Steelhead in the future?

[Smalma]

I Listened to the show this morning and enjoyed the recap of 2012 fishing - a great year for sure. During the discussion the plight and future of PS steelhead came up.

The comment was made "what would it take to improve the situation?" And how little is known about steelhead and what is limiting our populations. Usually what then follows is what can we as angler do to aid in their recovery. I will focus on what we know and based on that what we anglers can contribute.

Recent studies have consistently found that many (typcially 20% or so) of the steelhead smolts leaving our rivers had at least one parent that was resident rainbow. This is in spite of the resident populations being severely limited. Not only do resident rainbows produce steelhead smolts they provide both a population and genetic safety net for future generations.

In the few years WDFW has closed the majority of the tributary streams to our anadromous rivers to fishing or for those left open the common regulation has required the use of selective gear. Those was done of course to protect the juvenile/pre-smolts of O. mykiss as well as any resident adults. The state has claimed this approach has paid great benefits. Just imagine what the benefits would be if that approach was applied to where the juvenile fish are being produced and where the anglers are most likely encounter them.

Consider for the Skagit 65% of the steelhead spawning (and by extension juvenile rearing) in recent years occured in main stem areas. For the Snohomish that figure was 80% of the spawning. Further I'm sure that it would be reasonable to estimate that more than 90% of the stream fishing in those basin occurs in those same main stem areas. If protecting those juvenile fish in tribs has been a wonderful thing would it not follow that protecting those same fish in the areas were the majority of the production and fishing occur would be even more successful.

The rub of course is that those juvenile fish and adult resident rainbows experience high mortalities (typically in the 30% range) when released after being caught on bait. As result if folks are serious about saving those juveniles and adult residents selective gear rules would be required. Because those resident fish are caught year round those rules are needed when ever the rivers are open.

Is the reader willing to give up their bait for all their river steelhead and salmon fishing for the cause of the wild steelhead? Typically the answer is no! Most folks are willing to go the extra mile to insure that theany wild adult encountered is given the best chance to survive that encounter. Why not extend that concern/care to the fish before they become an adult?

How serious are we about protecting the future our steelhead? Willing to give up your bait?

Curt

[Fish-Culture]

Food for thought for sure. No doubt fishing pressure and bait use contributes to smolt mortality. But there are also plenty of local examples where fishing closures, selective gear restrictions, or places where extreme access difficulty have limited smolt mortality pressure and it has had not made a difference in rebuilding or restoring steelhead populations.
Just a small list, the Cedar River, Sammamish Tribs, Pilchuck, Nisqually, White River, Hood Canal streams, South Prairie Creek, I could go on and on. Granted some of these may be open to winter fisheries, etc. but I think we would be seeing "pockets" of improved survival if angling/gear restrictions were the cause of steelhead declines.
I think it is also important to remember that many of our "recent studies", while they may be the best we have, are not necessarily representative of the historical fish community. Resident rainbow will mate with steelhead and steelhead originated from residents, but residents are much more likely to mate with steelhead if no other steelhead mates are present. I have witnessed this first hand in the Cedar, South Prairie Creek, and the Green River.
As far as the state proclaiming that the stream strategy has paid "great benefits", I do not think it has even been in place long enough to measure any benefits from returning adult classes, and if anyone is currently looking at smolt populations pre strategy and post strategy, I would love to see the data.
One thing thing that it has done is close a bunch of streams and beaver ponds to alot of people. How many of us got our angling start on the "crik"" down the road?
I guess to your original questin, Would I put the bait down if it meant recovery of wild steelhead? Hell yes, I just dont think it is the smoking gun.

[Nelly]

I sincerely appreciate the thoughts expressed and respect both opinions above.
However, the sub 1% returns of hatchery steelhead to many Puget Sound streams indicate a problem with our estuaries and/or Puget Sound itself.

You don't have to spend a ton of time on the Sound to know that cormorants are very prevalent...and well fed.

Like most other fisheries issues... a combination of factors has conspired to reduce our steelhead runs.

Talking about the problems leads to identifying the key issues... and hopefully finding solutions!

[Smalma]

Fish-culture -
The issue I was attempting to address is much larger than smolt mortality from fishing activity. As you and Nelly correctly point out marine survival issues is a huge factor limiting steelhead production and that negates many options that managers would typically take. That just highlights the importance of protecting the life history diversity of O. mykiss in our anadromous rivers. That life history diversity evolved over the eons as the species hedge against various suvival issues.

A lot of the info being developed over the last decade or two has underlined that the resident life history was much more important to the well fare of the species. Just one example from a recent OSU study on Hood River. Over 15 years genetic profiles were developed from 12,725 adult steelhead. A surprising result was that 40% of the genetic material found in those steelhead did not come from other adult steelhead; rather it was the resident rainbow populations that contributed that material. It probably be more correct to low at the steelhead and rainbow populations in our anadromous rivers as a single interbreeding population that is expressing a variety of life history that provide population hedges under a variety of survival conditions. During periods of good marine conditions the anadromous life history would be expected to dominate and during periods of poor marine survival the resident form would.

There can be little doubt in most basins the resident portion of the population is even more depressed than the anadromous form. Further it is clear that current management practices typcially selective strongly against the resident option. I have to believe that if a management schemes were in place that strongly selected against an anadromous trait (say target 3-salt fish most folks would be up in arms about that selection demanding changes. Yet we remain silent about the selection against an equally critical population segment (at least under the current conditions).

The time has come for serious discussion about which is more important too us. Having wild O. mykiss (both the anadromous and resident ) in our streams or having our bait to catch hatchery steelhead. For me it is a no-brainer and it is past time for others to take a position as well.

Curt

[RB3]

I believe a few years back on a forum, a discussion revolved around the retention of wild trout in the Green river. I know and have seen a lot of fish caught by fishermen targeting white fish. Some of the fish are kept and some are released. I would hope that in mine or my children's life time this will be figured out and hopefully the fish can rebound.

One note, I have been hearing about a lot of unclipped fishing being caught than I have in the past. One of the streams does not have a hatchery on it.