Native Kill Fishery

[Fast Water]

I just read a brief article in the latest STS regarding a current debate on whether to allow a limited kill fishery of native Steelhead ( 1 per day / 5 per year ) on SW Oregon costal rivers in favor of establishing hatchery programs on these rivers. I'm sure there is economical factor regarding the building of hatcheries but the article said the real risk is the hatchery ( program to the native population?).

I would like to hear some opinions on this and whether you would support additional hatchery programs or a limited native kill fishery on the SW Coastal rivers.

[blackdog]

uh-oh, here we go! :wink:

[lost_sailor]

Sounds like bad craziness. But I don't have any FACTS.

My $.02 is: I would never support killing natives to keep hatcheries in business. I prefer restoring natives to put hatcheries OUT of business.

On the other hand, if the native population is healthy enough to withstand harvest - that's great news. Bonk bonk on the head! I DOUBT IT!

[ 11-27-2002, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

[Miss B Haven]

D-oh - Let's see, we're going to close the Hatcheries on the 28th of January if we don't get taxed some more, so we should wipe out some Natives and spend tax dollars to replace with Expnsive Hatchery fish so we can shut that down too! Do I have this right? :whazzup:
What genious thought this up? graemlins/stupid.gif :hoboy:

[Fast Water]

Here is the article as it appears in the latest STS:

Native Fish Society Supports A Kill Fishery
On Wild Steelhead On Oregon’s SW
Coastal Rivers

Russ Stauff, district biologist from Gold Beach for ODFW, contacted NFS for support of a rule change that would allow a harvest of one Steelhead per day and five per year on SW coastal rivers. The proposal was made because the wild Steelhead , based on ODFW surveys, are healthy and have strong runs. However, some anglers on the SW coast are eager to kill Steelhead and find the catch and release regulations there an impediment to a satisfying day on the water. Somehow, Steelhead fishing just isn’t what it should be unless the angler can “reduce a fish to possession.” In an effort to get a kill fishery on Steelhead there is a ground swell for starting up hatchery programs on these streams to provide a fishery.

The Native Fish Society, Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited, and Oregon Trout, have supported a kill fishery on wild Steelhead if the runs can sustain a limited kill without causing harm to the runs. We took this position because starting up a hatchery program to provide fish for harvest carries more risk to these wild population than a kill fishery that is base on run health. So to stop local support for a hatchery program on these rivers, we supported the departments proposal for a limited fish kill of wild Steelhead. In addition, to our concerns about adding hatchery risk to these streams, we want to develop a concept among fishermen that the quality of their sport fishery resides not with the hatchery programs, but with the protection of wild Steelhead populations and their habitats. It’s like informing kids that milk doesn’t come from stores but from cows. We also asked the ODFW commission to place these streams off limits to hatchery development, but as one commissioner to us: “We didn’t want to raise that fly.”

[ 11-27-2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Fast Water ]

[Miss B Haven]

This reads different now (they are trying to avoid the hatcheries). Limited take on Native is what we should all be wishing for (and NO hatcheries at all) If the runs could be maintained at healthy levels and the keep rate satisfied. Man - that's one big dang IF though! graemlins/1zhelp.gif

[GutshotApe]

The idea should work if fishing pressure stays the same and doesn't increase markedly. If hoardes of Metro-area anglers make the trek to SW Oregon so they can take a couple of wild fish, that would change the equation, I'd imagine.

[Great Dane]

As I understand the situation, there should be no real problems in allowing for a limited harvest in rivers with healthy steelhead runs. From my professional experience I must agree that putting in hatcheries in more rivers is like ******* in your pants to keep warm during winter. In our rivers anglers are allowed to harvest up to 70% of the salmon runs and then there is also a limited commercial fishery for salmon along the coasts. Even a high harvest seems to be a smaller problem for the populations than the destruction of habitat, so I think rivers with a good run of steelhead can handle a harvest of 1-5 fish/person annually.
To me it is obvious that the predation on smolts from caspian terns, cormorants and seals in the estuaries is a much more important factor for determining the size of a run. I have seen up to 40% of the migrating smolts being eaten by birds within the first few days after sea-entry. Luckily these predators have an easier game with hatchery fish, but they do eat vast numbers of natives too.

[Fishbulb]

As long as the population is strong enough and the data from Gold beach is reviewed by other department personnel outside the area( just to make sure local pressures aren't clouding someones judgement). Get a real creel program in place to monitor/evaluated harvest and you are off to the races. Native populations should not be reserved only for C&R anglers if take fisheries can be sustained. I would like to see a similar senario on the mainstem Nehalem if that population is strong enough. I wouldn't mind it if I could only keep one a year from the basin. Bonky, Bonky.

[Dragfreedrift]

the wild fish on those rivers should never be harvested in my view. Just because we've had a few good years, everyone thinks we can start taking more fish.....stupid if you ask me.

