The state gives you the right to retain Chinook on the OP rivers but im asking that you dont. The last few years the Chinook runs out here havent been very good. Knowone seems to want to take the steps to ensure these runs come back.

Im asking you to take it upon yourselves to make sure these fish are not pushed into a critical level. It seems that the orginizations with power will not acknoledge that the Chinook runs out here are in trouble.

Just a note there are no hatchery programs for fall Chinook on the Forks area rivers. Im talking about the Quileute system and the Hoh. 90% of these fish are black when they hit the river anyways and arnt table fare so whats the point of taking them out of the system.

So please CnR the Chinook.

I think alot of nookies are bonked by guides and clients. I hate to make it sound as if I'm pointing a finger at just them I'm not. Weekend warriors and locals alike are bonkin' em' too! I think the problem is many people go to the OP to hook a "KING SALMON" and they want to bring it home. I bonk chinook out there too, but if it ain't chrome it ain't coming home. The bottom line is OUR STATE HAS NO BALLS to change things for the better. Such as Indian netters, white boy netters, and sporties like you and I. Sometimes I wonder if the state of Washington will ever pull its head out its @ss and see what type of world class fishing could be if the right changes were made.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: BK ]

I dont see the problem with taking one a year or so but when everybody takes that one fish it adds up.

Hey Rich,

I've got a trip booked for my girlfriend and I on the 28th of this month, I was thinking of just taking pictures anyways, now I'm sure we will.

I wasn't really aware that the kings were in trouble, I haven't heard that before, (and I live out here) and I think people just aren't aware of that fact. Some education is in order.

-N.

I agree with BK on this one, if it ain't chrome it ain't comin home. Besides the silvers are much better table fare!!!
Lets release those guys and let them proliferate.
Peace Superfly

I'm trying to understand BK's points here. You say that you aren't singling out guides and clients, yet you specifically refer to them (I think that's singling them out). You infer that people shouldn't keep kings so they can reproduce, but then you admit that you keep bright ones (bright ones have not spawned yet obviously). Then if I understand, you blame the state for keeping the fishery open to keeping fish (the fishery that you enjoy and take fish out of). Not trying to be a smart-ass, just trying to understand what point(s) you are trying to make.

Poke

Boy this is gonna be a HOT topic Rich.
Not many think of the Chinook on the Penn. Personally chinook fishing is one of my favorites! I pass by Silver action all season in search of these monsters. Ill Fish the West coast down following these fish so I can catch them for more than the couple months in the Fall when there in the rivers. And I do a fair amonunt of it on the West end in Sept, Oct and Nov on the rivers. Ill also add that I rarely ever eat the stuff.
Rich is right though, there are not many hatchery runs up there of fall chinook. The nets get a lot and so do the guides and sporties.
One thing that helps is there has been low water the last couple years and it makes tough duty for the fisherman. (Coarse it makes it easy for the nets) It also puts WAY too much stress on the floatable rivers i.e. the Hoh and Queets. Last Sat or Sun there were probably 30 to 40 boats on the lower river and it was low for the Hoh! With no rain Im sure the chrome fish (Chinooks) were scarce on the river last weekend.
Last year I saw a guy at Barlow with a fish that went easy 45, a trophy by all standards! But it was black and squirting! I bet it diddent get eaten. One more day and those genes would have been in the river instead of the garbage can. I could deal with the change but there are many local and live in Forks guides as well as out of towners that would lose massive amounts of bus this time of year. Im not saying that they are more important than the fish. They arent by any means, its easier to get a job than bring back a true native run. Problem with this state is it waits too long to do something. I dont know what the anwser is but soon something will need to be done. Release all Chinook? Thats gonna be a tough campain! I could deal with it but it will be a heated battle! Plus if the Natives still net then theres still a major likely hood that they will be desimated beyond repair. Still thats no reason to justify doing nothing by anyone!
At least if ALL the DARK fish got released alot more would get by! And playing a BIG dark Chinook for 40 minutes can easily make him lose his sperm even if he swims away strong! Ive seen it before as Im sure you have too! So theres another thing that could be done! Gear up or break dark fish off if your light line fishing for Silvers. Theres alot we can do without the state! Use common sence and think about if your really gonna eat that tire or are you just killing it to please your hunter gatherer instints?

