I happen to be one of the guys that sent a personal letter and e-mail to the WDFW in favor of the Catch and Release of Wild Steelhead. I also happen to be one of the guys that is willing to travel great distances, save my pennies, and go home without having to kill a fish. It doesn't mean I'm better than anyone else, I'm just stating a personal choice I have made. Some would call me an elitist.

I want to encourage you to keep up the pressure regarding the release of all native fish on a year round basis. I happened to check out NW ******n.com and saw all of the negative comments regarding the CNR proposal. When properly done, catch and release does provide angling opportunity while allowing fish to succesfully spawn. It also provides economic stimulus to communities that have a viable fishery. If the numbers are so low, that zero mortality from human intervention can be tolerated, than the fishery should be closed. I fail to understand how WDFW can go from a catch and kill system to complete closures without any intermediary steps such as CNR.

For all of the Tar Heels that refer to CNR as an elitist sport, I say "GO POUND SAND".

If you doubt the merits of CNR, then, come to the Midwest and experience the numbers of fish that have resulted by implementation of total CNR on native fish. Perfect examples are the steelhead of the Minnesota North Shore, Ontarios' South Shore, The Brule River in Wisconsin, and the Pere Marquette River in Michigan. The most recent addition will be the Nottaswaga River in Ontario. I don't need a study, I have lived through 25 years of fishing highs and lows that were high lighted by a near decimation of the North Shore Steelhead in Lake Superior. Those fish came back with a total CNR sport fishery for the full duration of recovery. They aren't monsters, but sleek screamin bullets that are very special fish, and I'm damn glad that they are still here to hook up with on a frequent basis. It is still CNR on all nates, and I hope it stays that way.

I am one of the fools who will fly or drive across the country, and continue to pump money in to economies such as Forks, Concrete, Marblemount, Aberdeen, and go home without the need or desire to kill a fish. There is that elitist attitude again. If we are trying to justify the expense of gear for the trade off in steelie 'meat' we would all be fools. Fillet Mignon would be much cheaper.

If your runs are so healthy, why would you need to supplement them at all with hatchery fish? The fact of the matter, is that they aren't that strong, and neither are ours. With increasing pressure, habitat degredation, pressure in the Lakes and oceans, hatchery fish seem to be the only reasonable alternative for us to be able to keep a few fish to the grill. The native fish are simply a bonus that allows us to tangle with the Real Deal. You can't justify a "kill em all" mentality by pointing fingers at the tribes and commercial fisherman, or the charter boats. You have to make a decision whether to be part of the problem, or part of the solution.

In a Utopic situation, wild steelhead stocks will return to levels of 100 years ago, technology will go backwards and you will fish with antiquated gear, the fishing population will decrease ten fold, and the internet will vaporize, and we can all go back to keeping a trophy native fish, or one for grill fodder. Until then, pictures, reproductions, and brats will have to be our option. I wish you luck, and stay the course.

I saw that mess over at NWFISHING.com. It is rediculous. The people over there act like Plunker is god.

You have some good points.

those "other" guys on that "other" board are saying the same thing about this board...sheesh people, its like little kids yelling back and forth. that wont help anyone. as sportsman we are already in the minority, why cant a common ground be found to get something positive done??

I did mis-state myself, and referred to our fish as native. They are not native, as they are descendents of Pacific Northwest fish about 100 years ago. These fish have diversified and are very unique to the systems they now inhabit. I should have referred to these fish as "wild" instead of "native". These fish are descendents of plants that occured before most of our grandfatehrs were even fishing. Thanks for the correction Jeffro. Sorry for the confusion.

As for the bickering, I wasn't trying to be part of it, simply stating a belief that I have in the positive effect on CNR fisheries regarding "wild" fish.

NWFish is a sounding board for a handful of
misfits who thrive on posting under other people's monikers, stealing pictures and other writers' ideas, writing slanderous comments about people and some who they have NEVER met and who think that they are God's gift to the guiding community. In reality, it is their own low self-worth that they cannot stand and they do their best to drag others down to their level.
I admire some people off this board who are professional and classy enough to not respond...

