation places commercial and recreational harvest on equal footing with conservation, i.e., spawning escapement. The Department has always been more than willing to try to make sure that no calculated harvestable food fish (salmon especially) goes uncaught. Some in positions of influence feel differently about game fish, i.e. steelhead and trout and non-salmonid species. In about 1984, the old WDF and the treaty tribes jointly adopted Maximum Sustained Harvest (MSH) as the co-managers official joint management policy. It can only be changed if both co-managers agree to do so.

Within a few years, well versed fisheries biologists recognized that MSH isn't really sustainable, at least not at the levels originally enjoyed when the policy was adopted. Unfortunately it appears that there is no going back. I expect that the co-managers will simply fish populations down to a level where it isn't worth the time and gas money or expense to buy new nets to go out and fish. And those fish that are left will be the "new" sustainable populations.

You mention that the state allows unrestricted fishing to occur. That isn't technically correct. WDFW manages harvest. They just manage it in ways that end up with escapement goals being achieved less than 50% of the time. Math can explain why this is so, but that's not the point here. Sometimes instead of managing for a specific harvestable number, WDFW and tribes will agree to use "harvest rate" as the management model. This can be a legitimate management method, just as calculating an allowable harvest (the number of fish over and above the escapement goal) is. The other thing that you shouldn't overlook is that WDFW and the entire State of Washington has zero authority to control the fishing exercised by the treaty Indian tribes. That is a big complicating factor, and no one has yet figured out how to do anything about that. And many non-treaty citizens do NOT want to do anything about it.

Further, harvests are not increasing in the face of declining runs. Harvests are way down, as are the returning populations of salmon and steelhead. And perhaps more unfortunately, something doesn't really need to change. Agencies and society have collectively shown and demonstrated the willingness to continue consuming a natural resource like salmon while the populations continue to dwindle, all the while uttering the highest quality lip service to the name of conservation without necessarily practicing it. I should also add that a lot of the reduction in salmon and steelhead abundance is caused by factors unrelated to fisheries management. Environmental conditions, particularly ocean survival rates, are a fraction of what they were in the 70s and 80s, so even if all fishing everywhere were curtailed, salmon and steelhead runs would remain at a low level unless and until marine survival rates improve. But yeah, MSH management is not helping.
 

Chadk

Life of the Party
The chum runs around here were so under appreciated. Coho bite off? Steelhead not showing yet? Go wrestle with some big doggies and put some serious bends in those 8wts! Now they are all but gone. Roe fisheries seem a lot like the buffalo tongue harvesting of the past...
 

Dustin Chromers

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
WDFW's policy for many years if there is a larger than expected run of fish has been to allow either a roe fishery or an all out commercial/tribal fishery based on a number of days rather than on take of fish.

One striking example is several years ago a bonus number of chum showed up bound for north sound rivers and WDFW opened up a roe fishery for days not numbers. The Snohomish system, Snoqualmie in particular had a large chum run. I haven't seen more than a handful of chum in at least 6 years. No spawners, no eggs no returns.

Now getting to my point. It appears that the Coho and King runs may be bigger than predicted this year. Will WDFW just open up the gate and let unrestricted fishing occur? If there is an over abundance then let it be, or have a very restricted numbers harvested fishery very closely monitored, rather than X number of days all out harvest.

WDFW has always taken the easy way out and just allocated the number of days fishing is allowed without regard to numbers of fish harvested.

This has to end and is no way to manage the resource.

I am 75 years old and watched this nearly all my live and the runs decline and excuses made and yet go net all the fish you can harvest is the policy as the state mandate is maximum sustainable harvest where that changes every year in order to maximize harvest..

Can anyone explain to me why more fish caught with declining populations is promoting the growth of the run.

Dave

WDFW doesn't want salmon spawning. They will be like an invasive and really take over the place. Full boats and nets that's the goal. The only good salmon the WDFW knows is a harvestable one. And if one of those gets by the gauntlet it's a failure. MSH was and is doomed to fail and set up by politics not science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
MSH was and is doomed to fail and set up by politics not science.
MSH is a scientific concept and construct. There's really nothing political about it, unless its adoption by agencies is considered political. The two problems I see with MSH is that it doesn't recognize its own impact on steadily reducing runsizes. And it doesn't keep up with and incorporate steadily declining habitat productivity and capacity over time, so it tends to consistently over-estimate harvestable surpluses.
 

Stonedfish

Known Grizzler-hater of triploids, humpies & ND
Forum Supporter
There are a lot of fishing opportunities left on the table at the end of the year when it comes to salmon. In particular hatchery salmon.
If you don't think so, just check the hatchery escapement reports come the end of the year.
You won't get those opportunities in the sound though due to ESA listed chinook, threatened coho runs and mixed stocks.
Steelhead are a whole different story.
SF
 

Dustin Chromers

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
MSH is a scientific concept and construct. There's really nothing political about it, unless its adoption by agencies is considered political. The two problems I see with MSH is that it doesn't recognize its own impact on steadily reducing runsizes. And it doesn't keep up with and incorporate steadily declining habitat productivity and capacity over time, so it tends to consistently over-estimate harvestable surpluses.

To clarify I was referring to the mandate the department has via legislation about dividing up ever shrinking runs to sport, commercial, etc. It can't be good science to keep moving a benchmark down and harvesting every available fish. It may be scientific in nature and measure but I contend it's not a good practice for long term health of the resource. "Surplus" fish are spoken about like they are a bad thing. Surplus fish getting to gravel is a good thing if we ever have a hope to get sustainable runs back to a sustainable robust level. I was and am still very disappointed that a state which prides itself on environmental awareness and stewardship uses what is effectively an archaic idea of maximum harvest. What about the other stakeholders that aren't represented or served by harvested fish? The people of this state have a vested interests that these runs be managed responsibly with an eye to overall ecosystem health be it for orcas, forest soil quality, cultural, or any myriad other purpose that salmon serve in healthy sustainable numbers. Salmon run condition is a travesty in this state and while not all is poor management a good deal is. This department has demonstrated they cannot even manage quality lake fisheries as mentioned above by another poster and there are no treaty issues, commercial pressure or other forces at work there. Budget issues sure but if you cannot effectively manage a quality lake fishery what gives anyone any confidence they can manage migratory fish? I haven't had confidence in a long time. And yes I'm pissed off that managing a resource into the ground is the status quo and without consequence.
 

HauntedByWaters

Life of the Party
We live in the the state with the world class institution the University of Washington. At UW, the fisheries school seems to have really bought into the maximum sustainable harvest model. In my professional experience, graduates of this school are major components of WDFW and other fisheries regulators. The MSH model inherently treats fish as economy. Plus “maximum” isn’t a sustainable sounding adjective right? The concept seems like an oxymoron and something the big business fish mongers certainly approve of.

I am sure this post will raise some hackles for those that were educated under this system like any other type of dogma, but in my opinion the results speak for themselves….
 

wetline dave

Steelhead
Salmo G I for the most part agree with your comments but with one exception. Your background speaks for itself and I am not intending to dismiss that.

Just because MSH is rooted in scientific concept does not automatically make it correct. Actually it has proven the concept wrong and or the managers are manipulating data and harvest numbers for most likely economic gains as that is the state mandate and why MSH exists in the first place.

I think fish should be managed for maximum numbers on redds. That would mean no fishing in rivers and terminal areas until those escapement numbers were reached. And seeing that I am making up proposals how about no wading in spawning areas. I can't count the number of times I have watched fishers wade through redds and yes many were fly fishers.

Dave
 

wanderingrichard

Life of the Party
MSH is a scientific concept and construct. There's really nothing political about it, unless its adoption by agencies is considered political. The two problems I see with MSH is that it doesn't recognize its own impact on steadily reducing runsizes. And it doesn't keep up with and incorporate steadily declining habitat productivity and capacity over time, so it tends to consistently over-estimate harvestable surpluses.
So, basically, MSH suffers from Dunning-Kruger, or is a construct based on Dunning- Kruger ? Either/or, like someone else said, its an oxymoronic concept that needs to die.
What organizations represent us at the decision and bargaining tables? Do we even have a seat at any of the tables?, if so, are those supposedly representing us compromised?
If WDFW isn't willing to voluntarily change methodology, maybe we need to force that change by activism , even to the point of forcing ourselves back into the policy and budgetary processes.
 
Last edited:

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
Wanderingrichard,

IMO, MSH doesn't suffer from Dunning-Kruger. It's a math formula. As such, it assumes stable environmental productivity. The feedback loop takes time, so it never catches up to declines in environment. So it over-estimates abundance more often than it under-estimates. So over-harvest is more likely than under-harvest. So populations decline and so does (sustainable) harvest.

WDFW represents recreational angling officially. However, WDFW no longer advocates for the recreational sector because the treaty tribes have WDFW by the short and curlies. That is, if WDFW wants a marine Chinook fishery in PS - and that is WDFW's top recreational priority - the tribes can and do force WDFW to throw everything else recreational under the bus in order to get those MA 9 and 10 recreational fishing days, i.e., freshwater fishing for gamefish is closed at treaty tribal demand.

