Bob asked "How does the pro-harvest crowd feel about no harvest on wild fish until the hatchery run is done, say Feb. 1?"

I don't know. I am pro choice. Not on any fish that is threatened though. (like Steelies) If I know a fish or animal is threatened I would never knowingly harass them.

BTW anyone who hooks a fish is "pro-harvest".

One way or another.

What I do know is this. I'll state it again.


The "true" wild steelhead crowd believes if a particular river has a "truly" threatened/endangered fish that the river should be shut down to all fishing during the said spawning period until the wild stock has rebounded to a state that can handle mortality. If they (the fish) are in that bad of shape, don't we owe it to the fish to leave them alone?

If WSC truly "believes" that they "love" this fish so much why don't they support shutting down the river if the stocks are "supposedly" so bad off. If they are, and I beleieve they are, then lets give the fish a break so they can rebound. Why doesn't that make sense? If the river can sustain/maintain a certain level of harvest/hook mortality then at that time lets manage the river accordingly

This post isn't targeting anyone but asking a fundemental question. If they are that bad off, why aren't we protecting them until they have rebounded, and then MANAGE them effectively? MANAGE=ensure all have a stake, bonkers, cnr, natives etc. These fish are hardy, if we give them half a chance, they will thrive. At that point lets manage the harvest for the future. It can be done guys/gals.....

Bob, I respect your opinion and would like to get your take on this.

Thanks