Since the purpose of raising hatchery fish is largely for harvest, why then is WDFW not raising the limits to accomplish that goal? Since the return timing of hatchery fish is a very limited time in most areas, and of most species, why not allow more harvest on them, and help stop any possible intermingling with our wild stocks gene pool?

Who can give us any scientific reasons why this cannot, and should not be occurring right now?

Forget your emotion, and state only factual information that you know! In most places, it does not take very many hatchery fish to meet the hatchery needs, so why doesn't WDFW allow more harvest on these hatchery fish?

As just one flaming example, here, on the Cowlitz, the early predicted coho runs are being predicted to supercede last years runs by almost double! So why hasn't WDFW increased the limits of coho to adjust to the huge number of predicted coho that are predicted to return? At best, WDFW only need about 10,000 adults to meet all of their Cowlitz Salmon Hatcheries needs, plus a few more! So even "IF" the current predictions are even off by 50%, WDFW will still see a return of over 80 thousand adult coho back to the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery this year.

Could it be that WDFW has already been "bought off" by the Commercial Columbia River Gill Netters, and that it is already been preordained that they are going to be the ones who are going to reap the huge returns of our coho runs this year? Since the netters always get the "first shot" at the major portion of the hatchery runs, what do you think will happen? There is no reason that I can see why this does not apply to all hatchery stocks of steelhead, and chinook too!

Now is the time to ask these questions, and not in the middle of the run!

OK, except for "4Salt", and his endless desire to counter my questions with his endless conspiracy crap, can anyone else out there answer these questions? If not, don't be a scratching your heads later!

Cowlitzfisherman

You ain't gettin' off that easy Cowlitz. You gotta know that I'm a gonna post some know-it-all sh!t! ESPECIALLY if it's a topic YOU started!!! :p

Just kidding! Doesn't WDFW usually announce increased limits if they're warranted after the season gets underway? Like they just did on the Wind river for example. That way they have a bit of insurance that the run will actually materialize.


In fact, they increased the summer-run steelhead limit to 3 fish per day on the Lewis and Cowlitz last year during the season because of an over-abundance of fish.

Seems to me that in 2001 the coho limit on the Cowlitz was increased to 6 adults!

Bottom line Cowlitz, no matter what I say, you'll come up with some dip$hit babble to try to... ahh hell, who KNOWS what it is you try to do. CERTAINLY not me.

The sport limit on coho has been raised on August 16th in the Columbia but you are probably correct that the netters will have a big share. ..and of course the tribes will get to sell tons of these fish out of their pickups and old coolers filled with warm water by the side of the road....largely uncounted fish. Then you get a shot and then the hatchery

Although I think the idea of getting hatchery fish out of our rivers before they spawn I also think angling ethic is of extreme importance to the future of our sport. That ethic is already seriously lacking! I think raising the limits on hatchery fish no matter how many fish there are is a bad idea. for 2 reasons..

1. it sends the wrong message to anglers. It basically tells them there are lots of fish and they can kill as many as they can catch. Also it semds them the message that it's ok to be greedy. keeping 3-4 steelhead a day IS greedy no matter how many fish there are.
I think the limit should be 2 a day 30 per year no wild fish period..

2. it sends the message that hatcheries are doing nothing wrong and makes anglers dependant on hatcheries. Quite frankly in the case of the Cowlitz and the North Lewis I'd catch more fish if there were fewer fish in the river simply because it would reduce the amount of pressuer on thoes rivers. In my opinion WDFW should not be promoting the blue creek fishery as the ideal steelhead fishery. Thats just a zoo where the greediest people take home limits and no one else gets a shot. This is also a great argument for boat limits.. Guides shouldn't be running multiple trips a day limiting out with 4 guys at a time. That again is clearly damaging to sport fishing as it breeds a generation of greedy anglers who are self centered and lack ethics.

Everywhere you go where there are large numbers of fish with liberal limits there is a fishery that is prodominantly made up of people who are greedy and who push the regulations as far as they can and extremely often break them.

I think angling ethics is extremely important and like it or not WDFW needs to be in the bussiness of promoting them. Not doing so is another gross failure of that orgainization.

Rob, cmon is it really that bad? You say that only the greedy get rewarded? I dont think so. I think the average Joe gets rewarded, he/she can stay longer and fish more if there are more fish to be harvested. And yes this will take some of the attention off of wild/native fish as well.
I think the daily limit thing should be handled on a case by case basis, while the run is occuring. However, I think the annual limit thing should be looked at again( for hatchery fish only). Take the Cowlitz summer run last year for example. The daily limit was three, and even the most un-experienced of angler's were limiting there with plenty of fish to spare. Im doing the math and that makes 10 days of limiting between the months of May and August, this was not a hard thing to do last year. Yeah I know who could eat more than 30 steelhead a year is your next question. Certainly even the biggest steelhead eater would grow tired, but how about friends and neighbors that are constantly asking for some fish. Is it really that bad to send a little hatchery meat their way?
I think the increased limit on hatchery fish is win/win. More oppurtunity for the masses and less pressure on wild or native runs.

RL

Rock Lizard firstly i don't feel extremely strongly about this issue but when you ask me if it's really that bad, when it comes to current angling ethic among steelhead fishermen I think it's extremely bad and needs to be dealt with..

Rob,
I see what your saying about the ethics, but I dont think that one's ethics have anything to do with the oppurtunity to keep an extra fish or two. Most "un-ethical" anglers could give two craps whether the state endorses the keeping of more fish for harvest or not. I consider my ethics to be in good standing and I can think of a time or two when an extra fish for the card would've been nice, but that is the exception rather than the norm. Just because I or anyone else CAN keep an extra fish doesn't mean they WILL. Im just saying its nice to have the option of making the decision myself, rather than the state.

RL

I think the "wait and see" method is best when adjusting limits upwards. I just wish they would apply that towards reductions, especially for the commercial guys, when runs come in at less than expected levels.

Predictions are okay, to a point, but there are so many factors that can impact the fish, so they are an imperfect tool.

I am all for upping the limits when the fish are thick. I love silvers for smoking, and it is nice to be able to catch 6 hens and get 12+ pounds of eggs for later on in the season.

ANdy

What's wrong with wanting to keep fish for food?

I agree with CFM(as I look to the sky for the lightning strike) Why do we have to wait until half the fish are boots before the limit is raised?

Hey 4Salt, (4S)

When you address issues like you just have done, I have no problem talking fish with you, even though you still are trying to stick it to me!

One of the "problems" that WDFW has created, is once they "announce" that they "have too many" fish returning, the Gill Netters (GN's) jump on it like flies on $hit! The GN's then "demand" that WDFW give them the "opportunity" to harvest those "extra fish". The big problem here is; the GN's do not know who's fish they are taking until it's all over and done with! As an example; they could be wiping out 90% of several smaller river runs, while totally missing the entire other river that had produced the oversize runs (i.e the Cowlitz coho run)! Now that's fish management at its best!

Now think of it this way 4S, IF WDFW had set its coho limits early on, let's say at 6 adults for hatchery coho on the Cowlitz, the GN's wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. But that's not the way that it works on the Columbia is it? Did you get a chance to read or check what the limits are for coho on the Cowlitz this year?

If you have not, notice that the sport fishing limit has now been raised to 3 adult coho. So they (WDFW) "knew" way ahead of the time that they were going to get back a lot of coho this year to the Cowlitz, or they would not have raised the sport limit to 3 adults so early.

Now apply this into your equation 4S: You said: "In fact, they increased the summer-run steelhead limit to 3 fish per day on the Lewis and Cowlitz last year 'during the season' because of an over-abundance of fish." And then you said;" Like they just did on the Wind river for example. That way they have a bit of insurance that the run will actually materialize."

Well 4S, even if you gave them that insurance, and the run only materialized at lets say half (50%) of what is currently predicted, you still got 80,000 + adults returning this year to the Cowlitz. . . hello can you hear me now?!

How much "insurance" do you need for "hatchery fish? Let's see one more time; the hatchery needs are 10,000 at best, and you have over 80,000 + adults returning equals: 700% over insured! Well, I would say that just may be a "little bit of an overkill", wouldn't you?

If my memory serves me correct, I believe that WDFW did not increase the coho limit to 4 until just before the GN's were almost done with their fishing season last year! And how many guys do you know of who fished the Cowlitz last year that filled their 4 fish limit each day that they fished?

Rob: Can you help us out here and PLEASE EXPLAIN to us just what the devil "ethics'" has to with increasing the amount of a fish limit?

You said; "it sends the wrong message to anglers. It basically tells them there are lots of fish and they can kill as many as they can catch. Also it sends them the message that it's ok to be greedy. Keeping 3-4 steelhead a day IS greedy no matter how many fish there are."

Using your logic Rob, can you explain why it is "greedy" to keep 3-4 steelhead, when it is not "greedy" to keep 5 bass, 15 whitefish, 5 cannel catfish, no limits on shad, no limits on crappie, northern pike, perch, sunfish, or regular cat fish, and no limits on Albacore tuna, or mackerel? Where do you guys get your logic from?

Just a couple more issues with what you have said. You said;" That's just a zoo where the greediest people take home limits and no one else gets a shot. This is also a great argument for boat limits.. Guides shouldn't be running multiple trips a day limiting out with 4 guys at a time. That again is clearly damaging to sport fishing as it breeds a generation of greedy anglers who are self centered and lack ethics."

We got to love your logic Rob! Tell us again; why is it that only you believe; "the greediest people take home limits and no one else gets a shot" at Blue Creek? Is it because someone gets up 1 hour early, or fishes at night; or is the limited amount of room to stand; or is it because they hook the "biters" before some one else does; since the creek is open to fishing all the way to the hatchery part of the time, what makes it so that no one else ever gets "a shot"?

And finally your last statement is really a good one too! You say; "Guides shouldn't be running multiple trips a day limiting out with 4 guys at a time. That again is clearly damaging to sport fishing as it breeds a generation of greedy anglers who are self centered and lack ethics."

Well Rob, can you tell us why it is OK and ethical for "charter boats" to make more then one trip a day? Or take out 30 guys who are cauthing the "same fish" but in a differnt area then the river guide? How about sturgeon guides? What about their ethics? Is it OK with you if guides run 4 trips a day for catch and release? Or do you decide what a person can make for a days work of fishing? Do you also decide when and how many people a guide can take out fishing? It's not the guide who is taking the fish; it's the "sport fishers" who have hired the guide who is catching the fish!

Not trying to pick on you as old "4S" always claims, but your logic certainly does not fit the many! Before I leave you alone, would you please define what "ethical" is and where we can find a single acceptable definition that applies to fishing?

