Tipping Point

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by miyawaki, Mar 14, 2014.

  1. FSA,

    When you don't know what you're talking about, I agree it is a good idea for you to err on the side of caution. Some of the rest of us have made a deeper analysis of the facts. And the facts indicate that the Skagit population is not endangered, and it is only listed as threatened by its association of being aggregated with all PS populations, some of which are threatened, and if analyzed individually, probably endangered.

    The facts further show that basin by basin management plans are allowable, as the co-managers have been doing for ESA listed PS chinook for well over a decade. The facts also show that NMFS allows fishing on co-mingled threatened and endangered stocks of salmon and steelhead throughout the west coast region, provided the fishing occurs as part of an approved management plan designed to limit incidental take of listed fish to levels consistent with the survival and recovery of those stocks of fish. The facts further show that both directed and indirect (incidental) mortality to wild Skagit steelhead hasn't affected the population's abundance since 1977. An objective analysis of the facts indicate that there are social and economic losses associated with the fishing closure, and that same analysis indicates there is no ecological benefit accruing from that same closure.

    I can see how, when you don't know what you're talking about, you would conclude that no fishing should occur when a fish population is included in a group of other populations that are collectively listed, as a matter of employing the cautionary principle, and you are not aware of, or decide not to concern yourself with, facts that show that such caution will have absolutely no effect on population abundance. But then it usually is easier to make black and white choices from a position of ignorance than it is from a position of thoughtful analysis and the realization that the world is full of far more shades of gray than of the few black and white choices. However, the train heading to that world of two simple choices left the station a long time ago.

    Jon V, PT, doublespey and 7 others like this.

  2. [​IMG]
    plaegreid, Chris Johnson and CLO like this.
  3. Golfman....I hope you're being sarcastic, and didn't swing flies on the SF Snoqualmie the other day....it's closed.
  4. I'm not being sarcastic:

    It's open year round:

  5. Golfman...

    I stand corrected....thanks!

    Jim B.
  6. No problem.

    Be forewarned tho, the fishing up there is brutally hard this time of year. A 2 fish day in the winter is the equivalent of a 50 fish day in the summer haha.
  7. Cool vid Golfman. Might I ask about your set-up for those little SF cutts? Were you swinging a streamer on a switch, or a nymph under an indicator? Can't tell from the vid. Don't want to derail this thread even more, so feel free to send a PM. Thx!
  8. This thread was derailed on the first page, don't worry about it.

    I was throwing my steelhead setup haha. 5wt 10ft beulah platinum switch rod w/ a 4wt rio switch chucker line. I was just wanting to throw some casts, wasn't too concerned with catching anything. Still trying to dial in my switch rod, I've only had it on the water twice.

    In the summer I use my 2wt on the forks.
    flybill likes this.
  9. Making the statement that someone who has a differing opinion than yours on a subject "doesn't know what they are talking about" is a bit of a reach...but somewhat consistent with a few on this forum who seem to think their opinions are more important. Are you suggesting that your "deeper analysis of the facts" are indeed the indisputable facts and that you know everything you need to know to make the decision about this fishery? What may I ask are your credentials and professional work history on this subject?

    Going back through the myriad of discussions on this subject (and others related to steelhead), both here on WFF and several other fishing websites, spanning a number of years, it is clear there are as many varying opinions as there is data. It's akin to the "bacon's bad for you... no, wait, this study says it's OK" debate. For fuck sake, if really knew what we (and our predecessors) needed to know, the fisheries wouldn't be in the mess it's in. Sure, there are indeed shades of gray and far more of it than we may otherwise like in many of the decisions we make about many things. Now we all have an opportunity to take the high road and do everything we can to "do no further harm". Instead, you worry about social and economic losses of the closed fishery. From that it is clear we share different priorities on this subject.

  10. You do realize that Salmo_g works for NOAA. You also realize that science is not how policy gets dictated, correct? You also understand that Salmo's opinion isn't just his but is shared by prominent scientists and biologists. You also realize that science is not how policy gets dictated, correct. You also understand that internet cafe readings don't make you an expert, right? And finally, you also realize that science is not how policy gets dictated, correct?
    flybill likes this.
  11. No, that's why I asked.
    Not altogether surprising, particularly when those non-scientists involved with the decision see the scientists debating over the supposed facts and data.
    See above.
    Did I say I was an expert?
    One of us is repeating ourselves....see above.

  12. By inference of how your posts were written it was a pretty easy conclusion (IMO) that you felt you were expert enough to call someone out. If that wasn't the intent then I apologize. As for repeating myself, it'll get you every time... It'll get you every time....
    flybill likes this.
  13. All said thats a cool old school sled photo reguardless of your political passions of fish management

  14. So what are you trying to achieve if you know that you are less qualified to make judgements in this debate (as opposed to Salmo)? And since you've been at this since last year, It's hard not to think your only objective is to derail and disrupt the enthusiasm and planning around an effort you don't agree with. If it's not that, then what is it you are trying to achieve? Particularly, if we haven't changed your mind and you haven't changed ours.
  15. I've long felt that sleds shouldn't be allowed on the Skagit, Sauk, Sky, etc. My opinion is that it has to have an effect on the fish being pushed out of their water when a sled runs thru, goes back to its spot only to be pushed out again and again. How can it not affect the fish and lead to less successful spawning and lead to diminished returns. That is just my opinion.

    But, I have no facts to back that up so I've kept my opinion to myself knowing it will only divide user groups. So, I continue to support sled operators and don't begrudge anyone from owning or running one on the rivers I mentioned even thought I'd rather not see or hear them on those waters. We need all user groups to work together rather than continually bickering over our own set of beliefs. I wouldn't hesitate to jump in with KerryS or Salmo and spend the day on the water with them because my opinion about sleds is only that. I can handle the noise and the slight irritation they give me because I want them as an ally and voice for the resource. Not to mention, it's not an informed opinion and there's nothing I can do about it other than complain because someone else might be doing something that, at times, can be moderately annoying. It's up to me to get over that rather than expect my opinions to influence their sled use.

    One of the posters stated that he'd like to see what the returns are after 2020 or whatever year it was and then make a decision. That person stuck with that number and argued over it just because he "felt" that was a reasonable amount of time. Well, others don't think that is anything other than one persons opinion and have an opinion themselves that it should be looked at far sooner. Like now, or last year or the year before that. Numbers support the people who want it looked at now, not so much the people who think we should do nothing just because they think so.

    Only trying to make a point. OS is an opportunity for different user groups to voice their opinions, while using scientific data, in trying to restore a fishery that many people can enjoy. It's an opportunity to get a fishery back which is a very rare thing these days. Usually when a fishery is taken away, it's taken away forever. Most of the people who would benefit from an opening are the same people who will continue to advocate for the wild steelhead. Apathy is a bitch, and that's what we'll have if we continue to lose opportunity with nothing coming back our way. Do you think the eagle watchers give one turd whether wild fish are swimming below their boats? Do you think anyone in Pugetropolous actually cares about the fish? I know the answer to that.
    bennysbuddy and Jason Rolfe like this.
  16. I sold my sled years ago...a Wooldridge Alaskan, really liked that boat. All the fly-guys at Blue Creek loved the boats. They said we pushed the fish into the bank willows and improved their hook-ups...now there's teaming and a symbiotic relationship at work.

    Show the Skagit fish you really care and let them recover without adding risk... it's not like there aren't other fishing options. The Cowlitz is big enough for two handers... it's where I swing for steelhead.
  17. Five pages and you still don't get it... the Cowlips is great for steelhead and even sea run's.. they're all hatchery fish though, or at least most are.. the Skagit and OP river still have natives in them! That's what brings people from all over the world to this area to chase them...
  18. And when they are once again healthy and not threatened, it will be be re-opened for fishing. In the meantime, we must adjust. The Cowlitz fish still smack flies and provide great sport.
  19. test post, having some trouble here
  20. FSA,

    Still you're writing about letting the Skagit steelhead recover. Clearly you're functionally deaf on this topic. There is nothing for those fish to recover to. The basin is at its carrying capacity, with annual abundance determined by ocean survival. Fishing, CNR, and even some targeted harvest, has zero effect on population abundance. If I typed in all caps, ya' know, yelling to compensate for your apparent deafness, would that aid your understanding?

    I tried to post the following last night, but the forum locked up on me and wouldn't let me post, something that happens from time to time. It was to address a post you made yesterday or thereabouts.

    _WW_, Derek Young and flybill like this.

Share This Page