These proposals will come up for a vote early this December.
Two very intresting ones are ofcourse the propsal for statewide wild steelhead release. As it should be!!

Plus a proposal that would allow an angler to fish with a second rod if he/she purchases a second license. This rule would only apply to freshwater.

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/2002prop.htm

i am not for voting out any fishing options, c & r of wild steelhead will simply mean the tribes will totaly have control over the harvest and we wont be able to say a word about it. atleast with it open to keeping them there is some control over it, vote it away and it will not do any good exept for the tribes. i am not for killing them but i am not for giving up anything.

Boater,
No offense but you are wrong. So very very wrong. In my opinion in the long run if we get a state wide CnR on wild steelhead it will ultimately change the management of wild steelhead. When the state management of wild steelhead changes it forces the tribes to change since they are co-managers.

Boater< Spend some more time reseaching this issue, as it stands right now, the state and the tribes[co-managers] have damn near managed wild steelhead to unfishable levels.

If you want to know what impact releasing all wild steelhead (by sprotsanglers) would have on the tribal allocation, look at the Columbia Springer allocation. Sports anglers release all wild fish, which allows the tribes to use nearly all the native mortality allocation(13.5% for tribes as opposed to 0.7% for sportsanglers). Our only mortality on wild fish is the incidental kill from C & R. We really made progress with this agreement.

Its different in the area's that I fish, as there is already C & R for all wild steelhead and no tribal netting. We still don't have very good returns.

As I see it, until the tribes recognize there is difference in Wild vs. Hatchery origin Steelhead, they will not release wild fish. They will simply step in to take the allocation that sportsanglers give up.

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world all wild steelhead would be released.

These are all tough issues, and not all of them have clear answers. Here are some of my personal opinions about them, and what I think we as sport anglers can do to increase our fishing opportunity.

1. Hatchery vs. Wild: The tribes will not be able to make a distinction between them in their fisheries. They fish with gill nets that cannot discriminate between adipose fins and smooth backs. Why don't tribal fishers use fish wheels or weirs that would allow for kill of hatchery fish and the safe release of wild fish? Because the tribal managers want to reward those fishermen who do the most work, or better work, when it comes to fishing. Fish caught in nets belong to those who catch them. Fish caught in wheels or weirs would have to be divided up between tribal members or fishers, as obviously there can't be one weir or wheel for each fisher. This would be contrary to the policy of rewarding individual fishers for their efforts.

As long as the tribes exercise their federally protected right to fish, they will use gill nets that will catch wild fish.

Sport fishers, on the other hand, can discriminate between the hatchery and wild fish in their catch. This assumes that the hatchery fish are marked so that they can be distinguished from wild ones. There is no excuse except greed for sport fishers to kill wild fish "because the tribes do". There are more than enough hatchery fish to fill your freezer with fish if that is important to you.

2. Foregone opportunity: The tribes will catch and kill all the fish we release, so we should kill them first. This is exactly what WDFW steelhead managers want you to believe. Even if it were true, what would be the motivation to kill them ourselves? Again, greed is the only one I can come up with. "If you're going to kill them (tribes), then I'm going to do it first."

It seems that sport fishers are quick to criticize the WDFW managers when they make management and harvest decisions, and to claim that they are in with the tribes, and that they're selling us out, and that they want to modify hatchery practices to minimize the impacts to wild fish, and that their regulations are confusing with limited openings here and there so as to allow mixed stock fisheries while attempting to reduce impacts on depressed runs, etc., etc., etc., ....and then to accept wholeheartedly with nothing legal, biological, or historical to back it up, when they say the tribes will kill all the ones we c&r. Why does this happen? Unless someone has an argument to change my mind, greed is the answer again.

Anything done that is perceived to limit our opportunities to fill our freezers is grounds for distrust and anger for WDFW, even if it has justifications that are easy to realize. Anything that makes it easier for us to fill our freezers is the WDFW finally putting fish first (in our freezers), and is accepted even if there is no justification whatsoever.

