BriGuy
Life of the Party
Nice poster. Helps answer a lot of questions. Thanks for posting!
No more Skagit Steelhead!
- Thread starter Paige
- Start date
Nice poster. Helps answer a lot of questions. Thanks for posting!
BriGuy
Life of the Party
Yeah, those culverts are expensive. Well over a billion for WSDOT alone in the FY23-25 biennium. Plus lots of federal money and other funding sources. It's big, but not the biggest hitter in the lineup.
Might some of that 6 cent per gallon tax increase starting July 1 cover some of WSDOT's culvert costs? Hmmm.
fatbillybob
Steelhead
Is this good or bad? I thought hatchery caused weakening of the wild genetic strain? A hatchery can support a sport fishery but if zero take is instituted and the wild fish can thrive will that be the ultimate outcome? I read some pluses and minuses on hatchery but don't know the real science.
So last week I decided to drop in on the commissioners meeting and give them my three minutes worth of ideas and questions. Dreading the drive to Olympia I was pleased to see that I could zoom in to the meeting! Cool! I signed up and zoomed in Friday morning at 8 am.
After the prelims we got to the public input time. The chair announced that since they had a full room they wouldn't have time to get to those commenters that were attending online. WTF!
Lesson learned. On to plan B.
After the prelims we got to the public input time. The chair announced that since they had a full room they wouldn't have time to get to those commenters that were attending online. WTF!
Lesson learned. On to plan B.
An interesting question that has been discussed on this site a number of times. Bottom line hatchery programs with the possible exception of conservation recovery programs do not do the fish any favors. That said the factors driving steelhead abundance are complex and varied. For nearly 40 years those of us care about our wild steelhead resources have been promised that ending hatchery programs (especially those segregated programs) would lead to significant increases in the wild resource abundance (more fish returning).
Let's looking at the Skagit example. In the mid-1990s the number of early timed hatchery steelhead (segregated program) was cut in roughly half of the late 1980s planting levels. For the next decade or so in spite of decreased fishing impacts the wild escapements estimates remained essentially flat. There was a sharp decline in those escapements in 2009/2010 due to what I believe impacts from the 2003 Sauk flood (at least a 200-year event). The escapements increased to it highest point (9,084 spawners) since 1990. 2014 is also the first year that release of all of those early timed hatchery fish ended. In the decade since the hatchery program ended the wild Skagit steelhead escapements have declined. Since 1980 2 of 3 of lowest escapements have occurred in the last few years with early reports being that this spring's numbers likely to make 3 of 4 lowest escapements.
Clearly ending hatchery programs have not been the panacea that many had hoped for.
Curt
Not Skagit related, but the Nisqually closed to steelhead fishing in 1993 and hasn’t received hatchery plants in years. 32 years later it is still closed…..
SF
Is there any regular monitoring of returns to consider reopening it? Or is it “close it and forget it” by the WDFW?
Pink Nighty
Legend
I think the issue is much bigger than what was spent in the 2023-2025. They have a projected 30B to go by 2030.
They monitor it. If I recall correctly, the numbers I saw was 500-1000 returning fish. I’m not sure what threshold would need to be achieved as far as returns go to open it again, but I highly it will ever open again in my lifetime.
The Nisqually is a good example in my opinion that closing a river system doesn’t guarantee wild fish will return with abundance.
I wish it was that simple, but there is a lot more involved that just stopping angling won’t fix.
SF
fatbillybob
Steelhead
We need more info on what makes success or failure with and without hatchery.
- <<<"Salmon River Coho: After the Salmon River Coho hatchery program ended in 2008, there was a significant increase in the productivity and abundance of wild Coho salmon. Within a few years, the number of natural spawners in the Salmon River equaled or exceeded the number of hatchery Coho that had been returning for the preceding 30 years. This recovery occurred even during unfavorable conditions for salmon. The combination of ending the hatchery program and estuary restoration is believed to have contributed to this remarkable recovery. ">>>
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Just so you know that there is an email made public in which one commissioner says " i don't want to hear any more comments about" a certain issue
At least one commissioner does not care what the public thinks.
I do not know where this commissioner thinks on the issue of the Skagit but he clearly does
Not understand his role or the role of government in general. And is exactly the attitude I have found to be common in Washington state government officials.
