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.".