Maybe this first time around the WSC was a little green. I feel we should have defened ourselves and explained that our stance was to help save wild steelhead and to keep people on the rivers with as little damage to the fish as possible. It was important to let people know the importance of saving wild steelhead by keeping fishermen on the rivers and interested in the fishery than to have it closed and people going off to other interests. But that's an afterthought when maybe with more help and experience we would have attempted more unifying.
Everyone in the WSC I know had a great deal of respect for those who wanted to keep it volantary C&R and practiced C&R on their own. But maybe we let those others that acused us of being selfish, enviros and only wanting the river for ourselves to get to us. Should have defended ourselves against them better because they were the dividers. To keep wild fish in the rivers and keep people fishing was the goal and that ment keeping those against us fishing a longer season also.
Hey we need people like you and teen Tyler in our organization even if your beliefs are a little different. That's what makes the whole thing work in the end. Some of our most dedicated members come from the Hood canal.

One of the long term goals of WSC is to have local chapters, ltlCLeo, think about that when you are formulating a plan to save hood canal steelhead. Maybe to get more interest in this subject I could use some key words like VISION, GAMMIES, LOOMIS, LAMIGLASS.

Key words I am thinking are "FREE BEER!"

Guys
I think it is important to point out that the WSC stands for alot more than statewide c/r.As listed in a private message by a member they also stand for habitat restoration and protection,by catch reduction, more law enforcment,and more thorough harvest reports and much more!All these things are crucial to preserving our wild fish and are more than worthy of time and money.I believe them to be an outstanding orginization!

I posted that argument because of honest feelings but more so for the sake of argument.I was hoping to give some imput that would help the WSC.I believe that the c/r issue has held the WSC back some as far as enrolement goes.

I am currently looking for a new avenue to focus my fishing passion on and the wsc is on the top of the list.I do want to spend more time closer to home though and am looking into some local orginizations,Bothel makes for a long meeting night!

Please no hard feelings as I was more trying to give some input from the outside looking in!

I love the wild side of our great northwest and dread the day that man ruins it all!

Hillbilly,
If you join I'll bring you up a half rack of Alaskan Amber.

Just a question, Does WSC support keeping in place enough of a hatchery system to keep plenty of catchable fish in the rivers? Also part of the reason I have not really considered membership is that this is more of a local issue. Over here we have had wild steelhead release in place for many years. It seems to work, as the numbers are holding their own, and in some cases increasing slightly. I do not fish on the west side, and really don't see it in my future, so when you say statewide, you are really only referring to some rivers over there. Good luck, but my money will probably be spent on enhancement on my side of the mountains. Before you call me part of your problem, I do spend considerable time, money, and effort working on stream enhancement and fisheries issues over here.

Either side of the mountains the wild fish issue is an item where common ground by all anglers can be the stepping stone for other issues. When the day comes where the retention of wild fish is no longer leagle ( anyplace) then the argument can be made for removal of nets.

A few things are not going to happen for sure. The removal of Dams for instance... just not going to happen. However, with a large lobbie of sport fisherman several things could happen. The buyout of commercial and tribal nets is possible. If its about money , anyone who can do math knows that sport fishing generates a lot more cash than nets do. .005 % of the people catch 50 % of the fish. Thats stupid. The BPA spends enough money each year on B.S that they could simply buy out that whole industry 3x... Sorry, its not an industry, its a disgrace.

The GOOD OL boys are losing their clout. I could go on and on but don't want to rant.

Mike L.,

The WSC absolutely does support providing hatchery fish for harvest and fishing opportunity. Without hatchery fish the great majority of our rivers would have no fishing, and there wouldn't be a good justification to fish some of the other rivers that have wild runs without the hatchery fish being there.

As we speak there are WSC biologists embarking on a project to review hatchery practices, everything from broodstocking, outplanting, and other aspects of hatchery production. The idea is to make biologically sound recommendations to private and public agencies that are performing these functions.

I wish I knew where the idea came up that the WSC is intending to do away with hatcheries. It's been in several editorials and articles in newspapers and magazines. As I said above, if anyone has a question about what the WSC stands for, please...

READ THE MISSION STATEMENT!!!

I think that's the first time I've used all caps in two years of being on this board!

Here's the relevant part of the mission statement:

...

Hatchery programs must be closely examined and be carried out in such a manner that the negative impacts on wild fish are removed or minimized.

The WSC stands for the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead, and for science, not politics, to be the basis for the re-tooling of hatchery practices.

...

Please visit the WSC web site for more information...here's the link to the mission statement:

http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com/mission.htm

Fish on...

Todd
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

Leadership has its price. The WSC may have initially alienated some potential members due to its advocacy of statewide wild steelhead release. I expect that many of those who are really dedicated to their fishing will eventually come around and support the organization.
Consider that when the Skagit River CNR season began in 1981, the rate of angler participation was quite low. People weren't used to it, some thought that if the run couldn't support a kill fishery then the river should be closed, and others probably hadn't formed an opinion. As word began to spread of very successful fishing experiences, many who initially opposed the CNR season became very active participants.

Similarly, when B.C. switched to wild steelhead CNR as a conservation measure, it was not widely supported by the angling public, either. However, people got used to it, and realized that wild steelhead populations could no longer support the combined demands of commercial net interceptions, Indian subsistence fishing, habitat degradation, in addition to large scale angling mortality. Now, unless you travel to Kamchatka, most people belive that B.C. offers the world's premier wild steelhead fishery. B.C.'s steelhead management has stood the test of over 20 years on some of its rivers. One simply cannot say that wild steelhead CNR doesn't work. If there is any habitat left, and other sources of mortality are not excessive, it works.

So WSC has selected that as an initial goal. It certainly got the WDFW Commission and managers' attention. The fact that it wasn't adopted in December is not a failure of purpose. Just as Rome was not built in a day, most conservation measures are successful over time through persistence and just simply being right.

This and other conservation measures will eventually be adopted by society. The alternative is for society to write off wild steelhead as a meaningful element of our state's heritage. WSC can be a powerful unifying force by helping to retain angling opportunity while implementing effective conservation measures. This action helps keep anglers dedicated to conservation, rather than taking up golf and forgetting about the fish. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. If the state simply closes fishing, the majority of anglers who support conservation issues are likely over time to lose interest and move on to other interests and activities. Then who will advocate for wild fish?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks Salmo !!

I don't know why I waited so long. My check is in the mail.

I know that some of you people really get passionate about catch and release (i.e. Salmo and Todd), but will it REALLY resolve our declining wild steelhead runs PROBLEM in the coming future (show us the science)? This isn't a loaded question, and I believe that there are many others out there that would also like this same question answered.

Things like this statement really make many of us wonder what WSC is really up to;

"I wish I knew where the idea came up that the WSC is intending to do away with hatcheries. It's been in several editorials and articles in newspapers and magazines. As I said above, if anyone has a question about what the WSC stands for, please...READ THE MISSION STATEMENT!!!"

I have just reviewed and reread the "WSC mission statements", and I am still very confused on what is its long term goal really are. The way that I read it, it appears that "WSC" wants to protect wild steelhead forever from harvest, Am I correct? If not, when can harvest occur again? I see that the WSC has not yet set any goals for any harvestable fishery in the near future. So what does that mean? Protection to what extent? Is WSC against any harvest of all of Wild steelhead, no matter what their escapement levels may become? If so, why have they not stated so? Is it true, that WSC wants to protect wild steelhead from harvest forever, or is it just the goal of WSC to protect wild steelhead populations until they can reach a "harvestable self sustaining level"?

The WSC mission statement is very unclear to me and others, and I believe that many other fishermen will look at this organization as just another "PETA" type of organization if WSC does not CEARLY STATE what their "long term goal" really is! I say that because of the wording that is listed directly below.

Well, Salmo and Todd, I have reread again the "Policies and Actions of the WSC; to increase fish runs, more wild fish must return to their rivers and spawn. To that end, the WSC promotes year round, catch and release of all wild steelhead in the Pacific Northwest."

Well, how long do you guys propose to promote "that C&R" and will it be needed to do it forever to achieve your goals? What are your numbers that are needed to sustain a harvestable fishery in our state, or do we just C&R forever and forever?

Apparently, your members may have been afraid to state such a long term goal in the very begining, but who in their right mind, would want to just to catch and release, and look at these fish forever other then people like PETA? We are humans, we kill, we eat, and we survive, and yes, fish are part of our survival!

Maybe you guys are one level above many of us, but loose your great paying job, and come back to the real word!

The world is not yet totally run by people who are governmentally supported and who can run down to the nearest fish and chips and buy their dinner, or eat just veggies!

Now please Salmo, and Todd, what exactly are the "WSC long term goals"? If you guys can do it right, you may gain a few new more board supporters. If you can't answer these simple, basic questions, then you guys are fighting an up-hill battle, and you probabaly already know it. Is it always going to be c&r, or is it going to be some type of sport fishing harvest allowed in the near future?

One last question;

"The WSC stands for the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead, and for science, not politics, to be the basis for the re-tooling of hatchery practices." Is that really what WSC stands for?

Give us a break! Isn't WSC just another political organization to inhance c&r of wild steelhead?

Please don't get to pi$$ed off (again), just give us the answers that we all can understand, and maybe, just maybe, we can support the unstated "long term goal of WSC"!

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

Cowlitz, As I'm am just a lowly member, with a job that pays OK[can't retire early like some], I believe hard numbers for escapement of wild fish are impossible to come by[unless we use the states numbers] because as of yet we don't have any unmolested numbers of wild fish in any system to base the science on. My personal believe is to have no harvest until the wild fish reach some sort of equilibrium, enough so to have some science to work with. BC's system works but most of our habitat is more degraded than theirs, we could make wild guesses based on their program but that would be dumb. The fish need to be protected as long as need be to provide recovery. You belong to an organization with[I assume] a mission statement that can be modified by vote of members if goals are reached or goals need to change for unforseen circumstances.I am a little bugged about your comment about great paying jobs, if you could please quantify that for me. It doesn't make sense for me to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to the peninsula for 20#'s of wild fish[maybe if I'm lucky ] when I can go to the store and get some food for sure, I've never come home from the store empty handed because my luck was bad. OPP'S 6 am need to start that great paying job!!

Todd,
I did read the mission statement, and while a bit vague in some areas, did explain your goals. How do you as a group determine what is sound hatchery operation to not impact wild fish? The opinions of scientist vary greatly here, and one will believe whatever fits into their personal agenda. While I do believe in wild steelhead release, and have prcticed it for years, even before it was law over here, I pose this question. I am not trying to be inflammatory here. Do you think the average steelhead fisherman
in this atate cares whether or not there are wild fish, or do they just want fish to catch?
Another question, Are you all, as a group uniting all steelhead advocacy groups, or are you another special interest group that will end up further fragmenting the sport fishermen?
I am not trying to incite heated debate here, just trying to understand the issues and agendas of your group.

Mike L is correct.

Neither Mike L, nor I are attacking your organization, we are only replying to the request that you had asked this board to do. Part of your request was; "$40 a year to much? I just can't understand the huge number of passionate posts about personal preference in tools to fish with and over 3000 Piscatorial Pursuits BB members and at least that many lurkers why WSC has less than 200 members. I would really like to have some feedback please."

It appears to me that $40 dollars a year may be a "little bit" to much for a few members to explain to their wife's. For the vast many, that probably isn't the case here, but it is a factor that your organization must address.

I know that when I was the business manager and treasure of a fairly large sport fishing group (the Friends of the Cowlitz) money was always a big problem and every time we raised our membership dues our membership would suffer to some degree. Every group truly believes that their organization is worth their price to join, and that is normal. But if you look at the bigger picture, i.e. $40 dollars here, $35 dollars there, $25 more hear, etc, etc, a guy may be past his limits, and just can't justify to his other half spending another $40 dollars. That's only one view point.

On your second question; "I am a little bugged about your comment about great paying jobs, if you could please quantify that for me". That was not intend to flame you or anyone else, that conclusion came to me after reading the tread "What pays the bills"

After reading that thread, it sounds to me like there are some pretty good paying jobs out there that members of this board are now holding.

Secondly, if your organization is to grow and survive, you will need to spread out your organization much further then the internet. You will need to hold many meetings outside your "local area". It has been my personal experience that founding members always tend to want to say in their own local area when they hold their meetings. That's not going to cut it if you want new memberships! I don't know if your organization is doing that now, but it's pretty much a common practice among most organizations.

No one wants to travel for 1 to 3 hours for a meeting and then find out when you get there, that you're the only one attending. Believe me it happens all the time. Running an organization is never an easy task. It takes lots of money, lots of volunteer time, and lots of support. Take away any one of the above, and your organization will be very short lived.

Finally, you are probably now realizing that your mission is not overwhelmingly supported by the many (less then 200 members).Your cause may be a noble one, but not one that is widely supported or shared through-out this state. In my opinion, if your organization is to grow, you guys need to change your "mission statement" to gain more public support. Like it or not, running an organization is no different then running your own business. And that requires making hard changes to survive. Sometimes those changes are so tuff that the founders can't accept it and the organization just fades away. Believe it or not most sport fishing organizations fail fairly early because of the demands are just to great. Good luck, it sounds like you guys will need it.

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

Cowlitz, When is your next Seattle meeting about the problems on the Cowlitz and the licensing issues I've only read about those on the internet. We are small and looking to branch out, usually a person from the other area that has an interest will suggest a chapter in their area. If there are those out there that would like for the WSC to hold an informational meeting in their area please ask, I'm sure somebody from the WSC would arrange to be there. We are not a political organization, but a group of people with the survival of wild steelhead at heart. If you disagree with our vieww[mission statement] can you provide a better solution.

I'm responding to two questions that were raised, and I'm speaking only for myself, not the WSC.

1) Do we have CNR seasons to stop and reverse steelhead population declines?

