How noble is it for a fisherman to promote a total catch and release (c/r) fishery for wild steelhead? The idea surely sounds noble, but what will be the long term consequences for the average fishermen if c/r eventually eliminates all his harvest opportunity? Many fishermen have valid concerns about c/r and may upset many of the die-hards c/r folks who have dedicated so much of their time and passion into that effort. I believe that there's still a lot of mixed felling among both sides about this subject and find that more open discussion is needed to help head off a war between the 2 different points of views.

It has been my personal experience from talking to hundreds of fishermen, that they are not yet totally sold on c/r over harvest. I believe that their concerns have some validity because in so many cases c/r is being promoted with no future opportunity for harvest, especially when escapement goals have never even been set by WDFW. I personally share some of their concerns when I read what so many of the c/r groups "Mission Statements" say. Many of these groups' goals for rebuilding our wild steelhead stocks are noble indeed, but most of the c/r "Mission Statements" that I've seen have left out a key element that will eventual lead to their failure. It's called "harvest"!

Why is it that for the most part, the promoters of these c/r wild steelhead groups always leave out any possible option or opportunity for future harvest? Why won't they include something in their mission statements that would bring both c/r and harvest fishermen together in support of a common mission, e.g., more harvestable fish? What incentive is there for the "average fishermen" to support bringing back wild stocks of steelhead if he thinks or perceives that he will never be able to catch or "harvest" any of them in the future? Like it or not, there's a lot more fishermen out there who's main goal is to go home with a fish then there are of the c/r type fishermen!

So why not include harvest as a long term goal statement? Wouldn't it make more sense to make a mission statement that would pull both sides closer together rather then one that pushes them further apart? Why not say something e.g. "We promote year round, catch and release of all wild steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. Our long term goal is to bring our wild steelhead stocks back in sufficient numbers so that can support a harvestable self-sustainable sport fishery?

As it stands now, WDFW has cut off the harvest of all wild steelhead for almost every stream in our state without setting any escapement goals that would eventually allow us some sort of limited harvest in the foreseeable future. Shouldn't WDFW set and PUBLISH established escapement goals for every river system, and then allow some sort of limited harvest once those goals have been met? Some areas may never again support harvest, but many others will. So why not start the process now, and set the escapements needs for each river system, so that someday in the near future, we can all get back our rights to decide for ourselves if old iron head goes back into the water, or he goes home to the old barbeque.

What are your feelings about making WDFW set an PUBLISH escapement goals for wild steelhead now for each river system, and when that escapement goal has been met, allow a limited sport harvest? When do YOU think that "harvest" should occur on "wild steelhead", or do YOU think that they should be protected for forever? Why is it that WDFW has established hatchery escapement needs for all their hatcheries, but can't quite get it done for each of our river system?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitz, first why should the WDFW be trusted with anything concerning wild fisheries? Many of the rivers are in the mess they are in are because of WDFW. The only way to preserve wild fisheries is by releasing all our wild fish. It works in every state and province around the world, its past time for Washington!

Wild fish are for fun, shopping is for food. I doubt that there will ever be enough wild fish in the rivers any time during my life that I would even concider it. As much as I want to think that they will recover I see little/nothing being done to actually improve the situation. The Damns are not coming out.. The nets are always gonna be there... and nobodys going to agree on anything.. as long as money is the deciding factor. There are plenty of brats out there. Letting all wild fish go is the one thing any sportsman can do to say they love steelhead and prove it at the same time.

i admire cowlitz fisherman for his persistance to open up the wallace gravel pits.a place ive never been but a lot of people will appreciate his efforts to openj up oppertunities to harvest the fish we paid for on the land we paid to fish on in perpetuity just like the indians did.the indians will always take 50% of the harvestable fish determined by them and the state wildlife dept.we might as well kill our share or the indians will take our share of the harvestable fish. read the treaty forgone opportunity goes to the indians,they will take the natives we dont.cowlitz fisherman has BALLS unlike a lot of the purists on this board.DONT get me wrong ,i dont have any problam with releasisg wild fih,but when the indians are killing em upstream from me when im releasing them. whats the point.and furthermorer when the wild quota was cut back on the peninsula the native americans decided to take our share of the 50% we were not going to get.greed is shared by all races. thank you again cowlitz fisherman for opening up the wallace gravel pits. i just wish all the fishermen could grow half your balls. thanks

(1)Habitat will NEVER rebound to allow maximum fish capacity in our rivers.
(2) Nets will always be there.
(3) Population in Seattle suburbs is growing emmensily.
(4) WDFW will NEVER have the funds to monitor fish passage/escapement goals.
(5) There is no such thing as a "surplus" when it comes to wild steelhead

Therefore: you will never harvest steelhead like the "good ol' days" because the good ol' days put us in the hole we are in now, along with many other things.

