WDFW coastal hatcheries out of compliance?
- Thread starter Chris Johnson
- Start date
Understood. I also think he rides for the brand pretty hard.
Just thought maybe I should get this out there because I think it's relevant to the discussion. The coastal steelhead hatcheries are out of compliance with the management plan. OK, so maybe that sounds like a bad thing. But I gotta' say, "So what?" Because the hatcheries being out of plan compliance isn't even close to being a proximate factor in the status of the wild coastal steelhead populations. Even if those hatcheries were in perfect compliance, or better yet, perhaps, even if those hatcheries had been closed down a decade or more ago, the coastal wild steelhead populations would still be in their present condition of low abundance.
Last year, when WDFW announced the broad closures of the coastal steelhead season from Dec. 1 through the spring of 2022, a lot of upset anglers criticized WDFW for "mismanaging" steelhead harvest in prior years. I did a quick back-of-the-napkin analysis and postulated that even if WDFW (and its predecessor agencies) had kept all steelhead fishing in WA closed since 1980, a 40-year time period, that the steelhead populations would be in roughly, if not exactly, the same poor run sizes that occurred in 2021 - 2022. I asked if anyone could contrive a model or provide some clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that my postulate was incorrect to please enlighten me because I'm always about correcting something that I get wrong. It's been almost a year and so far no one has come forward to show that any different harvest regulation regime would have produced a different outcome. I contend that this is because harvest has not been a determinate factor affecting the abundance of most wild steelhead populations. For the most part, the harvest of wild steelhead has been fairly conservative, and on some systems like the Skagit, extremely conservative. Nor has the operation of coastal steelhead hatcheries that are out of compliance.
Last year, when WDFW announced the broad closures of the coastal steelhead season from Dec. 1 through the spring of 2022, a lot of upset anglers criticized WDFW for "mismanaging" steelhead harvest in prior years. I did a quick back-of-the-napkin analysis and postulated that even if WDFW (and its predecessor agencies) had kept all steelhead fishing in WA closed since 1980, a 40-year time period, that the steelhead populations would be in roughly, if not exactly, the same poor run sizes that occurred in 2021 - 2022. I asked if anyone could contrive a model or provide some clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that my postulate was incorrect to please enlighten me because I'm always about correcting something that I get wrong. It's been almost a year and so far no one has come forward to show that any different harvest regulation regime would have produced a different outcome. I contend that this is because harvest has not been a determinate factor affecting the abundance of most wild steelhead populations. For the most part, the harvest of wild steelhead has been fairly conservative, and on some systems like the Skagit, extremely conservative. Nor has the operation of coastal steelhead hatcheries that are out of compliance.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
I agree, that's not how the people in charge view it though. They view their agencies as vehicles to push their agendas. That is to say, to pursue power over the people.
Salmo_g -
I have no disagreement with your rough analysis and the Skagit is a good example. In the basin we are approaching a decade without a steelhead hatchery program and have significantly fewer fish returning than when hatchery fish were being planted. Western Washington steelhead abundance are being drive by factors outside the managers' control.
That said if the Statewide Steelhead Management Plan (SSMP) is to be the guidelines for management decisions then the whole of the 2008 plan needs to be followed. The agency has unequally applied the principles and directives laid out in the plan. The plan has been to used to limit hatchery programs and to limit fishery but ignore other aspects of the plan that might be helpful with the steelhead fix they find themselves.
Just a couple examples of inconsistent application of SSMP. The plan called for the development of individual River Management plans (RM) within two years of the adoption of the plan. As a couple years ago the only RM that had been developed was the Skagit plan where the agency was forced to develop by the "Occupy Skagit" effort -thank you WW! If those RMs had been in place we all would have known what the agency responses would be when confronted with downward trending populations.
But more importantly a second requirement of SSMP was that it was to be update 5 years after adoption of the plan. I think we all would agreed that the state of Steelhead knowledge and factors limiting abundances has improved since 2008. I would like to think that an update plan would recognize the importance of the various O. mykiss life histories (especially the resident form) play in the overall stability of the species abundance in our rivers. I would have expected that part of SSMP response to declining anadromous abundance would have actions taken to assure that resident fish would be available to use some of that vacant habitat. Those actions could potentially include widespread bait bans and non-retention of any wild O. mykiss. The Elwha experience underlines the importance of those resident fish.
Curt
I have no disagreement with your rough analysis and the Skagit is a good example. In the basin we are approaching a decade without a steelhead hatchery program and have significantly fewer fish returning than when hatchery fish were being planted. Western Washington steelhead abundance are being drive by factors outside the managers' control.
That said if the Statewide Steelhead Management Plan (SSMP) is to be the guidelines for management decisions then the whole of the 2008 plan needs to be followed. The agency has unequally applied the principles and directives laid out in the plan. The plan has been to used to limit hatchery programs and to limit fishery but ignore other aspects of the plan that might be helpful with the steelhead fix they find themselves.
