See proposed rule
language (CR-103)
2013 Recreational Fishing Rules Concise Explanatory Statement
Fish & Wildlife Commission
Meeting Feb. 8-9, 2013

2013 – 2014 Sportfishing Rule Proposals – Briefing and Public Hearing. Audio available.

Sportfishing Rule Changes for 2013-2014

Sportfishing Rule Proposals & Comments

View proposals and comments on proposals that were submitted by the public and WDFW staff.
There are two types of rules available for viewing.


Recommended
for Public Comment
Not Recommended
for further consideration
View by Category
Statewide Coastal Region
Freshwater
Statewide
Shellfish/Seaweed
Puget Sound
Region Freshwater
Coastal Region
Marine
Puget Sound
Region Marine
Eastern Washington and
Columbia Region Freshwater

Reference ID: DFW234122

Original Rule Proposal     See comments

Reference ID: DFW234122
Critical Conservation Need      Submission Type: Public
Rules Category:
Statewide
Species covered in proposed rule
 • Steelhead
Rule to Change:
TROUT First Sat. in June- End of Specific Season Min. size 14". Daily limit 2. Selective gear rules All Game Fish First Sat. in June-End of Specific Season Catch-and-release except up to 2 hatchery STEELHEAD may be retained. All Game Fish First Sat. in June-Oct. 31 Statewide min. size/daily limit. Selective gear rules. Change voluntary retention of hatchery steelhead to mandatory retention of hatchery steelhead.
New Rule Proposal:
Mandatory Retention of all hatchery steelhead - Statewide
Why the change is needed:
Unharvested Puget Sound hatchery steelhead create a negative impact to wild steelhead populations when allowed to spawn in the wild. This is a critical conservation measure to reduce the overall impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead populations through the required retention of hatchery fish. Hatchery steelhead stray far worse than wild steelhead and often spawn in rivers on non origin. Hatchery steelhead have lost most of their productivity (Araki et.al. 2008) but do spawn with wild steelhead and reduce the overall rivers production. Hatchery steelhead also spawn together and their fry compete with wild fry for food and space (Kostow 2009). The state steelhead management plan describes the need to increase the harvest rates on hatchery-origin fish. This regulation is already in place during steelhead fisheries in the upper Columbia and it’s tributaries that provide both angling opportunity while reducing impacts to recovering ESA listed steelhead.
Names of individuals or groups with whom you have discussed this change:
The Wild Fish Conservancy - Trent Donohue and Nick Gayeski Native Fish Society - Mike Moody American Rivers - David Moryc, Senior Director River Protection Program Bill McMillan, Biologist and Outdoor writer John McMillan, Fish Research Scientist Wild Salmon Center - Devona Ensmenger Conservation Angler - Pete Soverel Will Atlas, Steelhead Conservation Committee – Federation of Fly Fishers Doug Schaad, Conservation Committee - Washington Fly Fishing Club Dave Steinbaugh, Waters West Dave McCoy, Emerald Water Anglers Bill Robinson, Fish Advocate and Chair of the WDFW SCPAG Mike Gross, WDFW Fishery Biologist David Low, WDFW Biologist Gary Marston, WDFW Biologist
Describe their support and/or concerns:
Discussed with Mike Gross, David Low, and Gary Martson of WDFW (all showed support). This Rule proposal is supported by all others listed as well.
Submitted by: LUKE KELLY (CONTACT), WILD STEELHEAD COALITION  — KIRKLAND, WA

Date submitted: 06/14/2012

WDFW Rule Proposal Recommendation

Not Recommended for further consideration     Reference ID: DFW234122

This proposal would restrict option for catch and release fishing and would be very hard to enforce.


Online Public Comments    (46 comments)

GIRTZ, TODD   September 21, 2012
SUMNER , WA  
Comments:
i do not like this rule if i catch a fish that is in poor shape i would not want to have to keep it even if it is not in a condition that would be good for eating
ROHN, DOUGLAS A  January 25, 2013
HONOLULU, HI  
Comments:
I support this proposal on the same grounds outlined below: Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression. The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead”
RICHARDSON, STEVEN J  November 26, 2012
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
Another Joke of an attempt to progress towards a strictly catch and release scenario for all sportfishers.Pretty Sad.
ASHE, KEVIN   December 13, 2012
DARRINGTON, WA  
Comments:
Not in favor. After years of hatchery fish, it seems to me that their are either no real wild stock (the mingling should have totally disrupted the wild stock) or there are wild stock still ( showing that hatchery fish have minimal effect on wild stocks).
SENYOHL, AL   January 28, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA  
Comments:
The Steelhead Trout Club of WA (now in it's 84th yr)is strongly against this proposed rule change. This change was not recomended for consideration by WDFW & we are surprised that it again is being considered. We recomend that this rule change (as submitted) receives no further consideration by the WDFW. Al Senyohl Pres. Steelhead Club of WA
TRIGGS, BOB   January 27, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
I support mandatory retention of hatchery steelhead statewide.
SMITH, IRA A  January 27, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
To increase the level of wild steelhead spawning in WA state rivers, the level of hatchery spawning competition must be reduced; this is a conclusion supported in the scientific literature (e.g. Kostow 2003 and a 2010 opinion in the ODFW Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery program). As for the law being "very hard to enforce", I've heard the a similar thing said about the study of math, does the department also propose that we stop teaching math because "math is hard"?
MCMILLAN, BILL   January 26, 2013
CONCRETE, WA  
Comments:
Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead” (Section 2: Updati
PAGE, DAN   January 26, 2013
YELM, WA  
Comments:
I favor this proposal in spite of the difficulty, even impossibility of enforcement. If wild steelhead enhancement is a goal in a specific river, then it seems to me that hatchery fish need to be eliminated. Research has shown the negative impacts of hatchery steelhead on wild populations.
EHLERT, CHUCK E  January 26, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Recommend it be included in changes. The hatchery fish was created to be retained. By restricting retention in any way, we jeopardize the endangered Wild Steelhead population.
KLARA, MATT   January 22, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Why the change is needed: Unharvested Puget Sound hatchery steelhead create a negative impact to wild steelhead populations when allowed to spawn in the wild. This is a critical conservation measure to reduce the overall impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead populations through the required retention of hatchery fish. Hatchery steelhead stray far worse than wild steelhead and often spawn in rivers on non origin. Hatchery steelhead have lost most of their productivity (Araki et.al. 2008) but do spawn with wild steelhead and reduce the overall rivers production. Hatchery steelhead also spawn together and their fry compete with wild fry for food and space (Kostow 2009). The state steelhead management plan describes the need to increase the harvest rates on hatchery-origin fish. This regulation is already in place during steelhead fisheries in the upper Columbia and it’s tributaries that provide both angling opportunity while reducing impacts to recovering ESA listed steelhead.
BUDD, ROBERT   January 22, 2013
HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA  
Comments:
Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead”
WALTER, MARILYN   January 22, 2013
PORTOLA VALLEY, CA  
Comments:
Mandatory Hatchery Steelhead Retention - Statewide I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and my family enjoyed the wonderful Salmon fishing. Today we are destroying natural species through greed. Unharvested Puget Sound hatchery steelhead create a negative impact to wild steelhead populations when allowed to spawn in the wild. This is a critical conservation measure to reduce the overall impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead populations through the required retention of hatchery fish. Hatchery steelhead stray far worse than wild steelhead and often spawn in rivers on non-origin. Amen!
SUTTON, MARCEL S  January 22, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Please impliment hatchery retention, the data is clear, these hatchery fish HURT wild steelhead populations.
SLAUGHTER, JEFF   January 22, 2013
HOLLAND, MI  
Comments:
The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead” (Section 2: Updating the Scientific Information in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp May 20, 2010, Page 118 and Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Plan 9‐2010 ODFW)
JOHNSON, DANIEL L  January 22, 2013
NEWCASTLE, WA  
Comments:
I agree with the WSC proposal for the reasons stated in their written justification and reflected below. WSC Original Proposal Justification: Unharvested Puget Sound hatchery steelhead create a negative impact to wild steelhead populations when allowed to spawn in the wild. This is a critical conservation measure to reduce the overall impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead populations through the required retention of hatchery fish. Hatchery steelhead stray far worse than wild steelhead and often spawn in rivers on non-origin. Hatchery steelhead have lost most of their productivity (Araki et. al. 2008) but do spawn with wild steelhead and reduce the overall rivers production. Hatchery steelhead also spawn together and their fry compete with wild fry for food and space (Kostow 2009). The state steelhead management plan describes the need to increase the harvest rates on hatchery-origin fish. This regulation is already in place during steelhead fisheries in the upper Col
DUKE, WILLIAM   January 22, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
WSC Rebuttal/Justification: Although the WDFW states: “This proposal would restrict option for catch and release fishing and would be very hard to enforce.” Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.”
CORDONNIER, JUSTIN   January 22, 2013
NEEDHAM, MA  
Comments:
• Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. • This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). • The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” • A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead. I recognize this rule cannot be perfectly enforced; however fisheries enforcement officers know the areas and times where fisheries take place for the hatchery fish.
CHADICK, JASON   January 22, 2013
NEAH BAY, WA  
Comments:
Dear WDFW, Why not? It is not hard to deliniate that hatcheries are one of the main reasons for the decline in wild fish. Why not increase pressure on a fish that's not supposed to be there? There are already many rules that are difficult to enforce, such as your mandatory kill emergency opening on the Methow. Cheers, Jason Chadick
BREHM, BERT   January 22, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead”
ALEXANDER, ROBERT G  January 22, 2013
BEAVER, WA  
Comments:
Enforcement challenges would be unchanged with the adoption of the conservation group's proposal. Killing wild fish would continue to be illegal. Killing hatchery fish would be encouraged, because their spawning is detrimental to increased wild fish populations. Idaho's similar Snake River policy to protect native cutthroat from being overrun by rainbows, has been judged a success. Hatcheries are for anglers, serving no other useful purpose.
YOST, DEREK N  January 22, 2013
EUGENE, OR  
Comments:
Hello- Hatchery fish are meant for harvest and mandatory harvest will help dilution of wild genes and competition for resources. Best regards, Derek Yost
WANG, DAVID   January 22, 2013
MEDFORD, OR  
Comments:
I support the Wild Steelhead coalitions position on this rule.
LARISON, JOHN   January 22, 2013
CORVALLIS, OR  
Comments:
As a guide, I hope this proposal becomes a new state regulation.
DUNPHY, LOGAN   January 22, 2013
EUGENE, OR  
Comments:
I agree w/ WSC: "Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wilId fish is 66 percent for steelhead
PARKS, MATTHEW   January 22, 2013
CORALLIS, OR  
Comments:
I support the position of the Wild Steelhead Coalition, and the need to recover what are currently devastated runs of wild steelhead and salmon.
CARR, RANDLE T  January 22, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
This is easy to do. You can continue to release wild steelhead until you catch your limit of hatchery steelhead. Clearly the hatchery steelhead should not mate with the wild steelhead in a natural environment if they are not captured at the hatchery.
SULLIVAN, GARRETT C  January 22, 2013
GRAND JUNCTION, CO  
Comments:
As an avid outdoorsman, wildlife connservative, and a tourist to the state of Washington, I absolutely support the capture and kill of any and every hatchery steelhead caught. Science has proven they inhibit the success and return of wild steelhead, period. This should no longer be a debate, but a mandate. Bring back wild steelhead. Sincerely yours, Garrett Sullivan
DALAN, DAVID   January 22, 2013
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
I'm not sure how mandatory retention would be any harder to enforce that any other regulation (wild fish release, not letting other mark your fish on your card, etc.) The issue is limited enforcement resources, not the rule. Many anglers would "socially enforce" such a regulation. And turn in those violating those regulations. Also, since mandatory retention is a condition of the upper columbia river fisheries (Wenatchee, Methow, Similkeen, Okanogan, etc.)...how could this be unenforceable? Is the WDFW agreeing to meaningless conditions when getting authorizatuion for upper columbia fisheries?
VRADENBURG, JOHN S  January 23, 2013
FALL CITY, WA  
Comments:
Unharvested Puget Sound hatchery steelhead create a negative impact to wild steelhead populations when allowed to spawn in the wild. This is a critical conservation measure to reduce the overall impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead populations through the required retention of hatchery fish. Hatchery steelhead stray far worse than wild steelhead and often spawn in rivers on non-origin. Hatchery steelhead have lost most of their productivity (Araki et. al. 2008) but do spawn with wild steelhead and reduce the overall rivers production. Hatchery steelhead also spawn together and their fry compete with wild fry for food and space (Kostow 2009). The state steelhead management plan describes the need to increase the harvest rates on hatchery-origin fish. This regulation is already in place during steelhead fisheries in the upper Columbia and its tributaries that provide both angling opportunity while reducing impacts to recovering ESA listed steelhead.
LYONS, KIMBERLY A  January 23, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
"Mandatory Retention of all hatchery steelhead - Statewide" -- SHOULD be implemented as an important step of resource conservation. The WDFW states that " This proposal would restrict option for catch and release fishing and would be very hard to enforce." That is a very weak and insufficient excuse for ignoring current best-science facts regarding steelhead conservation. Minimizing the number of hatchery steelhead that can interfere with the reproduction wild stocks is an easy and viable option, and it is already successfully employed some rivers and tributaries in the Upper Columbia system. The stated mission of WDFW is to: "To PRESERVE, PROTECT and PERPETUATE fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities." ENACTING "Mandatory Retention of all hatchery steelhead - Statewide" is consistent with this mandate, will help restore long-term steelhead runs, and all with relatively littl
NOTTINGHAM, DAN C  January 23, 2013
CLANCY, MT  
Comments:
I don't completely agree with this proposal. I retain zero steelhead when fishing and don't want to keep any. Making the possession limits larger for hatchery fish would be a better option. this would allow the people who want fish to keep more.
DINSMORE, CHRIS   January 23, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
For the past 25 years I have practiced Catch & Release. It is something I have done to help to protect Wild Fish in the places I fish. Mostly the Yakima River, where there are no hatchery trout. However, just because I C&R in wild fish, does no mean I wouldn't or haven't gladly kept hatchery fish. Those of us that practice C&R do so to protect wild fish. The past 2 years I have fished for hatchery steelhead on the Wenatchee & Methow rivers. Those fisheries have required the retention of Hatchery fish. Many of us who practice C&R elsewhere have no problem with retention of hatchery fish. Replacing ESA Wild Stealhead with Hatchery Stealhead is not a viable long term solution. It may create a few large runs in the near term, but long term the numbers will fall even further. There are many scientific studies that have shown this.
BIALOUS, ROGER   January 23, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I support this proposal. I believe hatchery fish were and are introduced to our streams so people can catch and eat fish. Hatchery fish not harvested only weaken the genetics of our remaining wild fish. The only negative is for the fisherman who hooks two fish early in the day, perhaps after traveling hours to reach a fishery, and must quit fishing. To this I say, first we must be stewards of our streams and fish stocks. Second, a two steelhead day is a good day! Congratulations!
LINDQUIST, RICK   January 23, 2013
SEATTLE , WA  
Comments:
This proposal would degrade recreational opportunities without appreciably improving the state of wild fish. It tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist: Recreational fishermen already keep hatchery fish. It creates an unenforceable situation for fisheries enforcement.
CLARK, GARY   January 23, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
The best science available makes the statement of exrtacting 100% of all Hatchery fish. • Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce • This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). • The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” • A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent of steelhead.
CLARK, GARY   January 23, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
The best science available makes the statement of exrtacting 100% of all Hatchery fish. • Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce • This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). • The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” • A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent of steelhead.
BIGGINS, DENNIS P  January 24, 2013
HILLSBORO, OR  
Comments:
Please consider these proposals. For the future of wild fish in your fine state. Thank you, Dennis Biggins
SENYOHL, CHRIS J  January 28, 2013
FALL CITY, WA  
Comments:
I am against this proposal.
WALLACE, TOM M  January 28, 2013
SEATTLE , WA  
Comments:
I am not is support of this proposal. With a daily limit of two hatchery steelhead it is unfortunate to be forced to retain a fish not fit for the table. It would be a good to let a kelt swim back to the ocean with a chance of coming back as better brood for the hatchery.
GAVIN, MARK J  January 28, 2013
NORTH BEND , WA  
Comments:
Strongly disagree with this proposal This is the most ridiculous proposal yet! You cannot make people keep a fish they do not want. All an angler has to say is that “I thought is was a wild fish”, “it was foul hooked” or “oops, it got a way”.
HOPPLER, WES C  January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This rule should not be implemented as proposed. I am all for keeping hatchery fish, my issue stems from what to do with a down river fish. The issue of genetic impact is not on the table as it has spawned. I do not want to keep it and do not want to waste it (not sure for steelhead if there is a legal issue with wastage), and do not want to end my day if I happen to hook and land a couple of hatchery kelts in March. Proposers offer no estimates of what effect the rule would have on removing hatchery spawners from co-mingling with wild fish. How many hatchery fish are being released that this rule would address and what would would be the net reductions given some level of effectiveness for the rule? The situation on the Columbia and tribs is a bit different than say on the coast in that on the Columbia hatchery fish are the only thing the fishery intends to target. On the coast, wild fish are targeted for catch and release and limited harvest by fishery design.
SHARF, JOHN D  January 29, 2013
KENMORE, WA  
Comments:
Don not believe this change is warranted, existing efforts by WDFW to control hatchery fish appears to be sufficent.
SIMONSON, WILLIAM R  January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This proposal should not be considered. Requiring sportsfishers to act as a supposed mitigation tool is inaffectional, at best. It may even create a sense of wasting if sportsfishers are required to keep a hatchery kelt that has no desirable qualities.
MALLOCH, STEVE   January 29, 2013
SEATTLE , WA  
Comments:
In reference to DFW234122; I believe strongly that all hatchery steelhead should be killed upon capture. They are competing with wild fish at all life stages and thus diluting the gene pool and harming the strength of the native stock. Please, please follow the science and not politics. Kill all hatchery brats! Steve Malloch
SIMMS, RICHARD K  January 29, 2013
MUKILTEO , WA  
Comments:
Nearly all of the current WDFW Sportfishing Rules for wild steelhead are very hard to enforce with a diminishing budget and very few “on the ground” enforcement officers. This proposal would further reduce the number of hatchery steelhead available to spawn with wild steelhead, assuring reduced hatchery vs. wild steelhead introgression (negatively affects healthy and ESA listed wild stocks). The Kostow 2003 study found: “Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.” A recent biological opinion in OR found that productivity/spawning success can be less than half when hatchery fish are left in the system and available to spawn with wild steelhead: “the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead” (Section 2: Updatin

Other Comments Received