Sorry, I Don't Buy It!

[drifter]

Take a minute and look at the daily picture at www.olympicpeninsulafishing.com/dailypics.htm

Their Warning states that I should not be offended, since it was "the client's choice" to KILL this #20 Native Steelhead. Sorry, guys, but I am offended. I cannot believe that the guide business is so poor that you must KILL Native fish. Especially the biggest, strongest, Best of the Best. What about the future of your chosen profession?

I recommend that we pass the hat - take up a collection to give to these guys to supplement their income, so that they Can Do The Right Thing in the future.

Drifter.

[Jigman]

Kill the fish,kill the fishing! C&R 365 days a year on every river.....no exceptions!!!!!

------------------
www.rainbowjigs.com

[rob]

Doesn't make sense to kill your livelyhood.
One of the peninsula guides has stated on another website that some natives have to be killed to avoid having them overpopulate the rivers.
There's also a few washington guides doing a lot of name-calling and finger pointing on the same website. It's ok for a laugh, but these guys need to grow up.

[Hammer Bob]

I am sure we would all agree that overpopulation of our stream and river systems with native steelhead is a major concern to recreational anglers and fisheries managers. Why in the world would any fisherman on a guided trip bonk a fish which has already proven itself as a survivor of more than one spawning run? There are much mor economical ways of getting a fish dinner! The guides should be more proactive on this issue and explain to the client why this fish above all others should be released! I think you would get a lot more warm fuzzies gazing on the pic of that magnificent fish knowing that you released it rather than saying it made a hell of a BBQ! Just my HO and $.02 worth!

[This message has been edited by Hammer Bob (edited 02-09-2001).]

[boater]

i have seen those guides on the other forum too, what a bunch of jerks.

[Joe M]

Along with taking people out to catch some fish, some may not be as educated as many other people who realize how delicate certain fisheries can be, I believe that guides should not just let people catch fish, but for the benefit of everyone they should educate them on how important catch and release really is, and that if these clients enjoy catching fish, the guide should inform them that in order for another great fishing outing, C and release should seriously be stressed...

just my opinion...

[Joe]

That is a 20 pounder? I would guess around 12-14#. I am not trying to be particular, just bored.

[Spooled]

I agree. I must be bored too.

[smilesforu]

What makes you think your fishing has no impact your own personal fishery? Whats the difference between going to Alaska to catch monster Fish and kill them or Catching a fish and releasing it to be killed by the nets. The fish they catch are from a stream that can support a catch and kill fishery no matter what you want to believe. The rivers have met or doubled their escapement goals every year with ease. If these fish aren't kept and recorded on these streams the indians get to put there nets in even longer. (Forgone opportunity) This is fact and they have done it before and have threatened to do it again. Until the fishery escapement goals change, biologically they are doing the right thing. I see you don't think it is politically correct. I have personally fished with these guys and they are excellent fishermen and If you want to let fish go.....you let them go. Book a trip and see for yourself.
Tight Lines

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[Predator Dawg]

20lbs. HA! Nice minnow. 2-3 more years and that would have been a supreme specimen. That client probably has no clue how much of an a$$ everyone in the fishing world thinks he is. They can say what they want, its truly the guide's responsibility to inform the client of what is ethically right and strongly suggest releasing it. That poor dolt has no clue. Good example of what we are up against in the fight for nate survival.

[Trick]

I don't have a copy of the Washington fishing regs, but I guess it safe to assume that they haven't adopted the catch and release of wild stock as Oregon has? I don't know if it looks like a 20# or not, sometimes the fish can look bigger or smaller depending on how it's held in relation to the camera when the photo is shot. If these bozos really cared about others being offended by their posting of the photo, then they shouldn't have posted it in the first place.

Yeah, I'm also concerned with the overpopulation of wild fish in the watersheds .Their statement about being bought out and we'll stay home, can be also be read as, if you don't pay us then we will continue to kill the native steelhead. An absolute bunch of morons making moronic statements. I love having a ransome note being placed on our valued native run.

That's my $.02.

[Ramstrong]

OH Puhleeze! This is not the correct thing to do biologically. MSH and MSY are broken models and need to be fixed. There is no river in the lower 48 that can support a catch and kill fishery for nates. And bonk it or the Indians get it is a lame excuse, there is no guarentee the Indians would have netted that fish but it's 100% dead now. Clients need to be educated. Though I'm sure that fish isn't 20 lbs, you souldn't bonk a 4 lb nate, they are to precious. And for Guy and Jim to write off the death of that fish as out of their control is LAME!

------------------
-Ryan
www.xprt.net/~ryandsar
ramstrong@hotmail.com

[smilesforu]

The present picture of the day is not of a 20# fish. Yesterdays was. And yes the MSY and MSH need to be adjusted but they are presently the rule of the land by court order.
It is legal in several Olympic Peninsula streams to catch and kill native steelhead. Some even allow two natives for your limit.
I am sure Jim and Guy would love to make there living catching and releasing wild steelhead. Until they have enough clientel to keep there family supported they will abide by the rules and keep what is legal and practical.
Fish that have been C&R will drift downstream 10 miles while they recover from the ordeal of being caught. Whos doing more damage one C&R guy who catches and releases 6 fish a day or the guy who kills one fish for the table. In a system where nets are present it is highly likely the C&R fishermen will actually be the cause of more of the native fish deaths. The study on C&R steelhead was conducted on a oregon Stream and published in the STS.
So vote with your money and help them build a C&R clientel instead of ******** about it.
The true buy out needs to be the natives and their commercial netting of our rivers.
Tight Lines

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[Centerpin]

I don't know much about what goes on down your way but it sure is pathetic to hear you guys whine about killing a dumb fish. If the fish was taken legally then there is no problem. When you start drawing lines on what YOU feel is ethically right then YOU start to offend people. Not all people think the way YOU do. So instead of imposing YOUR views on others you should maybe comment on how nice a fish that was and leave YOUR personal views at home. Nobody likes someone sticking their noses in other peoples business.

If it is such a big issue then it should be closed for retention. Then we will all become a bunch of fish molestors fighting over the scraps. How is that for MY view on the subject.

------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[FishinMission]

If that's a 20 lb.er...I'll eat my shorts!!

