Bring em back!

Discussion in 'Fishing Politics - The WDFW / ODFW Discussion' started by eswan, Feb 15, 2017.

  1. eswan

    eswan Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    917
  2. Salmo g.

    Salmo g. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,850
    It might help if the petition mentioned that there is minimal competition and genetic introgression between the early hatchery run and the later timed wild run. The Cowlitz steelhead genetics study supports that conclusion. Further, the presence of the barrier dam, along with the weirs on the lower Cowlitz tributary streams, provide excellent separation between hatchery and wild steelhead in the Cowlitz River basin.

    I think these are more compelling natural resource arguments than complaining about the economic impacts without the early hatchery steelhead run. Remember, no one has an entitlement to those early timed hatchery fish. They are, or were, an enhancement that people enjoyed, and they had economic value. That's not the same as necessary.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. steeldrifter

    steeldrifter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    136
  4. eswan

    eswan Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    917
    Salmo,

    That is great insight and should be shared at the petition so others can read it aswell.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. winterun

    winterun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,376
    E,

    I signed this on the other website!

    But thanks again Salmo for the enlightenment!!!

    Winterun
     
  6. Bay Wolf

    Bay Wolf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,978
    Signed and shared!
     
  7. wolfkill220

    wolfkill220 Active Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Messages:
    984
    signed and shared
     
  8. Iron Head

    Iron Head Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    793
    Did the Cowlitz Fisherman championed this cause for years prior to the changes?
    A lot of people on here didn't care before, why should they care now? What good is this petition now? Do you seriously think Tacoma Power and WDFW just going to roll over and admit they made a mistake and that the ankle grabbing fishermen are right? Best of luck.
     
  9. Myassisdragon

    Myassisdragon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    239
    " Remember, no one has an entitlement to those early timed hatchery fish. They are, or were, an enhancement that people enjoyed, and they had economic value. That's not the same as necessary. "

    And here lies one of the underlying issues with the last 40 years of Washington state's administration of our sports fishing monies, our sports fisher's opportunities, and our future sport fishing concerns. They really see no reason why any of us sports fisher-folk have a need to fish. Why fish for fun? Not when they are trying to save the last wild fish, or while protecting some folks right to catch fish for money and commercial profit, while providing wild salmon to our fine Puget Sound restaurants, and salmon eggs by the ton to our world trading partners...

    The current tides of change really see no reason why "We the Sports fisher folk" have any Need or Requirement to fish ...
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Metal_

    Metal_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    918
    BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
     
  11. Salmo g.

    Salmo g. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,850
    MAID,

    You're entitled to make any interpretation of my post that you like, but that doesn't make you correct. Especially when you take a small part of it out of context. Perhaps you aren't aware that context is important, and often critical, to meaning.

    I added my post to the conversation because I think it adds strength of reasoning to the language of the petition. The petition comes across as a bit whiny, with a sport fishing perspective that because we like and enjoy these fish, WDFW should simply provide them, independent of any other reason. Except, another reason is given, a worse one in my opinion. That reason is that fishing guides who used to earn money from the early winter steelhead fishery somehow have a right, or entitlement, to it. Nothing could be further from the case, which makes the argument easier than easy to dismiss. No one is entitled to earn a living or portion thereof by guiding anglers to fish for publicly owned fish on publicly owned waters. It really is that simple.

    I think petitioners will get more mileage by offering technical reasons for why the desired fishery is consistent with resource conservation objectives as well as having social and economic benefits. Trying to tie your arguments to ". . . the last 40 years of Washington state's administration of our sports fishing monies . . ." is an exhibition of substantial ignorance since the Cowlitz River is the topic of discussion. Almost the entirety of fishing for Cowlitz River origin salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout is provided through Tacoma Power's mitigation measures that are required under Tacoma's FERC hydropower license. Your sport fishing monies have nothing to do with and contribute exactly zero to the production of Cowlitz hatchery fish. Further, for most of the last nearly 50 years, WDFW and its predecessor agencies have pushed beyond the limit of Tacoma's mitigation obligation to produce even more fish. You could do a better job of expressing gratitude. Despite your dissatisfaction the Cowlitz continues to be one of the most productive salmon and steelhead fisheries in the state. Yeah, even despite the big loss of smolts last spring.

    Sg
     
  12. Iron Head

    Iron Head Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    793
    What do you know? You haven't been here fishing long enough boy.
    This river was loaded with Thanksgiving fish when you were still in your momma's womb.
     
  13. Metal_

    Metal_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    918
    Boy? Nice insult. I'm far from a boy but I think everybody here would agree you snivel like a two year old girl. I guess that's why you threw the mothers womb insult out there. Everybody on this board was in their mothers womb when a Thanksgiving run was in that river. Unless you're two years old that is.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. wolfkill220

    wolfkill220 Active Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Messages:
    984
    Yes it would be nice to see them back.Salmo we do have a right to fish its rite there in the langue of the treaties.When it states that the tribes have the right in common with the citizens.Now go ahead on your rant about my reading comprehension and so on.Look up the meaning of "in common" it means something shared.So by that the writers of the treaties meant the the tribes would share the rite to fish with us.And As you love to support the boldt decision that was based on what boldt felt the tribes would have believed at the time of signing.Then that would support our rite to fish even more because at that time we believed we had the rite to us the resources how ever we saw fit.The problem is getting any liberal judge to rule by the letter of the law and not on their party agenda.
     
  15. Iron Head

    Iron Head Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    793
    My true insult to you and the wolf guy is this. You are a beginners and not even around when a champion of this cause was talking and warning people. You know nothing.