Skagit Catch & Release debate.

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
WW, don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing OC. I just get tired of people bashing ".orgs" that do a lot of positive work.

And despite your assumptions I did volunteer as a river steward for several years. I dropped out when I got a new job, bought a house, and had a kid all in one year. That was 3 years ago and I'm starting to get involved again, albeit it a lesser level.
I don't think we are bashing the "positive work"..at least I'm not. What I'm disappointed in is simple. Publicly and privately the ".orgs" have supported a C&R season on the Skagit. Many of their reps have mentioned their support to me face to face. I believe it was TU that showed up to one of our events and cooked hot dogs! (Thanks again!) Nothing was done in secret by OS or WDFW regarding the writing of the plan, the completion of the RMP, or the submission of the RMP to NMFS. Every step of the process was announced to the public on this forum. And then at the 11th hour of the final process WFC comes out with a comment/position paper against the RMP as it was written and the rest line up behind them.

It's been said that, and I paraphrase here, "Submitting comments during the comment period is how things are done! Why is everyone so mad?"
This commenting procedure is how it is done. But it is not the only way it is done. The district WDFW biologist and his team are easy to contact. I talk with him regularly and I can tell you that none of the .orgs contacted him in any official capacity when the RMP was being developed. Why? If it is that important to them, why wouldn't they make contact? Why are they at odds with WDFW? With NMFS? If they get their way, the one sure thing that will happen regardless of the outcome is a delay.

My experience with an EIS study and the alternative plans that they are forced by law to present went like this.
Choice #1 Do nothing, keep the river closed.
Choice #2 Use whatever is being proposed as written.
Choice #3 Something in the middle.

That's what it will come down to after what could amount to a two year delay. With a simple "official" phone call three years ago they might have suggested that two impact rates be offered in the plan with NMFS making the final determination. Or they might have suggested...something? Since they didn't make the call, we'll never know what cooperation might look like.

So for me personally I feel like I have been through the 'ole bait and switch routine. You can sugar coat it all you want with words like 'process' and 'conservation' and 'peer reviewed papers' and 'good work' et al. I'm just not buying what they're selling because I don't like the way they conduct some of their business.
 
I don't think we are bashing the "positive work"..at least I'm not. What I'm disappointed in is simple. Publicly and privately the ".orgs" have supported a C&R season on the Skagit. Many of their reps have mentioned their support to me face to face. I believe it was TU that showed up to one of our events and cooked hot dogs! (Thanks again!) Nothing was done in secret by OS or WDFW regarding the writing of the plan, the completion of the RMP, or the submission of the RMP to NMFS. Every step of the process was announced to the public on this forum. And then at the 11th hour of the final process WFC comes out with a comment/position paper against the RMP as it was written and the rest line up behind them.

It's been said that, and I paraphrase here, "Submitting comments during the comment period is how things are done! Why is everyone so mad?"
This commenting procedure is how it is done. But it is not the only way it is done. The district WDFW biologist and his team are easy to contact. I talk with him regularly and I can tell you that none of the .orgs contacted him in any official capacity when the RMP was being developed. Why? If it is that important to them, why wouldn't they make contact? Why are they at odds with WDFW? With NMFS? If they get their way, the one sure thing that will happen regardless of the outcome is a delay.

My experience with an EIS study and the alternative plans that they are forced by law to present went like this.
Choice #1 Do nothing, keep the river closed.
Choice #2 Use whatever is being proposed as written.
Choice #3 Something in the middle.

That's what it will come down to after what could amount to a two year delay. With a simple "official" phone call three years ago they might have suggested that two impact rates be offered in the plan with NMFS making the final determination. Or they might have suggested...something? Since they didn't make the call, we'll never know what cooperation might look like.

So for me personally I feel like I have been through the 'ole bait and switch routine. You can sugar coat it all you want with words like 'process' and 'conservation' and 'peer reviewed papers' and 'good work' et al. I'm just not buying what they're selling because I don't like the way they conduct some of their business.

The above seems accurate. But when posturing for dollars and signalling ones virtue all bets are off. Even dot orgs know to play to their base. I'd like to return to a time in history when sides were not taken and touted, working together was the norm. Anybody putting up volunteers to remedy some objections?

We also need to remember that many guys lie to the creel checkers. I've seen it quite a bit. Nothing like anglers themselves trying to cover their tracks and give misinformation to the people monitoring a fishery. Maybe if they stuff wasn't instantly public knowledge it would be better. Make it available after the season. It might get lips a little freed up with truth.
 
I don't think we are bashing the "positive work"..at least I'm not. What I'm disappointed in is simple. Publicly and privately the ".orgs" have supported a C&R season on the Skagit. Many of their reps have mentioned their support to me face to face. I believe it was TU that showed up to one of our events and cooked hot dogs! (Thanks again!) Nothing was done in secret by OS or WDFW regarding the writing of the plan, the completion of the RMP, or the submission of the RMP to NMFS. Every step of the process was announced to the public on this forum. And then at the 11th hour of the final process WFC comes out with a comment/position paper against the RMP as it was written and the rest line up behind them.

It's been said that, and I paraphrase here, "Submitting comments during the comment period is how things are done! Why is everyone so mad?"
This commenting procedure is how it is done. But it is not the only way it is done. The district WDFW biologist and his team are easy to contact. I talk with him regularly and I can tell you that none of the .orgs contacted him in any official capacity when the RMP was being developed. Why? If it is that important to them, why wouldn't they make contact? Why are they at odds with WDFW? With NMFS? If they get their way, the one sure thing that will happen regardless of the outcome is a delay.

My experience with an EIS study and the alternative plans that they are forced by law to present went like this.
Choice #1 Do nothing, keep the river closed.
Choice #2 Use whatever is being proposed as written.
Choice #3 Something in the middle.

That's what it will come down to after what could amount to a two year delay. With a simple "official" phone call three years ago they might have suggested that two impact rates be offered in the plan with NMFS making the final determination. Or they might have suggested...something? Since they didn't make the call, we'll never know what cooperation might look like.

So for me personally I feel like I have been through the 'ole bait and switch routine. You can sugar coat it all you want with words like 'process' and 'conservation' and 'peer reviewed papers' and 'good work' et al. I'm just not buying what they're selling because I don't like the way they conduct some of their business.
Fair enough and I appreciate your reasoned response. I have no idea why they didn’t either get involved earlier or refrain from commenting. If I was still involved I certainly would ask about it. I know you shouldn’t have to but have you considered asking the river steward directly?
 
Dude, I think Trump is gonna get it open. I just seen another tweet that he's cutting all wolf funding, opening a season on hunting them, lifting all ESA listings on steelhead. He's going to make angling great again. He also tweeted that Hilary is a dirty ass nymph fisher. I knew it, crooked Hillary. She doesn't even pinch her barbs, sad. I told you guys he fished.

19484.png
 
Last edited:

Shad

Active Member
The Trump tweets are awesome. Can somebody make us a template we can use to emulate the Tweeter in Chief easily and often? For some reason, it makes me like him better when I see him tweet about steal head fishing.
 

Latest posts