I heard a "rumor" that the WSR moratorium has been rescinded. Sorta nice to hear that something that was pushed thru on a backdoor deal got the boot.

Let's hope that if WSC feels they should continue on this issue that they follow the rules the next time.

I for one am "on the fence" on WSR. My objection was the way this rule was inacted.

Sounds like there will be a one fish for year limit. Now the town of Forks is in really big trouble. How many bonkers are going to come to town for the week to be able to only kill one fish and how many C&R people are going to spend their money there after the way the town acted. I was really hoping the mayor looked at this entire issue differently because the people of Forks are going to be hurt the most by this in the long run. One fish is not enough with some and one fish is too much with for others. Forks is has hurt itself I think in the long run if the one fish a year is true. They woould have been better off with the moratorium.

Not going into the back door issue again. Old and lame and been done to death. Even when we follow the "proper" channels and the majority of the people want this it still gets shot down. This is rediculous.

The moratorium was rescinded this afternoon but the limit was reduced from 5 fish a year to 1 fish a year.

We keep inching along in the right direction but the politics of this is riduclous.

JJ

Zen Leecher,

I will resist the urge to invite you to kiss my arse and instead just comment that it appears they did just fine following the rules. It is at least nice to know that while you sit up there on the fence all full of indecision, you will only legally be able to now bonk one wild fish a year.

sinktip

My letter I just sent to the Chamber in Forks:

Dear Forks Chamber of Commerce,



I am writing to tell you I that I will no longer be spending money in your town as a result of your decision to fight to get the wild steelhead kill moratorium over turned which it just was today. As a catch and release advocate you and your political leaders have made it very clear that you don’t want my kind of people out there in your town spending our money. I don’t make a ton of trips out there but I usually make 2 trips a year and probably spend around $500 each year out there maybe a little more but you have now lost my portion and I will be recommending to others to do the same. Of course this year me and my buddies were going to do our annual winter trip out there rather then the Skagit but no more (4 people for a minimum of 3 days). Your short sightedness is truly amazing to me. You all said at the hearing saying you would rather have no fishing then have a catch and release fishing well you still get to kill your fish and help to take another resource into the ground.



Since you don’t want my kind out there I won’t trouble you by coming out there and will save you the trouble of looking down and making snide remarks.



Jeff Johnson

Sinktip, let's hope Bob will give your invite the response it deserves.

Sounds personal to me.

Sounds to me like a classic compromise. Nobody is fully satisfied or dissatisfied. I would once again like to thank everyone (Pro & Anti) for testifying and getting involved. Involvement is a great thing.

In terms of the Forks issue - I feel they made several strategic blunders and hope that they let this issue drop. If they don't, I'm afraid there will be more polarization of sports fishers and that can't be good.

Zen you know how the personal think works on here don't you? As long as you don't tell someone to kiss your arsh it's fine.

This is great news! I'm looking forward to seeing all the supporters of the moratorium's fine comments on the ruling.

I think what you see in the decision is the states fear of the tribes.

1 fish huh,

They couldnt just said no fish. Now you will have all these people CNR til they get the bigger fish and hopefully they all get skunked.

It is actually moving in a good way. 1 fish is better than 5. I hope a lot of people realize that the reason this was going into effect was to preserve our natural resources. Maybe people wont even bother to go to forks for 1 fish. I will still be there you dont have to keep to enjoy fishing

I approved this message
Kevin

Gerry

You are right I think in some ways. The state and the Hoh tribe have been working out differences in other issues. I think this was part of a back room deal that the state put in. I believe the state knows they could win a foregone opp case in court but it's going to cost time and a lot of money they don't have so why not put something as uninportant as the moratorium in the dealings with the Hoh.
Anyone who thought that the WSC had a back room deal going then what about the latest back room deal.

Again I got to feel sorry for the ordinary folks of Forks because their Mayor has just cut off a good percentage of income in their gamble to get greety with all of our few fish left.

Kinda sad to see the Commission flip flop and amend an earlier descision. Let's hope the this is a one-time deal and not something that will happen again in the future. But once a precedent is set...

One fish kill limit? It looks like Mayor Reed now has a self-fulfilling prophecy of a business slowdown in Forks.

Leland.

