They were asking for 6 but could only settle on two. I'm sure they would've got some meaningful data with 6... everything is a comprimise


Science tells me that more fish on the spawning beds means more fish returning.

So's hows fishing for hatchery brats in march and april?

Exactly Fishnbrad!

There are still hatchery fish on some of the rivers... but you have to know where to look. :p

That statement says a lot to me.

It says I know where to catch hatchery fish in march... and you dont... :p

Piper your right , but for the most part steelhead caught state wide after mid-late Feb are gonna be wild and all that fish for them during these times are doing them harm. period

I agree it 's better than catch n kill but it falls short of what we need. And how it came about and the agenda of those that pushed it thru that worries me.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I'm fairly ticked off about this whole thing.

Hey Piper,

Rumor has it that you are one heck of a fisherman. If you keep all the hatery fish you catch we'll have to mail you a sausage with a hacksaw blade inserted c/0 the crossbar hotel.

CFM,

Before asking other people for vast amounts of info stop to consider that they may have jobs and lives.

better make it a piece of cake or pie... I wouldn't want to give big bubba any idea's...

Piper, like Salmo has said, that is not a "Fact"

It may help, but that isn't always how it works!

Slug
It's their reasonability to ask the WDFW and their staff to give them the information that helps them to make sound decisions. If they demand that others agencies must follow the WSP, why shouldn't they be held to the same standards?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM, the defacto rule has been wild steelhead release WITH exceptions as specified by WDFW in the rule pamphlet. All they did was remove the exceptions for 2 years.

Bob,

There's nothing in violation of the WSP here, is there? It hasn't been changed in any way by this regulation.

Where does the WSP say that the Commission can't remove the last five stream systems from the exception to WSR?

If you won't be surprised if it's legally challenged, or that it's illegal, why don't you take up a collection and go talk to an attorney?

Earlier I noted that it would be a waste of an hour's worth of attorney fees ($125 to $250), but I probably wasn't correct. It's probably more like a waste of ten minutes of attorney fees, so it won't cost you much to find out the answer from an "unbiased" attorney.

Knock yourself out...but don't keep saying it's illegal, and that it will be challenged, until you both show how it's illegal and fork over the $$ and get an attorney involved. Otherwise you're no better than the rest of the "sky is falling" crowd, spouting out doom situation after doom situation with no factual, legal, or even logical connection to the truth.

Spreading unfounded fear is not making an argument, or having a debate. I know it hasn't stopped many folks from doing it anyway over the last couple of days, some of it ad nauseum, but I expect that you're better at actually researching a bit before you go off on an emotional tangent.

Questions for you and others:

1. Is it illegal? Show me how...and don't say "it violates the WSP" or your usual "you know it, but are too biased to say it"...actually show me how it is illegal.

2. It was not based in science. Show me the science that it should have been based on, but wasn't. Show me the science it was based on, but how there's not a connection between the science and the regulation.

3. It will make foregone opportunity a reality and the Indians will catch all the fish anyway. Don't just say it, and Micro, don't read stuff out of a legal case that you clearly don't understand. Actually show me a court case that says it will happen, or where it has.
(Hint: Don't say the Quileutes...the allocations on the Queets River are based on negotiations between WDFW and the Tribe, not on any legal case that set the allocation. Another hint: there are no legal cases that really even say what FG is, much less use it. Don't let that stop you from looking, though.)

4. It will lead to the closure of all the hatcheries. Pure unadulterated BS...though the folks who have been pushing this fear hot button haven't been stopped by that. Show me how it will lead to the closure of hatcheries. True or perceived agendas of sportfishing or conservation groups have nothing to do with this...if it did, WT might have had all of them closed by now. Why will it happen now if it hasn't happened yet?

5. We should just close all the rivers. Why? Out of one side of your mouth you say that this will lead to the closing of all the rivers, then you say that we should close all the rivers. One is caused by the regulation (with no support by any of this fear's pushers yet), and the other is one you say we should do (without either saying why, or noticing the hypocrisy of complaining about it happening while at the same time saying it should).

***

I agree that there are lots of emotions running high on this topic, however...

When Bruce has asked (well, actually, told me) what the WSC's hatchery policy is, I told him. He asked six times until he finally realized he wasn't going to get the answer he wanted (that didn't stop him from continuing to give his version on other BB's). That's not emotional on my part, that's the facts.

When Micro and others started spouting about the "killers" that fishermen who release native steelhead are, I agreed. There is an associated mortality with releasing fish. The funny thing is, most of the people going off on this regulation start off by saying that they release native steelhead, too. Rather than just spout, I posted the results of every release mortality study ever done on steelhead. The numbers run around 3-5%, on an average, depending on use of bait or use of barbs (barbs, mainly, are the biggest difference). This means that a fisherman who releases steelhead must catch and release OVER 20 TIMES the amount of fish a wild fish harvester bonks JUST TO BE EVEN.

Again, this is not reacting emotionally, this is telling the facts.

People say this is an unfair regulation that is not balanced and goes to an extreme. The same people say we should either fish and be able to harvest, nor not fish at all. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this statement? This regulation offers a chance to both fish AND release wild fish. The ones that say it is not a fair balance argue that a "fair balance" should be one or the other...fish and harvest or don't fish.

Emotional response...if we don't get to bonk, then no one should fish.

The surveys say that the majority of fishermen support WSR...yet the anti's keep saying it's for a minority of elitists. Which is the fact, and which is emotional?

It's being pushed by people who want it to be flyfishing only. Anyone have a picture of me with a steelhead and flyrod? No...there aren't any. I guess it's possible that I hid my flyrod and borrowed the nearest gear guy's rod for the pic...but not likely.

It's being pushed by people who are anti-hatchery and anti-hatchery fish. Again, pure BS. Same with the people who say we'll have to go to the store to eat fish now. Are those people actually suggesting that the only fish they eat are wild steelhead from the OP? If not, then why do they have to go to the store to buy a fish? I eat dozens of fish every year, and so do all my non-fishing friends and neighbors...all hatchery fish, all caught by me, and all very well enjoyed both as recreation and food. Those fish came from hatcheries.

I'd challenge any other comments to be supported by facts, or at the very least, logical arguments.

Not emotional responses, not "sky is falling" assertions with no connection to reality, much less supported by facts or logic, not unfounded and factually bereft statements about the conspiracy between PETA, WT, and the flyfishing elitists to get this regulation passed as the first step towards no fishing ever.

Unless, of course, you have some facts to back it up.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

Good Post

Todd;
I was gonna say that!
Thank You.

You choose to continue killing wild steelhead, I choose to let them live.

Regarding the legalities of your blanket ban, I'm working on that and I'll be sure to let you know when I have all my FACTS in order.

Huh? I musta missed something. If you oppose the new ruling PROHIBITING the killing of wild steelhead, how is that choosing to let them live?

Todd,

AMEN!

"If you oppose the new ruling PROHIBITING the killing of wild steelhead, how is that choosing to let them live?"
-----------

I think you might me a little confused 4salt. This blanket ban does NOT prohibit or stop the killing of wild steelhead.