Bob D

Bob D pretty much summed up my feelings on this. I personally don't eat these guys anymore I just like to chase em in whatever river I can find them. Silvers are fun but I can get those anywhere and I don't need to drive very far to get them so they make for great after work trips. Chinook especially the big ones on the OP really get my blood burning and I will drive long hours and get very little sleep to catch em kiss em on the lips and let em go. I would also disagree that most of the fish that enter the river are dark. So far most of the fish I have caught and released this year are still bright. Now if you go high in these rivers then yes you will find that the majority of the fish are dark. I have also noticed that in years of lots of low water like the last two you tend to find darker fish lower in the river because they stay out in the salt so long waiting for the right water conditions in which time they get ripe.

90% of the time the fish I catch never leave the water and are released no worse for wear. I rarely take pictures anymore but I do keep it ready should I ever get a 50+ pound fish so far 45 is my best.

I would not mind seeing C&R on the Hoh and Queets or set a limit to 1 fish per year per person. Or maybe even seeing C&R on all hens but retention allowed on Bucks. This may be a best of both worlds scenerio by allowing the Hens to make it up to spawn and the sportsman and guides can still keep the bucks, which always seem to be in the majority of fish caught anyway. One last option is maybe imposing regs that fish over a certain size must be released that way we don't deplete the pool of the trophy fish. Unfortunately nothing will probably be done until it is to late.

Bob is your truck that purple and white ford I see out there with the matching boat?

Thats my rig! Say hi the next time you see me Quicksticks! Im sure everyone has seen that setup if they fish out there.

Bob D

Well pokey to answer your question. I was just trying to bring insight from all angles. And to put you straight about what I said about the state have no balls and netters is not just referring to the OP chinook but everything.

Personally I see no problem with the bonking of these Kings, provided they are chrome! I have seen numerous chrome brite kings in the rivers up there...you live up there and don't see chrome brite kings...?
If you think that the bonking of kings by sporties and guides is the problem...how bout the NETS? There's the real problem and they are indiscriminant to how brite a fish is.
The law says I can bonk...I'm gonna bonk! I observe all laws when fishing and if I want to take a few big kings home after a long weekend of fishing. I gonna do it!
and to all the people blaming guides, BLAME THE NETS first...

Not a Fuskie,

If the law say's you can jump off of a cliff, as long as you don't hit anyone at the bottom, are you gonna do it? That's the greed mentality dude. Just because the state say's it's legal, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. We always ***** about how the state screwed up our fisheries right? So how can we depend on the laws to INSURE that we'll still have those kings around in a few years? Seems like as long as we're filling the freezer, "Hey, let's abide by the law." From what I've read of Rich G's posts, he seems very knowledgeable, and truly cares for the fish runs on the OP. I think that his observations are probably right on the money. Anyway, to me, the "nets" excuse to bonk fish is lame. It's time to start thinking of the future of our fish runs, instead of killing just because it's legal.

This is a tough topic. This Sat. I'm planning my first fishing trip out on the OP. Last October my wife and I drove out to the Ocean beaches and we decided to stop off at a boat launch on the Hoh. We saw some guys in a drift boat unloading three huge Chinook. I think two 30# and one 45-50# all chrome. They were the most amazing fish we have ever seen!! I've caught plenty of chinook in the 20-30# range but nothing like these. So if I'm lucky enough to tie into one of these this weekend what do I do? I'm all for doing whatever I can to help our fish runs. But if I get one of these chrome brite brutes to the boat I'll have a tough time releasing it. I've made the mistake of bringing home a Chinook that was too dark and indeed the meat went to waste. I'll never do that again!! But if I get a Chromer to the boat I'm not sure what I'll do......probably bonk it.

Mike

This post is a classic. We've blamed everyone now. First, guides and their clients were blamed. Then nets. Then the state fisheries department. Then those who keep "dark fish" were singled out. Then ANYONE who keeps a fish (though legal) was blamed. Typical of us fishermen (and I include myself). We all blame everyone except ourselves and never agree.

