Irregardless, I think I'll stick with the emotional idealism. It kinda makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Shame on me if my lack of education cannot rationally comprehend this modern scientific fishery management.

Release all wild steelhead!

I beleive that there can be no harvestable numbers when three of the four rivers are NOT meeting escapment goals. That is pretty clear science to me.

The Wild Steelhead Coalition has a white paper in final draft stages that proove these rivers are in serious decline. The data is based on the best science available WDFW data.

"harvestable numbers"

One is a harvestable number.

This is just my opinion close all of those rivers in Feb and March and put some pressure on the netters and then see what happends.

Sounds like PSA Board did not ask there members what they think?

This just goes to show that the PSA (Puget sound A@# Holes) Are being ran by a bunch of "good old boys" who are more concerned with what they can't do than what they shouldn't do. I would also reccomend that every one disscontinue to visit their salmon university site.

I just noticed this topic after coming inside to finish getting ready for another 3 day Westport adventure.

I have to say I agree with Dave on this. I think Clint should have thought it through a bit more before writing a letter that was sure to alienate 1/2 the people while satisfying the other half. I was not present at the board meeting where I understand this letter was voted on by all 14 chapters. I have to say I was surprised at the letter when I saw it. Try writing a letter and posting it here on gay marriage or religion or politics...you would get skinned alive.

What is really disappointing though is the bashing that this BB dishes out so quickly to anyone appearing not to totally toe the PP line. I find it immensely hypocritical to stand up on the ivory throne and pronounce that you will no longer allow a PSA link on this website....and Parker.....blah blah I will tell everyone I see PSA sucks...and so on. I really get the impression that so many folks on this site are following Bob as the pied piper and whistle whatever tune it takes to be accepted into the inner circle....sorry but I have seen so much bad blood and holier-than-thou stuff surrounding this steelhead issue that it is disturbing. These same htt folks think nothing of holding up a wild native steelhead out of the water for a photo and skoff at the notion that they, too, are impacting the runs they proclaim to be so fragile as to need emergency moratoriums.

Will you stop going to the indian casinoes? NO...will you stop buying indian smokes? NO..hell you're not going to do that because there isn't a damn thing you can do about the tribes.....And you won't stop targetting wild steelhead to catch over and over again until they die because you are a "professional" and you know how to handle the fish and you are not the problem....it is those neandrathal a holes who want to catch and keep fish that are making the runs collapse. Right?

I am not sure about the moratorium myself but I can tell you one thing for sure. I am not going to plant my feet into the sand so hard on one side or the other that I am myopic to one side's view or the other. People on both sides of this issue are so cock sure that they are right they will resort to bashing a good organization or bashing a good friend even.

If there aren't enough wild fish to harvest by someone's yardstick then for god's sake stop targetting the damn things!!! Don't tell the guys who want to take a fish home to go f themselves and stay off "your" river while you target the same fish for photographs and bragging rights. Don't clog the rivers with guides promising their clients a run in with a "wild" native hawg steelhead....And don't even try to say that doesn't happen.

Steelhead seem to be crashing all over the region for some reason and the C&R only rivers are not exempt for severe decline. Seems to be we need to lay off them when they are in the rivers in good numbers which would be Feb-April. Lay off totally. Then go after the tribes to stop netting them. Go after a state law to make steelhead off limits to commercial sale. Then maybe you can help revive the runs. Then who decides when the runs are healthy enough to again start the cycle of harvest? Judging from this debate I suspect there never will be a sufficient number of wild fish to allow harvest. Never. Some of this boils down to selfishness. Some of this is about trimming the number of "crackers" on the rivers that the "professionals" fish on.

I respect Dave Vedder's approach to this the most. Atleast Dave sets out some salient points and doesn't knee jerk like so many others have done here. I expect the knee jerk on PP because for some reason this site brings out the worst in people sometimes.

In conclusion, I need to remind you that I have never kept a wild steelhead and do not target them for C&R. My steelhead fishing is for hatchery fish. Have to admit there was a time when I wanted one of those Quinault 30# fish on my wall but I learned that there isn't enough foil in the world to protect me from the flaming.

PSA is a good organization made up of some good people who like to fish and have fun. We don't all agree on everything. For that reason we usually do not take blanket stands on issues like this moratorium. This time the board saw fit to do so and will have to weather the criticism from this BB and accept the praises from whence it comes. I just hope that they have plenty of enforcement officers and metal detectors at the upcoming meeting on the moratorium.

Remember Guys, some of us are PSA members and we too do not see eye to eye on this subject. BUT. that being said, I am not going to throw the towel in on an organization of Sports fishers, because of one event. I am going to deliver this message to my chapter this next meeting, which is next Tuesday. We as a group of fishers, always get in trouble, with all the bickering between us and no unity to fight with. We do have to stick together as groups of fishers to get anything done, which is not really possible as an individual yelling at the top of his lungs.
Give PSA a chance, at least we try to do positive things and have made some strides getting noticed.

Steve Ng

The leadership of any organization that is willing to alienate such a significant portion of its membership has to be called severely into question. Especially on such a hot button issue.

I'm sensing the significance of the organization starting to wane...oh, about the time that letter was signed.

Good luck getting new members!! I wouldn't worry about it if it was 'Clallam County Anglers'........

As usual Eric, your message is ridiculous.

As usual anonymous, your opinion is worthless to me.

"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, blah, blah, blah."

Wasn't considered to be a problem, when PSA was proposing and promoting I-696, the net ban initiative.

"Tribal harvesters may take advantage of "Forgone Opportunity'."

This protest often came up while gathering signatures for the net ban initiative. I was "trained" by none other than PSA leaders to respond with statements such as,
"Not necessarily."
"Can you imagine how bad they're going to look if they do that!"
"We think we can work with the tribes."

What happened to the optimism that was so prevalent during PSA efforts to get a net ban passed?

"To deny citizens the opportunity to harvest a wild Steelhead, when harvestable numbers exist, is to cater to a minority, elitist view..."

But not so when PSA wanted to deny commercial fishers the opportunity to net salmon determined to be surplus by WDFW. Of course the commercials decried the effort as a fish grab by a minority of affluent recreationists (elitists).

"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?"

To suggest that wild steelhead release relates in anyway to the statement above requires more imagination than I possess. If the moratorium allowed you to merely drive to the river, peer into the deeper holes, and look for wild steelhead, you might have a point. Fishing for, hooking up, and bringing a wild steelhead close enough to release is about as interactive and enjoyable, as it gets.

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

Back to the beginning...

I've attended a number of PSA meetings, and have even considered joining a chapter. That plan has been put on hold. I can't believe a PSA leader would put his name on a letter this lame! This letter should be framed and hung in the Hall of Shame along side the Trout Unlimited letter that urged rank and file members to oppose the net ban.

Well well....Let's hear the argument why you should not be stopped from targetting these fish if they are in such dire straits. Why should you WSR advocates be allowed to fish for wild steelhead if there is such an emergency and escapement goals are not being met? Is it because you will only kill 10-20% of the fish you catch and release? Before you say CnR will help revive the waning steelhead runs better ask Dave Vedder to remind us of the collapse of some of the rivers on Vancouver Island that have practiced CnR for years and have good habitat. Bottom line is that I don't think anyone has the answer. Stopping tribal gill netting and sale of wild steelhead would be a much more noble goal. [/QB][/QUOTE]

A cut and paste on this subject from Gamefishin. Sorry, I'm lazy today.

You know the tough part of using the best available science as the governing point for policy is that I can come up with credible scientific justification for the extremes of this debate and virtually any point in between. Whose science is better? I am no scientist, but I will apply the common sense that God gave me and reach a decision from there.

I would not attack Clint or the PSA. I have seen Clint in action before the Commission and know that his heart and his head are on the side of the sports fisherman. Grandpa is an old friend, and there is no question that he cares more deeply and works harder for us than virtually anyone I know. However, even they can be wrong, and they are this time - IMHO. Does that mean I think the PSA is full of crap? Not at all - it just means I disagree with them on this point. And rather than try and tear down each and every position they hold, I will agree with and cooperate with when I believe they are on the right track, and do the opposite when they are on the wrong track. It's really pretty simple - there is no perfection here on Earth and the mature person remembers the Serenity prayer at each and every turn.

