I think it more revolutionary that we didn't have state-wide WSR, given the regulatory frameworks in adjacent Oregon, Idaho, and BC. These States/Provinces have had WSR regulations in-place since the 1980s (yes, last I heard there was 1 stream in Oregon where wild steelhead retention was allowed). I find it interesting that these States/Provinces have WSR, but have smaller total populations, lower levels of development, and smaller fishing populations (by total license count) then Washington, yet saw fit to institute state-wide WSR nearly 20 years ago.

Washington appears to have been setting a precedent in not having state-wide WSR. Both Idaho and BC found rebounding steelhead populations with no real decrease in fishing effort or fishing opportunities, except of course, for the opportunity to retain a wild steelhead (haven't seen any Oregon data). With our tribal catch, I'm not entirely optimistic of seeing the rather dramatic increases that were observed in some Idaho and BC streams, but I can't understand the logic of insisting that WSR for Washington is not the right thing to do. Comparatively, we have the highest steelhead harvest of the 4 states/provinces, the largest population (hence greatest development and encrouchment into stream basins), and highest number of fishermen--yet were the last to turn to WSR.

I can agree with Smalma when he's stated in the past that WSR is more of a conservation measure than a management tool--for the same reasons above. Not to beat a dead horse, but the state is growing and growing, there is no forseeable reversal in this trend, there is a substantial tribal obligation (unlike the other states/provinces), and long-term fish population trends are for the most part declining. Both in terms of total populations and the number of streams with "healthy" populations. And oh yeah, everyone else is doing it. This has to be considered ample evidence (scientific and otherwise) to warrant WSR as conservation measure to preserve wild steelhead runs.