Wild Steelhead Statistics

[smilesforu]

Just thought you might like to see some of the statistics of the actual runs of our Olympic Peninsula Rivers. Very nice graphical representation of the numbers. This clearly shows that we are not in danger of overfishing this resource here in Washington.
The economics of shutting this down will effect many families in already depressed timber town and we could use support to keep this fishery open. Please be informed and send a letter of support to keep our privledges open. Email address at the bottom after you look at the numbers. Thanks


Wild Steelhead Statistics

michapjm@dfw.wa.gov

PS. If I felt this was a threatened fishery I would be one of the first in line to shut it down.

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: smilesforu ]</p>

[Pete]

Good perspective, Marty. A valuable link. It's important to remember there are harvestable numbers of fish in a healthy population. Ultimately it would be nice to see all the sub-basin populations healthy enough to support a "take" fishery. If we close that option now, regardless of the health of the fishery, what repercussions could that have in the future? Healthy enough wild stocks that hatcheries aren't needed ... leaving us with a no-take fishery? Probably not, but it's worth considering as new legislation is drafted.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Marty
I have to admit living in Oregon I know little to nothing about Washington rivers and fish counts and regulations. As I am sure a lot of other posters on ifish are in the same boat.

I see where Steeliebob (Bob Ball) has a thread asking for people to submit a letter asking for all wild steelies to be released in Washington, assuming I understand what he is asking for. I assume this is for sport fishing only?? again, confused from lack of information.

I would take it from this post you are showing the other side of the coin and would be against sending this letter???? :whazzup: Your data looks like an increasing fish population.

Can you give us some more information.

I know in Oregon we cannot keep any wild steelies and I was not real happy with that when it went into effect, and I am still not sure it is the best and right thing to be doing. Lots of people that say they know more than me and are involved in the field say it is a good thing. Maybe, maybe not I dont really know. I just know the river I like to fish is not planted so you have to catch a stray to keep a fish, which isnt all that easy.

Can you enlighten us a little more as to why you want a letter sent, Thank you.

[KilgoreTrout]

Marty, I disagree with your analysis. Looking at the graphs 2 of the 3 rivers are experiencing downward trends of the returning population. Granted in one case it is due to persistent overfishing by the tribes. Releasing all natives would help, especially if the tribe cannot be brought into compliance for their share.

Dave

[smilesforu]

BOE
This is the rest of the story (otherside)
The Catch and Release side doesn't like to mention the Hoh is already at a TWO wild fish/year limit and the Quillayute is at 10 wild/year. They aren't happy with the fact anybody can kill a wild fish no matter what. The stocks are healthy and growing and yet they want to clamp down to a closure. The biology actually shows the limits should be increased but that isn't the Politically correct stance.
The change of this regulation will impact the local businesses and families (restuarants, hotels, gas stations).
It is greed towards their own personal believes not science that is driving this regulation. They have even harnessed people in the flyfishing communties on the East Coast to write letters in support of this regulation. Decisions need to be made on sound biology and they want to disregard the biology and impacts this will have.
Ya I live here year round and experienced this closure to my local salmon fishing to protect the streams in Puget Sound. I know what these regulations do to a town dependant on a fishing season.
Catch and Release seasons don't bring the large number of anglers..it is the catch and kill seasons.
Personally I won't be impacted economically, but lots of families who live in a depressed the timber town of Forks will be.

The state closes fisheries that need protection to rebuild. They use those illustrations to say the state is not doing their job...quite the opposite.
So I ask you to help use sound judgement and send a letter. If you feel it is for Catch and Release that is fine too. I only ask you look at the facts and make the decision. Not all good intentions end up positively.
Another line I hear is "If we kill them then we can't point our fingers at the indians for doing it." The indian tribes have the right in our state to harvest 50 percent of the excess whether we like it or not. It is aplay on the emotions and not science. In fact the indians have the opportunity to take us to court and catch our fish using what is called "foregone opportunity".
The tribes threatened to do it in the past and the state acknowledges this issue.

The state also is on a 4 year cycle and wouldn't be able to change this for 4 years!! They can shut down fisheries but can't reopen it to harvest if this passes.

Thanks for caring enough to read my drivvel.
Oh ya I am on a island on this one but I feel I am in the right and need to say something.
Tight Lines

[TheRogue]

B.O.E.

Yes, you can keep native fish in Oregon....on the Rogue and Umpqua rivers. This one per day, five total for the year. In the last few years, the NMFS has done their best to stop this, even though all data points to a very good population of wild fish. The ODFW took the stance that they knew more about their rivers than some bio-button pusher in Seattle, and fought hard to keep it. The Wild to Hatchery fish on the Rogue is just the opposite of most rivers for winter steelies...many more wild than hatchery. I'm not real familiar with the Umpqua, but I'm sure it's the same.

Closing "take" fisheries for wild fish is fine, as long as there is a pressing need to do so. Shutting them down simply to kowtow to the wild fish "purists" is simply criminal. Let the biologists do their job, despite what most people think, the bio's I know care deeply about fish, and have no desire to hurt the resource. If they say there's enough fish for a harvest, OK....if not, then don't allow it.

Oooops, just fell of my soapbox! Thanx for the information, Marty.

kyle

[DanS]

I'm pasting one of Todd R.'s responses from Matry's board so you can get the "other" sides view.

Rivers with "harvestable surplus" of native steelhead:

1970: Almost all rivers in Western Washington
(Hundreds of streams)

1980: About half the rivers in W. Washington
(Still dozens, if not hundreds, of streams)

1990: Skagit system, Snohomish system, Stillaguamish system, Green River, Kalama River, Cowlitz River and most tribs, most other lower Columbia tribs, most of Chehalis system, Quinault River, Queets River, Clearwater River, Salmon River, Quillayute system, Hoh River, Hoko River, most Straits of Juan de Fuca streams, Big River, Cedar Cr., Kalaloch Cr., (approximately 65 streams).

**Many of those streams' runs are deemed "harvestable" despite the fact that escapement has not been set or actually calculated for them, i.e., Goodman Cr., Mosquito Cr., Suiattle River, Kalaloch, and more.**

2000: Quillayute system, Queets system, Goodman Cr. (no escapement set), Mosquito Cr. (no escapement set), Quinault, Hoh River, Hoko River,
Big River (no escapement set) Cedar Cr. (no escapement set), Kalaloch Cr. (no escapement set). (Approximately 16 streams, five of which have not had minimum escapement set or actual escapement measured.)

Is it hard to see an alarming trend here? Several hundred healthy streams, to several dozen, to a few dozen, to sixteen.

All of those rivers were deemed "healthy" and had wild fish harvested out of them. Now they're not healthy.

Why do this to the last eleven streams? (I'm not counting the ones with no minimum or actual escapement numbers, there is no way to judge their health).

"It's not our fault. It's the ______."

Insert "Indians", "river conditions", "habitat", "poor river flows", or "bad weather". Or anything else, for that matter.

Assuming that these are the "real" reasons for the demise of wild steelhead in well over 90% of the streams in W. Washington, is that still an excuse to kill more of them ourselves?

Shouldn't we leave every fish possible in the river to help balance out the other factors that are out of sportfisher's control?

Naaahh,...I've changed my mind. We need to kill them to save them.

END OF POST.

If you want to read any more about this debate ( if you can still take it :grin: ) I would suggest a trip to Marty's board. He has the link to his page on his posts. Many good points are made there on both sides of the debate, and surpisingly, not too much name-calling and the like.

[rob allen]

You can fill your freezers with hatchery fish!!! Explain to me why you'd ned or want to kill a wild fish??? There may be enough fish in thoes 3 systems but as Bob Ball recently pointed aut what about the diversity of thoes fish There are very few early returning wild fish and we we here in southwest washington are finding out in a very grim way genetic diversity counts for something!!!!

I grew up on the washougal which for years was in the top 5 for steelhead harvest state wide!!! Now the wild fish number in the very low hundreds some years less that 100.

No serious habitat destruction has occurred since that time it's been decemated by hatchery practices and overharvest by sport fishers.

Again with so many hatchery fish that NEED to be harvested why would you even think of killing a wild fish. I can think of one reason. Greed!

