They voted today and it was not in favor of total CnR of wild steelhead. It was 5 to 4. Looks like they really dont care what the majority whant's and feel that the Olympic Peninsula wild steelhead runs are expendable.

I have a feeling one by one of the rivers open will eventually close only because they wont make escapement. Just like the Queets just did.

I know that there are more detials but I dont know what they are.

Today the WDFW commission, in a 5-4 vote, voted against Option 1, mandatory release of wild steelhead without exception. Voting aginst the measure were commissioners Cahill, Shiazaki, Osment, Roehl and White.

Commissioner White then submitted a motion to amend Option 2, 1 a day and 10 a year, to allow a maximum of 1 per day and 5 per year. This was passed unanimously.

This was certainly not the total victory the we had hoped for but is a significant reduction in potential harvest from 2001 levels. A step in the right direction and a victory as such.

While I am disapointed in the outcome, I commend the commission for the time and effort they put forth tackling this emotional issue. By adopting the measure they did, they have moved closer to where the majority of sportsmen feel Washington should go.

As for the WSC and its supporters, they should hold their head high and take solace in knowing they forced debate on this topic when most felt the issue untouchable. We have shown that a dedicated angling public can bring about change and we will not go away nor will this issue. While we were unable to close the coffin door on sport harvest and its related management practices, it is now on life support and its future bleak indeed.

Thanks to all who dedicated the last year to this cause. It was not in vain.

Sincerely,

Duggan Harman
WSC Board President

I agree that it was a big step but in the big picture it dosent mean much.

Most people out here that kill wild steelhead are gonna kill as many as they want anyways. The thing is they most likely wont get caught because they are never gonna get five punches on their punch card no matter how many wild steelhead they take.

i dont know what to think anymore

do the majority of sportsmen fish for steelhead????

KSR,

Since you brought it up, the majority of sportsmen don't even fish. The data presented today by one of the commissioners cites only 20% of the population who fish for any species.

Perhaps I should have referenced steelhead sportsmen. My apologies there. However since the majority of readers of this forum do fish for steelhead, I didn't feel that I needed to spell it out letter by letter.

From now on, I will try harder.

Sinktip,

i wasnt questioning your post, i was just wondering...thanks

i wrote the commission of department of fish and wildlife a letter in response to there refusal to pass a cnr on native steelhead..and to think that fred shiosaki is a member of trout unlimited.. and will roehl was/is a represenative of the lower columbia fish recovery board and its says that he is committed to restoring salmon runs but he dont know crap..i personally like to meet a few of these people in person..who voted for these screw ups anyways?? does anyone know??? im writing another letter to trout unlimited about fred shiosaki, what a lame excuse for a member..**berkley boy**

Hey Sinktip thanks for the list of people who voted against the C&R of wild steelhead. I was at the meeting in Vancouver, and it was about 80% for the release of wild fish and 20% against. Another thing I spoke to Will Roehl while during a break and he knew I was for wild realse with no exception and he sounded like he felt the same as me. It must have been just lip service. I just found out too that Rohel is an ex commercial fisherman. I wonder where his loalty lies.

Sounds like the commission is afraid to burn any bridges. I have a feeling its gonna have to get worse before it gets better. We can all do our part and continue to release the Nates. I think $$$$$$ played a role in this decision. Unfortunatley there are stil "fisherman" out there that have to keep everything they catch or they wont buy a liscence...

Flame: Keeping a fish for food is a crock. With the money you spend on gear and gas buy a damn pig! Pictures last longer, and so will your fishing...

All in all, we came out better than we were

I was down there and at times on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

The smoke screens and lies and propaganda presnted by the WDFW Staff was appauling.

Some observations:

The consensus seemed to be that the Commisioners that voted against Proposal 1, voted against it because they did not believe in blanket management and secondly because they did not want to send the wrong message to the Public in that they did not want to come across to the Public that they did not have confidence in the WDFW biologists and policies.

It did seem though that the Commisioners that voted for Proposal 1, voted that way because of what the WSC White Paper presented to them. They actually quoted the science that the WSC presented to them as the reason they voted for Proposal 1.

