How noble is it for a fisherman to promote a total catch and release (c/r) fishery for wild steelhead? The idea surely sounds noble, but what will be the long term consequences for the average fishermen if c/r eventually eliminates all his harvest opportunity? Many fishermen have valid concerns about c/r and may upset many of the die-hards c/r folks who have dedicated so much of their time and passion into that effort. I believe that there's still a lot of mixed felling among both sides about this subject and find that more open discussion is needed to help head off a war between the 2 different points of views.

It has been my personal experience from talking to hundreds of fishermen, that they are not yet totally sold on c/r over harvest. I believe that their concerns have some validity because in so many cases c/r is being promoted with no future opportunity for harvest, especially when escapement goals have never even been set by WDFW. I personally share some of their concerns when I read what so many of the c/r groups "Mission Statements" say. Many of these groups' goals for rebuilding our wild steelhead stocks are noble indeed, but most of the c/r "Mission Statements" that I've seen have left out a key element that will eventual lead to their failure. It's called "harvest"!

Why is it that for the most part, the promoters of these c/r wild steelhead groups always leave out any possible option or opportunity for future harvest? Why won't they include something in their mission statements that would bring both c/r and harvest fishermen together in support of a common mission, e.g., more harvestable fish? What incentive is there for the "average fishermen" to support bringing back wild stocks of steelhead if he thinks or perceives that he will never be able to catch or "harvest" any of them in the future? Like it or not, there's a lot more fishermen out there who's main goal is to go home with a fish then there are of the c/r type fishermen!

So why not include harvest as a long term goal statement? Wouldn't it make more sense to make a mission statement that would pull both sides closer together rather then one that pushes them further apart? Why not say something e.g. "We promote year round, catch and release of all wild steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. Our long term goal is to bring our wild steelhead stocks back in sufficient numbers so that can support a harvestable self-sustainable sport fishery?

As it stands now, WDFW has cut off the harvest of all wild steelhead for almost every stream in our state without setting any escapement goals that would eventually allow us some sort of limited harvest in the foreseeable future. Shouldn't WDFW set and PUBLISH established escapement goals for every river system, and then allow some sort of limited harvest once those goals have been met? Some areas may never again support harvest, but many others will. So why not start the process now, and set the escapements needs for each river system, so that someday in the near future, we can all get back our rights to decide for ourselves if old iron head goes back into the water, or he goes home to the old barbeque.

What are your feelings about making WDFW set an PUBLISH escapement goals for wild steelhead now for each river system, and when that escapement goal has been met, allow a limited sport harvest? When do YOU think that "harvest" should occur on "wild steelhead", or do YOU think that they should be protected for forever? Why is it that WDFW has established hatchery escapement needs for all their hatcheries, but can't quite get it done for each of our river system?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????