I heard a "rumor" that the WSR moratorium has been rescinded. Sorta nice to hear that something that was pushed thru on a backdoor deal got the boot.

Let's hope that if WSC feels they should continue on this issue that they follow the rules the next time.

I for one am "on the fence" on WSR. My objection was the way this rule was inacted.

Sounds like there will be a one fish for year limit. Now the town of Forks is in really big trouble. How many bonkers are going to come to town for the week to be able to only kill one fish and how many C&R people are going to spend their money there after the way the town acted. I was really hoping the mayor looked at this entire issue differently because the people of Forks are going to be hurt the most by this in the long run. One fish is not enough with some and one fish is too much with for others. Forks is has hurt itself I think in the long run if the one fish a year is true. They woould have been better off with the moratorium.

Not going into the back door issue again. Old and lame and been done to death. Even when we follow the "proper" channels and the majority of the people want this it still gets shot down. This is rediculous.

The moratorium was rescinded this afternoon but the limit was reduced from 5 fish a year to 1 fish a year.

We keep inching along in the right direction but the politics of this is riduclous.

JJ

Zen Leecher,

I will resist the urge to invite you to kiss my arse and instead just comment that it appears they did just fine following the rules. It is at least nice to know that while you sit up there on the fence all full of indecision, you will only legally be able to now bonk one wild fish a year.

sinktip

My letter I just sent to the Chamber in Forks:

Dear Forks Chamber of Commerce,



I am writing to tell you I that I will no longer be spending money in your town as a result of your decision to fight to get the wild steelhead kill moratorium over turned which it just was today. As a catch and release advocate you and your political leaders have made it very clear that you don’t want my kind of people out there in your town spending our money. I don’t make a ton of trips out there but I usually make 2 trips a year and probably spend around $500 each year out there maybe a little more but you have now lost my portion and I will be recommending to others to do the same. Of course this year me and my buddies were going to do our annual winter trip out there rather then the Skagit but no more (4 people for a minimum of 3 days). Your short sightedness is truly amazing to me. You all said at the hearing saying you would rather have no fishing then have a catch and release fishing well you still get to kill your fish and help to take another resource into the ground.



Since you don’t want my kind out there I won’t trouble you by coming out there and will save you the trouble of looking down and making snide remarks.



Jeff Johnson

Sinktip, let's hope Bob will give your invite the response it deserves.

Sounds personal to me.

Sounds to me like a classic compromise. Nobody is fully satisfied or dissatisfied. I would once again like to thank everyone (Pro & Anti) for testifying and getting involved. Involvement is a great thing.

In terms of the Forks issue - I feel they made several strategic blunders and hope that they let this issue drop. If they don't, I'm afraid there will be more polarization of sports fishers and that can't be good.

Zen you know how the personal think works on here don't you? As long as you don't tell someone to kiss your arsh it's fine.

This is great news! I'm looking forward to seeing all the supporters of the moratorium's fine comments on the ruling.

I think what you see in the decision is the states fear of the tribes.

1 fish huh,

They couldnt just said no fish. Now you will have all these people CNR til they get the bigger fish and hopefully they all get skunked.

It is actually moving in a good way. 1 fish is better than 5. I hope a lot of people realize that the reason this was going into effect was to preserve our natural resources. Maybe people wont even bother to go to forks for 1 fish. I will still be there you dont have to keep to enjoy fishing

I approved this message
Kevin

Gerry

You are right I think in some ways. The state and the Hoh tribe have been working out differences in other issues. I think this was part of a back room deal that the state put in. I believe the state knows they could win a foregone opp case in court but it's going to cost time and a lot of money they don't have so why not put something as uninportant as the moratorium in the dealings with the Hoh.
Anyone who thought that the WSC had a back room deal going then what about the latest back room deal.

Again I got to feel sorry for the ordinary folks of Forks because their Mayor has just cut off a good percentage of income in their gamble to get greety with all of our few fish left.

Kinda sad to see the Commission flip flop and amend an earlier descision. Let's hope the this is a one-time deal and not something that will happen again in the future. But once a precedent is set...

One fish kill limit? It looks like Mayor Reed now has a self-fulfilling prophecy of a business slowdown in Forks.

Leland.

