Bob -
Guess will have to agree to disagree on some of these issues. This single minded beating of the same issue is unlikely to solve many of the long term problems facing wild steelhead.

You state:"C&R is not the only answer, but it is the one thing anglers can do TODAY to immediately lessen our impacts." Actually there are several other options -

1) No fishing would have less impact then even a C&R fsihery - if one truly believes the resource is in such dire trouble how can one fish at all?

2) As Todd points out there are number of likely contributing factors - anglers could get involved TODAY - there are bills in Oympia and WAshington DC being discussed today that will effect the resource and your fishing - GET INVOLVED.

3) Gibbons discussed the draft Wild Steelhead Management Plan and stated that it will be out for comments - concern anglers need to become informed (Gibbons gave some a chance), decide what their needs and desires are and GET INVOLVED.

4) WDFW is in a major fishing regulation development cycle and angler ideas and inputs are being sought - GET INVOLVED.

5) Generally WDFW local management staff is available to nearly any interested angler. If someone has an interest in a particular system ask questions, listen to the answer, think about the situation and ask better questions - - if a sincere effort is made to learn one can postion themselves to make informed decisions - GET INVOLVED.

6) Put the fish's needs above your needs - GET INVOLVED FOR THE FISH'S SAKE!

Or of course one can do as most have and stay on the sideline and b!tch and moan about mis-management and by not being part of the solution continue to be part of the problem.


You further state "Everything in this state's management policies has focused on harvest opportunities before angling opportunities..."
Howser's notes from the WSC meeting states that Gibbons said under the draft steelhead management plan the primary priority is to "restored and maintain the diversity and long-term productivity of Washngton steelhead stocks and habitats" later Gibbons is quoted as say "Highest priority is protection and restoration of self-sustaning wild steelhead runs."

The state's Wild Salmonid Policy says much the same. The first prior is the fish, the second is to provide recreational opportunity compatible to the first. You can disagree with whether those opportunities are split as you wish but for more than 20 years that opportunity has been a mix of CnR and harvest. If the state was only interested in harvest why in the heck would they continue put themselves through the wring with all these emergency closures?

Part of the problem is that many of us confuse putting the fish first with putting our own fishing needs first.

Many in the State (manger or fisher) have move beyond the position that only dead fish have a value. However that doesn't mean that opportunity can or should no be a mix of harvest and CnR.


Regarding the difference between MSY management for steelhead salmon. Actually in thinking about it the fact that steelhead can spawn more than once may well mean that a some portion (the % of repeat spawners) of a steelhead run could be used for fishing impacts (hooking mortality or bonked) and on the whole every fish would still have the chance to spawn while that isn't the case with salmon. That type of management has resulted in the rebuilding of resident trout, sea-run cutthroat and bull trout populations in the Puget Sound area.

While sitting a North of Falcon meeting last week I noticed that over the last six years before any harvest on the Quillayute system the wild steelhead runs have been larger than the wild chinook every year and the wild coho runs 3 out of the last 6 years. How can anyone who thinks the Quillayute steelhead can not support any harvest be comfortable fishing for salmon in either the river or the ocean?


A point the Gibbons made was in regard to the escapement levels the state developed for our rivers 20 years ago. They were developed as a estimate of what the court manadate MSY level might be. however in the developement of those goals great care was taken to error on the side of the fish. Those escapement levels are all well above levels where the viability of the population would be threatened. Believe that the level where concerns about impacts on genetic diversity would occur is roughly 1/2 of the current escapement goal (seems to be a pretty sizeable cushion to me).

The very management schemes that you and others are so readily to cast stones at is the very same approaches that rebuild steelhead runs in the 1980s. It is the same approaches that created the CnR fisheries on the Skagit and Skykomish who many thought were world class fisheries. What has changed that has moved a succesful approach to an unsuccessful one?

While it would seem that blaming poor or spotty ocean conditions for the much of the recent problems is a cop-out I know of no other explaination. I'm more than willing to listen to any theory. I feel that I'm a reasonably informed thinker and to date have heard no other that explains what is happening. Do you have any better theories that would explain what is occurring?

Bob, I freely admit that my knowledge of steelhead and steelhead issues is limited. However, I have taken that limited knowledge and my own experience and look closely at the State's management of wild steelhead in the Puget Sound region to see if the wild fish needs are being safe guarded. My assessment is that considerable care has been taken to err on the side of the fish's needs. Further much of the problems occurring with local steelhead populations is outside of the control of the manager. That doesn't necessarily mean that fisheries we currently have are what I would choose for myself. But rather current management doesn't jeopardize the use of different options in the future (depedent on maintance of productive habitats).

I better end this now or no one will ever take the time to read any of the above.

Tight lines
Smalma