Puget Sound Steelhead Petition

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ospreysteelhead, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,617
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    just electronically signed the petition. 89 folks have taken the 30 seconds to do their part, pathetic!!!!!!!!! so how many members of this BB are there? and where the hell are you when you can take a small action step??????
     
  2. martyg

    martyg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    The world at large
    Yeah - I just signed. 91 to date and 770 people have viewed this post. We are an impressive lot for our care and stewardship of the resource. Might as well be tribal board.
     
  3. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    4,312
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Since when does signing a petition have anything to do with how someone may care or take stewardship of a particular resource? I will spend what little time I can give working for the small gains made in habitat improvement by a couple non-profit orgs in my area. Does this give me more or less invovlement with the stewardship of the resource than someone that signed this petition?

    Your judgement is showing.
     
  4. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    5,304
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Osprey,

    I think you're drawing a poor inference in suggesting that the abundance of hatchery steelhead smolts are connected to the low early marine survival of wild steelhead. I say this because large numbers of hatchery smolts have been emigrating from Puget Sound systems for decades, including decades when wild steelhead populations were comparitively robust, i.e., 1960s and early 1970s. The wild steehead crash in the 1970s was a response to over-fishing pretty clearly and not a result of hatchery: wild interactions in the early marine environment.

    Sg
     
  5. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    5,304
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    GT,

    Some of us are using our critical thinking skills to analyze the petition proposal and have concluded that it probaby has more emotional benefit than environmental and social benefit. I'm not a consistent defender of hatcheries or hatchery practices, but I know better than to automatically assume that eliminating them will result in the benefits suggested by some.

    Sg
     
  6. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA
    I would have to agree with Salmo and Kerry, just because I won't sign the petition doesn't mean that I don't care or I am not doing something actively to help rebuild wild populations. In addtion, I don't think outright closing of hatcheries is the single solution. I would defer to the HSRG reports for specific river systems and their hatchery recommendations. For the time being that is the best available scienece and then continue working on the other 3 H's.

    I think you are apt to get far more resistence on this petition from the co-managers and even some recreational fisherman. Might be better to take a slightly more tempered approach and you possibly could achieve better success by picking a specific river systerm were you can undoubtedly have greater success, use it is a test case.
     
  7. doublespey

    doublespey Steelhead-a-holic

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    My problem is that the petition comes across as a "resource grab" the same way as staunch defenders of C&R fisheries who often refuse to acknowledge that it's an allocation decision with an associated mortality the same as a C&K season is. Debate all you want on the percentages, but the fact remains that there is an associated mortality with ~any~ fishing.

    Using the existence or absence of a C&R fishery as the ruler by which it's determined whether or not to abolish hatcheries on river systems that still have viable wild steelhead populations is as transparently slanted toward a select group of fishermen as the proposal about fishing from boats.

    Don't get me wrong - the selfish part of me likes 'em both. I like to be wading when I fish for steelhead, and I rarely keep fish and much prefer chasing wild aggressive steelhead to trying to convince a pellet-muncher to inhale my fly.

    But it's (IMO) these inherently unfair proposals that have fragmented the sports fishing community an have contributed to our political impotence. Groups like CCA are trying to find common ground, but attend one of their meetings and you'll find how deep the resentment and hostility are between different fishing persuasions.

    Just my .02 - flame away~
     
  8. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,617
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    yah know, the folks with fisheries backgrounds always seem to want to 'intellictualize' these issues. fact is, the science which makes up fisheries management is seriously flawed, always has been, probably always will be. taking simple, immediate steps to protect the few remaining non clipped anadramous fishes may just be too easy for folks to accept, but my 'science' says it will work equally as well as what has been done, and failed, for decades. time for a shift in thinking and action, sign the petition, the extinction clock is ticking..........

    this should be about saving fish, not arguing about 'my strategy is better than yours'. at this point on the extinction timetable, ANY solution which is advanced that has a hope and a prayer of saving fish is worth supporting, sign the petition.
     
  9. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA
    Challenging the Boldt decision would be a worthy cause too, but for me it is about what is at least obtainable. I don't see any hatcheries just vanishing. HSRG is a modified version in my opinion on what hatcheries make sense and which onese aren't working. And at least for right now, the WDFW ifsbehind it and is a step forward.

    I am not biologist, but I do try to use my time efficiently for what I think I can achieve. Its a noble cause, don't get me wrong, and just maybe some day we will get there, but as a fishing community, we aren't all there yet.
     
  10. Split Bamboo

    Split Bamboo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, Washington
    It went to SCOTUS and was upheld so that ain't going to happen.

    I would think the state might be able to drag the tribes into court if they thought they could prove the Tribes were failing as Co-managers to properly protect the fish. But I doubt the state could prove it, particularly because the Tribes could say the same thing about the state.
     
  11. Hillbilly Redneck

    Hillbilly Redneck wishin i was fishin

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    277
    Location:
    Whitehorse Mt.
    I hooked a couple of brats today. The only legal opportunity I have close to home. I ain't signing shit.
     
  12. Jerry White

    Jerry White Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    City, State
    signed. Thx, Ospreysteelhead.
    JW
     
  13. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,617
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    challenging the boldt decision is an unnecessary distraction. the focus, right now, should be on enforcing the law. we have ESA listed fishes which are being harvested as 'bi-catch' right now. NOAA's NMFS need to be held accountable for this law breaking. and that is only going to happen if the litigation path is taken. so how many of you conservation minded folks would throw $50 in the pot to get this rolling, assuming a recognized 501C3 was behind it?

    or, lets say the bi-catch % is 30% of the total harvest, then lets change the sport quota to allow the same 'bi-catch' %age. think anyone would complain?
     
  14. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA