Larry B said, "My observation is that those folks with a direct interest wanted on open process where all of the facts pertaining to possible recolonization by sockeye could be examined. Their "political pressure" achieved that goal. I do not believe their "political pressure" resulted in the final decision to allow a continued fishery with a slot limit."
~Our goals were presented in exactly this way, publicly, for everyone to see. All we wanted was a decision based on sound science. And that's what we got.

fish_4_all said, "If the science supports a fishery, then there should be one. If it doesn't then it should be closed. The decisions are made, for now. Eventualy, hopefully, they will have their science and will be able to determine if Lake Sutherland and it's dam need to come out or not. If they remove the lower beaver dams and they see even a minor number of Sockeye getting to the dam be ready for things to happen without any chance of any input from anyone."
~This is an accurate assessment, and I would absolutely support a full closure if the science supports that in the future.

topwater said, "plus the few sockeye in the lower elwha already prove that the kokanee are contributing anadramous adults."
~When I read similar statements in this thread a few weeks ago, I contacted the NOAA geneticist who is doing this testing (he's listed on page 131 of the Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan published by NOAA in 2008) and asked him if the "gossip" was true. His response was:

Dear Ms. Yucha;
Thank you for your interest in O. nerka (sockeye salmon and kokanee) in the Elwha River watershed. We received tissues from four fish sampled in the Elwha River in 2010 that were identified as adult sockeye salmon. We are in the process of analyzing the DNA characteristics of these fish to estimate their probable origin. We are comparing information from these individual fish to available O. nerka collections including Lake Sutherland kokanee. We have three years of kokanee data from Lake Sutherland. Results from the genetic analyses mentioned in regional “forum” discussions were premature. When completed, our results will be available through the Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Again, thank you for your interest.

Gary Winans
population geneticist

Had I received a different answer, my actions would have been different and BASED ON SCIENCE there would have been an entirely different outcome. Fortunately, I don't blindly believe everything I read online. wink

FishBear said, "Clearly this is a political issue, not a fish resource issue."
~These days our fish resource issues are a complicated combination of both science and politics. Had the science supported a full closure of the lake, no amount of political pressure would have changed that. I do believe that we have a right as constituents of WDFW to question the processes and science that go into making resource management decisions. The resources they are managing belong to all of us. These decisions aren't transparent at all, and a little window into the process is all we were requesting from WDFW.

~ Final comments: None of you contacted me to ask what my process or reasoning was for pursuing this issue, and yet a number of you are eager to jump on the criticism train and make assumptions about the entire process. I can assure you that I didn't take any of this lightly and I'm disappointed that no one had the courtesy to contact me directly to discuss it. It's unfortunate to me that we're all so busy fighting with each other and refusing to compromise or cooperate that we're completely ineffectual as a group. It's no wonder we're losing everything.

Becca Yucha