As long as the reg's allow for the C & K of nates there will be personal choice. My personal choice is C & R. The thing about what the tribes do doesn't matter. Because of the politics we don't get a vote and probably will not get a vote for a long, long time. If we all get off the whining bandwagon of what the tribes do and get together on what we (the sportfisherman) want, the sooner that significant change will be made. My personal choice is to support any reg that would make mandatory C & R of wild anything, be it salmon or steelhead. If you support C & R regs, have you taken the time to write to the commission and the director with addresses given above??? I have.
Tight lines, Jeff

I'm still young and ignorant but the way I see things, the only change that this type of regulation can bring to the strength of the steelhead population is a great one.

Personally I fish for the enjoyment and challenge. I respect the fish as a gift, an opportunity to engage in an predator/prey relationship. However, we as humans are the one predator that has the knowledge and ability and the power to determine what is best for the prey and to carry out the necassary course of action. We need to keep our eyes to the future. In the long run, returning a native to the rivers after we have caught them is an extremely small price to pay for a future of healthy, abundant runs of wild steelhead. These native fish are the jewels of our rivers and oceans. Only a foolish man squanders a jewel, a wise man will take that jewel and invest it so that with time and careful management it will grow into a fortune.

When I have children, as a sportsman I want be able to introduce them to a beautiful and wild creation that flows with native salmon and steelhead. Life is about experiences, all you have in the end is memories, its your attitude that determines whether those memories are great ones or poor ones. I want to posess the memories of having the privilidge of passing a fortune that I helped protect on to my children. A fortune that will captivate them and cause them endless days of challenge and frustration and intense satisfaction, just as it has me.

----predator--one------< )))>{

[This message has been edited by predator one (edited 05-18-2000).]

One mans jewel is another mans halibut bait.


After reading Predator one's poetic and romantic post ,I was just pondering the insanity of protecting these fish with C&R on one hand while on the other hand netting them and using them for halibut bait. It just seems odd to me.

[This message has been edited by Neanderthal (edited 05-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Neanderthal (edited 05-19-2000).]

each man sees only with his own eyes, hears only with his own ears, and is guided only by his own heart. therefore each man must make his own decisions as to what he sees worth striving for. only time can tell whether he was a man of integrity or mediocrity.

----predator--one------< )))>{

[This message has been edited by predator one (edited 05-19-2000).]

[This message has been edited by predator one (edited 05-19-2000).]

P1- I would like to reprint your 3 paragraph post above (posted at 10:47) in my fishing book in progress. Since you are new on here; I am the moderator/writer on another salmon & steelhead fishing website, and am writing a book entitled "The REEL TRUTH". I often post at this site too. That's partly why some of my posts are so long; some of them will go into that book. If you don't mind me using your post let me know- it's great to hear a young attitude such as that! E-mail me if you want your name credited to the post. (reeltruth1@aol.com - Steve Hanson

Thanks Preston for sharing this great news!! While obviously nothing has come around of it yet, I find it very encouraging to simply hear the news that they have even the slightest notion of entertaining the idea ... looks like another form letter will be in order. Make sure to send in your own if you can, but if you can't, then please send in the form I'll get up in a few days on this one .. thanks again Preston!

My point was that when you write your letters and e-mails besure and include these other ideas also. My letter to the commission was that I am in favor of c&r of the natives but could not support the regulation unless these other issues are addressed also. As a community sportfishermen we should be concerned about all of our rights. If you want to c&r fine I'm not your enemy I'm a partner in this. If you want me in your camp you have to respect my views (not nessecaraly agree) and I yours.

This is one of the main reasons I believe we can't get anything accomplished No one agrees and no one seems to want to give a little.I would heartedly back a C$R reg. and support you but are you willing to get on the fisheries about putting more hatchery fish in the systems for me at the same time?

I think there's too much fighting amoungst ourselves and too little at our enemey's mainly the WDFW and our state and federal govs.

