2MANY showing 2MUCH and the fish pay their days wages day after day with their very existence..

This post is for Bob and the rest of the board to consider...

Since the boys and girls down in Olympia set policy and said policy isn't going to change anytime soon, can we maybe start fighting fire with fire?

My idea is this...

Make a "certified" guide sticky thread of those who have a "no kill" nate policy. We can share with others which guides have proven themselves to be in the know and ethical sportsman. In this way, they can receive good word of mouth which will only encourage the "other" guides to get on board. I don't imagine we could post which guides do not as it could open up possible slander charges. But we should be celebrating and identifying the good guys. What's everyones thoughts on this? I for one would love to know who I am fishing with before actually being on the river...and this could be a good grass roots method for further advancing the cause. Think about it....

Tight lines,

NickD90

I wonder how many of the posters here that are so adamant about the killing of nates are willing to follow Doug Rose's lead?

also from the article:

I agree that wild fish need to be released. In oregon, the get landed quickly, netted in a safe net, hooks either cut at mouth or pulled if easy to do and the the fish never leave the water. What a great time to educate.

However, I see all these fish fought for long periods of time, drug into the shallows by these ethical purists and then take that same fish that is not suppose to be killed and held with a damn ventral fin grazing the fukn water.

That fish is a hurtin fish and will struggle to make it. I am confused. Like many have said, the 1 fish a year policy needs to be lifted and a no kill policy needs to be adopted.

However, Washington allows for 1 per year.

if you are fishing in the river and you get a fish the gets its gills damaged or a deep tongue hooking.. that fish is dead. How many of you use single siwash on your K9X? well if you do, you just increased your chance to deep hook a nate. There is a good chance that you ethical policeman are going to let that fish go, and this is after that long fight, and that glamourous fin touching the water pic and that fish is dead. tumbling down the damn river.

Oh, but the sculpin and bugs will benifit.. The eco system... You are right, they do benefit, they also benefit from a gut pile and the remains from a filleted out fish. See the 1 fish a year allows you to make a choice.

Choices are good, you can either let that fish go, knowing full well that fish is fukd. or kill it. that is your option.

I personally let my fish go, but Yes I did keep a nate last year on my annual trip due to a deep hook and the fish was bleeding out. After trying to let it go, it was dead and I kept that 6lb fish. Yep punched my tag, was bummed about killing a fish, but when you fish you made a decision that you may kill that day.

Whatever puts you all to sleep at night. because really thats all I am reading here. is people typing whos more ethical the who.

Damner everyone here on this site is extremely ethical. its the people not on this site that need help with their educaiton on the importance of our wild fish.

But I think we need to all look at how we are doing the job either as guides (which) I am, or as regular die hard steelheaders. Just remember most everyone here finds a way to justify his or her actions.

Kyle

Im glad Im not the only one who thinks that
Ive seen way more fish take the singles in ways that scare me like just missing the eye) then a small #2 owner treble... Thats one that has never made sense to me from my observations

I am still amazed at how many short-sighted idiots are STILL out there (including some at wdfw). My brother and I as well as a couple friends have been doing CnR since the late 70s. Not because it was fashionable but because it made simple sense. Kill your fish, kill your fishing. Simple. I can't eat all those fish and I don't give them away so back they go. Even those yahoos on those bass TV shows figured that out long ago.

abu-loomis:

Did you even read it. Its not about guys from oregon killing nates in forks. Man the more you read this thread the dumber you get. There is a reason, a fish died, it wasn't about keeping it because I could, it was about waisting a fukn fish.

some on here are f in brain dead!

You are telling me that if you hook one and it dies on the edge of the river, because the fish took a hook balls deep you would happily turn it over to tumble down stream! If so you are douche. Dont forget the crayfish and caddis have to eat!

At least I am not afraid to explain why a fish was tagged. I guess you just need to determine your justification for wanton waste!

You keep after it!

There should be no retention. I would rather deal with hooking mortality and watch the fish float away than have it open to kill one per year for the thousands of people who fish that area and the disporportionate amount of wild fish bonkers that show up to fish but leave their ethics at home. Less would be killed. Yes, some would float away, but it would make the law clear and ethical. "actions speak louder than words"

Everytime I fish in forks! It has only happened once. either way there is not much to say here, unfortunatley the fish I killed could not swim and and the decision was made. I can tell you the technique was nothing special. I would agree, these fish are pretty hardy and can handle some abuse, this particular case the fish just had a hook in a bad spot.

Im not sure a guide from oregon has anything to do with it. In oregon we can't retain Wild fish steelhead.

No need to bonk, when the fish is laying on its side and has no energy and has lost a ton of blood. Just saying.

You should look at the definition of wanton waste. that is where you can chew on ethics. letting a wild fish go that will probably die is one thing when you are not allowed to retain a wild fish, however, if you are fishing waters that allow for 1 peryear, and you happen to have an unfortunate hook up and that fish is unable to leave your hands after trying to successfull revive and set loose, letting that fish go knowing that it is done, is well waste. Now you can argue that all you want, but again, ethics will help make that decision for you.

plenty of nutrients from said dead released fish that would have gone to smolts or birds,etc. atleast they would like the taste...

Might want to check your regs again.......

i think its mandatory release of all wild Steelhead in Oregon on the majority if not all rivers...

I believe there are only a couple of systems where you can keep a nate in Oregon.

Never really paid attention to it because it would never happen in my boats. If one happens to die from what ever, it's nutrients to the river. I wouldnt allow taking one home no matter the circumstances.

Over the last several years I cant think of any native that I released I wasnt 100% sure was fine. Reasons for that are, I dont fish bait, I wont use a diver, and I use heavy gear.

I am sorry but some of this is rediculous...

If you truely realize the peril that Wild Steelhead are in and you hook/land a steelhead that you think has ANY chance of survival, you should release it...even if you guess it's less than a 10% chance.

If you land a dead one, there is a decent are you either are using light-arse gear and need to rethink your rod/line rating or you are using a technique too lethal for a true sportsman.

I thought about making that call ONE TIME...glad we let that one fish go, maybe it made it, maybe it didn't...but I can still say my boat has yet to increase the demise of Wild Fish by bonking one for the fillets.

Some of you are nickel & diming the issue...buck up.

also, I agree with Mr. Bob, there are plenty that step up on the soap box but quickly recall their statements for a happy client and a few extra bucks...I have to commend those that hold true to their principles.

You guide people to a lot of fish. We see the pictures. You trumpet the success and advertise for clients.

It is awesome, none (NONE) of the fish you catch & release die. Otherwise your triumphant proclamation above is not true.

-S

Blah, Blah, Blah
Everyone, no matter who, or what you are, kill fish, if you fish, no matter if you release every fish you catch there is going to be mortality. If you can't take a native tumbling down the river after you release it, stop fishing.
Fishermen kill Natives
Bad guides kill Natives
Nice guides kill Natives
Indians kill Natives
Nets kill Natives
And oh my! Those purist fly fishermen probalby kill more than all the rest (excluding the indians) ever watched a fly fisherman hook a big Steelhead only to play it out for an hour or more? That fish has little chance of survival.
If you want to protect the natives, close it all down and leave them alone in the river to do their duty. Maybe some day there will be enough come back that a few dead ones from whatever means of death, will not hurt the system.

I did a couple of years ago. Ya I miss is, but for me it was the right thing to do.

[quote=GBL]Blah, Blah, Blah
Everyone, no matter who, or what you are, kill fish, if you fish, no matter if you release every fish you catch there is going to be mortality. If you can't take a native tumbling down the river after you release it, stop fishing.
Fishermen kill Natives
Bad guides kill Natives
Nice guides kill Natives
Indians kill Natives
Nets kill Natives
And oh my! Those purist fly fishermen probalby kill more than all the rest (excluding the indians) ever watched a fly fisherman hook a big Steelhead only to play it out for an hour or more? That fish has little chance of survival.
If you want to protect the natives, close it all down and leave them alone in the river to do their duty. Maybe some day there will be enough come back that a few dead ones from whatever means of death, will not hurt the system. [/quote]

Agree. So, what's your decision?

-S

this is why I make one weekend trip out west for nate steel.. the rest of the time I will chase winter BM and not get caught up in the mess of things......