Skagit Catch & Release debate.

I just gotta say, as an under educated member of society, the answer is simple. BAN NETS! Period end of story.
I'm serious, and not just steelhead. I'm talking all fishing inside the Puget Sound. Any commercial fishing can be by troll fishing in the sound and rod and reel in streams. This goes for all concerned. NETS ARE WASTEFUL!
It seems simplistic beause it is.

Something else while I 'm on it.
It seems to me that steelhead have never been and never should have been a commerially harvestable fish.
Even before us euro trash showed up to muck things up, they have never had the numbers as compared to even chinook salmon .
Now, go ahead tear me up!

It's impossible to be educated enough to understand fisheries managment decisions. You need x ray glasses to understand them.
 
https://www.hatchmag.com/blog/what-do-we-want-skagit-river-be/7714549

Just read this. Some rambling thoughts.

Interesting take. I think I see where the author is going. Let’s prevent the circus that is happening on the coast. Agree 150%.

Can’t say as I agree with inserting closing of hatchery production as part of the Skagit recovery or that 150k to 13k fish over the process of massive human development is even applicable in terms of defining conservation nowadays. A bit disingenuous.

I do still have concerns with WDFW properly budgeting and managing monitoring. This part has to be done right, no exceptions. Track record for WDFW is not great in the past several years.

I may try for one day on the Skagit if it all does work out but personally, I think my days of steelheading are over and now focus on bonefish.

I would like to see the next generation of advocates go experience the Skagit so they can carry on the torch of conservation. Although it would seem the definition of conservation has even become a dividing topic these days.

In the end, steelhead will be impacted whether the river is opened or not. Washington is the place to be for jobs. Jobs where a high percentage of workers are not connected to the surrounding environmental nor are they aware of the storied history of the Skagit (as the author appropriately mentioned).

Thank you to all who care about steelhead and share with others in why this species is so special. For, against or indifferent on the Skagit opening.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
https://www.hatchmag.com/blog/what-do-we-want-skagit-river-be/7714549

Just read this. Some rambling thoughts.

Interesting take. I think I see where the author is going. Let’s prevent the circus that is happening on the coast. Agree 150%.

Can’t say as I agree with inserting closing of hatchery production as part of the Skagit recovery or that 150k to 13k fish over the process of massive human development is even applicable in terms of defining conservation nowadays. A bit disingenuous.

I do still have concerns with WDFW properly budgeting and managing monitoring. This part has to be done right, no exceptions. Track record for WDFW is not great in the past several years.

I may try for one day on the Skagit if it all does work out but personally, I think my days of steelheading are over and now focus on bonefish.

I would like to see the next generation of advocates go experience the Skagit so they can carry on the torch of conservation. Although it would seem the definition of conservation has even become a dividing topic these days.

In the end, steelhead will be impacted whether the river is opened or not. Washington is the place to be for jobs. Jobs where a high percentage of workers are not connected to the surrounding environmental nor are they aware of the storied history of the Skagit (as the author appropriately mentioned).

Thank you to all who care about steelhead and share with others in why this species is so special. For, against or indifferent on the Skagit opening.
I think the article is factually incorrect. I'd have a hard time agreeing that hatcheries and reduced angling impacts have lead to a higher return of fish. The runs tanked for a small period due to a perfect storm of flood and drought conditions. He did not speak to that at all. Take that away and the run sizes look more to me like fairly normal fluctuations with and without hatcheries and angling.

It's not NOAA's plan. Why would he say NOAA has a plan. A plan was submitted to NOAA/NMFS for review and possible approval. I'm pretty sure they didn't write it. This does matter.

Honesty matters. This is clearly an opinion piece, not to be confused with a science based piece.



Go Sox,
cds
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
I would like to know where the number of 150,000 steelhead came from. Someone is living in fantasy land. The wildest claims I have heard were at about 40,000 and I think even that is more creative math and wishful thinking than reality.
 

miyawaki

Active Member
I think the article is factually incorrect. I'd have a hard time agreeing that hatcheries and reduced angling impacts have lead to a higher return of fish. The runs tanked for a small period due to a perfect storm of flood and drought conditions. He did not speak to that at all. Take that away and the run sizes look more to me like fairly normal fluctuations with and without hatcheries and angling.

