'Bout time!

I hope something good comes of it eventually.

My questions are (and doc you might know this since you are the man with all the numbers and statistics)

1)Will this change the netting schedules or practices? because when they listed the chinook I didnt see any change on that front
and they may have intended to but it seems they net more than ever now.

2) Will they eliminate the stupid so called enhancement program on the Green (that has not worked for over 30 years now) I have been against this for along time now ther just isnt any proof they are doing any good taking 55 pairs of wild steelhead off their spawning beds every year! and the sad part is the Green River club defends this practice it seems they may have been part of the problem here. I have grown up fishing that river and there are less and less wild fish in the strech that they take these fish from every year and they cant even admit that it has become harder for them to get those 55 pairs each year ... when does the lightbulb go on?

The first thing they'll do is cut back the sport fishing that's for sure and I'm ok with that for the sake of the fish but it should be across the board for all user groups. at least someone has recognized there is a problem ... we all have been saying that for over 10 years now!

M_ray,

I'll attempt to address your questions.

1) I don't expect any dramatic changes to fishing immediately, either recreational or treaty. When fish are listed as threatened under the ESA, fishing is often more restricted, but usually not curtailed. Puget Sound wild steelhead are under very low harvest pressure in recent years. Wild steelhead are required to be released in all recreational fisheries excepting wild summer steelhead on the Green River. That run is not native, and has established itself from the natural spawning of hatchery produced Skamania stock. Treaty fisheries target early timed (Dec.-Jan.) hatchery winter steelhead and harvest very low numbers of wild steelhead, typically less than the sport fishery.

NMFS permits continued recreational and commercial fishing of ESA listed salmon and steelhead so long as the incidental harvest of those fish does not jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species. Now, we all know that no fish every benefitted by being caught, either recreationally or commercially. Similarly, we also know that even unhealthy runs can tolerate low levels of incidental harvest without jeopardizing their existance.

For example, a 15% incidental harvest of Columbia/Snake wild spring chinook is allowed during the fisher that targets relatively abundant hatchery chinook. It goes without saying that the wild chinook would fare somewhat better if the entire fishery were closed. However, for that incremental increased benefit, society would have to forego all the benefits associated with fishing for the hatchery fish that are inter-mingled. The central issue comes down to balancing the benefits of fishing for abundant fish and the costs to the listed threatened fish. The management task of threading that needle in a way that satisfies social and ecological demands is a thankless, but necessary task, to say the least.

Presently, wild PS chinook are so protected in WA State that only incidental fisheries occur for the most part any more. By far the majority of the catch occurs in Alaska and BC. Treaty and non-treaty harvests in WA are mostly incidental to harvests of inter-mingled hatchery chinook or fishing for other species. Since PS steelhead are not caught in significant numbers in marine waters outside WA, pre-terminal interceptions are not a significant issue. As I mentioned, neither treaty nor non-treaty fisheries take very many wild PS steeelhead in recent years, so the options for further reductions in fishing are very limited. Where meaningful reductions in fishing can be identified, those are the remaining opportunities for fishery cutbacks. Most conservation measures will have to occur in other areas, such as habitat and hatchery practices.

2) I'm not familiar with the Green River steelhead enhancement program, and I don't know if it will continue or not. While most such wild broodstock programs have failed to result in increased natural steelhead production, the Green River program may serve a unique interest. The upper Green River has been blocked to anadromous fish since about 1910 or so, first due to Tacoma Waters diversion dam, then in 1964 to the Corps' Howard Hanson Dam. An upstream fish passage facility was recently completed by Tacoma Power. They will begin transporting fish to the upper Green River watershed this summer, using some of the expected surplus pink salmon to test the facility and the process. The Corps' downstream fishway will be finished in another couple years, as it's been a complex mix of engineering and construction. The upshot is that the wild steelhead enhancement program may serve as a brood source of steelhead for the upper basin. Otherwise, only those steelhead that voluntarily find and enter Tacoma Water's fishway will be transported to the upper river. Seeding the river with fry produced from the enhancement program would likely increase the steelhead population in the upper basin in fewer years than by waiting for "volunteers."