Keep it how it was!!!

CATCH AND RELEASE!!!

HC

[TheRogue]

Just because we've had a few good years, everyone thinks we can start taking more fish.....stupid if you ask me.

Keep it how it was!!!
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">But that's just it, and what you're not listening to!!! It hasn't just been "a few good years" down there, it's been a few good DECADES!! Up until a few years ago, it WASN'T catch and release, and the only reason it changed was NOT biological, it was social!! ODFW was against the C&R regs on the South Coast, but were forced into it by the feds.

TR

[rob allen]

How about neither!! Not every fishery has to be consumptive!!!!

[Kaptn Ken]

Hhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm graemlins/idea.gif

[KingFisher85]

Lets just keep it the way it is. Release all wild fish.

[Fishbulb]

A fishery by definition is consumptive, C&K or C&R. Catch and release fisheries still result in fish handle. No matter how well fish are treated some fish are taken out of the gene pool making this act consumptive.

[rob allen]

fish bulb true but the best available science shows a very low mortality when the proper technique of fishing and releasing is used. somewhere around 3%

The studueswith higher figures all come from canada, are involved in plunking for coho with bait and mortality is directly related to how and where the fish was hooked usually deep where vital organs were damaged.
In my opinion the people using this study to combat catch and release regulations are just throwing up a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the idea that catch and release fisheries WORK!!!! they sustain viable populations and allow a sport fishery.

As far as killing steelhead goes there are soooooo many hatchery fish in our rivers just take home some of them.. there is no reason to kill wild ones.. Hell even the bass fishermen figured that one out.

[rebell]

let's all think about this for a minute. They want a limited catch and kill fishery on wild steelhead to support a fishery instead of introducing hatchery fish.

So here on the north coast we take fish out of a depleted wild stock to make hatchery fish for a catch and kill fishery.

Now you all know why I do not support a wild broodstock program.

Please tell me if I am missing something here.

[Bill Monroe]

Rebell,

You're not missing, you're just not carrying it quite far enough...the broodstock programs are designed to save both hatchery and wild fish by accommodating the straying rates of hatchery fish...if they stray back into their own ancestry, the hypothesis says that's an ok mitigation...And the wild fish being taken to seed the program are a pittance of the wild runs (especially in the past couple of years).

On relatively clean south coast streams, there's nothing wrong with a catch-and-kill fishery...especially such a limited one. The habitat supports it and, in fact, it's the model for everything happening everywhere else...and as such we should all support and participate such a concept...

It's highly unlikely our streams (in the north) would support total non-hatchery wild runs no matter how clean they get simply because of the sheer volume of anglers...south coast rivers are tougher to get to and have less pressure, especially the steelhead streams.

Still, it's certainly a target worth aiming at and, in fact, the only legitimate reason I can think of to decrease hatchery programs.

If we had clean enough water on the north coast and the valley, we could offer a blend of hatchery surplus tag fish and wild one-and-five kill programs as well...

That's ideal...and I still think possible.

(Buzz Ramsey had a good idea years ago, but it never got off the runway...he thought the state should sell special trophy steelhead tags for special fish...)

[bigfishon]

Give both Salmon and Steelhead a better chance to migrate and spawn. Make an open season on "seals" from Jan 1st to Dec 31st with no bag limit at any time. Get rid of these useless fish killing varmits. I have seen the damage they can do in a short time, it seems as though they never get full and all they eat is the guts. What good are these varmits? I say kill them all (extinction is part of evolution). Let the touroids go to California to look at worthless varmits, we don't need the varmits or the touroids.

[rob allen]

bigfishon I respectfully disagree the damage seals so to salmon population is nothing when compared to the damage humans do..

As I said before we have millions of hatchery fish and maybe 100,000 wild steelhead statewide.. it's a no brainer don't kill the wild ones period!!!!!!!!

[boater]

rob, would you please answer a question that has been bugging me for a long time? here goes, since there are so many hatchery fish then why is there any reason to have targeted cnr seasons on wild fish when you know for a fact that it kills some of them, you just stated above it's a no brainer don't kill the wild ones period!!!!!!!! i would take that as saying you dont want "any" killed ???

[Fast Water]

Bigfishon,

Extinction is a NATURAL part of evolution.
Slaughtering mammals is not.

Sea Lions have been munching on Salmon and Steelhead for a thousands of years. That's just the way it goes.

[ 11-27-2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Fast Water ]

[Flatfish]

The broodstock program is there for the guides to sell a kill fishery to their clients. And for the weekend warriors to have the "Opportunity" to kill a fish later in the season. I can see the Nestucca already, hundreds of boats a week, all pulling diver and bait, which is lethal to all fish who play,during the peak of the wild run. Great thinkers all. unless there is a total bait ban, those slobs will kill more nates than they "save". Gimme a break, I like to fish. I do not NEED to kill a fish to justify a trip. It is clear that I am a minority. Tiny men.
Don't think I'm right? Go look at the Wilson in mid March. Tiny men.
Mark and the dog.

