Wild steelhead moratorium approved by commiss

[Born to be Wild]

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
February 6, 2004
Contact: Craig Bartlett, (360) 902-2259

Commission adopts two-year moratorium
on wild steelhead retention statewide

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today adopted new sportfishing rules for the 2004-05 season that include a two-year moratorium on retaining any wild steelhead caught in state waters.

The moratorium, adopted on a 5-3 vote, will require anglers to release any steelhead caught from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2006 that is not marked as a hatchery fish by a missing adipose fin and a healed scar.


Drawing from a list of 463 proposed changes - 336 of them submitted by the public - the commission also adopted new handling requirements for releasing salmon and steelhead that cannot be retained, additional protection for Columbia River sturgeon and fixed starting dates for recreational crab fishing.

Commissioners also declined to take action on several proposals, including one to ban treble hooks in saltwater fisheries and another to prohibit the use of motorized vessels on the Satsop and Wynoochee Rivers.

Commissioner R.P. Van Gytenbeek of Seattle initiated the discussion about requiring the release of wild steelhead by calling for a permanent ban on wild steelhead retention. When that motion failed, the commission considered and rejected the idea of a six-year moratorium before scaling it back to two years.

"In this case, I think a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," Van Gytenbeek said. "A lot of people in this state are concerned about the decline of our wild steelhead stocks and I think a moratorium gets us started down the right path."

Commission Chair Will Roehl of Bellingham did not share that view, noting that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is currently working on a new comprehensive plan for steelhead management, tailored to specific stocks.

"I can't support banning retention of wild steelhead on rivers where stocks are healthy and returns are strong," Roehl said. "I don't think this broad-brush action is warranted, but that appears to be the will of commission."

When releasing steelhead or salmon that cannot be retained under state law, anglers will have to follow new handling procedures approved today by the commission. Measures adopted by the commission prohibit completely removing salmon or steelhead caught in lakes or streams from the water or pulling them into a boat in Puget Sound prior to release.

To provide greater protection for Columbia River sturgeon, the commission extended the closed area below Bonneville Dam approximately two miles downstream to Marker 85 from May 1 to July 31. All sturgeon fishing - whether from a boat or from the bank - will be prohibited in the expanded closure area, where the fish tend to congregate.

In addition, the annual harvest of sturgeon for personal use was reduced from 10 fish to five statewide, and sturgeon seasons recently developed in conjunction with Oregon were adopted as permanent rules for the 2004-05 season.

Recreational crabbers, meanwhile, can expect greater certainty in the timing of their seasons in the coming year. For the first time since 2000, the commission set opening dates for each marine area rather than relying on tests to determine when the crab have finished their molt.

Improved data on molting periods provided by WDFW allowed the commission to set opening dates this year for crab fisheries in all 13 marine areas of Puget Sound and the Washington coast, Roehl said.

"We're pleased that we've reached this point," Roehl said. "Now we have the data we need to protect the resource, while allowing people to plan their vacations."

In other matters the commission:

· Clarified rules prohibiting snagging, making it illegal to hook and retain a fish (other than forage fish) to the rear of its gill plate.
· Adopted a three-month catch-and-release fishery for trout and other gamefish on the Cedar River in King County.
· Adopted permanent regulations banning retention of canary rockfish and prohibited spearfishing for any species of rockfish.
· Set new daily hours (9 .m. to 1 p.m. on days open to shrimp fishing) for designated Puget Sound shrimp districts such as Port Angeles Harbor and Discovery bay. It also extended the Port Townsend Shrimp District north of the Port Townsend ship canal to include Kilisut Harbor.
· Extended the Octopus Hole Conservation Area in Hood Canal to include the adjacent tidelands.
· Set new hours for harvesting clams and oysters on a number of beaches and set new bag limits and seasons for rivers and lakes throughout the state.

These and other measures adopted by the commission will appear in WDFW's 2004-05 Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet.

[Ty]

Swwwweeeeeeeeeettttttttt!!!!!

[Born to be Wild]

I have to disagree with you Ty.

I agree with what Roehl stated:

"I can't support banning retention of wild steelhead on rivers where stocks are healthy and returns are strong," Roehl said. "I don't think this broad-brush action is warranted, but that appears to be the will of commission."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am deeply disturbed by this "broad-brush action".

This would be the same as closing the fisheries on wild springer's on the Siletz, Rogue and elsewhere because of the depressed wild springer stocks in the Nestucca/Tillamook area.