Cutting back sport fishing has limited benefits to wild steelhead. Most PS rivers close at the end of February to protect wild steelhead. Closing earlier would result in both fewer wild and hatchery steelhead being caught. Since the wild steelhead must be released, failing to harvest more of the hatchery steelhead might be a bigger problem than the incidental mortality to wild steelhead. Reducing steelhead angling would make good sense only if it were accompanied by significant reductions in hatchery steelhead production. The latter action will probably get a lot of attention in steelhead recovery planning.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Puget Sound steelhead declared "threatened"
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE -- The National Marine Fisheries Service has listed Puget Sound steelhead as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act.

The agency proposed the listing a year to cover naturally spawned steelhead from river basins in Puget Sound, Hood Canal and the eastern half of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Agency biologists say the decline in the steelhead population has been widespread, likely because of degraded habitat, man-made barriers, unfavorable ocean conditions and harmful hatchery practices.

The steelhead in today's listing include more than 50 stocks of summer- and winter-run fish. The Skagit and Snohomish rivers support the largest populations.

An "endangered" species is in danger of extinction. A "threatened" species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spokesman Brian Gorman says this is the second listing for a Puget Sound fish after Chinook salmon in 1999. The listing also is unusual because it's in an urban area.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Puget_Sound_Steelhead.html

NOAA Magazine || NOAA Home Page Commerce Dept.

PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD GET PROTECTION UNDER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

May 7, 2007 — The NOAA Fisheries Service announced today that it is listing Puget Sound Steelhead as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act. The agency proposed the listing just over a year ago in response to a petition from Sam Wright of Olympia, Wash. (Click NOAA image for larger view of map showing locations of ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook & steelhead. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”)

The listing covers naturally spawned steelhead from river basins in Puget Sound, Hood Canal and the eastern half of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Also covered by today's action are two winter-run hatchery stocks: the Green River natural and the Hamma Hamma River stocks.

The NOAA Fisheries Service said it looked at the biological status of Puget Sound steelhead as recently as 1996, but at that time the population did not warrant listing under the federal species-protection law. Since then, however, agency biologists say there have been continued widespread declines in the fish's population, despite substantial reductions in the harvest of natural steelhead.

NOAA's Northwest Regional Fisheries Director, Bob Lohn, said vital work on steelhead recovery was already underway. Steelhead share many of the same waters as Puget Sound Chinook, which are already protected under the ESA.

"The work already accomplished by Shared Strategy, the Sound's grassroots salmon-recovery coalition, will provide a solid foundation for the recovery of steelhead," Lohn said. "We'll continue to work with Shared Strategy, the tribes, Puget Sound Partnership, the state and others to assure that any additional effort needed to specifically benefit steelhead is included as part of a salmon recovery plan."

Lohn also praised the ongoing collaborative efforts of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound tribes to develop watershed-based management plans to serve as what he called "the building blocks of a statewide steelhead-conservation strategy."

The steelhead populations in today's action include more than 50 stocks of summer- and winter-run fish, the latter being the more widespread and numerous of the two. Most steelhead are found in northern Puget Sound where the Skagit and Snohomish rivers support the largest populations.

Biologists with the agency said the root causes for the steelhead population's decline likely include degraded habitat, blockages by dams and other man-made barriers, unfavorable ocean conditions and harmful hatchery practices.

A species categorized as "endangered" is in danger of extinction. One listed as "threatened" is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Puget Sound has three other fish species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act: Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and bull trout. These species overlap some of the range occupied by steelhead, a species that tends to use smaller streams and migrate further upstream in Puget Sound watersheds.

Steelhead are a popular gamefish and have an unusual life history that makes studying and protecting them a challenge. Unlike most other members of the Pacific salmon family, steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning, and some can remain in fresh water as resident rainbow trout, although rainbows are not covered by today's listing.

