This is true, but only to an to an extent. Trial and error only work to a certain degree. We didn't lob endless astronauts into deep space by using trial and error rather than proven scientific formulas.

Science and invention are rarely unrelated.......as many great invemtors were also great scientific minds.

It doesn't take science to build a fire. To explain why the fire burns requires science. Is it important why the fire burns? Not if you're cold in the woods it doesn't..............but if you want to know how to put out a fire (wood, chemical, etc) the science of chemistry would be a big help. You could always spray water on a chemical fire.....you know, just to see if it works.........but if you knew anything about chemistry you'd know that wouldn't be a good idea.

Do you see what I'm getting at? You can build a car without any formal science being used. You can't build one that will seat 6, get 30 mpg, cruise at 70 mph, and not need a tune-up for 100,000 miles. THAT takes formal science to accomplish. Marry formal science with creativity AND practical knowledge, and you have something. Any of the three alone will only take you so far.

BTW.....I'm not disagrreing with your argument about not supporting a bait ban. I don't see it being an effective tool in wild fish management, therefore, to me it's window dressing and should be shelved. The studies shown can't be used reliably as a pridictor of how SMOLT mortality rates vary between bait and artificials. They didn't test smolts, they tested trout Drawing conclusions about one by studying another isn't good science.

Anyway....you don't have to discredit science to make your case. There is a difference between "ggod" science and "junk" science and scientists are always looking to prove the other guy's science is junk. That's how "good" science prevails (and by trial and error,too ).

Junk science can be sniffed out, but you shouldn't try to discredit science itself..........people scoffed at Bernouli, Galileo, Einstein. History has proven the scoffers to be jackasses.

MC, Hillary is scary. Have you SEEN her lately? She looks posessed. I'd rather have Bill back.

Thanks Dan for your reply. I do not discredit all science; buy I do and I will continue to discredit any science that I believe to be "junk science". When I see these guys using trout data to support their arguments about a smolt related bait ban, I just can't help my self!

There is no reason to explain to you why I feel that way, because you got my point about the conflict of using smolt vs trout. Sometimes it just takes a ton of writing and endless debating to get your point across. I am glad that you understood what point I was trying to make, and I hope that others can understand it too. I saw how Tacoma Power created a lot of "junk" science, and I am still not quite over that fiasco yet. People just need to know and understand that not all science is correct nor is it always right.

I will hold off making any judgments on any smolt studied until I can review what protocols were used.

Fair enough?

Besides that I am tired and I am calling it a night!

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty,
I am guessing that this poll is over at martys bourd.My password quit working there and havent found the need to reregister.But if all you can get is 57% on your side ,I would say your slippin.I might have to register and tip the scales

I do agree that our rivers are all unique and needed to be managed as such.LLTK has made that a major point in there reforms.

To argue that most c/r is done with bait because Bobs technique page has more to do with bait then not is .....You can do better than that.

Anybody that does not want to admit that
bait kills more fish is not honest.Why is it so popular?Why do more people use bait than not?I will agree that technique and knowledge leesen these mortality rates.We on this bb know this but there are more that do not.One of the biggest problems the Dose and the duk have, are kids fishing for trout and unknowlingly theyare smolt fishing.It is not the kids fault,I was there once,It is the states fault for not educating the user group.A bait ban on these rivers during the summer would be a god send to the few native fish left.It is no coincidence that there is a beautiful thriving trout fishery on these rivers when you get beyond the reaches of the uneducated bait fishermen..I am talking under the steel bridge and such.Yes this one of my favorite spots.I am sure that there are many a system that would benefit from this.

This selfish word"FARE" is going to keep the sportsmen divided.Hell it has ruined america as our founding fathers once thought it should be.Mother nature is not fair.

aunty m if they do put a bait ban on all rivers will you stop fishing? theres been a bait ban on the snoqualmie for a few years now and theres still fish cought there i like useing bait but what are you going to do? if they the wdfw decides to do theres not to much we can do about.

Think about this one people!

You know, I have been thinking even deeper then I already have been about this proposed "bait ban" and I am becoming even more concerned! Call it, paranoid; call it conspiracy; or call it whatever you want to call it, but what IF:

This was an extremely well thought out plan to attempt to cut back the production of all hatchery fish? Now why would I say or considered that possibility? Most people would think; great, this will help save our "wild" fish that are being hooked on their way out from where they had been raised from. That sounds like a reasonable way of thinking, but what IF you took a much deeper look into this, and saw what the real "hidden agenda" of this proposed bait ban may really be? A reasonable person would consider this possibility!

Could it just be that the intensions of this proposed ban may really be a doubled edge sword and that we are only seeing one edge of the blade? Think about this; if bait was not allowed during these same times periods to harvest the mixed stocks of retuning adults of both none native and native salmon and steelhead that "just also happen to be returning" at these same time periods (April 1- Dec. 1) what may the results and the strategies be from proposing such a ban really be?

Let's see; what "hatchery" species of salmon and steelhead return at these same time periods;

1) You have some native, but mainly large numbers of "hatchery" summer run steelhead;

2) You have early winter runs of mainly "hatchery steelhead";

3) You have huge numbers of hatchery fall chinook;

4) You have even larger numbers of "hatchery coho", both early and late.

By far, bait is the number one thing that fishermen harvest these fish with at these times periods. Yes, I know that you can, and do catch lots of fish on, lures, jig, etc, but bait is by far the number 1 producer! So here is where the paranoid jumps in and looks you right between the eyes.

