The tail wags the dog

[Flymph]

With the adoption of a new constitution in 2008 under president Rafael Correa, Ecuador became the first country in the world to enshrine a set of codified Rights of Nature and to inform a more clarified content to those rights. Articles 10 and 71–74 of the Ecuadorian Constitution recognize the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, give people the authority to petition on the behalf of nature, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights. New Zealand and Bolivia have enacted somewhat similar legislations.

Simply said, the Skagit river should have its own rights recognized by "ALL". Fighting and blaming each other for the plight of the Steelhead seems counter productive and hasn't provided any positive outcomes.

Just saying, maybe it's time for a different approach if we really want to save such a valuable resource!

 

[Salmo_g]

Simply said, the Skagit river should have its own rights recognized by "ALL". Fighting and blaming each other for the plight of the Steelhead seems counter productive and hasn't provided any positive outcomes.

Just saying, maybe it's time for a different approach if we really want to save such a valuable resource!

I don't see informed people fighting or blaming one another for the plight of the steelhead run. Most of us realize that low marine survival is the proximate cause of the low runsizes. There is disagreement among folks about how the fishery should be managed, but those arguments look to be about allocating fishing opportunity and have nothing to do with the health of the wild steelhead population. That being the case, what different approach should be tried on the Skagit that would result in a better outcome with respect to the health and abundance of the wild steelhead population? I can't think of any.

 

[Paige]

I don't see informed people fighting or blaming one another for the plight of the steelhead run. Most of us realize that low marine survival is the proximate cause of the low runsizes. There is disagreement among folks about how the fishery should be managed, but those arguments look to be about allocating fishing opportunity and have nothing to do with the health of the wild steelhead population. That being the case, what different approach should be tried on the Skagit that would result in a better outcome with respect to the health and abundance of the wild steelhead population? I can't think of any.

I can, and it would have the single biggest factor towards recovery,



























the removal of humans from this rock!

 

[Matt B]

I can, and it would have the single biggest factor towards recovery,
the removal of humans from this rock!

I’m gonna have to advocate against that one, being a human and all; well, last I checked anyway.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

I can, and it would have the single biggest factor towards recovery,



























the removal of humans from this rock!

You can leave the planet at any time. Lead by example.

 

[Flymph]

The Skagit River is a tiny particle in the natural scheme of things. As long as Marine Fisheries, Recreation Fisheries, and Tribal Fisheries keep battling for their piece of the pie, the Skagit resource will never flourish. You might convince WDFW for a fishery one year but I sincerely believe you fully realize that might be short lived at best. I believe the Ecuadorian Gov. has stumbled on a long-range solution to preserve what is left before it is too late.

I have a Steelhead river right in my back yard that used to yield a some fish for the few of us who took the time. It is now on the ESL and should remain there until a long-range solution is found. Just trying to offer a different look at an age-old issue.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

With the adoption of a new constitution in 2008 under president Rafael Correa, Ecuador became the first country in the world to enshrine a set of codified Rights of Nature and to inform a more clarified content to those rights. Articles 10 and 71–74 of the Ecuadorian Constitution recognize the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, give people the authority to petition on the behalf of nature, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights. New Zealand and Bolivia have enacted somewhat similar legislations.

Simply said, the Skagit river should have its own rights recognized by "ALL". Fighting and blaming each other for the plight of the Steelhead seems counter productive and hasn't provided any positive outcomes.

Just saying, maybe it's time for a different approach if we really want to save such a valuable resource!

Really if we want to think progressively about this we should have individual rights for each steelhead. There are so many lawyers and not many of them so it makes sense.

 

[Paige]

You can leave the planet at any time. Lead by example.

I was hoping everyone else would leave first

 

[Flymph]

Really if we want to think progressively about this we should have individual rights for each steelhead. There are so many lawyers and not many of them so it makes sense.

Not a bad idea. Problem is there are so few environmentally minded lawyers who would battle for the Rights of Nature. Most are bean counters who are in it to win it $$$$$$$$.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

Not a bad idea. Problem is there are so few environmentally minded lawyers who would battle for the Rights of Nature. Most are bean counters who are in it to win it $$$$$$$$.

Totally. I hate money. We could just print more and pay for it.

 

[Salmo_g]

The Skagit River is a tiny particle in the natural scheme of things. As long as Marine Fisheries, Recreation Fisheries, and Tribal Fisheries keep battling for their piece of the pie, the Skagit resource will never flourish. You might convince WDFW for a fishery one year but I sincerely believe you fully realize that might be short lived at best. I believe the Ecuadorian Gov. has stumbled on a long-range solution to preserve what is left before it is too late.

I have a Steelhead river right in my back yard that used to yield a some fish for the few of us who took the time. It is now on the ESL and should remain there until a long-range solution is found. Just trying to offer a different look at an age-old issue.

