Personally, I am less confused, or surprised, by these statistics than I am by the complete LACK of statistics on rivers that have had their fisheries closed for the protection of the resource. And why is it, that we rely so heavily on such unreliable and incomplete information as creel reports to understand and manage our wild steelhead fish populations anyway?

Sadly, it seems that once fishing (selective or otherwise) is no longer allowed on wild fish we consequently have no idea as to the relative health or viability of these runs. Or so it would seem. Perhaps WDFW knows more than they are saying but I'm not convinced of that either.

Stilly says "not anymore". I have to wonder, especially on a few of these PS rivers, where strong runs had more to do with quality than it did quantity. On some of these rivers their habitat may be as good or better than before they were closed. You'd think without pressure that these runs would be on the rebound. Rivers like the Cedar and the Nisqually to cite a couple. But does anybody truly know the current status of these runs?

My point is simply that if protection of wild fish is that critical to the state then why don't we hear more about the condition of these runs, particularly where they were so "depressed" that it required a complete ban on fishing. It appears however that once fishing is discontinued on a fishery all interest in the resource is lost never to be heard from again. Maybe never to be fished again. Am I missing something here? Or are there other mitigating factors that are not being discussed openly as part of the "wild steelhead" issue?

No wonder I am confused.

As to the creel reports for that day, we all know that the numbers are open for interpretation and although interesting, they do not present a complete picture. It would be unfair to assume that they are dishonest. But while I would expect someone who has legally harvested a native to be "proud" enough to honestly report it, I find it incredible that anyone who has C&R'd a fish would be disingenuous enough to not report it, thinking that this would in some way help to keep a viable fishery, selective or otherwise, open. That is lunacy; because if you don't speak up then you might not have the opportunity to "report" in the future. Plus how would C&R ever be seriously considered as a monitoring method on rivers that might be potentially reopened if the success of capture and release is not reported.

By the way that "Catch & No Release" moniker, is intended for my wife and brats only. No similarity intended, of course.