WDFW Native resident trout policy meeting on Feb 12

[skyriver]

Just got the email-
The primary goal of the Feb. 12 town hall will be to share information about the scope, development, and timeline of the new policy, which will apply to resident native rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and their subspecies including coastal cutthroat, westslope cutthroat, and redband rainbow trout. This policy will not address native hatchery-origin trout, bull trout (a native char), or any non-native species.

“In October 2023, the Fish and Wildlife Commission directed staff to initiate development of a resident native trout harvest management policy for commission review and adoption,” said Steve Caromile, WDFW’s inland fish program manager. “Management of recreational fisheries for resident native trout throughout Washington is complex, as we must provide fishing opportunities while meeting conservation objectives for multiple species.

“A resident native trout harvest management policy will provide staff with consistent guidance for future rule making.”

Members of the public can participate in the Feb. 12 meeting online. Pre-registration is required for all public and internal guests. For more information on this and other upcoming virtual town halls, or to provide comments or suggestions online, please visit wdfw.wa.gov/events.

I'm registered. Probably good if lots of us are on there.

Thanks,
Stacy

 

[skyriver]

There were 55 people on the town hall today. It was mostly just an overview of the issue, the possible plan and the process.
There were some good questions and concerns raised. Curt (@Smalma ) brought up 3 good points. Thanks Curt!

A guy from the upper Columbia had a question about whether rivers that were clearly in non-anadromous areas like the Columbia above Grand Coulee were in the scope of this. The answer was yes. There are several things not in scope. Essentially, if it's native rainbow or cutthroat they are included no matter if in anadromous waters or not. Bull trout are not since they already have a specific management plan. Same with steelhead. And, salmon are not in play, but as Curt pointed out that could be tough in places where bait is allowed for salmon, but not for trout.

Another interesting point made by Kirt Hughes, the presenter and Fish Management Division Manager, is that Washington state law prevents WDFW from just doing statewide no-bait regulations. So any sort of statewide or blanket no-bait and C&R type of rule will be nearly impossible. The state attorney general would have to get involved.

I asked "How will people know if the trout they catch are native or not?" It sounded like Kirt had not really thought that one through yet, but Chris Donley, Region 1 (Spokane) RPM, had and he mentioned it will be something they need to look at. He said that most rivers no longer get planted. He acknowledged that there are still plenty that do though. Places like the SE part of the state. He also noted that any sort of fin clipping or marking of hatchery trout meant for rivers or lakes that hold native trout (which there are more than a few) would be expensive and not likely because of that.

Anyway, they recorded it so I assume they will put it on their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@thewdfw/videos) soon. Here is the slide they shared about timeline for development and implementation:


And the last slide that showed the opportunities for comment:

 

[Shawn Seeger]

There were 55 people on the town hall today. It was mostly just an overview of the issue, the possible plan and the process.
There were some good questions and concerns raised. Curt (@Smalma ) brought up 3 good points. Thanks Curt!

A guy from the upper Columbia had a question about whether rivers that were clearly in non-anadromous areas like the Columbia above Grand Coulee were in the scope of this. The answer was yes. There are several things not in scope. Essentially, if it's native rainbow or cutthroat they are included no matter if in anadromous waters or not. Bull trout are not since they already have a specific management plan. Same with steelhead. And, salmon are not in play, but as Curt pointed out that could be tough in places where bait is allowed for salmon, but not for trout.

Another interesting point made by Kirt Hughes, the presenter and Fish Management Division Manager, is that Washington state law prevents WDFW from just doing statewide no-bait regulations. So any sort of statewide or blanket no-bait and C&R type of rule will be nearly impossible. The state attorney general would have to get involved.

I asked "How will people know if the trout they catch are native or not?" It sounded like Kirt had not really thought that one through yet, but Chris Donley, Region 1 (Spokane) RPM, had and he mentioned it will be something they need to look at. He said that most rivers no longer get planted. He acknowledged that there are still plenty that do though. Places like the SE part of the state. He also noted that any sort of fin clipping or marking of hatchery trout meant for rivers or lakes that hold native trout (which there are more than a few) would be expensive and not likely because of that.

