The one yard line

#91
What early run on the skagit? Is the 67 miles of closed river below the Dalles bridge not enough buffer for the “early entry” of nookachamps steelhead that occurred below the fishing deadline of traditional skagit regs ? Is the 23 plus miles of closed habitat between darrington and the forks not enough buffer? What about the forks themselves? What about the suiattle? The cascade? What about Finney creek and day creek and the myriad of other closed yet fishable streams? Is April too late to close it even though it is a month from peak spawn? Maybe it shouldn’t reopen in June since fish will be actively digging until Mid July? How much more water needs to be closed and protected before our barbless hooks are safe? The same people crying foul have no issue fishing the coast throughout the entire duration of the spawn and enjoy “bush whacking” into the park boundaries where the rivers turn into Dick trickles and redds and vulnerable steelhead can be found reliably in early February and even January if you know where to look. Where you can fish from tidewater amongst the gill nets to pea gravel miles and miles up park waters and no one bats an eye to the potential impact. If the skagit regs aren’t conservative enough than it makes the statement that no fishery is conservative enough no matter how wet you keep them and how you choose to angle for them. I don’t agree.
 

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
#92
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.

That on person happens to be the president of WSC, no? Any coments from the president of an organization reflects/represents that organization.
 
#93
That on person happens to be the president of WSC, no? Any coments from the president of an organization reflects/represents that organization.
Nope. He's one of eleven boardmembers. He is not the WSC Chairman (closest equivalent to org president or Executive Director), though he did co-found the org in 2000.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#94
Thanks Chase. While I disagree with parts of the WSC response, it's in the category of small stuff, and not causing any further delay. Comments by another org are more troublesome. I think you have effectively made the point that WSC is not now delaying the outcome. Thanks again.

DC - the org that had the most negative and extensive comments on the RMP/PEPD did provide an alternative. However it's an alternative that no other river basin fishery anywhere in the state or country meets. As a practical matter their conditions cannot be met, so they won't. Nor are those conditions requisite to the real needs of conservation. I have to think that as bright people they know that. If that is the case, I can think of no goal other than delay and obstructionism. Or maybe litigation opportunity, but that's a cynical thought.

Sg
 
#95
Yup.

Regarding WSC's stated concerns for early returning Skagit wild steelhead referenced by Creatch'r , if you read the comments you'll see those concerns are primarily framed in the context of tribal fisheries.

We wouldn't point to the OP fisheries as a better model either, and I'll readily admit that the draft Skagit RMP is preferable to the management out there. Management WSC and others have long worked to change, with mixed and often less-than-desired results.
 

Josh

dead in the water
#99
Nope. He's one of eleven boardmembers. He is not the WSC Chairman (closest equivalent to org president or Executive Director), though he did co-found the org in 2000.
I understand the difficulty balancing freedom of personal opinion and organizational stances. That said, when the article at hand specifically says:

He is a lifelong steelheader and founder of the Wild Steelhead Coalition.

...it's a little difficult for people to NOT read that as the WSC's position, or at least highly associated with it. If Rich only wanted to share his own personal opinion, that would have been left out and the article just written as being from a dedicated steelheader. Or, there should have been a clear statement explaining that this was his personal opinion and not the official WSC position. As is, the strong implication is left that he is speaking for the org.
 

Jeremy Floyd

fly fishing my way through life
I think the simple fact of; Rich's position in the organization, the name dropping of the organization in the article, being credited as the founder of WSC, makes for an unfortunate "guilty by association with the most vocal member" situation for you others in the WSC.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
I've been as critical of most of the fish .orgs as anyone. Sometimes what I say is just my emotion bleeding out through my filter and sometimes it's an attempt to communicate to them a different perspective, that of their target audience. I know that there are good people who volunteer or work for them and that we make assumptions about what they are doing that are not true. Rich's article certainly led to assumptions that maybe are not true for all of WFC. That's become apparent to me.

It's also become apparent that WSC is not as savvy regarding the process of HMP creation and approval as I had thought they were. Rich literally did not correctly state who is responsible for writing the plan. I have to believe that he is embarrassed by that a bit. It also may show why they waited until the comment period to voice their concerns. I remember an earlier thread when one of the member stated rather incredulously that they had made comment during the comment period as if there were no other option. I'm now fairly sure that as a group they thought that was the time to make comment. I doubt they considered doing it at any other time.

I would have made concerns known as early as I could, as soon as I read the plan. I have assumed anyone with a concern would too. There is no good reason to wait. I don't really know if WSC knew that was a possibility or that it would give a better chance of someone dealing with their concerns. Comment periods are required by law but people reviewing and approving plans do answer their phones regardless if they are in a comment period. As a person who at times receives those calls, I also prefer to get input earlier than later.

I am guessing that if Rich didn't know who authored the plan then the rest of the process was likely not well known either. This could very well have lead to them waiting till the comment period to make public comment rather than give a heads up and have a discussion with WDFW about what they were thinking 9 months ago. My assumption all this time was that they waited in order to delay. I now think it may have been procedural naiveté not a strategy to delay.

The Wild Fish Conservancy has a lot of paid staff. They have lawyers. They know what they are doing with their comments and the timing of those comments. There is little question of that. Having read their comments on the HMP it's clear to me that their goal is that there is no fishing. No sport or tribal fishing. What they want and ask for is unattainable ever. That NFS hooked their cart to the WFC horse is disappointing. I don't want to assume to know why they did.

Go Sox,
cds
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
Here are the WFC comments as linked by NFS. A WFF member asked for them so:

https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/to-open-or-not-to-open-the-skagit-steelhead-fishery

It's also the 1st page of Triggs' Skagit thread. Some of it is pretty scientific and requires digestion. The heart of it is some monitoring requirements (trib by trib) and harvest restrictions (early timed fish from all tribs) that essentially rule out any fishery tribal or C&R as I see it. With the level of monitoring required already, to add these burdens means no season, ever.

Our bio's could I'm sure explain it better but that's what I read.

Go Sox,
cds
 
I think we just meed to get the governing agencies to admit that closing rivers to fishing has done nothing beneficial for the preservation of wild steelhead and we should insist that all streams be returned to traditional openings with catch and release of all wild salmonids with one single point barbless hook. Bait allowances to be made only when and where significant hatchery programs exist.

I hate doing this on my phone..my fingers are too fat. I have to retype every other word.
 
Last edited:
Here are the WFC comments as linked by NFS. A WFF member asked for them so:

https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/to-open-or-not-to-open-the-skagit-steelhead-fishery

It's also the 1st page of Triggs' Skagit thread. Some of it is pretty scientific and requires digestion. The heart of it is some monitoring requirements (trib by trib) and harvest restrictions (early timed fish from all tribs) that essentially rule out any fishery tribal or C&R as I see it. With the level of monitoring required already, to add these burdens means no season, ever.

Our bio's could I'm sure explain it better but that's what I read.

Go Sox,
cds
Skagit is opening for days that it can be funded to meet monitoring requirements and closed where WDFW can’t afford it. Geez, how much more can one ask for?

If anything, we should all be screaming for more funding and have a model like this on other rivers in our state. That’s the real tragedy here.
 
Skagit is opening for days that it can be funded to meet monitoring requirements and closed where WDFW can’t afford it. Geez, how much more can one ask for?

If anything, we should all be screaming for more funding and have a model like this on other rivers in our state. That’s the real tragedy here.

No what we should be screaming for is for them to acknowledge that their monitering just burns up money whike providing no benefit to anyone. They need to stop ransoming our rivers.
Having CnR fishermen on the river will actually save fish as they will be a deterant to poachers and call in other issues as well.
 

Latest posts