Rules 3 and 4 would end all the fishing I moved here for and enjoy so much, the stuff that helps keep me sober. I don't have the recourses those folks do, why do they always target the low hanging fruit?
Petition: Statewide Protection of Resident Forms of Wild Steelhead
- Thread starter SeaRunner
- Start date
Paige
Wishing I was fishing the Sauk
Because its easy and makes it look like they are doing something, unfortunately it just alienates people from their cause.
Pink Nighty
Life of the Party
So on the one hand, the harvest of resident rainbows had always appeared to me as low hanging fruit in the steelhead recovery tree. Whether those fish express anadramous history or not seems like a stupid distinction to make, especially in times of poor ocean survival. I am all for 1 and 2 here, and have been on that train for a while.
3 and 4 can fuck right off though. That's a blanket fishing closure on all Puget sound waters all the time. Million pinks in the duwamish? Tough titties, you might hook a rainbow.
Wanna catch some coho on the Skagit? Better hope the projection is north of 4000 fish, which by the by is a number they release after salmon season is basically over.
Weve had this talk before, half this board has acted as de facto pro bono deputies on the river, but that's only because we are on the river fishing. Good luck enforcing even 1% of river miles without our eyes on the river. What a joke.
On the other hand, what a fantastic opportunity to engage in ethical civil disobedience if this comes to pass.
3 and 4 can fuck right off though. That's a blanket fishing closure on all Puget sound waters all the time. Million pinks in the duwamish? Tough titties, you might hook a rainbow.
Wanna catch some coho on the Skagit? Better hope the projection is north of 4000 fish, which by the by is a number they release after salmon season is basically over.
Weve had this talk before, half this board has acted as de facto pro bono deputies on the river, but that's only because we are on the river fishing. Good luck enforcing even 1% of river miles without our eyes on the river. What a joke.
On the other hand, what a fantastic opportunity to engage in ethical civil disobedience if this comes to pass.
We already have statewide wild steelhead release. The first bullet point would prohibit retention of SRC and bull trout that is presently allowed with certain minimum size and number restrictions. Would conservation benefit would accrue to wild steelhead as a result of this?
The selective rules restriction doesn't bother me, and I think it's beyond time to prohibit bait and barbed hooks for stream fishing.
The third bullet would basically permanently close steelhead streams to any recreational fishing.
The fourth bullet would also basically permanently close nearly every steelhead stream to any recreational fishing.
Register me as opposed.
NMFS has already concluded in the PS steelhead ESA listing that recreational fishing is NOT a factor affecting wild steelhead population abundance. Since recreational fishing is NOT affecting steelhead population abundance, eliminating recreational fishing will NOT serve any wild steelhead conservation purpose. Given these facts, the petition seems more like an anti-fishing proposal than a fisheries conservation initiative.
When the Wild Steelhead Coalition (WSC) formed in 2000, I strongly suggested they adopt the single purpose mission of "statewide wild steelhead release." This wasn't entirely essential for steelhead conservation, but it was a good general steelhead conservation plan. They achieved that goal. Perhaps it is time for WSC to retire.
Plot twist: Wild fish groups are an astroturfing campaign funded by Montana BC and Alaska to increase tourism from Washington
WSC reminds me of the comic with a dude in a tree, facing the trunk and sawing off the branch he is sitting on. Wife comes out to comment and her hubby basically tells her to F off. Sort of sums up the history of these Orgs . . . reasonable common sense suggestions (items 1 and 2) coupled with batshit crazy stuff that will get little or no support (3 and 4).
Next step will be WSC jumping into the lawsuit game.
Pisses me off, as I want to support reasonable regulations supporting remaining wild steelhead populations but am not seeing any balanced suggestions.
Sorry, needed to rant. I was at the first meeting of the WSC in 2000. Once upon a time they had a clear mission that I was aligned with.
Next step will be WSC jumping into the lawsuit game.
Pisses me off, as I want to support reasonable regulations supporting remaining wild steelhead populations but am not seeing any balanced suggestions.
Sorry, needed to rant. I was at the first meeting of the WSC in 2000. Once upon a time they had a clear mission that I was aligned with.
Closing our streams isn’t gonna do anything. All of the streams that have been closed for the purposes of letting fish runs recover have still been closed for decades and the fish still aren't back.
The proposed rules aren't gonna save any fish. Instead, it will just lead to more closures and less people falling in love with the great hobby of fishing.
The proposed rules aren't gonna save any fish. Instead, it will just lead to more closures and less people falling in love with the great hobby of fishing.
Who cares if anglers continually lose opportunities when you just make your annual trip up to northern BC to get your fix? You just gotta ignore that their runs are also in the toilet depsite no hatchery influence.
Maybe it's just social media, but it feels like Montana has more steelhead anglers and guides per capita than any PNW state.
