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

HauntedByWaters · Jan 25, 2024

G_Smolt said:
Where did I say I was an "expert on the matter"?
My educational background includes degrees in fisheries. My work background includes four decades of experience in the commercial and recreational commercial fisheries of AK. My current work includes data analysis of fisheries, be it subsistence, personal use, recreational or commercial.
I'm not an expert. I'm seasoned, and well-read on the broad range of information available.
To your point of more observation, see S_g's previous post on steelhead bycatch. If you are broadening the discussion to include all commercial bycatch species, might I suggest you start another thread?

Sorry. I am an asshole and didn’t like the way you called those that you disagree with “black and white”.

skyrise · Jan 25, 2024

The “Fact” is there are a few anti fishing/hunting people in this state that want it shut down. Just look at those the governor has put on the wildlife commission. And then there is the same going on an across our nation. See the last issue of the CCA magazine. Great write up by Bill Shed. Do you really think the Skagit/sauk would be open if the wsc had their way ? Any river for that matter. Or any hatchery’s at all in this state or Oregon, California etc.

_WW_ · Jan 26, 2024

skyrise said:
if the wsc had their way ?

Are you confusing the WSC with the WFC?

Rob Allen · Jan 26, 2024

charles sullivan said:
On the topic of "ocean conditions" I think that it is important to think of all of the habitat loss in the Salish sea that has occurred. This is not habitat loss in the river but it certainly does contribute to low returns. Hard shoring, the hood canal bridge etc. all factor in too.

That sort of habitat destruction is clearly not a huge factor on the Hoh or Quil. but I do think that it is a missed part of the equation for other systems.

There is no magic bullet for most of these questions and there is no singular determining factor.

I cannot speak for any system other than the Columbia. I believe at least fir salmon that there is in fact a magic bullet. That is why we have banner years and bust years.
Some years the commercial fishermen miss a portion of the run and we have good even stellar returns and some years it's bust because the salmon fisheries intercept more of the run. In the early 2000s we had record ( since Bonneville) returns, in 2010ish? We had record summer steelhead runs to the Snake River system.

It's certainly ocean survival issues but do not as much to the condition of the ocean but how we use the ocean.
This is just my opinion. The quality of ocean conditions is not fluctuating so wildly that we go from boom to hust in 3 years

Even so we are still entirely missing large Chinook , you just cannot spend 5 years in Alaska and survive all the fishing. I believe it is both black and white and a very simple issue. As a society we do not care about the future of Pacific salmon and by extention steelhead.

RRSmith · Jan 26, 2024

We should not underestimate the impacts of ocean conditions on juvenile survival - especially when they first enter the marine environment. It's huge. As G_Smolt mentions above, the fluctuation between a good and bad ocean (for chinook) has become more extreme over the last 20 or so years.

charles sullivan · Jan 26, 2024

Rob Allen said:
I cannot speak for any system other than the Columbia. I believe at least fir salmon that there is in fact a magic bullet. That is why we have banner years and bust years.
Some years the commercial fishermen miss a portion of the run and we have good even stellar returns and some years it's bust because the salmon fisheries intercept more of the run. In the early 2000s we had record ( since Bonneville) returns, in 2010ish? We had record summer steelhead runs to the Snake River system.

It's certainly ocean survival issues but do not as much to the condition of the ocean but how we use the ocean.
This is just my opinion. The quality of ocean conditions is not fluctuating so wildly that we go from boom to hust in 3 years

Even so we are still entirely missing large Chinook , you just cannot spend 5 years in Alaska and survive all the fishing. I believe it is both black and white and a very simple issue. As a society we do not care about the future of Pacific salmon and by extention steelhead.

Given the reduction is Chinook harvest North of the Columbia the last couple of years, it will be interesting to see if there is an increase in those older bigger chinook. This thread is not about Chinook though.

Rob Allen · Jan 26, 2024

charles sullivan said:
Given the reduction is Chinook harvest North of the Columbia the last couple of years, it will be interesting to see if there is an increase in those older bigger chinook. This thread is not about Chinook though.

True.. unless steelhead numbers increase as well.

charles sullivan · Jan 26, 2024

Rob Allen said:
True.. unless steelhead numbers increase as well.

I am not following. Can you explain?

Canuck from Kansas · Jan 28, 2024

Rob Allen said:
There is a misunderstanding about what a fact vs an opinion is.
To the best of my recollection the only opinion I have posted is that rivers should be opened not closed.

My rationale is that it does no harm to the run to have them open. That is a fact. I am either right or wrong it is impossible for it to be an opinion. Even if no one knows whether my statement is true or not it still cannot be an opinion because there is a factual answer.
Our lack of knowledge does not make something a matter of opinion.

I've sat on this for a couple of days and just can't get it out of my mind. I'm afraid there is a little faulty logic here.

If I am reading this correctly, it is being stated that if something has a factual answer, but the answer is unknown, then any answer that "could be true" is by definition, a fact, even "if not shown to be true". This is a rather circular argument and a logical fallacy. That the earth is flat was never fact. That the sun and planets rotate around the earth was never fact. These were ideas, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and even hypotheses (that once tested were found to be incorrect), but not fact.

"There is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe". The statement is either correct (true) or incorrect (untrue); but we do not know the answer. The statement is not a "Fact", it is an opinion, a belief, a hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be "there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe" - if ever proven incorrect (ie, intelligent life is found elsewhere in the universe), then, and and only then, will the statement be fact.

A fact is something that "is known or proved to be true".

Now, hopefully this ear worm can get out of my brain and I can get back to my regular programming.

cheers

_WW_ · Jan 28, 2024

Fact; I periodically use the ignore feature of this website.
Opinion; Violet works better than purple.

Smalma · Jan 28, 2024

About the only "fact" that most of us can agree on is that the fisheries managers are usually wrong!

That is part of fisheries management, it is rare to have universally agree to "facts" on the management of a resource. Instead, the manager is typically in the position to make decision on the best information available (even though that information is usually incomplete). Given the constant change landscape of fisheries science and the status of the fish and their resource's habitats any attempt to wait for better information means doing nothing. That does not mean that managers should not be constantly evaluating and adjusting that incomplete data base or looking at potential error factors. Depending whether the goal is put the risk from incomplete information on the users or the resource any error factor in the management scheme will depend on the decision makers/user's priorities.

Curt

Rob Allen · Jan 28, 2024

Canuck from Kansas said:
I've sat on this for a couple of days and just can't get it out of my mind. I'm afraid there is a little faulty logic here.

If I am reading this correctly, it is being stated that if something has a factual answer, but the answer is unknown, then any answer that "could be true" is by definition, a fact, even "if not shown to be true". This is a rather circular argument and a logical fallacy. That the earth is flat was never fact. That the sun and planets rotate around the earth was never fact. These were ideas, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and even hypotheses (that once tested were found to be incorrect), but not fact.

"There is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe". The statement is either correct (true) or incorrect (untrue); but we do not know the answer. The statement is not a "Fact", it is an opinion, a belief, a hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be "there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe" - if ever proven incorrect (ie, intelligent life is found elsewhere in the universe), then, and and only then, will the statement be fact.

A fact is something that "is known or proved to be true".

Now, hopefully this ear worm can get out of my brain and I can get back to my regular programming.

cheers

You are correct, my use of the word "fact" was a poor choice for a word as an opposite of opinion.

Whether there is Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe has a definite answer, either yes or no. People will vary in answers but it's not a matter of opinion. Some are right some are wrong even if we never find out . Our ignorance doesn't keep if from being a black and white issue.