Is this going to last a while or is this only inplace for two years just like the moratorium wouldve been

Trask,

It's kind a funny how politics work as we all know by now. Let's just say that insider information before today showed that the commission was going to up hold the moratorium by maybe even a larger margin than the original vote. I think they resented some of the local pols getting in their face. But when the AG comes to town there is not much you can do but go along with him. Lets not get down on the commission they have to be worried enough about the comprimise as it stands. They were strong up in till today.

I hope that both sides don't continue to whine on this issue. It was a good fight with the ussual politics involved. I did not support the WSC stand because I thought it was bad politics to begin with. With or without C&R the OP rivers will continue to decline and the F&G will eventually be the ones to implement the same rules we see on all the other rivers thoughout the NW and BC.

Anybody have any info on exactly how the attorney general saw this thing? Remeber, she is running for govenor.

Tacoma News Tribune article on the Commission's decision:

http://www.tribnet.com/sports/story/5498445p-5437073c.html

As a professionally trained umpire and with over 30 years of umpiring experience the arguments that are forth coming now sound like some inexperienced coach whining because the call didn’t go his way.

People get a life. Ya’ll knew going into this somebody wasn’t gonna get what they wanted. Walk it off.

“I’m never gonna spend another dime in Forks”—Will boo-who-who. You gonna take your toys and go home now? Nobody and I mean nobody cares what you do. But it’s fine with me, leaves more room on the rivers when the springers and the fall runs are in.


Buck-up. This game is in the books. Get ready for the next.


And Sinktip- In one of my games you say something like that and you’d still be “outa here” saying your not going to say “this” is saying it.

Dan Leinan of the city of Forks said he didn’t think the decision would play well back home. City officials opposed the ban and convinced the commission to reconsider the decision.

“I wish the people around the state that support this would take care of their rivers in their own backyards before they come out and mess with ours,” Leinan said.

Hey T,

I am not planning on spending any more money in Forks. I will still fish over there I just won't eat breakfast in town anymore and make sure I buy my beer and ice before I get there. See ya on the river.

Not sure why a double post happened sorry.

JJ

So with overwhelming numbers of supporters of keeping the Moratorium, better arguments/reasons to keep the Moratorium that would only last 2 year (come on people, 2 years is NOT THAT LONG and it would be BETTER FOR THE FISH) and the Commisions still backs out of it's decision because a few, small amount of people want to kill some of the last wild steelhead?

No wonder our fish stocks are almost non existant. :rolleyes:

Do I see over hundred post on this??? 21 posts in the last hour

Because I don't fish for Wild Steelhead it doesen't bother me with a 1 fish limit.Now if I do get one worthy of a wall fish I have that chance.
Now that WDFW is in overall agreement that the runs need to be managed individually that sounds alot better to me than a blanket ban.
The back door has been shut Zen and will be a little harder to stick there foot in

Hey, look at it like this.. If every person thats registered on this site kept 1 wild fish a year from the rivers in question.. there would be " none".. left. The thing that is so perplexing about the whole deal is you are talking about such a small number of fish all total.

Suspect next time this issue comes around it will be in the form of an ESA listing which means you can just put your rods away

I'll go and spend my money over in forks and tell them that they did a "hell of a job" with this moratorium. Was against it from the beginning. If this sort of strategy worked, then all of the north end rivers would be streaming with fish. Where are they? Nets don't release fish and until that gets resolved there will be no real change on any of our rivers............................Fishy...........

They could have at least exempted tiny streams like Goodman Creek from the kill list.
I'd like to hear more on the involvement by the AG.

How does this effect the tribal netting

If the tribes get to net during the wild runs, then we should be able to fish.
Stop the nets and I will gladly stop fishing during that same time.

SoMethingsmellsfishy>>>Right ON brother!

The Mayor of Forks needs to realize that the wild fish belong to everyone now and in the future not just the people of Forks. Anyone that advocates killing wild Salmon,steelhead or trout in NW rivers in this day and age has no concept of conservation.

The King, you need to be more civil on this part of the board. You know what I edited out and I don't want to see that again!

AuntyM,

I won't spend money in Forks until they get rid of their mayor. I was fine with Forks and their opposition to the moratorium. But when the mayor started putting me down because I chose to use a fly rod is when I decided not to support the town. I can't vote in the Forks mayorial election but I can certainly boycott the town for their choice of mayor and I will. I am not an urban elitist fly fisherman. Hell I live in a small logging community not to different from Forks and if our mayor had made some of the comments the mayor of Forks has made I would damn sure not vote for him or her either.

