we have already closed down rivers to try to help wild Steelhead, and on each one, they are worse off than they were before closing, with the exception of the Nisqually, but i dont know much about that system, only from what ive heard from the older folks... so it may not be an exception at all, just covering my ass on that one..
the Cedar, used to house 30 pound fish, its now WAY worse than it was when it closed, i think they saw like 2-10 redds last year...
the Puyallup used to be the number 2 river in the state for winter runs, they get about 550-600 fish back as of last count, and that goes up, and down, each year.. it also hasnt had plants since 2008, and closes on Dec 31, well before the large nates come in April...
killing off hatchery plants will do nothing, its already been proven... killing off fishing opportunities and closing rivers will do nothing, its already been proven... lowering limits, will do nothing, its already been proven...
you know the whole saying, when things need to get done you need to "grab the bull by the horns"? well, in this case, they are grabbing the bull by the tail, and are gonna get kicked for doing so...
Personally I think they made the right decision to stop stocking the Puyallup. I hate saying that because that is my home river. I caught my first steelhead there in 1968 and had many great days on it my friends.
The hatchery returns were beyond pathetic, especially the last 10 years or so. Sure the river was open later in the season, but what good is angling opportunity without fish?
I see lots of folks post that more fish need to be planted. That may work on some systems but it doesn't guarantee more fish will return.
If they planted four times as many fish on the Puyallup and got back 36 fish or so instead of 9, would anglers be happy?
I wish I had the answers to all that ails PS steelhead, but I don't. It is a damn shame it has come to this.
SF
Previous Topic
Index
