Makes me sick this year to see so many sport anglers killing wild fish. Seems like most of us out there just dont care. Seems like 90% of the guys I talk to on the river have the catch and kill attitude, everything they catch they kill.

Im thinking about hanging up the towel and just quiting steelhead fishin all together. I dont know if I can take seeing this lack of respect any longer and dont want to be associated to theese meat heads. Every year the runs get smaller and smaller, and no steps are taken to change this. It wont be long untill the peninsula rivers are in the same boat as the sound rivers. Im sick of hearing that coastal rivers are healthy. No statement could be further from the truth.

If any of you remember what it was like 20 or even 15 years ago you know what Im talking about.

Imagine what the runs were like 100 years ago and compare that to today. Now can you say river systems like the Quileute and the Hoh are in healthy status?

I just took a look at the creel surveys by the fish checkers on the Quileute System rivers. 152 wild steelhead were kept and 64 were released this was between Dec-1 and Jan 21. This is greed and ignorance and not right. The wild steelhead runs anywhere are in no condition for any type of harvest. We as sport fisherman should take the first step and let everyone else follow. And if they dont then well at least we know we did our part.

Amen O great one, let those natives roam the headwater's!

Rich:
I'm right with you about releasing Wild Steelhead. Unfortunately, according to the reg's, it's legal to keep 1 wild fish per day, in the Quileute system, up to a max of 10 per year. So the less informed (or caring) will do so.
If there is a single bit of good to be done by the WSC or anyone else for that matter this year, it would be to get that reg changed.
So far I havent kept a single fish this season. Everything I've caught has been un-marked.
I spoke with a couple of fish cops yesterday, and they told me it was legal to keep unmarked fish in the Cowlitz, even. That's not the way I read it.
Any comments or opinions?
And yes, it is real discouraging, but I'm not ready to give it up. I wont go to warm water fishing, and my golf game sucks.

Boy do I agree with you! Makes me wish they were shutting down the whole state this year and not just the rivers in my area (puget sound). Sorry Bob, dont want to shut down good guides like you. But something has to be done. If we could only get the game department to change the system, then it would improve, over time. I mean, MANDATORY RELEASE OF NATIVE STEELHEAD STATEWIDE ALL YEAR ROUND! Dont care any more who's feelings or income gets hurt.
just my 2 cents. thanks.

I myself am not a native bonker, but I think taking a few out of the OP rivers isn't going to make much difference. I'm positive in the Dec 1 to Jan 21 time span the Indians didn't let any natives go. They also probably netted 20 times the fish that was sport caught. I don't like watching natives being killed, especially the big ones. But the Indians do it every day.

No offense Prawn Meat but people with attitudes like yours is the reason I made this post.

And yes every Nate that is bonked does make an impact. Dont care what anybody says every nate bonked is less fish the next cycle. There just arnt enough wild steelhead in any system for harvest.

Nature has a formula to keep a balance and human harvest is not part of thet formula.

Wild runs are very fragile and everything affects them.

Good point RichG, we can at least control our part of the harvest. Every bit helps! If we choose to release our share it still helps us. We sportfisherman need to do our part then we will have a tall pedistal to stand on when trying to change others.

Rich G,

I agree with you 100%. All native, wild trout, char, coho, and chinook should be released alive by everyone. Your comment about nature piqued my interest. I know your specifically talking about steelhead but what about the sockeye of Bristol Bay? I have heard the argument that if there were no commercial fishery (harvest)in Bristol Bay, the sockeye would superimpose many of their redds. Makes me wonder what would happen if they closed that fishery for several years to see how the populations were affected. I would have enjoyed taking notes on nature some 300 years ago to see what things were really like before humans impacted such things so.

DaveD

[This message has been edited by DaveD (edited 01-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by DaveD (edited 01-27-2001).]

Rich G,
Not taking sides on this but I'd like to directly quote you, " The wild steelhead runs anywhere are in no condition for any type of harvest." And, "And yes every Nate that is bonked does make an impact.

Can we take that to mean that you (and the others that agree with you) are going to stop fishing completely? After all, even catch and release has a certain degree of mortality which translates into dead nates. How deep are your convictions here? Or are you just attacking everyone's use of the resource except yours?

Just curious.

I think there are certian salmon species that can sustain harvest and some that cant. Ones that can only can if they are healthy. Such species would be Sockey Chum and Pinks. In a perfect world there are too many of theese fish to actually spawn, just not enough reds. The reason why there should be so many of theese species is because they are the backbone of any river system. There dead bodies wich should cover the river banks and bottom are the food source for the three other species being Chinook Steelhead and Coho and dont forget resident trout and Sea Run Cutts.

If you look at the healthy rivers in Alaska, wich have huge numbers of the three stated above and also good numbers of the others but not nearly as many you see that our rivers are missing the backbone and the chance to grow. Without surplus theese backbone species our rivers just dont have the potential that they once had.

There just isnt a surpluss of wild Chinook Coho and steelhead, even in a perfect world. I dont think nature designed the last three for harvest.

Just my opinion.

Mountian Man,
Didnt see your post untill after my last one so heres my response.

Yes catch and release does make an impact and If It came down to it I would stop fishing.

I am not a tree hugger, about as far from it as could be. I come from a family of loggers and farmers.

But I love and respect the fish and there cycle of life. In my opinion they are the most resiliant and beautifull creatures. If I couldnt fish I could get as much satisfaction just knowing that they were out there doing there thing and would be there for generations to come.

With what we know now we could make the difference keep this recource forever. But for some reason we cant get it done.

The funny thing about attacking catch and release is that those who practice it would give up fishing altogether for a significant period of time to improve runs. However its easier for the meat sporties, the tribes and the commercials to keep the catch and releasers around. This way they can always point the finger at catch and release mortality. The question is if the meat sporties, tribes and commercials would give up fishing altogether for a period of time to improve the runs? I don't think so.

Rich G,
Thanks for the reply to my post. I suspected your convictions were true. Unfortunately not all C&R folks share them (that goes for the other user groups as well.) In my humble opinion too many C&R folks don't see their activities as having any significant impact when in fact everyone has an impact even if they don't fish. The last thing I want to do is reopen the C&R vs C&K debate here. I just wanted to be sure I understood your position clearly. Thanks.

As for your reply to my question, I agree with your statements completely.

In case you're wondering, my position on this is if generous escapement goals are met then there's nothing wrong with a harvest of surplus fish. Escapement goals should be much higher than they are now though. While I think the steelhead is the greatest fish on the face of the earth I don't view them in a "religious" way as it seems some folks do. I've heard near death threats made against someone who bonks a nate as if a fish's life is worth more than a person's! Pretty extreme! Seems to me if someone is against harvest of any kind they should direct their efforts toward changing the law that allows harvest. Not attack the individual who is simply doing what the law allows.

Doug


P.S. Monty, Your post is a good example of the attitude I've mentioned here. Your use is o.k. but no one else's is. You think you occupy some moral high ground but you don't. Just because an individual chooses to do something you don't like, even if it's perfectly legal, you think they couldn't possibly care about the resource as much as you. Anyone who sees things differently than you must be wrong and deserves to be looked down upon. Why don't you get off your moral high horse and try to; first educate others to your way of thinking in a positive manner, second work to change the laws you disagree with. Anyone can sit at a computer and spew hate toward others. That's not going to help the fish one little bit!

I don't condone the Commerical Harvest or the Tribal netting of Wild Steelhead or Wild Salmon, But I do think C&R play a vital role in our System over C&K. The majority of the fish that we are talking about have made it through the Commerical and Tribal death march and now can become a benifit to the future production. We as Sportsman need to do our part to help these wonderful fish. Instead of worring about the Native Americans. Until we can get the Wa State and the Federal Gov on our side and have the resources to challange them again. We need to do all we can to the one's that have made it past the gauntlet, And release them and give them that chance to survive and reproduce. Just my thaughts

Whoa MountainMan,
I don't see how you can view my comments as extreme or negative. I don't have a problem with harvest of a sustainable resource. I catch and kill hatchery fish, but if a hatchery is having quota problems (I wish we could get this info. easier) I will tend to release hatchery fish. I don't have a problem with someone's legal right, but I'm just trying to do my best minimise my effect of using the resource. What other people do within the law is their business! I do have a problem with some of the laws and fish management policies. This is where I agree with you in the sense that I do need to do more than just type on my computer.

I can't find in any of my posts where I said "my use is OK and yours is not". I simply stated I would give up some of my uses to help the problem.

I find your comment about me spewing hate offensive to say the least. I think anyone reading would view your comments toward me as the malicious ones.


My original point has more to do with all sporties doing there part to help a problem (is that negative?). I truely believe that the sporties are not the the biggest threat to wild steelhead. I recently looked at the 98-99 catch stats. and its clear on many OP rivers that it isn't the sporty making the biggest dent in the population. I simply think we need to do our part to help the problem, since our rights as sportsman are the first to be infringed upon. My plee is no different than asking everyone to bring out more garbage than they bring in, in order to not loose access to the river.

I respect your position totally, and I think your right to harvest this resource is being taken away by those groups who over harvest or impact fish habitat.





[This message has been edited by Monty (edited 01-28-2001).]

Monty,
I reread your post a couple of times and still came away with the same impression. To summarize it you are saying that c&r folks would do the right thing if necessary and stop fishing to improve runs but the bonkers wouldn't. Seems pretty clear by what you wrote. That implies that somehow c&r folks care more about the resource and bonkers will continue to bonk until there are no fish left. Your next post seems to backtrack somewhat.

Quote: "I can't find in any of my posts where I said "my use is OK and yours is not". I simply stated I would give up some of my uses to help the problem."

First Monty, I didn't claim to quote you on that. Simply paraphrase your point.

Second, you stated more than that. You went on to say those who choose to harvest fish occasionally wouldn't do the same thing if necessary. To that I say B.S. THAT is where you appear to me to climb up on your high horse and look down on c&k fishermen. I would venture to say that virtually all of those fishermen would do the same as you if they truly believed it was needed. Just because they disagree with you about harvest of wild fish where legal doesn't mean they don't care about the resource. Your post certainly implies otherwise. I think the majority of c&k anglers simply assume that Fisheries is doing their job and if they say a harvest is O.K. then it must be O.K. I personally don't agree with that but I think many people do. If I'm right about that then it seems to me they aren't the ones at fault and you shouldn't assume they don't care or wouldn't do what's needed to help the runs. Besides, has any of the constant complaining on this board about c&k done one bit of good to help the runs? I can't see where it has. Maybe a better approach is to stop dividing the sport fishermen into conflicting groups and work toward changing the laws that allow c&k if you are against it.

I stand by my first comments to you.

I am by no freakin means a religious person, but a Native steelie on a cold clear February day is the closest thing to "Religion" as it gets. Rich, is 100% right, whether you guys like it or not. Hell, i hope the guy runs for president. We need a Statewide Wild Steelhead Release!!!

Im sick and tired of seeing and hearing about baggy panted, musty flannel wearing, loggers bonking the nates. And whoever else that relishes in disreguard to gods greatest gift - native steelhead.

Im sorry for my ranting and raving, i just want to see some respect for out native salmon and steelhead. thats all.....

-BW

Mountainman,
It's clear you have a chip on your shoulder towards anyone with one ounce of conservation in his blood. You have labeled me and refuse to try to understand my point of view. In fact you seem to label me as this catch and release fanatic when all I'm doing is promoting voluntary catch and release of native steelhead only. Last time I read there is a whole bulletin board dedicated toward this topic on this site. So, I still don't see my views as extreme.

I am not trying to divide the sporties. I don't see those who legally catch and kill as a significant part of the problem. For a hypothetical example let's say netting is hurting the native run significantly.(hypothetical I remind you.seriously.) I constantly hear this complaint on these posts. Let's assume for the sake of discussion this to be true. Then it is kind of hard for us to cry foul when we are adding to the problem ourselves. All the scientific studies in the world are subjective at best, so if we harvest at all we will be drug into part of the problem and eventually part of the solution. My opinion is that it is easier to change the rules for the real culprits if we can show that we are trying not to be part of the problem.

As far as catch and release, I have to admit I don't know the actual god knowing mortality. I would have to think it is the best compromise compared to not fishing at all. However, you do at least stimulate my thought, maybe catch and release isn't a solution without bad side effects. If that is true I will abandon that as a viable option. All I want to do is help our sport fishing situation so that we all have the option to take fish or not. At this point in time I think it is critical for us to all sacrifice a bit. You think I'm a C&R guy all the way, but the fact is that I'm a C&K guy that has changed his mind when he became educated with the state and future of our sport.


[This message has been edited by Monty (edited 01-28-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Monty (edited 01-28-2001).]

I totally agree that every fish counts when it comes to killing them. But I still feel that the nets in the river are doing far more damage than any sport fishery could do. If the nets were removed and there were high waters that would allow fish to move up to spawning grounds, the result would be drastic improvements in future runs of fish. Then everyone would not be so against someone taking a wild fish. Low water conditions this year have made nets more effective. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I would almost guarantee the effects will be felt in a few years.

It would be time well spent if everybody would start focusing their thoughts and energy on banning nets which kill all fish. There are more important things to worry about than a handful of fisherman who bonk wild fish.
When I have kids of my own I want them to be able to catch a nice wild fish and get a good picture of it. The picture is far more precious than some fillets that taste the same as a hatchery fish.

Here's some interesting fact for thoose of you saying C&R could be as bad as C&k.

My cousin guides steelhead on a small river on Kodiak Isl with a very robust run of wild steelhead. There is a upwards of 50% of the run that spawns more than once in there lifetime. They know this because many of the fish are taged. They have had fish that have spawned up to six times.

But any ways here's the proof that C&R is pretty safe for the fish if done right. Theyhave caught some fish up to three times in one day. and the same fish year after year. One year they caught one female steelhead 17 times in a 6 week period and the next year they caught it agian.

Can there be any better proof that if done right C&R has very little impact on the survival and health of the fish.