Wow a little MOD action Please!!!!!Calling names after the fact aint cool.
NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
September 2, 2004
Contact: (WDFW) Craig Bartlett, (360) 902-2259
(Commission) Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2449

Commission reverses wild steelhead ban, adopts annual one-fish rule on 12 rivers


OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today reversed a measure it approved last February that imposed a two-year moratorium on retaining any wild steelhead caught in state waters.


By a unanimous vote, the nine-member commission instead will allow anglers to retain one wild steelhead per year on a dozen rivers – all but one of which is on the Olympic Peninsula – affected by the moratorium.


The new annual limit for those rivers, which takes effect Oct. 3, is more conservative than the annual five-fish limit in effect before the moratorium was enacted last spring, said Will Roehl, commission chair.


“For all the discussion about what the annual limit should be on those rivers, any long-term decisions about steelhead management need to be based on the best available science,” Roehl said.


Toward that end, the commission has directed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to update its comprehensive plan for managing steelhead throughout the state. That plan, now being developed in conjunction with treaty tribes and other interested parties, is scheduled for completion in late 2006.


Rivers and streams affected by today’s action by the commission include the Bogachiel, Calawah, Clearwater, Dickey, Goodman, Green, Hoh, Hoko, Pysht, Quillayute, Quinault and the Soleduck.


Anglers must still release any wild steelhead caught on all other rivers and streams throughout the state. Hatchery-bred steelhead, which represent the majority of the annual catch statewide, are not subject to that rule, but are managed according to daily catch limits established on a river-by-river basis.


Citing scientific recommendations by WDFW for the 12 affected rivers, Roehl was one of several commissioners who questioned the biological need for a an outright ban on wild-steelhead retention. Others expressed concerns about the lack of consultation with treaty tribes and the public before the moratorium was adopted last February.


“This time, we got the word out and had plenty of public input,” said Roehl, noting that the commission received more than 800 letters, e-mails and petitions on the moratorium today’s vote, which followed a public meeting dedicated to the issue Aug. 28 in Bremerton

Jerry,

Would you look into Ron's complaint? Thanks.
Zen

I was working for money guys and dealt with it as soon as I saw it.

Let's keep a cool head about this people. I think the compromise that the commission came to is OK. We have gone from 2 fish per day, 30 fish per year in 2001--- to 1 fish per day, 5 fish per year in 2002--- to 1 fish period in 2004. I would call that progress.

I knew this was going to be a bad day!

This was not a compromise one a year is just as bad as five per year. We wont see any drop in the overall harvest nymbers.

We got screwed by the state again.

Everyone in the WDFW deserves to be fired. They have done nothing positive for our fish and wildlife. Between the state and the tribes they will have it no other way than to bonk the last wild steelhead swimming in washington state and replace them with hatchery fish.

I mean what I just said Not one single individual working for the state has done any justice in my mind. In the back pocket of the tribes and comercials is all I have seen.

Thanx Jerry ,I think that people can get a bit to excited and say things that arn't to kind.

The day just is getting worse. Ruined my day at work and now I just toasted a box hear while setting it up.

Rich while I think that a lot of the people in the department related to steelhead have never build enough if any buffer into rivers, ie the Hoh and some deserve to be fired but some of them do work very hard and do do a good job. I won't throw the baby out with the bath water here. I tell you what if over the last 10 years here working at a big software company all but 12 of my projects failed when they numbered in the 50s I would be gone a long time ago an we would have tried something different.

JJ

JG has the right idea here folks. There is much emotion on both sides of the issue. We should all understand this is an incremental process. If we keep winning small battles every year, eventually we win the war. While this decision is a far cry from what many wanted, it represents a monumental step in the right direction.

PEACE

I don't keep wild steelhead on the other hand I don't like people who whine just to pump themselves up as being elite or whatever they think they are when they totally ignore the the facts for no good reason beyond ridiculous selfish ideals. So I never supported this moratorium, the very similar trapping ban with it's whining uneducated supporters or this forum for that matter. But now I support this forum and offer you my love and forgiveness.

Hoglander

Better than a sharp stick in the eye, I guess.

Just another "uneducated" opinion, worth roughly what you paid for it.