This also promotes more hatchery fish because you can't eat the wild ones.
More hatchery fish = less wild fish.

I know there are a few guides I met at the Puyallup Sportsman's show that are going to be very disturbed about this moratorium and will no doubt loose money over the decision.
Possibly some of their cliental will fish further north in B.C. where they can catch and retain the superior wild steelhead and not be concerned about being forced to release a wall hanger.

I doubt this will affect the tribal fisheries on wild steelhead.

Bad move in my opinion.

[Ty]

Holy crap Born to be wild,

This is the first time we haven't agreed on anything!!!

Jokin....



[ 02-09-2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Gone Fishin]

Don't kill wild steelhead. Thank you.

end.

[Born to be Wild]

Hey Marty, it was good accidentally bumping into you at the Sportsman show and meeting you.

But Marty, what is the difference in harvesting a "wild" steelhead and the many "wild" chinook that you and your customers eat (kill!)?

Is there really something "sacred" about steelhead?

I'm not being sarcastic, but what is the difference?

Are you going to feel the same way about wild coho as some of the coastal rivers that have healthy wild coho abundance start opening up?

The Yaquina had 25,000 estimated spawners in 2002.
Haven't heard the numbers yet for 2003.
Do you feel that we should deprive the fishermen of catching and harvesting wild coho in Yaquina Bay and the tidal waters when there is more than enough spawners just because they are "wild" fish?

It is very hyrocrictal to accept the harvest of "wild" chinook and other species of fish and yet promote no harvest on "wild" steelhead unless they are some kind of different "sacred" "wild" fish.
A "wild" fish is a "wild" fish!
Springer, summer, fall nook, coho, trout or bull elk. :grin:
(Sorry, that was supposed to be "bull trout", but I don't know how to edit) :grin:
The wonderfull mod's do though

Sorry but I simply just don't get it.

But then again, it is "OK" to go out and harass, stress out and kill some "wild" steelhead just for the game sake's of C & R?

Again, I'm not trying to put you or other C&R folks down, but as in all politic's, I don't get it or agree.

Just simply explain why when you have a healthy stock of fish you would be against harvesting them.

If you know me from numerous post on ifish :grin: , I have absolutely no (zero) interest in fishing a river when it is only C&R.
In fact I actually feel guilty harassing them.
Obviously you and Stew and others feel differently about C&R, but many others have the same opinion as me.

Check out the Salmon River (Lincoln County) during the winter run steelhead.
Sure there are plenty of wild steelhead in there (management), but you rarely see a car along the entire stretch!

What a waste of the resource!

I ain't going to fish there just to catch a fish that I have to release!

Sorry Marty but this mentality of catching hatchery fish and letting the wild ones go doesn't make any sense to me versus "catching & releasing" the wild ones and without the detrimenatal effects of hatchery fish.

Dano

Originally posted by Gone Fishin:
Don't kill wild steelhead. Thank you.

end.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My sentiments exactly Marty! It does make one wonder though, how the WDFW can, on one hand, ban the killing of wild steelhead statewide then on the other hand be considering allowing an increase in wild steelhead by-catch mortality to help commercial gillnetters get their spring chinook quota.
Go figure

[thefishnfool]

Born to be wild-
To reply to a couple of questions:

-I would have to say that yes steelhead are a lot more sacred to many than the other species. Also steelhead I think are generally viewed as more of a sportsfish than a food fish like a chinook. Wild steelhead also draw more attention I think becuase the people that fish for them are in many cases more concerned about the resourse.
-In Washington there is no such thing as a run of wild steelhead that are "healthy enough" to support a wild steelhead kill. On those rivers that are said to be "healthy" they really aren't. By lowering what is considered the minimum escapement level you can make any run look healthy. In most of the cases where wild salmon retention is allowed the stocks are much healthier. The minimum escapement levels set by the state are the minimum required for a given river system to SUSTAIN the current run size if they all spawn successfully. It leaves no room for error or increase of the run.
-The guides are going to lose money? I know many, many guides that run strictly on a wild steelhead release basis and are turning away business. It is all in marketing. If they can't figure out that times are changing and if they are dumb enough not to change with them then they don't deserve to make it. Many guys won't fish with a particular guide if the guide will allow the retention of wild steelhead.
-While I don't usually agree with blanket rules for the reasons that you stated, I think in this case it is a good idea.
-I also believe that in many cases there are runs of wild salmon that are in danger that also need more protection. Salmon in many ways ARE over looked. But I think this is a step in the right direction.........sort of a stepping stone to more reforms that could lead to increased fish returns.

-I don't about you but I would rather go out and catch 5 steelhead and have to release them than to go out and not catch any at all just because some bozo felt that he needed to kill all the steelhead that he caught. If you are fishing steelhead just to eat them than take up something else and go buy some farm raised fish or target hatchery only runs.

Just my 2-cents.

Tim

[eyeFISH]

Nicely said fishnfool.

To the rest:
FYI, if you wish to educate yourself on this debate, check out the over 300 responses on this issue (9 pages and counting) on the Pisactorial Pursuits Board in WA. Might save you a few keystrokes and the need to flame one of your fellow Ifishers.

PP WSR thread

[corkyking]

It's got nothing to do with enlightened management and everything to do with politics.

Rivers which have required release of "native fish" for years continue to decline and will do so until the returns are so small that netting is a losing proposition.

Even though I release 99% of all the fish I catch, I resent being asked time and time again to sacrifice while commercial and indian interests demand their "right" to continued harvest and even argue to increase it.

In the great lakes limits are liberal and the resource continues to gain ground using stocks from the Northwest but we can't sustain even marginal levels in rivers of origin.

Ever wonder why? If we truely want to save the natives we should send them back east where they know how, and are willing, to take care of them.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by corkyking:
It's got nothing to do with enlightened management and everything to do with politics.

In the great lakes limits are liberal and the resource continues to gain ground using stocks from the Northwest but we can't sustain even marginal levels in rivers of origin.

Ever wonder why? If we truely want to save the natives we should send them back east where they know how, and are willing, to take care of them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There are very few seals, sealions, sharks, or immense schools of jack mackerel, etc. in the Great Lakes. Consequently, Great Lakes salmon & steelhead have very high smolt:adult survival rates compared to westcoast fish stocks that not only have to adapt to living in briny saltwater for part of their lives, but also are subjected to intense predation by predators not seen in the Great Lakes....nothing political about that.

[BanannaMan]

Just because there is a good population of wild fish right now does not ensure that it will always be that way. I think it's a little short sighted to say it's ok to keep fishing for natives just because there is a current strong run. Just when do you propose we stop fishing for them? When they are endangered? Unfortunently this is the case for may rivers. I think the commission should be applauded for their action. There are plenty of rivers where you can bonk a hatchery fish.

[finclipped]

I don't see the difference in C&R with a mortality and C&K? Either way your killing wild steelhead. If the population can support a "take" then one should be given to sporties. If not, we shouldn't load the river with hatchery's thereby increasing the pressures from a C&R fishery. Personally I don't like the taste of Steelhead anyway and they all get released.

Expanding the mortality allocation for wild steelhead for netters, seems like the wrong direction if you truly want wild steelhead to recover. But I am probably preaching to the choir.

[Bounty Hunter]

I agree with Dan. I've always wondered why people treat the steelhead so differently.

Not to change the subject, but what does this mean -

"· Clarified rules prohibiting snagging, making it illegal to hook and retain a fish (other than forage fish) to the rear of its gill plate."

Sounds like the anti-snagging movement has some more work to do.

[Ty]

The threat of harvest is greater to the fish that rear in fresh water laonger as juviniles, because they require much better quality and quantity of habitat.......

So, Spring and summer chinook, coho, cutthroat, and stealhead all spend more time in fresh water, with limited habitat, these fish are special and seperate them from fall cninook stocks that only spend a couple of weeks to months in fresh water.

If u only fish to kill fish..... u should take up another sport..... like lets say hunting..... the catch and kill mentality really ruins the sport of fishing..... I love to keep fish to eat.... I feel it is my civic duty to remove every hatchery fish that is edible from the river...

I fish for the sport.... love to catch um.... love to release um.... Sad to see in this day adn age that there are people that still don't want to catch a fish they have to release....

Furthere more to clarify.... if a fish is introduced to an area and reproduces on it's own that is WILD, such as Great Lakes Steelhead and Toutle River Steelhead that naturally re-established themselves.

NATIVES, technically are fish that are indiginous to a stream, river, watershed, or geographic region. There is a hug difference in the two. Considering the complex life histories of anadromous salmonids... It is safe to bet that there is a fair amount of genetic mixing in some stock and other there is not due to differences in run timing and geographic seperation.

There are wild stock's of Coho in SW Alaska that have been found to outmigrate as smolts in one river, then return up another river a short time later. Steelhead are also known for this kind of behavior. It makes sence if you are a fish that requires habitat, and habitat disturbance is frequent in your envirinment...... that their genes would include behavior like this. So what you might ask?

What this means it this...... Alot of people fiar to understand why steelhead straying rates are so high.. Much of the time they blame it on hatchery genetics... However, this is simply no thte case... these fish are suppose to do this...

It is very common on the Oregon cast to have hundreds of WILD steelhead juviniles hanging out in the adult raceways containig fall chinook and coho... Why? FOOD! Eggs everywhere! So, sometimes these fish imprint on the hatchery effluent and "stray" to the hatchery.

So, think about the mass release of steelhead smolts... Some of them have are not ready to smolt, definitly very vuneruble since they have no regard for preditoror, no behavior to constitute defending territories in a stream, but yet there ATPase levels say it is not time for them to go to the ocean yet... Now what.. These fish commonly search out habitat and will go even upstream and up differrent tributaries, possibily out into the estuary and up another river system searching. If the fish survives, then it "imprints" on that new system and returns there as an adult if it survives.

Now tell me is that fish then a stray?
NO!

Are there NATIVE fish that are anadromous?
Yes, but the definition may be loosly interpreted as WILD since there is so much gen flow from other populations.

SO, there is no reason to kill fish that can succefully reproduce on there own, no matter what species. Yep, there are many river that can sustain hatvest on wild populations....

However, this mentality leads to people with the mentality that they should be able to kill any fish they catch and don't understand the ethics of conservation and have the value's that these fish should be preserved......

[cosmo]

People make this much more complicated than it needs to be. If good science says the population can handle harvest then controlled harvest should be okay. I don't put steelhead on a pedestal either. In fact, harvestable populations of wild steelhead should be the goal of anlgers everywhere, only relying on hatcheries where needed.

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Furthere more to clarify.... if a fish is introduced to an area and reproduces on it's own that is WILD, such as Great Lakes Steelhead and Toutle River Steelhead that naturally re-established themselves.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree. These fish are resilient whatever the popular, uneducated, and extremely unscientific belief may be.

I would have to say that yes steelhead are a lot more sacred to many than the other species. Also steelhead I think are generally viewed as more of a sportsfish than a food fish like a chinook. Wild steelhead also draw more attention I think becuase the people that fish for them are in many cases more concerned about the resourse.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The steelhead may be more sacred to the sport fisherman in general, but this alone doesn't make them anymore special in terms of what they need to survive.

Great Lakes salmon & steelhead have very high smolt:adult survival rates compared to westcoast fish stocks that not only have to adapt to living in briny saltwater for part of their lives, but also are subjected to intense predation by predators not seen in the Great Lakes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wait a second. This reeks of pseudoscience. Seriously, have you read reports to support this? Not trying to be smart, just wondering 'cause I've been attacked by sharks more times than I can count while swimming in the Great Lakes.

Even though I release 99% of all the fish I catch, I resent being asked time and time again to sacrifice while commercial and indian interests demand their "right" to continued harvest and even argue to increase it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">CK,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by putting the 'right' in quotes. Do you question the tribe's rights to take fish?
Am I the only one on this board that finds it a bit of an ethical dilemma to complain about tribal fishing rights every time we get preturbed about the state's policies?
Don't take offense, please, I'm just trying to understand your point of view cause mine's way different ( I think)

[Dragfreedrift]

I'm telling you...at the rate wild fish were being harvested out of the peninsula rivers it would only be a matter of a decade or so before they would all be gone anyhow. I have been calling for statewide wild fish release up there for 15 years.

You guys here in Oregon would puke if you saw the big nates that get slaughtered up there around Forks every year.

HC

[Ty]

Half Canuk I have seen the fish on the pennisula!

Only Barbarian keep wild steelhead in the day and age, especially the big ones.

I was a creel sampler on the south coast in 1994 and was with the local research biologist who case in point is now in charge of the Coastal Invetories forthe entire Oregon Coast.

We saw this local land owner fishing above his own bridge in a nice hole in late January. The fish he had just landed was HUGE!

I was like that is a late chinook, and the biologist being the home team was no that is a big steelhead.

We decided to go settle the debate and get some scales anyhow. We get down there and sure enough monster steelhead.

Dimentions:
37 inches long
26 inches diameter
rough scale weight of 27 pounds

Age demographics:
5 years in fresh water as juvinile
2 salt (years spent in ocean)
spawned
3 salt (years spent in ocean)
spawned
2 salt (years spent in ocean)
caught and killed by local fisherman, eated and not mounted.

Let me tell u that was at least 12 years old, on it's third spawning run. Was not your traditional long a lanky steely, he was a pig!

Genetically awsome! To survive to a third spawning! Killed at the hands of a hungery fisherman?

No way, let the unclipped ones go! They have a roughly 15% chance of survining to spawn again. That is 1-15 times greater chance than they had as a smolt. These guys have the genetics and are proving it!

[ 02-10-2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[lovetofish]

Don't kill wild steelhead. Pretty simple.

I've been involved with this issue for years (I used to live in WA) and it still comes down to that for me.

--steve

I agree! I understand the desire for a trophy fish but these days with a good picture and measurements you can get a replica mount done that looks great.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Although I am not a fan of naming fish a native or hatchery (due to my ignorance as I have been told in the past)I just don't FEEL right about killing a "native" fish. If the native fish runs ever achieved a level where impacts of retention are neglagible then I would reconsider it. However, I feel it is still a bit early to say BONK'em yet. Dang I hate the sound of that, I feel a touch of green under my feet. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

Anyways, for now I got to side with Marty and Stew on tnis one. Catch them, admire them and set them free. Lots of fish to be had.

[thefishnfool]

Finclipped-
Not trying at all to flame ya just wanted to point something out. The difference between C&R with a mortality and C&K is the in the C&R fishery more people get to enjoy the same resource for a longer period of time and have the same impact as a few fishing and keeping everything they catch. This means more enjoyement for the fishing community as a whole and in most cases more money for the local communities.
Tim Lennox

[stilly bum]

Originally posted by cosmo:
...If good science says the population can handle harvest then controlled harvest should be okay. I don't put steelhead on a pedestal either.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'd be with you if we had GOOD science regarding steelhead. Unfortunately, the science we have was telling us that all the runs could sustain harvest and be just fine. Then we had emergency closures because they somehow weren't meeting escapement any more.
I see steelhead harvest differently than salmon harvest because most salmon runs are much larger than steelhead runs. I'm OK with taking a few silvers home when the run size is 50,000. When a steelhead run is at 3000 I see it differently.

[pdxkevin]

Even the Registarguard is posting about the steelheads...

Catch-and-release ordered for all wild steelhead in Washington

[Ty]

Well put stilly bum!!!

You said it even our best science is a day late and a dollar short, and we have history to prove that!

[micropterus101]

Some stuff from the boldt decision. Please understand we have got to get rid of the nets first. This regulation only covers a few rivers. It is not the big victory the purist claim it is for sportsfishermen. The rest have already been C&R yet nothing has changed except that we are loosing more privilages. This was just a victory for people that prefer to Catch & Release and want evrybody else to fish the way they do. As long as there are harvestable fish the indians will have the right to fish for them whether we partake in are privilages or not.

[*403] 32. In order for regulations not to discriminate against treaty Indians, the Department of Fisheries' harvesting plan must provide for an opportunity for treaty Indians to take, at their off-reservation usual and accustomed fishing places, a share of the harvestable fish as set forth in the Final Decision, pages 342-343.

notice it says harvestable fish, not does not distinguish between native or non native.

Regulation of off-reservation Indian treaty fishing by the United States, the State, or the Plaintiff tribes does not preempt the regulation by any of the other two. Jurisdiction of each entity to regulate is unimpaired by the exercise of another entity's regulatory jurisdiction. With respect to matters over which there may be multiple jurisdiction, the extent of exercise or non-exercise of regulatory jurisdiction by the entity having primary interest [**252] in the matter may be relevant to the appropriateness of another entity's exercise of its jurisdiction. Also the exercise of federal or tribal regulatory control may affect the finding of "necessity" which is required for the validity of any state exercise of its police power to preserve the resource .

The state cant show necessity to preserve the resource when they have already showed scientifically there are harvestable amounts of wild steelhead. Even if they could show necessity for wild stocks there is no distinction between native fish and hatchery fish in the Boldt decision!

[Born to be Wild]

-I don't about you but I would rather go out and catch 5 steelhead and have to release them than to go out and not catch any at all just because some bozo felt that he needed to kill all the steelhead that he caught. If you are fishing steelhead just to eat them than take up something else and go buy some farm raised fish or target hatchery only runs.

Just my 2-cents.

Tim

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Tim,

You might feel like fisherman like myself are “bozo’s” for going out and targeting fish that you can keep but I don’t know a single person that goes across the river bar’s onto the ocean to practice C&R.