[/QUOTE] Stopping tribal gill netting and sale of wild steelhead would be a much more noble goal. [/QB][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]

GP: That is 100% right. Much of the problem on O.P. rivers is too much Indian harvest. But the collapse of B.C. streams was definitely NOT related to tribal harvest. The truth is our wild steelhead are assaulted from all sides. I agree with many who say that if the runs are in trouble stop C&R. I believe that some rivers are in such bad shape that
a total closure is the answer. But the WDFW data indicated that at least one of the four rivers is typically meeting escapement goals and the other only recently dipped beneath escapement goals. (I may be a bit off on that statement, as I do not the data in front of me.)

If a river is in decent shape, I think a C&R fishery is a good idea. If a river is in serious trouble I believe we do need a complete closure and that included Indians.

But the C&R issue is one that we can do rapidly. Controlling WDFW goofy escapement goals, (Which I believe are set to make the commercials happy, and controlling Indian netting are much more difficult goals. We should not abandon one effective tool just because other remedies are difficult. I sincerely hope RFA tackles some of the more difficult issues of escapement goals and Indian netting.

IMHO, it seems like the logical thing to do for wild fish is to enact a moratorium for complete closure on the rivers that only have wild fish in them, AKA- no hatcheries.

That would only work if netting was banned or very strictly controlled on those rivers. How realistic is that? not very, it sounds like. I have a feeling that is not supported by any facts that I have on hand, is that sportfishing is probably not at the top of the list when it comes to overall impact on the runs.

Ocean conditions, off-shore fisheries, and tribal netting are much worse. I think it might be a bit naive of sport fishers to try and lead an example by releasing all wild steelhead when the netting is indiscriminate.

What about a ban on retaining fish over a certain size that all would have to adhere to? Kind of like sturgeon. Would that work a little better?

Dave V. , it seems that I read that the Vancouver Is. recovery program benefited the most from the banning of netting on those rivers, correct me if I'm wrong.

GF: Sadly I see no evidence of any Vancouver Island wild steelhead recovery. Perhaps you are thinking of salmon? The entire East side of Vancouver Island has been a steelhead disaster fro about five years, and now the West side seems to be going down too. My favorite river, the Gold tanked this year. Snorkel surveys that used to count more than 1,000 fish counted less that 40. Truth is I don't think anyone knows fore sure why, but they have almost zero in-river netting of steelhead.

I do NOT think C&R is the only answer, or even the best answer. But I do think a dead steelhead will never spawn.

Dave knows alot more about most of the rivers and their returns and lack there of than I do---But one river I know and have observed alot over the years is the Sky--IMHO, I believe that the low numbers of hatchery returning steelhead we've been seeing is in large part a direct result of the change of hands and handling of the hatchery itself at Reiter.

It makes a big difference if the person running the hatchery actually cares about the run(s) as much as they care about collecting a paycheck.

As for the large hatchery and wild returning spawners---I'd like to see a program similar to the one I remember reading about that was and hopefully still is used on an Oregon river where sportsmen take large live returning spawners (hatchery and wild) to staging toobs located along the river that are regularly checked and picked up by hatchery managers to use as brood stock. If I catch a SH in excess of 15lbs, or more--It doesn't matter to me of it's wild or hatchery--I want it to go make alot of babies that will hopefully grow up and eventually be 15lbs. or more.

BTW--Grandpa is right about the fisherman that C&R the same wild fish over and over--it's basically the same as hitting it in the head with a rock.

PS--Everyone should take a few deep breaths, count to ten and read Eddie's post before doing anything irrational.

Its fine to understand that nets are the core issue. However, as sports fisherman, your like a 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest. WSR is like keeping the one leg you have and figuring out a way to use it... which is better than the " nothing"... you have been doing for the last forever.

WSR has worked here in Idaho. Our fish still run the same nets that have been in the Columbia and have increased 3 x ( wild fish ) We don't have nets in our rivers... ever... That all happens down stream so the numbers and increase of wild fish have all been driven by lack of sport harvest. In addition, there has been no loss in revenue to small towns that depend on sports fishing.. in fact, fishing has generated more dollars as the fishing has been better than it used to be. Hatchery fish numbers have remained somewhat level. Wild fish numbers increasing... this is in spite of several drought years.

Its perplexing that some of the main rivers your beefing about only get a total of maybe 1000 fish... and you want to eat them. I understand that the tribes net them... which is even more absured. If you want to fight the major screwing you are getting from the treaties you need to be willing to step up and be first.

Well said, B-Run