PS, can you also tell us who wrote this "ethical" rule, or whose version you are using this time around?

Cowlitzfisherman

Nice Cowlitz ,

I have also had a feeling that the limits are so low on hatchery fish because the state wants more people to buy fish from the indians!

When the fish are in I always fish where the limits are highest. No thats not greed Robby boy I am just doing my part to take business away from the indians. I give 90% of what I catch away to people who would normally just buy it from the indians, and I encourage others to do likewise ( did Ya notice how the price on fish has dropped over the last several years).

Theres to many people that think to hard about what everybody else is or should be doing.

Fish and have fun for tommorrow may be there last day. (Sarcasm) Oh boy, that will get some remarks.

probly because they have charts and graphs that estamate how much money all us sportsfishers will be spending and dont see a need to up the limits so they will give the netters a nice share of the fish and it will all look good on paper

Catch and keep does not equal greed or stupidity
Catch and release does not equal superior intelligence or ethics.

Those are two schools of thought about fishing
thats all.

The thing tha bugs me about the C&R fly fishers is not what they do but how pompous they can become when they pontificate about their way of doing things.

Why with the attitude??? I don't get it..

QUIT assuming i am saying what I am not!!!! There is no between the lines here i said exactly what i meant..

I do not think killing fish to eat is wrong I don't think limiting out is wrong i never said or implied anything of the kind.. I never tried to dictate how anyone should fish. never said or implied it.

However when there are lots of fish to be had it brings out the worst in people take the Satsop river chum run or any salmon run at Cedar creek on the north lewis. There are dozens of cases around the state i could cite where behavior not acceptable on a stream is common place and WDFW should be working to remedy that as should each and every angler and boater.. Like it or not there are right and wrongs in this world including on our rivers. There are right and wrong ways to enter a steelhead run right and wrong ways to enter a hog line. Etiquite (sp?) and ethics ar4e extremely important no matter where you are. And as in all things the Golden rule applies.

Aunty........ do not worry! Rob is just a little dizzy from doing his 180 degree spin on what he had written earlier before!

It's called "the spin factor"!

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty How many days did you go out and keep 3 fish last year?? You assured me in recent posts that you rarely keep salmon and steelhead. If thats true then you aren't greedy. If your out there limiting every night whch many people do that is greedy. I am not talking about actions so much as a mind set.

I did not say i wanted fewer fish so that I could catch more I did not say that or imply that. I simply said i would catch more if there were fewer fish and therefore people. There is a difference between stating a fact than expressing a desire..

There is a concept you need to understand while you read. It's called considering the context.. It's quite important..


As far as multi trips per day.

I see your point i just don't agree that thats a good thing.. How is the guy different than a commercial fisherman..

If this type of mentality stayed at blue creek I wouldn't have a problem with it but it doesn't it starts there and spreads to every other river.

on the other hand maybe i just shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion..

By now all of you should know that alot of the fall fish limits have already been increased with the run projections which is kind of new for the wdf. Usually the increased bag limits are only changed after they meet the hatchery goals for spawning so this is a new deal this year!! But how many times have the wdf been wrong? Where were the winterrun hatchery fish? Just a good example is the early closures on alot of the puget sound rivers when they did not meet the spawning goals and had to scramble at the end of the season to get their fish!!! I'm all for liberial limits but like the way they been doing things works for me, example today I fished the Wind river springer run which is a 4 fish limit,but only killed one fish although I legally hooked twenty and had the option to kill plenty more and I saw alot of people doing the same thing also saw the snaggers the mongers ,etc.,So I think what I'm trying to say is with out the system working the way it does now I would have probably been sitting home doing chores!!!PEACE

Hey Rob,

there are just some people around that you have to watch what you say because even though you meant one thing they purposely enterperate it another way just to make you look bad or get you in trouble for that matter.

As far as im concerned I could give a darn what people think about me or say because Im Black and white no grey. people love me or hate me for my personality and views.

As far as the one who is trying to tell you what you meant, well I pay no attention to her and if I were you I wouldnt sweat her either.

Aunty M I said exactly what I meant and my statements in no way contradict themselves. You are making an assumption about me that is entirely wrong, that being that It's importnat to me to catch more fish. It's not! I am perfectly content with the number of fish I catch.

ok I posted my opinion because somoene asked for opinions I got slammed for my views because people cannot handle someone thinking differently than them. If all someone cares about is catching as many fish as possible they they don't get it and no amopunt or arguing will change that, When people have that attitude on a river it breeds competition among anglers and ruins the experience and is damaging to sport fishing.

Ans thank you so much for ignoring all my main points.... I'll never respond to anything you right ever again.

opinions are fine Rob , but when you start by calling us greedy and unethical your gonna have to expect your opinions will not be recieved in a friendly manner.

I really dont get you. So far you have said you would like to get rid of hatchery fish in your arguments for WT. Now you say we are greedy and unethical for wanting more liberal limits on hatchery stocks that can take the pressure?


Yes there are problem children out there that still cant catch fish the right way, but this is a thread on raising limits on hatchery fish.

Now that's really a good one Rich!

Kind of sounds like the old saying; "birds with the same feathers seem to flock together!"

When a "Man" makes a statement such as Rob has done he should be responsible for what he has stated. No 180's, no spins, no back peddling just admit that you were wrong! He said what he said, and NO ONE made him bring up the issues that he did. The question of this thread was a pretty simple one:

"Since the purpose of raising hatchery fish is largely for harvest, why then is WDFW not raising the limits to accomplish that goal? Since the return timing of hatchery fish is a very limited time in most areas, and of most species, why not allow more harvest on them, and help stop any possible intermingling with our wild stocks gene pool?

Who can give us any 'scientific reasons' why this cannot, and should not be occurring right now?

'Forget your emotion', and state only 'factual information' that you know! In most places, it does not take very many hatchery fish to meet the hatchery needs, so why doesn't WDFW allow more harvest on these hatchery fish?"

So tell us Rich, what was "factual" in Rob's post? Did you have trouble understanding the question too? It sure sounded like Rob was using nothing but pure emotion to most of us!

Moreover, when a man comes back like Rob as just done and reinforces his original post by once again saying; "Aunty M I said exactly what I meant and my statements in no way contradict themselves." How can people feel sorry for him?

Rich, your own statement said it all; "As far as im concerned I could give a darn what people think about me or say because Im Black and white no grey. people love me or hate me for my personality and views"

Clearly, there was NO GRAY in what Rob had said or posted, it was Black and White and you know it! You're a cop, and I'll bet you that when you take a persons statement, that the statement you took is the same statement that is used in the court room!

You might say that Rob has had his day in court and lost his case........ end of story!

Rob does not appear to a bad guy; he just needs to think before he makes such outrageous statements on a board that thousands of other fishermen are reading. We all have gotten in "hot water" a time or two on this board and have learned the rule that we must "put up or shut up" when we are challenge by other members. I am sure that Rob is learning that lesson, and will be a benefit to our board.

Well, I am still waiting to hear why WDFW has not raised the limits on our hatchery fish.

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty M you just did it again. goodbye

Well maybe I better take that back!


Maybe Rob has not learned his lesson yet.



Cowlitzfisherman

Rob,
You speak generally speak in absolutes and try your damdest to put yourself on a pedastal by implying that your Ethics are superior. This air of arrogance flows through everything you write. The problem is that you feel that everyone should have your ethics and there are several people who had the same mentality with regards to ethics throughout history, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
I aint'y greedy, but I enjoy limiting on all of the rivers that you mentioned in SW Wa, and I have no problem with the crowds. It would be nice to have the place to myself, but if you know the routine, crowds aren't an issue. But I guess if your a ***** I could see the problems that could arise.

on the cowlitz coho...how many of those will be sent uptream like they have been? can't you catch some up there that are clipped? wasn't that a topic before? until they figure that they've got enough smolt production up there i don't know if they'll allow you to keep a whole bunch yet....and unfortunately i don't think predicting adult returns is as exact a science as we'd like to believe so they usually don't crank up limits until a bit into the returns so they err on the conservative side...just a guess....on the green river i'm sure they'll raise the coho limit if the returns are anything like last year ...but you never know for sure what the returns will be until you're into the season a bit...in south sound last year there was supposed to be a big return of coho last year but it just didn't show up like they did the year before ....

A little history lesson

Years ago there was a 3 fish limit on steelhead when it was reduced to two there was a huge uproar about how it was unfair because the anglers were used to keeping as many fish as they could catch.That is the kind of mentality that liberal limits encourage. The same thing happened when we finially got wild steelhead release here in SW WA. Most anglers were strongly opposed to the idea because they wanted to kill everything they catch. We see the same thing on the North Sound rivers and on the penninsula Some people want to kill every fish they catch. Though not wrong it says alot about their mentality and their lack of concern for the resource and in turn their greed.
2 steelhead a day is plenty for anyone on the planet and plenty to give fish to friends and neighbors.

Never one time did i say i wanted fewer fish in our rivers. Never once did i say i want hatcheries closed.

There has been a code of conduct for river fishing for centuries it's all gone now because people are selfish. Don't think so? go fish the Deschutes in August Or the Kalama "fly water" in September or the meat hole on the North Lewis in October.
All i am doing is asking people to treet others as you want to be treeted Thats it!! if you missed that in my previous posts well then you weren't listening.

the origional question was why not raise limits on hatchery fish. I answered the question why not.. It breeds the mentality that killing everything you catch is a good thing and people get used to the idea of being able to kill as many as they want and as soon as the numbers aren't there they complain about not having fish to kill Thats clearly evident from ( a very vocal few) of the people in this forum. And from history. When all people want is fish to kill they become very unsportsman like and yes greedy.

anyway go ahead kill everything you want frankly I don't care as ling as it's hatchery go ahead and step in below somoene or cut them off with your sled. it's ok for you do whatever pleases you right?? Go ahead and disrespect your fellow anglers I won't be there but maybe someone else who cares will be.

bodysurf

I think that most people believe that it better to error on the side of the fish when the returns numbers may be in question. But on the Cowlitz, this year, that is not the concern. The average pre-dam returns of coho on the Cowlitz were 25,000 adults back to the rack (Barrier Dam)

Like I said earlier in my reply to 4S; "How much "insurance" do you need for "hatchery fish? Let's see one more time; the hatchery needs are 10,000 at best, and you have over 80,000 + adults returning equals: 700% over insured! Well, I would say that just may be a "little bit of an overkill", wouldn't you?


Even if the coho run got screwed somewhere along the line and only half of the half of the 80,000 fish returned (40,000), that would still leave an excess of historical returns numbers by still 15,000 adults!

