Just like I said,we release nates so the gill killers can increase their catch. Way to go, we still have not learned from out past mistakes and continue to let the commercials out manuever us and to lead us around by our noses. If you vote and fish, then you should be outraged, if you fish and don't vote, you should be ashamed.

SSF,

Can you elaborate on the commercials' stance? Curious...

Thanks!

Fish on...

Todd

how about a link so we can see/read what as got u going.

I don't know if any one has read the little rag the PSA has put out but they are really bashing the C&R mandate. I have read several of their issues because they drop them at our shop and recently the person who writes the casting in the wind (should be farting in the wind.) Really ripped into the wild stealhead coalition (special interest group). From my perspective the PSA is only interested in whats good for them and not what's good for the resource. I will recomend that any one on this board who really belives in the value of protecting wild steelhead not donate or join the PSA.

I'm the author of that article and I stand by what I said. Firstly, I never even mentioned the WSC in that article. I didn't name any groups or persons. This has been hashed to death here on this board already but I'll say it again, this new mandate will not do any good. The runs will continue to decline long after they've closed all rivers to sportfishing and only the Tribes can net. You honestly don't find it infuriating that the commission you all were praising for making the decision is trying to allow a 200% increase in wild steelhad bycatch in the Columbia River system? Do you really think the commission or WDFW actually cares about the resource? If anything, this proves my point. They pass yet another restriction on the sportsmen (the largest economic contributers of the resource and by far the least damaging to the resource) while at the same time, while people are praising them for the decision, they stab you in the back.

W. Coyote,

Thanks for pointing this matter out. It looks like two whores fighting over the same side of the street. (comercials and PSA). my 2 cents.

Cigar

Classy remark. Divided we shall be conquered. While we sportsfishers are busy fighting amongst ourselves, the commercials and PETA-types take our sport away.

I am a member of PSA and can tell you that PSA as a whole does not share the beliefs of those articles that Jacob writes. I for one have been cringeing every time I have read one of Jacobs articles. THese are his own ideas and ideals, please don't speak for the rest of us Jacob.

Steve Ng

Just out of curiosity, what other articles of mine have you cringed at? My article on how to rig a float fishing out fit? Perhaps it was the story of introducing my brother and friend to steelheading? Or was it this month's column on how to rig a pink worm? Just out of curiosity.

w. coyote and Cigar:

You are way off the mark in your blanket criticism of PSA. I would submit that, as an organization, PSA is currently doing more positive things for sports fishing and shell fishing than either one of you would ever accomplish in your lifetimes, and more than most organizations in Washington combined. Sorry fellas but you are both way out of line. Sports fishing advisory groups are made up by and large by hard working and dedicated volunteers and most of them are PSA members. Many of the positive things evolving in sports fishing are thanks to PSA. Many other groups are very active in a positive way including WSC. No one that I know in PSA bashes WSC. Personal opinions may vary widely on the issues that WSC champions but no one and certainly not PSA as a whole doubts their passion for our fisheries.

Personally I am for WSR but totally understand and respect the other side of the issue. You two might try it sometime. See both sides, make your case and respect others. Instead you choose to bloviate , all puffed up with your own narrow agenda. You obviously do not understand what you are bashing. Positive actions walk the walk and hollow ponitificating is feeble and embarassing. Read your posts again and if you are not embarassed you should be.

The REEL NEWS is not published by PSA but by Jim Goerg who , I submit, has done more for the advancement of sports fishing than you two blowhards will ever do in your lives. The paper is a vehicle for a fee for groups like PSA to get the word out about what they do. The REEL NEWS has been honored with excellence awards in outdoor writing and was voted the publication of the year in its field last year. Hardly a "RAG. The REEL NEWS has a subscription tally of about 30,000. Every issue has a tremendous amount of fishing information you won't find elsewhere. Several contributing volunteers write about things they care about and voice a wide range of opinions. No one asks you to agree with everything but we would ask that you think before you spew.

I wouldn't be so pi$$ed if you had some substance to your argument but like so many on this BB you only see your outlook on things. Have you gotten down in the trenches to make any difference on the issues you are passionate about? Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?


Steve Ng....Every member of PSA has a voice including Jacob. Write an editorial about your disagreement but don't worry that PSA speaks for you. Come to the board of director's meetings and find out more in depth info on what the consensus is. If you don't agree you are totally within your rights to do so. PSA is not a single issue organization but a group of volunteers looking to do something good for the future of fishing of all kinds. WSC is a wild steelhead organization and they have their agenda just like PSA does. At PSA all members have a voice.

Jacob, you have had more than one article *****ing and moaning about many things, including the tribes, the WDFW, that nothing will be done by the comission, etc. If I had the reading material in front of me I would quote you, but I don't. I do believe that you have a right to voice your opinion, but do not include "me" as part of your opinion as a PSA member. One of the reasons that I cringe is because, if I seem to remember correctly when you first showed up on this board you did not seem to know much about steelheading and now you are the "Pro", but I might be completely wrong on that. If I am set me straight and I will accept that I am wrong!

And Grandpa, I imagine that every chapter has a certain consensus on such matters, and I do not believe it is the concensus that Jacob portrays, at least not in the Gig Harbor Chapter, but then again, most of the guys down here are not steelheaders.

And BTW this is my editorial.

Steve

There were many different orgs. at the Steelhead summit last year. The consenses was to support WSR, was not PSA on board with this?
Why the slanted artical Jacob? Are you just writing for yourself or PSA as a whole?

Do you want to be able to fish (at all) for steelhead 5 years from now? Do you want your kids to be able to fish for steelhead?
I have still yet to see too many steelhead in a river. :rolleyes:

The only other thing I can think of would be a bit I wrote in the February issue where I told the story of the game warden kicking us off the Snoqualmie a week before it was supposed to close. I pointed out that there was obviously a communication problem between WDFW and the game department. I didn't realize that would be controversial. I've only written 3 articles under the Casting in the Wind title. The first one was the story and the game warden issue, the second was the one you don't like, and the third is about fishing the pink worm. In January, I wrote Plug Cuts column on how to float fish. That's it.

Steve...I think it is important to point out that there are 14 chapters in PSA and all of them are very independent. When we vote at the state board meetings it usually isn't a vote to endorse a special issue like WSR. I missed the March meeting where WSR was discussed. The chapters on the OP are against it I think. PSA does not focus on steelhead issues like WSC does so it should be no surprise that we don't take the lead on large steelhead issues like the moratorium. With a big , diverse, group we can't agree on many things. What we do agree on is moving the North of Falcon process forward with proactive measures to improve sports fishing. Also it is important to know that the REEL NEWS and the writers who voice their opinions there are not the "official" mouthpiece for PSA. It so happens that many of the people who have some standing on the sports fishing scene are members of PSA and contribute to the paper.

To respond to the ridiculous claim that PSA and commercial fishing interests share the stage. I would say that nothing is further from the truth. The WDFW Region 5 managers down on the Columbia River are the ones who petitioned the NMFS to triple the allowable mortality impacts on ESA fish. This is specifically designed to allow the commercial fleet to target more fish in the river. I think it is safe to say that most PSA members are against that.

I understand that this is predominantly a steelhead board and so anyone who speaks up against WSR is soundly bashed and shut down. Many people believe that WSR is a good idea but do not share the belief that the moratorium is the way to go. I think there is some merit to the belief that WSC is a special interest group with a narrow agenda. With that said, I would rather have them doing what they are doing than not. I think there is a lot of anecdotal evidence showing that alot of supporters of WSR and the moratorium support the plan because they believe that catch and keep fishermen are a low form of life and wish they were not on the rivers. WSR will reduce the crowds of those undesirable "crackers" so it is good for that reason.

This board resorts to personal attack alot and it is tough sometimes not to respond in kind. People here have crushed opposition to the WSR policies. To me it is unfortunate because there are definitely two sides to this story. Apparently only one is welcome here.

Grandpa,

I do not feel that my oposition to WSR has been crushed. Far from it. Certainly I have been argued with, but none of these arguements led to a clear superiority of the WSR position(scientifically speaking). The fact is that WSR is the law of the land for the next two years. In two years, the arguments will resume in earnest and more data will be present. I do not think, if science is the prime consideration, WSR will be reinstated.

Certainly the majority of the members of this board do not agree with me, but that's ok. Right nowm, WSR is not forever just two years.

I think respectfull dissention is an important part of any discussion group. In fact, a respectfull hashing out of differences may help to bring us together as sportfishers. We could certainly use more unification.

WSC has worked very hard on WSR. While I think those efforts would have been better spent on other issues, I do respect them for their dedication.

Unfortunately, it appears participating in the political/legal areana is the only way to get what you want for the resource these days. Clearly WSC and WT have learned this lesson. The angling community at large needs to learn it too. I don't agree with the way WT, and WSC have conducted their agenda's but I have to agree that they have been effective in attaining their objectives.

Maybe common anglers needs to come together and form a comprehensive political agenda (right after hell freezes over).

I got this from PSA's March Board meetings that was sent to me. So it appears to me as an outsider that PSA isn't infavor of the steelhead moritorium.
JJ

On behalf of the NOP chapter, Dave Croonquist presented a resolution passed by the NOP Board in opposition to the moratorium on retention of wild steelhead and asked for support from the PSA State Board. The resolution was read and the Board passed it unanimously. Dave also indicated that a letter was being prepared to send to WDFW Commission Chairman Will Roehl. Copies of the resolution and letter follow.
*****************************
North Olympic Peninsula Chapter
March 4, 2004

Mr. Will Roehl, Chairman
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, Washington 98382

Dear Chairman Roehl and Commission Members:

The North Olympic Peninsula Chapter of Puget Sound Anglers (PSA/NOP) does not support the imposition of a statewide moratorium on wild Steelhead retention. We would like to make the following comments about the moratorium:

• Process – The process that resulted in the moratorium was flawed and not consistent with your normal approach to regulation setting. It appears that a specific interest group had an agenda and used the system to obtain their goal. Their goal was not subjected to public or Co-Manager query and was in conflict with staff recommendations.
• Wild Steelhead Declines in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound – The moratorium does not address the problem (cause) and helps hide the symptoms. The WDFW and the Commission should work proactively to complete and implement the new Steelhead Management Plan.
• Sustainable Fisheries Act, 1996 – A goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Act was to ensure sustainable fisheries and permit harvest on healthy species/stocks. A statewide moratorium on wild steelhead retention is counter to the stated goal of the Act, given that the Co-Managers have identified harvestable stocks of wild steelhead, many of which are indigenous to the Olympic Peninsula.