I could reverse your analogy and suggest that you C&R guy’s quit fishing salmonids and become “bass fishermen”!
Or maybe take up golf.

Banana Man

Just because there is a good population of wild fish right now does not ensure that it will always be that way. I think it's a little short sighted to say it's ok to keep fishing for natives just because there is a current strong run. Just when do you propose we stop fishing for them? When they are endangered? Unfortunently this is the case for may rivers. I think the commission should be applauded for their action. There are plenty of rivers where you can bonk a hatchery fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dear Banana,

If you haven’t noticed we are bonking a lot of different wild fish presently and that is the way it has always been and is good management in fisheries when the run is healthy.

Take for example the white tailed dear.
If we used your management scenario, they would over populate and a lot more needless starvation would take place based on your management suggestions.

The fisheries that are or considered for consumptive fisheries are not endangered or threatened of becoming endangered.

To use the overall “blanket” mgmt. that Washington just passed in Oregon would eliminate a big percentage of the available fisheries to fishermen.

This is a move that will benefit some special interest groups, but will hurt many others including businesses.

Finnclipped:

I don't see the difference in C&R with a mortality and C&K? Either way your killing wild steelhead. If the population can support a "take" then one should be given to sporties. If not, we shouldn't load the river with hatchery's thereby increasing the pressures from a C&R fishery.

People make this much more complicated than it needs to be. If good science says the population can handle harvest then controlled harvest should be okay. I don't put steelhead on a pedestal either. In fact, harvestable populations of wild steelhead should be the goal of anlgers everywhere, only relying on hatcheries where needed.

“Personally I don't like the taste of Steelhead anyway and they all get released.”

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well obviously Finclipped buddy, you didn’t happen to bump into me the right day at the Sportsman show and sample some of that great home-baked steelhead I had there.
It was very excellent even cold as Jen has mentioned.
Good level headed post!

Originally posted by TY:

Only Barbarian keep wild steelhead in the day and age, especially the big ones.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So all the hundreds or thousands of angler's that harvest wild steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska are Barbarian? :shocked:

And what do you consider those that choose to harvest a wild coho, chinook, lingcod, black rockfish, halibut or elk?

Hope you aren’t the wave of the future for fisheries biologist! [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

I agree! I understand the desire for a trophy fish but these days with a good picture and measurements you can get a replica mount done that looks great.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Evidently you don’t like eating fish Stew.
Are you a vegetarian? [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]
And just to think that you are out harvesting them wild black berries is despickable! :grin:

I don't disrespect those that choose to C&R.
I have friends that practice C&R
I just simply don't have any interest in C&R and have other priorities.

Dano

[ 02-11-2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Abalone]

Something to think about:

Story. My wife is from the Middle East. ( Lebanon ). She grew up there and moved to the U.S.
in 1970. One day after we were married we were sitting in the backyard. An Evening Grosbeak
landed in a shrub and we both commented on it's beauty. I asked her " The must be a lot of pretty
birds in Lebanon " Her reply " If that bird would have landed in our backyard we would have had it for dinner that night " there are no birds or very few.

Think about it ! Where else in the world does the population care so much about it's Outdoors and it's wildlife. In most parts of the world especially the third world they don't enjoy the quality of outdoors that we have. Be thankful for the system of wildlife managment that we have.

There are all kinds of extremes on this issue. There are still people I know that think this is the wild west and we should be entitled to kill anything and everything. They have no respect for the law or for others. If the meat is all you are after, then you are missing something very important.

Yesterday my wife and I fished with Marty and she caught and released Six Native Steelhead.
It was a spectacular trip that I will always remember. She was laughing all day long. You couldn't find a nicer guy to fish with than Marty Peterson. My wife never understood the concept of letting a perfectly good eating fish go either. But she does now. How many steelhead would we have caught if the Nestucca was a catch and keep fishery ? This was a brilliant idea I had for Valentines day if I may say so myself.

[SalmonJeff]

I agree a dead wild steelhead is a sad story to me. I have grown up re-leaseing them even when we could keep them so to me they are more sacred.

however I think the morale of the story to help every one out even the gill killers why dont we just KILL THE SEALS!!!!! :grin: they do the most harm. but I wonder what the real impact is from the millions of shad??? [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

[slabhunter]

I believe this is the right thing to do 'cause there is only one river on the peninsula where the winter fish numbers are not declining. The years of maximum yield have taken their toll. The (over)harvest management folks at WDFW need to get a clue!