I support the individual CNR of native fish, but predict that if it becomes mandatory, the destructive force unleashed by 7 days of netting will be far more damaging to the runs than if every sport caught native was killed.

Not quite 100 years ago. The first steelhead were transplanted from the Pacific Northwest to the great lakes in about 1960.

JacobF,

This is at least the fifth time I've seen you post that, and I've got a few questions for you.

1. Why do you think the Indians will a. try to increase netting, and b. be able to do so?

2. Where did you get the information that you used to answer number one?

3. Have you read anything, either supporting or not supporting your assertion, that has either a basis in fact or comes from someone who is either "in the know" or has an education or experience that allows them to know what they're talking about?

I'm not trying to be fascetious here, it's just that you keep saying that stuff, and in spite of what I know to be fairly educated folks asking you questions and offering you different opinions, you haven't yet offered anything but repeating the same thing over and over again.

You haven't backed up your assertion yet, nor have you said anything to refute the assertions others have made, except for saying the same thing again.

I look forward to your response.

Fish on...

Todd.

Hawk-
Excellent post!! Thanks for the encouraging words!

They will increase netting because in theory there will be more harvestable fish available to them when the sportsman no longer have the right to retain any.

They will be able to do so because, well, their Indians. When was the last time this state has turned down what appears to be a resonable demand from the tribes?

Quote:

2. Where did you get the information that you used to answer number one?

Well, I just want to state right now that you may not believe me or just think I'm shooting my mouth but I have a very good friend that I fish with quite a bit who has a good friend who works in the WDFW (one of the few people with common sense). He was disgusted when he found out.

For the second part, I've learned from history and experience that the tribes pretty much get what they want with no supervision.

Quote:

3. Have you read anything, either supporting or not supporting your assertion, that has either a basis in fact or comes from someone who is either "in the know" or has an education or experience that allows them to know what they're talking about?

Yes, see my answer to your previous question.

Quote:

I'm not trying to be fascetious here, it's just that you keep saying that stuff, and in spite of what I know to be fairly educated folks asking you questions and offering you different opinions, you haven't yet offered anything but repeating the same thing over and over again.

You haven't backed up your assertion yet, nor have you said anything to refute the assertions others have made, except for saying the same thing again.

I look forward to your response.

Fish on...

Todd.

No problem and no offence or anything. I wish I could give you the name of the individual in the WDFW but I'm not sure if he'll get in trouble or not if the information is not supposed to be public yet.

Basically, what will happen (if mandatory C&R goes into effect) is that the state will grant the tribes permission to net 7 days a week because, on paper, there will be many more harvestable fish. The only thing I'm not 100% sure on are my numbers, but I think it's safe to say that with tribes netting 7 days a week, more natives will be killed than if every sportsman who catches a native kills it. It seems logical when you consider the numbers of fish killed by nets.

Again, I'm not promoting C&K, I think people should be educated and taught to use proper C&R methods. That way, we don't give the tribes the excuse the need to net more.

Thumper, you need to check your source of information for the start of steelhead plantings in the Midwest. Your statement about it starting in the 1960's is totally incorrect.

Illinois started it's program in 1893 with the McCloud strain.

Michigan started their program in 1876 with the McCloud Strain.

Wisconsin started their program in 1884 with McCloud anmd Crooks Creek strain.

Indiana started their program in the late 1800's with the McCloud strain

In 1971, Lake Michigan received its first plant of fish from the Skamania hatchery.

For a deeper look at the Great Lakes Steelhead history, go to www.steelheadsite.com and pull up the history section.

Hawk,
I too took the time to write a personal e-mail to the WDFW, and like you am willing to travel all over gods creation just for the privilidge of hooking beautiful fish. Catch and kill was fine years ago, but times have changed, and it is time to embrace a new philosophy. Here is an excerpt from my letter to the commission.
.
The sport of fishing is seemingly at an all-time high. With more and more anglers hitting the waters at a time when information is quickly shared to a mass audience, it is not hard to imagine the pressure that can be brought on a
productive river in a short amount of time. Five years ago, a fisherman needed a contact on the Olympic Penninsula in order to get a gage on river levels before making a three hour trip, only to find the rivers out of shape. Today, it is a click of the mouse to be able to see both river levels and fishing reports for that day. Needless to say, this has the ability to send several hundred fishermen to a given river system with something
akin to an 1849 gold rush. Given these circumstances, this can quickly deplete the number of Wild Steelhead one fish at a time.
.
Now is the time to change

