Regulation change for fly only water rivers only

[Denwor54]

I mirror you experience with poaching we everytime in crossed Cicero and stopped at Hazel there were people fishing gear while the river is closed. I mentioned that also to the department staff and they had no response. I feel if we make change back to we're the reg's we're back when no weighted flies we're allowed we will get to fish again.

 

[Shad]

Even poaching, cowardly and harmful as it is, kills nowhere near the number if ESA Stillaguamish kings that intentional, authorized, open ocean fisheries do. Want the Stilly open? Tell your congressfolk to end indiscriminate, mixed stock fisheries in the Pacific and Puget Sound. Then report back on how that works out....

 

[Denwor54]

Even poaching, cowardly and harmful as it is, kills nowhere near the number if ESA Stillaguamish kings that intentional, authorized, open ocean fisheries do. Want the Stilly open? Tell your congressfolk to end indiscriminate, mixed stock fisheries in the Pacific and Puget Sound. Then report back on how that works out....

I will definitely report back on how this is received, mixed stock fisheries and harvest practices in this state have contributed more to the demise of this fishery than a dumb ass fishing with a sink tip over actively spawning kings. But this is what the tribe sees and come back at the department and there only recourse is to shut it down. I plan on engaging my politicians in my district and hopefully they listen. If you don’t let them know your concerns you don’t exist and most of don’t have a flippen clue. I remember back in 1984 meeting with the governor and politicians on getting rid of the Elwha dams and I was called an idiot for speaking up in front of them and now we will be fishing it soon.

 

[Chonay]

It was very frustrating to see in the regs that Cicero bridge - French creek doesn’t open until Oct 16 this year. I really miss fishing the NF stilly during summer. I would like to help if possible. It would be great to have that again!

Actually this was kind of random but does anyone remember during winter steelhead 2017/18 they designated the NF stilly fly fishing only from French creek - swede heaven? That was kind of sweet hahaha

 

[JACKspASS]

I believe the lack of enforcement is based on insufficient funding, same with management of our river fisheries. What is a # that would allow reasonable hatchery plants, open rivers, and decent seasons to fish? Would people pay $300 for a steelhead/trout license? I would... it's still great entertainment and cheaper than anything else you can do recreationally.

Maybe we need a damn on all of our Puget sound rivers so we can collect all the mitigation money for good fisheries(kidding)

 

[Rob Allen]

I believe the lack of enforcement is based on insufficient funding, same with management of our river fisheries. What is a # that would allow reasonable hatchery plants, open rivers, and decent seasons to fish? Would people pay $300 for a steelhead/trout license? I would... it's still great entertainment and cheaper than anything else you can do recreationally.

Maybe we need a damn on all of our Puget sound rivers so we can collect all the mitigation money for good fisheries(kidding)

I don't think hatchery plants would do much good because our primary problem is the ocean. Putting more in doesn't produce more out. Some of our streams are cranking out maximum numbers of smolts already. They just aren't coming back from the ocean.

 

[Brian Miller]

Maybe we need a damn on all of our Puget sound rivers so we can collect all the mitigation money for good fisheries(kidding)

It's sad that streams above dams or natural barriers to anadromous fish have become the only stream fisheries I know of with all or portions of them *both open and often fishable* year round for Trout or Whitefish, that have not had seasons closed or shortened by ESA.

 

[skyriver]

I don't think hatchery plants would do much good because our primary problem is the ocean. Putting more in doesn't produce more out. Some of our streams are cranking out maximum numbers of smolts already. They just aren't coming back from the ocean.

I agree. I think the changes in forestry and mining, along with all the other environmental improvements in the last 40 years actually have spawning waters in pretty decent shape. It's the ocean (and getting there & back) that seems to be the problem these days.

Japan and Russia are planting BILLIONs (yes, with a B) of chum and pinks EVERY year. Russia is also trawling the hell out of the Pacific to help pay for their war with Ukraine. You think they're checking to see what sort of salmonid it is? And now China, North Korea and South Korea are on the salmon farming band wagon. And Alaska commercial fisheries caught so many fish last year that the market is still flooded, even without fish from Japan and Russia. Canada buying out their own BC commercial fisheries might help our fish.

Our fish go north more than ever so they are in Canadian, Alaskan, Japanese and Russian waters. We can't control what happens to them there.

I applaud your effort @Denwor54 and thank you for doing it.
My input would be a focus on enforcement-
We need more than 1 officer for 2 or 3 counties. They've always been light, but it seems ridiculously light these days.
If angling opportunities decrease, license sales (and fees) decrease so I would have to think enforcement will decrease. I'm not sure how it could be any worse than now, but you get my point.
We can't assume that just because the river is closed no poaching is happening.
I agree with @Creatch’r that it might be better to leave it open with the current regs so there are more legal and responsible anglers on the river to put some pressure on the poachers. More eyes with phones calling things in.
There are success stories of closures bringing fish back, but it's few are far. The Cedar trout fishery comes to mind, but we all know there was poaching while it was closed. Some would say the Skagit. That is debatable. Do I think it should be closed when there are low numbers. Sure, I can agree with that. But what about all the seasons after C & R were established that had lots of wild fish? Including 2013-2017 when we couldn't fish it?
Thanks to WW and many others on here for Occupy Skagit!
Those peaks in returns weren't because we couldn't fish it. There is no correlation between C&R seasons open and reduced returns. Here's a good graph from Swing The Fly:

The big spike in the 80s after a C&R season is established. 5 seasons in the 2000s after C&R reopened. The eventual downturn from each of these peaks is not because of C&R fishing. The decline from 2015 to 2018 wasn't because of a C&R season, because we didn't have any. 2018 & 2019 had C&R seasons, but it was already down. Then 2020 was too low to have a season. The drought in 2015 is probably the main reason for the decline.
And how do we explain the jump from 79 into the 80s?

So I guess my point is that while we need to close rivers when the run is too low, we can also argue that C&R seasons do not have much of an impact on the returns. If those C&R seasons had adequate enforcement then I would argue the number used to determine open or closed could be a touch lower than present. I'm glad the Skagit has the attention it's getting. Now we need that attention on all the other S rivers.

This is like the old days of the Steelhead forum. Haha! The only difference is nobody is threatening bodily harm. Good thread @Denwor54

 

[Smalma]

Concerning the lack of compliance on our rivers and the role of enforcement.

In the first way of river closures - Skagit and Stillaguamish (largely in response to poor coho returns) on of the 7 concerns expressed out one of the lack of compliance. In response to that concern 3 of us anglers met with WDFW Olympia and Regional 4 enforcement supervisor staff to discuss that concern. We were clearly told that both the regional and state level enforcement had adequate staff in the area to assure compliance on those rivers. No sure that history reinforces that state but nevertheless that was their story.

If we want to see more enforcement, I believe that we as angler need to establish relationships with local and regional enforcement staff with a clear understanding on best pass on enforcement issue. I have long been reporting enforcement concerns with direct contact (usually emails or phone calls) of those concerns including the exact location, date, and other relevant information - vehicle descriptions (including lic. number) and physical descriptions of the violators. This kind of information allows the enforcement staff to work more efficiently and often results in some feedback.

In addition to complaining about the lack of enforcement more of us need to talk a direct role of providing the above information. That is not to suggest directly confronting those violators. If we document those efforts we can track enforcement response. My WDFW enforcement contacts tell me that during the summer/fall of 2022 on the Stilli they dealt with 70 illegal fishing events.

skyriver-
An interesting Skagit steelhead graph. I believe the population rebound in the 1980s was largely due to co-managers actively managing for wild fish needs, mark selective fisheries, managing for bigger escapements etc.


The population rebound in the early 2010s was the population bouncing back from the effects of the Oct. 2002 flood where massive sediment deposits (especially in the Sauk) dramatically reduced egg and early fry steelhead survivals. Also of interest/concern is that with the ending of steelhead hatchery plants just prior to that peak many hoped/expected that the population would stabilize rather experience another steep decline.

Curt

 

[skyriver]

Concerning the lack of compliance on our rivers and the role of enforcement.

In the first way of river closures - Skagit and Stillaguamish (largely in response to poor coho returns) on of the 7 concerns expressed out one of the lack of compliance. In response to that concern 3 of us anglers met with WDFW Olympia and Regional 4 enforcement supervisor staff to discuss that concern. We were clearly told that both the regional and state level enforcement had adequate staff in the area to assure compliance on those rivers. No sure that history reinforces that state but nevertheless that was their story.

