Ondarvr,

Your post reads like that of an English overlord of a Scottish river! Riparian rights and big money wins, getting to be the American way in more and more ways.

Drifter WA, Make it 66 and over, and I'm with ya'. It would work, fewer angler-fish encounters, keeping incidental mortality low.

Bhudda,

The no motor concept is two-pronged. First, motor boats with multiple anglers can repeatedly pound a productive stretch of water until it has given up every fish contained there, resulting in higher instead of lower angler-fish encounters, so that doesn't work. Second, guides represent a large % of that profile, putting many lines through the productive water until all available fish have been hooked. So that high efficiency option needs to be the first to go, but it is preferred by many anglers specifically because of its efficiency.

Coley,

While the example is a generic PS case, I'm going to borrow from the ESA status report for the Skagit, and under recent management and habitat conditions, there is almost 0% chance of the run going extinct in the next 100 years. So yes, it does come down to whether we manage fish for human benefit or not. All options that satisfy conservation needs are on the table for the non-treaty fishery.

SkyGuy,

I don't know about dirty, but the data are not perfect, never have been perfect, and never will be perfect. But one thing we do know is that reasonable estimates, like what we've had the last almost 40 years, are "good enough" to manage populations for their conservation and limited human use, if that is what society wants.

Smalma,

Good point. One one conventional gear angler showed up at Occupy Skagit last spring. Therefore featha' chuckin' only regs would be fair, based on demonstrated interest. Based on what I read here about the inefficiency of fly fishing, all of PS could be re-opened. Where do I sign up?

Bantam,

I think the idea on guide limits as practiced in B.C. has merit. Guides with standing in a particular fishery, based on their tax returns, are issued x number of rod days for specific rivers only. That could work; it limits total guided fishing pressure, which would then limit angler-fish encounters.

Topwater,

Catch monitoring that is more intense that what we've had might be a requirement for re-opening rivers. If it is, then there needs to be a way to fund it. For example, OS has considered it and decided not to propose it until shown it's necessary.

Dogfish,

That smartass alternative is not on the menu. It's not even on the menu for the Cowlitz, of all places.

Chukar14,

I like that idea of a CNR catch limit, but the downside is that it's not enforceable. However, back when steelhead fishing was a universal 2/day, that meant the 2 included any steelhead that were released. So the idea could still have merit.

Thanks folks! It's good to know what the constituents think. I don't think we got any responses from guides or the Wildcat Steelhead Club however.

Sg