The logic checks out.Too 'resource constrained' to open a lawful fishery when the science warrants it? I guess that means too 'resource constrained' to bother a middle-aged man out for casting practice. He ain't bothering no one. occupy.
The logic checks out.Too 'resource constrained' to open a lawful fishery when the science warrants it? I guess that means too 'resource constrained' to bother a middle-aged man out for casting practice. He ain't bothering no one. occupy.
This does not bode well.NMFS Approval Of Skagit-Sauk Steelhead Plan Drags On -
There are enough wild steelhead forecasted to return to the Skagit and Sauk this winter to have opened a five-day-a-week season back on February 1, but a month into the fishery window there's still no sign of the federal OK that would allow that to proceed.nwsportsmanmag.com
The hits keep coming.
NGO = Not Gonna OpenWFC and TCA are the reason that NMFS has not approved this yet. WDFW will take the blame just like WFC and TCA want it. Their sole purpose is to tear down the agency. They are winning.
Do you have some behind the scenes information about what’s going on?WFC and TCA are the reason that NMFS has not approved this yet. WDFW will take the blame just like WFC and TCA want it. Their sole purpose is to tear down the agency. They are winning.
Do you have some behind the scenes information about what’s going on?
There is this line in the article: Agency legislative director Tom McBride acknowledged it wasn’t a very sexy line item, but he expressed worry, given the litigious propensities of Wild Fish Conservancy and the “pressure to update permits up and down the (Columbia) river.”Do you have some behind the scenes information about what’s going on?
Well stated Charles. IMHO this is the key takeaway.WFC and TCA do little to nothing when it comes to those actual important issues that deal with habitat.
As a staple consultant, I take great issue with this. Why is the government wasting taxpayer resources on a consultant to locate staplers, when they should be hiring a consultant to locate the staples! My organization will be filing a lawsuit to pause this process until we can get to the bottom of things.I do. Currently there is a consultant being brought in to figure out where the staplers went. They have a lot of experience finding staplers so hopefully this issue will be resolved soon.
As a staple consultant, I take great issue with this. Why is the government wasting taxpayer resources on a consultant to locate staplers, when they should be hiring a consultant to locate the staples! My organization will be filing a lawsuit to pause this process until we can get to the bottom of things.
Charles,WFC and TCA are the reason that NMFS has not approved this yet. WDFW will take the blame just like WFC and TCA want it. Their sole purpose is to tear down the agency. They are winning.
I am not sure that they really care to get people fishing again. They seem to be pure. I think that they want to stop any activity that they believe negatively affects fish populations. They are consistant. Unfortunately, I see their style of moral purity as leading to no fishing. I don't know if they see it that way.Charles,
I have a sincere question that I hope you or others may provide some input. My intention is to NOT turn this into a bashing campaign in any way. But, groups like the ones you mention above are still angling groups. While I can appreciate their anti hatchery position and even understand their agenda for reducing hatchery plants in favor of wild fish only management. They worked to reduce hatchery plants in the Skagit because they thought that the result would be more wild fish so a season in the future could be enacted. I am certain that they were hoping numbers would rebound so a fishery could be open as result of their efforts. Whether the population rebounded as a result of eliminating hatchery plants is debatable, was not this their desired outcome? A season when the escapement level would supposedly be met? Their agenda was met, their goals realized (no hatchery plants) and escapement goals being met. If this was not to have a future C&R season some some of the most iconic winter steelhead on the entire west coast of North America, what was the point? If these assumptions are true, I'm scratching my head as to why they would put up roadblocks for a C&R steelhead season on the Skagit if the best available science says it is okay? If not, you are no longer an angling group but something more along the lines of PETA. I have sat in committees with members of these groups and they were anglers with high conservation values...I'd like to think I fall in that same category. So naturally I'm a little baffled why the continual litigation scare tactic from these apparent so-called angling groups?
Edit-Just saw your other post regarding ESA listings and the potential for additional permitting and the opportunity for increased management by those groups. That seems reasonable but still does not explain why you would lobby against C&R fishing when the data supports a fishery.
Using your basketball analogy, who's shooting the free throws? Shaq or Steph Curry?
The tribes and state generally won't have number agreed upon until after the new year.
Charles, The entire ten year plan is not and never was contingent on this year's number. What is contingent on this year's numbers, and what the plan is all about, is whether or not the season can open for this spring. The plan itself, which as I understand it is a continuation of the previous plan, describes conditions under which a fishery may occur. This, The Plan, could have been submitted a year ago, two years ago. It doesn't matter what the fuck this years numbers are whether or not The Ten Year Plan could be submitted. What does matter to me is that in their infinite ability to fuck shit up is that they waited until the 59th minute of the eleventh hour to submit.There really is no way this plan plan could be submitted without those #'s.
Without an agreed upon escapement number from last year, they can not and should not submit a plan for the next 10. They have to have those numbers to show how the population is doing and to show what effect the seasons have or have not had and probably more important than anything, to have a complete plan to apply with. If you left out 1 year of data then the appearance that you have not done your due diligence is there and it would be acted on by a group. Further, the first comment would be that it is incomplete and NMFS will review it when all the infomation is there. It may not make sense to you but this is pretty clear to me.If this were year five of the original plan we would be fishing right now. Since it is year six of a five year plan, we are not. I simply do not understand the significance of this year's projections to the formulating and submitting of the plan. If these numbers are so critical then maybe we need to wait for next year's numbers too - or the next ten years.
As I said initially, I blame them all.