We need to face the music - Wild steelhead are a highly saught after game fish, they need to be treated like that, and the way to do it is have a statewide CNR of ALL wild steelhead.

We need to improve hatchery output so anybody wanting to keep a fish will have a very good opportunity to do it. Everyone likes to take home a brat for the BBQ every once in a while.

WE have too many people fighting over limited resources.....

AC,

With the exception of punctuation, capitol letters, and spelling, nice job!

Cowlitz has always been one to bring issues to the forefront, without regard to what others may think. (I still have a spot open for Cowlitz on a trip to Sekiu anytime I am up there!!!!) He has taught me a thing or two, and got me involved in the issues that affect us all.

Bob, thanks again for your forward thinking.

Andy

bank walker,the only way the indians will let any more fish than the harvestabe amount get by is if the federal govt. tells themj they have to. we should kill our share just like they do or else we will lose them to harvest for ouselves dont feel guilty when you kill a native fish they have been allocated for our harvest .if we dont take them the indians will.catch and release is a good idea when it can be applied to both sides.ive seen far too much after season fishing by the tribes to think that catck and release will have any real benefit to the resource for example where i am from the stuck river closes to all fishing for all sportsman feb 28 .we cant even catch and release.the indians can catch and kill on hook and line what kind of crap is that? i would let em go if it was legal for me to fish.they fished the puyallup with nets past march. thats a crime the federal govt. is the vconly ones that can stop this kind of crimes from happening
ty

hey dogfish. i never got on here to prove i was an intellectual. i just want to get my point across.a set amount of fish will be killed.both sides need to decide how many that is. and both sides are entitlrd by law to their fair share

In my opinion C/R of wild fish should be accepted as the way it's going to be if we are going to have any wild fish left. Unfortunately we can't do anything about the indians, we can only do our part as sport anglers. Personally I love the fish as much as the fishing and could never bring myself to killing a native.....I have a hard time killing a hatchery fish anymore!

hey jigman.thats your perogative.but we shoulod be entitled to every fish that we can harvest under the law.thats why the wdf still allows harvest or wild fish on some rivers. the indians will kill the ones we dontis the fish worth .50 per pound or a lot more when caught by the sportsmen?

Hi AC,

I was just giving you a little ribbing. Notice the smiles? I agree with the substance of your argument, and Cowlitz's as well. We are on the same side. Take care and have a nice evening. Andy

P.S. You may want to cut down on the caffeine (SP?), as it looks like you want to jump on every dissenting opinion (that's another joke, sorry). Relax, have fun, as we are all willing to discuss the issues.

So, say that I catch a wild steelie in the Upper Duc and because it is the right thing to do, I release it. An Indian net is going to get the fish and not allow it to spawn??? When was the last time I anyone saw a net up there or how often do we steelheaders see nets strung across our most productive holes?? Hardly ever because the nets are strung across mainly the tidal sections of rivers and we are usually (but not always) above tide and the nets. So how is an Indian going to kill that fish that I released if there isnt a net to catch it???? (And yes I do know that post-spawners get slaughterd in nets but thats a differnt stroy)

BTW-Im back!!

And in referance to the question posed in the initial post...thats what hatchery fish are for: HARVEST!!!!

ac, you get the big thumbs down buddy. .