[fishhead5]

Overpopulate, I had a guide tell me that there can be too many fish. His theory on that was there were up years and down years because they spawned on top of each others redds. Horsepoop. Too bad there isn't some way to have a site where people could check on these guides and see if they are C&R guides and use them only.
Fishhead5

[blacktail]

When the wild fish are almost or completely gone "up there" like they are in many of the rivers "down here", then maybe you'll rethink the killing of native fish.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Mike

[Kevin]

ya know thats fine but to say you can't make a living off c&r thats a crock.. Theres anough guys out there that have plenty of clients c&ring nats

Tight lines

Kevin

[Hookset]

I would hate to see the day when all rivers and streams are catch and release only for all wild fish. Think about it. With the decline of hatcheries and the latest trend in releasing fewer hatchery fish, taking a fish home once in awhile may not be an option.

I'm not advocating a kill fishery on rivers where fish stocks are low. Only on rivers that return enough natives to support a consumptive fishery. After all, the purpose of protecting native fish now is to build wild runs that are self supporting. Runs that return in large enough numbers that we could tag a wild fish. Has everyone forgotten it wasn't that many years ago you could retain two wild steelhead on every coastal river in Oregon. I'd like to see the wild stocks protected until they complete their comeback. This could take years beyond our lifetime, I just hope not.

If your condemming a kill fishery for native steelhead on rivers that can support this, then what happens when our local wild runs become strong (keep your fingers crossed)and hatcheries are sharpely curtailed or have been scrapped? What if there are only large runs of wild fish and no hatchery fish. Would you like to keep a fish for the table once in awhile that YOU caught? Or maybe we should have catch and release fishing no matter how many wild fish return. I certainly hope not.

We just shouldn't be so quick to condemn when in fact the grass is greener on the other side and ours is brown.

just some food for thought.

hook

[Centerpin]

Have you ever thought that the guy posted it to drum up support for C&R fishing. There is no better advertisement for C&R than a dead fish. Remember the bloody harp seals that the anti sealers used.

I think hookset made a really good point. You must be careful for what you wish for. I would pressure the govt for better fisheries management to reduce the risk of making stock assessment mistakes. After all you are relying on their numbers when you kill a fish guilt free.

------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[rob]

Why is it so important to take a fish home? What, the client pays $150 or $200 for a trip so he needs a fish to make it worth while? $200 will buy a lot of food at the store.

[Dances]

Pitty about the fish. You can never have to big of a run because some fish spawn up strean some in lower part and some in the middle. C&R untill the runs are back to historical levels.

------------------
Work is for people who dont know how to fish

[Dances]

Hey one more thing look at the # of members of the board that might tell you come thing too.

[fishhead5]

Why post a picture of it? That's a really good way to drum up buisness isn't it.

[Trick]

If your going to post pics that show how you run your business and what clients can expect when they deal with you, then get some b@ll$ and standup for what you believe in. These guides, I'm sure are great at what they do and pictures help prove that. What bothers me was the statements made about buying us out for the season and we will stay home and not have clients killing natives. Why would you post that statement if you didn't harbor some guilt about the pic? I've witness a serious decline in the Oregon steelhead runs over the past 20 years and with the expected good runs, it was an extremly disappointing year. I'm worried about our local runs and that makes me biased on killing nates. If the rivers can support the kill then so be it. But remember, the movie that is playing on our rivers now could be coming to a theater(river) up north very soon and let me tell you, it's a pretty crappy flic to watch.

I tend to agree with centerpin on the point that not everyone thinks like I do and thats fine, everyone has different views. Freedom of speech allows us to voice our ideas and concerns about what we see and I'm going to voice mine. I don't have to keep my opinion "at home", no more then you need too. I also agree with ramstrong in the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Don't feel pressured to kill something just because someone else may kill it. Just do what feels right to you and falls within the written laws.

What a freaking crock of Horse Pukky,when you think about what it cost that gooper to fish,like hotel, gas and guide fees he could have bought a side of beef,but to bonk that fish and many more just to make a turd
just because the Indians do it???come on smiles thats Bull ***** what a cop out quit defending these losers,by reading some of their post on another board,you seem like a reasonable guy,I'm not questioning their ability to catch fish.Just their justifaction to KILL geneticily pure fish,guide can be replaced ,these fish CANNOT!!!

This B.S about all C&R fish going down river 10 miles after being released,hehehe PLEASE!!! every fish,Oh well might as well killem.

Dawgs Rule

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Reading this topic will probably get O's very heated. Like a Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde thing

[firetiger]

If you don't like it, then don't look at it. It says that on the guys website. What is so difficult about that?

[rainycity]

HAH-HA, those jerks ask to be bought out and maybe they would stay home,
Maybe they just need to get bigger balls
and flat out tell their clients out front, they don`t allow the killing of the natives, I think most people would be all right that.
Or maybe yet, just boycott those guides.
I know Bob does`nt allow it and Curt Carlisle
of chasenadream guide service does`nt allow it either.

[Osprey]

I'm not in mood for this stuff today,I'll comment on it tommorow,by then someons should have gone off and this post will be deleted...Os

[SAUKit2em]

I'm trying desparately to maintain my composure over this, but I'm slowly but surely loosing it when I see this kind of stuff going on. Sorry, guys, I know that Mansfield and Ruble may be your (some of your) friends but c'mon, I have friends that do stupid stuff, but I lay into them and beaach them out just like anybody else that does something stupid. Familiarity, like you have with guiding buddies, is what lets you address the issues about their poor ethics, lack of brain cells, and poor fish handling/bonking practices. I don't care if the state regs allow it, just because it's OK according to the regs?

The I'll bonk 'em or the Indians will excuse is actually a disease, we should sympathize with these poor people who are suffering from rectal-cranial inversion.

[Backlash2]

"It is our job to put our clients into fish, it's their choice whether to kill them" or something like that. What a crock of s#@t!! So, do your clients decide whether to pull plugs, or boondog? Do they decide what color plugs you will pull? How about how fast you run the kicker? Bulls#@t!! YOU make the call on everything else that goes on in your boat, YOU can make the call on bonking nates. I'm sure that with a simple explanation of the state of wild fish in this state, and the fact that when properly handled and released they can be caught another day(let alone do the circle to the big pond and spawn again) most clients would gladly oblige. Requiring clients to release wild fish might cost you a client, but it won't cost you as many future clients as this little diddy just did!! Boycott this hillbilly inbreds, they have no respect for the resource that feeds their families......

