The charts that the WSC used in their discussions with the commissioners are now available on the WSC web site-- middle of the page. Remember these figures are all from WDFW.
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

so you guys use the info from WDFW that you agree with but shoot down the info you don't. That is what science is all about. Make the data say what you want.

So pimp, what didn't we use? Or is that more idle chit-chat?

Pimpinshrimp

Welcome to the "SPIN FACTOR"


Well Jerry

One has to ask the question….If this information was so sound, why wasn't it made available to "all " the pubilc to review before the gang jumped on the Commission in those meeting?

One would think that such "scientific" information would not have been held back from others unless one was using such information as a "sucker punch"!

I hope that was not WSC intension to hold those charts back, when the public was told that there would be no more public comment on this issue!

One has to question why those charts were not used in the "public comment" period prior to the cut off date when the general public was told that this proposal was not coming up for comment.


Cowlitzfisherman

You keep asking for the sceince and when it's offered to you, you "spin" it into something else. Somehow I'm not surprised. There's no spin to those charts unless it was spun by WDFW first.

Pimp,

Their data is not the problem...it's the interpretation of it.

They look at data that shows the populations going down, and say that it's not a big deal, even though that's what has happened all over the rest of the state, and look where that got us.

We look at the same data, and say "whattayasay we don't manage the fisheries into oblivion like we did to the rest of the state?"

CFM,

Same answer: Not a spin. You'd do well to stop saying that every time something comes up that doesn't follow your thinking.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd- Jerry

Read my edited post above.

The info was under development and was ready for the commissioners about a month before the commission meeting. A sucker punch, eh!

Cowman,

All I did was ask for it.
WDFW sent it to me!

How's that Cow

Can you please say that again in English?

I don't understand what you said?

Ask for what?

Cowman,
I ask (WDFW Bob Leland) for the (steelhead) numbers on the rivers in Washington (on the west side of the mountains) and they sent them to me.
I type slow as I could. Just for you!

CFM,

There's no need to hide any of the information, it is and was just as available to you as it was to the WSC, or to anyone else.

WDFW had and has all the numbers, it's all public information, and lots and lots of non-WDFW people have it. All it takes is a phone call, or even a search on their website.

***edit: You've been asking all along to see it, there it is. Please don't try to find a conspiracy in posting public information that you've been asking to have posted for you. If you really wanted it earlier, ask WDFW for it. They've had it all along...they're their numbers.***

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

You almost make me feel like Mel Gibson!


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

You make me feel like______________!

I'll let others fill in the blank for me!

Fish on...

Todd

Well I hope you feel better soon Todd! ... take two of these and you will feel better someday

But can you please answer my original simple question without all that other BS ?

Please stay with the issue and answer this simple question. The cross is a heavy one to carry. (Mel 04 et al.)


Cowlitzfisherman

Ok, I looked at the graphs.
As a scientist (non-fisheries). These charts paint an ambigious picture at best. Maybe for the puayllup the trend is one of clear decline (where WSR was already in place well before the ban), but for the rest there is a lot of up and down without any clear trend. Certainly all the charts show a dip the past few years, consistent with the poor marine survival.

The case for wsr based on the science is weak at best and certainly the weakest for the OP streams.

Anyone that says this arguement was won on the basis of strong scientific evidence needs to go back to and take remedial biology. This arguement was won based on a political maneuver and clever arguement.

BTW, the places that need help the worst (ie puyallup, cedar, etc), how do they get helped by this blanket WSR policy?

I think now taht the dust has started to settle, the WSR champions need to think a bit about what they have accomplished. I think the precedent of blanket approaches in fisheries managment are a very bad precedent to set. Similar blanket approaches on chinook maybe next . . . eliminating much fishing opportunity.

You don't agree with me? Lets look at the numbers again in two years and then it will be much clearer.

CFM,

As Jerry noted above, we had the raw data, but had not developed the charts until the weeks before the Rules Adoption meeting. We did present the raw data, but it didn't have much impact without seeing it visually...besides, it was the same raw data that the Department had. They interpreted it one way, and we put it on a graph rather than in list form so that the raw numbers had more meaning.

For the life of me, even if we had them for the last year, I can't think of one single, solitary reason why we would not have shared them with the whole world, as we are now.

What could we have possibly gained by hiding information that completely and utterly backs up our position?

Ok, Mel...you asked a question, again, and I answered it again. End of story.

How about you answer the questions I just posed?

Fish on...

Todd

When our free labor got the charts together and gave them to the WSC it was approximately 1 month or so before the commission meeting where they adopted the rules(Feb 6). If you would like imput on how or why the WSC does different things send us $40 and become a member.

Geoduck, All the streams except the Quillayute system show a decline over a 20 year average. Most of us non scientists think that shows a trend, a trend we are not comfortable with. And the Quillayute is about to have it's 6th year in a row of declining wild fish numbers.

These are natural cycles. WSR will not change the ebb and flow of natural populations. Much more drastic swings in fish population get no managment response at all. Why this should be so big a deal is a mystery to me. Sure steelhead populations have declined for the past 5+ years but they only increaesd the 10 or so years before that. Neither has much to do with catch rates.

Besides if you are really so concerned about wild steelhead and fishing impacts, why not just close the spring fishing and let the fish spawn in peace?

Todd-Jerry

I was just about to post my response when I read Geoduck post.

Geoduck and I have had our differences in the past on several issues. I had my hands full debating "science" with him because he is a "scientist". It's really hard trying to convince someone that knows their business better then you do, and that they may be wrong at times. I don't know if I ever succeeded in doing that with him. He hasn't posted much in the last two years, but when he "talks about science", he always catches my attention.

WSC seems not to want to talk about "cycles" that our steelhead have apparently gone through forever. Why is that? I think that Geoduck professional opinion on reading charts far exceeded my own. So I will yield to his expert knowledge when it comes to reading charts and graphs.

Can you or Todd please explain how steelhead go through 5-7 year cycles?


Cowlitzfisherman

I have a science degree in fisheries and know how the "science" gets used jerry. That is what I was talking about. You can make the data say whatever you want even just like the rest of us. I guess it is just Idle chit chat.

As a non-scientist my non-scientific opinion here is that the groups emotionally supportive of the feel-good "no keepy no fishy" philosophy grasped at a couple years of tremendously poor survival and called that a trend, put it in a chart and labled it science.

The WSC itself was founded in response to the closures of the North Sound spring C&R fisheries when it became obvious that drastically low ocean survival rates had caused the numbers to plummet... Only they chose to blame the decline on those who offended their feel-good "no keepy no fishy" philosophy rather than face the facts.

When the fish are stacking at their spawning destinations it requires nothing more than common sense to let them spawn in peace.

"You make me feel like______________!"

Dancing, WOO!!

Dancing, WOO!!

I probably could have done better than that....

When I look at the charts and see a decline on a 20 or 30 year average return, that would seem to average out the natural highs and lows and show a trend.

I am a scientist but I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to realize that if the tread (no matter how minor) in all rivers is decreased runs THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!

Again, I ask: Does anyone REALLY think the rivers/runs are in peak condition???

The question at the heart of the WSR issue is not whether the runs are as good as possible, but wheter WSR will help.

The simple answer is no. WSR has been in place in puget sound rivers for what maybe 15 years. Despite this there has been a so called trend of declining runs (I will not argue against this--it is almost certainly true of the puyallup based on the presented graph).

Despite WSR being the law of the land for over a decade in the puget sound basin, steelhead runs are in decline (if you beive the data as presented by WSC).

This is pretty strong evidence that WSR won't help whatever ails the runs on the OP.

To me this appears nothing but a power grab by one user group (C&R people) over another (fish bonkers). BTW I am probably more in the C&R camp than the bonker camp.