Wild steelhead release state wide is the right thing to do
Killing wild steelhead is the wrong thing to do even where legal!!!!1
I wish I could say I am sorry if someone is offended by this but I am not.

I think this is a black and white issue either you valuse our wild steelhead or you do not!

[smilesforu]

Rob please put your rod away, catch and release has a mortality rate. I don't want you to harm a wild fish either. Thanks I appreciate it.

That diversity you speak of has a increased net pressure now and will be increased with the passage of this rule change. I am very aware of the diversity issue, but this will make the situation worse not better. "Foregone Opportunity"
Fishermen won't catch 100% but the nets will come dam close. Nets are not selective!!

[Bubzilla]

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]</p>

[Sparkey]

Actual data of steelhead hooking mortality.

Followed are data from British Columbia as complied by Hooton, R.S. in 2001 titled Facts and issues associated with restricting terminal gear types in the management of sustainable steelhead sport fisheries in British Columbia. As published by British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks.

Data shows river specific hooking mortality then gear specific mortality.

By River:

Cowichan
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 509
Hooking Mortality: 16
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.1

Englishman
Basin Years of Record: 5
Number of Steelhead Angled: 240
Hooking Mortality: 9
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.8

Heber
Basin Years of Record: 1
Number of Steelhead Angled: 70
Hooking Mortality: 3
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 4.3

Gold
Basin Years of Record: 1
Number of Steelhead Angled: 30
Hooking Mortality: 0
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 0

Nanaimo
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 378
Hooking Mortality: 7
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 1.9

Puntledge
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 481
Hooking Mortality: 9
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 1.9

Salmon
Basin Years of Record: 6
Number of Steelhead Angled: 464
Hooking Mortality: 27
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 5.8

San Juan
Basin Years of Record: 2
Number of Steelhead Angled: 49
Hooking Mortality: 3
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 6.1

Somass
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 1,174
Hooking Mortality: 43
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.7

Tsitika
Basin Years of Record: 7
Number of Steelhead Angled: 320
Hooking Mortality: 10
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.1

Keogh
Basin Years of Record: 2
Number of Steelhead Angled: 336
Hooking Mortality: 17
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 5.1

Total
Number of Steelhead Angled: 4051
Hooking Mortality: 144
Hooking Mortality Percentage: 3.6

Gear Type:

Percentages are listed first followed by total number in parantheses.
Year: 1985
Barbed/Bait: 12.5 (6)
Barbed/No Bait: 7.7 (2)
Barbless/Bait: 3.6 (2)
Barbless/No Bait: 0 (0)
Total: 7.7 (10)

Year: 1986
Barbed/Bait: 5.9 (3)
Barbed/No Bait: 2.5(1)
Barbless/Bait: 2.6 (2)
Barbless/No Bait: 2.6 (1)
Total: 3.4 (7)

Total Mortality:
Barbed/Bait: 9.1 (9)
Barbed/No Bait: 4.5 (3)
Barbless/Bait: 3.0 (4)
Barbless/No Bait: 2.6(1)
Total: 5.1 (17)

[Bob D]

Yes I must say the person who put those lovely graphical representations together should be given a raise for there exceptional job performance in creating graphs with Data that only goes back to 78.

Those are good numbers and things are looking ok for the Steelhead huh?

Now lets see those numbers compared to lets say 1930! How good was it back then Marty? Sure the indians will get more fish if the runs get healthier but only the 50% of the total alloted number of harvestable fish!
As far as Towns, and the revenue sportfishing generates, go look at the Skeena system sometime and count the number of european anglers that are spending thousands and thousands of dollars in areas much more remote than Forks will ever be. These people that live in these towns make enough money to have huge lodges and several boats and still make it thru the down time and be in buss. when the next season starts. You think Forks has that aboility? I know it does! But it dosent right now and never will at the rate were going. Maybe we dont want that kind of pressure, maybe we do.
If a Kill ban passes and the town of Froks falls due to revenue lost just from sportfishing then it wasent meant to be! Forks was built off LOGGING! It now has to look for ways to diversify its economy and sportfishing is a help. But it isnt and never should be counted on! Thats what Sekiu, Neah bay and even Port Angeles did and look at your Salt opportunities!!! All ya gotta do is take the blinders off and look behind you!

