Having read a few of Keta's other posts, I tend to believe this was rather heavy sarcasm.

Lowering escapements to keep a fishery open may have made sense when there were 20-30,000 fish returning to these systems, but I don't think anyone would try to argue that it does when 5,000 is the starting point.

When I first learned that escapement goals were as low as they have been for some time now, I recall wondering how any of us ever catches a fish. Think about how much needs to fall in line to catch one fish these days, let alone the huge numbers that were the rule 40-50 years ago. It makes me really impressed with those 10 percenters out there who consistently catch fish at today's escapement levels. Those guys are good.

Anyway, I'm starting to pull a 180 on this thread. I started out in full doom and gloom mode, deeply saddened at the prospect of the Skagit and Sauk closing. I don't fish those rivers, but I have always wanted to; sort of a rite of passage for a steelhead angler in Washington.

More and more, I am thinking, despite the likely fallout from this event, that this is a good thing. I am looking forward to my trip to the OP in March, but I wouldn't be too upset if they decided to close those rivers in February as well. I have said before that I would rather see fishing stopped than see the fish continue to fade away, and I will stand by that remark. Hopefully, these actions will give us some strong, demonstrative arguments to use in future negotiations with the tribes to convince them to act in kind. If we truly want to turn this around, we ALL need to change our ways, and quickly.