Duntze,
There's really nothing at all in your most recent post that I disagree with. The only possible exception would be your desire to have 100% c&r regardless of run size. I don't agree with that but it's a matter of opinion and I respect yours. You're right on about "conservative harvest". That's exactly what I advocate as opposed to "preservationism" which, I believe, 100% C&R anglers espouse.

My original response to your first post was to make the point that increasing harvest in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. If exceptionally large runs were coming back there's nothing wrong with loosening some of the restrictions. I'll never side with the folks who believe that wild steelhead should ALWAYS be released even in years of great abundance. I didn't defend the WDFW, nor did I state that I supported these changes. I simply said (not very well, evidently) that a great deal more information is needed before deciding that this is a bad move by WDFW. Most likely I'll lean toward keeping what we have now, however I won't dismiss increased harvest as bad policy until I know more.

In spite of Bob's opinion that Fisheries sets the regs at one extreme or the other I agree with you that the current regs are a pretty good middle ground. In fact Bob gave an example of WDFW choosing the middle ground approach in a recent thread on chinook fishing, then admitted he illegally and unethically ignored the rules anyway. Not one person here stood up and chastised him for that, myself included (until now).

I'd be the first to encourage COMPLETE CLOSURE if the runs were in very bad shape but that's not the case in many of our streams. C&R is fine on some streams and a limited kill fishery on others that can support it is not the least bit unethical. If a fisherman decides to release all fish, great. But trying to impose ones personal ethics upon others is unwise. I never much cared for people who think their way of doing things is the only way it should be done.

Total bans on killing fish when it's biologically unnecessary is usually supported by people whom it won't affect anyway (C&R fishermen) in the name of saving fish. Yet there are other ways to reduce harvest. In fact I can think of one now that would be very effective in reducing harvest, wouldn't reduce opportunity, yet most C&R anglers would be up in arms about because it would affect them as much as anyone else. I'll let you think about that one.

I do also agree that escapement goals should be VERY generous. Many times the numbers are set too low. Better to err on the high side, in my opinion.

Looking back at previous year's runs as the sole reason for supporting or opposing regulation changes is foolish. I, for one, will withhold my support or opposition to these changes until I have more information and encourage others to do the same.

Best regards,
Doug