Post OS brainstorming

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
Apparently the self monitoring by the tribes passes legal scrutiny. I think we could get the same percentage of compliance from recreational anglers
Oh that's just great... tribal monitoring like that on the Skookumchuck and others should work really well. Might as well do monitoring at all.
 
As FA continues to pee in the community bowl of cheerios, I have a couple of additional thoughts to add. One, if fishermen, fly or otherwise, were balls out conservationists, we (and FA) would be pushing to eradicate most of the trout in the West. Rainbows and browns are largely invasive species (see Trout Culture by Jen Brown). Second, many conservation efforts fall short of being 100% altruistic. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, TU, and I could go on, are not just protecting fish and game for fish and game's sake; they enjoy chasing them. I for one don't think that's a bad thing, since many folks are ambivalent about things like steelhead runs. Thank goodness someone cares...even if it's a bit self-serving.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
As FA continues to pee in the community bowl of cheerios, I have a couple of additional thoughts to add. One, if fishermen, fly or otherwise, were balls out conservationists, we (and FA) would be pushing to eradicate most of the trout in the West. Rainbows and browns are largely invasive species (see Trout Culture by Jen Brown). Second, many conservation efforts fall short of being 100% altruistic. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, TU, and I could go on, are not just protecting fish and game for fish and game's sake; they enjoy chasing them. I for one don't think that's a bad thing, since many folks are ambivalent about things like steelhead runs. Thank goodness someone cares...even if it's a bit self-serving.
It's not a question of being passionate or not. Ultimately, you are correct in that we all are complicit in being self serving when it comes to fishing and hunting. The issue is the trend line. When it reverses, then open up the river for C&R.
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
if it's a bit self-serving.
You say that like it's a crime! :)
If I was interested in trying to convince the world that steelhead should not be angled for under any circumstances and habitually tried to steer conversations that way, would that be self-serving?
If you try to convince folks that your way is the proper way, would that be self serving?
If I want to eat pizza tonight and go out and get one, would that be self serving?
If I didn't share my pizza with folks that didn't believe in eating it, would I be selfish?
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
The issue is the trend line. When it reverses, then open up the river for C&R.
Let's explore this concept, if only for the sake of your pissing in the cheerios argument. While the data do not in fact exist, I'll postulate that if annual run sizes could be known, the simple regression line from 1850 to the present would display a slight negative slope. Further, if only date from 1950 to the present were regressed, the line would also display a negative slope that is slightly steeper. And using empirical data from 1978 to the present, we see a negative slope still. This third regression line might be steeper, or it might be about the same as the second. There is no way to know. Nonetheless, all knowledge about west coast steelhead, and Skagit steelhead in particular, both empirical and inferred, suggests that the combined productivity and carrying capacity of freshwater and marine environments combined, has been decreasing since 1850.

The question must arise; at what point in time does the prudent fish manager conclude that any and all fishing for Skagit steelhead must stop, presumably to prevent the eventual extirpation of the population? And the essential "why?" Please explain your work.
 
Last edited:

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
I've noticed a direct correlation between the increasing trend line of human population and the decreasing trend line of just about every other species. Head lice being one of the exceptions...

Don't know if FSA is still spouting off about the "ultimate sacrifice" he has made to "protect" steelhead but I'm thinking his "sacrifice" is in name only and hardly anywhere near "ultimate"!

However, he can still make the "ultimate sacrifice" and have an immediate impact on the human trend line, which by correlation should positively impact the decreasing fish trend...even more so if he could get a busload of his "lurker" fan bois to go with him! :)

I'm sure some of our volunteer monitors would be happy to step up to the plate and assure compliance...
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
Let's explore this concept, if only for the sake of your pissing in the cheerios argument. While the data do not in fact exist, I'll postulate that if annual run sizes could be known, the simple regression line from 1850 to the present would display a slight negative slope. Further, if only date from 1950 to the present were regressed, the line would also display a negative slope that is slightly steeper. And using empirical data from 1978 to the present, we see a negative slope still. This third regression line might be steeper, or it might be about the same as the second. There is no way to know. Nonetheless, all knowledge about west coast steelhead, and Skagit steelhead in particular, both empirical and inferred, suggests that the combined productivity and carrying capacity of freshwater and marine environments combined, has been decreasing since 1850.

The question must arise; at what point in time does the prudent fish manager conclude that any and all fishing for Skagit steelhead must stop, presumably to prevent the eventual extirpation of the population? And the essential "why?" Please explain your work.
Great, we don't have the data but are certain we have the answer. This sounds a lot like another often discussed folly on this forum. I think steelhead have suffered enough postulating, guesstimating, and experimenting...and the trend line reflects that. The agreement was no hatchery fish for 12 years. At the least, see if the numbers from this latest experiment show an increase before unnecessarily adding risk from fishing them. They are other rivers to fish in the meantime.
 
A linear trend line for the steelhead escapement numbers is the lamest excuse for statistical analysis I can possibly think of.

Also, I'd happily volunteer a few days this winter to do creel surveys or whatnot.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts