Smalma,

Yes, I was thinking back to the period of the regular creel census. Plunkers on the lower river made up most of the effort during the early season. They continued to be a significant presence as late as the river was open. The big difference was the large increase in middle and upper river effort in March and April (upper river only for April). Once the word was out that good fishing was available on the Skagit and Sauk, anglers came out of the woodwork, it seemed.

An important note in this regard is to Geoduck who thinks CNK anglers are foregoing opportunity for the benefit of CNR anglers. That presumes that one is either a CNR angler or a CNK angler. Bad presumption. By the mid-1980s, many of the participants in the Skagit CNR fishery were Wildcatters, whose club policy was CNK, or close the river. But many of the members found CNR fishing was so much more satisfying than staying home working in the yard. It turns out that a lot of the anglers participating in CNR fisheries are not opposed to CNK, and would kill their catch if legal to do so.

Which leads me to ask: just who are these high-falutin’ CNR, expensive sunglass-wearin’ anglers, any-dam*- how? Speaking for myself, it didn’t start out that way. I kept fish, hatchery or wild, because it stroked my ego, and they were good to eat. Eventually, I became more of a fish snob, and preferred not to eat frozen fish. Also eventually, I became lucky enough or skilled enough to occasionally catch more salmon or steelhead than I could eat before it went bad. But I liked to fish, so I began releasing my catch. Not for conservation reasons, just for a purely pragmatic reason.

After watching the Skagit wild steelhead run rebuild in the 80s from its low point in the 70s, I decided not to keep any wild steelhead, whether it was legal to do so or not. I had no problem with the continued harvest of “surplus” wild steelhead on OP rivers when some of my friends opposed wild steelhead harvest anywhere for general reasons. But the more I consider the OP rivers, the more I think, as Bob also suggested, it’s just a matter of time, and those rivers won’t be able to meet the demand for harvestable wild steelhead. We anglers grow more numerous every year, and technology makes us ever more effective (maybe this could be titled “curse of the pink worm.”). The OP rivers are our best last place, and unfortunately, it’s our best, last, chance to make a stand for this treasured resource before the OP joins the long list of Washington State has-beens.

The upshot is that none of the WSR and CNR advocates that I presently know started out that way. Most of the advocates gravitated to this philosophy based on severe wild steelhead population declines throughout their North American range. I find it much harder to understand the mentality of the person who would choose to kill one of the last few. Perhaps they adhere to the Boldt-case theory of conservation; as long as there’s more than two, it’s surplus.

Geoduck, for the last few years I’ve thought that WSR was justified on the OP mainly for the increased recreational benefit more than conservation. However, after looking at the “charts” that have been posted here, and I realize there’s room for differences of opinion, the conservation position wins out in my opinion. I understand that WDFW biologists didn’t support that position, but I also understand that they are under pressure to provide opportunity to a diverse constituency that includes an element that doesn’t comprehend or accept fishing without harvest. Heck, that describes some of the biologists I know. Nonetheless, given the direction the state’s human population is going and the direction that the state’s wild steelhead population is going, it’s just a matter of time until WSR and CNR will be the only wild steelhead fishing opportunities available in this state. If you think we are not there yet and should continue to harvest wild steelhead, see the paragraph above.

You asked for a response about the precedent this WSR action sets for other species statewide. I didn’t respond because I wasn’t sure what you meant, and I haven’t thought about that. My first thought is that no matter what WDFW does, it will be wrong. Time and time again, anglers have complained about the complexity of fishing regulations that differ among the many rivers and lakes, etc. The public and the department have usually preferred blanket regulations. Remember the days when the fishing regulation pamphlet was only 20 small pages? But things change. There are too many people and too many people angling today, and our knowledge of the fishery resource has increased. The combination require more complex regulations if the goal is to maximize or optimize angling opportunity. WSR might seem like a step backward to you, since it is a “blanket” regulation. But it is a statewide regulation that allows exceptions, except for the next two years. I don’t see any particular adverse ramifications. WDFW could suggest a blanket ban on chinook fishing because there are many ESA listed chinook populations and because many hatchery chinook are unmarked. However, I don’t think they will. And if they propose it, it will go through at least all the back door channels that this latest ruling did, giving astute followers of the Commission an opportunity to question and even oppose it, or at least offer less adverse alternatives to it. So no, I’m not concerned at present about potential adverse ramifications of this statewide WSR policy.

I agree that the WSC has been rather single-minded in pushing this policy through. I think that was a wise choice on their part, not that the issue is necessarily finished yet. I think WSR represents the best choice as a first step in a longer-range plan that would maximize recreational steelhead angling opportunity statewide. I generally favor actions that would result in there being more steelhead in rivers, and especially so if that results in increased angler opportunity.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.