As our Puget Sound rivers are facing another down year for wild winter steelhead, maybe it is time to look into some more unorthodox solutions or drastic measures.

Take for example, our standard June 1 opening for our local rivers...if our rivers are closed under emergency regs in March and April to protect spawning wild steelhead, should we also delay the June 1 opening to allow the system to get totally flushed of these fish???

I can see keeping the upper portions of certain rivers under the standard June 1 opening because how often are wild winter steelhead caught at say the Cable Hole on the Sky on June 1???...not many!!...but how many are caught from Sultan down??...Lots!!

It seems that in the past few years this has become very noticeable as the lower Skykomish has become a boat parade on June 1 of sleds, driftboats...

How about a June 15th opener down low??...or opening the river when the river is determined to be almost void of wild winter steelhead???

Another suggestion...a bait ban in the summer??...How often do countless numbers of wild steelhead smolts and juvenilles inhale a gob of eggs?...and how often do those fish not swim away healthy??...very often!!

I think it is time to not only protect our wild steelhead adults but the juvenilles as well!

This can not only be done with a bait ban in the summer but with a barbless hook restriction as well...if you find the necassity to fish bait, the least you can do is debard the hooks...we all know barbless hooks reduce mortality in trout (which are wild steelhead juvenilles are more or less).


Any thoughts???...any other recomendations!!

Do we know for sure this is going to be a down year for the natives? I thought they didn't start showing up in numbers until February. I could be wrong, but from what I've learned, it'd still be too early to come to any conclusions about the natives this winter. By the time they come up, they won't have to worry about low water like the hatchery fish did.

bait ban? barbless hooks?

First off I have hooked more juvenlles on spinners and spoons.

Sure the little guys peck the crap out of my eggs but I dont set the hook on them and rarely hook them.


Second I have still to see a study on mortality of fish caught and released on barbed hooks verses barbless hooks!

I have killed just as many if not more fish on barbless hooks.

Just because a fish swims away does not mean it will survive!

If you hook a fish in the tongue gill or through the top of its head its a dead fish, barbed or barbless.

Fish hooked in the upper maxilla lower maxilla or the side of there mouth will live regardless of barbed or de barbed hooks used. but die if they are mis-handled.

I dont know if there is a tribal fishery on the sky but if there is maybe that could be adding to no fish in the upper river? If the river was closed do you think they would stop. I am not saying that its all the indians fault but its kind of tough for fish to make it through mazes!

thats if there is a tribal fishery there I dont know.

They net the Snohomish but not the Sky. Putting nets in the Snohomish not only gets the fish for the Sky but also the Snoqualmie. BUt lets not talk about the indians as they get blamed for too many things that they don't do.

Has the summer bait ban done anything positive on the Snoqualmie? This was pushed by certain fly fishing groups under the guise that it protects fish.
So are summer run more plentiful now on the Snoqualmie than on the Sky?
If there were a delay of an opening date than it should be the entire system. We need to get away from the bubble fishery mentality.

January 13th is way too early to give up on the wild fish. Seldom is there a correlation between hatchery and wild run strength anyway. The wild fish seem to be showing up on time on the coast and the PS rivers that I fish but it's just way too early to call. Heck, the hatchery fish still might make an appearance like the "dependable" friend who shows up late to the kegger...the party didn't start because he had the keg!
It is not just the boat and bait fishermen who affect the resource. Fly anglers that battle big hens on their April redds are not doing wild steelhead populations any favors. Why is it that it is always the fly guys that make suggestions to limit other anglers opportunities? If your concern for the wild steelhead runs so deep then lets close it all down!
Sparky, if you wish to kick the beehive by recommending boat and bait bans then have at it but I won't show at that "kegger"

Late openers don't bother me but I gotta disagree on the bait ban/ barbless hook thought. I am a bait fisher almost 100% of the time; year around. I like to think I have a pretty open mind and am always open to new ideas but I also like those ideas backed by science. I have studied the bait issue for years and between what I have researched coupled with my own experiences, I have to say bait is no more harmful than any other method. British columbia has done studies that support this. Sure there is going to be mortality but I am convinced fishing bait doesn't do enough damage to warrant statewide changes as you propose(I assume statewide) In some cases, bait may even be less harmful.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Sparky, I realize that your intention for this thread was for all Puget Sound rivers however your example was targeted at the Skykomish. A lot of people have been working hard to get an opportunity to target the hatchery summer chinook that are returning during the time your concerned about. The chinook fishery opens in the begining of June and rumor has it that WDFW plans to expan the area where these fish (marked ones of course) can be harvested this coming year. Two years ago WDFW didn't open this chinook fishery until mid-July and we missed most of that run. Would you have the Sky closed for hatchery chinook to save any possible hooking mortality on wild steelhead? Any wild adult steelhead still in the system would still be protected by rule and would have to be released. I say open the Skykomish on time and let's continue to educate anglers on effective techniques of C&R.

Hatchery reform is undoubtly going to include limiting the straying of hatchery fish which means more hatchery fish coming back to smaller, more resticted areas, aka bubble selective fisheries.

I am not a fly fisherman, but I did do a lot of guiding over the years. I believe that I was on the water a lot more than the average fishermen ever was, and I have seen a lot of fly fishermen catching fish on the Cowlitz. I known that the Cowlitz is not really the best river in the state for fly fishermen, but what you see their must certainly reflect what happens every where else that they fish.

On the Cowlitz, 90% of the fish that I have seen being caught by the fly fishermen are either small cutthroats or steelhead smolts, and believe me, they catch plenty of both!

The reason for that is pretty simple in my way of thinking; 90% of the fly fishermen that I have seen are always using "little tiny flies" and that's exactly what these little steelhead smolts are feeding on. So who's really doing the harm here, is it the bait guys who fish with quarter size chunks of eggs and hooks one of these little guys every now and then, or is it the guy who's whipping out that little fly that smolts so dearly love to eat?

It just seems to me that the Fly guys are always the first ones to ask for bait bans on our rivers. More and more fishermen now believe that the only reason the fly guys want these bait bans, are because it will give the fly guys a better "opportunity" to "catch fish" in the way that they (fly guys) so dearly love to do. You noticed that I am not using the word "harvest", because lots of bait fishermen are not fishing strictly for the "meat". They just love to catch fish and that's the way and method that they love to catch them by!

It's kind of like the opposing views between the bow hunters and the gun guys; they both prefer their own methods to pursue their sport!

I see a lot more smolts getting hooked by fly fishermen (on the average) on the Cowlitz than I do by the guys that are using bait (bait guys take their share too). Now is that true of every where else, I really can't say! Common sense (there I go again, using that word!) tells us, that smolts eat and feed on a heck of a lot more bugs and insects then they do on either eggs- clusters or sand shrimp. Will you catch them on those baits…you bet you will!

A hook is a hook! The more you hook those little guys, the more you are going to kill them…barb or no barb!


Cowlitzfisherman

I musta missed somethin. How did this turn into a fly fisher v. the other guys?

My philosophy on fishing restrictions are this: Pay now or pay later!! And when you pay later it's always gonna be more expensive!!

I am in favor of anything that will help the fish runs become more robust, however shaky the science. What I mean is, if there is the slightest chance it will increase the number of "wild" and "native" fish we should implement it like yesterday!

You guys really think that hooking mortality on released fish is about equal for bait, artificials and barbed/barbless hooks?

How about goin to barbless circle hooks? I understand that they generally hook in the side or was it the corner of the mouth.

Sincerely,
Roger

I'm sure most of the guys who post regularly on this board and use bait are experienced enough to hook and land fish with as minimal negative impact on the fish as is possible. However, I've seen dozens of novices who let a fish CHOW on shrimp or eggs until that hook is down deep. The final hookset pretty much seals the deal on the fishes fate...native, hatchery, immature...pretty much as indiscrimanent as it gets. Don't see many fish inhale a size 1/0 or 2/0 fly.

Gotta De-Lurk for this one.

There are several good suggestions here and I don't really care if you're a flyfisherman (or have issues with flyfishermen) or not.

There is a valid argument for a bait ban because hungry little smolt *swallow* the bait.

Flies also cause high mortality among smolt, and the primary culprit is the larger x/0 hooks that are used tearing their faces off (especially when barbed). Maybe we should also consider a "maximum size" rule for hooks as well as the barbless restriction?

Just because I'm willing to consider a bait ban in summer doesn't necessarily mean I'm some elitist flyfisher. It's something I've heard prominent members of the DFW and biologists mention as a significant cause of smolt mortality. Makes sense to consider it as runs become more and more depressed.

As for the June 15th opener, if the season ends up being as bad as they're projecting (they do redd surveys in May) then it might be something to consider as well. This isn't fly vs gear, it's just a way to protect those few spawners strong enough to make a repeat trip from needless C&R stress (unless you're *really* hungry ).

I don't like closures or restrictions anymore than the next guy. I'm just a fisherman - not a purist by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks Spark - Good Topic!!

Brian

Whats the use use "paying" if it does no good! That gives people the false sense that there scientifically unfounded regulations are working while the fish are still disapearing.

Something needs to be done but the state wont do it because it will take away there pocket money!

One of the main problems I have with all closures is they really open it up to poaching!
At least when things are open theres true sports fishermen present to curb poaching.

