Are you in support of proposed Washington wild steelhead release regs?

[steeliebob]

If so, please read on:

It's that time again! Time to harness the power of the web and show a loud voice of support for the proposed regulations to the Washington State sportfishing rules to eliminate any exceptions to the current rule of statewide release of wild steelhead.

We did the form letter a few years ago in the last round of major proposals before the WDFW and nearly 300 were sent off via the form we had available then. Hopefully, we can easily exceed that number this time around. Last time, it was mentioned during the discussion of the issues at the large numbers of email the WDFW had received in response ... let's really open their eyes this time around!

Please note that public testimony or appearance at the meetings on December 7, 8, and 9, or a personal letter will likely carry more weight than a form letter.

However, if you don't plan on doing any of the above, please enter your name and address into the form and it will automatically be sent to the people at the WDFW it needs to get to!

It only takes about 15 seconds to complete the form and you're voicing your support to help maintain angling opportunities and the health of Washington State's wild steelhead runs!

Thank you!

Form Letter for Support of Proposed Wild Steelhead Release Regulations

[First Bite]

steeliebob
Thanks for putting this post on the board. The WDFW needs to hear from as many people as possible. All wild steelhead need to be released and hopefully this proposal will go through.

Mark

[Jennie@ifish]

Thanks, Bob.
I hope to do this with some of our Oregon issues also.
What a great way to support our fisheries...
MASS MAIL!
We do have a voice and it's louder than they think!
:smile:
Jen

[ampersat]

i'm probably just crazy, but i have an idea. how about there be two fishing tags: one for everything that is legal to keep (hatchery and native) and a cheaper one for hatchery only. they did a hatchery only harvest card because if the high numbers of returns this year. why not continue it in a slightly modified form?

[TH]

Bob has done a lot of work regarding this issue, I hope it goes through!
C&R has been great here are the SC and I hope the trends finds it's way north.
Thanks Bob!!

[FM2]

Thanks for the heads up Bob. I signed the form letter last night and hope others will do the same. I don't fish much in Washington but I believe a clear message should be sent as other agencies will be tracking this response.

I encourage Oregon anglers to show support as this may become an issue here one day and by sending this message now, this may prevent changes to current regs in the future.

[Jennie@ifish]

Bringing this to the top... Remember, when we need help, I'm sure Bob will reciprocate!
Sign it!

Jen

[SlabQuest]

Please do not hesitate to send this letter because you are from out of state. The legislators and the WDFW recognize that a lot of Oregonians purchase the expensive "non-resident" licenses to fish Washington waters and they want that trend to increase, not decrease.

[Jennie@ifish]

You will have more weight if you compose your own letter, but this is a great alternative, if you are too busy right now.
J

[smilesforu]

I am opposed to this proposal and have spent alot of time on this issue. There are many side issues that are being swept under the rug on this one. I am all for catch and release but it is a matter of personal choice excerised by responsible anglers. This proposal also removes another management tool from the hands of our State. If you would like to read the full details of the debate that took place over this issue before you give blanket support. Be informed instead of lead astray by good intentions.
I sent my letter in support of the second option which was a limited harvest of the fishery. The state doesn't allow harvest on fisheries it feels can't sustain it.

Debate over Proposed fishing regulations

[Bubzilla]

Marty,

I can't say that I've ever seen harvest of native steelhead characterized as a "management tool" before. What exactly are the biological benefits of harvesting natives? That is, how is the health of a fishery improved by allowing the harvest of natives?

I think using the term "management tool" necessarily implies that there is some positive benefit for the fishery. In contrast, I think most of us would agree that simply creating consumptive opportunities is not as much a fisheries management tool as it is a means to sell licenses and harvest tags, and placate special interests that often lack the capacity to understand the difference between recreational sport fishing and subsistence fishing.

I could be wrong, it's been known to happen quite a bit, so I would very much appreciate it if you could explain to me how the harvest of natives can improve the health of fisheries. Otherwise, I think that harvest of natives is a management tool that WDFW can live without.

I do agree with one thing you've said, though: catch and release is a personal choice. Although, I believe it should be a choice between letting them go or staying home when it comes to native steelhead.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]</p>

[birdhunter]

Marty makes some excellent points. Still not totally sure how I feel about this issue. I've never killed a wild steelhead and I have no intention of doing so. I also don't target wild steelhead either. CnR or otherwise. I guess I'm just a brat meat fisherman. Doesn't necessarily mean I think all streams should be closed to CnR if they can't support a CnK fishery, but I sure do wish people would stop harassing the fish on their redds. (Yes I'm particularly talking about chums and you know who you are).

Another thing to consider (This is probably where I should learn to just bite my tounge, but...): How is a wild fall chinook any different than a wild steelhead? People seem to get all bent out of shape over killing steelhead, yet have no qualms about killing salmon. I really don't want to single out anyone here, and hesitate to even post this because I'm not trying to judge. All I'm saying is, don't be hypocritical.

I guess that's why I'm not writing in on this. Sure saving wild steelhead is great. I don't think there's anyone who would disagree with that. However, I know that I like to fish for upriver brights and fall chinook. Don't need an adipose fin clip to keep them. If I enjoy harvesting a wild fish from a fishery that the state deems is healthy enough to permit harvest, than how can I write to Washington and tell them not to do it just because it's a different kind of fish? Sorry if I'm offending anyone. To me, it's all about personal choice I guess. Just my .02

[smilesforu]

Catch and Release is also a management tool.

Fish returns are dependant on many factors including the health of ecosystems. If you over populate a fisheries ecosystem without the ability to sustain the population a larger number of the population dies off. This level will be reached faster in the current rivers where there is already a SURPLUS OF ESCAPEMENT!! This directly leads to the foregone opportunity issues. This is a issue and the State has prominently mentioned it in the Proposed rule changes.
Glad you are interested in the subject and most of this is covered in better detail on the debate thread. Might want to drop your bias before you read it. Have fun

[Jim]

Birdhunter, I totally agree with you regarding the killing of a Wild Fall Chinook or.....

This is a snarly issue here in washington and to be honest if I was on the commission I do not know which way I would rule. As a Biologist and former WDFW employee, I know and trust many of the managers who are working hard every day to create viable fisheries. I know the complaint phone calls they get regarding any decision they make. The commission will be faced with making a decision that the Biologists are recommending or that non-biologists are making. It is a sticky wicket, what is best for the fish?? That depends on whether forgone opportunity is utilized by the tribes...if it is then we will have made a horrible mistake. We sportsman cannot come close to the impact that a net has....I sure wish it was simple. But, based on what I know I would lean towards the states Bios, and that is with the general feelling that I personally have that they haven't got a great track record. Protectionism is always easier than conservation...but in this case, no matter what, wild steelhead will still be harvested, possible at an increased rate!

Jim

[Bubzilla]

Marty,

Are you suggesting that Washington's rivers are in danger of overpopulation if navtive steelhead aren't harvested this season? I must admit not being a fisheries biologist, but aren't escapement levels merely minimums? If exceeding those levels would be so dangerous, I guess the fisheries must have been in a terrible shape before man began harvesting all the extras, huh?

Incidentally, I did follow the link in your post, and read through the thread in it's entirety. Quite a bit of "fly-guy" bashing, psuedo-science, and legal interpretations that would get someone flunked out of law school, but not many facts.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[smilesforu]

Escapement levels are not minimums, they are the designated numbers of fish that are needed to spawn to reach maximum returning adults (MSY)

According to MSY over that amount in a system will decrease the returning adults.

THis is how I understand it.