what about selective gear rules? surely that can't be worse than flyfishing

Quote by Bruce

“Of course it doesn't but there's no denying that this type of regulation usually results in less Angler participation, just like stlhd_dreaming pointed out.”


Bruce: I do not have to agree that C&R will reduce angler participation. I know that in B.C. where C&R was implemented in the 80's initially pressure did decrease, but as the fish rebounded so to did the pressure. If there is good fishing they will come. Anglers travel from all over the world to experience the type of fishing found on their quality C&R rivers.

The real questions are will C&R improve the fishing. If so the pressure will increase. But as Salma and others have pointed out C&R is not a cure all for habitat degradation, over fishing buy other users and ocean conditions. We do need to address those issues, but all things considered a released steelhead represents another opportunity for someone to catch it again. A dead steelhead is just high cost protein.

Dave I don't believe that a statewide WSR policy will improve our fishing and many examples of WSR being practiced around the state for years now seems to confirm that belief. Therefore I see your point about fishing getting better and increased angler participation being moot and just an attempt to paint a rosey picture.

As for this comment:

"but all things considered a released steelhead represents another opportunity for someone to catch it again. A dead steelhead is just high cost protein."

Once again that is your perception of how others should enjoy or be "allowed" to enjoy the resource and frankly I resent you telling me how I should be allowed to enjoy fishing.

I love fishing especially for trophy fish. I definatly doesnt bother me putting the fish back because I know someone else will have a chance to catch it. I love seeing the look on sombodies face when they catch a trophy size fish. They get all excited like it was the first fish they ever caught. Well SELECTIVE GEAR i dont mind I am not a big bait fisherman. The point with bait though is when a fish hits bait it chances of being inhaled are far better than with a plug or spinner. They implement that so that the survival rate for native fish is increased by a far more percentage than with bait. I dont keep a lot of fish. Caught over 20 steelhead this year I only kept two. I didnt hurt me not to see them on the grill. I would like to see that 14lb steelhead I caught on the wallace last year come back and be 18lb. It all depends on your opinion if you fish for food that is awesome ( I do love the taste of fish am not a tree hugger by far.) if you release the fish that is awesome to because that chrome steelie that is on the end of your line will come back next year even bigger . BUT I will never keep a native steelhead even on the rivers they are open on. To me those are trophy fish and should be kept trophy fish. So I am for this May 1st thing about releasing all native steelhead. Like I said earlier that is my opinion.

Something else I have to mention this is in reference to the better fishing people will come
Yes people will come you will have those people that come and throw there trash all over the place I hate that I take a trash in my backpack and end up picking up trash at the end of my day because people dont respect what has been given us. That hurts the fish also. At C&R places less people less trash. I like less people. I am sure a lot of you guys do to.

"but all things considered a released salmon represents another opportunity for someone to catch it again. A dead salmon is just high cost protein."

"but all things considered a released trout represents another opportunity for someone to catch it again. A dead trout is just high cost protein."

"but all things considered a released sturgeon represents another opportunity for someone to catch it again. A dead sturgeon is just high cost protein."

"but all things considered a released shad represents another opportunity for someone to catch it again. A dead shad is just high cost protein."

Where does it end. You see Dave, you and I see things from a different perpective. The difference is that I don't "expect" people to be forced into seeing it my way like you and some others do. I don't make a "distiction" between a wild steelhead or a wild shad. You choose to hold wild steelhead up on a pedistal and worship it like it is somehow a better fish than a salmon, shad or sturgeon. To me it is a gamefish to be caught and/or harvested or released by sport fisherman. It is a sport and a sport that we all enjoy in one way or another, but if people like you get your way then the rest of us will be forced into enjoying our sport your way and your way only and I don't like the idea of that. I fear that now it is steelhead but tomorrow it will be salmon then it will be sturgeon all in the name of conservation. Well you know what Dave, the simple act of fishing itself is not very conservation like, if you really want to get serious about steelhead conservation then you should just quit fishing for wild steelhead.

Bruce: As to where does it end, that is clear. In B.C. and other regions wild steelhead release ended right there. I see no reason to expect any attempt to force C&R on anyone IF the target species can stand harvest. We already have no harvest on some depressed salmon stocks. That will, I believe, end when those stock rebound sufficiently to allow harvest.

I do not make any attempt to force you to believe anything. That would obviously be futile. You will continue to believe in the harvest of wild steelhead. But your passion does not force me to see it your way either. Also please do not accuse me of forcing this down your throat. While I agree with the commissioners I was not at all active in this. I should have been, but I was not.

The commission voted and you must now live with that. Until such time as you and others who believe as you do can get the rules overturned.

If you can see no difference between a wild shad and a wild steelhead, we simply are too far apart in our views to have any chance of a reasoned debate. I have no more to say.

"I see no reason to expect any attempt to force C&R on anyone IF the target species can stand harvest."

Thats exactly whats going on right now. Don't you write articles for STS or something? Can you seriously say that we have no healthy runs of wild steelhead anywhere in this state? Can you say that we currently have no runs of wild steelhead that cannot sustain a responsible managed sport harvest??

"But your passion does not force me to see it your way either. Also please do not accuse me of forcing this down your throat."

I'm not in any way trying to force you into seeing it my way. You should feel free to release all the fish you want and start eating tofu. I've have never tried telling you or anyone else that they have to kill a fish. Your the ones telling me that I can't.

"I have no more to say."

