Given that the WDFW Commision, at the present time, is not going to consider statewide wild steelhead release, no excemptions, those that want that regulation (there are thousands) need to step up to get the Commision to consider this regulation.

There were numerous people who wanted this regulation change to be considered (although it is sad to see more people sent in a motor boat ban on the Satsop regulation then a wild steelhead release regulation).

Any ideas??

Bob-Could you set up a form letter that we can pass around and have everyone and their brother sign? It may not work but it is worth a try.

Who can we call? Who can we write letters to? Should we contact our legislators? etc. etc. etc.????

Maybe Howard Dean will give up his run for presidency and run for governer of our great state!

In all honesty, I think all those involved need to be contacted. Letters sent to our legistlators stating that the WDFW has sent a dangerous precident (spelling?) and most importantly, the Commision will be doing the same if they do not consider this regulation, the Commmision itself, the Governer.

How about various media groups??...I know Ken Schram would love to hear about how a government agency and people's appointed group is blatantly not doing their job!!

Sparky??? Are you the mascot for the ASU Sun Devils?

Really though Sparkey, what good would a rule requiring release of wild fish do when the gill nets are still being used??
Sure, sportsmen catch a percentage (low) of wild-to-hatchery fish and releasing them is the right thing to do, but as long as the gillnets continue to decimate runs it is (in my opinion) like swatting one mosquito in Alaska......

MC

MC - but it is one less mosquito!!! You do what you can, I agree that the gill nets are a huge problem, unfortunately it is a problem I can't do a hell of a lot about - and I can do nothing about it unilaterally. If there are 400 or 4000 wild fish that can be saved with this regulation - it's worth it to me.

MC, you're right. But some will argue that until we as sportsmen stop killing wild steelhead the netting won't stop. If the sportsmen demanded that the state prohibit killing of wild fish then we could argue against allowing the netting of those same fish.

As long as there are sportsmen out there that vocally support killing wild steelhead, the netters will point to that and use it as validation that what they do is fine.

The biggest problem to issues like this is getting the sportsmen to come to a common consensus.

in short we need to be " free of sin" if you'll allow the analogy... before we can ask that anyone else stop killing them.. How can we ask the tribes to stop doing somehting that we ourselves will not stop doing???

I agree with the last two posts.

what i would do is get a some kind of letter, petition and stand in front of sportco (with permission ofcourse) there are tons of fisherman that go in there as well as other sportsmen, im sure they would be willing to sign it, even the weekend warriors..

Rob..do you know what percentage of hatchery fish are fin clipped?

Grandpa, I may be wrong, but I think that 100% of the WDFW Hatchery steelhead are supposed to be fin clipped. Clearly the Indian hatcheries present a different story and there are enough Indian hatchery fish to add up to a sizeable percentage of the total - probably upwards of 10 - 15%.

I don't know the percentages no however i know substantial numbers of unclipped hatchery fish are out there.. Particularly in the Columbia,, However they are still easily distinguished from wild fish due to the snubbed dorsal fin.. Sometimes it's just a tell tail few rays off the front of the dorsal.. before they started clipping this was the standard way to easily tell the origins of a fish..

So, do they milk wild fish in the hatcheries also - or just hatchery raised returns?

I doubt that the average fisherman could tell the difference between an unclipped hatchery steelhead and a real wild fish. I also know that it would be unfair to demand release of all wild fish if no one can say that all hatchery fish are easily identifiable. Moreover it is grossly unfair to allow the tribes to selectively mark fish or not mark fish. Universal rules must be established before anyone should pass on restrictions to sports fishers. What sense does it make to demand release of any species on a river while allowing gill netting on the same river? Right now there is gill netting going on for Chums and Coho and steelhead are to be released....they are being released DEAD. What the heck is going on with that? How is it possible to have selective gear restrictions and yet allow gill nets which are non-selective?

Grandpa, fair points all. Right now, I can do nothing about the way the Treaty tribes harvest their fish. However, just because I can't right one wrong doesn't mean I can't right another. As I said in another thread if we can save 400 or 4000 or even 40,000 wild steelhead by selective harvest restrictions, then it is worth it to me. And I do believe that the average fisherman can be taught to tell an unmarked hatchery fish. After all, we do require fishermen to differentiate between the species of salmon. Some do not or can not, but most do, I believe. In most fights, waiting for the "other side" to do the right thing prior to you doing the right thing just leads to stalemate. And that's where we are now.

Amen Aunty!! Heck, I'm in sales, being optimistic is a prerequisite.