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
Evidently you don’t like eating fish Stew.
Are you a vegetarian? [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]
And just to think that you are out harvesting them wild black berries is despickable! :grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not a vegetarian Dan and I do like eating fish, just not endangered fish.
Thing is Dan you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. You talk about wild fish issues and it sounds like you favor protecting endangered run. Then you say the C&R is not a priority with you :whazzup:
Which is it?

[ 02-11-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Dragfreedrift]

Catch and release on wild fish makes sense for us all. I remember last year I caught 4-5 big nates in the upper reaches of coastal rivers that had hook marks and/or broken leaders in their mouths...to me, this indicates that the value of a wild fish released can benefit MORE THAN ONE ANGLER in a year!


HC

[Ty]

Born To Be Wild,

You can no longer keep steelhead in Alaska, cause the runs where becoming depressed from the light sport harvest.

Oh yeah, by the way, we should keep every last wild fish on the planet, then there will be nothin left to debate and you will win the competition of the game that appears that you are the only one that wants to play.

Bottomfish stocks have been overharvested too, and u no longer can keep mor than one yelloweye rockfish in Alaska.

So, who is doing the misinforming now?



[ 02-11-2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Tillamook Slugger]

Washington needs to address the treaty fishing rights also, not just sports fishing limitations. I grew up fishing on the Olympic Peninsula rivers, and now when I get the opportunity to make one weekend fishing trip per year I (perhaps selfishly) feel cheated that I cannot retain one unmarked fish while NETS harvest hundreds (thousands) of fish without consideration of origin. Tribal hatcheries are doing a great job of contributing to the replenishing of hatchery steelhead stocks, but sportsfishermen are doing a great job of funding the fishing economy with their $$$ also. As usual, the decision-makers are short sighted politicians and certainly not "natives".

[SSPey]

For those who think that commercial and tribal fisheries are the problem, then consider that a ban on sport harvest of wild steelhead may actually be the best way to leverage those groups to get with the program.

[boater]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
For those who think that commercial and tribal fisheries are the problem, then consider that a ban on sport harvest of wild steelhead may actually be the best way to leverage those groups to get with the program.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">floatnfish, this isnt a ban on the sport harvest of wild steelhead

[Born to be Wild]

Not a vegetarian Dan and I do like eating fish, just not endangered fish.
Thing is Dan you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. You talk about wild fish issues and it sounds like you favor protecting endangered run. Then you say the C&R is not a priority with you
Which is it?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No Stew, I never said or even hinted at harvesting endangered anything. (Well maybe sealions... no just kidding).
I have never posted anything remotely along those lines.


Let me give you a good analogy Stew.

Let’s say we end the harvest of wild Siletz Chinook.
Now they are a healthy stock but let us throw in the “blanket approach” just because we have some wild nook hugger’s out there.
OK, what does that do for the fishery?

Guy’s like me throw in the towel and don’t bother fishing it until we talk ODFW into putting hatchery Chinook in the Siletz.

So then we put hatchery Chinook in the Siletz and the wild Chinook take a “nose dive” and then everyone and there brother including ifisher’s become “back seat” biologist and start blaming loggers, ect., and we form an organization that is ill informed called the “Grain Forest Coallition”. :grin:

Get the point? :whazzup:

Geez, sometimes I crack myself up! :grin:

I'm sorry Stew, I'm just in a good mood once I got out of Dopey Bay!
(Great place to be from)!

Born To Be Wild,

You can no longer keep steelhead in Alaska, cause the runs where becoming depressed from the light sport harvest.

So, who is doing the misinforming now?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Ty, I just talked to my friend last night that lives on Prince of Wales Island and he told me that he can keep wild steelhead over 36”.
Granted it is only 2 a year but he can keep them.
Then if he wants, he can get a subsistence permit and keep more!
Then I believe he can keep “spring” steelhead on top of that!

So, who is doing the misinforming again?

You or my friend Silverton Dan that now lives on the Harris River on Prince of Wales Island and has a PO box in Craig, Alaska?

For those who think that commercial and tribal fisheries are the problem, then consider that a ban on sport harvest of wild steelhead may actually be the best way to leverage those groups to get with the program.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A ban on wild harvest promotes hatchery fish which are detrimental to wild fish. Fact!

Seems to me that we already are dealing with “that” problem and we need to make some long-term management solutions.