After a few hours to cool down......

I still meant what I said!

They spit right in our face.....

From 5 to 1 is no different!!!!

We continue to manage our wild steelhead for harvest. That is what this is all about....

5 to 1 is apples to apples.

I wont sit here and kiss the ars of the great "great one's".

Polotics was played today nothing more. The fish wone nothing and the commission and state saved face and tried to please everyone at the same time trying to keep themselves out of a lawsuit.

No big step was made, nothing was done.

People may think that Im some dumb young guy with alot of emotion but I know more than you think. I have seen alot with my own eyes. The state and tribes work on lies and the publics ignorance.

"If the tribes get to net during the wild runs, then we should be able to fish.
Stop the nets and I will gladly stop fishing during that same time."


This argument has never made sense to me. I agree, the nets are by far the greatest impact and it is likely improvements in runs will not be seen until the nets are gone...but that doesnt mean you cant SLOW the decline...does anyone deny that fewer fish will spawn with a One fish limit and netting than would spawn with a moratorium and netting? I mean its not like they are tossing gillnets over the redds. By the time sporting anglers get a crack at 'em the nets have already taken their toll.

I'm no expert on this issue, and I dont even live in Washington full time anymore (school/military) but I just think its obvious that everyone(nearly) agrees the runs need protection...so why not start with the protection we can get now and work up to whatever else you want? I mean, Forks at least doesnt pretend to be concerned about native steelhead populations. I can admire their tenacity, even if I dont agree with their motives. However, something just seems a little off to me when people complain that netting is devastating the native stocks and should be banned, yet continue to harvest said native stocks on top of the damage already caused.

Not trying to get in a

The moratorium wouldn't require that you stop fishing.
Isn't it a little tough to tell the indians to stop netting wild fish when sport anglers are still allowed to whack 'em? Hard to point a finger while holding a dead nate.

Don't some of you think it is strange that the Hoh tribe threaten legal action (the Hoh-WDFW agreement from June of this year) if the moratorium was not rescinded and sportsman harvest was not reinstituted?

Hey Jerry

I have a question what is the percantage so to say htat hte HOH tribe will get of the Nates or anybody does anybody know

I'm with Jerry on this. It is progress for the fish, but when I saw the decision I had to believe that the tribes were influincing the decision. If sporties were not allowed to harvest any wild fish for conservation reasons and then the tribes net those same fish they will get heat. Maybe I'm wrong but at this point it doesn't matter. Just my opinion.

Hey Rich your RIGHT!! The moritoium getting resinded wont help the fish anymore than the moritorium being upheld would have.The moritorium had nothing,zero, nada, to do with saving fish. It was about giving the right to fish to a very small minority and thats it.And all the pro-moritoium guys know that.

That's crap................and you know it. What was it that was going to stop you from fishing?

Hey Rich G -

Are you sure you're not a postal worker?

I believe that Rich is a police officer that used to work for the Quilluette tribe. He may have some insight that we don't.

That's crap................and you know it. What was it that was going to stop you from fishing? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Dan,
What was going to stop me from fishing??
A little thing called ethic's and morale's

I woke up this morning feeling a little crouchy and onery, then I read this thread and I started feeling much better! It brightened up my day.

Oh, ethics and morals huh?

How's the view from that high horse? Any elitist flyfishermen up there with you?

Cue the PETA line about "torturing" fish you don't intend to eat.

I have a question. How many of you that are for the for moratorium on wild steelhead kill wild salmon, ducks, elk, deer and etc? Salmon on those rivers over there are as threatened as the steelhead. some areas they close down hunting due to low numbers of game but leave open others because there can be a harvest and still keep the herds viable. Why not in Forks.

The fish are under the same environmental pressure as the game is in this state, water and habitat quality, habitat destruction, and harvest pressure. With one exeption the commercial harvest. There is none of game. That's another disscussion all together. I have even seen Bob kill native kings and coho on the Pen. On my home river the moratorium has been in effect for almost 10 yrs now and I see very little progress if any in the returns. This failure is not only to this river but many across this state. My question is may be we are focusing on the wrong managent stragity and that's another disscussion.

I guess my point is "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and if we don't start working together rather in special interest we could lose it all.

my 2 cents and remember what it cost

Maybe RonBob the reason why your Home river hasn't returned suitable numbers of fish is because WDFW instituted WSR to late.

