I already knew the answer....So the bottom line is this: As long as the tribes net and harvest wild steelhead (whether intentionally or as bycatch) in the numbers they do (not what they report) then extinction of the species is a real possibility even if you stop all sports fishing of any kind. Perhaps if we stopped all fishing extinction is a real possibility.

I think all the repetitive arguments about the WSR moratorium fail to focus on what most of the opposition is all about . It is not in opposition to releasing wild steelhead but it is in opposition to the process by which the new rule was implemented by the WDFW commission. I think it could be viewed as a precedent setting process which could bode ill in the future. In the future a small group could ramrod a policy through that curtails fishing without due process. Villifying opponents of the moratorium is missing the point that maybe alot of people who do alot for fish and fishing are, themselves, opponents of the moratorium for reasons that have nothing to do with being able to kill a wild steelhead.

grandpa,

I agree that there is repetitiveness, but I don't agree that process is the only issue that folks have with it...there have been arguments of giving fish to Indians, stealing them from "real" fishermen, using junk science to justify the restrictions, economic arguments, etc., etc., etc.,

There have, however, been repeated comments about due process, too. In spite of what some folks and organizations feel, there was no problem with the process...no one did anything untoward, and certainly there was nothing in any way, shape, or form illegal.

Several folks have alleged that it violates their constitutional rights, their right to fish, and numerous laws, though none have been able to come up with a cogent answer for how...other than repeating that it did.

Perhaps you know of a law that no one else has brought up yet, or hasn't been able to make a reasonable argument for yet, that you could share and show me exactly where something went wrong?

Remember that when Mayor Reed met with members of the Commission, Chair Roehl (who, by the way voted against the moratorium) informed her that there was no problem with the process...and from what I understand, someone from the AG's office opined the same thing.

I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, yes i did know that, But there are more user groups than the sportsmen and the tribes.
J.G. I am confusing nothing, What I ask is that if the sportsmen give up there right to take natives, then why are the commercials asking for an increase to native steelhead down on the columbia(by according to the R.N. +200%)I gladly give up that right to keep wild fish, but as part of the largest user group doing so, we should ask that no other(that we have control over on the state leval)user group gets to take more, untill such time that all user groups are allowed, If that is what they choose to do.
Grampa, The process was not so much my focus as those stated directly above.If the largest user group in the state can release wild fish, then every other user group,(under state control) should be held to the same task.
I like to see that people are passionate about the resources in this state and that there can be great debates and discussions about our love of the resource.

Todd –
I refrained from taking part in this continual circular argument however your statement –

“I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them..”

cries for a response. Such a standard should cut both ways. While not looking to pick a fight with anyone there are also ample examples of the WSC side of the discussion being supported by innuendo, opinions and miss information. Jerry I apologize for picking on you.

A couple examples
1) Just a few post ago Jerry in responding why those system that have had WSR release for extended periods have not responded with increased returns stated:

“There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.”

This clearly is just an opinion that is not supported by any information or data. To my knowledge no one has established what such a critical level might be. Clearly we have examples of runs rebuilding from populations much lower than we are seeing in most of the populations of concern – SF Toutle after St. Helens would be an example. In the run size/escapement graphs present by WSC the most recent returns of concern were from parent escapements at levels at or above levels previously seen (the Puyallup being the only exception). This argument doesn’t seem to be supported by either fact or logic.

2) In the discussion titled “WSR – a precedent for fisheries management” Jerry posted the following in addressing the statewide moratorium as precedent-

“It doesn't set a precedent for other fisheries here just as it hasn't in Oregon, Idaho and B.C.”

Of course it doesn’t set a precedent for either Oregon or B.C. as both allow the harvest of wild steelhead in some areas (they don’t have a state or providence wide moratoriums or prohibition on the talking of wild steelhead). In fact Oregon’s harvest of wild steelhead is much the same as Washington’s before the moratorium – that is harvest of 1 wild fish a day, 5 per year on systems with healthy populations (above established escapement levels). It is my understanding that there has been serious consideration given to expanding the opportunity to harvest wild fish. His argument again doesn’t seem to be support by either fact or logic.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse I would suggest that many involved in this continuing discussion take a minute to step back from the issue and try to look at it a little less emotionally. At the least take a deep breath before sending their postings.

Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium.

Tight lines

S malma

Smalma,

I in no way intended that statement to only run in one direction...two years ago when the push for WSR resulted in the current 1 per day, 5 per year limit there were lots of anti's who were claiming victory over us "elitists" and I was much more gracious in making my responses to that than I've seen this time.

However, your comment is taken to heart...I have strived to keep facts and logic foremost in my arguments, but in such a contentious issue it may be hard to do it 100% of the time. I think I've done pretty good?

SSF,

Good point about the commercial fishery on the Columbia. There is no sport harvest of wild steelhead there, nor has there been for a while, due to multiple ESA listings.

When the commercials, along with both Columbia River harvest managers from WDFW and ODFW, proposed the 300% increase in ESA steelhead bycatch, I was one of the first ones here to jump all over it. I put as much info on the BB as I could over the three days before the hearing, and I even offered rides to anyone who wanted to go to Olympia with me in my van to take place in the testimony.

Not one person took me up on the offer.

Now I realize that it is hard to make plans for that on only three day's notice, but I did, and so did several others that I met there.

