The rumor that the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is considering regulations that would make the year-round release of all wild steelhead mandatory has been confirmed by a member of the commission. Those who would oppose such regulations are aware of this and are expected to mount a significant campaign against it. Here's your opportunity to let your voice be heard. Write, phone or e-mail the commission and the WDFW director and express your support for catch-and-release of all wild steelhead.

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98051-1091

360-902-2267

commission@dfw.wa.gov

Jeff Koenings, Director
Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98051-1091

360-902-2234

director@dfw.wa.gov

Thanks for this posting.

I am not for killing native steelhead. How ever this is just another attempt to white wash the real issue. It will not only take native release but no netting by gill netters and native americans alike, curbing devlopment and resposible and effective habitat management. Until these other issues are met I cannot get behind this measure.All this does is to make it seem like the commison is doing something ,appeasing the bigest lobbys and its cheap.

I also belive that the meat fishermen have a right to their rights as well.The best way I know to keep a "meat" fisherman (which I am one)from keeping a native is to have so many hatchery fish around as to fill our bellies and our fill of the action as not to want to kill one. I've seen It time and time again people that would not normaly keep a native do so becasue thay haven't seen a hatchery fish in weeks.The game department just keeps on closing hatcherys?

i pay for this resourse just like the next guy but it seems its always us that get the bad rap and the fishing restrictions imposed. The commision can impose restriction on gill netters without a vote of the people, they have that power. The native american issue that's another story.

Untill we get our act together They will continue to dump on us.

Thanks

I don't agree with the way they manage our fish but somthing has to be done maybe this is start...We need to voice our concerns to them....Release all wild steelhead!!!

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

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

I support this a start, I agree there are small improvment that need to be made and this is one. I would guess that the nets could be next. This could also be an indication that the commision is realizing that wild fish are not recovering and the limited number of nates is extremely important to preserve.

In the thick

I AGREE WITH RON BOB, WHO IS THIS REALLY GOING TO AFFECT OR NEED I ASK, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE WITH KINGS & SILVERS AND WHO AND ONLY WHO IS IT AFECTING THE SPORT FISHERMAN I AGREE SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE,BUT IMPOSING THIS DOES NOT ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUES

So I guess what some of you are saying is, "if we can't solve EVERY problem, let's not solve ANY"? Kind of weak if you ask me. Not keeping natives isn't "harming" sport anglers. Are you really going lose sleep or is your health going to suffer if you can't bonk a nate?

I see this as a start. And you have to start SOMEWHERE.


Fish on........

We have to keep in mind that conservation or restoration is a process--a process of steps, a process of decisions. This is an appropriate step in the process to retore wild steelhead runs in the State.

The Commission is highly sensitive to salmon politics. I believe that the recent show of support for wild release and not increasing the wild keep policies on the Olympic Peninsula may in part be behind the Commissions stance. Just treading new waters to see if anything will bite them before making a decision.

I for one am pleased and somewhat surprised of the stance. I had thought that with declining license sales and a smaller general budget (passage of I-695), that the Commission wouldn't want to further jeopardize the income stream generated by license sales.

I think this represents the fact that perhaps a majority of anglers either want native release or won't mind if the entire State becomes native release (i.e., will buy their license anyway). I believe this should be viewed as a tribute to the changing culture among steelhead anglers to allow all of these fish to spawn.

Although I do have a concern as to what would happen with tribal allocations if such a rule were passed. A State-wide native release rule should not in reality mean that these same fish that are not bonked on the head would wind up in gill nets.

Bottom line, its an appropriate step in the right direction of a pretty long road. It should be supported and will need support because there will be opposition to it.

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

I'M NOT SAYING I WANT TO BONK A NATE OR FOR THAT MATTER EVER KEEP ONE, BUT WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS ARE YOU GOING TO CREATE BY JUST ELEMANATING THE SPORTFISHERMAN, AND NOT ALL. YES YOU HAVE TO START SOME WHERE,BUT BY NOT TAKING CARE OF THE REAL PROBLEM ITS JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFOR THE SPORSMAN WON'T EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT, I BELIEVE A GOOD PERCENTAGE ALREADY PRACTICE CATCH & RELEASE

How does imposing catch and release restrictions on Wild steelhead state wide eliminate sportsman...it just leaves a lot of room in the freezer for Brats,come on guys look at the big picture here.