3. Political issues with c&r: In spite of the high horse that every non-tribal steelhead fisherman seems to place himself on, due to the fact that they don't use nets to kill fish, but do it the "honorable" way by catching them with hook and line and hitting them with a stick or a rock, everyone else in the northwest who doesn't steelhead fish thinks we are at best no different, and in most cases worse, than tribal fishers. We are perceived as greedy racists who want to kill fish and we're mad because every fish the tribe kills is one that we didn't get to.

Why is that perception there? Because it is pretty close to the truth. And don't for one minute think that that perception doesn't exist and doesn't have a basis in truth.

How do we change that perception and gain political clout with the rest of the world that doesn't fish (i.e., the great majority of the people in the NW)? Take away the basis for the perception. Stop being greedy. Put the fish first. Leave the tribal fishers being the only ones who intentionally kill wild fish.

4. Collateral anti-c&r issues: Lots of these exist, and they look like extensions of the "me, me, me" greed principle.

The high mortality associated with c&r is unacceptable. Why release them when they all die anyway? We may as well just put them in our freezer so they don't get wasted. Yeah, right. All credible studies put the mortality, depending on gear types and release techniques, between 3% and 7%, give or take. WDFW would have you believe it's more like 15%, though there is no justification for that number. Even if it is 15%, that equals and 85% non-mortal release. I haven't seen any studies, but I think I can confidently say that somewhere near 100% of fish hit with sticks and stuck in coolers are incapable of successful spawning. Why is this 100% mortality acceptable when 3%-15% mortality associated with c&r is not? Because one puts fish in our freezers, and the other doesn't. Unless there's another answer, greed is it again.

WDFW will lose license sales if we don't have kill seasons. First, anyone who's launched a boat at Howard Miller, Marblemount, Government Bridge, or anywhere else on the Sauk or Skagit, in March or April, knows that there are LOTS of folks who are fishing c&r seasons. They bought licenses, not to mention hundreds of dollars of other items to be there for a chance to c&r a magnificent wild steelhead. Second, license sales have nothing to do with WDFW budgetary concerns; the money goes into the general fund, not to WDFW. Their budget comes from the general fund, not from license sales.

How do we as sportsmen improve our lot in life? We educate ourselves on the science, history, and laws that control fisheries. We apply what we have learned to our own actions. Without the credibility lent from a little self-inspection and self-control, we are both no better than other user groups or perceived as being any better. We put fish first, and then instead of paying lip service to that, we actually do it. It is very transparent to everyone when sportsmen are "fish first" when it comes to nets, but "freezer first" when it comes to our fishing.

The science shows that c&r kills very few fish, and that catch and kill does. It also shows that more fish spawning equals more fish in the river, better fitness, greater genetic potential, and greater ability to deal with environmental shifts (i.e., marine conditions).

The history of fisheries managment in Washington shows that whatever we're doing now flat out does not work. Fish have been managed to extinction or near extinction throughout the NW. History has also shown that foregone opportunity has never been shown to be the hobgoblin that our steelhead managers would have you believe. History has also shown that every time non-tribal fishermen have fought against the tribes they have been sent home with their tails between their legs. Back in the late '60's sportsmen complained that the tribes were catching too many (6%-10%) salmon and steelhead. The final result? The Boldt decision. That means 50%. This is what happens when sportsmen get greedy.

The law and the history are somewhat intertwined, what with the Boldt decision controlling the relationship with tribal co-managers. The law does not support the fear of foregone opportunity, in fact is supports our ability to c&r without fear of tribal reaction.

I encourage everyone to come to the Dec. 7 hearings on catch and release to express their opinions and concerns, but also to hear other folks' ideas and concerns. Without being educated on the facts and issues surrounding c&r, no one can have a credible opinion. Please attend and provide others with the opportunity to hear what you think and take the opportunity to hear what others think.

Whew. My fingers hurt. Fish on...

Todd.

Excellent response Todd. A couple of quick questions as you seem very knowledgeable on this topic.
1) Why is the state so concerned over the "foregone opportunity" issues? Will this increase the tribes catch before it reaches the CnR fishing grounds?
2) Isn't CnR a greed? Would it be better to close systems until fishable CnR levels exist? What are fishable levels for CnR? or is there a even threshold we need to be concerned with?
In a perfect world fishing would have no impacts.

