Should you be able to fish for downstreamers ? [Archive]

Steelin' Time

04-10-2007, 08:19 AM

I don't see how an angler can possibly have any control over whether or not a spent fish takes an offering! Last season (Jan '06) I landed a clean 34 inch hen on the SF Eel on January 8th, upstream of Leggett. Good fighter and still fairly bright, yet she had already dumped her eggs. Do we stop fishing on Jan 8th because there are some spent fish in the system?

This season on the Elk, many bright fish were being caught the middle of February that looked like they had been in the river for 2 weeks max--bright, native fish that had already spawned. Many of these fish on coastal rivers may only travel 10-20 miles from salt water before they spawn. Unlike spent fish that have traveled long distances (such as the Rogue fish near Shady Cove) and are truly "spent" from their effort, these fish fight like the dickens. My wife landed one hen on the Chetco in February that jumped 7 times and burned line from her reel. I was certain it was a new fish, but when we landed her she had already done her thing. Spent fish don't have the stamina that uprun fish do and the fight is generally shorter than with a new fish, but to say that all spent fish "don't fight much" is simply not accurate.

At the end of this season, on March 23rd, I fished the Sixes and landed 6 adults--4 uprun fish and 2 downrun fish. Of the 4 uprun fish, 3 were as chrome as you could ask for--only 2-5 miles from salt water. The next day on the Chetco I landed 7 adults--2 chrome new fish ( one was landed 4 miles from salt water and was sporting sea lice!) and 5 spent fish. The fish with sea lice was only about 9 pounds or so but burned 85-90 yards of line from my reel in one burst. My heart was pounding and I was having a great time! Pretty tough to think about stopping fishing when the river still has fresh fishing entering the system that can give me that kind of thrill. By the way, all these fish were released, none worse for the wear.

The question Carl posed is interesting and gives us something to talk about with the winter season in the rear view mirror, but there is no practical way to avoid hooking spent steelhead. Just my opinion! Pat

bigtj

04-10-2007, 10:13 AM

Steelin time,

If I had a day like you had on the Chetco, where only 2 out of 7 fish were uprunners, that would be my last day of the season on that river. Even though the season is open through the 1st, I don't fish Southern Oregon after the 15th of March. I'd just prefer to fish earlier in the run, and that time of year the OP is usually still getting slugs of fresh fish.

You are absolutely right, hooking spent fish is sometimes un-avoidable, unless you don't fish, hence my reason for setting a cut-off date for certain rivers. If we really want to be altruistic about it we should just stop fishing for steelhead, period, and I don't think anybody wants to do that.

Darian

04-10-2007, 03:27 PM

We seem to be coming to a conclusion here. Catching/hooking spent fish is unavoidable during the legal fishing season. 8) Since it's legal to do so, it's a matter of personal choice/conscience whether you do or don't.

IMHO, there are some issues here that haven't been addressed. :?
Maybe the question ought to be: should we fish for spent, natural spawning Steelhead in rivers where there are no hatchery fish :?: :?:
If Steelhead are truly scarce enough to warrant protections from the government, why fish for them at all until their numbers are recovered... :? :? Neither does catch/release address this issue as it's unknown how many of those downstreamers "released in good condition" actually survive over the next few hours or days or how many times a spent fish may be caught/released before returning to the ocean environment.

To me the answer is things are OK as they are 8) ; since it's unlikely that Steelhead ever will recover to their historic numbers due to environmental/developmental/polical pressures. :( :( :( Our best efforts haven't really changed this situation, so far.

These type of philosophical questions arise during times when we have little else, in terms of fishing, to do. However, I don't believe that we'll ever solve the issue.... 8) 8) 8)

lee s.

04-10-2007, 08:05 PM

The issue should be a personal one, absolutely. For someone to try to disuade someone else from performing a legal activity is absolutely wrong. If they so choose to not participate themselves is just fine. And for someone to believe and promote that we are impacting said fishery by C&R'ing spent fish is.....well, it is just less than intelligent. :roll:
.....lee s.

Darian

04-10-2007, 09:27 PM

Hmmmm,.... Lee, I'm not sure I think intemperate comments about the intelligence of anyone on this BB is overly acceptable. You could've easily made your point without being disrespectful.... [-X [-X [-X

sculpin

04-10-2007, 11:00 PM

Well no one has ever called me overly intelligent, but some have called me a smart ass a few times. :D There are a lot of things that are legal, like killing native steelhead in some areas and whacking big female stripers. C&R of downer steelhead isn't exactly the same thing and anyone that fishes for steelhead is going to catch some, but targeting them doesn't seem right. I guess I don't see anything wrong with trying to discourage things that have a negative impact as long as I stay off the soap box,

Mark

Tony Buzolich

04-11-2007, 06:24 AM

Carl, and all.

What makes anyone think Lee is getting hot or uptight. I didn't read his responce with that tone at all. Reading these comments doesn't allow any of us to raise or lower our voice, it's the reader that puts in the accentuate or emotion be it good or bad.

This is supposed to a friendly forum :D so don't read more in to something that may or may not be there.
TONY

lee s.

04-11-2007, 07:44 AM

Hmmm. Seems we have ruffled a few feathers with a GENERAL statement aimed at no one, in response to a GENERAL post. Sorry guys. I did not realize the water was so shallow. :wink:
And thanks Tony. As YOU know, it'll take a lot more than that to wad my shorts. :lol:
.....lee s.

Digger

04-11-2007, 09:02 AM

When can you fish with a clear conscience?

You shouldn’t fish/target them when actively spawning
You shouldn’t fish/target them when done spawning
You shouldn’t fish/target them when water temps are too high
You can’t fish during low flow closures

This can leave a fairly small window of opportunity, especially for those who are not within close proximity of the waters.

Maybe this is good? Enough restrictions will deter a portion of anglers, thus reducing pressure, however I can also see where it might compel some to use less than ethical tactics due to desperation/frustration.

I’m all for doing what’s best for the wildlife, especially when the resource is so scarce. However not all of us share similar beliefs or the degree of concern.
The necessary balance is hard to achieve.

I spent 2 days last week at a NMFS steelhead recovery workshop, and came away with some eye opening observations of this process and the various stakeholders involved.
Unfortunately, out of the 100 or so participants, only 4 of us were from the angling community. Needless to say, lack of participation in such efforts doesn’t help ‘our’ cause much.

I would suggest any of you who have enough concern of such topics, go and participate and gain a deeper perspective of what’s going on. Even if you have to take a day off from work. Collectively we can be a force to be reckoned with.

lee s.

04-11-2007, 12:06 PM

Good post Digger.
Maybe we should re-read the article by Russ Chatam that was so well accepted earlier on this board. An article that one can find VERY little to question. Maybe one needs to pay close attention to Russ' observations as to Lagunitas or Papermill Creek and the lack of effect TOTAL no fishing has produced.
What we need is more steelhead water. Not more spent steelhead. This is if we want to improve or sustain our "holy" fisheries.
All is NOT lost. Especially on a river such as the Russian. We can still improve the present steelhead spawning environs being as they are, for the most part, the concrete raceways at the hatchery. We merely need to re-establish the resinded funding and the present available environs can be returned. Unfortunately, not so for our wild fish.....unless you concider the adipose possessing/worn dorsal specimens to be wild fish. Unless it is illogical to believe that all the new roofs under construction are going to be dry dwellings, the next logical conclusion is that the powers that be are going to get MORE water.
We already have proof as to what our acceptance of ineffectual measures does to our fisheries and with acceptance of such, our fisheries ARE doomed.
Did barbless hooks restore anything?
Did a longer season restore anything?
Did smaller limits restore anything?
Did C&R fishing on the coast restore anything?
Did complete closure (deemed at the start to be temporary for a 5yr period :roll: ) on Papermill Creek restore the fishery?
I think the logical answer from those with the actual "grandfathered" experience would have to be an honest no......sad that it is. I do believe that most of these measure are revenue producers at best and that is the real reasoning behind their induction.....not resource enhancement in any way.
Digger, I do believe you will get far more results with your approach than the results of ALL the previous measures and a spawned fish measure to boot.
Forcing the addition of workable plunge-pool fish ladders on existing damns BEFORE new damns are accepted, and the lawfull inclusion in the construction of the necessary new damns, would be one of the most effectual measures we could take for trying to prolong the existing remnants of our fisheries and to stay, for as long as possible, their eventual demise.
.....lee s.

bigtj

04-11-2007, 01:22 PM

A couple of rebuttals:

You shouldn’t fish/target them when actively spawning
You shouldn’t fish/target them when done spawning
You shouldn’t fish/target them when water temps are too high
You can’t fish during low flow closures

This can leave a fairly small window of opportunity, especially for those who are not within close proximity of the waters.

Not exactly true; the window of opportunity is open for months, it's how you fish that matters more than when you fish. It's not rocket science, just don't fish over shallow beds actively occupied by spawners, instead fish water where moving fish hold, and put the rods away once the runs are winding down. It's not as big a deal as you are making it sound. Guides and fishermen have been practicing these ethics for years because they don't want to catch beat-up fish, it's usually the "newbies" that need to learn this stuff.

