Well said, Yarf.

In the here and now, we can only control our own actions. That's not to say we can't also try to get the nets out of the water, but we can certainly control our own actions. What every other group is doing to these native fish is of no consequence to our own actions. Why whack a nate because "everybody else is doing it"? We don't need the "if everyone jumped off a bridge...." explanation, do we?

Our fishing future depends on preserving these runs. That's done by working to enhance the environment, provide food items for smolts, reducing demand for native steelhead, and releasing any natives you may be fortunate enough to catch. The tribal netting is irrelevant to the need for US to release native fish.

The "healthy" native runs are only healthy NOW. Keep killing them and they won't be healthy for long. You wanna be part of the problem because the WDFW (not know for good decision-making in the past) says it's OK? Go ahead. But don't expect me to chime in on bagging on the tribes for netting, while some of us are killing wild steelhead, too. Hello, pot. Meet the kettle.

Enough rambling now, I have some gear maintenance to do..........

Fish on...........

I think Yarf'em hit on a very important point. If nutrients are introduced into the streams perhaps the carring capacity for juveniles would be increased. If this happens the escapemant could be raised and over time the dead fish would replace the need for planting dead fish? I heard that a capsule has been developed already for increasing nutrients instream. One capsule is equal to one fish but of course it's pricey.

Hey Dan,
don't be too sure the farmer didn't intend to eat Pvt. Smith. He was French after all.

Well said Dan. Right on! - Steve

It seems like we're all forgetting that much of this issue has to do with principle. I'll explain: for the moment, the tribes are going to net because it's their right. The first step toward amending that is taking care of our end of the deal. Bottom line is that the tribes kill fish but so do sportsmen. As long as we are killing fish yet criticizing the tribes for doing the same thing, we're being hypocritical. When statewide catch-and-release of all nates goes into effect, we'll be in a position to criticize the tribes. It's really as simple as that. I don't believe any wild steelhead should die, and the commercial slaughter appauls me. But we can't begin fixing the problem there. We start by releasing all the natives WE catch. It's amazing how simple it really is.

A native steelhead is a fish. Just like any other. It's not a holy grail. If they're not endangered in a river, there is no reason to impose full C&R. Why not impose full C&R on ling cod? They're endangered in some areas. How about halibut and sturgeon? Once a fish is endangered, sure, go C&R, but until then, there's no reason to force people who food fish or trophy fish, to let them go.

Also, people who say sportsmen are as guilty as tribes are either full of it, or stupid. Let's say that there were no nets. Now, let's say that every sportsman kills 2 nates every time they fish (which we know will never happen). Even under those circumstances, the runs would flourish. With the amount of fish that would be returning, the sportsman could not keep enough (legally) to harm the runs at all. Now, get rid of the sportsmen, and put the nets back in. The runs would decline. Why is that? Because nets kill far more fish than sportsmen. If it was full C&R, that would mean the tribes could catch more. The treaties give them 50% of harvestable fish. Let's say that 100 harvestable fish enter a system. They would be able to harvest 50 of them and sportsmane the remaining 50. Now, sportsman have never caught their 50% (it's not a right for us) so we'll say we caught 30 fish. The remaining 20 can now go and spawn with the rest of the fish. Go full time C&R, and the tribes will now be able to target all 100 fish. With nets, they will probably be able to catch them all, if not, there will be much fewer that will make it to spawn. I hope my analogy makes sense as I'm in a hurry and don't have time to explain.

[This message has been edited by WA fisher (edited 03-26-2001).]

fisher,

OK, I'm only going to say this once more, because any more than that would be a waste of the earth's oxygen.

The tribes' right to fish has been guaranteed by the treaties. This has been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. You aren't going to stop them from fishing using any legal maneuvering. Cutting the demand, and therefore, the price of this fish is one alternative method that MIGHT work.

If you kill wild fish and then bag on the tribes for killing fish, you are a hypocrite. If you release wild fish, and bag on the tribes, then at least you are justified in your opinion.

Face it, you're a meat-fisherman. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck......... That's fine with me, but I think your support for such a position will be sparse on this BB.

How can you call me a meat fisher when I've never kept a nate? I just think people that choose to should be able to, therefore, I'm against mandatory C&R.

So let me get this straight, you see no difference from a sportsman keeping a fish to feed his/her family and tribal fisherman who kill everything that swims in their net, sell it for under $1 a pound or put the rest to waste? I see a big difference. I would have far less problems with the tribes if I knew they were fishing to feed their tribe/family like they did traditionally. But 2 hundred years ago, they did not sell their catch to the Pike Place Market for $.80 a pound. They did not catch thousands of salmon, strip the eggs out of the hens and leave them to rot on the beach so they could sell the eggs to the Japanese. I see a huge difference between this behavior and a sportsman who wants to keep a fish for the BBQ. And since you said nothing contradicting my last argument, I'm assuming you didn't even read it. Anyone who says that sportsman are to blame for the decline of steelhead runs doesn't know their facts. I suppose we are also to blame for the decline of true cod in Puget Sound? Those bottom draggers had nothing to do with the situation did they?

Ok people, sharpen your pencils.
Lets say 500 fish return to a river.The tribes are entitled to half. So, divide 500 by 2. Subtract another modest 25 fish killed from whatever. Now, take the surviving percentage that are females that will deposit eggs & the number of eggs per hen that survive silt, sun, pollution, lack of nutrients & the flood years. Subtract the smolt that don't survive the trip to the ocean because of pollution, poor habitat & predators. Do the same process 25 times to represent the last quarter century.
Anyone from the WDFW reading this is more than welcome jump right in there with facts showing that this is anything but a downward spiral.

In fairness to the Tribes, I must point out that they have been short changed, to say the least, by the government. They've been lied too & stolen from. I don't believe the government has ever honored a treaty that has not remained in their own best interest.
Most of us would want to hold on to what precious little was left us under similar circumstance. But, that's another story. (sorry, almost went off )
However, they would probably make more money guiding tourists on rivers with healthy runs.