OK, fire away again! :smile:

Remember we are friends looking at problems or choices of directions to take and possible solutions (brain storming) and not telling each other flat out; you are wrong.

Dano

[SSPey]

What's the difference between a two-year moratorium on retaining wild steelhead versus a ban on sport harvest of wild steelhead? :whazzup:

No Dan you lost me :whazzup: No problem though because I'm done with this thread. Some very good points have been made and some not so good so I'll let the readers decide for themselves.
Good luck [img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[Claybear]

If it's legal and proven there are enough wild fish that can sustain being harvested in a given river or system, I will keep em. Simple.

[BanannaMan]

Born,

Beleive me if I could catch and release deer I would. I hate that pack out of the canyon I always seem to shoot big deer out of.

You are luck you live and can fish a river that has a healty population of natives. I have seen the rivers I fish have fewer and fewer every year. Twenty years ago when I was knee high to a grasshopper, I remember when I would come to a hole and you could not see the bottom because of all the fish and it would be that way for months. Now if I compare that to my trip yesterday in which I did'nt see a single fish in the river it seems that twenty years is a really short period of time in which to destroy a fishery. All the release restrictions came too late for the rivers I fish, maybe if they had been put in place when the native run was strong it might have made a difference.

I get the feeling you think those fish or deer will go to waste if they go unharvested. Nothing in nature is wasted. Even in death the serve to propetuate the circle of life that returns those native runs to your rivers every year. Enjoy your wild fishery, some of us arent so lucky.

[fishslayer97005]

About time!!, save the wild steelhead!!!!

[Dragfreedrift]

yes, the Tribal fishermen's true colors are going to show on this one...will they refrain from netting to toe the line, or will they continue to catch wild fish?


Lets hope they will reduce harvest.


HC

[Commercialfisherman]

Ty,
I dont know where you got your information but the rivers in Alaska have some the largest runs in the world of steelhead and are not becoming depleted. You can keep 1 steelhead per day, 36 in minimum. Maybe there are becoming depleted in the area where you have been or heard of but i have been fishing commercially in Southeast Alaska for 15 yrs and have not seen a decline in the run strenght of steelhead or rockfish or salmon.

[Commercialfisherman]

The moratorium on wild fish is a joke. Every river in the state of WA can be netted so banning the catch and kill will not stop the problem. Rivers where you can keep wild fish have a viable population of wild steelhead and good habitat to support the population of wild steelhead so letting a few wild fish be killed every year by sportsmen does not effect the overall wild population.

[Born to be Wild]

There you go posted by Claybear:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's legal and proven there are enough wild fish that can sustain being harvested in a given river or system, I will keep em. Simple.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You nailed it Clatbear!
That's my way of thinking.


Originally posted by Banana Man:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born,

Beleive me if I could catch and release deer I would. I hate that pack out of the canyon I always seem to shoot big deer out of.

You are luck you live and can fish a river that has a healty population of natives. I have seen the rivers I fish have fewer and fewer every year. Twenty years ago when I was knee high to a grasshopper, I remember when I would come to a hole and you could not see the bottom because of all the fish and it would be that way for months. Now if I compare that to my trip yesterday in which I did'nt see a single fish in the river it seems that twenty years is a really short period of time in which to destroy a fishery. All the release restrictions came too late for the rivers I fish, maybe if they had been put in place when the native run was strong it might have made a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe try putting less hatchery smolt’s in that river and see what happens?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get the feeling you think those fish or deer will go to waste if they go unharvested. Nothing in nature is wasted. Even in death the serve to propetuate the circle of life that returns those native runs to your rivers every year. Enjoy your wild fishery, some of us arent so lucky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I realize the difference in “waste” and realize that “dead fish” do some good, but I would rather take a wild steelhead home once in a while rather than seeing one sink to the bottom after some C&R guy released one.


So I guess I have to say to you Stew; you want the privilege of C&R on steelhead, but we want the privilege of retaining a wild steelhead and we both have to respect other’s wishes.

So I will keep and eat a special dinner but you and your “follower’s” can practice C&R and I will loose no sleep.


--------------------
"Lord help me be the person that my dog thinks I am"!

[ 02-13-2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[boater]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
What's the difference between a two-year moratorium on retaining wild steelhead versus a ban on sport harvest of wild steelhead? :whazzup:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">harvest and incidental take mean the same thing, a dead fish, so if you ban the sport harvest/incidental take of wild steelhead you wouldnt be able to fish anywhere that there might be a wild steelhead present