OK seeing as how you are allowed to keep one wild steelhead a year now we need a reg that states upon retaining a wild steelhead an angler must for the duration of the season fish only with single barbless artificials. as per selelective gear regulations. if they are required to release the rest of the wild steelhead they catch they should be required to use the current standard for required release fisheries..

I'm good with that!!!

a proud fisherman
1 native retained then cnr?
and for the rest of the season enjoy cnr and a great year of photo's and measurments for fiberglass reproduction mounts while feeling positive about his efforts to save wild fish not understanding that his 8% mortality rate because he was very skilled at reviving released fish vs 20-50% of the average joe still tallied 76 dead native fish
but none of this seemed to matter as the cnr fisherman was so enamored with his great deeds towards the future enhancement of wild stocks that his naivety about the true damage done?
true or false?
i don't really know because i believe easily half or better of whatr i'm told is bulls**t
if the river is in trouble ?
shut it down for all
cnr is a great concept but it has very obviouse consequences similar to the native coho release in sekiu where 10 native are hooked to one hatchery fish resulting in 3 dead natives so a angler may retain a hatchery fish
where's the sense in all this?
while i'm one a rant?
why isnt the fact that the moratorium was more of a political ploy to put pressure on tribal netting then got shot down because some involved didnt have the proverbial gonads to stand up to what they started?
who knows
bottom line is that it's a one way road to s**tsville for fishing here if somebody (us) doesn't do something real soon
fwiw i hate releasing a bleeding fish because some moron (ok a bit harsh) in olympia deems it necessary to not keep the mortaly wounded first regardless of hatchery or native origin for the politically favourable hatchery only fishery
just my opinion nothing more

Fuzzy

first off 8% is an extremely high figure to use as a CnR mortality statistic. try between 1-3% probably lower with barbless singles.


second of all a fish that dies after being released is not a complete waste. it's carcass provides nutrients that our rivers are desperatly lacking..

if you end up releasing a lot of bleeders there is something seriously wrong with the method you are using. fish that bleed as the result of hook injury should be extremely rare ( rare as in almost never happens) thats my experience anyway..

you killem all guys sure like to play the mortality card a lot but one thing that is rare to see on any river is a dead steelhead...

as i have stated before the moratorium was a superb idea and it should be a permanent rule regardless of how many wild steelhead there are.. There are sooo many hatchery fish that there is no need for anyone to ever keep a wild one. making anyone who does keep one a greedy person by deffinition.

mortality on steelhead caught and released on barbless single hooks is as close to 0 as possible.. where are all the dead steelhead to prove me wrong??? dead salmon wash up on the bank but there are never any dead steelhead that haven't spawned... why not???

that would be a great reg. proposal. my proposal is legalizing the use of crossbows during the mod. firearm season.

that would be a great reg. proposal. my proposal is legalizing the use of crossbows during the mod. firearm season.

"not understanding that his 8% mortality rate because he was very skilled at reviving released fish vs 20-50% of the average joe still tallied 76 dead native fish"

That would mean the angler caught around 83 natives for the year. Know anyone who has caught 83 natives in the last year? I don't. Let's say instead that the same angler caught 10 natives for the year, which still ain't bad. At 8% mortality he killed one of those 10. For the death of one native the angler got to fish all year. He got to make more than one trip to the coast with his buddies. He got to fish for natives in more than one river. He also spent his money all year on gear, gas, food, lodging, etc. Had he whacked the first one his fishing would have been cut short for the year, and his economic contributions would have ended.

guys
i was being facetious:( with the numbers because as we argue /discuss how we can as sportfishers curb the wild steely decline the federal law states that the Hoh nation can take 50% regardless if native or factory
meanwhile sporties debate cnr,wsr,etc and cracker(correct term?) vs enlightened(correct term?)

bottom line
if the river is in enough trouble to curtail native redemption?
then both sporties and tribal need to quit harvesting period or the nets need to be replaced with single barbless so the native stock can survive
but we all know that will never happen without the public pressure induced by a total shutdown by sporties while tribal nets flourish on a endandered run

just my thoughts
just my opinions

well some of us think that the tribe are going to be netting without hesitation for as long as they want and that there is nothing anyone can do about it.. It's not like we can pass a law saying they can't net natives. They have treaty rights to take these fish. These are rights our government agreed to. We have NO right whatsoever in any way shape or form to go back on our promise even if it hurts us!.. and not going back on that promise is a thing called integrity. If the tribes had equal integrity they would stop using gillnets al together..

I for one am for saving every last fish i can. If that means we sporties get fewer fish i view that as an extremely small sacrifice.. We have to be completely clean before we can even think of apporaching the tribes.


ask yourself this.. Is killing wild steelhead worth breaking the unity of sport anglers?? I know saving them sure as hell is..

"It's not like we can pass a law saying they can't net natives. They have treaty rights to take these fish. These are rights our government agreed to. We have NO right whatsoever in any way shape or form to go back on our promise even if it hurts us!.."


LOL
the constution of the USA gets trampled further every day while treaty rights are above and beyond reproach?

lol

1% of the american population/aka/native have 50% of certain natural resources not because of 100 year old treaties but because of alzheimer infected judges and mamby/pamby folks that have a better clue where to get a deal on a new washing machine than what is really going on in the world around them

there comes a point when you realize what a crock of goat feces this whole program really is and find personal choice ways to correct it whether politically correct or not
and?
fwiw you cant ***** at the "native american"
because if you all decided that i had exclusive rights to do what i wanted without reproach regardless? i think i might have to extrapolate those rights to the fullest:)
but this is just another?
my personal feelings and opinion

Fuzzy i wouldn't say i disagree with you at all.
I made my statement about the tribes based on fact not on what i would like to see happen. I of course would like to see the tribes beforced to stop netting natives, i just understand that that would be a violation of a legal treaty and that isn't going to happen. I used to think the tribes we alright and that they cared about salmon and the enviroment in general but aftre witnessing some things in the last year or two i see them as just a bunch of greedy selfish people about like any usergroup becomes in the eyes of competitors...