It's not NOAA's plan. Why would he say NOAA has a plan. A plan was submitted to NOAA/NMFS for review and possible approval. I'm pretty sure they didn't write it. This does matter.

Honesty matters. This is clearly an opinion piece, not to be confused with a science based piece.



Go Sox,
cds
Rich Simms, the author, was a founding member of the Wild Steelhead Coalition, and it's second president.

Leland.
 
What exactly is he even saying? The salient point is not clear at all. The last 3 sentences are:
“Yes, we all want to fish the Skagit in the spring again, but why are we selling out our long-term wishes and self-interest just to get out on the river sooner and more often?

We have an incredible opportunity to continue recovering the Skagit’s wild steelhead and help the river reclaim its mantle as one of the world’s best steelhead rivers. And with conservation-oriented regulations and appropriate monitoring and enforcement, we can do all of that while fishing through recovery.”

What exactly about the plan is “selling out our long-term wishes”? From what I can tell, the plan includes “conservation-oriented regulations and appropriate monitoring and enforcement,” so what needs to be done differently? This piece isn’t helpful. It offers no solutions or alternatives, so it comes across as just complaining.
 
https://www.hatchmag.com/blog/what-do-we-want-skagit-river-be/7714549

Just read this. Some rambling thoughts.

Interesting take. I think I see where the author is going. Let’s prevent the circus that is happening on the coast. Agree 150%.

Can’t say as I agree with inserting closing of hatchery production as part of the Skagit recovery or that 150k to 13k fish over the process of massive human development is even applicable in terms of defining conservation nowadays. A bit disingenuous.

I do still have concerns with WDFW properly budgeting and managing monitoring. This part has to be done right, no exceptions. Track record for WDFW is not great in the past several years.

I may try for one day on the Skagit if it all does work out but personally, I think my days of steelheading are over and now focus on bonefish.

I would like to see the next generation of advocates go experience the Skagit so they can carry on the torch of conservation. Although it would seem the definition of conservation has even become a dividing topic these days.

In the end, steelhead will be impacted whether the river is opened or not. Washington is the place to be for jobs. Jobs where a high percentage of workers are not connected to the surrounding environmental nor are they aware of the storied history of the Skagit (as the author appropriately mentioned).

Thank you to all who care about steelhead and share with others in why this species is so special. For, against or indifferent on the Skagit opening.
Read it. HE SAYS NOTHING. What he does say is half truths and slanted. Used to respect that guy and saw eye to eye on a few things. Still do on some. Yet sadly like many he sees the world as how he wants it to be and not what is. If he had these opinions where were they a year ago? I would love to see a fly only fishery and no tribal nets. I think that would be most enjoyable for me and best for the fish. I'm a realist though and compromise is the harbinger of diplomacy. One has to work in the real world which is far from ideal. That still doesn't stop folks from signalling their infallible moral compass to garner support from the echo chamber they hold so dear. The real diplomacy is finding common ground among your opposition. That's the real skill of statesmen. Digging moats around your camp is far more visually compelling and garners views but building bridges garners results. Results are almost never perfect. Don't let perfect become the enemy of good.
 
I'm perplexed as to why Rich wrote what he did. It looks like he holds some beliefs and opinions that are factually incorrect, when accurate information is so readily available. Makes me wonder what he's basing his opinions on.
He is basing them on feelings which are easily converted to the venerable "fake news". All one needs to do is get it in print or video and voila. Purity contest anyone?
 
I would like to know where the number of 150,000 steelhead came from. Someone is living in fantasy land. The wildest claims I have heard were at about 40,000 and I think even that is more creative math and wishful thinking than reality.
I’m no fish scientist but if you imagine the Skagit basin prior to a dam, diking, and the like look how large the ecosystem must have been.
 

Latest posts