[ 11-28-2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

[SandySteel]

Catch and release fishing is like golfing. You don't have to eat the golf balls to have a good time. I practice catch and release fishing and I feel strongly about using it as a tool to help continue to build wild runs.

At the same time I don't mind catching and killing fish after all, we don't have any other outdoor activity where harrassment of wildlife is an acceptable behavior. When you come down to it that's all that catch and release fishing is anyway. Fishing is supposed to be consumptive just by the very nature of it.

----catch and release bird watching---- lasso a bird or hook it with bait---- drag it in, get a picture of you with the bird---pet it, kiss it-- set it free---"aren't we great sportsmen to let it continue to live?"---"was that a hatchery bird or native?"

The limited amount of kill on the river combined with the strength of the runs makes this OK in my mind. If they manage it well it is better than having hatcheries.

Remember, hatcheries were placed on our rivers for one simple reason; mitigation of environmental damage to habitat. I don't think they are as destructive as some make them out to be especially now that we have broodstock programs and carcass plantings going on. However, it is silly to use a hatchery program for a stream simply so that we can have a consumptive fishery when the habitat is intact. In fact I could see where the establishment of a hatchery could lead to the allowance of habitat destruction in the future.

[TideRunner]

I cannot believe *** has not chimed in.... :wink:

[STGRule]

Fast Water: Amen. We don't need to be messing with what has been for a few thousand years so we can kill something we don't even need to survive.
SandySteel: Good points!

[ 11-27-2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Joe]

The regulations for the North Umpqua currently allow for 5 wild fish to be harvested each year. I believe it always has been this way and the population has never een endangered.

I am all for allowing a small harvest of wild fish if there is a fishery taking place. I really hate to have to release a fish I feel is going to die anyhow. I think you should get at least one or two spots on your tag for such cases. For me it is only ocean coho I've ever had that problem with since I don't ever target C&R only fisheries.

It is funny how the anti-hatchery folks ( mentioned in article) changed there tune on this one to attempt to reach their goals. First in an attempt to block broodstock programs they screamed that there were not enough wild fish to take 50 fish out of the system for broodstock. Then once that didn't work they just decide "Heck there are enough wild fish to just have a kill fishery on them" what do we need hatcheries for. :rolleyes:

[Keta]

The costal natives killed and ate seals and sealions before idiots and the Marine Mammal Protection Act created an over population of them. Now only white sharks control their numbers.

[rob allen]

boater.. as I stated earlier catch and release mortality is based on where and how the fish is hooked and the temp of the water and how the fish is handled.

I got no problems not allowing a fishery to take place on wild runs in fact I advocate such closures on my home rivers.
I just think it's stupid to think that just because there are fish there that we should kill them.. That is the exact mentality that has lead to our runs declining throughout the rest of the region.

Like it or not catch and release WORKS!!! it sustains almost all the world class fisheries in the world. and No where has catch and release mortality ever caused the destruction of a fishery.

the whole catch and release mortality is just a smokescreen because people want to kill fish.. nothing more nothing less..

we have more than enough hatchery fish all over the state there in NO reason to kill wild ones other than pure greed.. Southern oregon rivers should have wild steelhead release and no new hatchery programs period!

[Bill Monroe]

A little perspective here you won't get from the NFS or OT...

This proposed rule merely re-instates a long-standing harvest regulation that was pulled a few years ago as the wild fish arguments heated up about the same time as El Nino...

We fished down there for years on a one and five...maybe it was two and ten or something...
It worked just fine.
One of the problems in January...I think...is that the Elk River hatchery could go on the line, too...

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Cute TideRunner, cute. :tongue:

Sometimes the best part of discussing an issue is listening. graemlins/lurk.gif

This topic has several deep-seated issues embedded within that do not lend themselves to simple reasoning or explanation. I know how ODFW is tackling this moral dilemma, but I am more curious how we as fishermen see this. :wink:

[Stew]

My personal opinion may differ with OT or NFS but I have made a commitment to never kill a native steelhead. Now obviously there are native salmon being killed on the coast but these fish were not endangered in the first place unlike native steelhead and coho.
Just my personal belief on this and for me I would hate to see it.

[Stew]

So here on the north coast we take fish out of a depleted wild stock to make hatchery fish for a catch and kill fishery.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">If I'm not mistaken rebell these broodstock fish are live spawned and then returned to the river.
What really impresses me about this thread and you folks is that we can have differences of opinion and remain civil. graemlins/applause.gif
both sides have made some very good points.

[ 11-28-2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Shane S ]

[TheRogue]

I have made a commitment to never kill a native steelhead. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Good for you, Shane!! http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

But I'm pretty sure there's nothing that says anyone HAS to kill the fish they catch, is there?? There won't be a mad rush to the South Coast to kill nates.