The PSA/NOP Chapter requests that the Fish & Wildlife Commission modify the applicable regulations based upon WDFW staff and Co-Manager recommendations to permit wild steelhead retention in watersheds that have been determined capable of supporting a wild steelhead fishery based on scientific evidence of wild steelhead populations in excess of the numbers needed to sustain the run in a river or river basin.

Please understand that PSA/NOP chapter leadership and members are conservation activists and are members of many WDFW Advisory Boards. Our primary goals and involvement are directed towards:
• Conservation of species/stocks for future generations
• Habitat restoration and protection
• Science based management of resources
• Sustainable fisheries for recreational, commercial, and Treaty fisheries

Sincerely,
Tom Duttrey, President
Puget Sound Anglers, North Olympic Peninsula Chapter
84 Windsong Ln.
Sequim,Wa. 98382
360-683-0681

Pasting errror here is the the second half.


The North Olympic Peninsula Chapter will be requesting PSA State Board support for the following resolution:

Whereas the Wildlife Commission has placed a two year moratorium on the retention of wild steelhead from rivers of the state where the scientific data as prepared by WDFW staff indicates that a harvestable surplus in excess of escapement needs exists and:

Whereas there are concerns over the process used by the Wildlife Commission in presenting and passing the Wildlife Administrative Code regulation without full public discussion and:

Whereas there will be an economic impact on the communities and businesses in the vicinity of the rivers and streams that are closed:

Therefore, let be it resolved that the member chapters of the Puget Sound Anglers organization are presenting their opposition to the Wildlife Commission moratorium on the retention of wild steelhead from those rivers that have a harvestable surplus in excess of needed escapement goals and respectfully request re-consideration of the action pending scientific proof that such harvest would be a detriment to the wild steelhead population in the affected rivers.

******************************
Clint Muns read a letter that he had prepared for the City of Forks to help them in their presentation to the WDFW and Commission concerning the moratorium. The PSA Board approved Clint’s actions on behalf of the PSA Board and chapters. A copy of the letter follows:
PUGET SOUND ANGLERS STATE BOARD
To whom it may concern,

The organization of Puget Sound Anglers, currently representing 14 chapters throughout Western Washington, has held a position opposing ‘statewide non-retention of wild Steelhead’ for several years.
This type of regulation ties the hands of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, in effect not allowing the Department to manage the resource based on science and maximum benefit for the people of the state of Washington.

Many rivers, having been under this type of regulation for a number of years, have shown little or no sign of recovery, calling into question the claim that this blanket regulation would help the recovery of wild Steelhead.

Tribal harvesters may take advantage of ‘Forgone Opportunity,’ effectively neutralizing any possible saving of wild Steelhead.

To deny citizens the opportunity to harvest a wild Steelhead, when harvestable numbers exist, is to cater to a minority, elitist view, not representative of the average sportfisher in Washington. What are our efforts to recover this wonderful icon of Northwest culture for, if not to allow us our traditional heritage of harvest. Are we to treat our natural environment as a museum (look but don’t touch), or should we be able to interact and enjoy what nature provides?

It is our belief that science based management should prevail, not emotional idealism.


Clint Muns
State Board President
Puget Sound Anglers

I dont feel anyone has crushed the opposition, rather they just keep typing the same thing over and over without really answering any questions raised..... Then they get nasty. I am still upset that CFM was booted. We rarely ever agreed, and even had a few bouts. But people like him are necessary. Our country is based on the ability to question those in power. Its what make us great. Its sad that it is being squelched here.

Why don't we really sit down and look at the impact that we as angler do to the systems that we fish? It's about looking at yourself and saying why you are against WSR. Some people have not been around long enough to see the implact that anglers can have on a system and the fish that are in it. Lets stop pointing the finger at the indians and the netter and say the real reason that you want to keep fish is for yourself and eating them. I can respect that stance. The excuse with the indians stance is that all those fish that we kill have already go through the nets and will spawn if you let them go. Sorry for the rant but lets be honest if you are killing wild steelhead because someone can then you fish for different reasons that I do. Go to a trout pond and kill all you want.

Tight lines

Kevin

From the letter above
"• Process – The process that resulted in the moratorium was flawed and not consistent with your normal approach to regulation setting. It appears that a specific interest group had an agenda and used the system to obtain their goal. Their goal was not subjected to public or Co-Manager query and was in conflict with staff recommendations.
• Wild Steelhead Declines in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound – The moratorium does not address the problem (cause) and helps hide the symptoms. The WDFW and the Commission should work proactively to complete and implement the new Steelhead Management Plan.
• Sustainable Fisheries Act, 1996 – A goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Act was to ensure sustainable fisheries and permit harvest on healthy species/stocks. A statewide moratorium on wild steelhead retention is counter to the stated goal of the Act, given that the Co-Managers have identified harvestable stocks of wild steelhead, many of which are indigenous to the Olympic Peninsula."

1. from above"Their goal was not subjected to public or Co-Manager query and was in conflict with staff recommendations. " Is this to mean that PSA always is in agreement with WDFW staff recomendations.
2.from above"Wild Steelhead Declines in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound – The moratorium does not address the problem (cause) and helps hide the symptoms. How the hell can having more wild fish on the redds "hide the symptoms. It would seem to me that harvesting the fish might hide the symptoms.
3.from above"given that the Co-Managers have identified harvestable stocks of wild steelhead" You mean the trbes and WDFW? The ones that you say are going to use foregone oppOrtunity and net the rivers? Now their advice is good enough?

As Elkrun has stated, questioning those in power is what make this country great! This is why I started this discussion, because i told everyone here that there was an underlying agenda going on here. That if they thought that this would bring back all those nates, Then where are they on all of these puget sound rivers? I do not agree with the moratorium. If my rights be infringed, then so should all others. I think it pityfully useless to release a native fish,so that it can be caught in a net.At least i have the option/ability to release this fish ALIVE! I have not joined a fishing group or organization here in washington because most everyone that i have interested in has a very narrow focus. Friends of the Columbia, WSR,TU,WT and so on.What continues to instill outright disbelief is that one group will vote as a block against another. There is so much in fighting that what increases we do make are so small as to be absolutely frustrating.Separation, narrow mindedness and internal infigting makes us an easy target for the commercials and the politicians/council members that could not care less about the little fishermen. We are thought of as weak, no political threat and a hinderance to their true agenda, Getting whatever the commercials want.
I fought with my brother like all life on earth depended on the outcome, but god help anyone that tried to fight one of us. This is the problem simplified, We need to stop the infighting, we need to stop the narrown focus of our each individual goals, and we need to really focus what is good for the resource in general. If we could come together as one group, through consensus find goals, and pick each of those goals in order of our ability to get the concensus of change in our favor, before long, all of our goals would be met, and we would be the major force to be dealt with. No behind the scenes deals with any particular group.None of this stealing from peter (the sportmen) to pay/give to paul (commercial interests).We fight with each other and the commercials are asking that they be able to rape more of our resources to be able to pay for an industry that is on the verge of collapse.I do not buy commercially caught fish and do not allow any commercially caught endangered fish to be eaten in my house. I feel that if you are doing these things you are providing more money for the commercials to take more of our resource from us, thus delaying the collapse of that industry and denying my right to fish for my family.
I wish i knew who said it but i will end this note with what someone smarter than i said,"We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us"

Unless you are fishing in the tide water most likey the fish you are releasing is well pass the nets. Not so pitifull now aye?

There are other nets in the water, besides if they can sell WILD fish in the market, then i should be able to kill my own too...

Which nets are those the sportsmans? The attitude of I'm gonna kill because he can kill is kinda immature don't you think? If you want the take a native and its open all the power to you but be honest on the reasons for it.

Tight lines

Kevin

Now this is an honest question, not flamebait or anything. According to the Boldt decision, the Tribes are only entitled to net if there's harvestable fish (fish above and beyond what's needed for escapement)? Am I correct so far? Therefore, if the Tribes are allowed to net, that means there are harvestable fish. If there are harvestable fish, shouldn't sportsmen also have the right to retain a couple should they choose to? If my understanding is incorrect, pleast let me know.

I said IF, i have never killed wild fish, but if i can go and buy one that someone else has killed, then I too should be ABLE to kill one also.
The real issue is,why should I give up my right, so that another group can do what i am being denied.......

Your retention would go to hook mortality and keep the rivers open longer. Rivers open longer means more fishing. And as far as a waste of fish for hook mortality mother nature doesn't waste anything. Some see the fish that is bleeding that you need to release as a waste because its not going to you but instead its going to the river and the nutrients for that system. As far as the indians realistically I would love to see them stop netting but how sheltered is that view?

Tight lines

Kevin

That's a good point. Even though hooking mortality does far less damage to the resource than a single gillnet does, that does raise a point I hadn't considered.

So be it,if the resource is healthy enough to support ANY single group fishing, then all groups should be able to fish it too.
Jacob, that question never seems to get answered does it. Good article, keep up the good work, Fishy..........

For the 100th time, if sportsmen ever want to put serious pressure on the tribes to stop netting, we need to stop harvesting the fish ourselves. And like Kevin pointed out (also for the 100th time I believe) most of the fish caught and released by sportsmen are above the nets already.

Jacob, do you really trust the state and tribes when they say there are harvestable fish?

All the stuff in the two PSA letters have been addressed in the other threads, ad nauseum, so there's not really any need to hash it out here again.