Furthermore blanket regulations is not really a good way to go if you like to keep fishing. One hypothetical example, blanket closure of all rivers to protect spawning chinook and juvenile salmon.


So I conclude as I have before that the real issues are habitat related and all this excitement about regulation (ie blanket WSR) is a waste of time.

Well said G'duck. They keep patting themselves and super sparkey on the back. But their vision in narrow and short sighted. Blanket regs= zero fishing. Good thing I live so close to Canada!

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been able to kill wild fish in PS rivers through the end of February up until recently? Seems like that would sure help with the decline....

No Goeduck. I strongly disagree. Just b/c WSR didn't fix the multitude of problems associated with PS rivers doesn't mean it is irrelevant with respect to declining runs. WSR can do nothing but help. What you fail to realize is that WSR is only one small part of the solution...but it is a start. WSR must function in concert with fixing spawing grounds, controlling run off, pulling nets, practicing proper CNR techniques, etc.....

If there are 27 steps to helping wild steelhead runs recover, are we better off doing ONE and then moving on to the next........or are we better off doing NOTHING. Or maybe we should just argue about which step would be best to take, and in the end, dig a deeper hole to crawl out of?

Go ahead......try to make a logical argument for the latter two.

Geoduck,

You are mistaken about the PS rivers. You have been able to kill a wild fish until the end of feb up until 4 years (maybe it was 5 now). So it hasn't had 15 years in the PS rivers.

WSR is actually the State law it is just that there are exceptions to the that law and the PS rivers were on the exception list right up until 4 or 5 years ago.

JJ

It still cant understand how having more fish spawn is a good thing...

My un-scientific mind just doesn't get it?

,



I dont see it as being wrong, it's more how you want to fix it. WSR sounds great to C&R fishermen. It doesnt affect you your ability to fish. To almost everybody else this is like paying your power bill , but not the house payment. WSR will not accomplish the desired result. And in fact, has weakened the sportsfishing voice as a whole. Sometimes it sounds like you C&R guys wont be happy untill all fish are produced naturally, and protected by a C&R policy. That doesnt do much for anyone but you. Just so you can play with the fishy's. Focus on the real problems facing all fish. The obvious monitarily motivated decisions made by the managers of our resource. I would rather put my efforts into exposing the exploitation. IMO, more people would support an effort to change the commercial mandate, as it would have more of a positive affect on the problem than WSR.

Piper, you are too funny....People sure seem to get their panties in a huge knot on this board at times. AS in most things in life...solutions are complicated and the answers to fish problems are a multi faceted approach. My take on it is that you can't support any species survival unless you understand how to manage them and agree on the best way to do so. One of the main reasons that things don't get done with helping fish is that it's like herding cats..Everyone want their own self interests preserved.

WSR is a good idea because it is a positive step in the right direction in preserving the resource.

Ocean conditions play a larger part in species survival than I see mentioned on this board at times.

Netting is the other huge factor in damaging the runs.

Personally I think habitat degradation is also important but is probably the least critical of the others.

If we managed the others, then we could work on improving habitat. Keep the environmental protections in place.There's no sense in focusing on habitat if there are no fish to return to it...Just my opinion...

Over simplified of course....and I have a little background in environmental science..

Wow, here you go again... wonder why you can't get anything done in Washington state... Read all the posts and replys to WSR and its really obvious.. I am no "scientist" but am an engineer and understand SPC. Those charts show an obvious downward trend... But I guess some folks are to greedy to want to understand that. They twist it any way they want so that they can cry about something.. In a few years, you will have something to cry about over there, and its your own fault. In the mean time, the tribes and commercials are laughing their asses off because sportsmen can't agree on a single issue... Not even something as simple as WSR.. If it was not so importaint it would be funny :rolleyes:

I looked at all the charts and it truly portrays a consistent problem. At best things are stable and many times in sharp decline, and this is suppose to be a period of good ocean conditions. It does not look like harvest is the problem, but none the less with these kinds of declines, harvest moratlity should be stopped in the worst of cases and moderated across the board. In the stable rivers, allow catch and release, in the declining rivers, shut it all down- catch and release included.