Did barbless hooks restore anything?
Did a longer season restore anything?
Did smaller limits restore anything?
Did C&R fishing on the coast restore anything?

I think they have definitely helped, esp. C&R. I don't think anyone can argue the endless cycle of bonking hens for bait for the next day's fishing hasn't had a negative effect on fisheries in the Pacific NW. Sure, habitat is the #1 most important thing for steelhead recovery, but C&R for wild fish is a good way to ensure more fish make it to the habitat that's still there. The recovery approach has to be from all angles not just one. Forestry management, road (culvert) construction, marine fisheries management, and sport fishing management are all part of the equation. Personally I think we need to go 100% C&R on wild steelhead. Bonk all the hatchery fish you want but leave the wild ones alone. The Canadians sure have it figured out. They have excellent runs of wild steelhead with NO hatcheries in the Skeena system and guess what...it's 100% C&R. They realize they have a precious resource so they're protecting it. It's not the "wild west" any more where resources seem limitless. More and more people fishing for fewer and fewer fish make C&R n wild fish a great idea and an effective management tool.

Darian

04-11-2007, 02:09 PM

Well,.... We seem to have drifted a bit from the original question/subject which was, "should we fish for spent fish?" Even so, there's much to be considered in the ideas posted. 8)

As it has been all along, the answer appears to boil down to (1) a matter of individual/personal choice or (2) a matter of what is legal. There may be other answers out there but they haven't been made evident, here. 8) 8) One thing we should keep in mind is that we, in California, operate under a different set of laws/rules/regulations than our brethren in other states or countries.... Ethical cosniderations may be the same everywhere. 8)

I'm not sure what going 100 % C&R for wild fish will accomplish since, in California, there're only 2-3 rivers/streams where taking a natural fish is permitted, anyway. :? Just speculating here, if we're to accept what Lee S., and others have said about C&R, the practice hasn't been effective in restoration of fisheries but might be effective in supporting further degradation of existing stocks.

I wholeheartedly agree with the premise that we must, as a group, particpate in the governmental process if we're to succesfully make an impact. 8) 8) 8) Essentially, we get the quality of government we deserve by failing to participate. Make no mistake about this, government policies at all levels have and will continue to dictate what happens to our fisheries/resources. 8) 8) 8)

bigtj

04-11-2007, 03:10 PM

the practice (C&R) hasn't been effective in restoration of fisheries

Lee, if you have some supporting data on C&R not contributing to restorations of runs, I'd love to see it, please share. Intuitively it doesn't make sense to me. I am also skeptical as C&R has only been in California for less than 10 years. Also, it would be difficult to do a conclusive experiment supporting/refuting your hypothesis as you can't simultaneously have C&R and catch and kill on the same river. Perhaps one cold do a simulation with a population dynamics model, but I think the results would still be little better than using a thought experiment. Anyway, I'd like to hear some background supporting the view that C&R doesn't help recovery, only helps futher reduction.

Long-term it's the carrying capacity of the river that determines how many fish can successfully spawn, and in many years there is an excess that, in theory, could be harvested without affecting the population. But the problem is our biologists deal with a lot of uncertainty and they get things wrong nearly as often as they get it right. Maximizing the number of spawners by releasing fish instead of bonking them is a conservative approach. It lets the river itself dictate how many fish are going to spawn sucessfully, not a biologist who is making their best "educated guess" based upon limited data. And, as habitat is restored, there is always the possbility that a larger sportfishing escapement will translate into more robust long-term populations. Look at it this way...DF&G didn't go to C&R just "for the fun of it". They did it to help stop the decline of steelhead populations, and some day, help jump-start a rebound. It certainly isn't hurting anyone, as there are plenty of hatchery fish available for harvest.

By the way Darian it's not 2 or 3 rivers it's one, the Smith, that still has a wild steelhead harvest. Why not make it simple and make the Smith C&R for wild fish too? The biologists think they have the populations figured out. I say, error on the side of caution, and bonk all the hatchery fish you want, but leave the wild fish alone. Again it's not going to hurt anyone, plenty of Rowdy Creek hatchery stock available to bonk.

As far as us working under a set of different laws than Canada...well it's about time we're learning from their foresight and enacting regs that will help protect the resource. If they kept the 2-fish kill limit up until today who knows, they probably would be dealing with the same problems we are. If only we had done something in the 70's or 80's maybe we'd be enjoying the positive effects now.

One more thing...I think that it's interesting that the Eel had one of the best years in recent memory this year, along with the Russian, for big, bad wild fish. The Eel is completley C&R, the Russian only 1 hatchery fish. What's the reason? Has habitat improved? Or better ocean condtions? Or C&R? I'd like to think C&R has played a role in it, I know a lot of those big hens would have been bonked for their eggs not so many years ago. Hard to say but I think C&R is having a strongly positive effect. We need to do what we CAN do and C&R is a no-brainer.

Tracy Chimenti

04-12-2007, 04:29 PM

YES!

lee s.

04-12-2007, 08:38 PM

I also agree with C&R fishing and leave the spawners alone and spent fish are an inferior target. That is my choce as is taking only one ab for dinner. I would never try to impose my standards (or lack thereof) on anyone else.....I hope.

Data...? Check out historic #'s at Papermill Creek and #'s now. There has been NO fishing on that watershed for many years, even though it was "sold" as temporary.
Catching more fish at th Eel and Russian equals more fish due to better habitat and restored fishery? I doubt it. I would only credit that to more hatchery releases.....which has not happened on the Eel nor the Russian. The Eel because there is no hatchery and the Russian because of lack of funding at their hatchery. That sorta leaves one the next logical conclusion that a dry year, such as we have had, provides MANY more fishable days to pester them while they are there, due to lack of silt in those rivers. Silt that is now one of the biggest (or should I say obvious?) steelhead redd killers in those rivers. More wine anyone? :roll:
Gualala, Garcia, Cottoneva, and other coastal creeks restored since C&R.........? Improved yes, restored no.
Written data, no. Time on water, yes.
As to the original question, "Should the season be closed to fishing for down streamers (spent) Steelhead? ".......answer from here is "why?".
If it is a moral issue for you, that is fine.....for you and you only.
If it is a fishery restoration "solution" you are after, you are absolutely wasting everyone's time. Our time would be FAR better spent elsewhere , maybe enviriomentally, to realize resource improvement.
....lee s.

bigtj

04-12-2007, 10:10 PM

Lee,

Well that's what I thought, the data isn't there. What you have said is your perception, not a fact. "Time on the water" doesn't mean you know all the answers, it means you have a perception. Although I'm willing to respect your perception, I'm not necessarily going to buy it.

There is a tool called science that is designed to separate perception from facts, as best we can. So there could just as well be as good a chance for C&R to help restore runs, as your example..papermill creek...is by no means a conclusive or even substantive example, because it may be that habitat is an over-riding factor in that watershed. Whatever the situation, to say that papermill creek shows that C&R can't help restore runs in any other watershed...well that just doesn't hold water.

Let's agree to disagree on the Eel and Russian. My gut says that favorable ocean conditions, C&R regs, and beginnings of recovery due to changes in forest practices over the past decade are all helping. There were some pretty good windows of opportunities this year but I remember several years with similar opportunities in the 90's when fishing just plain sucked on the Eel.

By the way fishing for downrunners it not a moral issue for me only, you are sorely mistaken on that point, yet another example of your perception being out of line with the facts. Check out the angling literature out there sometime, Trey Combs '76 book for example. Plenty of dead fish in that book, but a definite call to leave the spawning fish alone at the end of the season (P18). There are a lot of guides out there that remind folks to give a fish break while they're actively spawning and on the way back downriver (would be happy to name names if you like. Or maybe ask the question, how many guides say "let's go catch some spawners and downrunners today, forget those chromers they're waayyy overrated!!). It's one way to help ensure future generations of steelhead, just like catch and release.

I'm not exactly sure why you think I am wasting anybody's time. Everybody who comes to this site reads a post on their own perogative. I'm not forcing anyone to read what I write. If you don't want to read it, why waste your time? Are you afraid you might actually learn something? Or are you more worried that science and facts will burst the bubble on your sheltered view of the truth? Regardless of whether or not I'm wasting anybody's time, to think that what I wrote here is taking away from our ability to restore our steelhead resource, well that's just plain hilarious. Go back and read the last sentence of your post...you really aren't serious, are you?

So let's try to keep it civil around here, shall we? We've both had our say time to move on to another topic.

ycflyfisher

04-13-2007, 01:15 PM

I agree with Tony. Lee is certainly taking a needless beating here. What's really sad is that I believe his main point: "C&R of wild steelhead is more of a 'feel good' solution, than it is an effective management tool that increases wild steelhead abundance.", has more truth to it than most are allowing. Lee has made this point numerous times on another forum, and I thought about countering his arguements, but didn't in retrospect because I believe them to be generally true statements after pondering and researching this. I think that C&R of wild steelhead has been implemented because intuitively it "can't hurt" rather than any real proof that it's actually increasing abundance. It's counterintuitive but I'm aware of no science that backs this notion up. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I couldn't find anything the first time I heard Lee make this statement about C&R and anadramous fish. Nor did any of the biologists I know offer up anything other than the like of: "Well it may not be helping to measurably increase abundance but it certainly can't hurt." Again, real science, or just a "feel good management tool" that errs on the side of unsubstantiated caution when applied to anadramous fisheries as far as abundance is concerned?