Jacob and SSF,

The "they can, so I wanna, too!" reminds me a lot of me and my sister arguing over toys and candy...only we were 3 and 5 at the time.

Why can they do it and not you? Because they're not you, and you're not them.

They can use nets...are you mad that you can't? Why not? What's the difference?

Also, the "they're just going to end up in a net, anyway" argument is the biggest chunk of BS I've ever heard...whoever actually tries to use that one is either really out of touch with reality, or really thinks that the rest of us who hear it are not very bright.

First off, 90% of the tribal fisheries are way downstream of anywhere we fish...the fish we're catching have already made it by the nets. And in the few tribal fisheries that take place farther upstream, believe it or not, just like the fisheries downstream, they don't catch every single fish...or even close. If they did we'd never catch any fish in rivers with tribal fisheries.

As far as the Reel News goes, I think it's a pretty good rag. It provides people the opportunity to openly spread their opinions...but there's not much in the way of fact checking. I've written editorials for it before, and they were just as happy to print my opinion as the opposite one. As with anything else, opinions presented as facts are still opinions, and most of us can tell the difference.

Lastly, SSF, don't confuse "fishing" with "harvesting fish"...harvest can't occur without fishing, but lots and lots of fishing without harvesting takes place every day all over the state. With longer seasons we'll be fishing MORE than we were before over those runs, not less.

Fish on...

Todd

Jacob, could you please address the few issues I brought up above, 11 above.

Todd, some people will never learn, give them an inch and they will take a mile. Just as i proposed when this issue first came to light, there was an underlying agenda, that is to take the opportunity to those fish and give that opportunity to others. I do not care who those others are, I have just as much right to those fish and every other group. If in the wisdom of the forces that control these issues, my rights are infringed, then every other user groups right should be infringed also.This is my point.I will never stand by silently and let anyone infringe my rights, just so that others my have more rights than I. Maybe the questions that your asking me,you should be asking the people making those decisions. Why, if the resource is in such dire straights are others allowed to use these resources and not others? What makes one user group more rightful to those resources than another?
If one groups rights are infringed, to the detriment of the resource, and to be given to another user group, then are not all user groups infringed, one way or another.
I started this conversation with the hopes of having meaningful, open dialog, without infringing on others right to what they believe. Having heated discussions will open us ALL up to new thoughts,ideas, and perceptions. Denegrating anyones ideas, thoughts or perceptions should not be part of this discussion. Meaningful dialog should be.

You need a reason to give up your right to kill fish? It would be nice if everyone played fair and this country was fair. But the reality is that it is not fair and just like the real world we need to take responsiblity for our own actions. If that means that I need to not kill natives so that of the 10 offspring of that fish that I released 2 or 3 make it through the nets so be it. Thats 2 or 3 fish more that we have. This resource that we have is not unlimited. We talk about pre bolt disiction and how there were so many fish that we could take. Well that is great but in todays PC world the indians are going to net and there are going to be fish that get pass the nets and spawn. If you want to kill those fish because you want to eat one so be it I can respect those resons if it is open. But if you are killing that fish because its your right or because the indians do thats just not a good excuse in my book. But that is just one guys opinion.

Tight lines

Kevin

Geoduck
I am impressed that you are one of the few dare I say "old school" guys that realize that thou this new rule is not what you want you are willing to accept it and work with it. You have learned that you can grow beyond the gimme gimme gimme attitude. Right Todd?

Geoduck,

I have very much enjoyed your contribution to the conversations...unlike a few others you managed to bring some very good points to the table, express your belief that WSR is not all it's cracked up to be, and not search for a secret agenda or attempt to expose a made up conspiracy to do it.

SSF,

That, of course, is BS.

Check out the picture of me in my avatar...do I look like a spy for the tribal fishing lobby? See that fishing rod I'm holding? It's not a net...I caught that fish with a fishing rod. Why would you and some of the others actually think that I intend to take away our opportunity to fish for steelhead?

It's not "meaningful conversations" when your contribution is to make up a point like that one, or to bring up a situation like "they'll all go in the nets anyway" argument that also is not valid...it just doesn't happen that way.

You are very welcome to have the opinion that WSR is not your cup of tea...everyone has that right...but if you want to have "meaningful conversations" about your opinion, say something more meaningful than the above made up justifications for directly harvesting wild steelhead.

Fish on...

Todd

Well Todd, to you anyone that has a different opion than you means that that opinion is "your term" "BS". That is truely meaningful conversation.
Never in any of my posts did i say that YOU were a spy,(fabrication on your part) or imply that all fish released would automatically go to the nets. If you had spent more time thinking about the real problem here, then you perhaps would be less inclined to call everyone else's opinion ( other than what you believe in,BS).
I have continuely stated that i think the real problem here is not whether one believes that natives should be retained or not, but that stopping one group from doing so, while allowing another group to increase the catch of natives is conterproductive.
This board is a microcosm of the fishing attitude in our state, if you have a different opinion then you are blathering nothing but (BS), while we are doing that, the fox is eating very well in our henhouse.

.



OK Aunty, how about you take a crack at questions #1-#5 on CFM's thread.

Geeze, CFM's posts were benine compared to your comments.

And as far as "how long?" , I think it's more appropriate for you to ask yourself that question. Time will tell Aunty.

Aunty's back!

SSF,

If I misinterpreted your above comments to mean that a released native fish will be caught in a net, and that there is a hidden agenda to steal your fish and give them to someone else, I apologize.

However, it still looks a lot like that's exactly what you said in those quotes.

I also note above that those are not opinions...those are being stated as facts, not as opinions, and the fact is, they are not true. LIke I said, opinions are cool, misstating facts and calling them opinions is not.

Micro started it in the earlier threads, and Jacob ran with it, and now you are, too...foregone opportunity will lead to tribes catching all of our share.

No one yet has come forward with a single time that it has happened, or any reason to even bring it up other than to instill fear in people to keep harvesting wild steelhead.

Jacob and Micro were going to get back to me when they went out to find the many, many examples of when it had happened...it's been a month, and I haven't seen one example yet. Do you know where they are? Maybe you can help them find them and put them up so we can see if this is a real threat or not. Both the P.A. Chapter of PSA and the PSA State Board said it, too...maybe they have the examples on hand.

I know that I don't know of any...

Fish on...

Todd

i realy hate to enter this non-ending b-s, but i cant help it , since its a pretty well known fact that alot of people dont trust the state or the tribes when they say a river has enough fish to harvest, why is it that when the state opens a cnr season like on the skagit that is only alittle over 100 fish over escapment that nobody ever disagree`s with how amazingly close they can predict that fish run or the one on the chehalis system a few years ago ?, how can they be so far off when predicting for a harvest season and so right when they predict for a cnr season ?

A legit question boater with an answer that I don't think anyone truly has.

But, along the same lines, why did the Hoh have a kill season when it was projected to meet escapment (pre-season) by 40 fish???

Once again I shall clarify where I stand on this issue. First off let me say that I have NEVER killed a wild fish, Now to the whole point of this little discussion. It is the RIGHT to take that fish that should be the focal point of our discussion. Infringing one groups rights, while letting others continueing on status quo is WRONG. I pay the same price for my license as everyone else, so that should allow me the same priveledges as everyone else, to do anything other than that would be considered racism, or fascist, or communist or any of many names that you want to use,but the result is the same. We as two groups are being treated differently, there is something wrong with that.
I hope that I have finally clarified myself.
Fishy.......

Boater,

The WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy allows for the CNR fishery on the Skagit and other rivers when the predicted run size is 80% or greater than the established spawning escapement goal. Is that the best number? No one knows, and there is no contemporary way of knowing. Given that a fishery manager must draw a line somewhere, 80% of the escapement goal passes most (but by no means all) definitions of reasonable. Do you have a better number, and if so, what makes it better?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

OK here we go again, what i have said in prior posts is my OPINION. I never said they were facts, only how i felt about things.So stop clouding the issue. And lets get this straight, I Never said that WSR had a secret agenda, i said that there was one. See there are people,agencies, politicians and other user groups that want use to do just this, because while we are, we are stalled out from doing the really important work. If you are going to quote me, at least understand that I do this only as my opinion, because NOBODY knows all of the facts.
So people stop flaming me for things that i did not say.
The bottome line is that if we should stop, so should everyone else. Lets join together to do what is right for the resource, not by castigating one group for another, but as a whole.

Hmmm, how many threads now since the WSR announcement last month? Little, if any, new informations seems to have been presented in the past two or three weeks. Therefore, the theme of these threads must be repetition. I was going through some reference material today regarding negotiation types, skills, and strategy. I was struck by one section that pointed out that when discussion participants begin repeating themselves, it means that they feel they aren't really being heard. Is that what is going on here? Do the WSR pros and cons feel that their interest, issue, and position isn't being heard? This has me thinking that the pro-WSR segment feels that only the pro-WSR segment hears them, and that the con-WSR segment feels that only the con-WSR segment hears them, and ne'er the 'twain shall meet. Is that what we've achieved? If not, why the repetitiveness - and I do think we've (myself included) have been very repetitive?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

JG and Todd...et al


I have the greatest respect for Dave Croonquist and Clint Muns. I have the luxury or hearing much more than a snippet or two from both of them. Enough to know that the health of the resource is top priority to them. Enough to know they walk the walk, too. They are both totally involved in a myriad of issues. They are so far from selfish that it would be laughable to accuse them of such.The WSC is also to be respected. Neither side is 100% right even if arguments on this board make it seem that way. I think what I have absorbed from the "ad nauseum" repetition of the stands made by both distinctly different sides is this:

1.) WSC is a hard working group with many positive ideas and many good people .
2.) WSC is focused on their agenda which as far as I can see is very narrow...Narrow is not meant to be derrogatory. Just narrow.
3.) Many people on this board parrot the views of WSC spokespeople thinking it is the PC thing to do here on this board. Many truly agree with all the WSC positions but don't have the depth of argument to get into the battles.
4.) Opponents of WSR, as initiated by the WDFW commission, on this board have been shot at by all the heavy artillery with atleast one of the most ardent critics being booted off the board with others retreating to the shadows to avoid the flames. It seems sometimes that opposing WSR brands a person as a whacko or indiscriminate fish killer. Those who tout the positives of WSR do so as if they are deity sometimes.
5.) WSR advocates from WSC seem to be very intolerant of those who oppose the moratorium and cannot or will not face the valid concerns articulated in the NOP Chapter letter above. Arguments as made in a concise and straight forward manner as those in the letter above are scoffed at with sarcastic remarks instead of specific, head on rebuttal.
6.) The size of the group opposed to the moratorium is much larger than those on PP would make us all believe. After all this is a steelhead oriented board sponsored by a great guy who happens to be a steelhead guide.
7) Finally (for now) ...the rank and file out there can hardly understand the complexity of the process our fisheries management much go through. WSC understands it and they were able to get a measure into regulations that fits their model of what fishing should be. I have said before that I applaud them for their hard work and for reaching a result they wanted. The opposition has the same opportunity but won't win without cogent arguments...no flaming allowed in front of the commission if you want to get anything done. Get into the back room where all the cigar smoke is and slap a few backs.

Okay, here's one I don't remember ...

Why must fishing = harvest?

And I don't want the answer of "playing with your food", plunk

Some people garden ... some raise gardens and eat what they grow, others, like myself, just like a nice yard. Gardeners are playing with their food too?

The days of fishing to provide for the table are long gone. It's far more cost-effective to purchase fish at the market than to go out and catch it. So where does that make the meat fisherman any different than the C&R fisherman in the respect of "fishing for fun"?

Bob I agree....I fish for fun and don't mistreat the fish I release which is 98% of the ones I bring to hand. Never have kept a wild steelhead. I do not buy fish in the store though. Can't see it. Fresh fish is too good. Fresh is like the springer I brought home the other day...no apologies. Fish are there to catch and sometimes to eat. We certainly don't depend on the meat to survive but we do have the opportunity to eat them when we want....atleast for now.

Todd. (and all WSC members)

It appears that the WSC has only a handful of members.
How far do you and the gang at WSC really believe that you can jerk
around the sport fishers in our state before they rebel? Is that what
you people over at WSC are looking for?

When do think that enough is enough?

The WSC is a minority. An affluent, vocal minority. You do not represent the majority of sportsfishermen. That's a critical point Todd. Anywhere away from this site you get hammered by the majority.

That's a pretty shallow victory. I agree, there have been no "new" valid arguements on this topic for some time now. So at this point, sending in the Shill has little affect.


Every dog has it day, and I believe
that WSR's day has come and gone. We'll all find out, and sooner than you think. Perhaps the next time you have a plan, it wont exclude 95% of the people you claim to support.

And Aunty, if you find any more spelling errors, keep posting the corrections. It adds to your unique charm. We all know how important spelling is to these discussions....


Hairlip (belly ache'er)

I agree with Salmo that the past few popular threads have been very repetitive.

I suspect this may be for the following simple reason: We are fundamentally divided on the issue of WSR.

I think the main reason we are divided is that the fish bonkers feel that they got screwed because they can't bonk wild fish anymore (no opportunity). Meanwhile the CNR fishers get as much or more opportunity than ever before.

The CNR folks justify this screwing of the bonkers by saying its better for the fish this way. That may or may not be true depending on how you look at it and what is really going on with the steelhead populations.

Certainly the status quo was flawed. Is a blanket WSR reg an improvement for the fish, most likely. Could a better set of regs be devised that both help the fish and give both bonkers and CNR folks ample opportunity to fish for wild fish. Certainly, but it would require more work than a blanket reg.

I think some sort of compromise will ultimately be worked out (assuming the bonkers aren't too politically apathetic--Clearly a segment of the CNR folks are not).

Hopefully we can all find something more usefull to worry about for a while.

You can still harvest fish just like that springer hateries are still an option. Having the right to havest wild spinger is not a problem you just accept it what truely is the difference between that a steelhead? I personally fish because its part of me I live and breath it. Who know my wife will one day leave me because of it. But that being said I don't fish just to kill and don't understand the reasoning behind that. Do all of the anti WSR people just not fish C&R or is all of the resentment based on the fact that the nets just are not going to come out of the river? I don't ask or make these comments to flame just want to know. Maybe we can all get together and talk about it over beers and tell fishin stories. I'll even buy the first round.

Tight lines

Kevin

i would have to find out how they are figuring escapment before i could answer that, but, it looks like they feel that 80 percent escapment will maintain the goal of escapment and maybe 100 percent escapment would include increasing the run to a number over escapment, you dont think they would allow a fishery on a run of fish at 80 percent if it didnt produce enough offspring that when they returned there wouldnt be enough to meet escapment, do you ?

Bob, I have never killed a native steelhead and do not see the reason to do so. Most of the time, during that part of the season I am tied up doing other things.I have no problem buying farm raised fish. Doing so I hope that it will help bring to fruition the fish farming industry here in the northwest.
My point, my only point in bringing this discussion up again, was to try and bring people together by showing,reminding them that while the sportsmen are trying to do the best thing for the resource, others are more than ready and willing to take advantage of our good will towards the resource.
This was never meant to re-open a name-calling diatribe that rivals kids fighting over who won the game. Because under these conditions none of us will ever win.. and the resource continues to lose... Fishy...

Aunty M, Please read my previous posts about me not killing wild fish................

do you realy believe that ??

Grandpa,

I haven't met Dave C., but I have met Clint several times...I consider him to be a very conscientious supporter of both fish and fishermen. I also happen to find him to be a very nice guy.

I don't know if anyone above said anything derogatory about them, but I can say that any professional dealings that the WSC has had with the PSA through Clint Muns have been nothing but productive and pleasurable.

Hairlip,

I know that the WSC doesn't represent what you and perhaps your acquaintances think and feel, at least not on the WSR issue. However, this "handful" of members has grown quite a bit in the last month, and we are receiving communications of support from all over the steelhead community, from California to B.C., and over to Idaho.

Don't forget that this WSR regulation was also supported by TU and by the FFF, two of the biggest local, and national, fishing groups around.

While you may think that WSR has seen its day in the sun, it will be a reality everywhere in this state for steelhead soon, even if it were to end after the two year moratorium. The fact of the matter is that rivers in Washington have consistently lost the ability to provide a wild steelhead harvest, and the list that may still be able to support it are going down the same way as the rest, albeit a little later.

In 50 years we've gone from every river supporting it, which is well over 100 streams, to 17 a few years ago, to 11, to 5 or 6 now. Of those 5 or 6, only one is showing any increase in size, and the others are all showing a decrease in populations.

While I don't have the numbers in front of me, we've gone from harvests of 90K to less than 5K...

As rivers have closed, harvest pressure has moved and concentrated to other rivers. Every one we lose puts those fishermen on the ones that are left, thus expediting their population declines more.

How do you expect that to reverse and to have enough rivers with harvestable amounts of fish to satisfy harvest-minded fishermen?

Fish on...

Todd

" why should I let a fish go only to have it caught in a net "..... Thats really pathetic.

And you bet, I believe that you can point at the tribes if you eliminate the sport "keep"...

Anyway, this has been hashed out... if you don't like it then tough. Who cares if you have never kept a wild fish... my point is you just don't get it... How can you move to step two when all you want to do is cry about step one.. but I guess thats been covered also.

I disagree Aunty. I think maybe the bio's do have the answeres. THey just lack the political will or power to bring them to pass.

THe answeres to reverese salmonid decline are simple. Biology would dictate the following solutions (in this order I think):

1. Stop Habitat degradation (no more bad logging, development, channelization, dams, filling of estuaries, etc).

2. Restore degraded habitat (remove dams, dikes, restore estuaries, stabilize slides, etc).

3. Prevent fishing for salmon on the feeding grounds ( ALLOW ONLY TERMINAL AREA FISHERIES--minimize mixed stock harvest, and selection against fast growing fish).

4. Use selective Harvest methods (ie Reef nets, wiers, fish weels, and single barbless hooks) to harvest only targeted species.

5. Protect spawning fish and parr from fishing pressure.

6. Mangage for MSY.


If these things were done fish would recover. THe only limiting thing would be what the habitat can support. If 1-5 are done 6 will work.

The problem is all of these fly in the face of the other wants of society. THe only thing fishers have direct control over is 3, 4, and 5. We stink at those, always complaining about bait bans, or selective rules. How can we expect society to make sacrifices for fish when even the fishers won't sacrifice.

WSR is a very small part of #4. Overall a step in the right direction, but in the context of recovery not very significant. We should be focused on #1 and #2.

Just my $0.02

Something to think about...

On many rivers, a lot of fisherman have been practicing WSR for many years. For example, has the Skagit River fishing improved significantly since they created C/R seasons? Why haven't the fish rebounded?

Now, read Geoduck's recent post again. WSR proably won't hurt anything, but on the other hand, it's foolish to think this is going to solve the entire problem.

Geoduck, By MSY, I assume you are talking about Maximum Sustained Yield or to put it another way, streams have spawning populations that equal the carrying capacity of that stream. If that is so, then I can find no arguement with your list. You are absolutely correct in that #1 & #2 are the hardest and probably most important. If you think that WSR got people upset, you ain't heard nothing until you try and sell the "no mixed stock" fishery. There are powerful industry and recreational interests that will howl about no salt water fishing. But, if we are serious, and have the will, this prescription will work. Edit - after thinking about it some more, the "no mixed stock" prohibition would not have to eliminate salt water fishing. It would however, create a major change in how we fished the salt water.

JimH- And all- Keep in mind that at no time has anyone stated that WSR was going to solve everything.

What has been stated ( over and over) is the fact that its the first step in a very obvious chain of events that will need to take place in order to establish a foundation for recovery. Its preplexing that some people just don't understand that. How could the larger issues ever be addressed if you still have wild fish retention ??? Its really that simple. But again, thats all been said before

Jim,

There was a Kill fishery on the skagit on wild fish up until 4 years ago, maybe it was 5. You could kill a native until March 1st for a long time. Wonder where the early part of the Native run have gone?

