Petition to amend and repeal 2023-2024 winter steelhead season on the Olympic Peninsula

While there is no empirical indication that CNR steelhead seasons in WA (which is virtually all wild steelhead in WA) is reducing the productivity of any steelhead population, it surprises me that conservationists who are also anglers embrace such extreme restriction of angling. Of course, if conservation is the only objective, then closing all the water all the time to all the fishing will achieve that. However, that isn't conservation so much as it's altruism. And that's not a bad thing; just not my thing.

I don't support petitions of this sort. Mainly because the evidence isn't presented. There is a whole world of sub-lethal effects that might be negative. But we can't or haven't measured them. I don't agree that the "cautionary principle" means we should simply not fish because we might have a negative impact. Fishing does have a negative impact. I can't prove it, but I'm fairly certain that the fish don't approve of it. I'm more interested in preventing the negative impacts that include killing so many fish that the spawning population is reduced such that the carrying capacity of the habitat cannot be used.
 
Salmo_g said:
While there is no empirical indication that CNR steelhead seasons in WA (which is virtually all wild steelhead in WA) is reducing the productivity of any steelhead population, it surprises me that conservationists who are also anglers embrace such extreme restriction of angling. Of course, if conservation is the only objective, then closing all the water all the time to all the fishing will achieve that. However, that isn't conservation so much as it's altruism. And that's not a bad thing; just not my thing.

I don't support petitions of this sort. Mainly because the evidence isn't presented. There is a whole world of sub-lethal effects that might be negative. But we can't or haven't measured them. I don't agree that the "cautionary principle" means we should simply not fish because we might have a negative impact. Fishing does have a negative impact. I can't prove it, but I'm fairly certain that the fish don't approve of it. I'm more interested in preventing the negative impacts that include killing so many fish that the spawning population is reduced such that the carrying capacity of the habitat cannot be used.
Click to expand...

Agree with all. Given the names associated with the petition and the proposed closure timelines, it is hard for me not to think that this petition is actually about hatchery steelhead. If you can get the period they return closed to all fishing, why raise them in the first place?

I believe this petition will be heard at the commission's late January meeting, though that agenda has not been published yet. The request will be mostly moot by the time it is considered.
 
SeaRunner said:
Agree with all. Given the names associated with the petition and the proposed closure timelines, it is hard for me not to think that this petition is actually about hatchery steelhead. If you can get the period they return closed to all fishing, why raise them in the first place?
Click to expand...
Very astute observation!
 
This is simply another in a long list of attempts by those who see themselves as Better/ smarter and Superior to everyone else. It’s happening on the hunting side also. Shutting down fishing & hunting to have a look but don’t touch for any outdoor experience.
 
skyrise said:
This is simply another in a long list of attempts by those who see themselves as Better/ smarter and Superior to everyone else. It’s happening on the hunting side also. Shutting down fishing & hunting to have a look but don’t touch for any outdoor experience.
Click to expand...

Why do I care? I fish in the Seychelles two weeks every year. Or Christmas Island. And Patagonia. It’s just too crowded in Alaska for me now. I used to fish Atlantics more but it’s just a shame what happened to those fisheries. New Zealand is worth the trip even though it’s far. I could go just for the wine! It’s a shame about the steelhead!
 
skyrise said:
This is simply another in a long list of attempts by those who see themselves as Better/ smarter and Superior to everyone else. It’s happening on the hunting side also. Shutting down fishing & hunting to have a look but don’t touch for any outdoor experience.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with the first sentence. People take positions for a number of reasons. Atributing a selfish motive or superiority complex to preservationists really does little but make us all look like weak ass overly emotional whiners. The case for hunting and fishing needs to be and can easily be made on the grounds of what policy is the best for the most.

I certainly do agree with your second sentence. I also think that it is a message that could help change the direction of the conversation if the sporting public were willing to continue to make the point.

Social benefits are an important part of fish and wildlife management. Factoring them In does not preclude science from being used either. This is another point that needs to be continually communicated IMO.

It is important to argue on the merits of the position and not by ad homeniem attacks. Too often, I have seen sportsmen act like overly emotional haters rather than formulating cogent intelligent arguments for their positin.
 
charles sullivan said:
I do not agree with the first sentence. People take positions for a number of reasons. Atributing a selfish motive or superiority complex to preservationists really does little but make us all look like weak ass overly emotional whiners.

I certainly do agree with your second sentence. I also think that it is a message that could help change the direction of the conversation if the sporting public were willing to continue to make the point.

Social benefits are an important part of fish and wildlife management. Factoring them In does not preclude science from being used either. This is another point that needs to be continually communicated IMO.

It is important to argue on the merits of the position and not by ad homeniem attacks. Too often, I have seen sportsmen act like overly emotional haters rather than formulating cogent intelligent arguments for their positin.
Click to expand...
Nothing is more unscientific than closing rivers and restricting hunting and angling. It is 100% based on emotions. Fish and wildlife management has never been based on science it's always been based on placating other interests besides hunters and Anglers. So, we can throw the whole science issue out the window, it's entirely irrelevant, at least it always has been.

Just an example. There has never been any science for regulating the use of dogs in bear and cougar hunting.

The idea that science or even fact is being used to develop public policy is entirely absurd
 
Rob Allen said:
Nothing is more unscientific than closing rivers and restricting hunting and angling. It is 100% based on emotions. Fish and wildlife management has never been based on science it's always been based on placating other interests besides hunters and Anglers. So, we can throw the whole science issue out the window, it's entirely irrelevant, at least it always has been.

Just an example. There has never been any science for regulating the use of dogs in bear and cougar hunting.

The idea that science or even fact is being used to develop public policy is entirely absurd
Click to expand...
I am dumber for having read this.
 
Rob Allen said:
Nothing is more unscientific than closing rivers and restricting hunting and angling. It is 100% based on emotions. Fish and wildlife management has never been based on science it's always been based on placating other interests besides hunters and Anglers. So, we can throw the whole science issue out the window, it's entirely irrelevant, at least it always has been.

Just an example. There has never been any science for regulating the use of dogs in bear and cougar hunting.

The idea that science or even fact is being used to develop public policy is entirely absurd
Click to expand...
You're really reaching again Rob. Totally unscientific would be allowing unlimited harvest of fish and game. Having fishing and hunting seasons at all is based in part on placating the interests of anglers and hunters. The two easiest regulatory policies would be wide open unlimited free for all, totally foregoing resource conservation, and complete total closures everywhere all the time. Your black and white thinking is working against you again Rob. I thought you were doing better.
 
Always certain, often wrong...
It's a good thing Rob is not in charge of anything important.
This is just another example of why education and critical thinking skills matter...
 
I don't have any idea what Rob said because I just skip his posts. There's nothing productive that he adds to conversations that I've ever seen. I'll listen to anyone's opinion, but I just feels like he's wasting my time if I read his post. Sorry Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top