Proposed Coastal Steelhead Rules

[Dustin Chromers]

This "no one seems to pay much attention to it (science) and it readily changes based on who might benefit and who's in power" facsinates me and I completely agree. It seems to me in my brief existence that what's popular today as science may not be agreed upon or accepted tomorrow. I watched a half dozen members, each from a different agency (state, federal and tribe) discuss, debate and argue so many different facets of projects that my former employer was mandated to build, that timelines for the projects never met schedule. When one large and very complex project finally started to gain traction, suddenly the science of that particular spring Chinook's genetic origin came into question; oh, they've been extinct for decades and those captive brood don't represent the native (extinct? extirpated?) species.... The money spent on that project reached 8 figures and then abandoned.

Mountain in the Clouds, I'd like to say I really enjoyed the book but enjoy? It was very thought provoking.

We got to follow the $cience.

 

[Pink Nighty]

Which would mean on closed systems, the tribes should not fish

They are not closed to the tribes. WDFW closes them, often in response to ocean quota being reached or exceeded. The tribes are not beholden to them, and many of them do not operate saltwater fisheries as their U&A, so take their quota out of the river that is closed to recreational retention.

As far as I see it, the only way to really increase our opportunity on the same amount of fish is to get the bios to agree to a lesser mortality rate on released. Every king caught in the san Juan's is counted as killed, regardless of its retention/release status. I know people who have gone through 15+ wild fish looking for their keeper, and when they tell the checker at the dock he puts them down for 16 encounters/kills.

I'm not sure thats unsound in ocean with bait and downriggers and pulling fish hundreds of feet up, and netting them up over the sides of the boat to release them. But the same policy applies to river fisheries, where it has been proven time and time again that mortalities of properly released fish hooked on proper gear are negligible. It's the bullshit release mortalities that are keeping the rivers closed in my opinion.

 

[speedbird]

They are not closed to the tribes. WDFW closes them, often in response to ocean quota being reached or exceeded. The tribes are not beholden to them, and many of them do not operate saltwater fisheries as their U&A, so take their quota out of the river that is closed to recreational retention.

As far as I see it, the only way to really increase our opportunity on the same amount of fish is to get the bios to agree to a lesser mortality rate on released. Every king caught in the san Juan's is counted as killed, regardless of its retention/release status. I know people who have gone through 15+ wild fish looking for their keeper, and when they tell the checker at the dock he puts them down for 16 encounters/kills.

I'm not sure thats unsound in ocean with bait and downriggers and pulling fish hundreds of feet up, and netting them up over the sides of the boat to release them. But the same policy applies to river fisheries, where it has been proven time and time again that mortalities of properly released fish hooked on proper gear are negligible. It's the bullshit release mortalities that are keeping the rivers closed in my opinion.

That makes no sense for Steelhead, who is catching steelhead in the ocean? Do we have sufficient non tribal commercial fisheries to eat up our 50%?

 

[Pink Nighty]

That makes no sense for Steelhead, who is catching steelhead in the ocean? Do we have sufficient non tribal commercial fisheries to eat up our 50%?

We do not, but we do have ESA listings (or pending ones) to deal with while the tribes do not. The 50% number deals with salmon and not steelhead as well. It is my understanding that WDFW is co-managing OP steelhead stocks with the tribes in an attempt to earn favor with then on salmon issues.

Tribes can net all the steelhead they want, even if they are ESA listed. The returning numbers dont factor in as much to if they can fish. In attempting to avoid/delay ESA listing of OP fish (and the nightmare that comes with it) wdfw has decided to massively curtail the fishery even when the tribes are not. The lack of co-manager agreement is just as likely WDFW saying "we are not going to allow rec fishing here" while the tribes say "we are gonna net the fuck out of it" as it is the tribe telling the state they cant hold a fishery.

All of it sucks. The key to getting past it, at least for C&R fishing, is to get the laws around release mortality in line with the science.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

The 50% number deals with salmon and not steelhead as well. It is my understanding that WDFW is co-managing OP steelhead stocks with the tribes in an attempt to earn favor with then on salmon issues.

