The one yard line

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#76
If the dot orgs wanted to alienate their supposed constituency then mission accomplished.
No kidding. What they are doing is not steelhead conservation, no matter how much they might think it is. But they have succeeded in delay. But ya' know, there ain't much bragging rights with that. Because delay doesn't take all that much talent or all that much work.
 
#78
One thing to consider is educating anglers on how conservation groups with elitist attitudes can have an adverse effect on a fishery. Beyond a reasonable doubt were witnessing it right now.

In the past I have made attempts to join several groups and ended up walking away thinking these are not people I can relate to in anyway. Its conservation as long as you can stick to our agenda. That didnt go over well with me. My attitude with the .orgs was only reinforced when I started to visit B.C on a regular basis. You would see members getting free trips to certain lodges and such and to me they pretty much just seemed like mooches. Always with a sense of arrogance and usually lacking in actual fishing skills. Shittiest casters I have ever seen in some instances. Not that it matters.

What does matter is they get called out for what they are. Im considering it my moral duty to do so when it comes to a river I truly love and care about. I guess the final straw for me was when a certain person I actually had quite a bit of respect for regardless of there affiliation with a certain group wrote a published article that reaffirmed there brain had been taken over by scientology or aliens. Thats the only way I can put it that makes sense. The Skagit river and her tributaries will only suffer from elitist additudes. Im hoping were not going to let that decide the fate of a fishery. I think its time to put these f....... in there place! Those with more political clout than me please advise on the best legal way to do that.
 

almostacatch

Let it Angle on the Dangle
#79
One thing to consider is educating anglers on how conservation groups with elitist attitudes can have an adverse effect on a fishery. Beyond a reasonable doubt were witnessing it right now.

In the past I have made attempts to join several groups and ended up walking away thinking these are not people I can relate to in anyway. Its conservation as long as you can stick to our agenda. That didnt go over well with me. My attitude with the .orgs was only reinforced when I started to visit B.C on a regular basis. You would see members getting free trips to certain lodges and such and to me they pretty much just seemed like mooches. Always with a sense of arrogance and usually lacking in actual fishing skills. Shittiest casters I have ever seen in some instances. Not that it matters.

What does matter is they get called out for what they are. Im considering it my moral duty to do so when it comes to a river I truly love and care about. I guess the final straw for me was when a certain person I actually had quite a bit of respect for regardless of there affiliation with a certain group wrote a published article that reaffirmed there brain had been taken over by scientology or aliens. Thats the only way I can put it that makes sense. The Skagit river and her tributaries will only suffer from elitist additudes. Im hoping were not going to let that decide the fate of a fishery. I think its time to put these f....... in there place! Those with more political clout than me please advise on the best legal way to do that.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
 
Likes: JS

JACKspASS

Active Member
#80
What does matter is they get called out for what they are. Im considering it my moral duty to do so when it comes to a river I truly love and care about.
Come join my denomination, we are morally and ethically superior. Keep it on the down low, we don't want to come across as holier than thou, we let our actions do the talking. We want the Skagit open just like you, but we want it open under the right terms........ $49.99/mo
 
#82
The rumor mill on this thread is ridiculous. Disappointing to see similar unsubstantiated crap on the OS Facebook page.

I very much share your desire to get back on the river, and can understand frustration with the feedback the plan received, especially among those who worked long and hard on it. But unsubstantiated mudslinging is not helpful. And the agencies and co-managers getting their implementation exactly in order is essential to prevent a real block from a certain Duvall-based litigation factory.

It's possible something changed this week, but the latest we've heard is consistent with what Curt posted above.

Nothing has been 100 percent confirmed, but we expect an announcement of a fishery. By all indications, WDFW monitoring and enforcement has also been secured (note that a major component of Wild Steelhead Coalition's comments was calling for sufficient oversight of the fishery itself, something that was only tenously promised at that time).

Based on the input provided on the RMP/PEPD during the official comment period, there may be some minor changes made by the c0-managers in the final plan and implementation.

Wild Steelhead Coalition and Trout Unlimited have both repeatedly stated support for reopening this fishery, and did so again even while offering input suggesting reasonable improvements to the Resource Management Plan. While it’s possible the more litigious group may respond differently, I’ll speak for Wild Steelhead Coalition in saying we are not standing in the way of this fishery now.