WDFW Commission meeting are just now returning to in-person type after 2 1/2 years of Zoom meetings, so public attendance and participation has been significantly less. I'm for activism. I would like WDFW to perform an audit of salmon hatcheries and rank them based on the cost of returning a hatchery salmon to the recreational creel, excluding commercially and treaty caught salmon. I think WDFW spends far too many tax dollars producing hatchery salmon for BC harvest and WA commercial and treaty harvest. (Non-treaty commercial and treaty fishermen comprise less than 2% of the WA population. The tail should not wag the dog, IMO.) I think WDFW should spend its money producing fish that contribute most to WA taxpayers and license buyers instead of contributing to those who aren't paying. But WDFW chooses to bite the hand that feeds it instead.

Following that thought, I was told that WDFW fish management personnel spend 70% of their time from Jan through Apr 15 on North of Falcon (NOF) work. Since the seasons we get for recreational fishing are whatever the treaty tribes agree we can have, I question if it makes any sense at all for WDFW to invest time and resources in NOF. In which case we need the state Legislature to re-write the enabling legislation for WDFW's role in anadromous fish management, such that it provides services to those sectors in the proportions they pay for (fund) them.
 

wetline dave

Steelhead
The numbers harvested should be based on the carrying capacity of a system and not some pulled out of the formula that over estimates run size every year and the geniuses can't seem to figure out how to grind out a better number. Nor does it seem that they can. allow escapement to be met before commercial fishing takes place.

Yes there are environmental issues but nets are something that can not be adapted to. So if ocean conditions are not optimal at least have enough fish to challenge it. So you get a run with smaller fish but more and more is what we need.

With MSH in place a shrinking population is just about the only out come. In fact it has been the out come.

I support treaty rights but I do not go along with treaty strong arming which is what is happening. Wdfw needs to grow a pair and take Bolt. back to court and argue the tribes are not acting in good faith and changes need to be made or all salmon shall be listed as endangered and everyone gets shut down.

If it is going to take drastic action to save the runs and let them rebuild so be it and Alaska will be told to keep their nets off lower 48 fish. An agreement will need to be made with Canada but not fishing for Frasier fish generally appeases them.

The argument is commercial aren't the real big issue. It is the ocean! Well harvest is a big problem and especially in lean years with small runs and MSH still dictates a fixed percent of harvest rather than what is needed in the systems and spawning. Redds is where it is at.

I have been hearing WDFW excuses for it seems forever, I am 75 and grew up fishing the salt. Yes they need mor money as the legislature keeps cutting their budget, and this and that as excuses are cheap. Lobby for more dollars prove there is worth in building the runs financially for the state. Washington was the salmon capital of the world in the 1950's and 1960"s. We can be again if everyone drops their egos and goes to work to accomplish just that.

Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
Dave,

The carrying capacity of a river system is yet another math calculated estimate. The real numbers are variable and unknown, but can be estimated, just as harvestable numbers can be estimated. And escapement goals can be estimated. I trying to be real here.

If WDFW requires that escapement be met before any fishing takes place, then no fishing will ever take place. Escapement cannot be known or decently estimated until salmon have passed through nearly all fishing areas. In order for any fishing to occur, it has to take place before spawning escapement occurs, and that necessitates using estimates.

Yes, just about every biologist except die hard harvest management biologists believes that MSH is obsolete and dysfunctional. But it currently has the force of law for WA salmon populations. WDFW won't grow a pair because the Director takes his orders from the Commission which takes its orders from the governor and the Legislature, although loosely and indirectly - or directly by controlling the WDFW budget.

Good luck getting cooperation from AK. AK acts like a 3rd nation in the US - Canada fishing treaty. The treaty is negotiated by the US State Dept, which knows almost nothing about salmon, so they get their advice from the states, including AK. Rinse and repeat.

I agree, harvest is an issue, but it's not nearly as big an issue as the ocean marine environment. Controlling AK and BC harvest won't increase escapements because WA will just allow more commercial, treaty, and sport fishing when that greater number of fish returns to WA waters. BTW, MSH does NOT dictate a fixed % of harvest; it calculates the harvestable surplus (generally inaccurately), which is the number of fish greater than the spawning escapement goal.

I think you will continue to hear WDFW excuses for as long as there are salmon. The issues really are complex, and too many stakeholders want to kill too many salmon. The complexity makes it easier to make excuses. Well that, and the enabling legislation that puts harvest on equal footing with conservation, causing conservation to lose over the long run. Sorry for the downer.
 
Top