Let's not desend into personal bickering-- there is a discussion to be had here that is important.

At this point the only data provided has been anecdotal. Do you have any specific white papers that show this? I know that it has been mentioned, but regardless of the source (both Salmo_g and other can vouch) I don't buy it unless there is a some strong science behind a study....

Aunty -
There you go attmepting to put words in my mouth. No where and at no time I have said that I'm unwilling to make personal sacrifices for the sake of recovery.

Just this morning on this thread I said - "Rather I support a holistic approach to recovery efforts that stress all the Hs with each shouldering equitable and reasonable shares of the burden of those efforts."

I have consistently argued is that in the case of the Puget Sound fisheries (listed Chinook and steelhead) that the harvest piece of the 4 hs has made substantial sacrifices. Further it is unreasonable and unfair to expect them to end fsihing if the other Hs are willing to match their efforts. In the case of the PS Chinook as we have discussed the fishers have reduced their impacts by 30 to 50% while the over impacts in the habitat arena has in all probability increased. If they were to even come close to match the sacrifices made by the fishers we collectively be near recovery.

Yet you continue to demand that all fishing end. Is it your position that there should be no fishing that imapcts the listed fish until they recovery?

Regarding WN1A points -
Please note that I have consistently talked about all impacts related to fishing in assess the ESA impacts of the fishing. Yes we know that CnR or other fishing activities have some non-landed impacts on the resource. To the extent that such impacts are known they should be incorporated in the sum of total fishing impacts. I'm all for total accounting of such things. If fact if you read the co-manager's fisheries management plan for Puget Sound Chinook they said the same thing (of course one must know the impacts to account for them).

However in the interest of total accounting it remains my position that the other Hs are also accountable and need to shoulder an equitable share of the burden of recovery efforts.

Tight lines
Curt

I'm a bit confused by this specific statement. Are you insinuating that I'm not asking for data, or that I won't believe it? I totally understand there may be an impact, but unless there's some study behind it, it's difficult to believe anything said.

Regardless, if you have useful data with a sound scientific background I'd love to see it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to find out more things.

That analogy falls flat on it's face. In the case of your teen its because you are an authority in his life. In the other case, the people responsible for the various H's are all equal co-managers. Unless of course you feel that the folks in charge of habitat and hydro have a larger stake and should *tell us* what to do???

So if you can show:

1) that your impact is minimal and accounts for lower mortality than others H's

2) that you generate more money in versus other H's (harvest for example)

3) That more people are involed in the use of the resource (versus harvest )

4) that you've mitigated your affects without completely wiping out your specific use of the resource

That somehow we should do more? Personally I think it's very adult that we stopped fishing in the PS before the threatened listing was required. Did timber harvest ever get changed? No. Did development and diking stop? No. Personally there's only so much a single sector can do.

At this point even with the complete removal of sport fishing as a possible cause, the affect we currently have is so miniscule it's not like the fish will "suddenly" make a recovery.

So does the analogy fail? Yes. Why? Because we *are* acting like adults and are petitioning the system to help balance out the affect of other H's. Talking, discussing and trying to equitably share the burden is adult. Taking your ball and walking away is more childish.....

Barbless is more a philisophical choice. I personally don't see any real reason to have anything other than single barbless regardless of species of fish. I would agree that if I were selective on this it would be hypocritical, but I'm not, and advocate it for all fisheries. As stated before, I'd prefer not to see bait, but understand it's importance in quite a few fisheries.

Besides, the best affect a bait/barb ban can have is in the protection of the smolts that haven't out migrated. None of them are harvestable in size (less than 14"), and get the crap beaten outta them by folks who gut hook and handle them poorly. In general that ban would have little to with spawner survial and fitness and more to do with juvienille protection and surviability.



And the specific stocks that cannot have that stress placed on them are already closed. Once again the PS region hasn't had any wild harvest for quite some time. In the case of the C&R season on the Skagit/Sauk, it's about extending the sport fishing season to benefit the largest possible numbers of anglers. On the OP the same can be said of the 1 wild fish harvest. We only have so many fish, and we need to satisfy the largest number of people with a fixed resource.

"Once again the PS region hasn't had any wild harvest for quite some time. In the case of the C&R season on the Skagit/Sauk, it's about extending the sport fishing season to benefit the largest possible numbers of anglers."

This was already noted, and ignored, several times before...the only stream with any targeted wild fish fishery at all in Puget Sound is the Sauk/Skagit season from March 15 to April 30, and the only reason it is still open is that the system consistently makes escapement.

If it, too, were to fall as low as the others, or anywhere near that low, that CnR season would also be closed.

Like I said...it's not the legitimacy of the fishery (clearly legit), or the health of the fish (healthy, and unaffected by the CnR season)...it's the folks who participate in it that has Aunty's panties bunched up.

Fish on...

Todd

Enough, Marsha...adults don't need to cry "personal attack!" every time their bull$hit is pointed out as being bull$hit.

Fish on...

Todd

Let me guess...you've completely failed to read the last two times where I asked you to point out where I said we had no impacts...

I'm still asking you to find where I said that...and, as I said before, you won't find it.

You act more and more like our mutual friend every day...showing either a lack of reading comprehension or just flat out ignoring what is written, and a total inability to even try to back up your more outrageous comments.

Let's see it.

Fish on...

Todd

You're not going to do it, are you? You're not going to find where I said we don't have any impacts, are you?

Instead you'll pull a CFM and just cut and paste irrelevant crap...right?

Fihs on...

Todd

A couple of quick comments. I am not trying to take a side in any personal arguments. My comments on CNR were based on reports in the scientific literature. In addition Russian scientists are looking at the effects on reproductive success of salmon with seal bites, another kind of CNR. UW scientists are studying sockeye in bristol Bay drainages that have net marks, dropouts from the gill net fishery, and comparing them to unmarked fish in the same spawning areas. All fishes share a basic endocrine system so studies on one species can be inferred to apply to other species. Stress on broodstock is a big concern in aquaculture operations but with sufficient broodstock it is compensated. With healthy fish populations CNR is not an immediate concern.

This morning I had the opportunity to hear a talk by the leader of the Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Of the 150 species of fish in the desert southwest 130 are listed as threatened or endangered. The approach to recovery is to look at the species life history, its environment, and ecology; identify areas of greatest impacts and work to improve those areas if improvement is possible. That may not be so difficult were an entire species is in a small spring and the entire population can be contained in a 5 gallon bucket. Steelhead which utilize the entire north Pacific and freshwater from the estuaries to small tributaries are a different story. It is difficult to identify area of concerns that can be realistically dealt with. Tribal netting is a good example, it is a problem area, but not one that can be eliminated in the name of recovery. Sport fishing is the same, without some sport fishery the recovery effort suffers. We need to identify areas where meaningful steps can be taken and push to have them implemented.

Jeez, go to work (where there's no computer) and the inmates go bonkers-

AuntyM wrote;

"we have NO CONTROL over those issues. We can only control what sport fishermen do, so try and STICK to that for once and quit bringing red herrings into the discussion."

"Smalma, the other "H's" don't give a damn. So that means we shouldn't give a damn and make sacrifices to help recover the listed fish? "

" Crying about the other guy won't change a thing, but I can assure you, if fishing were closed, some of you (not you personally) would get off your butts and actually do something constructive, including holding the other "H's" feet to the fire and it might actually help recovery too!"

I don't buy that we have no control over others, including the Hs. I've had fun being a cittizen activist, and I know that my efforts have an effect, on fish issues and other local issues. I even ended up being an elected official. Believe me, officials will listen to well argued comments, even if they are about "the other guy". I'm sure you know that we can have an impact, or you wouldn't urge us to http://www.joincca.org/

Anyways, my comment about CnR and selective regs being advantageous was about how positive they are for RESIDENT natives. Remember the question about protecting the in-river rainbows? I don't have the cold hard facts, but I've been fishing in this state since 1973, and I'm certain that bait and barbs are hell on resident fish and smolts. Our resident fish population quality (on my home river) is incredible, compared to what it was. I'll bet I CnR several WA state westslope cutt records, every year. I don't think those fish would have a snowball's chances in hell, without CnR and selective regs.

You drive home the nail with that hammer blow! My wife was involved with several different ESA species studies, and she said the recovery efforts around the spotted owl and murrellet are childs play compared to the work required for fish. In the work she did it required a team of around 5 biologists to do a comprehensive study of timber sales and their impacts over the course of a year. For steelhead she said her head would just spin. Rather than just having to do old growth studies for habitat, you have all of the following

- Watershed
- Logging/timber sales
- Road construction
- Sport fishing impacts if any related to ocean bycatch
- Commercial fishing by catch
- Predation by other endangered or protected species
- Urban growth issues
- Dams

Considering the number of players it's no wonder things don't get done....

Aunty -
Not sure how good of an example the sturgeon are. They naturally only spawn every few years and seem to be able to suspend the development of their eggs until the environmental conditions (flows etc) are favorable for a successful spawn. Don't know how easily it would be to tease out whether an individual spawn didn't spawn because it was CnR, wasn't its time, or the flows were wrong. If there are studies that I have done that I would find it of interest.

Regardless CnR impacts on steelhead and their eggs doesn't seem to be a problem. There have studies looking at this issue going back 25 years or more (Steve Peitie, Idaho). But more to the point there are numerous examples here in our back yards of wild brood stock programs where wild steelhead are caught, handled multiple times, success spawned, hatched, and reared without any apparent problems from that handling (no difference than those "tame" hatchery fish.

I agree it is true that your position regarding fishing impacts on ESA listed fish will continue to allow lots fishing - for bass, walleye, lowland trout, etc. However the expectation that there be no ESA impacts from a fishery will effectively end any fisheries for Puget Sound coho, pinks, various hatchery salmon, sea-run cutthroat from the beach or in freshwater, halibut, etc as each of those fisheries do encounter ESA listed PS Chinook and have a potential impact on that resource. Giving up those fisheries for a marginal gain is indeed "lame".

Tight lines
Curt

"However the expectation that there be no ESA impacts from a fishery will effectively end any fisheries for Puget Sound coho, pinks, various hatchery salmon, sea-run cutthroat from the beach or in freshwater, halibut, etc as each of those fisheries do encounter ESA listed PS Chinook and have a potential impact on that resource. Giving up those fisheries for a marginal gain is indeed "lame"."

It is...but at least it will get those darn "elitists" off the water in March and April.

Again...nothing to do with the health of the fish, it's all about who's fishing for them.

Fish on...

Todd

Good catch although I never did like pita bread much. Melba toast isn't bad though.

and once again, the fisheries of the threatened stocks *are not* being fished for. Can we at least agree on that?

Todd:
I hate to disagree with you, but overharvest is still number one or two behind logging maybe.
Just because you have not seen it, does not mean it is not happening. Your beloved Skagit is one of those rivers that remains an over harvested river by the Indian, I have watched them for over 25 years and it is whole sale slaughter out there with no oversight.
More natives have died in nets than any river conditions that could kill an mature returning Native. Those fish did not have a chance to even get to the home grounds even though they made it back to the river. And we are not talking a few, I have seen dozen in dozens of nets, add that up and it is a complete wipe out of that run pure and simple.
Explain to me what habitat has been destroyed on the Skykomish? (my home river) Been fishing it for 45 years and it is still a great spawning river, but, very few natives anymore? I don't see the habitat being destoyed, but I have watched many nets sit for days in the lower Snohomish and out in the bay. I wonder what affect that has on that Native run?

GBL,

You're not the only person who claims that Indian nets are over-harvesting wild steelhead. However, no one seems to be able to produce the empirical evidence to make that case.

The tribes in question (Skagit & Snohomish Rivers) have few or no fishing days scheduled in March and April when wild steelhead are most abundant. Some test fishing and some general commercial fishing has occurred in some seasons on the Skagit, but there are no catch data available to me indicating that it adds up to over-harvest. I'm not certain at all about the Snohomish.

Are you saying you personally have seen "dozens of steelhead in dozens of nets" in either of those rivers when wild steelhead are present in significant numbers, in the Skagit and Snohomish, in which years, enough to amount to wiping out steelhead runs? If so, I'm asking you to substantiate it because your information, or opinion, runs counter to my sources of information on the Skagit, which come from both the treaty and non-treaty sides of the street. Further, how can the treaty Indian net fishery be wiping out the wild Skagit steelhead run if that run is continuing to return at or above the present minimum spawning escapement goal? Your allegations do not jive with the facts. So if the facts are wrong and you are right, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence above and beyond your opinion to substantiate your views as the new facts. If you can't or won't do that, you may disagree with Todd, but you're in no position to dispute his assertions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.