You asked; "how many of those will be sent upstream like they have been?" Well, my guess will be anything with a coded wire tag in its head gets killed and sent to the processors or a food bank. That number may be as high as 3 or 4 thousand fish. The hatchery will probably keep about 4000 adults for their egg needs, but often keep double that amount for "insurance". If they don't need that insurance, they often dump extra feed fry into Riffe Lake. The rest will most likely be hauled up river and released.

Here the funny part about how screwed up the WDFW management can be. On the Lower Cowlitz (from Mayfield Dam down stream) you are allowed to keep 3 adult coho. From Peters Road above the Cowlitz Falls Dam, you are only allowed to keep 2 adult coho. Can you explain the reasoning for that? By far, their will be 10 times more coho up there to catch then down below the dams and yet the limit remains at 2 adults. Why?

It only took 25,000 adults to maximize the historical spawning production for coho above the dams, and that was when we still had over 90% of our natural habitat left. For the last 4 years, the problem has not been that we weren't getting enough natural production from the coho that have been passed above the dams; the problem has been that the fish collection facilities is only catching less then half of the smolts that are coming down river!

Until WDFW and the NMFS gets their act together and forces the LCPUD, BPA, and Tacoma to spend the money that is needed to improve the fish collection facilities at either the Cowlitz Falls Dam or Mossyrock Dam (Riffe Lake) there should be no reason why fishermen should not be able to enjoy the same 3 fish limit that WDFW has provided down below the dam!

There is no reason why the limit for coho on the Cowlitz River this year should be no less then 6 adults!

OK Rob, now that is science, not just a opinion! It's based on history, math, and fact!


Cowlitzfisherman

Rob,

You are wasting your breath with these people they dont care. All they see you as is a threat to there use of the resource. They will twist you and your words to try and discredit you in any way they can. They will call you a hypocrit, Pompus, Hoilier than though attitude and all that bull.

They do not want what you want, they like Blue Creek, NF Lewis, and all that stuff.

They are not gonna agree about anything you say if it takes away any oportunity from them.

Rich I am sure your right. Thanks

Now how in the world could that be?

Robs thinks that Rich is right. Well, let's see if RICH thinks like Robs thinks!

Lets just look at a little bit of RICH's history on this board! What do you think? Are the double R's Siamese Twins? You be the judge:

Posted by RICH G on 07-02-2002 06:04 PM
"How many fish do you harvest oriented anglers need anyways to sustain your need to kill and eat fish.I myself combineing salmon, steelhead, trout and all species of bottom fish on avarage kill maybe 20 to 25 fish a year tops. My family of 3 eats fish about once a week and eat fish I catch about 95% of the time."

Posted by RICH G on 05-18-2003 01:14 PM

"Dont join WT because you support the harvest of our wild fish to extinction so we can have 10 hatcheries on each river so we can comercial harvest and sport harvest till we are sick of it. Thats about the only reason I can see"

Posted by RICH G on 07-02-2002 05:11 PM

"Me too Im sick of harvest ,harvest, harvest!!!!!!!
If harvest is all people care about than our wild fish are truely doomed. Just food for thought. For the most part hatcherys arnt even here for sport harvest instead for tribes and comercials. If for only sport harvest there would be no such thing as a hatchery. If it wasnt for greed in the first place on all sides there would be no reason for hatcherys. Another thing, I know of many small coastal streams that have had all the same problems as everywhere else accept hatcherys. All the other problems such as logging, habitat degration, polution. But yet they have quite robust wild fish runs accept for a component of a steelhead run in one small river where hatchery steelhead have been introduced. The component of wild steelhead that came at the same time as the hatchery fish have now almost disapeared."

Posted 07-02-2002 10:18 AM

"I think the two major factors that have caused our wild fish numbers to decline are #1 hatchery's #2 over harvest. #2 has been caused by #1. And #1 has done a lot more damage than just causing #2. I say shut em down if it will help the wild ones come back.

Too many people are only concerned about loosing oportunity. Whenever we we have issues like closeing hatchery's or having bait bans people come uncorked. The problem with our society is that too many people are only concerned about what they feel they should have or be entitled to, and that dosent stop with fisherman. People are worried that closing a hatchery may stop them from being able to to kill some hatchery fish or stop them from fishing at all. People are worried that a bait ban on certian rivers might cause them to catch fewer fish or make them start fishing a new way. People dont care that these measures are in best intrest of the fish they only care about loosing oportunity." There are only a few that really give a S##T, and are willing to make sacrifices to ensure the wild ones live on"

Posted by RICH G on 6-12-2002 08:26 PM

"Where did everybody go while I was gone? There isnt anybody here anymore. Was there a bad arguement or disagreement? Where did half the BB go?"

Posted 4-10-2003 04:07 PM

"Just dropped in to say high. Havent had much time for the computer lately but soon Ill be back. Ill have to get my steelie fix some way. No fishing for me lately. Im starting to scout some things out over here but it looks like ill have to go into Idaho and Montana to get into anything good in moving water anything cole anyways. Not much for decent river trout fishing nearby in washington from what I have heard"
Posted by RICH G on 03-10-2003 11:07 AM
Im going to work for the city of Newport as the police of course."

