SRC Fishing Slowing Down

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Roger Stephens, Nov 10, 2005.

  1. martyg

    martyg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    161
    Location:
    The world at large
    Totally into a stamp, as long as those faulkers make sure that the money truly goes where is should and not into someone's pocket or to develop a waterfront park like Doc's has become.

    Pave the road and it is over.
     
  2. Jim Kerr

    Jim Kerr Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    Forks Wa
    I think a stamp is a great idea, but I am not sure it should be issued by the state. The beauty of the cutthroat fishery is that there are virtually no commercial, tribal, or gear fishing interests to contend with. If fly fishers got really active we could do allot. However in the past with salmon and steelhead management angler involvement has from time to time led to some horrendous errors. What about using a voluntary stamp to help fund some starving grad students to do the research we need so we can make correct and informed decisions. Maybe if the stamp ran $100.00 bucks or so and with purchase you got some benefits?. I bet I could sell 10.
    My objection to involving the state is I don’t have a lot of faith in there level of fiscal responsibility with cash money ear-marked cutthroat…I would feel much more comfortable dealing with some respected non profits.
    What I am suggesting is the stamp to raise seed money to perhaps be added to private grants to really get something started. We have the last fishable population of coastal cutthroat in the lower forty-eight in our backyards, what’s that worth?
    Jim
     
  3. Jeff Wood

    Jeff Wood New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Issaquah, Wa, King.
    Thanks for your insight Les. I was just wondering what time of the year would be the best to lay off the SRC's. I am all for a stamp to be dedicated to this fantastic fishery.
     
  4. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    if someone could come up with the panacia pill i would buy cases. there is no solution to protesting SRCs or any other fishes. this is the age we live in.

    consider the WFW group still advocating for wild steelhead kill; consider no guaranteed access below mean high tide; consider collapsed runs of virtually of our anadromous fishes; consider court involvement to force NOAA to reverse on PS orcas; consider global warming (yes it's happening); consider the change in the mining act to give away OUR public lands;..........

    this list is long, gloomy and hard to get your arms around. a conservation stamp for a specific unstudied noncommercially valuable species isn't going to produce the intended result.

    until or unless WE put people in policy positions who understand that protecting this planet is a top priority, nothing, and i mean nothing, is going to slow or stop the depletion of all of earths resources, including the SRC.
     
  5. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
  6. Mike Etgen

    Mike Etgen Not Quite A Luddite, But Can See One From Here

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA.
    gt...

    Only speaking for myself here, but I want to clarify that my willingness to support the SRC fishery with an additional stamp was a yes vote on the concept as Mr. Johnson expressed it. There were no details, so to speak, and I'm not one who blindly throws money at a problem or a cause without asking a few questions or at least knowing more of the details, so I think your lecture is a little premature to say the least.

    As a concept, yes, I'd gladly purchase an additional stamp to support a valid program to better research, devise and develop a recovered or enhanced SRC fishery. In fact, I'll repeat my earlier sentiment and say I would consider it an honor to do so. I bet you would too.

    Would I just "mail it in" to a any individual or organization that "promised" to take care of the SRC fishery for us? No more quickly than I'd mail it in to you.

    I might agree with your overall assessment of WDFW motivations and agendas, and wish to see some of the same changes, but I still buy my license every year, hoping that at least some of it supports my sportfishing priorities. Until an "opt-out" checklist is developed, that's all I can do as far as directing my licensing money.

    As a concept, I will say I'd love to have that same "opt-out" privilege applied to how my federal tax money is spent, too. But in practice, I don't see that happening in the near future. Still, I support the concept of supporting the efforts of the federal government to protect and serve the citizens, even as I recognize it's not always done my way or to my direct benefit.

    Peace.
     
  7. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    mike, i try and work as hard as i can to influence my elected officials. of course that is swimming uphill most of the time, but they hear from me very often. IF and that is a very large IF, a targetted program were established and supported by a conservation stamp, of course i would purchase such a stamp. but the reality is, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, that is not reality in this decade, and that is my only point.

    i should have also pointed to the august 12, 2005 NOAA habitat rule change for NINETEEN stocks of salmon in the PNW. this is the exact political crap that pervades fisheries management. this is not listening to science, it is listening to the national association of home builders lobby.

    if we are serious about the SRC or any other anadramous species, the one and only way we are going to have a voice is by forming a PAC with significant financial backing and a very LOUD voice.
     
