Our View: Wild Trout Policy Moving Forward

At the September off-cycle Fish Committee meeting, the Department’s draft Trout Policy was discussed between Steve Caromile and the Committee. While public comment was not taken, the dialogue provided a valuable snapshot of progress and remaining gaps.

A Step in the Right Direction

We would like to acknowledge that this draft represents a step forward. Shifting from language centered on “maximize” and “harvest” toward terms like “minimize” and “conserve” reflects a meaningful change in philosophy. The Department deserves credit for moving this process in a more conservation-minded direction.

Wild Resident Trout Must Be Central

However, scope remains a concern. The policy should explicitly address wild resident trout, which play a critical role in the life history of steelhead. This was the thrust of our 2023 petition and remains central to why we supported developing a statewide policy. Without clearly recognizing wild resident trout, the policy risks overlooking a key element of science-based management.

Beyond “Spawn at Least Once”

We are also concerned that Guiding Principle 4 continues to rely on the outdated “spawn at least once” standard. While it protects immature fish, it fails to address the broader impacts of directed harvest on spawning adults and recruitment in the face of climate change, habitat loss, and growing fishing pressure. Large spawning-sized native wild trout, especially rainbow trout, play a critical role as the reproductive backbone of future generations. These fish are far more than remarkable catches for anglers; they represent an essential resource that should not be put at risk.

Our position is simple: no directed harvest of wild trout should occur without justification through recent and reliable stock assessments. This principle provides a stronger, science-driven foundation for long-term sustainability.

Conservation First, Harvest When Justified

The Committee’s discussion on the definition of “harvest” underscored the need for clarity. Policy language should not imply that harvest is the default outcome. Instead, conservation must come first, with any directed harvest opportunities allowed only when supported by stock assessment data and transparent rulemaking.

Looking Ahead
We also note the removal of the Delegation of Authority item, keeping decisions with the Commission. This signals that the process is still evolving and will require continued attention to adaptive management and accountability.

Our View
For the Trout Policy to succeed, it should:

· Strive for self-sustaining populations of native wild trout

· Integrate the management of resident trout with their anadromous forms

· Base any harvest opportunities only on reliable stock assessments

· Ensure transparency in all rulemaking

Conclusion
We see the glass as half full and getting fuller. The Department has taken important steps forward, and we commend them for doing so. Now, the challenge is to ensure this policy reflects the best available science, prioritizes conservation, and recognizes the vital role of wild resident trout in Washington’s waters. If done right, this Trout Policy can become a milestone in safeguarding both fish and fishing opportunities for generations to come.

Our position is simple: no directed harvest of wild trout should occur without justification through recent and reliable stock assessments. This principle provides a stronger, science-driven foundation for long-term sustainability.