You see it's not my deeply held beliefs. It's observed behavior.
fatbillybob
Steelhead
How rude of us to expect our government officials to work on behalf of the public interest and the environment.
The big question I have is why did the WDFW and Feds overlay so much process and bureaucracy to monitor fishing of an ESA threatened fishery when other states allow fishing of ESA threatened steelhead (e.g. California North Coast steelhead) under simple, but restrictive rules that do not involve the overhead required of the Skagit/Sauk?
The way it has been done on the Skagit will simply not scale if other WA rivers achieve recovery sufficient to allow fishing.
I feel we have been duped into an expensive, inefficient process for the Skagit that ultimately has led to the current situation and will not enable any other rivers to be reopened.
The way it has been done on the Skagit will simply not scale if other WA rivers achieve recovery sufficient to allow fishing.
I feel we have been duped into an expensive, inefficient process for the Skagit that ultimately has led to the current situation and will not enable any other rivers to be reopened.
Strongly agree here... The acceptance of a heavy "in person" monitoring requirement, where the only acceptable monitoring tool is basically in person WDFW staff, as NECESSARY to open a fishery, is what keeps our seasons closed and short, plus limits where we can fish. Simply because in person monitoring is very expensive, monitoring is basically a surrogate for budget, and it's not scalable at all. As long as that policy is in place, and no alternative monitoring tools are developed and used, we won't have much to fish for often. I think we need to challenge that policy, and propose adoption of alternative tools that are cheap and scalable.
Citizen science is super cheap if you can get people to buy in.
SF
SF
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
It's funny how often the anecdotal observations of anglers noticing a problem becomes the best available science 40 years later when it's too late to fix the problem.
You guys have to remember that when opening the Skagit back up was proposed it was something that had never been considered before. Basin by basin management of ESA listed steelhead was not on anyone's radar. The listing was for all steelhead from the Elwha river and rest of Puget sound up to the Canadian border. These fish were, as I recall, considered a Distinct Population Segment, DPS. Reopening the Skagit required some critical out of the box thinking. Thinking that is now considered almost 'normal'. What stops the other rivers from opening now is not just money but lack of fish.
So, I heartily agree with you guys that there has to be some other monitoring that would suffice. More out of the box thinking needs to be advocated for. Angler monitoring along with the data collected since it has reopened and two or more flights they use to count reds could also count anglers... Enforcement? There should be enforcement patrolling even when the river is closed. If there isn't I want to be the first to know about it!
All it takes is somebody, NOT ME, to carry the water to the commissioners and the department.
HauntedByWaters
Life of the Party
It is called Washington style. That is how we do it. We won’t have an app and catch cards on our iPhone until 2050 and it will be so bad everyone will wish for what we had before. That App will cost billions for the state to develop. The process will make BC, and Oregon look like they must be populated by Einstein-like geniuses.
WA is so taxed with such bad results and that is just the way it is.
HauntedByWaters
Life of the Party
It is called Washington style. That is how we do it.
We won’t have an app and catch cards on our iPhone until 2050 and it will be so bad everyone will wish for what we had before. That App will cost billions for the state to develop. The process will make BC, and Oregon look like they must be populated by Einstein-like geniuses for having achieved it like 5 years ago.
WA is so taxed with such bad results and that is just the way it is. I wish I could tell you where the money goes. I honestly think it’s the sometimes.
WDFW budget priority number one is to preserve all FTE (full time equivalent) job positions. If some positions have to be eliminated, the first to go are seasonal and part-time and lower ranked employees. It never makes sense for the department's decision makers to eliminate their own job positions.
WDFW would rather spend money to raise hatchery salmon to be caught in Canada and by WA treaty and non-treaty commercial fishermen than provide recreational fishing opportunity. For the cost of part of one salmon hatchery's annual operation, WDFW could fund 100% of that $1.6 million state-wide monitoring effort, for instance. Recreational steelhead angling is among the lowest Departmental priorities, based on observing the decisions the Department makes.
WDFW would rather spend money to raise hatchery salmon to be caught in Canada and by WA treaty and non-treaty commercial fishermen than provide recreational fishing opportunity. For the cost of part of one salmon hatchery's annual operation, WDFW could fund 100% of that $1.6 million state-wide monitoring effort, for instance. Recreational steelhead angling is among the lowest Departmental priorities, based on observing the decisions the Department makes.