If we want to see more enforcement, I believe that we as angler need to establish relationships with local and regional enforcement staff with a clear understanding on best pass on enforcement issue. I have long been reporting enforcement concerns with direct contact (usually emails or phone calls) of those concerns including the exact location, date, and other relevant information - vehicle descriptions (including lic. number) and physical descriptions of the violators. This kind of information allows the enforcement staff to work more efficiently and often results in some feedback.

In addition to complaining about the lack of enforcement more of us need to talk a direct role of providing the above information. That is not to suggest directly confronting those violators. If we document those efforts we can track enforcement response. My WDFW enforcement contacts tell me that during the summer/fall of 2022 on the Stilli they dealt with 70 illegal fishing events.

skyriver-
An interesting Skagit steelhead graph. I believe the population rebound in the 1980s was largely due to co-managers actively managing for wild fish needs, mark selective fisheries, managing for bigger escapements etc.


The population rebound in the early 2010s was the population bouncing back from the effects of the Oct. 2002 flood where massive sediment deposits (especially in the Sauk) dramatically reduced egg and early fry steelhead survivals. Also of interest/concern is that with the ending of steelhead hatchery plants just prior to that peak many hoped/expected that the population would stabilize rather experience another steep decline.

Curt

Thanks Curt. I always appreciate your input (and wisdom) on these complex matters.

I agree that if we responsible anglers see clear violations that we should report them. One of the tough issues to get around here, is if a river is closed, we're not out there to see those violations. Open that river with strict selective regulations and then were are. Again, I totally support closing a river if the run is in dire need. I'm just worried about what happens when none of us are out there.

Hopefully some of the anadromous bright spots from this year will continue into next!

 

[Pink Nighty]

Concerning the lack of compliance on our rivers and the role of enforcement.

In the first way of river closures - Skagit and Stillaguamish (largely in response to poor coho returns) on of the 7 concerns expressed out one of the lack of compliance. In response to that concern 3 of us anglers met with WDFW Olympia and Regional 4 enforcement supervisor staff to discuss that concern. We were clearly told that both the regional and state level enforcement had adequate staff in the area to assure compliance on those rivers. No sure that history reinforces that state but nevertheless that was their story.

If we want to see more enforcement, I believe that we as angler need to establish relationships with local and regional enforcement staff with a clear understanding on best pass on enforcement issue. I have long been reporting enforcement concerns with direct contact (usually emails or phone calls) of those concerns including the exact location, date, and other relevant information - vehicle descriptions (including lic. number) and physical descriptions of the violators. This kind of information allows the enforcement staff to work more efficiently and often results in some feedback.

In addition to complaining about the lack of enforcement more of us need to talk a direct role of providing the above information. That is not to suggest directly confronting those violators. If we document those efforts we can track enforcement response. My WDFW enforcement contacts tell me that during the summer/fall of 2022 on the Stilli they dealt with 70 illegal fishing events.

skyriver-
An interesting Skagit steelhead graph. I believe the population rebound in the 1980s was largely due to co-managers actively managing for wild fish needs, mark selective fisheries, managing for bigger escapements etc.


The population rebound in the early 2010s was the population bouncing back from the effects of the Oct. 2002 flood where massive sediment deposits (especially in the Sauk) dramatically reduced egg and early fry steelhead survivals. Also of interest/concern is that with the ending of steelhead hatchery plants just prior to that peak many hoped/expected that the population would stabilize rather experience another steep decline.

Curt

I also have made myself familiar to the local officers and do a lot of reporting of suspicious/illegal fishing. I agree with @skyriver that the closed waters keeps my eyes off the river and that's not a good thing.

This year on the last day of the nooksack season I came across a new officer. We chatted and I got his card, and pleaded with him to keep making the rounds throughout the closed season. The look on his face told me that would not be a priority.

 

[Denwor54]

Concerning the lack of compliance on our rivers and the role of enforcement.

In the first way of river closures - Skagit and Stillaguamish (largely in response to poor coho returns) on of the 7 concerns expressed out one of the lack of compliance. In response to that concern 3 of us anglers met with WDFW Olympia and Regional 4 enforcement supervisor staff to discuss that concern. We were clearly told that both the regional and state level enforcement had adequate staff in the area to assure compliance on those rivers. No sure that history reinforces that state but nevertheless that was their story.