  8. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,348
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    Washington does have a sportsfishing PAC; and it is seeded with industry insiders and others whom promote harvest to support retail sales.:rofl:
     
  9. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    not surprising bob. goes a long way to explaining the wild steelhead kill ruling's. should also go as no surpise that the regional head of NOAA is also a current board member of the bonneville power administration or that the lawyer who wrote the august 12th ruling is a former lobbyist for the timber industry.

    the real question here under the guise of this thread is how do WE take the high ground?

    the podium is now open to all speakers.............
     
  10. tyler

    tyler Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Ballard
    good thread. nice to see a departure from the "take-no-prisoners," "rip-some-lips" attitude that seems to have permeated our sport of late.

    having seen first hand the demise of a popular game fish species and what good fisheries management can do to revive it, i'm all for more stringent restrictions on SRC, steelhead, salmon, etc...

    t
     
  11. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    At a risk of further hi-jacking this thread from the original topic -

    I have to call BS on the claims of State mis-mangement of the sea-run cutthroat.

    This past summer the State went through a process looking for suggestions to modify the current regulations/management. Know how many proposals addressed sea-run cutthroat? Just 2.

    one stated that the sea-run cutthroat are not endangered and he is seeing more than any time in his life - had no proposal.

    The other proposal was to allow the retention of sea-run cutthroat between 11 and 13 inches on most estuaries and rivers.

    Where the heck were you nay-sayers? Saw nothing about ending harvest of sea-runs, saw nothing of gear restrictions, etc. Every major change in the management of our anadromous resources save the wild steelhead release issue has been accomplished by just a small handful of folks (general WDFW bios) with virtual no support from the angler community. Just the most recent example was the Stillaguamish and North Fork Stillaguamish where 5 or 6 years ago there was a regulation proposal to end the harvest of all trout and steelhead except hatchery steelhead all summer and go to selective gear regulations - now that sounds like something some here might support yet at the time the commission recieved only 4 comments (2 for and 2 against).

    Continually hear how various resources are mis-managed yet when it comes time to suggest changes or lobby for good ideas virtually the entire angling community remains silent.

    Various folks have spend considerable time and effort to let you folks know of the various process, how to make a difference, to supply you with basic biological information so that intelligent proposal could be made and yet no has the time to get involved. As far as I'm concern the angling population in general and the fly fishing community in particular are probably getting better management than you deserve given the demostrated committed that folks have made to the resource. If you are not attempting to be part of the solution and working towards "better management" then you are part of the problem.

    Two years from now we'll still be hearing the same compliants without any actions from the whiners.

    my 2 cents
    Curt
     
  12. King Wind Knot

    King Wind Knot Rebel, Truth Seeker

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA.
    I guess this isn't in the spirit of where this thread has gone, but I'll post an SRC fishing report anyways.

    I went out on the key pennisula on Sunday with another guy and I hooked and lost right at my boots a 14" SRC and landed and taped a 17" fish. My buddy landed and taped another 14" SRC. We were both using a bunny leach pattern.

    As a general note, I love winter fishing. In most of the spots that I fish during the summer I catch less but bigger fish. I have one spot on a private beach that my boss owns (also out on the key pennisula) and it fished just plain awful this past summer, but I was never skunked once last winter. I've been out there a couple times recently and I saw a big school of SRC's while we were out on a boat, but we couldn't get any to take a fly, but I hooked and lost one that felt like it was good sized. All last winter and so far this winter, I've had good luck w/ larger sculpiny flies and a sink tip line as opposed to my floater or clear intermediate.
     
