Okay fellas ... my blood is boiling now.

The numbers are critically low ... I'm sad to hear this news and despite the negative impact this decision will have on area businesses and recreational anglers, I must stand up and applaud the state's decision to put their foot down.

HOWEVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We must look at two very important issues here. First off, the state itself says that the tribe's fishery will have a 5% impact upon this run. While the state's numbers are cloudy, it is probably a safe assumption (looking at BC and Oregon studies) that this 5% would likely be perhaps even a tad more impact on the run than a C&R season. Why then is one group allowed to have a 5% impact, and the other isn't????? I thought conservation issues were to be burdened equally!?

Secondly, and more importantly, we must evalute and address how we arrived at this dreadful situation. Once again, the state has followed their model guidance and managed a fishery into a near-total collapse.
Why has there been a kill fishery of any sort on runs that have steadily declined? Why has there not been intermediary steps such as full C&R throughout the run or selective fishery regs???

How long will it be before things go belly up on the last rivers in the state deemed "healthy" (north coast rivers)? Will the state recognize that pressure on these rivers will likely double or triple as a result of the closure of at least five streams around the state's population core? Will the state make adjustments to the regs there?

Soon, doubtful, and probably not are the answers I expect to see to these last three questions.

I believe the day is here for anglers to ask these questions of the state and hold the managers accountable for their actions (or lack thereof) that have resulted in the current crisis that we are ALL faced with.

It's time to go to court and ask for some sort of an injunction to put wild steelhead stocks statewide on a release basis, and even perhaps selective regs until a full reasessment of how the fisheries are managed.

It saddens me that many anglers will lose the chance to fish theis winter / spring, but it's important that the fish are placed first and if the numbers are as low as believed, then that's the right step. There's little chance we'll see a fishery in the near future on these streams even if we go to court and win, and I don't believe this should be a short-term goal anyhow. However, if we wish to have have opportunites to catch (and release) wild fish 5, 10 , or 15 years down the road ... we're going to have to start the process now and rebuild those stocks that need it, and protect those stocks that are still "healthy".

I have been talking to some friends (who have been talking to others) about perhaps beginning some litigation centering upon these problems. Perhaps we can start up some sort of Wild Steelhead Defense Fund and find us an attorney that could help us out at some sort of a reduced fee until we get enough money together to pay whatever it takes to force the state to eliminate the gross mismanagement policies that have been in place.

If we can get something like this rolling ... I'll put up three trips for auction to start things off ... that's a thousand bucks to start. Anyone else??