The tribes may not have a "commercial harvest "on game animals BUT they can harvest 3 deer & 2 elk per person in that family per our 1 deer & 1 elk ! on top of that any one in that family can harvest there animals for the other, they can hunt at night, and there has been cases of selling game and fish illegally. A family of 5 can take 15 deer and 10 elk if they chose to . my 02 cents

seaweedsam you make my point exactly

Each tribe manages their game differenty.

That being said most tribes in general look the other way when the rules are being broken by their own people.

From what I have seen the tribes give whatever numbers they want to the state for harvest and such and the state never asks questions but backs those numbers up to the end.

We all get caught up in what we want. Try thinking of natural resources in terms of what your grand children and great grand children need and deserve. That perpective may change how you view a wild fish or any other game animal. You may even find yourself limiting your take or even stopping your take long before the state tells you via regulations.

Rich,

I really do admire your spirit, but it does make me a little nervous to know that you are in law enforcement and so often see you letting your emotions get the best of you.

The WDFW Commission's decision to allow a one wild steelhead harvest is NOT the same as 5. According to WDFW's data and harvest projections, any season limit greater than one would be about the same as 5. The one fish limit is expected to result in a reduced wild steelhead harvest. Perhaps the reduction isn't a lot, but it isn't the same as the existing condition. Of course, that projection doesn't consider that there may be a steady increase in fishing pressure on OP rivers by anglers wishing to catch and keep a wild steelhead.

The Commission's decision appears constructive toward conservation and cautious toward potential legal action by tribes, a prudent compromise. The interesting thing is that the Commission no doubt will extend the statewide ban on keeping wild steelhead to the OP rivers. It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when. They had the opportunity to do it pro-actively, before the runs were thoroughly depleted, or they will do it reactively - as they did with the rest of the state - and do it after the runs are pretty much depleted. The steady increase in the human population in this state, and the obvious lack of political will to protect and recover fishery resources, pretty well insures that abundant harvestable wild steelhead will not persist indefinitely.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

After reading these posts and an article about those who believe in C&R and those who don't in one of the fishing mags yesterday at the dentist office I just got to wonder if this whole thing does not boil down to the same foolish BS that is taking place in our national elections and the division our country is in.
The article seem to show that those who wanted to kill fish and thought C&R wrong were strongly conservative Christian or had Native religous ties. Those who were for C&R did not mention their ties to any religion but seemed more science backed in their beliefs.

Does anyone else see a pattern here or am I just paranoid. I'm a religious man and I love to eat fish I catch but I'm a foolish man to not see the writting on the wall that certain fish can no longer be killed as in the old days. There are just too many of us now in this world. I know C&R is not the total answer but it is something I can live with because I at least get to go fishing and I don't think God gonna get me for wanting to be outside enjoying what's left of his once bountiful world. I have a distrust for all those who are selfish. This includes the bonkers of wild steelhead and those who constantly C&R fish on a daily basis. That includes guides that fish rivers releasing 5 or six fish a day. I wish the C&R people when it comes to steelhead would be happy with hooking one fish a trip watching it swim away and calling it a great day just to have done that. At least that really reduces death By C&R. I wish the bonkers would understand we just don't have many wild steelhead left and fish to eat on other more plentiful fish. Let the steelhead be that sport fish it should have always been.

For me both sides are on a high horse a self rihtgious horse myself included But damn I can only think that God and Country can only respect me for letting that one beautiful creature go to spawn again. We humans screwed it up real bad, God must be mad about it but he also must understand for both sides on this issue we need to be out enjoying what he has given us to some degree. Food for the table is a good thing but if the food is gone forever if it don't swim in the river anymore it does not give anyone any enjoyment at all.

I think the best comprimise in this would be this. If the mortalitty rate most talk about and a conservative number is 10% then those who practice C&R should be able to land and release 10 wild fish then they are done for the year. Those want one for the table must keep the first wild fish they catch and stop fishing for steelhead, hatchery and wild both for the rest of the season. Those who decide to C&R can not change course and keep one and those who want to keep one can only fish till they catch there first and can't change course.
Now both sides have a one dead wild steelhead to their credit and no chance of killing more.

Love and Peace

What Dan?? You having a problem with understanding what they are?? A quick look in the dictionary may help you understand.