Neanderthal,

It got a little too poetic and romantic for me (I got kind of carried away) so I changed it a bit, emphasizing the main point. Are you just trying to play the Devil's advocate here? If you are serious, you are going at this with an apathetic and laxadasical approach. Are you saying that because native steelhead are being killed in nets there is no reason to protect their numbers further by mandating catch and release regulations? Like I said earlier, a regulation like that is going to strengthen the numbers and health of the overall native population. It will make the rivers better fisheries for everyone.

I don't know what the regulations are exactly in Washington, but here in Oregon on certain parts of the North Umpqua an angler can keep one native steelhead per day and only five per year. In the rest of the river only finclipped (hatchery) steelhead may be kept. With good management practices, better steelhead runs will be the result, regardless of whether or not they are being netted. Do what you can to aid a situation that you care about, if you don't care then why are you posting on this topic? Are you just trying to get a rise out of someone?

RT,

Reprint all you want, just my .02. I'll email you later with my name (wouldn't want to disclose such information on this Board ).

----predator--one------< )))>{

Actually, I've got to agree. The whole native steelhead for halibut bait thing seems like such a waste to me as a steelhead angler, but in reality, its a nate in a gill net. What its used for really doesn't make any difference and certainly shouldn't be a reason for not promoting State-wide C&R. It just seems like your dangling a different kind of bait.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 05-19-2000).]

Predator, I certainly was not putting your post down, I liked it a lot. After reading my post I can see how it could be misunderstood. It was a comment on what I see as a bazaar situation of a stock of fish that has a commercial fishery by one group and proposed severe conservation measures placed on another group fishing that same stock. Maybe the tribes should sell tickets that would allow sportsmen to catch part of their quota. That would probably make them more money. On the C&R issue, I don't really like across the board rules. I think rules should be made on a river by river basis. I see this movement toward state wide C&R as a vote of no confidence in our fisheries managers, sort of like manditory sentencing addresses lousy decissions by judges. I would prefer what you discribed, a one fish daily limit and a low seasonal limit, 5 fish may be on the high side. Of course this would only be on rivers that have healthy runs. Whatever comes of all this we need to start putting the needs of the fish first.

I wasn't trying to stir things up, just posting something to think about. Keep up the writing, I think you have a talent for it. Neal

Neanderthal,

I apologize for my previous accusation, I also agree that regulations on a river to river basis would be the most affective management practices. However, I was responding to the matter-at-hand, a state wide C and R regulation on all natives, and I believe this to be a step in the direction of creating exceptional Washington steelhead fisheries. Your idea about the tribes selling tags to help fill their quota is excellent, that's what they do for big game on their reservations, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind the extra income. However, be prepared to pay several hundred dollars for a few natives, those guys tend to be greedy. You're right about putting the needs of the fish first, without the fish there is no sport: cross stitching anyone? I appreciate the complements Neal, tight lines and let the full-finned go!

----predator--one------< )))>{

This is a good thing! Every fish that spawns is like adding to the bank account. Dont know the numbers, but more than a few Natives are killed every year on the lower Skagit. These fish would really help to increase the overall population of the Skagit and Sauk rivers. Yeah, its a good idea! Write and support this. thanks

Neanderthal,

I used to believe this as well. And I know a lot of fisheries managers feel that putting fish on the pedastal of trophy fish status should be done only when all else fails. It is somehow considered a failure of management. Two things changed my mind:

1) The success to the north and south of us. Both Oregon and Canada have system wide C&R regulations in place and their runs are doing so much better than ours.

2) Population growth in Washington is such that it no longer appears practical to allow take. I don't necessarily mean growth in anglers; as I mentioned in an earlier post, license sales through the nineties decreased steadily. I mean the amount of development necessary to service the population. Urban, suburban, and rural development has taken a toll on spawning and nursery habitats in our streams. As a whole, they just don't have the same carrying capacity as they used too.

Imposing population restrictions in the State is not going to happen. There is also only so much that will be gained (or tolerated) regarding restrictions on land development, agriculture, and logging. So what we are left with is a situation where we have to find a new suitable balance with an overall smaller population of steelhead. A lot of folks think that State-wide C&R is the first step in that new balance.

Obsessed,
I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not shure that you can compare Canada and Oregons situation to Washingtons. I don't think either of these, Oregon and B.C., have a commercial fishery targeting 50% of the steelhead above escapement. Theoretically Washington would have 50% more fish available to the sport fishery if we operated under the same rules as they do. I don't intend this to get into whether treaty rights are right or wrong, it's just the way it is. My point is that C&R might not be the only factor in why Oregon and B.C. appear to have better fishing than we do.
Even though it looks bleak, I hope we can find a balance between the economy/development and a healthy environment, otherwise I'm afraid going to C&R will just be a step closer to no fishing at all. Look at the east coast Atlantic Salmon as an example of this. We have to turn this cronic downward slide of our fish stocks around.
Maybe we could go statewide C&R for the general rules and work with the tribes to sell tags for a reasonable price,say double the market rate per pound per average fish. The number of tags sold would be deducted from their quota. Just an idea. Neal

[This message has been edited by Neanderthal (edited 05-23-2000).]

Neanderthal man. You mentioned concern that imposing C&R on nates in Wash. is a "step closer to no fishing at all". I think that due to the Fed. Endangered Species Act that the opposite is more likely. If the State doesn't do something to protect native steelhead stocks, thus allowing them to become ESA fish, then you may see "no fishing at all" (at least until the nate numbers rebound significantly). So, as in Oregon, C&R reg.s actually can save fishing opportunity. - Steve

PREDATOR ONE, WHOSE BEING GREEDY ? ALL THEY ASK FOR IS 50% NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS. I NEVER HEAR THEM TELLING PEOPLE THEY SHOULD BAN SPORT FISHING OR THROW OLD BED MATRESSES IN YOUR FAVORITE FISHING HOLE. TRIBES DON'T TARGET WILD FISH IN THEIR NET FISHERY, MOST OF THE FISHING IS DONE DURING THE HATCHERY RUN, SOME TRIBES JUST DO A BETTER JOB THAN OTHERS.

50% says who?Who polices the fish police?Some Tribes do better job of what? surpassing the quotta???They don't target natives???B.S.they target anything and everything that swims into their F$@$#@g nets!!!(sorry I cussed)I think part of the problem here in Wa. is the fact that we have a much larger population that B.C. and Ore.and the fact that at times our fisheries are run by very narrow minded and short sighted people...C&R state wide is a start

------------------
Row Quietly and fish a Cataraft
( formerly Steelheader boy) ----<'))>>{

[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 05-23-2000).]

In Idaho, the indians are not allowed to string nets across the rivers. In fact, they are not allowed to sell fish period. They can use a pole and sport fish and don't need a licence, but all rules and regs apply to them like everyone else. What makes them so different over here ??? They do have a very small season every few years where they get to go up in the south fork of the salmon and spear fish but they have to eat them.. as it should be. The whole net thing going on over on the coast and on the columbia is just a gross waste of a product of the USA, not the Uck Duc tribe or whatever. The whole idea that they make a lot of their money on the res doing things that others can't do is insane.. ( CHEAP SMOKES, FIREWORKS, GAMBLING, AND WILD FISH) you want them we got them.. whats next??? Would any of you think it odd if we had to let england come over here and do as they please because we are sorry we kicked them out of here way back when... I would. Its not that they can't be here anymore its that they have to act like everybody else and follow the laws that are layed out by the people. We have let the tribes perpetuate their poverty by allowing them to be a seperate state

Reel Truth,

I didn't say that C&R in itself would be the one step closer to no fishing, rather that unless we get some balance between development and protecting our rivers, C&R will just be a bump on the graph of steelhead decline.

B-Run Steely, the difference over here, as stated several times in the past, is the treaty. There was a land deal in western washington in the 1800's. The tribes were reconized as owners of the land and in order to obtain the land certain "rights" were reserved for the tribes under the treaty on the lands they ceded. I'm sure you know the rest.