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