This is my own personal opinion as a concerned steelhead angler in the State of Washington.

The letter:

Dear Commission Members,

I am writing in support of the harvest moratorium on wild
steelhead in Washington State.

Washington State is blessed with many species and runs of
anadromous salmonids...but none inspire the mind or fishing
passion more than the steelhead, our state fish.

Our state fish is in a state of decline all over its range, from
California to Alaska, due to various factors, including dams,
past and present poor hatchery practices, destructive forestry
practices, exploding population growth, water withdrawals, and
harvest pressures. Nowhere are all of those factors any more
present than they are here in Washington.

As fisheries managers learn more about hatchery activities that
help or are benign to, rather than harmful to, steelhead through
processes such as the Hatchery Scientific Review Group, and
forest managers struggle with maintaining timber economies and
demands while protecting or even enhancing wildlife, and better
hydropower practices reduce dam mortality, the fish continue to
slowly slip away.

On the few streams open to steelhead harvest (over 90% have
closed to harvest by default, as their runs are chronically
underescaped, perhaps with no recovery in sight), harvest is
intense. Tribal and sport fisheries harvest up to half of some
of the runs on the Olympic Peninsula. Poor run size predictions
have lead to intense harvests that have pushed a fairly healthy
run sized to below escapement levels, such as happened on the
Hoh River the past two years.

As managers, scientists, industries, and the public struggle
with maintaining or restoring quality habitat and water for our
fish, we are continuing to harvest them at intense levels.
While changes to hatchery, timber, hydropower, and agricultural
practices will hopefully bear fruit in the future in the fight
to save salmon and steelhead, the results of such changes are
not guaranteed, nor will the results be visible for many, many
years.

Stopping the sport harvest of wild steelhead has a direct and
immediate measurable benefit to the steelhead runs. The ones
that are not harvested will go to the spawning grounds and
spawn.

How many steelhead will a change in logging road construction
save? How about a change in spill regimes at dams? I don't
know...no one does. There's no way to know if they will save
any, for that matter.

How many fish will be saved by retaining the moratorium? Look
at the harvest reports from the last few years...and that's how
many will be saved. As runs increase, more will be saved. As
noted above, this is automatic and immediate...there is no "wait
and hope" here...those fish will not be harvested, they will
spawn, and, all other things being equal, they will give rise to the next, larger, generation of wild steelhead.

Two years ago the Commission took a very forward thinking step
in reducing the limit on wild steelhead from 2 per day, 30 per
year, to 1 per day, 5 per year. Unfortunately, intense harvest
pressure has actually caused the total harvest to increase. As
other steelhead fisheries close earlier and earlier in the year,
and fewer and fewer streams are open to steelhead retention,
more and more fish are being harvested from those few streams
that remain open.

Science, not politics, should be the main consideration when
considering this moratorium. As more and more people go to the
Olympic Peninsula streams to harvest wild steelhead, and the
runs dwindle, and more streams close, and more people go to the
few remaining that are open, there is no compromise that will
protect those fish from overharvest. Not a trophy tag system,
not a reduction in yearly limits, not a size restriction, not a
time restriction. None of those will stop the intense harvest.

Please retain the two year moratorium. Please direct the WDFW,
who is creating a new steelhead management plan over those two
years, to put the health of the fish and their streams first,
and to put management regimes into place that will absolutely
prevent overharvest by requiring very high and scientifically
sound threshholds that must be met in order to prosecute a
harvest fishery, with conservation buffers large enough to
prevent all but the most cataclysmic inaccuracies in run size
predictions, rather than the routine inaccuracies that lead to
overharvest now.

Thank you very much for considering this moratorium, and
together, let's make Washington a state to be looked up to for
its progressive management, rather than one that will wait until
either another state comes up with a good plan...or the fish
just fade away.

Yours in conservation and recreation,

Todd A. Ripley

great letter

amen

Thank You Todd!

Very nicely written Todd!

Solid logic and eloquent. Way to go!

Todd, thanks for sharing. Your opinion reflects my value on the subject perfectly. It's great to see others who are willing to put themselves out there on the subject. It's the best way to effect change.

Fish-On.

Congratulations Todd; very nicely done.

Are you going to be ther on Sat?

Ramon,

I am curious if you personally are in favor of continuing the moratorium?

Does Washington Trout have an opinion?

