I have read over the last week on this board about all the biotching about the Big Q and how they manage there fish. The thing you have to remember is that they are there fish to manage. So they can set there own regs. for when, where, and how many you take home as far as the Q, Qeets, and part of the Solmon Rivers are conserned. That is why you don't need a WA State lic. to fish it, only a Q guide.

Here's somthing else to think about, in last years, I believe OCT. or NOV. edition of STS one article writen by one of Washingtons better guides stated " the Q is the best river in the lower 48 to have a chance at catching a trophy salmon or stealhead " that in itself says alot.

Now lets take a look at there returns compaired to .....the HO, Bog, and other OP rivers. You can't because at one point those rivers have gotten eggs from the Q to make there quota, so if you have fished any of those there is a chanse you might have caught a Q orgin fish.

They have one of the best systems in place any where, the returns speek for themseleves.

One thing I have to agree with is Letty using pictures of netted fish on her web site. She is a good guide.

And one other thing, my cuz is half Q and a guide.

I'm not trying to start a war of words or a debate by any means, blaming the Indians for our fishimg short comings is not the answer ....Judge BOLT was problem, now it's how we manage and run our hatchary systems. If you feel you need to bust my chops because these are some truths, before you do, go do some research first.

Believe it or not Letty promotes the pratice of line catch fishing. If you for one second believe that she agrees with nets choking off her clients chances of success you would sorely be basing you opinions on unfounded logic.

Should we common citizens of this great country also be admonished for our apathetic approach twards attaining the collective powers needed to enforce positive changes needed within our own all powerful establishment?

Even with the premiss of knowing that her views are sure to fall on the tribal establishments net fisher friendly deaf ear she still has the attrition to voice her opinions about the need to not net.

Must be quite the sacrifice for some people to get off their hands long enough to post their closed minded idealogy.


FJ...out.

FJ,

No one has questioned Letty's position on net use at all, after all guiding is part of her livelyhood. All I said was I disagree with her useing a netted fish for advertisement on her web site, she doesn't need to, just look at the rest of her pics. If anything she used it to show that there are big hatchary fish in the system.
I see and talk to her when I'm over ther fishing all the time. She and my cuz. are related

who cares about the picture


enough about the picture.

Yes, FJ, BUT she still also chooses to advertise her business with NET-CAUGHT FISH! As a sport guide who gives a hoot about the resource, thats about the most morally wrong thing you could do.

CF ... I'll call BS on your statement that it's theirs to do with it as they want. Remember the upper Quinault and the Queets are both within Olympic National Park ... that belongs to EVERYONE! and PS, you don't need a lic. there either

Now, I'll admit I don't follow matters as closely on these streams as I do on the ones in my immediate area ... isn't it true that the Quinault tribe contniues to net the Hump even though its poor returns have forced closure of the river nearly every year? Wasn't the entire Queets system shut down to fishing early last year??

"But it's increased the last couple of years ..." . That's like saying two is more than one! the last ten years have seen some of the lowest reruns ever recorded.

Sad to think that tribal managers for the Queets have come to the conclusion that 2500 is the target escapment for the largest river on the OP. A river that lies nearly entirely within the Park offering some of the best habitat that Mother Nature has to offer. That leaves one factor: HARVEST!

Hell even the WDFW thinks there ought to be close to twice the number that the tribe does, and most question the validity of their goals to start with!

Hatchery production is not a replacement for wild stocks, I don't think anyone will argue that point ... yet, for the most part, that's what we're looking at here. Potter herself has stated that 80% of the hatchery fish are not clipped ... so how does mess up the counts of what is actually returning to the systems to start with??

Another point ... supporters of this fiasco always seem to point at all these programs that they have to enhance things. Again, hatchery production is not the answer and in addition, I would bet (a pretty safe one), that the US Gov't is the initally fiancier of most of that production anyhow. The Quinault Tribe will "take credit" for it, but it's you and I that pay for it.

CF - In repsonse to one your statements - "And one other thing...", just so you know, my other half is native too and she dislikes this commercial harvest of steelhead thing as much as I do! It's not the who, it's the what's being done!

