Todd, I'm simply asking some questions. Your the one getting all riled up. If I don't ask questions how will I ever find the answers?

Can you answer the question:

Does that mean that some hatcheries could be targeted for closure? It's a simple question, I don't know why you are getting so upset about it.

Isnt it a undeniable fact that there is some fish mortality involved in C&R fishing.And if thats the case anyone person and or group that supports C&R fishing is not truly 100% into saving these fish.They are only looking out for there own interests.Basicly there saying "it ok to kill some native fish as long as you do it our way" I have never killed a native steelhead myself.Just wondering how many supporters of this law can say that.

"You seem to be figuring it out by posting on four or five different websites, including your own, that WSR will lead directly to the closing of all hatcheries and the end of sportfishing, and that those two goals are what the WSC is after."
-------------------
Todd, have I said that you (WSC) are for the end of sportfishing and hatchery closures?

Your lashing out...

That statement has nothing to do with closing hatcheries, at all. It has to do with how hatcheries operate, not whether they operate or not.

I'm not all that riled up...I just wish you would have asked about the WSC's hatchery stance before you posted on all the BB's what our stance was, incorrectly I might add.

Fish on...

Todd.

If most rivers in this state are already managed under WSR regulations, then it seems to me, based on our current situation, that that course of action does not work and I don't understand the need for such a blanket approach of a failed regulation that is not currently working. I don't understand what is wrong with individually managing each river system based on that river systems conditions.

Members of the commisssion are also against such a blanket approach to managment.

Wow... You guys complain about nets and tribes. You just got the one tool that you will ever have to fight both of those issues, and some of you are complaining about your loss of "rights".... In fact, you just gained some. How can you complain about nets etc when you still bonk wild fish in Washington. For those of you forward thinking members of this board... Congratulations. Its a no brainer that it had to happen. Idaho figured it out 20 years ago.

"I just wish you would have asked about the WSC's hatchery stance before you posted on all the BB's what our stance was, incorrectly I might add."

---

You still haven't answered my question. Does that mean that some hatcheries could or will be targeted for closure?

Yes or No, will do Todd.

Where did I post anywhere what the WSC's stance was, I ask here what it was.

Salmo,
When was the last time the Yellowstone was netted.Come on you can do better than that! Lets see an example that is more like he conditions in this state.Using the Yellowstone is kinda grasping for straws dont you think.

Bruce,

Posted by you on Steelheader.net:

"Good luck in your battles fighting the tribes and commercials. My steelhead gear is officially retired and I will join you in your efforts to save our wild fish by supporting a total ban on sportfishing for steelhead and closing our hatcheries. "

Posted by you here on PP: (same stuff)

"Good luck in your battles fighting the tribes and commercials. My steelhead gear is officially retired and I will join you in your efforts to save our wild fish by supporting a total ban on sportfishing for steelhead and closing our hatcheries."

Posted by you here on PP:

"Closed hatcheries and Mandatory C&R coming to river near you!"

Posted by you here on PP:

"If some groups get their way our steelhead hatcheries will be shut down."

Bruce,

There is nothing in our Mission Statement or in the Draft Hatchery Policy that addresses shutting down hatcheries at all.

Our Draft Policy will attempt to set production goals for hatcheries and guidelines for how hatcheries should be evaluated to see how successful they are or not. This information can then be used to re-tool hatchery practices to help them better achieve their goals.

The only ones who can close hatcheries are the agencies that run them.

Fish on...

Todd.

Duroboat 15:

Salmo does not need me to answer for him, but I felt the need to respond to your disdain for the Yellowstone River example. I am old enough to remember the days when literally hundreds of anglers hammered those Yellowstone Cutthroat. They kill as many as 500 fish a day and guess what, the fishery almost collapsed. Now we have proof that for more than 30 years the system can and does provide thousands of days of recreational activity and still maintain a healthy population of wild trout. No it has not been netted but the sport kill was huge, perhaps equivalent to tribal netting.

Other more recent and more relevant examples include many B.C. rivers. The Vedder has tremendous angling pressure, higher than any river I have ever fished in Washington. Yet, in part because of C&R for wild fish the wild fish runs have remained strong. I think the Vedder is an example of how we can have our cake and eat it too. They plant approx 120,000 eight inch smolts each year and get back about 5,000 adult hatchery fish, which may be killed when caught, in addition the wild fish component has stayed healthy, in part because, they are not kept and killed. (The C&R ethic is so strong in B.C. that many anglers release hatchery fish too. This allows multiple catches of the same fish, which to me equals greater opportunity.)

Todd, Am I missing something. Where did I say anything about WSC and your hatchery policy?

I cannot believe people are arguing that a mandatory c/r on steelhead can hurt the fishery,

its a conspiracy man

Bruce,

What Todd is saying and is in the WSC draft hatchery policy is that we will evaluate each hatchery program and make an opinion on if the program is in line with the WSC charter. Does that mean we may come out against some hatchery programs. Maybe. Does it mean we might come out for some maybe. But we can't shut anything down the state is the the only one.

Here is an example of where I feel we might come out against a hatchery program. You have river that has a wild run but no hatchery facility or collection method for hatchery plants. I think we would probably oppose that.

One where I think we might give a positive recommendation would be one where the hatchery fish have limited interaction with the wild fish and there is a collection facilty and the means to keep them off the spawning beds of the wild fish.

There are no absolutes when it comes to hatcheries right now. Each one has to be looked at individually. If they hurt the wild fish we will be against it. If they aren't harming a the wild fish why would we oppose it.

JJ

I realize that the only ones that can close hatcheries are the agencies that run them, just like the only ones that can implement statewide WSR policies are the agencies that control policy setting. I'm not concerned about that. However as you and I both know those same agencies can be influenced by groups like WSC, that is why I am concerned about your policies regarding steelhead hatcheries and statements like this in your policy:

"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."

You are an avocate for wild steelhead which are now illegal for sport fisherman to harvest statewide. You are not an avocate for hatchery steelhead. Saying that the negative impacts on wild fish by hatcheries are to be removed, tells me something about your policy.

BP,

What im getting from you is that you are opposed to anything that could affect your current opportunity to harvest hatchery fish no matter what cost the hatchery fish are to the wild stocks.

Am I wrong?

If your asking me if I'm concerned that the opportunity to harvest hatchery fish is at risk. The answer is yes and it sounds like I should be concerned about it. Opposed to anything as you put it, I wouldn't go that far.

Wow, go out for a few hours and look what happens.

Just a couple more comments:

Salmo & Smalma - Keep it coming, my brain has still more room to process the ideas, opinions, and facts that you guys bring up.

Bruce - Todd has answered your question 4 or 5 times. The Wild Steelhead Coalition stands for removing or minimizing the IMPACT that hatcheries have on the wild fish. Move on Man!!! I agree that the way this regulation came into effect has caused me some discomfort. I would have preferred to have an open debate on the subject in the light of day. However, WDFW chose to not forward this regulation request to the Commission. One thought that I have had is that part of the reason that the Commission took this action is because a number of them were genuinely upset over being blindsided by WDFW on the request to NMFS for a higher kill rate on Wild Steelhead during the upcoming Springer season. Whatever reason they chose, I applaud them.

Dave V - I have enjoyed your writings for years. I have enjoyed your photos for years. Tonight, I will raise my glass in your honor and look forward to the day that we meet and to read your next post. I like your style.

My belief is that this thread (for me) is probably over. The positions are pretty well staked out. I am still ecstatic over the Commissions' action. It is the first step in a long journey that hopefully will lead to a continuation of Wild Steelhead in Washington.