Bob,
I've lived on this peninsula for forty years and have hunted and fished with a passion all my life as have generations of my family before me. There's not much of it that doesn't have my bootprints. As you know I, too, make my living from sportfishing. One thing that has always been very consistent in the state of Washington is the mismanagement of our fish and game by the agency charged with protecting it. One doesn't have to be a trained biologist to recognize many examples of policies and regulations that are detrimental to wildlife populations. At times it has seemed as if they couldn't have made worse decisions if they had tried. So you'll get no argument from me on that.

I've always believed that never are personal ethics more important than in the outdoors. Much of the time there is no one around to judge your actions save for your own consience. Decisions we make while in the field involve the lives of other creatures and should never be taken lightly. I also strongly believe that regulations should strictly be adhered to. Does this mean I've never broken a game law? No, I've "stretched" the laws on occasion in my younger days. I'm not proud of that and believe it's the wrong thing to do. If I was overly concerned about you "walking this grey line" I'd have no problem turning you in if I saw it. But the fact remains it is illegal to target a closed species and is unethical to do so especially in light of the fact that you have clients with you. A person in your capacity is often looked up to by the sports and if you encourage this kind of activity (to make a buck, no less) you're setting a very poor example.

I don't know the reasoning behind the regulations in this example but it looks to me like a compromise situation. Part of the river is closed to protect fish yet other parts remain open. Perhaps this was to protect an upriver population of fish. Perhaps it was to cut down on the killing of fish that are no longer in good enough shape to be edible. I can only speculate. But I do doubt that the harvest remains the same when the upper river is closed as opposed to when the whole river is open. As I said, this looks to me as something of a compromise but it doesn't make one bit of difference if the regulations are ignored. The state of our wildlife populations due to the tribal situation is a perfect example of what happens when rules only apply to some of the users of a given resource.

Now I certainly am not implying that you need to justify anything to me personally. But I will say that I find it extremely hypocritical for you, and others, to break the rules when it suits you and then to scorn others who LEGALLY bonk a wild steelhead. Come on Bob, admit it, you may have seen me on the bank bonking a fish and have mumbled under your breath (or worse!) about that %<#*,@! killing a nate. But it's perfectly legal and ethical to do so. Not to mention, for all you know it may be the only one I've killed all year (or several years, for that matter). Besides that, you've been responsible for killing many more. You had over 400 hundred to the boat last season and at 10% mortality that's 40 dead steelhead. Rotting on the bank. At least I'll make a meal of mine and probably mount it too!If you disagree with limited harvest then do what you can to get the regs changed. But don't look down your nose at someone who doesn't share your opinion on this and who, by the way, is not "walking a grey line". If you think you should be able to C&R chinook in a stretch of river that's closed then obey the law and see what you can do about getting that changed too. Don't forget, whether you want the role or not, you're setting an example for anyone who gets in your boat as well as the people who frequent this board and hold you in high esteem.

Regards,
Doug