4 fish limit on silvers this fall: Steelheader.net- Steelhead, Salmon and trout fishing

Nick,

Looking at the numbers (if we had them; mostly we don't, so we have to estimate) of fish abundance historically, say 1850, is no indication of what the rivers can support today. Every river's habitat has been compromised severely. That has reduced both its capacity and productivity, salmon carcasses notwithstanding.

Also, you cannot "trade" coho abundance for steelhead abundance on a one-to-one basis. Fish species partition the available habitat in streams, using different niches so multiple species can be prolific. Of course, there is inter-species competition as well as intra-species competition, along with dependent and independent mortality factors that help control fish populations. That said, juvenile steelhead tend to be habitat generalists, willing to rear most anywhere, while coho are very specific to pool type habitat with structure, like large woody debris. Decreasing juvenile coho production might increase juvinile steelhead production, but then again, maybe not if the juvenile steelhead are benefiting from the added productivity of the adult coho carcasses. It is complex, and I cannot say what would happen.

The Skagit returned close to 20K steelhead (16K, if I recall) in the late 1980s, and it may again. The difference between the Skagit and the Umpqua is that the smolts travel different paths to the ocean. Skagit steelhead, and all Puget Sound steelhead, appear to presently be limited by there early marine survival in or near Puget Sound. Umpqua steelhead migrate directly into the ocean, like our coastal steelhead, and don't experience the same limiting factor(s).

AuntyM,

My comment regarding fish diseases was with respect to limiting inter-basin transfers within regions, rather than sending them just anywhere as was once done. Transfers between regions have generally been unsuccessful or less successful than by staying within a region.

Nobody knows how many carcasses is enough, or too many. Where there are limits, the number tends to be well above the carrying capacity, in part to try and get at that issue of "how much" is enough.

I'd look for the Cedar Creek coho to get hammered in this fall's LCR coho season. If there are restrictions to protect ESA coho, they will fare better than they otherwise would.

Marty,

It's important to measure run sizes in terms of total recruits, not just the number returning to the river. All the Hoh chinook and coho, for instance, that are caught off the coast or in BC or Alaska are still part of that river's productivity, being produced by whatever spawning escapement the river receives. I'm not saying that the runs are at historic sizes - they aren't - but I'm suggesting that you're probably not counting all the fish that comprise a population.

Since few steelhead are caught in the ocean, that doesn't apply to that species. Steelhead are probably limited by declining habitat capacity and productivity (even park rivers like the Queets have many miles of tributaries outside the park that have been hammered by logging) and a fisheries management objective like Maximum Sustained Harvest (MSH/MSY) that empirically doesn't work. However, MSH doesn't even try to maximize population size, just harvest, which may seem counter-intuitive. MSH is a management plan for smaller populations than the available habitat can support. Further, MSH leads to declining populations over time, yet many harvest managers are advocates for it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.