Folks, I've said it before and I'll say it again, go to Google Earth and look at the cutting or burns that affect these rivers. It was only a matter of time before one hot summer or exceptionally cold winter put a run or two at risk. I'm fine with altering the angling plan, and even paying more, but I want to see the land and rivers protected. They just plain need more habitat up there.
I don't know the specific case and will have to dig it up but severely depressed WC Steelhead runs have been saved by steps to improve habitat improvement without changing angling practices beyond C&R. The issue of habitat degradation is missing in this whole debate. Like I said, I'm happy to pay more, as long as it goes towards the health of the resource and not a shiny new cleaning station (sends quite the message there).
What would it take to get the fisheries managers at the table or at least tell us who to write to in order to find out what is being done regarding habitat management?