Bruce, Duroboat,

Guys! What language can we communicate in with you? Somehow we're just talkin' past each other. Are you guys really reading our posts before you whip off your next rant?

Yes. This is about fishing opportunity. More for me, more for Todd, more for all of us, including you, who would rather have a river open to fishing, yet requiring us to WSR, when the next alternative is complete closure.

I've said more than once that we anglers aren't doing fish any favor by catching them. If they could think, I'm sure they'd rather we stayed home watching TV. But, as fish populations become smaller, scarcer, and the human population, including angling population, gets larger, a fishery manager is faced with limited choices. Close the river to protect all wild steelhead. That is one alternative. Another is to leave it open to CNK and let the scene play itself out, which would either be extirpation, or a new dynamic population equilibrium at a very low level (which is likely what we have on some rivers.). That alternative is inconsistent with WDFW's mandate to preserve and protect fish resources, however. A third alternative is to provide fishing opportunity with CNR. The limited mortality associated with CNR can be absorbed by most wild steelhead populations unless they are at critically low levels and in danger of extirpation. WDFW's WSP directs the agency to close a fishery if the run size is less than 80% of its MSH escapement goal, which is fairly conservative. So no significant harm results from CNR fisheries under this management alternative.

What kind of conspracy is this? Who does it hurt? How? You guys have a lot of boogymen, but I haven't seen any substance.

Sincerely

Salmo g.