So, the crux of your argument lies with your assumption that the gamefish fishery has no impact on Chinook in the Stillaguamish or maybe anywhere else?

Because, if it's anything but zero, even a fraction of a fish, the argument immediately moves into the impact prioritization area, given the limited impacts available on this stock. In priority, of course, gamefish fisheries have little chance against marine salmon fisheries for prioritization, especially if there's no one there to ask for them. These requests to consider gamefish a priority could happen through the PS recreational fishery advisory board or at any of the NOF public meetings held around the state each year, or at the Commission meetings during public testimony.

You can certainly complain about not knowing this would happen to that fishery until after the season was set, although I don't think that knowing ahead of time would have made much difference, in the end, for this particular fishery.

"Tangible benefit" is an interesting concept in the realm of ESA listings....not sure how to address this question? I would think that, given your past work, you'd understand that there is no good take or bad take or irrelevant level of take, where mortality is concerned - there's take and the fish don't care where or how it happens....and I suppose the ESA doesn't either.

To be clear, I'm not ignoring your argument that little can be done, particularly with fishery reductions, to help the Stillaguamish Chinook. That's likely true but while in a logical sense that should allow for some leniency on fishing impacts, in an ESA sense it makes every fish that much more necessary.

"Oh, and the icing on the cake was in a memo to staff from WDFW Director Susewind last week announcing that because of agency budget woes, the "new" Skagit steelhead CNR season will be discontinued in 2020 due to the costs of ESA required monitoring."

Really?? I never saw any monitors on the trips I made this year. I asked for check details mid season and the response was none would be published. I even wonder if any monitoring went on at all! Sucks all over again!

Unfortunately apathy sets in at some point when you participate at all levels like I have over the years and continue to see the same outcomes. One example, when I was a local planning commissioner during the State Growth Management Act development years. We wanted to restrict and protect, and the response we got from the development community was that we had a "hidden agenda" and "growth is inevitable". Lawsuits were threatened. Didn't take long to realize dollars seem to always win out, and although they go through the motion of listening, the agenda's and outcomes have been set. My 2 cents.

I was checked 3 times when I launched at Concrete and the one time I floated the Sauk. The report I got from the checker with a week left in the season was that we were well over 600 encounters, sorry I can't remember the exact number.

Pretty sure that was just a petty punishment for our refusal to support license fee increases in the face of declining opportunity. Really, really $hitty thing to do, not only to the citizens who worked so hard to earn that fishery, but also to the Olympic Peninsula's wild steelhead runs, which will once again be forced to shoulder the impact of all the anglers who would otherwise be fishing the much closer Skagit and Sauk.

What a$$holes.

Move a bit east, the fishing is better, at least for now.

I think words matter, so I try to choose mine as carefully as I can. I didn't say "no impact." There is potential impact in the unlikely event that a fly fisher hooks and harms three, or even one, of those Stilly Chinook. I understand take under the ESA, and I think it's reasonable to argue that take in this particular freshwater fishery is a dubious outcome. It looks like WDFW decided to sacrifice the dubious and doubtful take in the Stilly for the far more likely mortal take of Stilly Chinook in the marine waters fishery. And marine waters fishing is the only fishing that gets considered at NOF, until it becomes apparent that more marine fishing can be squeezed out by pretending that closing gamefish seasons in freshwater will prevent take.

The ESA isn't interested in how or where take occurs, and the fish aren't either. I used the term tangible benefit because the fish managers are in the position to know that not all take is equal. The ESA is silent on the notion of reproductive effectiveness and might even assume that each additional spawner makes a positive benefit to the subsequent generation of fish. In the case of the Stilly, it isn't true. Whether incidental take is of 3, 30, or 300 (if there are that many) has no measurable effect on the survival and recovery of Chinook, when the population cannot even replace itself in the total absence of fishing. The fate of the Stilly Chinook is in the effectiveness of the hatchery program for decades into the foreseeable future. When fishing is not a factor affecting recruitment to the next subsequent generation, thinking people are going to ask, "what benefit accrues to Stilly Chinook by not fishing for steelhead and SRC?" And when those thinking people understand that the answer is "none," then they are going to question the wisdom and logic of the decision.

When I first got involved in salmon management (80)- you can choose the century- the WDF mindset was that salmon were caught in the marine waters and rivers were for spawning. Some river fisheries were supported, but this mostly Springers which did offer a biting-fish fishery.

I recall the difficulty in getting river fisheries for pinks, 81 was supposed to be a really big year, as there would be plenty of saltwater opportunity. This was also the mindset of the rec advisors back then.

Although all those managers are gone, that mindset still prevails. Plus, marine fisheries (probably) generate more economic benefit. And, those river fishers are just folks who cause problems.

Moving on to the Skagit, the fishery is to be no opened because of lack of enforcement? Does that mean that a closure on anything, but especially an ESA species, needs no enforcement?

Bob Hooten, steelhead bio up in BC, has been making some comments on Thompson/Fraser steelhead issues, which Canada is dealing with just as well as we are.

Anyway, he asks why the Cowichan Chinook and steelhead are both doing rather well, thank you, when there are hordes of pinnipeds around them. The steelhead, especially, are an earlier returning group that are in the stream before the big chum net fisheries hit.