OK for the 1000th time. WSR ISN'T a Silver Bullet. Never has been never will be. But it is a way to limit impact on the fish. Current management styles don't seem to be working so it is time to try a different management style that still allows some recreation while trying to limit impact on the fish. Habitat is a huge issue too, along with Hydro where it is present, and Hatcheries. They all have a place in the equation. WSR is a method to limit impact that we have on the Harvest side.

JJ

Check out my new signature line...think it will have any effect, whatsoever?

Todd

And as I have said numerous times( nobody has ever responded to it so I must assume all agree) WSR is the least expensive and probably least controversial way to start wild steelhead recovery.

Anyone, please give evidence that WSR will have significant positive impact on the fishery. Just a couple of successes will be good for now.

Aunty M, we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.The only real question that i have asked since my first post is, Why are we treated differently . If creating a moratorium is good for the resource, make it a moratorium for ALL user groups. I just keep saying it without running anyone's ideas down, just continue to state mine.
B run Steely.my quote"why should i let a fish go only to have it caught in a net" was meant to do only one thing. Create a dialog as to why user groups after the same resource are treated differently?I do get it, thats why I am asking the question! Not to reinstate my right to take said fish, but to question why others are allowed to take those same fish?
The only thing "tough" is trying to get everyone to move on to "why are two groups being treated differently"
Usually i do not get involved in discussions here because of just the things that i have been dealing with here/now.Because rather than truely diciphering what the poster truely means, some people are quick to put them down. I will not use these board as a means to put others down with personal dirogatory remarks, thus creating a miasmic environment that perpetuates the very thing that you accuse me of.But I am sure That has been hashed out before!

Guys

Look at the big picture for a minute

How many river HAD a heathly run
And how many Now have a heathly run

Makes you think!

There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.
SSF
You seem to be confusing WSR with CNR.

JG...you have not chosen the "least" controversial method in the sports fishing community. Probably the most popular in indian country. The WSR moratorium has been plenty controversial to say the least.

What do you and Todd surmise would be the effect in the short and long term of confiscating all the gill nets that would be set anywhere in the migration path of wild steelhead? If WSR is such a great idea then the rivers must be in such dire straits that certainly WDFW can shut down the tribal nets based on the emergency.

I submit that would yield the most dramatic results for wild steelhead of anything you could ever even contemplate. Just how dramatic do you think that "controversial" plan would be:?

How about an all out cessation of fishing in all rivers during the migration of wild steelhead? That would no doubt yield a big shot in the arm to wild steelhead survival. That would have to include the Columbia River. No CNR, no fly fishing. No fishing period.

How about removing all the dams on all of our rivers? Deporting 50 % of the people in the state immediately? Shut down all the hatcheries in the next 6 months. No exceptions. Ban boats from all rivers during fish migration.

**edit double post :p "

SSF,

I think that Aunty M and I both answered that question above, albeit not very clearly. Here's the scoop, though I'd be very surprised if you already didn't know this...

"The tribes...reserved the right to off reservation fishing 'at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations' and agreed that 'all citizens of the territory' might fish at the same places 'in common with' tribal members. ... However, off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited, or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty rights may require."

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 332 (1974), (emphasis in original).

"The right to fish 'at all usual and accustomed' places, may, of course, not be qualified by the State, even though all Indians born in the United States are now citizens of the United Sates."

Id. at 337, citing Puyallup-I, 391 U.S. 398 (emphasis in original).

In short, the answer to your question is that they are not treated the same because legally they are not the same.

Treaty fishers have a federally guaranteed right to fish, while the rest of us have a privilege that can be restricted all the way to the point of having no fishing whatsoever, if the interests of the state or of treaty obligations require it.

The state cannot require anything of the tribes, short of stopping them from doing something that will immediately cause the extinction or extirpation of a run of fish.

It would literally take an act of Congress to change that...and good luck on that. Even with a republican administration there would be way too much public outcry for the "poor Indians", especially when we "greedy rednecks" just want to take all their fish (a la Boldt Decision).

You're argument is the same as saying "since we can't remove the dams from the Snake and Columbia Rivers, we shouldn't regulate water withdrawals by the farmers, either".

Now the "right vs. privilege" subject comes up here and elsewhere about once a year, and legally it doesn't really matter what anyone's opinion about it is. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that's the way it is...and if they say that the sun is purple, legally it is until either they change their mind or Congress overrides them with a new law.

I think that answers your above questions...if not, let me know and I'll see if I can try again.

Fish on...

Todd

The state cannot require anything of the tribes, short of stopping them from doing something that will immediately cause the extinction or extirpation of a run of fish.


hmmmmm..would that be like netting wild steelhead ?

Todd - Did you get my e-mail?

Wildfishlover,

It would only include netting wild steelhead if it would cause the immediate extinction or extirpation of a run...

That means catch all or almost all of them...which is a lot more than "a lot" or "most" of them.

The NWIFC and WDFW make preseason agreements on how many fish are available, and how many the tribes will catch...which is estimated by how many days/hours they will get to fish.

So...99% of the time it means "no", they cannot be stopped by the state from netting wild steelhead.

4Salt, no, but I will in a minute when I go and check it...

Fish on...

Todd

I already knew the answer....So the bottom line is this: As long as the tribes net and harvest wild steelhead (whether intentionally or as bycatch) in the numbers they do (not what they report) then extinction of the species is a real possibility even if you stop all sports fishing of any kind. Perhaps if we stopped all fishing extinction is a real possibility.

I think all the repetitive arguments about the WSR moratorium fail to focus on what most of the opposition is all about . It is not in opposition to releasing wild steelhead but it is in opposition to the process by which the new rule was implemented by the WDFW commission. I think it could be viewed as a precedent setting process which could bode ill in the future. In the future a small group could ramrod a policy through that curtails fishing without due process. Villifying opponents of the moratorium is missing the point that maybe alot of people who do alot for fish and fishing are, themselves, opponents of the moratorium for reasons that have nothing to do with being able to kill a wild steelhead.

grandpa,

I agree that there is repetitiveness, but I don't agree that process is the only issue that folks have with it...there have been arguments of giving fish to Indians, stealing them from "real" fishermen, using junk science to justify the restrictions, economic arguments, etc., etc., etc.,

There have, however, been repeated comments about due process, too. In spite of what some folks and organizations feel, there was no problem with the process...no one did anything untoward, and certainly there was nothing in any way, shape, or form illegal.

Several folks have alleged that it violates their constitutional rights, their right to fish, and numerous laws, though none have been able to come up with a cogent answer for how...other than repeating that it did.

Perhaps you know of a law that no one else has brought up yet, or hasn't been able to make a reasonable argument for yet, that you could share and show me exactly where something went wrong?

Remember that when Mayor Reed met with members of the Commission, Chair Roehl (who, by the way voted against the moratorium) informed her that there was no problem with the process...and from what I understand, someone from the AG's office opined the same thing.

I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, yes i did know that, But there are more user groups than the sportsmen and the tribes.
J.G. I am confusing nothing, What I ask is that if the sportsmen give up there right to take natives, then why are the commercials asking for an increase to native steelhead down on the columbia(by according to the R.N. +200%)I gladly give up that right to keep wild fish, but as part of the largest user group doing so, we should ask that no other(that we have control over on the state leval)user group gets to take more, untill such time that all user groups are allowed, If that is what they choose to do.
Grampa, The process was not so much my focus as those stated directly above.If the largest user group in the state can release wild fish, then every other user group,(under state control) should be held to the same task.
I like to see that people are passionate about the resources in this state and that there can be great debates and discussions about our love of the resource.

Todd –
I refrained from taking part in this continual circular argument however your statement –

“I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them..”

cries for a response. Such a standard should cut both ways. While not looking to pick a fight with anyone there are also ample examples of the WSC side of the discussion being supported by innuendo, opinions and miss information. Jerry I apologize for picking on you.

A couple examples
1) Just a few post ago Jerry in responding why those system that have had WSR release for extended periods have not responded with increased returns stated:

“There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.”

This clearly is just an opinion that is not supported by any information or data. To my knowledge no one has established what such a critical level might be. Clearly we have examples of runs rebuilding from populations much lower than we are seeing in most of the populations of concern – SF Toutle after St. Helens would be an example. In the run size/escapement graphs present by WSC the most recent returns of concern were from parent escapements at levels at or above levels previously seen (the Puyallup being the only exception). This argument doesn’t seem to be supported by either fact or logic.

2) In the discussion titled “WSR – a precedent for fisheries management” Jerry posted the following in addressing the statewide moratorium as precedent-

“It doesn't set a precedent for other fisheries here just as it hasn't in Oregon, Idaho and B.C.”

Of course it doesn’t set a precedent for either Oregon or B.C. as both allow the harvest of wild steelhead in some areas (they don’t have a state or providence wide moratoriums or prohibition on the talking of wild steelhead). In fact Oregon’s harvest of wild steelhead is much the same as Washington’s before the moratorium – that is harvest of 1 wild fish a day, 5 per year on systems with healthy populations (above established escapement levels). It is my understanding that there has been serious consideration given to expanding the opportunity to harvest wild fish. His argument again doesn’t seem to be support by either fact or logic.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse I would suggest that many involved in this continuing discussion take a minute to step back from the issue and try to look at it a little less emotionally. At the least take a deep breath before sending their postings.

Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium.

Tight lines

S malma

Smalma,

I in no way intended that statement to only run in one direction...two years ago when the push for WSR resulted in the current 1 per day, 5 per year limit there were lots of anti's who were claiming victory over us "elitists" and I was much more gracious in making my responses to that than I've seen this time.

However, your comment is taken to heart...I have strived to keep facts and logic foremost in my arguments, but in such a contentious issue it may be hard to do it 100% of the time. I think I've done pretty good?