PS. It has nothing at all to do with PETA!

LT,

Limiting catch and release to a certain number of steelhead per day is good as a concept, but impossible to enforce is what I've been told.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Duro,

Oh, I understand perfectly. Whether you do is unclear to me.

Hey have you guys checked out the IFISH board about this subject I am in arguement with them they are stating that CNR is wrong over there if I can get soem of you guys to back me up over there that would be outstanding

Salmo g. wrote
“Limiting catch and release to a certain number of steelhead per day is good as a concept, but impossible to enforce is what I've been told.”

You said a mouth full there!
Man, that’s the next fight in my mind!
WDFW doesn’t have the personal to do it!

Grow up.

Salmo g. I don't share your bleak outlook. I think we have come a long way in how we view the conservation of our fisheries and wildlife in general. Great strides are being made by management the user groups and the general public. All is not lost simply because the moratorium failed to become a reality. Hang in there buddy, the future may not be so bad.

Both kill fisheries and CnR fisheries harvest fish. If the stock isn't healthy enough to support harvest neither fishery should be open. I think the commission got it right and tried to make both sides happy.

excuse me phishin you telling me to grow up because I am trying support CNR and not bonking everything that I catch or you catch. Please you are in the wrong place telling me that because I love the natural resources that I dont want to see depleted and I know a lot of people support CNR on this website so I was asking for help. To help me possibly prove my point. But thanks for your support and have a fine day.

SD,
Please read Lofty's post carefully. If you believe by CNR your helping the fish . You are not part of the solution your part of the problem. If you really want to do something that may help the native fish. Stop fishing in the rivers with large numbers of natives at the end of Febuary. That would do far more to help the natives than CNR.

Oh, I get it.

Stop fishing, rather than trying to lessen your impact first.

That would sound good to me IF I WASN'T A FISHERMAN.

Dan,
That falls back to the morale's and Ethic's thing we were talking about.

What does? The fact you won't try to minimize your impact until a run is in such poor shape that the system needs to be closed altogether.

Jerry,

My thought on your statement-- VERMACAST.

That ain't it.

Nets and habitate. or Habitate and nets. What ever order you want.

No Dan I dont fish for steelhead after Febuary now.Just to make sure I have No impact. And I stick to fishing rivers that already have very low native percentages. Im proud to say i have been lucky and have never hook a native steelhead not one. My morales and ethics are very much intact. Can you say the same? Have you ever killed a native steelhaed?

PS. I didnt need a moritorium to tell me to do the RIGHT thing!!

Salmo,

My compassion and spirit when it comes to fish issues has nothing to do with how i do my job.

I tell the truth and speak my mind. Im not always the most popular person but people know where I stand and that I can be trusted.

When people are affraid of you the first thing they attack is your character. Fortunately for me my character is about as good as it gets.

Yeah.........I've killed more wild steelhead than I can count. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. See, back then WDFW said the rivers I fished had runs healthy enough to support harvest too.

We'll just agree to disagree..........and I apologize if I came off kinda harsh before.

Dan, it is pretty narrow minded to say one way of harvesting fish is better then another.
They both do the same thing KILL FISH, both have the same impact, dead fish.

This issue has been debated enough. I am just glad that the commission used common since with there ruling.

No, it's a fishing state of mind. In order to kill one fish, I can likely catch and release 20 fish. Or you can catch and kill one. The net effect is the same, but since when is fishing less a good thing?

Again.........you say tomayto, I say tomahto. Narrow-minded is simply the view from where you're standing.

OK, I'm done now.

Phishinman,

I don’t think my outlook is so bleak. It’s just a perspective about the future based on consideration of the past, the condition of aquatic habitat with the present human population, and a prospective estimate of the condition of aquatic habitat with the projected increased human population. I do believe we will continue to have runs of wild salmon and steelhead in this this state quite a ways into the future. It’s just that in most cases, I don’t think they will be particularly large runs, since runsize is dictated in large part by the quantity and quality of habitat.

The OP steelhead runs remain as good as they are, not due to fisheries management, but due to the several rivers that are headwatered in the national park and the atrocious weather that knocks the rivers out of shape often enough to maintain significant spawning escapements. But for those two parameters, what makes anybody think those runs would be in any different shape than the other Washington State steelhead runs? (There is one other factor; that is the coastal rivers seem to be enjoying higher smolt to adult survival rates than Puget Sound and Columbia River tributaries, but the only management difference is WSR on most rivers, and we’ve heard repeatedly that isn’t a driving difference.)

