SpoonFed,

I don't know what you mean by not trying to get to the root of the problem. Researchers have verified that high predation rates by seals and others are preventing many steelhead smolts from ever reaching the ocean. They are being preyed upon from the Nisqually to the north end of PS and at the HC bridge. Solving any problem requires first figuring out what's causing the problem. The ocean issues I described above correlate very highly with reduced ocean survival. I know that correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation, but when it's repeated and correlation coefficients are high, it's as strong as scientific evidence gets short of going out on the ocean and watching smolts die of starvation or predation.

What is wrong with wild broodstock programs is that none, I repeat none, have collected data that could prove that the program produced any more returning adults then just letting the broodstock spawners spawn naturally in the river system without capturing them for broodstock programs. Does this mean they don't work? No, it doesn't. But it means that those who undertook them never managed them in a way that could prove that the work or how well they work. So I'm not sure where you get your ". . . they have been shown to work well . . . " because they haven't. They have been shown to produce returning adults, but no one knows how many or what the smolt to adult survival rate was. I conducted one such program on the Skagit where we released the smolts from the Baker River which has an adult fish trap. One year we got 6% back which was much higher than estimated for Chambers Ck hatchery fish in the same river basin. So I can say that for one brood year, yes it worked pretty well. But the fish returned at the same time as the wild run, which one should expect. The treaty tribes couldn't fish for them due to being a mixed stock with wild fish, so they discontinued the program.

I was trying to describe how we got to where we are today. I'm glad I succeeded. My observation is that WDFW doesn't like to admit that they close sportfishing because a tribe or tribes demand it, so they put out the best conservation story that sorta' covers their action. I don't like that they do that, and it diminishes my respect for the director and managers. I'd rather have the truth even if I don't like it. Hmmm, I thought I did make 2 + 2 = 4, so I'm confused that you didn't get that from my explanations. Tell me how I can do better.

Fishbadger,

Occupy Queets is unnecessary. It is closed to sportfishing under WDFW regulations because, like I posted above, the WA wild steelhead management plan says that fishing will be closed if the forecasted run is less than the escapement goal, which it has been these last 3 years. I'd rather see an "Occupy WDFW" where we persuade the Commission to direct the Department to update the steelhead management plan. My observation is that is how one gets the Department to get off their ass and do something for constituents.

20 Gage,

Your point stands? You mean that when the Cedar was well managed in the 70s and 80s wild steelhead were fairly abundant. And now they aren't? Yes, now they aren't. And they are not abundant for the several reasons that I listed. Are you trying to say it's for some other reason or reasons? Cuz if so, I'm not sure what you meant.

Tug 3,

From what I gather, the Department is monitoring in order to document differences in catch and catch rates between boat and bank, guided and unguided, and maybe different gear types since creel monitors ask anglers what type of gear they are using. I don't think encounters are being counted as harvest because harvest is restricted to hatchery fish. Remember, all wild fish must be released. I think an encounter means a fish "handled" or landed.