An interesting view of the world by the WDFW

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ChrisC, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. ChrisC Member

    Posts: 639
    .
    Ratings: +24 / 0
    I wonder what planet/alternative universe the section below was written (see page 3 of the new 2012-2013 rules) - one where closing all PS rivers to fishing on January 31st represents "success" and closing all secondary rivers and streams on the Coast to fishing is "the more conservative" approach (vs. abolishing Wild Steelhead Retention)?

    • Coast

    - With the success of the Puget Sound Stream Strategy

    and the aim of continuing to offer more protection to juvenile

    salmonids rearing in our streams, the more conservative

    stream management strategy has been put in place in all

    streams that drain to the Coast. The basic premise is to

    close all rivers, streams, and beaver ponds to fishing except

    as listed in the Rules Pamphlet.
  2. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    Strategy is too big a word for the current aproach. I would prefer that they don't pat themselves on the back for the "success" of the PS closure. Last I checked nothing got de-listed.
  3. ChrisC Member

    Posts: 639
    .
    Ratings: +24 / 0
    Likewise, I hesitate to think what WDFW defines as "failure". If this agency now has an agenda of putting a positive "spin" on negative outcomes that are, in part, due to it lacking any real regulatory authority and its current track record of appeasement (in the context of still allowing wild steelhead retention on the OP), I would rather see it dissolved and integrated into the DNR. We don't need license dollars and tax revenue supporting an agency that lacks integrity with its messaging to the public.
  4. Jonathan Tachell Active Member

    Posts: 790
    Gig Harbor, Washington
    Ratings: +186 / 0
    Im not going to get in the middle of this one. All I can say is I think most people on here know where I stand in regards to WDFW and there " success ".
  5. Chris Bellows The Thought Train

    Posts: 1,627
    The Salt
    Ratings: +753 / 0
    it is almost comical that they think these regulations are that much more protective than the previous regs. they still allow far too much bait fishing and continue to allow the retention of resident trout which are the purpose of these regulations.

    what is funny is allowing bait on streams with listed stocks and early closures (puget sound and strait) and continuing the same feel-good strategy on the coast (minus the listed stocks...for now).
  6. shawn k Member

    Posts: 697
    buckets worldwide
    Ratings: +19 / 0
    How do you eat an Elephant? one bite at a time.
    The coast strategy is much needed. previously to these new regs anglers could fish bait for trout in waters that were selective gear waters during the winter steelhead season.
    Now the all the rivers that have a selective gear regulation in place they cannot fish for trout in thse areas with bait.

    Imho you will never see Wild steelhead release on the op after the last go around. The wfdw got a big black eye the last time they tried it. The average person that hires a guide (not flyfishing) to fish these rivers is clueless to the plight of steelhead in this state.
  7. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,473
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,616 / 0
    Close all Washington State waters to recreational fishing and achieve the pinnacle of successful fisheries management. I mean, that is the logical extension of the direction these management decisions lead. Like Chris, I'd like to know what WDFW thinks failure looks like.

    Sg
  8. KerryS Ignored Member

    Posts: 6,704
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +1,747 / 0
    All they need to do is take a peak in the mirror to see what failure looks like.
  9. Klickrolf Active Member

    Posts: 562
    Klickitat, Washington
    Ratings: +139 / 0
    Do we realize that failure insures continued funding for WDFW, ODFW, USFWS, NMFS...and BPA throwing good money after wasted money to fulfill their legal requirements. These problems are solvable but not if success means you get a raise... real success means you're not needed anymore!!! And the same goes for hatcheries, if they were successful we could and should eliminate them.
  10. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    What?
    Ringlee likes this.
  11. Steffan Brown ...

    Posts: 549
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +64 / 0
    I think he's trying to say that WDFW is creating job security, by failing. Meaning, if they successfully manage our fisheries back to health, there will no longer be a need for them to stick around.
  12. gearhead Active Member

    Posts: 661
    Renton, wa
    Ratings: +45 / 0
    sounds like government thinking to me, city county state, really doesnt matter it is a common thought process of theses administrators.
  13. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    I got the thrust of it. I thought that klickrolf might have wanted an opportunity to flesh out the more confusing statements, possibly making them semi-coherent.
  14. Chris Bellows The Thought Train

    Posts: 1,627
    The Salt
    Ratings: +753 / 0
    wdfw would be just as necessary with robust returns as declining returns.
  15. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    Also, with the time it would take to adequatley recover runs, everyone who works at WDFW would have ample time to collect their fat-cat salaries/raises/PERS 2 pensions and retire. Let's get this straight, they aren't F****** up becuse it ensures that their position won't get cut. They're just f****** up.
  16. Klickrolf Active Member

    Posts: 562
    Klickitat, Washington
    Ratings: +139 / 0
    Maybe, but they'd be concentrating on more (spending more money on) enforcement...sportfishing enforcement.
  17. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    You have no idea how his works do you.
  18. Klickrolf Active Member

    Posts: 562
    Klickitat, Washington
    Ratings: +139 / 0
    Don't mean to start a war, nor do I wish to denigrate any of the agencies mentioned. Just hope we can figure this out. Currently all federal income tax payers and BPA ratepayers are funding an approximate doubleing of the catch for commercial salmon fishing (hatcheries are subsidies).

    With so many "interested parties" demanding their due it can't happen. The Magnuson act http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/ provided money to buy out commerical fishing interests. Commercial fisheries take the wagon-load... aparently they didn't buyout enough of them. How much money would it take to buy out all commercial gillnetting in the Columbia and off the Washington coast? I've no idea about the numbers ($) but think BPA's mandate for spending on fish & wildlife restoration should maximize this option...over the years it gets big!

    And, the tribes must be convinced it is in their best interest to manage for wild fish wherever possible and harvest hatchery fish whenever possible.

    The agenda needs an update!
  19. Klickrolf Active Member

    Posts: 562
    Klickitat, Washington
    Ratings: +139 / 0
    Nope...and it doesn't work.
  20. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    Thank you for taking this back into the realm of talking policy. I'm serious. Thank you.

    The columbia is all about politics, and no one really cares about the fish. There are bigger drivers. It's not commercial fishing that's driving policy in the basin. It's about farming...thats my humble opinion. It's about access to water and global markets. The woudn't have any need to mitigate if it weren't for the dams. I would be suprised if we still had the dams were it not for farming. The hydropower would be cheap to replace--especially given the glut of domestically produced gas. But, it would be more expensive to transport grain and relocate pump stations. Society as a whole would benefit from dam removal (see Rand Institute report). But farmers would take a hit. Combine that with the institutional culture in the Corps, Bureau of Reclaimation, and the BPA. Not going to happen. Fish play a small role in restricting what can be done, as well as requiring some mitigation. But it's not about the fish. Commercial fishing/tribes are just the scrappiest fighters when it comes to picking up the scraps that get tossed to us by the mitigation. These fights do, however, serve to obscure the real issues--the dams. But that's really the point isn't it. We think it's a fish war because we love fish.

    Now I'm really just arguing for the sake of arguing.
    Jeff Sawyer likes this.