Okay, I got you to bite:) Thanks for the reply.

Obviously something is not right this year. Poor returns up and down the coast ( I was supposed to fish a fellow from Cali a couple of days back ... he says the N. Cali streams are seeing the same thing).

This brings up an interesting scenario:

returns so far look weak ... in these streams where wild harvest is allowed, do we take action now to curtail harvest and THEN relax regs down the road to hopefully stem a potential crisis situation?

Or do we sit back and wait?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this one??

Personally, given the goofy situation we've seen so far, I say go selective and C&R and work with the tribes to curtail netting until we see what happens, then re-evaluate.

This is one criticism I've always had, there never seems to be a conservative approach from the start and adjust from there, it always seems to be the other way around!

Bob -
Thought you said just one more questions. But hey what the heck I'll bite again - I'm well known as a free riser, fortunately for me I'm not a trout.

The situation with the wild fish likely will not be as drastic as with the hatchery fish. It appears that poor conditions typcially hit the fish the hardest their first year at sea. The reason wild fish populations are more stable of course is the much more diverse age structure of the wild fish population. Typcially early timed Washington hatchery stock is about 85% or so 2-salt fish. Which means of course if that group fails the run fails. With the wild stocks we have maybe 15% repeat spawners, a few 4 salt or older first time returning adults with the remainder more or less split equally between 2 and 3-salt adults. The failure of the 2 salt group with the wild stocks will not have nearly as drastic impact on the total returns as with the hatchery fish.

Generally if there is good imforamtion on the spawning escapement and age structure of last year's run one can have a pretty good idea of what to expect from the old groups of fish. What would I do? I guess that would depend on good I thought my wild fish imformation was, and how the stock has been preforming in relation to its management goal. If I had poor information and especially if the recent escapements have been marginal in relationship to the goal some sort of action may be prudent. If I had good information and have consistently been achieve escapements well above goals then I would say there is some buffer and we could probably take the time (wait further into the run) to better assess the wild run strength.

A question for you.
If there is strong feeling that the hatchery run is a bust and the wild run may as well why don't you recommend closing the river to all fishing rather than CnR? That would appear to provide the best "safety net" for the wild fish.

Tight lines
Smalma

Ah, ah ... a diplomatic and hard-to-pin-down answer

And a rebuttal question that I expected.

Honestly ... would I support a full closure? At this point in time, I'd hate to see a full closure as I have bills to pay like the rest of us and due to the salmon crisis this fall, I've already cancelled over 30 trips since October ... many before the official shutdown came. I'd also be pretty PO'd that so many of us have asked for some sort of safety cushion to start with, but keep hearing that it isn't necessary. But if push comes to shove, I've always said I'd hang up my rod and I'd find some way to cope with it

Here we go full circle to some other points that have been brought up in this thread and others.

A number of wild fish have already been harvested out of these streams. Had we already been operating under C&R regs and even more specifically with selective rules, it's likely that the overall impact of fishing the rest of the year would not be much higher than what we've already allowed to be taken in a harvest-oriented fishery.

As I mentioned before it's seemingly an all or nothing situation ... 'kill them all or no fishing at all' seems to be the long standing policy that rules all in our state management for nearly all fisheries. The state seems to be interested more in creating short-term harvest opportunities and keeping the meat hunters happy without looking at the long-term picture of healthy stocks and max opportunity ... with hatchery harvest available and to perhaps only anger than small percentage still wishing to harvest these fish now rather than all anglers down the road when we have nothing left.

Very good thread…

Bob - Smalma good courteous dialog

RichG, that MSY does stink…

Careful, Rich. That's EXACTLY the reasoning PETA uses to try to stop hunting and fishing. I release wild fish to reduce the impact I have on the survival of the run. Simple as that.

How would you respond to a PETA member that came up to you after you bagged an elk and said, "I don't understand how people can destroy such a beautiful thing." ?

I see your point DanS,,

You know what I meant but other people may take it a different way.

I agree with you, Rich. But it IS a slippery slope we're standing on, and some people think C&R is just as wrong as you and I think bonking natives is.

I'd rather see C&R viewed as a conservation tool, rather than something we do because of the beauty of the fish.

I lived in Coos Bay for 10 years and the Elk was one of my go-to rivers. Caught my first 20 pounder there (released it too). Can't say I ever saw too many other fishermen releasing fish though. I did see the day when drift boats outnumbered steelhead about 10 to one, and I have never fished it since.

The good news about all this is they didn't close the river, they just allowed only C&R. And what happened? Only the greatest recovery of a fishery ever seen, it sounds like - I sure saw it at it's worst. What does this mean? CATCH AND RELEASE WORKS

OK DanS - You warned 'em!

Here's some worms outta that can you opened.

It's not my nature (a matter of ethics) to tell others what to do but it's not just
PETA Phreaks who agree with the secretary in the following comic strip.

Mandatory C&R? "That's One Sick Joke."

Those who wish to force others to either quit fishing or adopt the sadistic perversion
called C&R fishing are just plain malicious.
I guess it's true that misery and perversion loves company.

PETA claims fish feel pain, some scientists think fish don't feel pain[at least as we know pain]--so Plunker, do you belong to PETA? As sadistic/masocistic people have discovered, it's a thin line between pain and pleasure!! Maybe thats why occasionally I've caught the same fish twice in a short period of time-They liked it!!!!

Hurts so good, Jerry..............hurts so good.

So, Plunker, are you saying that the secretary in Dilbert is based on the real you? Has PETA accepted your membership application yet? :p

Man, that's one BIG can o' worms we opened.