Is this going to last a while or is this only inplace for two years just like the moratorium wouldve been

Trask,

It's kind a funny how politics work as we all know by now. Let's just say that insider information before today showed that the commission was going to up hold the moratorium by maybe even a larger margin than the original vote. I think they resented some of the local pols getting in their face. But when the AG comes to town there is not much you can do but go along with him. Lets not get down on the commission they have to be worried enough about the comprimise as it stands. They were strong up in till today.

I hope that both sides don't continue to whine on this issue. It was a good fight with the ussual politics involved. I did not support the WSC stand because I thought it was bad politics to begin with. With or without C&R the OP rivers will continue to decline and the F&G will eventually be the ones to implement the same rules we see on all the other rivers thoughout the NW and BC.

Anybody have any info on exactly how the attorney general saw this thing? Remeber, she is running for govenor.

Tacoma News Tribune article on the Commission's decision:

http://www.tribnet.com/sports/story/5498445p-5437073c.html

As a professionally trained umpire and with over 30 years of umpiring experience the arguments that are forth coming now sound like some inexperienced coach whining because the call didn’t go his way.

People get a life. Ya’ll knew going into this somebody wasn’t gonna get what they wanted. Walk it off.

“I’m never gonna spend another dime in Forks”—Will boo-who-who. You gonna take your toys and go home now? Nobody and I mean nobody cares what you do. But it’s fine with me, leaves more room on the rivers when the springers and the fall runs are in.


Buck-up. This game is in the books. Get ready for the next.


And Sinktip- In one of my games you say something like that and you’d still be “outa here” saying your not going to say “this” is saying it.

Dan Leinan of the city of Forks said he didn’t think the decision would play well back home. City officials opposed the ban and convinced the commission to reconsider the decision.

“I wish the people around the state that support this would take care of their rivers in their own backyards before they come out and mess with ours,” Leinan said.

Hey T,

I am not planning on spending any more money in Forks. I will still fish over there I just won't eat breakfast in town anymore and make sure I buy my beer and ice before I get there. See ya on the river.

Not sure why a double post happened sorry.

JJ

So with overwhelming numbers of supporters of keeping the Moratorium, better arguments/reasons to keep the Moratorium that would only last 2 year (come on people, 2 years is NOT THAT LONG and it would be BETTER FOR THE FISH) and the Commisions still backs out of it's decision because a few, small amount of people want to kill some of the last wild steelhead?

No wonder our fish stocks are almost non existant. :rolleyes:

Do I see over hundred post on this??? 21 posts in the last hour

Because I don't fish for Wild Steelhead it doesen't bother me with a 1 fish limit.Now if I do get one worthy of a wall fish I have that chance.
Now that WDFW is in overall agreement that the runs need to be managed individually that sounds alot better to me than a blanket ban.
The back door has been shut Zen and will be a little harder to stick there foot in

Hey, look at it like this.. If every person thats registered on this site kept 1 wild fish a year from the rivers in question.. there would be " none".. left. The thing that is so perplexing about the whole deal is you are talking about such a small number of fish all total.

Suspect next time this issue comes around it will be in the form of an ESA listing which means you can just put your rods away

I'll go and spend my money over in forks and tell them that they did a "hell of a job" with this moratorium. Was against it from the beginning. If this sort of strategy worked, then all of the north end rivers would be streaming with fish. Where are they? Nets don't release fish and until that gets resolved there will be no real change on any of our rivers............................Fishy...........

They could have at least exempted tiny streams like Goodman Creek from the kill list.
I'd like to hear more on the involvement by the AG.

How does this effect the tribal netting

If the tribes get to net during the wild runs, then we should be able to fish.
Stop the nets and I will gladly stop fishing during that same time.

SoMethingsmellsfishy>>>Right ON brother!

It's a done deal and it's a fair compromise. I can live with it.

As for punishing Forks... Sorry, but I won't support such an action. There are many people that don't deserve the aniomosity and loss of business. Give em a break. They did what they felt they needed to. Surely we would expect our own Mayors/communities to fight that hard for us.

Time to bury the hatchet and move on.

The Mayor of Forks needs to realize that the wild fish belong to everyone now and in the future not just the people of Forks. Anyone that advocates killing wild Salmon,steelhead or trout in NW rivers in this day and age has no concept of conservation.

The King, you need to be more civil on this part of the board. You know what I edited out and I don't want to see that again!

AuntyM,

I won't spend money in Forks until they get rid of their mayor. I was fine with Forks and their opposition to the moratorium. But when the mayor started putting me down because I chose to use a fly rod is when I decided not to support the town. I can't vote in the Forks mayorial election but I can certainly boycott the town for their choice of mayor and I will. I am not an urban elitist fly fisherman. Hell I live in a small logging community not to different from Forks and if our mayor had made some of the comments the mayor of Forks has made I would damn sure not vote for him or her either.

Wow a little MOD action Please!!!!!Calling names after the fact aint cool.
NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
September 2, 2004
Contact: (WDFW) Craig Bartlett, (360) 902-2259
(Commission) Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2449

Commission reverses wild steelhead ban, adopts annual one-fish rule on 12 rivers


OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today reversed a measure it approved last February that imposed a two-year moratorium on retaining any wild steelhead caught in state waters.


By a unanimous vote, the nine-member commission instead will allow anglers to retain one wild steelhead per year on a dozen rivers – all but one of which is on the Olympic Peninsula – affected by the moratorium.


The new annual limit for those rivers, which takes effect Oct. 3, is more conservative than the annual five-fish limit in effect before the moratorium was enacted last spring, said Will Roehl, commission chair.


“For all the discussion about what the annual limit should be on those rivers, any long-term decisions about steelhead management need to be based on the best available science,” Roehl said.


Toward that end, the commission has directed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to update its comprehensive plan for managing steelhead throughout the state. That plan, now being developed in conjunction with treaty tribes and other interested parties, is scheduled for completion in late 2006.


Rivers and streams affected by today’s action by the commission include the Bogachiel, Calawah, Clearwater, Dickey, Goodman, Green, Hoh, Hoko, Pysht, Quillayute, Quinault and the Soleduck.


Anglers must still release any wild steelhead caught on all other rivers and streams throughout the state. Hatchery-bred steelhead, which represent the majority of the annual catch statewide, are not subject to that rule, but are managed according to daily catch limits established on a river-by-river basis.


Citing scientific recommendations by WDFW for the 12 affected rivers, Roehl was one of several commissioners who questioned the biological need for a an outright ban on wild-steelhead retention. Others expressed concerns about the lack of consultation with treaty tribes and the public before the moratorium was adopted last February.


“This time, we got the word out and had plenty of public input,” said Roehl, noting that the commission received more than 800 letters, e-mails and petitions on the moratorium today’s vote, which followed a public meeting dedicated to the issue Aug. 28 in Bremerton

Jerry,

Would you look into Ron's complaint? Thanks.
Zen

I was working for money guys and dealt with it as soon as I saw it.

Let's keep a cool head about this people. I think the compromise that the commission came to is OK. We have gone from 2 fish per day, 30 fish per year in 2001--- to 1 fish per day, 5 fish per year in 2002--- to 1 fish period in 2004. I would call that progress.

I knew this was going to be a bad day!

This was not a compromise one a year is just as bad as five per year. We wont see any drop in the overall harvest nymbers.

We got screwed by the state again.

Everyone in the WDFW deserves to be fired. They have done nothing positive for our fish and wildlife. Between the state and the tribes they will have it no other way than to bonk the last wild steelhead swimming in washington state and replace them with hatchery fish.

I mean what I just said Not one single individual working for the state has done any justice in my mind. In the back pocket of the tribes and comercials is all I have seen.

Thanx Jerry ,I think that people can get a bit to excited and say things that arn't to kind.

Nooo... REALLY?

The day just is getting worse. Ruined my day at work and now I just toasted a box hear while setting it up.

Rich while I think that a lot of the people in the department related to steelhead have never build enough if any buffer into rivers, ie the Hoh and some deserve to be fired but some of them do work very hard and do do a good job. I won't throw the baby out with the bath water here. I tell you what if over the last 10 years here working at a big software company all but 12 of my projects failed when they numbered in the 50s I would be gone a long time ago an we would have tried something different.

JJ

JG has the right idea here folks. There is much emotion on both sides of the issue. We should all understand this is an incremental process. If we keep winning small battles every year, eventually we win the war. While this decision is a far cry from what many wanted, it represents a monumental step in the right direction.

PEACE

I don't keep wild steelhead on the other hand I don't like people who whine just to pump themselves up as being elite or whatever they think they are when they totally ignore the the facts for no good reason beyond ridiculous selfish ideals. So I never supported this moratorium, the very similar trapping ban with it's whining uneducated supporters or this forum for that matter. But now I support this forum and offer you my love and forgiveness.

