Great News For Wild Steelhead - Page 5 - Fly Fishing Forum
Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum No such thing as rainbow trout, only landlocked steelhead

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-12-2004, 12:43 PM
KerryS KerryS is offline
Skidrow Woolley Fly Club
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Skagit system
Posts: 661
I have to catch 2 steelhead to be an expert?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 02-12-2004, 12:45 PM
Nailknot Nailknot is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sauk/Skagit
Posts: 93
Easy solution

No bait selective rules C&R, all wild fish, in all westside waters, unless "emergency opening" if run size is, what... 25% over? We need to figure out a way to make C&R more palatable to more people or we'll stay in this catch and kill vs. close the rivers cycle (which is maddening). Won't the sportfishing industry in WA get behind a C&R ethic for salmonids?

I think Curt is raising valid points. We should all be walking this path with eyes open to potential repercussions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-12-2004, 02:22 PM
sinktip's Avatar
sinktip sinktip is offline
Chief of E.P.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All S-Rivers Above the Equator
Posts: 1,456
Certainly it is easy to understand why someone would accept the science of almost anyone over that of the agency professionals. It has been clear for some time that as some as an angler catches his second steelhead they are expert on all things related to steelhead and steelhead management. - sorry had to vent.

Is that what it comes down to? It was my understanding that the data that was used was the department's own data. Maybe there was a difference in opinion on interpretation of the data. Should that be off limits too?

Since you felt the need to vent, please give me the same chance. My vent is against those in WDFW that seem to be taking the stance that "we are the professionals and we say we are doing a good job of manageing the resource so how dare you question us". Well first off, there are some of us that don't feel that overall the resource has been managed well. And secondly, I wasn't aware that the only biologists that were qualified worked for WDFW.

You seem to be alluding that only selective data was used yet you selectively use data to make your point. Is it not true that the OP has rivers that have not met escapement goals in recent years but still have a sport wild fish harvest?

I value your input and respect your ability to play devil's advocate. In the past your input has been taken to heart and acted on. You told the WSC to work within the system to achieve their aims. That is what they did. Now I see you venting against it.

You made it clear a few posts ago that you were writing as a private citizen. If so, then stop riding the fence and tell us what you really think.

Was the commissions decision a good one: yes or no?

Last edited by sinktip; 02-12-2004 at 02:33 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-12-2004, 06:59 PM
Steelheader69's Avatar
Steelheader69 Steelheader69 is offline
flyfishing catarafter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: OlyPen, Chehalis System
Posts: 881
Send a message via AIM to Steelheader69 Send a message via Yahoo to Steelheader69
Well Juro

You totally misread the point. And your example was good, but not a good comparison. It would be like saying we repaired an ingrown toenail first instead of removing a cancerous growth. Nets vs. Anglers is like comparing fully automatic machine guns vs. single action rifles. They both can do damage, but one is on a case by case basis, where the other can strafe a whole area at once. And when I say nets, I mean commercial and tribal. It's an overall effect with them all. I've personally seen FIRST HAND how fast a net can strip a run of steelhead and salmon. I've been there when the netters come in (since alot of them were friends growing up). I've seen more stripped in 1 net then what you could get out of a river full of fisherman on most rivers. Yes, there are fisheries where sports fisherman do their share, but alot of times these rivers they don't take commercial fisherman into consideration for what is being taken. Yes, the sportsman may take more out certain big rivers then tribal nets, but you add those commercial netters and they really tip the scales. And forgone opportunity isn't something I've just heard. I've heard it used for years, especially from some of the local tribes I grew up around (benefit of actually living on the Puyallup Indian Reservation). It's a possibility, and something we could see in the end. Unless you work for the Gov't, or actually are part of the commitee who decides this, you have no basis to judge.

For one, I don't have any problems with releasing wild steelhead. I have for well over 10 years now (can't remember when it was implemented). If it's the law, I'll abide by it. I'm just stating the point of view of the masses. I was trying to get the point across to most of you. Seems that most will claim they have "roots" in gear. But I have a feeling most may have dabbled, but not truly knew what they were doing. There are quite a few, if not more, gear guys who are as engulfed in using gear as their are fly guys who are engulfed in flyfishing. They take their sport with a passion and take as much pride out of gear they use as those of you who take pride in their flies you use. Neither person is better then the other. Neither is more of a sportsmen or conservationist as the other. Just that per capita, there are more fly fisherman per percentile who are fish conservationists then gear. But gear has been the standard for steelhead and salmon in the NW for quite a few years. So you'll have alot more guys using it. But not all are bad guys. Which, problem is that there are breakdown in the masses of "gear guys" as well. So having them decide is as tough as what is seen on here as "fly vs. gear". Funny thing is it is brought up by alot about "attendance" at meetings. Alot of us (myself included) used written statements and emails instead. Those do count as well as someone standing up at a meeting. I agree, just not enough people do their part (I'm on the mailing list for reg changes, and have been on that list for about 20 years now). So I review, write my feelings, and send to the state the moment I get my packet in the mail each year. I do my part. I do my part on conservation as well. Probably more then alot on here when it comes to stream cleanup rehab. I do it all on my own, and during the short "off season" during may and the slow time in june on the rivers I frequent. No rods, no tackle, just bags, my boat, and lots of garbage.

I for one think it's fine as LONG as all the bases are covered. Yes, forgone opportunity has been brought up. But what could be decided in court may go against WSR. I knew PLENTY of guys who thought the Boldt Decision would never have happened. Though, we all know where that lead. You just never know what could happen if it goes to high court. In todays world, you never know how a court could decide. I just hope that WSC had every I doted and every T crossed before they did anything. I just don't want to see any repercusions that could happen because of this decision.
"Good angling ethic is not a monopoly practiced just by fly fisherman" - Bill McMillan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-12-2004, 09:05 PM
Smalma Smalma is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 168
Sinktip -
Fair enough questions - I will try to deal with them the best I can. You are correct in that I tend to be a fence sitter, especially when attempting to supply information and to get folks think a little bit. However at your request I'll jump off the fence.

First I in no way meant to cast any question on the abilities or dedication of the folks that prepared the information used in WSC's presentations. I know most of them and they are to a person are very talented. As a group they far outstrip what every limited knowledge I may think I have about the resource. My frustration was directed at that large segment of the steelheading public that feel based on their on the stream experience have all the answers. While you might be surprised I occasionally feel more like a punching bag rather than a biologist concern about the resource.

Second - you are right I did encourage WSC to work within the system towards your goals. I congratulation WSC and its supporters - you have played the game well and appropriately.

Do I feel that the recent commission decision was a good one?
The short answer is NO. The resource is no more sercure in my opinion it was last week. Not one depressed stock of steelhead has recieved any additional protection, the steelhead angling public has been further polarized, and a dangerous management precedent may have been set.

Some detail on my concern or issues with the decision -

1) I do not like blanket bans- While they can provide the best assurance for the resource (complete closures for example) they also often result in unnecesary reduction in fishing opportunities. An example- On this site there has been some discussion of the excellent bull trout fishing currently being enjoyed on the Skagit. The state wide general bull trout regulation is a prohibition of fishing for Dolly Varden/bull trout. State wide there are only a few locations where targeting bull trout is legal, certainly less than were the harvest of wild steelhead was allowed. Without exception to the general rule that outstanding fishery would be lost - I'll it to each of you to decide whether it fits you personal ethic to target bull trout or other species by mis-representing your target species.

A steelhead example - currently in the state of Washington the steelhead populations in the major of the state is ESA listed (all of the Columbia). Using the logic used by the commission in its recent ruling to have a blanket regulation to provide protection for the weakest one could easily argue that steelhead fishing should be closed entirely statewide. How can anyone who supports the blanket mandatory WSR statewide argue against such a position? In fact why aren't the supports lobbying for such a change?

Finally the supporting arguements for this change was based on conservation needs: 1) rebuilding depressed stocks (I have pointed out how this change only affects those that are limited by harvest and that the previous rules had all ready addressed that issue) and 2) Prevent the decline of the few "healthy: stocks from falling to the depressed status - a valid concern though as I pointed out early it may be unreasonable to expect populations to remain at historical highs no matter management scheme we humans choose. Many (though not WSC) have taken this argument and attempted to "morph" it into a change in management of maximum sustained recreation (MSR). I find such "bait and switch" tatics disingenuous. That does not mean that I don't find that CnR fishing opportunites a valid management option. In fact I believe that an elegant argument can be made that it is the best tool to provide substantial fishing opportunity with minimal impact on the wild resource. I have successfully made that case serveral times. However for reasons unknown to me that postion was not included in the justication for the need of a change.

This is getting far too long however when take with my previous postings on this topic I think what my major concerns are should be clear.

It would be unfair for me to jump from the fence and critize the decsision without offering an alternative so I shall do so in a new posting.

On the plus side as I have stated earlier - for at least the next two years this highly emotion issue has been taken off the table and perhaps we can collective focus on other issues that may actually make a difference to the resource.

Tight lines
S malma

Last edited by Smalma; 02-13-2004 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-12-2004, 09:19 PM
NrthFrk16's Avatar
NrthFrk16 NrthFrk16 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NF Stilliguamish
Posts: 1,687
Send a message via AIM to NrthFrk16
Originally posted by Smalma
In fact I believe that an elegant argument can be made that it is the best tool to provide substantial fishing opportunity with minimal impact on the wild resource. I have successfully made that case serveral times. However for reasons unknown to me that postion was not included in the justication for the need of a change.
I have been surprised how little that point has been brought up eventhough I believe it is the reason that us, as steelheaders, pushed for this regulation so stongly.

I also believe, that this time around, (eventhough I was not involved with the science/white paper this year like I was two years ago) the WSC did not focus on the economic impact of wild steelhead fisheries nearly to the extent they did two years ago. This time around, the science/studies/arguments they provided to the Commission solely revolved around the declining numbers of healthy steelhead populations and the importance of all wild steelhead to all river systems.

With that said, I would like to say (and I think many members of the WSC would agree with me) that I believe fisheries that target wild steelhead populations that are not expected to meet escapement should be closed (eventhough the Wild Salmonid Policy allows for a C&R fishery over wild steelhead as long as the expected run size is atleast 80% of the escapement goal). Simple as that!!
Ryan S. Petzold
aka Sparkey and/or Special

Last edited by NrthFrk16; 02-12-2004 at 09:24 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-12-2004, 09:49 PM
Doublespey's Avatar
Doublespey Doublespey is offline
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PNW Waterways
Posts: 711
Unhappy Foregone?

Hey SH69,

This is NOT a flame, but I have to chime in on the whole foregone opportunity thing.

Let me say first that i'm not a Native American. And I'm not a big fan of the Boldt Decision either.

BUT to use this as a justification for not ending sports harvest of wild steelhead is silly. Everyone seems to think these Natives are the devil when it comes to wild steelhead harvest. Has there been even one race of wild steelhead that has been harvested to extinction where we can cite the Native's harvest as the primary reason?? There may be, but it's never been brought to my attention. Think you can say the same thing about our own race and it's management of fish and game in the United States???

We've already shown we're (US State Federal Local govt representatives) been untrustworthy - we've broken just about every fish/game related treaty we've ever made with the native americans. Maybe it's that we ~know~ how we've acted and assume they'll act the same way if given the opportunity?

I'm glad we've chosen to stop harvesting wild steelhead for 2 years!! Lets see how they treat it. They may go into shock - the greedy White Man actually giving up their "right" to harvest for the good of the resource. And some of the key tribes might just step up right along with us.

No, I'm not glorifying the Native American culture. And I'm perfectly aware that they have their share of poachers and jerks - that's one thing we share in common. :hehe: And there are serious concerns about this blanket ban - I think Smalma targeted several. And he may be right - remember the old adage "Be careful what you ask for, cause you just might get it?" I believe its benefits far outweigh its shortcomings, but only time will tell.

My .02,

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-12-2004, 10:46 PM
sinktip's Avatar
sinktip sinktip is offline
Chief of E.P.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All S-Rivers Above the Equator
Posts: 1,456

Many thanks for the hop off the fence. I appreciate your honesty and your views. I even agree with most of them

You second post I find quite thought provoking. I hope you won't object to me moving it to its own thread. I think it lays the foundation for a very good discussion.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-13-2004, 12:05 AM
Nailknot Nailknot is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sauk/Skagit
Posts: 93

I agree with Spark's points as well. I'd like to see C&R argued as our sportfishing future, providing us enhanced opportunities with minimum impact (relative). Economic and cultural benefits should have a real place in this argument. My worry with science based lobby is that we confuse and alienate many sportfishers who would and could join the fight. If the argument was framed as- we would like maximum sportfishing opportunity at minimum impact in all cases- and list benefits, would be much easier for most to relate. I don't mean to suggest that we all want maximum opportunity. But many of us do, within reason of course. No doubt there is fear and confusion among many about motives of WSC and WT regarding sportfishing opportunity. We're quick to say we side with the fish, but our power base may be with the sportfishers and evolving thinking as a political force benefiting all and increasing pressure on other "user groups" that impact these fish. I certainly see a possible future where we have given most if not all sportfishing opportunity and the runs continue into extinction due to other pressures. What a tragic outcome.

