I spoke with a couple of the Commissioners and WDFW staff afterwards, and they all said this was one of the better Commission meetings in a long while. Kudos to everyone for civility.

I've been trying to better understand the contentiousness around this WSR regulatory action. After all, WSR is the statewide regulation, but for these few OP rivers. I think I might be getting it. There was little objection to WSR on all the other rivers because the wild steelhead runs had either already tanked or were extirpated. People appear to be more accepting of conservation when there's little or nothing left to conserve.

However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the status of the OP wild steelhead populations. Some interpret the evidence to believe that the stocks are healthy and can support a harvest. Some interpret the same evidence to mean that the same populations are not robust enough to sustain harvests, and that continued harvests will render the last, best steelhead populations in the state as just the last, not the best.

It's an interesting contrast. Extractors tend to be more accepting of risk. Conservationists take their comfort at a lower level of risk, which explains leaving the unharvested steelhead in the spawning population as a buffer against various risks. At least that's the conclusion I drew from the body of testimony presented.

I'm a bit puzzled by the Forks representatives. Should those of us who release steelhead feel unwelcome now at Forks restaurants, hotels, and gas stations? I never heard them explain how they're different than the communities that have prospered under mandatory steelhead release regulations. I think I detected some acrimony between Forks and the National Park Service. Are the Forks representatives resentful that they are not allowed to harvest all the old growth timber that is being left to rot in the same national park that draws tourist to Forks? Tourists don't visit the OP to see Forks; I hope they understand that.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.