Posted by RICH G on 3/09/03

"Ill be leaving the west side of the mountians soon for an undetermined time Newport Washington is the destination. Its a small town north of Spokane on the Idaho boarder. If anybody knows of any good rivers in the Idaho Panhandle or in Northeast Washington for some nice trouts give me some info. Looks like ill be picking up the 4 and 5 weight full time for a while"

Posted by RICH G on 2/18/03

"Although I like getting nice photos and handle fish with extreem care I would be in favor of such rules and sacrifice my oportunity to get the glory shots. Most people dont know how to handle fish and some dont care If it saves some fish id be for it."

Well, is it a join or not?


Cowlitzfisherman

yep, birds of the same feather

There are many others that dont even give you guys the time of day as they dont see the point in it.

I know are veiws are verry diferent and we will never see alike, (sad but true the sport anglers for salmon and steelhead will never unite on these issues). There are two very different groups out there and a percentage that is somewhere in the middle.

I know I am wasteing my time also when I post in these discussions as far as your group is concerned, the only real reason I do it is for those guys in the middle.

I have a very deep passion for our wild fish.

Oh yes I do fish for hatchery fish and like to harvest a few of them but it wouldnt bother me a bit if they were gone. But have I made that a secret. I have been on the same side of the fence since I started fishing. I was taught from the beginning the values I have now and I will uphold those values forever. Oh yes I have even harvested some wild fish too.

Oh did I mention, I really like getting a rise out of you guys!

cfm....i agree with much of what you said...but i have a question...isn't the reason for the large return of coho basically because the canadians aren't pounding on the coho like they used to? if that's the case should the limits really be raised that much? what happens if one year the limit is cranked up then the canadians go fishing the next year and the limit goes to zero? i bet it's still a matter of 'get as much fish up there as possible' while they can because eventually the canadians are gonna start on them again...even if the number of fish going up there is way above the historical average maybe it's a good idea to use the excess to 'seed the river' so to speak ...also...i don't think they pull cwt'd fish out at the hatchery ...gotta double check that...but i think the only cwt fish they keep are ones used in spawning or pond morts....any cwt fish that go upstream are for stream survey guys to get....

cfm...is it just coho jacks the cowlitz gives to food banks? i know they can't give spawned coho to the food banks because they use benzocaine to knock them out....don't wanna eat them...so they bury 'em...

bodysurf

Trust me, when they won a fish and it shows that they have a coded wire tag, they get their heads cut off! They take all coded wire tags from both chinook and coho. Here a perfect example of what they are now doing; "Tacoma Fish Report dated May 27, 2003: A total of 203 spring chinook adults and 134 spring chinook jacks were donated to the local S.O.M.M.A. food bank during the past week. Coded wire tags containing study information were recovered from these fish prior to their donation to the food bank"

Well if they are waking 203 adults a week on Springer's, you can just image how many coho are going to get it when there are 10,000 a week returning!

And your answer to your second question; I can not say for sure what the "reason" is for our large return of coho, but experts much better informed then me have said it is most likely due to the "great ocean conditions" that we have been experiencing in the last several years. I tend to agree with them.

They can sell ALL of these fish to the dog and cat processors even if they have been exposed to benzocaine or MS22. They can also let people eat them if they hold the exposed fish for 30 days without any additional or new treatments or exposures of theses drugs. That's the way it was 2 years ago, and I do not believe that they have change as of yet.

Cowlitfisherman

RICH

I think that everyone here knows of your passion for wild fish. There is nothing to say bad about that; it is a very noble passion, and I for one will never knock your passion. But, and yes, there is always a "BUT" in life, there is just an equal passion for people who love to catch and eat fish, be it hatchery or whatever!

The world it not what it was 50 years ago and neither is our wild fish runs. In my OPINION, the wild fish will never be here again in the numbers that they originally once were. So how do we continue our sport fishing/harvest if we do not continue our hatcheries? Yes, we all know that they need some improvements, but isn't that the way that everything is improved?.. by new knowledge?

Being involved in the law as you are, surely you understand that people do not like or accept change. But change is a way of life that this world has been adapting to forever. You are truly one of the last of the steelhead Mohegan's!

But like the Mohegan's, time changes everything and one must adapt to what the reality is. Reality is; hatcheries are needed to supplement the needs of the many.

I do know that we do have our differences, and I also know that neither of us is likely to change soon. Our debates will help others "decide" if they want "fish to harvest" or fish to "hook and release"! I guest you would call our differences "the good, the bad, and the ugly"! People will make there own minds up very soon on what they want to do.

Cowlitzfisherman

Rob and Rich have convinced me that what I heard not long ago on the radio might just be true: Extreme liberalism is a mental disorder. Those who have this disorder need immediate hospitalization. The socialist minority always wants CONTROL over the majority. Afterall they know best and simply tolerate the majority as long as it follows their rules. They are so sure they are right they cannot imagine another point of view and scoff at the thought.

How did he put it? "We don't even give you the time of day"....blah blah blah...we know we are right and the rest of you are morons??? something along those lines I think.
God am I relieved that these people are not in control. scary thought.

Grandpa there you go making false assumptions about people again!!! Don't say things about people yo don't know to be true.

