GD ... Your profile says you've been reading since Aug of 2002. If you go back to a number of discussions, you see that angling opportunity has long been an argument for C&R of wild steelhead. In fact, look back to the formative threads of the WSC and and that's where most of the ire of anglers laid ... the loss of any fishing opportunity at all.

Precedent setting? Not sure you could call it that. Please refer to the 5 questions for the WSC thread to learn why some of us feel that a "blanket nban" was needed ... specifically for the Quillayute as whole issue as well as the Hoh numbers. I didn't even bother to touch on the fact that it also ionvolves ceratin portions of the runs that are clearly weak - the early component for example that led to the formation of the Snider Creek Project over 20 years ago.

Personally, I think you're comparing appleas and oranges. With many other species you're referring to, the models seem to work to some degree. You've got some seriouys habitat issues in some areas that will never allow any of the species to thrive ... so a blanket policy will not do them any good.

Let's take the Queets for example ... superb habitat, the same oceanic conditions as Quillayute fish yet they're not doing well at all. While there is some hatchery influence, I'd venture a guess that your primary factor here is likely harvest ... yet we've seen kill fisheries there off and on for some time.

Something isn't working ... perhaps the goal issue there between the state and the tribe is a mahor factor. Perhaps the tribe's goal is too low, perhaps the state's goal is too low.

Over the next two years while we reduce harvest to a fair degree .. perhaps we can figure out what's happening. Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me ... and it certainly can't hurt the fish population now can it?

Wasn't it just a year or two ago that the river had to be shut down totally earlier than normal becasuse the run was so low? Is that what we'd like to see in all streams down the road? My guess is most would answer 'no".