Oh, we can do our part and are doing our part with the the ongoing restrictions and cutbacks.

Further, I am sure there are areas where we may indeed be able to do more.

However, I hear too many people simply saying we must do our part and leaving it at that. IE, not holding others accountable.

Again, that is why we need groups like RFA, NSIA and others.

RFA sounds like a sweet deal. Time for me to sign up.

I agree with JacobF, its time to sign up and help solve the problems or else get whats left to us

That's great that you guys make the rounds in DC. How about in Olylmpia this time of year?

This probably isn't the place to start another discussion over WSR but the white paper that the WSC put together on the issue here in Washington seems pretty damn good.

Bruce

Bruce,

The chapter in the state is pretty new and direct membership is significantly too low for a full time lobbyist. A good guestimate on when a lobbyist could be hired is 4-5 thousand members. In the mean time, the national org will pick up the tab for a "hired gun" on an as needed basis. Anyone can lobby though. I have and will continue to as I have time to. I hope some of our membership will take the time to do the same.

I have not read the white paper yet allthough I heard parts of it at the commission meeting. Knowing some of the people involved, I am sure it was well done.

Mike, thanks for popping in.

The problem I have with RFA is the unofficial support of those against the CNR issue. You say there is no real stance, yet, but you come to a public forum and voice the "unofficial stance." What's the difference?

Also, how is this seen as lost opportunity? Lost harvest, yes, but not loss of sportfishing. Speak more of this lost opportunity, and exactly who will be missing out.

thanks for your input

Mike G.
I was shocked when I read [Your 2nd post, 4th paragraph,last sentence] that WSR would allow fishery managers to maintain fish stocks at critically low levels. Do you have any science to back up your assertation that wild steelhead release statewide would reduce wild stocks to critically low levels? In the next paragraph you seem to indicate that a substainable fishery[ could we insert the word harvest here?] might maintain the status quo for wild fish in the last few rivers not decimated [YET] by current management decisions. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?

"unofficial support of those against the CNR issue"

I am confused. When have I ever specifically supported a person or group in a debate against wild steelhead release?

I only position I ever recall stating is a position that is consistent with the published national position statement from the national RFA newsletter. I have stated it online, and I have presented written comment of such to the commission. Beyond that I have not done any lobbying on the issue one way or the other.

I think I recall that at one time I may have posted that I did not want to take an official stance, quite a long time ago. I quite honestly don't remember if I actually posted it, but at one time that was my thinking. But then the organization got pressure to take a stance, both locally and from national. So we did.

The only other thing I have done is stated what I believed to be factual information pertaining to the issue a few months ago on another message board. I did not intend to show any bias and if bias was perceived, well, that's out of my control.

Before I get to opportunity... I have not, to this point, targeted wild steelhead. I have been present in a boat when one has been caught and I advocated its release even though it was legal to keep it. That is personally where I am at right now.

Opportunity:
There are a significant amount of people out there who define opportunity as eating what they catch. To them, releasing a fish is what you do if you caught something undersized, or the wrong species, or it was too dark. I am not telling everyone to feel this way, but this is how things really are. Eliminating them from their opportunity eliminates them from the fishery, and in some cases, the sport.

On the other hand, allowing them to retain fish does not result in loss of opportunity to those who wish to release fish, unless there is also poor management of the fishery as well. In that case, the logical step is to fix the management, not the angler.

We are fundamentally opposed to removing anyone from the sport. It is contrary to everything we are trying to accomplish.

One last point, we were getting to nearly %100 release anyway. As the survey pointed out, the voluntary release rates had grown substantially in a small amount of time. That kind of progress is dynamic, it does not move at the same rate every year. In a few years we would probably be at over 90% release voluntarily.

Whoa, Whoa, Jerry, What am I thinking? What are you reading?

I wrote "We can not allow that management tool to become common place as a result of the fisheries management process failure to manage things correctly. It removes anglers from the sport, hurts our industries, and allows our managers to maintain fish stocks at critically low levels because with C&R we still have the "opportunity" to fish for them."

I said common place, as in multiple applications, not specific to WSR.

You wrote "In the next paragraph you seem to indicate that a substainable fishery[ could we insert the word harvest here?] might maintain the status quo for wild fish in the last few rivers not decimated [YET] by current management decisions. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?"

Yes, you could put harvest there, even a C&R season is harvest, but that is not what I said or implied. "Sustainable fisheries" are obviously not a result of current management decisions and I felt I was quite clear on that earlier in my post when I talked about my mis-trust of the current mangement system. "sustainable fisheries" are allowing enough fish to come back to consistently allow fisheries, C&R or otherwise.

The title of the WSC "white paper" is actually titled "The Biological and Economic Benefits of Wild Steelhead Release" More information regarding this document is available on the WSC website at http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com/

Howdy.
Mike Gilchrist told me about this site and I wanted to say hello. We appreciate the support, interest, and questions for the RFA.

I really do not have the time to post very often but I try to read as many message boards around the country I can to see what everyone is thinking.

I have posted below the RFA National position on CNR and the RFA code for ethical angling. I will try to answer any questions but I can not promise a speedy response.

One interesting note. I recently found out that CNR has been banned in some parts of Europe.

Thanks again.

The RFA helped to develop the NMFS code of ethical angling and adopted it as our code a few years ago.
The RFA position on C&R was published last year. Below is the code then the position paper. Sorry but their are some spacing problems with the position paper and I do not have the time to go through it and correct it.

The Ethical Angler:

Promotes, through education and practice, ethical behavior in the use of aquatic resources.

Values and respects the aquatic environment and all living things in it.

Avoids spilling, and never dumps, any pollutants, such as gasoline and oil, into the aquatic environment.

Disposes of all trash, including worn-out lines, leaders, and hooks, in appropriate containers, and helps to keep fishing sites litter-free.

Takes all precautionary measures necessary to prevent the spread of exotic plants and animals, including live baitfish, into non-native habitats.

Learns and obeys angling and boating regulations, and treats other anglers, boaters, and property owners with courtesy and respect.

Respects property rights, and never trespasses on private lands or waters.

Keeps no more fish than needed for consumption, and never wastefully discards fish that are retained.

Practices conservation by carefully handling and releasing alive all fish that are unwanted or prohibited by regulation, as well as other animals that may become hooked or entangled accidentally.

Uses tackle and techniques which minimize harm to fish when engaging in "catch and release" angling.

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

A Recreational Fishing Alliance Position Paper

Too Much Of A Good Thing
Catch & Release Fishing: Its application and implications for the future of sport fishing.

It is the position of the Recreational Fishing Alliance that the release of recreationally caught fish in marine fisheriesshould be, in most cases, the ethical and moral perogative of the angler and that attempting to impose “catch and release” exclusivity is a fishery management tool of the last resort. Voluntary catch and release of undersized fish or those fish not being utilized by the angler has been firmly established as ethical behavior in books, the outdoor media and well promoted by the sportfishing industry with extraordinary results.

Recent symposiums convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have exposed an undercurrent of feeling that requiring total catch and release can be used to remedy management problems in fisheries that actually require more stringent controls on, or in some cases, the total elimination of commercial harvest. The RFA believes that mandating catch and release to alleviate allocation problems is a move in the wrong direction and will further alienate recreational fishermen and decrease compliance with existing regulations.

The RFA is concerned that the management community might press ahead with the development of regulations that could phase in total catch and release in some fisheries and recognizes that it would be detrimental to recreational fishing participation and the industry at a time when recreational fishermen are already releasing the majority of the fish they catch for ethical reasons, due to current bag limits, size regulations or season closures, or for a combination of these reasons.

This paper will explore the good points of catch and release as practiced in the marine environment and the trap of mandating catchand release as a management tool, especially in those fisheries with a commercial and recreational component.

A Brief History:
Catch and release has been a part of sportfishing, in one form or another, for most of the twentieth century. One hundred years ago, members of the Tuna Club of Avalon located on Catalina Island off the coast of California were developing rules for ethical angling,which began with promoting the use of “light-tackle” to give the fish a sporting chance. One of the club’s best known members, famed sportsman and author Zane Grey, was espousing the release of prized gamefish as a way of further elevating sportfishing ethics and as a means of helping protect fish stocks from depletion which, even in his day and age, was occurring due to commercial overfishing. In his masterwork, Tales of Fishes, published in1919, Grey wrote, “…if we are to develop as anglers who believe in conservationand sportsmanship, we must consider the fish – his right to life and,especially, if he must be killed, to do it without brutality.” Grey and othervisionaries believed conservation should be the individual angler’s ethical andmoral imperative and they did their best to teach that philosophy. The teachingcontinues today at a much elevated pace.
It wasn’t until 1952 that regulated “catch andrelease” was first used as a management tool. The state of Michigan, in part asan effort to reduce the cost of stocking hatchery-raised trout to satisfy agrowing number of anglers, classified certain trout streams as “Fish-for-Fun”waters and prohibited the retention of fish caught from them. With theprecedent set, many states quickly followed suit instituting similar programsunder a variety of names. Not everyone in the management community and thefishing public were thrilled with the concept, but it stuck and “no-kill” zonesbecame a commonly used tool in freshwater fishery management.
The implementation of catch andrelease regulations, similar to those imposed in freshwater, have occurred onlyrarely or in limited areas in marine fisheries. However, the latest trends inmanagement are, in fact, creating de facto catch and release regulationsthat must be carefully monitored. Marine recreational fishing is a differentstate of affairs and does not easily lend itself to regulations that mandatecatch and release exclusively.

A Simple Definition:
The term “catch and release” refersto recreational fishing in which the angler hooks, fights and effectively“catches” a fish, but does not kill and retain it for consumption, as a trophyor for other purposes. Ideally, the fish is revived and released at the end ofthe encounter in good condition to continue its life cycle. There are two forcesthat promote catch and release for marine anglers. One encourages catch andrelease as a sportsmanlike practice while the other dictates it.

Catch and Release As Ethical Behavior:
Voluntary catch and release evolvedduring the transition of recreational fishing into the sport we participate intoday and has become part and parcel of sportfishing’s guiding principles orethics. Ethics require a moral code and that code has been established overdecades of promoting sportsmanlike conduct and conservation. However, anglingethics are not applied in a similar manner to all marine fish pursued byanglers. Certain species of fish are elevated to the status of gamefish, whilesome are sought by anglers for their eating quality and still others fall intoa grey area somewhere in-between. It is important for conservationists andfishery managers to recognize these differences because recreational fishinghas a range of meanings and perceived benefits to different segments of thefishing population. While catch and release is considered ethical behavior toanglers who pursue highly regarded gamefish, it is not embraced by anglers whopursue a species of fish as much to eat as for the enjoyment. The position ofthe latter becomes even harder when the fishery he is participating in has acommercial component. Prohibiting the retention of fish by individual anglersthat may be caught and sold by commercial interests is simply unsupportable.Each angler is right in his respective position, but should not seek to imposehis position on the other. Fishery managers must recognize these positions whenregulating harvest in any fishery and anglers who seek to impose their behavioron their fellow anglers engaged in different fisheries should be moreconsiderate of the differences that exist.
Species perceived as prizedgamefish are elevated to such lofty status because of the difficulty incatching them or for the fighting ability they exhibit. These fish are mostlikely to be released voluntarily by anglers. Most notable are marlin andsailfish, which are revered for their acrobatic display when challenged usingappropriate tackle and which are, to some degree, prohibited from commercialharvest. Bycatch mortality in commercial fisheries is still the leading causeof fishing mortality among all billfish.
Killing these fish at the end of aspirited fight is considered anathema by most anglers. The regard in which theyare held is evident in the percentage of billfish released by anglers prior tothe implementation of even the first regulations (size limits) placed on themby the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1988. In 1987, 60% of theblue marlin, 73% of the white marlin and 94% of the sailfish caughtrecreationally in U.S. waters were released voluntarily. (Source: 1994/1995Report of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center – Billfish Program) Thetrend toward release has continued on a steady pace with the constant educationprocess undertaken by the sportfishing media and industry.
Today, anglers rarely retain billfishexcept in the cases of a possible record fish, to have a special catch mounted,or those caught in the course of a tournament, which requires the weighing offish to determine the winner. In recent years, even the number of marlin andsailfish killed in tournaments has declined dramatically through efforts toimprove communications while the contest is in progress and by the institutionof catch and release format contests. In recent years, U.S. anglers havemaintained a release rate well over 90% for marlin and sailfish and even thoughthere are federally regulated size limits in place aimed at reducing anglerharvest, they are not credited with impacting the practice of live release toany degree.
Only a few other species are heldin similar regard to billfish and experience similarly high voluntary releaserate. Tarpon, bonefish and Atlantic salmon are notables, while a host of othermarine species benefit from the gamefish perception to a varying degree. Morespecies are gaining greater acceptance as gamefish and that perception combinedwith regulation has seen live release soar to unprecedented levels.

Regulatory “Catch & Release”:
There is a second form of catch and release that hasevolved as a result of regulations imposed on anglers by federal and stateagencies. In this instance, the release of fish caught is in response to theimposition of size limits, bag limits, seasonal closures or, in rare instances,a complete moratorium on the harvest of a particular specie (i.e. The currentban on the harvest of jewfish due to the species’ once precariously overfishedstock situation, which makes any angler encounter exclusively catch andrelease). Fish that might have been retained for consumption or other use mustbe released under penalty of law.
In recent years, regulatory catchand release has become commonplace for saltwater anglers due to the decline instock abundance of almost all of the species that are recreationally popular.Many of the stock declines come at the hands of commercial overfishing, habitatloss and regulatory mismanagement. As part of the Fishery Management Plans(FMPs) aimed at reversing the declines and rebuilding sustainable fisheries,recreational fishermen have shouldered a significant portion of the burdenthrough regulations. Many of the species with strict recreational regulationsare not considered gamefish, but are pursued by anglers for their food qualityin addition to the enjoyment gained from fishing. In such cases, those fishlarge enough to retain for consumption most likely would not be releasedvoluntarily, however, as part of an FMP, angler harvest is limited by sizelimits, bag limits and/or seasonal closures and therefore release a significantpercentage of the fish they catch. In some cases, the percentage of catchreleased has reached levels that were unimaginable just a few short years ago.
One of the most sought-after fishin the Mid-Atlantic States is the summer flounder. Summer flounder are by no means a gamefish. They are pursued fortheir fine eating characteristics and, to a lesser extent, because they arerelatively easy and fun to catch. Since the implementation of the FMP torebuild their depleted stocks in 1993, which came with the imposition of strictsize and bag limits and seasonal closures on recreational anglers, the level ofangler release grew to 80% of the fish caught by 1999! During the ten yearsprior to the FMP, voluntary release, mostly of undersized fish exclusively,averaged approximately 45%. (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service -Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey)

Synthesis Improves Management Effectiveness:
Somewhere between voluntary andregulatory catch and release is a middle ground which anglers practice that isstrongly influenced by the status of the species being caught. For example, thelive release of striped bass today is well in excess of even the highlyrestrictive size and bag limits imposed on anglers. In 1999, over 90% of thestripers caught were released. This is an extraordinary percentage when youlook back and realize that just 25 years ago almost every striped bass caughtby anglers was killed to eat or to sell (sale of angler caught striped bass waslegal in many states). The transition from an almost 100% kill to a 90% releaseratio is simply astounding. (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service -Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey) Could regulations aloneinfluence anglers to release such a high percentage of the stripers they catch?The answer is unquestionably, no.
Striped bass have not always beenconsidered a gamefish due to their excellent food quality. However, theperception by anglers has changed considerably in recent years. The near tragicloss of this specie due to decades of commercial and recreational overfishinggave way to an air of cooperation in the efforts put forth by the AtlanticStates to reverse the stock decline and save the specie from total collapse.Draconian regulations and even periods of total harvest moratoriums in somestates were put in place and, as the stocks slowly started to rebuild, theperception of anglers evolved from one of a fish destined for someone’s tableto a premiere inshore gamefish that must be protected. Regulatory catch andrelease through size and bag limits and seasonal closures were actuallyexceeded through voluntary catch and release of all stripers by an amazingnumber of anglers who had come to believe that killing this fish for anythingshort of a trophy was unconscionable. The shift in perception had a dramaticeffect on the rate of compliance with the harsh measures implemented in theFMP. It was the combination of voluntary catch and release as ethical behaviorwith regulatory catch and release imposed by the FMP that created theatmosphere for the plan to succeed. Today, striped bass are rebuilding toremarkable levels of abundance and anglers are permitted to retain a smallpercentage of their catch for personal consumption or as trophies, should theydesire to do so, yet many anglers continue to release far more striped bassthan the law compels them to.
Even in the case of summerflounder, anglers comply with regulation not just because it is the law, butalso because they have been conditioned by their sense of ethical behavior.They comply with the regulations believing it is their ethical responsibilityand that releasing fish today will result in improved stock abundance and lessregulation in the future.
It isimperative that fishery managers realize that compliance with many regulationsrestricting recreational harvest is the result of the ethical angling behavior,an adjunct to voluntary catch and release, as much as it is in response to theletter of the law. Most anglers understand, as do state and federal fisherymanagers and enforcement agencies, that compliance with recreationalregulations must be overwhelmingly voluntarily. Gaining compliance throughenforcement efforts is nearly impossible because of the number of recreationalfishermen involved in most fisheries and the limited resources available to theenforcement agencies.

The Downside of Mandatory Catch & Release:
While catch and release plays arole in today’s recreational fisheries, if improperly applied as a managementtool, it will have dire consequences for fishermen, the industry and the managementprocess. Those in the management community who believe that mandating expandedcatch and release as an alternative to angler harvest risk the consequences ofdramatic reductions in angler participation and diminished economic benefitgained by their participation.
There is adisturbing trend in the management community’s vision of recreational fishingin the future as evidenced by the focus of recent meetings held by NMFS. Insymposiums with anglers, conservationists and industry representatives, itappears that some in the agency may be exploring the possibility of replacingtraditional recreational fishing with regulated harvest with catch and releaseexclusively. Such a move is ill advised and evidence of the dramatic disconnectbetween some managers and their understanding of what drives recreationalfishing.
While somefisheries lend themselves to the catch and release scenario, they areoverwhelmingly found in freshwater. Even states that employ catch and releaseor no-kill streams or zones in some fisheries do not completely prohibit theretention of recreationally caught fish within their total jurisdictions. Theymerely pick and choose specific water to close to harvest. The RFA is concernedthat federal and state fisheries managers are seeking a method by which todeclare entire fisheries catch and release only, attempting to employ anethical principle as a management panacea rather than recognizing it as a toolto be used with extreme care and only where absolutely needed. Once agencies haveembarked on such a course of action, they will reduce angler interest in someof the most recreationally popular fisheries and cause the loss of economicbenefits to the economy generated by the sport. If reducing anglerparticipation is being seriously contemplated, mandatory catch and releasewould accomplish that goal nicely.
Mostspecies of marine fish of interest to anglers currently benefit from asignificant degree of catch and release be it voluntary or associated withseasonal closures, bag and size limits. In fact, fully 60% of the recreationalcatch of the ten most popular species in the Atlantic region were released inthe period between 1989 and 1998. (Source: NMFS - Marine RecreationalFishing Statistical Survey) Of all the species sought by anglers, there arefew indeed that have not been regulated to reduce fishing mortality and anglershave had to endure drastic regulation even though the major portion of thismortality and stock depletion is the result of commercial over-fishing and yearsof poor management by government agencies.

In Conclusion:
If the pushfor additional regulations that result in excessive catch and release or if amove to make certain species catch and release exclusively is overused, and itis reaching or has reached that point in many FMPs already, angler compliancewill be the first thing to suffer. The majority of the angling community hasgiven its wholehearted support to rebuilding efforts and regulations they viewas fair and balanced, even in fisheries where the culprit was commercialoverfishing. Their compliance has been key to successfully reducing fishingmortality in many FMPs, especially those in which there is a strongrecreational component. The RFA feels the management community must strive to betterunderstand the importance of maintaining fairness in its management plans andrecognize the reasons the public participates in recreational fishing beforecontinuing down the slippery slope toward mandating catch and release practicesto a greater degree than is currently in use today.
Even in thecase of the highly regarded billfishes, which now have among the strictestcontrols on harvest of any recreationally important specie; to mandate totalcatch and release, or raise the size limits further to effect that goal, willhave serious consequences. It will reduce participation by denying the anglingpublic the ability to harvest even a tiny fraction of the fish they catch intournaments or as trophies. The loser will be the municipalities and states wherebillfish tournaments provide a much-needed economic boost to their economies.If catch and release is mandated in other fisheries, the consequences will beeven more far-reaching and dramatic.
Fisherymanagement is frequently a balancing act: Excluding recreational participationthrough over-regulation; employing management practices that are patentlyunfair to one user group; or mandating fishing behavior and ethics that couldbring about the demise of the management system as it exists today and risk therebuilding of many fisheries that are finally responding to sensible managementsolutions.