Not trying to degridate your honorable intentions at all....... Saving even one wild steelhead is never a waste of time. BUT..... When a fish (or animal) is on the threatened or endangered list in our country, we would not let another country descimate or harm those animals (in theory at least). So even though the tribes are a "sovereign nation within a nation" why can they justify allowing a resource to suffer? Cause of a treaty? Since when has this country ever honored a treaty that they felt was oudated or just plain wrong?
Hell, did we not just back out of the Nuclear Proliferation TREATY with all the major player countries of the world???????
Shame on those that keep harping about how nothing can be done...... It probably WONT ever be done, but dont give me that ole story of how treaties have to be honored forever....
And I believe that all the countries involved with the NPT were against us backing out of the agreement....... The only reason that the treaties have not been altered with the times is simply because it is not "PC" to do it, and lord knows we are a "PC" country nowadays....

Getting back to the steelhead thing, it is a no-brainer to release ALL wild steelhead in this period of time.... But since when has the WDFW been in the "have a brainer" club when it comes to things like this?
Go get em'.......

MC

I am oppossed to mandatory release of wild steelhead or salmon unless it is needed for conservation. When there is a conservation issue, all angling including catch and release should be shut down. If there is not a conservation issue, consider it an allocation decision between consumptive and non consumptive anglers and treat it as such.

Also, hatcheries damage wild steelhead, and when there is a conservation issue, hatchery releases should be terminated.

The whiners about consumptive harvest severely narrow the adovacy base for wild fish. Many people believe in harvesting fish for food. The majority of anglers want the option of keeping and eating their catch. Among the non angling public, again the majority of people believe in harvesting and eating fish be it sport, commercial or tribal. However, the general public is easily alienated by the idea of grown men deriving pleasure when exposing a fish to the trama of being hooked and landed only to be released. They would see these grown men pursue more humane outdoor activities such as golf.

Ulitmately, if the catch and release fanatics prevail, it will become a relatively small group unable to have the influence needed to protect and recover the steelhead resource and its habitat.

First of all, I believe we should release wild steelhead in the water. When it comes to the tribal question, the treaties can only be abbrogated by congress but WDFW has allowed way too many abuses of treaty rights and is basically afraid of the tribes. Just having the Boldt decision does not allow the tribes to do whatever they want unchecked. If we decide to save wild steelhead we can sure as hell decide that gill nets have no place anywhere along the migration path of those wild fish...tribal or not. The practice of giving more and more to the tribes needs to stop. Be fair to all and start standing up for what is right.

Eddie: WDFW reacts to those who are at the table when negotiations go on. Those who vehemently want to retain wild steelhead have had a loud voice and that is why the practice has not been stopped altogether. Not everyone wants to catch and release. Especially some of the folks who have emmigrated here to Washington...to them catch and kill everything that moves is the rule. We need massive education on many issues relating to fishing.

MasterCaster - To quote Bill Clinton - "I feel your pain". And you are right, the US has had less than a stellar history of honoring treaties. However, those treaties that we abrogated are all between the US and another country. It becomes much more difficult (probably impossible) to unilaterally abrograte a treaty when both sides have standing before the US Courts. I doubt very much that Congress could abrogate the Medicine Cr. Treaty (and the others that form the basis of the Boldt Decision) without a legal challenge. Like it or not, the Tribes do have the right to take a case to the Supreme Court. The other signers of the NPT did not. And that is no small point - it changes the whole ballgame.

Although I believe that all wild steelhead should be released, I am not nearly as educated on the political aspects of this issue as the rest of you. Your posts are incredibly thought out and informative.

That said, I'd like to go back to the original post in the tread:

Who can we call? Who can we write letters to? Should we contact our legislators? etc.?

Could someone set up a form letter that we can pass around and have everyone sign?

I'd like to take some kind of action on this but really don't know where to start.

SF

Do they?

Oh, I know you are right on in your analysis of the current situation Eddie..... I am not for getting RID of the treaties at all. That would probably be impossible in todays legal arena. But I do feel they could be amended as they were (or interpreted) and that when the treaties were written the population was nill and the resources were seemingly endless....
Just as the tribes have embraced modernisms into their culture such as cars, electricity, TV, fiberglass hulls and outboards, so they also must realize that with time change come custom changes. I dont think ANYONE has a problem with tribal members going out and fishing for religeous purposes or even for true subsistance (ya know, kill to eat). But taking and taking for nothing more than $$ is not what the treaty signers ever had in mind.... It was to preserve a way of life, not create a new one.
Take the Geoduck harvest as just one example... How many tribes back when the treaty was written ever dove for geoducks? Possibly found a rare one on low tides, but it was not a customary part of their "subsistance". Now they are taking $350,000,000.00 a year in Geoduck and paying no license fee, no taxes on sales, etc? Can anyone justify that and not see that practices such as that were not what the treaty had in mind?? I just think a big stink needs to be created, people need to be educated, and then the whole package needs to be looked at...... Hell, look at the casinos... Did not have them when the treaties were written, but now we let them have them and that is "a change"...... Time for other "changes" I think.....