[RichH]

I know it has been pointed out previously but Bob requires c & r and I challenge anyone to try and book a trip with him the rest of this season. In fact, I called in Sept and he had just a few dates left. C & R doesn't seem to affect his ability to stay busy.

------------------
Rich H

[This message has been edited by RichH (edited 02-12-2001).]

[SLEDDER]

Technically speaking there is no such thing as a native fish anymore in rivers that have hatcherys. Hatcherys have been planting fish since the early 1900's according to ODFW. The native fisheries in these rivers is a joke, I follow the rules anyway, non-fin clips get to go back.

These 2 ,refuse to join the Guides assoc. up there,I'm sure they've got their reasons
They complain about the C&R guides,they should be thanking them,since they return fish to the system instead of turning them into food so the clubber guides can kill more fish.
Mansfield talks like he all for C&R and helping out the fish and such,yet his actions says otherwise,
WHAT are YOU doing to contribute to this fishery DUDE????Besides doggin all the other guides who you have differences with

Ruble doesn't deserve any comment,all I've read from Jim on him is he's still learning "Yeah but he's realy good on the sticks",Yah so was my X-Girl friend but that didn't make her a guide either.

Start helping the Fish and try seeing past you're wallets and then end of you're nose, It's called do the right thing.

Dawgs Rule ( how bout that recruiting class it still smells like roses

[Trick]

What the heck is that? Is someone trying to tell us something?

[Osprey]

Good thing these Guys posted a warning on their page
check this out.....I hope I don't get sued http://www.olympicpeninsulafishing.com/dailypics.htm

Hey Yall looks like if you go to forks you might get lucky ......Os

[Kwiky]

Man Os, that is TOO funny. You all have to check this out (while you can!!).

Kwiky

[Hotshot]

See these guys are not all bad http://www.olympicpeninsulafishing.com/dailypics.htm
It is not only these guys killing fish i have also wittnesed guides out of the guides ass. killing fish to what about jim leons and pat graham and the president of the club craig hunley killed 3 last sat!

[This message has been edited by Hotshot (edited 02-14-2001).]

[smilesforu]

More babble and bs from me. To single Guy and Jim out of the other guides on the Peninsula for keeping natives is ridiculous.

It is the normal practice for guides to allow there clients to kill fish in the Peninsula rivers (this includes the Forks Guide assoc.) It will continue as long as it is legal to do so. The guides just put on a different hat depending on what the client wants (c&r or c&k hat).
The forks guide association is a political entity that protects the guides interests (not sportsmen) and they were the ones who kept the kill fishery open instead of making it mandatory to C&R all natives. So to use the Guide assoc as a higher than other guides is a complete false belief. They presently operate a hatchery on the sol duc and plan on doing the same on the Clawah and Bogey. Now for those of you that believe in the use of hatcheries this is good news. To kill the native brood stock to supply the hatcheries is not a good thing....Period.

People don't complain when Bob Ball kills wild salmon in the same Peninsula streams and those fish only get one chance to spawn.
I have had the argument with Bob over who actually kills the fish ...guide or client?...being a guide he says its clients Not being a guide I say guides for the simple fact with out a guide the fishermen wouldn't be able to catch the fish.

Fishing kills fish!!... its is a simple fact. Some fishing styles have more impacts than others. As long as the state says its biologically feasible to have a catch and kill fishery it will continue.
Its all about the images presented to the public and the politics that go with the fishery.

Guides are commercial fishermen. It is a different than the tradition commercial fishermen since they add more money to the economies with there business. I highly doubt a complete c&r fishery will ever happen in the Forks region since the local businesses are dependent on the tourism dollars that are generated by both C&R and C&K fisheries.

To truly limit the impact a guide can have on a fishery you need to have a seperate punch card for fish in a guide boat or complete catch and release by all guides (salmon and steelhead). Presently all guides are required to keep catch records for the state.

Just thought I would add some more insight into the Peninsula fishery politics. Heck and I didn't even mention foregone opportunity politics by the indians. (this is a real situation)

Simple answers aren't always the correct answers in politics. There are just to many different interests involved. The state may not be correct every time but they are the law of the land. They give us opportunities to voice our opinions and present facts. Presently they believe it is ok to kill fish in the Peninsula rivers. Dems the rules until somebody brings some studies that show different.
Tight lines

Marty, being the sportsman I envision you as, I must say that I am a bit confused at your seeming defense of C&K native steelhead fishing on the OP. You keep using the WDF&G as a basis for defending C&K native steelhead fishing. That now leads to a couple Q's for you. 1 - What do you think of the track record and wisdom of the WDF&G; particularly toward their historic and present management policies regarding native steelhead fisheries in Washington? 2 - In your true opinion, what do you think is the best sportfishing policy (includes guides and non-guides) in regards to what is best for the present and the future of native steelhead fishing on the outer Oly Pen; particularly in light of the seemingly intractable Indian netting of these fish? - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 02-15-2001).]

[Backlash2]

Marty,

I am also interested in your replies to RT's questions above. I will also add that if the state would come up with enough money to clip all hatchery salmon, you would see people practicing (and demanding) the release of wild salmon. They have started doing this on Columbia River fisheries, and you will see this reflected in the regulations about to come out. Until all Hatchery fish are marked, it's kinda hard to convince people to release salmon because they MIGHT be wild. Just about everyone likes to take a fish home to enjoy on the dinner table once in a while.
One last point-- I really doubt the Forks economy would suffer from a pure CNR fishery on wild steelies. Most guys are out there because of the still reasonable chance to catch a BIG fish. The Forks economy WILL suffer greatly if, as has happened elsewhere, WDF&W allows harvest to decimate the runs on the Peninsula. Why is everyone so worried about the C&K fishery out there now?? Because of the large influx of fisherman migrating out there as of March 1 because all North Sound streams are closing. WHY??? Because the state 'managed' those streams into closures do to lack of wild fish returns. The 'science' that failed those streams is the same 'science' they are using on the Olympic Pen.....

