You're right Ralph ... I'm not a "biologist", I'm a "... jack-ass local guide" who happens to have amassed enough fisheries credits at UW to have minored in it and has spent hundreds of days on these waters for the past ten years, in addition to the countless days I fished other waters of the NW growing up. You need to wake up Ralph, this practical experience and observations of the fisheries over the years far outweighs what additional credits I could have earned to get a little piece of paper that says "You're a biologist!" so I could go sit in Olympia in a cubicle deciding how to mess up the fisheries some more without being in the field to actually see what happens on the rivers on a daily basis.

To the point ... as of today C&R is our best possible management goal, period, without the smokescreen ... if you want to look at your argument, we will ...

You cannot compare our rivers to those of Siberia ... plain and simple ... the fish are different and so are the rivers...

The populations are not similar in terms of genetics, because the fish are very different. The majority of Kamchatka steelhead are 3/x fish (meaning they spend 3 years in freshwater before migrating) ... you can go back to old studies of the Hoh system in 1949-50 (before the introduction of hatchery fish on the Peninsula and possible inbreeding) and see that only about 5% of the Hoh fish are 3/x fish. You can't expect to see the same sort of life histories when the populations start their lives so differently. In addition, the majority of these studied rivers in Kamchatka are of gentle nature and gradient ... much easier streams for fish to ascend, spawn, and descend successfully.

You have also left out one huge difference that accounts for the disappearance of a large majority the repeat spawning fish in the Peninsula systems ... tribal nets. Are these present in Siberia? I think not. Since you're such a fan of evolutionary processes, how could you forget the fact that our strongest-gened stock are forced to run this gauntlet twice ... once going up, once going back. And what about those poor fish that spawn in the lowermost sections of river (can you remember the Quillayute mainstem hogs?) that are forced to avoid the drifted nets in that section ... these fish had the shortest distance to travel and were our highest percentage repeat spawners. It's little wonder that the repeats are not as numerous as they once were. The method in which nets catch fish also contribute to the largest members of the population being entangled, with may of the smaller, "weaker" fish able to eke through. Sports anglers compound this problem by killing the biggest one to take home to show their friends or put into one of those fish club derbies that are so popular ... the PA club is one example. Mandatory C&R would at least eliminate some of this selective harvest of big fish by one group.

As Salmo G. has pointed out before, perhaps the stocks won't fluctuate as much in areas such as Siberia that aren't subject to as varied environmental factors as our river systems, such as frequent floods ... commonplace in a rainforest locale ... I don't think quite as common in Siberia.

If you would have followed our forum a little more closely, you perhaps may have picked up on the fact that many of us feel that the runs aren't healthy enough ... why do we call for C&R in the first place?? Why do we go to voluntary measures to help these fish out and minimize our impact on them? Why have many of us changed our ways and let fish go that were once beat on the head? Why do we fish with barbless hooks? Look through my plug box ... they're all barbless! Why do I curtail the use of effective (yet potentially hazardous to fish) techniques like bait divers? Why do I turn down a number of trips a year because I have a ZERO intentional kill policy on my boat for wild fish ... you're barking up the wrong tree saying that I take "... MONEY TO KILL WILD FISH ..." Granted, there is some mortality, but keep in mind that I am one of just a couple of 50+ guides that has enough " ... INTEGRITY AND HONOR ... " to choose to do this.

Along this these same lines ... guiding in my eyes is not only about taking clients down and catching fish ... clients unfamiliar with steelhead in my boat are also taught a lot about the fish and how to properly care for them ... in the long run, I truly believe that the number of fish that are saved due to techniques and information learned in my boat will far outweigh those that die from incidental mortality ... I can think of several people that now release all the wild fish they catch due solely to what they learned on my boat. In another instance, the head chef of a fancy Seattle restaurant quit purchasing tribal-caught fish for the menu when he went down the down the Hoh for the first time. Yep, he drove a fancy car, and lived in the big city ... and wasn't much of an outdoorsman, but guess what, he learned an awful lot about the fish and the river that day ... and also caught a few ... and the tribes lost a place to sell their net caught wild fish. I am not only a guide ... I also see myself as a protector and a teacher and incorporate that into my job description.

I think I speak for many when I say that escapement numbers need to be increased. You will get no argument on that point ... I do honestly believe that these rivers can support a C&R fishery ... I have always said that I would be willing to hang up my rod to keep these runs alive. But I don't believe that the rivers around Forks are at that point yet ... although some of the state's rivers are. However, banning C&R fishing by itself WILL NOT save the fish. Eliminating a massive blood-bath kill fishery on both the sport and tribal ends will. Habitat destruction undoubtedly has some effect, but why do the runs suffer when over half the watersheds are in the Park?

Commercial fishing, targeted or not, does have an effect. Rant and rave about PDO all you want ... all the info I have found on it shows that it affects primarily salmon stocks because of the feeding ground biomass for different region's salmon stocks ... remember that salmon and steelhead in the open ocean do not share the same feeding grounds ... and its influence on steelhead stocks is not as great. Do you think that the decline in the 80's that you refer to could be due to the peak of the high seas nets in that timeframe ... hmmm, strange coincidence! Also consider the fact that the survival of the pre-migrant steelhead that you refer to is directly related to the number of salmon that return, spawn and die, and then decay in the river. Whether or not steelhead are caught in these nets, the food base for the young steelies that has been disappearing ... due to the depletion of the salmon stocks. Get the nets out and keep the sport catch at a minimal level, and presto, the little guys have all sorts of food ... and subsequently higher survival and larger size when migrating out. And don't try to say that the Peninsula salmon aren't affected by nets ... is it any coincidence that we had the strongest return of silvers that I have seen in my lifetime the first year the nets are taken out off the Canadian coastline???

Catch-and-release "dangerous","... only a few streams have responded positively to catch and release...", says who??? I happen to fish one of those Canadian streams for approximately 50 days a season ... and guess what ... it works! Angling pressure has exploded in the last few decades, yet the fish are returning in greater and greater numbers every year. And this season, with the absence of nets on the coast, and near zero tribal catch, the run was an all time record thoughout the entire region. Hmmm ... go ahead, blame it on the sporties here. This is taking place in river systems that have logging operations cutting trees over the last 50 years in a manner that makes Peninsula logging look like it is run by Greenpeace! Is it also a coincidence that there were more redds in the area rivers last spring than any other season in recent memory with the C&R regs in place??? Coincidence that many of the Puget Sound streams with full C&R are making a comeback? Give us an example of where it has failed, all I can think of are successes!

Since you like to refer to cumulative effects, imagine that at worst case, 20% of the sport catch dies as a result of C&R ... that means 80% more fish on the beds than a catch and kill fishery ... assuming that the system can support the fish (most of us feel that they can) then you'll have a much higher return the following cycle, say 20% of this higher number dies, even though more fish died, there are even more on the beds ... eventually, you'll reach that maximum number where no more fish can be supported, but this is good, 'cuz then your Darwin theory takes an even greater role in deciding which of this these will survive ... those smart enough to avoid all our evils will be the ones to make it. Where's the danger? You lost me somewhere!

I'm glad that you so much holier-than-the rest of us ... limiting and picking your days your days to fish. Tell me Ralph, most of our steelie smolts are in the river two years, and the kings and silvers also in there for some time ... where do these fish go on the days you choose to go fishing? There are spawning fish in the rivers through most of the year! Please tell me, I'll bet limit your late season fishing when the maximum number of fish are near the beds ... yes? Why ... this is the healthiest component of our run! It is the early fish that are in the most dire need of help ... that is why the Snider Program was implemented in the first place. You seem to be able to "ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THE WORLD EACH DAY ... WITHOUT EXPLOITING OUR DEGRADED EARTH" ... I'm proud of you ... I can't seem to do it ... I own a car and I plug my computer in to an electrical socket ... I assume you have a human-powered generator that powers yours?