If we want to see more enforcement, I believe that we as angler need to establish relationships with local and regional enforcement staff with a clear understanding on best pass on enforcement issue. I have long been reporting enforcement concerns with direct contact (usually emails or phone calls) of those concerns including the exact location, date, and other relevant information - vehicle descriptions (including lic. number) and physical descriptions of the violators. This kind of information allows the enforcement staff to work more efficiently and often results in some feedback.

In addition to complaining about the lack of enforcement more of us need to talk a direct role of providing the above information. That is not to suggest directly confronting those violators. If we document those efforts we can track enforcement response. My WDFW enforcement contacts tell me that during the summer/fall of 2022 on the Stilli they dealt with 70 illegal fishing events.

skyriver-
An interesting Skagit steelhead graph. I believe the population rebound in the 1980s was largely due to co-managers actively managing for wild fish needs, mark selective fisheries, managing for bigger escapements etc.


The population rebound in the early 2010s was the population bouncing back from the effects of the Oct. 2002 flood where massive sediment deposits (especially in the Sauk) dramatically reduced egg and early fry steelhead survivals. Also of interest/concern is that with the ending of steelhead hatchery plants just prior to that peak many hoped/expected that the population would stabilize rather experience another steep decline.

Curt

I’m curious Curt how many of those report were reported on fly anglers? When I worked in the industry I was amazed at the anglers that would come and ask for flies for catching salmon on the north fork. I would remind them that the river was not open for salmon but there response wasn’t I was just C@R fishing. This is poaching and I know some that used to frequent my shop thought I was out of line for asking the question but i felt it necessary to say. To close the river that is not open for salmon fishing to me is not how to manage the fishery. I compare this to poaching any species out of season make them pay for there violation. If your caught lose your gear and your right to fish the said river or state. When I saw a spawning king last year on IG held up for a hero shot I new the river would be shut down and was very upset to say the least. I will continue to try and follow your example Curt as I think you have worked your tail off for fly anglers in the PS rivers.

 

[Smalma]

Denwor54-
I hear you on the enforcement penalties. I suspect those contacts last year were a variety of illegal fishing. There always is a bunch of folks from the Zebco club who just see a pretty river and go fishing with little idea of what river they are on or what the rules maybe. While frustrating to encounter those folks they generally not much of a threat to the resource. The more concerning are the hard-core poachers who tend to be on the water regardless of the season, their goal is to kill fish regardless of method or seasons. The three group are generally fly fishers who opt to ignore the rules and since are practicing C-N-R don't feel they are not hurting the resource.

While currently have NF Stillaguamish game fish seasons that are dissatisfying, we at least now have the framework (a limited opportunity with monitoring) that should provide the information upon which to build better season. Unfortunately, that information from last year lead to a shrinking of our opportunity. The move downstream to below the Cicero bridge moves the fishery downstream below where the vast majority of the Chinook spawn. This time of year the majority of the Chinook are spawning (spawn period from late August to mid-October) with roughly 95% of the spawning happening above Cicero. Since in at least the near future any game fish opportunities will likely be in that time period. Because of the potential targeting of Chinook will be those spawning fish the kinds of regulation changes you have suggested will not do much to slow down that "poaching". Most of the redds are constructed in 1 to 2.5 of water where the Chinook are easily "reachable" with floating lines and unweighted flies and in the clear water the fish will respond to those smaller flies.

If folks want to continue any type of game fishing opportunities, we collectively need to have a presence at NOF stressing the importance of those game fish opportunities. Stressing the importance of a strong enforcement presences, throughout the summer as well as during any game fish seasons. It would not hurt to be asking questions of the State on how concern anglers can enhance our fishing opportunities as well as assisting the enforcement effort (how to report problems, signage, etc.) as well as providing supporting catch info to supplement the monitoring efforts - on line reporting? Need to consistently lobby for a reasonable (?) share of the allowable impacts to support those game fish seasons.

Another area that needs attention is an effort to reword the Commission NOF policy (C-3608). The current version in effect since 2019 expires this year. That policy only mentions steelhead and salmon without any other consideration of the other game fish (sea-runs etc.). Suggestions on highlighting the value of those game fish fisheries and including in the policy with support of allowable impacts and monitoring might be a productive undertaking.

