Should you be able to fish for downstreamers ?

[lee s.]

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.
And thanks Tony. As YOU know, it'll take a lot more than that to wad my shorts.
.....lee s.

[Digger]

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.]

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 ) 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]

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]

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

[bigtj]

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]

YES!

[lee s.]

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?
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]

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 (P1. 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]

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.