Just a couple examples of inconsistent application of SSMP. The plan called for the development of individual River Management plans (RM) within two years of the adoption of the plan. As a couple years ago the only RM that had been developed was the Skagit plan where the agency was forced to develop by the "Occupy Skagit" effort -thank you WW! If those RMs had been in place we all would have known what the agency responses would be when confronted with downward trending populations.
But more importantly a second requirement of SSMP was that it was to be update 5 years after adoption of the plan. I think we all would agreed that the state of Steelhead knowledge and factors limiting abundances has improved since 2008. I would like to think that an update plan would recognize the importance of the various O. mykiss life histories (especially the resident form) play in the overall stability of the species abundance in our rivers. I would have expected that part of SSMP response to declining anadromous abundance would have actions taken to assure that resident fish would be available to use some of that vacant habitat. Those actions could potentially include widespread bait bans and non-retention of any wild O. mykiss. The Elwha experience underlines the importance of those resident fish.
Curt
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
Who? Name names?
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
Great points. Individual River Management Plans. Why would these not habe been completed?
It seems like the department must have used some form of in-season monitoring last year on the coast. I don't recall what info they used for the closure that happened.
Anyhow, any plans would likely require some form of in season monitoring.
I recall how late in the game the three letter acronym (tla) groups provided comments with the Skagit plan. I suspect the department knows that no matter wht is in the plans, it will be wrong shprt of eliminating all sources of mortality. WFC will believe and advertise that the department is wrong as long as there is 1 potential fish dead or hatchery fish raised.
They are open about it. They are teaming up with the humane society of the US in an affort to "reform" the department.
Maube WSC or WSU or WFS is willing to make a public statent about this? Are we for managing wildlife on a population level or an individual level. The coalition to reform wdfw I sighted seems very much to be about the individual fish or animal. I believe the phrase used is a that they seek to change the department to one that "emphasises the intrinsic value of individual animals" amongst other things.
Read the article and the direct quotes. The department has been beat down so much over fish runs reduced mostly by factors that wdfw has no control over that we have animal rights groups trying to take over. There are a few TLA groups who are all for it. I can't see the good in what has been done.
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Don't know names, but their actions speak for themselves.
Okay...who's actions?
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
How about Closing the Skagit CnR season?
How about wild steelhead sanctuary rivers, though I agree with that particular agenda it's still people using the power of the agency to push an agenda and control people. A lot of people disagree with that agenda.. I served on the group establishing wild steelhead management in the lower Columbia ESU which is not ESA listed.
We took opportunity away from a lot of people and ruined at least one guides business for almost no benefit to wild steelhead of the region. We pushed our agenda on people. Many of whom didn't want it maybe even most..
We used the power of a government agency to push our agenda on the people of two counties who were opposed to that agenda.
That is not the purpose of the government at any level.
It wasn’t meant to be an attack, go back and look at the context. You’re being incredibly sensitive on an Internet forum.
I didn’t name call, or slander Chris in any way. I just know in the past he’s been all in with a group that I don’t think represents our (see my) goals for wild fish.
ThomasM
corvus ossifragus
Nope, it was shit data. My understanding is that they based it on early tribal fishing reports at the mouth that coincidentally came in during record low water levels. That's the case for the Quilleute at least. Myself and most others I know in that river system pointed out that once the rain started the fish would move in and up and the run would be closer to the anticipated numbers, especially given the early hatchery run on the Bogachiel was the best it's been in a number of years. My understanding is that was the case in several other systems as well.
Purely anecdotal, I saw very large numbers of steelhead later in the season, enough that I have to believe the return was not any smaller than prior years, if not bigger. Maybe it was weather making them easier to spot, who knows as I haven't seen any good data? But they were everywhere in the runs downstream of my house. I caught a bunch as bycatch during Springer season which has never happened to me in the 6-7 years that I've been all-in on targeting Springers.
The data used for decision-making seems ridiculously poor on the WA coastal rivers. I have been a primary cash funder of the TU/WSI summer snorkel surveys on the Elwha that lead to the article's on the natural return of summer-runs as I prefer to focus my conservation efforts on things that result in public goods. I have told several leaders in that sector that I would contribute material funding to projects that would provide real data for making harvest decisions on the OP. Crickets so far.
Last edited:
ThomasM
corvus ossifragus
Chris has supported NFS in the past, so what? So have I and he's sat at my table for their annual event pre-pandemic. I used to be the Board Treaurer before I got too busy in my day job to given them the time it needed. So what? That doesn't mean I like everything they do - I don't and they know it, believe me.
I think NFS does a great job at certain things like local advocacy in support of threats to river systems - look at the work they have done on mines in headwaters, etc. Their goal is healthy wild runs which seems non-controversial but the devil is in the details of how that's defined and how you meet the goal. I have had big disagreements with them on the use of litigation going all the way back to Bill Bakke's time. I continue to disagree with them and gave the ED and Washington rep very strong feedback earlier this year that i thought their approach to coastal closures was non-strategic and counter-productive to the overall stated goal. And they know me and trust me so providing that feedback can at least inform their decisions if not change them.
The steelhead problem will require tons of money, advocacy and political capital to solve. That means building a coalition of constituencies like-minded enough to work together toward the goal understanding that their localized priorities may need to suffer for the greater good. That requires trust and good will. The finger pointing at other groups, the bullshit that went on the coastal closures thread when MattP tried to be helpful, and the fucked up approach to litigation espoused by WFC are examples of why we are still fractured and nothing gets done.
Apologies for the rant. I'll go back to lurking and posting dog photos.
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
Very cool @Thomas Mitchell . I appreciate all of your thoughts.
If WDFW had a river by river plan, they would have to tell people how they go about making their decisions regarding things such as early closures, proposed seasons, proposed hatchery plants etc. If they did this, I see a scenario where the process of approving these plans takes longer that the plans would be good for. I base this on what I have seen with regards to many groups wanting to take control of these decisions that the Department is charged with making.
At the same time, I don't think that recovery or improvement in any way will be found in the WDFW rule book or hatcheries.
My contention is that angler/fish groups see WDFW as the reason for fish declines and therefore changes to WDFW policy is the way to reverse the trend. There is a lot of focus and energy paid to sportfishing rules and hatchery policy. I have never seen any compelling data to support the position that any meaningful increase to wild anadromous fish returns can be attained by changing the sportfishing rulebook or hatchery policy.
The reasons for decline are more often than not, outside of WDFW's purview. They simply do not have oversight of the most detrimental causes of our fish declines. They make a shit ton of mistakes at WDFW in many ways, policy, public relations, communication.... It goes on and on. They are not the agency that should take the blame when it comes to permitting dams, building and maintaining dikes, creating timber harvest rules, overseeing timber harvest, permitting development, regulating pesticides, regulating farm practices, culverts, road building and maintenance, groundwater withdrawals, surface water withdrawals..............
I contend that constant and consistent effort to change hatchery policies and the sportfishing rulebook have served to make the department look worse than it is, with little to no potential improvement to wild fish runs. This has created a fertile environment for groups such as The Humane Society of the US (animal rights) to try and change the department from one that manages fish and game populations to one that seeks to end opportunities to fish and hunt. They state it in their own objectives. When someone tells you what they are, believe it.
I have never been one to go crazy about animal rights activists. They have their own views and we live in a country with a pluralistic form of government. However, I don't agree with them. I love to fish and hunt. They seek to end both of those activities. On a personal level, I know that I need to make my voice stronger than theirs. I need to stand up for fishing and hunting as something that the state values over the individual fish or animal. I can't support fish conservation groups who align with them.
Great, and I applaud your, and Chris’s efforts. Can you point to an area where NFS, WFC, or any of the other .org outfits (including TU/SU) has improved the condition of any anadromous run?
Cry pardon, @charles sullivan @Thomas Mitchell @Chris Johnson
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
I think you'd first have to find an anadromous fish run that was improving on a more than short term basis. Then you'd have to look at the history of that stream. Then you'd have to show that something proposed or opposed by one of the groups was the cause of the improved run size. That's a nearly impossible standard for an honest fella to show in a world where few if any runs are improving.
I will say that I have been at a development meeting where CJ spoke on behalf of NFS against a project that would likely effect water temperatures in a stream that has temperature issues as well as Spring Kings and Summer steelhead. I thought hat was quite good. It's not quantifiable in the way that you ask though. Ending wild steelhead retention on the coast was a good thing that WSC was active in lobbying for. There is no way you can enumerate it's effect on runs though.
Most of he groups have their hearts in the right place and some great members and donors. I agree with Thomas' sentiment regarding cooperation. It may be better to view WDFW in that light rather than as the department that is to blame or that has the tools to change the direction of wild anadromous fish run sizes.
ThomasM
corvus ossifragus
Their work in Washington, especially the OP (I have had plenty of direct conversations with the ED on this) isn't as far along as it is in OR and Norcal but it's easy to find examples of good work that might not have happened without them if you bother to look.
The work they have done on the Eel is another good example that's easy to find on their site.
I love the goals of their River Steward Program and its objective of gathering a diverse set of local stakeholders to represent community interests in service of the rivers and fish and was the primary funder of the program here in WA for a number of years. I disagree with some specifics and priorities of their policy positions (ex. hatcheries) and how they are implemented.
I would like to see more presumption of best intent and understanding of diverse perspectives because I'm convinced that reducing information asymmetry leads to better solutions. That requires trust which is something we don't have right now and never will unless we reduce in-fighting, including with WDFW as CS points out. Model the change you want to see.
Some of the discussions here really bum me out.
What the devil are you talking about?
