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?.