Non-sensical WDFW regulations / closures?

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
There are no wild impacts left for the Stlly. Well maybe not none but I think it was 6 fish or so. There certainly aren't S.Fork Nooksack impacts available. I'm not sure about Sauk springs etc.
I think that the world has changed, with orcas and kings and don't think for a moment the feds in any actual scientific agency would ok a PS salmon season if WDFW went it alone. That's a fairy tail. This is the part the old white guys in big boats just refuse to try and understand.
It may be favorable for the state to just shut the salt down too. Manage in river, stock by stock. C&R mortalities are lower in river. Impacts are more easily managef with basin specific or stock specific in- river seasons. There are positives but the politics does not work.
Those wealthy white guys in expensive boats though, they need their 10 days to fish possesion. Fact is the state is as beholden to them as they are the tribes in this fiasco.
Also, no one with big boats and cash gives a fuck about skokomish salmon snagging so neither does the state. While I see your point, the risk/ reward ratio does not make that a battle worth fighting.

Go Sox,
cds

How do old poor white guys with no boat who enjoy beach fishing play into your suggestion of closing down the salt?
SF
 

Salmo_g

WFF Premium
There are no wild impacts left for the Stlly. Well maybe not none but I think it was 6 fish or so.
I think it was 8 last year, but that isn't the point. The point is that not fishing, or fishing, has zero to do with the present and future viability of Stilly Chinook. No matter what, the population simply cannot achieve a recruit per spawner of 1.0, and WDFW, NMFS, and the Stilly Tribe know it. If the future viability of Stilly Chinook is important to society, then the only viable alternative is to maintain the population via the Stilly Tribe's hatchery, plus the likely addition of a captive broodstock program element. Following the present course of action means the Stilly will be closed to recreational angling for the next 50, if not 100, years.

I know that the big boat rich fvcks don't care about the Skok. But if WDFW had even a single hair on its nutsack it would open the Skok. While the Skok was likely best known for its illegal snag fishing for kings, it also gets a good run of silvers that can be caught using sport fishing techniques. The upshot is that WDFW is happy to steal tax dollars to raise hatchery salmon that are caught by everyone but the people who pay for them. At the very least WDFW could close George Adams hatchery to pressure the Skok Tribe to re-think their reservation boundary claim that they already lost in federal court decades ago.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
How do old poor white guys with no boat who enjoy beach fishing play into your suggestion of closing down the salt?
SF
They get fucked and it would suck since they (you) have near 0 impact on chinook.
To be clear, I am not advocating one way or another. I just think people don't see the big picture as to why we are where we are and how decisions are made.

Go sox,
cds
 

JS

Active Member
They get fucked and it would suck since they (you) have near 0 impact on chinook.
To be clear, I am not advocating one way or another. I just think people don't see the big picture as to why we are where we are and how decisions are made.

Go sox,
cds

The big picture doesn’t absolve WDFW of guilt. Like Salmo and many others have brought up repeatedly, the closed door NOF meetings alone are problematic. Transparency would go a long way in the way they share information with the public.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
I think it was 8 last year, but that isn't the point. The point is that not fishing, or fishing, has zero to do with the present and future viability of Stilly Chinook. No matter what, the population simply cannot achieve a recruit per spawner of 1.0, and WDFW, NMFS, and the Stilly Tribe know it. If the future viability of Stilly Chinook is important to society, then the only viable alternative is to maintain the population via the Stilly Tribe's hatchery, plus the likely addition of a captive broodstock program element. Following the present course of action means the Stilly will be closed to recreational angling for the next 50, if not 100, years.

I know that the big boat rich fvcks don't care about the Skok. But if WDFW had even a single hair on its nutsack it would open the Skok. While the Skok was likely best known for its illegal snag fishing for kings, it also gets a good run of silvers that can be caught using sport fishing techniques. The upshot is that WDFW is happy to steal tax dollars to raise hatchery salmon that are caught by everyone but the people who pay for them. At the very least WDFW could close George Adams hatchery to pressure the Skok Tribe to re-think their reservation boundary claim that they already lost in federal court decades ago.
It is the point. The only way thay PS angling gets permitted is by piggybacking on the tribes bogus permit. In doing so they piggyback on their political influence and access to a bogus permit pathway. PS chinook fishing simply can't be permitted without the tribes. This comes with the cost of acquiescence on Stilly river fishing, skokomish access A7 blackmouth fishing, Baker lake sockeye allocations etc.
In the end, the department is making a choice that keeping the status quo intact as much as possible is preferred to fighting the tribes in PS.
Once they demand opening hearings, access to the Skok, Stilly fishing and their own permit for PS chinook/ all salmon the house of cards falls. This leads to far less opportunity. The reduced opportunity can easily spread all the way upstream and effect even in river salmon seasons.
It is easy to be frustrated by WDFW's lack of "balls" but the fact is that lack of balls likely is leading to more opportunity, not less.

Also, I just bought 2 watermaster ( used). I'd love to have this discussion while floating a river with you. It's been a while.

Go sox
cds
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
You're wrong in this context Rob. The "dog" would be the people, as represented by WDFW. The "tail" is the treaty tribes who force WDFW to do what they want so that WDFW can ride the coat tail of the BIA section 7 ESA permit for Puget Sound salmon fishing, thereby making NMFS' regulatory job easier.

In the sense that WDFW is a representative of the people you are correct.. I think you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that they do actually represent the people.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
If you were to count the entire balance sheet for "all regulations" I do believe you would arrive at a different conclusion. Regulations increasing buffers to streams for logging and development has likely been responsible for more fish in streams. Regulations ending killing Skagit summer kings have likely resulted in more summer kings.
In fact, federal listing of fish has very likely resulted in more fish. If left without oversight, I'm quite sure that the state and tribes would agree on far higher quotas for harvest. Their local constituents have always demanded that. Even as poor as management is with co-management and federal permits, it could be worse. It hurt me inside even writing that.
I don't think that your rule ideas are bad. Hell, I kind of like them. Simple and direct are 2 positive things. I don't think all regulations are bad though. We've gotten to this point in large part by not using them soon enough not by using them too little.

Go sox,
cds


Then why do we have less fish now than ever before.?

Or. What regulations will put more fish in our rivers?

Plus the context of this discussion is fishing regulations not timber and development regulations which of course we'd have near universal agreement on in this forum. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS
Then why do we have less fish now than ever before.?

Or. What regulations will put more fish in our rivers?

Plus the context of this discussion is fishing regulations not timber and development regulations which of course we'd have near universal agreement on in this forum. :)
I think Charles' point is that regs have slowed the rate of decline. Without them the wild west mentality would have wiped out all salmon and steelhead runs by in PS rivers by now.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
I wasn't bashing WDFW...

But just to be clear this is America. The people are the dog.. WDFW IS THE TAIL.

All our regulations and rules has not put one more fish in our rivers in anyone term way.
More regulation in any way shape or form is objectively stupid and undeniable so.
This post is why I brought up other reg.'s. You were clearly speaking to all regulations not just fishing ones.
My contention is that regulations such as having riparian buffers for things like logging and development have put more fish in more places than if they were not enacted. Maybe you can get a whacko OSU grad to argue differently but you can also get people to argue the earth is flat.
So to your point that more regulation in any way is objectively and undeniably stupid confuses me. Clearly if a regulation halted all harvest, there would be more fish in the rivers. Is that stupid? I don't think that would be stupid. Undesirable to many, sure but not stupid.
I have never seen anyone argue against things that they argued for with as much zeal and confidence as you do. It is truly bizarre. It's also impressive in a stepbrothers sort of way.

Go Sox,
cds
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
This post is why I brought up other reg.'s. You were clearly speaking to all regulations not just fishing ones.
My contention is that regulations such as having riparian buffers for things like logging and development have put more fish in more places than if they were not enacted. Maybe you can get a whacko OSU grad to argue differently but you can also get people to argue the earth is flat.
So to your point that more regulation in any way is objectively and undeniably stupid confuses me. Clearly if a regulation halted all harvest, there would be more fish in the rivers. Is that stupid? I don't think that would be stupid. Undesirable to many, sure but not stupid.
I have never seen anyone argue against things that they argued for with as much zeal and confidence as you do. It is truly bizarre. It's also impressive in a stepbrothers sort of way.

Go Sox,
cds
It's called having a change of heart.

I have conflicted positions on these issues.

Given that fish runs are at their worst in recorded history with no reason for optimism about the future. I am opposed to further restrictions being placed on people that have no chance of restoring fish runs.

The problem is the ocean... making more smolts doesn't solve anything.

Give me a factual reason for optimism and I'll change my tune.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
I think all river closures are silly. Closing rivers doesn't protect a thing.
All moving water's in the state should be

1. Open year around
2. Restricted to one single point barbless hook
3. No bait except where significant numbers of hatchery fish are present and only in seasons when they are present
4. Catch and release on all unclipped native species including trout..
5. Require 100% clip rates for all hatcheries except possibly the Quinault.
Bullshit Rob. Your proposals, 3 and 4 in particular are strong increases in regulations. I agree with them, however they just don't jive with "no new restrictions". You also state that any new regulations are "objectively stupid and undeniably so". So, in fact, you call your own ideas objectively and undeniably stupid. Strong logic.
You don't lack in optimism, you lack in honesty, humility and ultimately accountability. Just own up to the fact that you have a "change in heart" because your positions are based primarily on your feelings and not an honest attempt at analyzing any sort of data. That would be honest, humble and show accountability. Alternatively, move the goalposts and try to force someone else to make you optimistic as if the point of fisheries regulations and science is your emotions.

Go Sox,
cds
 

Jim Travers

Active Member
I'm pursuing an addition to the regs so it says "if you disagree with any regs or closures, said regs don't apply to you".

Currently lookin into the possibility of slidin' some money under the table to various lawmakers and legal men to ram this one thru on the ballot. go from there.

Any recs on who to pay off/bribe for this? No luck so far!!!
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Bullshit Rob. Your proposals, 3 and 4 in particular are strong increases in regulations. I agree with them, however they just don't jive with "no new restrictions". You also state that any new regulations are "objectively stupid and undeniably so". So, in fact, you call your own ideas objectively and undeniably stupid. Strong logic.
You don't lack in optimism, you lack in honesty, humility and ultimately accountability. Just own up to the fact that you have a "change in heart" because your positions are based primarily on your feelings and not an honest attempt at analyzing any sort of data. That would be honest, humble and show accountability. Alternatively, move the goalposts and try to force someone else to make you optimistic as if the point of fisheries regulations and science is your emotions.

Go Sox,
cds
The purpose of regulation is to control people's behavior for the common good.

What I proposed was a massive decrease in regulation. There may be some changes that amount to an increase here and there but overall is a massive decrease in regulation on anglers.
The requirements for a 100% mark rate in an increase in regulation, but regulation on the government not on the people.

Making fishing regulations based on science hasn't really ever been done and if it has it has largely failed.
Point is even if all our freshwater habitat was in pristine untouched condition we'd be in the same position because of ocean survival. The Pacific can only give us so many fish back.
It's my understanding that this is more or less a set amount each year based on unknown or maybe unknowable circumstances not a percentage of what we put into it 500 smolts will have the same return as 5000 smolts.

Ultimately what I am saying in that WDFW et all should get out of the way and let people enjoy our rivers. Let it be up to them if they want to waste their time on empty rivers.

I will concede that my use of words like "all" and " any" did not fit what I was saying.

As far as logging and development It hadn't even crossed my mind that someone would come up with those in this thread. What was obvious to you about my comments wasn't even on my radar.

I glad we agree on the fundamentals.
 
Last edited:

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top