By the way m being a right wing republican doesn't make you right.

cfm....no...i think all the springer's die or don't go upstream..so they take the heads...but not the coho...only those that die get checked for cwts..i'll check with the tag lab though...coho cannot go to the food bank if they get hit with benzocaine....or any fish that get's hit with ms-222...unless as you say they have 30 days to purge......fish for the food bank never go to the spawning room but come straight out of the seperator...only hit with co2....drugged fish can go to the renderers though as you say....and people i 've talked to say that yes conditions are good...but the main reason for the coho returns is more a lack of canandians fishin' them...which will change....maybe they could raise the limit for awhile....but not for long....

cfm...i think you're right about the coho cwt's...they wand the upstream fish at the seperator...i've blocked those memories out ...and more....but i'll double check anyway....you wrote 'won' not 'wand' so it took me a while to remember...

Bodysurf

I find it pretty hard to believe that 203 adult Springer's just "happened" to die right out of the fish separator along with another 134 jacks! Those fish were carrying coded wire tags and that's why they were sacrificed and given to the food bank. The Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery only needed 1150 adults to meet their egg take needs. As of last week, they have already recovered 4,128 adults at the Salmon Hatchery. You can bet that at lease another 1000 or more fish have already been sport harvested, so that would bring the retuning total number (5,128) to well above the 4900 number that the WDFW had predicted.

It's still early, and I will bet you that the hatchery will get close to another 2000 or more adult before the run is finally over. So you see, WDFW is not really to concern about waking any Springer's that is currently carrying around a wire tag in its head.


Cowlitzfisherman

YOU ARE WHAT YOU WRITE

or

We be doomed to conflict here.

I know a few of the folks on this BB and have met others, and have observed the writing of most of you for the past few years. When I talk with folks I observe a few major differences of opinion, but most seem to be of similar, altho not like, mind. It makes me wonder if the lack of clear writing has more to do with the conflicts that appear in so many threads than actual differences in personal values. And genuine conflicts, when they occur, seem motivated more by intolerance of differing opinions, than the fact that the respective opinions differ.

Not that it matters, but I think it's OK to raise the catch limit within reason when hatchery salmon are abundant. A more useful issue might be why rear and release so many hatchery coho if the end result is an intensive gillnet fishery that wipes out wild coho in the lower Columbia River tributaries?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I haven't waded through all 46 posts to see if the following points have been raised but I'll put my .02 in here anyway.

The WDFW routinely raises the bag limit on hatchery fish when they can predict far enough in advance that they'll get the hatchery returns they need. As you know, the bag limit for coho the NFL and the Cowlitz have already been increased. I suspect they'll increase it again if the run is anywhere near what they expect. This is just good management.

However, there is a downside. That is, raising the bag limit does not, will not, and won't ever increase the number of fish that you actually catch when you're on the river. In other words, just becuse the bag limit goes up doesn't mean I'll be anymore successful. I can't count how many times I've been fishing on a river where WDFW increased the bag limit but I still got skunked. They could set the bag limit at a million fish a day but if I don't catch any, it doesn't matter.

But raising the bag limit will significantly increase the number of anglers fishing those waters. They're thinking that if WDFW raised the bag limit, there must be more fish, which is probably true. Thus, the hordes of not-very-sophisticated anglers show up, expecting to catch fish. Snagging, trash, fights, etc are the result. The fishing experience is not exactly what most of us seek.

So, raising the bag limit can increase expectations, may not increase the actual number of fish caught, and may significantly decrease the angling experience. In my view, those are good reasons for not doing it.

Grandpa,

You know I couldn't let your last post on this subject go by without commenting on it. I would agree with your statement if we change a couple of phrases. Try this on for size.

"Extreme ideology is a mental disorder. Those who have this disorder need immediate hospitalization. The ideological minority always wants CONTROL over the majority."

I know many conservatives and liberals that take a thoughtful and reasoned approach to most issues, they consider them on their merits and take actions based on their analysis. I know some ideologues on both the right and the left who can not make any determination until they find out how their sponsors/mentors want them to act. Singling out liberals only deals with half the problem.

A side note rant - most people in the US do not understand the difference between being Liberal and being Socialistic. There are deep and fundamental differences. Being the well-traveled fella that I know you to be, I'm sure you understand the differences. However, I have heard the terms used interchangeably enough to know that a lot of folks don't understand the difference.

As always, Grandpa, I like your posts and of course I like you - redneck reactionary that you are.

Im actually as far from liberal as could be.

My dad was a logger and works in a parer mill Im a police Officer, (now how many liberal police Officers do you know?).

Nearly all of my family has been loggers or farmers on the Olympic Pensulia.

I tend to agree with republican veiws on nearly all issues.

I believe we need to have a conservative attitude towards our native fish to ensure these stocks thrive.

As far as hatcheries go I could care less how many of these fish people kill, Kill them all!

The thing that bothers me is when people go overboard and take more fish than they eat, or just take the hens for the eggs.

We need to get away from the mindset of take eveything you can because if you dont someone else will.

There are some major flaws in the fish management of this state and sport fishers ethics over all.

I do understand that most people on this board are not greedy. And even though it dosent show sometimes I do respect there views even though I may not agree with them.

RICK

I feel the same way! There are times when I do show my political bias, but I can not remember a single time in all our difference or debates where I have ever used them when it comes to talking fish or fish management issues with you. If I am wrong, then maybe someone can tell me were I have done so. Yes, when we were debating the "war issues", it seemed like almost everyone took a side. But this is not true when we debate the merits on fish or fish management issues.

To me I don't care if a person is a liberal Democrat or a right wing Republican, when I take issue with a person, it is because we differ about fish issues, not party issues. Hell half of the time I am neither a republican nor a democrat but somewhere in between the two. I guess you could say that most of the time I am an Independent!

When I debate issues about fish, I try to debate those issues by using my knowledge, experience and years of management in fish organizations dealing with both fish and fish management. People should not use "the Party issue" to prove a point one way or another. Personally, I judge people on this board by their knowledge or lack of knowledge on fish and fish management. I too would hope that others would leave the "party" issue out and use their knowledge of fish instead.

Anyway, that how I feel about politics and fish!

Cowlitzfisherman

eddie... As you know, much of this is sick entertainment...Meeting someone face to face makes an argument must more tolerable and reasonable. The internet has a way of bringing out eroneous conclusions and I am certainly guilty of making many. I think you are as wrong as you think I am on some things but we are pretty similar on the fishing issues. We all choose different paths to get to the same basic place. We revere the fish and the sport and try in our own ways to enhance them. I think the problem with a passive and polite debate on the BB is that it often doesn't bring out the opinions as much as a bit of trolling or baiting or whatever you want to call it. And by the way you know I'm not really a redneck hillbilly nor am I a Jerry Falwell supporter..I just don't worship Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter so there you go...Just an old grandpa sitting in my rocking chair thinkin about the good ole days.

cfm....springer's above the hatchery's needs are sent to soma....they put the cwt fish in the ponds to be spawned and the heads taken later...just like with the coho...after they get 'wanded' if they're tagged they throw 'em in the ponds..untagged go upstream..the majority of tagged springer's went in the pond...so most of the cwt fish didn't go to the food bank...typically 90k coho are tagged every year around 1.5% of release #s...interestingly they ended up pretty short on coho last year...so maybe they should be keepinfg more to spawn....not less....i also remember years there where they predicted 2k springers to return and only got a few hundred....still checkin' on the limit stuff....

..i don't think all those springer's were tagged that they gave to somma...

You've right Rich...by you and Rob proclaiming your absolute righteousness on the topic and declaring all other opposing opinions as BS you have deservedly earned the title of hypocrit, pompus and bearer of holier than thou attitude. Congratulations! Wear your crown well!

When I hear people say " Hell, we limited out and were home by noon " It sorta creeps me out. Different strokes for different folks I guess. In Idaho, you can keep so many a year. When there are a lot of fish they will raise the limits and let you buy another tag. I think last year it was 40 fish. Lets say 10 lb avg.. whatcha gonna do with 400 lbs of fish ?? Why worry about dividing up every single fish between the factions. Suppose it would be O.K if there were some left over???

I like that idea of leaving some fish in the rivers. Trouble is the tribes call that "forgone opportunity"....in other words you (sportsman) got your 1% share and chose not to fish anymore so the tribes "take up the slack" for you and toss in the gill nets. I think there is an overall de-emphasis on retaining fish in the sports community but the netting fraternity both Indian and non-indian is pretty much into keeping as many as it can get away with. Anything not caught is "waste" to them.

micropterus


Exactly no MORE money for hatchries.. Thats vastly different than wanting fewer fish and wanting hatcheries to close.

Bodysurf

I do not know who you are getting your information from concerning the Cowlitz Spring chinook and their disposition of coded wire tag fish. Less then 10% of the springers have coded wire tags when they are release. I just got off the phone with WDFW in Vancouver and they have confirmed that all of the 203 adults and the 134 jacks were that were killed had coded wire tags. That is the reason why they were killed. They went to the food bank because they had not been exposed to fungus drugs.

One reason why most of the coded springers are not sent to food bank after being kill or spawned is that they have been "treated" early on with an anti fungus drugs because they are held by their run return timing. They will not send any 'treated" fish to the food banks because it is illegal for them to do so.

The fish that were given to the food bank all had coded wire tags.

You said; "interestingly they ended up pretty short on coho last year...so maybe they should be keeping more to spawn".

You need to ask your source how could that possibly be? They had well over 80,000 adult return to hatchery last year!....short? who's kidding who?

Cowlitzfisherman

HEY Parker, that was what I call having second thoughts!

I saw that quick post that you had just made at 1:45 pm. I don't think that I have ever seen you pull one back so fast before!By 1:50 pm it was gone!



I do agree with what you had said about the politics taking priority over the science when it comes to WDFW policy. Money talks!

Remember the eye is quicker then the hand!


Cowlitzfisherman

cfm..i stand corrected on the food bank springers...and yes i know about the injections to the springers also...i've done one or two...springers are tagged at a higher percentage than the coho though alomost double i think...and they were short of coho ...call they hatchery and ask for release numbers for the 2001 brood year....they didn't even have enough to tag the 90k they needed last year...one pond short....either someone screwed up on egg samples or there was a whole bunch of morts....so even with 80k adult coho returning they came up short....

cfm... actually the injections for springers are of erythromycin to try and stop vertical transmission of bkd(one squirt per 10lbs of fish)..they use a formalin bath on the fish in the ponds for fungus..so no fish from the ponds go to the food bank..treated fish get buried..they used to use malachite green for fungus but it proved to be too nasty...and it stained your hands green for life!..not to mention what it did to invertebrates in the river...
..another reason they may have come up short is because people complain about hatcheries taking too may eggs and not putting enough fish in the river for people to catch and with tighter budgets now there's less money to cover the extra fish...so they have to cut there egg takes closer now ... if they get a disease outbreak or mistake on samples they end up short....no more going for 10+% overage on your egg takes like in the past...