SSF,

Good point about the commercial fishery on the Columbia. There is no sport harvest of wild steelhead there, nor has there been for a while, due to multiple ESA listings.

When the commercials, along with both Columbia River harvest managers from WDFW and ODFW, proposed the 300% increase in ESA steelhead bycatch, I was one of the first ones here to jump all over it. I put as much info on the BB as I could over the three days before the hearing, and I even offered rides to anyone who wanted to go to Olympia with me in my van to take place in the testimony.

Not one person took me up on the offer.

Now I realize that it is hard to make plans for that on only three day's notice, but I did, and so did several others that I met there.

That battle is ongoing...and it looks like it will be for a bit more. Last I heard NOAA Fisheries had asked ODFW/WDFW for more information, again, to help them to justify their newest Biological Assessment justifying the increase.

Go to this thread WSC Letter re: Steelhead Bycatch to see the letter that I wrote, and the thread about it, to see what sportsmen are doing on that angle.

The fact that the harvest managers are asking for that increase, whether they get it or not, shouldn't be a reason why we can't also take other actions on behalf of steelhead, should it?

We all as sportsmen have lots to do...habitat, hatchery issues, hydro/water issues, and harvest are all important.

Fish on...

Todd

Smalma, Tip o the hat to you!

Todd, sorry i was not around to see that post or to accept a ride to help with that matter, I have a very limited time, at times, to really get into the meat of what goes on here on this board.Tis nice to know that you are willing to extend the welcome mat to others in helping out with the fight for our resources.

Todd -
I would agree that you as well as many of the others involved in this discussion (on both sides of the fence) have done a good job of trying to stick to the facts. However this is not a back and white issue and there are valid arguments on both sides. How one sides on this issues is dependent on the one's priorities and willingness to accept various risks.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Doubtlessly true...

Fish on...

Todd

SSF,

Here's a piece from the letter I wrote on behalf of the WSC...I bet you and I can agree on this one!

Fish on...

Todd

Exactly.... I dont know how many times this has been said, and left out of the discussions. This is ALL I care about on this issue. I wouldn't care if the fishery being restricted was carp. In fact I started a thread a while back about closure of a year round clam area for ease of enforcement that expressed similar concerns. The bottom line is opened the door to future loss of opportunity.

The irony of it is, it most likely will lead to a complete stoppage of fisheries targeting wild steelhead. So in that respect, maybe it will make an impact.

What does a new set of golf clubs go for anyways?

What is your basis for that arguement?

That sounds like something a politician knee deep in a scandal would say!

Todd are you really an ex president???

When the numbers do not increase as they haven't on many rivers that WSR has been in effect on over the years, the next logical step in protecting the fish would be to stop fishery completely... wouldn't it? Lets take the next step here Sparkey.... WHAT IF it doesn't make a difference? What do you see as the next step to save WS? Or what do you think the next step the government will take is? This of course would be purely speculation, but it might be interesting.....

elkrun-
I think the disagreement amongst the two factions on this board lies in a fundamental disagreement in fisheries management.

Those that support WSR believe that, in the long run, conservation will lead to oppurtunity. I do...
However, yourself and many others believe that conservation leads to a loss in oppurtunity.

And also the fish come first. My oppurtunity comes second. If we are to have wild steelhead to fish for in 50 years, we must be conservation minded anglers.

elkrun-
Then the next step is to close the rivers. WSR release or not, if the steelhead runs continue to decline at an alarming rate then the rivers will be closed.

It happened in the Upper Columbia Basin and it just may happen in Puget Sound (WDFW may petion NOAA Fisheries to list Puget Sound Wild Winter steelhead as threatened under the ESA).

Sparkey, you and I have already been down this road. I am conservation minded. I dont fish for wild steelhead period. Saying fish come first is one thing, backing it up is another. It still seems like hyprocracy to me to say that and continue to target them. Sorry if that is offensive.

In my mind, this was a big risk to take for something that might not have a significant effect. Someone asked earlier for an example of where this has worked in washington...I'm still waiting for someone to answer.

You are far over estimating our impact on the fisheries by stating that we must conserve if we are to have WS in 50 years. Do you believe as sportsfishers we have that great an impact? Do you think this rule will ensure there will still be WS in 50 yrs? If I thought it would, I'd be right there supporting it.

If wild steelhead were to make a 10% increase over the next few years, how much will that increase will be given to the other user groups? Wouldn't their share increase with any population increase? Considering that, how long would it take to get a sustained 10% increase in escapement like that? (Talk about one step forward, two steps back... ) Perhaps that should be the next major effort; pass a law that would prevent an increase in take with an increase in production.

Sorry, I'm not convinced this will do much to help the situation. It is more of a gesture than anything else. It sounds like the hope is that the other user groups will be pressured into folowing suit... That just wont happen, theres too much money at stake.

Smalma said:

"Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium. "

Todd....You always reference the legality of the commission's action to initiate the 2 year moratorium. That would be looking at technicalities in my opinion. Whether the move is legal or not I think opponents see that the open commission meeting process was highjacked in this case as the moratorium was not even on the agenda. WSC and some fly fishers organized themselves with a show of force at the meeting and were able to get their agenda heard and passed with very little discussion by potential opponents. And by the way I was there.

I know there are many other complaints opponents have but I am focusing on the process complaint which I think is where the PSA people were coming from. I only bring this up to point out that folks like me who do not kill wild steelhead and are on your side in that regard also can oppose some of your ideas and methods.

I still am convinced that many WSR advocates are interested not only in the fish but in the quality of the fishing experience as they see it. That is to say that they prefer solitude so by restricting the fishery they will weed out a large group of "crackers" who they think don't belong on the river in the first place. That may be where the "elitist" label is coming from.

A "process" is supposed to include those "crackers" if they want to be included, it is supposed to include the fly fishers along with the bait fishers...etc. I know I have felt excluded at commission meetings many times when the commercial fishing bias takes over and decisions are made that totally ignore science and biology and public comment.

Posted by Smalma
"“There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.”

This clearly is just an opinion that is not supported by any information or data. To my knowledge no one has established what such a critical level might be. Clearly we have examples of runs rebuilding from populations much lower than we are seeing in most of the populations of concern – SF Toutle after St. Helens would be an example. In the run size/escapement graphs present by WSC the most recent returns of concern were from parent escapements at levels at or above levels previously seen (the Puyallup being the only exception). This argument doesn’t seem to be supported by either fact or logic."

I certainly agree that we don't know where the critical bottom line for wild steelhead populations is at, but my OPINION is that we have fished stocks below that level even though WDFW models showed those stocks as being healthy 5 years before.
The example of the Toutle is interesting because I believe there was NO fishing in river on the fish as they rebounded. What has happened since is a different story for a different time.

As posted by Smalma
"
Of course it doesn’t set a precedent for either Oregon or B.C. as both allow the harvest of wild steelhead in some areas (they don’t have a state or providence wide moratoriums or prohibition on the talking of wild steelhead). In fact Oregon’s harvest of wild steelhead is much the same as Washington’s before the moratorium – that is harvest of 1 wild fish a day, 5 per year on systems with healthy populations (above established escapement levels). It is my understanding that there has been serious consideration given to expanding the opportunity to harvest wild fish. His argument again doesn’t seem to be support by either fact or logic."

This again is my opinion but I vaguely remember that in the case of Oregon that there was a complete moritorium for some years until the stocks rebuilt in a couple of southren Oregon rivers to the point that OFW felt those stocks could handle some harvest. I don't know what models OFW uses.

I agree with AuntyM.

Unfortunately, WSC was just playing by the rules of politics that govern resource managment.

Anything goes as long as its legal (or nobody catches you). Backchannels are the way to get things done quickly. If people raise a stink, spin, spin, spin.

WT knows this, WSC has learned this, certainly the tribes and commercials know it. They have all been sucessfull getting what they want.

Unfortunately for the common angler it has yet to sink in. Something to do with a lack of information and apathy. As long as this contintues the common angler will get the shaft . . .

Todd, your quote;heres something we can probably agree on.
Absolutely. Very well written letter and that was the gist of the whole reason for starting this discussion.

Back, WAY back in this discussion, Bob, TRBO, asked why there was a catch and kill fishery on the Hoh when there were only an estimated 40 fish, over and above escapement goals? I have to ask, "Why was there even a fishery allowed at all?" Trying to micromanage our resource to the n'th degree has not worked all that great for us in the past.Closing the resource for conservation measures to ALL user groups "Should" be the most appropriate action.

Actually the Hoh is being managed below escapement levels. If there was no sport kill fishery it would be plenty above it even with hooking mortality.

There was a question of where WSR worked, I assume that you mean CnR worked. How about the Deer Creek steelhead on the Stilly I believe they have been coming back nicely. Not exactly sure when they went to CnR but I know they were way down and now are making a comeback with a CnR fishery on them.

JJ

I'm not sure which is the "right" way to look at the Deer Creek fish, but I see it this way...

First, Deer Creek is a tributary to the North Fork Stillaguamish River...Deer Creek is totally closed to fishing, and boasts one of the very few significant wild summer steelhead runs in PS.

The N.Fk. Stilly has some, but not many, wild summer runs...it does, however, have a large hatchery summer run.

This is not a CnR fishery, this is a classic example of what WSR is.

You don't fish Deer Creek, because they are all wild. You do fish the Stilly, because it has all the hatchery fish. If you catch a clipped one...BONK! If you catch a wild one, you let it go.

When the water conditions were such that Deer Creek fish were stacking up at the mouth of the creek, but staying in the Stilly, WDFW closed the area surrounding the mouth of the creek to protect those fish.

When a significant group of unethical anglers were targeting ESA listed chinook in the deep holes with weighted flies, WDFW put in a restriction to prohibit weighted flies to help protect those fish.

The Deer Creek fish were intitally pushed to the brink of extinction due to very poor logging practices that ruined its watershed. As that situation has improved, so have the fish runs.

While that was going on, there was still significant fishing opportunity in the Stilly, though fishermen were required to release any wild ones they caught. Besides closing the Stilly around the mouth of Deer Creek, I believe there were times when the river was closed from a ways above Deer Creek all the way to the mouth to protect those fish when even incidental impacts were too much for the fish to handle.

I see that as an example of how WSR allowed fishing opportunity, including harvest opportunity on hatchery fish, while leaving the wild fish to spawn and continue to re-colonize the Deer Creek watershed as the problems caused by habitat destruction improved.

Smalma? In spite of your modesty, you know more about this river and these fish in your little finger than I know total...how accurate is that assessment?

If there's any substantial "truth" to my assessment above, then that is an excellent example of how the use of WSR provided significant fishing opportunity while allowing wild fish to recover along with their habitat.

For the folks who are still having a hard time seeing the difference, that's what a WSR fishery is, and what a CnR fishery is not. If it were CnR, there would be no retention of any fish...the example above is what WSR is, providing harvest opportunity on hatchery fish while requiring the release of wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

While I do not claim to have the vast knowledge that you supposedly
claim to have about the causes of the declines of our "wild" steelhead
runs, I am becoming very concerned that some of WSC information may have
been incorrectly used to support its desire to have a 100% statewide wsr
enacted.

You have stated that I find this information very deceptive to say the least. One of WSC
strongest cases for making and supporting a statewide wsr has been due
to the "declining numbers" that have shown up over the past years in
WDFW catch record statistics. WSC has continually stated that Wild
steelhead" runs have declined from roughly 90,000 fish 50 years ago, to
some 5,000 fish being harvested now.

That may sound like a huge cut in the harvest of wild steelhead if ones
point of view is a narrow view. There are likely many causes for our
steelhead declines, but I do not believe that it was or is due to sport
harvest. Obliviously, WSC has overlooked that in the 1940's and 50's
that WDFW hatchery programs contributed heavily to the number of
retuning winter run steelhead numbers to many of these rivers. As late
as 1973, (30 years ago)WDFW was producing well over three (3) million
winter run steelhead smolts and releasing them into no less than 60
rivers in Washington State. At that time, the survival rate was
estimated to be at a 5% return rate.

As you know, WDFW did not mark the majority of the hatchery steelhead
until the early 1990's. For the most part, all of these winter steelhead
were counted, or included as "wild" fish when they were recorded on a
fishermen's catch card. It would make logical sense that if those 3
million steelhead were not marked as "hatchery" steelhead, that there
certainly would be a decline in the wild fish runs now. To me, it is
just simple math! 5% of 3 million is a lot of unmarked steelhead!

Now all of these hatchery fish are marked, and only counted as hatchery
fish instead of "wild" fish. So what am I missing here? Don't you think
that just maybe many of those 100 streams that you are talking about
were heavily supported and influenced by those 3 million un marked
hatchery winter run smolts that were being planted in those earlier
years? In the early 1970, In the Game department determined where to
plant those steelhead and how much to plant in each river system. At the
time, the Game Department consider the relative size of the river
system, the punch card records of sports catch in previous years, and
the Department's capacity to produce steelhead smolts and the
amenability of the river system to sport fishing. The capacity to
produce smolts at that time was consider the most decisive factor and it
didn't matter if it was from the gravel or a race way.

Let's not forget Todd, that it was the "general policy" of the Game
Department at that time to plant at least 20,000 steelhead smolts in
each planted river. Do the math and divide up 3 million winter run
hatchery smolts in your 100 top rivers up north. I do not know how many
smolts went into each one of the OP rivers at that time, but one could
certainly assume that they got their fair share. Especially since rivers
like the Lewis and Cowlitz steelhead runs were being mitigated for by
the large power companies in the early 60's.

To me, it just sounds logical that our wild runs of winter steelhead
would certainly now show a huge decline over that time period when all
hatchery fish were at that time being counted as "wild fish".

I know that not all river systems that were sustaining natural steelhead
runs were planted, but I believe that your figures were applying to all
wild steelhead that were caught in our state.

So if I am wrong, how so?

The run sizes were using the WDFW run escapement numbers not catch records or harvest rates though on the charts you will see harvest numbers and total run size which are subtracted to get escapement. These are the numbers the state uses they may not be perfect but they are the best we have and they are the numbers the comanagers uses. I believe all steelhead have been marked for going on 20 years now. We didn't use catch rates as an indication of declining runs but rather escapement.

JJ

GD ... I went back at looked at the data I had from the state regarding this year's wild run on the Hoh.

I was wrong

It was not supposed to be 40 fish over escapement, it was projected to be 40 fish under escapement.

That with a projected sport harvest of 668 fish.

Managing a river for a kill fishery and not projected to meet escapement?

Now you might see why so many of us feel that a blanket ban was necessary.

Given the historical troubles of meeting escapement with a kill fishery on this river, there is NO reason whatsoever there should have been one this year given WDFW's projections.

Assinine, plain and simple.

Have a C&R fishery and decrease the sport impact, and we would make escapement and many of the years we haven't met it over the last 12 years that the runs were really down, we still likely would have made escapement even with C&R mortality.

Management to extiction I think ought to be the the decription of the state & tribe's policy here.

Aunty..You are becoming strident again...sorry but I have only been trying to show what you refuse to accept and that is there are reasons many people might disagree with the WSC and you....I have said many times in the past as I do now that I applaud WSC. OK? I just think you folks should not act as if opponents are incredibly stupid and act so shocked that anyone could not agree with you.

why does it say "catch and release" in the regulation book if its a classic example of "wsr" ?

Aunty - I can understand your urge to gang up on the "Bad Guys" but one must learn to understand that "The Gang" does not require 100% agreement amongst every member on every issue. It is possible to work together on important issues without drawing lines to isolate the "Bad Guys."

With the moratorium the end does not justify the means. If what the Commission did was illegal they should be forced to redress the issue in a just and proper manner.


I too wish to know why the rule pamphlet specifies catch and release fishing on the North Fork Stillaguamish? Is that rule different from WSR?

Todd - Please address this simple question before you become too busy eating crow to tend to such trivialities.

JJ

When you guys are quoted as saying this, what are we suppose to think?
Maybe that's half of WSC problem! You guys don't know what you have
already said. Since almost all wild steelhead harvest has been stopped
or prohibited in 2003, one can understand why there were only 3,554 wild
steelhead harvested in 2003!

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040317-110734-1219r.htm


"But the steelhead population has been hit hard in recent decades by
habitat destruction and overfishing. In the mid-1950s, sport fishermen
took more than 60,000 wild steelhead in Washington. In 2003, that number
was 3,554, according to the Wild Steelhead Coalition's review of
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data.

Hatchery-bred fish are still plentiful in many rivers, but native
steelhead thrive in only a few streams mostly in Washington's
northwestern corner such as the Hoh, the Sol Duc and the Bogachiel,
where the protections of the Olympic National Park help protect habitat.


But even here, the wild runs are well below their historic heights.
Conservationists fear a day when only hatchery fish — often scorned as
"clones" by purists — will swim these rivers.

"We need to be very conservation-oriented, assuring that we protect the
fish first," said Dick Burge, the Wild Steelhead Coalition's vice
president for conservation.

The coalition argues that the state's policy of managing fish for the
maximum sustainable harvest pushes steelhead too hard, leaving them
vulnerable to poor ocean conditions, drought and silt-choked rivers.

So the coalition persuaded the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
to impose a two-year moratorium on killing wild steelhead anywhere in
the state, a ban that has many locals up in arms."

Hair
You bring up something important here
How many of us here are on a watershed council

Todd –
Regarding the Deer Creek summer steelhead on the North Fork of the Stillaguamish. The following is short history of them and their management based on my limited information.

You are correct in that historically that Deer Creek (NF Stilli trib at Oso) supported the largest run wild summer steelhead found in the Puget Sound region. There has been various estimates of what the historic run size may have been – my best guess (and it is only an informed guess) was it typically varied from 1,000 to 2,000 annually. They are typical of the summer steelhead found in the Puget Sound region – that is they tend to be smallish (an average fish would 24 to 25 inches in length -range from 19 to 30 inches) and return to the river from late June into September. They have long support and avid group of fishers and were the prime reason that the North Fork Stillaguamish was established as fly only water during the summer season. The uniqueness and vulnerability of the population was recognized early with there spawning and upstream on habitats (Deer Creek) itself has been closed to all fishing for more than 60 years.

The early fishing anglers - Haig Brown and Zane Grey – as well as the list of who is who of the Washington steelhead fly fishing fraternity all fished for these wonderful fish. They are noted for the willingness to take a fly – the dry fly fishing can be as good as any on the coast. They typically are very feisty fish with quick runs and wonderful jumps. The fishing for this fish continued to attract numbers of anglers through the decades into the 1960s. In the mid 1960s hatchery summer steelhead were introduced into the upper North Fork. They so dominated the fishing though not the hearts of many of the fly anglers.

Life history information as well as genetic information indicates that there has bee little or no introgression between the hatchery and the Deer Creek fish. The abundance of the Deer Creek steelhead varied from year to year as natural populations will with some good years and some poor years until the 1970s when the population began to slide. This is believed to have been the primary result of degraded habitats from logging. This continued into the 1980s when a large landslide/erosion event (Deforest Creek slide) aggravated the all ready dire habitat situation during the winter of 1983/84. At the time harvest of the wild fish was allowed. Remember that this pre-dates the mass marking of the hatchery steelhead. Recognizing the need to protect these fish a minimum size limit of 30 inches was placed on the North Fork during the summer season. The 30 inches was determined based on newly available life history information that found that most years more than 99% of the returning Deer Creek adults were less than 30 inches. In effect this began what we now recognize as a WSR regulation – though the hatchery fish were unmarked the fact that many of the wild fish (nearly all 1 salt fish) were smaller than the hatchery fish (mostly 2 and 3 salt fish). With the return of marked hatchery fish in the mid-1980s the regulation was changed to prohibiting the retention of unmarked fish during the summer season. It should be noted that neither regulation was universally accepted.

