The logic checks out.
2023 Skagit/Sauk season is a go
- Thread starter GOTY
- Start date
DimeBrite
Saltwater fly fisherman
NMFS Approval Of Skagit-Sauk Steelhead Plan Drags On -
There are enough wild steelhead forecasted to return to the Skagit and Sauk this winter to have opened a five-day-a-week season back on February 1, but a month into the fishery window there's still no sign of the federal OK that would allow that to proceed.
nwsportsmanmag.com
The hits keep coming.
This does not bode well.NMFS Approval Of Skagit-Sauk Steelhead Plan Drags On -
There are enough wild steelhead forecasted to return to the Skagit and Sauk this winter to have opened a five-day-a-week season back on February 1, but a month into the fishery window there's still no sign of the federal OK that would allow that to proceed.nwsportsmanmag.com
The hits keep coming.
WFC and TCA are the reason that NMFS has not approved this yet. WDFW will take the blame just like WFC and TCA want it. Their sole purpose is to tear down the agency. They are winning.
GOTY
Steelhead
NGO = Not Gonna Open
Do you have some behind the scenes information about what’s going on?
HauntedByWaters
Life of the Party
I do. Currently there is a consultant being brought in to figure out where the staplers went. They have a lot of experience finding staplers so hopefully this issue will be resolved soon.
There is this line in the article: Agency legislative director Tom McBride acknowledged it wasn’t a very sexy line item, but he expressed worry, given the litigious propensities of Wild Fish Conservancy and the “pressure to update permits up and down the (Columbia) river.”
I do have some info. The tribes and state generally won't have number agreed upon until after the new year. it makes some sense given the whole North of Falcon stuff happens in the spring. There really is no way this plan plan could be submitted without those #'s. So realistically, the State likely had the plan portion mostly done but had to wait for agreement from the tribes on the numbers. I am reading some tea leaves here, but it I have a very solid contact that has told me that their is generally no run size agreed upon until close to N. of Falcon. It's a bargaining thing. We will hate on WDFW though cuz, well, they are the ones who have to turn in the plan even if they aren't completely in charge of when they can turn it in.
There was also some other work done by a federal agency that has their hand in managing listed fish species. This has muddied the water some. There may be a sensitivity by a few of the players over bycatch issues for another listed species. So that may be playing a role in slowing the process as well. It seems likely. It may be providing an angle for future lawsuits. I know that is a bit cryptic. My apologies.
The upshot is that this is what happens with ESA listed fish stocks. The three letter acronym (TLA) NGO's like the Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) and The Conservation Angler (TCA) push for listing for this very reason. They want to try and be the people who drive fish management. When fish stocks are listed, the permitting layers deepen as do chances for the TLA NGO's to comment. It also may present opportunities for law suits. So, the approval that was a layup has turned into a free throw.
Now my rant:
I've gone off before as to why WDFW is the stupidest agency to blame for fish runs dropping in most instances. They just aren't responsible for the most part. However, they are a very weak agency. They are amazing targets since they are charged with "managing" the fish. In the minds of the average person, they must be to blame. What "managing" really means is that they write a sportfishing rulebook and associated permitting, permit hatcheries, run hatcheries , and oversee the limited commercial salmon fishing that happens in WA state. They have very limited say in the habitat issues that truly limit the anadromous fish populations. WFC and TCA do little to nothing when it comes to those actual important issues that deal with habitat. They aren't suing the Army Corps! They aren't willing to use their power to sue any of the the agencies that permit habitat destruction. WDFW is weak. The TLA groups have chosen to fight an agency that is weak even if it isn't going to help much.
Then we all complain about WDFW. Some have learned to hate WDFW so much they send money to the TLA's who fight them at every turn.
Well stated Charles. IMHO this is the key takeaway.
As a staple consultant, I take great issue with this. Why is the government wasting taxpayer resources on a consultant to locate staplers, when they should be hiring a consultant to locate the staples! My organization will be filing a lawsuit to pause this process until we can get to the bottom of things.
flybill
Life of the Party
Last edited:
BDD
Steelhead
Charles,
I have a sincere question that I hope you or others may provide some input. My intention is to NOT turn this into a bashing campaign in any way. But, groups like the ones you mention above are still angling groups. While I can appreciate their anti hatchery position and even understand their agenda for reducing hatchery plants in favor of wild fish only management. They worked to reduce hatchery plants in the Skagit because they thought that the result would be more wild fish so a season in the future could be enacted. I am certain that they were hoping numbers would rebound so a fishery could be open as result of their efforts. Whether the population rebounded as a result of eliminating hatchery plants is debatable, was not this their desired outcome? A season when the escapement level would supposedly be met? Their agenda was met, their goals realized (no hatchery plants) and escapement goals being met. If this was not to have a future C&R season some some of the most iconic winter steelhead on the entire west coast of North America, what was the point? If these assumptions are true, I'm scratching my head as to why they would put up roadblocks for a C&R steelhead season on the Skagit if the best available science says it is okay? If not, you are no longer an angling group but something more along the lines of PETA. I have sat in committees with members of these groups and they were anglers with high conservation values...I'd like to think I fall in that same category. So naturally I'm a little baffled why the continual litigation scare tactic from these apparent so-called angling groups?
Edit-Just saw your other post regarding ESA listings and the potential for additional permitting and the opportunity for increased management by those groups. That seems reasonable but still does not explain why you would lobby against C&R fishing when the data supports a fishery.
Using your basketball analogy, who's shooting the free throws? Shaq or Steph Curry?
I am not sure that they really care to get people fishing again. They seem to be pure. I think that they want to stop any activity that they believe negatively affects fish populations. They are consistant. Unfortunately, I see their style of moral purity as leading to no fishing. I don't know if they see it that way.
I was corrected in a private message regarding other work WFC does. They have taken on other entities who have a hand in habitat loss or over consumption. I appreciate being corrected. Facts are important. They have a website. Feel free to look at it.
I still believe that there is a lot of effort spent on the wrong things. This can point well meaning people in the wrong direction and angers many people who would otherwise be allies. I still contend that listing fish stocks will not help much in recovery.
BBD -
We agree that WFC has goals and objective but I think I have a bit more cynical view of those. In line with Charles' point that facts are important I offer the following time series:
Year - - escap. - - Note (early time hatchery releases)
1994 - - 6,412 - - Hatchery releases essentially doubled (400,000 to 600,000/year)
1995 - - 7,656
1996 - - 7,448
1997 - - N/A
1998- - N/A
1999 - - 7,820
2000 - - 3,780
2001 - - 4,584
2002 - - 5,394
2003 - - 6,818 - - Monster Sauk flood in October affecting freshwater survival for several years
2004 - - 7,332
2005 - - 6,382
2006 - - 6,757 - - Sometime between 2005 and 2008 hatchery plants reduced to 225,000
2007 - - 4,242
2008 - - 4,887 - - Hatchery releases ended in the Sauk
2009 - - 2,502
2010 - - 3,981
2011 - - 5,462
2012 - - 6,185 - - Occupy Skagit
2013 - - 8,727
2014 - - 9,084 - - Last year of steelhead hatchery releases
2015 - - 8,644
2016 - - 7,924
2017 - - 6,380
2018 - - 6,084
2019 - - 4,314
2020 - - N/A
2021 - - 3,369
2022 - - 5,601
Should note that whether the spring C/R fishery happens is not whether the run will meet an escapement goal, but rather about certain thresholds what sort of allowable exploitation rates that the co-managers and NMFS were unlikely to represent a jeopardy of extinction.
If folks are interested in discussion these kinds of questions or ESA recovery needs/effort in the Skagit basin I suggest that our discussion be move to a separate thread.
Curt
We agree that WFC has goals and objective but I think I have a bit more cynical view of those. In line with Charles' point that facts are important I offer the following time series:
Year - - escap. - - Note (early time hatchery releases)
1994 - - 6,412 - - Hatchery releases essentially doubled (400,000 to 600,000/year)
1995 - - 7,656
1996 - - 7,448
1997 - - N/A
1998- - N/A
1999 - - 7,820
2000 - - 3,780
2001 - - 4,584
2002 - - 5,394
2003 - - 6,818 - - Monster Sauk flood in October affecting freshwater survival for several years
2004 - - 7,332
2005 - - 6,382
2006 - - 6,757 - - Sometime between 2005 and 2008 hatchery plants reduced to 225,000
2007 - - 4,242
2008 - - 4,887 - - Hatchery releases ended in the Sauk
2009 - - 2,502
2010 - - 3,981
2011 - - 5,462
2012 - - 6,185 - - Occupy Skagit
2013 - - 8,727
2014 - - 9,084 - - Last year of steelhead hatchery releases
2015 - - 8,644
2016 - - 7,924
2017 - - 6,380
2018 - - 6,084
2019 - - 4,314
2020 - - N/A
2021 - - 3,369
2022 - - 5,601
Should note that whether the spring C/R fishery happens is not whether the run will meet an escapement goal, but rather about certain thresholds what sort of allowable exploitation rates that the co-managers and NMFS were unlikely to represent a jeopardy of extinction.
