08-31-2005, 10:51 AM
I see the department has decide to recommend closing the Snohomish for the C and R fishery in March and April and open it by Emergency opening if necessary.
My question is what do you think is a better track to take. Manage by emerency closing or opening?
The department must think that it is for an opening. It gives them good PR when they can say hey things are better so we will open it up look at how good of a job we have done. Pat on the back. They even admit that word of an opening spread very fast. It must be Ok to create that mentality that there are fish everywhere so come on out and get them. Emergency openings create this mentality and will increase pressure for sure becasue of the mob factor that will be created.
I think it shows that they don't like the bad PR they get when they have to close things down, even when it is the right thing to do. If they manage this way it sure seems to me that they don't create as much of a mob factor on a river when they just leave the rules alone.
As for the arguement about people not knowing well ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. I don't have any sympathy. Maybe the department could get one of the local conservation club or fishing clubs to go post signs at a bunch of access points for free. But hey that would be thinking outside the box.
What do you all think?
08-31-2005, 12:09 PM
Personally, I'd rather have the rule be the river is closed after February 28th in those rivers where the runs have not been meeting escapement (like the Sky for instance) because this will help keep folks from going out and fishing because they didn't bother to check the emergency closers. Afterall, if a river doesn't appear to be going to meet escapement, why not simply have it close on March 1st since that will be happening anyway?
Having the river get opened for C&R if escapement is high enough would inconvience very few people. And I have seen that when a river gets opened (the Methow as a recent example) that was to be closed, the word gets out very quickly.
Therefore, my vote is for closing the river March 1st and having a rule change opening it if escapement is high enough.
Though I have little trust in the department and the possibility that you are right is sound from all we know about the department. But maybe it is just that the department relizes that steelhead in the Puget Sound are not coming back in the near or moderate future. Numbers have been low for many years now and the trend continues so why should they have to jump through hoops to get an emergency closure each year of a sure thing of no fish. There must be a lot of detail to anounce every year that the rivers will be closed. Now as it is they will only have make an effort once every 10 or 15 years to announce an emergency opening. Let's just consider it closed for the rest of our lives unless something amazing happens with our fish of the future. I miss that season a whole lot but I have found other things to do to take it's place.
Hope you have been fishing my secret waters and catching fish. :lildevl:
08-31-2005, 12:48 PM
OC no fish lately. Coaching HS football again so not a of of time.
I guess maybe I was wrong. I just have seen the hoard\mob mentality that happens with an emergency opening and see that as worse then doing emergency closings. It is the mob mentality that I hate and value the experience more. I feel emergency opening just put more pressure on a system and that out weighs the Bad PR or people not finding out (there are ways to get the word out).
Good discussion though.
08-31-2005, 06:16 PM
From a fisheries management perspective, fishing regulations should be based on the best assessment of a populations status. The Sky hasn't been meeting escapements for enough years to have established a reasonably predictable trend. For the regulations to include a late season fishery that isn't likely to occur can fairly be described as misleading. If the "more probable than not" run forecast is for it to be less than 80% of the escapement goal, then we might as well be upfront with the public and indicate as much in the regulation book. Almost any fishery is subject to change under emergency regulation provisions.
Whether emergency openings create a "mob" attractive nuisance is a social issue, not a biological one. Social issues are legitimate influences on regulations, as evidenced by the fact that we have CNR seasons at all, instead of simply closing waters that do not support a significant harvest level. So far, mob attractions haven't risen to the level of concern that WDFW would write regulations in consideration of that factor. WDFW generally considers a large angler turnout as an indicator of a popular fishery, like Lake Washington sockeye, and hence, a good thing.
08-31-2005, 08:06 PM
I agree with the others - Have always believed that regulations should reflect the most likely situation. In this case it is unlikely in the next few years there will be enough fish for a CnR season.
When in doubt I think Flytyer had it right. Emergency openings tend to produce more orderly fisheries than emergency closures - removes the excuse that they didn't know it was closed. I have always been how effective the fisherman's telegraph is when it comes to spreading the word that there is an opening.
09-01-2005, 11:46 AM
Fair enough I can see that side of it. I can at least understand that mentality. I still think it creates a mob mentality but I know you all have much more expertise on this subject.
09-02-2005, 12:55 AM
Emergency openings are a lot better in my mind since it gives less of an opportunity for one to claim ignorance or to misinterpret.
09-13-2005, 11:47 AM
The regs should reflect the reality, which is that it is not going to be open due to low returns, and since it isn't likely to open in the forseeable future, I'm for the change.