I don't post a lot but I read a ton here and appreciate this site and for the most part the people. The information is great that happens here and for the most part things stay tame. With what I have seen from a few calling people that one want the state to follow the law, two try something different and support groups that do, and three people that support wild fish extremists, snobs, elitist, and other various names. I feel compelled to at least say I support the law suit settlement and what it is trying to accomplish.

If the state had followed the rules in the last 10 years then none of this would happen. I get that people want to fish, heck I want to fish but can you honestly say honestly that what is going on is working? I love taking home a fish once in awhile I get it but I enjoy the experience of fish more and if I never bring home another steelhead I am fine. If that makes me a snob so be it. The state has fallen down trying to protect wild fish and those are the fish that I value more. Hatchery fish can end at any time for a variety of reason that have nothing to do with fish. Wild fish given half a chance can help.

Is this solution he end all be all and perfect. Heck no. Not even close but at least it is a start and we are trying something different and there is a group willing to force the hand of the state and the state settled because they didn't know they had a leg to stand on. Hatchery fish aren't the only cause of wild fish decline, heck most likely not be the major issue, but if you look at a lot of the science that has been posted here they are a factor just like habitat, hydro, harvest, and humans.

I know the name calling and flames will start but I saw someone ask does anyone support this and I wanted to stand up and say I do. I may be the only one but giving up 2 months of fishing time for a new way of thinking and hopefully 6 months in the future seems like a good trade off to me. I saw a post, forget from who, that said he was waiting for the day when fisherman stood up for fish not fishing. If you stand up for the fish fishing will come in my opinion.

Let the flames begin.

Jeff Johnson (yes my real name)

PS: I can be for hatcheries done right and hatchery fish but I haven't seen any lately in what I have read.

Good on you for coming on here and stating your beliefs.

My only question and its semi-rhetorical:

Will decreased sporting opportunities for hatchery fish put an undue strain on wild fish populations due to increased targeting (for lack of other viable fishing opportunities)?

The answer I is a maybe but then manage those situations as they are needed. Selective barbless rules take catch and release mortality down to a small number (notice I didn't say zero as there is always some mortality). Hopefully this would be a short term thing as if we are willing to do what it takes to get wild fish numbers backup it should open season's back up and spread the pressure out again. I am not one of these guys that wants things shut down forever. I am on the other side I want more and more things opened up because of healthy runs.

JJ

I applaud your willingness to stand up and give your opinion.

I can't fault you for that at all.

as for me I at this point i have not decided which way I want to go. looking at the settlement, it appears that the group suing only wanted to let one river system try to come back. as a test to see if its the way to go. they picked the "best, healthiest" run of natives to try it out on. the fish that are also closest to the ocean. and I think we should try something different. and it makes sense to do it with the best chances of recovery....

I don't like the way they went about getting their way. and it scares the hell out of me that they may want to do this to the salmon. but... I can see the point.

I just hope they leave me a place to fish. that isn't too crowded or has to many snaggers. I don't think they did that.

JJ -
Thanks for bring your view/thoughts on this issue. I agree that when we have free exchanges of ideas and different view points we all develop a better understanding of some of this complex ideas/concept.

Further I agree whole heartily that what has been tried is not working. On the whole across Puget Sound are steelhead populations have declined to low levels and remain depressed for the last 20 years. This is in spite of hatchery/wild interactions being eliminated or reduced by up to 90% and fishing impacts (including gill nets) reduced by 75% or more (currently at less than 4% in the aggregate across the region). None of these reduction have produce any of the expected benefits. We can continue attempting to squeeze the last blood out of those turnips in spite of little indications of success even with dramatic reduction in impacts from those "Hs."

Maybe it is time to refocus our attention on the "Hs" where improves may bring higher benefits (more fish).

Curt

Old timer here.......I remember the days of seemingly endless wild steelhead. Lot's of big fish, 20+, from many rivers in my part of the State.

Gill netting, more sport pressure.....has reduced the Wild steelhead numbers to a fraction of historical numbers. Now, in my area, no wild steelhead are legally allowed to be taken. In my life time, in this area, there will never be another fishery for Wild steelhead.

No hatchery steelhead....NO STEELHEAD fishing...in the Chehalis, the Satsop, the Wynoochee, the Humptulips, and other smaller rivers.

Sure I know, where to go to legally catch a wild steelhead.....and most others on PP know the same. I'm here to tell you, if hatchery fish are shut off.....the horde of fishermen will head to wherever it is legal to do so.........ya know what that means??????

JJ,
You summarized the current state of the steelhead system as "not working" and you are 100% correct. WFC called WDFW and the feds out on not having the correct permits in place and they legally caused a management tactic to inherently help save the native steel. In doing so, a lot of fisherman are pissed because of the way it all went down. If you have lived in WA very long you know the states track record of closing and forgetting about waters. This is another step in that direction... If the state, tribes,and conservation groups all got together along time ago and ironed out a solution then we would probably have a decent hatchery system in place with minimal impact on native steel.

What people don't realize is it will be easy to close all catch and release over wild fish. If we really want to save wild fish, why should some of them be sacrificed just so somebody can get their jollies catching and releasing them?

I want to save the wild fish. And that means totally leaving them alone. Nobody gets to fish for them. Period!
Lets restore the habitat and maybe they will remain at the numbers of today.

Welcome to the PS fish museum that you created.

what about if its too late for PS Steelhead? does anyone ever think about that? what if we have screwed it up beyond repair? and by we, i mean all of us, including people who dont even fish..

some might say "its never too late", but in reality, sometimes it is...

if hatchery fish are a true detriment, why would the WFC agree to further harm the Sky? does that make any sense? to me it doesnt..

Because if you're faced with the option of accepting a certain 95% victory without any more fighting, and fighting for a potential 100% victory, it's a good idea to accept the certain 95% victory.

yeah, but if you take a test, and it requires 100%, and you complete 95% of it, you fail..

which is exactly what this is, a "test" to see if in fact, they truely are as bad as we "think" they are... if you half ass "tests" and science, then you never truely know the full situation, and or problems... so you never know fully what to address, and how to move forward..

another thing to think about... we may not know as much as we "think" we do about wild Steelhead.. which will further screw up future tests, opinions, and science...

Evo, I'm not sure who is supposedly requiring 100% in your analogy. If someone told you you would go 9 for 10 on a day of steelhead fishing, would you turn it down out of principle?

The suit was not a test about whether or not hatchery fish hurt wild fish. It was solely about having permits. WFC got most of the hatchery steelhead out of the rivers they were interested in, they got attorney's fees, and they didn't have to actually go to court.

As others here have noted, for WFC to get hatchery fish tossed on the merits of their impacts will mean they will have to prove a problem after NOAA, WDFW, and the Tribes have agreed they don't when used as permitted. All they had to prove here was that WDFW did not have a permit. WDFW set a pretty low bar (probably still on the ground) for them to get over.

There is a shallow victory here of sorts, but the next shoes haven't dropped yet.
We may or may not be done with chambers creek stock. But NOAA accepts and permits broodstock programs. We could see more of those in PS in the future. wfc can file all they want but we already have legal precedence for broodstock programs.

And don't count on catch and release of wild fish.

Yeah, really?

I say it doesn't.

I would be willing to suffer through a total moratorium on steelhead fishing in an attempt to help stocks rebound. But the problem with that approach, which others have already mentioned, is that it would likely diminish the ranks of the biggest advocates for the fish: steelhead fisherman.

Ah yes the pink blossom special. Famous cuntry song.

The ranks of steelhead fisherman are being diminished by this lawsuit that takes away their opportunity.

we have already closed down rivers to try to help wild Steelhead, and on each one, they are worse off than they were before closing, with the exception of the Nisqually, but i dont know much about that system, only from what ive heard from the older folks... so it may not be an exception at all, just covering my ass on that one..

the Cedar, used to house 30 pound fish, its now WAY worse than it was when it closed, i think they saw like 2-10 redds last year...

the Puyallup used to be the number 2 river in the state for winter runs, they get about 550-600 fish back as of last count, and that goes up, and down, each year.. it also hasnt had plants since 2008, and closes on Dec 31, well before the large nates come in April...

killing off hatchery plants will do nothing, its already been proven... killing off fishing opportunities and closing rivers will do nothing, its already been proven... lowering limits, will do nothing, its already been proven...

you know the whole saying, when things need to get done you need to "grab the bull by the horns"? well, in this case, they are grabbing the bull by the tail, and are gonna get kicked for doing so...

Same story in Oregon.
Closing hatcheries has no effect because the habitat is hosed.