Bill's right...the only reason it changed a few years ago was pressure by the NO-KILL-NATIVE fish groups, backed by the Clinton Administration NMFS.

Good for ODFW!!

So flame away!!

TR

PS.....Won't affect me too much, because I probably wouldn't take a wild fish unless it was bleeding bad, or just so durn big I couldn't pass (30lber??).

[willierower]

Have any of you ever fished the S. Coast for Steelhead? I grew up fishing the rivers the article described. The runs can sustain a limited kill fishery. 1 fish per day and 5 per year isnt much. Those streams recieve barely any pressure compared to some of the central and north coast streams so the actual numbers of fishing being killed would be low.

[Fishbulb]

3% is a consumptive fishery. Anything above 0% is consumptive. If a population can withstand 3% mortality on fish handled there is a level at which it can stand a C&K on fish handled also. The way the rules currently work a population could be smaller than is needed to sustain itself and you still could have a consumptive C&R fishery taking place. Keep the hatchery out of there in the first place and manage the fishery with on the ground field staff. Estimate a harvest and close it down if it gets to large.

[TheRogue]

As far as killing steelhead goes there are soooooo many hatchery fish in our rivers just take home some of them.. there is no reason to kill wild ones.. Hell even the bass fishermen figured that one out. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I've asked you before, Rob...at what point are there "enough wild ones" to justify a C&E fishery?? Especially in a large, remote area with very good stream habitat with small hatchery supplementation(compared to the North Coast). And, on top of that, who should we trust most to make that decision, biologists on the ground in the area, NMFS biologists in San Francisco, or "armchair quarterbacks" in the Metro area who have never even spent a winter on the South Coast pursuing the fish??

I enjoy C&R fishing on nates up here, I don't have a problem with it. But someone on this board is being incredibly hypocritical when they say such things as:
As I said before we have millions of hatchery fish and maybe 100,000 wild steelhead statewide.. it's a no brainer don't kill the wild ones period!!!!!!!! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv"> How about neither!! Not every fishery has to be consumptive!!!! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">And then say something like:
the best available science shows a very low mortality when the proper technique of fishing and releasing is used. somewhere around 3% <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Apparently, in your mind, your 3% that you quoted isn't REALLY killing the fish, because you didn't try to kill them??

I will always applaud the efforts of anyone who supports C&R, and does what they can to benefit wild fish. However, when that goes to the point of making them the exclusive domain of the C&R fisher, even when biology supports a limited C&K fishery, I will respectfully disagree.

I thought the goal was to NOT have hatchery bred fish, and have healthy, sustainable runs of native fish?? :whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup:

TR

Good discussion, as usual, with a learned bunch of people!! http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

[Jennie@ifish]

I understand their viewpoint, but... I found this quote offensive. I don't have my magazine with me, but it stated something like this:

"It is like explaining to kids that milk comes from a cow, not from the store".

First off, the article did not mention the name of who said that. The article is full of quotes, but with no mention of who from???

I'm confused, and if people are going to make statements like that, wouldn't it add credibility if they were to name names??? Are they afraid to, or was the article just carelessly written?

Jen

[rob allen]

The Rogue:

In Oregon Washington Idaho and California there should never be a kill fishery on wild steelhead ever again. Why: because we have soooooo many hatchery fish.. There is no need for anyone to kill a wild fish ever! What i am saying is that there are so many hatchery fish that it will never again be justifiable to kill wild ones.. That should answer your question plainly and simply.
I can see how you'd come up with me being hypocritical about the catch and release mortality however on the other quotes i don't see how they are. If you'd read a little closer i am not necessarily advocating catch and release fisheries for Oregons southern coast. What I am suggesting is that no catch and kill fishery should take place and no new hatchery programs should be established there.. Why does it have to be either or?? Why can't we have one part of the state where "healthy" runs of wild fish are just left the hell alone?

As for 3% mortality.. Given as to how the fish are killed ( being hooked deep where vital organs were damaged) and given that I never ever hook fish deep i'd say that my own personal mortality is next to zero if not zero. All of the studies where delayed mortality was an issue is where the fish were handled beyond the angler catching and releasing the fish.

I suggest everyone look at the numbers of wild steelhead harvested from the rivers of the on the Oly Penn. The numbers are in the thousands and the runs are in decline. Mark my words the same will happen in Southern Oregon Just as harvest has lead to decline in EVERY!!!! other place where harvest of wild fish is allowed Why will southern oregon not suffer the same fate? Especially after GW clear cuts the wilderness area thereby creating easy access. ( sorry ignore that last comment)

My whole point is that with so many hatchery fish in all areas of the state there is absolutely no need to kill wild ones but with the lack of wild fish state wide there is every need to conserve what we have left. There has yet to be a single case of a sustainable wild steelhead harvest anywhere in the world!

[Fast Water]

Jen,

The article is under the Views and News section of the magazine and does not list the author.

Making an assumption here, the only person named in the article is Russ Stauff of the ODFW. Perhaps the quotes were his save for the last one made by an ODFW Commissioner.

It seems to be a news article written by a STS staffer though it does not say so.

[Straydog]

Hey guys, harvest of one wild winter steelhead has been legal on the Rogue for years and the runs are in good shape unless something has changed in the last 6 months.

I do not see a caravan of mad fish killers clogging I-5 from the North on New Years day when the 'official' winter steelhead run starts on the Rogue.

Further, since they made C&R the only legal technique on the Illinois River, the vast majority of LEGAL anglers stopped fishing there. Since there are few anglers, there is virtually no enforcement. Since there is virtually no enforcemnt only the real problem anglers fish there. My bet is that those with few branches in their family trees which inhabit much of Illinois Valley are killing more wild steelhead than there would be killed if legitimate anglers were down there for a one fish outing.

Also, on the C & R thing, we have more and more anglers persuing and scoring on summer and winter steelhead on flie gear. I have a friend that last winter was beside himself with glee over the 15LBER he 'brought to hand' on a spey rod on the Chetco. It took him 25 to 30 minutes to land the beast and he proudly released it 'unharmed'. Unharmed that is until the lactic acid kicked in and killed him a couple hours later probably..... :hoboy:

Going after these fish under- equiped is as deadly as going letting them swallow a sand shrimp in my mind.

[ 11-28-2002, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[rob allen]

About proper gear I agree straydog. for instance the 16lber I caught on the Babine was landed in under 15 minutes even though she took me 1/4 mile downstream.

As far as the CnR enforcment chooses not to patrol a river thats an enforcment problem not a regulation problem. Here in Washington I have not been checked by a game officer in 15+years i wish i got checked once or twice a day. I think enforcment where wild steelhead are concerned should border harassment.

[TheRogue]

In Oregon Washington Idaho and California there should never be a kill fishery on wild steelhead ever again. Why: because we have soooooo many hatchery fish.. There is no need for anyone to kill a wild fish ever! What i am saying is that there are so many hatchery fish that it will never again be justifiable to kill wild ones.. That should answer your question plainly and simply.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">So you're saying, after all the hatchery fish are gone down there, that it's too darn bad if the local doesn't have a fancy rig with lots of gas/hotel/food money to drive up to the mid/north coast to harvest a fish?? That's mighty sad, if that's what you're saying.

I suggest everyone look at the numbers of wild steelhead harvested from the rivers of the on the Oly Penn. The numbers are in the thousands and the runs are in decline. Mark my words the same will happen in Southern Oregon Just as harvest has lead to decline in EVERY!!!! other place where harvest of wild fish is allowed Why will southern oregon not suffer the same fate? Especially after GW clear cuts the wilderness area thereby creating easy access. ( sorry ignore that last comment)
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Rob, you're a very smart person, and many people on here are as well. Please don't insult me and yourself by blaming all the problems up there on civilian C&E fishing.....the tribal nets cause much of the damage there(on the netted rivers), and I would hope most of us realize it.

My whole point is that with so many hatchery fish in all areas of the state there is absolutely no need to kill wild ones but with the lack of wild fish state wide there is every need to conserve what we have left. There has yet to be a single case of a sustainable wild steelhead harvest anywhere in the world! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Please show the data that supports this, that refutes the ODFW position of long-term health of the South Coast native steelie runs with a limited C&K fishery.

TR

[rob allen]

The Rogue

I am not calling for a specific end to hatchery programs already in exsistence. What makes you think the hatchery fish in that area are going away? ( maybe there is something I don't know)

Also. If a guy cannot afford to drive 50 miles for a weekend then maybe he should be spening his money of something other than fishing. Steelhead fishing is expensive and if a guy can't afford to fish and feed his family he has no business being on the river to begin with and 20 dollars in gasoline isn't going to make that much difference especially when compared to the same money spent at the grocery store. Guys who are steelhead fishing are not doing so because they need to feed their families plain and simple.. They certainly are not going to feed their families on 5 fish a year. We have lots and lots of hatchery fish all over the state NO ONE needs to be harvesting wild ones for any reason.

Ok so in Southern Oregon you have something goin on that is not going on anywhere else in the entire world. A sport harvest of wild steelhead that doesn't impact the long term survival of the run.. OK how long will that last? It has never lasted anywhere else on the planet.

Also I suggest you compare tribal netting on the penn vs sport harvest on the penn. I think you'll find that in the official numbers far more wild fish are taken by sport fishers.

[Rock Stick or Fish]

Originally posted by Straydog:

Also, on the C & R thing, we have more and more anglers persuing and scoring on summer and winter steelhead on flie gear.

Going after these fish under- equiped is as deadly as going letting them swallow a sand shrimp in my mind.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">My fly leaders are the same weight as my drift leaders. Just because it is fly fishing doesn't mean that its under-equipped.

RSF

[rebell]

Shane s, I know that the fish are live spawned and released. My only complaint about the wild broodstock programs are that they are promoted by ODF&W as a program to enhance the number of fish that can be taken. Not once have I heard that it would be a better idea to release most of these broodstock returns.

The idea behind the broodstock program was to keep genetic purity. These fish would be able to spawn without mixing or hurting the purity of our wild runs.

I have nothing against hatchery fish, I just dont like the way our broodstock programs have been promoted. If the Steelheaders, ODF&W and other groups would promote these programs in a different light I would support it 100%. But I keep hearing that these are fish you can keep, nothing else............Why?

[rob allen]

Rebel: because killing fish is all that matters to ODFW... It's not a true fishery2 unless fish die.

[ 11-28-2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

[Dan Christopher]

i have not or ever will take a native steelhead home.If i have to catch and release all
day/year and never take a fish home all year so be it. I will still be fishing. :smile:

[Jennie@ifish]

Interesting, Rob. I don't know one person in Tillamook County that works for ODFW that shares the philosophy that you describe.

You should come on down and meet some of these folks and you'll see.

I can't speak for the folks in Portland, I don't know them, personally.

I have had several in depth conversations with local ODFW'ers and their love for the species is richly apparent... and it's not a love for their death.

Jen

[TheRogue]

Thank you for that reply to Rob, Jennie, I was going to respond just the same way.

Let's see, telling a South Coast local that he can't harvest a fish off the river that 3 generations of his family has been born and raised on because some Preseverationist Native Fish people say wild fish can't be harmed ANYWHERE, even though your local fish biologists, who are on the ground every day, say the populations are doing just peachy??

I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, but you'll have to drive to the Alsea River, spend the night at the local flophouse, and fish up there if you want to keep a fish. Why?? Oh, because the Portland Metro area thinks that's the way it should be.

And so many people wonder why Rural Oregon is constantly in conflict with the Willamette Valley/Portland Metro area. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

TR

[ 11-29-2002, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[rebell]

rob, I know that not to be a fact.

The broodstock programs are a good idea, I have alway's questioned the way they were promoted though.

Im an old Tillamook boy who grew up on the Wilson and remember a different day. I cherish and worship steelhead to a point that my wife thinks I need help.

Some may remember on a similar post a while back I stated that it would be better to enhance our wild stocks to a point that a limited catch and kill fishery would be fine. Again, I have nothing against hatcheries, I simply would like to see people look at our broodstock fish in a different light. graemlins/idea.gif

[Bill Monroe]

Just wanted to add one more interesting thought here...

I've been told that most Europeans aren't allowed to release trout...it's considered inhumane treatment of the fish.

In Britain, fishing in streams is so high-end that the general fishing public has turned to carp (that would be the guys who can't afford to drive more than 50 miles or rent a castle-by-the-river for the weekend).
They still pay a lot of money for high-tech equipment, use stealth, techniques, secret recipes, have favorite holes, zipperlip the best of their methods, etc...(is this sounding familiar?).
Only thing they do a little differently than we do is name their favorite big carp, some of which are legendary.

[Bill Monroe]

Oh, sorry, forgot to add that Britain's Atlantic salmon runs are mostly gone or in trouble and the trout waters dribbled to a few...when the public dropped out of the picture, my guess is there was little interest or pressure to maintain the habitat or fisheries.

And I didn't even get in to the day I spent guiding a visiting Chinese journalist on Tillamook Bay one fall...Back home, he said, he and his friends also like carp, but never have had trout fishing to compare it with. He belonged to a fishing club whose leased fishing pond was 300 miles from Peking. Every Saturday that his reservation came up, he got on a crowded bus at 2 a.m. for the one-day-and-back excursion.

Japanese hatcheries on Hokkaido pump billions of cherry and I believe chum salmon into the North Pacific. Until relatively recently, though, I don't believe the Japanese were allowed to sport fish for them, although some years ago, Buzz Ramsey told me his companies were starting to sell more gear there.

I'll bet more of you would know more about fishing in other parts of the world than I (and I'm not referring to the Kola or Kamchatka Penninsulas).

Bottom line is that we've really got things pretty good here, even in bad years. If the system needs a little tweaking now and then, well, let's tweak it.

But not so hard that it breaks.

[TheRogue]

Good thoughts and experiences, Bill!!

[Straydog]

Rock Stick or Fish,

I was not saying it is automatic that all fly fishers are underequiped and I am proud that you use the same leaders for fly and drift.

However, there is a whole lot more to it than leader test.

I feel very confident that if one were to compare the average landing time of a Steelhead angler using drift gear to that of one using fly gear, the fish hooked on drift gear would be brought to the bank much sooner than the fly guys.

