Salmo G-

Like many others, I too appreciate the time you spend writing responses to questions and thoughts that are brought up on this BB.

I would like to counterpoint this statement of your last post: "Therefore, the only reason to allow continued fishing in the Green River would be to allow angling opportunity at the cost of further reducing this year's spawning escapement, which is already predicted to be less than the escapement goal. Is that what you want?"

Too many times I have heard this argument come forth used as an un-challengable trump card. Supposing that the river remains open to angling with artificial lures/flies only (no bait) it is pretty logical to assume a total catch of 10% of the returning population. If this year's run were to be 1000 adults, that would make a total catch of 100 fish. Normal mortality under the aforementioned rules would be NO higher than 5% of the angled fish making a total incidental kill of 5. How could this possibly impact the Green's, or any river's, spawning population? This is where I get confused over the closures. Why not take the approach of limiting our effectiveness at catching the fish with tackle that is scientifically proven to be less damaging? But, that is not the way of WDFW and the POLITICS surrounding wild steelhead.

One last thought- By closing these rivers to all LEGAL fishing, does it not put these depressed populations at more risk of illegal harvest by allowing the poacher to execute his crime under zero surveillance from anglers?

William