Salmo g.


Fun exercise with more or less predictable responses/suggestions. It seems that folks mostly want to protect their own fishing. Thanks for provide some hope that there might be a steelhead future.

As Sg implied the cited example is a bit of wistful thinking and would require a significant change how the allowable ESA impacts are determined for a given PS steelhead population. Under current ESA impact rules as determined by the feds structured on Salmo's river the impacts would be limited to 4% (180 fish for a run of 4,5000). In order to have the kind of discussion this example presents there would have to be paradigm change where the ESA allowable impacts would tailored to individual populations based on its specific productivity and some assumed risked assessment.


This example is a generic PS case and definitely not the Skagit. Skagit wild winter steelhead is a much more robust population with a long history of conservative fisheries management (at least from the Washington norm). As ESA rules are currently structured fishing for Skagit wild steelhead maybe akin to unicorn hunting the population appears to be secure and reasonable productive in its available habitat. The Skagit population is one of few in the state thought to have a zero risk of extinction over the next century.

To your question Salmo - If indeed this situation comes to pass it would mean that efforts like "Occupy Skagit" has been successful in shifting that steelhead paradigm. Since that effort is driven by a small handful of "feather tossers" it would seem reasonable that any potential fishing benefits would go to those that did the heavy lifting.

Selective gear rules prior to the first of March (aid in the removal of potential hatchery fish) and fly fishing only (single barbless hook) March and April for systems with the kind of run and spawn timing in the example with tweaks for systems that vary from that template.



Curt