Well Salmo,

Apparently I am not the only member on this board that believes that NMFS and WDFW have really screwed up on the Cowlitz and its management of steelhead!

These are the results of my poll, and they certainly reflect what and how the vast majority of fishermen would like to see the Cowlitz River managed. And the poll results are from one of the biggest "wild" steelhead supporter's evocate groups around. It would certainly indicate that what NMFS and the WDFW had done on the Cowlitz was NOT SUPPORTED by the majority of the "wild" fish advocates. The next time you guys want to play god on the Cowlitz, maybe you should reread this poll. Or better yet maybe a judge will be doing it for you!

Our board has spoken, and you should pass on the "message" that "all is not well" on the Cowlitz!

The results:
Should historical winter run-timing (Nov-May) of steelhead be maintained?
Choose 1
Yes 82% (27)
No 18% (6)

Should only "late timed" (April-May) steelhead be used for natural production?
Choose 1
Yes 30% (10)
No 70% (23)

Should all Cowlitz winter steelhead be allowed to spawn naturally in the Cowlitz?
Choose 1
Yes 42% (14)
No 58% (19)

Should summer runs also be allowed to spawn in the upper Cowlitz?
Choose 1
Yes 64% (21)
No 36% (12)

Should WDFW be allowed to "create" a "new native" run of late winter steelhead?
Choose 1
Yes 18% (6)
No 82% (27)

Allow all stocks to utilize the 240 miles of habitat for natural production?
Choose 1
Yes 70% (23)
No 30% (10

Cowlitzfisherman

great Poll Cowlitz. The only thing i'd say is that just putting hatchery fish above the dams does not mean that the habitat will be used as natural production. The most telling statement is our answer to the creating a new wild run on the Cowlitz. A resounding no.
1 they won't be able to do it anyway because hatchery fish don't reproduce in the wild well enough to sustain the run. The idea of creating a wild run from a hatchery run is so absurd i can't even imagine the Bio's at wdfw thinking it is possible.
I think we all agree that the Cowlitz should be managed as a hatchery production river and that money spent of wild fish should be in tribs to the lower Cow.. Toutle, Coweeman ect...

My only question was the wording on the late winter steelhead. You said "all", so I voted no because I want the hatchery to use these fish to produce more fodder for the masses.

I would have voted "yes" if the question went on to state that "any fish, marked or not, could be kept ". This would basically acknowledge that the vast majority of all returning fish were of hatchery stock origin and that an intact adipose was not a indicator that the fish was indeed "wild".

Make the Cowlitz the "supermarket" river for Western Washington. Stock it to the Bejesus, and maybe that would take a fair amount of pressure off of the other rivers, basically sacrificing one river to save many.

I think that was the idea in the first place, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Andy

Dogfish

That probably would have been a better question! But the poll question space only allows you to write x amount of words in it. I guess I should have just asked another question to get the right wording. Maybe next time! I knew that a couple of the question would be confusing, but the room limits what you can ask. Thanks for your input.

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM - I appreciate your enthusiasm but your finger pointing is mis-directed. Neither NMFS nor WDFW destroyed the Cowlitz or the steelhead fishery. Tacoma Power did. They built the dams. They built the project without fish passage. They (plus FERC) are the reason for the problems you’ve raised. NMFS and WDFW are trying to resurrect some semblance of the native fish stocks on the Cowlitz River. You may disagree with their approach. You may disagree on the feasibility or appropriateness of the stocks they’re trying to restore/establish. Those disagreements are acceptable. Your views, however divergent, are welcome. But accusing these folks of destroying the Cowlitz River just because of a disagreement over stocking policy is ridiculous. Worse, it undermines the support for their efforts to protect the Cowlitz. I really hate it when folks throw rocks at people trying to protect the fishery (NMFS/WDFW) rather than the folks who caused the problem (in this case, Tacoma).

Your survey is interesting but the sample size (33) is too small (I can count more anglers at Blue Creek on any given weekend). When the sample size reaches 100 or so, it might be possible to draw reliable conclusions. However, I will add that the Cowlitz River is not, has not, and never will be the exclusive property of recreational anglers. It is a public resource that belongs to everyone. Even those folks who never pick up a fishing rod. If you were to survey the general population in the State of Washington, the results might be very different.

