I have just recently really started reading and participating in this forum. It obvious that there are a lot of very knowledgable people here. Again I don't really have a feel for the tone/nature of this forum, but I have noticed a couple of comments about catching and keeping big fish especially steelhead. I don't mean to sound naive or confrontational and my question is sincere. What's up with the negativity about catching and keeping big fish? I totally understand the basic reasons for C&R of wild steelhead or even other species especially on weak runs, I'm aware of the genetics issue as well blah blah blah. But do you really think that it's that bad to keep a good fish for dinner when your fishing a healthy stock/run of fish that can without a doubt support a responsible harvest, note key words "responsible harvest"? Please don't turn this post into just another C&R vs C&K bashing debate. My feeling is that catching a nice fish, taking it home for dinner and posting a proud pic of it is ok as long as your being a responsible angler, your fishing a run that is healthy and can truly support a responsible harvest. On the other hand I would be the first one to speak up against C&K on any weak runs or even stocks that may be healthy but can not support any harvest without some form of measurable negitive impact. I would support a C&R only season on runs that may be healthy but not healthy enough to support a C&K harvest, where the C&R season would only have a minimal negative impact. Now this is where some may really disagree with me, but I would not support a C&R or C&K season on any runs or stock that may be in trouble where even a minimal negative impact would occur. Or is this all just way off base here and most everyone thinks that under any circumstance big fish especially steelhead should be released? I would also assume that it is obvious that we are not talking about hatchery fish, but is there anyone that thinks that even big hatchery fish should be released? I'm just throwing a bunch of qustions out there, because I really am interested in hearing your opinion or constructive criticism and this forum seems to be an excellent place to get some thoughts about this. I'm very open minded and open to valid view points that may be different from mine. If it makes sense then it just simply makes sense

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I just wanted to be clear with my questions and opinions and also get a good understanding for this issue and how you think about it. Ok enough, I think I'll go fishing now

I think the logic goes something like this:

There are only so many trophy size fish. Historically, people have targeted the bigger fish and left the smaller and weaker fish to breed. Over time, the genetic traits for the smaller weeker fish become more common as the bigger stronger fish genes get 'fished' out of the gene 'pool'.
By changing the mentality of taking home the 'big one' to show off, and being satisfied with a quick picture, and maybe keeping a few smaller fish, we are helping rebuild the genetic traits for larger, stronger fish.
Example - let's say you caught a 40lb steely and killed it. Now you've elimiated a fish that may have breed many generations of potential 40lb fish.
I don't know how scientific this is, but that's how I understand it.

OK, maybe I'm just smoking something here, so if you have any other suggestions as to why this is, please let us know!

Not, to get too far off topic, but that is kind of the same way I've thought about the 3 point or better restriction on Mule deer in Eastern WA. Wouldn't it make more sense to harvest only 2 point and spikes, to leave the older stronger bucks to breed in better genetics? Guess my question on the topic, would be, "is bigger always better genetically?" Points to ponder.....hmmmmm

Bruce,

I don't think most of us, myself in particular, have any problem with keeping a wild fish, be it large, medium, or small, from a truly healthy population. Genetically, bigger isn't necessarily any better in the breeding population, altho it does carry certain advantages - large and respawning females carry more eggs than small or first time spawners. Population diversity and overall abundance are probably the most critical attributes of a wild fish population. So a lot of fish, of all sizes, of many ages, returning over the greatest period of time, consistent with the environment, will provide the greatest assurance of sustaining itself in healthy abundance over time.

Arguably, there are no wild steelhead populations left in Washington state that can support a significant harvest. WDFW maintains that some of the Peninsula rivers can, but they are disputed by some fairly well qualified counter-arguments. The science pretty well supports that most hatchery steelhead do not reproduce very successfully in the natural environment. Given those conditions, most of us have decided not to deliberately kill wild steelhead any more, regardless of size.

[Editorial begins here]
In my opinion, most of the fussing about big fish is an ego thing. And that's OK; I'm just suggesting we acknowledge our obsessions and bragging rights for what they are. Many steelheaders obsess about catching a 20 pound fish (and wild fish are more likely to attain that size than hatchery fish for some simple reasons). To fullfil the obsession, they fish the Thompson, Kispiox, Skagit, or Hoh, or someplace known for large fish. Consider this: wouldn't I accomplish a greater feat catching a 20 pound steelhead where the average is 6 or 8 pounds, compared to catching that 20 pound animal where the average size is 14 or 16 pounds? I know, you didn't ask; just a little food for thought.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I really dont have a problem with killing a large humpy or any other fish that is overly abundant ESPECIALLY those in which are spawning habitat limited such as Pinks. They truly are spawning on top of each other.

But I do believe in limited kill no matter how healthy a species is. Was it really necassary to allow four pinks to be killed on the Snohomish, Sky and Stilly this year?? Most of those excess fish killed were females so that greedy fisherman could fill their fridges with eggs and give away or end up throwing away the rest. Why must be overexploit healthy populations becasue we can (now atleast)?? 25 years down the road they make look back at our slaughter of humpies and just shake their head and say to themselves "Thats a damn shame!! If only they knew better...then we would have fish today." I know that may be pushing it a little bit BUT just look at how we look back at the us and our parents and grandparents and what they did to our resource over the past 100 yrs.

And the people are against the killing of the large humpy because it was so large. They are just concerned fisherman who dont want to repeat what most everyone in this country did over the past century. And to those very concenered citizens...BRAVO!!!!!

Sorry about my long winded rant!

Hi Bruce,
I saw the post commenting on your wife's record humpy and the reply about removing it from the gene pool. I assume that spawned your post (at least in part).
My two cents: knowing you've caught a record fish, I would be hard pressed to release it and not get it recorded. It's just too rare an event. I'm assuming you didn't keep that fish to eat it as there were way too many chances to catch bright ocean pinks - why bother keeping a dark river fish to eat, unless you had no other chances?
Sure, I guess that fish has been removed from the gene pool, but I would also guess that several of it's brothers were released back to spawn. And size factors aren't 100 % dependant on genes. There's also available food supply in the ocean. That fish may just have been in an area offering a lot of food source. This must have been an abundant year out there.
A personal delema I doubt I'll ever have to face
By the way, welcome to the forum and feel free to post any lake stuff you want.

Bruce,

As others have said, there are plenty of pinks this year and you certainly didn't harm the population. Congrats on your wife's world record! Like cattle, huge pink salmon don't necessarily spawn huge offspring so you don't need to feel as if you hurt the gene pool.

BTW, is it true that someone else caught an even bigger one since then? From what I hear, you should have confiscated Washington's supply of Dick Nite spoons!

Kevin

IMHO there are no runs healtyh enough to support a catch and kill fishery

Genetics are Genetics,these fish cannot be replaced...period,
don't give me this crap about the taste of wild flesh.
some of us don't have an ego that needs to be stroked,by posting a pic of a dead nate!

Take a pic and measurements,
have a replica made.

There is no way you can justify the need to make a turd out of a huge Wild Steelie .

do what ever you want to those Humpys......it's only a Humpy .....Os


Proud to be an American

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Osprey ]

For the record, I've personally never killed a wild steelhead, but that does not necessary mean that given the right set of circumstances that I wouldn't. I like to fish and I like to catch big fish, then I like to brag about the big fish that I caught, but I'm also carefull to be a responsible Angler. Fishing, catching big and bragging about it are all part of what makes it fun IMHO, I get absolutly thrilled when my wife or daughters catch fish especially big fish, they put me to shame when it comes to bragging I don't fish to purposely catch small fish. My family also loves to eat fish, we eat lots of it. Of course I would never consider killing and eating threatened or endangered fish of any species.

I do tend to believe that genetics have a role when considering fish size, it's one of those things that just seems to make sense, but I also believe that there are other factors that may have even a bigger role, such as feed, habitat etc. but in reality I really have no idea, I'm just guessing. Is there any scientific evidence that genetics have a major role in the size of fish? If so where can I find some information about it? After reading the Salmo g. post, I seem to be almost totally on the same page, but I would like to find out more facts regarding who and how a healthy run is determined. Who is disputing WDFW and what are the "qualified counter-arguments"? I totally respect the personal choice not to kill wild steelhead of any size and considering our situation here in WA I'm sure it make sense in most cases and possibly in all cases, but one problem that I always struggle with is that I would personally have a problem criticizing someone else for having a different opinion (the guy that wants to catch a big fish from a strong and healthy run and keep it). If I personally take the stand that all wild steelhead should be released under any circumstance, then why would that same opinion and argument not be just as valid as say for a healthy run of Humpies? What makes a wild steelhead any more important than a wild humpy or a wild chum or a native cutthroat trout? Should we just start releasing all wild fish of any species even if that stock is healthy and can support a limited and responsible harvest? I have a hard time relating to the argument that "It's only a humpy, so it doesn't matter". I don't see the reasoning there.

I totally agree with Ryans comments about "Limited Kill" and his comments about the 4 fish limits. I think that this type of management is what gets our fish in trouble and that responsible management along with good sound science is what is needed. I have a hard time believing that sport harvest (keeping a big fish), managed responsibly can be accountable for the future demise of our fish runs. I think that in the past years there were many, way to many abuse's of our resource by many parties that got us where we are today. I also understand what Ryan says about people just being concerned and I think thats great, we should all be concerned, but forming opinions and laying blame based on emotions rather that facts probably is not a good thing.

TVhost, what I know regarding the record humpies is that there have been more than a couple of fish caught that have broken the state record and that at least three applications have been submitted for the state record. I have heard that one of those may be bigger than the fish Avis caught. I also am not aware of any other submissions for the IGFA world record pink other than Avis's. I think it may be possible that we end up with a situation where Avis holds the IGFA record and someone else gets the state record with a slightly bigger fish than Avis's. Sounds strange but it is possible. I think we're just going to have to wait and see how this all works out, it may be a couple of months before we know for sure. Whatever the outcome, I'm just thrilled that Avis caught a record fish. She has literally been on cloud nine

Sheesh, what a long winded post, but for the most part, so far I feel that this thread is very good. I appreciate your replies.

My opinions above are just that and it's very possible that I am just full of BS That's what Avis keeps telling me anyway! But this has always been a issue that has interested me and one that I have found to be very divisive among sport fishers and that can't be good for any of us.

Bruce,
My Two cents on subject!
After going to the steelhead symposium a couple of Saturdays ago and listening to experts from BC, Idaho and Oregon I would say that there is no surplus of wild steelhead and never has been.
Everyone of those fish has a purpose in nature. Abundent year populations are there to ensure that years where ocean conditions are poor that the spiecies survies those tough years. When we start playing with fish counts and say we can harvest 40% of a good year,(MSY) is indeed crazy. If the year after a good year turns bad due to unperdictable floods, droughts and warming ocean condition that 40% harvested would have been insurance that a certain % of 40% would have survied and made the bad years run at least surviable if they had not been bonked. God look at the screw up F&G has done on our local rivers in the last few years.
I wish there was a way to keep a wild steelhead once in awhile without hurting the population, it sure would make a special Easter dinner, sort of a sakered thing for me.
Steelhead have never been in great abundence through thier history, not like salmon have been in by gone years. It's just the nature of the fish.
We in this day and age have hatchery fish everywhere to bonk so why I ask do we need to intentionaly kill the very fish we all admire so much when it is so easy for them to come up short by what nature has instore for them in given year.
We can use all the science we dream up to predict what will happen on a given year. Some are vain enough to predict future returns but my two cents say, nature is the only perfect science and nature says there is no such thing as surplus.