Here's a response I got from the editor of the Forksforum.com regarding the poll.

This is strictly an informal poll with limited ability to phrase questions. I'm limited to just a few words and couldn't use your questions on it. This poll has nothing to do with the City of Forks and I hope no one over there, or anywhere, is naive enough to use the results in any way.

Bruce, Had a WSC member (works at Microsoft) email me and said he couldn't vote because it said he had already voted. I told him that somebody from Microsoft with the same IP had already voted, so no more votes from that IP.

Just tell him to get on a dial up connection Jerry. That way he can cast as many votes as he would like.

Only one vote from each IP. Some one else from my office tried to vote from a diferent computer and they couldnt as we are on the same line. It told him he had already voted.

That's right Rich, your internet connection is going through a router or Gateway. The poll is getting the IP from the router or gateway not each individual PC in your office.

The fact that some people can't vote (your case) and some people on dial up can vote more than once is one of the reasons why this poll is bogus but entertaining.

I moved this over to the other board yesterday and it has been deleted.

I heard tha petition is not doing well out in Forks. Not too many signatures.

Rich - I'm not sure the petition asks for signatures.

Not having been out there to see a copy for myself I'm only guessing that it simply asks that the readers contact the WDFW with their concerns.

For example:
"Catch and release is not needed for conservation. It will only allocate away from the current class of fishermen who may want to keep some of their fish, to another class of fishermen who do not. Neither group has it necessarily wrong, and the present system of extensive catch and release sections plus the five fish annual limit is a good and working compromise."

Plunk,

The majority of people out there that oppose WSR unfortunately for your stance are not the type to do anything more about it then talk amongst themselves over a beer.

Unfortunately that is true Rich.

Those guys just want to catch a fish for the table. They're just fishermen and not activists by an stretch of the imagination.

Their interest is in kicking back, relaxing and catching fish rather than getting uptight and involved in politics in their free time.

Plunker,

Its just priorities, most of those people dont have steelhead on the brain.

Fishing for steelhead for them is just not a priority in life. I know the type well and have many friends that feel this way.

They think completely different about the resource. Since Forks is in their back yard it is convenient to fish for a couple of hours, catch and bonk a fish and bring it home.

Not that they are wrong in how they vew things but there view is different.

On the flip side the group that is pro WSR take wild steelhead as much more of a priority gererally and have joinded together on the issue and have spoken out. They also outnumber the other side.

It is just the way things are going as for as the resource goes. Many are happy about it and some are not as with anything else.

There is another group that is more like the WSR group that also likes to retain fish but that is also a much smaller group than the WSR crowd.

This poll seems to be representing things just about right I think.

Zen Leecher

Wild steelhead in the forks area do not belong to the people of forks.. I live in Vancouver WA and my opinion on thoes streams mattrers as much as anyone there.
the notion that " the locals" somehow have more right to have their opinion heard than anyone else is absolutely false.. SO what zipcode the people who voted in that pool have is completely irrelevant....


Plunker.. all the forks area rivers are leaded with hatchery fish all winter long. it will not hurt a single person to harvest hatchery fish instead of wild fish...
wild fish for food agruments are completely false....

Hey I like that Plunker!
Very well said.

I hope you don't mind but I am going to borrow your sinature line for awhile on a different site.

Plunker,
The first thing said by Mayor Reed was wrong the rivers out there are not well! look at the numbers!
Bruce,
You took this off your board because you know you don't have a leg to stand ON!
DFW just sent me numbers on those rivers if people would take the time and read the info, they would see it differently!!

If Mayor Reed would look at the numbers from the state this might have been different. She must of ask Bruce and Cowman and Plunker!

FYI,

Wild Steelhead Coalition
Wild Steelhead in Washington Fact Sheet
February 2004

By Dick Burge, VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP Science/Education

1. In 1996 NOAA fisheries divided the west coast wild steelhead populations in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho into 15 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs), or discrete areas with similar genetic, life history and evolutionary traits. This was done for the purpose of evaluating the status of separate metapopulation units under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2. As of January 2004, eleven ESUs were either listed or a candidate under review for possible listing. Two of the 15 units were listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction), eight of the units were listed as threatened (in danger of becoming endangered) and one coastal Oregon Unit remained under further review.

3. In the mid 1950's, over 125 Washington rivers were producing catches of wild steelhead. Recently there have been only 15 to 18 Washington rivers open to wild fish harvest due to ESA listings and low spawner escapements. In the mid 1950's, about 60,000 to 90,000 wild steelhead were annually harvested by Washington sport fishers (harvest estimates are based on WDFW data and correction recommendations). In 2003, Washington sport fishers harvested 3,554 wild steelhead.

