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.