Good..

Gee, Bruce.......that's not very scientific though is it?

Has WSR been implemented on rivers where all the other steelhead-recovery obstacles have already been fixed. Then how can their continued depression be blamed on WSR being a failure?

I just don't get how you can draw that conclusion. Maybe without WSR regs the runs would be extinct and not depressed?

Shad?

"Maybe without WSR regs the runs would be extinct and not depressed?"

Maybe.... That's why it makes a good management tool, but a statewide blanket policy? Maybe if some people didn't feel the need to target those depressed stocks, then they wouldn't be depressed. Maybe, Maybe, Maybe. One thing I know for sure is that I am a fisherman and just because I may like to take home fish and eat it does not make me any less of a fisherman than you Dan.

And by the same token........just because I'd rather fish than eat fish, doesn't make me more or less of a fisherman than you.

One thing I'm not is an elitist fly-guy from Seattle. I'm just looking to get the most fishing days for a fixed amount of "harvested" fish.

Would I deprive you of a fish dinner to get myself a couple extra fishing days? Yes........yes I would. Hope you don't hate me too much for it.

"And by the same token........just because I'd rather fish than eat fish, doesn't make me more or less of a fisherman than you."

Thats right!

Regarding you other comments.... I have no doubt that that is the case. Maybe one of these days I'll actually eat a wild steelhead. Gawd I feel so dirty even saying that on this board.

i wonder how many people fainted when you posted that ??

My whole image of you is blown..........BLOWN I'll tell you!

How about this idea, implement WSR, no exceptions, on a rivers where there is current healthy runs of wild steelhead, instead of waiting to implement it on depressed run.

But would that be proactive rule to help preserve wild steelhead and still allow angling opportunity.

Remember there are still hatchery steelhead for harvest.

BTW, How does selective gear rules always get defined has flyfishing only?

"How about this idea, implement WSR, no exceptions, on a rivers where there is current healthy runs of wild steelhead, instead of waiting to implement it on depressed run. "

Yea, lets take it one step further and protect salmon and all the other wild fish and while we're at it why don't we error on the side of the fish and just quit fishing all together. We can all take up cross stitching. Heck if we ever do decide to have fish for dinner then we can just run down to the market and buy a nice fresh wild gillnet caught steelhead.

you dont harvest hatchery fish you "retain" them

boater,

You can define the words any way you want, if that's what you'd like to do, but in fisheries management, some words have meanings, and they don't always agree with yours.

harvest fishery = a fishery where fish are bonked and taken home

harvest = bonk

By definition, a CnR season, or a hatchery season under WSR, is not a wild steelhead harvest fishery.

There are incidental mortalities on wild fish associated with CnR or WSR, but it is not harvest. It is incidental mortality.

You can shuffle the words around all you want, but these are precise terms that mean something in fisheries management...you can't just interchange them to make your point.

If your point is that WSR and CnR have incidental impacts, then point taken...I've yet to hear a single person dispute that.

Is a dead fish dead? Yes. Does the fish really care how it died? No.

That still does not make incidental mortality into harvest.

Fish on...

Todd

"Bruce...you often have rhetorically asked the same question, 'what is best for the fish', No sport, tribal or commercial fishing would, logic dictates, be best for the fish, A no brainer, ya think?"

Yep. In some cases this would be the best option. Especially if you really care about the resource.

"Would you rather 'err on the side of the fish' only to the extreme of no fishing,and to the exclusion of any other potential solution?"

Of course not.

"Can the need to be right (on both sides) be so blinding as to preclude any other possible solution, or combination of solutions?"

Some people don't want to see any other solution besides a statewide blanket ban. This is a key point and all along I have been saying that other possible solutions are available. I've seen many possible solutions posted here on this board but most of the time those ideas fall on deaf ears. Ideas such as slot limits, reduction of harvest i.e. tags, Guide restrictions etc and sometimes the current management policy is working and does not need to be "fixed".

"Maybe Dan S. is on to something here? I too, would rather fish than eat fish, and if those are the ONLY two choices this issue affords,,,,,,,,,,,,well Bruce , I firmly beleive you are in the minority."

Who said there were only two choices? Why must an Angler choose to either eat fish or just fish, why can't we do both. That is what the majority of Anglers want to do. Many Anglers enjoy sitting down at the dinner table with their family and their days catch as much as they enjoy the act of catching it. It's been that way since man first started fishing *gasp! eat steelhead, how barbaric, I only eat salmon and dead chickens!*. Of course sometimes thats just not possibe and in some cases only two choices do exist, but in other cases I tend to beleive better management options are availabe and should be used before WSR is mandated. WSR should be a last resort and/or used selectively. If you think I'm in the minority here, well then we disagree.

I dont think bruce is alone on this matter at all. runs that are healthy should be open to retention (and I have never killed a wild fish) you can still catch and release on those rivers. I also liked the rolling closure idea just take pressure off some rivers for a season or 2 then open it and close the next river down...

Every one is real quick to judge people who dont see thing the same way they do...(which I did) By the way wheres CUPO. one drive by slam on my firends steelhead on trout gear before the new release law and all of a sudden he has nothing to say....


you guys realy want to help steelhead start shooting Commorants....you know the ocean dwelling bird that is now finding its way inland to sit on that little block of cement near concrete that eats its weight everyday in fish,,,,,


I tell you its the commorants aggenda that are declining the steelhead fry....DJ