[Bait O' Eggs]

I have been avoiding this string because it looks an awful lot like a political thread to me. There is no right or wrong answer, it is a matter of opinion when it is what you think and what the state says, dont line up. I get the gist that most (not all) of the people here think even though the state says it is OK to catch and kill native steelhead we should rise to a higher standard and let them all go.

My question is when I catch a springer in the Willamette on Saturday and it has an adipose fin should I rise to a higher standard and let it go? How many of you that are bashing on these guides for killing wild steelhead, are going to be letting non clipped springers go when it is legal to keep them? The same logic that applies in your arguements for steelhead can be applied to Chinook, cant it?

[Gizmo Man]

The idea to say it's the client making the choice is bs. There are many guides out of Montana, Wy etc. that fish in C&R streams and if not in c&r require clients to c&r or not fish with them. They learned a long time ago that to take all the fish out of the system kills their business. Look at the no. of fisherman that flock to locations where the chance to catch and release a big fish is available.

It is time that all fisherman and in particular, guides, set an example and allow these magnificant fish the chance to flourish by spawning. To say they would be killed in gillnets to justify the retention is crap. The fish usually have made it past the nets and are now near areas they can spawn. You now stalk them in low water boats (db, rafts and pontoon boats) and continue to kill them because your clients demand it or the state allows it....go sell that line to someone who actually believes it....

Set the example NOW... before it is too late. Advertise and practice c&r and you will get your clients and there will be fish to C&R. This goes for all who fish over these fish.

Giz...

[steeliebob]

I wasn't going to reply to this one ... but since Steve personally asked for a little input on this ... I'll oblige his request.

First of all, I'll adrress a couple of the posts made it here, then I'll dive into the ethics of the whole situation a little more.

I find this post interesting:

"See these guys are not all bad http://www.olympicpeninsulafishing.com/dailypics.htm
It is not only these guys killing fish i have also wittnesed guides out of the guides ass. killing fish to what about jim leons and pat graham and the president of the club craig hunley killed 3 last sat!"

While the profile does not show it, "Hotshot" is Guy Ruble ... a co-owner of the site in question. Interesting to see the line "See these guys are not all bad ..." Are we feeling a little guilty? Perhaps a little sick and tired of getting bashed? Oh well, if you choose to advertise your daily catch (with dead nates - or improperly handled "C&R"'d one as the pictures showed yesterday referenced by this post) in a time when Washington steelhead stocks are dwindling and more and more anglers are embracing the idea of C&R as an effort on the angler's end to help out, you're going to find lots and lots of negative feedback as a result.

Secondly ... Guy cries out, "Oh, but someone else killed one!" Perhaps they did, but that's not what this post is about, did they advertise dead fish on their site? Nope! A little FYI for everyone here ... Jim and Pat often work for me taking extra people ... these trips, like all those sold by me are strictly C&R on wild steelhead, period. Both guides landed fish in the mid-20's last week with my clients aboard, and guess what Guy? They all went back.

Marty, glad to see you're upholding the mentality of many of the PA steelhead club crowd. So everyone knows where he's coming from, Marty is a freind of Jim and Guy and belongs to a club that comes over on a near-weekly basis to kill fish ( bigger the better) for their club "derby" and many members like to refer to themselves as "guidebusters".

You're mistaken saying that the Olympic Peninsula Guides' Association doesn't support C&R. The OPGA would prefer to see the Peninsula streams C&R. We were instrumential in getting the daily limit in the area reduced to one daily with an annual limit of five. Last year, when it was proposed to liberalize the regs to two daily and ten a year, I penned the letter with fellow guides Bob Kratzer and JD Love, arguing against any increase in limits. Yes, some OPGA members intentioanlly kill fish, some more than others, some ... like myself, none at all. I'd disagree with your statement that we do what is best for the guides and not the fish. We opted to reduce the Snider input from 100,000 smolt to 50,000 due to concern (with the increased boking pressure due to extra fish in the river) over the effects on the wild stocks ... even though leaving the number higher would more than likely be better for business with the increased return. We talked about this again at our last meeting on Tuesday and for the same reason listed above, opted to keep the plant at 50,00 vs. 100,000.

Marty goes on to bash the Snider Creek program ... a program similar to those that have helped many Oregon and BC stocks recover: "To kill the native brood stock to supply the hatcheries is not a good thing....Period." True, in a sense. If you're using the brood only to generate more fish to be killed, then yes, it's bad. But should one decide to release that returning Snider adult, it will more than likely end up spawning in the vicinity of the creek, in the creek itself, or in one of the other nearby creeks ... all of which have been documented. This is not a bad thing ... but the angler who catches one of these fish must make that decision.

C&R bad for Forks ... don't think so. If these rivers produced what they are capable of, the local economy would boom. I've seen some world-class steelhead fisheries in action ... nothing around the NW even comes close any more, and these top-notch fisheries generate mid-boggling numbers for revnues per fish, and guess what, they're ALL C&R.

This whole issue boils down to what is right for the fish. C&R is not perfect, but it's the closest thing we have available as a fisheries management tool to protect the fish and still provide angler opportunity and long-term economic health to this community.

These two guides will try to tell you that if we don't kill the fish, then they'll be "spawning on top of one another." Hardly! Miles and miles of good spawning grounds have zero fish on them throughout the season out here. Even in the 60's, it was estimated by the UW Fisheries Dept. that the Forks area rivers were only operating at about 30% of their historical capacity. A DNR study in the mid-90's found the habitat was quite healthy in our area watersheds, but virtually no fish were using the suitable spawning grounds. The state also tells us that the Quillayute system is healthy ... as is the Hoh. HMM, the Hoh has been closed three or four times in the last 6 or 7 years because it hasn't met escapement. The Quillayute is healthy because Gibbons' mid 80's study says that it is ... yet the recruit density is far lower than what is commonplace in areas other than WA. Washington State has a long history of fishing runs to death. It's either kill 'em all, or no fishing because they all gone. Nowhere in this state is there a viable wild stock fishery ... other than the OP. This situation exists because the state's management policies suck, and the Peninsula has been slow to decline as its remoteness and heavy rains have spared the fish.

Fisheries managers across the globe have been abandoning the MSY model because it almost always collapses ... but not in WA. What makes our runs any different? Nothing! Once again, look at the track record of WA fish management and try to convince someone it has been successful. If you buy that, as the saying goes, I've gotta bridge to sell you ...