A reasonable person would think that that if the number one producer (bait) that catches more fish has now been eliminated, then there would also be a huge increase of these "hatchery" adult fish back to their river or their hatchery of origination. Hey, you say that sounds great . . . right?

Wrong!

Think deeply for a minute, and think of what that would trigger?

Yep, your right! The NMFS would be forced by the "wild trout" advocates groups and their attorneys to start "cutting back" on the future production of these hatchery fish because there would be way too much "competition" between the "wild" fish and the "hatchery" fish. I can here them now (the advocates); there are way too many "hatchery" fish in our rivers now, and they are superimposing their Redds on top of the "wild fish" redds and they are intermixing with the native gene pool, and will force our native stocks to become listed.

Now what to you think that the NMFS will be force to do? Paranoid, conspiracy, or is it just good old fashion foresight? In fact, if you're a chess player, its the way that you're always thinking . . . at lease 4 moves ahead!

People better start thinking and start asking these hard questions now, and get the real answers before they support any bait bans.

Don't let your self get "checkmated" on this one!


Cowlitzfisherman

cf you know you might be thinking on the right track? could that be part of the wt thinking when they settled with the wdfw in that lawsuit? a bait ban just for that reason you said?

Cowlitzfisherman,

CFM, Please do not ask me to think so deep anymore! That hurts!

I'm not sure I can go along with you on this "conspiracy theory" in total. Here's why.

"Van" made the statement that "A prohibition on bait there (salt) would eliminate mooching, probably the most popular method of fishing among Washington's marine anglers." (I don't agree, trolling is more popular)

I see in two of the studies done in fresh and tidewater that mortality in tidewater was far higher than in fresh. He is discounting a ban in the salt outright by claiming it's too popular. Why? Because salt fishing is out of sight, out of mind way upriver where he flyfishes?

Theoretically then, he can accomplish three things with such a ban. Saving a few wild smolts, getting some solitude, and maybe managing to get lower hatchery production.

I gotta tell ya. That just doesn't sound like that bad of a plan, even to me. I wouldn't mind saving more wild fish, and as a conservative taxpayer, I wouldn't mind not having to pay so much for hatchery production.

Still brings me back to the self serving concept of banning bait. I hate that part of getting rid of some "competition" on the river.

Also.... if we're serious about the mortality issue, please consider the experiences of all the folks who have posted here that don't feel bait fishing is that much of a problem. After looking at all these studies, I think we need to recognize "passive" fishing with bait as being the real problem and explains why "active" fishing that most of us do, is less of a problem.

ltlcleo,

The poll also had an option to sit on the fence. Only 26% favored a bait ban if it will save wild fish. I didn't slip THAT far.

Also, I used the info on Bob's techniques only as an example of what the average guy/gal will use to TRY and catch fish and that includes several bait scenarios.

Bait CAN be very bad, but as I mentioned above, passive vs active fishing by experienced and educated anglers could make a huge difference in the numbers.

Aunty,

I am not even sure about this one my self!
I am NOT saying this is a "conspiracy" but it could certainly be a very well thought-out long term plan to cut back on our hatcheries production.

You got to admit, it could happen in a heart beat! If, and that a big IF, the proper save guards are applied, then you may be right!

But. . . and that's even a bigger BUT, If I wanted to cut back on the hatchery production statewide, I could not think of any better way or plan to do it then the scenario that I had brought forth! It could happen that way so fast your heads would still be spinning. The "plan" (if there was one) would become self per filling once it was enacted.

Can you think of anyway that could reversed such a plan once the Feds got there hands on this? The feds would love nothing better then to see such a bait ban because it would really take a lot of heat of them. I do believe that this would make old Salmo's day!

Don't you find it just a "little bit" strange that this bait ban proposal shows it head ugly shortly after the WT and WDFW Settlement happens? Was it just by coincidence? I guess time will tell if I was way off or right on!

On this one, I really hope that I am way off too!

But have you ever had that "gut" feeling that you were right?

I am starting to get that same feeling on this one.


The good thing about this is once someone brings things like this to peoples attention, things usually change for the better! (I hope)



Cowlitzfisherman

yah but dont forget the netters would still get to fish and all the tribes would net wild or hatchery it doesnt matter to them so i dont think the wdfw would cut back on hatcherys i hope?

cf i was just thinking do you think the wdfw has all ready cut back on prodution of the hatcherys and not telling us about it and thats why we had such a bad winter run return last winter?

I was at the commission meeting today just long enough to hear discussion on the issue.

It is sometimes difficult to read the commission from the vantage of a observer, but it did seem to me that the commission was not unhappy with the tools allready at their disposal to enact bait bans on an as-needed basis. Those that commented seemed to be in a concensus that it was not the best idea to try to change the RCW, too much political risk.

It will be interesting to see if anything comes out in this major rules cycle. It would not surprise me to see some attemps to use bait bans more aggressively as a tool. The question would then be, are they using the tool appropriately?

Fishforlife

I believe that is the most likely scenario. On the Cowlitz, that has already started to happen! The early "winner run" steelhead" production has already been "cut back". Just take a look at how many early winter-runs where harvested last year on the Cowlitz.

Mike,

Thanks for attending that meeting and giving us an update! Yes, it will be interesting to say the lease what the commission does on this one!.


Cowlitzfisherman

Whoever came up with the thought that it's stupid or a waste of time to post/argue on a fishing forum obviously doesn't understand politics OR the power of the internet.

Thanks for taking the time to do this Mike. This must be busy and hectic time for you.

For those of you who didn't know, Mike just welcomed a new fisherman into his family a few weeks back.