Guys –
Let’s clear up some terms here. Wild steelhead release (WSR) has been used in the state of Washington since 1984. This management tool allowed various fisheries to target abundant hatchery fish while releasing wild fish when their numbers were expected to be below escapement needs. In the soon to be enact moratorium on the kill of wild steelhead or No Wild Steelhead Kill (NWSK) – wild steelhead cannot be kill under any circumstance (except for hooking mortality). Catch and Release (CnR) is a fishery where all fish must be released. We can have a more meaningful debate if we are more careful about the terms we used – much of the debate earlier in this thread appears to center around different uses of terms.

Regarding blanket bans and their application to steelhead management; the WSC fishery model if you will – lets look at the science used by the Wild Steelhead Coalition (WSC) in this debate and where it will lead us.

A item from the WSC steelhead fact sheet posted by Double Haul in the discussion titled Wild steelhead kill outlaw in Washington-
“Wild Steelhead Coalition
Wild Steelhead in Washington Fact Sheet
February 2004

By Dick Burge, VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP Science/Education”

Item #5
”Washington’s wild steelhead populations are either listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, chronically under-escaped or in periods of recent population declines. Of Washington’s 7 steelhead ESUs, 3 are now listed as Threatened, 1 is listed as Endangered, while the other 3 do not currently warrant listing. In spite of the “not warranted” status, wild steelhead have in recent years been chronically under-escaped in the majority of Puget Sound ESU and Southwest Washington ESU streams. In recent years, only the Olympic Peninsula ESU has wild returns that have usually exceeded escapement goals and are open to harvest.”

Clear the majority of steelhead populations in the state (4 out of 7 ESUs –evolutionary significant units) are in serious trouble with 57% of the ESUs federal listed under ESA. In addition as stated above 2 of the remaining ESUs are now chronically depressed and the third as WSC shows in their population graphs are declining.

The argument advanced by WSC is that state wide moratorium on the killing of steelhead is needed because the majority of the populations are in trouble and no exceptions should be made for stocks returning at or above escapement levels. Based on the status of the Washington steelhead ESU’s the same logic would dictate that are steelhead populations should be managed as if they all were federally listed as threatened. That is no wild steelhead target fisheries. Fishing impacts need to limited incidental impacts and at low levels.

Under this management there should be no fishing related impacts on wild steelhead populations except those that result from incidental impacts directed at either other species or hatchery steelhead. This in effect means that the only fishing where the targeting of steelhead would be only those situations where hatchery steelhead are both marked and present and out numbering the wild fish in a river system.

Clearly under the fishery model being advocated by WSC there should be no spring fishing of steelhead (of any type) in the state Washington due to the federal listed status of the majority of the ESUs. No exceptions allowed meaning no CnR where wild steelhead are being targeted!. I can only assume that this will be the next agenda item for WSC in their efforts to protect the wild steelhead resource.

Sweeping blanket regulations while simple nearly always result in reduced fishing opportunities and the above is just another example. Something to think about.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma-
Nowhere in your quote from the WSC fact sheet do I see anything that would lead me to believe that an agenda for the WSC would be to eliminate catch and release fisheries that target wild steelhead.

I think putting those types of words in the group's mouth is a tad irresponsible as there are a few dead set on believing some sort of conspiracy theory that the WSC is in it just to create botique fisheries/close all steelhead fisheries etc. etc. AND that is not true!

You would be hard pressed to find someone within the WSC that would be opposed to a closure of a fishery/fisheries that target wild steelhead populations that are not expected to meet escapement or populations that are listed as threatened/endangered under the ESA.

However, I believe you will find many that do not have an issue with a catch and release fishery that targets wild steelhead as long as the population is going to meet escapement. And in fact, I would not support a catch and release fishery fishery for wild steelhead if the run is not going to hit a certain level over escapement.

The level that I would propose would be a given number that estimates the potential hooking mortality. Estimate the number of fish going to be caught by estimating angler activity, multiplying that activity by the success rate and then factoring in a hooking mortality percentage. You can now estimate the number of fish that are going to perish due to the catch and release fishery. I would be all for not allowing a fishery to take place unless the estimated number of fish returning exceeds the escapement goal plus the estimated mortality due to a catch and release fishery.

Also keep in mind, along with many others, I believe that prohibiting the kill of wild steelhead is the best way to maximize angler oppurtunity while minimizing the impact on the fish. And if enough wild fish are coming back to a river to allow a fishery for them, all the better, but the dollar value of those fish is much higher if you have to release them then if they you can kill them....in my honest opinion.

I think you should ask Jack Berryman what the ultimate management goal of the organization is rather than try to come up with your own interpretation on a fishing bulletin board.

Sounds like somebody is mad at his commissioners and feels like popping off.

Goinfishin.......

Ryan –
I thought I was clear in that it was my assumption that the next step would be looking at the spring CnR fishery. While that statement was largely rhetoric it would have been better on my part to have stated that “the logic extension of the WSC’s fishery model would be to close all fisheries targeting wild steelhead”. Thanks for calling me on that and I hope this clarifies my intent; I surely didn’t intent to put words in the WSC’s mouth. For those dedicated WSC members that I have offended my apologies.

In my read of the arguments put forth by WSC and their allies in the support of the statewide moratorium of the killing of wild steelhead the fishery model is very simple and straight forward (has to have some appeal). The argument or if you will the fishery management model is to “use the “best science” to determine the status of the steelhead populations, determine the appropriate management that fits the status of the majority of the steelhead populations and adopt that management statewide.” In my example the “best science” should not be even debatable – the Feds have refereed much of it in their decisions on listing or not listing the various ESUs in the state. WSC itself has made the recent status case for the non-listed ESUs in their presentations to the Commission. As you stated: “You would be hard pressed to find someone within the WSC that would be opposed to a closure of a fishery/fisheries that target wild steelhead populations that are not expected to meet escapement or populations that are listed as threatened/endangered under the ESA.”
Therefore we agree that the appropriate management of threatened or endangered stocks would be no target fisheries. Ergo we have a statewide ban on any fishery that targets wild steelhead.

You are correct of course that nowhere that I have seen has WSC advocated such a position. The question I have is why not? If we are to manage with single statewide rules that seems to be the logical option given the status of the statewide resource.

You stated:
“However, I believe you will find many that do not have an issue with a catch and release fishery that targets wild steelhead as long as the population is going to meet escapement. And in fact, I would not support a catch and release fishery for wild steelhead if the run is not going to hit a certain level over escapement.

The level that I would propose would be a given number that estimates the potential hooking mortality. Estimate the number of fish going to be caught by estimating angler activity, multiplying that activity by the success rate and then factoring in a hooking mortality percentage. You can now estimate the number of fish that are going to perish due to the catch and release fishery. I would be all for not allowing a fishery to take place unless the estimated number of fish returning exceeds the escapement goal plus the estimated mortality due to a catch and release fishery.”

I’m sorry but biologically the management model that you have proposed is no improvement over the harvest model. You are allowing fishing impacts on the resource down to the escapement goal. For the resource it makes no difference whether those impacts are from “bonking”, hooking mortality or so combination of the two. The proposal just allocates the fishing impacts to hooking mortality only.

You further stated:
”Also keep in mind, along with many others, I believe that prohibiting the kill of wild steelhead is the best way to maximize angler oppurtunity while minimizing the impact on the fish. And if enough wild fish are coming back to a river to allow a fishery for them, all the better, but the dollar value of those fish is much higher if you have to release them then if they you can kill them....in my honest opinion.”

