Sorry for the short notice. I meant to post this earlier today. If you have time tomorrow, the meeting starts tomorrow at 8:30 at the Embassy Suites in Lynnwood. The information below is from the Coastal Cutthroat Coaltion.
SF
SF
WDFW Wild Trout Harvest Policy Meeting 11/14
- Thread starter Stonedfish
- Start date
Semper_Fly
Steelhead
It was a good turnout today. Thanks to all that came out or listened in.
Special thanks to @adamcu280 for his excellent testimony as well as James Losee and David Dietrich.
SF
Special thanks to @adamcu280 for his excellent testimony as well as James Losee and David Dietrich.
SF
Pretty positive outcome but still work to do.
Per CCC “As a priority, rules should seek to prioritize conservation of wild trout”.
SF
Per CCC “As a priority, rules should seek to prioritize conservation of wild trout”.
SF
Last edited:
Hard to disagree with that, but I hope that conservation includes the chance to fish for them a bit, too.
There was a lot of discussion over an amendment (which wanted to bake in management for non-retention and/or other possible gear restrictions unless there's actual data to show populations can sustain harvest) that didn't get added on as a stop-gap intermediate measure between "free for all" and "closed" which seems to be what happens if there's any issue anywhere.
CCC seems happy enough with the outcome as-is so there's that. They certainly know far more about the politics than I do.
CCC seems happy enough with the outcome as-is so there's that. They certainly know far more about the politics than I do.
A very discouraging result!
However, after the discussions in the various town meetings on this topic it was abundantly clear this would be the result. The department of salmon continues to fail to recognize the life history differences between salmon and our native resident salmonids. In addition, one of the driver issues (resident salmonids in anadromous and their role in sustaining the species in those waters). in the petition that start this discussion was largely gutted.
Let me explain why I believe this to be true.
First Principle #4 states:
Establish size limits which allow the majority of native trout to spawn at least once prior to attaining harvest size..."
This is just a continuation of the 1984 stream strategy. Then and now this approach fails to recognize that our non-salmon salmonids are capable of spawning multiple times. On my home waters I see resident rainbows spawning at least 6 times, sea-run cutthroat spawning at least 5 times (while not covered by these policies bull spawning at least 10 times). These repeat spawners add stability and resiliency to their population and recruitment of juveniles. I argue that having multiple year classes and the increased fecundity from those larger female repeat spawners are essential to achieve the population the state goals of this policy.
Principle #8:
"...considers rules that will further reduce impacts resulting from TROUT fisheries."
It should be clear to most here the primary tool in reducing fishing related impacts in many of our populations is releasing significant numbers of fish. In most of our fisheries the angler begins encountering resident fish at the parr stage (roughly 6 inches) and may continue over 6 or more years. Typically, the hooking release mortality associated with bait is 30% or more and that with single barbless hooks without bait can be less than 5%. Clearly in populations where fish maybe caught and released multiple times in its life that difference in release mortality leads to significant reduction in those fish surviving to a desired condition. In most cases bait bans will be a critical tool to the managers.
On our larger anadromous streams I expect that many of the readers hear hope and even expect that the results of this policy will be increased protection of resident rainbows and sea-run cutthroat, On system with salmon fisheries and resident rainbows and/or sea-run cutthroat that require additional protection the managers may ban bait for the "trout" fishery but not for the salmon fishery. This is an unworkable solution limits options for protecting the "trout". Again, we can not be surprised that the Department of Salmon will limit game fish opportunities for limited benefits to the salmon but appears to limit salmon opportunities for significant benefits to the game fish populations.
Curt
However, after the discussions in the various town meetings on this topic it was abundantly clear this would be the result. The department of salmon continues to fail to recognize the life history differences between salmon and our native resident salmonids. In addition, one of the driver issues (resident salmonids in anadromous and their role in sustaining the species in those waters). in the petition that start this discussion was largely gutted.
Let me explain why I believe this to be true.
First Principle #4 states:
Establish size limits which allow the majority of native trout to spawn at least once prior to attaining harvest size..."
This is just a continuation of the 1984 stream strategy. Then and now this approach fails to recognize that our non-salmon salmonids are capable of spawning multiple times. On my home waters I see resident rainbows spawning at least 6 times, sea-run cutthroat spawning at least 5 times (while not covered by these policies bull spawning at least 10 times). These repeat spawners add stability and resiliency to their population and recruitment of juveniles. I argue that having multiple year classes and the increased fecundity from those larger female repeat spawners are essential to achieve the population the state goals of this policy.
Principle #8:
"...considers rules that will further reduce impacts resulting from TROUT fisheries."
It should be clear to most here the primary tool in reducing fishing related impacts in many of our populations is releasing significant numbers of fish. In most of our fisheries the angler begins encountering resident fish at the parr stage (roughly 6 inches) and may continue over 6 or more years. Typically, the hooking release mortality associated with bait is 30% or more and that with single barbless hooks without bait can be less than 5%. Clearly in populations where fish maybe caught and released multiple times in its life that difference in release mortality leads to significant reduction in those fish surviving to a desired condition. In most cases bait bans will be a critical tool to the managers.
On our larger anadromous streams I expect that many of the readers hear hope and even expect that the results of this policy will be increased protection of resident rainbows and sea-run cutthroat, On system with salmon fisheries and resident rainbows and/or sea-run cutthroat that require additional protection the managers may ban bait for the "trout" fishery but not for the salmon fishery. This is an unworkable solution limits options for protecting the "trout". Again, we can not be surprised that the Department of Salmon will limit game fish opportunities for limited benefits to the salmon but appears to limit salmon opportunities for significant benefits to the game fish populations.
Curt