Pokey

just to clarify a bit...
I'm not THAT good of a fisherman (wish I was and had the time), so I think my post was taken a little out of context.
IF I get a chance to hook into a CHROME kinger with or without a guide, I will not feel bad about it (in fact I'll be overjoyed!)
I was up there a few weeks ago and didn't hook into a thing (I was fishing ethically with spinners, not a huge treble with 3 ounces of pencil lead below it)...so I'm not going to have a huge impact on a run.
Here's another log of blame on the fire while we're all accusing people: How bout all the snaggers I saw up there last time? The fish don't even have a chance with them...
Once again, I won't feel bad about bonking my few (3-4 a year)...

Pokey, your right, it's the blame game, we don't really know why there are no fish so we blame everyone, without facts.

It their fault:

• Snaggers
• Netters
• Catch and Keepers
• Guides
• Sporties
• WDFW Management
• You get the point?

In reality it's most likely a combination of all the above.

I for one am not willing to accept that Chinook salmon on the OP are in trouble until I get some facts. I won't consider a post or comment from a well meaning but ill informed indivudual that any run of fish is in dire straights. Although I do beleive that fisheries management have made some major blunders in the past, they really are all we have to really work with and that probably is not going to change. Sure we can take it upon ourselves to be a responsible angler and we should, but is that in itself really going to have an impact? Does it help the fish when we sit in front of our PC's and cast blame, call names etc.. I doubt it. I wonder how much of an impact we could have if we spent as much time focusing our energy on trying to get management to change their policies rather than pissing and moaning about other individuals or groups. Think about how much time you might spend on a fishing forum everyday or even once in a while and how that same amount of time could be put to use in a more constructive manner that could have a real impact on our fisheries. I'm not saying thats there is a magic bullet or that I really even have any answers, but I do know one thing, being un-informed and casting blame definatly will not help anything. I hear so many people saying "we've got to catch and release" and I think that a lot of the "Catch & Release" mentality is "Feel good stuff", kind of a way that allows us to relieve ourselves from blame and thats fine, if C&R makes you feel good, then do it. But the reality is that there are much bigger problems that need to be solved than whether or not we C&R. Think about it, the fact that C&R is sometimes not only a matter of personal choice but in fact is needed or required, tells me that we've got some problems that need dealing with. Catch and Release is like treating the sympton of a disease, when we should be working on prevention.

Yo Poke,

You are absolutely right. We "Fisherman" are pretty damned good at passing the blame. Just to clarify my post a little, I wasn't BLAMING anyone for keeping a king if legal to do so, I was trying to point out that just because the state say's it's legal, that doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the fish runs. Political pressure, and NOT good science usually dictate policy in this state. Rich G lives on the OP. He has observed a trend in the king populations and was expressing concern over their well-being. So here's my opinion in a nutshell: Bonk if you must, just remember, If you don't NEED the fish, how about taking a picture and letting it go to insure that there are 40 pounders in there for a long time to come.

Taking a picture and releasing the fish will not ensure that there will be 40 pound fish to catch in the future. C&R is not a magic bullet. In todays society, none of us NEED to keep fish in fact we don't even NEED to fish at all. It's a sport and a sport that we all enjoy whether we keep or release. If we want to continue to enjoy our sport in the future we need to figure out a way to all work together and apply some big time pressure on management when they are screwing up and in return credit them when they make good decisions. We need to do that by using facts and being well informed. I think that all to often we let emotions get in the way of making good decisions based on sound science. Also, as 4salt mentioned, like it or not we've got to realize that politics are going to play a big role in saving our fish. To many people tend to over simplify our fisheries problem. It not simple, it won't be easy and unless we work together we will lose the battle and the fish will be gone forever. It's time we put our petty differences aside and start working together.

The problem with the state is that they don't look at what other states have done. I've guided on a river in alaska that is in the top 5 in the state in numbers of chinook salmon that return each year. In the month long season on that river I saw less boats than you see on the HOH on a Saturday. Guess what the limits were there. 1 King per Day, 5 per year. Yet in the state of washington a fisherman can get two a day on the O.P. and 30 a year and than get a new punchcard to replace the one he just filled and start on that one. I am not for the releasing of all chinook but I would like to see a reduced daily limit and a seasonal limit of say 5. How many Kings does a person really need. what he doesn't get in Kings he could get in Silvers. Just my two cents.

I just dont know about some of the people here. Its a grave sin to kill wild steelhead but Wild chinook is OK.

The OP is one of the last places on the Lower 48 that you have a real good chance to catch 40 to 60 pound chinook everytime you go out. There are only a couple of rivers out there that still have these big genes and the gene pool is getting smaller and smaller every year.

I watch the nets every day on the Quileute and a 50 pounder is rare these days. In the past it wasnt uncoman for the nets to take 70# on the Quileute system.

I walk the upper Bogie every fall in the early part of November just after the rivers go back to low flows after the first big rains just to look at these brutes and what I have seen in the past 3 years has been very troubleing. 98 was the last year I saw good numbers of fish being up to 30 in a hole. every year after that has been less up untill last year when I saw none in three times of looking. I walked four miles of river and saw none.

Im not going to speak for anybody but there many other people out here that share the same views as I. Next time you come out this way go to the Sol Duc hatchery and ask them about the status of the fall chinhook run on the Sol Duc. Or even better next time you go to Olympic storting goods ask Bob to tell you how thick the Kings once were in the Sol Duc. Im sure he will tell you some good stories that will make you sick about how few kings you see in there now.

Anybody who says that a person that fishes these rivers atleast 4 days a week almost all year round every year is ill informed or dosent know his facts needs to think about what he is saying.

I may not have scientific data on the status of the Chinook runs out here but the fact is this,,,,,,, there are alot less fish than there yousto be and the trend is clearly going down.

So do what you want with the fish you catch. I know that I will be releasing all the Chinook I catch because I care about my back yard and want my daughter and grand kids to come to not have to go to Alaska to latch into a 50# chinook.

everybody has more fish than they no what to do with this year spare the O.P !!! PEACE

At the risk of being a bit political, the situation between the various groups listed above is not dissimilar to the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis: no one wants to take the first step towards resolving the situation, for fear that the other party won't follow along.

It's a fact of life that the indian nets are in the rivers. They are going to take 50% of the return, because that's their legal right. It it not in our power to alter that.

It is in our power to decide what to do with whatever is left for us to catch. You can make a choice as to whether to try to add 8-10,000 baby fish to the river whenever you have an opportunity to release a fish.

As to bonking chromers, I thin you're missing the point. Killing a chromer is no better than killing a dark fish, indeed is perhaps worse from a run impact standpoint, as the dark one may have spawned. I know that chromers are beautiful, and I want to take one home to show off as much as the next guy. But if the fish are scarce, then the fish are scarce, and they are all needed to spawn.

It's true that someone else may well kill the fish after you release it. You can't affect that either. But you can give the fish a chance.

In this year of huge silver returns, none of us should have any problem getting some fish for the table and some eggs. Why kill a king? You gonna eat 30 lbs of salmon yourself?

There is an interesting article in Salmon Trout Steelheader this month on the likelyhood that the wild runs of salmon will survive through the coming century. Basically, the author predicts they won't, because of the unlikelyness of us modifying our behavior to allow them to. He thinks people will continue to clearcut, net, kill every fish they catch, etc.

What do you say that we try to prove that guy wrong?

Makes me wonder how many 70 pounders the nets have taken? Could there possibly be a problem there? I totally agree with imposing a reduced limit, I think that is headed down the right path. Why in the world does anyone need to take so many fish? This is the type of thing we should be pushing for. I like the idea of seasonal limits. Once you have caught your seasonal limit your done, thats it. I would also take it as far as saying that any released fish would count towards your seasonal limit. Catching and releasing these fish during the spawn does have a negative impact on them.

Rich I did not mean any offense, I just hate to see regulations such as mandatory catch and release imposed, I also understand that sometimes it's unavoidable, but lets try to fix the problem before it gets to that point. Once laws like this are imposed and we lose our rights to keep fish it is almost impossible to get them back even if the good 'ol days do come back. I don't think that sport fisherman should shoulder the majority of the blame for declining fish runs and I don't think we should shoulder the majority of the burden for recovery. I don't believe that catch and release is a fix all for the problem, it's a bandaid. We need to find the root cause and address that with a vengence before we lose more rights than we already have. I don't want to see a future where if I want to have fresh fish for dinner then I have to go to Safeway and buy commercially caught fish. I want my son to be able to enjoy the same pleasures of fishing that we all have had and that includes bringing home his catch.

I think he is right about the wild runs not making it throught the next century, In the lower 48 anyways. Most of us arnt responsible enough to do the right thing. Most of us will Kill fish if we can. Most who wont kill wild steelhead will still kill wild salmon if it is aloud. Is it really any different Steelhead vs Salmon? Are either less important to a rivers health? Sure a steelhead's lifecycle is more complex and killing one wild steelhead might make more of an impact on any certian run. But when neither wild salmon or steelhead are in abundance is it any different? Each fish in each species is just as important in ensureing the genes are carried on.

It takes 6 to 8 years for the cycle to come around agian for the OP Kings. How in the world can we even predict the impact that we make on a run that is on its way down.

As many have said before me we have plenty of hatchery fish for taking home. By now we should have learned that our wild fish are to vaulable for harvest. I think the wild fish sould be managed just as our national parks,,, our national parks are there to ensure we still have wilderness areas, should we not ensure we have wild salmon in the years to come or are they expendable.

We have made the mistake in the past on trying to predict excess fish for harvest. That is where we have made our mistake. In nature excess is insurance. There is excess because of unforseably ocean conditions, floods, drouts, volcanic eruptions and so on. Right now we are killing all the excess so our wild runs are rideing a very fine line with no excess for error.

Our greed has screwed things up and by now we should have enough sense to set things strait. But as long as people want to kill every excess fish that they can the wild fish dont have a chance.

I dont want to come accross like ive never kept a wild Chinook or salmon,, the fact is that we all have. Im just saying for the last few years I dont keep wild chinook anymore. With the state fin clipping all the coho these days and starting to clip chinook there is no reason to keep wild fish once all this is in place. And if a wild run is truely healthy and have excess fish, for instance being at the health level of many Norht BC rivers and Alaska rivers then by all means ill be the first to harvest some fish when I truely will eat it and it wont go to waste. But I think our rivers wont be back in that class for a very long time even if the steps are taken that are needed to get them back to that state of health.

After i went to Kodiak this year it changed my life. I had no Idea that our rivers were as bad off as they are. It was amazing to see what our rivers should look like. The place I went to wasnt like the Keni or the other big name places it was the same as it was 1,000 years ago unchanged over time and untouched by our greed. It was truely amazing to see how it all should be.

Our rivers down here are very sick and in serious trouble. If the OP has the most healthy watersheds in the lower 48 then we are way more worse off then I could ever imagine.

I wrote this thread to tell how it is and to open some eyes to people that dont know. Not to hear peoples justifications or excuses on why they should kill wild fish when there is no need. If you want to kill wild Chinook then go right ahead, its your right. But before you grab that rock or club think about it a second first, If it swims away you will feel better in the long run.

Bruce,
Say what?!?! First you say, correctly, that stock declines are a result of all of the factors already listed. There are others, but those are the controllable ones. Then you say that we need to find the 'root cause' of the declines. Didn't you just point out that there isn't a single root cause, but a combination of factors?

Since OP stocks aren't habitat limited, the 'root cause' of any declines, as far as we can control, is that we're killing too many of them before thay can spawn. Any reduction in our take of pre-spawners, via sporties or commercials or whoever, is good, right? C&R may kill some fish, but it is undeniable that it will reduce the take of pre-spawners while still allowing people to enjoy the resource. How can that be bad? So what if C&R is a band-aid? Chucking carcasses in streams and placing structures in streams are band-aids, but they are useful.

Bottom line: If C&R can contribute to escapement increases that may lead to larger adult returns that may increase populations enough to support sports harvest, isn't that a good band-aid?

If there is something bad about C&R that I don't know, please inform me. Otherwise I'm going to think that your argument is more of the same tired "the indians aren't stopping killing fish, why should I" BS that will eventually prove Robert Lackey (in STS) correct.

Stinkfoot

The root cause could be and probably is a combination of problems that should be looked at. And I think that over harvest by all parties involved is a big one. That is why I would be in favor of reduced limits rather than mandatory catch and release. This is not a OP only problem, it's a problem statewide. I am NOT against catch and release if that is our only option. I believe that if done responsibly and before our fish get into even more trouble, reduced limits could be more effective than mandatory catch and release. Reduced limits will lessen fishing pressure more that catch and release would. The idea being to kill less fish, catch and release certainly does that but so would reduced limits. I would like to see a win win situation for everyone including the fish. I don't personaly fish the OP more than once or twice a year and I can assure you that the impact that I persoanly have on OP wild fish is zero. I don't claim to have all the answers or even any answers at all. I'm just a fisherman that would like to see our fish runs remain healthy and at the same time look out for the best interest of WA anglers. Done responsibly, I believe it is possible to accomplish both goals.

