The Outdoor Line Forum

Smalma wrote:WW -
Doesn't seem to much interest.

We'll see who shows up; suspected as often is the case that angler apathy could be an issue.

Curt

It's pretty clear to those of us who fish that no fish ever benefited by being hooked and caught by an angler. Complete preservation, of fish and their habitat, is the perfect solution from a fish's point of view. But OS is not about the fish's point of view.

OS is about steelheaders who would rather fish than see their favorite river closed to fishing forevermore. Realistically, that is the present outlook simply because there is no plan, and only a vague intent to plan, to ever open the Skagit to fishing for wild steelhead again. OS is about developing such a plan, as soon as possible, so that anglers may fish the Skagit again in their lifetimes.

The talk about recovery and letting the fish recover before fishing again is a discussion based on false assumptions and unrealistic expectations. Wild Skagit steelhead are a population in no particular need of recovery. What, you say, it's consistently produced runsizes lower than the escapement goal. Therefore that must mean the population needs to recover to a higher level, and must do so before any fishing can resume. Enter the false assumptions and unrealistic expectations.

Wild Skagit steelhead are the most abundant in Puget Sound. Since 1978 the runsize has averaged 7,822 fish, ranging from a low of around 2,600 to a high of 16,000. The spawning escapement has averaged 6,857 steelhead after harvest, both incidental and directed. As far as anyone can know for certain, this variation in population size is completely normal. There are good years, and there are bad years. Freshwater floods and droughts limit the outmigrating smolt population from year to year. The freshwater habitat has not really changed much in the last 30 years. Some parts have degraded further, and some parts have improved. On balance it would be hard to quantify any significant change. And marine survival factors limit the percent of smolts that survive to adulthood and return from the ocean each year. Given what we know about run sizes and escapement over a more than 30 year period, there is no logical reason to believe that wild Skagit steelhead runs will ever in the future consistently average above the present spawning escapement floor value.

The escapement goal is an artifact of uncertainty. The aggregate model that escapement goals were developed from in the 1980s calculated a Skagit spawning escapement goal far above 20,000. Since that seemed impractable and unrealistic, so biologists rather arbitrarily picked 10,000 as an escapement guideline. In the 1980s when marine survival was higher than it is now, that value appeared realistic. As more data were collected and analyzed, it was apparent from spawner - recruit analysis that the MSY/MSH escapement goal would be much lower, slightly less than 4,000. That seems low for such a large river basin, so the co-managers settled on 6,000 as a buffered escapement floor for some interim period. The take home message in this paragraph is that no relationship exists between the Skagit wild steelhead spawning escapment goal and the actual productivity and capacity of the Skagit River basin to produce steelhead. Please re-read the last sentence and be certain that you understand it.

The last paragraph means that the Skagit wild steelhead spawning escapement goal is arbitrary, and possibly capricious. It's meaning is primarily make believe then. This leads me to the question of for what purpose are Skagit steelhead managed? Is it strictly species preservation, like a petting zoo, except you can't actually pet the animals? Or is the purpose to conserve the population for the mutual long-term benefit of the species as well as human social and economic benefits. If the purpose is the former, then the present course is the one to stay on. If the latter, then a change is required.

OS is an evidence-based approach to steelhead management. Studies show that incidental mortality is significantly lower than the 10% value presently used by WDFW and NMFS. Skagit steelhead productivity shows that CNR seasons from 1981 through 2009 have no measurable effect on population size. Even the combination of CNR incidental mortality and the limited directed harvest indicate that fishing mortality has had no measurable effect on wild steelheaad population abundance over the past 30 years.

OS does not propose CNR fishing the Skagit run into extinction. The evidence strongly suggests that isn't possible. OS is simply pointing out that, above some arbitrarily selected threshold runsize, mangement regulations could permit CNR steelhead seasons to be implemented with no measurable risk to future population abundance. And during that period, anglers can obtain the social benefits associated with CNR fishing, and the local economy can benefit from added fishing activity. These benefits can be enjoyed while simultaneously conserving wild Skagit steelhead for as long as steelhead habitat is also conserved. It's just about that simple, but for the way the PS steelhead ESA listing aggregates Skagit steelhead. Just because change is hard does not mean change is not possible.

Sg