Todd –
I refrained from taking part in this continual circular argument however your statement –

“I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them..”

cries for a response. Such a standard should cut both ways. While not looking to pick a fight with anyone there are also ample examples of the WSC side of the discussion being supported by innuendo, opinions and miss information. Jerry I apologize for picking on you.

A couple examples
1) Just a few post ago Jerry in responding why those system that have had WSR release for extended periods have not responded with increased returns stated:

“There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.”

This clearly is just an opinion that is not supported by any information or data. To my knowledge no one has established what such a critical level might be. Clearly we have examples of runs rebuilding from populations much lower than we are seeing in most of the populations of concern – SF Toutle after St. Helens would be an example. In the run size/escapement graphs present by WSC the most recent returns of concern were from parent escapements at levels at or above levels previously seen (the Puyallup being the only exception). This argument doesn’t seem to be supported by either fact or logic.

2) In the discussion titled “WSR – a precedent for fisheries management” Jerry posted the following in addressing the statewide moratorium as precedent-

“It doesn't set a precedent for other fisheries here just as it hasn't in Oregon, Idaho and B.C.”

Of course it doesn’t set a precedent for either Oregon or B.C. as both allow the harvest of wild steelhead in some areas (they don’t have a state or providence wide moratoriums or prohibition on the talking of wild steelhead). In fact Oregon’s harvest of wild steelhead is much the same as Washington’s before the moratorium – that is harvest of 1 wild fish a day, 5 per year on systems with healthy populations (above established escapement levels). It is my understanding that there has been serious consideration given to expanding the opportunity to harvest wild fish. His argument again doesn’t seem to be support by either fact or logic.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse I would suggest that many involved in this continuing discussion take a minute to step back from the issue and try to look at it a little less emotionally. At the least take a deep breath before sending their postings.

Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium.

Tight lines

S malma