Tipping Point

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by miyawaki, Mar 14, 2014.

  1. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,276
    Likes Received:
    2,994
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    No, that's why I asked.
    Not altogether surprising, particularly when those non-scientists involved with the decision see the scientists debating over the supposed facts and data.
    See above.
    Did I say I was an expert?
    One of us is repeating ourselves....see above.
     
  2. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Tacoma

    By inference of how your posts were written it was a pretty easy conclusion (IMO) that you felt you were expert enough to call someone out. If that wasn't the intent then I apologize. As for repeating myself, it'll get you every time... It'll get you every time....
     
    flybill likes this.
  3. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    3,333
    Location:
    m-ville
    All said thats a cool old school sled photo reguardless of your political passions of fish management
     
  4. ChrisC

    ChrisC Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    .

    So what are you trying to achieve if you know that you are less qualified to make judgements in this debate (as opposed to Salmo)? And since you've been at this since last year, It's hard not to think your only objective is to derail and disrupt the enthusiasm and planning around an effort you don't agree with. If it's not that, then what is it you are trying to achieve? Particularly, if we haven't changed your mind and you haven't changed ours.
     
  5. PT

    PT Physhicist

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    1,183
    Location:
    Edmonds, WA
    I've long felt that sleds shouldn't be allowed on the Skagit, Sauk, Sky, etc. My opinion is that it has to have an effect on the fish being pushed out of their water when a sled runs thru, goes back to its spot only to be pushed out again and again. How can it not affect the fish and lead to less successful spawning and lead to diminished returns. That is just my opinion.

    But, I have no facts to back that up so I've kept my opinion to myself knowing it will only divide user groups. So, I continue to support sled operators and don't begrudge anyone from owning or running one on the rivers I mentioned even thought I'd rather not see or hear them on those waters. We need all user groups to work together rather than continually bickering over our own set of beliefs. I wouldn't hesitate to jump in with KerryS or Salmo and spend the day on the water with them because my opinion about sleds is only that. I can handle the noise and the slight irritation they give me because I want them as an ally and voice for the resource. Not to mention, it's not an informed opinion and there's nothing I can do about it other than complain because someone else might be doing something that, at times, can be moderately annoying. It's up to me to get over that rather than expect my opinions to influence their sled use.

    One of the posters stated that he'd like to see what the returns are after 2020 or whatever year it was and then make a decision. That person stuck with that number and argued over it just because he "felt" that was a reasonable amount of time. Well, others don't think that is anything other than one persons opinion and have an opinion themselves that it should be looked at far sooner. Like now, or last year or the year before that. Numbers support the people who want it looked at now, not so much the people who think we should do nothing just because they think so.

    Only trying to make a point. OS is an opportunity for different user groups to voice their opinions, while using scientific data, in trying to restore a fishery that many people can enjoy. It's an opportunity to get a fishery back which is a very rare thing these days. Usually when a fishery is taken away, it's taken away forever. Most of the people who would benefit from an opening are the same people who will continue to advocate for the wild steelhead. Apathy is a bitch, and that's what we'll have if we continue to lose opportunity with nothing coming back our way. Do you think the eagle watchers give one turd whether wild fish are swimming below their boats? Do you think anyone in Pugetropolous actually cares about the fish? I know the answer to that.
     
    bennysbuddy and Jason Rolfe like this.
  6. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,276
    Likes Received:
    2,994
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    I sold my sled years ago...a Wooldridge Alaskan, really liked that boat. All the fly-guys at Blue Creek loved the boats. They said we pushed the fish into the bank willows and improved their hook-ups...now there's teaming and a symbiotic relationship at work.

    Show the Skagit fish you really care and let them recover without adding risk... it's not like there aren't other fishing options. The Cowlitz is big enough for two handers... it's where I swing for steelhead.
     
  7. flybill

    flybill Purveyor of fine hackle, wine & cigars!

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,965
    Likes Received:
    441
    Location:
    One of those "blue lines" in the WA, MT,
    Five pages and you still don't get it... the Cowlips is great for steelhead and even sea run's.. they're all hatchery fish though, or at least most are.. the Skagit and OP river still have natives in them! That's what brings people from all over the world to this area to chase them...
     
  8. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,276
    Likes Received:
    2,994
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    And when they are once again healthy and not threatened, it will be be re-opened for fishing. In the meantime, we must adjust. The Cowlitz fish still smack flies and provide great sport.
     
