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.