In spite of this protection the population continued to declined until by the late 1980s less than 100 adults were returning annually. This was due to the continued degradation of the habitat. Summer stream temperatures in the upper basin were reaching into the mid 70 degree levels with afternoon temperatures at Oso sometimes exceeding 80 degrees. In addition there was severe increases of streambed loading with unstable spawning gravels, limited rearing and over wintering habitats for the parr. At the peak of activity of the Deforest Creek slide it has been estimated that an average of 100 dump truck loads of material (silt, sand, and gravel) a day (for more than a year) entering Deer Creek from the slide. The situation looked very bleak for this wonderful resource and many including me thought that they were head for extinction and were likely to be gone by now.

The large floods in 1990 and 1995 moved substantial amounts of material from Deer Creek re-establishing some deep pools and in stream channel complexity that allowed increased survival of the steelhead parr. As a result an increase in run sizes was noted – by the late 1990s WDFW was estimating that 600 to more than 1,000 adults were returning annually (based on visual counts from the air with some ground counts to verify the air counts). The returns appear to have remained at those levels until this past season where there was a drop in abundance as was noticed elsewhere in the region.

Sorry about the long-winded history – you know how us old gray breads are when it comes to recounting the past!

However this history indicates how WSR has been applied in steelhead management. The regulation changes in the 1980s allowed anglers to access the hatchery summer steelhead – both in fishing for them as well harvesting the hatchery fish. In addition the long cherished sea-run cutthroat fish found in the lower North Fork was also allowed to continue. The manager at the time felt that the Deer Creek fish were limited by the habitat conditions and certainly could not support harvest but that the limited loss from hooking mortality in the fly only WSR fishery was acceptable to provide access to the other fisheries. That decision was certainly and could still be second-guessed. Certainly it would be safer for the Deer Creek fish to close the North Fork and main Stillaguamish to all fishing during the summer.

Clearly in this case the WSR regulation was a fishery management tool to provide access to abundance other stocks while providing increased protection to the stock of concern. Just as clearly it was less of a conservation tool. It also illustrates that WSR didn’t allow the population to recover – any rebound in run size did not occur until there were improvements in the habitat caused by the flooding. WSR regulations only aid in the rebuilding of stocks when over fishing is the major cause of the population decline.

I see that there is some confusion with the Catch and release regulations on the North Fork – in this case the CnR regulation is in effect during the winter season. A regulation designed to provide recreational opportunity to the wild winter steelhead. It occurred at times when the Deer Creek summers are not in the river.

Hope that is what you were looking for Todd.

Tight lines
S malma

S malma
Thanks

PSA is an excellent organization, which has done more for sportfishing than most other groups. I am an active member and was a voting member on the PSA State Board meeting issue on the steelhead moratorium. I voted against the moratorium for the plain and simple fact in which it was done. I was at the Port Townsend commission meeting when the busloads of fishermen came in and one after another had their three minutes say to ban keeping of all wild steelhead. This was not even on the agenda. But then again commission meetings can be about anything. None of us were ready to comment or had any other input to share on this topic. I figured that there would be an outcome of information to review, study, and comment on later. This never happened. There are avenues that things of this nature are supposed to go down to make sure that the best sound science is used. Once again the commission went around it to make the decision without sound science or full review. Lets look at this another way, If those fishermen at the commission meeting had all been environmentalists and came in busload after busload and said to ban all steelhead fishing, period, in Washington State, and close all rivers, would your opinion still be the same? These are factors that need to be addressed in the proper manor. I love catching steelhead just as much as anyone. I don’t have a problem with releasing fish. I personally enjoy catching much more than eating them. We need to make sure our checks and balances are just that. River by river should be rated case by case. If almost all rivers are not sustainable runs, then we should shut them down. Leaving a few rivers left to keep would surly decimate the ones left. This vote was more on the way the mandate was done rather than the issue.

So its fine to have issues, just do it quietly????

If the next outcome through this process is something you disagree with, you'll be quiet?

I doubt it.

Just because you like this decision doesn't mean you'll be so happy about the next one. Maybe the process could be improved.....

If you have concerns about this issue, don't tear down PSA, attend a local PSA chapter meeting and talk to someone about your concerns. We listen, after all we are all sportfishers. Why else would we spend so much time and effort on keeping fishing alive and well in Washington. Believe me a lot of your fishing is kept open by PSA and RFA. We are doing something about it. Talk to a local chapter and we can make arrangements to take up what you say to the PSA stateboard or better yet let you come and voice your concerns. We are not out there to tear down any sportfishing groups. You catch a lot more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.

sorry but this is a fishing forum, not a "ping pong" forum.

I agree with Fishinut...He is a hard (tireless) worker for sports fishing and never has torn down another group. I think the process we are talking about is not the process WSC followed but the course the commission took. Too many time they hijack the review process to the exclusion of many user groups. This process is supposed to be balanced and is supposed to inclusive and so many times it has not.

AuntyM could borrow that honey jar any time.

Okay ... this "process" thing.

I'd liek to know if it's the "process" that so many are taking issue with then why wasn't there an outcry 2 years ago when this issue came before the commission then?

Thousands of letters in support of the regulation and oral testimony at the meeting was over 90% in favor of WSR. I belive of all written testimony, it was still over 80% in favor.

Yet, it was not implemented at that time with even that heavy a push of public input in one direction.

Why aren't all those concerned with the "process" so vocal when they (WDFW) clearly went against the public input they had??

So the process hasn't worked right either time then....

That sort of helps the "process" argument! When it didn't go your way were you happy with the same process then, or is it different when the decision is favorable?

I want again clear up one thing...I have been trying to help you see the "other side"...I was out of state when PSA voted to support the stand of the NOP chapter....that would be the chapter on the North Olympic Peninsula who seem to be the members most touched by the moratorium they object to. I'm not sure what I would have said had I been in the meeting where the 100% consensus vote occured after some debate.

I have been at plenty of meetings where WDFW was at odds with the commission. The same meetings where the commission was at odds with most of the public input. So the process to me means the commission system. The system has seemed to be broken for some time with unbalanced advocates for commercial fishing ruling the agenda. Lately it seems that sports fishing has gotten the commission's attention for better or worse. That doesn't mean that the "process" is all fixed or even on the right track. Too many arbitrary decisions still abound and I suppose that is what many object to.

Frankly I see interaction with the legislative process far more important at this time. I hate to see so much animosity back and forth over a decision such as WSR. Releasing wild steelhead and salmon is a proven smart bet whether it cures all the ills in fish country or not.

Believe me if the commission had made a snap judgement on crabbing based on our show of solidarity and presentation of facts I know a bunch of folks who would have called the process flawed and raised a real ruckus. As it turned out our efforts raised awareness and helped open doors in the legislative arena which ultimately resulted in the new CRC for crab. Hopefully this will result in a more fair allocation of crab between sports and commercials. We did not stage our protest and then speak to the commission and have a snap decision made to change the allocations even though data would have supported such a move.

If there were previous meetings where WSR was discussed then the Port Townsend meeting could have included WSR on the agenda for further debate before a binding decision was reached. That did not happen and it doesn't matter if the issue was discussed 50 times before the official meeting. Having an important issue on the public agenda well in advance of the meeting would have resulted in atleast the opportunity for those who now voice so much opposition to be heard in a timely fashion and would have allowed preparation for the short presentation times allowed. By stacking the deck with pro WSR folks testifying at the meeting and not hearing from the other side made the decision seem one sided and unfair.

And, again , many issues have been decided in this same manner and each time the system failed to live up to its mandate.

I guess I wasn't clear enough before. So we shake on it then?

Pass the honey...........

ER... No, we weren't happy. But we didn't cry in our beers either.

Those in support didn't threaten lawsuits or circulate petitions ... they worked harder to to get their point across and of bigger issue more than likely, runs continued to dwindle downward before the next push to the commission.

My point is: we saw the support for WSR 2 years ago as it was very well publicized amongst troops in both sides. More public input likely wouldn't have changed a bit from the last go-round with it ... so if you're going strictly on public input for the decision-making process, it should have occurred 2 years ago and had it gone through the exact same process this year. There would NOT have been a differing opinion on the public's stance thsi time, so the outcome should be the same either way

,


Too bad we never got the chance.......


That's the point.

"But we didn't cry in our beers either.

Bob I can’t speak for everyone but I do know that several of us are actually doing more than crying in our beers. Unfortunately I’m not currently at liberty to discuss the details. However I do suspect that opponents of the ruling will be pleasantly surprised very soon now. The process IS broken. The manner in which the commission acted especially commissioner R.P. Van Gytenbeek totally invalidates any public participation. If the commission is allowed to continue using those tactics then any public involvements becomes just a waste of time. I know that AuntyM wants to keep harping about how people are “picking” on WSC, but if she would actually read what most all of the opponents have been saying all along then she would know that most everyone is criticizing the commission and NOT WSC. WSC may have been brought up several times in these discussion however that was only to point out how the commission specifically commissioner R.P. Van Gytenbeek worked with WSC to most effectively and with the least amount of resistance get this ruling mandated.

Ok well AuntyM I guess I'm not allowed to respond to your question.... Jerry has deleted my response twice now. So if you want to read about the show let me know an d I'll point you to the link I sure hope Jerry doesn't delete this. I see nothing wrong with it.

Hairlipangler


You talk about Habitat Destruction that is very important thing! I’ve been working on those issues for 3 years now. I for one think that a big piece of this issue! I think all this fighting between all of us isn’t the best thing? I sit on two Watershed Council’s (that’s my way of working on this issue) most of the stuff is hash out on BB is answered at Watershed Meetings (Habitat).

.02


Hairlipangler

[The coalition argues that the state's policy of managing fish for the
maximum sustainable harvest pushes steelhead too hard, leaving them
vulnerable to poor ocean conditions, drought and silt-choked rivers.

So the coalition persuaded the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
to impose a two-year moratorium on killing wild steelhead anywhere in
the state, a ban that has many locals up in arms."]

Don’t you think this?