Salmo G I am sure you are right about a lot of things about me,,

My comments on the Skagit however are correct. My point was and maybe i didn't make it clear that WDFW has already made a decision based on politics not on science in choosing the MSY strategy of managment.
It's polotics to say that we are going to manage our fisreries by harvesting as many fish as we can.

they start off by asking the wrong question becaus of the political nature of harvest..
they ask.." Whats the most we can take?"

if they were being scientifc about it they'd ask. " whats best for the fish?"

They should do away with MSY and go by MPE
Maximum possible escapment

Ok one more post

Mr ctflyfish, I do believe I was corrected on that a long time ago get over it. I certainly have not repeated that assertion! Pay attention dude.

Bruce, Duroboat,

Guys! What language can we communicate in with you? Somehow we're just talkin' past each other. Are you guys really reading our posts before you whip off your next rant?

Yes. This is about fishing opportunity. More for me, more for Todd, more for all of us, including you, who would rather have a river open to fishing, yet requiring us to WSR, when the next alternative is complete closure.

I've said more than once that we anglers aren't doing fish any favor by catching them. If they could think, I'm sure they'd rather we stayed home watching TV. But, as fish populations become smaller, scarcer, and the human population, including angling population, gets larger, a fishery manager is faced with limited choices. Close the river to protect all wild steelhead. That is one alternative. Another is to leave it open to CNK and let the scene play itself out, which would either be extirpation, or a new dynamic population equilibrium at a very low level (which is likely what we have on some rivers.). That alternative is inconsistent with WDFW's mandate to preserve and protect fish resources, however. A third alternative is to provide fishing opportunity with CNR. The limited mortality associated with CNR can be absorbed by most wild steelhead populations unless they are at critically low levels and in danger of extirpation. WDFW's WSP directs the agency to close a fishery if the run size is less than 80% of its MSH escapement goal, which is fairly conservative. So no significant harm results from CNR fisheries under this management alternative.

What kind of conspracy is this? Who does it hurt? How? You guys have a lot of boogymen, but I haven't seen any substance.

Sincerely

Salmo g.

Rob,

Please, please be careful with your opinions! Careful what you wish, ask for, or say WDFW should do. If WDFW used your MPE - maximum possible escapement - that would require no fishing by anybody, anywhere, with any gear type, at any time. Do you really know what you are saying? I appreciate the hell out of your passion, but when you describe your passion and love for fishing, and follow it with a "they should" that results in no steelhead fishing whatsoever, I gotta' wonder about you buddy. Please, think. Yeah, it's a little harder, but it's so very worth it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Ya ta hey, ya ta hey! (Off to Navajo land!) This is good for the fish and for future catch and releasers like perhaps my children.
I'm not Navajo, but I am part Nez Perce from the Chief Joseph time (known from intuition and word of mouth only). I think our government made a choice about the human family. I mean my pops took me out to catch steelhead at Chief Joseph dam on the Columbia River and that was a lasting thrill that fed my family. It's sad to see the catch and release system not in effect though.

Hmmm forty steelhead on bait. A conservative mortality rate (10%) would show 4 dead and wasted wild steelhead thats just one away from the current state wide limit on wild steelhead. Isnt that too many? So the new blanket rule is going to do what again?

I actually believe you fish now before I did not but your post was convincing I will try not to be so hard on you now :p

I stand unchanged and bullheaded I am against C&R until the nets are gone and the threat of hatchery closures is over. I would also like to see a statewide campain to properly educate people on catch and release techniques. The best that can happen now in my opinion is that the runs will die slightly slower. With the mentalility its ok to catch and release 40 steelhead with bait that aint going to happen.

How in the world can cnr on wild steelhead be anything but positive.Allowing all wild fish a chance to spawn is a huge step in the right direction.Now that the sportfisherman have shown an attempt to improve the wild stocks,there will be more ammo to use against the commercial harvest,both native and otherwise.
Lets be honest, people against cnr are in the group known as "meat fisherman" and never take a decision that reduces their freezer levels well.

NO MORE PICTURES OF WILD FISH!!!!!!!

To all who have pictures, on this Forums, showing wild fish being held for pictures.


Now is the time to "Remove any and all pictures" showing wild steelhead, either killed or just for the pictures.

The one on the home page, Wild steelhead, person holding and the little boy in the Santa hat, makes me cringe, everytime I log in and see that picture. I'm sure it took a while to get the camera ready, get the "pose just right", and then probably took more than 1 picture. The poor fish, the added stress might have added to its demise.

The picture may not be "what you want" but only wild fish pictures should be "still in the water" only pictures.

Probably piss some people off.....but that's how I feel about it!!!!!!

"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

Salmo -
I believe that you are putting a different management spin on this than what was being pushed for by the supports of the change to non-retention of the wild steelhead.

I understand exactly what you mean by Maximum Sutained Recreation (MSR). It is precisely that concept that appealed to me more than 40 years ago when I first became aware of the philosophy of CnR. However the arguments to lead to this change has not be based on MSR but rather ones of conservation.

As pointed out by Todd a couple hundred posts ago there were 2 reasons behind this change; 1) Rebuilding of depressed runs and 2) Conserving the remaining "healthy" stocks. He then went on to discuss genetic conservation and the other issues associated with conservation of a resource. I have seen the information in WSC's public presentations, read virtually all the written testimony supporting this change and the vast majority of the supporting arguments has come from the "black and white" world that has been expressed by Rob, Rich and others (sorry guys don't mean to offend); Rob's MSP concept if you will. Concepts like MSR were rarely mentioned and if so only as an after thought.

In the angler preference survey results that many supports of WSR like to refer to there was substantial support for WSR on stocks that had harvestable numbers in the run. With this change in management it has been decided that there are NO HARVESTABLE WILD STEELHEAD because we need to perserve the resource. The support of WSR was consdierably less when there were no harvestable fish.

Harvest impacts when managing in the conservation arena becomes one of limiting fishing impacts (landed and unlanded or in this case those that die from "bonking and CnR hooking mortality"). Since the supports of this change feel there are not harvestable fish at runs sizes of 150% or even 200% of MSY escapement levels than even WSR hooking mortality losses must be issue at those run sizes as well.

If the supporters on this issue plan on pushing for CnR opportunities (especially those targeting wild fish) at wild steelhead run sizes less below those levels then many suporters have been disingenuous in their positon and arguments. If the expectation is that this "bait and switch" from MPE to MSR is going to occur then the concerns of Bruce P and others may have merit.

This has become a run away thread. I suggest that we resrve it for the celebration and venting of this landmark decision. Salmo if there is interest in continuing this discussion or related ones in more detail I suggest that we move it (them) to another thread.

Off to work - will check in tonite.

Tight lines
S malma

Actually, all said and done, I'm fine with the new regs. I'm pretty good at adapting an making due. I just like flipping crap at Sparkey!

I know that I said I was done with this thread but I did think of one more thing that we, as supporters of the Commissions actions, can do. Please write an e-mail of support and thanks to the commission. They might get an earful from opponents (Gee, do you think so Eddie?).

Here's the address:

commission@dfw.wa.gov

Yea I agree with Eddie! Send in your emails and tell them that you support Rob Allen and others with this mentality:

------------------
"On the other hand Just yesterday I was talking with a local streamside landowner and bait fisherman.. last year from this stream he caught 40 wild steelhead and was happy releasing them all. In fact he made the statement " maybe someday there'll be enough wild fish they can do away with the hatchery."

Thats the mentality we should all have.. Thats the mentality that cares about wild steelhead..."
-------------------------

Unreal... Yea we should all have that mentality Rob!!

Eddie

Let's make sure that "everyone knows" that they should let the commission know their feelings!

If you're standing on the other side of the fence on this issue, feel free to write the Commission and tell them that their vote to make a 2 year band was illegal, and that it goes directly against the WSP and state policy and that it will be legally challenged if it is not Immediately reversed.

Here's the address:

commission@dfw.wa.gov

I would rather tell my kids why we cannot fish for steelhead anymore vs why there are no wild Steelhead. If that means locking down all the rivers then thats what it means. A hard line yes but far better than living with the fact that the fish vanished will I was on duty as a conservation minded sportsman.

Until we do away with commercial and tribal fishing we will just continue down the road to extinction.

I'm very happy with the outcome and have belonged to the WSC since it's birth over 3 years ago. I have seen the science that shows a long steady decline in wild steelhead numbers over the last 20 years. Those of you that think that wild steelhead release is a step in the wrong direction, show me your science that states otherwise. As JJ stated earlier, I'm also a board member of the WSC and i'm very proud of what the WSC has been able to accomplish and we aren't done yet.

You da man Jerry!

I agree. It's a fish grab and supporters of this ruling just want to make sure they get "the last fish".

Just like Rob's shining example. As it is now there is a 5 fish limit per YEAR and I'd even be willing to reduce that number. The person that Rob was talking most likely kills more than five fish a week.

Our rivers should be managed on an individual basis, this blanket policy just assures that this rulings supporters and the tribes GET THE LAST FISH!

Me too! We should all be thanking them, and renewing our WSC membership dues!