I got the information from the RS Hooton study I think it is at the following link as i have a printed copy. Go to the table at the bottom.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/adsaclub/fishing%20study.htm

JJ

I love this attitude ltlCLEO, shows up commonly on the board from a few folks. I, along with many other board members live in Kirkland and work in Bellevue. From your statement I gather that makes us less of a fisherman and outdoorsman than you due to where we live and shop. You may want to try and think out your little pop shots before you take them. I assume, to be a real sportsman, I'll need to drive to Bremerton next time I need some gear.

Geoduck

Well I see one reason why you got your hair up so darn high is that you claim to be a" biomedical research scientist" So your one of those kind of guys that don't believe anything unless you invent it, read about, or are being paid to think it. Am I correct?

How many hours do you have with "hands on fish" to support what you have read in your so called "scientific studies"?

My next reply is for both you and JJ. The reason that neither of you can find anything about the debate that went on about "hooking mortality" was probally because it was done early last year before either of you were even members. Apparently those treads are not available now becuase Bob's search process does not go that far back. Jerry was there, and he should be able to remember the long debates (well, I think he can).

Many of the older members can surely remember what I was talking about when it came to the "science debate of hooking mortality" studies. I believe that "Sparky" was the first one who originally started the thread, and it grew from there.

The point that I was making about hook mortality and injury to fish was clearly debated in those early threads. All the studies that you guys live by were debated in some detail. If memory serves me right, I recall how the science was shown to be flawed (but then again, those who supported it will not agree). The science apparently failed to take into consideration the factor of the style of hooks that were used (or lack of hook styles) and handling effects. If I recall they only used one style of hook to do their study. There was NO SCIENCE that was used to show that "other styles" of hooks or how handling may have made a big difference. If I recall, one of the studies that everyone on this board was using and referring to was only on trout and not smolts. It used spinners, bait hooks, barb less and so on. It's been well over a year ago, so I do not recall all the details, but when it was said and done, about half of the members were not convinced that the so called "science" was correct. Yes, there were also half that thought that the science was correct too.

Here's some real life science that you can use. Try putting you're so called "science" to a real test, and use it every day for over ten years. That means to be on the water and catch thousands of fish and see what, and how well they react "after being hooked" handled and released. And during that same time period, try raising hundreds of thousands of smolts and see how well they react to just by handling them. Did the science show that the fished died by the hook or did they die because of their handling?

It appears that my science is just as good as yours!

Can these statements be 100% supported by science?

"Anyone that thinks the cause of salmon declines in Washington is anything but habitat related, must not understand what a river around hear looked like 200+ years ago"

"There may be a few specific rivers that have been over fished, but if the habitat is intact fish will recover in a very few fish generations. Its the habitat that is key"

"For a low tech solution to the problem, to achieve more genetic diversity in hatchery fish, why not select for it directly. In a sense hatchery steelhead and salmon are just domesticated animals. Why not do what animal breeders have been doing for thousands of years and select for desirable traits. Why not only spawn those hatchery fish that have desirable traits? ie stronger, bigger or more aggressive fish?"

"I've caught lots of sexually mature jack coho in elliot bay under 14" the past few years.
This is clear evidence that the gillnetting is influencing fish size. This is bad for all fishers. I think we would all like the fish to be bigger."


These were all your own statements.

So Geoduck, it sure looks like you sometimes use some pretty "questionable science" to come up with your conclusions too!

How many times have you seen one "scientific study" get overturned by a newer scientific study". It happens every day! Most of the studies that you are referring to, set their own protocols to get the results that they were paid to get. Again, science at its best!

Anymore, scientific studies are kind of like buying sex! The more you pay for it, the more you get what you paid for. . . .but either way your going to get screwed!

PS; Salmo G is just a little bit on the fyfishing side. He does fish with bait once in a while, but 90% of the time when you see him fishing he has his fly rod in his hands! Being human, he can't help but to support what he loves to do the most. and I can tell you, it ain't bait fishing!

So lets be fair and balanced!

My fingers are getting score....give me a brake!



Cowlitzfisherman

Geoduck,
The science you are showing only covers one side of the issue. What we need to know is if more smolts are caught on bait or non-bait methods? If only one fish is hook on bait for every 100 fish caught by other methods which is worse for the fish.
I know I have caught alot more smolts using other methods than I ever have using bait but thats not science just pratical expereance.

predator dawg,
I consider you no less of a sportsmen than any of the best.I am simply refering to the arogant jerks That I have had the oportunity of interacting with here in our local snag zones.I apologize for the mis understanding.After that post I thought of what I had written and was afraid that the way I wrote it could easily be taken wrong.Most of the fly anglers I have had the oportunity of meeting were great people.

