Letters to the Editor (Dennis)
Letters
to the Editor (Dennis)
|
Printed with permission... Dennis, I would like to respond to your post, in that it misleads people regarding the low numbers of steelhead in the Skagit. I am a fisheries biologist dealing with habitat issues for the Skagit Tribes, (18 yrs experience in the Skagit and the Yakima). However, I also have been flyfishing for 25 years, fish the Skagit at least once a week, and have not kept a wild steelhead for at least 18 years. I assure you that I am as interested in restoring the resource as you are, in fact, I have made it my life's work. The short and the long of it is that the Upper Skagit tribe caught a total of 4 wild fish last week. Total wild catch this season is less than 50 fish. As with other species, eliminating the harvest will not restore the large runs we once had. Yes there have been instances of overharvest in the past of all species by Tribes, commercials, and sports alike. Because we might have overharvested before does not mean any harvest now is bad. The sad story is that the Skagit just does not have the habitat to support large numbers of fish anymore. The run size fluctuates due in large measure to ocean conditions and freshwater environmental conditions. When we have large escapements, we don't see large returns on subsequent brood years. We will not restore the runs of Skagit steelhead without restoring the habitat. A few more fish returning to spawn will not result in recovery. However, posting on your website that the "nets are in the river" as if this is the cause for the decline not only makes the Tribes look like the bad guys, but allows harvest to be a scapegoat, while not dealing with the difficult issue of habitat protection and restoration. In the 9 years of working on the Skagit, I have yet to see a single guide write a letter to the editor,or petition the County Commissioners to pass stronger regulations, provide more enforcement, or restore degraded habitat. I have seen multiple instances of guides complaining about the nets in the river, or of fisherman destroying redds by wading. It is easy to pick on the Tribal fisherman because few will defend them. It is harder to pick on your neighbor that is letting his cows run amock, cutting down trees to get a better view of the river, or making a buck by building a new development. I want my kids to be able to fish the Skagit when they get to be my (middle) age. We (the tribes) are in litigation with the county to require habitat protection on agricultural land. We have been fighting against them when necessary, and working with them, when possible, to protect and restore habitat. Ask yourself what 50 additional wild steelhead will mean to the Skagit runs as compared to permanent protection and restoration of lands that once supported robust populations of steelhead. We need the help of people that really care about the resource. Providing ammunition to those who don't want to carry their load, but only want to point the finger, doesn't produce any more fish in the short or the long term. Supporting harvest levels of zero when fish are being killed daily by habitat degradation, but not counting that, is not only unfair, but if this approach is successful, will leave only the catch and release community to defend the fish. I would suggest you might have more success with us still around. I'd be happy to discuss this with you if you're interested, but mostly wanted to say that in my opinion, alleging tribal harvest is wiping out the runs will not result in more fish in either the long or the short term. Larry Wasserman ~ Dennis's Response to Mr. Wasserman ~ Dear Mr. Wasserman, Thank you for responding to my fishing report. Your thoughts were obviously well addressed. A special thanks for allowing me to print your letter with the understanding that we could enter a discussion that will hopefully be helpful and educational for not only ourselves but readers too. I am excited that you have made the restoration of the wild steelhead your life's work. I too worked in tribal fisheries, and even now do occasional restoration work as a consultant. You mentioned the fact that the Upper Skagit Tribe caught a total of less than 50 fish with season. Is that to say the other Skagit Tribes such as the Swinomish and Sauk - Suiattle tribes are not also netting? If not, why not? Please correct me if I am wrong, but in years past, the tribal steelhead fishery primarily targeted the earlier returning hatchery component. Native fish were incidental, while the tribes caught their 50% of the harvestable. The states sport fishery, I am not proud to say, have taken the bulk of their harvest from the wild steelhead population. What concerns me is this: This is the first that I noticed that the tribal net fisheries have directed a target fishery on wild Skagit steelhead. With a minimal escapement set in the wild component, this could stress an already diminished population. I am glad you have brought up the fact that "Because we have over harvested in the past does not mean any harvest now is bad". I couldn't agree more. Even a Wild Fish Release fishery has a mortality rate. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the day when angler could kill a steelhead, when a net fishery could harvest fish..........but those days are past. You are right, habitat is a problem, its a Huge problem, but our fisheries managers seem to have twisted it to fit their needs, not the fish. The argument is, the carrying capacity of the stream is only X amount, assumption being, that any fish entering into the spawning population, will not contribute, because the nursery areas are full, super imposed spawning, ocean conditions.......or whatever the limiting factor. I agree with all these parameters. What I don't agree with, is how we allocate our fishery resource in this habitat poor environment. Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) is a harvest model to kill every "surplus" fish in a population. MSY people love to talk in terms of stream carrying capacity, because they believe it does not harm, and might actually enhance the population by cropping off this surplus. In my mind this logic is flawed and this is why; First of all this carrying capacity is hypothetical at best. We both know we can't just run out in the river and count them like cattle in the field. Lets not get into dams, OK? Anyway we use statistics, we use "guesstimates", we create "paper fish". All MSY has done is directed another assault on our poor steelhead. Its not bad enough that we have ruined the home of our fish, we are going to attack any we contrive as "extra". Optimum Sustained Yield (OSY) is how large would the population be if we actually let them spawn. The fact of the matter is; harvest people do not want to allow a population to go there, because it takes away from the "now fishery". It is easier to rationalize that the population would never reach a higher escapement, and continue to harvest, then to back off a kill fishery, and actually see. I know this sounds crazy but........it seems to me if we are dealing with a depressed population for whatever reason........we need more spawning fish, not less. When we have other threatened populations due to environmental conditions, you don't see us go out and whack off the extras do you? MSY people are big into blaming habitat. Habitat abusers are big into blaming Over Harvesting. Stop! You are both right.......and wrong. You are right, pointing fingers, has not only gotten us in this mess, its kept us there. A story: As a man was walking down the beach, he came upon a young man throwing starfish left by the tide, out into the water. When the man asked what the lad was doing the boy said he was saving starfish. The man said" Look around you boy, do you really think you can make a difference?" The boy stooped down and threw another starfish and said, "I did to that one!" Even a chrome wheeled, million dollar logjam, doesn't compare to a stop in harvesting our wild steelhead, now. I champion your cause to protect to habitat, we need people like you, habitat is half the problem. Perhaps next time we can discuss the social economics of what those 50 steelhead would be worth to everyone from the traveling angler to Gas Station attendant, who is also counting on those fish, and the progeny they will never produce. Question: If the State were to back off their kill fishery, and take up their quota in C&R mortality rate, do you think the tribes would go back to their incidental harvest, and not target the wild steelhead? Thank you for sharing a moment, Respectfully, Dennis
|
||
|
Home | fishing report |
||
E-mail
Dennis at DDDicksons@aol.com ,or phone at
(360)435-6499 - |