Ok, ok....I know there are already a couple of threads on this topic, but I don't want to expound upon or address questions or concerns in those posts.

Everyone who knows me probably realizes that I'd want my *own* post to make my feelings known.

When the Wild Steelhead Coalition formed over a year ago, the protection and perpetuation of wild steelhead was the only goal.

There are several general concerns addressed in the WSC's mission statement that are connected to that goal.

Eliminating sport harvest from the problem was one of those concerns.

At first, the naysayers said it wasn't even credible for a group to go after that goal. Then they said it might be credible to pursue, but impossible to achieve. Then they said that it just might be possible.

Today it was very possible, and even though it didn't pass, the fact that it was 5-4 is evidence of its possibility.

That shift in institutional thinking took place in less than a year. Less than a year to have an affect on decades of established thought.

The organizations that put their credibility on the line to pursue that impossible goal, the WSC, State TU, many TU chapters individually, FFF, C/S Flyfishers, WT, Willapa Anglers, and many more, and all the individuals who put their own credibility on the line to pursue that goal, ALL ought to be very proud of that change.

Am I disappointed? Of course. Do I feel like we suffered a loss? Of course not. We ended up with Option 1.5. The choice was between Options 1 and 2. Sometimes, oftentimes, that's the way politics works.

I personally commend the Commission for taking on the subject. That was a victory in itself.

I next commend the Commission for actively pursuing the public opinion, credible science, and socialogical and economical impacts of making any change.

Though I wish the Commission would have voted in favor of Option 1, I commend the Commission for creating a compromise position. It's not ideal, but it's pretty darn good considering nine months ago we were the crazy ones for even considering a change, much less one as progressive as we supported.

I also commend the Commission for unanimously supporting the newly created Option 1.5. It may look like "throwing the dogs a bone", but that's how politics work. There's a lot more going on up front and behind the scenes than the somewhat narrow proposition that we should not allow direct killing of wild steelhead. It's very easy to see the issue from the outside and not have to consider the rest of the side issues that are involved.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who worked on creating a change. You all played a part in just that.

I sure hope that the total change to WSR doesn't come when the "healthy" rivers dwindle to none so that it happens by default.

I also thank the folks on this BB,and on others that I know are either members here or are here to "check up" on what's going on, who have not agreed with my stance, but have taken the time to write thought provoking and credible responses to my and others' arguments. Those digital conversations allowed all of us to define the issues and see the different perspectives.

Anyway, that's all for now. Keep fighting the good fight.

Fish on...

Todd.

I agree and diagree Todd.

While disappointing, the decision was not a surprise, I had thought it would be close and could easily have gone either way. A big thanks to all those who worked hard to even make the issue a viable one ... I hope the remaining runs still are when it finally goes through (it will).

That being said, I'm happy that the limit was reduce to 5 annually. But the realist in me knows that a number of anglers, especially thosae in the remaining healthy streams will take far in excess of 5 fish ... I know many who take in excess of their 30 punches on the card. It happens a lot ... and will likely only slow when C&R goes through and enforcement becomes a little easier.

I suppose it's sad to think in such a manner ... but that's the state of the fisheries today

Exactly Bob you cold'nt have said it better. The comission must have thought about that when they made there decision. Not everybody is a legal Begal and infact I think most people arnt. It's a fact that if you give people an inch most will take an extra inch once in a while and some will take a mile if they can get away with it. The only way to really cut down on the poaching is to make it total CnR. Changing it to 5 isnt really gonna make much difference on the harvest on the OP anyways most people dont even make it out to the OP 5 times a year, and with an ever growing population of uninformed fisherman and less and less rivers you can kill fish on the presure grown on just a few.

Dont ya think the Queets system closeing to CnK is gonna put alot more presure on the lower Hoh. You better believe it. Every body who was gonna take one out of the Queets system is gonna take that fish out of the Hoh or Quileute system now.

Yes it's too bad Bob. These shortsighted people who claim it "their right" to kill a native fish will regret their ignorance someday. Five native fished killed anually is still five DEAD native fish!
Stew