Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

What happend to the steelhead in Washington?

8K views 93 replies 40 participants last post by  gt 
#1 ·
Okay, fellas, perhaps I'm a bit lazy in not wanting to do the research myself, but I thought I pose a question that I feel is silly, but I truly don't know the answer.

What happened to the steelhead populations in Washington?

Our rivers are raging due to the wet weather and most are toast for a while, so I find myself either a lot at the computer visiting steelhead forums and sites or re-reading books like "A Passion for Steelhead". It seems like not so long ago, Washington rivers were loaded with big, bright, solid, hard-fighting steelhead. The book is loaded with awesome pics of these gorgeous fish. But a good portion of the book is depressing, with an almost, "you should have been there, it was awesome" theme. The book wasn't written by some guy who could be my great great grandfather, it was written by a guy my age!

Here in Northern California, we can attribute the decline to logging (coastal rivers), mining (inland rivers) or damming (both). Some is simply mis-management of the water resources... the tug for water between farmers and So Cal and environmentalists, especially during drought periods. Perhaps a bit of greed and overfishing, too. Of course, there are other factors undoubtedly, but the purpose is not to start a debate, simply to understand, in general, what happened to the steelhead in your rivers.

You have so many rivers and so much water! I look at a map and see long stretches of rivers before being dammed, what appears to be plenty of habitat left. I never hear talk of rivers being "silted in" from logging but I know that must be an issue.

I look at rivers on the map like the Sauk, Skagit, Snohomish, Skykomish, Snoqualamine, which seem to flow for miles before being dammed. I don't see that all are. So was it the dams? Was there not enough habitat left? Was it logging? And I never hear anything written about the fishing in rivers like the Green or Cedar just to the south?

I'm self-admittingly uneducated on this subject. Anyone care to give me the unabridged history lesson?
 
See less See more
#35 ·
What I find so amazing is how much time, money, effort, money, gas, money, travel, money, planning, money, energy, money, talk... and money, we spend chasing down, casting to, outfitting for, gearing up, arguing over, dreaming of... a fish that, for all practical purposes- apparently doesn't exist.

Gotta go. No more time to type. Gotta get ready to hit the river first thing in the morning!
 
#44 ·
What a great point.

While all above is true. You all have to realize that we all like to bitch as it is the nature of man. If one didn't bitch, one would blow up.

Me, I like to bitch about the weather. Which by the way it snowed again last night.

But I fish for the fun of it and I guess that you could say that catching fish is a by-product of having that fun. Some people like to catch and eat fish. But I only eat fish if it is like in a sandwitch.

Jim
OMJ pulls through again. Bitching about the weather is great, you can never bitch enough.

Fishing with people who only want a meal, get on my nerves. Go to Mcdonalds and get some McDoubles. I'm more C&R than ever, but I also believe in keeping a trout every now and then, or a female humpy to smoke and give the roe to my bait fishing buddies.

People put too much money into fishing. Almost like they think it's upping their chances. This is not the case. I am living proof that you can fish, and even fly fish, on a dime. When people put all these hordes of money into fishing, they get that much more pissed off when they get skunked. I caught my first fish since November last week. And I've been fishing ever since. Guess it's just luck, and my luck should be raising soon.

There's a reason it's called fishing and not catching!!

Edit: Yes, I know this it totallly irrelavent to the subject at hand.
 
#37 ·
i don't fish for them any longer, period. have wonderful memories of over 3 decades of steelhead from many different drainages. great fishing, good friends, fun times were had. now, well i can still take you to a pile up of hatch jobs ripe for the taking but the west end, from my perspective, is not worth the effort. now if the tribal nets were to come out, you bet, things would probably be quite different but that is not going to happen until there is absolutely nothing left to net.

sub-tropic is the name of the game for me at this point in time. CR is the place with the right attitude regarding fishing and available big challenging fish on the fly.
 
#38 ·
While all above is true. You all have to realize that we all like to bitch as it is the nature of man. If one didn't bitch, one would blow up.

Me, I like to bitch about the weather. Which by the way it snowed again last night.

But I fish for the fun of it and I guess that you could say that catching fish is a by-product of having that fun. Some people like to catch and eat fish. But I only eat fish if it is like in a sandwitch.