I believe that you need to be careful to define what opportunity means. If you mean that with current angler interests that more man-days of steelhead fishing can be generated per dead fish with CnR rather than with a harvest then I would agree. However the impacts from such fisheries may not be minimal, see your suggested management above. Unfortunately the argument for a statewide moratorium on the killing of wild steelhead was not based on this social/economic argument but rather on the “biological needs” of the fish, which brings us back to my original posting on this thread.

Tight lines
S malma

I have a question regarding escapement goals. On rivers where the tribes have a say, who decides the escapement? Do the state biologists measure this and does it supercede the tribes data? Or do the tribes decide that they want to fish a river regardless of the state's opinion on it? Seems that this came into play on the OP a while back where the state had set a rather high one of several thousand fish.

The tribe countered with a lower number (something like 2200 as opposed to the states of 10,000) The state later announced that they worked an agreement with the tribe of 2,600. I am researching this because I received this info second hand.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Goinfishin - I'm not certain that your numbers are totally correct (the 10,000 vs. 2200) but I remember that they are close to the actuals. The reality is that in those rivers that are managed to the Boldt model, the State & the Tribes are designated as co-managers. They negotiate and come up with an escapement goal. Neither one trumps the other, however, it is important to remember that the State has rarely won in Court and that has to have an obvious impact on the negotiation.

Goinfishin,

Generally WDFW and the Tribes come up with an escapement level together...though it doesn't always work out.

The example you're remembering above is the Queets, where the Quinaults and WDFW fish under GREATLY different escapement numbers.

Smalma,

I don't think the above statements are accurate.

The intent is to change the current model that gave us "healthy" fisheries all over the state, until they just weren't healthy anymore.

Are there a multitude of problems that have contributed to the region wide demise of wild steelhead?

Of course.

Is sport overharvest one of the problems.

Of course it is.

It's surely not the only one, and I'd say it's surely not the most significant one. However, it's the one that we can stop cold right now.

On a federal level, with, say, the western spotted owl, how many different management schemes could there have been to keep their populations up, thereby taking that card out of the enviros hands to stop old growth logging?

It seems there were two...do nothing, with business as usual, until they are listed...then stop all logging, and anything else that affects them. They don't recover, and activities that affect them don't, either.

I'm not comparing that scenario directly to the situation at hand, because plenty of things have been done to help protect wild steelhead.

However, it seems to me that the predominant management scheme, no matter what it actually was, has manifested itself as such: harvest the fish until the run falls down too low to replace itself, then close fishing. The fish don't come back, and neither does the fishing.

This is absolutely NOT the best provision of fishing opportunity, at least not after the fishery is just flat out closed.

There are levels of management between harvest and closure, ones that provide opportunity and protection to the stocks.

Wild steelhead release with appropriate catch and release fisheries provides much more protection to the fish than does a harvest fishery, and provides a lot more opportunity than a closed river.

I think that the state, with a few very notable exceptions (spring CnR fisheries) had managed on an either/or basis...either we harvest them or we don't fish at all.

Just because WSR is not on the "harvest them" end of that two ended stick, doesn't mean it is on the "don't fish at all" end.

This is not a blanket policy where a standard is set for the "majority of the populations" that is applied to all populations, this is a blanket policy that applies to ALL populations and will be applied to all populations. That policy is...

We will not manage by closure. We will manage fish by striking a balance between opportunity and conservation.

Management on the OP streams has been as such...is the river over escapement? Yes? Ok, fish and harvest fish. There are no in season fish counts, other than creel checks, and I can't recall a steelhead fishery EVER being stopped because sporties were catching too many.

That's the same management we've had everywhere else in the state, too, until the answer to the escapement question was "no", in which case the next step is "don't fish".

How about somewhere in the middle for a change? Something like fish, keep the hatchery fish, release the wild ones. If the wild run is enough over escapement, keep fishing and releasing the wild ones.

