NO, so far as anyone knows there are no healthy populations of sixgill or yelloweye anywhere in the state.

The logic of WSR is close all independent populations of the same species in the entire state to retention whether healthy or not, because some populations are unhealthy.

This doesn't apply to yelloweye or sixgill because there is either no data, or the data that exists indicates there are no healthy populations anywhere in this state state.

If they close wild upriver brite chinook on the big C (a healthy population) because of puget sound wild chinook ESA status that would be using the same logic as WSR.


Or close the sturgeon below bonneville becuase the fish above the damms are in trouble. Or halibut in the rest of the state because central and south puget sound don't have halibut like they did 100 years ago. Or pacific cod in the rest of the state because puget sound cod are totally depleted.

Closing a healthy fishery to help an declining fishery doesn't help the declining fishery at all.

Sure its better for the healthy population but so is not fishing at all.

The logic for WSR seems flawed to me, unless you don't care about angler opportunity.

If all you care about is steelhead populations and angler opportunity is irelevant, then close all fishing. THat's clearly better for the steelhead.

That's my problem with the logic of WSR
_________________________
Dig Deep!