Sparkey, you and I have already been down this road. I am conservation minded. I dont fish for wild steelhead period. Saying fish come first is one thing, backing it up is another. It still seems like hyprocracy to me to say that and continue to target them. Sorry if that is offensive.

In my mind, this was a big risk to take for something that might not have a significant effect. Someone asked earlier for an example of where this has worked in washington...I'm still waiting for someone to answer.

You are far over estimating our impact on the fisheries by stating that we must conserve if we are to have WS in 50 years. Do you believe as sportsfishers we have that great an impact? Do you think this rule will ensure there will still be WS in 50 yrs? If I thought it would, I'd be right there supporting it.

If wild steelhead were to make a 10% increase over the next few years, how much will that increase will be given to the other user groups? Wouldn't their share increase with any population increase? Considering that, how long would it take to get a sustained 10% increase in escapement like that? (Talk about one step forward, two steps back... ) Perhaps that should be the next major effort; pass a law that would prevent an increase in take with an increase in production.

Sorry, I'm not convinced this will do much to help the situation. It is more of a gesture than anything else. It sounds like the hope is that the other user groups will be pressured into folowing suit... That just wont happen, theres too much money at stake.