Please go to the Forks Forum website and post your opinoin in the poll regarding wild steelhead release.

Forks Forum Website

Fish on...

Todd

Boy thats a one sided vote.

The poll is on the right hand side of the page.

This auta help their case for opposition if they take it to court.

For sure they will get a bunch of compassion about the issue of no one will come to Forks and fish anymore because of this decision.

I would be supprised if they keep this on long with the way it is going.

I would be even more supprised it it gets published in the Forum.

Gotta love a scientific poll!

so... you figure everyone that voted in this poll had a Forks zip code??

If so, I have a bridge that's for sale.

How many members did you say that WSC had?


What are you going to do once they have all voted?


Cowlitzfisherman

Along similar lines, the following was posted by a member of the WSC on another board.

On Friday I stoped in and talked with Diane Schosak who runs the Forks chamber office. We talked for an hour about fish runs, science and Forks future. I let her know that there were many of us out there that want to help.

I did get a better understanding of their fears when she showed me a thread over on the WFF site. This thread had 4 or 5 posts of calling the Mayor a killer many other names that were not very positive to the folks of Forks. Ever notice when your thinking one way you have hard time seeing anything else. That thread did have many posts where fishers told the hot heads to cool their jets. I don't think those following all this see that though.

We talked about ideas and I believe many of them were new ideas to this very isolated communitty. Some of my ideas were the advertising in countries like Germany, England and Japan. S.E Alaska has done this and done very well indeed with tourists who will never have the money to fish for Alanatic Salmon in their own countries. I met a guide this winter who makes 100K a season just dealing with German Fishermen in Alaska.
I hope those in power here at Flytalk and other sites will allow a free link for the town of Forks Chamber of Commerce. I brought up that idea that such a thing might be able to be negociated and they really liked that idea.

Diane told me that the chamber is not into suing at this time and does not think that is the way the town will go. She told me that they want a meeting with the commission, the state, and Jim Buck and go over the procedure that was involved in making the two year moratorium possible.

I also let her know about Kush and the board of Directors of the BC Steelhead societity and the possibility that they may come down to fish these new waters and how Forks can be a closer destination to the Vancouver BC fishing crowd than much of their home waters are. They have never thought of BC crowd fishing OP waters before and she likes the idea.

CFM-
Do not take offense but what sort of experience do you have aside from anything directly related to the Cowlitz?

What sort of fishery/policy issues have you dealt with aside from those that deal with the Cowlitz?

Where have you fished recently aside from the Cowlitz/Lower Columbia and nearby tributaries?

I do not what to sound combative but you are telling all of us how it is when it seems like your experiences, battles etc. have all came from one river-a very unique river (in many ways) that does not resemble the vast majority of the rivers (again, in many ways) we are dealing with under the new WSR regulation.

Cowlitz, you have no idea what you are talking about when you relate it to Forks.

You know fellas it just might be possible that we are at the begining of the end of fishing as we know it. There are so many people that have to sacrifice alot so those of us who love fishing can continue to fish. So many that are detached from the world we live in. Maybe they will say heck with all this crap and divert funding to other things that perhaps serve a bigger percentage of the population. Just a thought.

I hope the city of Forks does not use that poll to gauge participation. If the poll only has a couple hundred total votes and the city of Forks uses that poll to gauge participation then they could be making a big mistake. The poll is flawed big time, it is very easy to cheat in that poll and vote more than once and the poll questions are also far to vague. The poll is interesting but thats about all it's good for.


The questions should read something like this:

A) Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish and can support a managed sport fishing harvest without negative impact to the resource. Do you feel that you should have a choice to retain up to five fish a year from those rivers?

B) Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish and can support a managed sport fishing harvest without negative impact to the resource. Do you feel that you should NOT have a choice to retain up to five fish a year from those rivers even though tribal harvest will continue and most likely increase on those runs?

Thats really what their asking isn't it?

No, its not.

That is what YOU are asking.

Looks like they don't want to answer YOUR question, likely because it too is flawed. It assumes that all rivers closed had a healthy run.

False...especially placed in historical perspective....

Where are all the early componenent Sol Duc, Bogachiel and Hoh fish runs then? Healthy? Tell that to that the guys that have been fishing in this town for forty years and they will laugh in your face. They died out because of their health?

Poor question and more skewed than the one posted in the Forum...

"It assumes that all rivers closed had a healthy run."

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion?

A: "A) Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish..."

B: "Do you feel that if a river(s) has a healthy run of fish..."

I'm no rocket surgeon....but that definitely seems to indicate you are asking the poll user to assume that the runs closed are healthy, which is laughable, at best.

The questions don't ask anyone to "assume" anything.

Based on your reasoning then your assuming that there are no healthy runs or harvestable fish available. If that is indeed the case then the river(s) should probably be closed to all fishing.

Maybe they should.

We'll know for sure in about two years.

...and retread arguments like 'if a river is closed for wild steelhead retention, it should be closed for cnr' are very poorly though out....

cnr mortality = arguably anywhere from 3 to ten percent.

bonked, dead native mortality = 100%

you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to do that kind of math.

Following YOUR line of reasoning, because there is a cnr only fishery in the upper hoh it should also be open for retention.

If the releasers can fish, so can the bonkers.

If the indians can kill 'em, so can the sporties.

You see that these are some pretty shallow arguments, don't you?


To me, its tears on a table full of spilt milk.

Face it Bruce, you are going to have to put the bonking stick away for a lil while.

Bonking stick?? I choose not to target wild fish that can't sustain harvest. I don't like catching those fish over and over again.

{edit}
Oh yea... You won't know anymore in two years than you know now.

"Following YOUR line of reasoning, because there is a cnr only fishery in the upper hoh it should also be open for retention."

Wrong again. CNR/WSR is a valid management tool and should be used when needed.