For background, statements in support of OS from WSC:
 
Last edited:

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#83
The rumor mill on this thread is ridiculous. Disappointing to see similar unsubstantiated crap on the OS Facebook page.

I very much share your desire to get back on the river, and can understand frustration with the feedback the plan received, especially among those who worked long and hard on it. But unsubstantiated mudslinging is not helpful. And the agencies and co-managers getting their implementation exactly in order is essential to prevent a real block from a certain Duvall-based litigation factory.

It's possible something has changed this week, but the latest we've heard is consistent with what Curt posted above.

Nothing has been 100 percent confirmed, but we expect an announcement of a fishery. By all indications, WDFW monitoring and enforcement has been secured (note that a major component of Wild Steelhead Coalition's comments was calling for sufficient oversight of the fishery itself, something that was only tenously promised at that time).

Based on the input provided on the RMP/PEPD during the official comment period, there may be some minor changes made by the c0-managers in the final plan and implementation. However, from what we've heard it's likely that no significant deviations will be incorporated.

Wild Steelhead Coalition and Trout Unlimited have both repeatedly stated support for reopening this fishery, and did so again even while offering input suggesting reasonable improvements to the Resource Management Plan. While it’s possible the more litigious group may respond differently, I’ll speak for Wild Steelhead Coalition in saying we are not standing in the way of this fishery now.

For background, statements in support of OS from WSC:
I appreciate you taking time to respond. I think it's important. Thank you for that. The Duval group is the driver of the slow down I am sure, due to their litigious history. When you read an article like Rich's in Hatch it does not seem like your group is in support. It's a bit of a mixed message.

I am curious as to Rich's article in Hatch magazine. I have messaged WSC in the past, and commented on facebook pages with no response. Jonathan responded to me about it but he was on vacation and I did not want to bother him more. Everyone deserves vacation without interruption.

Since I may have a live wire through this medium, I'm curious how I would get answers to what that article was all about? Is what he wrote a shared perspective of your group? I'd be happy, in fact ecstatic to speak with someone about it. I can be messaged here or on the facebook machine. Thank You.

Go Sox,
cds
 
Likes: JS
#84
Since I may have a live wire through this medium, I'm curious how I would get answers to what that article was all about? Is what he wrote a shared perspective of your group? I'd be happy, in fact ecstatic to speak with someone about it. I can be messaged here or on the facebook machine. Thank You.
I can't speak to the content of that article. It was a personal opinion crafted by a Wild Steelhead Coalition boardmember. While I think it asks important questions, I wouldn't say it's reflective of my position or that of WSC as a whole.

I will say that our best case scenario is some reasonable modification to the RMP to prioritize continued wild steelhead recovery, better protect early returning fish and better manage increased angling pressure, and a reopened March-April fishery.

As has been stated repeatedly, I and the Wild Steelhead Coalition support the goals of Occupy Skagit.

I'll shoot you a message for follow-up.
 
#85
When you read an article like Rich's in Hatch it does not seem like your group is in support. It's a bit of a mixed message.

Go Sox,
cds
Mixed message to say the least. It's not a mixed message at all really.

It says, "Our organization is not ok with the Skagit RMP as it was written. We do not support it." "We were ok with it in 2015/16, but we don't think it's good enough now"
 

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
#86
I can't speak to the content of that article. It was a personal opinion crafted by a Wild Steelhead Coalition boardmember. While I think it asks important questions, I wouldn't say it's reflective of my position or that of WSC as a whole.

I will say that our best case scenario is some reasonable modification to the RMP to prioritize continued wild steelhead recovery, better protect early returning fish and better manage increased angling pressure, and a reopened March-April fishery.

As has been stated repeatedly, I and the Wild Steelhead Coalition support the goals of Occupy Skagit.

I'll shoot you a message for follow-up.

What more needs to be done, it is the most conservative steelhead fisbery in the state once it opens, there is no hatchery fish to mix with the early run. Really what more is needed?
All the .orgs need to stay the fuck out of it and stop fucking up people's hard work.
 
Likes: JS

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#87
Chase,

I appreciate you responding. I have no desire to criticize any party or group that hasn't slowed things up. WSC may have been supportive of the OS effort, but its response to the RMP/PEPD has contributed to the delay because a careful and calculated response has to be crafted to every negative comment.

Neither the RMP nor the PEPD are perfect. We live in a pluralistic society, and perfect is not on the menu of choices. What each reviewer had to decide is whether the plan is acceptable. WSC's and Rich's article found the RMP/PEPD not acceptable as is. That means a response or a response and modification. Both mean delay. That is just how it works.

