Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Mingo, Nov 27, 2005.
Well put Willie B ! ..and it's butt not but. (A finger in a conjunction...yuk!)
No doubt poor management is a problem. But I still maintain that the population is still the single largest reason for the demise of the steelhead in Washington. Siltation of the rivers, encroachment of industrial areas into wetlands, water diversion for recreational use, pollution from run off, AND higher demand due to more people are what happened to steelhead (and salmon). Management of a degraded area can only get you so far.
That seems like a gross simplification, perhaps even a simplified model of how the WDFW works. Quite a few folks that I know in fisheries sciences went to school to at least get a bachelars degree, and 2 of 'em went on to get a masters degree. I would say that the sophisticated statistics they do in the studies definately *aren't* simple models, but rather are accepted models used by a lot of wildlife science arms.
As for the placicity, the biggest problem isn't necessarily the people, but the policy laid out. Some of it stems from poor choices in terms of management, but that's where the politics come in. Granted I would say that the lifting of moritoruim in Forks was a bad thing, but in general the people of Washington are the ones *asking* for this, and the WDWF has to respond. Unless we get some enlighted folks in charge that can either turn the tide of Washington residents to consider conservation more important, or are capable of handling the political turmoil without loosing their jobs, we need to focus on educating the people of Washington more than anything.
I for one would like to find out how BC managed to get a lot of their policies enacted without having a redneck riot on their hands! Their resources folks in the last decade have definately instituted quite a few programs that would be considered blasphamy in the US.
Well, I'd like to think that you have something to add. So far when you've made points, they have been salient and definately have been useful to think about
James and others:
I respect this community as a means for others, just not myself, although I do contribute from time to time I really don't plan on meeting anyone here ever. That isn't a shot, there are obviously some great people here. To me though, just a board full of people who I will never meet.
The models used to sustain MSY in WA state are simple and antiquated, that is the bottom line. I don't have time nor do I want to spend much time typing about his topic. A degree is fine, hey all those scientists from Philip Morris have them too, many are doctors, doesn't mean what they say is worth a salt. WDFW has some good folks, habitat is an issue, but they have known for a long time population was going to increase and they never had the foresight to alter their management style. Forks streams are a great example, the Hoh run is declining but they continue to harvest. The pressure will now shift to the Quileute and inevitably with the increased pressure those runs will crash too and I will blame WDFW in large for this issue. The Tribe has a role, but we can't control that.
As for WDFW managing as most people want, I don't think there is evidence for that. Latest polls of anglers show the majority want C and R of wild steelhead. Some Forks locals wanted catch and kill, WDFW wanted it also, so they got it. I understand the political mandate of WDFW is to maximize fishing opportunities and harvest, but they can interpret those words in many different ways. For example, you could only allow catch and release and that would maximize angling opportunity and the resultant harvest from those techniques would be considered the "harvest."
Hey, this is complicated. No doubt. But to take responsiblity off the shoulders of those to manage is to take the same responsiblity off the shoulders of those who pollute our planet. Those who make the decisions are responsible to the greatest degree. At least in my view.
Willie Bodger, you stoles the keys right off my board
All this posturing and flaming is moot...don't kill something you won't eat.
That's my two centavo's...
yeah well roper, kill it if it is going to hurt the wild fish, otherwise you will end up with only hatchery fish to fish for.
Thanks for that very important feedback...
Nice to see your name back on the posting board.
I'm with gordon on this one...if you don't want to eat it, give it away or use it in some other legal manner (don't you wish "nutrient enhancement" was a legal use for boot hatchery fish...if it was, that is the first place mine would go).
What I am saying roper is that you pay for hatchery fish to be harvested so harvest them. Give them away as tom said, or throw them to the eagles. What the hell do you think WDFW does with them, they waste them, okay, so if it is fine for our government to throw away hatchery fish then it is fine for an angler to do it. Well sometimes the fish go to foodbanks and lots of other times they get tossed into a river or simply in the trash next to the hatchery. I ain't condondin' breakin the law, but can you resist the eyes of a hungry eagle or otter. Please, give back to the christian eagle/otter fund and feed an animal today!
Remove hatchery fish and you will increase your chances of fishing for wild fish in the future. Let them go, and well you know the story.
Too many valid points on both sides to validate killing just to kill. Everyone wants immediate answers...and this one is just going to have to take time. TomB ...while I respect everything you add to this board..... I still have a hard time figuring why selective environmental genes (I don't know if that was your words or someone else's) can not be adapted by long living (generational) hatchery SH ...they must at some point become Wild. (Once again TomB I respect your opinion/knowledge...so don't take this wrong)...This has to me almost ...took a does a god really exist thing?
Well, to the letter of the law, you need to at least give it to someone specifically for eating. It's not legal to just dump 'em on the side of the river. Personally, I think it's too hard to catch 'em to drop 'em on the bank of a river, and DAMN, they taste good
Now with that said, my wife takes care of hungry bears, cougars, wolverines, and other meat eating critters that would *LOVE* a meal of steelhead. If yous gots and don't want 'em, lemme know
Gordon, I'm simply sharing my personal opinion on the taking of wildlife, be it fish or birds or mammals. I don't think I'm going to have any impact on wild versus hatchery levels. But I, in all good conscience, can't kill something I won't make personal use of. My comment has nothing to do with fish "science".
Mr. Mello..(nice artwork by the way) ..you have to many answers.
Porter, just read the literature man. It is crystal clear. You may "think" there are good arguments on each side of the board, and that maybe true for a relatively uneducated fishing board, but that is not true in the scientific community. Take a class from Tom Quinn at UW, or perhaps Jack Stanford at U. Montant, or ask Pete Bisson at the USFS. In fact, read tom quinns new book. The answers are there, just because you can't comprehend the literature, doesn't mean the arguments are balanced.