Salmo's idea is really just to go back to the pre-merger status. Recreate WDG/WDW and WDF. It does make sense in many ways. WDG was funded by licenses and WDF by the General Fund. Let the whole state pay for the salmon we grow for AK, BC, Tribes, and Commercials. Maybe we need to go back there.

So your idea for helping recreational fishing is to go to the old system of licenses pay for gamefish, general fund for food fish. So as opportunities for steelhead fishing continue to dwindle, relying on license sales to fund steelhead programs is going to make things better? Sure.

It would certainly get the agency's attention when sales drop. As opposed to now.

That's not my idea. My intent is to make WDFW responsive to the constituents who pay its freight, which is currently ignores. I'm not keen on GF (tax revenue) paying to raise hatchery salmon for CA, AK, and WA commercial fishing. What's in it for us (recreational anglers) when WDFW has no plan for recreational fishing other than setting sport fishing seasons that treaty tribes allow? What plan does WDFW have for recreational salmon fishing other than NONE?

Steelhead fishing opportunities are a different game. Steelhead fishing has dwindled mainly due to declining marine survival rates that WDFW is powerless to do anything about. And it has dwindled due to ESA constraints. And to some degree, NGO lawsuits over hatchery steelhead. And as long as WDFW will not advocate for recreational fishing and hands control of gamefish seasons to the treaty tribes, I don't see much need for WDFW in my fishing life. I would fish about the same without WDFW as I do with it.

I spend over $100 each for Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia non-resident fishing licenses, and lesser amounts on short term Idaho and Utah licenses and receive a much better return on investment on all of them than I do from my WA resident license. Why do you suppose that is?

There is one small bit about ocean conditions being outside WDFW control that disagree with. The Keogh River study showed that increasing stream productivity through either the addition of fertilizers or big salmon escapements reduced the age of steelhead smolts. Also, the younger smolts were more abundant than older smolts. That is, a stream can produce more age-1 smolts than age-2 because the younger smolts are smaller going into winter. The more abundant smolt outmigration returned at high enough rates (in poor ocean conditions) to replace the brood. In the White River (WA), at least through about 2010, the R/S for steelhead was higher when the smolts were younger. I believe that WDFW managed for salmon escapements of at least 1kg per square metre of summer low flow that we would see increases in steelhead returns.

In the last few years I have bought licenses and fished in AK, Wyoming, Iceland, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Australia and it was all well worth the expense. And it was generally better than here.

Well, it’s nice to have both the time and the money to fish the world wide when the opportunity here dwindled to the point beyond diminished returns.

Not all here have had that luxury, but I do understand why you play and recreate in those domains that serve their constituents...

Part of having the ability to go other places is where one spends money here. I don't have a big truck, or even a really new car. No big boat and trailer. Some of my coworkers had huge ocean-going boats, antique (and well restored) cars and so on.

Had a discussion about hunting deer in WA or out of state. Dude spent just as much in WA over a couple of years and he would spend on a once every couple year trip outside. His point was that he could spend $100 a weekend no problem but couldn't save that same $100 for use next year.

Choices.

Lots of good thoughts I agree with here, and I don't have much to add. That said, Salmo g. Asked a very important question: Why is game fishing so much better in places like MT, ID, and Utah? One reason might be that there are a lot more fly-receptive fish (trout) in those states, but I think the most important reason is that all WA fisheries are constrained by populations of FOOD fish (and the competition between user groups for those constraining stocks). Once a species is classified as a food fish, it becomes a profitable resource for commercial harvest. That's the beginning of the end, regardless of the species.

I guess what I'm saying is that salmon escapement both feeds and constrains most of our fisheries, and decades of salmon overharvest have led us to a place where everything that depends on salmon for survival is less plentiful and must be protected. That leaves less and less for sport pursuits, so here we are.

I've only lived here about 24 years, and the quality and quantity of our fishing opportunities are much less than what they were when I moved here. It's been painful watching fishery after fishery disappear, and I can only imagine how that feels for lifetime residents. As much as I think Western WA is as beautiful as it gets, family is what's keeping me here now; the fishing is still okay, but it should be SO much better....

Sorry I omitted that thing that WDFW could do. It will be a cold day in hell when the Washington Department of Salmon increases salmon escapements for any ecological benefits, let alone to increase steelhead productivity.

My point about my MT fishing license giving a higher return on investment is that MT doesn't spend my money to raise hatchery salmon to be caught in Canada. They spend it on things like numerous public access sites and boat ramps on rivers, something that is in very short supply in WA. Of course there is less need for those ramps and access sites since the treaty tribes have increasingly closed rivers to recreational fishing.

FF02,

"Why is game fishing so much better in places like MT, ID, and Utah?"

Trout fishing is so much better in these states because the rivers are inherently more productive than our coastal rivers are. And the management agencies don't spend license and tax dollars to raise hatchery salmon to be caught in Canada and commercial fisheries. The money is all spent to manage and enhance sport fishing, unlike in WA.