I'm not even going to address the myriad of perception and conjecture being thrown as absolute fact at Lee in this one.

C&R studies on inland trout fisheries certainly has established that C&R does help increase trout abundance. These studies are a dime a dozen and have shown they are repeatable. Here's an abstract of one such study:
Evaluation of Catch-and-Release Trout Fishing Regulations
on the South Branch of the Au Sable River, Michigan

Richard D. Clark, Jr.

Institute for Fisheries Research
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Gaylord R. Alexander

Hunt Creek Research Station
Lewiston, Michigan

Abstract.-Flies-only, catch-and-release (no-kill) trout fishing regulations were established on a 4.7-mi-long section of the South Branch of the Au Sable River, Michigan. The former regulations restricted terminal tackle to flies only but allowed harvest of brown trout Salmo trutta and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 10 in or larger and brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 8 in or larger. The primary objective of the new regulation was to produce higher standing stocks of larger trout and higher catch rates of all trout, but particularly larger ones. We evaluated the effectiveness of the regulation in achieving this objective. We compared before (1974-82) and after (1985-90) trout populations, catch, and fishing effort in the catch-and-release section and in two separate control sections where fishing regulations remained constant. Rainbow trout were rare in all study sections, so we concentrated our efforts on brown trout and brook trout.
In general, the condition of brown trout populations improved in the catch-and-release section but deteriorated in both control sections. Total abundance of brown trout increased significantly in the catch-and-release section and decreased significantly in the control sections. Relative to the control sections, total abundance in the catch-and-release section increased by from 41 % to 59%. Abundance of brown trout larger than 12 in did not change significantly in the catch-and-release section but decreased significantly in both control sections. Survival rates of brown trout did not change significantly in the catch-and-release section, but decreased significantly for age-1 and older fish in both control sections. Thus, the catch-and-release regulation produced a better population of larger trout than would have existed otherwise. Mean lengths at age of brown trout did not change significantly in catch-and-release or control sections. No change in condition factor (length-weight relation) of brown trout could be attributed to the catch-and-release regulation.
We found no detectable effect of the catch-and-release regulations on the brook trout population. Brook trout abundance remained constant in the catch-and-release section, increased significantly in one control section, and decreased significantly in the other control section. We detected no effect on brook trout survival or growth.
The catch-and-release regulation was probably responsible for a significant decrease in fishing effort in the catch-and-release section, but we cannot be certain because fishing effort also decreased in one of the control sections. Other than eliminating the harvest, catch-and-release had no detectable effect on the total catch of brown trout. This may have been due to high variances on catch estimates, because changes in mean catch estimates were generally consistent with changes in estimates of trout abundance. Catch-and-release had essentially the same effect on the catch of brook trout as the catch of brown trout. The harvest was eliminated, but no other measurable effect was detected. We observed an increasing trend in voluntary release of trout in the control sections. During the mid-1970s, anglers released about 40% of the trout they caught, but by 1990, the release rate was up to 80-90%. This increase in voluntary release could have reduced the apparent effects of mandatory catch-and-release in the catch-and-release section, because the catch-and-release section was evaluated relative to the control sections.
We conclude that catch-and-re lease regulations had a positive impact on the brown trout population in the catch-and-release section, but "improvements" observed were modest. These improvements seem to take on a secondary importance considering the general decline observed in brown trout populations in the Au Sable River over the last 20 years. We should focus future research and management efforts on identifying and controlling, if possible, the factor(s) causing brown trout to decline. Based on our analysis, exploitation from fishing is not responsible for the general decline.

Does the same really apply to anadramous fisheries where the population dynamics and relative abundance, and increased recruitement potential(on a per fish basis) are elevated to "unnatural levels" to what the habitat would be able to provide were the fish in question, not using anadromy as a survival strategy to increase abundance? Like Lee, I'm thinking not.

Let's just address the main counter-premise, brought up by this statement:

"I think they have definitely helped, esp. C&R. "

Bigtj, you've asked then demanded that Lee provide proof that C&R for steelhead is not increasing abundance. You've done this despite the fact, that by your own admission that such a study would be hard to find because I think you're aware of the nature of what you're asking to provide. Since, you're making this request of Lee, I don't think it's out of line for you to provide something similar. Let's see a reference to a single study that concludes that C&R and no other factors has increased steelhead abundance on any PNW watershed. While relatively new in CA, as you've pointed out it's been a management tool for quite some time in other places. Just one will suffice. I'm not at all saying that such a study doesn't exist, but would be suprised if you're able to find one. Until you can do that, I'd have to agree with Lee that C&R for steelhead is much akin to "stranded fish rescues" and is merely a "feel good management tool" that certainly can't hurt, but likely does little to nothing to measurably increase steelhead abundance.

It might be counterintuitive, but it has more to do with how the stock and recruitment relationship works in anadramous watersheds and why anadromy became a sucessful survival strategy in anadramous watersheds in the first place. Until you or anyone else can provide such a C&R steelhead study, I'd have to say that your actually guility of what you've accused Lee of: Jumping to conclusions that your own perceptions and opinions are factual and possibly the intuitive but (I think) incorrect theory (that I think a lot of anglers share) that since C&R has been irrefutably shown to increase resident trout abundance, the same must also apply to steelhead. Let's see the proof. I'd very much like to admit that I'm wrong here and am sure Lee would be willing to do the same despite the fact that you've really ridden him into the ground on this one, for likely no legit reason.

bigtj

04-13-2007, 02:21 PM

A dead steelhead can't spawn. 300 dead steelhead can't spawn. 1,000 dead steelhead can't spawn. Every fish that is bonked can't spawn. However, a released steelhead can be caught again, and maybe even a third or fourth time, and still survive to spawn. A released steelhead enhances the fishery and has the potential to ensure future generations of wild steelhead. A dead one does neither. The logic, and the facts, don't get any simpler than that.

ycflyfisher

04-13-2007, 09:03 PM

The logic, and the facts, don't get any simpler than that.

I think this statement is illustrative of the problem you seem to be having with Lee's statements. It's a lack of understanding of the mechanics and dynamics involved. Steelhead population abundance and how abundance is created and maintained isn't simple nor necessarily intuitively logical. Nor does it follow the same trends as trout in inland fisheries. Unless a population is reduced to the point where extirpation is distinctly possible in the near future, the point you seem to be trying to make about C&R is mute (IMO) as far as abundance is concerned. I can't explain to you why I think your wrong in a single post, nor is there one definitive work that's online that you could read to bring you up to speed. This one is mainly about management practices and how future management practices should be altered based on past mistakes and what can be done from a fisheries management standpoint to help improve salmonid abundance.

I'd encourage you(or anyone else for that matter that wants to take some steps to educate themselves on the nature of anadramous fisheries, how they're managed, how they've been mismanaged and how the dynamics of anadramous fish populations work) to read this book. There's no doubt, you'll learn something, and you may also come away with at least a tad bit more respect for the insight of those ill informed biologists that as you so eloquently put it: "...are often making their best "educated guess" based on limited data... and are more often wrong than they are right. " Fisheries biology may not be a perfectly exact science, but it's certainly not the "witch-doctor" faux-scientific endeavor that you seem to be under the impression it is.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309053250
Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest

Hairstacker

04-14-2007, 12:08 AM

Have really enjoyed all the points everyone's made. A lot of food for thought and seems to me everyone has made valid points, although I'm not as knowledgeable about these matters as everyone else here. A little heated, though. I don't believe it was ever Lee's intent to demean anyone in particular and I didn't read his posts that way either. From what I've known of Lee for several years now here and elsewhere, I know that's just not his way. Peace.

lee s.