If you only saw what I have seen you would be crazy with anger at what goes on at "closed" fisheries!

Second I have still to see a study on mortality of fish caught and released on barbed hooks verses barbless hooks!

I have killed just as many if not more fish on barbless hooks.

Just because a fish swims away does not mean it will survive!

If you hook a fish in the tongue gill or through the top of its head its a dead fish, barbed or barbless.

Fish hooked in the upper maxilla lower maxilla or the side of there mouth will live regardless of barbed or de barbed hooks used. but die if they are mis-handled.

So yes I do believe that hooking mortality is about the same. probably even better survival rate for barbed hook fish, seems how in salt water I use bigger hooks than I normally would and commonly skewer shakers throught the top of the head! Not my fault its this states politics.

Did you know it was the commercial and tribal fishermen that pushed for barbless hooks in the first place?

Its amazing how easy people are brainwashed.

Here is what I like about Sparkey's suggestions: They err on the side of protection.

Taking his approach, if he is wrong, the fish don't wind up dead. If some of the other approaches were undertaken and they were wrong, the result is dead fish.

Given that we know there is pressure on the native fish in these specific fisheries why would you be willing risk further loss?

I hear Sparkey saying 'let's err on the side of the fish for once' and I'm inclined to agree with him...

Hopefully Cowlitzfishermans attempts at categorizing those would protect fish before their 'right to fish' as 'elitist fly fishing-types' or 'agents of the state' is transparent.

I've never cast a fly at steelhead in my life and the only thing I've ever 'speyed' is my cat.

Please remember that the majority of smolts killed would be the offspring of wild fish as the hatchery smolts dump and flush out. And mi 101, if you haven't seen the hooking mortality studies then you aren't looking very hard. It seems to me each person wants to be the exception to the rule when it comes to there desired way to fish. And CFM, the itty-bitty flies are usually used by lake and spring creek fisherman. Common sense[like it or not you don't have a monopoly on it] would tell you that the more wild smolts that make it to sea the more wild fish return.

Micro,

With all due respect, where the hell did you get that idea, and what proof can you offer to validate your claim?

Barbless hooks (especially in salt water) are intended to make the release of undersized or non-targeted species less traumatic and harmful to the fish. (when proper release techniques are employed of course) Many comparative studies have been conducted on hooking mortality using barbed/barbless hooks, bait/hardware etc...

It has been proven that a barless hook with no bait has the lowest occurence of mortality. (somewhere in the neighborhood of 3%) A search of this board will reveal many threads where this topic has been discussed in detail, and links to the studies were provided.

Do you think that using barbed hooks in salt water will reduce the amount of shakers "skewered through the head'?

You appear to consider yourself one of the few that haven't been "brainwashed by the state", and that you are aware of some sort of monetary conspiracy perpetrated on sporfishers by the WDFW. On what evidence do you base this opinion?

If you honestly believe that all of the regulations concerning barbed/barbless hooks have no basis in science, WHY then do you think they exist? (please provide SOME sort of tangible evidence, and please, not more of CFM's "common sense" )

Concerning your position, truer words could not have been spoken.

stlhdh2o:

It is becoming ever so obvious that I am a threat to you. Your little deal about calling you names reinforces that deduction. Now you say; "Hopefully Cowlitzfishermans attempts at categorizing those would protect fish before their 'right to fish' as 'elitist fly fishing-types' or 'agents of the state' is transparent." What are you smokin?

That tells me that I must of really have gotten to you, and that you are getting more and more obsessed on attacking, or putting down everyone else's opinion, just because it may be different than yours. That's to bad, because I know that you also care about our resources very much too. Some of you just can't stand to deal with any other person's points of view, and that's also too bad for you also. You need to open up your minds . . . not your mouth!

If we are so terribly wrong, then let us be so. People can, and do make up their own minds you know. I am the kind of guy that doesn't BS around. I tell you how I see it, and you can take it for what it is worth.

I am just thrilled to death that we now have other people who can debate these "hot tpopic" issues, like micropterus 101 has so well done. He's got balls, and on this board, that's what it takes to run against "the flow"! I am sure that he and I, at some time will have our differences, but he has totally earned my respect. He's taken on your groupie like click, and in my view, he's kicked your butts! That must hurt too, but I know that micropterus101 has pretty well figured that one already.

stlhdh2o, you and your buddies need to stop trying to beat up on everyone and anyone who attempts to disagree with your little groups opinions.

Ok, I didn't do any name calling….or did I?

If the birds with feathers keep flocking together, and keep pulling out their feathers, pretty soon those old birds are going to start looking pretty darn naked!

Can you read between those feathers guy?

P.S. Jerry you say; "And CFM, the itty-bitty flies are usually used by lake and spring creek fisherman." In my opinion, that is a bunch unsubstantiated BS! I have personally seen some of your most elite posters "flies", that they claim that they have used on the Cowlitz, and they were pretty darn small hooks. I am not a fly fisherman, as I HAVE STATED, but I have seen what the sizes of some of those hooks are. Get real Jerry!


Cowlitzfisherman

C'mon guys if you can't tell the difference 9 times out of 10 between a smolt nibble and a steelhead chow you don't know how to drift fish.
My fishing partner fishes spinners while I fish bait and I've seen through the years how much more willing a wild fish is to take a spinner than bait a 5 inch smolt will slam a spinner thats almost as big as it is with such aggresiveness ive seen numerous times the hook in their gills, back, eyes etc. So lets not classify this as a bait versus flies or bait versus hardware. If worse comes to worse the best way is to shut them down to all types of fishing. Because no matter what the technique and where in the river you fish your always at the "risk" of accidentaly hooking and killing wild smolts.

Although I try my best never to agree with Sparks, just this once..

Here's a study I dug up. And no, I have nothing better to do at work! http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/Fishery/AnglerResource/Techniques/HookingMortality.htm

Think we are giving up on the wilds a little to soon. But if we're going to do something just close it all users for the first part. I've see plenty of "trout" fishermen just having a hay day with thirty plus fish days and white deer hair fly. Catching smolt all day. As far as single barbless I'd say in my experience the hook goes deeper that with trebles and causes atlease as much harm to the fish if not greater than a barbless treble. But then again I'm not giving up hope yet. We've been getting plenty of three salt hatcheries but haven't seen the two's in the large number that are usually there.

Tight lines

Kevin

It has been my experience (and is my belief) that a properly sized (maximum gap tween hook point-n-shank) (?combined w/a minimum size?), single, barbless hook on an artificial lure will cause the least amount of "hooking mortality". It appears that the article in CWU's post tends to support my belief. I was wrong once so I suppose it could happen again...
Anyway, does anyone know of any studies done on hooking mortality from circle hooks? It is my understanding that because of their design they tend to lodge in the fishes mouth in areas least likely to be fatal. Anyone ever use circle hooks for Salmon, Trout or Steelhead?

Quick Q fer minibear: How does anyone become good at anything (driftfishing fer steelhead, fer instance) w/out first being a novice?

Sincerely,
Roger

Circle hook study... http://www.ccact.org/Articles/circle_hook_study.htm

single barbless hooks, barbless hooks kill as many as barbed hooks trying to grip the small fish with a barbed hook is bad where a barbless hook it just falls off into the water with minimal effort.

Cow--- if you carefully read my post you will see I said itty-bitty flies "USUALLY" are fished in lakes and springcreeks. Most steelhead flies are on the large size. You find one person who agrees with you[now] and you hold him up as a free thinker and those that have different points of view are a click. Sometimes those that agree with a majority point of view have thought very hard about a situation and have come to a common view point independently of each other. And I'm about as real as they come.

[Quick Q fer minibear: How does anyone become good at anything (driftfishing fer steelhead, fer instance) w/out first being a novice?

Sincerely,
Roger [/QB][/QUOTE]

I understand that there are alot of novices out there, after your first handful of steelhead landed while baitfishing if you pay attention you can tell the difference. I wish you could've understood my point a little better, with all the novice steelheaders out there that have to kill numerous smolts before they actually catch their first steelhead and (believe me steelheading is becoming everybodys favorite past time) I am sure a later opener is what it will come down to.

WOW!! That was fast...Thanx CWUgrrrl.

Guess I should try out a few search engines...

Minibear,
Hey, sorry, was not bein judgemental, just did not understand...without novices the sport would die out!!

Probably the only way to save our wild fish runs is a complete ban on fishing fer ten years or so. Unfortunately, most people find that as unpalatable as I do.

Anyone have any experience using circle hooks? Seems like they would be a good way to go IF they hooked fish as well as our beloved Octopus style.

I really enjoy the exchanges in this thread, some very good thoughts.

I also get alot of laughs from the people who get "spun-up" so fast!!

Take care n Keep the Faith

Sincerely,
Roger

CF -

Yeah...I'm sure its obvious to everyone reading this board that I am the one that's high...do you think its my inability to frame a logical argument or the meandering character assasinations that give it away?

Instead of finding fault with my logic or my arguments (or anyone who disagrees with you for that matter) you have mischaracterized what I've said on this subject and refused to address the parts of my argument that are worthy of consideration, if nothing else. You've resorted to name calling on me and character assasination (attempted!) on Todd....

...and I'm the one who is exhibiting the behavior of someone feeling threatened?...

Sparkey -

Its unfortunate that the attention of this thread has been diverted and I apologize for whatever part I may have played in that, both to you and the rest of the board.

Anyway....what's the worst that could happen if you err on the side of the fish...more fish?

Jerry: "You find one person who agrees with you [now] and you hold him up as a free thinker and those that have different points of view are a click."

Like I said earlier Jerry; "Some of you just can't stand to deal with any other person's points of view, and that's also too bad..."

Once again, you guys need to open up your minds . . . not your mouth!"

Ok Jerry, if you think you can sell us your same old story that; "Most steelhead flies are on the large size", then please, old wise one, what about your flies that you guys use on the cutthroat? Are they that large too. . . I don't think so!

And lastly, you go on to say; "Sometimes those that agree with a majority point of view have thought very hard about a situation and have come to a common view point independently of each other." Well Jerry, that's what happened right now to your little click, isn't it?

Roger (RRR)

I had used circle hooks long before they had ever become known in our Washington fishery.

I came from California, I used to fish commercially there, and I used circle hooks a lot. They are, in my opinion, fish killers in many ways, barb less or not! Why do you think that the "Orientals" invented them in the first place? Have you ever used them? I don't care if they were barb less or not once a fish gets hooked, he can't readily get off as easy or get ride of it (the hook). That means, on smaller hooks, it even gets harder. Again, have you ever used them; if so, where, and on what species?



Cowlitzfisherman

stlhdh2o, mellow out a little, you're beginning to loose it!

Everyone gets beat up a little now and then, I know how to lick my wounds, and you need to learn how to do it too!


Cowlitzfisherman

WOW!! Who "Sparked" this thread?

A few fly fishing clubs successfully lobbied to place selective gear rules on the Snoqualmie in the summer. So, there must have been some science to it or else it was as an experiment or a little of both. The rules still apply after, what, ten years?
The results must be successful right? Does anyone know of a published study showing that the return rate is much higher than the Sky? If it's successful then why don't they apply the rules to the entire state?

WOW!!!

I had a few chances during the day to peak at this thread at workd...I wish I would have had the opputunity to make a couple posts to keep this thread on track...

As Brian L. mentioned, this thread has nothing to do with fly vs. gear...whoever it was that brought that up, is being seriously ignorant of the issues at hand.

Secondly, I am in no way giving up on the wild winter run, yet. The past few years have been dreadful for Puget Sound wild steelhead...these ideas are based upon the recent years and the predictions for this year.

A prominent biologist/manager with the WDFW (you know who you are ) made a comment within the past couple weeks that if closing down the C&R seasons and the now mandatory wild steelhead release regulations are not followed by a rebound in our wild steelhead escapements in Puget Sound, more drastic measures will need to be taken!!!!!

I am assuming those drastic measures will involve a complete shut down of our fisheries in the winter...do you want that??...I dont think so...I sure as Hell dont!!

So now we are at a crossroads...we need to take more drastic steps to help prevent the most drastic step of all will not need to be taken.

What the Hell is wrong with not fishing with bait in the summer??...there is an obvious mortality rate differance between bait and no bait and barbed hooks and barbless hooks...anyone who disagrees with that are not ignorant, they are not naive...they are MORONS! Wake up!!!!!!

There has been little disagreement over keeping the river closed over an extended period of time...so we do agree that that is a measure that should be taken if need be??....or how about a compromise? (using the Skykomish as an example), keep the standard June 1st opening but make it single barbless hooks and no bait...usually the river is faily high at that time...by elimanting the use of bait, you are going to eliminate the catch of wild winter steelhead.

I am not proposing this compromise as a permanent nor am I proposing that the late opener become a standard regulation...

I just feel that if we are closing the rivers in March and April to protect wild winter steelhead (rivers that are under selective fishery regs at the time when open) and then allowing a gauntlet of fisherman (non-selective fishery) have at them for a couple weeks in June, we are not protecting the population...in fact the regulations of the first couple weeks of June directly contradict the closures of March and April.

...sacrifice some now OR everything later...

Sparky, I agree if it can be shown in actual returns. There's a prime example/study opportunity right now in the Snoqualmie. If it can be shown then it shouldn't be temporary it should be permanent and should be expanded to the entire state. But, I am willing to bet that even with the selective gear rules enforced in the summer that the returns have not drastically improved. So, that would say that the problem lies elsewhere and not hook mortality. I really don't have a problem with going to no bait or even fly fishing. Whatever improves the returns of fish then I am for.
Can you imagine the hatchery meat holes being fly fishing only? I think that would be more fun to watch than actually fishing.

Sparks.. I go to the trouble of abusing my employment to agree with you and providing evidence (against my better judgement), and I don't get any props?? What's with that??

stlhead-
I am not saying selective fishery regulations will actually boost numbers of returning fish enough that we can pinpoint that rebound to those regulations...

What I am trying to say is that at this point with escapement numbers as low as they are, these populations need all the help they can get and selective fishery regulations WILL GIVE THEM THAT SORT OF HELP!

you know I love you!...is that not enough??

Stlhead -
Regarding the regulations on the Snoqualmie - Those changes were put in place in an attempt to rebuilt the wild summer steelhead returning to the forks of the Tolt. Duirng the late 1980s the average escapement of summer steelhead in the South Fork Tolt was only 70 fish a year and never above 100 fish. The regulation changes: including ban baits, barbless hooks, closing of the the forks to fishing, stopping of hatchery plants of summer fish in the Tolt occurred in 1992. Over the last 10 years the average escapement has increased more than 2.5 fold to nearly 200 fish a year (range 115 to 366 per year). Obivously the combined regulations were effective. How much of that can be attributed to the bait ban of course is unknown.

TJ -
Yes it is early to decide the fate of this year's wild run. And the strength of hatchery returns are notorious poor predictor of wild runs. However the escapement of wild steelhead last year on the Snohomish and Stillaguamish were the lowest that has been seen. That cpombined with the growing indication of widespread terrible marine survival makes this discussion timely.

Sparkey's ideas are a nice starting point. This coming summer the WDFW commission will be taking and considering major fishing regulation changes again making this timely.

Question for your consideration - If the worst comes to pass (I'm sure that we all agree that we are hoping for the better than that) would you prefer limitations on methods (for example bait bans) or shorter seasons?

Hooking mortality -
As pointed out by CWUgirl there is quite a bit of information available on hooking mortality. Especially for trout (applicable to steelhead parr and smolts) where mortaltiy of bait caught fish has been consistently found to be in the 30 to 50% range. When thinking about hooking mortality it is useful to divide your consideration on the fish being impacted. Hooking mortaltiy with bait on adult steelhead is generally lower than that for trout with values for winter fish typically pegged around 10%. For spawn-out steelhead (kelts) it is closer to that found for trout - they are actively feeding and the likehood of being hooking in critical areas about the same as trout (more than 30%).

Absolute mortality form hooking mortaltiy is difficult to pin down in studies - are fish dying from hooking mortality or from the handling as part of the study. However when various aspects are compared the same study we can see how various gear etc comapres to each other (may not know what the mortlatiy maybe but we can see whether one is twice the other). A local study that may be useful here is one done by U of W and WDFW on sea-run cutthroat on the Stillaguamish where mortality from various size hooks and arificals. Bottom line:
Mortality with bait and # 10 hooks was 39.5%
with bait and #6 hooks was 46.5%
with bait and #2 hooks was 58.1%
with bait and #1/0 hooks was 40.7%
with spinner with teble hook - 23.8%
with spinner with single hook - 15.9%

The bait was night crawlers. The spinners were #2 Blue Fox etc with either #4 treble or # 6 siwash.

Another thing to remember is that during the summer there is a lot of fishing going on that is not targeting steelhead.

Beezer -
Does your concern about a delayed opening impacts on the Sky hatchery chinook fishery reflect that of your TU chapter.

I hope it doesn't mean that TU in WAshington is continuing to place access to hatchery fish above wild fish protection.

Hope some of this information is helpful in your discussions - hopefully we can find ways of protecting a wild resource in trouble while providing recreation.

How to best do this of course depends on our collective desires. The best chance to do so depends on putting emotions aside, collecting factual information, and examining the issue from a variety of view points. My observations are that those involved in this discussion have the passion and talent to do so if we are willing to look issues objectively.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma-
Thanks for posting the results to that study!!...that was my introduction to that study...do you have title and authors so I can go take a peak at??

Secondly, do you have any figures or any idea on how many smolts, parr etc. are caught each summer by anglers??...any any river system??

Because state law requires the WDFW to undertake a study if a selective fishery regulation is to be put in place by WDFW staff, is there anything others and/or myself can do to lobby the WDFW to appropiate the funds for such a study?

...plus, if wild winter steelhead escapements are so low...why do you believe the WDFW opens up rivers such as the Sky on June 1 when there are still good numbers of both upstream and downstream wild winter steelhead in the system?

\


Response to (1)
I recieved that info from my friend vince green who worked with wdfw at the time that crap was going on. I will talk to him and get back to you on that.

Response to (2)
I know what the barbless hook rules were intended for and that intension was good. But the fact is that many people including myself now use bigger hooks with longer points, hence more skeward shakers. Another fact is that most people dont carefully release there catch.

Response to (3)
I still need to look at the mortality studies, but from what I read so far on other post those studies were conducted on trout. Thats a whole nother can o worms. Of couse the mortality rate of bait caught trout is going to be high, thats a no brainer. The higher mortality can be attibuted to still water baitfishing techniques. when fishing for steelhead I rarely have them swallow my eggs, usually I hook them in the corner of there mouth and other fish I see people catch are also hooked in the corner of the mouth. Of course there are exceptions but thats the exception not the rule other wise why would it be such a big deal when a steelhead does swallow someones eggs to there a!!.

Response two (4)
Yes I do think that using barbed hooks in saltwater will reduce the amout of fish skeward. I would rather use smaller hooks. Refer to (2)

Response to (5)
That would be easier for you if I was some kind of whacked conspiricy theorist wouldnt it.
No I am not an Art Bell wanna be. I base my opinions on a combonation of my experiences acquired knowledge and common sense and I try not to argue points I know absoulutly nothing about. If I do I let you know what department I am lacking In. I also like to find things out for myself I am not one to run with the crowd and take things at face value.

Theres alot of good people working for us In the wdfw That are stiffled for stating the obvious.

Response to (6)

Where the heck did I say there is no scientific basis for the regulations on barbed verses barbless hooks I simply said I have seen no studies. Just becuase I havent seen something does not mean it does not exist. I am not that full of myself. when I do see the studies I will form my own opinions based on what they say and what I know. There are many variables in any study and that should be taken into consieration before forming any opinions.

sorry sparky this vagely has to do with your topic.

If there is marked improvement and WDFW decides to go selective gear rules I would hope that it is in effect over the entire state and not just one system or area.
If it's decided that delaying the opener two weeks helps fish then it should be applied statewide also. If it helps fish it helps fish.
What I don't like to see is special restrictive rules on one system and none on another. I don't want to see from June 1 through June 14 everybody hammer the upper river. Or everybody hammer the nearest other system. I also don't want to see X river has good returns so you can use methods proven to increase mortality while on Y river with poor returns you must use methods that decrease mortality. If changing methods helps the fish it should be applied everywhere.

I'm confused1

Micro -
I believe that Sparkey was proposing bait bans to protect juvenile steelhead. What better studies to use than those on trout . Steelhead juveniles are trout-like and trout size.

Your observations seem to be about hooking site location of adult steelhead (winters). I do have noticed the vast majority of the adultI caught on eggs were hooked in the jaw - non critical areas. However that was standard drifting eggs. However when I fished with no weight, on bait divers, or used prawns, craw-dads or sand shrimp the % hooked in critical areas (tongue , gill, egg, or gullet) goes up.

Virtually all the hooking mortality studies indicate that the mortality that occurs is dominated by were the fish is hooked - ie it is much more likely to die if hooked in a critical area. When spawn-outs or kelts were caught my obseratiions are that the number of fish hooked in critical areas on bait (even drifted eggs) was very similar to that found with trout - over 30%. There has been other discussions of kelts importance to the population elsewhere on this board.

In regards to your issue on the requirement of barbless hooks - I think you are referring to the situation on our marine salmon fisheries. The tribes/commerical don't really care much what we do with our non-salmon freshwater fisheries - a different can of worms if you will.

Stlhead -
I can appreciate your desire for consistent state wide regulations. However should the management be for the most conservative need or tailored to the needs of an individual system. For example in Sparkey's example on the Sky the early June closure was suggested becaused there are still numbers of fish still in the system. On the Sky wild winters begin spawning in early to mid-March, peaks in late April and continues into June. But that varies from system to system. On the Skagit the fish begin spawning in late March/early April, peaks mid-May and continues into July. On some coastal streams spawning begins in February,peaks in early April and ends in late May.

Do we have one size fits all regulation and keep all rivers closed until the 4th of July (protects the Skagit fish)? It seems to me if we want to balance resource protection with fishing opportunity then have some variation is desireable.

Sparkey-
Authors were Pauley and Thomas (U of W). If you can't find a copy give me a call. In another study the incidental steelhead parr caught were included and the mortality on them was the same (again over 30%). I choose to cite the above study as a variety of hooks sizes and lures were included in the same study and both issues seemed to be of concern in this discussion.

I don't know of any estimates of the number of incidental smolts being caught. However consider for a moment - there are about 80,000 steelhead fishers in the state. Lets say that 50% of those use bait (could be more or less) and each catch 10 juvenile steelhed a year that would be 400,000, applying a 35% mortality yields 140,000 dead fish. If those fish would have had typially over-winter survival (50%) than would be 70,000 smolts. Given normal (is there such a thing?) smolt to adult survival that would be the same as 7,000 wild adult steelhead - almost identical to the average number of wild steelhead killed annually state wide in the mid-1990s. Of course that is only an hypothical and the number could be higher or lower - you each can decide for example whether the estimate of 10 juveniles per year per angler is high or low. I also realize that with that number of fish being caught even with artifical lures there would be significant numbers of dead fish - just a whole bunch less than with bait.

In debates on this issue one aspect that is often ignored is the effectiveness of bait. We are passionate about keeping our "eggs" because they are so darn effective for most anglers. Here "eggs" really means all bait and/or scents. That means we are dealing with a situation with both high catch rates and high mortality rates.

Hope some of the above is useful.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma, my post was my own and not reflective of the positions of any of the chapters or groups I belong to.

In recent years there has been concern over escapement for the Skykomish winter steelhead, necessitating the closing of the March and April C&R fisheries. I agree with this strategy. I agree we must error in favor of the fish. In recent years there has also been a June 1st opener on the Sky which leads me to believe that there was minimal risk during this time to late spawning wild winter steelhead. I would like to see an opportunity for a recreational fishery on Skykomish hatchery summer chinook but NOT at the expense of the wild winter steelhead. Is there a significant risk to winter steelhead in the Skykomish in June?

micropterus101: that's a good one! (Response 3) I guess you now prefer to use the words "a no brainer" instead of the word "common sense". You really do learn fast!


Smalma:

As always, you appear to have a pretty good knowledge about fishing and hooking mortality and fish biology. Without getting all the "other user groups" guys out there all excited, and ranting on about my "common sense", can you please help me out on a few question? Since this issue has nothing in the world to with "common sense", and only relates to the "real science", I need your expert opinion. I don't recall, but I don't think that I have ever disagreed with any of your remarks in any of your threads in the past years. So that should tell you; I highly respect your opinion and your expertise about fish.

First, I find your reply extremely informative about the Hooking mortality. But it leaves a few questions in mind that still need to be answered. Before I can make any logical conclusions about the study (Pauley and Thomas) and its results, I need just a few questions answered about hook mortality on trout and smolts, so please bear with my questions. I know that you will not take offence to my questions like other sometime tend to so heres number one!

The study that you have referred to only address hook sizes:

# 10 hooks was 39.5%
with bait and #6 hooks was 46.5%
with bait and #2 hooks was 58.1%
with bait and #1/0 hooks was 40.7%
with spinner with teble hook - 23.8%
with spinner with single hook - 15.9%
(bait and spinners, barb and.)

Since this was a study that was basically (I an assuming that) done for cutthroat trout, why in the devil wasn't "flies" used also for comparison, or were they used? Is not fly fishing one of the most popular methods that is used for catching cuts? If so, do you have those figures too and will you show us them? I AM not attempting to put the fly guy against the bait guy! I just need an unbiased answer. It would appear that #10 and #6 hooks are still pretty high when it comes to hooking mortality rates. I was always under the impression from what I have seen and heard that fly hooks are not the same in size as bait hooks are. Is that correct? Maybe Sparky can help me out on that one.

If that was so, did the study take that into consideration? Do you know of any study that has taken "hook style" into consideration? All I ever hear about is single or trebbel! It's always been my own opinion that the style and size of the hook is a major factor in what damage is done to a fish. What is your opinion on that?

Something about this bait thing really gets people excited on this board, and they don't want to see the other side view to the issue (that include both sides). If we are to use "science", then let's use "all the science" and not just our own personal biases. I for one am not yet clear about this size or hook style issue and I know that there are lots of others out there that feel the same way. My question is valid, and it should be taken into consideration by the WDFW before they consider placing any restrictions on any river. Fly guys are great fishermen, but they need to be fair when it comes to reviewing all the science before recommending any solutions for the cure (so do bait guys).

Finally, I could support a no bait restriction recommendation IF (and only if) the science that is used to support conclusion was used in an unbiased fashion. By that, I mean a study must have the appropriate protocols. The protocols must be set by, and agreed to by both the fly, bait, and hardware fishermen. It just seems to me (not a fact) that there has never been such a study put together yet (maybe one does exist). It appears to be either my-way or no-way 99% of the time. I am sure that if those "mutually" supported studies are their, I and this board will be hearing shortly about them.

Thanks for your answer ahead time Smalma

Cowlitzfisherma

I just found this report. I think it speaks volumes
Rainbow trout Mortality Flies 6-11% Bait 25-64%.
Source: Hooking Mortality - a review for recreational fisheries 1994. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2(2):123-156.

I don't know anything about this review but the numbers seem to be what some people are going to look for. I doubt that we will ever see a report done on Teimco 7999 (steelhead fly hook) and Gami's size 2. All hooks are some what different. A size 2 bait vision hook will not be the same as a size 2 bait Gami, will not be the same as a size 2 Diachi fly hook.

JJ

I am still looking. I still have'nt found a study on hooking mortality of wild steelhead fry or smolts. Plenty on trout.

Contrary to popular belief my prefered fishing method is not eggs, though for silvers eggs come a close second. For steelhead I still prefer drift bobbers of various sorts and jigs. Ah heck! I'll use anything them suckers will bite! But I dont Like to be told how to fish, and I dont like it when a specific group of fishermen is singled out. Except for netters BAN ALL NETS! That will bring the fish back. There is plenty of studies that prove that!

I just dug out some more hooking mortality reports on trout.

1: Rainbow trout Bait 30% artificial 5-10% Fly 5-10%
Mongillo, PE 1984 A summary of slmonid hooking mortality. Washington department of Game, Fish management division

2: Rainbow trout Bait 21.6-32.1% Fly 3.9% No artifical numbers
Schisler, George, J 1995 Survival of Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) caugth and released on scented artificial baits. MS Thesis, Colorado State Universit

3:Resident trout different species Bait 31.% artificial 4.9% Fly 3.8%
Trotter, Pattrick 1995Hooking mortality of trout. Fly Fisherman 26(3)16-27

4: Resident trout different species Bait 25% Artificial 5% Fly 5%
Wydoski, R. S. 1977 Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to qualy fishery management In RA Barnhart and TD Roelofs (ed.) Catch and Releas fishing as a management too. Humboldt State University.

Again these are the statsitcs I have found in Report by Hooton from BC in April 2001. I don't know about the individual experiments so I will let the numbers stand for themselves.

JJ

For what its worth, some more hooking mortality data from Canada:

Barbed hooks with bait 9.1%
Barbed hooks no bait 4.5%
Barbless with bait 3.0%
Barbless no bait 2.6

Total Mortality 5.1%
Total # of fish handled- 336 over 2 years

These data were generated by fisheries biologists capturing fish with hook and line on the Keogh River on Vancouver Is. I would think that handling stress and perhaps playout stress would be lower with this dataset than one generated by recreational anglers simply because professional bios were doing the collecting. But what I find particularly interesting is the difference between barbed and barbless. It would appear that barbed hooks are a larger contributor to hooking mortality than bait.

Barbed/bait or baitless 7.2%
barbless/bait or baitless 2.2%

From the perspective of management and setting seasons, I guess the most important question to ask is what is the largest contributor to angler related mortality--adult, juvenile, or kelt. If its adult mortality, the data above speaks for itself, we should go barbless but not necessarily baitless. If its juvenile mortality, perhaps we should reconsider bait (though I wonder if mortality could be reduced considerably by going barbless; however haven't seen any studies). If its kelt protection, a seasonal restriction (late spring/early summer) should be considered.

How's this fly for a conservative strategy to protect fish during lean runs years:

- wild steelhead release (I'll leave alone whether it should be state wide)

- Year-round barbless for the protection of all adults

- Summer bait ban to protect actively foraging juveniles contingent on fufilling study priorities

- Spring/summer seasonal restriction for kelt outmigration-- Angler related mortality within this relatively small group I do not believe would contribute to population protection. Although percent mortality would be high, total catch is low; therefore not likely necessary.

- Study priorities - smolt mortality
- Quantify smolt mortality by anglers
- Does smolt vulnerability to anglers differ by river reach
- Does smolt vulnerability change sub-seasonally--i.e., during spring outmigration, snow melt, summer lows
- Have resident trout studies looked at bait with barbless hooks? Does this make a difference?

Obviously the investigation of smolt mortality would take $$; but WDFW is not void of study dollars. I think from a fisheries management perspective its importance warrants priority. There are a lot of bait guys out there that would P & M if that were taken away during the summer (me included). Such studies may allow the use of a smaller blanket when making restrictions.

Micro,

What do you think Steelhead smolt are. They are rainbow trout. Steelhead smolt can become resident rainbows and resident rainbows can migrate out to sea and come back as steelhead. So they are the studies you are looking for.

JJ

does anyone know if our stealhead from washington travel throughout the entire pacific ocean or jus up to alaska and back? i personally see a huge decline in all ocean species of recent due to pollution, like the soviets dumping 800-900 tons of nuclear waste in the sea of japan, im sure that stuff has made its way to our waters by now, and with all the whales beaching themselves, and dead this and dead that showing up on shore, im more sure that there is more to the stealhead/salmon not showing up then a hook mortality issue, btw, ive tried gammie circle hooks for trout, and i couldnt get a good hookset on them..they would swallow it tho..

Originally posted by 4Salt:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know it was the commercial and tribal fishermen that pushed for barbless hooks in the first place?


a good example would be the springer fishing on the columbia, why can you use barbed hooks ?, could it be that they have a greater mortality and would get the sport season over sooner so the commercial clowns can go out ? wouldnt the season last longer if the impact on endangered fish was less ?

Smalma, the point I am trying to get at is:
For example take the Hoh, which opens May 16th versus puget sound rivers opening June 1. For two weeks puget sounders who desire to fish will make the trek to the Hoh adding pressure to that system. Now push the puget sound rivers opening date back two weeks. That's four weeks of extra heavy pressure on the Hoh. Add in hook mortality. I don't know if the extra death is negligable or not but I really hate this "bubble" mentality because of the extra pressure placed on other areas. I know there are no easy answers but these effects never seem to enter the equation.

all I know is that when you catch a fish big or small with a barbed hook you have to handle the fish to get the hook out and if your smooth with a barbless hook you just grab the hook shank and the fish slides off with nary a finger print, I personally think there should be a bait ban on alot of areas in question. indians net this and indians net that so I can fish any way I want, grow up and get a clue people.

and yes those fly fisherman who think this is some montana stream using varouis small barbes flies are more than likely having a large mortality rate among juvenile steelhead and salmon squeezing I mean holding them to take the fly out.

Cowlitzfisherman -
Thanks for the kind words. I try to bring some of my limited knowledge to these discussion in hope that it helps to clarify issues. While I can't claim to be the expert fisherman that many at this site are I'm an avid life long angler and I try to temper "my science" with on the water observations.

The hooking mortality literature has had good agruement that mortalities form using flies is low (generally less than 10%). At the time of the Pauley/Thomas study cited the major controversy was surrounding the use of bait on anadromous waters and whether limiting the hook size (either larger or smaller) would provide relief from mortalities. To add additional variables would have complicated the study as well as requiring the researchers to catch more fish (they had a difficult time catching their needs as it was).

There is good general agreement among the researchers that much of the mortality is caused by the damage the hook does (amount of bleeding) and that certain locations are more damaging than others. The critical areas have been determined to be the eye, the gills, the tongue and the esophagus. These areas of course have large blood supplies thus any damage is likely to cause bleeding. Fish hooked in these "critcal" areas were much more likely to die than those hooked in non-critcal areas (rest of the mouth and jaws). To compare the relative lethal impacts from various gear all one has to do is to compare the % of the fish hooked in critical areas - a mehtod that results in twice the number fish hook in critical areas will have higher mortalities.

In Pauley/Thomas they had 178 fish caught with bait of which 99 or 55.6% hooked in critical areas. They found that the average mortality for critically hooked fish was 70%; about 4 times that of non-critically hooked fish. For those critical areas the mortality varied from a low of 53.8% for those fish hooked in the eye to 95.5% for those hooked in the gills.

To get at what the potential mortality might be for fly caught sea-run cutthroat I kept track of where fish were hooked (critical verus non-critical) over several years during my fishing. While I didn't record the results of all my fishing when I did keep track of hook site location for all cutthroat caught on a given trip. I tried to fish several times a year and on several rivers (Stillaguamish, Snohomish and Skagit systems). Fishing was done with mostly size 6 and 4 flies (occassionally size 8s). The flies were tied on mustad 3399A if that is important. Hopefully my sample size is large enough to be valid.

I recorded the hook site location from a total of 672 fly caught cutthroat. Only 33 or 4.9% were hooked in critical areas. This is less than 1/10 of that found by Pauley/Thomas on bait caught fish. Clearly the hooking mortality for fly caught fish is much lower than that with bait. This is further backed up with my own water observations. I generally see only 1 floater (immediate mortality) every 3 or 4 trips (about 1 out of every 100 fish released). Generally the total mortality (including delayed) is only 2 to 5 times the immediate mortality.

I don't have any knowledge of studies down with different style hooks other than treble, siwash, circle etc. However if you are interested it is straight forward to compare the % of critcially hooked fish in you own fishing. For example I noticed that if I used long shank hooks I tended to hook more fish in the eye (evidently the fly rolled on the fish's take and ended in its eye -ouch). As a result I no longer use long shank hooks.

As you suggested Sparkey maybe able to give you a more definitive on variability of hook size between various styles. It is my obseration that hook size (gap - distance between point and shank) has some variability between those styles that I'm familar with but are generally close in size (within a size or so).

Stlhead -
I can gompletely understand your desire to have consisitent regulations. However with increasing pressures on a complex resource (different species, behaviors, and population status) we are going to be faced with either complex regulations or reduced opportunities (simple seasons).

Are you suggesting that the opening date on the Hoh be moved to June 1 or in Sparkey's example June 15th?

Berkley boy75-
Our steelhed migrate out into the Pacific Ocean with fish going west of the international Date Line. It is doubtful that pollution would effect just steelhead as sockeye, pinks and chums also much of the same areas.

Note - the hooking mortality cited by Obessed is for adult winter steelhead.

Tight lines
Smalma

While were on the subject of hooking mortality in the case of adults why not make it illegal to hold a fish out of the water if that fish is being released. I think the mortality rates would go down if the fish was never touched. How many pictures of a 10# steelhead do you need.

Getting back to the subject of bait and juvenile steelhead. You would think people would just like to have the opportunity to fish and not care as much about the gear that they could use. I am with sparkey it doesn't make any sence to have the juveniles killed by bait if there is anyway to avoid it and still allow a recreational fishery. And if the rivers are closed in March and April because of few wild fish the river should be closed until all wild winter runs are through doing there duty.

The time is now to make these hard decisions. If wild winter runs continue to dwindle in the puget sound streams were liable to see a mass reduction in hatchery plants and a complete closure of rivers.
Shouldn't we error on the side of the fish, or are we just worried about our so called "right" to fish.

Right on Rockfish, agree w/yer comments 100%.

JoJo -- sounds like what I was tryin to get across w/my earlier post.

Lottsa good info on this thread. Someday when I've got some spare time I'm gonna hafta sit down and research the various factors affecting hooking mortality.

I will post anything interesting that I may come across (whether it supports my viewpoint/opinions or not)

Sincerely,
Roger

In your example "On some coastal streams spawning begins in February,peaks in early April and ends in late May." So yes I would think if the delaying of the opener on Puget Sound systems helps fish then delaying the opener on the Hoh could only help fish. I didn't realize that some of the Skagit's spawn into July. So maybe that opener should be delayed into July. But personally I'd rather see everything open June 1, or June 15 or whatever date that both spreads the pressure and ensures healthy runs.

smalma,

Thanks for the great info here.

It is definately time to error on the side of the fish not the fisherman.

The rivers still need people on them to watch out for them and protect them.

JJ

Very inforative topic (got me to register).

So, after reading all this, and knowing that we "don't know" if the hatchery steelhead will show up late or not, if I catch a hatchery steelhead on the Sky this weekend should I release it too?

Drastic times... Should we implement our own personal closures even if the WDFW doesn't?

dv

Oh contrair monfrair, Steelhead were reclasified as salmon several years ago. They are now under the name:
(Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Instead of the previous (Salmo Gairdneri) Some books still list them as Salmo Gairdneri but they are wrong. I am not sure but I think cutthroat trout have alson been reclassified as salmon (Oncorhychus Clarki Clarki) Instead of the previous (Salmo Clarki Clarki)

micro,

JJ is right....you're not. Both resident and anadromous rainbows (steelhead) are classified as O. mykiss. They aren't salmon, either, just members of the same genus. Salmon and trout are layman's terms.

He's also right that resident rainbow offspring can migrate out and become steelhead, and steelhead offspring can remain where they are and become resident rainbows.

Sorry to burst you bubble but I am right. I just called wdfw to be double sure. steelhead and cutthroat have been scientifically reclassed as salmon!
and yes not all steelhead run to sea but niether do all silvers or kings.

Hey Dan,

Perhaps Micropterus101 could use a night at the local Holiday Inn Express...

Micro -

"that way there can be no organization that can stop the commercial fishing industry."

Fish farms.

You must not fish with barbless hooks very often or you would know that Rockfish is quite correct in how easy they are to remove....

...as I see it this thread is about whether or not drastic measures should be taken to close a fishery that is potentially in trouble not about flyfishers v. every other kind of fisherperson.

If the closures/restrictions posed were enacted it could potentially infringe upon your 'right to fish'... is that what has you unable to focus on the specifics of this thread?

I doubt you'll find many on this board or anywhere else for that matter that would agree with your statement that a steelhead is a salmon....supposing you are wrong on that, would you be willing to reconsider some of the other positions you have taken in this thread and others based on information you were equally sure was correct?

Smalma

As always, your post was very informative, and I did learn something from it.
Thanks for the straight forward answers, without doing the old "attack and conquer" thing that so many of us tend to do on this board.

JoJo:

You just can't let things go can you; i.e. saying "Shouldn't we error on the side of the fish, or are we just worried about our so called "right" to fish." Who on this thread said anything at all about your so-called "right" to fish? Or where you just trying to being a little catty with your words? We seems like we just keep turning against ourselves whenever we get the chance to do it. Why?

Can't some of you fishermen realize that there are lots of "other fishermen" out there that really could care less one way or the other about "wild fish" or hatchery fish? How do you think that the general public really feels about "wild fish" or hatchery fish? The greatest majority of them never even go fishing so what does that tell you? So, we are the minority, and we must deal with these issues and problems within our own selves.

If we can't openly debate our own personal viewpoints or opinions on this board about how to deal with our own fishing problems, how on earth are we ever going to sell it to the public? After all, it will be the public that filps the bill, becuase the money for our sport all comes from the general states fund, not from the sell of our licenses. It's a mean world out there, and if we can't take the heat of the debates here, then maybe some of us better take-up some other type of sport!

By the way, I think that fishermen should really make the clarification that they are talking about "native genetic wild fish" here and not just any other genetically crossed or mixed offspring's, who have came from some combinations of hatchery-crossed or mixed fish. "Wild fish" is different then "native wild fish" You need to look no further then the Cowlitz to see that. I have been told by the agencies that "Wild" is defined to be a fish that was hatched in the wild from "any returning adult", and that "native" meant that the fish was genetically from the watershed, and was raised in its original river of origin. Is that not correct?

It's also my opinion, that such a proposed "one law (rule) fits all" state rule will never work in the management of our states fisheries. Too many different problems and to many different issues that affect each river system to allow such a statewide rule to work at this time.

I am sure that there are "river systems" out there that can enjoy a real "comeback" of "wild native fish", but there are also lots of rivers out there, besides the "Cowlitz", that it's just not going to happen to! Are bait bans, and barb less hooks restrictions going to get the results that you guys are hoping for…I just don't know!

P.S. Sparky, your treads are getting just as controversial as mine have been lately…that could be dangeruous!


Cowlitzfisherman

Steelhead salmon, huh? Or is it rainbow salmon?

I guess you can add Golden salmon, cutthroat salmon, Gila salmon, and Apache salmon to your list of "unofficial salmon" if you want.

They aren't salmon. Like I said, you're using layman's terms. And I see that somebody at WDFW is going right along with you.

And as soon as they were reclassefied they actually changed into another fish. How's that for evolution.

Maybe he is confusing 'salmon' with 'salmonid'?

Don't forget the red-band salmon...

Ya know, I too recall that steelhead being reclassified, something about being more closely related to salmon than to trout.

Seems like most steelheaders are floatin down a river (in Egypt!) when it comes to this re-classification.

Sincerely,
Roger

Micro is right that Steelhead are Oncorhynchus mykiss but which is the same clasification as Rainbow trout.

Here are a couple of links that will show you that the Rainbow trout is and O. Mykiss
http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/scripts/lpsiis.dll/TN/TN_b_10.htm
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/rc/freshwater/fishatlas/species/rainbow_trout.htm
http://www.intl-pag.com/10/abstracts/PAGX_P624.html


So the WDFW people did tell you right they were taken from Salmo to Oncorhynchus but the question you need to ask is what is a rainbow trout classified as?

If I miss spoke someone more verse in Biology please correct me.

JJ

I too have to go with Micro on this one Dan! That change took place almost a year ago or better. I could be eating crow, but I believe Micro is right…but again , I have eaten that pie before!


Cowlitzfisherman

when I called I asked specifically if steelhead were scientifically classified as salmon he said yes but some people still refer to them as trout though for all intensive purposes they are salmon.

But the research on smolt mortality rates did not go out the window with the reclassification.

I still have not been able to find any studies on hooking mortality of steelhead fry or smolts.

correct that the smolt mortality rate didn't go out the window with the reclassification.

Micro,
Do you now belive that Rainbows and Steelhead are both classified as O. Mykiss (actually they are the same just one stays in freshwater and one goes to the ocean)and therefore the hooking mortality on Rainbows is relivent?

JJ

It's crow pie for you, cowfish.

Taxonomy is done using the following classifications:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Sure, "salmon" and steelhead are classified in the same Genus. So what? They are NOT the same species. And it DOES make a huge difference.

Using the method you guys are, you could also claim a Dachshund is a wolf........they both belong to the Genus Canis. And you'd be MORE right than claiming a steelhead is a salmon since domestic dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis Lupus Familiaris, a sub-species of Canis Lupus (wolves), rather than a separate species (Canis Familiaris).

Clearly a weiner dog isn't a wolf, but it's close. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

If you want to tell me a wolf is a weiner dog is a wolf..........then at least you'll be showing some understanding of the taxonomic classification process.

Weiner wolf.

I believe that the main reason for the reclassification was because of the similarity in life history to the pacific "salmon" species more so than mitochondrial DNA similarities. As Dan pointed out, just because an animal shares the same genus DOES NOT mean that they are the same species. (great example by the way Dan)

As h2o pointed out, this thread has DEFINITELY sidetracked from Sparkey's original post. When all is said and done, does it REALLY matter if a steelhead is a salmon or not. The bottom line is, we as sportfishers only have direct control over certain aspects of what may be causing the decline in fish numbers. Obviously nets, pollution, habitat loss, dams etc... contribute more to the decline that barbed hooks or bait. But let me ask you this, don't we owe it to ourselves and to the fish to do whatever we can to ensure that we'll have steelhead around in the short term, and for future generations to enjoy as much as we have?

RAINBOW TROUT AND STEELHEAD ARE NOT THE SAME! THAT IS NOW A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. They are not both Oncorhnchus Mykiss. Rainbow trout are Salmo Gairdneri all trout start with Salmo except for Chars they start with Salvelinus, all salmon start with Oncorhychus.

Rainbow trout and steelhead are close but not the same.

close only counts in horshoes and grenades. I couldnt have said it better myself.

Dan, like I said before, I eaten that kind of pie before! Never have you seen me claim that I know what the "technical" names are for fish (wasn't that the point of this sub debate anyway?)!

But, I do claim that I know how to catch those little devils!

I will yield for time now, but it's going to take biologists; people like smlama and Salmo to serve me that pie!

I think that maybe the pie is on the table, but I haven quite yet put my fork into it yet! Maybe the oven isn't quit hot enough either?

Lucky for me I didn't use that "common sense" word again…you think!

This is kind of like saying a "spade is a spade" …but this spade has come from another deck because the back side is a different color!


Cowlitzfisherman

micro,

YOU ARE WRONG!! Resident rainbows most certainly ARE classified as Oncorhynchus Mykiss, just like their anadromous counterparts. So yes, a steelhead is a rainbow is a steelhead.

Call the Univ. of Washington Department of Fisheries Sciences if you want confirmation.


Oh and cowfish.........do you need a degree in Atmospheric Science to know the sky is blue?

Dan, it really depends on two scientific points; are you looking up...or are you looking down!

The reason for the reclasification is, rainbow trout (including steelhead) and cutthroat trout are more closely related to salmon. Brooke trout are more closely related to char.

It was only done for clarification. Nothing changed really.

DanS -

The Sky is not blue.

It is Azure.

salmon are in the genus Oncorhynchus,
Trout are in the genus salmo.

Steelhead are in the genus oncorhychus
Rainbow trout are in the genus salmo

A king salmon is to a brown trout what
A steelhead is to rainbow trout

It does make a difference though be it close that only (as you said) counts in horshoes and grenades.

micro,

I'm going to tell you once more, just to be sure you hear it this time. You're wrong.

Coastal Cutthroat trout: Oncorhynchus Clarki Clarki

Mexican Golden Trout: Oncorhynchus chrysogaster

Gila Trout: Oncorhynchus gilae

Paiute Trout: Oncorhyncus clarki seleniris

Resident Rainbow Trout: Oncorhynchus Mykiss

Rainbow trout (steelhead form): O. mykiss

Apache (Arizona) Trout: Oncorhynchus apache

ONLY the Brown trout ( Salmo trutta) and the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) are still classified in the Genus Salmo.

You need to get some newer sources of info.

BW
Quote:
"It was only done for clarification. Nothing changed really."

It may be more appropriate to have said; "It was only done for clarification. Nothing has changed really between salmon or steelhead management."

Is that fair to say?


Cowlitzfisherman

now that every thing is probably getting confusing for some people
I just want to say this:

The reason I wanted to differentiate steelhead from rainbow trout for purposes of hooking mortality studies is plain and simple, of course studies showing hooking mortality of trout are going to show higher death rates I have already stated that in previous post on this thread and stated why. steelhead are not trout they are salmon. I want to see hooking mortality studies done on steelhead smolts since everybody seems to think we kill so many as to blame poor fish returns on bait fishermen. I want this study done in flowing water not some u-fish pond.

I have stated from the start that steelhead are salmon and I was dissagreed with.

The fish and game department also said they are salmon.

cowfish can put his crow pie back in the oven But i dont think he will need it later.

CF you are right this is just for clarification but it started out showing that hooking mortality rates of rainbows are useful and relivant when dealing with smolts.

Micro if you don't believe Dan here is a site from the USGS
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/fishes/accounts/salmonid/on_mykis.html
You will notice that is says Rainbow trout and then in () it tells you that the sea going of the rainbows are called steelhead. Rainbows aren't classificed in Salmo any more.

JJ

To get back to the problem of helping the steelhead population. When I first moved here from the midwest, I encountered a lot ot terms I was not familiar with. One of them was "boot" refering to fish. Then one day it came to me, when I seen a fisherman land a beautiful downriver hen steelhead. He drug it up on the bank, took the hook out, and proceeded to kick it back into the water. It took him several kicks to get the fish back in, and the fish floated, belly up, for as far as I could see it.

My point is, I think we need to educate the begining fisherperson on how to handle fish properly when returning them to the water. I believe the mishandleing also contributes to the mortality of steelhead. I think it's a damn shame anyone would do this to such a great fish.

That was only one example of many I have seen . Seems that if the fish cannot be kept, it should be "booted", instead of treating it with the respect it deserves.

Great thread Sparkey,
Catarafter

Well, never mind then. Your mind wouldn't be changed with a crowbar, so there's no point in continuing on.

People insisted for centuries that the earth was flat. They were wrong.......just like you are.

Maybe I do need to to get a new book but the book I have was put out by the university of washington and is use for purposes of fish Identification by fisheries biologist. It does not show trout in the same genus of salmon. Did they recently change most trout to the genus Oncorhynchus? I really want to Know, I am not being combative.

Dan,

Brown trout are actually O.$hit.

Also, male Wolves are weiner dogs....

Sorry, thought this thread needed to be little softer.

I knew a weiner dog who THOUGHT he was a wolf once. Of course I would think a wolf would chew on more than just your ankles.

Here is a post that you just said that Rainbow are in the genus Salmo. So you just contradicted yourself with this post

Originally posted by micropterus101:
JJ [/qb][/QUOTE]I know that rainbows are no longer classified as salmo any more thats what I have been saying all along. Look at page two of this thread please.

[/QB][/QUOTE]


So do you agree that rainbows are O. Mykiss?

JJ

Ok

You guys have had all had it!

I ain't going to eat no more pie to night…well at lease no more crow pie!

You won't hear me say this very often...but I am done with this one!


Cowlitzfisherman

Since we're so far off track from Spark's apparent intent, let me see if I can help here.

For the record, the American Fisheries Society reclassified Salmo gardneri (hey, that's me!) and Salmo clarkii to the genus Oncorynchus in 1989. They also changed the rainbow/steelhead's species name to mykiss at the same time. What we have is a name change. It's not terribly uncommon. The species did not change, or evolve, into salmon.

Trout are still trout, and salmon are still salmon. And a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. Therefore, the hooking mortalities on trout are very applicable to rainbow trout and juvenile steelhead (which are still the same species, and as was previously indicated, some resident rainbow produce offspring that become anadromous steelhead, and some anadromous steelhead produce offspring that become resident rainbow trout. This characteristic is even more common among cutthroat trout, just in case I haven't confused you enough already.)

Please resume bashing one another about the merits of bait v. artificial, barbed v. barbed. The rejection of science in this thread reminds me of the Administration's rejection of any science which is not absolute (which is most) as an excuse to continue with the same actions that have degraded the environment in the first place. If you actually care about fish, that's a pretty compromising association.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

JJ
I messed up I meant to say steelhead are no longer classified as salmo.

Dan s,
I see the light! Sorry, I had to get away from this computer screen for awhile.
I understand what you are saying now.
That steelhead being under the genus Oncorhynchus doesnt make them salmon.
I agree, a name does not make a fish what it is. Its there traits.

Cowfish,
Can you serve me up a double serving of crow pie?

I will try not to be so thick headed in the future.

I do need some new books!

<img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

Micropterus,

It's nice to see that you can be open minded to seeing the light! It happens to us all, man. Don't sweat it, but do give the rest of us a little credit, as more than a few of us here actually know what we're talking about most, if not all, the time.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

A little more on the fish taxonomy 101 lesson for today, if you're interested.

Pacific salmon (6 species) and Pacific trout, both rainbow/steelhead and cutthroat are classified in the genus Oncorynchus, but that does not mean trout are salmon or vice versa. The reclassification was made because some taxonomists felt that it was improper to separate Pacific salmon and trout on so little a meristic as the number of anal fin rays, 12 or fewer being trout and char, 13 or more being salmon. Char didn't get reclassified because of other "key" characteristics.

However, brook trout and lake trout are actually classified as char, with Dolly Varden and bull trout.

I think brown trout and Atlantic salmon are the only remaining members of the genus Salmo.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Hey micro,

I wasn't trying to bust your chops or anything. Just trying to clarify a sometimes confusing topic.

All I REALLY know is that you can group fish into two major groups. Those worth fishing for, and sewer cod. I'm sure we can both agree than steelhead fit in the first category.....whether you consider them a trout or a salmon.

Yup, That's what I said.. Just had to use the banana once.

Mirco,
Boy, do you learn fast! That crow pie really does suck!

Lesion one: learn to lay low, like salmo and a few other top notch members do so often on these threads (those guys are dangerous!).

Lesion two: Yes, and it is true, that both Salmo and I call each other "turkeys"; it pretty much a common thing between a pair of "older birds"!

Lesion three: learn to know when things begin to go down hill. (i.e. going to $hit real fast)

Lesion three: keep posting your own opinion, your knowledge, experience, and your ideas, because this board is flat dead if we can't keep that going!

Sorry, but I decided to pass on the desert tonight… I'm full!

Cowlitzfisherman

A couple of thoughts from the Big One on this:

1) Virtually every premier steelhead river in the world is managed under what Washingtonians know as "selective rules": no bait, no barbs. I fish bait a fair amount, I do think it does give an adavantage under certain conditions. I also fish under selective fishery regs the majority of my wild steelhead trips. I could live with no bait, I won't say that I'll start a crusade for a ban, but it wouldn't break my heart seeing it either.

Why? I feel I try to be "responsible" in my bait usage. Fact is I don't fish summer-runs anymore in this state, so I don't run across the summer smolts as have been brought up in this thread, so that doesn't really apply to me. I don't fish stinger hooks or tiny hooks / baits that are easy taken deep by fish, both adults and little guys. And I NEVER run divers any more for steelhead ... frankly, I was sickened to see what happens to fish with them in my first few years of guiding. As effective as they could be under certain conditions, their usage was bad news for the fish.

And that's the very reason I could live with a ban. I see how many people use them during wild fish season and try to release fish hooked with them and I know all too well how many of those fish are hooked deep. I know the impact that the pocahing plunker crowd has with it. I could go on, but I won't

2) I would support a no removal from the water reg. I fish for kings that way in AK and the steelhead / rainbow regs are the same way there in most areas.

You can still get pic if you like ... simply kneel down and keep a portion of the fish in the water. You're not breaking the law and the fish will be handled better ...

Why?? Look through bulletin board pix and see how many release pictures are taken on board boats with the net on the floor. You know that fish came aboard and then was taken out, I see it on the water all the time.

I've handled tons of fish and watched thousands of other fish handled by folks over the years ... I know how often they slip out of your hand and by our "policy" (not really, but always our routine) of lways holding over the water, any one that does squirm and slip way lands in the water. I cringe when I think of how many fish have beat their heads on the boat bottom in these circumstances.

Frankly, I'd like to see tickets issued for poor handling of released fish. That's to be taken with a grain of salt ... it ought to be discetionary on the part of the warden. If he watches someone release a fish and it swims the wrong way up onto the rocks (yes, it does happen), someone ought not be ticketed. BUT if someone drags a fish ten feet up on the rocks, lets it flop around for 30 seconds and boots it back ... there ought to be a ticket.

A no removal from the water reg would probably take care of this one

PS ... a salmon is a salmon, a steelhead is a steelhead. They're NOT the same

One more thing for CF:

While we are the minority, we are always the ones that know the difference and the ones that will attend the meetings and give input. I don't think at this point we have to "sell anything" to the general public ... those that are involved get the changes made!

Now you made me tell one more lie tonight, becuase I had said I was out of this thread!

[/QUOTE]
======================
I don't think at this point we have to "sell anything" to the general public ... those that are involved get the changes made! ======================

Involved at what level?

Bob
In an ideal world that is what should happen. But we don't live in that kind of a world anymore.

As you very well know, the governor "appoints" both the director and the members of the Wildlife commission. So how does that pay into what you have said?

P.S. the rest of your post was good, and I agree with you about divers!


Cowlitzfisherman

Okay ... I guess I worded it incorrectly. Yes, we have to "sell to the commission", but not the the fella that walks down to the river once a year ... you know, those that show up with a tackle box and their 9.99 Eagle Claw rod from Fred Meyers. They could, as a general rule, care less about the process!

Perhaps it's time to look at a different way to select our state board as well! But that's a whole 'nother subject

Bob
I couldn't agree with you more!


Cowlitzfisherman

Ahhhhh yes...I dont check in for an entire day and look what happens!!..

My question for micro is now that you know rainbow trout and juvenille steelhead are the same animal...how do you feel about those mortality studies that totally show the damage bait does??

Secondly, Bob brings up a good point about stinger hooks...lets use the Skykomish as an example again.

With the river becoming literally a sled parade whenever the conditions allow a sled to be taken up and down the river, the use of these stinger hooks have become very prevelant.

The vast majority of these sledders freedrift with the typical double size 4 and size 12 cheater and gob of eggs...the very vast majority of smolts the take this rig are going to end up floaters, bleeders etc. etc.

If we can not agree on a bait ban for the Sky during the summer...the VERY LEAST you can do, IF YOU CARE ABOUT OUR WILD STEELHEAD, is to eliminate the use of stinger hooks!!...it is too obvious, too easy to not!

Being that Bob is a guide and must get his clients into fish, it would be in Bob's best intrest (in the short-term atleast) to run bait divers...but he doesnt, he forgoes a deadly technique (pun intended) to protect the fish.

As I said before...sacrifice a little now OR everything later!!!

BAN STINGER HOOKS!! ...I would love to hear the sledder crowd's opinion on this one!

...plus I seriously think we do need to look into how the Commision members are chosen...that will be a good topic!

A question for Smalma...to what extent does the state law that requires a study to be performed if the state is going to bain bait etc.

Can the WDFW impose just a single hook rule without that study being performed or does even the passge of a single hook rule require that study?

Sparkey by stinger hooks you are referring to the typical double boondogging setup? I have used this setup for many years for regular driftfishing and hooked a number of smolts and nates...all released in very good condition. Don't see where bait or barbs would have made a difference? Also was introduced to this setup for boondogging just this last year with the same results. Sparkey you make a number of claims but I have to ask the question...do you have actual extensive personal experience with the double hook setup? Especially boondogging? If not then how can you even speak to it's effects?

BTW I'm personnally concerned about the "moron" reference made earlier. If I or anyone else disagrees with someones views should we be catergorized as MORONS?

Ryan-\
I believe the law was specific to banning bait.

I encourage you and others who have regulation ideas -regardless of what type- put them in the hopper for consideration of WDFW and Commission this year. It never hurts to get folks thinking about things.

Tight lines
Smalma

Sparkey a study would be required by SEPA when there is a finding that a regulation would have a Significant Effect on the environment. The recent 6 year Wildlife Plan by WDFW was required to undergo that process. If WDFW were to propose a long term Steelhead Management Plan they might be required to do an EIS for it. Not sure though and I'll bow to Smalmas knowledge on that issue.

Hey SPARK...ler quick Q for ya! Are you gonna regulate this new ban on stinger hooks? Or are the handful of gamies that we never see when we wished they were there?

I know and fish with micro quite a bit, lives just down the road from me, hes not all that bad people

What a coincidence ... imagine my surprise this morning when we'd just landed our second nice hen of the morning and as I reached down to pop our 2/0 single out of the corner of the jaw, this is what is in the fish's throat.

Before the season is done ... I'll probably see it a hundred times. Hooks so deep that they have to be cut off. Over 90 % will probably be dual, small hook rigs.

I do know for a fact that several guides that use these rigs never bother to try to get the hooks out ... rather they'll bring the fish to the side of the boat, grab the leader and then yank to break it loose.

Plain and simple in my book ... and perhaps it'll have to be law some day if folks can't see the light: don't use two-hooks rigs if you intend on releasing the wild steelhead you do catch!

Here is the point, How many of the "sport fisherman" out there are willing to change there "style" of fishing to better the survival rate of native species in our pristine waters of the pacific north west?
I would!
Would you?
The problem now is that fisherman out number the law, (gamewardens, park rangers) so greatly that there is nobody enforcing the rules as they stand right now, so why try and make new laws that us sportsman will abide but numerous fisherman will ignore?

food for thought -
My obserations have been that the best compliciance of regulations is through peer pressure. Remember how strong that force was in high school. We can either step up to the plate and demand the best regulations, set an example, and pressure those around us to likewise or stand around coming up with excuses for not doing the right thing, blame others and watch the resource continue to decline. Really our choice!

Tight lines
Smalma

Haven't been on lately...

...I'm sure I'm not really adding anything that hasn't already been rehashed to death, but I can't let it go.
Can't we put the nail in the coffin on a few items of "debate" (or de-bait)?


Beavis & Butthead Universal rules of Angling:

Steelhead are like, um, big rainbow trout (wasn't that from 4th grade science class?).

Killing little fish is...uhh... bad; you get fewer big fish that way!

The bigger your hook is and the more points it has the more damage it will do to, um, a part of a fish it like, runs into.

Lures, like, catch more,uh..., "little fish" than bait sometimes because some guys use little pointy things with three prongs on them instead of one.

If you put like, smelly stuff on your hook that the fish like to eat they will, like, swallow it sometimes.

If you want to be able to like, let the fish live longer when you catch it, don't use that smelly stuff they eat or any more than one of those little pointy things. And umm, make sure you don't have those other things by the point that make the fish, like, stick to the pointy thing.


Seriously, when people stop looking at common sense to justify what they are doing we're all in trouble. By the simple act of fishing, none of us is benign factor in the lives of fish.The only way we could be is to literally "de-hook" our lures. A hundred years ago you could use pitchforks and dynamite on 'em and no one would care; why is impossible to see that in the near future we may have to make the simple changes of going to single, barbless artificials if it will help save fish? And of course it will!


GS

After all these posts with all these opinions, all I can say is ..if you really want to save the fish..stop killing them.