MC

MC - Even an amendment to the treaties would require the agreement of both parties. Using a different analogy - The 1st Amendment to the Constitution could not have foreseen radio, television, or the Internet. The 2nd Amendment certainly did not envision automatic weapons. Times change and the treaties and amendments are meant to cover the changing times.

MC - Even an amendment to the treaties would require the agreement of both parties. Using a different analogy - The 1st Amendment to the Constitution could not have foreseen radio, television, or the Internet. The 2nd Amendment certainly did not envision automatic weapons. Times change and the treaties and amendments are meant to cover the changing times.

Eddie my son...we don't need to try to get rid of the treaties we just need to be more diligent in enforcing fish and wildlife laws that can and do apply to the tribes. We just seem to give up more and more every year. The geoduck example is a good one. The words "In Kind" come to mind in the Boldt decision. That never was intended to mean anything more than equal access in my opinion and yet we have given up way more than equal access. Not to mention the equal but sovereign bs...we (indians) are a sovereign nation when we want to hide behind that status but we are one of you (US citizens) when it suits us. Having it both ways is what most people really disapprove of I think. There are things that can be done. One of them is to try to work with the tribes for the greater good. Atleast try. The state has been doing that but at the end of the day it is a sham. We work together until something comes along that the tribes don't like and they just get their own way. Look at the proliferation of casinoes. What's up with that? A $7 billion dollar industry for the tribes in California with no taxes thanks to compacts done by Gray Davis in exchange for a $12 million campaign contribution for his failed attempt to stay in office or get Cruz Bustamante in. Hopefully Arnold will set an example and tax the tribes but Gray signed deals that last for the next 17 years.....And the tribes are pushing for huge expansions at their existing casinoes with new ones on the way all of the state...Same here in Washington...So why do they care about fish? Because they want to perpetuate their treaty rights and gain as much political power as possible. The tribes are winning the war this time around.

Thank You!!!

And to add to G'pa's post, why cannot the Fed's do with the tribes like they do with the states..... "You do as we suggest or we take away funding"....??
Works like a charm with the states when they envision $millions$ being held back unless they play ball.... Nothing in the treaties talks of monthly support, free health care, free college, free housing, etc.... So that COULD be their leverage to get more cooperation..... But sadly it will not happen due to the liberal thinkers that believe we owe the tribes forever for wrongs commited by others decades and centuries ago. Look at California. They voted a majority that illegals no longer recieve state funded education or welfare/medical, then the liberal crowd of teachers/health care workers filed a suit calling it "unconstitutional" and it was reversed...... It can be done, but is there anyone in power that has big enough balls to get it going? NO...... It would take massive political pressure, and without organization that kind of pressure will not be felt. There are plenty enough sportsmen to inflict that kind of pressure, but all you have to do is read these posts and see that there is not enough agreement that would be needed to launch a successful/organized protest.... We are starting to get things done though, as G'pa and AuntyM's petition work shows.... *fingers crossed*

MC

MC - Now, you're talking!! The Feds could do this and like Grandpa mentioned earlier, the State could require more complete compliance with regulations already in place. It would take some ba*lls - the Indians are becoming a major political force with all the casino money they can spend on political races. Now all we need is a candidate or slate of candidates that will go forward with this. How about you guys, MC and Grandpa - Political Activism for the 21st Century???

As long as politicians can be bought off the tribes will be buyin...

Again, politicians are a large part of the problem but an even bigger force to deal with is the huge group of people in the "PC" arena that believe the tribes are still living in teepees with no running water or electricity.
You would not believe how many of them there are. Just spoke to a nurse last night that "heard" from a friend of hers that tribes in Arizona and New Mexico do not have running water or sewer systems on the reservations and many are without electricity..... She believed it. Where does that type of info come form? Do the tribes themselves promote these ideas? Anyhow, the point being that not only do people need to organize and pressure, we also need to educate. If the plight is real, then proactive support of those in plight is the right thing to do..... If the plight is imagined or concocted for sympathy and political gain, that is a different story.....

OMG I am beginning to sound like a record with a bad skip in it...... Thanks for everyones patience with my rants.....

MC