Dismal on the 'Duc - Coho management failure

[Brian Miller]

My questions are not meant as disagreement but only demonstrate an admitted lack of factual knowledge I'd like to remedy on the subject of tribal fishing and other localized impacts to salmon and steelhead.

I am thinking that you would want WDFW to have been as conservative with the hatchery coho as they were with the hatchery spring kings. Is that what you wish had happened? Should they have exerted some power over the tribe to not take more than their 50%?

Regarding posts responding to a question; "Is tribal fishing is a major cause of declining (Skagit) fish stocks?" posed on KING TV's FB page , "Kelly Susewind, director of WDFW, said people making these remarks do not understand the process. “I would say honestly that they have it exactly backwards,” Susewind said. “Frankly, it’s just misinformation to believe it’s the tribes’ fault. It’s absolutely not the tribes’ fault.”"

Blaming tribal fishing practices for decline in salmon is ‘misinformation,’ Washington officials say

Viewers and online readers have accused tribes of ruining salmon runs due to unfair practices, including the use of gillnets in the rivers.

www.king5.com

Is there empirical evidence (sustained, documented monitoring-observation) that tribal fishing is taking more than "their 50%" on greater than a rare occasion?
and
Is that a major cause of a continuing decline?

If this thread has done anything, it's to remind me to give some cash to the Hoh river trust or a similar group that protects habitat by purchasing it.

How big of an impact does this have on any given fishery for the dollars and the effort & passion expended, especially for the Hoh or other westside OP drainages? Are there any locations with fixed boundaries that are identified as year over year spawning grounds or other critical habitat regardless of changes to the river caused by runoff that would benefit from a land purchase?
Frankly it boggles my uninformed mind to think of how much land might need to be purchased to have any meaningful impact.

 

[LBL]

Tribal fishing does impact especially steelhead. We see local fish regularly show up on local menus and in our local grocery stores that specialize in more whole foods.
Farmers are paid not to grow crops. The tribal fisherpeole I have talked to are reasonable and intelligent.
I’d pay a subsidy to pay the tribes not to fish.
I bet if approached in an intelligent and reasonable manner there could be potential for agreements. Mandates are a non starter.

 

[Brian Miller]

Tribal fishing does impact especially steelhead. We see local fish regularly show up on local menus and in our local grocery stores that specialize in more whole foods.

There is obviously an impact. Is there observed empirical evidence that the fish on local menus is from fish above the 50% harvestable limit granted by treaties with the harvest level allegedly set cooperatively by tribes and WDFW?

 

[Mossback]

Can anybody suggest why the decline is happening. Is it global climate change, is it tribal and sport harvest, is it over harvest and by catch in the oceans. Or by screwing the runs have we screwed the habitat by cutting off the nutrient supply provided by the runs?

All of the above...

 

[charles sullivan]

My questions are not meant as disagreement but only demonstrate an admitted lack of factual knowledge I'd like to remedy on the subject of tribal fishing and other localized impacts to salmon and steelhead.

Regarding posts responding to a question; "Is tribal fishing is a major cause of declining (Skagit) fish stocks?" posed on KING TV's FB page , "Kelly Susewind, director of WDFW, said people making these remarks do not understand the process. “I would say honestly that they have it exactly backwards,” Susewind said. “Frankly, it’s just misinformation to believe it’s the tribes’ fault. It’s absolutely not the tribes’ fault.”"

Blaming tribal fishing practices for decline in salmon is ‘misinformation,’ Washington officials say

Viewers and online readers have accused tribes of ruining salmon runs due to unfair practices, including the use of gillnets in the rivers.

www.king5.com

Is there empirical evidence (sustained, documented monitoring-observation) that tribal fishing is taking more than "their 50%" on greater than a rare occasion?
and
Is that a major cause of a continuing decline?

How big of an impact does this have on any given fishery for the dollars and the effort & passion expended, especially for the Hoh or other westside OP drainages? Are there any locations with fixed boundaries that are identified as year over year spawning grounds or other critical habitat regardless of changes to the river caused by runoff that would benefit from a land purchase?
Frankly it boggles my uninformed mind to think of how much land might need to be purchased to have any meaningful impact.

Is there empirical evidence (sustained, documented monitoring-observation) that tribal fishing is taking more than "their 50%" on greater than a rare occasion?
and
Is that a major cause of a continuing decline?

There are times tribes take more than their 50%. There are a ton of reasons this could happen. There have been times where cowboy commercials took a greater than 50% share. I am sure there are times that sport anglers have taken more than their allotted share.
The tribal share could be of Wild fish or hatchery fish. Taking more than 50% of the allotted hatchery fish may make no difference provided the hatchery gets enough fish back. Wild fish it could make a big difference. Hell, taking less than the 50% could negatively effect he runs if preseason forecast was off. That happens.
This is all different than blaming declining stocks on taking more than the allotted share. The very way that the 50% has been defined (maximum sustained yield) very likely causes fish declines.
To answer your question more directly, I believe that it's generally accepted that there were some hood canal steelhead runs that were wiped out by tribal nets. Small rivers, small runs.

Is it a major cause of continuing decline?

Maybe. I think that it may be for OP steelhead. Wild bycatch when netting hatchery runs certainly can have a negative effect. Over time it can change run timing for the fish as well as allow for overharvest. Cue @Salmo_g for a lesson on the Fulton spawning channel.

How big of an impact does this have on any given fishery for the dollars and the effort & passion expended, especially for the Hoh or other westside OP drainages? Are there any locations with fixed boundaries that are identified as year over year spawning grounds or other critical habitat regardless of changes to the river caused by runoff that would benefit from a land purchase?
Frankly it boggles my uninformed mind to think of how much land might need to be purchased to have any meaningful impact.

It's not just run off. It's allowing the river to move freely. It's allowing the natural processes to take place. It's providing shade, large trees to fall into rivers, places for beavers etc. It's all connected. Any time land is bought in a watershed and locked up, it's a good thing for the fish.
The fish use or are effected by all of the river somehow from the top to the bottom.

 

[Paige]

The Queets gets netted 5 days a week during the spring, do you not think that has an impact on Steelhead?

 

[charles sullivan]

The Queets gets netted 5 days a week during the spring, do you not think that has an impact on Steelhead?

Yes it does. Killing fish has an impact.
I think the hatchery on the Q and the harvest of wild fish has an impact. The hatchery/ harvest daily double is a thing on the Q.

 

[kg4lwp]

The Queets gets netted 5 days a week during the spring, do you not think that has an impact on Steelhead?

The Queets gets netted 5 days a week during the spring, do you not think that has an impact on Steelhead?

The poor Queets just gets hammered. Arguably the best habitat left out there and yet the steelhead and coho are constraining stocks year after year…..

 

[Paige]

And now its all closed!

Olympic National Park Closing Queets, Salmon, Upper Quinault To Steelheading -

Steelhead fishing will close on sections of three Olympic National Park rivers ahead of the arrival of the vast bulk of winter-runs, federal managers announced this week, citing forecasted returns.

nwsportsmanmag.com

 

[LBL]

Any comments on the paying not to fish in my previous post?

 

[kg4lwp]

Any comments on the paying not to fish in my previous post?

I’d love to know more about this too. In my goings in forks I’ve heard of it being asked for by certain tribes. Talking winter steelhead. I’ve heard of it being offered by guide groups. But all hearsay.

I’d support it, it’s a tiny amount of money for wild winter steelhead. The catches are small and the price per pound are low.

 

[LBL]

I’d love to know more about this too. In my goings in forks I’ve heard of it being asked for by certain tribes. Talking winter steelhead. I’ve heard of it being offered by guide groups. But all hearsay.

I’d support it, it’s a tiny amount of money for wild winter steelhead. The catches are small and the price per pound are low.

I’ve talked to guides who support the idea but I don’t know if there has been any real discussion. The more sport anglers and the Tribes work together the better. The tribes have real federal clout. Us not so much.

 

[Salmo_g]

Any comments on the paying not to fish in my previous post?

You should first understand that any arrangement to pay a tribe not to fish (for steelhead) is for the express purpose of transferring fishing and fish harvest from treaty to non-treaty recreational interests and not for conservation. Except in a couple of limited cases - Quinault, Queets, and possibly the Quilayute - treaty fishing is not limiting wild steelhead populations. I've seen zero evidence that treaty fishing is creating a reduction in the size of wild steelhead populations in WA, but for the above noted exceptions.

Having noted the treaty fishing impacts, I'd have to ask, what is the purpose of paying a tribe not to fish steelhead, if not to create additional opportunity for non-treaty recreational steelhead fishing? I'm OK with that; I just want to be clear about the purpose and what is and what is not being achieved by doing so. In my interactions with tribal members, the tribal governments aren't interested in being paid not to fish. First, it looks bad from their perspective, suggesting that they can be "bought off." Second, it could set a precedent toward future actions that would negatively affect tribal interests. Third, treaty Indians like to fish and want to fish for traditional and cultural reasons, even when they can't profit financially from it. They like to fish, just as I like to fish. Fourth, and generally the lesser reason, some treaty fishermen want to fish for steelhead because it pisses off some non-treaty sport fishers, and those tribal folks don't want us to ever forget that "payback's a bitch."

Other than the above reasons, paying treaty tribes not to fish is logistically and economically possible. But as you can see, the obstacles are not logistics nor money.

 

[Salmo_g]

Can anybody suggest why the decline is happening. Is it global climate change, is it tribal and sport harvest, is it over harvest and by catch in the oceans. Or by screwing the runs have we screwed the habitat by cutting off the nutrient supply provided by the runs?
I just don’t see watershed habitat degradation on the OP as a major contributing factor.

First, let's narrow down to "which" decline you're referring to. Here's my opinion, without all the supporting materials: Declines in anadromous fish population sizes from about 1950 to 1920 were largely the result of over-fishing. Declines from 1920 to 1990 were a combination of over-fishing and habitat degradation. Which is more to blame depends on watershed and other specific considerations. Declines since 1990 are due mostly to the very significant reduction in SAR (smolt to adult return) in the marine and ocean environment. This is a biggie because the juvenile to adult survival rates for Chinook, coho, and steelhead have decreased variously by 50 to 80%. This is causing a lot of populations to being unable to simply replace themselves, even without any harvest at all. With harvest super-imposed on these populations, the situation only becomes worse.

Even though many populations can presently be said to not be over-harvested, over-harvesting in the past has led to the contemporary paradigm of maximum sustained yield (MSY) / maximum sustained harvest (MSH), such that watershed productivity is decreased due to the low abundance of marine derived nutrients - salmon carcasses as fertilizer - being regularly returned to the rivers and streams. That coupled with habitat degradation everywhere results in lower habitat productivity, capacity, and diversity, the cornerstones of maximum fish production.

Habitat degradation on the OP is a major contributing factor. While the OP headwaters are located in the protected confines of the Olympic National Park, that is not where the majority of the salmon and steelhead production originated historically, or even now. All of the tributary streams outside the park boundary have been subjected to clear cut logging and extensive logging road building. The lower gradient reaches of tributaries and mainstem rivers were historically the most production sections of the watersheds. That former productivity is forever diminished. Even under the newer (TFW - Timber, Fish, & Wildlife agreement; and Forest & Fish initiative) forest management restrictions, as long as these lands are managed as forested tree farms, the recovery as quality fish habitat will remain forever limited. Even on the OP.

 

[Salmo_g]

My questions are not meant as disagreement but only demonstrate an admitted lack of factual knowledge I'd like to remedy on the subject of tribal fishing and other localized impacts to salmon and steelhead.

Regarding posts responding to a question; "Is tribal fishing is a major cause of declining (Skagit) fish stocks?" posed on KING TV's FB page , "Kelly Susewind, director of WDFW, said people making these remarks do not understand the process. “I would say honestly that they have it exactly backwards,” Susewind said. “Frankly, it’s just misinformation to believe it’s the tribes’ fault. It’s absolutely not the tribes’ fault.”"

Blaming tribal fishing practices for decline in salmon is ‘misinformation,’ Washington officials say

Viewers and online readers have accused tribes of ruining salmon runs due to unfair practices, including the use of gillnets in the rivers.

www.king5.com

Is there empirical evidence (sustained, documented monitoring-observation) that tribal fishing is taking more than "their 50%" on greater than a rare occasion?
and
Is that a major cause of a continuing decline?

How big of an impact does this have on any given fishery for the dollars and the effort & passion expended, especially for the Hoh or other westside OP drainages? Are there any locations with fixed boundaries that are identified as year over year spawning grounds or other critical habitat regardless of changes to the river caused by runoff that would benefit from a land purchase?
Frankly it boggles my uninformed mind to think of how much land might need to be purchased to have any meaningful impact.

Brian, while I'm no admirer of Director Susewind, I do agree with him that he's got it correct in regard to the Skagit fish populations. There is a long record of Skagit salmon, going back to the 1930s, and steelhead going back to the 1960s, indicating terminal area harvests, and sufficiently reliable estimates of harvests in pre-terminal locations - Puget Sound, ocean, B.C., and AK - to reasonably understand who's catching which fish and how many. The Skagit tribes harvest fish, but it's a rare case when the tribal fisheries are responsible for lack of a run meeting its spawning escapement goal. The tribes have taken more than their 50% treaty share on occasion because run size estimation is a very inexact science. The respective non-treaty fisheries have taken more than their share on far more occasions, often by design. In my best estimation, fishing, both treaty and non-treaty, are not proximate causes for the significant declines in Skagit basin anadromous fish populations that have occurred since 1990.

Regarding your question about the impact of money expended on habitat restoration for the Hoh - or any river basin in WA state - is that the benefits measured in terms of increasing salmon and steelhead run sizes has simply not materialized. The are several reasons for this. The most significant is probably the declining smolt to adult survival rates in marine waters. You could have pristine freshwater habitat and still get very poor returning run sizes. And we do not have pristine freshwater habitat. The next big reason is that it costs exorbitant amounts of money to restore a unit of habitat to high productivity, capacity, and diversity. I have guesstimated that it costs 10 X and more to restore a unit of freshwater habitat than it does to protect it by leaving it alone in the first place. But we haven't protected habitat in the past or even very well in the present. I was looking at a recent Puget Sound report, and it corroborated what I've been saying for years: that for every habitat restoration project implemented, local, state, and federal agencies permit 10 projects that degrade habitat. With that kind of ratio, it is mathematically impossible to ever restore habitat to a desired future condition that produces large naturally self-sustaining anadromous fish populations that provide harvestable numbers of fish. So I'm not opposed to habitat restoration investments; I just set my expectations accordingly.

 

[Salmo_g]

The Queets gets netted 5 days a week during the spring, do you not think that has an impact on Steelhead?

The netting schedule on the Queets can vary from zero to seven days a week, depending on water conditions and Tribally projected run size. A key issue on the Queets and Quinault Rivers is that the state and the Tribe have markedly different spawning escapement goals (for steelhead anyway) with the state goal being roughly twice that of the QIN goal. Consequently, by managing for MSH, run sizes are often likely to be so low that no non-treaty steelhead fishing season is possible. WDFW's steelhead management plan states that there shall be no directed fishing for steelhead when the run size is projected to be lower than the escapement goal. With that management policy and the fact that MSY/MSH harvest models invariably drive productivity downward, we are headed for, or may have arrived at the point were non-treaty steelhead fishing is a distant memory on the Queets and Quinault Rivers.

 

[kg4lwp]

You should first understand that any arrangement to pay a tribe not to fish (for steelhead) is for the express purpose of transferring fishing and fish harvest from treaty to non-treaty recreational interests and not for conservation. Except in a couple of limited cases - Quinault, Queets, and possibly the Quilayute - treaty fishing is not limiting wild steelhead populations. I've seen zero evidence that treaty fishing is creating a reduction in the size of wild steelhead populations in WA, but for the above noted exceptions.

Having noted the treaty fishing impacts, I'd have to ask, what is the purpose of paying a tribe not to fish steelhead, if not to create additional opportunity for non-treaty recreational steelhead fishing? I'm OK with that; I just want to be clear about the purpose and what is and what is not being achieved by doing so. In my interactions with tribal members, the tribal governments aren't interested in being paid not to fish. First, it looks bad from their perspective, suggesting that they can be "bought off." Second, it could set a precedent toward future actions that would negatively affect tribal interests. Third, treaty Indians like to fish and want to fish for traditional and cultural reasons, even when they can't profit financially from it. They like to fish, just as I like to fish. Fourth, and generally the lesser reason, some treaty fishermen want to fish for steelhead because it pisses off some non-treaty sport fishers, and those tribal folks don't want us to ever forget that "payback's a bitch."

Other than the above reasons, paying treaty tribes not to fish is logistically and economically possible. But as you can see, the obstacles are not logistics nor money.

I think we are all just grasping for straws, wishing for any ending other than the one thats coming....

The Queets, one river you listed as an exception. When it keeps missing escapment for steelhead, i never hear why. When its the constraining coho stock, i never hear why.The habitat seems as good or better that the other rivers out there. Is something wrong with the river nobody talks about? Or is it just the hard core netting it gets? Im not looking to cry over netting, pointless. Id just love understand whats really going on with that river.

 

[Brian Miller]

Regarding your question about the impact of money expended on habitat restoration for the Hoh - or any river basin in WA state - is that the benefits measured in terms of increasing salmon and steelhead run sizes has simply not materialized. The are several reasons for this.

Thank You for helping me understand this complex subject better.

My second question had more to do with NGOs like the Hoh River Trust buying land to improve fisheries; either not allowing development so the land can return to a natural state on its own or with engineered solutions. NGOs will make a small land purchase to provide public access, but is the size and cost of a fixed boundary land purchase for habitat preservation - restoration even remotely realistic to make any meaningful change for a given drainage?

BTW I've heard about purchases by a NGO in Pierce County buying land for preservation but they sometimes negotiate land swaps with private interests (that might include logging or mining?) to consolidate smaller chunks of preserved land.

 

[Salmo_g]

I think we are all just grasping for straws, wishing for any ending other than the one thats coming....

The Queets, one river you listed as an exception. When it keeps missing escapment for steelhead, i never hear why. When its the constraining coho stock, i never hear why.The habitat seems as good or better that the other rivers out there. Is something wrong with the river nobody talks about? Or is it just the hard core netting it gets? Im not looking to cry over netting, pointless. Id just love understand whats really going on with that river.

I can think of two factors affecting the condition of Queets coho and steelhead. Not sure about coho, but the WDFW steelhead escapement goal is roughly double that of the QIN. That, coupled with the QIN policy (not supported by science) that hatchery and wild fish are the same means that the higher WDFW escapement goal will only be achieved by accident. That policy will adversely affect coho even if the state and the tribe share the same escapement goal. Wild populations cannot be harvested at the same higher rate that hatchery populations can be. Therefore chronic over-harvesting is the inevitable result.

If there is something wrong that nobody talks about (me excluded, obviously), it's that WDFW and the QIN do not have the same fish management objectives. Oh, they probably would say that they both have conservation as their objective, but in fact, the QIN conservation objective is a lower population level.

 

[Salmo_g]

My second question had more to do with NGOs like the Hoh River Trust buying land to improve fisheries; either not allowing development so the land can return to a natural state on its own or with engineered solutions. NGOs will make a small land purchase to provide public access, but is the size and cost of a fixed boundary land purchase for habitat preservation - restoration even remotely realistic to make any meaningful change for a given drainage?

If the Hoh trust can buy enough of the worst affected parts of the watershed, then yes, over time that will make a positive difference. Understand that is a very long game. The trust might own the lower mile of a very good spawning tributary, but if a timber company owns a quarter mile of land upstream on that same tributary, that can undo 100% of the positive effect of having the lower mile protected in a land trust. One thing I meant to say above is that it is far easier and cheaper and more profitable to degrade a stream than it is to restore it. Completely restoring a stream could equate to the cost of buying and protecting half or more of it, plus the added cost of 50 to 100 years of healing time, even with restorative measures included.