This is my first post on this board so Hi every one! My name is Bob Darmiento and I fish the Olympic Penninsula with a passion like no other!

Bob D

[finclipped]

Working towards increasing wild populations is an honorable goal, but what bothers me is how wild steelhead mortality is used among the user groups.

Quite frankly, I don't have a strong conviction one way or another on this issue. Around Vancouver all wild steelhead must be released, and I have never fished for steelhead where its legal to keep natives. I also have never steelhead fished where nets were allowed in the river. In the back of my mind I can't help but think what we as a user group give up (i.e. keeping wild steelhead), the tribes will take(Foregone opportunity.) In this case it comes down to sportsanglers losing some of their fishing rights instead of the saving wild steelhead. The question I have is that I think we get shafted most of the time anyway, so why would I support imposed reductions in harvest opportunities, when they are simply shifted to the other groups? (tribes.)

Can anyone ensure me that if we implement this policy, our portion of the wild steelhead won't be shifted to the tribes? I don't see this policy as saving wild steelhead.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Just a note. If you look hard enough, you can find studies that indicate C&R mortality is much higher than shown in the post above.

http://www-ops.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/frd/Sport/crstudy.htm

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: chnookie ]</p>

[Bait O' Eggs]

TheRouge- Thanks for the info on the rouge and umpqua allowing wild fish retention. I was not aware of that, but then again, I have never fished them.

Sparky post some mortality rates, and Chnookie post some data that conflicts that. Steeliebob post a request to write a letter to stop retention of wild steelies, Smilesforu ask for the opposite letter to be written. Several good points are brought up by others, like will this just allow the indians to net more fish since the sportsman will not be keeping them. All I wanted to do was get to the truth. I guess it is like Gizmo says, Their is 3 sides to each arguement, your story, my story, and then there is the truth. I wish I knew what the truth was. :depressed: :depressed:

[rob allen]

Chinookie I just have a small problem with the study you posted.. It mentioned that many fish were hooked very deep even saying that some has hooks "lodged in their stomaches".. I can ever recall hooking a fish that deep ever yet it seemed as though it was common in this study.
I would like to have actually seen this study take place so I had some understanding of what exactly was happening. I think for this senario concerning out local fisheries the study posted by Ryan is more accurate.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I make no claims to accuracy for someone else's study. I was just posting it to point out that you can find data to support whatever you want, almost. Just like you put more faith in the study posted above, that incidentally shows lower mortality. Its up to people using such studies to read the damned things, and give their reasoning for using it to support their argument. Also to point out conflicting views. This is common practice in scientific circles, but is totally ignored in political circles, because it doesn't make your argument as easy to push over people. Of course, none of this would matter if everyone did their OWN research and background checking. But that's too much time to spend, so we hit the highspots and sometimes miss the mark. That's just how it is, unfortunately.

I didn't post any of this as an argument for or against C&R or Catch and Kill. Just like BOE said, there are three sides. Actually, I don't believe there is one truth here, it all just depends on where and what you are talking about.

[Sparkey]

chnookie-
Coho salmon data is irrelevenat as we are discussing steelhead and not coho.

I can dig up tons of C&R data for rainbow trout that would show mortality upwards of 50% (when bait is used).

When we are using facts and quoting studies, we must use proper science. The catch and release mortalitys of coho should have no baring on management of steelhead because they are two totally differnt species with very differnt life history traits and behaviors.

[Bob D]

This "Forgon Opportunity" is a real grey area for me! When you think about it whos gonna catch more fish, the indians or the Sporties? Id like to hear a fact filled responce from the C & R side! Or is this just a good starting point to eliminate the harvest of wild Steelies? The Canadians dont let them net the Skeena area for Steelies!

Bob D

[smilesforu]

Well since I happen to be a antique fishing collector...I have the state Department of fisheries book for 1935- 1938 Inclusive. Will this work? Indian catch not indicated previous to 1935

All Districts combined
1919 hook and line 412 fish of 124,652 steelhead caught

1927 h&l 6 fish of 237,276 steelhead caught

1928 h&l 7 fish of 162,636 steelhead caught

no hook and line data but total catch is still listed through 1938 falling every year to the final data in my book of......39,958 total steelhead caught!!!!
In a 10 year span the total fell by a catch rate of 200,000 fish.