More days to fish, and more fish to spawn.

Also, I find the "reallocation of impacts" from harvest impacts to incidental impacts argument to be a little tired.

Let's use the Quillayute for an example, since it's the most healthy river we have. What was sport harvest last year? Something like 2500 fish, right?

Using the most conservative, and likely well beyond the actual, hooking mortality rate of 10%, that means that sporties would have had to caught and released 25,000 steelhead to have the same "reallocated" impacts as the harvest impacts.

Criminy, the entire run was only 12,000 fish. Do you really think that it's possible that the sporties would have caught each and every fish more than two times?

Unless I'm mistaken, your "reallocation" argument hinges on your answering "yes" to that question, which I'm sure you can't do with even a semblance of a straight face.

Not only do I think the "reallocation" argument is tired, I think it is the basis for a lot of the divisiveness between release and harvest advocates, one that harvest advocates especially cling to because it makes them look better than the release advocates.

It's the reason that Mayor Reed says something as preposterous as "it's just a bunch of urban elitists who want to make the OP into their own personal playground".

It's the reason why the guy from Sequim in the last AP article calls the Hoh "his river", and definitely not "our river". (Like a guy from Sequim has any more right to the Hoh than some guy from Portland, or Florida).

Why do the anti's always pull out the "stealing OUR fish for your own playthings" argument?

Because it's the only one they have.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

Sounds like you're having another one of your "bad days" again

Not to worry…. I am sure you will be having more in the future

Good stuff Todd.

No bad day, CFM,

Just more of the usual, not letting the motivations and results of the WSC's work be boxed into someone else's idea of what they think those motivations/results might have been.

Probably just a "spin", though...

Fish on...

Todd

Gotta Love It! Seemed like something a tweaker might call an intellectual orgasm.

Smoke and mirrors... Spinnin' gears.

Or maybe it mirrors what's been smokin'?

I especially liked the conclusions that the guys against harvest are opposed by the the pro harvest anti's. :rolleyes:

Thanks Todd! Entertaining to say the least.

Todd, don't expect these guys to " do the math "... Facts are never as fun as conspiracy theorys, and math is really hard for some people.

Thanks Todd!

Todd –
I’m not sure what it is that you found not to be accurate? Maybe I’m just confused again.

In what I have chosen to call the WSC harvest model was it incorrect to say that it is based on:
1) The best science? Or
2) That the management option that best protects resource given its status be selected? Or
3) Adopt that management option statewide? Or
4) That we should not be targeting ESA listed fish?

All that I have done is expand the issue from the Boldt Case area to a state wide level. Clearly at the statewide level steelhead populations are in serious trouble (as evident by the population conditions referred to in the fact sheet). As you so clearly stated earlier in this discussion: "whattayasay we don't manage the fisheries into oblivion like we did to the rest of the state?"

You mentioned the Quillayute and used it as an example. In this arena perhaps a more interesting example would be a river system that had a run size that was just a few hundred fish above its escapement objective. In this case the hooking mortality could just as easily produce impacts that would reduce the run to less than the escapement objective just like the harvest model. Where is the resource protection cushion in this example?

Clearly as I have argued for more than 25 years a CnR fishery is likely to produce more angler days of recreation per dead fish than a harvest only fishery. However the argument for the moratorium has been the needed to rebuilt depressed populations and to prevent a slide in the populations that are not currently depressed.

Many folks seem to feel that the moratorium will result in more fishing opportunities. I don’t see how unless folks expect to target wild fish on populations expected to be less than escapement objectives. Certainly on runs above goals by allocating fish that would previously would have been harvest to a CnR fishery should result in better fishing (more fish to catch) for those that participate in that type of fishing. Whether that will produce more over all fishing trips is still an unknown – it depends on whether the better CnR catch rates will attract enough increased angler trips to off set those lost from the “bonkers” dropping out.

Tight lines
S malma