04-14-2007, 01:02 AM

Thank God for the mysteries of fish (ing?)
If favor of the logic of dead fish don't spawn....right on. :wink: The other side of that coin seems to be that nature WILL fill her steelhead water with steelhead. Again, no written stuff, but when Mount St. Helens erupted in "81, the Toutle river in Wa was essentially boiled clean and then ran with the consistiency of wet concrete for several years. Enough to destroy any steelhead for several consecutive seasons. Before we left the state in "91, the river was "rebounding" and wild fish were again being targeted and caught in the watershed. Nature must logically provide "strays" for varying purposes, this being one of them (?).
I do believe we ALL want to see prolonged anadromous fisheries to be avaliable to us and our kids. Yeah, MAYBE "wasting time" was a bit harsh, but if we keep letting them sell us ineffective "bandaids" we WILL allow them to exterminate our fisheries. I think they have used science and biology to sell us many of these bandaids.
The anhialation of the Toutle R. that St Helens did, could absolutely not be replicated by all of you's and all of me's, no matter how hard we tried.....especially with a stick and a string and a wad of feathers. And nature overcame that when the necessary envirioment returned. And, as of when we left that state in "91, the Wa. F&G had still not taken advantage of the opportunity to either legislatively protect nor study an almost "pure" fishery restoration.
I admit to being of the "old" school. Hell, I can't understand half of the big words you all toss about as science. All we got is what we DO see. And while papers get writ, water (envirioment) gets stole. Some old farts still believe that to get more fish, we GOTTA get more water....not temporarily more fish. Got no paperwork on this either, but ya can put only so many marbles in a glass of water. Ya want more marbles, ya need a bigger glass. :wink:
Sonoma Co. Water Agency has just made water conservation mandatory in Sonoma Co. for the water users. Wanna guess how much conservation the county will abide to when issueing new dwelling permits during the same time?
The only useful water to a politician is water in a pipe. I see no reason for them to return us any water. I see that to also be an ecconomic impossibility. Maybe the only way to get more water for our fish is to get the FISH to more water. Why not force (mandate? (big political word)) them to build workable plungepool fish ladders on ALL of our damns before allowing ANY of the new ones they will try to shove down our throats?
Hell, let's go fishing. There were NEW fish in the Russian last week and the shad are SOON due. Careful though, we did pester a spent steelie in June last year while in the persuit of shad. :roll:

bigtj

04-14-2007, 08:48 AM

ycflyfisher

04-15-2007, 02:05 PM

Ycflyfisher,

Thanks for the information. I think it's funny you say I am wrong (and it would take you too long to say why), or perhaps I don't have much information about anadramous fisheries. For what it's worth, I am a environmental engineer/hydrogeologist with a Master's degree and a consultant with 9 years of expereince in the "real world". I deal mostly with groundwater, but my best friend is a leading expert on anadramous fisheries restoration for HDR/fish Pro. We've had hundreds of conversations on the subject over the past 15 years. I understand that many of the decisions I make in groundwater systems are limited by tremendous uncertainty. The inherent nature of groundwater is similar to fisheries management in that point sampling is used to interpolate and extrapolate systems dynamics into the future without always having a real handle on many diverse factors including ocean survival and predation. In other words, the models used to estimate populations and population dynamics are ALWAYS wrong, to some degree, it's just that some may be useful, and some may not. There are numerous examples where models have reasonably predicted population trends, models that have been just plain wrong, but none of them are "right on". Ultimately it's up to the judgement of an individual or group of scientests to make a call in the end, and we all know that decsions can sometimes be flawed and in some cases little more than a W.A.G. I don't think fisheries biology is a dark science or whatever you call it, I just have a handle on the fact that science applied to natural systems can have a lot of uncertainty. It's usually the "newbie" consultant/scientist fresh out of college that doesn't undertand their ideas aren't always right. Experience over time teaches the scientist humility and to understand they don't always have a handle on uncertainty. When large uncertainty exists, as in anadramous fisheries runs that are very difficult to accurately predict (see how well the Alaska F&G has done on sockeye runs some time...some times they're dead on, sometimes dead wrong) the best approach ususally is a conservative one, a "watch and see" approach combined with a much monitoring as possible. I don't know a single experienced consultant that wouldn't agree with me on that. Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but to say I'm wrong, outright, without knowing anything about my background or the information I have acquired, ignores the fact that nobody has all the answers, as you have so eloquently pointed out throughout your posts. Let's agree to disagree.

Bottom line is the biologists/regulators in charge agree with me, not you, with regards to C&R in a majority of western rivers. Catch and kill for wild steelhead is now only allowed in perhaps a dozen watersheds from N. California to BC. Off the top of my head that would include the Smith, a few select rivers in S. Oregon, and the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, a few more I've probably forgotten but not many. Despite the catch and kill regs ALL of the fly-fishing guides I personally know, and a few of the "bait" guides voluntarily practice catch and release. These moves has been made, whether it be to protect current populations or help restoration in the future. The move in general has been to C&R regs in all but the healthiest watersheds, and in some cases (like the Umpqua and the Olympic Peninsula) continuing to allow catch and kill for wild fish has created a big stir in the angling community, and a groundswell of public opinion that is fighting agains these catch and kill regs. For practical purposes, the fact that catch and kill for wild steelhead is no longer allowed in most rivers, and the opinion by fish and game biologists and regulators that have led to these regulations, is all that really matters, regardless of our opinons on the subject.

Lee,

Thanks for the lighthearted post, good points made I agree let's go fishing.

Bigtj,

After reading this and then rereading this, I can't see what point if any, you're attempting to make here. You can't understand why I think you're ill informed, despite the fact that you've offered up nothing in this thread to indicate that you've even got a rudimentary understanding about the mechanics of population abundance. I'm also not seeing how the dissertation of your own personal engineering expertise is at all relevant to this discussion, or somehow demonstrates that my perception of where you're coming from on this one is somehow misguided. This would be very much akin to my going to the engineering tips forum and and making some ridiculous statement about the soil remediation that may be necessary on underground infrastructure projects and when some one called me one it, I put forth a brilliant synopsis on the Ricker's Stock and Recruitement relationship and how escapement, is independant of that relationship, but escapement does have an indirect impact on abundance because it directly affects stock and therefore, I must be correct in my ridiculous remediation statements because Anadramous fisheries abundance is somehow very similar to In Situ remediation principles and shares some of the same "real world" methods of error propigation and analysis. Uh-huh. Would I have a valid arguement or would I just be blowing smoke?
Don't you think my arguement might be better founded if instead of talking about fish, when questioned that I might be better off going the route of demonstrating that I'm well aware of the uncertainty of encountering groundwater, regardless of what the pilot drillings may have told you to expect when doing a 40 foot open trench excavation to bury a miles long, new 84" PCC interceptor pipe. And that making certain the HAZWOPER crews are ready to mobilize when said interceptor is being placed in close proximity to the old fuel storage facility on a defunct tactical supply airbase might be a good idea? Or would maybe a talk about how lifehistory frequency distribution is likely dependant upon gradient and available substrate size be enough? I'm sorry man, but your expertise that you obviously have in one subject does not make you know what you're talking about on a completely different subject, regardless of what you may wanna believe it does.

I do agree that you're right that we're simply going to need to agree to disagree. Thanks for the remedial on the uncertainties in encountering groundwater.

jbird

04-15-2007, 07:00 PM

Okay! That post made my eyes cross :shock:

Carl, I have stayed out of this one but now I cant help but bring this thread back down to ground level with my "simple mind" opinion.

I dont see anything wrong with closing fisheries for down run steelhead. We are at about that stage right now on the rogue, and the fishing pressure has let up considerably anyway. I dont think it would break anyones heart to close it. Or at least give it a 'fly only' window. I know the fish would still get pestered, but there wouldnt be any gut hooking going on.

I dont know how anyone could think that C&R regulations have no favorable impact on a fishery. A dead fish is a dead fish.

Jay

Darian

04-15-2007, 10:04 PM

Hi Jay,..... Hope I'm not mis-speaking for anyone else but I'm not sure that anyone felt that C&R had no favorable impact on fisheries.... :? :? My position (and I thought others, too) was and remains that C&R failed to restore Salmonid fisheries to historic levels but probably contributed keeping things from further degradation (even that's hard to show since so many other factors are involved in the decline of Salmonids/Stripers in California. :( :( IMHO, C&R is a valuable tool in managing what's left of our fisheries. 8) 8)

I'm glad you spoke up since things were getting tense around here.... 8) 8) 8)

bigtj

04-16-2007, 07:17 AM

Guys,

Sorry I belabored the point I made a bit. I've gone pretty far off topic. I'm passionate about catch and release. And I'm passionate about the future of steelhead. Fly-fishing for steelhead is far and away the most important part of my life besides family.

Anyway I've said enough again apologies if I've gone over the top.

Best regards,

-John

jbird

04-16-2007, 07:30 AM

John

I dont think you owe an apology. I always enjoy reading your knowledgable posts and believe you convey them as a gentleman.
your knowledge for steelhead is only surpassed by your passion to catch them.
Thanks for posting :)

Jay

bigtj

04-16-2007, 10:32 AM

Thanks.

-John

PS Jay I hope you had fun skiing in March. Also I have the feeling this is the year I need to get back to the Rogue, it's been too long. I'll be picking your brain about summer runs some time soon!

Tattooed1

04-16-2007, 05:04 PM

Obviously we have two questions on the table here, one is wether or not we should be allowed to catch spent steelhead and the other is wether C&R of wild steelhead can and will contribute to the restoration of our fisheries?

On the question of catching spent steelhead, in rivers such as the Russian and others where there are other species and runs that are legal and sporting to fish for out side of the generally accepted migration period of winter steelhead, it would be difficult to separately regulate fishing for spent fish. As for wether it is sporting to fish for these fish I have caught spent coastal steelhead that were in much better shape and far better game fish than alot of the fresh fish that I've caught in longer rivers such as the Trinity or Klamath. With the small percentage of fish that actually spawn multiple times I don't belive fishing for spent fish has a large impact on the fishery.

On the question of C&R of wild fish, I'm sure we can all agree that, to what ever degree, it is a good thing. I think the important thing to understand is that there are far more important problems with our wild steelhead fisheries than fisherman. If you think all you have to do is release the fish you catch and it will all be better you are going to be sadly mistaken. The last question I want to hear is, " grandpa what were steelhead? "

bigtj

04-16-2007, 05:23 PM

Tatooed1,

Welcome the board. Great first post. Well thought out and articulated.

Cheers,

-John

sculpin

04-16-2007, 08:36 PM

Welcome to the board Tattooed 1.

Hey guys about the C&R, I'm in the "it works for me camp." All I have to use for evidence is 28yrs of fishing the same stretch of river and seeing the improvement in the quality of returning summer steelhead after the regulations changed to C&R only for Native fish. As much as I like to eat fish, I would hate to go back to the way it was even though my catch rate is about 90% Native fish.

Mark

nrthcsteel

04-17-2007, 06:44 PM

As far as the question should you fish for downstreamers I would say if a person is specifacly targeting downstreames then for sure NO! On the small coastal streams in my area they usually dont open up until the first good flushing. Thus by the time the rivers are fishable the first run of fresh fish are well on there way up these short rivers. Then throughout the rest of the season you get sporadic fresh waves of fish coming in and certainly a fair amount of downstreamers. An oldtimer told me of one small river "dont bother fishing there until after the super bowl" and sure enough I fished there the week after the super bowl that year and there were a lot of good fish in the river. But on that same river for the last two years I have hooked fresh fish on the same day March 20! 10 days before the close of the season. Now I also hook the occasional downstreamer its almost unavoidable and I am certainly not targeting those fish. On that same day I hooked a downstreamer he was only on for maybe twenty seconds but the three wild jumps I got from the fish and from the dark coloring it was obviously a downstreamer, hell of strong fish though! I think it just depends on what type of system you fish. Some of the bigger longer systems it may be easier to recognize the fresh runs are done and its time to pack it up and let them get back to the ocean unmolested, but for the rivers I frequent and the experiences I have had its worth it to me to fish til the closing bell because the last couple of years have proved to me that there are still freshies to be had. Just my two cents. Very interesting thread! Kevin

lee s.

04-17-2007, 08:59 PM

Lotta good points.
If we are promoting fishery restoration, would it not make more sense to abolish fishing for pre-spawn fish instead? What with the lactic acid issues and "dead fish don't spawn" and all? :?
....lee s.

Darian

04-17-2007, 09:39 PM

OK, here we go again.... :lol: :lol: :lol: (no disrespect meant.) Actually, I've wondered about whether t'is better to fish for downstreamers rather than pre-spawners for many years but decided that posed too many conflicts to resolve. The same question could be raised about all anadromous species. :? At any rate, I'm staying out of this one.... :wink: :wink: :wink:

jbird

04-17-2007, 09:42 PM

Mark and I went steelhead fishing a few days ago. We caught a mixture of uppers and downers. The downers were absolutely chrome bright...brighter than the uppers. Onece they finish spawning, they quickly return to mint condition here on the rogue. The only way to tell is their belly is caved in.
Regarding the subject just brought up about the impact on fishing for upriver fish....All I can say is, you guys argue that one out amongst yourselves, while you are trying to figure out new inovative ways to NOT fish for steelhead...I'll be on the river, fishin for steelhead :D

Cheers!

Jay

Tattooed1

04-18-2007, 08:19 AM

Digger, where can we find info on this recovery workshop?

Digger

04-18-2007, 03:35 PM

Digger, where can we find info on this recovery workshop?

The workshops I've attended are focused on the Southern Steelhead species (geographically from Monterey to San Diego)

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/index.htm

if you're interested in northern areas, try the NW regional site?

WinterrunRon

04-18-2007, 09:19 PM

Wow! What a thread!

I just read them all at once (first visit to this thread) and it only took me an hour!

I think it’s awesome that so many are so passionate in their view and willing to share it. All don’t have to agree… in fact, I learn more when we don’t… and it’s still all great stuff!

A couple of thoughts I feel compelled to share (guess I just couldn’t leave well enough alone!).

I used to duck and pheasant hunt a lot, every year, from the time I was a boy with my father. Then I shot a deer, only one deer in my life, while in my 20’s. Shortly after that, the passion for hunting just faded away without me really realizing it. I found myself fishing more and more until I realized, I had stopped hunting completely. It wasn’t until years later I fully understood why this conversion occurred: There is simply no such thing as hunt and release! The thrill of the kill was gone. I simply grew to dislike killing.

Oh, I still take a striper or two, just because they taste so darned good, but I still dislike the aspect of killing and the act doesn’t come easy for me. I suspect as with many others, I get a greater sense of satisfaction from watching them swim away.

I’m not posting to convert, but I am posting to support the idea that catch and release must be a good thing... it has to be. It’s virtually impossible for it to be doing harm to the survivability of a species. How is it possible to kill a healthy, viable female of anything for the good of the species (ok, we all know some women that might challenge this theory, but this is a FF BB!)?

And, instead of starting another thread, let me share here, that several years ago the Smith River regulations were modified to allow barbed-hooked fishing AND the retention of TWO steelhead instead of one (only one native, however) AND the season extended another month through April! Can anyone share any information that would convince me this decision was for the betterment of the steelhead?

I just don’t get it. Years from now, if it takes that long, then next decision that will be pondered is what should be done to restore the near extinct steelhead population on the Smith River. Geez-wiz, maybe lower the take, enact a barbless catch and release regulation and perhaps, just perhaps, shorten the season to allow a small percentage of the fish to spawn without disruption? And if those ideas are too extreme: Duck season has a split season, I’m assuming to allow the migrating birds to have a period of rest during a long open season. Why not borrow this idea and modify it to allow for the taking of fish during a PORTION of a steelhead season, say two weeks or so out of four months for those that don’t enjoy fishing unless they keep their catch. Seems to me this is a happy medium I think would find little in the way of argument.

Must we always create a crisis to manage!

I don’t get it…

Darian

04-19-2007, 01:35 PM

Ron,.... Just by way of Smith River info. I'm not sure I can convince you that the decision to allow keeping Steelhead on the Smith was for the benefit of the fish but someone apparently thinks so. I do recall that many years ago, the Chamber of Commerce in Del Norte County raised some money for the Rowdy Creek Hatchery. The need for that hatchery (a private concern) was based on the decrease in returning Salmon/Steelhead.... (sound familiar)

At the time, it was felt that the loss of local revenue as a result of fisherman (commercial/recreational) going elsewhere for their catch would devastate the local economy.

In order to accomplish the needed changes, residents had to obtain approval from DFG, etc., ad nauseum. So, maybe your question has it backwards.

Let's try: must we always manage to create a crisis :?: :?: :?: :?:

bigtj

04-19-2007, 05:15 PM

Darian,

Thanks for your example which exactly what is wrong when fisheries management is pushed by a political agenda. Del Norte county saw less fish return, so instead of trying to identify the root problem (overharvest via commercial nets and/or sportfishing, loss of habitat, changes in ocean conditions), they decide, "we need a hatchery", to make more fish! But the problem is, often hatcheries can result in genetically inferior fish that dilute the biodiversity and veracity of the run (I' not making this up, it's an idea that is definitely starting to become acceted as a fact). Then, 10 years from now the funding runs out for the hatchery, the wild run is compromised and depressed, and we sit around and wonder what happened. To it's credit, Rowdy Fish hatchery is a top-flight facilty and run the way hatcheries should be run. They take big steps to ensure biodiversity. Still, I would rather catch a wild Smith River steelhead than a hatchery fish 95% of the time. However, if the money were ever to run out (the hatchery has operated for 40 years on private donations) then the situation would not be very good for the fishery, at least on the short-term.

The future is here now and that is instead of blanket "let's make a hatchery to fix the problem" approach the emphasis is on watershed management as a system. Just minor changes in the way we do things (number of fish we can bonk, the way we log, the way we build roads, the way we build culverts) can and will have a huge impact on wild steelhead populations. Hatcheries will still be useful for the zoos on the Cowlitz and the Mad catch em and stack em crowd but ultimately Mother Nature do a better job than any hatchery ever has done or ever will do.

sculpin

04-19-2007, 07:39 PM

I think to fix many of the problems mentioned with steelhead runs, at some point, on very crowded rivers, a method of limited entry will have to be implemented. Probably something similar to limited entry hunting in areas with to may hunters and to little game. It won't raise the money government wants but it would be the best thing for the fish. I wouldn't mind not fishing a year or two on selected rivers if the fishing is fantastic and not crowded when I did. It seems like I have heard about areas in Canada where they have a limited entry system on some rivers. This type of limited access has worked very well in hunting units, as long as the permits don't get increased to ridulous numbers by the game departments, to increase revenue. Anyhoo, it's food for thought.

Mark

WinterrunRon

04-19-2007, 09:18 PM

Darian,

Good point.

I'm convinced the actions I mentioned on the Smith is for the "good" of the local economy. Keep more fish=more fishermen. What amazes me is the irrational short term thinking. Let's see, I make my living off of the fishermen, so I want more of them. Okay, here goes. I have a great idea!

Let's put a barb on the hook so IT (wait a minute, let's change that to THEY by doubling the take limit) so THEY don't get away and let's fish for them another 30 days so there's a chance to catch the last few remaining in the system. Hell, why have a season at all if the season lasts the entire migration period. Seems to me a season should be PART of a migration period, not THE migration period

In any event, how about we support the enactment of a change in regulations that would attract a larger amount of fishermen and allow for the taking of more and more fish each year that exponentially diminishes all future returns until... ooops... problem…no more fish! (Now, where’s that darn form to file bankruptcy?).

I repeat... I don't get it!

Darian

04-20-2007, 09:04 AM

Ron,.... I feel your pain :\ :\ I haven't fished up there for many years.... Yet, I still feel like it's one of the most beautiful settings and the fish are such wonderfull specimens that the Smith will always occupy a special place for me. 8) 8) It's absolutely amazing that the fishery has survived all of the pressure it gets.... :shock: I was fortunate enough to fish it during the middle '60s (one year after the tidal wave hit Crescent City). Even then it was crowded but nothing like it is now... :( :(

Oh well. I guess change is inevetible. 8) 8)

bigtj

04-20-2007, 10:49 AM

Mark (Sculpin),

Although controversial, I think your idea is a good one. The Nature Conservancy water on the McCloud has such a system. There are times when I'm on the Smith and I look at all the boats and just wonder, how can a fish possibly make it past this gauntlet? Maybe a lottery system would help, esp. with the # of boats launched.

lee s.

04-20-2007, 09:15 PM

The Smith is a GRAND river and "catching" seems secondary in such a setting for many.
I would hope for a much shorter season OR even much more restrictive methods as tools used.
Closures seem to never get re-opened.....Lagunitas a case in piont.
Limited entry would probably to be very short lived until it became "elitist".....minimal charge would quickly escalate, as proven by abalone tags and other "incidentals".
.....lee s.

WinterrunRon

04-20-2007, 09:17 PM

bigtj, If you think the Smith has a few boats on it, head a few miles North to the Chetco. It’s not uncommon for the lower river to have 40+ boats going down AND UP it every day during the peak of the season if the weather is nice. It’s a shoulder-slumping, pathetic sight.

The culprit: Motors on boats and you can keep your catch. Take the motors off the boats and make it a catch and release fishery, the killermen would vanish and the fishermen would remain. My guess; the river would free up by 40%. Is this good for the fish? Absolutely. Is this good for the local economy? Absolutely not.

I’m not so confident of a lottery system that would limit the number of people. Why this may help, I see this as more of a patch on a problem, not a solution to one. I don’t see the problem as fish not getting around boats and fishermen (they get by me just fine!). The problem, as I see it, is when they don’t… they get killed!

You could have a 1,000 boats with 1,000 fishermen landing 1,000 fish. And if it was a catch and release fishery, guess how many would be lost to being caught? Yup, zero.

BTW, I do like the Nature Conservancy stretch of water on the McCloud. It’s awesome KNOWING that you’ll run into only a handful of fishermen (I think the number is 6) and not be surprised by a crowd at the end of a six mile hike!

Darian, On the Middle Fork of the Smith upstream of Patrick’s Creek and upstream of (can’t remember the creek’s name) on the South Fork, the river is closed to fishing. IMHO, this is the ONLY reason the Smith River still has a healthy run of native fish. Allow motors and open up the entire river and the runs as we know them would be all but a memory.

And the landscape of the river hasn’t change much. I’d bet you wouldn’t notice much difference from the last time you were there 40 years ago. I agree with you, it’s continues to be one of the most beautiful steelhead rivers you’ll ever fish.

jhaquett

04-20-2007, 10:27 PM

I was curious if you could tell me where the Nature Conservancy Stretch of the McCloud is? I'm only a couple hours from McCloud and a hike in fishery is always a great bet. Thanks.

bigtj

04-21-2007, 08:27 AM

PM sent

Digger

04-22-2007, 08:26 AM

Darian, On the Middle Fork of the Smith upstream of Patrick’s Creek and upstream of (can’t remember the creek’s name) on the South Fork, the river is closed to fishing. IMHO, this is the ONLY reason the Smith River still has a healthy run of native fish. Allow motors and open up the entire river and the runs as we know them would be all but a memory.

And the landscape of the river hasn’t change much. I’d bet you wouldn’t notice much difference from the last time you were there 40 years ago. I agree with you, it’s continues to be one of the most beautiful steelhead rivers you’ll ever fish.

One major factor being overlooked on the Smith is the designation as a Wild and Scenic River. This status prohibits development, daming. etc. and is the true underpinning to keeping it much the same over the years.

Covelo

04-24-2007, 08:20 PM

The Smith has lots of water, no dam, and a pristine watershed, therefore it has lots of fish. I believe the take of wild fish was allowed there because it was the only river in Calif that had a stable population over the last few decades. Not all rivers were experiencing population declines when steelhead were federally listed and CandR regs were mandated. They allowed barbed hooks again because some guides took the DFG Commissioners out fishing and showed them how easy it is to release a fish even with a barb.

The problem with comments like "a dead fish cannot spawn" is that they ignore the primary precept of wildlife management. That being that species over produce during reproduction therefore sustainable harvest can take place without endangering a population. Yes, a dead fish cannot spawn, but killing a fish has no effect on the population unless you kill more than the population can produce. This is basic science. The other side of this coin is that you can release all the fish and not increase the population size if the population is already at saturation. This is a point I have argued many times before regarding the American River where IMO the limiting factor on population size is the amount of habitat, not fishermen. This is where Lee's comments that this is a feel good measure would be true, since the only way to increase the population size for rivers already at saturation is to improve the habitat, with more water being a good starting point in most cases in Calif. The other point that should be made is that saturation refers to fry in the river, not the number of adult spawners though that can also be saturated if the amount of suitable spawning ground is limited such as in the American and Feather Rivers. Biologists can calculate the number of fry a river can sustain based on the surface area, water temp, and other factors. Therefore, any number of fry above this capacity will likely perish before out migration to the ocean. Since steelhead have to spend at least one year in freshwater this becomes a limiting factor, so you can see how you can add more spawners but not increase the number of smolts. Therefore, as long as there are enough spawners to attain saturation with fry, fishermen can kill as many spawners as they want without effecting the size of the population.

As a side note, I have never been one to follow the Precautionary Principal style of wildlife management. This is the policy of taking very conservative positions because we just do not know for sure. Generally it tends to be filled with a lot of "what ifs?". This policy is not based on science.

Darian

04-24-2007, 09:43 PM

Hey Covelo,.... As usual, you provide a bunch of good info. 8) 8) A question comes up from your comment about how the guides demonstrated to DFG how easily a fish can be released from a barbed hook and were able to justify using barbed hooks in the Smith as a result.... If they were able to justify relaxing the barbless hook requirement for the Smith in this manner, I'm wondering how DFG can justify requiring barbless hooks in other rivers/streams :?: :?: :?: Wouldn't that justification apply in all rivers/streams :?: :?: :?: You seem to have a good handle on the politics involved in most of this stuff. Thus, the questions. 8) 8)

WinterrunRon

04-24-2007, 11:17 PM

Covelo,

I agree with Darian, good input, mister.

"The Smith has lots of water, no dam, and a pristine watershed, therefore it has lots of fish. . I believe the take of wild fish was allowed there because it was the only river in Calif that had a stable population over the last few decades."

Let me interpret your words, if I may. We haven't screwed with it, therefore, we haven't screwed it up! What a surprise!

I only question the barbed hook stuff. It may be easy for the guide to release the fish, but who could argue with the obvious addditional damage it causes to the fish. Real world... it makes a big difference to the fish!

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who has sunk the barb past the epidermal layer of one's own body, KNOWS that that the barb makes a huge difference in the amount of damage, not to mention pain, it causes when trying to remove it. In the words of Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

Covelo

04-24-2007, 11:41 PM

As for barbed hooks, Oregon has relaxed its previous requirement for barbless hooks on rivers where natives need to be released, ie Deschutes River. I see no reason why Calif should keep this reg for rivers other than the Smith. I have used both for many years and have never had a steelhead that was damaged or tough to release due to the barb even when using bait. IMO treple hooks are a bigger pain when 2 or 3 points are buried. Also, as was eluded to in a post above, how you fight and release a fish is critical. Fighting a fish to exhaustion, then beaching it for a photograph probably causes the death of more fish. Even when they swim away and seem fine, they can still succumb later due to complications from the length of the fight. If you intend to release them anyway, it is best to give them some slack and let them do their thing. The tug is the drug anyway, not beaching them.

jhaquett

04-24-2007, 11:51 PM

I don't even know if you were hitting upon the topic of, "do fish feel pain when hooked" Winterrunron, but whatever, I thought I would 8)
The epidermal layers of our skin, especially our mouth, have thousands more nerve ends than a fishes mouth does. Actually, the only people who have "proved" that fish feel pain when hooked is a British University that was paid off by PETA so that they could use the study in their campaigns. They proved this by injecting fishes mouths with bee venom and acetic acid and recording their response :roll:
I do completely agree that barbs tear up the mouth, create holes in the thin membrane around the jaw, etc, and in smaller, softer fish (planters especially) barbs can really cause some major problems when attemping to dislodge them!
My personal experience is that barbs have miniscule effects on steelhead though, being that they are such a tough fish 8)
Covelo has an excellent point, lactic acid poisoning due to too long of a fight and respiration complications due to post-fight photography and "show-off" are the main causes of death in sport fish, especially ones that put up such a fight like steelhead. I've read that fish, especially planters and other weak fish in oxygen-deficient lakes can die up to three days after release! I personally try to minimize this by hauling in fish whenever possible and unhooking/releasing without them ever leaving the water. :wink:

WinterrunRon

04-25-2007, 01:14 AM

"I see no reason why Calif should keep this reg for rivers other than the Smith. I have used both for many years and have never had a steelhead that was damaged or tough to release due to the barb even when using bait."