It just seems that these snag zones bring out the few that do not know a damn thing about fishing,but have the money to buy what they consider the best of gear and are not afraid to look down on somebody that doesn't have that gear.

once again I apologize for the mis understanding.I do not look down on fly fishermen no matter where they are from.I do in a way lookup to those that have mastered the art and keep it all in check.

No matter how much scientific evidence that people present I guess that you all won't believe it. Oh they had their own agenda. Or you can't trust that group. Or I just refuse to believe the evidence. But I guess what management decisions are baised on science not emotions or perceptions. Science is what we got to go off of sorry that you can't seem to use some to support your point of view.

Yes CF I was involved in the debate that sparky started. I did change screen names and have been around for 4 years now. Like I said I don't post much. And yes i remember the smolt vs rainbow debate and I am not going there again because you won't believe that a study on rainbows translates to parr even though they are basically the same fish. I know you all won't believe any study until they use the exact tackle you do down to line size, rod weight, and hook size, weather conditions, etc. And then if you don't like what you see you will just change the hook size or line strength and say that well it has never been proven with this rig so it is OK. So there never can be any studies that will ever satifiy you.

CF I understand you have done a trememdous amount of work for fish and I appreciate that so please never think that I take that from you I just think your logic is a little wrong here. The science we have is what we have and we have to do the best job we can with it.

Also remember that I am not for a blanket ban but would like to see specific rivers closed to bait.

JJ

No prob ltlCLEO, thanks for the response.

Yes, that study sure makes one thing clear. Bait catches more fish. :rolleyes:

We don't even KNOW how much of a problem this is. What are the estimates (percentages) of smolt (kelts) killed by bait fishing? What are the estimates of smolts killed by each gear method?

What are the figures for each river or stream?

When did we suddenly decide to manage all rivers the same?

What studies are there specifically dealing with scent only?

The very last study in the table is interesting.

Mortality percentage was 0-8.7% using bait. Which hook type yeilded 0%? Edit, yes, these were rainbows.

Still smells like an attempt to limit a specific user group, probably the largest one also. Sorry.

Jeese...I spend the better part of a morning and afternoon up on the river and look at what I come home to!! :rolleyes:

I sort of like the member (dont remember and I am too lazy to look) that pointed out that Pete Van Gytenbeek is a former director of Trout Unlimited...that member implied that somehow that means Pete is anti-bait etc. etc. etc.

The Washington Council of Trout Unlimited is about the most conversative state council in all the country...they came damn close to not supporting statewide wild steelhead release.

So I guess that consipiracy theory is out the door...plus, all across the country, Trout Unlimited has done so much for coldwater fishes and that work and effort has turned around provided sportsmen with many many more oppurtunities.

So if it is wrong for Commision members to be involved in conservastion organizations, it is wrong for them to be involved in the commercial fishing industry etc. etc. etc., then what organizations and such should they belong to. The idea behind the F&W Commision is to (from what I understand) represent the public...by filling the Commision with a bunch of pro-hatchery, sled jokeys, you are in no way representing the public.

It is NOT your way or the highway...for the millionth times, these issues are not black or white...

If all you conspiracy theory folks and anti-everything that could maybe somehow in someway eliminate a fishing opp. or two, would just stop for a couple seconds and would think before you speak, you would sound so much more intelligent...

There's the problem Sparkey. Doesn't appear to BE any of those types on the Commission aye?

And Sparkey, you keep bringing it up so often, I'm beginning to think you have "sled" envy. You call US biased and think you aren't also?

It just seems that in general, those who are so anti-anything pro-fish all enjoy their sleds but at the same there are those that own them that do put fish first...I think Silver Hilton owns one if I am not mistaken.

It just seems, that in the past couple years, the Cowlitz mentality (and when one thinks of the Cowlitz they think of sleds) has migrated all over the state...it is just not sleds on the Snohomish system (they honestly dont bother me at all...I am all for a single barbless hook and bait ban on the Sky in the summer yet at the same time, I have no desire to take away their ability to fish under motorized power) but it has migrated to the OP in form of massive hordes of side drifters fishing stinger hooks and cheaters catching as many fish as they can, turning around and releasing them just so they can go belly up.

Like I have said, this is not about bait, it is not about sleds etc. etc....it is about values.

What I value out of my fishing experience is soo differnt from what you do...and I personaly will fight to protect those values and keep them from invading my waters.

Sorry but I am selfish elitist ******* but oh well...I will gladly share the water with you no matter what type of gear you fish just as long as you dont belong to the meat fishing mentality that has so quickly spread all over the state.

I guess, I just find the need to put the fish first...maybe it has something to do with me being barely 22 and the values that I cherish now, I want to be able to pass onto my children and their children so they can experience them.

OK CFM,

You got me, opinions are cheap and I too have been known to express them.