I don't think their rivers are inherently more productive. I know that in some Idaho streams researchers added salt to the water to electrofish. The Idaho Batholith is pretty non-productive; it takes the fish quite a while to grow to fishing size. But you are so right that their agencies recognize who pays the bills and manages in that direction.

I do recall a conversation I had with boss when I was mentioning that the (then listed Bald Eagle) depended on salmon carcasses and that Hawaii had just lost a court case where depriving a listed species of food was a "take" under ESA that he would never manage salmon for eagles. This was in the 80s and I am fairly certain nothing has changed.

I agree with all those points. As usual, I wrote too much, and I fear my point got lost. I should stop doing that, but I can't seem to help myself....

Certainly, the Rockies are more productive trout habitat than Western WA. The comparison I intended to draw was a more general one between fisheries managed for sport (MT, ID, etc.) and fisheries managed for harvest (ours). Clearly, the ones managed for sport are higher quality and more sustainable over time.

What made me want to fish in this state was the variety of fish, plus the fact that many of those fish are big and cool. We still have that, but it's so limited now that I, like you, have started spending more and more time fishing out of state. WDFW really does crap all over us with their harvest first mantra, and it ticks me off, but darned if I don't keep buying their license. Maybe I figure it's a license to complain or something....

C'man,

Yes, those rivers are more productive. The pH is greater than 7, tending toward alkaline, with more calcium carbonates. This results in a denser biomass of aquatic invertebrates and fish food. An acre of river there grows a lot more pounds of fish per year than our coastal rivers. Our rivers have a pH of 6.5 to 7, almost never greater than 7. So the water tends toward acidic and produces a far lower abundance of aquatic invertebrates and fewer and smaller trout.

This is why high salmon escapements make such a difference. While western WA rivers produce few and small trout, coastal AK rivers, where sockeye salmon escapements remain generous, there are large populations of trout that attain larger size. Sockeye eggs and carcasses drive those aquatic ecosystems.

But I digress. WDFW hands NT recreational fishing management off to the treaty tribes, throwing many recreational fisheries that have extremely low salmon impacts, under the bus. Thus there is a decreasing incentive to fund anadromous fish management at WDFW.

WDFW is spending too much money just to support the Tribes with so little to show for it fish-wise. There has to be some value in it for the State as a whole but certainly not the license-buyers.

WDFW wonders why walleye are showing up in lakes. I think there will be more fish-moving as the anadromous fish are no longer fished for.

Perhaps the "value" the State gets from ensuring the Tribes have something to fish for lies in the lawsuits that DON'T get filed when they do?

You've hit that nail squarely on the head. And very hard too.

Read In NW Sportsman that many recreational anglers have asked that the 2 rivers be kept open in April. Thanks Bob for speaking up and others.

Yessir. The article you mention: https://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-urged-to-withdraw-april-hoh-quillayute-steelhead-closures/

No kidding, Skyrise. I'm glad NW Sportsman kept reporting on this issue (three articles I believe?) and we should be lucky there are folks like Bob and the OPGA, and other people that commented on this issue to keep the Montesano Clown College accountable. With each regulation change or closure and ding to guide businesses and our small towns, I wonder how any of us have any fight left. Which of course is what WDFW wants to happen. Just like our fisheries, kill the rec anglers by a thousand cuts.

From what I read and heard, it seems like Region 6 leaders backtracked when pressed about why this rule was being proposed and if it was actually mentioned in any of the NOF public meetings.

The big question then: does this nonsense from WDFW fall under the incompetence column or malfeasance column?

Did anyone see the follow-up on NW Sportsman? Looks like the pressure from the guides and public worked. I'm glad to see that the application of pressure in a public process can still influence change. Appears that Director Susewind saw the writing on the wall and removed this proposed rule change aka permanent closure on the north coast rivers from moving forward and that the shady maneuver from Cunningham and his golden boy Losee is dead in the water. I'm sure Losse will somehow justify emergency closures again this upcoming season, as that seems to be the only way he knows how to manage. Heres the full story:

WDFW Nixes Its Forks April Steelhead Closure In 2023-24 Regs
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-nixes-its-forks-april-steelhead-closure-in-2023-24-regs/

Sure makes me glad we have a publication like Northwest Sportsman and Dwayne Inglin's TV show keeping tabs on these guys. I've read it in multiple places over the past few years as Losee and Cunningham keep running things into the ground out here on the coast (I mean how many fish will get ESA listed under their watch?!), but it's well past time for those two to move on. Maybe the Director will start to see it's time for a change in fish program leadership? Doubt it. Until then, we can just kiss our rivers goodbye!

I think Salmo and Smala probably know more of the department history, but have leadership positions ever been asked to resign or removed from positions based on outcry from the public? I'd reckon aside from the Director, the commission stays out of those types of staff issues.

That's a good decision to see that the Department can be dissuaded from handing all management authority over to the tribes.