BTW 1919 was the highest number actually recorded for the steelhead by hook and line...

I don't think there was mandatory reporting or monitoring on steelhead by sporties. But the commercial numbers show the overall picture of the fisheries over the 20 year span.

This data doesn't do much for statistical comparisons but does show some pretty ugly population declines. I suppose we could use the native caught fish today compared to those years.

This information is broken down into several districts. I only included the overall numbers since they don't single out the systems only the regional numbers.

Night

[Bob D]

Can you imagine if it was still like that! Even half that! You could easily get a 25 pounder out of the Duc every day if not 5!
The best fishing machine is a time machine! Wheres Marty and Doc with the Delorian (SP?) when ya need em. Thanks for diggen that info up Marty. We got alot of work to do no matter the side.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Sparkey, if you would READ my posts above, I have said more than once that I posted that for an example of digging up data to support a pet view. So I honestly don't appreciate being taken to task over the applicability of what I said up front was only a "for instance" in the first place. Had I said "No way, mortality is way higher than that, look at this study...." , you could rip me all you wanted for quoting the wrong study. So I will repeat, once again, and I quote:

"I was just posting it to point out that you can find data to support whatever you want, almost. Just like you put more faith in the study posted above, that incidentally shows lower mortality. ITS UP TO PEOPLE USING SUCH STUDIES TO READ THE DAMNED THINGS AND GIVE THEIR REASONING FOR USING IT TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT. Also to point out conflicting views. This is common practice in scientific circles, but is totally ignored in political circles, because it doesn't make your argument as easy to push over people."

Sound familiar? Trust me, I know enough not to quote studies that have no bearing on the topic. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE!!!!!

[birdhunter]

Chinookie? You know something about fisheries? Now way!

Go get him.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Sorry, I may have over-reacted a little. Just took it a little personally, then I re-read and realized that Sparkey posted the first set of data. So let me just say that my posts were really not meant to detract from the validity of what you posted Sparkey. I just have a bit of a peeve about blanket statements, and they tend to be made a LOT about things like catch-and-release, along with hatchery-vs-wild. Not saying you did that, but I could see things heading down that road -- oh heck with it, I know Rob would have gone there! (No offense intended Rob!) So I considered it a pre-emptive strike!!

Oh, and I don't have a problem with C&R either!!

[rob allen]

Heck Chinookie I am never offended by what people say on any bulletin board. I'd love to make a couple blanket statements :blush: )

1. There are sooo many hatchery fish and opportunities for their harvest that no one needs to kill them intentionally. For food or otherwise.

2. In any case a fish caught and released has better survival rates that a fish that is fit with a stick and thrown in the fish box.

One final note a survey was condusted that showed the Majority of steelhead anglers approved of statewide steelhead release!

Also this is something that can always be undone!!! The regulations cycle is ever 2 years not 4.
Wild steelhead release came too late for my home river,the Washougal where now the wild steelhead hang on by only the thinnest of threads. 2 factors alone contributed to their demise. Hatchery practices and sport harvest!

[Hoosier Daddy]

Rob, as usual, I do in fact agree with a lot of what you say.

[Snagly]

A quick note on the Skeena system where all steelhead must be released, no bait is allowed and only single barbless hooks used. In addition, most if not all, major steelhead rivers close to fishing completely in April-May when spawning occurs. I'd guess 90% of the locals now support these rules (which are relatively recent: 10 years old??)

First, the Skeena steelhead returns are substantially impacted by commercial (non-native) netting for sockeye/ silvers at the mouth. Strong salmon returns in 2001 led the regional fisheries people to extend the commercial netting season by another 11 (?) days. Result: some guides believe that total steelhead returns to the Bulkley/ Morice Rivers were 75% below the 2000 levels, and most other rivers were hammered, too. A test net at the mouth of the Skeena shows an overall reduction of about 40% in 2001.

Second, there are rules and there are rules. Natives ("First Nations" up north) fish with bait using rod and reel, and keep all the steelhead they want. A few bad apples illegally net steelhead even today.Some of the time they do this on reservation land, and the rest of the time they do this wherever they want. I've asked locals and Conservation Officers ("CO's") what the rules are as applied to the First Nations and they smile and shrug.

Third, Bob D is absolutely right in saying that the Skeena system has a thriving international sport fishing tourist (predominately fly fishing) clientele. Many if not most of these people wouldn't fly 8-10 hours to Vancouver if the Skeena system was a kill fishery. (BTW, technically the Skeena IS a kill fishery, but only in the winter months and then only one steelhead per resident angler per year.)

Perhaps the Forks area could start picking up some of these people to make up for the loss of C & K (presumably WA State) anglers if Washington State went to 100% C & R for natives. To the extent that local guides could adapt their services to target the white-wine-and-a-streamside-hot-lunch crowd, then they would prosper.

* * * * *

As for my own views, I've been reading all these threads and still don't know if imposing a blanket C & R rule state-wide is going to open certain watersheds to increased netting. If that's the case, then the road to hell certainly is paved with good intentions.

[DanS]

Has foregone opportunity been used already as a tool for increased tribal netting? The Chehalis system, for instance.

Just trying to determine if this is a valid point, or scare tactic.

Marty, potter, ..........anyone?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

This has been a very good thread, many opinions and points of view expressed. It is difficult sometimes to know what is best. I believe if we boil down this issue to its essence and discard the peripheral aspects of this debate we must ask what is best for the long-term health of our native fish. If we do not guarantee the health and survival of our wild runs then we have no right to call ourselves “sports fishermen” This does not mean we should blindly accept any proposal touted to help our indigenous salmonids. We must look at all the pro’s and con’s connected with each plan. All things considered, C&R of wild fish is the best first step in protecting this resource.


As to the possible increase in take by treaty fishermen, I would do my best to lobby for assurances that it would not happen but I would not allow it to sway my position. The treaty fishermen are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed and it would not be too difficult to find an issue that would help lend political pressure to getting them on board with regard to protecting wild salmon.

(it would perhaps only take a video of them doing the following to get the ball rolling)
http://www.tribnet.com/frame.asp?/sp...s/1205c31.html

Chnookie,
I for one understood your intent behind your posts. After reading many of your posts over the past year or so I have come to understand your point of view and respect it very much. I have learned from you that there are no absolutes especially in fisheries biology. The fact that there are always many conflicting studies is not lost on me. It’s like I have said in the past, we seem to have some of the best fisheries biologists writing reports…
“that money can buy” (he he)


*** Clerk

[smilesforu]

Bob you say the indians would only be able to get 50% of the harvestable fish. Well...that is the problem. If we don't catch the fish or at least take the opportunity to catch them we Forgo this opportunity. Since Catch and Release has the lower impact than a kill fishery this opens the door for the tribe to increase their harvest.
They can use the statistics to show our lack of harvest and increase theres to the worst case senerio... all fish above the escapement.
We being sportsfishermen look at this from a sportsman point of view....The tribe is not a sport fishery and doesn't view the resource the same way. We are starting to get glimmers of hope but have nothing in writing or guarantees from the tribe that they will leave the fish unchallenged.

This rule change has major implications and really opens the door to the tribes.
The state has expressed two options for the fishery one of those two allows the limited harvest to continue at a reduced rate. (I support this one)
Or the complete closure to the kill fishery. This is the one that has the major legal implications.

[smilesforu]

Dan as I understand it has and is a very real issue. This is the reason I don't support the regulation for complete closure. Todd on my board presents the argument that the mortality associated with the CnR will satisfy this legal requirement.

I have a tough time taking the leap of faith on that full filling the legal interpretations.
We will see where the chips fall after this weekend.
Todd sites two specific cases on foregone opportunity and harvest to justify his belief.

Snagly good line "road to hell paved with good intentions"

Even the supreme court expresses their decisions as opinions.

I do wish the best for this fishery...its in my back yard. It is unfortuanate we as sportsmen are divided with issues like these. Hopefully when the decision is made we can join together again to fight for more good intentions.

BTW I don't see this as the actual solution to increasing the state wide run sizes.....no matter which side prevails. Lots of systems on CnR or Closed and they are a long ways from where they should be.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: smilesforu ]</p>