Hawk,
I too took the time to write a personal e-mail to the WDFW, and like you am willing to travel all over gods creation just for the privilidge of hooking beautiful fish. Catch and kill was fine years ago, but times have changed, and it is time to embrace a new philosophy. Here is an excerpt from my letter to the commission.
.
The sport of fishing is seemingly at an all-time high. With more and more anglers hitting the waters at a time when information is quickly shared to a mass audience, it is not hard to imagine the pressure that can be brought on a
productive river in a short amount of time. Five years ago, a fisherman needed a contact on the Olympic Penninsula in order to get a gage on river levels before making a three hour trip, only to find the rivers out of shape. Today, it is a click of the mouse to be able to see both river levels and fishing reports for that day. Needless to say, this has the ability to send several hundred fishermen to a given river system with something
akin to an 1849 gold rush. Given these circumstances, this can quickly deplete the number of Wild Steelhead one fish at a time.
.
Now is the time to change

Thanks for the response, JacobF...

My own analysis would say that one:

Harvest is required under the Boldt decision. The definition of "harvest" as used there does not necessarily mean direct harvest. It means "opportunity to harvest". I think we agree so far, if I read your post correctly. You were saying that keeping the season open for kill doesn't mean we have to kill them, just that because we can, the tribes can't claim our half.

Here's where we disagree, I think, though I'm not too sure why. A wsr regulation will lead to fish being caught and released. CNR has a measureable mortality rate. CNR will harvest fish. Having CNR seasons and WSR will give non-tribal fishers their "opportunity to harvest".

Legally nothing has changed.

Practically, there are a lot more fish in the river to fish for, more $$ to be made, and more fish to spawn.

Fish on...

Todd.

Hey Todd you lost me on your last post you said
How can CNR have a harvestable season if it is catch and release? people wont mark fish that are caught and mortatily wounded because it would be illigal(sp). and if caught you would stand to loose your boat your rig and all of your gear plus you get a big fat fine on top of all that.

I personaly wouldnt want to risk all that over a fish would you?
Dances Out

Dances,

"Harvest" under the Boldt decision does not require a mark on a punchcard. It requires that both parties have an opportunity to harvest (kill) their half.

Catch and release does have an associated mortality, meaning that some fish are killed, even in a no-harvest area. It's not a "harvestable season". It's more like a season where some mortality (harvest) will take place.

This satisfies the "harvest" requirement of the Boldt decision.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd your take is very intriguing. Although, thinking about it nearly caused an overload for my small brain. I do however want to add my $.02. Is using the term "legally" a bit premature? Have there been court decisions interpreting the Boldt decision and deciding that hooking mortality caused by C&R equals harvest?

Also, it would be ironic because, if option 1 is implemented, when the tribes claim foregone opportunity on the C&R season wouldn't it benefit them to claim a low hooking mortality percentage in order to increase their allocations? C&R advocates have been touting 3%-7%, but will this mean the tribes get 93%-97% of the total harvest? I sure hope not!

IMHO option 1 is an inevitability. But us sporties will be holding our a$$es until the tribes decide what to do. The ball will in their court. This will be especially true on the OP, where our managers have deemed the wild runs relatively healthy and capable of supporting harvest as per MSY. I personally wouldn't mind seeing C&R seasons in tandem with a small increase (5%-10%) in tribal allocations to satisfy foregone opportunity. In theory this would put about 30% more fish on the beds above escapement.

peace out............

-----------------------------------------------

a.k.a. "The Most Recognized Steelheader"

Hoh-hoh-waiian,

I guess I should make that more clear.

There has been no published court case dealing with this issue, or anything even similar.

It's a legal opinion of mine, formally adopted by the WSC, as well, formulated from the two cases that have anything to do with it.

If you want more specifics, I'll fill you in.

Thanks for keeping it straight.

Fish on...

Todd.