Thanks for your consideration.

Ramon,

Yeah, I'll be there...we're carpooling down to the ferry dock in Seattle...the ferry leaves at 7:35...we're just walking on, as the meeting spot is less than a block from the ferry dock at the Bummerton side...

Maybe I'll see you and others at the ferry dock...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. What's up, Plunk? Why ask now? You've been having such a good time over at gamefishin.com with your buds talking like you had it all figgered out already...well, I guess better late than never, but asking a week ago could have spared a 9 page thread about what WT's stance may or may not be...

Well Todd,

I forgot to compliment you on your letter. Although our positions on the moratorium differ I believe it is well written and must say it is far less zealous than I would have suspected. Good job!

Now! In answer to your questions and implications:

You wrote:
"What's up, Plunk? Why ask now? You've been having such a good time over at gamefishin.com with your buds talking like you had it all figgered out already...well, I guess better late than never, but asking a week ago could have spared a 9 page thread about what WT's stance may or may not be..."

As usual, you put forth a distractive redirection of attention. The thread you talk about contained very little about WT's position and a lot of mediocre BS that you played a major part in.

The question about WT's position was asked and you answered:
"I don't think that WT has an opinion on WSR...if they do, I'm not aware of it."

I speculated that:
"Washington Trout is a wild fish advocacy organization, not a fishing club. They want all hatcheries closed and approve of "catch and release only" fishing for wild fish in some circumstances so long as the long term future of the runs are not impaired."

This thread obviously concerns the moratorium and Ramon mentioned that he might to attend the hearing. Since he obviously intended to return to this thread I recognized what seemed to be a good chance to actually get a first hand answer to the question.

That what's up and why I asked.

I'm quite sure my speculation above is correct about WT's position and I would suspect that Ramon personally backs the moratorium.

Ramon?

Sorry, Plunk...you're right...it's the other dudes who have got it all figured out...I guess if Ramon answers, they'll all get what they want...well, not really...since what they want is the BIG conspiracy...but at least they'll have the answer to their question.

Thanks for the kind words about the letter...most of the implications of "zealotry" come from folks, including you sometimes, who say I'm anti-hatchery, anti-fishing...etc., etc., etc....it doesn't come from me.

Fish on...

Todd

Plunker,

As you guessed, I am personally in favor of the moratorium, though I think the two-year time span is not particularly biologically meaningful (you'd learn a lot more from a 5-6 year moratorium). But you gotta start somewhere right?

As far as WT goes, our hearts are definitely with the supporters. I plan on testifying in support of the moratorium, representing WT. Having said that, we have not taken a higher profile role for exactly the reasons you very accurately articulated. In our bylaws, we are pledged not to take positions on allocation issues. While we believe that ending the harvest of wild steelhead is biologically appropriate at this point, and we find the arguments against the moratorium less than compelling, the issues of allocation have become such a clear and significant aspect of this debate that we have made the decision to allow others to carry most of the water on this one, most notably the WSC. They have done a great job so far.

I know this reply is plenty politic, but I will of course be offering a more detailed summary of our position at the hearing. See you there.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

BTW Todd,

I'll look for you guys on the ferry.

Ramon,

Thank you for offering such a clear and candid reply.

I'll have to agree that as a study, a two-year time span is not particularly biologically meaningful, particularly when the successfulness in numbers of eggs put in the gravel is often overshadowed by other factors affecting the productivity in returning adults per egg laid for a particular generation.

As to you position on the moratorium. I think you have done well to end any further unfounded speculation by anyone willing to accept reality. I know your hearts are pure in their purpose of advocating for the fish.

Of course a meathead like myself will always believe that the success in working to restore the numbers of wild fish is measured in opportunity for harvest.

Thanks again - Plunk

I hope that Todd and Ramon and others will join in trying to get the tribes to stop netting the very wild steelhead that the moratorium and other measures are designed to save. Hopefully the moratorium is decided on facts and not on emotion and may the best science win. The tribal policies will negate any and all conservation measures we , as sports fishers, can accomplish so I hope that is not lost on you Ramon or you Todd.

grandpa,

We can start by calling BS on the Quileute Tribes threats and accusations of racism on the part of the Commission by enacting WSR.

Did you read their letter against the moratorium?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. If you haven't, I think it's in one of the sticky threads above...