Hoglander

Better than a sharp stick in the eye, I guess.

Just another "uneducated" opinion, worth roughly what you paid for it.

After a few hours to cool down......

I still meant what I said!

They spit right in our face.....

From 5 to 1 is no different!!!!

We continue to manage our wild steelhead for harvest. That is what this is all about....

5 to 1 is apples to apples.

I wont sit here and kiss the ars of the great "great one's".

Polotics was played today nothing more. The fish wone nothing and the commission and state saved face and tried to please everyone at the same time trying to keep themselves out of a lawsuit.

No big step was made, nothing was done.

People may think that Im some dumb young guy with alot of emotion but I know more than you think. I have seen alot with my own eyes. The state and tribes work on lies and the publics ignorance.

"If the tribes get to net during the wild runs, then we should be able to fish.
Stop the nets and I will gladly stop fishing during that same time."


This argument has never made sense to me. I agree, the nets are by far the greatest impact and it is likely improvements in runs will not be seen until the nets are gone...but that doesnt mean you cant SLOW the decline...does anyone deny that fewer fish will spawn with a One fish limit and netting than would spawn with a moratorium and netting? I mean its not like they are tossing gillnets over the redds. By the time sporting anglers get a crack at 'em the nets have already taken their toll.

I'm no expert on this issue, and I dont even live in Washington full time anymore (school/military) but I just think its obvious that everyone(nearly) agrees the runs need protection...so why not start with the protection we can get now and work up to whatever else you want? I mean, Forks at least doesnt pretend to be concerned about native steelhead populations. I can admire their tenacity, even if I dont agree with their motives. However, something just seems a little off to me when people complain that netting is devastating the native stocks and should be banned, yet continue to harvest said native stocks on top of the damage already caused.

Not trying to get in a

The moratorium wouldn't require that you stop fishing.
Isn't it a little tough to tell the indians to stop netting wild fish when sport anglers are still allowed to whack 'em? Hard to point a finger while holding a dead nate.

Don't some of you think it is strange that the Hoh tribe threaten legal action (the Hoh-WDFW agreement from June of this year) if the moratorium was not rescinded and sportsman harvest was not reinstituted?

Hey Jerry

I have a question what is the percantage so to say htat hte HOH tribe will get of the Nates or anybody does anybody know

I'm with Jerry on this. It is progress for the fish, but when I saw the decision I had to believe that the tribes were influincing the decision. If sporties were not allowed to harvest any wild fish for conservation reasons and then the tribes net those same fish they will get heat. Maybe I'm wrong but at this point it doesn't matter. Just my opinion.

Hey Rich your RIGHT!! The moritoium getting resinded wont help the fish anymore than the moritorium being upheld would have.The moritorium had nothing,zero, nada, to do with saving fish. It was about giving the right to fish to a very small minority and thats it.And all the pro-moritoium guys know that.

That's crap................and you know it. What was it that was going to stop you from fishing?

Hey Rich G -

Are you sure you're not a postal worker?

I believe that Rich is a police officer that used to work for the Quilluette tribe. He may have some insight that we don't.

That's crap................and you know it. What was it that was going to stop you from fishing? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Dan,
What was going to stop me from fishing??
A little thing called ethic's and morale's

I woke up this morning feeling a little crouchy and onery, then I read this thread and I started feeling much better! It brightened up my day.

Oh, ethics and morals huh?

How's the view from that high horse? Any elitist flyfishermen up there with you?

Cue the PETA line about "torturing" fish you don't intend to eat.

I have a question. How many of you that are for the for moratorium on wild steelhead kill wild salmon, ducks, elk, deer and etc? Salmon on those rivers over there are as threatened as the steelhead. some areas they close down hunting due to low numbers of game but leave open others because there can be a harvest and still keep the herds viable. Why not in Forks.

The fish are under the same environmental pressure as the game is in this state, water and habitat quality, habitat destruction, and harvest pressure. With one exeption the commercial harvest. There is none of game. That's another disscussion all together. I have even seen Bob kill native kings and coho on the Pen. On my home river the moratorium has been in effect for almost 10 yrs now and I see very little progress if any in the returns. This failure is not only to this river but many across this state. My question is may be we are focusing on the wrong managent stragity and that's another disscussion.

I guess my point is "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and if we don't start working together rather in special interest we could lose it all.

my 2 cents and remember what it cost