reg changes

I just got word that the proposed reg changes allowing the retention of more wild steelhead
are going to pass. Apparently the biologist out there presented a strong case, and since the commentary period was over the major response has been to change the regs. The decision is supposed to be announced an the 4th of Feb. Not much time to raise a stink left.

Any word on which portions passed for the Hoh. Will these changes occur during this season after the rule change or will they wait until next year?

I attended the commission workshop in Olympia last week and heard WDF&W biologist Bob Gibbons present a long color-slide show in which he claimed that we have a large excess of wild steelhead on the penninsula and that they should be harvested. He further stated that increased harvest on wild fish is in keeping with the Wild Salmonoid Policy. He is using 16 year old escapement data and a 5 year old "angler survey" to justify the department position. It was disgusting. But don't give up, at least 4 commissioners know that catch and release is alive and well and that support for wild release is increasing. I believe that both the guide's assn. and the Forks chamber of commerce are on written record opposing increased wild kill.

ctflyfish, what do you mean that Bob Gibbons was using 16 year old escapement data?

Bob,
Where do I send a check to help you guys sue the incompetent *******s? I didn't give $ to 696 because I'm a non-resident and bitch like hell about all the $ that comes up from the United States to influence the decisions on our fisheries. But this is different. Please let us know when you decide to sue.

i really wish i could figure out what the state is trying to do and what it's goals are. are they purposely trying to knock our wild fish runs down? and why?

the other thing that bothers me if this proposal is implemented is why even bother to have public comment on decisions the department makes. at the public testimony in vancouver, it was over 2 to 1 against increasing the kill (and nobody from the olympic peninsula testified on behalf of increasing the kill, only I-5 corridor guys), and i've heard the written testimony was even more heavily weighted against these proposals. i can understand dismissing the public if the public wants to destroy a resource... but the testimony just wants the state to continue to protect wild fish on these rivers.

sounds to me like since shanks was fired, everybody in WDFW has reverted to old form, and the resource is solely for those who prefer to harvest fish, and the actual resource isn't given any weight over special interests. the biologists just can't seem to figure out that the models they use have been responsible for much of the failure of anadramous fish runs in washington. how many more failures must they cause before they get a clue?

if the kill limits are restored to their pre-current regs level, it will take a herculean effort to ever get back to the regs we now have. remember how hard it was to get these regs in place initially... it was a tough fight, but at least the department then had some brave souls on the commission who actually listened to the public who wanted more protection for wild fish. now, our voices have been muffled by a department who seems content to do nothing tangible in regards to saving our salmon and steelhead runs.

i'd like to ask bob gibbons how he can say the quillayute and other north coast rivers are healthy. are they healthier than other rivers in this state, yes... but the historically largest segment of the total winter-run population is in serious bad shape (the early-timed fish). i wish the department would listen to the old guys who truly know what these rivers once had and laugh at the notion of these rivers presently being "healthy".

if the proposal passes, all the hard work of people like bob and his e-mail letters and numerous others will have been wasted, not because we were a minority position, but because public comment is meaningless at WDFW.

chris

Your absolutley right Chris. The WDFW feels that sport-fisherman's input or ideas, in most cases, IS meaningless. Very rarely do they listen, and when the WDFW has an agenda, it's going in one direction and one direction ONLY, straight ahead.

The WDF never has listened to sportsman. Their information and projections are not reliable, yet the state continues to pay them high salaries and benefits at the expense of the fishery resources.

I believe the word best describing them is "ARROGANT".

Note: these are the same people who are planning to charge us an additional 10% transaction fee over and above normal licensing costs to pay for their new on line license sales system starting next year. It's clear they care not about sportsman but do like their money.

Hey AkBill ... no money needed yet. But I will say this ... if these regs go through, the first time we face a restriction on these rivers. I WILL sue ... it might have to be through the help of private individuals such as yourself ... but so be it. It's time for the state of Washington to wake up, and I will be happy to be the one to shake them a few times.

I feel your pain my fishing brothers, having grown up in the capital city with all the political mumbo jumbo every where , the bootom line is we sportsman put more money back into our communities than the other parties involved ( commerical netters etc. )
bottom line we must make a stand ,organize and be HEARD!! vote call any one who will listen ,it is a goverment by the people for the people, anything I can do here let me know,we must fight for our rights...I'm as Native as any other American ,only together can we make this happend!!!!

------------------
Tight Lines
<*)>><


[This message has been edited by Steelheader boy (edited 01-24-2000).]

Politics... fishes worst nightmare...

Hey friends, they can change or make new regulations any time they want, all they have to do is "make it so". I'm here to tell you that YOU don't have to go along with it. Killing natives?, if you don't want to, you don't have to! You have a vote too, we all do. Don't keep/kill any native steelhead, ask your friends not to, and don't book with any guide that allows it and your influence and "Action Vote" will be taken into account somewhere along the way. Be true to yourself and what matters to you. As the old saying go's "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step" if you believe in C&R of all wild steelhead make the first step, you.
LB

The steelhead Trout (in my opinion a Trout) is the Crown Jewel of sport fishing, coincedentally native to the last portion of the U.S. to be heavily populated. Notwithstanding the people who were here long enough to eradicate them if they were as stupid as our manager's. I went to a meeting year's ago when one of my favorite fishing opportunity's was being outlawed. I was there to ask for a c&r reg. instead of a total closure. Now the entire river system and many other's are closed in order to protect the hatchery steelhead. Incredible we have let this go down. Have you guy's seen one of the meeting's on tv half the people involved in setting our reg's haven't even got a working knowledge of what state the fisheries are in. Anyway native (stream born) Steelhead should not be removed from any stream in the state until there's so many that Tarpon look like runner's up.