No. Harvest is but one factor responsible for declines in steelhead populations. Stopping harvest removes one of the factors for population decline. Closing a fishery accomplishes this (hypothetically, since poaching may continue during closures). The purpose of a steelhead CNR season is to provide steelheading recreational opportunity when the likely alternative is a complete fishing closure. CNR is demonstrated to have no measurable adverse affect on spawning escapement and subsequent productivity. This is attributed primarily to the low mortality rate associated with CNR seasons and their single barbless hook, artificial lure regulations. Other factors include density-dependent mortality associated with the resulting juvenile population and factors not associated with the CNR fishery.

2) How long do we have to have CNR; when can we expect to harvest wild steelhead?

First, what do we mean by harvest wild steelhead? A basic 2 fish/day, 30/season, like it was a few years ago? Or more restrictive, like 1 or 5/season from a given set of rivers, like on the coast maybe? How about a lottery - you draw a ticket, like for some elk or goat hunts? My response assumes 2/day, 30/season, per angler.

The human population of Washington is 5 1/2 million and growing. The fishing efficiency of anglers has increased over time.

Harvestable wild steelhead will not occur in any significant sense in the Columbia River system upstream of McNary Dam until lower Snake River dams are breached and mid-Columbia dams are removed (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and probably others). So it is unlikely there will ever be harvestabe wild steelhead in those areas while a significant human population remains in the region.

In western Washington, I believe we could achieve a condition suitable for a wild steelhead harvest fishery by satisfying either of the following two conditions:

A) When the human population of WA state declines to 2.5 million, overall impact on natural resources are likely to be reduced to the point where the river systems could recover enough to allow wild steelhead harvest at the level I assumed for this response.

B) Alternatively, permanently remove all humans and most signs of human development within 25 miles, east and west of I-5, from Blaine to Vancouver. The remaining landscape is significantly less suitable to human occupation, and the river systems would stand a chance of recovering to the point of sustaining a meaningful harvest. Especially as there would be no roads, drift boats, or jet boats in these areas to facilitate the harvest of fish.

This was just a long answer that could have been reduced to: never, if human population as we know it remains on the scene. To believe otherwise requires a Pollyanna perspective that ignores the incredible adverse effect humans have on salmon and steelhead even if we did not fish for them. How many of you get over 30 mpg with your fishing vehicle? When the state population was last at 2.5KK, almost no anglers had 4-wheel drive vehicles or drift boats. I think the jet sled had not quite been invented yet (came from New Zealand in early 60s). There were less than 1/3 as many miles of road as today. And there were half to 1/3 fewer dams.

On a statewide basis, we were rapidly running out of harvestable wild steelhead between 1968 and 1972 (my opinion, backed by only some data). Of course, we didn't cut back on harvesting them until begining in 1977, and much later on some rivers. And still harvest them on the coast.

The global population is over 6 billion and climbing rapidly. Some population experts believe the long-term sustainable human population for this planet is less than 3 billion. A growing population gravitates toward employment and resources useful for living, generally in the short term. Most of Washington's population growth if from immigration. The birth and death rates of people already here are about the same.

It is unlikely we can prevent further immigration and population growth. As the population grows, demands on existing resources increases. Under this scenario, all the habitat restoration projects imaginable will not create significant numbers of harvestable wild steelhead. We will continue to degrade habitat, even indirectly, faster than we can restore it.

CNR is a bit player in the big picture. It allows us continued fishing opportunity well into the foreseeable future. That, along with restrictive environmental controls, will allow us to pass a steelheading heritage to a few more generations. Hopefully, the next generation of resource and human managers will address the root cause of population and the unsustainable demand for natural resources. If they don't, the rules of ecology dictate a self-correcting action.

I apologize for the gloom and doom tone this renders, but I believe it is a fairly accurate reality check.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Cowlitzfisherman,

With all due respect, when all is said and done, I'm afraid that I much prefer it when Salmo g. "Makes me think."

What the hell Cowlitz? Why are you ripping on WSC when little is being done to help save our native steel?

Like salmo said, with the worlds population growing so much, you will be able to walk on roof tops from your beloved Cowlitz to my beloved Skykomish without even firing up your truck. The long term goal SHOULD be CNR on native fish FOREVER because there flat out wont be enough native fish around to support the kind of pressure this place can dish out.

I love the pic by B.Gray... You couldnt pay me enough to bonk a fish like that, even if you could walk across their backs...Those bad a** fish deserve to swim

I don't think Cowlitz is in particular, bashing WSC but asking questions about participation by fisherman. We as a group need to ask ourselves these questions and answer one way or another. Please don't make this a forum for bashing. Cowlitz has every right to ask those questions and they have been and will be discussed as this group grows and changes as the steelhead populations grow[I hope] and change. But at the same time WSC will not be a feel good group going nowhere so we can have membership numbers to brag about. I hope and pray we have wild steelhead release before we have no steelhead fishing period. Every year the wild runs decline-tell me WHAT IS YOUR BETTER PLAN!