Hey RT,
Good point, there are no nets on the uppers.
Andy,I thought you gave up on being a puncuation monitor, keep it up, it keeps me sane.
Hey COW, Your points, as usual, are very well taken BUT, I can only hope that legal harvest of wild iron will never take place in my lifetime. O.K.?-Why be a total meatman.
Look at the grandkids and let the fishy go-REAL SIMPLE- Question COW. Have you ever released a brat? PEACE

I fish, well to go fishing, To be outside, and to fight fish.
I dont fish for food, salmon tastes OK. And I have never had steelhead.
So why not just c/r only on ALL wild steelhead.
I guess the nets are the big problem. They cant let the wild ones go. I think that if all of the sports went C/R only. The wild fish population would still decline. Why? THE NETS. At least thats what I think. And if somone else thinks somthing differnt. Lets hear it. Im new to this sport vs netting game, And im curious.

RT??? RT???? That is the last person I want to be confused with.

Sorry R.P.-It was late.

AC
Just wondering on what rivers the Native American used foregone opportunity? I may be wrong but this question was brought up to fish&game at a meeting I was at and if I remember right the answer was the only attempt since the Bolt act to challenge foregone opportunity was the Gillneters against some other group who did not harvest their total aloted number of fish on the Columbia River. Also does anyone know if some group wants to harvest someone elses share of fish if they need to go to court to get permission? Anyone know how that works?
Thanks
Land Tuna

Ahhh,...foregone opportunity. The legitimate fear for steelhead advocates, the war cry for harvest-minded fishermen.

Without going too much into it right now, foregone opportunity has only been tested in the courts a smattering of times with only one consistent feature; it doesn't mean that "they kill half, and we kill half, and if one of us doesn't kill their half the other guys do".

What it means is that both sides must be assured of their opportunity to harvest their half, not be assured of killing their half.

An open season, whether to harvest or to catch and release, provides the opportunity to "harvest" our non-tribal share of the fish.

There are two ways to harvest (by non-tribal fishers). Direct harvest, i.e., catch and kill, or indirect harvest. Indirect harvest would be accomplished by acknowledging that cnr does have a measurable mortality (exactly what that is varies depending on the study, but 2% to 7% seems to cover about 90% of the studies).

If cnr results in 5% mortality, then it is possible that enough fish can be cnr'd that the non-tribal share would be harvested, albeit indirectly.

I say possible, but know that it is very improbable, maybe even almost impossible. If there are 4500 harvestable native fish (non-tribal), and cnr mortality were 5%, then 90,000 cnr's would have to take place to actually kill 4500 fish.

No matter how good of fishermen we are, we're not going to have 90,000 cnr situations on any river, perhaps not even state wide on all rivers.

That, however, is not particularly relevant. The relevant part is that we have the opportunity to do so by having a cnr season and going out and trying to do so.

So long as we have the opportunity, and take advantage of it, our opportunity has not been foregone.

The relevant case law is in, of course, U.S. v. Washington (Boldt decision), where the fish were split 50/50, and Hoh v. Baldridge, where the opportunity to harvest each half was insured.

In the future, a few months give or take, I will post either a full legal explanation of these concepts, or a link to the explanation.

I think that foregone opportunity is a fascinating and at times intimidating prospect, but that it actually works in our favor to assure that we will get to fish for the non-tribal share of native steelhead.

Fish on...

Todd Ripley
Wild Steelhead Coalition

Skyrise

You asked me "why should the WDFW be trusted with anything concerning wild fisheries?" That a pretty simple one to answer! Because it's the law! Do I like that law…not really! But until its change, that's the way it will be. True, many of the reasons why are rivers are so screwed up is because of the way WDFW manages it's polices. But remember, until we change our system of having our governor appoint our WDFW director, things and polices will probably not change much.

A lot people do not even know that there are already EXISTING LAWS that mandate WDFW to develop a plan that would double "Game fish production by the year 2000". The law (RCW 77.12.710) is still active and on the books. In part it states; … "the department SHALL provide the legislature with a specific plan for legislative approval that will outline the feasibility of increasing game fish production by one hundred percent over current levels by the year 2000. The plan SHALL contain specific provisions to increase both hatchery and naturally spawning game fish to a level that will support the production goal established in this section consistent with department polices. Steelhead trout, sea run cutthroat trout, resident trout, and warm water fish production areas of the state SHALL be included in the plan." Have you ever seen "the plan"? I have not!

So the tools are already in place that requires WDFW to define the escapement needs for each river system that support runs of wild steelhead because they are a "naturally spawned game fish" and fall directly under the mandate of RCW 77.12.710. Many of us get so passionate over "wild fish" that we sometimes loose site of the bigger picture. There are ways to satisfy both point of views concerning harvest and catch and release (CNR). I will give you one example of how that has already been successfully carried out. In 1994 WDFW participated in a joint reintroduction program in the upper Cowlitz River. "Wild" genetic stocks of late-winter Cowlitz steelhead were used for the reintroduction.

The Sport fishing Guides of Washington fought and protested the plan and made a big issue that only 3 wild fish had returned from the 1997 plant of 75,000 smolts. It didn't matter or make any different to them the fact that the entire Cowlitz River had also experience one of its worse returns ever of winter steelhead. Originally, WDFW planted 400,000 steelhead fry into the upper Cowlitz that came from what WDFW reported was a late "genetic stock" of the original "wild Cowlitz steelhead". Most all of them never survived because the trapping faculties at Cowlitz Falls Dam never came on line until late 1996, and to top it off, that was the year of the "Big floods" on the Cowlitz.

When word got out about the Cowlitz Falls Reintroduction Plan, the Sport Fishing Guides of Washington were outraged because they knew that these fish, if successful, would put new limitations and restrictions on what they could harvest. Like it or not, that was the way it happened!

Because of the massive amount of public pressure, sport fishing groups like Friends of the Cowlitz helped the WDFW developed a plan that would allow some limited sport fishing on these "wild genetic stocks" of Cowlitz late-winter run steelhead. The 5 year plan called for rearing and clipping the right petrol fin of 75,000 late-winter genetic Cowlitz steelhead and holding them in rearing pens in the Cowlitz Falls reservoir for imprinting and release into the lower Cowlitz River below the Barrier Dam. Needless to say 1995 and 1996 were some of the biggest flood events to ever occur on the Cowlitz. All 75,000 smolts, and countless numbers of fry, were dumped into Riffle Lake for a one way ticket to doomsday. From that time on (1997-1998) the total planned numbers of fry and smolts released for up-river sport harvest and reintroduction dropped considerably. Finally, in 1999 sport fishermen got there first returned fin clipped fish back for the upper river fishery. I know of numerous others fish that were taken by fishermen just below the Cowlitz Barrier Dam and were never reported.

Both last year and this year, numerous right fin clipped steelhead were harvested at the barrier dam and below. Even with all the poaching going on, and the hook and releasing in the lower river, the numbers of unmarked wild fished has increased dramatically. In 1998, only 3 late-winter unmarked (up-river) genetic stock of steelhead returned to the separator at the Barrier Dam. In 1999, 122 late-winter unmarked (up-river) genetic stocks of steelhead returned to the separator at the Barrier. In 2000, 388 late-winter unmarked (up-river) genetic stock of steelhead returned to the separator at the Barrier Dam after going through a massive sport fishery below. And now in 2001, we have over 692 up-river unmarked steelhead returning to the separator at the Barrier Dam. These numbers do not even include the fish that the hatchery has taken out for there own late-winter brood stock programs.

Now, that is how you can have both a CNR and harvest at the same time, and yet you can keep building up the "wild stock" runs while you are also having a harvest. Its working on the Cowlitz and it can work on other river systems too! It just takes a lot of hard work and commitment, but it shows you that 2 different points of views can coexist. I and others have been working on this for the last 10 years and it's just now starting to come together. That is why I think it's time to find out what the escapements needs are for all rivers systems and start now to develop a plan similar that on the Cowlitz. Catch and Release is great, and a lot of fishermen think harvest is just as great.

It's kind of ironic that we can all talk about the many different ways to catch fish on this BB, but yet we just can't seem too able to talk about any new inventive ways that both CNR and harvest can work and coexist together. Or can we? A lot more needs to be said about this issue without anyone taking personal offense to another persons opposing view. I for one want to hear and see the science that says CNR and harvest can't work together. Some of our best creative fish-knowledgeable minds read and post on this BB, so why don't they suggest some new ideas?

One thing that I don't want to do in this posing is to get into the Indian thing! There is lots of other posting to bring that issue up in. I just want to stay focused on how we can have a CNR and Harvest fishery both at the same time.

Cowlitzfisherman

Lots of people enjoy shooting ducks, while other only enjoy shooting clay pigeons. Some like meat and other just like to shoot. Is one side more right then the other?

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????


[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]