Ulitmatly what would be best for the OP fish is not to fish for them at all. That is an option and one that I would consider.

We as individuals have to begin somewhere,at the moment all we can change is our own habits.
It seams "We" as Sportsman have a tuff time getting organized to accomplish any thing!
so we must start with ourselves.

Thanks for input Rich.....Os

I can see that my reasoning is a waste of time here. This is a catch and release forum and that's fine, I do appreciate your concerns for the fish. We all need to be concerned. I have never said that your personal choice to release fish is bad choice, of course if you choose to release fish, I'm all for it. It can't hurt anything, but I don't believe that C&R will ensure continued healthy runs of fish. I'm simply saying that there may be other effective options as well, that don't require mandatory C&R on healthy runs of fish. It seems that many (not all of you) of you simply refuse to consider other options.

Take Care.

Bruce,
Your reasoning is not wasted here, it's just that you, at least in your last post, are talking about a different situation than what Rich was. We're talking about stocks that are declining, at least in Rich's opinion. I'm not going to argue against bonking an occasional fish from a truly healthy population. You're right!! C&R is a band-aid and if a population isn't bleeding, so to say, it doesn't need it.

Bruce,

It's not that this is a "C&R Forum" like you have asserted. It's that many of us here question whether there really are runs healthy enough to allow for C&K seasons on wild fish. We have seen numerous times in the past that the WDFW isn't very reliable at predicting run sizes, and even less reliable at predicting things like ocean forage and El Nino currents. For that reason, some of us opt to C&R wild fish, even if we aren't required to.

Smaller bag limits is also a good idea to me, but not everybody will share that point of view either.

My view of the Band-Aid analogy: Let's say you have heart disease and a bloody knee. Do you leave the Band-Aid off your knee, because there are more serious health issues as well? Of course not......you put the Band-Aid on, pull on your trousers, and go see a Cardiologist about the more serious problems. There is NO reason to ignore one problem (C&K by anglers) because there are other, more serious problems.

Every long journey begins with one step. It's up to you alone whether or not you choose to C&R native fish, every other problem won't be solved by you alone. I don't think many here believe that adopting a C&R policy on the wild fish they catch will save the world, but it DOES make a difference. Lots of little differences can add up to a big change.

I think we may be more on the same page than it may seem.

I would like to see preventative measures taken (like smaller seasonal bag limits) before our fish are in a crisis situtation and C&R is our only option. I believe that we can strike a balance that works without going from one extreme to another.

I don't want to see a situation where C&R is unnecessarily imposed on other anglers that would like to keep fish. Management decisions need to be based on facts not emotions.

I have no problem what so ever with a personal choice to C&R fish under any circumstances, but I would like to see any released fish fall under a limited seasonal bag limit. We need to figure out a way to reduce all fishing pressure, kill less fish and at the same time try to meet the desires everyone that enjoys our sport.

I have no problem with keeping a fish as long as C&K seasons are managed responsibly.

If management is dropping the ball, I would like to see sport fisherman unite and apply pressure to correct situation. Look at how powerfull the NRA is, I see no reason why sport fisherman can't do the same. But that will never happen if we can't work together.

I would like to see all hatchery fish marked statewide, so that we can distinguish hatchery fish from wild fish. We are making progress here.

If sport fisherman are going to make efforts to save our wild fish runs, I would like to see the same thing happen commercially. I would like to see tribal and commercial fisherman selectivly harvest fish.

Am I asking for to much?

I reserve the right to change my opinion at anytime

Bruce,

Asking too much? Not at all. We're not going to get any action with personal attacks, or heated arguments. We all need to keep a level head, and converse with our fellow fishers to find COMMON ground, rather than argue the finer points of what we can do to preserve fish.

That being said, it is very dangerous, in my opinion, to trust the science being used by the state to measure what is considered a healthy run. You must remember that they nearly ALWAYS wait until a run is in critical condition before implementing ANY regulations to improve the odds for the fish. Look at the Skagit system as an example. It's been "bonk away" right up to the point of closing the system altogether. Where was the science in this case?

The problem is, if you would have brought up a mandatory C&R season on wild steelhead on the Skagit system 6 or 8 years ago, the Wildcattters and others would have laughed, pointed their fingers at the nets and commercials, and pulled their political strings to shoot down any such proposal. Would the C&R regs have helped the system? Who knows for sure, but the fact remains that the sporties were as much to blame (in their own capacity, of course) as any other group for doing their share to hurt the fish population, rather than help it.

I don't believe ANY of us are that far away from common ground. We all love the fish and fishing, we have just chosen to focus on our differences, rather than our similarities. We do the same thing throughout society, so I guess it just comes with the territory. Sooner or later though, if we continue down the same path, RICH G's kids and grandkids will hear RICH talk about the steelhead and kings that USED TO BE in the rivers he lives by, rather than being able to teach them to fish for them like RICH used to. Crap, I've grown up listening to the same stories myself. Stories about how the Dosewalips, Duckabush, Goldsborough Creek, upper West Fork of the Humptulips, and others scattered around Puget Sound and the coast that used to have great fishing for native steelhead and salmon. The state used to consider these healthy runs and they allowed them to be be wiped out, either through loss of habitat, or by overharvest on the commercial, recreational, and tribal sides. We can do something about the recreational group NOW and then work toward changing the other groups in the future.

Good talking with you Bruce. I don't have all the answers, and I may not have any. I still like discussing the topic, though, and seeing what other points of view are out there. So far, I've found your opinion not all that different from my own, or RICH G's. Let's remember that as we continue to discuss what we can do to help the fish.

What did you expect ....can't you get any intelligent replys at you're site ....Ouch!!!!

come on Bruce lose the (plunker )Neanderthal mentality,all some of us are trying to say is,change has to start at this level first,we all know how the State thinks...very little.

C&R is not a bandaid!!!! but a place to start repairing the runs.
things will not begin to improve greatly till we do something about the nets...bottom line.
...............Os

What did you expect

come on Bruce lose the (plunker )Neanderthal mentality,all some of us are trying to say is,change has to start at this level first,we all know how the State thinks...very little.

C&R is not a bandaid!!!! but a place to start repairing the runs.
things will not begin to improve greatly till we do something about the nets...bottom line.
...............Os

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Osprey ]

Yea, and your response is real intelligent.

Some of us will continue to C&R while we do nothing about ridiculous bag limits. Voluntary C&R and huge bag limits will get us nowhere fast.

Someone always must throw in some insults, does it feel good to throw your insults around. Your a piece of work.

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Bruce Pearson ]

We as fisherman can do all the C&R we want, but as long as tribal nets are in the river the salmon have little chance for long-term survival. Rich I feel for ya since these rivers are in your backyard, but most fishermen won't be tossen them back as long nets are in. This year we have good returns do to good river levels for these fish to hatch, feed and go to sea on, and good ocean conditions. The ten-year eco swing is also in our favor, but in a few years it will swing to northern waters and we'll see a drastic change in fishing here. Maybe then attitudes can be changed.

Don't take it personal Bruce. Sometimes this board has all the maturity of high school, complete with cliques of guys that stick up for each other, name calling, and boasting (as if fishing takes some type of intelligence or athletic ability...obviously not the case!).

Instead of debating points and opinions, they attack anyone who doesn't share their views. Most of them keep fish "under certain circumstances" but then lay on the guilt trip to others when fish are taken on rivers that they consider their "special place."

It's no wonder that WDFW doesn't often side with sportfisher's proposals. We're a bunch of morons.

Nice generalizations, pokey. "Most" of us keep fish and then lay the guilt trip on others? Now, how on earth would you know that? Have you joined "most of us" on any trips, or are you just making your own statements to fit into the "moron mold"?

Hello pot......meet the kettle.

and you're comments were????????
once again .....hello kettle

Boy Osprey you like using that quote button heh? Do you have a problem with me saying your a piece of work after you just unnecessarily insulted the intelligence of a entire group of people?

All I meant by my comment was that your a real good fella with lots of good input and you know yer stuff. Thank you for the intelligent insight.

Hey Dan good talking with you as well. Good fishing to you all!

P.S. check out the cover of F&H News

Dan S.

