The one yard line

BDD

Active Member
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.
Rob not sure if you know this but this kind of statement is what causes you to lose credibility with many readers/posters on this site. It is just plain, flat out wrong and similar in nature as to why the author of the magazine article was criticized for writing inaccurate information within his article.

Of course there will be some benefits to having the Skagit fishery opened. What about the hundreds of anglers that may participate? What about the small business owners of the upper Skagit towns (motels, gas stations, tackle/fly shops, etc.)? What about the sci techs themselves who are creeling the fishery? What about the department that will undoubtedly sell more licenses as a result of the opener? While none of those reasons are as important as conducting a safe fishery for the actual steelhead population, the creel monitoring is what allows us to know what that impact is. While you may not agree with the costs of conducting the monitoring, the reality is that is what it costs...whether you or anybody else likes it or not.

If you would have wrote something like "The cost of monitoring the fishery, in my opinion, is not worth the risk of conducting the fishery because of the following reasons...then that would have been acceptable. But to simply state there will be no benefit to anyone is just a little ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
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.
I agree. The number of people used to monitor could certainly be reduced after more data is accumulated but the general idea and plan is more protective than what is used now.
The states only strong tool to increase fishing opportunities has been hatcheries. This plan may be a blueprint into how to transition into providing opportunity by monitoring.

Go sox,
Cds
 
I agree. The number of people used to monitor could certainly be reduced after more data is accumulated but the general idea and plan is more protective than what is used now.
The states only strong tool to increase fishing opportunities has been hatcheries. This plan may be a blueprint into how to transition into providing opportunity by monitoring.

Go sox,
Cds

Another benefit. Helping quantify economic/community benefit of angler participation. Want more WDFW funding? Show the economic benefit so it can be pushed at the legislative level.
 
Monitoring is essential to keeping the finger on the pulse of the fishery and resource. Within monitoring comes data keeping also. An LEO could double as enforcement and creel checker. Like mentioned above, it would be incredible to have the Skagit be the blueprint to evaluating and opening other rivers and managing them properly. The days of opening rivers and setting arbitrary regs and walking away and forgetting about it are over
 
Rob not sure if you know this but this kind of statement is what causes you to lose credibility with many readers/posters on this site. It is just plain, flat out wrong and similar in nature as to why the author of the magazine article was criticized for writing inaccurate information within his article.

Of course there will be some benefits to having the Skagit fishery opened. What about the hundreds of anglers that may participate? What about the small business owners of the upper Skagit towns (motels, gas stations, tackle/fly shops, etc.)? What about the sci techs themselves who are creeling the fishery? What about the department that will undoubtedly sell more licenses as a result of the opener? While none of those reasons are as important as conducting a safe fishery for the actual steelhead population, the creel monitoring is what allows us to know what that impact is. While you may not agree with the costs of conducting the monitoring, the reality is that is what it costs...whether you or anybody else likes it or not.

If you would have wrote something like "The cost of monitoring the fishery, in my opinion, is not worth the risk of conducting the fishery because of the following reasons...then that would have been acceptable. But to simply state there will be no benefit to anyone is just a little ridiculous.

You completely misunderstood my post..

I am advocating for opening all steelhead streams monitering or not..

Furthermore i am right and I'll choose being right when i am able and being considered credible is of no concern to me.
 
Last edited:

golfman44

5-Time Puget Sound Steelhead Guide of the Year
Rob you simply aren't reading properly.

The monitoring isn't just a bunch of game wardens trying to catch poachers/illegal activity. It is also to accumulate data for fish encounters by CnR anglers. More boots on the ground = more accurate data. It is pretty damn simple.
 

Shad

Active Member
Another benefit. Helping quantify economic/community benefit of angler participation. Want more WDFW funding? Show the economic benefit so it can be pushed at the legislative level.
Lack of awareness is not the reason why the Legislature doesn't seem to care about recreational anglers. They back commercial and tribal interests, because those interests directly back their campaigns. Until we stop buying licenses or show up at the Hill with a pile of cash (bigger than the pile they get from commercial interests), there's no reason to expect change in our favor.

So, I'm curious. Just what earth-shattering discoveries do we expect all this research to uncover in such a limited, restrictive fishery? @Smalma, @Salmo_g, and others have explained to us, on numerous occasions, the evidence that points to past recreational fishing having no measurable impact on the Skagit's overall wild steelhead population, and their evidence was gathered under far more liberal fishing regulations (in terms of both gear and open water restrictions) than those proposed for this fishery. Instead of spending a bunch of money on a short term experiment that isn't likely to teach us a damned thing we don't already know, I say let the people fish already!
 
Rob you simply aren't reading properly.

The monitoring isn't just a bunch of game wardens trying to catch poachers/illegal activity. It is also to accumulate data for fish encounters by CnR anglers. More boots on the ground = more accurate data. It is pretty damn simple.

My complaint is not about data collection.. my complaint is that the data that we have collected in the last hundred years has not helped us get more fish back. Witg the exception of hatchery research bringing about fewer plants.
There is no reason for our fisheries to be closed to angling and using no money for monitering is a bunch of bs. Whether we fish or not whether we moniter or not it will not change the number of returning fish.
 

Smalma

Active Member
Shad-
Distilling this issue to the bare minimum - Any fishing for Skagit wild steelhead is fishing on/for an ESA listed species. Because there is some mortality associated with even a CnR fishery that impact/take has to be permitted by the responsible agency (in this case NOAA). As a condition of that permit; just like the Chinook fishing in Puget Sound monitoring is required. That monitoring is to insure that impacts from that fishery do not exceed those impacts allowed and that the managing agency (in this case WDFW) can take appropriate actions if those limitations are reached. Bottom line the harsh reality is that without monitoring no fishing.

However a bigger picture view is that the monitoring will demonstrate a fishery can be mounted directed towards an ESA listed species without increasing risks of extinction or retarding recovery. In todays world that is information that likely provide invaluable.

Curt
 
Shad
However a bigger picture view is that the monitoring will demonstrate a fishery can be mounted directed towards an ESA listed species without increasing risks of extinction or retarding recovery. In todays world that is information that likely provide invaluable.

Curt
When the run declines, what will that show?
What incentive do the tribes have to make this fishery work?
 
Monitoring is essential to keeping the finger on the pulse of the fishery and resource. Within monitoring comes data keeping also. An LEO could double as enforcement and creel checker. Like mentioned above, it would be incredible to have the Skagit be the blueprint to evaluating and opening other rivers and managing them properly. The days of opening rivers and setting arbitrary regs and walking away and forgetting about it are over

Then the days of fishing are over..

I would say closing rivers is itself arbitrary because closing rhem has been of no value to anyone and is of no benefit to the fish..

We need to rip our fisheries out of the hands of overregulating government organizations that do nothing for the fish.

They have proven their inability to restore or even preserve our fish runs. Because what needs to be done is to far beyond the will of the people.


The only data that is of any value at all is data that leads to a long term increase in the size of our runs. Everything else is just noise and wasted money.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts