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

Rob Allen said:
No, not ",poor me"

More like.. had a belly full already.. power needs to be stripped from WDFW they are overstepping their bounds for no benefit to the fish.. yes, closing spirt fisheries has no benefits for the fish..

No emotion, just fact..
Click to expand...
"If you want to keep a secret, you must first hide it from yourself."
 
Dunning-Krueger...
 
Paige said:
Oh boy, here's Rob confusing opinions with facts, for the 8 billionth time :rolleyes:

FACT
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enough of this BS, less talk about what has really happened to our steelhead.

Using my local basins (those that I'm most familiar with) the Snohomish, Stillaguamish and Skagit current capacity are just a fraction of what they were historic. Using current escapements with limited fishing as a rough surrogate for current capacity the Skagit is at about 10% of its historic abundance, the Snohomish less than 4% and the Stillaguamish about 3%. We as a society have opted to use much of the historic productivity that generated those abundances to support such thing as logging, agriculture, development, power, water, climate change, etc.

I feel pretty strongly that some of that historic fish and game productivity should be reserved to support consumptive use (and yes catch and release is indeed a consumptive but low impact fishery). As such our argument with folks like the WDFW commission, legislatures, counties, cities, etc. should be it is their job to assure that there remains at least some of that historic productive for those historic uses., not to use even more of that productivity to support non resource uses Further the argument should not be between ourselves, fellow resource user or even WDFW staff. As long as folks can continue to focus discussions away from what we collectively have done to those wonderful historic resources the more likely is that we will to fight over the shrink crumbs.

Further when we log a basin, convert lands to agricultural, development, etc. we foreclose using any of those impact for multiple human generations. Conversely with fishing and hunting the managers have the ability to adjust the resource knob to respond short term abundance changes but not those longer term impacts.

Think I need a drink!

Curt
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...
I read through the whole letter finally. I am travelling so I have the time.
I think that you may bd on to something regarding hatch fish.
I also think that much of this deals with wanting to do WDFW's job and what I see as a misguided belief that they hold the keys to increased wild fish abundance. As Smalma quite effectively communicated, most of the really bad issues deal with habitat.
Given that the OP steelhead don't have the same extreme amount of habitat loss and have signifigantly more harvest, I can see why they are goung this route. I don't think that they are sofisticated enough to have a next move. They also are not dealing with tribal netting so while what they propose won't hurt any fish directly, it does little to protect the early fish either.
The Conservation Angler is a group who shares Washington Wildlife First's vision for a WDFW that first and foremost is there to limit hunting and fishing oportunities. This is a shared vision with The Hummane Society of the US (not in any way your local pet shelter). In short, they are animal rights activists. I have spoken to Mr. Moskowitz about the problem that this represents. I suggest that you all do to. You are able to e-mail him/ them.
David Moskowitz is a pleasant man. I disagree with the direction that his group has taken and with their constant tearing down of an already depleted agency.
If you like to hunt and fish, animal rights activists are not your friends. TCA fails to see that.
 
There seems to be a lot of pull by various factions to limit fishing and hunting opportunities in our state.
Not sure if this will pass as it was attempted before, but just an FYI for those who may not be aware of this.
SF

nwsportsmanmag.com

WA Senators Propose Enshrining Hunting, Fishing As Constitutional Rights -

As comment wraps up later this week on the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission's controversial Conservation Policy ahead of a late January vote, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Olympia has introduced a bill that could help enshrine hunting and fishing as constitutional rights.
nwsportsmanmag.com
 
Not sure having a constitutional "right" to fish means much as proposed. They were pretty careful to note the "right" is subject to regulation and must not infringe upon Tribal rights.

From where I'm sitting, this looks like a meaningless enshrinement of the status quo. Am I missing something?
 
Shad said:
Not sure having a constitutional "right" to fish means much as proposed. They were pretty careful to note the "right" is subject to regulation and must not infringe upon Tribal rights.

From where I'm sitting, this looks like a meaningless enshrinement of the status quo. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
It's more of an effort to keep the status quo. There is a lot of fear, especially in the hunting community, about the WDFW commission, their make up, and their views regarding hunting and predators. I don't think of myself as an alarmist generally. However, I share the concern given how the new commission members behavior, votes and who they tend to associate with.
 
charles sullivan said:
It's more of an effort to keep the status quo. There is a lot of fear, especially in the hunting community, about the WDFW commission, their make up, and their views regarding hunting and predators. I don't think of myself as an alarmist generally. However, I share the concern given how the new commission members behavior, votes and who they tend to associate with.
Click to expand...
The commission was appointed, not elected. They were appointed by one man to do a very specific job. They are doing very well at the job they were appointed to do. It's just that job is counter to most sporting people in this state. It is however aligned with the voting public the one who appointed them is concerned with. You can win elections and ram through agendas in this state by pandering to one side of the aisle. It's been proven over and over again. So why would a pro sporting commission be of any interest to anyone appointing them? Things are working perfectly well by design. It's just not our design.
 
Dustin Chromers said:
The commission was appointed, not elected. They were appointed by one man to do a very specific job. They are doing very well at the job they were appointed to do. It's just that job is counter to most sporting people in this state. It is however aligned with the voting public the one who appointed them is concerned with. You can win elections and ram through agendas in this state by pandering to one side of the aisle. It's been proven over and over again. So why would a pro sporting commission be of any interest to anyone appointing them? Things are working perfectly well by design. It's just not our design.
Click to expand...
I agree, generally.

I can say that in my e-mail discussions with local representatives on the issue, I have seen some willingness to listen and possibly to push a different course. I do believe that the ones (my local rep's) that I have communicated with want to represent all people in their district. They don't need more votes. However, I have seen them take other stances that were not in line with the company line.

On the issue of the commission, I have found that it is difficult to come off as someone who is not a conspiracy theorist. This is due so many recent events where good individuals in local government (paid and elected) have been personally harassed/ attacked for doing their jobs. People seem to feel free to assign horrific motives to anyone who they differ with including at least one of my local rep's who I respect a great deal.

Political polarization and rise of craziness has led to it being very difficult to make a case based on what I believe an outcome of commision appointments will be. It's difficult to try and argue policy and be seen as casting aspersions when discussing appointments of individuals. Politics has become about defining the opponent as some evil person and not about policy. "They are pursuing the agenda of "Washington Wildlife First and The Humane Society of The US" is hard to convey when the individuals you are lobbying and people that they care for have been attacked for pursuing agendas that they were not.

I am due to send another couple of e-mails. Recent events have made my case a little easier to make to my Rep's. Although I do not think that the bill that was linked above will do much, it does give an opportunity for me to continue a dialogue.
 
charles sullivan said:
I agree, generally.

I can say that in my e-mail discussions with local representatives on the issue, I have seen some willingness to listen and possibly to push a different course. I do believe that the ones (my local rep's) that I have communicated with want to represent all people in their district. They don't need more votes. However, I have seen them take other stances that were not in line with the company line.

On the issue of the commission, I have found that it is difficult to come off as someone who is not a conspiracy theorist. This is due so many recent events where good individuals in local government (paid and elected) have been personally harassed/ attacked for doing their jobs. People seem to feel free to assign horrific motives to anyone who they differ with including at least one of my local rep's who I respect a great deal.

Political polarization and rise of craziness has led to it being very difficult to make a case based on what I believe an outcome of commision appointments will be. It's difficult to try and argue policy and be seen as casting aspersions when discussing appointments of individuals. Politics has become about defining the opponent as some evil person and not about policy. "They are pursuing the agenda of "Washington Wildlife First and The Humane Society of The US" is hard to convey when the individuals you are lobbying and people that they care for have been attacked for pursuing agendas that they were not.

I am due to send another couple of e-mails. Recent events have made my case a little easier to make to my Rep's. Although I do not think that the bill that was linked above will do much, it does give an opportunity for me to continue a dialogue.
Click to expand...

I like to keep it simple. A brief research of about all the commissioners reveals they are the furthest thing from sporting public friendly. Obviously any outside nut job action against one's political opponents is abhorrent and to be condemned. That said it's important to know what your representatives stand for. Even if those aren't elected. Know your friends and know your enemies better. I hate using the term enemy in this context but I'm inclined to say it fits. No conspiracy about it. That's not to say outside action against them on a personal level is warranted, it's not. They still should not be in a position to form policy.
 
Dustin Chromers said:
I like to keep it simple. A brief research of about all the commissioners reveals they are the furthest thing from sporting public friendly. Obviously any outside nut job action against one's political opponents is abhorrent and to be condemned. That said it's important to know what your representatives stand for. Even if those aren't elected. Know your friends and know your enemies better. I hate using the term enemy in this context but I'm inclined to say it fits. No conspiracy about it. That's not to say outside action against them on a personal level is warranted, it's not. They still should not be in a position to form policy.
Click to expand...

This conversation would be easier in person. It's difficult to have while not blowing up a thread and having it devolve into American style us vs. them politics.
I will write to my representative again though.
 
I was just reading an article on the Canadian trawl fishery that had 93% of its catch be chinook bycatch and most were thrown overboard because they weren’t allowed to harvest them. This quote is the one that stood out to me, “Imagine what we would find if they started doing enhanced monitoring for other, economically, culturally and ecologically important species on our coast … like Pacific herring,” she suggested.

This is what I am saying. I don’t believe the impacts of these fisheries are being accurately accounted. In cases where money is at stake, you have the fox guarding the hen house. Money corrupts everything; the data, the reporting, the forecast, it is all corrupted IMO.

So when they ask sports fishermen to make sacrifices just remember that we aren’t making any money off this, we aren’t corrupted, we do this because we love it. The harvesters pay their mortgage with these fish, so how biased do you think they are? Answer: completely biased and untrustworthy.
 
Chinook and chum live and feed at depths that make them susceptible to trawl catch. Steelhead, according to the most recent and best available data, rarely venture below the 50m level off the pacific coast and usually stay within 5-10m of the surface in the Gulf of AK.
Before the "black and white" crowd gets a chance to chirp, this isn't an apology for the eastern pacific trawl fisheries. The AK pollock fishery is hideous in terms of chum and chinook (as well as a shitpile of other marine life) bycatch weight. My time in the GOA/BSAI pollock fishery (87-88) was cut short by my inability to reconcile the fuckton of money I was making with the amount of chinook and halibut I was throwing overboard.
Canadian fisheries don't have near the observer coverage, so it will be interesting to watch as their closely-held fleet endures more scrutiny.

To bring this back around on track...everyone should reread Smalma's post above about historic levels and current/legacy habitat loss. Ocean conditions have fluctuated for millenia, but the new, wild fluctuations since 2002 (yes, 2002) have certainly thrown a wrench in the mix. As for freshwater habitat- just because it LOOKS like a fish-bearing river to the casual observer doesn't mean it is capable of producing a shitpile of fish in its current state...and that goes for nearly all the rivers in the greater PNW.
 
GSmolt, since you are calling some of us the “Black and White crowd” I will keep my banter going because I find that disrespectful.

I want to point out that I brought the quote up about the bycatch not because of the trawl fishing type specifically, but because of the monitoring quote. What would we find with enhanced monitoring in more fisheries?

And since you dropped that you participated in a trawl fishery and didn’t like it, and that makes you an expert on the matter, I will say again like I did several pages ago, that I was on a gill net boat (for two summers) targeting kings and saw lots of big steelhead die.
 
HauntedByWaters said:
And since you dropped that you participated in a trawl fishery and didn’t like it, and that makes you an expert on the matter...
Click to expand...
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?
 
G_Smolt said:
Chinook and chum live and feed at depths that make them susceptible to trawl catch. Steelhead, according to the most recent and best available data, rarely venture below the 50m level off the pacific coast and usually stay within 5-10m of the surface in the Gulf of AK.
Before the "black and white" crowd gets a chance to chirp, this isn't an apology for the eastern pacific trawl fisheries. The AK pollock fishery is hideous in terms of chum and chinook (as well as a shitpile of other marine life) bycatch weight. My time in the GOA/BSAI pollock fishery (87-88) was cut short by my inability to reconcile the fuckton of money I was making with the amount of chinook and halibut I was throwing overboard.
Canadian fisheries don't have near the observer coverage, so it will be interesting to watch as their closely-held fleet endures more scrutiny.

To bring this back around on track...everyone should reread Smalma's post above about historic levels and current/legacy habitat loss. Ocean conditions have fluctuated for millenia, but the new, wild fluctuations since 2002 (yes, 2002) have certainly thrown a wrench in the mix. As for freshwater habitat- just because it LOOKS like a fish-bearing river to the casual observer doesn't mean it is capable of producing a shitpile of fish in its current state...and that goes for nearly all the rivers in the greater PNW.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top