Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Salmo_g, Dec 9, 2017.
How about the organization proves it by increasing fish runs. Something they have had decades to do.
Mainly they won't have the ESA steelhead take limit restricting their spring Chinook fishery. And when steelhead runs are large enough, they can directly target steelhead for harvest, which they regard as beneficial.
Step one in the preservation and restoration of steelhead in puget sound.
If we are unwilling to do that we are unwilling to restore the region's fisheries.
Time for WDFW and NOAA to come out with that as their official position.
While I think this monitoring is a good thing for data collection...lets not forget there are many rivers up and down the coast and inland with identical 'threatened' status on SH. Next to ZERO (rivers) require jumping through these kinds of hoops just to conduct a C&R recreational fishery. This tells me no one trusts the data on the Skagit regarding run size (for good reason). Nor do they trust the data regarding angler impacts (as in fish to net or hand). For good reason again.
If this thing actually gets up and running, how many 'catches' are they going to allow for the season before its shut down? What mortality rate are they going to use?
That doesn’t answer the question. Who decides what data is valuable and what data is noise?
It does answer the question.
At this point with 30 years of failed efforts to preserve and restore the runs NOAA and WDFW should be forced to justify closures with data that proves the closure WILL result in long term benefits.
Point blank these organizations know why the fish are struggling, we have known for decades. They also know that for political reasons we cannot do what needs to be done. Time to admit it and let us fish.. its about for them to be honest.
Harvest, hydro,hatcheries, habitat.
The main things are the plain things..
Read the whole thread or one of the several others. That information has already been posted multiple times. Or you could read the RMP.
You do raise an interesting point. For whatever reason both the State and the feds have held Puget Sound fisheries to higher standards than many other areas. I don't mind being held to those standards but it would be nice if they were do the same for the other "Hs"; if so might see something besides declining runs.
Maybe other portions of the state don't have the same barriers to recovery?
For instance i think WDFW would argue the most if not all Lower Columbia tributaries are fully seeding the available habitat and the lowest of it's tribs are not even ESA listed at all.
Or the more likely scenario. Olympia and DC don't give a rip about the rest of the state.
Are we at the 4%, 10% or 20% (50% if this number/.1) level based off the forecast this season?
I guess I had let the three-letter acronym "ESA" slip out of the scope of my reasoning. For that matter, I thought the Skagit run was slightly better off than that; hence the proposal to open fishing. That was poor form, letting this topic go so far without understanding that.
Indeed, ESA explains the enforcement requirements, but I still question what we expect to learn that we didn't already know. I'm not sure how interested I am in proving how "safe" it is to C&R endangered fish. I would never intentionally target an endangered species. If that's what we're lobbying for, I'm out.
But you are willing to fish on the Hoh that hasent made escapments in 15-20 yrs or any coastal river that is in worse shape than any PS river? Seems hypocritical to me!
Well none of the species currently listed will ever recover and become unlisted so might as well fish for them.
Rob, please stop making too much sense!