Todd, superb dissertation. I'd give you an A++. I think you brought up some very valid points; When it comes to C&R vs the freezer, we all should look at ourselves in the mirror and ask "What are you going to do with any wild fish you catch today?"

Thanks for the kind words, Challenged and Fish4Steel. Here are my answers to your questions, Challenged.

Challenged asked:

1) Why is the state so concerned over the "foregone opportunity" issues? Will this increase the tribes catch before it reaches the CnR fishing grounds?

I can't help but feel that the state is so wedded to catch and kill because that's the way they have always done it. To change pace now would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong in the first place and that ocean conditions and Indians weren't the only causes for declining fish runs. Therefore, when all credible science points to the validity of cnr as a scientific, economic, and sociological factor in returning our native fish runs to anything at all like historical levels, scare tactics and questionable justifications must be used to defend their untenable positions.

The proposal language lamenting the fear of foregone opportunity smacks of 1950's moms telling their daughters that they'll get pregnant if they kiss a boy in the back of a car. The only published case that ever even remotely dealt with this issue said that the 50/50 split rule from the Boldt decision requires only that each party be given the opportunity to harvest their half of the fish, not that they necessarily get harvested. If more than half of the harvestable portion of a run is netted in the lower river by tribal fishers then non-tribal fishers have been denied their opportunity.

The foregone opportunity doctrine at worst doesn't mean anything, and at best supports our ability to have cnr seasons.

Challenged further asked:

2) Isn't CnR a greed? Would it be better to close systems until fishable CnR levels exist? What are fishable levels for CnR? or is there a even threshold we need to be concerned with?
In a perfect world fishing would have no impacts.


Yes, it would be better to close systems until fishable cnr levels exist. Anyone who wants to cnr fish in a run that can't even handle the level of mortality associated with cnr is just as greedy as a catch and kill advocate.

In Washington, cnr seasons are closed if the preseason projection for a stream is less than 80% of the calculated escapement for that stream. However, not all streams have escapement levels set, or they are arbitrary, and preseason projections are inaccurate due to our lack of knowledge about the marine life cycle of steelhead, and in-season run assessments are nonexistent. The state manages a lot of steelhead runs in a vacuum of ignorance. Even the runs that have enough available information to manage via current management schemes are managed ignorantly because current management schemes (read that as Maximum Sustained Yield) don't take enough into account to make an informed and scientifically justifiable decision about how many we should kill.

One of the reasons I support cnr of native steelhead is that very lack of knowledge. Here's a thumbnail sketch of how MSY affects our fisheries; With a lack of key information, we guess at what the minimum amount of fish are required to spawn so that extinction will be staved off for one more generation. With a further lack of key information, we guess at what a future run of fish that we know very little about will number next year. Every fish that we guess will be above and beyond the number we guessed that will be needed to spawn will be killed, no guess about that one.

Doesn't it make sense to be on the safe side by not killing the fish when we don't know what escapement should be, what it actually is, and how many fish are actually returning next year?

I guess I am greedy as a cnr advocate. I want to fish for native steelhead for the rest of my life. I also want my kids, and grandkids, and their kids and grandkids, to have the chance to do it, too. I want an icon of the Pacific Northwest to be a reality rather than a memory. I want all the communities and businesses that rely on native steelhead fisheries to have continued economic success well into the future. I want the many small towns that lost their entire economic well being due to overharvest of trees, or salmon, to at least have steelhead fishing to hang their hat on well into the future.

As you can see, I'm pretty greedy. It's all about me... .

Fish on...

Todd.

Just waiting for Plunker to chime in with his "If there's to few to kill, there's too few to fish". line of crap.

Hey Guys I wanted to to ask you if I could use some of your points in my fact finding paper for college. You guys make some valid points and I wanted to ask permission first. If there are any objections to this then please tell me thanks Dances

Dances,

You're welcome to any of my comments. More importantly are the sources I have to back them up. Hit me with an e-mail for specific questions and I'd be happy to fill you in with all the details and people to contact.

Fish on...

