"So yes stlhdh2o, harvest is important to me and so is the sustainability of the fish. If I were convinced that all steelhead stocks in Washington were threatened I would still oppose the ban on harvest without including a ban on intentionally catching them just for fun."

Its really the only counter-argument I've heard that I respect. I don't understand it, but I respect it. What I don't understand is why you would deny the 'apparent' majority of anglers that disagree with your position the opportunity to come fish in your town, spend money in your restaurants, sleep in your hotels, hire your guides etc, etcetera....based on ten percent mortality.

At least 90 percent of the fish swim away unharmed plunker, depending of course on whose version of the 'science' you believe its substantially less than that, not maimed and not killed...harassed probably.

I'll answer your questions this way...

Should we continue harassing threatened steelhead....YES! Its proven by credible science that steelhead are vigorous after being caught and released and have a low mortality. Steelhead fishing is an invaluable component to local communities and the opportunity to fish at all is so important it should be preserved in every possible instance.

Should we continue maiming and killing threatened steelhead until they are irrevocably damaged?....NO!

Should we exclude those that would kill and eat wild fish from the fisheries in question?

Yes....unfortunately for you. The high moral ground you've taken on the issue does preclude your participation in a cnr fishery and that's a shame plunk 'cuz dammit, fishing is fun....to so many of us its about way more than the kill, which forgive me if I've got it wrong again, IS what its all about for you.


Talk about having a huge economic impact, imagine the effect of an all out closure? You think the Forks Forum was big this week....