I think one of the biggest challenges a lot of the orgs (and the managers) face is great intentions combined with a complete lack of understanding of the relationship between the rules they propose and the effects of those rules on the outcomes they care about. Of course exact effects cannot be known beforehand nor perfectly measured after, but at least bothering to conduct a back of the napkin calculation to ask the question, “does this proposal have any likelihood of achieving a measurable benefit, and at what cost?” seems like a step.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
They think the way I used to think, that every fish possible has to be saved..They view it as a moral crusade and that these are things society has to do whether they like it or not, but we live in America where such things are illegally, commonly done of course , but illegal none the less.
The problem is though if we saved every wild steelhead from every fishhook in the state of Washington for the next 50 years it wouldn't do a thing for wild steelhead populations.
All our efforts should be on continuing to restore diverse freshwater habitats and figuring out how to get them back from the ocean.
Bingo! You cannot save every last fish... I recall a meeting I had with The Nature Conservancy and our (California) fisheries folks. I managed a conservation easement on TNC land and they were requesting that CA DFW open a currently closed stretch of Shasta River that flowed through their property for catch and release fishing. It contained both a steelhead run and a stretch of spring creek with trophy sized native rainbow trout. Our fish folks were adamantly opposed and ultimately torpedoed the idea. As we left the meeting, the TNC rep looked at me and said "perfection is the enemy of the good".
How does one go about torpedoing WSC's petition? Counter petition?* It seems to me that writing the Commission is a WASTE of time.
Someone above mentioned trying to get a fishery reopened once it's closed is unlikely. The Wenatchee, Methow, Similkameen - oh how I loved swining flies in the Wenatchee and Methow. It ain't going to happen again in my lifetime. And how are we going to reverse man's effects on these rivers?
* deleted
Someone above mentioned trying to get a fishery reopened once it's closed is unlikely. The Wenatchee, Methow, Similkameen - oh how I loved swining flies in the Wenatchee and Methow. It ain't going to happen again in my lifetime. And how are we going to reverse man's effects on these rivers?
* deleted
Last edited:
brownheron
corvus ossifragus
My reaction to this was similar to most everyone else's:
#1 & 2, not going to do much over current state but yeah, OK.
#3 & 4, hell no, that's the same ol' stupidity
However, I had a different, maybe more literal reading of #3. I read that as closing specific sections of the 14(?) rivers already named as steelhead gene bank rivers by WDFW - Elwha, Sol Duc, Grays, etc, etc. (I can't find a list using the search function on WDFW's site).
This pretty seems redundant to #4 and really hard to manage given treaty salmon fisheries on some of those rivers...
...oh wait...
...those rules would only apply to non-tribal recreational anglers. SSDD as usual.
#1 & 2, not going to do much over current state but yeah, OK.
#3 & 4, hell no, that's the same ol' stupidity
However, I had a different, maybe more literal reading of #3. I read that as closing specific sections of the 14(?) rivers already named as steelhead gene bank rivers by WDFW - Elwha, Sol Duc, Grays, etc, etc. (I can't find a list using the search function on WDFW's site).
This pretty seems redundant to #4 and really hard to manage given treaty salmon fisheries on some of those rivers...
...oh wait...
...those rules would only apply to non-tribal recreational anglers. SSDD as usual.
I believe that we underestimate the potential of western Washington anadromous streams to produce resident O. mykiss (rainbows) some of which can reach significant size. I have seen 20 inch or larger resident rainbows (based on ages from scale samples) in a number of north Sound anadromous rivers with some of those fish reaching age 10 and 25 inches. Once the young O. mykiss reach about 8 inches their behaviors (especially in the winter) such that they can take advantage of the nutrient bonanza provided by spawning salmon.
In spite of the feds intendedly exclude the resident form of O. mykiss in anadromous water from their ESA listing steelhead populations we now know that that life form contributes to the stability of steelhead populations with the offspring of steelhead producing some resident fish and the residents producing some future steelhead. It is past time of the State and its co-managers and those of us that care about the health of O. mykiss in our rivers to do the feds job by recognizing the importance of the resident life history to the anadromous steelhead and taking proactive action.
The WSC petition starts down a potential path to achieve the above goal, unfortunately they seem to have forgotten the complexity of our anadromous ecosystems and the diverse fisheries and management that results from that complexity. This likely would result in widespread loss of game fish fisheries and only partial protection of the wild O. mykiss population. Under current management paradigms for potential in-river salmon seasons the use of bait is typically allowed thus exposing non directed game fish to hooking mortalities from that bait use.
From my prospective a regulation package might include the following:
For all anadromous rivers with ESA listed steelhead or a wild steelhead population that is likely to be under escaped (3 of the previous 5 years of escapement under goal?) any and all freshwater fisheries (including salmon fisheries) will be under selective gear rules with the only steelhead/rainbows allowed for retention regardless of size will be fin clipped. The intent is that all fisheries target salmon, non-steelhead game fish populations (cutthroat, bull trout, whitefish, etc.) would be managed under that above rules. Any target steelhead fisheries would only be allowed after an approved River Fisheries Management (RFM) plan has been completed and approved as directed under the 2008 WDFW statewide steelhead management plan.
One potential thorny problem that might occur is any in-river sturgeon fisheries which require the use of bait. There has been an approach on the Skagit that may have broader application.
Curt
In spite of the feds intendedly exclude the resident form of O. mykiss in anadromous water from their ESA listing steelhead populations we now know that that life form contributes to the stability of steelhead populations with the offspring of steelhead producing some resident fish and the residents producing some future steelhead. It is past time of the State and its co-managers and those of us that care about the health of O. mykiss in our rivers to do the feds job by recognizing the importance of the resident life history to the anadromous steelhead and taking proactive action.
The WSC petition starts down a potential path to achieve the above goal, unfortunately they seem to have forgotten the complexity of our anadromous ecosystems and the diverse fisheries and management that results from that complexity. This likely would result in widespread loss of game fish fisheries and only partial protection of the wild O. mykiss population. Under current management paradigms for potential in-river salmon seasons the use of bait is typically allowed thus exposing non directed game fish to hooking mortalities from that bait use.
From my prospective a regulation package might include the following:
For all anadromous rivers with ESA listed steelhead or a wild steelhead population that is likely to be under escaped (3 of the previous 5 years of escapement under goal?) any and all freshwater fisheries (including salmon fisheries) will be under selective gear rules with the only steelhead/rainbows allowed for retention regardless of size will be fin clipped. The intent is that all fisheries target salmon, non-steelhead game fish populations (cutthroat, bull trout, whitefish, etc.) would be managed under that above rules. Any target steelhead fisheries would only be allowed after an approved River Fisheries Management (RFM) plan has been completed and approved as directed under the 2008 WDFW statewide steelhead management plan.
One potential thorny problem that might occur is any in-river sturgeon fisheries which require the use of bait. There has been an approach on the Skagit that may have broader application.
Curt
SeaRunner
Steelhead
WDFW has recommended denial of the petition, with direction for WDFW to begin work on developing a "native resident trout harvest management policy".
See: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/8-steelhead-petition-summary-sheet.pdf
See: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/8-steelhead-petition-summary-sheet.pdf
SeaRunner
Steelhead
Thank you for the thoughts. While I don't do much in-river salmon fishing these days I have in the past and selective gear rules would have an impact on those fisheries. Would the potential savings in what would amount to non-targeted C&R mortality during limited duration salmon seasons justify those impacts?
Setting aside that WA can do what it wants in setting restrictive regulations that go above and beyond anything mandated by the feds, just for logical consistency your post goes back to one of my original questions. If we adopt the view that O.mykiss resident and anadromous forms are indistinguishable parts of a larger population, are Puget Sound O.mykiss "threatened" under the ESA? I think of the Cedar River which has seen its anadromous O.mykiss component all but eliminated, yet last I knew its resident O.mykiss component is doing well.
I'd say maybe the resident form is doing okay? Maybe hanging in there? I'm not sure we have a good idea (any idea?) of historic abundance of resident O. mykiss in anadromous PS rivers. But if you consider them all part of the same Puget Sound O mykiss "diaspora," the current severely diminished abundance of the anadromous life history form (steelhead) is still a strong indication that something is amiss and out of balance, since in a healthy, thriving Puget Sound O. mykiss population/DPS, the overall abundance of wild steelhead would be much higher. But I do see your point.
Chris Johnson
Steelhead
I think one could propose a less punitive rule change that could be beneficial, like Bullitt point #1. I think 3 & 4 are somewhat redundant and superfluous.
Wanting to help wild steelhead is noble. We should all be doing more.
Wanting to force the WDFW to close nearly all trout streams that have possible wild steelhead populations that are possibly under escapement when they know WDFW has no way to even inventory and/or monitor that is like the sneaky annoying kid that starts a fight and then silently walks away.
That is not noble.
I'm glad WDFW said "No, but we'll try to improve our native resident trout harvest management policy." Maybe some good will come from that while also allowing us to keep catching & releasing.
Wanting to force the WDFW to close nearly all trout streams that have possible wild steelhead populations that are possibly under escapement when they know WDFW has no way to even inventory and/or monitor that is like the sneaky annoying kid that starts a fight and then silently walks away.
That is not noble.
I'm glad WDFW said "No, but we'll try to improve our native resident trout harvest management policy." Maybe some good will come from that while also allowing us to keep catching & releasing.