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

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

MAYBE I WORDED IT WRONG, LIKE I SAID A GOOD %OF SPORTSMEN ALREADY PRACTICE CATCH AND RELEASE AND A STATE WIDE BAN ON NATES WOULD BE GOOD BUT UNLESS YOU BAN THE NETS NOTHING HAS CHANGED TO TO ANY DEGREE

I agree a small percentage of sportsman practice C&R but there are still the ones that beleive if the state says it's ok then they will keep nates...I agree that NETS ARE A MAJOR PROBLEM both commercial and Indians all you can do is you're part for now... short of dropping a hay bale off you're boat( I would never recomend this...not yet )

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

Doug, first stop screaming! What are your suggestions? You are staing that this isn't a place to start, well where should we? I would gladly pay more for a catch and release lic. for nates. I don't know what the catch stats for nates was state wide the last season but I'll be it was more than 10,000 fish that would be or have spawned by now.

thick

If the Commission believed that such a rule would eliminate anglers, there is no way they would entertain it. Steelhead anglers don't have much clout, but we do shell out each year for our cards. If this revenue were eliminated in an already resource poor budget, it would be counterproductive. This stance is banking on the notion that most steelheaders would welcome or not mind such a rule and continue to buy licenses and use available fishing opportunities.

Although a lot of anglers fish native release year-round, there are still a lot of nates bonked. You can see this particularly on streams that have early native keep seasons like the Green and Sky. The run comes in during March and April after the rivers go C&R or close. The gene pool of early arriving nates has been severely diminished. With year-round native release, it would be hoped that the nate runs will expand seasonally. I'd love to have to use line heavier than 8 lb test in December.

Essentially anglers and tribes are the only users of steelhead (not including by-catch by commercials). If one of the users no longer harvests, conservatin and restoration concerns can put additional pressure on the remaining harvester (tribes). This is why the tribes were against I-696 even though it didn't affect them. I believe year-round C&R can have positive affects on the remaining steps that need to be taken to restore wild steelhead populations.

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

I agree with all posts except the SHORTSIGHTEDNESS (AND YELLING) OF DK's posts. Large numbers of sportfishers are very capable of putting a significant impact on native steelhead runs if allowed to (and unfortunately, guys willing to bonk nates if the reg.s allow are NOT in short supply). That's why the ODFW put in C&R on nates state wide in Oregon a few years ago; and it has been accepted by sportsmen and is HELPING to recover nate populations. For those (such as DK & Plunker) that try to sell the ludicrous premise that since other factors are killing more of the nates then why not let us bonk many of the remaining numbers is appalling. It could make the difference of run survival by allowing as many nates that make it back thru the other negative factors (seemingly beyond our control) to propogate! Pull your heads out of the sand and "do the right thing"! - Steve

Obsessed & reel truth,
It's good to see your point of view. Time has come for the State of Washington to implement C&R on all wild Steelhead. My hats off to the commission if this is true.
After years of being down on Native American netting of Wild Steelhead I've come to realize that State wide we sportsmen probably kill as many wild fish or close to it as the Natives kill. How can we get them to think differently if we sportsmen are killing so many fish state wide. There is hope that more tribes will pick up on the fish trap idea, (some are looking into it).
IF we could get sportsmen and Native Americans to stop the killing and the fish did not return in strong runs then identifying where the problems lay would be so much more easy to find.
One more note: Years ago in Montana many of the rivers went catch & release, there was a lot of yelling by many but soon after the yelling stoped and fishing became better than it had been for 30 years.

It's about time. Now let's all send let the commission know that we're behind them on this one.

