Originally Posted by
bigtj
Ycflyfisher,
Thanks for the information. I think it's funny you say I am wrong (and it would take you too long to say why), or perhaps I don't have much information about anadramous fisheries. For what it's worth, I am a environmental engineer/hydrogeologist with a Master's degree and a consultant with 9 years of expereince in the "real world". I deal mostly with groundwater, but my best friend is a leading expert on anadramous fisheries restoration for HDR/fish Pro. We've had hundreds of conversations on the subject over the past 15 years. I understand that many of the decisions I make in groundwater systems are limited by tremendous uncertainty. The inherent nature of groundwater is similar to fisheries management in that point sampling is used to interpolate and extrapolate systems dynamics into the future without always having a real handle on many diverse factors including ocean survival and predation. In other words, the models used to estimate populations and population dynamics are ALWAYS wrong, to some degree, it's just that some may be useful, and some may not. There are numerous examples where models have reasonably predicted population trends, models that have been just plain wrong, but none of them are "right on". Ultimately it's up to the judgement of an individual or group of scientests to make a call in the end, and we all know that decsions can sometimes be flawed and in some cases little more than a W.A.G. I don't think fisheries biology is a dark science or whatever you call it, I just have a handle on the fact that science applied to natural systems can have a lot of uncertainty. It's usually the "newbie" consultant/scientist fresh out of college that doesn't undertand their ideas aren't always right. Experience over time teaches the scientist humility and to understand they don't always have a handle on uncertainty. When large uncertainty exists, as in anadramous fisheries runs that are very difficult to accurately predict (see how well the Alaska F&G has done on sockeye runs some time...some times they're dead on, sometimes dead wrong) the best approach ususally is a conservative one, a "watch and see" approach combined with a much monitoring as possible. I don't know a single experienced consultant that wouldn't agree with me on that. Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but to say I'm wrong, outright, without knowing anything about my background or the information I have acquired, ignores the fact that nobody has all the answers, as you have so eloquently pointed out throughout your posts. Let's agree to disagree.
Bottom line is the biologists/regulators in charge agree with me, not you, with regards to C&R in a majority of western rivers. Catch and kill for wild steelhead is now only allowed in perhaps a dozen watersheds from N. California to BC. Off the top of my head that would include the Smith, a few select rivers in S. Oregon, and the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, a few more I've probably forgotten but not many. Despite the catch and kill regs ALL of the fly-fishing guides I personally know, and a few of the "bait" guides voluntarily practice catch and release. These moves has been made, whether it be to protect current populations or help restoration in the future. The move in general has been to C&R regs in all but the healthiest watersheds, and in some cases (like the Umpqua and the Olympic Peninsula) continuing to allow catch and kill for wild fish has created a big stir in the angling community, and a groundswell of public opinion that is fighting agains these catch and kill regs. For practical purposes, the fact that catch and kill for wild steelhead is no longer allowed in most rivers, and the opinion by fish and game biologists and regulators that have led to these regulations, is all that really matters, regardless of our opinons on the subject.
Lee,
Thanks for the lighthearted post, good points made I agree let's go fishing.
Bookmarks