Further, a point evidently missed by you but attempted to be made by the specific example I offered is that many fly fishers have the misconception that by simply using fly over bait they are not harming fish.

My example was of one instance where that was not true. My guess is that the same
scenario is played out often.

Not saying ALL fly fishers play fish to death, just more than drift fishers.

[ 11-29-2002, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[wallyw]

Can someone please explain how hatchery fish differ from "wild" fish?

[LOW WATER KILLER]

MY VIEW IS NEVER KILL WILD FISH !!!!! any one who has landed a hatchery steelhead then hooked a native knows what its all about . why would anyone want to futher damage our wild runs of fish !!!
ITS OUR CORE,its what i live for, like the 20plus native I lost on the willipa river in feb.2002 . this monster that snaped 12lb ultra green main 12lb leader on a 10-6" lamiglass and I thought my rod exploaded.this fish was not nice . he came out of the water and my bud yelled you got a salmon ,I just smiled and tryed to turn him . It sounded like a 22 going off. thats what its all about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A PIG

[Rock Stick or Fish]

Originally posted by Straydog:
[QB]Rock Stick or Fish,

Further, a point evidently missed by you but attempted to be made by the specific example I offered is that many fly fishers have the misconception that by simply using fly over bait they are not harming fish.
QB]<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Now that I think about it I can see that, it just seems so obvious that over playing the fish is bad for it that I didn't even consider that some people don't understand the concept.

Of course I'm fishing to bonk(metro area hatchery fish) and both the fish and I understand that its fighting for its life.

RSF

[Straydog]

RSF,

Yes, I am afraid as more people get into the sport, fly or otherwise, what once was deemed obvious becomes less so all the time.

Wallyw,

My experience is that if you are inclined to ask the question you did, you more than likely will not accept the answer.

To avoid stereotyping let me say wild fish are hardier and have the ability to produce healthier, hardier offspring that keep the cycle going.

If hatchery fish were able to reproduce healthy offspring at the same rate as wild fish, there would be many more streams that would no longer require hatchery planting. We do not see this happening in the big picture. Why? Simple. These fish do not succesfully reproduce sufficient numbers of surviving offspring to become self reliant in most cases.

[ 11-29-2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[rob allen]

The Rogue

You make good points and have a solid argument. However the steelhead in rural Oregon do not belong entirely to the people of rural Oregon. or even just to Oregonians or even just to humans. But since we are the ones who have to be stewards of these fish we have to make decisions.
Like all our natural resources in the northwest we have been VERY quick to overexploit our fish. Unfortunatly rural Oregon and Washington for that matter is going to have to shoulder the burden because thats where the best of what we have left is located. Is it fair? hell no of course not but it is in my opinion thats what we are going to have to do to save our natural resources.
I am sure you and many others will disagree and thats entirely understandable and i can accept that we might just have to agree to disagree.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Wallyw

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrfish/hatcheryfacts.htm
:smile:

[Fast Water]

Thanks for the link *** Clerk.

Good Stuff there.

:smile:

[boater]

anyone know how many runs of wild steelhead are in good shape in washington and oregon and usualy meet escapement ??

[rob allen]

Boater In Washington the number is theoretically 16. But that is based on old and false estimates that were set for MSY purposes. Of thoes 16 rivers all but 1 has had emergency closures to retaining steelhead over the last 5 years. So in actuality the number of steelhead rivers in Washington with healthy steelhead runs is 1. That being the Quilliute in other words the system that includes the Sol Duc, Bogie and Calawah.

for 1998

Bogie: 430 wild winter runs
Calawah: 144
Dickey 27
Quillaiute: 130
Sol Duc 703

for a total of over 1400 wild steelhead killed and reported in one river system in one season..

because of emergency closures on the Hoh Queets and the north puget sound rivers it is extremely likely that increased pressure has been put on this one river system though more current figures are not readily available ( at least to my knowledge). This also does not take into accont poaching which is prevelant in the very isolated region.

This harvest takes place because people are greedy. It's not enough that EVERY steelhead river in Washington state is pumped full of hatchery steelhead to kill these people feel the need to also kill the few remaining wild fish.

[ 11-29-2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

[boater]

rob, then why is there targeted cnr seasons on wild steelhead in rivers other than that one ?

[rob allen]

Boater there aren't! In case you missed it the last two years emergency regulations also closed catch and release fisheries.. The hoh and Queets remained open for hatchery steelhead harvest all of the Puget sound rivers closed at the end of Feb. The only rivers that remain open with wild steelhead release regs are ones that are open to the harvest of hatchery steelhead. Targeted catch and release wild steelhead fisheries have closed.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Boater

Washington is very different and very screwed up in how they decide if they will have a C&R season as well as determining minimum escapement levels. My understanding from listening to people at piscatorialpursuits.com is that WDFW allows C&R if the returns are 80% of minimum escapement. Less than 80% and it is closed to even C&R.
The way they decide their minimum escapement in the first place is not based on nutrient levels or healthy population levels with regards to genetics. It is some voodoo number crunching that has little to do with real world problems. As much as I like to pick on ODFW, WDFW is truly wacky.