Jim
 
#39 ·
I personally feel that there are three basic regions of steelhead and a few sub regions. Each region has had its problems and most have been pointed out here.
Three things reduce steelhead runs, harvest, poor ocean conditions and inefficient habitat. Great ocean survival can over come the other two with good runs entering the rivers.
Harvest by Gillnets can destroy even the best of runs because they are so unselective and unsustainable.
Habitat will reduce a run to a fraction of its former self BUT can be repaired as we see happening across the state since the 90's.
The big problem with Puget Sound runs are Fish Farms, they swim past and die at sea, and we are allowing it to happen in BC and Washington, that is what I personally feel is a problem with Puget Sound Steelhead. Fortunately that can be remedied also we just need the POLITICAL balls to do it.
Every river that has lost its fishable steelhead runs are inside Puget Sound, Even the Columbia with all its Dams supports huge runs or Salmon and Steelhead (comparatively)
The Puget sound fish run past fish farms, they are the worst off of all Regions, if it was more of a habitat issue there would be a Plato of loss and then a cycle of ocean survival. The Puget Sound fish are being killed by something NOT determined yet, I think its Fish Farms.
Combined with other formerly mentioned problems and we have what we have unfishable numbers when every other Region is doing good.
 
#40 ·
For our Puget Sound rivers there is no doubt that we as a society have opted to use most of those river's potential to produce wild steelhead (and other anadromous fish) for uses other than fishing/fish abundances. Those choices are reflect in severely degraded freshwater habitats. There is little doubt that today that potential is but a small fraction of what it was historically (various estimates places the current potential at 2 to 20% of what it once was). Further it is equally clear that as a society we will continue to make those sort of decisions until there is so few wild steelhead fish that allowing fishing for them will not be allowed.

It is also equally clear that as a whole PS steelhead populations are currently far below the current average productivity potential given the freshwater habitat conditons. By far the largest driver in limiting that productivity potential is marine survival. That reduced marine survival is best illustrated by tracking smolt to adult survivals which currently is approximately 10% of what was seen during the early/mid 1980s.

The above two issues are so large in their impacts (especially working togehter) that they essentialy render the other factors mentioned (harvest, hatcheries, etc) almost meaningless in the big picture

To date I'm convinced that largest mistake made by both the managers and anglers is a failure to recognized the cyclic nature of such factors as marine survival - that fact that steelhead production is dynamic/constantly changing and not static. There is good evidence that seeing survival cycles between good and poor conditions lasting decades is the norm and further we are in depths of poor cycle.

The big question should be is how will the populations weather this survival storm and what management choices can be made to add that survival. Clearly the largest safety net for the various populations would be productive freshwater habitats but we as a soceity have effectively taken that off the table. Some of the more commonly suggested actions include -

HARVEST - across Puget Sound harvest levels have been reduced over the pass 30 years until the last decade the fishing impacts on wild steelhead across Puget Sound is in the 4% range. Is that low enough (adding significant risk to the populations?)? If not where do further cuts come from and what will be the benefit?

HATCHERY - Again the potential for interactions between hatchery and wild stocks on Puget Sound Rivers have been reduced over the last 30 years. with each reduction wild steelhead survivals have fallen. The next step would be the elimination of all hatchery fish (and all steelhead fishing). Are any benefits from that change worth the cost (no fishing)?

DIVERSITY -For Puget Sound rivers there appears to have surprising little lost in adult diversity (run timing, spawn timing, age structure). There clearly has been a loss of life history diversity (resident/anadromous etc) which may be a key factor for the species during these periods of low marine survival.

FISH FARMS - There is some good information that they have affected local populations of pink salmon but it is hard to argue that they are a signinficant problem for Puget Sound stocks. As we all know we are currently seeing increasing returns of pinks with near recorded or record returns to the region. In regards to steelhead they are by far much larger smolts than (pinks and larger than any of the salmon) meaning they can tolerate much larger parasite lots than say pinks. Further their migration patterns are such to greatly reduce interactions from fish farms - they migrate in deeper water away from the shallow water locations of most net pens, generally migrate quickly through interior waters reducing exposure time, and for Puget Sound steelhead the majority (all?) of the smolts leave the region via the Straits (away from those BC net pens).

PUGET SOUND EARLY MARINE SURVIVAL - Recent studies have shown that something like half of the steelhead smolts leaving our rivers do not survive to reach Neah Bay. It is unclear whether this outside of the norm. It is to be expected that there would be a high mortality of those smolts after they leave the river. They are the smallest size they will be while in the salt, they are moving into a very different environments require different behaviors (both for foraging and predator avoidances) and physiological demands.

IMHO it is hard to make harvest, hatcheries, or fish farms the smoking gun for the current status of Puget Sound steelhead. With diversity there is developing information that the lost of life history diversity (resident form) could be key - they could well provide a population safety net for the species in the various rivers and this issue needs further thought and actions. The importantance of that high early smolt mortality in Puiget Sound is somewhat unclear but surely needs continued study.

Anyway after much though on this issue the above is my long winded response to the question "What happened to Puget Sound Steelhead".

Tight lines
Curt
 
#41 ·
i would certainly vote in favor of closing down ALL steelhead hatcheries followed by closing down steelhead fishing statewide. we are past the time of self sustaining stocks of wild steelhead. all harvest of steelhead needs to be stopped, commercial as well as sport.
 
#43 ·
Thanks Curt, as usual, for your complete and science-based explanation. I'm with GT: Close the hatcheries, close commercial fishing and close sport fishing until we see if they can recover. I for one have stopped fishing for them.
 
#45 ·
I fished in the 70's and 80's for steel and saw the decline of fish when "elninyo" sorry for the spelling - moved in and warm waters moved clear up to alaska whipping out most of the food source for steelhead that migrated north , the winter runs declined so bad during this time i quit fishing for them in the late 80's . now the summer runs that migrated south to the california coast line were fine , and just got better !

In the 90's there were some press releases of canadian netters taking up to 70 to 90 percent of the migrating fish from the northern usa ! we signed some treaties with them to stop netting of our fish and this worked for awhile . a lot of the time i think we are doing everything we can to help with waters and fish inland in both oregon and washington , in the early 80's it was common to see schools of fish in 50 to 100 fish , but we planted 275 thousand fish a year in my local river in oregon , in which now we only plant 100,00 brood stock fish so returns have gone down . we have taken rivers in oregon and stopped planting them for over 10 to 15 years and their NATIVE runs have not rebounded any ! the trask -n- mollala rivers to name a couple !

in those days there were not that many good fly fisherman or regular gear fisherman , now with the internet people learn very fast how to take fish . now give that technology to the netters in the ocean and columbia and you have the same .

I feel if we hand put 1,000,000,000 smolt in the ocean and they are not allowed to return then we have no fish . i believe we are funding the world with food for all our efforts and getting nothing for it !
i only fish over the columbia steelhead now , hard not to with returns of 600 thousand a year returning over the first dam on the columbia , then i targeted the silvers this last year over the dam and we were getting 20 a day untill the small mess nets went in and it was whipped out in one day !!! and just kept netting untill nothing was left going over ! ive come to think - why do we put some much into fish we have so little control over and so little into trophy trout in both oregon and washington ? we have control over what happens with these fish and could have awesome fishing for these fish with very little effort or money compared to the billions being spent feeding the world ! just my two cents !!!
 
#47 ·
we have taken rivers in oregon and stopped planting them for over 10 to 15 years and their NATIVE runs have not rebounded any ! the trask -n- mollala rivers to name a couple !
Molalla Final Report

"The Molalla wild winter steelhead run is part of the Upper Willamette Evolutionary Significant Unit,
which was federally listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1999. The Molalla
River population is in full recovery and is now considered a stronghold population.

Before 1997, the Molalla River was stocked for decades with out-of-basin summer steelhead,
winter steelhead, Coho salmon and catchable trout. These stockings along with the massive
timber harvest in the mid-Century led to the massive decline of this population. Those stockings
stopped with the listing of native winter steelhead and spring Chinook. Only a decade ago, Molalla
River wild winter steelhead were estimated to be less than 200 fish, but in 2007 and 2008, the
estimate was more than 1,500 fish, according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
and NFS reports."
 
#50 ·
very interesting topwater. so a low gradient river flowing through mile after mile of agricultural land, with all that implies, stops stocking hatchery fish, stands back and watches as wild fish return. that might just be classified as fisheries managment! its ashame that WDFW can't understand just how all of this can work.

but as we know, MSY is the only real goal for WDFW.
 
#58 ·
With your implication that the hatcheries are the obvious culprit, I'd like to point out the following article published very recently relating to the Molalla:

Community support can improve your river
Published: 3/1/2011 2:03:28 PM

By Karen Font Williams

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region

By some measures, the Molalla River is one of the higher quality rivers in the state, but the river has not escaped effects from human development.

The Molalla River is currently too warm to support healthy fish and occasionally has too much bacteria at high stream flows for people to safely swim and fish.

Towns and fields demand a large portion of the river's flow during summer and eroding stream banks expose shallow water to the sun's rays. Many groups and individuals are working on stream protection projects that will reduce pollution from various sources.

Sources of heating and bacteria pollution are described in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality water quality improvement plan for the Molalla and Pudding Rivers.

How we live on the land affects our rivers. The land surrounding the Molalla River and the river's tributary streams comprises a watershed.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality watershed coordinators can help communities improve their watershed by studying pollutant sources, exploring how land use contributes to stream pollution and communicating about how that pollution impairs aquatic life and limits human use of the river.

Communities then can plan what changes are likely to improve river quality, where they would be most effective, and what should be measured to tell us if we're making a difference. If a river's quality does not improve, our plan should be flexible enough to allow us to try something different.

Public investments in watershed restoration can provide economic benefits to communities as well as making streams healthier for fish and safer for people.

Last spring, the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the University of Oregon (http://ewp.uoregon.edu/) released three papers about the economic effects of forest and watershed restoration in Oregon.

Their research and analysis found that every $1 million of public investment in watershed restoration generates about 16 jobs. Think of the engineers, landscape designers, hydrologists, equipment operators, and planting crews.

Indirect economic benefits include revenue for businesses that provide supplies to restoration projects, as well as the local spending of those whom the project employs.

Across the northwest region of Oregon, investments in water quality improvement are helping communities. Stream bank restoration and livestock management changes along the Wilson River, which drains to Tillamook Bay, not only improved water quality, but allowed for the proposed opening of 400 previously closed acres to shellfish harvesting.

In the Tillamook Bay watershed, DEQ grants, matched with local funding and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board funding, have provided several full-time and seasonal jobs over the last decade.

Recreational boat rentals and revenue to other local businesses in the Columbia Slough watershed have increased as the once maligned slough begins to recover from decades of abuse.

Nursery business increased as partners in the Tualatin River watershed planted their way to cooler stream temperatures.

Partners in the Molalla River watershed are building their own water quality and economic successes. The Clackamas County Soil and Water Conservation District, working with U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Farm Service Agency, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and private landowners, is currently providing technical assistance and coordinating grants for 11 restoration projects in the Molalla River watershed.

Molalla River Watch, the local watershed council, has inspired hundreds of volunteers to restore stream bank vegetation, and is using grants to measure the quality of the Molalla River and prioritize areas for future restoration projects.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Native Fish Society have combined efforts on several fish habitat improvement projects in the upper Molalla River.

Families are recreating more in the Molalla River corridor, thanks to frequent Molalla Police Department summer public safety patrols.

River use may increase still more with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's upcoming campground and trail improvements.

River users bring their business to local vendors such as sporting goods suppliers, grocery stores, and restaurants.

The Molalla River Alliance, after only two years of work, has pulled together an effective, organized, and diverse group of partners with the goals to preserve the water quality and biodiversity of the Molalla River and to protect and sustain the watershed's natural resources.

In DEQ's experience, environmental and associated economic successes are built when many partners, public and private, collaborate on a plan and persevere.

Restoring a watershed is a long-term, group project and the recipe for success seems to include these key ingredients: funding, local commitment, and a strategy to measure and report success.

If stream restoration and protection interest you, take advantage of the expertise and enthusiasm of local groups and state and federal agencies providing technical assistance in the Molalla River watershed.
While out of basin hatchery practices are certainly not good for wild steelhead populations, you are dismissing many years of stream rehab work that has been underway on the Molalla. It is quite obvious that you have an agenda here, and to your credit you do not hide it. However, you dismiss the work of a lot of hard working people which have set out to contribute to the positive outcomes of a rehabilitation effort - not just the elimination of its hatchery.

Salmo_g provides a lot of very good information in this thread that can be applied along the entire west coast. Hatcheries are not your silver bullet, and in a lot of cases they spread angler pressure out easing pressure on certain wild habitats.

The runs are not going to improve if water quality is not addressed, if water quality is good and your predation is high, then you are still fighting an uphill battle. We can remove every dam on the west coast, but if our fish are swimming in a poisonous environment, they stand no chance. We can remove every hatchery in Washington, reduce the steelhead populations within a few years to fractions of what exist today, and turn every angler in the state of Washington loose on the Queets and Ho.

Fisheries recovery is a multi-headed monster, and in my humble opinion you are going after the most complicated issue with the most far reaching social, economic, and political implications of any of the subjects.

I understand you are passionate about hatchery removal, but you and everyone that has this mind set need to understand that if you do nothing but remove hatcheries all you are accomplishing is a coup de grâce on the fishing opportunies we have today, with little impact to the end goal.
 
#51 ·
Indeed. The Molalla is a very small river similar to the Stilly. It has two forks the upper of which supports a small trout fishery much like the Middle fork Snoqualmie. It begins on the west slope Cascade range dropping thru farm and livestock country. The native fish runs have responded to being left alone very nicely. We were able to see many fish below Abiqua Falls last year( a stream I fished as a boy for steelhead) and a friends property on Butte Crk had fish spawning near his place as well . The MO is floatable with a driftboat in the winter . Infact, they keep a gate open to allow access to a key launching area only during the steelhead fishery. All other times the gate is kept closed to keep the tweakers out, atleast somewhat.
 
#52 ·
i floated the river from the 70's to 2000 then just quit because of no fish ! so i'm glad to here its rebounded the way it has , even if it took ten years . i will have to watch what happens the next ten years as the columbia runs are boomning right now also for the upper river fish , who knows what will happen next ? a few good years might not mean to much but glad to see it has changed some !
 
#55 ·
You quit right at the wrong time unfortunately. 2001 was a record year all across the board. I'm with you though, let's hope that things get better. The more we get involved, the better it will be for the next generation.
 
#59 ·
even more interesting. i used to live about 1/2 mile from the molalla and understand the flow as well as the land it flows through. it is good news that some interested folks set out to do some improvements but you seem to imply that this eco system has had a complete makeover. what is more probably the case is the worse of the pollutants have been reduced and in combination with hatchery fish removal the wild fish are returning.

you also are a part of the overall problem with wild fish recovery as you point out: '... understand that if you do nothing but remove hatcheries all you are accomplishing is a coup de grâce on the fishing opportunies we have today, with little impact to the end goal...' which is the worn out arguement for continuing to raise zombie fish.

while some would want to point to the ubiquitious 'ocean conditions' all that means is they have no clue what is going on with the fish, but that sounds better than we are clueless. i have no problem with closing all steelhead hatcheries and shutting down harvest of steelhead by all concerned parties. afterall, fishing opportunities should be reserved for healthy populations of fish. and since the dams are a part of the anadramous problem, join my nephew and start bassin'!!!
 
#61 ·
scottpuck, the article you posted is interesting but it doesn't point to any real long term habitat improvement, and even states that current water temps are too warm. nobody is dismissing the work of volunteers helping to restore habitat, but habitat work alone right now is not the entire answer.

hatcheries play a role in wild fish declines, but directly and indirectly through harvest pressure and land use decisions (hatcheries in lieu).

you make it out like those opposed to hatcheries are only focused on that one specific issue. it may be the case for some, but all of the wild fish advocates i've met feel just as strongly about mixed stock fisheries, dams, and habitat. habitat is critical for long term survival, but we have to take steps to make sure the remaining wild fish are as productive and abundant as possible as we wait for habitat to improve (if it actually does).

as for more pressure coming to coastal rivers... i like that one of your examples is probably one of the best case studies on the problems with hatchery production on a system with lots of good habitat. the other example is a river that consistently misses escapement while being pimped out relentlessly.... she's one tired hoh.
 
#62 ·
a couple of miles from my front door is the dungeness r. a group called 'the river keepers' are very active in restoration work including placing woody debris where they can. but this very steep gradient river contains very few steelhead. according to WDFW, steelhead stocking has ceased because of the chinook ESA listing. apparently there are concerns regarding smolt competition which i don't understand. at any rate, the steelhead hatchery no longer releases smolt. so why are wild steelhead not repopulating this clean flowing uninterupted river? i doubt its 'ocean conditions' and has more to do with the destruction of the original wild population of fish with irrigation draw down during the summer months coupled with hatchery fish competiting for available space and food, but in fact, i am clueless.

so has this river system reached the point of no return? too few remaining native wild steelhead to stand a chance against all other odds to return home and spawn? i suspect this is the case and so a beautiful free flowing river no longer has sustainable numbers of wild steelhead, functionally extinct. how many other river systems before someone calls WDFW on their mismanagement of our publically owned resources?
 
#65 ·
a couple of miles from my front door is the dungeness r. a group called 'the river keepers' are very active in restoration work including placing woody debris where they can. but this very steep gradient river contains very few steelhead. according to WDFW, steelhead stocking has ceased because of the chinook ESA listing. apparently there are concerns regarding smolt competition which i don't understand. at any rate, the steelhead hatchery no longer releases smolt. so why are wild steelhead not repopulating this clean flowing uninterupted river? i doubt its 'ocean conditions' and has more to do with the destruction of the original wild population of fish with irrigation draw down during the summer months coupled with hatchery fish competiting for available space and food, but in fact, i am clueless.
the dungeness is an interesting case study, but the state is still planting it with hatchery winter-runs... this past winter they only released 3,700 smolts after past years of releasing between 10-14,000 smolts (these small numbers make you wonder "what's the point). of course, the dungeness is hammered habitat wise in the lower river. Not only massive water withdrawals in an area that receives next to no rain, but during the past couple decades sequim has seen massive development along the lower dungeness and it's watershed which only adds pressure to the watershed.
 
#64 ·
and your three points are well taken but now what?

- sit back and ignore bank to bank net sets on all of the OP rivers?
- sit back while WDFW continues to promote MSY for the benefit of the above?
- do nothing as the fish go extinct?

i don't see your pointing out the obvious as having much impact on the future of our wild anadramous fish.
 
#68 ·
- sit back while WDFW continues to promote MSY for the benefit of the above?
It is too bad that this statement keeps getting thrown out there in such a manner as to make it appear that WDFW is at fault here for this policy. It has been mentioned and linked to on this forum many times as to the true origin of this policy.

In short, WDFW is MANDATED by the Legislature of the State of Washinton to manage the fisheries for the commercial interests. Essentially, it is against the law for them to do otherwise. Get your lawyers, lobbyists, and your monies and go after that...

On another note, I went to the directors meeting in Sedro Woolley last night. I salute the WDFW for having the balls to show up here where there isn't a river open to fishing for maybe a hundreds miles in any direction. It's just a shame they had to put up with so much ignorance from the locals. I left after hearing this question from one concerned citizen; "I want to know what the WDFW's plans are for selective gill netting?"
 
#66 ·
you bet topwater, the army corp of engineers has done a fine job of ditchitizing the dungy along with developers who simply bulldozed the best coho spawing area on the entire river. what did the county do? i am sure i don't even have to call that out. there is, however, a movement afoot to move the dikes on the lower river to allow the meander to re-establish itself. property has been purchased, the corp has been out doing their slow motion survey, so who knows, maybe the last mile or so will see some improvement along with the estuary.

i had no idea they were still releasing steelhead smolts. i wonder which hatchery they are importing these zombies from as hurd creek is shut down.
 
#67 ·
I don't know if anyone else has seen the S river estuaries but, I personally can't believe any fish live in any of them. The fact that steelhead and salmon (let alone whales and stuff) are in puget sound at all is just amazing.

Also could it be that hatcheries started clipping fins thus people notice the lack of wild fish now more then they did in the "good old days" (like the 80s maybe?)
 
#69 ·
I thought there would be a better showing of some intelligence at the WDFW meeting in Sedro. Like WW I was surprised so many people that profess to have a love of fishing are so ignorant of the situation regarding fish. I was impressed by the patience displayed by WDFW officials when dealing with the ignorance and misplaced anger directed at them.

The meeting consisted of WDFW crying about the lack of money and the public blaming them and commercial (tribal) fishing for the decline in steelhead. I heard little from either side about the true causes of steelhead decline and almost nothing regarding what could be done.
 
#92 ·
I'm sorry I missed that meeting but I was out of the country, I really wanted to be there.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top