I wouldn't discourage anyone from taking action, but two things here. First, Occupy Skagit knows the value of singular focus - never take your eye off the prize. Second, the Puyallup steelhead population has remained below the escapement goal for years, so there would be no steelhead season under the WA steelhead management policy. Also, there is no NMFS approved Puyallup steelhead management plan under the ESA.
Not comparable. Under federal case law, we non-treaty anglers have no treaty fishing right. We have a privilege administered by the state.
I think some sort of two prong approach is needed.
How about suing the state of Washington to restore flow of 100% of fishing/hunting license funds to WDFW instead of the state's general fund? It would certainly help fund the monitoring and enforcement.
I plan on casting practice with a piece of yarn at all of the rivers I used to fish. Since I'm retired, I have all of the time in the world to contest any potential citation.
I've mentioned here before...the off-road community (WOHVA & NMA) had to do that back in the 2009 when the state took the $9.5M in NOVA funds. Went to WA supreme court and lost in 2012. 3 jerks agreed with the state, 2 spineless "judges" ruled it moot, and 4 judges agreed with the off-roaders.
I agree the recent WA Supreme Courts have a very unorthodox view on taxation and state finances. It is an option to consider though.
All of the license and fee money deposited in the state General Fund gets appropriated back to WDFW - unless something has changed that I haven't heard about. WDFW gets all that license money that used to go directly to the former WDG along with GF money that has always supported the former WDF, pre merger. WDFW has the money for Skagit steelhead monitoring because they are no longer spending $200,000/year to raise hatchery steelhead for the Skagit. They just choose to spend the money on something else.
Set it up, find an attorney/sportsman’s advocacy group who is willing to lock horns with King Fergie and his misguided priorities. I’ll throw some money into that ring.
The money from the 1995 license should be tapped out now after 30 years. That money was spent of off-channel chum salmon spawning habitat projects. I think all the suitable sites were developed over 10 years ago. The rest of that money was spent on land purchases to benefit fish and wildlife, often combined with Seattle's general environmental fund to acquire more land. Interestingly, in the recent 2025 license proceeding, Skagit County registered its opposition to SCL acquiring any more land for environmental mitigation because it removes property from the tax roles, thereby revealing the County's lack of dedication to protecting the environment. From what I've seen, the next license proposes to spend up to a billion dollars for fish passage, which if followed through, is likely to do less for fish than any of the measures in the past license, particularly streamflow management.
Nor Nisqually, Green, Snoqualmie or Nooksack. Who's checking escapement? These days, WDFW surely doesn't have the $$ to support staff for that! Tribes? If they had there way, they wouldn't want us to fish for anything. Why do escapement goals matter for C&R opportunity? F ESA. IMO they are there for one purpose. To recreate on. Otherwise what value do they have? Can seldom view, touch or commercial fish on them. If there are so few then you won't catch many, but still get a chance to. As was stated above, residents that live along closed waters fish on them regardless of regulations. I know more than one for sure.
Spawning surveys have been done on the Nooksack up to at least 5-6 years ago. I know because I have asked the area bio. I do question their accuracy, but he should basically know if the population in increasing, decreasing or remaining steady. The Nooksack has a remarkably consistent number of spawners. it seems so consistent that I find it to be odd.
Actually, there are annual steelhead spawning surveys on all of those streams (can find that data on WDFW's SCoRE summaries), much of those surveys is done by WDFW staff. Most time series go back to the 1980s.
The by basin RMPs is our biggest hurdle right now on all of our Puget Sound systems - The WDFW has not completed the measurement portion of their plan to assist or commit to a managed fishery. You can't manage what you don't measure, and if you never measure it, then you don't have to invest your budget to manage it.
I would read into that person's layoff............. is that freshwater Steelhead anglers and the PS rivers that they fish are not a top priority for the Department
Cool, but there is already a management plan in effect. It requires monitoring, not a recommendation.