Not to mention names but will here. Tom Cropp was one WDG bio I remember as a youth on the river. Great guy! Creel checked me more than once and saw him many times participating as well. His bio's on board his floats he was training back then had no clue? College educated but not river educated. Even as a youngen, I asked myself then, really? This kid knows nothing from Florida about this river, this place, this passion. I'm sure Tom did his best to educate him. Tom must be retired by now. Another name I remember was Bob Leland. I used to get hatchery plant info from him before printed published info came out to plan trips. I'm sure he is retired now also. Brings back some good memories before computers. Phone calls were the source then. I once thought of getting educated to be a bio because I loved it so much. I then had a realization that it wouldn't fit into my final plan. I think it really makes difference when managing any resource to have a passionate/vested interest in it. If the passion isn't there for those administering and regulating, how can we as sportsman for Steelhead expect any more?

It is the difference between a job and a calling. But, it eats you up if you care. Just ask healthcare folks today.

Forgot to mention our past and current checker out of Forks Tom. Or maybe he's retired to? Don't know his last name, but forgive me for mentioning your passion. Years on the riv. creel checking and laying low, but participating and loving every minute of it. Your the one that has got little recognition for your efforts, but should be the one elevated to WDFW administrator. You have that local knowledge that anyone would respect by being a participant. You would never go there, but that's what needed at the WDFW Steelhead management level to have the understanding to properly manage coast Steelhead. Another 2cents and a couple of old fashioneds speaking.

Passionate engagement with the resource is EVERYTHING! It's no wonder rec fishing is such a mess these days when the state's top fish manager would rather golf and ride motorcycles than go fishing.

Just sayin'....

I, and most if not all of the people working in F&W in the past, probably through the 70s anyway, were field people. You worked your way up, starting in the field. Education included field work, late work, hands on stuff. And, there was the hunting, fishing, wild animal pets, and so on that gave one a real "feel" for the resource, land, and water.

Now, I am not sure how many hands-on course there are. I spent hours in Doc's pond; the UW does not even run that any more. The resources are managed by folks who take their job seriously but see it as simply numbers. Success is measured by a number, which is "real".

One year I recall calling my costa ct to ask him about my update for pinks. His response was "you want the real number or what run-reconstruction will show?" The actual number was as updated. Problem was that after spawning there was a big freshet that blew the carcasses to PA and beyond. Since the escapement estimate was based on carcass counts, we were going to get a "low" number. You have to actually know what is going on out there and not take any number as gospel until proven as such.

So so so true.

The only passion now days is still the user groups who line up to speak and get screwed over year after year.

I vote for the local fish checker.

Screw the collage statistics types.
Their impact on the management plan is proven.

Ever wonder why most sports coaches played the sport they coach???

Our management teams once played the sport. Our new managers played video games.

You might be on to something there. I always felt that the average PNW person never did understand baseball because they didn't play it. We played year-around, we knew and felt the game.

You also hit a great point about statistics. Over time, I saw an emphasis on statistics to make decisions. The "better" the stat, the more weight it held, regardless of how the biology fit in. Statistics are simply and only the relationship between two numbers and nothing more.

Having said that, managers are forced to make decisions based on numbers. You can catch X, not Y and our best model shows that this is how to proceed. Management, at its best, is science informed art but the intrusion of legal requirements eliminates the art. Hence, the model shows that a recreational cutthroat fishery in the Stilly kills Chinook. Since we can't do that, no fishing. And no intrusion of reality.

RnG. I think the fish checker you are referring to is Tom Matthews. Have known him for years. He is still working for WDFW. Great guy and very passionate about fishing. Fishes when he is not working. His dad, Dr. Steve Matthews , worked for the Department and I had him as a professor at the UW. Dr. Matthews taught Fisheries Management. Tom checks here in the Sound in the summer months and then works up at Forks in the winter doing steelhead creels census. When he is not working he fishes the South Sound for salmon. He keeps a drift boat at Forks and fishes steelhead on his off days. Excellent fisherman and a great guy. He takes a lots of people fishing with him and is great with the people.

Gotta' love armchair fisheries management, recognizing that not all who post here are of the Monday morning quarterbacking armchair persuasion.

WDFW has the jurisdiction and authority to manage recreational and non-treaty commercial fishing in terms of time, area, gear, limits and quotas. The Department has very little authority with respect to habitat management and protection. And the Department has almost zero authority to regulate treaty tribal fishing. So I hafta' ask, what should WDFW be doing that it isn't, and what is it doing that it should stop doing, or change? And how would those actions change the number of fish in WA waters? Inquisitive minds want to know.

That is the rock and hard place, Salmo. They could be actually transparent about what they can and can't do, and why. Particularly why. What have they said in regards to the recent press on coho toxicity due to tires? It may be WADOE's responsibility to manage but WDFW could put their feet to the fire, they could involve their salmon recovery groups in actions, and such. They cold be spokespeople for the resource.

They also really need to demonstrate that they support the NI recreational users (their funding base) and push for them when biologically appropriate (eg Stilly cutthroat).

No argument here C'man. I have a whole list of things the Department can do, and should IMO, if they were intent on conserving the resource and serving the constituents who fund them. I just wanted to see what the armchair critics want WDFW to do.

Me too. Something specific and not just plant fish or other knee-jerks.

Talking out my ass here and may need some help with facts. One thing I would like to see WDFW complete HGMP studies on the rest of the Puget Sound rivers and for the rest of the state. Some PS rivers Wild Steelhead escapement numbers are showing some signs of least a potential consistent regulated catch and release fishery. Skagit/Sauk, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Nisqually, and Puyallup. I think the Green has a completed EIS out? Having some local urban OPPORTUNITY here sure would take some pressure off the coast and maybe help that current and future situation. I know these require lots of work but years have passed the desire just isn't there to get going. What will it take?

Well gee Salmo aren't you retired?
Now that you have no skin in the game, welcome to the chair.

What would you do to fix WDFW?

I'm a taxpayer and fishing license buyer. I have plenty of skin in the game.

WDFW works (supposedly) for the folks who pay the freight.

I don't think that wild steelhead can coexist with any sort of hatchery program. Too many issues. We have to get too either/or. The Green, as a supremely urban watershed, at least in the anadromous zone, should be hatchery steelhead. The Skagit wild. And so on.

The kicker would be that if society chooses to **ck the watershed, they pay for hatcheries. Hatcheries should all be mitigation for damaged/destroyed habitat. Not for enhancement but for mitigation.

Salmo g.

How about WDFW get completely out of raising fish to plant in rivers so Alaska, Canada, commercial fisherman and the tribe get nothing from our license fees? Instead plant lakes and mountain lakes (where allowed), with high quality fishing. Let the Federal Government figure out what to do with the mess we have now.

This is being said from a once very die-hard river fisherman. At least I'd get reasonable "opportunity" with my license fee's.

Oh yes you do.

I'm not anti-hatchery. However I am opposed to paying to produce hatchery salmon that are mostly caught in AK, BC, and commercial fisheries. Rather than getting completely out of the hatchery salmon business, I'd like WDFW to conduct a hatchery audit of each salmon hatchery to figure out how much it costs to put a hatchery salmon in the recreational creel. Then keep producing salmon at the hatcheries that are top contributors to sport catch. The remaining hatcheries could either be closed or switch to raising trout to stock in waters where license buyers get an opportunity to fish for them.

Much as I like fishing for steelhead, including hatchery steelhead, the smolt to adult return rates just don't justify the costs. I wouldn't close it all down however. Keep the mitigation hatcheries producing because, well, mitigation. And keep a couple of the more productive state steelhead hatcheries to preserve future options in case return rates ever again return to rates high enough to justify the cost.

Let’s see the state dump some money into making Kokanee 3-5 pounds on average without having to travel to the east side to do it. That’s a fishery I’d spend time doing.

Keith