Rod n Reel,

I don't believe there has been a reported reason for this 'rumor' that the Commission is considering State-wide C&R. However, I would say I doubt its in response to any ESA pressure. ESA would list fish by watershed or "Evolutionary Units" so it wouldn't make any sense to consider State-wide C&R for wild steelhead since run health varies from severely depressed to healthy depending upon the river.

The problem I see with many (most?) runs is that current management models appear inadequate to maintain a sustainable run size year after year with the current level of tribal and recreational fishing effort. The success that both Oregon and Canada has had with its State (Province) wide C&R also provides some evidence that this would be a wise policy. The fact that no tribal netting occurs to the north and south of us also indicates how conservative harvest policies have to be to maintain sustainable populations of wild steelhead. And we have a larger population, so stress our streams even more than to the north or south.

I believe we could have a C&K fishery for wild steelhead only if we have adequate resources to collect the data necessary to accurately forecast runs. In addition, I believe a higher than current level of enforcement is necessary to enforce the inevitable reach and time closures that would be necessary on C&K streams to allow fish to spawn.

Bottom line boils down to $$$. If we haven't got enough to gather the information needed to manage the fishery at a sustainable level, we need to be conservative. Oregon and Canada are already more conservative than us and they have smaller populations, less total development, and no Tribal fisheries.