So, the runs out here are okay, but not where they ought to be. Most everybody, except the state and meat-hog fishermen, have this figured out. So, as responsible anglers, we try to do our part. As a guide, it's my resposibilty to the fish to see that they survive, and it's my responsibilty to myself to see that my I protect my business ... both cases mean I limit my impact on the fishery. That means total C&R ... that means modifying tactics to minimize hooking mortality ... such as totally eliminating the use of bait divers for steelhead - a very effective, but also very injurous method of hooking fish. I'd be willing to bet that the fish these guys "had to kill today because it was hooked too deeply" came on that very rig.

These fellas tell you to "Fish with the best, not the rest" ... sorry fellas, as long as you fail to have any regard for the fishery, you're not the best! The best guides in this town - and I'll even exclude myself lest I be biased - change their ways, help educate their clients, help preserve the runs - even if it means losing a day or two a year.

If you're such good guides, you can maintain a no-kill policy and still be full ... there's more to fishing than taking a fish home, especially a sport fish that was decommercialized for white man in the 30's in this state.

The common excuse you'll hear from anti C&R folks out this way - note Marty's comments - are: if we don't kill them, the Indians will.

Perhaps. In years of low water like we're seeing now with tremendous drift-netting success, they are. The Quillayute sucess is up 250%, the Hohs are up 300%. But guess what, if you give a rat's ass about the fish, that's all the more reason to let them go. This year's run is pretty medioce, and much of what is coming up is ending up in the nets ... we're facing a poor spawn smack in the face.

In the several years previous to this one, we had huge rains, slowing netting, and consequently saw better than average (although less than what we probably should have) spawns. This despite increased netting schedules in those years ... it can go both ways, we don't know, but isn't it better to err on the side of the fish?

Anglers devoted to the welfare of the fish should pay less attention to the tribes and more to their own actions. Perhaps put some effort into a group like the WSC that is working to hopefully overhaul management polices in this state. While in the short-term the tribes may get more fish, remember that they only get 50% of the HARVESTABLE fish. If it's mandated that more fish get on the beds, then there will be fewer days to net. But that's still down the road away, but in the meantime, we have to do what we can to keep things going ... that means minimizing our impact.

Sorry for the long ramble and the feather-ruffling ... but this is a sore subject and a very serious issue.

[Backlash2]

Geez Bob, at least I kept mine to two paragraphs

Thanks for articulating a response with more local knowledge of the subject than I have....

[smilesforu]

Running short on time but will be back to answer

Tight Lines

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[smilesforu]

Geez a pleasure to see you decide to join the debate Robert . You use a broad brush to paint my ethics and friends. The so called weekly derby is a monthly club fish out...sorry we have a good time. Guide busters? What the hell kind of statement is that. There happens to be more than one steelhead club in Port Angeles.

The snyder creek program has its merits but it also has it faults and if you weren't so high and mighty you would realize that not all fish should spawn next to the hatchery. The snyder program now has enough fish spawning near the hatchery..."documented".

The program needs to move spawning enhancement to other portions of the river using a live brood stock tanks. Then after the fish spawn in the tank they should be released...no kill enhancement. It is being effectively used in Oregon streams for brood stocking.

"This whole issue boils down to what is right for the fish. C&R is not perfect, but it's the closest thing we have available as a fisheries management tool to protect the fish and still provide angler opportunity and long-term economic health to this community." In a perfect world this would be true....not a perfect world though. You want to blantly ignore the impacts of a net fishery and its impacts to further promote your "no impact C&R". The boldt decision is still in effect and hasn't been overturned or ammended to make it less destructive on the fisheries management policies. The decision mandates MSY fishery weather we like it or not.

"The common excuse you'll hear from anti C&R folks out this way - note Marty's comments - are: if we don't kill them, the Indians will." PLEASE twist that one around will ya . The truth of the story is the indians will increase there net days all the way across the season.....I don't think I want that...you must if you choose to ignore forgone opportunity.

Rt
The state has made errors in there biological assessments in the past. Mainly due to the ocean survival rate, which is a very hard factor to factor into the equation.
They also understand they made mistakes and are working hard to not repeat them. I have faith in the state biologist truly trying to make things better for us with both fishing opportunities, while protecting the existing runs. Can you imagine trying to run a fishery on every system of state and accurately forecast the run size while the indians get half of those forecast for harvest. Almost impossible task to do and don't envy the state in this task...But they are trying hard to provide opportunity so they overestimate the run size and it comes back to haunt them when they need to shut the fishing down for protection.

2. The politics of the indian fishery dictate we have a c&k fishery for steelhead or the indians will increase net days and the numbers of fish they catch. Since I feel a fishing rod vs a net is a ineffective tool for cleaning out a entire run of fish I vote for the rod doing some of the work. The nets have all but destroyed the early runs of natives on the Quilluyute systems. So I would like to see a complete shut down on all native fish in the early portions of the runs. But the indians would need to pull the nets also. The later runs of steelhead in February- March are still strong in comparison and can sustain a fishery. I would like to see the excess hatchery fish given to the indians for part of their quota on systems with a hatchery. I would also like to see the indians harvest take into account the early runs of native fish that still are hanging on. I would also like to see the indian fishery use tangle nets so the bycatch is minimized while catching the hatcheries. Presently a fish is a fish whether it is hatchery or wild. Then remove the nets and make a complete c&r fishery until the runs return to historic levels. I would be interested in the fertilization of the streams to supplement the health of the systems that are deprived due to the lack of decaying nutrients in the systems. I would also like to see all fish catagorized into different spawning catagories similiar to the fraser river sockeyes. Then managed accordily to reach separate goals for each of these subspecies instead of one lump pool. But unfortunately these goals can't be reached until the indians want to make these enhancements happen. To get the tribes to join in the rehabilition of the run sizes we need to supplement there lost income from the fisheries. The reservations are full of poverty and misuse by the members trying to survive..(not all). So as we also need to take into effect the social and economic health of the tribes while we restore the runs....Thats my two cents. Total C&R is not the correct answer presently due to politics of the tribes vs state...sorry but I do have the fish in mind on this issue and there is not a simple solution to the problem. We need our fisheries leaders to come to a meeting of the minds. Negotiating with the tribes is the correct way to go....To bad I don't have any financial backing to make things happen. More fish can be saved/enhanced dealing with the tribes than any other entity.

Tight Lines




------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[smilesforu]

Backlash..sorry I forgot to address your fin clipping comments. Yes I believe all hatchery fish should be fin clipped including the indian fisheries. This would add a major element for fishing opportunity management practices.
Presently the area in front of my house is closed to king salmon fishing in the saltwater because of the protection of endangered salmon swimming by. So I am very sensitive to the c&k fishery that continues in other parts of the state on salmon while it remains closed locally. We have healthy streams but fishing remains closed for protection in other areas.

The indians don't want complete marking of the hatchery fish because it will force them into a selective style of fishery. This is unfortunate, but the commercial side of their fishing practices really shows up on this one.
The big tado over the peninsula fishery stems from Bob's site and his demands to close it to all fishing except his chosen style. But reality is the systems have large portions of the stream closed to any fishing what so ever. This has the effect of a self sustaining hatchery in the upper reaches of the streams. When we have a heavy rain it blows the streams out and the fish are able to get past the nets and fishermen to the sanctuaries to spawn. One of the problems that the hoh has is the fact it runs a glacier color and makes spawning acessments difficult. In low water years such as the one we are experiencing presently the fish will hold longer in the lower river waiting for the river to rise. This causes the indians to be more sucessful in targeting the spawners headed for the upper reaches. The only fishing allowed in the upper reaches of the river is currently C&R. The C&R reaches should be closed so the fish can spawn with out being harrassed on their tradition spawning redds.

BTW..Since you decided to attack me personally Bob. Here are some of the bad practices used by Bob Ball.

Mr Ball targets the spawning bedds on the Hoh almost every day he fishes it. I know where he fishes and don't approve of his locations. Get off the redds Bob!! Do you fishing in the lower river....you can still release them and its one less the c&k guys will catch that day. Would you like to discuss wild salmon and your practice of targeting them in closed waters claiming you are fishing for steelhead with kwikfish. How about lining sockeyes or killing large wild salmon... the most genetically exstinct of the fish.

Tight Lines



------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

Marty, we have communicated a lot via e-mail and posts, and fished together a couple times. Just because we disagree on this important subject doesn't change my impression of you as a good guy. You are. But like the song says, "... we just disagree". Because your opinions are respected I am concerned with what they may do to the mindset of some OP fishermen. So I feel compelled to point out some contradictions in your answers back to my posted Q's to you. While this subject invariably evokes passionate expression, let's make it constructive toward doing some possible good rather than make anyone upset with one another. ....


In Q 1 - I asked you what you think of both the track record and current policies of the WDF&G, particularly in regards to the issue of C&K fisheries on Oly Pen rivers for steelhead nates. This was because within this thread you used their policies to defend OP nate C&K. In your answer above you now say that "the state [WDF&G] has made errors in their biological assessments in the past". You also say "they overestimate run size", then say essentially that makes it difficult for them to shut down fisheries when they need to for protection [of nates]. Those claims, for which most would agree with you, don't make the WDF&G's historical and current improper C&K policies a good defense for you to use for nate C&K fishing! ...

In Q 2 - I asked you what you think would be good policies toward native steelhead fishing on the OP. In your response above you claim that rod sportfishers should do a C&K fishery so that the Indians won't get to increase their netting days. Can you substantiate your contention that would happen if sportsmen went with C&R nate fishing, while continuing with a hatchery C&K fishery? I find that difficult to believe. True or not, I would find that to be a ludicrous policy for the health status of the nate runs and also outside of proper adherance to the Boldt decision to share the fish 50-50. How could either a good faith effort to voluntarily curtail nate C&K by sportsfishers, or a changed mandate by the WDF&G to restrict nate fishing to C&R, entitle the Indians to increase nate killing netting; and thus greatly increase their share beyond what it would be if sportsfisher nate C&K were to continue? And if they somehow could do that in those circumstances, and didn't match the sportsfisher's effort to increase nate runs but rather gillnet more of them, I think they would suffer the biggest sportsmen, citizen, and politician backlash that they have ever endured; and I think they would realize that. Not a logical thing that they would want to risk, along with further risk to the future of their fishing. That just doesn't make sense at all; but a lot of things that happen don't. Until I see substantive evidence of Treaty interpretive law supporting your claims I just don't see that as a factor to justify killing the dwindling nates that are able to get by the Indian gillnets. As Bob said, in reality it makes it even more important to release the nates that make it by the netting! ... Another thing you claim is that a study in Oregon published by STS magazine states that released nates fall back 10 miles while they recover from the fishing ordeal, thus fall into the Indian nets in the lower river. Hmmm. Isn't it more accurate to say that 'some nates may fall up to 10 miles downriver'? Saying that most of them wouldn't likely is more accurate. Which issue is that study in so we can check out it's claims and credence. It's a very weak (OK, rediculous) argument to kill nates because a very few released ones may get netted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the chances of a bonked nate to spawn. ... You also go on in the same paragraph and contradict your above opinions that sportfishers should C&K the strong runs of nates by saying you would like to see "...remove the nets and make a complete C&R fishery until the runs return to historic levels". Hooray for this sentence of yours; but it is a contradiction of your earlier statements and a strong argument in favor of C&R nate fishing! There must be a good reason you changed your stance to a complete C&R fishery in part of your policy suggestions. Most of us certainly believe there is! ...

These native steelhead of the Oly Pen are an irreplacable treasure that should be treated as such! If the WDF&G's guesses are right about a fairly healthy nate run there then let's keep it that way, and even try to enhance these runs of the largest nates in the lower 48 by releasing them to spawn; especially with so many being killed in Indian gillnets. If those rivers have lots of huge native steelhead in the future, guides should have little problem getting all the paying & willing C&R clients they need. - RT

[fishhead5]

RT for prez

[Spooled]

Amen Steeliebob. I agree with your post 100%, other than the people you point out. I don't know any of them, so I have no opinion on that part. Otherwise, nice post.

[rob]

How can anyone have any faith in the WDFW's estimates? They have royaly screwed-up everything else.