Of course all the above will require a commitment in time and increasing our knowledge of the processes, resources needs, etc. I short to assure future fishing some will have to fish less and fight for future fishing more. To date there has a lot of interest in having someone to do the hard work but short on actually assisting with that effort.

curt

 

[Denwor54]

That’s awesome Smalma, I plan on attending the next meetings and doing my part on supporting game fish opportunities. I have not come across anyone fishing spawning chinook and if I did they would not enjoy the experience. I have a dialogue started with the department and your insight is very helpful and they said the the same thing about NOF meetings as they don’t see this on there radar. I still feel that it’s not necessary to fish sinking anything on this river in the fall which would definitely reduce most encounters. And I will not be the one to not put in the effort to support this project. I will challenge the younger generation to get involved in these meetings as you have championed this for a long time. Thank you for all the info.

 

[O' Clarkii Stomias]

Under optimum circumstances, catch-and-release mortality can be as low as 1 percent. If the water is unusually warm or there are other stressors like improper handling, mortality can be as high as 20 percent or more.

Has anyone encountered any unusually warm water, lately? As for improper handling - - -I'd bet you have all encountered this and maybe have been guilty a time or two. I recall fishing the "once famous" Green Drake hatch on the "Holy Waters" of Idaho. The throngs of wading humanity decended on the river and marched right by me has the hatch progressed. Soon after and for the remainder of that morning dead fish started floating by. Large, wild, beautifully shaped bows that would soon be a meal for something wild. That was 50 years ago when the water temps were favorable and there were seemingly less idiots!

Are you sure there wasn't a load of laundry at the Last Chance Laundromat the went to rinse that caused the fish kills you are referring to? The '88 fires and the minimal winter flows have had more to do with the demise of the Henry's Fork than anything else. 50 years ago, nobody, including Harrop and Lawson were releasing fish.

 

[Flymph]

Are you sure there wasn't a load of laundry at the Last Chance Laundromat the went to rinse that caused the fish kills you are referring to? The '88 fires and the minimal winter flows have had more to do with the demise of the Henry's Fork than anything else. 50 years ago, nobody, including Harrop and Lawson were releasing fish.

There were no fish floating by until sometime after the throngs passed through. I did not see anyone bonk a fish. Can't speak to the laundromat but did see a lot of mishandling of fish.

 

[Salmo_g]

I believe the lack of enforcement is based on insufficient funding,

I disagree. WDFW funds enforcement according to how highly management values enforcement. The O&M cost of a single salmon hatchery (that mainly produces hatchery salmon for Canada and US commercial fishing) could fund nearly doubling the number of enforcement agents in the Puget Sound region. Enforcement is a lower priority within the Department than other activities it is engaged in.

 

[Denwor54]

That’s spot on Salmo having looked into this is a management issue. I have not seen any enforcement in 30 plus years. I don’t understand how you can close a fishery for gamefish when you don’t have enforcement. I asked the state why we can shut the fishery down when we don’t enforce it. So far there has been zero response and this makes no sense. I agree that we need to keep our community in line with the regs but if you have a free for all on the river it needs to be enforced.

 

[Salmo_g]

I don’t understand how you can close a fishery for gamefish when you don’t have enforcement.

I think it's pretty simple. My observation is that, "Most of the people follow most of the rules most of the time." For the most part, the value of enforcement is to educate the uninformed and cite the scofflaws. The main downside is that too many scofflaws get away without being cited. (But who decides how many are too many?) But WDFW doesn't really care. It's not a high priority.

 

[Smalma]

Salmo g -
I agree that "most of the perple follow most of the rules most of the time". However, with little fear of being cited for not following those rules their is little reason for them to continue to do so, especially if others are getting away with not playing the rule.

If WDFW were truly serious about achieving higher levels of compliance of the fishing rules and reducing the illegal impacts on ESA listed fish in my opinion is to raise their visibility that is to raise their flag by have regular patrols, checking the exit points, etc. An additionally developing relationships with those users want to see more compliance so that poaching is regularly reported. Finally, WDFW has failed in communicating with the public and resource users in a timely matter, highlighting the reasoning behind the regulation's changes, how basic management works and the basic biology of the fish being managed.

The enforcement patrol during the morning of the Edmonds coho derby underlines my point. According to their report on WDFW's enforcement facebook posting in the first 45 boats checked they issued 31 citations, confiscated 20 illegal salmon, and issued other warnings. This high level on non-compliance just is not acceptable.

I don't think we have to look no further than our highways. When patrols are not on the road regularly the speeds, HOV violations, etc. all increase. Put a patrol car along the side of the road and writing ticker or two a few tickets compliance increases.

Curt