Just Because,

Thanks for weighing in. I prefer open and constructive dialog, so no flaming from me. I do not blame WDFW for the things that are beyond its control. I do blame WDFW for the things that are squarely in its wheelhouse. If you're connected with the NOF process, you know that attending the meetings would have had no effect on the outcome with respect to the Stilly decision because that decision came at the last meeting of the last day behind closed doors with the treaty tribes in CA.

Let's take a look at unrealistic standpoints, shall we? The fishing regulation outcome is the product the PS Chinook ESA listing, with Stilly Chinook being the weak stock in the analysis. Every informed person connected with the analysis and decision process knows that fishing mortality in WA state is irrelevant to Stilly Chinook survival and recovery as a fish population. It is generally understood by now that the Stillaguamish watershed is so degraded that wild Chinook salmon cannot replace themselves. What is unrealistic is for NMFS, WDFW, and the Stilly Tribe to think that precluding fly fishing for Stilly steelhead and SRC is going to "save" those 3 Chinook and through some miracle render the population any better off than if the gamefish season were implemented normally. The incentive for my post-hoc rant is because of the fish managers' swilling of Polly Anna kool aid fantasy that ". . . if we take this fishing regulatory action that will have zero measurable benefit to Stilly Chinook productivity, we will at least look like we're taking constructive action to benefit Stilly Chinook, even though any critical thinking person can see that we're not . . ." When fishing is not the proximate cause of the ability of the fish to sustain themselves, pretending that restricting fishing for other species will make a difference, well, that is unrealistic.

Thank you for the suggestion that I get involved. It's true that I could have attended far more city and county planning and commission meetings than I have. But it would be unrealistic - there's that word again - to think that had I increased my attendence my influence would have been much greater. Some of us can recognize when the fix is in. BTW, altho many land use practices have contributed to the degradation of the Stilly watershed, the proximate cause, the root cause, the cause more responsible than any other for the Chinook population to not be able to replace itself is forest practices. Forestry on private, state, and federal land on steep unstable slopes has caused more peak flows, lower low flows, higher summer water temperatures, reduced stream channel complexity, with correspondingly reduced productivity, capacity, and diversity. The land use decisions that led to these outcomes were mostly made between 1950 and the late 1980s. I didn't get involved as much in public processes focused on environmental management decisions until 1978, so I was a bit late to the game, so to speak. Not that it would have mattered, but in case you thought I was a Johnny-come-lately to environmental awareness.

Now, explain to me why it makes a single lick of sense to close the Stilly gamefish season when it can produce no tangible benefit to the imperiled Stilly Chinook.

Sg