  13. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    314
    Location:
    .
    Okay, I'll bite. First of all, while it's probably true that most anglers (including fly fishers) do not get very involved in trying to influence management decisions, there are some who are very involved (including some who actively participate in this site). Second of all, it's kind of twisted to say that anglers (and fly fishers in particular) should be ashamed of themselves for not being more involved in shaping resource management policies. Most of us don't really know enough to have any in-depth, well-reasoned input into alot of different management issues. We do observe with our own eyes the declining state of fisheries but most of us are in a position to only postulate why they may be declining and what should be done to solve the problem. We should all do what we can to let our voices be heard on conservation issues, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that WDFW and its staff gets paid to come up with the policies. It's completely proper for us to expect the agency in charge to do a better job, to show some leadership and not blame the angling community for failing to come up with ideas on how to recover declining fisheries. I can't imagine my elected representatives lashing out at me when I tell them they ought to do a better job balancing the budget just because I didn't submit a specific proposal for how to do that. Don't pass the buck. If there are good, internally generated, conservation oriented proposals that come up and you want us to support them, post them on this web site. Many people will be all over getting letters and e-mails into the WDFW. If that is something you can't do, then whisper in the ear of someone at Wild Steelhead Coalition, TU, etc. so they can get the word out to their membership.
     
  14. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    if the science is determining policy, more power to science. unfortunately that is rarely the case any longer. political expediency determines policy. that is why groups such a PEER (public employees for environmental responsibility) have formed.

    if you don't know, then find out how, to contact your elected representatives locally as well as nationally. you, that is, each of you reading this thread, need to constantly, that's at least every month, email each of these folks with your concerns.

    why do you think NOAA is getting away without regard to the science of fish recovery? beause there is no voice from all of us united with a single front, use the science involved with fishery management. pretty simple actually and all it takes is a few minutes a month to beat the drum. will they listen? lets find out by starting to do this in earnest.

    how about it?
     
  15. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    O mykiss -
    I agree it is the management agency's job to develop and provide the basic biological frame work that is compatible to maintaining healthy resources. However it is the angler's job to provide the managers their preference on how to use the productivity of the population in question. Should the potential fishing impacts be used in hooking mortality to provide the maximum number of fishing days that could be provided in a CnR fishery? or should those impacts be used to provide the maximum number of harvested fish? or so combination of the two? The answer of course depends on the species in question and the interests of the total angler community. One would get different answer in a halibut fishery than say the Yakima trout fishery.

    Sticking with the sea-run cutthroat case -
    Twenty years ago the State (then the department of wildlife) came up with a policy for managing resident trout, bull trout and sea-run cutthroat. It was called the stream management strategy. That policy called for the management of the resource based on the biology of the animal; primarily through the use of minimum size limits that insured that the majority of the females in the population would be protected through their first spawning. This was the origin of the 14 minimum size limit one finds on many Western Washington rivers. In those basin with reasonable habitats that approach seemed to be reasonable successful. Here in the north Puget Sound region in less than a decade the cutthroat populations rebounded to levels not since since WWII.

    That policy has been successful in providing the biological protection they needed. This business about whether there should be any harvest or not is less about the biological needs of the resource and more about how we the anglers want to use the productivity of the resource. Given the diversity of the angler interest it is for the anglers themselves to supply their desires on how they wish the resource to be managed within the biological constraints.

    My point unless anglers are willing to provide their desires to the managers it is unlikley that their desires will be met. Why would a manager be inclined to change the status quo if their biological info is that the resource is doing OK and their appears to be no major interest in the angling population for change?

    Resource allocation in fisheries management is typcial of the great American tradition of special interest that lobbies the hardest gets the largest pieces of the pie. I'm suggesting that if you want a bigger piece you need to get into the game. Sitting on the side lines and making vague claims of mis-management is not going to get you what you want. Believe it or not there are others on the other side of the harvest equation that feel that the resource is being mis-managed because their harvest is being limited.

    I also expressed surprised given the professed passion for our sea-run cutthroat I hear here that no one had the interest to suggest some change in the status quo management of the resource. I had attempted to provide the members here the information regarding the process in which to institude change as well as my assessment of the biological constraints of our cutthroat population. At some point we the anglers have to step up and asssume some responibility for achieving our desires.

    It is really up to us

    Tight lines
    Curt