wdfw changed the date ffrom April 1st to May 1st on todays news release on their web page!!!

Looks like they threw Forks a Bone after all.

WDFW says it wont make any nagative impact to wait. I wonder how much closer the Hoh would have been to escapement with 15 less harvest days since it is being managed for harvest under escapement this year.

Gues we wont find out this year.

The only ones getting "boned" are the fish.

So sad... this is the equivalent of removing the first brick that eventually leads to the whole wall coming down.

That is such BS

Total Bull****, that makes me sick, another months worth of killing nates, I hope they are proud of themselves, frikin losers !!!!
Peace
Superfly

A mixed bag in my book. Obviously people know how I feel about the issue itself ... but I also know how last minute major reg changes can affect a guide (the last-minute ruling to limit our AK king trips to one daily very late in the booking season was a major snafu).

So ... I can live with it to allow those that had trips booked through this season to run as they were booked.

Most guides though don't have a ton of April biz here anyhow and that's perhaps the strongest portion of the wild run too.

Just happy to see the next two years will be as ruled unlike the rumors that many have been passing around town

It seems like a wise move on the part of the WDFW that will help defuse the potential for litigation against their controversial decision.

With the exception of the Green River summer run they now have until December to mediate with all the concerned parties and stakeholders before the decision becomes affective.

The justification for the change is lame (longer time to go in effect so more people know about it). Clearly, this was a move to pacify a specific group of people. Pehaps those of us who support WSR should avoid (dare I say boycott) guides who practice catch and kill.

So it appears to me the sporties should get together and file some type of litigation on behalf of the fish. Forks can pay the lawyers fees when we win since they put pressure on WDFW to get this backed out.

lead thrower


Isn't that a two way street? If you loose, they can also ask the judge to require the loosing party (sporties) who filed the suite to pay their attorney fees too!

It's seems that it's "OK" when the Commission first passed this rule in your favor, but now that they have apparently "amended" it, it's now "not ok"?

What's the deal on that one?

It seems to me that WSC was "claiming victory" when this moratorium was originally passed, but now they aren't saying a word about it being modified. What the deal?

Cowlitzfisherman

We don't like the extended period to kill wild fish.

My personal take on it is that it will not be that big of a deal, in the long run, as it will extend the moratorium another month, too, and it makes sense to not implement rules like this mid-season, when it's only a month to the end of the season.

Fish on...

Todd

**edit** It would be interesting, though, if just like last year, the run size was big enough to make escapement, but the combined tribal and sport harvest pushed the run below escapement. Especially interesting if it is below escapement by, say, 100 fish, but another 150 get harvested in April. Wouldn't surprise me if something like that happened, since it's already being purposely managed to overharvest AGAIN this year.**

CFM

My deal is simple, I am against the bonking of wild steelhead on any river period.

Yes, what lead thrower said. It is just that simple. I have NEVER heard valid arguement for retaining a healthy native in Washington state.

It would not suprise me to see an emergency closure on quite a few rivers that may have stayed open a little longer with WSR...

cow
This could back fire on WDFW!

Playing devil's advocate here, what if someone simply wants to eat a steelhead? Seems valid to me. Not everyone has time to fish for every weekend during the hatchery run or like me last year, had no success (I couldn't catch a hatchery fish last year to save my life). Again, if the run's healthy (that's the crux here) then people should have the choice to harvest a limited amount. Would I do it? No, but if someone else wants to, they should have the choice.

Albertson's had pen-raised "steelhead" on sale for $3.99 lb. just last week! HELLUVA lot cheaper than a weekend in Forks and probably tastes the same or better than those wild winter run spawners.

The "I need to feed the family" argument fails miserably in this day and age of expensive tackle, gas, ferry costs, motels etc...

That dern devil sometimes just ain't got a leg to stand on.

JacobF,
I appreciate that you took the other side for the sake of arguement. Here is my logic:
-wild steelhead catch and kill is only justifyable in rivers with healthy runs
-a run is only healthy if the runs are at, or nearly at, maximal returns
-no Washington river is at, or nearly at, maximal returns (you can argue this point but just go ask an oldtimer about how things used to be)
-thus, catch and kill is not justified

What science can you or WSC show that supports this assertion to be a fact? Will you please define what "healthy" means? I understand your passion, but what science supports this theory of yours?

I think that WDFW has done the "smart" move on extending the start time on the moratorium. If they were to lose this issue through summary judgment on the facts alone, the City of Forks and every guide who may have lost business or customers because of an arbitrary and capricious decision that was made by the Commission.

Forks has shown both the WDFW and the Commission that over $684,273.93 is spent by tourism for lodging only in Forks from November 02 to March 03. Lodging represents about 35-40% of that, and the remainder being spent on food, shopping, recreation, transportation and fuel. Gross impacts for logging, food & all winter visitors for that time period would be 1.09 to 1.13 million dollars.

Now if WDFW or the commission were to lose their case, besides the attorney fees, what part of these figures would you think that Forks would ask for as damages? The "game", and stakes may be much bigger then some had counted on.

If the "Commission" was so very confident that they were legally right, why would you suppose that they would allow this time to move to May1?

I'd like to have a legal opinion on this question.

Cowlitzfisherman

( I changed logging to lodging and loose to lose)