The NOAA Fisheries Service is dedicated to protecting and preserving the nation's living marine resources and its habitat through scientific research, management and enforcement. The NOAA Fisheries Service provides stewardship of these resources for the benefit of the nation, supporting coastal communities that depend upon them, and helping to provide safe and healthy seafood to consumers and recreational opportunities for the American public.

NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200 years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the 1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects.

Relevant Web Sites
NOAA Northwest Fisheries Service

NOAA Fisheries Portal

Media Contact:
Brian Gorman, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Service, (206) 526-6613

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2854.htm

Fish on...

Todd

WSC Press Release:

NOAA Fisheries Lists Puget Sound Steelhead ESU as Threatened

Statement by Dick Burge, VP of Conservation for the Wild Steelhead Coalition May 7th, 2007 Contact: Dick Burge, 360-765-3815, Nate Mantua, 206-616-7041, or Rich Simms, 425-750-4639

Kirkland, WA – The Wild Steelhead Coalition praised the ESA listing as Threatened with Extinction determination by NOAA Fisheries as an important step in protecting the region’s depleted wild steelhead populations. This extraordinary trout species is born in Washington’s rivers and streams, then migrates to the ocean, traveling as far as the Russia coast, to feed and grow to as large as 30 pounds before returning to their native Puget Sound rivers to spawn. Steelhead are the Washington State fish, and they have been an icon of the Pacific Northwest and a source of important cultural and economic benefits throughout the region’s history. Puget Sound’s wild steelhead are highly sought after by anglers, and steelhead fisheries provide significant income to many small communities in the region. The Wild Steelhead Coalition has worked tirelessly with state and local agencies to improve protections for wild steelhead and steelhead fisheries since 2000, and fully supports NOAA’s determination as being based on solid scientific evidence. Dick Burge of the Wild Steelhead Coalition made the following statement: “Puget Sound’s wild steelhead have been in steep decline for decades. In the past twenty years we’ve seen formerly productive runs fail year after year. Decades of degraded habitat, poor hatchery practices, and misguided harvest management have to be addressed to turn the declines around. It is time for action. “We sincerely hope that the ESA listing will focus attention on the habitat and ecosystem issues that have led to the region-wide declines in the abundance of Puget Sound’s wild steelhead. Improved fishery management is not enough. Puget Sound’s rivers and streams must be restored for wild steelhead to thrive. Reliance on steelhead hatcheries to replace wild fish has proven to be a failed experiment, and hatcheries are likely causing substantial unintended harm. The entire Puget Sound steelhead hatchery program must be overhauled to restore Puget Sound’s wild steelhead.” “The Wild Steelhead Coalition looks forward to working with federal, state and tribal governments to recover this remarkable species in its native rivers of Puget Sound.” To learn more about Wild Steelhead, visit http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com

WDFW press release on the listing.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

May 7, 2007

Contact: Heather Bartlett, (360) 902-2662



Directors statement on Puget Sound steelhead

listing under the federal Endangered Species Act



The following statement from Jeff Koenings, Ph.D.,director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), concerns the listing by NOAA Fisheries of Puget Sound steelhead as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.



The decision by the NOAA Fisheries to list Puget Sound steelhead as a `threatened species is yet another indication that the regions aquatic environment is not healthy. Like Puget Sound chinook salmon, which were listed for federal protection in 1999, naturally spawning steelhead are highly dependent on the quality of marine waters as well as rivers and streams for their survival. In proposing this listing a year ago, the NOAA Fisheries cited freshwater habitat degradation as the principal factor limiting the viability of Puget Sound steelhead in the foreseeable future.



Fortunately, our state is taking steps to address this problem. Steelhead, as well as salmon, will benefit from the Governors Puget Sound Initiative and the collaborative recovery plan developed by the Shared Strategy coalition, both of which prescribe concrete actions to improve the aquatic environment. The states landmark Forest and Fish law of 1999 has also helped to reduce the impact of timber harvest activities on fish habitat.



In addition, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in the final stages of developing a statewide steelhead management plan, specifically designed to guide our efforts to protect and perpetuate wild steelhead populations throughout the state.



