Thanks again Jerry for sending me the packet of proposed Sportfishing rules. One thing that chaps my butt is that they will not consider Statewide C&R of wild steelhead. Their rationale - "The Commission considered this during the last major regulation cycle and did not adopt it. It is too soon to re-address the issue. In addition, not allowing wild steelhead under any circumstances will complicate allocation issues with treaty tribes."

So, let's look at this. The "too soon" issue is one that bureaucrats typically use. The claim is that we need to give the current regulation some time so that we can judge its effect. The only problem - the current regulation is not new, its the same old regulation (albeit restricted to fewer rivers) that has been in effect for years. In my opinion, a major copout!!

The complication of allocation with treaty tribes is not explained. Are we talking the famous "foregone opportunity"? I would like to see explanation of this. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can get this statement explained?

Those of us who believe in wild steelhead release need to keep up the pressure. Don't let the bast**ds grind you down.

Eddie

The complication issue with the tribes is a reality across the board. I think the dept. has alot more clout than they use in the tribal area but they are the "don't rock the boat" club...except when it comes to sports fishers of course. They don't give a **** about us. If you scream too loud about something they will do the opposite just to spite you. Take the shrimp allocation issue last spring as a shinig example. Anything like fin clipping or C&R of wild fish pushes the tribes into a corner and they don't like it. They don't share your reverence for wild fish. to them they are just fish.....dollars and cents man..not some religious icon. that is BS

Grandpa is right on this. In defense of SOME dept. empoyees though, I do want to point out that there are many biologists who are as frustrated by the dept. politics as we are. Think how tough it must be to care about the rescource and to work there.

The Wild Steelhead Coalition is still working to get the commission to consider wild steelhead release year round statewide. The WSC helped get the reduction from 2 per day/10 per year to 1 per day/5 per year at the last rules cycle change. The comission can consider items not in the proposal list. To enact change it is necessary to give testimony at the hearings. The WSC WILL BE THERE. The wild steelhead certainly is not a religious icon but wild steelhead need more protection.

I have to agree with surecatch and grandpa on this one. The Game Dept. likes things the way they are now (makes them think that the current regs are right and working) . Dont look bad to the public that way.
Got to keep banging at the gates though, some day we might get through.

I guess I should have said that the commission will come to a comprimise on some proposals as the current rule of 1 per day/5 per year was NOT a proposal 2 years ago. The WSC's proposal was for wild release year around state wide with no exceptions. We came within 1 vote of passing. The comprimise was todays rule. One of the other proposals 2 years ago was to up the limit for wild fish and the Montesano WDFW office supported that change.

Sure is funny how OUR constitution can me changed/amended "for the good of the country", but Treaties cannot be??

Maybe it is time to start telling Judges, Lawyers and others "NO".......

Works for us common folk.......

MC

We may have to stop leaning on laws and traditions from 200 years ago and update things a bit. Stop worrying about what the "founding fathers" did and said and stop trying to put a 21st century interpetation on amn 18th century treaty. No way was the intent of the treaties in the 1800s to allow the lopsided harvest of fish and shellfish that we see today. And it is getting more ridiculous all the time.

JG..my reference to a religious icon was directed at how the tribes fall back on salmon as a religious symbol or a ceremonial icon. Not that anyone interested in saving wild fish worshipped them as an icon...I'm all for the release of all wild fish as soon as we can tell the difference across the board.

That's horse shi*!!! again proof that WDFW has no interest in doing what is good for wild fish, what is good for sport fishermen or what is right..
Killing wild steelhead anywhere in the state of Washington is a wrong and stupid thing to do and reflects the charecter of anyone who does it.. Not allowing the fishing public to be heard on this issue reflects the charecter of the WDFW comission.. I give up WDFW is a worthless organization!!

The last time I checked, WDFW and the "Commission" were both state agencies and not "organizations"!

Rob, can you please tell us again what the legal mandate is for WDFW or the "Commission" is to "protect" wild steelhead???????

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz i said nothing about a legal mandate.. it's a moral obligation of our society. to protect these fish and WDFW are the direct custodians of this obligation.. They are failing and have been failing since their creation..

Rob

I understand your concern, but when ever did any state agency have any "moral concern" about our fish?


Cowlitzfisherman

i for one see the treaties as a copout..in 1855 they didnt have powerboats and gill nets..take them away from them and even the indians will give up fishing.. in idaho, on the clearwater for example, they have access to snag in front of the clearwater hatchery..do i see any indians fishing the main river or in the upper northfork, no!, cuz that would be to much work for them...i agree with ya robert, a statewide release for all wild fish, even idaho has that, they see the importance of wild fish, why doesnt washington? wdfg needs a butt kickin.........

it was my thought that there is already statewide wild steelie release on all waters, except ones that can support them. if a river can sustain fishing pressure, why not be able to keep fish?

We need to make progress on marking all hatchery fish so we know which ones are wild. Right now many tribes still refuse to mark because they do not want to be part of restrictions on catching wild fish. Heck they are marketing their hatchery fish in the grocery stores right now calling them "wild salmon". I don't see the tribes marketing working like Bruce Gore's has.

We need to make progress on marking all hatchery fish so we know which ones are wild. Right now many tribes still refuse to mark because they do not want to be part of restrictions on catching wild fish. Heck they are marketing their hatchery fish in the grocery stores right now calling them "wild salmon". I don't see the tribes marketing working like Bruce Gore's has.

If you look through the regulation proposals, there actually is a proposal to make statewide mandatory release of wild steelhead, no exceptions a regulation.

Each river that is now exempt from the statewide wild steelhead release has a regulation proposed that would eliminate that excemption. IMHO, it was written that way to make it more difficult to get what we (the people) want.

BUT, I think it may allow us to chip away even more. To think that this year would be any differant from 2001 is ridicilous, as in, I do not think a complete statewide wild steelhead release with no excemptions proposal would pass. On the other hand, it is much easier to get the excemption removed on smaller streams such as Goodman Creek and on rivers that have had poor runs in the past few years (The Queets System).

We may not get every river this year but we may narrow it down to just a few and in two years, we can tackle those!

Let me take the comments somewhat in order.

Grandpa - I agree that the relationship with the tribes is complex and changing. I really want WDFW to state "for the record" what the complication for allocation with the treaty tribes means in regard to statewide release of wild steelhead.

MasterCaster - This issue has been debated so many times, a treaty is more difficult to change than the Constitution. You and I may not like it, but the original signers (the Govt. and the tribes) need to agree in order to make a change. I don't see the tribes doing anything that will weaken their advantage in that process.

Chum Man - It is the determination of WDFW that the 16 rivers that have wild steelhead retention can support harvest. I for one am not willing to trust the future of the wild steelhead gene pool to them. My opinion only.

Sparkey - As I understand what Jerry sent to me, the Wild Steelhead proposal is part of the package that will not be going forward. I did recognize some of the names from this board, including yours but am dissapointed there was not more folks sending in a request.

I stand mistaken. When I first browsed over the proposals very quickly yesterday, it seemed as though all the rivers that currently have excemptions were going to have those excepmtions removed.

Now that I read it closer, it is only certain rivers.

The problem is that the WDFW used to claim that many rivers could sustain a harvest. They were wrong. Now they're telling us that a few can still handle it and we're supposed to believe it. Look at the north sound "S rivers". It wasn't too long ago that harvesting wild steelhead was allowed. Now they're closed to all fishing in the spring.