  9. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,031
    Likes Received:
    5,695
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    test post, having some trouble here
     
  10. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,031
    Likes Received:
    5,695
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    FSA,

    Still you're writing about letting the Skagit steelhead recover. Clearly you're functionally deaf on this topic. There is nothing for those fish to recover to. The basin is at its carrying capacity, with annual abundance determined by ocean survival. Fishing, CNR, and even some targeted harvest, has zero effect on population abundance. If I typed in all caps, ya' know, yelling to compensate for your apparent deafness, would that aid your understanding?

    I tried to post the following last night, but the forum locked up on me and wouldn't let me post, something that happens from time to time. It was to address a post you made yesterday or thereabouts.

    Sg
     
    _WW_, Derek Young and flybill like this.
  11. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,031
    Likes Received:
    5,695
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Still can't post the following, post must be too long.
     
  12. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,031
    Likes Received:
    5,695
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    partial post


    FSA,
    It would be a bit of a reach if didn't have the better part of four decades of experience in salmon and steelhead biology and management. It's not that my opinion is more important than yours. Rather it's that my opinion is substantially more informed than yours appears to be, if you'll pardon my arrogance. Indeed, my analysis is only of the facts as I know them. Please be so kind as to point out the facts of the matter that are in dispute - that is essential to the resolution of fisheries issues in court, where I also have a bit of experience. And while I don't have everything there is to be known, or that I'd like to know, I'm comfortable that I have, along with other fishery professionals, enough information and analysis to conclude that re-instating the Skagit CNR season will have no measurable effect on future wild steelhead abundance, just as it hasn't in the last 36 years.
    My credentials include by fisheries degree from UW, 37 years as a practicing fisheries biologist with salmon and steelhead in WA state, and almost 15 years of that on the Skagit River basin, where at one point I managed a wild steelhead broodstock program for a 4-year period where the incidental hooking and handling mortality amounted to 2%, even though broodstock programs subject fish to far more handling and stress than something as simple CNR fishing under selective gear regulations. BTW, Smalma, who posts on this topic ran a similar program with Sauk River fish spanning more years, with an incidental mortality rate of less than 4%.
    Do you really think he and I would be supporting the OS team if we didn't believe they had a legitimate point to make?
     
    Bob Triggs, bhudda, flybill and 2 others like this.
  13. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,031
    Likes Received:
    5,695
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    rest of post

    Further, our steelhead fisheries are in the "mess" they are in for reasons other than harvest management, despite the popularity of scapegoating that factor. Harvest has not been a factor in wild steelhead abundance in the Puget Sound region in over 20 years, and that includes treaty Indian harvest, and that conclusion is supported by data, but I'm sure we could find someone to dispute the data, but they would lack the qualifications to do so. Find me one biologist who believes contrary, and we can discuss this further.

    And here we have an instance where the benefits of fishing can be realized without "doing any further harm," but because you lack the information to make an objective analysis, you recommend that society bow to your preference. WTF?

    If I thought for a minute that the CNR fishery on the Skagit posed any risk to the long term survival of the population, I"d oppose it in a heartbeat. But the evidence not only is not there, the evidence is exceedingly strong that the CNR fishery simply has no effect on population abundance. WTF should we yield to your moral high ground that is based on emotion, instead of evidence? I'm not worried in the least about the loss of social and economic benefits from not having the season. But I do consider those factors, right BELOW the biology of the organism and the ecology of the system it lives in. And those considerations, which may be aligned as priorities, tell me there is no objective reason not to allow the Skagit CNR season. If the evidence were to change, so would my opinion on the direction management should take.

    Sg
     
  14. flybill

    flybill Purveyor of fine hackle, wine & cigars!

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,965
    Likes Received:
    441
    Location:
    One of those "blue lines" in the WA, MT,
    Let's go for 6! REREAD Salmog's post below mine... seriously!
     
  15. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,276
    Likes Received:
    2,994
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    All that said, why then do the numbers keep declining? The trend lines of the more recent reports on the Skagit have been downward for quite a good many years. If the scientists are going to claim the science and data was from years ago (and is now ) sound, but that policy is not being made based on the science, then what? If it's the loss of habitat and we are in a losing battle to recover that, then what? Seems everyone claims to know all we need to know yet the fish numbers suggest otherwise. At worst, not fishing over them is a loss of mine or others fishing pleasure.