It has come to my attention that as of this Spring there is a good possibility that both the Snohomish and Stilly systems will be closed down under an emergency closure during March and April ending are catch & release seasons. If this closure goes through are biggest concern should be whether or not we will ever get these seasons back. This closure would affect more than just the Sky and Stilly fishermen it would greatly affect the amount of traffic on the Sauk, Skagit, and Forks area Rivers that are already over crowded. If you feel this emergency closure is not right e-mail or call the Biologist at the Mill Creek office and contact the fish and wildlife commision for they have the final decision on this matter.

Where did you get this info? I hope it's not true, but if it is, we need to find out why. My basic impression is that while hatchery stocks have fluctuated wildly over the past 10 years, the wild (March/April) fish populations have been relatively stable and healthy in the Puget Sound rivers. Any more information any of you may have on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

from my inside sources-it is true. the past few years they have not achieved the native escapement that they need on these two systems.

------------------


[This message has been edited by RPetzold (edited 11-14-2000).]

RPetzold is correct the word from the Bio is that they have not met spawning levels in a few years on both these systems, Yet they allow a kill fishery through feb. that took an estimated 300 wild fish last spring from the Snohomish system.

[This message has been edited by jg (edited 11-14-2000).]

I sit here in shock. That the native spawning returns are low, I can believe. That they are considering closing off the catch and release while keeping a catch and kill native fishery I find un****ing believeable!!! Curious to see the numbers they are basing these decisions on as well. As many of you are aware, the nates didn't show in good numbers last year until the last week of April. Were the collection methods designed to measure bunched arrivals or are they based on a sampling methodology? I'm sure I will have more thoughts on this once I overcome the shock of hearing that a river I spend 60-70 days a year on might be closed. Go figure.

That was my first thought, jg. If they're so concerned how can they allow a killing season on nates in these rivers?

I should have also stated that with this closure would also come the c&r of wild Fish through the month of February to protect all wild steelhead. My complaint is would we have met spawning levels if these early fish had not been harvasted.

jg

Well, Rather than asking why and complaining on the board about I challenge everyone on the board and your buddies to start writing letters and e-mails. If the runs are truely that low, I guess I would support it, but if they are still allowing a kill fishery early in the season, like the they have been, and tribal netting is not curtailed than I have a big problem with it. My letter is in the mail.

After reading this, I had to get on the horn and call some of my inside sources. There will be an emergency closure on all "wild" steelies in at least the Snohomish system starting December 1. No tears over that one, here! Don't stress over a kill fishery this year, it just ain't gonna happen. Now, as Joe stated, the C&R season is looking like it is not going to happen either but no decisions about March & April just yet. Right now the bio's are going off of spawning escapements from the last several seasons. This can be a factor in determining run size but it isn't everything. Remember how they closed the Snohomish Coho season and then it mysteriously opened up? Sometimes you just have to play it safe and see what happens. We have time to fight this one out and keep the C&R season.

Justin
CEO, Sauk River Steelhead Ranch




[This message has been edited by SAUKit2em (edited 11-14-2000).]

My opinion is: I am happy that there is not going to be a kill season for native steelies. It sucks about the C&R thing though. Tight Lines.
Ct

My friggin dog can predict run size better than the Bios, these jokers have no idea. Please, timing is everything on these runs. Every run from sockeye to Chum this year was way off from the predictions. If we get an early shot of fish, all the bios shoot their wad all over themselves and claim we will have a record run. Well, as it turns out that early shot was it and they end up with %^&* on their faces. I bet this years Wild Steelhead run is fantastic. LAst years stunk it up.

Catch and Release all Wild Fish Statewide!!!

It's a huge run!.............test fisheries have been hammering them and the run won't peak for another 3 weeks...........bring on the nets and sporties!............wait!........no more fish are coming in...........quick, close it down before someone catches the last fish!

Hey guys, here is the link to Mill Creek branch. I sent my fax with my concerns to them yesterday. I implore all of you to do the same. Its a real simple issue. They have let a catch and kill fishery exist, and now the escapement numbers are not looking good. Its call GROSS MISMANAGEMENT!
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/reg/region4.htm

Just got off the phone with Curt Kraemer (sp?) himself, and the word is that there will be no March/April season in 2001 on the Snohomish or Stilly. Period. The decision has been made and it will be signed into law early next week. He also said that since there is no way to do an "in-season" assessment, there is no chance of a last minute opener. No word on the Skagit/Sauk system yet. According to Curt, the projected run size is based on low returns the last two years, and poor stream conditions for smolts on the returning 2 and 3 salt fish. I guess they're taking a "better safe than sorry" approach, which we should support, but it is a little hard to swallow after allowing a catch and kill policy through February the last couple years--when numbers were down. Their goal is 6500 fish in the Snohomish system, and last year they only had 2800. Of course, the run-size assessment could be flawed, but since it is the same year to year, relative to the target number, it was a lousy year. In our conversation, he explained how there survey works, and I can explain this in detail if anybody cares, but I won't go into it here. As somebody above asked, it does take into account run groupings and last year's late push. Man, am I bummed. On the positive side, he did seem to feel that if the run is better than expected, we will get this fishery back--just not this year. Still don't know what I will do with those extra 40 days I will now have in March and April.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That is, allowing a kill fishery the last several years on weak populations doesn't justify allowing incidental mortality (via C&R) on a weak run this season. Or incidental mortality during a fishery targeting the hatchery run.

Having said that, I share your concern about closing the C&R fishery on one or two systems, thereby increasing the pressure - and incidental mortality - on the rivers that remain open. I'm also concerned about narrow views of conservation.

The issue would seem to hinge on predictability and risk. Oh, yeah, and policy, which may, or may not, be well informed.

About predictability, how does wild steelhead run size correlate with brood year escapements? From what I've seen of data, run sizes only correlate to brood year escapements when escapements are extremely low, likely below some critical threshold that reasonably seeds a system with fry. Escapements well below the official escapement goals have produced excellent returns, and high escapements have produced low returns. This is one reason, I think, why the Skagit tribes don't agree with WDFW's escapement goal.

Steelhead run sizes are a product of much more than brood year escapement. Freshwater rearing conditions and ocean survival are as important an indicator as escapement of run size. These are significant variables. The 90s generally saw low ocean survival coupled with either flood or drought or both, which depressed those runs. Ocean survival is increasing this past year or so.

Further, this year's 4 year olds experienced no floods or droughts. Five year fish would have experienced the Feb. 96 flood. It is important to note that flood effects don't correlate nearly so well for steelhead as salmon. (Spring vs. fall spawners. Juvenile steelhead are relatively safe if they find flood refuge.)

My thought is that 2 of 3 significant indicators of run size point to increased production over the last decade. I don't know what the brood year escapements were, so I can't comment on that variable.

After considering predictability comes risk assessment. What is at risk? The risk of not meeting the escapement goal. Just what is the escapement goal a measure of? If it is a measure of the number of spawners, on average, that is required to maximize production or harvestable surplus, on average; do the availbable data support that declaration? I doubt it. Escapement goals for steelhead have been set either arbitrarily or through composite habitat parr productivity estimates. I don't think any steelhead escapement goals have been set through spawner-recruit analysis, which is the only method that empirically supports its conclusions. However, I digress; S-R MSY/MSH analysis usually picks escapement goals that maximize short term harvest that is not sustainable over the long term because the environment changes and long term data don't exist.

What I'm trying to get at regarding the steelhead escapement goal, is that it doesn't deserve its high regard given how it was developed. And it is important only because the managers and many of the constituents (anglers) are incredibly devoted to killing as many wild steelhead as possible every year.

The state has choices. They say they must implement the legislative mandate of "preserve, protect, perpetuate, . . . allow utilization . . ." like there isn't much choice. Preserve, protect, perpetuate seem clear as my favorite stream. And the state has done these so well that several steelhead stocks are now ESA listed. As for utilization, we know there is more than one way to utilize. Killing wild steelhead might be a traditional use, but that doesn't inherently make it the highest and best use under contemporary social values and conservation circumstances. The only choice the state has no voice in is meeting treaty fishing obligations. Fine, the state and we are not obligated to hold that same value. We are free to choose differently for the non-treaty share of the resource.

We could choose to exercise a high degree of preserve, protect, and perpetuate and offer extensive utilization in the form of recreational opportunity via C&R fishing seasons. We could ask for the application of some common sense in this judgement. For instance, the Deer Creek summer steelhead population would qualify for ESA listing if it were its own ESU. Yet anglers C&R fish for them all summer and fall year after year on the Stilly because there is a wild steelhead release regulation. And this is an under-escaped population. Would a ban on fishing on the Stilly year round improve the Deer Creek population? No, not really. A handful of fish that are lost to incidental mortality would survive to spawn. And that would be good, but it wouldn't make a significant difference ecologically. The reason is that the Deer Creek population will recover at about the same rate as its horribly degraded habitat recovers.

So what are the risks of allowing the customary C&R season? If the risk is that the escapement goal may not be met again, but that the steelhead productivity is about as good as it is going to be under extant environmental conditions, then what purpose of regional ecology and conservation and contemporary social value is served by closing the C&R season on the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River systems?

And if by chance there is some redeeming biological value, then how can we justify allowing incidental mortality of wild steelhead during the hatchery target season and closing the March-April C&R season. Surely an early season wild steelhead is as valuable (in the form of diversity) as a late run fish to the population as a whole. Making a decision to allow the hatchery season with a wild fish release regulation is an arbitrary determination that the early season wild steelhead is more expendable than his later running brethren. Simple biology and genetics rejects that argument - Patooey!!

I hate to seem to be arguing against conservation. I prefer to think of myself as more a conservatinist than self-centered angler. But I just can't help but think this proposed closure is based on a rather narrow view of biology, escapement goal concepts, incidental mortality, and conservation.

Thank you for tolerating my rant. Perhaps some of this will be useful to you as you prepare your own arguments to Region 4 and the WDFW Commission.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g--thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post. I'm also concerned about the policies and politics involved here, as well as my personal loss of the fishery. I think it's clear based on history that the WDFW's mandate is to find "harvestable" numbers wherever and whenever they can--even if it results in emergency closures and the "oops" syndrome. It's also apparant that they are determined to separate the hatchery and wild returns by callendar, thereby making the two runs easier to manage. Why else have they allowed a systematic destruction of the already depressed early wild fish on the Snohomish system? For some reason in this state "healthy" runs translate into "good let's kill some fish." As we now see on the Penninsula rivers, they continue to allow a harvest of "surplus" fish. The fact is, there is no "surplus" in the natural order of wild fish population, and certainly not now in this age of habitat destruction, development and increased pressure. The true value of these fish, as you say, lies in the only sustainable fishery we have--catch and release. I would be curious to know what the incidental mortality rate is in a well-enforced C & R--it must be significant if it's worth closing the season for. Anyway, we could go on and on about run assessment methodology and the very notion of escapement goals, but my question is, who's listening? According to Mr. Kraemer, we are free to contact the commission before this is formalized, but he didn't think it would do any good. Salmo g., I hope you can send your excellent arguments to the powers that be, and I will be interested to hear what they say. If there's anything you think I, or any of us can do, let me know. Good luck.

ya think da indians will stil be netting? Ahhh, I betcha they will. Those gill nets sure are selective.

What a friggin Joke!!!!!

Good point, salmontackler.
Skookum, did you ask the WDFW biologist if nets are going to be allowed on those systems?

Low numbers of fish is one thing, bad enough having kill seasons on wild fish in the past and the last sentence really bugs me.

Taken from last sentence of Curt Kraemer's letter in the previous post by Gusty:

"As with the tribal seasons the expect impacts on the wild stocks will be less than 5%."

Yeah F%#&*$! right!!!

Salmo,
Perhaps this should be under a separate topic, but some of the points you make apply.
The Fish and Game Commission will not be taking public testimony on catch-and-release of all wild steelhead at the December meeting as I had been previously informed. They are, however, putting together a public meeting in the early spring which will address that and associated topics. As I understand it, the purpose of the meeting is to put the best current information on the table and on the record concerning the actual productive capacity of watersheds, catch-and-release mortality of mature steelhead, and the benefits of year-round, statewide catch-and-release of wild steelhead. I gather that an independant panel of fish biologists and fisheries scientists have been invited to contribute.
It's still in the planning stages, but I think that, with the current composition of the commission, catch-and-release of wild steelhead will be presented in a favorable light. I do have some (perhaps foolish) hope that this may signal a turnaround in today's management policies, and with the current forecasts for this winter's steelhead returns (at least for Puget Sound rivers) in the toilet, I only hope we aren't ten years too late. I'll pass along any further information as it becomes available.

Well, fellas, it just keeps gettin' better. I just heard from Mr. Kraemer again, and he confirmed that the closure will apply to the Skagit/Sauk system as well. If nothing else, this should point out the fragility of our wild stocks (so fragile they can't withstand a C & R fishery, according to the State) and make any catch and kill allowed seem ridiculous. As of now, I'm in a quandry--if the assessment is correct, I think we can do without a season to ensure the health of our runs. However, if the methodology is flawed, and the reported improvements in ocean survival actually make for a good run, I will be upset to miss the season. And for all the guides and shops, well, it's going to be extremely tough to swallow. I'm wondering if we (or they) can use the 2-salt hatchery fish as an indicator of ocean survival and base the closure or opening on that. If, as many fisheries biologists believe, the ocean turned to favorable conditions starting with the 2-salt fish returning this year, and as Salmo g. stated that outgoing smolt counts are a poor basis for returning adult numbers, the hatchery run this winter should be good indication of how the wild fish fared. Anybody?

This is a topic of great importance to me as a guide on the Skagit and Sauk. Talked with Pete Castle, Skagit area biologist, late this afternoon to get the word on the rivers in my neck of the woods. It is true! This is what is proposed....PROPOSED!!! Not yet passed. Going in front of the state on Fri.
Skagit/ Sauk river system; Dec. 1st wild release. "Great!!! I'm all for that!!!" Wish it wasn't open for killing at all on the nates. As of March 1st both the Skagit and Sauk will be closed to ALL fishing.
This greatly affects my business as well as all the other business' in this area, as the Skagit brings fly fisherman from all over the world in April.
Yes, the Indians will be netting still and No, there is nothing anyone can do about it. It shouldn't even be worth waisting your energy on. What we need to do is let our voices be heard in Olympia before it goes through. Hell YES!!!! Make it C&R always on the Native run. But let us anglers at least fish for the fish we fall asleep each night dreaming about.
They did this to us once before in 92 guys, lets not let it happen again.
If its for the fish GREAT!!! But the state still cannot produce a definative study on hook mortality that shows we as anglers are wiping these fish out. Pete Castle even confirmed this for me today, stating that some studies showed as much as a 30% mortality rate while others showed only a 3% mortality rate.
B.B. we need a phone # here posted by you to let us know who and where to call in Olympia.
I'm sure this will be a hot topic in the forum board here for quite some time, as well as my chat room. Just wanted to post what I heard on the Skagit and Sauk.
Thanks Guys!!! J---<")(\(\)>{

Oh Really Big One (sir Bob),

Could you weigh in on these issues. I need to hear from someone with a lot more knowledge than I have. From my previous post, what do you make of the situation? Are ocean conditions really whats causing this? What the heck is going on?

Thank you sir, Gusty

Wll I guess come March everyone will be stocking up on power bait and bobbers Or we can all join Bob over on the Fork's area rivers. We could set up caravans...
But seriously, one thing that may be overlooked in this whole mess is the amount of pressure that will be transfered over to the Fork's area rivers and the SW Wa. area rivers such as the Kalaman and EF Lewis.

Well whos up for the March 1st opener on Dry Falls????

Why the hell has WDFW allowed a kill fishery from Dec. 1 through feb on Native steelies?? WHY!!!!!!!! Salmo g. stated that they want to "weed out" early returning nates from later arriving nates to seperate hatchery from wild. What a bunch of crap! You know what pisses me off even more! Its Triangle store, Jerry's, and other places having "fishing derbies" that run into the native run so some beligerant slob can get his picture in the paper.

We need CNR statewide! Thats the bottom line. Dont buy the "surplus" b.s. There is no such thing as a surplus steelhead.

Looks like we'll have to bite the bullet and let the grey ghost we all know and love to have the river to himself and hopefully build a future for us later on.

sorry guys for rambling on like a two year old.

- BW

p.s how do they count fish to get an escapement? Sonar? Divers?

=)

I have fished the Sky for over 30 years. The last several years I have caught about half and half....nates to hatchery fish. Releasing the nates of course. Early in the season I was catching mostly nates when I should have been catching mostly hatchery. The big change I see is that there are no longer any fish checkers to report how the catch is going. Since the big cuts in funding I have never been asked about my catch and that was almost a daily thing before the cuts.
My point being...how the heck does the WDFW know what is going on when they have even less tools than they had in the past?

This makes me sick. I thought there was a provision in the Boldt decision that allowed states to step in and disallow native netting for conservation purposes.

I've been reluctant to jump on the "WDFW sucks" band wagon in the past but in this case it looks like they have mismanaged themselves into a corner.

I'm not arguing with the closure of the season but to allow native netting is ridiculous. WDFW lacks the balls to do what's right in this situation and they lack the brains and/or the integrity to admit their contributions to this problem.

Pointing the finger isnt gonna help a bit guys, we gotta stop trying to place the blame and put the fish first. What can we do NOW to prevent this closure and implement a permanent C&R reg on all native steelies. We also need to implement a C&R guidline on our fishery such as "No removing the fish from the water...not even for a picture". They close it on us now, will this be permanent or another 1992. Will it be like the hound ban on cougars. Whats next???? We need to call Olympia and have our voices heard!!! "Pish and Blame" doesnt know all the facts, they are not on the river daily like we are, and they have no definative proof on hook mortality rates using C&R techniques. Let your voice be heard on this guys. Could be your fishing rods that are voted on next as in-humane. J---<")(\(\(\)>{

Does Mr. Kraemer of region 4 speak with Mr. Gibbons in Olympia? Last winter Gibbons presented a long slideshow for the commission wherein he championed a return of a kill fishery for wild steelhead on the penninsula because "excess fish" should be harvested in spite of the popularity of c&r on wild fish. Washington Trout challenged his management theory in a 3 page letter which I believe is still not answered. What's next, closure of the rivers around Forks?

I just cant believe what I am reading here, low escapements for the past two years, not curtailing the kill season through feb each year knowing these facts?? they say they need 650 nates for escapement and only got 2800?? how in the hell do they know they only got 2800?? did they go out an physicaly count each and every redd and spawning pair of steelhead for the three to four months those fish are in the river?? there is much untold here, and one hell of alot of smoke and mirrors on the WDFW's part. if the truth were known, they realy dont have any ideas of how many native steelhead spawned in the last two years, my guess is they will all end up like the samammish river native steelhead......they will study them into extinction!!!

Tight lines

meant to be 6500 for the escapement number, sorry for the typo.

I am surprized that they don't suggest that they build damns on all your rivers so that they can count the "wild " fish as they go up the "fish ladders" and that way decide if you can fish or not... The catch and keep wild steelhead seasons are insane. Sad part of it all is that its just the tip of the iceberg.

This is bunch of Freaking Bull $hit....Allowing netting at anytime of the run is counter productive,because 1st they can't predict $hit,if the numbers are as low as they say then pull all the nets!because we all know the nates are always mixed in with the brats during the first runs,
and of course my Labrador can count just as good as they do Time to organize and be heard.

Every spring I drive over the Nisqually and know that there are wild brutes cruising these waters and no one gets to fish for them,I'd hate see this happen again.
Enough is Enough.........Os


------------------
Row Quietly and fish a Cataraft }<<(('>----<'))>>{
Release all Wild Fish

Hopefully this can help answer some of the questions out there. I agree that pointing fingers isn't going to help our cause here. As for methodology on run assessment, while some of the factors (such as smolt counts as indicators of returns, and basing return projections on the last two year's returns) are faulty at best, the counting of fish appears to use the same method year to year, and while the number "6500" may not be an accurate number, at least the methods used to reach numbers like "2800" are the same and in relative terms, reasonably accurate. On the Skykomish, their counts are based on aerial survey of the main river and a combination of walking and floating the tributaries. These counts are based on a time period from early March well into May. In other words, they aren't counting every single fish, but they do get a pretty good indication of the run size relative to other years. Also, where tribal netting is concerned, the Tulalips (as I understand it) have voluntrarily cut six weeks of this winter's season (in Jan/Feb) to reduce wild fish take. I list these above points not to make excuses for any party, but to help us sport fisherman focus our arguments in places where we can be most effective. Also, as long as a certain percentage of us (sportfisherman) continue to be extremely opposed to C & R, the powers that be will view us as a divided and disorganized constituency. As I've heard from the fisheries management people, "Hey, you guys have to work out the problems within your community on your own." I personally am crushed by the closure, and am wondering what to do--I hope someone on this board has some suggestions. My sympathies also go out to all the guides and shops that make a living on our March/April fishery--while I spend 40-50 days on the river during this time, it's purely recreational. Anyway, I don't think anybody is out to screw us, they're just doing what they think is best for the fish. We may not agree with the reasons they have for closing it, and maybe we can find some compelling arguments for keeping it open (such as an extremely robust return of hatchery 2-salts this year, indicating improved ocean conditions, or the tiny amount of incidental mortality in C & R, or the financial importance of this fishery to guides and shops, etc...), but I'm pretty sure pointing fingers and blame isn't going to get us anywhere. Hope this helps, and as I said, anybody with ideas, please post or e-mail me. Thanks.

Well said Skookum.

This is purely my opinion and nothing else. I have no background in this thing and have no scientific evidence to back up anything. It is my understanding that the bulk of the nates are in the river and sitting either on possible spawning grounds or are actively sitting on redds during the normal c&r season on the Sky. I also understand that at that same time most of the brats are in the hatchery or are attempting to spawn naturally. Based on that info one could presume/assume that during the mar/apr c&r season it will/is a targeted fishery directed at the nates. All you need to do to confirm this is look at STS, F&H News, the Everett Herald for all the stories about the BIG NATES that are just waiting to be caught! We can't have it both ways folks. I love to fish steelies(don't catch many) as much as the next person but if the numbers aren't there we must err on the side of safety. For the sake of the fish. This is not saying we are to just roll over and let WDFW put the bone to us. We need as a group with one voice to keep WDFW's nose to the grindstone for answers as to why they, knowing there were escapement issues, have allowed a kill fishery the last couple of years! I personally would support a year round wild steelie release. As far as the guides go. Nail the state for disaster relief just like they do for the commercials every year. I do think that c&r is a viable management option in some instances as long as there is proper angler education to minimize impact/mortality on these fish. But again if the numbers don't support the fishery we have to leave them alone.

Lots of discussion and that's great, but it's a done deal. Just got off the phone with Pete Castle and he said the director signed on the dotted line on Tuesday. It will be announced to the media on November 20th. Time to switch gears. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Switch gears to what? Keep the momentum going, Release all wild fish statewide!!!

Check the FYI Statewide Steelhead Sign UP Post I made.

Skookum, You're right, pointing fingers isn't going to solve anything, but I think it's important to have a good idea of how this situation came about. It is important to know where someone is coming from in order to assess the sincerity of his words.

I disagree with your comment that WDFW is trying to do what's best for the fish. Their past management strategy of promoting kill fisheries on these declining stocks is my proof. I think they're trying to save their butts on this one.

I have to agree with Stinkfoot. WDF&W seems to live in fear that somewhere-someplace a wild fish will somehow manage to die of old age. Last year's relaxing of c&r on the penninsula rivers was driven by the department over the strong objection of the guide's assn, the Forks C of C and about everyone else. For my part, I am writing the Eagle's Nest Motel in Concrete and several other places of business and telling them exactly why my room will be empty this April.

Has anyone figured out how the department has attempted to manage sport fishing in this state for about 100 years and still has not conducted a c&r mortality study?

The key word in my statement is that they are doing what they THINK is best for the fish, and from the fishes perspective, certainly no fishing at all is best. After long conversations with the biologists, I really do believe they are trying to maintain a healthy population of fish. As for the past (and continued) catch and kill on wild fish around the state, well, I can only say that it's disappointing and in my mind, wrong. But the political pressure to maintain a kill policy is extremely powerful in this state. While a majority of us on this board may support a statewide catch and release, you might be surprised at the strength and number of very vocal kill supporters. In fact, a large number of callers to the WDFW are against any special C & R seasons. I think that until the sportfishing community can stand as a more unified group on this issue, we may be forced into no fishing at all in some cases. Perhaps this latest closure can, as mentioned above get some more momentum behind a statewide C & R policy. Yes, I'm mad about what's going on, and what has happened in the past, but what I want to do is figure out how we can improve things for the future. Why some people would rather kill wild steelhead or not fish at all is beyond me, and with the population increase, development and stream habitat degradation going on around here, we have to get together on the concept of C & R. In the mean time, I'm staying away from tall buildings and have hidden all the sharp objects around the house. Somehow, casting my two-hander at bedding bluegills just doesn't get me excited for spring. I know people out there are upset, and probably none more than me, but hopefully we can at least try to make lemonade out of these very sour lemons we've been given. Peace.

Skookum, You saved me about an hour of painsaking typing, well said. WE should stop crying and work as a GROUP to change the biologists methology,what they have decided is best for the nates.

------------------
would the boy you were be proud of the man you are

Skookum, I sure don't think you're a WDFW shill and I admire your ability to keep a level head in this discussion. I am extremely frustrated and disgusted by the situation and by what I see as WDFW's unwillingness to admit their contribution to this problem. I don't think that's just a matter of finger pointing, either. A restoration plan that doesn't at least adknowledge all causes of mortality is incomplete.
I just hope that oly pen fish managers are ready for the increased pressure their fish populations will face this year!

Stinkfoot,I couldnt have said it any better.It is not about pointing fingers its about holding these people in positions of power accountable for there actions.I am sick and tired of rolling over without a fight, curt kramer thinks and acts like he is god some of the decisions he makes behind closed doors makes me sick.Kent at Teds told me last night that the Really big one(Bob)is trying to hire an Attorney.If nothing else it lets these people know we are not going to take this any more.The only reason they have allowed a kill fishery on nates is so the tribes and state could justify a net fishery.

Please see my post under the second portion of this thread regarding my thoughts and ideas

Les Johnson,

Not sure why you reposted my blurb from earlier in the week. I see you are new to the board and might have done it by accident in trying to respond to it. If so, please try again. If you are THE Les Johnson, I sure want to hear what you have to say. In fairness, my original post was files under the premise they were keeping the catch and kill. This we are now hearing is false. At least they got that part right, just too little too late.

Still in shock -- Sinktip