Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by _WW_, Jan 14, 2013.
I agree that we fishers who are non-fishing for steelhead with non-lures or non-flies (I'm going to just use a piece of yarn tied to the tippet and won't even have a fly box with me) ought to be spread out on the Skagit from Marblemount to Concrete and on the Sauk from Darrington to the Skagit. Otherwise, it will look like a nothing more than a gathering of fishers at a clave of some sort. As all of us know who fish the Skagit and Sauk, there is a lot of water available for our non-fishing, some of which is visible from the highway.
If the sought after C&R fishery adds any level of risk to wild fish recovery...how is this action justified?
Everything we do adds risk to wild fish recovery but some activities are less risky than others. As a society, we prioritize risks by how we act, vote, and make our voices heard. Some activities, even though there are risks, are deemed allowable or tolerable because their risks are trumped by the benefits. C&R fishing has been proven time and again to not to adversely affect the population and therefore, the benefits of having such a C&R season will often outweigh the costs if the adult returns are at or near escapement levels.
Is it fair to say that the reason there is currently no C&R fishery is because it has been determined by WDFW that the benefits do not outweigh the risk? I should think most on this forum would want to take a very conservative position on this...and forgo the desire to fulfill personal benefit.
Been thinking about this a bit more lately. Rather than hope and wait for folks to show up to the event, why not sent out formal invitations to the WDFW commissioners, Director, and other high ranking staff? Why not invite the various committees (Inland Fish, Steelhead/Cutthroat, etc.) Why limit this to WDFW when all the co-managers have a seat at the table? The Feds and Tribes should also be included since they should certainly be part of the solution. If we could get a dozen key members of the groups mentioned above, we could make it a real event with a BBQ lunch, Powerpoint presentation, posters, maybe a keynote speaker, and the news media. If we could get a committee formed to take on certain responsibilities (outreach, planning/scheduling, invitations, MC, cooking, etc.) and put together something that is well organized, that could make a powerful statement. We don't want to come off as a bunch of rednecks that are just pissed off. We need to show that we are well informed and educated by presenting data that support our position. After all, we are not talking about any old fish; we are talking about the state fish of Washington.
I think it is fair to say that WDFW doesn't think that way yet because the public has not made their voices heard loud enough on the subject. There is a lot more benefits to having a fishing season than than simply fulfilling a personal agenda.
Besides I don't think any one is advocating for a season when the biological requirements are not being met. But when they are, there are a lots of folks out there who still care deeply to fish for these special creatures. So many times when a fishery closes, it is lost for a long time because it is just easier to keep the status quo. Apparently there are enough individuals who care enough not to let that happen with the Skagit. I guess we'll see if people are more bark than bite.
"There is a lot more benefits to having a fishing season than than simply fulfilling a personal agenda."
If not for personal or financial gain, what might the benefits be? I think anyone supporting this event should be prepared to answer these questions...certainly something an impartial investigative journalist should ask.
The answer to your first question is no. Do your homework and stop asking stupid questions.
As to your second point, The issue at hand is that there is no potential for a C&R fishery at present regardless of run size. So really your just taking shots again.
Your prior post is also wrong, which leads nicely ito your second ill informed post. It was determined at the time of listing that sportfishing had no effect on run sizes.
There is a lot of data about C&R mortality (or really lack there of). I've posted it before. The latest and best being a defacto study, that is the skagit genetic sampling and it's mortalty levels.
Do some homework. Stop asking insulting and dumb questions, and maybe somebody will take you seriously.
Fair enough. I see you took the liberty to add "financial" to the statement. Disregarding that for now, with seasons being open, there are a lot more eyes out on the water that can and does discourage illegal activities and poaching. There are examples of fishers seeing and reporting habitat-destructive projects. If they were not fishing, those habitat destroying projects might have never been reported. If there is nobody fishing for fish, who is going to be the protective voice that stands up for them? The bird watchers? Doubtful.
Not sure why you added financial to the equation but steelhead fishing generally means big business. Just ask the town of Forks, Terrace, or Smithers. Why would you disregard such a topic? Socioeconomics is one of the components of an environmental impact statement and is certainly something to be considered.
The questions are only stupid to someone like yourself who clearly cannot provide an answer and likes to attempt to shout down others with differing opinions (keyword here Charles, opinions). Not having a C&R fishery clearly reduces impact to the fishery; to argue otherwise simply means you support the cause for benefits that are not in the best interest of the fish.
Stop trying to be a big shot, blowhard and maybe some might take you seriously.
"If the sought after C&R fishery adds any level of risk to wild fish recovery...how is this action justified?"
"Is it fair to say that the reason there is currently no C&R fishery is because it has been determined by WDFW that the benefits do not outweigh the risk? I should think most on this forum would want to take a very conservative position on this...and forgo the desire to fulfill personal benefit."
Both the state and NOAA both stated that C&R angling was not the cause of lower runs - its been Ocean conditions. Right now there is no mechanism available to the state to open PS rivers if runs return to healthy levels and better abundance - recovery has been determined on an aggregate over 6 PS rivers. Many anglers and my hope after they have looked into the facts on the Skagit will agree - that managing the ESA Listing on a basin by basin plan would provide that mechanism to open river to C&R as abundance returns to a specific basin.
FS as you know the Skagit basin exceeded the established escapement goal last year and if ocean condition continue to improve, smolt survival improves and we see a positive shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - C&R anglers would like a opportunity to access the resource. Understand this - no one is supporting a C&R fishery on rivers that can't support it or that have a low abundance (Sky and Stilly) - but if numbers come back to the Skagit in the next couple of years - it should be opened.
WDFW Mission Statement and the first two Department goals
To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
To achieve its mission, WDFW will continue to focus its activities on the following four goals:
Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife
Provide sustainable fishing, hunting and other wildlife-related recreational experiences.
Since steelhead are not classified as commercial, the recreational opportunities mentioned in the MS must be directed to angling. You might argue that WDFW has a conflicting mission statement but one big reason for their existence is to provide you and I steelhead fishing opportunities. From a historical perspective, the Skagit has as much history as any river in the state and we want to make that loud and clear. While you bring up some good points, points that we should consider, you kinda seem to have an attitude about it. That being said, you are absolutely right in stating that fishing of any kind doesn't do the fish themselves any favor, unless you talking about stunted brookies or cutthroat in a high mountain lake. And even that could be argued, whether you are talking about an individual fish or the entire population.
Please stop lying. I've asked before, and you continue to lie.
You did not ask if there was impact. You asked if WDFW determined that the benefits do not outway the risks. That is what you asked. I answered, again. The WDFW never determined that he benefits outwayed the risks. This question has been answered before. Chris just answered it again, above. Don't then change it and discuss impacts. Of course there are impacts. I never said there weren't. This is just another example of how you knowingly and dishonestly twist these conversations.
So here is your most recently lie: That I argued that there were not impactsfrom C&R fisheries. That has never happened. Stop lying....understand? (I actually expect an answer, after all you lied about me.)
I would say the impacts of a C&R fishery are very minimal and that when run sizes allow the benefits of a C&R fishery outway the impacts. Honestly, when you see mortality rates of 1-5 % you have to ask, what is background mortality without being caught? Further I would say the benefits of the potential for a season outway the risks. To back up my opinion I cite the Vedder river winter steelhead C&R mortality study and the Skagit River genetic sampling done over the past few years.
I'm not a blowhard. I have a real hard time with dishonesty and lying. You continue to ask leading questions, which are answered repeatedly but you refuse to man up, state a position, and defend it with anything more that leading questions. We've all tried to match your "questions" with the best available science to back up our positions.
I am not trying to shut you up. I'd rather you just be a little bit honest, and state your position rather than just tear down and lie about others positions.
I have had disagreements with many of those who post on these mangement threads regularly. SG, Bellows, DeLeone, Johnson, Smalma etc. I have different positions on topics with them often. It doesn't turn into a pissing match. Why only you?
Chris & BDD -- excellent counterpoints. I think what concerns me most about these "when to flip the switch and not" decisions is that the data is not based on absolute science. Yes, it is the best we have and kudos to those in the field doing what they can to make sense of a complex, multifaceted problem. But, when we are operating close to the margins (as we have been), I should think it better to take the most conservative approach...until we are well clear of risk. Unlike PDO, C&R is purely an option we can choose to allow or not.
Go back to your first response to my post and you might see the answer to your question.
I have mentioned to a couple of you before about the forum's ignore feature. You really should try using it. This forum has become a much more enjoyable place for me because of the ignore feature.
Proper choice for those who cannot deal with alternate or opposing points of view.
Some rivers would be a nightmare if they were the only one open in the region.
I'm on the fence about the protest until I learn more details.
It wouldn't be any worse then it was in 06, 07, 08 or 09 and remember people have to "work" for Skagit and Sauk fish - they don't come easy.
you will see more details in the coming weeks -