Two things come to mind. First, are you referring to all anadromous fish or just steelhead? Second, I don't think everyone defines the term "flourish" in the same way. I don't know how you define it. Preservationists might define it as "maximum productivity." WDFW and treaty tribe co-managers legally decided in 1984 that it translates roughly as Maximum Sustainable Harvest (MSH) or Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), which results in fish population sizes that are far lower in abundance than maximum productivity, which would allow for no harvest. (I should add that WDFW does NOT use MSH for wild steelhead management, although most treaty tribes would do so. And consequently the state and the tribes sometimes differ in regard to the desired spawning escapement goals.)

Just as the Skagit is a tiny particle in the grand scheme of things, we as a society are speck in the natural order of time. At best I can only affect what happens while I'm here, and hopefully leave some legacy effect that lingers a while after. The Skagit represents one-third of the freshwater entering Puget Sound (PS). This makes it relatively large locally. We're seeing before our very eyes, as wild salmonid populations decline in PS, that the Skagit is the most resilient. I guess that helps make the case that size matters. It's fairly easy to devastate natural resources like salmon and steelhead runs. And we've shown that we can do that. It's quite a bit harder to wipe out populations completely (by the natural law of diminishing returns), so with reasonable conservation efforts I think we can expect Skagit fish populations to hold out longer than others, and to do so for at least the foreseeable future. So what do we do in this foreseeable future? Should we fish or not? Since it can be empirically shown that the CNR season on wild Skagit steelhead since its beginning in 1981, along with some recreational directed harvest and some treaty fishing directed harvest, have had ZERO measurable adverse effect on the Skagit wild steelhead population, why should we not continue to enjoy regulated CNR seasons under the NMFS-approved Skagit steelhead Resource Management Plan?

 

[Smalma]

To add a bit to Salmo g's excellent post above.

Since 1978, the first year that steelhead escapement estimates were made for the Skagit basin the human population has doubled. There seems to be a relationship between the basin's steelhead abundance of the number of us. Maybe Pogo was right - we have seen the enemy and it is us!

While not unique to the Skagit there is another fact that we need to consider when looking at potential limiting factors for the Skagit wild steelhead. NMFS in their steelhead recovery plan tell us that historically the basin a historical abundance of more than 50,000 wild steelhead. Of those steelhead 27% were found in the Sauk basin. Now the Sauk basin supports more than 50% of the basin steelhead (based on recent escapement estimates). Why has the Sauk steelhead fared better than their Skagit cousins? A major difference between the Sauk basin and much of the rest of the basin is the dams. The Baker projects have essentially eliminated steelhead use of the Baker - write of 10% of the historic abundance. The upper Skagit projects have significantly altered the hydrograph of the main stem Skagit (especially above the Sauk). Under this altered hydrograph the duration of the snow meld run-off lasts longer into the summer than the Sauk, peak flows have been reduced, stream temperatures have been altered (cooler in the summer and warm in the fall), etc. I have been a frequent observer on that stretch of river sine 1974. Some of the changes I have seen includes simplification of the stream channel (fewer side channels), less in stream structure, a general flatting of the river (few pools and more runs and glides. These habitat changes seemed to have increased since the early 1990s (alter flow regime in 1992?). With those habitat changes have seen major changes in the fish using that reach. In the 1980s and early 1990s whitefish were abundant (easy to catch several dozen in a few hours) but by the late 1990s their numbers were greatly reduced; it now takes a significant effort to catch one or two. The pools seem to be holding fewer fluvial bull trout. While there is limited scale information on the Chinook before the mid-1990s the Chinook spawning have low levels of yearling origin fish contributing to the spawn. Typically, only about 2% of the spawners had left the river as a yearling smolt. Everywhere else in the basin the that freshwater yearling contributes 18 to 60% of the sampled spawners. Even those Chinook spawning in larger Tributaries like Bacon Creek, Illabot Creek, etc. which are considered to be part of the same population spawning in the upper mainstem have those much higher yearling contributions. In the 1980s and early 1990s (through 1994) on the average 10% of the Skagit wild steelhead escapement was found using the main Skagit above the Sauk. In the data I have seen in recent years now less than 4% of the basin steelhead escapement is using that reach of river.

I argue that habitat changes influenced by that altered hydrograph no longer provides much of the habitat needed for the juvenile salmonids to over winter. In spite of the "pretty water" in that reach during low flows of late summer or early fall very few steelhead parr are encountered by the angler. A mere fraction of what I would encounter in the Skykomish, North Fork Stillaguamish or Sauk at the same time of year with the same presentations.

Finally, I submit that for those that enjoy or will enjoy the resource this spring recognize that the future of that fishery will depend on maintaining the steelhead abundances at current or better levels. That will require a large more active group of advocates for the river, the natural process that support the resource and the steelhead themselves.

Curt