(And Doug, writing in ALL CAPS is equivalent to SHOUTING on these bulletin boards and in email. I see you're a smolt, so we should give you the benefit of the doubt.)

sorry didn't realize it ment i was yelling Im not saying i don't support catch & release, and insight of the shortsightedness that's why i'm on this board talking about it trying to gain info and never once said its ok to bonk any remaining nates

being as tho i am also fairly new to steelheading it was my understanding keeping nates was dead wrong, and thought 99.9% of sportsmen practiced catch & release thats why i didn't think the sportsman was a big issue guess i was wrong,

I do not mind the C&R of nates I have done so with out being told to do so. This may be a starting point. I do not want to see it stop with the sportfishermen. Talk to me about nets and the native american fishing also. Fair is fair. If we all go in to this with the same type of thinking it will go a long way. Tell me what type of follow up will be done as far as the nets go. I believe that all of us sport fishermen want to see what is good for the fish but we still want to be able to go get some table fair when needed. If this means makeing the season shorter for us it falls short of a good idea. Give us something like (no more nates but we will put 10,000 more hatchery fish in the river for you ) and I think I will support this. Give me a good reason. I like to fish and I will put my full support behind what I belive in. Give me a good reason that has been thought out and I will give my full support.
KEEP THE RIVERS CLEAN!!

------------------
dank

The fact is that way more people kill wild fish than will admit it. I think that letting them live at your level is the least you can do if you actually care about the future of your sport... I'm not gonna stop if they don't make them stop sort of attitude is going to be the end of it all.. Thats not addressed at any of you but the subject as a whole.

It won't be easy. The real reason our goverment won't pull their heads out and fix it is because of all the poop they will have to comb out of their hair.

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.

Sloth ... more wild fish are taken from both the Quillayute and Hoh systems compared to their hatchery counterparts ... 'nuf said!

You can put all the blame on corporate polluters, tribal netting, etc. but what good does it do when you bonk a nate that has made it past the nets and pollution?

NO GOOD AT ALL!!

As for you, aestrolab, you have a right granted by the state to retain wild steelhead but that doesn't mean it is ethical. You may not feel guilty now, but when there are two wild steelhead remaining statewide and they are both males, then you can thank yourself for adding to the demise. The expression two wrongs don't make a right comes into play here. It's bad enough that nonsportsmen are killing off the wild steelhead so why should the sportsmen make it any worse than it already is?

Life is short...fish hard and release wild steelhead!!!

Admittedly, it's a small thing compared to habitat destruction, pollution, incidental commercial harvest, dams and all the other obstacles that a wild steelhead has to overcome but, that said, it is still something that we can all do that will contribute to the welfare of these fish. In my forty-five years of steelhead fishing I certainly never thought that things would come down to the situation that we are facing today. I would hope that some day there would be enough wild steelhead in the rivers to even allow some harvest by the sportsman, but I don't expect to see that again in my lifetime. If you favor catch-and-release for wild steelhead, PLEASE write the Commission and the Director and make your feelings known.

Well said Preston. Give these fish the chance they deserve, "Let them go, so they can reproduce". I think if every angler released Wild Fish, we would see an improvement that would build up year after year. thanks

Would going to statewide CNR just be the bell tolling for our wild fish? Is it just a stop gap measure? Not that I am not in favor of it, but if runs continue to decline in ALOT of systems, where is the next step? Remember it is VERY typical to not plan very far ahead in the management of fisheries. C

I vote for the C&R fishing on all native steelhead and have wanted it for a long time. Question if our take decreases by x amount does the native americans? We also have to seperate native and planted fish.
Ask your congress person to make fin clipping of planted fish mandatory!

Personal use wild steelhead fisherman? Describing wild steelhead as a "culinary delight"? Feel good morality? Excess wild escsapement on the Skagit? Why are the wild fish that are in the river in December any less imortant then the wild fish that are in the river in March? I will never understand your thinking, the only thing i can come up with is that you just flat don't want to change your way of doin things in a world that is changin in a way that is hurting fish runs (alot more people movin here). I know you have your little justifications all lined up but it just seems like you like to kill wild steelhead, which might not be very healthy for them. C

Just like the Nike Ad. "JUST DO IT"

Hey aestrolab,

Your position makes a lot of sense. If you can't stop an Exxon Valdez, then you might as well keep pouring your used motor oil down storm drains, right?

And if farmers keep using fertilizer, then we might as well keep on dumping chemicals out on the logging roads illegally.

And if I can't stop using electricity altogether, then we might as well dam up every bit of flowing water in the state, right?

And, if all environmental factors hampering fish returns aren't addressed, then we might as well bonk as many nates as we can, right?