WSC had an issue with monitoring, but how is monitoring that is not described in detail but will have to satisfy the same NMFS' standards as for any other fishery involving ESA stocks not adequate or acceptable? Is WSC saying that the standard applied everywhere else and proposed for the Skagit is somehow lacking and therefore unacceptable?

What modification to the RMP is necessary to, as you phrase it, "prioritize wild steelhead recovery . . .?" Given that no party, including NMFS in its several status reviews, has indicated that over-harvest is limiting Skagit steelhead abundance, that leaves freshwater habitat and marine survival as the proximate and only factors having a measurable effect on adult steelhead abundance. What is lacking? You mention recovery of early winter steelheaad. There is no fishery targeting early timed steelhead. What more do you want? We both know that treaty fishing for coho or chum that may incidentally harvest early timed steelhead is beyond the scope of our control, and NMFS won't touch it as long as the take falls short of jeopardy. That's why I refer to comments expressing concern - we all have concerns - without concrete actionable measures that can and will make measurable differences in the outcome equal delay. And since it won't measurably affect the outcome that delay is unnecessary, costing the public access to part of an otherwise viable fishing season.

Get it right. Yes, as long as it's my version of "right."

Sg
 
#88
What more needs to be done, it is the most conservative steelhead fisbery in the state once it opens, there is no hatchery fish to mix with the early run. Really what more is needed?
All the .orgs need to stay the fuck out of it and stop fucking up people's hard work.
What changed between 2015 and now? Oh yeah something got done and no dot orgs got credit or consulted on it. Let them make a small token change, call them heroes, and they will fall in line. That's how I deal with attention whores at work or play. Let them think it's all their idea and give them undeserved credit. This will be the end result if you want cooperation on their end. They are at a point now where they are backed into a corner and cannot admit defeat. You need to provide a gap in the net and let them escape with their dignity. Just like the sheriff should have done with Rambo. Now we will need a good supply of body bags to fight it out. This is about eating crow, saving face, and them feeling everyone should kiss the ring. It's about ego and purity. The psychology behind it is as transparent as it is juvenile.

All this would be allot easier if they came forth with actual conditions they want to get it open. Why is that so hard? Provide a counter offer. Can someone please for the love of all that is holy please articulate what they want? Anyone?
 
#89
Mixed message to say the least. It's not a mixed message at all really.

It says, "Our organization is not ok with the Skagit RMP as it was written. We do not support it." "We were ok with it in 2015/16, but we don't think it's good enough now"
The Hatch piece was an op-ed from one individual. This is Wild Steelhead Coalition's message:

"It is our hope that we will soon see a sustainable, conservation-oriented late-winter and spring wild steelhead fishery in the Skagit Watershed – a fishery that balances angling opportunity and the continued recovery of this important run of wild steelhead. The Wild Steelhead Coalition is generally supportive of the designation of Skagit-origin wild steelhead as an independently managed component of the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS). However, if management of this watershed is to be differentiated from the Puget Sound DPS to include harvest, striking a balance between fishing opportunity for both recreational anglers and tribal co-managers and the continued recovery of wild steelhead in the Skagit must be a vital requirement."

Sg, you may desire more detail, but the above responds to your question. WSC is not the prime group to point fingers at if you're pissed about technical comments slowing down this fishery. And we had the integrity to post and publicly stand behind our feedback on the RMP, something WFC did not do with their tome of criticism.

My chiming in here was to reiterate that while WSC offered what we saw as reasonable feedback during the comment period, perhaps contributing to the delay, we are not standing in the way of a fishery now.

You may soon see another org do so via legal means. I'd encourage folks to pick their targets appropriately.
 
#90
Mixed message to say the least. It's not a mixed message at all really.

It says, "Our organization is not ok with the Skagit RMP as it was written. We do not support it." "We were ok with it in 2015/16, but we don't think it's good enough now"

That's how I read it. I didn't see any solutions offered. Pretty hard to negotiate with someone who just says no. Where is the counter offer? There will be a counter action and that will be one of lawsuit. That's the machine that keeps the coffers full for these groups. Be obstinate then sue. Great game plan.

I wonder how many people crying foul with the Skagit plan are not above coming to the coast and beating on some of the most pressured and beleaguered runs on the peninsula?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts