So...I just was informed of something I didn't know about the 4(d) rules...there is no automatic "no take" provision for threatened critters in the absence of a 4(d) rule allowing incidental take...I was under the impression there was.

That means that there is no federal prohibition about having the Skagit/Sauk fishery this year, and that is why the rivers have all been open since June, even though there are listed steelhead in all the Puget Sound rivers right now.

If there is no federal prohibition, and state law allows for a CnR fishery when the preseason forecast is at least 80% of the escapement goal...the forecast this year is for 90% of the esapement goal...then why is there even a question of opening the fishery or not?

I can hear all the conservation concerns as to why, and frankly I would support most of those, if those were the reasons...but I don't think they are.

CONSPIRACY ALERT:

I think that the Director would have no problem closing the fishery for one reason, and one reason alone...to punish the angler/advocates who both participate in the CnR fisheries, and called his agency into question yet again by getting the Puget Sound wild steelhead listed.

As one WDFW steelhead manager said recently, "Those guys will get what they want now"...

In a state where WDFW and the Director himself especially look to have as many possible reasons to satisfy the bare minimum required conservation measures, and constantly tries to lower the conservation bar in order to have more fisheries (especially commercial fisheries on the LCR), why is there all of a sudden a bout of conservation ethic that will result in the closure of a fishery that is shown to have no conservation impications, and is allowed by both federal and state law, and is a very popular fishery among folks who don't find the Director very popular?

END OF CONSPIRACY ALERT

Fish on...

Todd