Interesting, I thought part of the Boldt decision included noting that Steelhead should be viewed exactly like salmon. Wasn't there an argument at the time they shouldn't be lumped together so that the decision wouldn't apply to steelhead, but in the Boldt decision it was clarified that steelhead = salmon because at the time the treaty was created they were viewed as one in the same.

 

[speedbird]

We do not, but we do have ESA listings (or pending ones) to deal with while the tribes do not. The 50% number deals with salmon and not steelhead as well. It is my understanding that WDFW is co-managing OP steelhead stocks with the tribes in an attempt to earn favor with then on salmon issues.

Tribes can net all the steelhead they want, even if they are ESA listed. The returning numbers dont factor in as much to if they can fish. In attempting to avoid/delay ESA listing of OP fish (and the nightmare that comes with it) wdfw has decided to massively curtail the fishery even when the tribes are not. The lack of co-manager agreement is just as likely WDFW saying "we are not going to allow rec fishing here" while the tribes say "we are gonna net the fuck out of it" as it is the tribe telling the state they cant hold a fishery.

All of it sucks. The key to getting past it, at least for C&R fishing, is to get the laws around release mortality in line with the science.

Wouldn't an ESA listing prevent a federal permit being issued to the tribes to net endangered fish?

 

[Shad]

If you follow the science fifty percent of zero is zero...........

I don't think you're question is dumb. I've asked the same one myself. I look forward to a good answer.

You guys are, of course, right. Half of nothing is nothing. Trouble is, the Tribes use a different set of numbers (their own) to schedule their fisheries, so "50% of the available harvest" means something different to them than it does to our managers, who use somewhat more conservative escapement goals as sideboards. The Tribes also regard a "fish" as a "fish," be it native, hatchery, broodstock, farmed... whatever. That means they count returning hatchery fish as part of the overall total, which of course yields higher "harvestable" numbers in their modeling.

Basically, the Tribe's models suggest they should go ahead and fish, while ours pretty much prohibit encountering a single, wild steelhead in any of the rivers with shortened or eliminated seasons. Yes, a "Co-managing" relationship should require mutual agreement to a single set of standards, but that's not the relationship we've got here....

It's true that the Tribe's decision to fish or not fish factors (heavily) into WDFW's planning models, so to that extent, the Tribes do have a lot of leverage over our fisheries, but I don't think they care much, one way or the other, whether we fish or not, so long as they get their fish. So, yeah... kind of different; kind of like us, I guess.

 

[Salmo_g]

Wouldn't an ESA listing prevent a federal permit being issued to the tribes to net endangered fish?

Not exactly. For each ESA listed ESU or stock of fish, NMFS determines some amount of "allowable take" that will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. Treaty fishing is held to whatever limit of take that is. This is a major reason why the Upper Skagit Tribe was on board with Occupy Skagit and coming up with a basin specific steelhead management plan. Before the plan, the allowable take number was often constraining the Tribe's fishery on spring Chinook where they incidentally catch some late winter steelhead, mostly downstream migrating kelts.

 

[O' Clarkii Stomias]

Just a thought.
Maybe sportsman and the sovereign nations should team up and kick the bureaucrats out of the equation. Together go after and shut down the carbon intensive commercial open sea fisheries.
Let the tribes sell fish into the open market. It's way easier to protect mixed stocks at their point of origin than on the open seas. Show the tribes the value, in terms of revenue, the value of a thriving sport fishery. The tribes will police themselves if there is money on the line. Let the tribes flex their muscle akin to what they do with casinos. I would rather give my license money and my fishing related general spending to the tribes and partners, than to bureaucratic mess that we currently fund. Even turn the control of the Columbia and Snake dams over to the tribes, and let them decide what the balance needs to be. I look at what the Nez Perce and the Yakamas have done with the cohos, and I think they are better managers of fisheries than the current crop.

 

[Yadwick]

I really miss being able to fish the Q rivers right about now. Does anyone know what the required escapement would need to be to have those rivers open? what are the current forecasted numbers?

 

[Chris Johnson]

That makes no sense for Steelhead, who is catching steelhead in the ocean? Do we have sufficient non tribal commercial fisheries to eat up our 50%?

No.

 

[charles sullivan]

Charles -
I your salmon example (Nooksack, Sauk, and Stilly) the details become very important. Those details are in the latest (2022) co-manager Puget Sound Chinook management plan.

Off the top of my head the alllowable impacts for the Stilly and Nooksack are similar while the allowed impacts for the Skagit springs (includes the sauk) are much higher so it would be unlikely that Skagit spring impacts would limit PS mixed recreational fisheries (an assumption that is the bases of your concerns). It could potentially become a concern if for some reason the non-treaty fisher opted to use the majority of their impacts for an in-river fishery.

When it comes to the Nooksack and the Stilly their individual stock migration patterns are hugely important. The majority of the Nooksack might north in Georgia straits and as result the vast majority of the Nooksack encounters in PS recreation occur in MA 7 and 6. While the Stilly fish mostly migrate north on the outside of Vancouver Island and the returning fish are encounter in a wider area - MA 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. This result the fewer allowable Stilly impacts per MA thus usually the more limiting stock.

Yes complicated and the process does not make it easy to parse out these deals. Maybe I can join you and Salmo for that beer and get inot more detail if you want.

curt

The beer part sounds excellent. I'm happy to buy for the retired guys even. Like I always sat, "She'll make more."

I appreciate the information. That makes some sense although I have always questioned the accuracy of anglers who think they know what river systems certain fish are going to when caught in the salt. The way that the migration data is collected would be fascinating to know.

I have not read the Puget Sound Chinook Management Plan. I suppose that I should. Life has gotten a bit crazy to spend time on these sorts of things. I should have evening time after elk hunting given the short days and all. I hope that I don't get bogged down in Ricker curves or whatever the hell they are called like I did with the Skagit steelhead plan.

Did the plan Puget Sound Chinook Management Plan require NMFS or other federal approval?

 

[charles sullivan]

I just finished Mountain in the Clouds which chronicles the demise of PNW salmon. Pretty depressing book. Despite the fact people are always screaming " science is real," no one seems to pay much attention to it and it readily changes based on who might benefit and who's in power. Agencies like the Army Corp of Engineers are a joke, as are most every other state or federal agencies charged with enforcing fish friendly law or policy. Any time there has been an opportunity to make a buck, science, laws, and enforcement go out the window. From the book, "The long term effect of Washington's traditional policy of relying on hatcheries while not enforcing environmental laws has been the reduction of nutrient cycling of the sea and a rearrangement of those who benefit from the process." While I disagree with the approach many of the tribes have taken, they have been repeatedly screwed since the 19 century w/ no accountability for the transgressors. Overfishing, over logging, land stealing, etc. are just a few of the challenges faced over and over by the tribes. As I said, I disagree w/ their approach (which in the case of hatcheries is simply doing what we have done ineffectually), but understand how they might not play nice now that they have leverage. We are where we are from knowingly overfishing stocks, clear cutting leading to habitat degradation, dams w/out adequate fish passage, the commercial development of areas critical to salmon spawning, industrial pollution, and non-enforcement of mitigation requirements and other protective measures. Oh, and our politicians have eagerly played along when receiving campaign contributions from those who benefit from actions listed above. We've done it to ourselves.

Army Corps of Engineers. In my neck of the woods, no one entity has done more to destroy fish runs.

 

[speedbird]

Not exactly. For each ESA listed ESU or stock of fish, NMFS determines some amount of "allowable take" that will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. Treaty fishing is held to whatever limit of take that is. This is a major reason why the Upper Skagit Tribe was on board with Occupy Skagit and coming up with a basin specific steelhead management plan. Before the plan, the allowable take number was often constraining the Tribe's fishery on spring Chinook where they incidentally catch some late winter steelhead, mostly downstream migrating kelts.

Even if it wouldn’t be the best thing for us, could that potentially put the brakes on tribal fishing by requiring federal oversight of what they are approved to take?

 

[Salmo_g]

Even if it wouldn’t be the best thing for us, could that potentially put the brakes on tribal fishing by requiring federal oversight of what they are approved to take?

ESA listings have restricted tribal fishing in most areas, just as they have restricted non-treaty fishing. The difference is that they restrict non-treaty fishing more. Under case law, treaty fishing gets the highest priority.