[smilesforu]

ARG

I just spent a hour answering your questions and it didn't post

[smilesforu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Marty, we have communicated a lot via e-mail and posts, and fished together a couple times. Just because we disagree on this important subject doesn't change my impression of you as a good guy. You are. But like the song says, "... we just disagree". Because your opinions are respected I am concerned with what they may do to the mindset of some OP fishermen. So I feel compelled to point out some contradictions in your answers back to my posted Q's to you. While this subject invariably evokes passionate expression, let's make it constructive toward doing some possible good rather than make anyone upset with one another. .... “ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of my statements are not as elaborated as you may have liked. I think I am a very well informed fishermen and should influence the mindset of fishemen . You may choose to ignore some very important information to meet your cause or lack there of . I would like to see the rivers black with steelhead, but there are some issues that People don’t want to acknowledge that impact our fishery and its recovery. To that end I will try to help you get some of the Knowledge you seem to want and clarify some on the issues that I can. Since you like to analyze every sentence with a fine tooth comb …feel free to respond where you need some more education or don’t see the Big Picture for the local ecosystems and the Indian fisheries politics that go with it. I have tried to break up your response and answer it SLOWWLY for you …hehe. Please feel free to twist anything I write since I am not a great writer. A Catch and Kill fishery is not viable on all systems…..Now with that said lets have at it some more.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> In Q 1 - I asked you what you think of both the track record and current policies of the WDF&G, particularly in regards to the issue of C&K fisheries on Oly Pen rivers for steelhead nates. This was because within this thread you used their policies to defend OP nate C&K. In your answer above you now say that "the state [WDF&G] has made errors in their biological assessments in the past". You also say "they overestimate run size", then say essentially that makes it difficult for them to shut down fisheries when they need to for protection [of nates]. Those claims, for which most would agree with you, don't make the WDF&G's historical and current improper C&K policies a good defense for you to use for nate C&K fishing! ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry I strayed on my answer some. The Hoh river which is the one the state shut down is a very hard river to take accurate assessments of the fish escapement due to its glacier color and clay silt. The stream surveys can’t take place because of this problem. The information they receive is very clouded and difficult to determine true and accurate numbers. Should they have shut down the system….NO. The Indian biologists recommended the river to remain open. Only the state shut the fishing opportunities down. They didn’t want to over estimate on this system so they closed all fishing for its protection. The Indians continued to net the river during the closures. These closures are used as the basis of the state making errors and are actually based on the protection of the system…..not the other way around. My statement about biological assessment was about the recent Elliot Bay fishery for salmon in the sound. Sorry I mixed the fisheries….Big state and Even you aren’t perfect every time.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In Q 2 - I asked you what you think would be good policies toward native steelhead fishing on the OP. In your response above you claim that rod sportfishers should do a C&K fishery so that the Indians won't get to increase their netting days. Can you substantiate your contention that would happen if sportsmen went with C&R nate fishing, while continuing with a hatchery C&K fishery?”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You may not want to believe it but it is true. The Indians have the court rulings on their side because of the Boldt decision mandating MSY. They have sued using foregone opportunity to fish for excess salmon that we wanted to use as enhancement. This was on a SW Washington River…I believe it was the Chehalis. They have threatened to do it again if we don’t make a “good faith” effort to catch our share. The backlash the Indians receive is very not there concern and it in fact fuels them to further “their rights”….see Makah whaling. You also know the politics that go into fishing opportunity….Columbia river springers. Simple answers aren’t the norm when mixing the different pies together.
The Oly Pen streams have doubled the required escapement goals of the MSY for a number of years. Because of this the Indians have threatened to Increase net days to remove excess fish that will spawn and overpopulate the stream…..Its their argument that has legal grounds to be held up in court. First off I don’t agree with the escapement numbers (could be increased by seeding the river). But these are determined by a biological study of what the stream can sustain.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> “I find that difficult to believe. True or not, I would find that to be a ludicrous policy for the health status of the nate runs and also outside of proper adherance to the Boldt decision to share the fish 50-50. How could either a good faith effort to voluntarily curtail nate C&K by sportsfishers, or a changed mandate by the WDF&G to restrict nate fishing to C&R, entitle the Indians to increase nate killing netting; and thus greatly increase their share beyond what it would be if sportsfisher nate C&K were to continue? And if they somehow could do that in those circumstances, and didn't match the sportsfisher's effort to increase nate runs but rather gillnet more of them, I think they would suffer the biggest sportsmen, citizen, and politician backlash that they have ever endured; and I think they would realize that. Not a logical thing that they would want to risk, along with further risk to the future of their fishing. That just doesn't make sense at all; but a lot of things that happen don't. Until I see substantive evidence of Treaty interpretive law supporting your claims I just don't see that as a factor to justify killing the dwindling nates that are able to get by the Indian gillnets.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ludicrous as it seems it is true and that’s the way it is. You will have to do your own research on the Treaty interpretive law . Its there but don’t feel I need to justify myself since the native stocks I fish aren’t dwindling. In fact with the recent upturn in the ocean survival rate they should be stronger than ever and are according to the net fishery counts.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>“As Bob said, in reality it makes it even more important to release the nates that make it by the netting! ... Another thing you claim is that a study in Oregon published by STS magazine states that released nates fall back 10 miles while they recover from the fishing ordeal, thus fall into the Indian nets in the lower river. Hmmm. Isn't it more accurate to say that 'some nates may fall up to 10 miles downriver'? “ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In reality Bob (example) fishes the redds directly above where drift netting occurs (less than one mile). So to practice CnR on this location is worse than taking a single fish for dinner. The article in STS is a study done on summer run fish with radio tracking in an Oregon stream. I think it’s in the same issue you’re article was in J. If its not it’s in one of the nearby issues. Do you read the other articles?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Saying that most of them wouldn't likely is more accurate. Which issue is that study in so we can check out it's claims and credence. It's a very weak (OK, rediculous) argument to kill nates because a very few released ones may get netted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the chances of a bonked nate to spawn. ... You also go on in the same paragraph and contradict your above opinions that sportfishers should C&K the strong runs of nates by saying you would like to see "...remove the nets and make a complete C&R fishery until the runs return to historic levels". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have nothing against removing the nets. A C&R fishery would then be a viable solution to increased opportunity. But to conduct a unlimited C&R fishery on Redds where a commercial drift net fishery exists….I am opposed. I would support a C&R fishery that limited the number of C&R fish in a day as long as the fishery wasn’t taking place on the redds. This would limit the impact of C&R and would potentially be better than a kill fishery. Nobody wants to admit unlimited C&R has a impact on runs, but it does in a net fishery system.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> “Hooray for this sentence of yours; but it is a contradiction of your earlier statements and a strong argument in favor of C&R nate fishing! There must be a good reason you changed your stance to a complete C&R fishery in part of your policy suggestions. Most of us certainly believe there is!” ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not have a problem with a C&K fishery on any fishery that is healthy. Be is salmon, steelhead, cod, trout or halibut. I do have a problem when a fishery is targeted on a fishery that needs protection. It should be shut down and an enhancement program should be implemented to restore the fishery. You seem to be ok with killing native salmon yourself, but not native steelhead. Please look in the mirror of your own fishing impacts too
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>“These native steelhead of the Oly Pen are an irreplacable treasure that should be treated as such! If the WDF&G's guesses are right about a fairly healthy nate run there then let's keep it that way, and even try to enhance these runs of the largest nates in the lower 48 by releasing them to spawn; especially with so many being killed in Indian gillnets. If those rivers have lots of huge native steelhead in the future, guides should have little problem getting all the paying & willing C&R clients they need. - RT “<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve you are correct saying the native steelhead of the Olypen are irreplaceable treasure and should be treated as such. Would you support a Indian net buy out? And a total C&R fishery to be implemented…. I would. I also find it funny people will justify the wild salmon killing in the same fishery. Those same dead decaying salmon help raise smolts in a strong ecosystem.
On the subject of economics of a C&R fishery I would have to humbly disagree with such a broad statement. Sekiu is a fishermen’s destination that has went into a economic downturn now that C&R fishing is allowed on native salmon. In the past you had to book you accommodations a year in advance. Now you can drive up and have space left for you and your friends.

