Why not a tag system for steelhead harvest?

[bigtj]

Hey guys,

Thinking about wild steelhead harvest a bit more, and trying to think solutions, not to create problems. What would be wrong with a tag system for wild steelhead harvest, like we have for big game? Before the season you send in an application, and a set number of tags are available each year based on escapement projections. The thing I like about it is that within a year or two DFW would have an excellent idea what the "demand" is for steelhead harvest.

Drawbacks is it would probably be more expensive than the current system, but obviously the big game hunting system shows it's do-able. Sure it's also more inconvenient, but something has to give, and hunters put up with the hassle.

The problem I have with the 5-fish a year program is there isn't a good way to keep track of actual fish harvested. The tag system would do a much better job. And it seems to me that advocates of wild steelhead harvest would want to go for a tag system if they believe that the resource is being under-utilized; it could show that it would be OK to harvest more fish.

Interested in what people think about this. Let's try to keep things civil this time though, if we don't have something nice to say we shouldn't say it at all.

[Darian]

Not sure how it works in Oregon or Nevada but in California but (IMHO) the tag system, here, hasn't lead to any great progress in game management. As I recall, there have been instances where certain ranchers/outfitters obtained favorable treatment in the drawings/lotteries over other applicants and some Fish & Game Commission members lost there appointments over those type activities. These instances were reported in the LA Times and other newspapers some time ago.

On the other hand, your proposal seems to be directed at the Umpqua River system and might be feasible for a single water, locked so heavily into myth/tradition, etc... A tag system for that purpose will offend those most impacted by it and make those who want reduced pressure on the water happy....

Unethical or Illegal (poaching) fishing activities will not be affected by a tag system. In general, tag systems favor a few (even tho by lottery) over the rest of us and could have the unintended consequence of reduced license sales/revenues.

Beyond these generalizations, I don't see much to be gained by debating a cure for a specific river in another state. The people who live there are the ones who will/should have the final say (as it should). 8) 8)

[jbird]

The only way a succesful change is going to be realistic is to try something like this, IMHO. If it doesnt work out, I dont think any real damage would reside from it. If it does work out, it could be a benchmark for others to follow. I think its a smart idea.

J

[bigtj]

Darian,

I am thinking of any water that has a stable population of wild steelhead where harvest is deemed appropriate. Olympic Peninsula, Southern Oregon coast and the Smith in CA come to mind.

Corruption in the agencies is just something that has to be watched for as does poaching. A tag system probably won't make much difference in either case. Besides, tag system or no, such corruption is equally as damaging.

I respectfully suggest that anybody, regardless of what state they live in, who pays for a license and uses the resource should have a say in what the fishing regs should be. ODFW has solicited input from everyone who uses the resource. They have responded to my letters and thanked me for my input, and even called me on the phone to discuss the preservation of wild steelhead. They want all the river users, regardless of what state, to have input. It's their policy. I think it's a good one.

-John

[bubzilla]

Unethical or Illegal (poaching) fishing activities will not be affected by a tag system. In general, tag systems favor a few (even tho by lottery) over the rest of us and could have the unintended consequence of reduced license sales/revenues.

I think your points are supported by historic experience. The creation of the tag lottery system for hunting here in Oregon, which has been in existence for certain species for decades but only since the early 90s on the scale that we have now, correlates with a precipitous decline in the number of hunting licenses sold. That has translated into budget shortfalls for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife that have, in recent years, required the department to ask for funds from the General Fund. In losing their self-sufficiency, the many meaningful programs administered by ODFW for conservation and habitat improvement have been subject to cuts as General Fund revenues have been impacted. Poaching, of course, is the same problem it has always been, because, if anything, the tag lottery increases, rather than decreases, the incentive to harvest unlawfully.

I would point out with regard to the issue of state residency that the tag lottery has specific limits, caps in fact, on the number of tags available to non-residents. By law, all hunts have a 3 to 5 perenct limit on the number of tags that may go to non-residents depending on the species. Once that 3 or 5 percent has been reached, no other non-residents may recieve tags for that year. Also, it is generally unlawful to hunt in an area where there is a special tag needed for a given species, even for a different species, without a special tag in possession (intended to reduce poaching opportunity). If the same rules applied to a lottery for wild steelhead tags, and there is little reason to think the same rules would not apply, then access for non-residents could be significantly curtailed in areas requiring special permits. That is to say, there would be a limited number of tags available for each watershed, and there would be a limited percentage of the tags available from each watershed that could go, on a lottery basis, to non-residents. If the same rules that apply to hunting applied to fishing, and I do not see why they shouldn't, then a person without a special permit could not fish a watershed without a permit--even if they did not intend to harvest. If you could not limit acces to those with permits you could never hope to control poaching.

Anyone that hunts and is experienced with the tag lottery systemt knows the real reason this would be a completely horrible idea, however. It boils down to one word: bureaucracy. The whole tag lottery system is an enormous pain in the ass. It requires literally hours of reading regulations and standing in lines. No thanks. I am sure the overwhelming majority of my fellow Oregonians would agree. Convenience aside, the practical limiatations, e.g., how do we establish the number of permits when the ODFW's estimates on populations are already ridiculed, and costs associated with such a program would be prohibitive.

[Darian]

Bubzilla,.... You certainly stated those points much better than I plus a bunch more. :) :) The proposal really is a two edged sword.

John,.... Altho I like your admire the almost religious fervor of your feeling for Salmonids, I don't share the same level of enthusiasm/feeling for them.

Beyond that, I'm wondering if the point John raised:


I respectfully suggest that anybody, regardless of what state they live in, who pays for a license and uses the resource should have a say in what the fishing regs should be.

doesn't go against the law/principle of representative government. :?: :? :?

Citizens of states, other than California for example, pay some small amount in sales taxes and a one time permit or license fee to fish or hunt here. In that respect they contribute to the local economy and to funding DFG enforcement activities, here, but in a minor way when compared to a citizen/resident.

Out of staters do not reside, vote or (with few exceptions) pay taxes, license or permit fees in the same proportion than people who reside here. Also, they do not, directly, participate in the political process, legally, and should not participate in governmental affairs of this state. I'm assuming you would feel the same about me coming to Nevada and advocating that your state establish a tag system for Cutthroat Trout in Pyramid or Walker Lakes (or elsewhere) for the state of Nevada.

IMHO, only citizens/residents should have a say about what happens in their states waters. 8) 8)

[Covelo]

I am thinking of any water that has a stable population of wild steelhead where harvest is deemed appropriate. Olympic Peninsula, Southern Oregon coast and the Smith in CA come to mind.
This statement says it all. If the populations are stable, why are we trying to change it? What is better than a stable population? Sportfishing take is not going to determine the fate of steelhead populations, water is. Debating this, especially for the rivers above, really is rearranging the furniture while the ship sinks. I am sure some of you are saying "Well if the ship is sinking". The ship is not sinking for the rivers listed above, but it might start if we do not protect the watersheds.

If you want to help the NF Umpqua, start a petition to have Winchester Dam removed. Do something that will make a difference!

[bigtj]

Thanks for the input everyone I think all of your points are good ones.

The main purpose of a tag system would be to improve the accuracy of harvest estimates, to help make better management decisions. I think it could help with that. Better data is always a good thing. And it could help to make sure that "stable" populations stay stable, or even allow more harvest if it's justified.

A tag system would do nothing about poaching, or bureaucracy. I think we are stuck with both.

-John

[wjorg]

As I understand, the Smith was not a very productive river for Wild Steelhead this past year. We will see what happens next winter. I hope this is not an indication of things to come. Some talk of the low oxygen dead zone of the coast of oregon and california that may be a barrier to fish returning to the rivers.

Gill nets, where used, have contributed to a systematic reduction of the large wild fish when large early run fish are incidentally captured and eliminated from the gene pool.

Although this proposed tag system may have some merit, which I do not intend to dispute, wild fish are protected in our watersheds for a reason.

As a fisherman, I catch wild steelhead. I wouldn't mind eating one now and then but I am conflicted. As an individual interested in both conservation and restorative ecology, sometimes I consider the benefit of having our Steelhead listed as endangered, in order to receive additional protection. I understand this would most likely end my ability to fish for these prized and beloved fish.

A significant member of this board mentioned to me that sometimes he wished steelhead fishing had been curtailed for one or two decades after 1970. Not that I am indicating sport fisherman activity to the main contributing factor to the decline of fish numbers, but I would like to peer into that alternate past and see the results.

I wanted to take a Hatchery Steelhead for a friend of a friend who has cancer. One the last day of a double digit catch and release day I wanted to take a fish at the end. Each fish I was blessed with that evening was more beautiful than the next. Considering I let go the first I was going to keep, I couldnt even kill the chrome bright Hatchery fish that day. I know he respects my decision to preserve life in that instance. And dont get me wrong, Ill cut em, rip the guts out clean in one tug and have
the fish frying before the heart stops beating. Come fish with me in the mountains for big head little body fish in over populated lakes.....

I am not an anti fish taker, but something about the steelhead on ice at Pikes Place Market makes me mad inside. Not at the employees, fisherman, or customers. I love to eat fish, trout and steelhead, even ones that I caught. I've taken two wild steelhead in my life, to be forthright.

Especially with this board, Ive had a lesson about respecting how others feel. I respect the desire to eat wild steelhead. I personally resist it. That is how I feel. Thank you for letting me share.

[Darian]

wjorg,.... I understand and respect the conflict you've expressed. There's so much tradition and magical stuff attributed to Steelhead that (with the exception of a few on this BB) I don't believe objective discussion for the future of the fishery is likely. :? :? For example, the stated wish made by your friend that the fishery would've been closed for one or two decades. IMHO, if the fishery were so closed, the result would've probably been the same as it is currently as recreational fisherman are not the major cause of decline. :(

Water availability and quality issues determine the productivity of a particular fishery. Human activities have impacted the ocean and freshwater environment of all anadromous species in a negative way and commercial fisheries "piled on" a well. :( We need to stop debating this endlessly and start concentrating on issues like rampant development, water availability and quality, agricultural waste water, and numerous others that contribute to overall fishery declines. 8) 8)

[wjorg]

Darian,
I agree with you entirely about having the same conditions even if steelheading was banned for 20 years. Furthermore, considering people are out fishing there are people out staying aware of the situation at hand. I strongly agree adequate and optimum water levels, flows and chemistry, and the amount of fish that can be produced in the wild being proportional to the amount of suitable spawning habitat available are main factors in fish proliferation or decline.

You hit the nail on the head about the prevention of objective discussion when there so much emotion.

For the record the wish of closure was not made by a friend of mine(dont know him well enough, not that hes not friend worthy).