Gee, aestrolab, the level of genious expressed in your post in overwhelming. I'm sure Stephen Hawking is shaking in his boots knowing the level of intelligence you possess.

If you go to nwfishing.com you can find other brainiacs that will tell you how smart you are. We hypocrites here will just tell you that your case of rectal-cranial inversion has reached the critical stage.....

Fish on........

It has really reached overload status ,must be heat stroke

Thank you, Dan S., I could not have put it better myself.

I'd love to stay and chat but I have wild fish to catch and release.

Life is short...fish hard!!!

OK, I've seen a arguments listed here and just to get my 2 cents in. (1) Is the commission doing this as a precursor to ESA or is just a way of applying a one size fits all rubber stamp to the entire state? (2) The last NATE I bonked was '88 and is hanging on the wall at home. I belive in C&R of native or wild fish (salmonids)no matter what the species. But I do feel that if a stream has some harvestable NATES that a mechinism be in place for retaining one or two. I know that mounts can be made from measurements taken at stream side and from the pictures one takes (reproductions) but to have a mount for the rest of your life with the skin and fins that are real and reflect back to that day and the battle and so on is what keeps me going. Yes there are a lot of problems with the state of our nat. resources. We all must take steps to correct past wrongs and if releasing nates is one way I'm for it if the science backs it up. I agree that forestry, agriculture, development, counties & cities and as well all fishers must get on with saving habitat, clean water and so on and so on. Butt quit pointing fingers and whinning. We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. I vote for the second. I'm not sitting on the fence, I just belive in knowing the whole story before forming an opinon. And before I can critisize I best be able to offer a solution that CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
p.s.

------------------

Rod n Reel,

I don't believe there has been a reported reason for this 'rumor' that the Commission is considering State-wide C&R. However, I would say I doubt its in response to any ESA pressure. ESA would list fish by watershed or "Evolutionary Units" so it wouldn't make any sense to consider State-wide C&R for wild steelhead since run health varies from severely depressed to healthy depending upon the river.

The problem I see with many (most?) runs is that current management models appear inadequate to maintain a sustainable run size year after year with the current level of tribal and recreational fishing effort. The success that both Oregon and Canada has had with its State (Province) wide C&R also provides some evidence that this would be a wise policy. The fact that no tribal netting occurs to the north and south of us also indicates how conservative harvest policies have to be to maintain sustainable populations of wild steelhead. And we have a larger population, so stress our streams even more than to the north or south.

I believe we could have a C&K fishery for wild steelhead only if we have adequate resources to collect the data necessary to accurately forecast runs. In addition, I believe a higher than current level of enforcement is necessary to enforce the inevitable reach and time closures that would be necessary on C&K streams to allow fish to spawn.

Bottom line boils down to $$$. If we haven't got enough to gather the information needed to manage the fishery at a sustainable level, we need to be conservative. Oregon and Canada are already more conservative than us and they have smaller populations, less total development, and no Tribal fisheries.

Aestrolab

Your environmental awareness and the actions you commit to are admirable, but I don't agree with your apparent point. Just because you recycle does not make up for bonking a nate for the table. I'm sure you score higher on the environmental score sheet than most people, but we're not talking about the environment as a whole; we're talking about the catch and release of native steelhead. Its a complex issue that you seem to have whittled down to: a)its legal on some streams during some periods, so I'm gonna do it, and b)I'm an environmentally proactive person, so I deserve to do it.

Whether this State goes C&R isn't an ethical issue or a moral issue or a trophy fish issue. Its a decision that may have substantial effects on whether a species of wild fish will survive in this State. Sure there are disagreements regarding whether C&R would be necessary to ensure the fish's survival, but what is not in doubt is the state of the science. Our resouce agencies have neither the data, financial resources to collect the data, or enforcement resources to enforce harvest rules, to properly manage wild steelhead runs. Given the lack of information, and the fact that State-wide C&R works in Oregon and Canada (and Idaho?),it appears to be a worthy policy option for this state.

You mention the dead or alive discard of by-catch by commericials. Again, whats your point? Incidental catch by commercial fisheries is unfortunate, and management strategies need to address it. One more thing, the 'hundreds of thousands' you mention may include all salmonids from the entire north Pacific Ocean, but not northwest steelhead. At that rate of by-catch, there would be no steelhead left.

Let me provide you with a relevant side-line. I recently read of Canadian research results on steelhead populations on several remote streams on Vancouver Island. These streams receive little fishing pressure (and are C&R anyway), but because of poor ocean survival conditions during the 90s, ocean survival has decreased from 12 percent to 2 percent. Scientists state that an ocean survival rate of 3.5 percent is necessary for the run to sustain itself.

These are streams with no C&K fisheries, no hatchery fisheries, and virtually no urban or agricultural development or logging to muck up the streams, and yet survival is falling to unsustainable levels during some years. The poor ocean conditions may be a natural oecanographic cycle, but may also be influenced by greenhouse gases, its really not known. Should we all take metro...sure, every little thing will help. But taking the bus to work doesn't provide me the right to bonk a nate in overfished, over developed Washington streams at their present population levels.

Hey aestro,

Being a little presumptuous aren't you? Don't assume you know how I conduct my life to make my impact on the world as small as possible. You don't know me or any actions I take.

What I DO KNOW is your position is ridiculous. What does incidental by-catch have to do with my actions on the river? The changes I can make now will help any nate that I happen to catch. Your hot-air approach won't stop the by-catch, AND you're still killing nates. Doesn't make sense.

Do you figure you DESERVE to kill nates because of your squeaky-clean living? Or maybe everyone else should clean up their act FIRST, and then YOU might decide to stop bonking nates? Nice approach.

For a guy who appears to care about the world in which you live, you seem awfully self-centered. Well, the by-catch, polluting, fertilizers, dams, etc aren't going to stop any time soon. You could stop bonking nates today, and then your impact on the nates would be minimized. But, if you want to keep up with all the rest of the native-killing crowd, then bonk away, my intellectually challenged friend..........


Fish on............

To bonk a native,first one must catch a native...sounds alot like son of a Plunker

My apologies for 'blatently lying' about Oregon steelhead policies. Under the Special Regulations section of the Oregon Fishing Regulations it states that only fin-clipped steelhead may be retained in the State of Oregon. However, an exception to this rule is made in 2 rivers (as far as I can tell), the North Umpqua and the Rogue, in which 5 nates per year may be kept.

I mis-represented Oregon by stating it was State-wide C&R, but not by much.

There is a lot of good information on this topic, and in some cases my eyes have been opened in certain aspects of C&R.

I would say that I am not in support of statewide regulations for native catch and release, but I am a fisherman and know the rivers in my area have been badly depleted of steelhead and salmon (wild and hatchery). Generally, I release native steelhead; but it's not mandated in the river I most often fish.

I do believe if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem; but this is a HUGE problem for sport fishermen.

I do question, since I-696 was on the ballot, that this may be a step to gain a win for that issue at a later date; as Washington often follows California in conservation regulations. Now, there is still a larger issue that not everyone sees. Even Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are not in full support of banning of offshore commercial fishing off the coast of Washington because that would cause there assualt on the timber industry (logging is destroying the salmon/steelhead habitat) to suffer a humiliating defeat. If commercial fishing is banned offshore in Washington, the runs will become far stronger and the "evil" loggers will be exonerated from the blame of destroying the habitat.

There are a lot of bigheads at work on this. My question is "are we stuck". Is our once joyful fishing experiences now doomed to become that of the modern firearm deer hunter in NW Washington. Going out among the threaded masses of bloodthirsty backstabbers in hopes of getting some needlehorned spike out from under all the rest of the "sportsman" in fear of someone coming along, while the animal is being gutted, and threating the life of the one who rightfully killed the animal if he doesn't turn it over?
What is our end?

I may sound like the prophet of doom, but it looks bad for the sport of fishing through my eyes. We, as sport fishermen, may be part of the problem - a small part.

I am not saying do nothing. I am saying that all we can do is let the managers of our fish and game hear our voices at how unhappy we are with their poor, no less than poor - PATHETIC skills at managing something they claimed they could and when all goes into a tailspin pointing their fingers at everyone else and saying "It was them - It was them - It was them".

I conclude:
The problem is the management
Let THEM know it!



[This message has been edited by RevR (edited 06-08-2000).]