It should be noted that the NOAA Fisheries does not identify current fisheries as a risk to the viability of wild steelhead populations in Puget Sound. The catch of wild steelhead has dropped to less than 1 percent of the total run since the mid-1990s, when selective fishing rules were adopted requiring the release of wild fish. In addition, WDFW and tribal co-managers have intensively reviewed hatchery practices to ensure they will be consistent with the goal of recovering wild steelhead populations in Puget Sound and around the state.



While there is cause for concern about the status of wild steelhead, as reflected in this ESA listing, returns of wild steelhead have increased to a number of rivers in the Puget Sound area in recent years. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will work with NOAA Fisheries, local governments, tribes and citizens to ensure this trend continues in the years ahead as we continue to build wild steelhead populations.

Agency biologists say the decline in the steelhead population has been widespread, likely because of degraded habitat, man-made barriers, unfavorable ocean conditions and harmful hatchery practices.



?????

Nothing said about over harvest...it has been and will remain at the top of my list until someone who actually fished the Puget Sound Streams pre Boldt can prove to me otherwise.

Jim

Jim...which PS stocks are being overharvested right now?

I'll save you the trouble...none.

There are a handful of fish caught in tribal nets while they are targeting hatchery fish, and there is the incidental death of wild fish caught by sporties targeting hatchery fish...that's it. No one is targeting PS wild steelhead for harvest...no one.

When harvest stopped on PS wild steelhead, the stocks did not rebound, positively indicating that harvest was not the limiting factor on PS steelhead...overpopulation and rampant habitat destruction are the main causes of the declines.

Fish on...

Todd

OK...I understand what you are saying. My problem is that I remember what the PS streams were like before the over harvest. So what you are saying that while the overharvest was occurring so also was the decline of habitat and now we are left with no fish and no habitat. True??

Jim

I'm no biologist, but I do have friends that are. In discussions with them here is some of the info I've learned!

Think about this, wild steelhead smolt need to be in natal streams for like 2 years. If there isn't suitable habitate for a 2 year old trout, then the wild fish don't have a chance.

Case in point, look at all of the diking/development along the Snohomish, Puyallup, and Green rivers. In the past it was near major port waterways, but at this point due to encroachment, riprap and dikes are built a considerable way up the river system. In one case the Green river has an extensive canyon system and protection towards the head waters due to the Tacoma city water supply. Is it any wonder that it's in reasonable shape compared to the other rivers?

As an analog look a the Skagit. Same ocean conditions as the other PS rivers, but due to having reasonable habitat, it's in a steady state of population...

Now in some cases it appears that the overharvest has caused nearly irreversable affects. Some Hood canal rivers have good habitat as it's protected by the NP, but have *dick* for fish. The Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewolips are prime examples where habitiat may not be the limiting reagent.

jimh,

Well, yes. While everyone was fighting about who gets to net, and who doesn't, and arresting everyone, and celebrities were having "fish ins" with Billy Frank, the entire ecosystem that steelhead depend on for living was being destroyed...by the time fishing for wild fish was almost completely stopped except for incidental mortality in hatchery fish seasons (net or sport), the environment they need to live had gained about 700% in people, pavement, and pollution, and the rivers had been dammed, diked, the water taken out, and crappy water being put in.

The reason why the stocks did not rebound when the harvest was stopped is that harvest, by then, was not the limiting factor in the survival of the fish...their environment was...and still is.

Some streams may have been pushed to the point of extinction by harvest, but there is little to no harvest on those streams now, incidental or otherwise.

Pointing fingers at past harvest policies may feel good, and pointing at the tribes always feels good, since we don't have to take responsibility then for anything, but neither of those things will do squat to bring fish back.

Fish need to have rivers and waters to spawn in, and places to feed and rear, and those places are mere shadows of what they were in the past...at least in Puget Sound.

If you want to look at harvest, look at the coastal streams...they have excellent habitat for the most part, but are harvested to death, by the tribes and by the sporties. Even worse, look at the Chehalis system that is harvested to death and suffers from ever deteriorating habitat, as well...I predict that so far as steelhead go, the SW WA ESU will be number 6 out of the total of 7 ESU's to join the ESA list.

Fish on...

Todd

I understood everything until you wrote this...

I predict that so far as steelhead go, the SW WA ESU will be number 6 out of the total of 7 ESU's to join the ESA list.



explain to me what this means.

Jim

Steelhead in Washington are separated into 7 Evolutionarily Significant Units, or ESU's...an ESU is the population parameter that is looked at when assessing the health of steelhead populations, and assessing whether or not the ESA will kick in.

The ESU's are:

Upper Columbia
Middle Columbia
Lower Columbia
Puget Sound
Olympic Peninsula
Southwest Washington
Snake River Basin

Steelhead are listed as either "endangered" or "threatened" under the ESA in five of the seven ESU's...only the Olympic Peninsula nad SW WA ESU's are not listed.

The OP runs are being overharvested in many instances, but the habitat is good, and marine conditions for those fish seem to be holding out, so they aren't likely to be listed soon.

The SW WA ESU includes the Chehalis basin...in fact, the Chehalis Basin is the majority of the SW WA ESU.

The Chehalis Basin suffers from serious habitat degradation, from the very bottom end along the banks of the Chehalis itself, to the top end of streams that are overlogged...this will eventually limit the productivity of those streams for steelhead, and I doubt it will be all that long.

Right now, however, the Quinault Nation is overharvesting the runs in the Chehalis...and overharvesting them badly.

My guess is that if this is allowed to continue, and habitat loss continues unabated, that the SW WA ESU will be number 6 out of the 7 ESU's to be listed, and not that far in the future, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Jim, It means that 5 out 7 ESU's are now listed and what Todd is refering to is if we keep going the way we are going SW WA "6" will be next.

Got it...Thanks...

jim

What gets me is that these SOB's at WDFW have seen this $hiat coming for the past 20 years and have done squat to curtail the precipitous decline in wild fish populations.

What makes you think the same unresponsive bureaucracies can come up with some master plan today that they've had 20 years to work on without delivering. Odds are long that the same agencies have the balls to effect any meaningful change.

Twenty years? What am I thinking? It's actually been more like 120 years of doing the same old same old... repeating the mistakes of the past... lip-service and band-aid fixes for gaping wounds... tinkering at the edges without getting to the root of the problem.

HABITAT HABITAT HABITAT!

Lichatowich siad i best. Can't have healthy runs of salmon/steelhead without healthy rivers!

HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST

And while current PS harvest of wild steelhead is an inconsequential pittance of what it once was, the mindset of harvesting all the way down to ridiculously small escapement goals is something that needs to be eradicated from WDFW policy.

Suppose habitat could be restored to practical and reasonable levels with measurable increases in wild steelhead returns. Would we really want to go right back to harvesting the restored populations right back down to MSY? What's the frickin' point?

It ain't gonna happen. The forest and fish law creating small stream side buffers was a compromise. That means the fish were compromised. Other players are the Army Core of Engineers who shore up, repair and/or replace rip raps after floods. Gravel companies using grandfather clauses to dig gravel from stream beds. Water diverters. etc etc etc. Nobody is willing to drop the hammer and say enough is enough. If what you are doing is damaging the environment then you need to go out of business or figure out a way to survive without damage. Won't happen. Ever.

I'll differ with Todd somewhat and hope that it's due to a timing frame of reference and not really a difference in analysis.

In the 1980s I did an assessment of Skagit steelhead over the long term as it was known at the time. I looked at records dating to the 20s and 30s, which were mainly commercial harvests because there was so little recreational catch at that time. While my estimations are Skagit specific, I think they're generally applicable to most of Puget Sound. I estimated peak steelhead abundance and harvest as occuring between 1968 and 1972. This was, of course, combined hatchery and wild steelhead abundance. I think the former Game Dept. made a mistake and attributed a lot of steelhead harvests to hatchery production that were more likely from the wild steelhead population.

