I've got another hypothetical question to add to Hohwaiian's. What if we're talking about native salmon (scaling the weights up or down to be comparable to that of a trophy steelhead)? I genuinely don't know if the same people who C & R native steelhead also 100% C & R native salmon. If not, I guess there are two valid reasons for the apparant inconsistency:

1. Steelhead can spawn again; salmon can't. True, but steelhead are basically on a one-way trip too. Return spawners are something on the order of 3-10% of runs (maybe the Kamchatka Peninsula excepted: is Ralph Waldo Emerson still out there?). OK, even 5% is a lot better than a ZERO rate of return but it's no sure thing either.

2. The native salmon run on the particular body of water isn't endangered, but the native steelhead run is. Nothing wrong with this argument either, except that it implies that it's OK to keep native steelhead in places where the run isn't endangered.

Now I know the quality of the information on returns is so poor in the Lower 48 that it may be more sensible to assume that every wild steelhead run is either endangered or could possibly (someday soon) become endangered. If so, then there's nothing inconsistent with releasing all native steelhead yet keeping native salmon. But in parts of British Columbia, South America and Alaska there are a few places where the steelhead aren't endangered, and eating a couple wouldn't be a crime against nature (or humanity).

The reason I'm trying to stir things up is that I suspect that WA, CA and OR legislators are guided less by pure intentions than by numbers of pissed off voters on one hand and campaign contributions from corporates on the other.

Most fishermen outside this board like to keep fish, native or non-native. But many of these fishermen are willing to temporarily forgo keeping natives -- and lobby their lawmakers to that effect -- to let watersheds recover and runs rejuvenate. These folks are natural allies of the 'release all natives (on a voluntary basis if the runs are healthy)' crowd. But if the lobby splits into two camps -- temporary and permanent 'no nates' -- then I suspect the lack of unanimity in recommendations to lawmakers is going to leave us (you) on the losing end of the debate.

What do I do? I throw back 100% of the steelhead and generally keep the good eating salmon up to my limit. (The salmon runs are very healthy where I fish in Alaska, and it's 100% natives. On the rare occasions when I catch hatchery fish somewhere else I let them go more out of habit than any conscious policy.)

[This message has been edited by Snagly (edited 02-09-2000).]