I fail to understand why barbs are needed on a hook. If the tug is the drug, what's the point? (no pun intended). Respectfully, I see no reason not to require barbless on every steelhead river system. And never? Really? Fishing many years for steelhead and never... hard to believe. I've hooked fish in their eye, I've had them bleed trying to extract a hook with a barb I've forgotten to pinch, I've ended up cutting the line rather than trying to extract the hook. And this happens every year! I've been fishing for many years as well, and I have yet to have a fish bleed or needed to cut the line leaving the hook embedded in the fish when using a barbless hook. Seems to me, prevention is the best medicine. Of course, I'm coming from the position of what's best for the fish, not the guide.

jhaquett, I don't know about the pain aspect. My guess would be they've evolved with the need for little in the way of sensory about the mouth. But my point is more towards the tear and bleeding that can and does occur when a barbed hook is forced from a vascular area of the fish.

jhaquett

04-25-2007, 10:28 AM

Definitely no argument there. It seems to me the only people who would be upset about a state-wide barbless regulation are people who plan to keep the fish, because of the fact that you lose a few more with barbless hooks. I am completely 100% against the keeping of any wild fish, and about 95% against the keeping of a fish period. Although I like to land all of my fish, I don't mind losing one or two more for the better of the fish :D

Covelo

04-25-2007, 02:24 PM

If you are hooking fish in the eye I do not think the barb really matters. I cannot remember the last time I hooked a fish in the gills. Probably a salmon when I was back bouncing roe and you let them practically swim away with it before setting the hook.

Comparing from when we used to fish the Deschutes with barbless, we found that we lost just as many fish as we did after we went back to using a barb after the regs changed. The hook either hits a good spot or it doesn't. The rest is how good you are at keeping up, not whether you have a barb. There is a reason they call it coffin corner. My problem with a barb is in the enforcement. You can use it in one stretch of the river but not in another. It makes no sense. I often just plain forget to pinch it. Why should that be criminal? Then you hear about the nightmare LE stories with wardens dragging pieces of cloth over the hook to see if it catches. In the end, barbs have a minimal impact to a fishery. We tend to get caught up in these smaller issues and miss the causes of the declines. We are often bailing with a thimble.

jbird

04-25-2007, 07:53 PM

. I often just plain forget to pinch it

Keep some pliers with your fly tying stuff. Pinch em before you even chuck it up in the vise.

I have definitly found it way easier to remove a barbless hook....from the fish and myself :shock: It may not kill em, but it tears em up way worse than barbless. When the fishing is hot, your fly lasts a lot longer barbless, just from the abuse of getting it out of the fish. It'll come loose from snags a little more often too. Lots of good reasons to fish barbless, even if the mortality isnt higher with barbs.

Jay

Darian

04-25-2007, 09:39 PM

To quote jhaquett:

I am completely 100% against the keeping of any wild fish, and about 95% against the keeping of a fish period.

Lets see if I understood Covelo's earlier post.... If we are to accept that there is a finite amount of habitat available for a particular river/stream and that habitat can only support a specific number of fish, if hatchery fish are then introduced, that habitat will not support the additional load of hatchery fish. That being the case, wouldn't releasing hathery fish mean that the number of fish in excess of the carrying ability of the river/stream die from starvation, etc. :?: :?: :?: IMHO, if I'm correct, should we not release hatchery reared fish :?: :?: :?: No question about releasing natural fish, here. 8) 8) There're several other reasons that I've read for keeping hatchery bred fish in addition to the foregoing. 8) 8) 8)

jhaquett

04-25-2007, 10:03 PM

Absolutely, if ALL forces of human impact could be stopped, then yes we should stop releasing hatchery fish. Hatcheries are used to take the pressure off of wild fish because we all know that the majority of the human race is much more concerned with themselves ($, water, food, etc) than they are with nature's well being. The true sportsman like the majority of the people on this board will put nature in front of themselves, so we should do all we can (C&R, de-barbing, not fishing for vulnerable fish, etc) to make up for the irresponsible actions of the people around us.

Of course, if we were to truly put nature in front of ourselves, we would stop fishing altogether :lol: , not gonna happen, but we can do all we can to make fishing a more conservation-minded sport! 8) 8)

ycflyfisher

04-26-2007, 09:49 PM

I agree with almost all the points Covelo is getting at here. Just a couple of additional comments:

I believe the take of wild fish was allowed there because it was the only river in Calif that had a stable population over the last few decades. Not all rivers were experiencing population declines when steelhead were federally listed and CandR regs were mandated.

Agree 100%. Most seem to be under the impression that C&R has been implemented on CA streams because it does increase population abundance and it's being used as a management tool to increase abundance. Not true. The reality is that C&R is the only option other than disallowing fishing because every ESU aside from the Smith in CA is listed as threatened under the Fed ESA.

The problem with comments like "a dead fish cannot spawn" is that they ignore the primary precept of wildlife management. That being that species over produce during reproduction therefore sustainable harvest can take place without endangering a population. Yes, a dead fish cannot spawn, but killing a fish has no effect on the population unless you kill more than the population can produce. This is basic science. The other side of this coin is that you can release all the fish and not increase the population size if the population is already at saturation. "
This is a point I have argued many times before regarding the American River where IMO the limiting factor on population size is the amount of habitat, not fishermen. This is where Lee's comments that this is a feel good measure would be true, since the only way to increase the population size for rivers already at saturation is to improve the habitat, with more water being a good starting point in most cases in Calif. The other point that should be made is that saturation refers to fry in the river, not the number of adult spawners though that can also be saturated if the amount of suitable spawning ground is limited such as in the American and Feather Rivers. Biologists can calculate the number of fry a river can sustain based on the surface area, water temp, and other factors. Therefore, any number of fry above this capacity will likely perish before out migration to the ocean. Since steelhead have to spend at least one year in freshwater this becomes a limiting factor, so you can see how you can add more spawners but not increase the number of smolts. Therefore, as long as there are enough spawners to attain saturation with fry, fishermen can kill as many spawners as they want without effecting the size of the population.

Agree totally with your conclusion, but not necessarily the exactness of all the mechanics as you've explained them. Virtually everyone that's argued in this thread that C&R does increase abundance because "a dead fish can't spawn" seems very much to be operating under the misconception that more spawners leads to more YOY which leads to more returning adult steelhead. Make no mistake, unless your talking about a population that has been so drastically reduced to the point where extirpation becomes a short-term possibility/probability this is a factual misconception. Agree totally with the points you've made about survival of YOY up to the point of smoltification and outmigration. The one thing I would add is a breif comment on stock and recruitment. Adding more spawners(Stock) to the equation can to a point result in more Recruitment. After you reach that point, R productivity actually drops off. This effect is much more pronounced in anadramous populations where each spawner has more potential for R over the base line if the fish were on a FW fitness/growth curve. This has to do with a myriad of factors, the most influential of which vary from watershed to watershed. An example would be An abundant- higher-density population of S often forces a percentage of the population to select less than ideal, non-productive spawning sites and also far increases the chances that later arriving spawners will select previously utilized sites and blast already developing embryos right out of the substrate. This is far more complex than it seems on the surface, but basically what it arrives at is that smaller, lower density populations are more productive at efficiently creating viable progeny than are larger populations. When you factor in vast amount of habitat that we've not only destroyed but most importantly degraded, it really doesn't take a whole lot of stock for most populations to reach surplus abundance. Again, I could try to explain this in more detail but all this is discussed in Upstream clearly and concisely to degrees that will give anyone that takes the time to read it and actually wants to understand the factors involved that are pertinent to this discussion, a rudimentary understanding of the concepts involved, and what the actual vehicles are that allow anadramous populations to build and sustain abundance.

There are simply a myriad of other factors some of which anglers can directly control that they never give a second thought about that have much more of an impact on abundance.

C&R has become something of a mantra, almost like a religion in most flyfishing circles. As far as anadramous fish are concerned, it's founded in blind faith and little else IMO. This seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction when an angler sees another angler kill a wild fish. Anglers can't see the destruction that an El Nino event that limits the productivity of the North Pacific causes to a population in the salt. They can't see the damage that incidental commerical catch results in. They can't see what a displaced pinnaped population can do. They can't see what hundreds of thousands of hatchery bred, overgrown smolts do to the streamborn YOY that have just emerged from the gravel for any particular watershed on their downstream migration to get what usually results in a return of less than 1%. The list is virtually endless.

