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).]