Tight Lines....Geez this takes a lot of time to reply the second time too.

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[This message has been edited by smilesforu (edited 02-16-2001).]

[birdhunter]

Okay everyone, good debate. I just want to address one issue and leave it at that. I am fairly familar with the study that they did on released steelhead falling back 10 miles in the stream. While it is true that some fish did go back that far the study does not provide a good example in this case. The conditions are too different for a variety of reasons. Allow me to explain.

Winter vs. Summer: There are behavioral differences between winter and summer steelhead. If I am not mistaken (I don't have a copy of the report on me so this is all from memory), the fish caught and realeased were all summer steelhead. Summer steelhead spend much more time in the rivers than their winter counterparts. Often this is due to low river flows, but the fact is they tend to be smaller and spookier. Again, these are GENERAL statements.

Summer steelhead are much more likely to move up and down the river system than winter fish would be. They also actively feed in the river system. This would make release of bait-caught fish more difficult because they take it deeper than winter fish usually do. Because they are more active and aggressive, summer steelhead are more likely to suffer trama from the being reeled in than a winter fish would. They fight with all they have and quickly build up unhealthy and potentially harmful levels of lactic acid. It takes longer for these fish to recover from a release, because they are exausted.

Hatchery vs. Wild: Okay, I really don't want to get into this one because there is a lot of opinon about it, but there are distinct behavioral differences between native-spawning and hatchery fish. They behave differently when hooked and when released. I believe the fish used for this study were all hatchery fish. We are discussing C&R of wild fish. While I don't want to get into the specifics (maninly because I don't have a copy of the report and some other documentation that I am basing my assertion off of) the comparison you used is flawed because you are comparing (behaviorally) apples to oranges.

If nothing else, these fish already have radio trackers on them. That means that they were already handled and released at least once. I don't remember the sort of trackers they used, but I believe they were the kind they shove down the fishes gullet with a wire coming out their mouth. Any fish that has this happen is going to be subject to a lot of stress and consequently will behave differently if caught again. If you had that happen to you once and you were caught again, wouldn't you get the hell out of that area? That actually puts some question on the validity and accuracy of the entire study.

River Conditions: Also you have to take into account the current water temperature. Winter fish, like the ones being caught now, are more lethargic than summer fish due to the fact that they are ectotherms. They maintain their body temperature through the outside environment. With raised water temperatures, summer fish are more active and consequently more aggressive (I already went over this).

Your argument, if you look at the study, is too generalized. While some of the fish assuredly did go 10 miles down river to recover, I seem to recall the average distance being much smaller. These wild winter fish would probably travel a shorter distance still. Obviously a lot of this depends on their condition and how quickly they were released, but those are variables we cannot control. They would go some distance to a safe place to recover, but I don't think it would take them as long and consequently they wouldn't travel as far.

So because the study compares hatchery summer steelhead on an Oregon stream to wild winter steelhead in a Washington river, I don't think your argument holds water.

[smilesforu]

BirdHunter
I respectfully disagree. I believe they are presently doing a study on the winter fish. Since there are such a variety of differences in species tendencies they are open for interperation. When the new study is released I think you will see data that shows different. This study showed information never seen in fish before, because we were unable to track them properly. Information is changing science and I may be wrong....but I may be right .

Tight Lines

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[birdhunter]

Okay, I did a little research and here is what I found out. The study was done on the N. Umpqua on both summer and winter steelhead. All the fish were wild and captured at Winchester Dam. There were
45 summer fish and 32 winter fish. Dave Loomis of ODFW was in charge of this.

While the article I got is by Bill Monroe and is not the scientific study, it does say some interesting things. First of all, it says, " After being caught, the summer steelhead quickly swam up to 10 miles, usually downriver, and "kind of sulked for a while," Loomis said, before moving back upriver". This shows once again that the fish move UP TO ten miles down river. It doesn't say after being caught by what. If they are refering to catching them at the dam and shoving a radio tag down their gullet, then I can understand why.

Also considering that summer fish move up to 14 miles a day (according to this study), 10 miles back down river is less than a day's travel.

Here is the site I got it off of. Hopefully the connection works.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=0...&Sid=2&RQT=309

Hey Marty, why didn't you just say that in the first place?

[Fountainhead]

Marty, speaking of wild fish only, how can there be "excess" fish? Is this a term used just for harvest purposes? F