Just thought I'd pass along the note I sent off today. Thanks for all those that have filled out form letter ... to those using individual emails (preferred), feel free to pass along ideas from this letter!

Dear Commission Members and Governor Locke:

I am writing to you for voice my support for option #1 in your upcoming meetings; that is, the requirement of no retention of wild steelhead stocks in all state waters.

I am a full-time fishing guide living on the Sol Duc River in the town of Forks. I have run guided trips on the Sol Duc, Bogachiel, Calawah, Quillayute, and Hoh Rivers for roughly ten years. These streams are five of the roughly fifteen streams left in Washington State that are considered "healthy enough" to allow retention of wild steelhead during the winter months.

Twenty years ago, there were nearly ten times that number of streams in Washington State that were considered "healthy enough" to allow harvest of wild steelhead.

Many of these one hundred plus streams that allowed harvest are now closed to all fishing targeting wild steelhead, in some other instances, limited catch-and-release (C&R) seasons have been allowed.

In either case, returns of wild steelhead have shown sharp decline in these streams from their historic levels. It would be easy to point a finger in a number of different directions pinpointing the cause of these declines. Some of these causes are well-documented, others are still a mystery.

The steps we must take to restore the depleted runs and guarantee the future health of those few remaining watersheds that still have viable runs are numerous. However, this coming week-end, you will be voting on one of the largest, yet easiest and most economically feasible steps for the state and its anglers to take in assuring the health of these fabled gamefish: the cessation of harvest of wild steelhead.

An issue not often brought up, but one that I believes some consideration is the impact of catch-and-kill fisheries to the genetics of our wild steelhead. Routinely, the largest members of the population are those that undergo harvest, throwing Mother Nature's genetic diversity out of whack resulting in a decrease of fishery quality. Steelhead also show the unique trait of our anadramous salmonids in their capability of repeat spawning. These repeat spawners are one of the most important members of the steelhead spawning population both in their resiliency and fecundicity. It is a documented fact that these repeat spawners usually spawn lower in the river systems than their counterparts and as such undergo a higher-than-normal degree of harvest than those fish spawning further upriver in areas that currently are closed to harvest. C&R regulations would help to ensure these fish would stand an equal chance of spawning as Mother Nature intended.

Opponents of this proposal typically present four arguments against the proposal, and I know that some Commission members also share these concerns. As a business owner and avid angler, I would like to address each of these four concerns:

1) "WDFW models state the remaining streams have excess fish available for harvest". In the instances of streams remaining open to harvest, the models do say that. However, the models in use in Washington State have long been criticized for their failure to take into account a number of environmental and socio-economic factors affecting both the fish and those anglers pursuing the fish. I say we look to the past history, especially in the last 25 years of steelhead returns across the state and watch runs decline almost to extinction in some cases under the very same models that say these few streams remain healthy. Obviously, somewhere along the line, the models have failed us. I find it interesting to note that the last stream in the state, the Humptulips, to allow a three-fish limit, now has dismal steelhead runs and must undergo a complete closure to angling throughout the months of March and April. I urge you to put the welfare of the fish first and if there is some degree of error, please put it in favor of the fish.

2) "The tribes will pursue forgone opportunity". As a guide and angler who has spent countless hours in recent years working for the welfare of wild steelhead, the last thing I would like to see is more fish in the nets. However, there is no proof that this will be the case. Should this issue arise, I do know there are several groups willing to step up to the plate to challenge this issue. I have also heard the State Attorney General's Office has stated that it too would pursue the sportsman's right to do what we wish with our share of the fish: in this case, placing them on the spawning beds. I also believe that the state will never have any firm ground to stand on in negotiations with Treaty Tribes to reduce their netting when necessary until we have done our part to help protect the fish. Someone needs to take the first step, and this is our opportunity to do it.
3) "Anglers wishing to harvest steelhead will no longer have that option". In some streams not augmented by hatchery plants, that is true. However, most steelhead streams open to retention of wild fish also are home to hatchery-reared steelhead and this regulation would only impact these anglers for a couple of months out of the year when hatchery steelhead are not present. There exists plenty of opportunity throughout the early and mid-season to "fill the freezer" without allowing harvest of wild fish.

4) "Communities in areas that currently allow wild steelhead harvest will suffer economic impacts if retention of wild fish is taken away." I strongly disagree with this claim. My guide service's policy since its inception has been to require the release of all wild steelhead on our boats. We currently have one of the largest operations in the Forks area and only one or two inquiries a year choose to call other operations when informed of our policy. Plain-and-simple, people will still fish. There may be some short-term losses to a small number of operators that rely solely upon catch-and-kill trips and the trickle-down to other businesses. However, I believe in the long term, these towns will reap the benefits of quality fisheries that anglers are willing to spend lots of money to participate in.

I spend six weeks every fall in the Skeena watershed of British Columbia chasing steelhead during my vacation. These rivers were long open to kill for many decades, but have been under C&R regulations for nearly two decades now and as the runs have rebounded, anglers flock to the region from all corners of the world to spend enormous sums of money (upwards of $7-10,000 a week in some cases) to catch fish and release them. I personally see how quality fisheries can spell an economic boom to communities very similar to towns such as my hometown, Forks, without the presence of a kill fishery.

I think it is also important to note that a good percentage of the opponents to this proposed regulation have never seen these areas first-hand to observe the positive impacts healthy runs will have.

I also think it is important to note the damage that would occur to towns such as Forks should fishing have to be totally suspended down the road ... which I believe will eventually happen if protective measures are not taken. Many businesses suffered great losses in recent years with the complete closures of fisheries in drainages of the Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish systems. Should the town of Forks suffer this same fate, it would be an economic disaster.

The impact and fear of fishery closures strikes a little closer to Forks every year. The recent closures to the Queets River drainages will mean the loss of many thousands of dollars to guides and businesses in that area and will negatively impact the angling experience in nearby areas by forcing more and more anglers into fewer stretches of water that remain "healthy".
Nearly 75 years ago, the State of Washington had enough foresight to close commercial fisheries for steelhead. This weekend, you have the chance to make such a historic step in protecting these fish by voting for option #1 requiring sports anglers to help protect the stocks as well. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of option #1 and help protect the fish as well as our angling future.

I thank you for considering my thoughts on this issue.

Respectfully,

Bob Ball
Bob's Piscatorial Pursuits
Alaska & Washington Salmon, Steelhead, and Halibut Fishing
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com