Notice word "sometimes" in my post. As far as "most of us," I was referring to previous posts in the thread. Now let me add, "sensitive and defensive" to previous post.

Poke

Alright, so I'm a little uptight, too.

But of all the dudes I've fished with from PP, NONE seem like the type to keep a wild fish and then bag on somebody for keeping a wild fish.

I think we are getting off the point here.

GUYS!! Listen to yourselves. We can not solve the problem if we can't work together. We all have different attitudes, except that I would like to think we all want to have these spectacular fish around for years to come. Throwing stones at each other does nothing except make it more difficult to come to a consensus and work towards ensuring the survival of the runs. Let's PLEASE get over the petty differences if it is OK or not to keep a fish once in a while.

Sorry Bruce,
This subject is very sensitive for many of us,
We've all heard this response before,"the State says we can keep Wild fish"
All they've proven in the past is that they don't know.....Jack
about managing certain river sytems.
So just because "they" says it's right doesn't make it so,thats all I'm trying to say.
How many more rivers have to close before ...we as Sportsman get off our collective b*tts and get organized?........Os
Only as ONEVoice can we make a difference...[/]

No hard feelings Osprey, I understand how sensitive this subject is and always will be. You right about the state they don't always use better judgement and that is all the more reason for us to get past our difference's and find a way to be heard before it's to late. Sport fisherman are never going to agree on everything, that is a given. But I do believe that we all want our childern and grand childern to enjoy our sport for many years to come. That is what we ALL have in common.

Man before there was talk of CNR, or at least before I had heard of it, I would let beautiful fish go (still do). Everytime I think "you are free, my brother" as I watch it swim away. To me, it feels alot better then they taste.
Cnr is a lot simpler then we all make it out to be. There is a river with say 500 fish more coming back then what is needed for escapement. Well, there are, say, 30,000 fishermen. If we CNK it will make for a real short opening (and probably a weekday . With proper CNR it would make for a lot longer opportunity to fish figuring 10% or whatever mortality. Spawning areas should be off limits, gear regulated, etc.
Like I said that is from a guy who would rather go fishing and killing a fish is not the decisive factor in this experience. That is my experience.
Also I could really respect a locals take on the run before I would the WDFW, I mean A. They have been wrong alot. B. They have forces pulling on them (tribes Guides commercials) that make them suspect. The decision makers are not allways the bios.
Bruce, I have thought that yearly bag limits would be a good idea also. I would feel stronger about it, I suppose, if my wife was catching more and bigger fish then me all the time.
Hey just sh*tin ya there bud! I would be proud of my old lady too!

I would like to make one more comment on this very sensitive subject... I used to fish the Smith River down in Northern California....NO dams, NO tribal nets...the only fish kill off of the river was from guys like us-sportsfishermen (and women). And yes, I will admit I killed a few steelies (Looking back, too many; 20 or 30). Back in the mid 80's, the creel limit was three per day, no season limit. Now, it is ONE per day, season limit of FIVE (I think). What does that tell us? It implies (I don't have documented facts) that the real culprit is offshore. Granted, the ocean currents have an effect. But in this humble fisherman's view, there is a large impact by the commercial fishery. There has been no logging done on the Smith watershed, so we can't blame them, there is no tribal fishery, so we can't blame them, it is a National Park, so we can't blame habitat destruction, no mining,no dams, etc... Something has obviously decimated the steelhead (and salmon) population...boils down to one of two things in this country boy's eyes....excessive predation (protected seals/sea lions) OR commercial fishing. Just speculating. But as many of y'all have said (told ya I'm a country boy) the biggest problem is overharvest, and I doubt sure as He!! it is the sportsfishermen. I have a simplistic solution (another bandaid really) But if we know someone who REALLY wants a salmon, give them one before they BUY one from a commercial source, be it the white man or a tribal netter. Capitalism is driven by price and demand, if we know someone who absolutely has to have a fish, and we decide to keep one, give it away. I'm not by any means saying kill everything you catch; personally I strongly believe in C&R, but if you know some one who will buy fish, wouldn't it be better to give them one so that they do not support the commercial sources? I know I'm setting myself up on this one, but don't you think that supply and demand will put the netters out of business, along with the fish farms? Do you guys think I'm way out in left field on this? OK, the cross hairs are on the fishin' fool :p