As for "hands on fish", sure you fish more than me. I catch a few fish now and again though.

However, you still haven't provided us with any concrete evidence that bait doesn't cause higher hooking mortalities. Therefore you have no science to back you up.

One thing I know about science is that when there is an abundance of studies saying the same thing and none in disagreement, the thing they agree on is almost always true.

So show me some studies that says bait doesn't cause higher hooking mortalities.

You say the studies were flawed. All studies are simplifications of real life. They were not overtly flawed, they were just studies. Thats why you look at a bunch of different studies before drawing any firm conclusions.

All the many studies are in general agreement fishing bait causes increased hooking mortality on released fish.

If we are going to use a different method other than science fine, but as long as scientific fisheries managment is the way we run things you have to follow what the science tells you when making decisions.

The science is clear, bait kills smolts.

Now whether even a total bait ban would have any effect on wild fish recovery is totally up in the air.


Despite enjoying bait fishing now and again, theres only one way to find out. Lets do the experiment on at least a few rivers for a few fish generations. Maybe the skagit or the sky and one of the penisula rivers.

If it didn't help, then you'd have all the evidence you'd need to fish bait forevermore.

Sparkey,

There in lies the problem...

I don't know if your motive is to protect your solitary fishing experience or fishing futures for your future kids.

And you don't know if I am trying to protect my meat fishing :rolleyes: or if I am more concerned that one user group is being singled out in favor of another.

For those who assume I can't fish any other method.... I jig fish also, and yeah, I can do it from a sled.

Consider this..... if a bait ban is implemented, will these people quit fishing or will they switch to other methods and still be on YOUR rivers.

As far as I'm concerned, I will argue to close ALL rivers to ALL methods for salmon and steelhead fishing if one user group gets excluded. The evidence is there that ALL methods cause mortality.

I dont see where one user group is being singled out...I have actually found us sporties very lucky in that amount of oppurtunities we still have (such as the growing number of selevtice fishery salmon fisheries in the state).

You are just paranoid because there are people out there more concerned about wild fish then yourself that your fishing oppurtunities will be taken away.

Dont worry...I dont think they will!

Secondly...I fish amongst people all the time and I dont mind it although at times, I do search out solitude.

It just seems in the past couple years, a meat fishing mentality has spread over the entire state...my fear is that our state can NOT support these types of fisheries for years and years to come.

...or maybe I am just grumpy because I am actually home to watch a M's game and its a rainout!

Sparkey,

Meat fishery? Guess what? Folks have been fishing for salmon and steelhead to EAT longer than they have been doing it for sport.

No.... I want EVERYONE to lose opportunity if one user group gets singled out to lose theirs. If my impact must end, so must yours.

I don't believe in allowing only "elitists" to fish. I'm sort of funny that way, not believing in "class" warfare in the good old US of A.

So are you trying to tell me that it is the bait fishing, hatchery fish targeting user group that is being singled out.

Are you trying to imply that I am an elitist as elitists dont fish rubber worms, shrimp tails and plug cut herring??

You claimed you were. :rolleyes: I was merely acknowledging what you already admitted to.

I am totally against pitting one class against another in the use of the commons.

Rob:
You say that "Banning bait on the Cowlitz id a dumb idea." Can you please explain why you believe that it's a "dumb idea"? Does that mean that banning bait is a bad idea on all rivers that have hatcheries, or is it just because you like to fish bait on the Cowlitz? Remember, the Cowlitz probably produces more smolts then any other river in the state, so why is it a "bad idea"? I think that the bait ban is a bad idea too, but I am just curious why you feel that it's bad on the Cowlitz!

Cowlitz: It's dumb from my view because the vast majority of thoes fish are hatchery. I am not concerned about high mortality of hatchery smolts. Quite frankly I think the main problem with bait fisheries as far as smolts are concerned is people going"trout" fishing on June 1 and making easy limits of smolts.
Much more serious i think is the use of bait divers inplaces where wild adult steelhead are.

One thing all the hooking mortality studies showed was that most mortalities occurred as the result of serious hook injuries because the fish were hooked deep.
I used to have a study and i wish i still had it but it showed hooking mortality for coho in the salt of BC and the fish caught mooching with herring then released dies at some astronomical percentage I wanna say somewhere in the 80% but don't quote me on that. That lead me to believe that no one should be mooching in a mixed stock fishery anyway..
I guess now that i have rambeled on my main point is that The Cowlitz is a hatchery river therefore I am less concerned about the effects of bait fishing.

I am sorry...I was being a tad sarcastic (I also referred to myself as a *******).

And you never answered my question..."So are you trying to tell me that it is the bait fishing, hatchery fish targeting user group that is being singled out?"

is that all rivers there talking about banning bait or what and in sept oct & nov are the smolts all gone out to sea by then?