The Skagit hatchery and wild steelhead populations collapsed by 1975. The Sauk closed at the end of February in 1977, followed by closure of the Skagit a couple years later. The result is that wild steelhead rebounded very significantly in two reproductive cycles - eight years. OK, that was a population response to harvest reduction, irrespective of habitat. The 80s also coincided with a period of good marine survival.

With continued low harvests of wild steelhead in the 90s, the populations fell again. With additional harvest restrictions, the populations remain depressed and have not shown the kind of rebound that occurred in the 80s. That has to be habitat, either freshwater or marine, or a combination of both.

With freshwater harvests not being statistically different from zero, wild steelhead recovery options are limited to treatments of the other "Hs". Hydro, hatcheries, and habitat.

Hydro is pretty limited in Puget Sound, but we'll be taking a new look at it to see if residual continuing impacts are significant and if they can be meaningfully reduced.

Hatchery steelhead are stocked in most PS river systems, and there's a lot to look at, altho I don't expect it to be popular since our remaining steelhead fishing is mostly dependent on these fish. Some analyses suggest that high hatchery smolt stocking rates are correlated with reduced wild run sizes. This is hotly debated among some, with personal professional judgements tending to fall along ideological lines.

Habitat - well, it is what it is. It's what we have left. There's lots of room for improvement, but we can't even agree on the most sensible policies such as saving the best of what is left. We require ourselves to spread habitat investments around all political districts, regardless of recovery potential or the intrinsic value of the habitat remaining therein. I sincerely hope we'll get some habitat money to investigate what appears to be the early marine limit on PS steelhead. At this point we don't even know if it's something we could "fix" or at least improve, or if it's something that we just have to accept as one of those things we can do nothing about.

One thing's for sure, if NOAA-F approves a PS steelhead recovery plan along the lines of the PS chinook recovery plan, all I can say is, enjoy what's left while it lasts. Instead of top down rule, the PS chinook plan is grassroots, which is politically popular, but history demonstrates has the least likely chance of succeeding. The PS Shared Strategy has defined RERs (rebuilding exploitation rates) in the north sound where the best habitat and existing wild chinook runs are that are low enough that runs will actually recover if habitat doesn't get much worse and pre-WA interceptions don't increase. However, the Green, Puyallup, Nisqually, and Skokomish (homes to major hatchery production) don't even pretend to recover wild chinook as the ESA would direct. The RERs are so high that even a pristine wild chinook population would be driven over the brink. Only hatchery populations can survive the projected harvest rates. And NOAA-F approved this plan.

I think I've digressed too much here. The take home message is that steelhead will rebound from over-harvest pretty readily, with potential exceptions where populations may have been so badly over-harvested that they're below the threshold of recovery in time frames we know how to analyize (think Hood Canal here). And then there's the Nisqually, where we just flat don't know.

Time for a drink.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Todd:
Although you make good points, I have to take exception with your point that "none" are being over harvested.
I thought you were a Skagit fisherman? I have never seen a year including the last one where the Indians were not taking huge by catch of Steelhead and Kings during the Coho fishery in the lower river. I have fished the Skagit for over 40 years and it is a crime what goes on on that river as well as the Green, Puyallup, Nisqually, Ship Canal (not anymore, no fish and don't blame it all on the sea Lions), Snohomish system and many others all because we have takne the position that "we cannot do anything about the Indians" so lets ignour it and blame everything else.

You can throw all the statistics you want, but the basic history will tell you that one user group has had free rein on our State resource and has not managed their responsabilities, just allowed over harvest and done nothing about it.

We all agree, logging has hurt many systems, and we have stopped or critically hurt the business model.

We all agree that non-Indian harvest takes a toll all up and down the coast, and most management areas are cutting back, including Alaska, maybe not fast enough, but at least they admit it is an issue. The Columbia system is over fished because of a great power the Commercials have over our State leaders.

We all agree that hatcheries are not the best way to stock, although there have been many success stories going back 30 years. The State has screwed those up.

Until the protection goes to a point of total closure and ALL user groups are kicked off of these systems, the Steelhead will continue to suffer.