The arguement that C&R is angler controllable and the above factors are not doesn't hold water IMO. Most anglers that practice C&R religiously fail to even consider what damage they're doing to incubating substrate with their feet while C&Ring fish all day long, long after the spawners are gone but the embryos are still there. They fail to see that this not only can have a pronounced effect on recruitment when multiplied by countless angler hours, but that most fry simply become an ever important portion of the food chain that reduces survivabilty as a whole. I'm sure that the vast majority of the flyanglers in the endless armada of drift boats that turn a tiny little stream barely flowing at 400cfs into a virtual pinball alley are cursing every angler that they see stringering a hatchery fish on the way down for their evils, but fail to even consider that their collective flotilla is effectively scouring the substrate of every tongue of every tailout that's shallow enough to be prime viable spawning substrate from Lewiston to Junction City. Yet someone stringers a sole wild fish on the Smith and we're collectively ready to send out the hanging party. Seems like more of an emotional response than enything else to me, but I realize I'm in the minority here.

mike-n

04-27-2007, 02:30 PM

Flip flopper! I thought your were gone for good.

Welcome back!

MN

Darian

04-27-2007, 09:50 PM

Yep,.... I knew there were some members around who really knew their stuff about this subject... :D :D :D

Covelo

04-29-2007, 01:16 PM

C&R has become something of a mantra, almost like a religion in most flyfishing circles. As far as anadramous fish are concerned, it's founded in blind faith and little else IMO. This seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction when an angler sees another angler kill a wild fish. Anglers can't see the destruction that an El Nino event that limits the productivity of the North Pacific causes to a population in the salt. They can't see the damage that incidental commerical catch results in. They can't see what a displaced pinnaped population can do. They can't see what hundreds of thousands of hatchery bred, overgrown smolts do to the streamborn YOY that have just emerged from the gravel for any particular watershed on their downstream migration to get what usually results in a return of less than 1%. The list is virtually endless.

I would add another to that list. Introduced species, especially striped bass -- call it a mantra on mine. :D :D

bigtj

04-29-2007, 07:28 PM

A dead horse can't spawn either . ](*,)

Darian

04-29-2007, 10:09 PM

I'm with Carl.... 8) 8) But, now when I keep one for the table, I won't feel quite as guilty.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

lee s.

04-29-2007, 10:30 PM

Like Carl and Darian, ONLY what is used at the table tonight is kept.....occasionally....ANY fishery that gets targeted from here. Sometimes bigger type fishes have to live a couple days in the freezer though, until finihed. :wink:
And it SHOULD be without guilt. 8)
Nature provides for the predator but NOT for waste. If a fish deposits 2000-2500 eggs, 1998-2498 of them are figured by nature to be expendable back to the environs (of which we are still part of, I think) at some time during their journey to adulthood and reproduction, and population status quo will be maintained for said available envirioment. Or something like that. :wink:

WinterrunRon

04-29-2007, 10:33 PM

Lots of great input fellas. But here's what I know:

All things being equal, if I hook 2 fish with a barbless hook today, land and release 2 fish back into the water (not bleeding profusely from the barbed hook I wrangled from it's mouth with my pliers), there are 2 more fish swimming in the river than had I kept and killed them. And get this (here's the real genious of my line of thought):

There are 2 more fish available for ANYONE to catch again tomorrow!

Barbless hooks and catch and release. Just do it (at least most of the time)! Your children, and everyone elses, will thank you!

I know I will.

Covelo

04-29-2007, 10:53 PM

Going out of the box since this horse won't die. If you really want to improve the status of fisheries in Calif, lobby the legislature to change the director of the fish and game to a merit position instead of a political appointee of the govenor. That would lead to policy changes supported by science that would have a real impact and insure that your children, and everyone elses, will be able to fish for steelhead in the future and get to C&R or keep them if they so choose.

Ed Wahl

04-29-2007, 10:53 PM

A dead horse can't spawn either . :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

lee s.

04-29-2007, 11:46 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

WinterrunRon

04-30-2007, 08:54 AM

Carl,

I don't know if horses take flys, but Covelo seems hell bent on killing one if they do because he just can't get one to die! From the sound of it, he's looking for them outside the box. Where is this box? I want to try fishing for horses with a fly. What weight rod would you suggest? :wink:

Darian

04-30-2007, 09:04 AM

Covelo,.... While I believe you are correct about political appointees vs permanent or merit position, my feeling is that H__L will freeze over before that happens. Nor do I believe that developmentwater interests in this state would ever allow a director to have the additional power of independence and knowledge by creating that position. :( :( I recall the same type of laments from the 50's, 60's, 70's, ad nauseum....

Reality appears to be that anything that would threaten or thru perception, threaten development/water interests will not be pursued or be allowed to prevail by federal/state/local politico's....(just my .02) :( :( :(

Covelo

04-30-2007, 10:13 AM

Darian -- I agree. And as long as fishermen are caught up in largely irrelevant save the run one fish at a time concepts, nothing will change.

On a forum like this, contributors like ycflyfisher are what really elevate the discussion past what did you catch and not kill yesterday. This guy has spent his life studying fish populations, ie a true expert. He does not bring speculative thoughts, but real data from tested hypotheses. When it is his personal opinion he lets you know, but certainly it is based on a whole lot more than his fishing experiences. It would be a shame to lose someone at his level and he has obviously already considered no longer responding on this forum due to the disrespectful response he received.

Darian

04-30-2007, 11:03 AM

I certainly concur that loss of ycflyfishers' expertise would downgrade the level of discussions on this BB and hope that he would continue to participate. Both you/he and some others were who I was referring too when I posted, earlier, that others on this BB were knowlegdable on this subject.

As was pointed out, C & R is a "feel good", emotional issue and generates strong, if not always rational, response from a bunch of us (....who really want to feel good :D ). I hope that's not seen as a major "dis" of an obviously educated statement of fact(s).

Most of us have some very strongly held opinions base on personal experience/beliefs and, as you can see for yourself, are fearless in making statements about those subjects. Many times, those statements come into conflict with scientific fact(s). Nonetheless, we still hold to them until informed by a creditable source. Don't know about anyone else but I've learned a bunch about Salmonids from discussions involving input from both of you. Hopefully, that will continue.... :) 8) 8)

bigtj

04-30-2007, 11:20 AM

Come on you guys let's move on. Darian and YC and Covelo can go bonk their 5 wild fish a year on the Smith and feel fine about it. The rest of us will promote C&R and we can live happily ever after. Pounding away at a dead subject isn't getting anybody anywhere.

Covelo

04-30-2007, 06:22 PM

Hi Carl. Maybe you should reread your own post, specifically

I don't generally pay to much attention to the over educated ones anyway, Most of those guys along with the political powers that be, are usually the reason the fish/rivers are in the sad shape anyway.

You have essentially said your education does not matter and the problems with the fishery are your fault. No disrespect there!

jbird

04-30-2007, 09:10 PM

Not exactly sure why, but I keep clicking on this ole dead horse. Infatuated with dirty laundry I guess.

It seems like the guys with the most knowledge are the ones who always get their panties in a wad. There seems to be a massive seperation between knowledge and wisdom...there usually is.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again.."Ignorance is bliss!" :D

Over and out on this one! :D :D 8)

Jay

WinterrunRon

04-30-2007, 09:51 PM

Covelo, I hope you didn't take offense to my tongue in cheek comment in response to yours about the dead horse, but it appears that you did. You should know I'm not that serious of fellow as mine was written in jest. Sorry if you were put off by it.

Interestingly, there is little in this thread that I don't agree with. But since real remedies are not likely to be implemented anytime soon, I think it would be a good idea that we do what we can, one fisherman at time (which my guess would be thousands and thousands in the State of CA), when the opportunity presents itself. And it presents itself every time you land a fish. Of course, there are lots of other things that can, and should, be done at every level. ycflyfisher, among others, have shed light on this subject and his elaborate post has me thinking about what more I can do on a personal level, especially when I'm streamside. But I didn't call you an ill-informed, uneducated on the subject matter, opinion not worthy of consideration idiot, for simply offering your opinion, did I?

All I'm suggesting is we do what we can when we have the opportunity. And catch and release is immediate. And like Carl said, it's a great feeling, and I think you should try it, right after you finish lobbying the legislature.

I would be disappointed to lose your input to a elite forum for you, ycflyfisher and Darian, where only elevated discussions take place among the truly educated and knowledgeable, leaving this forum for us mere all-we-have-is-our-fishing-experiences mortals. And Darian, as the elder-statesmen of this board, I'm disappointed you feel only the loss of ycflyfisher's expertise would downgrade the discussion. It would be a shame to lose anyone from this board because they feel intimidated that their opinion isn't elevated, worthy, relevant, respected or whatever big word you feel comfortable with. No reason to make anyone feel unimportant. Shame-shame.

As bigtj said, you guys can kill your catch, those that think catch and release is a good idea will return theirs, and that's that.

Love your quote, jbird!

I apparently have way too much spare time on hand. WinterrunRon… out!