4. Hatchery fish now comprise 97.7 percent of the Washington sport steelhead harvest. In western Washington (Puget Sound and Coastal catch areas), hatchery fish comprise 90.4% of the sport harvest.

5. Washington's wild steelhead populations are either listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, chronically under-escaped or in periods of recent population declines. Of Washington's 7 steelhead ESUs, 3 are now listed as Threatened, 1 is listed as Endangered, while the other 3 do not currently warrant listing. In spite of the “not warranted” status, wild steelhead have in recent years been chronically under-escaped in the majority of Puget Sound ESU and Southwest Washington ESU streams. In recent years, only the Olympic Peninsula ESU has wild returns that have usually exceeded escapement goals and are open to harvest.

6. Most of the Olympic Peninsula wild runs have been in a downward trend between their individual run-size peaks in the early/mid 1990's and the latest run-size estimates from 2003. As the Columbia River and its tributaries, Puget Sound, Southwest Washington, and Oregon rivers closed to wild steelhead fisheries and/or harvest, many guides and fishers have relocated their fishing activities to the Olympic Peninsula.

7. For the past few years, the Pysht, Quinault, Hoh, Queets, Dickey, Sol Duc, Quillayute, Calawah and Bogachiel River total runs and escapements have all been in a downward trend from their recent peak run-size returns.

8. Last year (2002/03) the Hoh River was under-escaped by 800 fish. The run-size would have easily exceeded the escapement goal of 2400 spawners, but the combined sport and tribal harvest drove the escapements well-below the escapement goal. This situation came about because of an overly optimistic pre-season run-size forecast that was used to establish the harvest fisheries for 2002/03. For 2003/04, the pre-season run-size forecast calls or 4453 fish, and the co-managers agreed to a harvest allocation of 1395 fish for the Hoh tribe and 668 for sport fishers. The co-manager's plan calls for a targeted wild steelhead escapement of 2360 fish, or 40 fish below the escapement goal! We can only hope that this year's preseason forecast underestimates, rather than overestimates, this year's actual returns, and that the harvesters fail to achieve their full allocations.

9. The Queets River has been managed for spawners below its desired WDFW escapement for the last 10 years due to tribal demands.

10. Sport catch data since the 5 fish annual limit was established in 2001 indicates the regulation change has not reduced the total annual sport harvest of wild fish. For example, between 2000/01 and 2001/02, the Quillayute escapement declined 1300 fish while the sport kill increased from 1790 to 1930 fish.

11. Harvest models have failed wild salmonids in the 20th and 21st centuries as they are too simplistic and do not account for environmental variations, the role of life history diversity in population resilience, and other factors that are critical for sustaining healthy wild salmonid populations (freshwater habitat degradation, negative impacts of hatchery programs, etc).

12. Ocean and terrestrial productivity continually changes without notice or prediction, and this has major impacts and changes in salmonid populations. The only way to plan for these changes is to manage wild stocks much more conservatively than they have been with “maximum sustained harvest (MSH)” guidelines.

13. The life history of wild steelhead is far more diverse than most other salmonids. Seasonal runs, multiple year classes within a run, repeat spawners, juveniles that spend 1 to 3 years in the river, a riverine only component (rainbow trout), and river specific genetics, if protected, will provide resiliency and stability to these fish, even during poor environmental cycles.

14. A growing majority of sport fishers clearly prefer a non-harvest plan for wild steelhead. In 1995, 42.3% preferred CnR, 14% preferred harvest, and 43.4% had mixed opinions. In 2001, 49.3% preferred Wild Fish Release, 11.5% preferred releasing all steelhead, 2% preferred to close the fishery, and 33.9% preferred continued harvest (with 3.4% having no opinion). Combined, 65% of those with an opinion in 2001 preferred either CnR or closure for wild fish, even when a river would meet spawning escapement needs.

Data Sources: Washington Department Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries.

Or you could ask them to talk to similar small communities like "Packwood" and ask them how much these WSR rules have brought economic growth into their community. They were told the same thing that when wild fish were restored back into there area; that tourists from all over world would be coming there seeking to fish on these c&r "wild fish" and that there hotels, stores, and gas station would all prosper. They have had this type of "WSR" fishery in their streams and rivers now for over 10 years, and they are still waiting for that big promised "economic wave" from the "fishermen". There are always two sides to the coin Dave. I am afraid that for every one success story, that there is 10 failure stories.

PS; I wouldn't want to take my brand new truck to "Sparky's fish in" either (especially since its been posted on the internet). Maybe his followers can rent one of those armored prison busses (along with the guards ). If they were smart, they would post Sparky picture in their windows and ware shirts (the one with the bulls eye around it) and that would almost guarantee them that none would mess with them or their rigs Maybe Sparky can even talk Bob into posting no shooting signs along the local rivers

Sparky's new fishing vests are now available!