Ryan –
I thought I was clear in that it was my assumption that the next step would be looking at the spring CnR fishery. While that statement was largely rhetoric it would have been better on my part to have stated that “the logic extension of the WSC’s fishery model would be to close all fisheries targeting wild steelhead”. Thanks for calling me on that and I hope this clarifies my intent; I surely didn’t intent to put words in the WSC’s mouth. For those dedicated WSC members that I have offended my apologies.

In my read of the arguments put forth by WSC and their allies in the support of the statewide moratorium of the killing of wild steelhead the fishery model is very simple and straight forward (has to have some appeal). The argument or if you will the fishery management model is to “use the “best science” to determine the status of the steelhead populations, determine the appropriate management that fits the status of the majority of the steelhead populations and adopt that management statewide.” In my example the “best science” should not be even debatable – the Feds have refereed much of it in their decisions on listing or not listing the various ESUs in the state. WSC itself has made the recent status case for the non-listed ESUs in their presentations to the Commission. As you stated: “You would be hard pressed to find someone within the WSC that would be opposed to a closure of a fishery/fisheries that target wild steelhead populations that are not expected to meet escapement or populations that are listed as threatened/endangered under the ESA.”
Therefore we agree that the appropriate management of threatened or endangered stocks would be no target fisheries. Ergo we have a statewide ban on any fishery that targets wild steelhead.

You are correct of course that nowhere that I have seen has WSC advocated such a position. The question I have is why not? If we are to manage with single statewide rules that seems to be the logical option given the status of the statewide resource.

You stated:
“However, I believe you will find many that do not have an issue with a catch and release fishery that targets wild steelhead as long as the population is going to meet escapement. And in fact, I would not support a catch and release fishery for wild steelhead if the run is not going to hit a certain level over escapement.

The level that I would propose would be a given number that estimates the potential hooking mortality. Estimate the number of fish going to be caught by estimating angler activity, multiplying that activity by the success rate and then factoring in a hooking mortality percentage. You can now estimate the number of fish that are going to perish due to the catch and release fishery. I would be all for not allowing a fishery to take place unless the estimated number of fish returning exceeds the escapement goal plus the estimated mortality due to a catch and release fishery.”

I’m sorry but biologically the management model that you have proposed is no improvement over the harvest model. You are allowing fishing impacts on the resource down to the escapement goal. For the resource it makes no difference whether those impacts are from “bonking”, hooking mortality or so combination of the two. The proposal just allocates the fishing impacts to hooking mortality only.

You further stated:
”Also keep in mind, along with many others, I believe that prohibiting the kill of wild steelhead is the best way to maximize angler oppurtunity while minimizing the impact on the fish. And if enough wild fish are coming back to a river to allow a fishery for them, all the better, but the dollar value of those fish is much higher if you have to release them then if they you can kill them....in my honest opinion.”

I believe that you need to be careful to define what opportunity means. If you mean that with current angler interests that more man-days of steelhead fishing can be generated per dead fish with CnR rather than with a harvest then I would agree. However the impacts from such fisheries may not be minimal, see your suggested management above. Unfortunately the argument for a statewide moratorium on the killing of wild steelhead was not based on this social/economic argument but rather on the “biological needs” of the fish, which brings us back to my original posting on this thread.

Tight lines
S malma