That battle is ongoing...and it looks like it will be for a bit more. Last I heard NOAA Fisheries had asked ODFW/WDFW for more information, again, to help them to justify their newest Biological Assessment justifying the increase.

Go to this thread WSC Letter re: Steelhead Bycatch to see the letter that I wrote, and the thread about it, to see what sportsmen are doing on that angle.

The fact that the harvest managers are asking for that increase, whether they get it or not, shouldn't be a reason why we can't also take other actions on behalf of steelhead, should it?

We all as sportsmen have lots to do...habitat, hatchery issues, hydro/water issues, and harvest are all important.

Fish on...

Todd

Smalma, Tip o the hat to you!

Todd, sorry i was not around to see that post or to accept a ride to help with that matter, I have a very limited time, at times, to really get into the meat of what goes on here on this board.Tis nice to know that you are willing to extend the welcome mat to others in helping out with the fight for our resources.

Todd -
I would agree that you as well as many of the others involved in this discussion (on both sides of the fence) have done a good job of trying to stick to the facts. However this is not a back and white issue and there are valid arguments on both sides. How one sides on this issues is dependent on the one's priorities and willingness to accept various risks.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Doubtlessly true...

Fish on...

Todd

SSF,

Here's a piece from the letter I wrote on behalf of the WSC...I bet you and I can agree on this one!

Fish on...

Todd

Well then, I know I'd hate to miss out on a chance to contribute to an extinction !! Wouldn't want to miss that,..........

Exactly.... I dont know how many times this has been said, and left out of the discussions. This is ALL I care about on this issue. I wouldn't care if the fishery being restricted was carp. In fact I started a thread a while back about closure of a year round clam area for ease of enforcement that expressed similar concerns. The bottom line is opened the door to future loss of opportunity.

The irony of it is, it most likely will lead to a complete stoppage of fisheries targeting wild steelhead. So in that respect, maybe it will make an impact.

What does a new set of golf clubs go for anyways?

What is your basis for that arguement?

That sounds like something a politician knee deep in a scandal would say!

Todd are you really an ex president???

When the numbers do not increase as they haven't on many rivers that WSR has been in effect on over the years, the next logical step in protecting the fish would be to stop fishery completely... wouldn't it? Lets take the next step here Sparkey.... WHAT IF it doesn't make a difference? What do you see as the next step to save WS? Or what do you think the next step the government will take is? This of course would be purely speculation, but it might be interesting.....

elkrun-
I think the disagreement amongst the two factions on this board lies in a fundamental disagreement in fisheries management.

Those that support WSR believe that, in the long run, conservation will lead to oppurtunity. I do...
However, yourself and many others believe that conservation leads to a loss in oppurtunity.

And also the fish come first. My oppurtunity comes second. If we are to have wild steelhead to fish for in 50 years, we must be conservation minded anglers.

elkrun-
Then the next step is to close the rivers. WSR release or not, if the steelhead runs continue to decline at an alarming rate then the rivers will be closed.

It happened in the Upper Columbia Basin and it just may happen in Puget Sound (WDFW may petion NOAA Fisheries to list Puget Sound Wild Winter steelhead as threatened under the ESA).

Sparkey, you and I have already been down this road. I am conservation minded. I dont fish for wild steelhead period. Saying fish come first is one thing, backing it up is another. It still seems like hyprocracy to me to say that and continue to target them. Sorry if that is offensive.

In my mind, this was a big risk to take for something that might not have a significant effect. Someone asked earlier for an example of where this has worked in washington...I'm still waiting for someone to answer.

You are far over estimating our impact on the fisheries by stating that we must conserve if we are to have WS in 50 years. Do you believe as sportsfishers we have that great an impact? Do you think this rule will ensure there will still be WS in 50 yrs? If I thought it would, I'd be right there supporting it.

If wild steelhead were to make a 10% increase over the next few years, how much will that increase will be given to the other user groups? Wouldn't their share increase with any population increase? Considering that, how long would it take to get a sustained 10% increase in escapement like that? (Talk about one step forward, two steps back... ) Perhaps that should be the next major effort; pass a law that would prevent an increase in take with an increase in production.

Sorry, I'm not convinced this will do much to help the situation. It is more of a gesture than anything else. It sounds like the hope is that the other user groups will be pressured into folowing suit... That just wont happen, theres too much money at stake.

Smalma said:

"Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium. "

Todd....You always reference the legality of the commission's action to initiate the 2 year moratorium. That would be looking at technicalities in my opinion. Whether the move is legal or not I think opponents see that the open commission meeting process was highjacked in this case as the moratorium was not even on the agenda. WSC and some fly fishers organized themselves with a show of force at the meeting and were able to get their agenda heard and passed with very little discussion by potential opponents. And by the way I was there.

I know there are many other complaints opponents have but I am focusing on the process complaint which I think is where the PSA people were coming from. I only bring this up to point out that folks like me who do not kill wild steelhead and are on your side in that regard also can oppose some of your ideas and methods.

I still am convinced that many WSR advocates are interested not only in the fish but in the quality of the fishing experience as they see it. That is to say that they prefer solitude so by restricting the fishery they will weed out a large group of "crackers" who they think don't belong on the river in the first place. That may be where the "elitist" label is coming from.

A "process" is supposed to include those "crackers" if they want to be included, it is supposed to include the fly fishers along with the bait fishers...etc. I know I have felt excluded at commission meetings many times when the commercial fishing bias takes over and decisions are made that totally ignore science and biology and public comment.