As the human population increases, and habitat degrades, and fishing pressure increases, and WDFW supports the harvest of every calculable surplus fish, the OP runs will gradually be worn down to the point that the Commission will no longer have the luxury of extending non-treaty harvest benefits to anglers, because there will not be calculable surplus fish.

I’ve been reading a couple books about fish and fish management, Cod and King of fish. We’ve known for 400 years how to conserve fish populations. The point is that we make choices based on greed, other priorities, and indifference that cause the collapse or extirpation of valuable fisheries, regardless of the nation, form of government, or species of fish.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

when they outlaw netting, i will voluntarily quit bonking even if its legal and I have already shook (shaken?) my son's hand on this deal.....

too bad I'll be dead and gone (so will the fish) when the nets finally come out of the water...

hey max that's a heckuva an attitude, let's all just plunder & raoe the resource while its left...

and yeah, i also fish because the voices in my head tell me to...

Whats' everyone all worked up about?
The moratorium got rescinded. Isn't that a good thing? Who would want to manage all rivers by a blanket ban in the first place. River by River management is the way to go.

That was funny Max.

On the first page Aunty M said the right thing, bury it and move on, lets hear about some fishing not a bunch of back and forth crying about who is a dick and who isnt. Both sides won, not in a sweeping manor as each was looking for, but a narrow win to say the least, go fishing and if you believe that wild fish should go back in the water to fight another day, then keep dong as you always have.If you go the other way, then so be it, continue to look for that trophy fish, and do as you always have, but it will only be one.

I too believe that if a run can't support the taking of fish that it shouldn't be fished at all (net, C&R or bonk fisheries). Why would or should you be able to kill any fish when a river is under it's escapement goal? River by river management is the only way to go.

Just curious: How many native steelhead is an angler allowed to bonk each year in Idaho? Oregon? B.C.?

Easy answer, Bonking and netting of wild steelhead is a Washington state thing.. the rest of the world is smarter than that. Funny how fishing is better in Idaho, Oregon and B.C. Your fishing is headed the direction that your hunting went

I don't care how the rule was adopted!! saving wild steelhead is too important to aquabble over technicalities!!

Harvesting a wild steelhead in the state of Washington is a stupid selfish act.. any one who performs a selfish or stupid act is by deffinition selfish and or stupid.

if you oppose the moratorium you are opposed to saving wild steelhead. Plain and simple.. You cannot say it's ok to harvest a species then say you want to see their numbers increase! harvesting decreases the population so harvest and increase are an impossible combination!

That coupled with the fact that statewide millions of steelhead and tens of millions of salmon are raised in hatcheries and released into our rivers so that people will have fish to kill and eay ( yum). There is no need for anyone at any time or in any location to kill and eat a wild steelhead. Anyone who does so is selfish and stupid by deffinition and wants wild steelhead to go extinct! Your actions against wild steelhead speak louder than your words for them!

Way to go Robert Allen I have stood back and took all this in silently. But you have spoken my thoughts perfectly.......again I sit back and just read.

Steve Ng

RobertA and Steve... I agree with you in principle and have demonstrated in practice by not having punched a wild steelhead in almost 10 years while carefully releasing many. What I disagree with is your righteous attitudes that refer to others as "selfish and stupid" for not possessing a high degree of enlightenment like yourselves. Your points are lost in your arrogance.

it's not arrogance at all! it's simply a matter of fact and deffinition...


Harvesting a wild steelhead is a selfish act.. it's taking an extremely limited public resource and keeping it all to yourself.. thats the deffinition of selfish.. BY deffinition anyone keeping a wild steelhead is selfish, thinking only of himself as he takes from the resource..

As for stupid i think if you do something that intentioanly harms yourself that classifies as stupid... If you harvest a wild steelhead you are hurting your own fishing future and is therefore stupid..
I am not calling anyone names I am only defining thoes people by their actions.. just as i would call a robber selfish and stupid..

I am simply letting people define themselves by their actions!

Or in your case RA3.... words.

I think its a nice compromise!!, I do keep the ocassional native, I can count all of them on one hand up to date... but this does not make me stupid!