Todd
c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com

The two rods propoal surprised me and I'm wondering exactly what this means on the river and why you would want another rod license? Maybe if I'm anchored running out plugs I can then pick up another rod while the plugs are still out and toss hardware or run a jig and float too?

Just curious where this one came from.

Bruce

A similar thread is starting to heat up a bit over on Marty's BB, at Steelheader.net .

Keep the fire burning!!

Fish on...

Todd

who here can tell me how many wild steelhead the tribes take now ? including fish sold to brokers, sold out of cars and trucks and used for there own personal use. someone must have this info so that they can compare it to the fish they take after its all cnr.

If I hear that stupid "well if the tribes kill em all, if the Indians do what they want etc. etc. etc.," I am going to go insane!!

When will you folks come to the realization that the arguement will get you nowhere?????

I wish the tribes would stop their slaughter of wild steelhead as much as the next guy BUT sitting here just *****ing and moaning about it will get us nowhere!!

I'm all for saving the wild steelhead. We need to protect our resources. Ban the Nets! Take down the dams!!! Just let me bonk a few hatchery fish to eat.

Hey Todd
I sent you a private message thanks
Dances Out

This may sound a little nuts, but why don't they designate a couple rivers as "kill rivers". Build luxury hatcheries from casino money and let everyone have a free-for-all. The indians can net till the cows come home. The rest of the rivers should then be left to c&r. The rivers that still migth have a chance to rehabilitate that is....

Well said Todd!

Its so true about the non fishing community looking at us as a bunch of GREEDY sportsmen. Thats why we failed to pass I-695. To defeat your opponent(commercial) you have to get inside their heads and beat them at their own game!
Alot of people saw the possibility of job loss and totally slammed the ballot. If we would have had something that said, "lost commercial jobs will be compensated for" then we would have won it.

spanky, you sound like a real expert at this wild steelhead stuff, are you writing a report for your 4th grade teacher so she can read it to your classmates ?

Keep up the Good work Todd.

I don't think a court of law dealing with forgone opportunity would in anyway change the written law on the subject. The way I read it, it says the Native Americans are entitled to 50% of harvestable fish and sportsmen to the other 50% of harvestable fish. No where that I can see does it say we sportsmen must harvest those fish as in bonking but more like to have those 50% harvestable fish available in the river to catch as we or the state see fit. We sportsmen are entitled to fish for those 50% of so called surplus fish, if we desire to C&R them that is our right. I dought that sportsmen have ever bonked thier entire share of steelhead on any river and I've never heard of any tribes ever saying they want what wasn't bonked by sportsmen. Correct me someone if I"m wrong on that!
I believe a court of law would uphold our right to C&R on our 50% of surplus fish for the entire season if the laws by the State were changed to State Wide C&R for sport fishermen without Native Americans being able to kill those fish.

Steve,

In my opinion, you are correct.

Fish on...

Todd.

Boater, there are some of us who are talking to Sparkey about having a more mature line of communication, being 20 he gets a little grace from me about being passionate about his beliefs. Ryan has spent enormous time on this issue and is due more respect than calling him a fourth grader. Reducing your beliefs and expectations to the least common denominator is never going to produce progress.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Jerry Garcia ]

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Jerry Garcia ]

All I know is, that on one trip to La Push a couple of years ago I stood next to one of those bins that the Indians put their fish in after a days netting. I think they are about four to five feet square and about four feet deep. It was full of native steelhead 5lbers to 20 plus. I figured that in my whole live I will not be able to release that many. They had it in one day of netting. One life time of releasing gone in one day of netting. I felt so discouraged.

Don't get me wrong I think Native Steelhead should be released.

One thing you all forget also in the environmental impact we all have. I've been fishing steelhead now for 44 years. The two main things, I feel that have impacted the fish is netting technology and population.

The fishermen before Bolt kept natives all the time with very little impact. When the nets went in boom the fish populatons plumeted. Really lean years. Then when the populations started to rebound because with the lack of fish there were not as many Indians fishing, too hard of work for too little fish. Then came the population boom houses, stores, cars, septic, more logging etc. etc. The populations of fish now again are struggling. There are 10 times the sport fishermen and guides on the rivers now than ever before. Sleds with erosion, gas and oil slicks. Banky's with shrimp containers and plastic lure wraps. What about the amount of lead that is left in the rivers each year leaching into the water? Just a little lead in solder in copper pipes in a house they say is unaccecptable for drinking. The new houses means tared driveways and asphalt roofs.Last year on just one Sunday I counted 22 rigs at the Fall City ramp on the Snoqualime.This is an average weekend in the winter. More toilet paper and packaging means more logging which silts up the streams. The list is endless. This is also one of the main reasons for thier decline.

So I believe before I can point fingers or get on a high horse about what another fisherman should do or not do I need to clean up my act. Which is really hard to do becaue I live in a house,drive a car, use toilet paper and buy packaged goods.

Todd are you as passonate about those "greedy" things as you are about C&R of native fish?

Just my 2 cents worth and just remember how much my oppion costs.

Ron Bob,

I try, but we all have impacts just by the simple act of living here in the Northwest. Water, air, trees...wildlife needs all of them, but so do we. It's a difficult balance.

We "need" water, air, paper, roads, cars, etc. just to live. We don't "need" to kill wild fish to live.

I hope that nowhere in these thread, or the others that are zipping across the digital world on other BB's, did I come across as being on a high horse. If I did, it was not intended.

On the contrary, I'm trying to ask a question similar to the one you asked me, that is, with all the impacts on steelhead, what is each of us individually doing to reduce the most obvious and direct impact, which is the impact of a stick or rock to the head of a native steelhead.

Many other things we all do have bad impacts on the physical requirements that steelhead need from the world. Since this thread is about the upcoming hearings on new rule proposals, specifically the one dealing with cnr of native steelhead, that's the one I'm talking about here.

I'm not sure there's room in this forum for discussions of other factors, as they would fill up all the space available. This one factor is taking up quite a bit of digital space as it is!

I agree that we all need to individually look at our own personal actions and wants, and see how we can use or modify them to the benefit of wild steelhead populations. Not just our fishing habits.

Killing fish ourselves, or pointing at other factors that limit the success of wild fish, will not get those fish out of the bins you saw them in, either now or in the future. That's the attitude that I can't understand people having.

If I'm missing something, then I'm willing to hear it.

Fish on...

Todd.

Wow, we need a reality check. I don’t think you can blame “greedy sports anglers” and expect any improvements in the steelhead runs. This is the real world and we need to accept not every angler is as riotous as some of you appear to be. (That goes for tribes, sports anglers and commercial interests) Ron is right, there are many factors impeding the recovery of wild steelhead, including competition from hatchery fish. Do you think the majority of tribes would support closing hatcheries? I would.

But…. WDFW manages harvest by limiting “wild steelhead” mortality. Not how many fish return. The states have made it clear that they want hatchery fish to be harvested, by sports anglers, tribal and commercial interests. In area’s that support wild take, the amounts are supposively split between the two user groups. I am not in favor of stripping any fishing rights from one group and not the other, which is what you are proposing.

Todd, you seem like a knowledgeable person, but to suggest the tribes “have to use gillnets” to fish is wrong. How about a tangle net and target hatchery fish, this would allow greater access to hatchery, while limiting death to wild fish. Tribes choose to use gill nets, they choose to kill natives. Suggesting there are no alternatives is wrong.

The reason I believe the tribes will use up an allotment not used by the sports anglers, is because that is the way I have seen it work in the past, i.e. Columbia Springers. If the States can deny access of the tribes to the sports angler portion of the “wild mortality” then we can make some progress. Can this happen?

The states have adopted a system of C & R on all South West Washington Rivers and Oregon Rivers, why would it be difficult for the States to admit this protection should apply to Oly Penn rivers? Maybe its to appease the tribes and not a way of back peddling out of managment mistakes made in the past.

I have every right to be critical of fishing practices tribal and non tribal, and it doesn’t require an education to have an opinion. If Thomas Jefferson hadn’t fought for voting rights for every citizen, only educated individuals could vote today. Quote “Without being educated on the facts and issues surrounding c&r, no one can have a credible opinion.” Why do I need to know as much as you, in order to form an opinion?.