There are several NMFS biologists who post at Bob’s board who have discussed this issue previously. Try a search there for answers

[boater]

thanks, i do believe there was a cnr season on the skagit and it was 83 percent, i will check bobs site for some info on how they figure the 83 percent.

[V. Green]

Never kill wild steelhead! There is no reason when most Oregon coastal rivers are planted with hatchery fish, even many South Coast streams.

I could be wrong that the Chetco, Elk, Coquille (sp?), Rouge, Appelgate, Coos, Umpqua, Suislaw and many other rivers do get plants of hatchery steelhead. *** Clerk could probably produce a list of hatchery plants on the South Coast.

Has it changed so much that they have quit releasing steelhead from the Rouge, Appelgate, Elk, Umpqua, Coquille, Suislaw Rivers & Randy Creek (others..) hatcheries? I think these are all South Coast to Central Coast streams. The North Coast has 5 non-Columbia river hatcheries (N. Nehalem, Trask, Nestucca, Salmon, & Alsea). The Columbia hatcheries (Claskanine River, Big & Gnat Cr.) are on such small streams that they really don't provide much of a fishery. How is the South Coast hatchery situation significantly different from the North Coast?

I agree with Rob Allen in that all wild fish should be released unharmed. Given the choice I would rather have a healthy C&R fishery over a declining C&K fishery.

As for flyfishing Straydog I take it that you have not tried it. I can land fish as fast or faster with a flyrod than with a casting or spinning rod. It really depends on whether you use the right equipment. I.E. the correct rod for the species, a good reel, appropriate leader & line. I personally use heavier gear when flyfishing for Salmon/Steelhead that when using conventional gear. Unforetunately the method doesn't determine the ability or knowledge of a fisher. Just go to the Kilches Logging Bridge hole and you will see the world's finest gear fishermen snagging fish and kicking them into the water, just upstream you will see both gear and flyfishers fishing for spawners. Sickening :mad:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

V. Green

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm27/appd.htm

[Straydog]

V Green,

I have fly fished for steelhead. Never had much luck getting big winter fish but have caught many half pounders and had a ball.

I was not talking about how you fish. I was not talking about how I fish. I was talking about how the average person fishes. That ever growing broad base of fishers and the varying degree of knowledge thay all have, fly or otherwise.

I used the fly guys because of the many, many that I have encountered over time, more in the last few years, that hold the belief that they are less harmful to our fisheries than bait guys simply because they fly fish. Many of them are under equiped and kill fish by over playing them. That is all I am saying.

I agree with the sickening sight of anyone snagging or harassing spawners and wading through redds or dragging an oar through redds. :mad:

[ 11-30-2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

Like most people, I like to bonk bright fish and I avoid catching and don't keep dark fish.

But just for the sake of discussion, what's the ecological difference between hooking, landing and bonking a chrome salmon in tidewater or hooking, landing and bonking the same salmon 2 months later a few miles up the creek on the spawning beds? Why is the former admirable but the latter reprehensible?

Whether its bright or dark, isn't the result the same - one less spawning fish? :whazzup:

[Straydog]

GSA,

You're right, the net result to the fish is the same. Dead and not spawning.

I see the difference to the human as the idea of killing a fish that will make excellent table fare and feed people a decent meal or three as opposed to killing a fish that is not worth eating an at that point is much more valuable if left to spawn.

[GutshotApe]

Yeah, people should not harass fish on the redds - especially if they're not going to eat 'em. However, some people do eat dark fish. It just seems somewhat incongruous to hear people congratulate someone for killing a bright fish but condemning others for killing a dark fish. Dead is dead.

Back when I was younger and just learning about steelhead I caught a nice 5 or 6 pounder from a lower Columbia trib in late February. It was bright so I bonked it and went home. When I gutted it I noticed there weren't any eggs or sperm - and it's vent was a little oversized. Hmm......... That fish had spawned :blush: . Oh well, might as well eat it and see what happens. While the flesh was a little paler than normal, it was still orange and didn't taste all that bad. In fact, it tasted pretty good to an otherwise starving college student getting by on $135/month. And I had no guilty feelings about killing a wild fish and ending its bloodline. :wink:

[Fishrite]

NEVER KILL A WILD STEELHEAD FOR ANY REASON!! If the runs are health, that means that we can catch and release more fish :smile: :smile:

[Fishrite]

NEVER KILL A WILD STEELHEAD FOR ANY REASON!! If the runs are healthy, that means that we can catch and release more fish :smile: :smile: