Tipping Point

Hillbilly Redneck

wishin i was fishin
#78
I swung flies w/ a 2hander on the south fork snoqualmie the other day.

Please open the skagit. This is depressing.
Dude, that's nothing. I actually tied up some bass style Intruders recently. I haven't actually gone after any ditch pickles yet, but I 'm close. A few weekends ago in Feb. I was on the Schwartzmiller property off the Pilchuck helping plant trees. The water was primo. I almost died. Last weekend I was up on the Sauk where the HS kids with my wife have adopted the Suiattle launch for cleanup. I would have almost died again except the river was punched and that made me feel a little better.
 

golfman44

5-Time Puget Sound Steelhead Guide of the Year
#79
Dude, that's nothing. I actually tied up some bass style Intruders recently. I haven't actually gone after any ditch pickles yet, but I 'm close. A few weekends ago in Feb. I was on the Schwartzmiller property off the Pilchuck helping plant trees. The water was primo. I almost died. Last weekend I was up on the Sauk where the HS kids with my wife have adopted the Suiattle launch for cleanup. I would have almost died again except the river was punched and that made me feel a little better.
Haha yea the Pilchuck does look sweet. I think its closed for the entire year tho.

Wish I was chasing steelhead on the skagit and not these 6 inch fish on the south fork
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#81
True enough... they (or at least PS populations) are currently designated as threatened. Also good are those numbers. If they hold stable and/or reverse the trend line, that would be the point to discuss merits of C&R. We don't know what we don't know about all the dynamics that affect their world. I know many disagree with me on this, but I'd rather err on the side of the fish...there are other fisheries available.
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.

Sg
 

golfman44

5-Time Puget Sound Steelhead Guide of the Year
#82
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.

Sg

 

Tool Fly

Active Member
#87
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!
 

golfman44

5-Time Puget Sound Steelhead Guide of the Year
#88
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!
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.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#89
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.

Sg
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.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#90
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.

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?