Not to get off topic but I just wanted to say for the record: this is the most enlighten and composed internet discussion re: WA steelhead mgmt I have ever read.

edit: i should post this on the new thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-13-2004, 01:29 AM
Steelheader69's Avatar
Steelheader69 Steelheader69 is offline
flyfishing catarafter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: OlyPen, Chehalis System
Posts: 881
Send a message via AIM to Steelheader69 Send a message via Yahoo to Steelheader69
Actually Doublespey

If you reread what I wrote, I said natives and commercials. Not just natives. I used that as a reference since I grew up around them, quite literally as neighbors (not looking at a reservation). I saw how much they would catch in just one net, let alone dozens of nets on an entire run. Then, couple this with commercials and it's devastating. I'm not a podunk, redneck who touts "kill the indians". Actually am educated, with a science degree. Though, airframe and powerplant dynamics won't help steelhead much. LOL. I was using the Natives as a reference, I have virtually no ill will towards Native Americans. Grew up with them, played high school sports with them, partied with them, and grew up in general with them.

But as a species, human beings have been the final destruction of many species. I do believe, and this was from my college days and even recently on the discovery channel that thousands of species go extinct CONSTANTLY. Not just every 1,000 years, but on a constant. Some are caused by ALL man as a species. This isn't new just to the US. All of our ancestors have at one time or another been a part of raping the earth in one sense or another. Just what has been done recently is still part of an old rational. As a country, we are still young. Still in the learning curve, and paying for previous mistakes as a new country (dams, overharvest, etc). You can go through all parts of the world and find that. I was an exchange student in Germany, and what we've done here is nothing new to anything I saw throughout Europe. The town I lived near had a huge strip mine that was literally miles across. Pollution in the seas, runs of salmon that are being raped by trawlers. Etc. It's nothing new. Luckily, we do have a chance to turn things around. Though, sometimes some damages can't be reversed. I just hope that the WSR regulation helps and not hinders. Hope that it was all thought out before hand and any repercusions that may result. That it's a definite that there is no "forgone opportunity". Also, why would they only do a 2 year moratorium. Almost like it's planned to fail, since after 2 years you shouldn't see much of a change. Now, a 6 year you would see something. More of a waste at that point, since they would do this and after 2 years see no difference. It has helped for 2 years, but then what? Have they planned to do a complete study at the end of those two years? Takes more then just shutting down retention on the what, 5 or so remaining rivers that have retention of steelhead in WA state. And that was only on like small sections of those rivers in fact (usually below Hwy 101). Especially in the rivers in question affected by the WSR (which is mostly the Hoh, Quilyute system, etc). I do believe there isn't any other river outside the OlyPen that has wild steelhead retention. These are the rivers I've almost exclusively fished the last 25+ years with my Dad (he has over 50 years fishing them). Have watched the ups and downs. Would be nice to see the rivers come back. But would like a solid game plan. Is a step, but hoping it's a good one. Have not heard, or read enough info to say if it's a good thing or not. Like anything, I take anything political as a sales pitch (which regs are part of politics). Once I see the final product, then I'll say yea/nea. Until now, I'm up in the air on it. I've jumped to conclusions in the past. But have found, through history books especially, stuff like this is NOT a quick fix. And 2 years is far from enough time to make any headway, or find if it's a success.
"Good angling ethic is not a monopoly practiced just by fly fisherman" - Bill McMillan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2004, 03:07 PM
Todd Ripley Todd Ripley is offline
Token Gear Guy
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 139
Hey, all,

I'd suggest going over to Piscatorial Pursuits and reading the various threads there on the'll get a much better feel for the wider perspectives of the steelheading community.

There is also a great discussion about Foregone Opportunity going on...Smalma has helped considerably in helping me get my point across by asking very tough questions.

Hop over and add your comments...

Fish on...

Todd Ripley
VP Political Affairs
Wild Steelhead Coalition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Home Waters
Your home waters
Current Favorite Fly
If you only had one... (change anytime)


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
33,000 farmed escapes bad news for NB & NS wild salmon salmonthink Classic Atlantic Salmon 0 12-09-2010 08:05 AM
Great news from The Great Land.... Moonlight Our Environment 4 02-22-2005 10:10 PM
Great News, Good Times! IronMike Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 1 12-11-2004 08:46 PM
Great news for the Housatonic Adrian Worldwide Flyfishing Discussion 3 06-27-2004 03:29 PM
Fishwire News... Lower Columbia Wild Steelhead juro Our Environment 1 01-31-2003 10:39 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 PM.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright (All Rights Reserved)