Lastly, I would add that the folks at the WDFW work for the people of the State of Washington and for the fishery resources of the State. Ditto for NMFS at the Federal level. They do not work exclusively for recreational anglers, despite the support of our license dollars. They’re task is to protect the fish. At times this may conflict with the desires of some recreational anglers. But that’s okay. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable. Get it?

BTW, I don’t work for WDFW or NMFS, and I wasn’t involved in the Cowlitz River relicensing.

My finger pointing is not mis-guided on this issue. You are 100% right that neither NMFS nor WDFW destroyed the Cowlitz or the steelhead fishery. I have never said that they had "destroyed" it either. What I have said, and can prove is that both NMFS and WDFW are in the process of "destroying" the early steelhead winter run on the Cowlitz. That is an undisputed fact! Apparently your lack of research has limited your ability to fully understand what WDFW and NMFS have done that almost certainly has limited the amount of future production of winter steelhead on the Cowlitz.

Basically, when Tacoma first made the dams, the NMFS was not even around. The mitigation of the fish fell upon WDF, USFWS, WDW and a lesser degree, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Basically it was the USFWS that called all the shots of fish passage on Tacoma Cowlitz Project.

You say that Tacoma built the dams, and "They (plus FERC) are the reason for the problems you’ve raised. NMFS and WDFW are trying to resurrect some semblance of the native fish stocks on the Cowlitz River."

Well that is only partially true. Let's not forget who allowed Tacoma to remove the fish passage for Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams. The FERC Removal Requests were all signed by the USFWS and WDF, WDW. When it came to the "down stream" fish collection facilities at Mossyrock being abandoned guess who allowed that one to happen? That's right, WDF, WDW, and USFWS! But then again, it was Tacoma's fault for asking for it . . . right?

You say;" But accusing these folks of destroying the Cowlitz River just because of a disagreement over stocking policy is ridiculous. Worse, it undermines the support for their efforts to protect the Cowlitz."

Cohoangler, what the devil are you talking about? Protect the Cowlitz from what? Please explain to our board, in detail, what we are being protected from!

You go on to say; "I really hate it when folks throw rocks at people trying to protect the fishery (NMFS/WDFW) rather than the folks who caused the problem (in this case, Tacoma)."

Why don't you ask these people who you are trying to defend on this issue just how many times that "I" the Cowlitzfisherman have stood my ground to protect them! I really want see if any of them have the gonads to say otherwise! BRING THEM ON!!!

I'll bet you that you won't get very many "on comers". .. . but let's see!

You said; "Your survey is interesting but the sample size (33) is too small (I can count more anglers at Blue Creek on any given weekend). When the sample size reaches 100 or so, it might be possible to draw reliable conclusions."

That may have a little merit, but on this board, a "sample" of that size is like an "iceberg" in the frog pond! People have been given the chance to see both sides of this story, and they have clearly spoken their opinions. It may be a hard bullet to bite, but when enough evidence has been put forth, people are very capable to see what is factual and what BS!

You say; ". . . Cowlitz River is not, has not, and never will be the exclusive property of recreational anglers. It is a public resource that belongs to everyone. Even those folks who never pick up a fishing rod. If you were to survey the general population in the State of Washington, the results might be very different."

Cohoangler
You're wrong again! During the Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB) hearings that were held last year on the Cowlitz, testimony revealed that in fact, sport fishing was, and is the number one (1) recreational activity on the Cowlitz. Again, please do the research to back up your statements!

Finally, I know what the WDFW and NMFS "mandates" are. I have worked hand and hand with both of these agencies for many years now and have developed some pretty good friendships with some of them. But that does not, nor will it change my goal and commitment to see that the sport fishermen will never again be left in dark on the Cowlitz.

In the most part, most of these people care and do work for the resources of our great state. But when they (the policy makers) get side tracked, they need to become accountable for their actions. As I get older, I find that hindsight is no ones faults but your own!

Thanks for your comments, and I apologize if I have offended you. I just tell it as I see it, and let the facts and the information that has lead to the facts fall where they fall. When people can show me otherwise, with documentation, I will be the first to eat my words!

It will not happen often because I DO MY HOMER WORK FIRST.

Cowlitzfisherman