And I did learn today, that even though 61% in the Anglers Prefrence Study wanted statewide WSR, eventhough 80% of the emails and snailmail and phone calls prior to December 8 were from those in favor of statewide WSR, eventhough 80% of the those who testified in Vancouver where in favor of statewide WSR and eventhough on Thursday when the Commision recieved over 330 emails and all but a couple were in favor of statewide WSR, We are the minority...We are the special intrest group

It may be very hard to ever sway those that voted against Proposal 1 today. They seemed pretty set in stone on the issue and did not seem open to anything that was presented by the WSC and those in favor of statewide WSR. Their reasons behind not voting on for Proposal 1 were riddled with 'buts.'

The Commisioners that were in favor of statewide WSR argued that if we discovered that Proposal 1 did not help out wild steelhead populations, we could always go back to current management. They argued that there was nothing wrong with siding on the side of caution..."But we cant make the Department look bad..."

Anyways, I am beginingg to ramble. I am going to write a letter to those on the Commision who supported Proposal 1 and thank them for their support. R.P Van Gytenbeek did what ever he could to sway the vote down there and it is much apprecieted...he made an excellent speach to open the discussion but the Commisioners opposed to it wouldn't listen.

If you would like to have further info on Commision members and most importantly, when their terms expire (most important are Roehll's, White's, Shiosaki's, Ozment's and Cahill's) please visit...
WDFW Fish Commision

And I encourage you to send emails and voice your opinion and DO NOT forget to send letters of gratitude to those who supported our cause i.e. Gytenbeek, Pelly, Reynolds and Tuck.

I would also like to thank the WSC BOD and especially President Duggan Harman, his effort and dedication is more then admirable and I believe all of us in support of statewide WSR have a debt of gratitude they owe these guys...THANK YOU!!

Ryan,

(edited -- Thanks Sparky)

Like it or not, this is all a game and it has specific rules. If both sides don't play by them, nothing happens. What we saw today was the other side playing the game slightly better than our side. I take much of the blame for that. The important thing is that all of us; you, me and every other supporter of C & R, learn from this and be better prepared next time.

End of lecture

KSR: Sorry about the above post. I have had a sh*tty day and I took it out on you. My bad.

Duggan

Duggan,
Will this issue have to wait another 2 years or will it be brought back up next year? It was a good fight. It is crucial now that we stick with the plan and stick together and in 2 years we will be an even larger force defending the fish. It is amazing what has happened in the last year, we have learned our lessons and we will be a force to reckon with when the issue comes up again. I would suggest that periodically we email the comission to reafirm that we are still around and not going anywhere.
Joe

Joe,

Technically it can be brought up again next year but barring any unforseen collapse (i.e. mass emergency OP closures) it is unlikely to get much of a look. This one was emotionally draining for those on both sides. A more realistic timeframe is at least 2 years out.

In the meantime, I am sure the WSC and other like-minded groups will continue to work to make sure the commission and the WDFW keep moving in the right direction. Todays movement was positive if not as substantial in magnitude as we might have wished. However, given where we were one year ago, it is very significant.

Duggan

How quickly we all forget!

It wasn't that long ago (8-16-01) when I posted the thread "When will Wild Steelhead be harvestable?" It appears to me, that the majority of the commissioners feel pretty much the way that was reflected in my thread. I was not too surprised to see them rule the way they did. This board should not be surprised either! I highly suggest to those who are still scratching their heads to why this issue has failed, to reread my posting;
"When will Wild Steelhead be harvestable?"

It seems to me that the commissions pretty much made its decision under many of the same points that were raised and brought before this board during my posting. This board was also split on this issue. Like I have said, many, many, times before, "most of the common fishermen that I have talked to are not for catch and release state wide". Apparently, the majority of the commissioners expressed the concerns of the majority of the "common fishermen". If this is not the case, please explain then why they made the decision they did.

Rather then calling each other to the line on "their vote", lets try to understand both viewpoints and then, see why the majority voted the way they did. If any of you wonder why I feel the way I do, please reread my thread. Maybe then you will understand why so many fishermen are not pushing for state wide cnr.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Did they vote on the oat ban on the Nooch and the Satsop yet or are they going to do that.
That sucks about the WSR. It is a step in the right direction about 5 wild steelies a year instead of 10.

They decided to wait and communicate with the county on the sled ban. Their reasoning is that the commission does not have the power to ban the boats, only fishing from them. An angler could take the boat up there, beach it, and fish from the bank. Any real ban whould have to be coordinated with the county.

As to your subject line Rich ... I'll amend it, simply by adding to the end of it: ... yet.

There will be a day, it was very close this time and it's been getting closer and closer each passing year. While I do hope it will happen before the remaining streams that are "healthy" suffer a total collapse, WDFW history sadly says it will not.

But we'll fight for the fish again before too long ... this is far from over

...and with that thought I think should move on. My day's thoughts were filled with anger, resentment, disapointment, frustration etc.

Although I was very humbled yesterday and more emotionally drained then I have been in a very long time...it is just a matter of time.

It is also the realization that we can do better then we did this past 15 months. I thought the effort that we put forth was as good as it could get and yesterday I could not imagine taking on that fight again as I believed we did all we could do and obvisouly did much more then anyone thought we were capable of.

But we can do better, we will do better and we must put put forth twice the effort that we did this past year...as exhausting and impossible it may seem. It can be done and it will be done!

Is everyone ready???

You got that right, it is far from over, but I fear that if they dont eventually listen it might take a total colapse for them to admit they have been wrong and then I doubt they will ever admit that, they will just balme it on poor habitat or something like that.

I dont think much of the WDFW as it is but every time something like this happens they widen the gap between the majority and the minority. Even though this was a step in the right direction it just goes to show the way they think cant be changed. Its gonna take new leadership in the WDFW before the fish really come first.

While he wasn't around long enough to tell for sure. I thought we may had that change a few years back ... and they ran him out ...

I'm not talking about Curt Smitch either

One could only wonder what would have happened yesterday if Shanks was still director...Hell, yesterday would have maybe taken place a couple years prior.

5 members of my fishing club travelled to Longview last Wednesday and met with new commissioner Ron Osment regarding our position strongly favoring wild release statewide. At the meeting, he told us that comment was "about even" (!!) on the issue and that he had not made up his mind. Also stated that he was neither a hunter or a fisher. I guess we failed to convince him.
There seems to be some real mystery in the method in which commissioners are selected. In this case, I saw no request for resumes, not even any notice that the governor was thinking about adding a new member.
Finally, my hat is off to WSC, a group that accomplished a great deal on this issue. Lets keep at it.

Ya know Govenor Locke seems like he would care about the conservation of a species that is what our state stands for. I am pretty sure that Steelhead is our state fish.

We didnt ask much just CnR. Not nearly as extream as some groups would whant.

With all the letters that were forwarded to his Office you think it would have made him have some input to this issue. I know the letters I wrote were from my heart and very sincere and unselfish.

But when It comes down to it im sure knowone will get a response from the Govenor and that shows how much he really care what we think.

Face it we are a small number of people in the big picture and we surely couldnt win him an election and I think thats what it all comes down too.

This is some thing I think people should think about. My dad fishes a bit and this is what he feels about the CnR issue. His opinion is that if the rivers are open then there must be enough fish to sustain the fishery so it is ok to take some. This is the type of person that must be educated and have their opinions changed is statewide is going to gain wide spread acceptance.

I have felt for a few years now that the states decision making process is infected with the need to cover there tracks.If the truth ever did come out there manegment would be found at fault and RESPONSIBLE for the condition of our fisheries.The liabilitys that could follow that keeps the state defending science that doesn't work and worrying about "sending the wrong message to the public" instead of making the tough decisions that need to be made.They favor keeping the sportsmen,Indians and comercial factions at odds to cloud the truth.

Is
I personaly believe thatc/r is a great tool to maintain a fishery that is healthy.If a system cannot handle harvest than it should be closed untill the health returns.And then c/r is used to maintain and allow growth.

I agree with the decision that was made. As you know, I was against statewide C&R of wild steelhead for several reasons. The main one being the forgone oppurtunity for the tribes. The decision reached solves that problem. Also, I agree with the RFA's position on this issue (or the way I interpretted it). As long as sportsmen continue to take it up the ass, nothing will ever change. As long as the department believes that sportsmen are willing to take the blame and make sacrifices because of their mismanagement, nothing will ever change. History shows that once a restriction is placed on us, it is never easily removed. We can't continue to be the fall guys for the department. The attitude of, "Oh, we screwed up again! Let's close the season early for the sportsman." has got to go. There should be enough wild steelhead to sustain a sports harvest. There isn't. Therefore, the department should be held accountable. If statewide C&R went into effect, the next thing would be a river ban. By itself, statewide C&R would have little to no impact on the fish populations, so when the runs continue to get smaller, the departmant decides, "Gee, the sportsman were willing to go full C&R, but now, we'll just close the river to them to eliminate all mortality.".