Anyway, they recorded it so I assume they will put it on their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@thewdfw/videos) soon. Here is the slide they shared about timeline for development and implementation:
View attachment 103246

And the last slide that showed the opportunities for comment:

View attachment 103245

Did you come away with impression that this could lead to lakes not being planted at all with hatchery fish? Similar to what they did with Browns and Triploids that "potential could make their way into the Columbia" which changed management of many lakes.

Or similar to some other states that stopped planting non-native fish, to return the native waters back, with less conflict for the remaining "native" fish.

We don't always know the long game, of WDFW, Tribes or non-sportsmen groups. Until it's to late.

 

[Matt B]

There were 55 people on the town hall today. It was mostly just an overview of the issue, the possible plan and the process.
There were some good questions and concerns raised. Curt (@Smalma ) brought up 3 good points. Thanks Curt!

A guy from the upper Columbia had a question about whether rivers that were clearly in non-anadromous areas like the Columbia above Grand Coulee were in the scope of this. The answer was yes. There are several things not in scope. Essentially, if it's native rainbow or cutthroat they are included no matter if in anadromous waters or not. Bull trout are not since they already have a specific management plan. Same with steelhead. And, salmon are not in play, but as Curt pointed out that could be tough in places where bait is allowed for salmon, but not for trout.

Another interesting point made by Kirt Hughes, the presenter and Fish Management Division Manager, is that Washington state law prevents WDFW from just doing statewide no-bait regulations. So any sort of statewide or blanket no-bait and C&R type of rule will be nearly impossible. The state attorney general would have to get involved.

I asked "How will people know if the trout they catch are native or not?" It sounded like Kirt had not really thought that one through yet, but Chris Donley, Region 1 (Spokane) RPM, had and he mentioned it will be something they need to look at. He said that most rivers no longer get planted. He acknowledged that there are still plenty that do though. Places like the SE part of the state. He also noted that any sort of fin clipping or marking of hatchery trout meant for rivers or lakes that hold native trout (which there are more than a few) would be expensive and not likely because of that.

Anyway, they recorded it so I assume they will put it on their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@thewdfw/videos) soon. Here is the slide they shared about timeline for development and implementation:
View attachment 103246

And the last slide that showed the opportunities for comment:

View attachment 103245

Thank you for going and for the report out. Also for the original heads-up. I signed up but got a sick kid and stuff and excuses and whatnot. So I doubly appreciate it!

 

[skyriver]

Did you come away with impression that this could lead to lakes not being planted at all with hatchery fish? Similar to what they did with Browns and Triploids that "potential could make their way into the Columbia" which changed management of many lakes.

Or similar to some other states that stopped planting non-native fish, to return the native waters back, with less conflict for the remaining "native" fish.

We don't always know the long game, of WDFW, Tribes or non-sportsmen groups. Until it's to late.

I actually came away from it honestly believing that WDFW does not want to kill recreational fishing. I think they understand that while a fish in a place like Lenice could possibly wash down the creek into anadromous zones, they're triploids so no big deal. I think they will be pretty firm on most lakes.

I think streams will be the battle ground. Curt's point about salmon bait seasons on the S rivers where we know there are native residents will cause a real issue. And they said it about 3 times, salmon are not part of this. Neither are char. This is pretty much native rainbow and all varieties of cutts.
I got the impression from when I asked "How will people know if the trout they catch are native or not?" that they view most lakes as not having native trout. So lakes like Lenice, Nunnally, Seeps, etc...they don't contain native trout so no issue there. But what about a place like Lake Sammamish or Lake Washington? What about lakes that drain into a anadromous stream, perhaps more easily than Columbia basin lakes?

Also great info that Curt brought up. He thinks WDFW's general trout protection of 14" is decent for protecting first time spawners, but not effective at protecting 2nd or 3rd time spawners. It was pretty funny when they were addressing Curt- "Well, you know this stuff, perhaps better than we do Curt." Haha!

It was more positive than I thought. However, they do need a plan that satisfies the WSC or there will be more petitions and possible lawsuits. I feel like most of us want this to work out for both parties. WSC is doing the work they think they need to do to protect steelhead. I get that and they're probably right. However, I'm not sure the WDFW can do what they will want. And it could be because of legal issues or administrative/costs.

Should be interesting.