Jerry,

If I understand what you are saying, you think that some rivers can handle some lesser degree of angler impacts, but not the full impacts of the catch & kill regulations that have been in place the past few years.

Seems like a reasonable assertion. I won't object for the sake of arguement.

Lets assume some rivers need to have reduced angler impacts. That could come in many ways. Banning bait & fishing single barbless only would reduce impacts (better smolt survival), having a C&R season in place of catch and kill would reduce impacts, having a very short catch and kill (with no C&R)would reduce impacts, and having no season at all would eliminate angler impacts.

Obviously all four of these things cannot be done simultaneously. We need to figure out which works the best.

1. If we want to have any fishing at all, then the most effective option (no fishing) is out. Maybe this should be considered for some rivers (although it hasn't helped the cedar).

2. A bait ban would send more smolts out to sea (maybe a lot more), this might solve the low escapment problem, it might not. I think its worth experimenting on a couple of rivers to see. Bait fishers will hate this option

3. Having CnR only would reduce impacts provided you monitor how many fish are CnR'd. If enough people fish, the impacts from a CnR season could reach levels that some rivers cannot support. Without monitoring there is no way to be sure what the impacts are. Fish bonkers will hate this option.

4. Having short kill only seasons would also reduce impacts provided they are monitored closely. With proper monitoring and short seasons the impacts here could be set so they are no different than 3 above. C&R fishers will hate this option as they won't be able to fish very many days.

Obviously with each option some people will be unhappy. If instead of blanket WSR(#3), we had a mixture of 2,3,4 each in place each on a different river, at least there would be something for everyone.

Also, we could figure out if any one strategy for reducing impacts was better than the others. Each one seems like it should be effective in helping the steelhead. Which is best, I don't know. I think some experimentation might help determine which is best.

With blanket regulation, we won't be able to find out which method is best or to test other approaches to steelhead managment that might come up.

I think choosing WSR as the best option in the absense of data as to its effectiveness is unwise. There are alternatives to WSR, that may be just as effective (or more so) at recovering steelhead, too bad the commission didn't consider any of them.