RE: Sol Duc report

[Dan Hall]

Title: Re: Sol Duc report

Thanks for the feedback Leyland and everyone else.  I knew Ball was a good guy I just didn’t know all of his efforts in support of  wild steelhead release and I support whatever efforts he or anyone else makes in that direction.  There certainly aren’t enough left.  I don’t know how anyone can use the phrase “healthy runs” these days, but that is my bias.  I am glad to hear “forgone opportunity” is essentially an urban myth and I suspected it probably was.   Incidentally, I saw a nice picture in today’s Seattle Times of a fellow, John Reid, spey casting on the Sky.    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002167726_weatherwrap02m.html         Dan From: owner-waflyfishers@waflyfishers.com [mailto:owner-waflyfishers@waflyfishers.com] On Behalf Of Leland Miyawaki Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:55 PM To: waflyfishers@waflyfishers.com Subject: Re: Sol Duc report   Dan,   Bob Ball, who also hosts piscatorialpursuits.com, is one of the good guys. He is a steelhead guide who guides both gear and flyfishers. He is probably the only guide in the town of Forks who is 100% C&R. He lives in Forks so you can imagine what his life is like since the Moratorium Wars began.   As for the "Forgone Opportunity" issue, I haven't heard of it ever happening now or in the past. Don't forget, that anytime a discussion of the state of steelhead happens, it always comes around to how many the tribes are netting. It happens on this forum, every other forum, every meeting, and anywhere steelheaders gather. Boldt happened and it ain't going to change. I would take any grousing you hear on the river with a grain of salt.   Good to hear you're getting over to the OP, Leland.         We spent 3 days fishing the Sol Duc from the hatchery to the Whitcomb Dimmel ramp.  We didn't catch anything but there lots of fish being caught on gear.  I overheard several crabby anglers grousing about Bob Ball's support of releasing wild steelhead.  Now, I don't know what his efforts have been but there is a lot of animosity toward him.  One of the reasons cited was the retention reduction from 5 wild steelhead to 1 wild steelhead and the assertion the Indians have upped their netting to one more day per week further limiting the available fish upriver.  I don't know if any of this is true although I do remember after the Bolt decision was rendered lots of talk that if the non treaty catch wasn't harvested then the Indians were entitled to that portion also.   Does anyone know if the Quilliutes increased their netting schedule to take the 4 fish the sportsmen are not retaining?   Dan