If folks are interested in discussion these kinds of questions or ESA recovery needs/effort in the Skagit basin I suggest that our discussion be move to a separate thread.
Curt
Charles, The entire ten year plan is not and never was contingent on this year's number. What is contingent on this year's numbers, and what the plan is all about, is whether or not the season can open for this spring. The plan itself, which as I understand it is a continuation of the previous plan, describes conditions under which a fishery may occur. This, The Plan, could have been submitted a year ago, two years ago. It doesn't matter what the fuck this years numbers are whether or not The Ten Year Plan could be submitted. What does matter to me is that in their infinite ability to fuck shit up is that they waited until the 59th minute of the eleventh hour to submit.
I had to explain this to Bill McMillian years ago. If their is not an approved plan in place, it won't matter if 100,000 fish come back. There will be no fishing - period. There is no other mechanism to allow a fishery. The Plan needs to be submitted and approved before any season can take place. The Plan describes the fishing that may or may not take place depending on the year's projected returns. Without The Plan, we get nothing, nada, zip!
Very simple.
Very simple.
WW -
You are absolutely right an approved plan needs to be in place prior to any fishing.
However, I doubt whether submitted "The Plan" 3 months ago or 3 years ago would have any meaningful impact on when the new plan will be approved. I sure the feds would insist that they have all the latest information in hand before the approval process proceeds forward. So, we are back to when the problem of with limited time series of information the most recent year information becomes important.
The co-managers submitted a new PS Chinook harvest plan in Feb. of 2022 and they hope under a fast-track approval process it would be in place for the 2024 season. The Chinook plan is much more complex than the Skagit steelhead plan so hopefully "The Plan" will be approved in a much shorter time frame. Though I continue to feel that time could be extended if there were new or more complex issues came up in the public comment period.
I agree that we should be fishing by now; either under the terms of the previous plans or an approved new plan. In this case the lion share of the frustration should be directed to the feds rather than the co-managers or WDFW.
curt
You are absolutely right an approved plan needs to be in place prior to any fishing.
However, I doubt whether submitted "The Plan" 3 months ago or 3 years ago would have any meaningful impact on when the new plan will be approved. I sure the feds would insist that they have all the latest information in hand before the approval process proceeds forward. So, we are back to when the problem of with limited time series of information the most recent year information becomes important.
The co-managers submitted a new PS Chinook harvest plan in Feb. of 2022 and they hope under a fast-track approval process it would be in place for the 2024 season. The Chinook plan is much more complex than the Skagit steelhead plan so hopefully "The Plan" will be approved in a much shorter time frame. Though I continue to feel that time could be extended if there were new or more complex issues came up in the public comment period.
I agree that we should be fishing by now; either under the terms of the previous plans or an approved new plan. In this case the lion share of the frustration should be directed to the feds rather than the co-managers or WDFW.
curt
If this were year five of the original plan we would be fishing right now. Since it is year six of a five year plan, we are not. I simply do not understand the significance of this year's projections to the formulating and submitting of the plan. If these numbers are so critical then maybe we need to wait for next year's numbers too - or the next ten years.
As I said initially, I blame them all.
As I said initially, I blame them all.
Without an agreed upon escapement number from last year, they can not and should not submit a plan for the next 10. They have to have those numbers to show how the population is doing and to show what effect the seasons have or have not had and probably more important than anything, to have a complete plan to apply with. If you left out 1 year of data then the appearance that you have not done your due diligence is there and it would be acted on by a group. Further, the first comment would be that it is incomplete and NMFS will review it when all the infomation is there. It may not make sense to you but this is pretty clear to me.
From my understanding the issue likely comes from a Biop written for USFWS for Bull trout. This brings up the concern that bull trout encounters from fishermen in boats will be too high. I know that this seems ridiculous, it is ridiculous.