For those that keep throwing up the race card in this, shame on you! This has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the fish and the impacts upon them. Netters could be white, black, purple, or green and it wouldn't matter one bit!

excellent reply Bob

I said it in the prior thread and I will say it again!!...I am beyond appauled at the number of people that will head over and fish the Quinault, Lower Queets, Cook Cr. and the Salmon.

The same people that will cry foul about the netting of our rivers, the same people that will portray sportsmen that harvest wild steelhead as uneducated rednecks...will go over to the Res numerous times a winter because they feel they need to catch large numbers of fish and/or very large steelhead.

You are nothing more then hypocrits...it is easy for most of us to release wild steelhead and it very easy to cry foul when a fellow fisherman kills a wild steelhead and it is even easier to ***** and moan and complain about the Indians and the netting of OUR rivers, but you will not stand behind your words and NOT fish those rivers!!

All it would take would be a boycott by the sportsmen of this state...stand up and let them know you will not book a trip with a particular guide if they associate themselves with tribal netting and ESPECIALLY if they plaster their net caught fish on their website...I tend to think Letty does it for two reasons...to sell trips and to piss us off!!

There is much more money to be made in guiding then netting fish and if the Quinaults could properly market such a sport fishery, build a nice lodge etc. etc. etc., I guarente you, they would be sitting very pretty and would never think about netting again!

Secondly, 4Salt in the previous thread, said that a dead wild steelhead is a dead wild steelhead...that is the truth!! But I can assure you that the fish of the Quinault and ESPECIALLY the Queets would be much better off, if netting was stopped and nothing buy a heavily promoted sport fishery took place on those two rivers.

Do you really think those dead wild steelhead caught in the nets on the Queets would have all been caught and bonked over the head???...Not a chance in Hell!!!

It is amazing how blinded we sportsmen become we when must choose between fishing and the fish!!!!...sort of like how so many of you will not support a summer time bait ban on the Skykomish, eventhough you know it will benefit the fish!

Sparkey,

Ive said it a hundred times and ill say it agian,,,,

Nearly all anglers are far more concerned about oportunity than the fish. Enen those that preach CnR and ***** about comercial harvest and such.

I dont think there are more than a handfull of individuals even on this board that are willing to sacrifice their oportunity of any kind to save wild steelhead when it comes down to it.

Lets clear it up. If it came down to a situation where it was a choice between fishing or saveing wild steelhead, 90% would pick fishing. We ahve seen it with the Bait Ban issues no one is willing make sacrifices.

Nicely put Rich!
I seriously question the commitment that the majority of fisherman have to save these truly native fish.

I personaly have PUT UP my fishing poles way for the season because of the low returns.having been a c/r fisherman for years I know that some of the fish I release die and I do not want that on my concios.

I did get to see some beautifull nov.-dec fish this year that was encouraging!!!

You are right though rich.The reactions of many on this bourd make it clear that they could care less about the fish,just there oportunity to catch.Sad because it is extremly selfish and does nothing to bring back our dying fisheries.

I disagree that race has nothing to do with netting in the context of our rivers. It have everything to do with it. It is the law that needs to be changed not the race of the netters. There are no gill netters that I am aware of who are not tribal. The netting on the Quinault is a family based system. Quite a few familys who hold title to a specific "site" on the river do not even net it themselves anymore but hire out the task of harvesting fish at their designated spot on the river. The right to harvest is handed down from generation to generation. The guides on the river are mostly against the netting and a few do realize the potential of a sport fishing based fishery devoid of nets. The tribes argue just like we do, however.

It is true that federal funds support the hatcheries and at this time I think the cost of the fish produced exceeds the net income from those fish. So, yes, we taxpayers subsidize the tribal hatcheries. We also support the whaling by the Makahs through the NOAA budget and all other tribal endeavors except their casinoes.

So what is really needed is for the laws to be amended to allow what Judge Boldt didn't and that is that all fishers fish "IN KIND" as the treaties of 1855 spell out. To me that means all fishers have the SAME opportunity with no special rights for any group. That will only happen when the sport fishing groups organize with one voice. Judging by this board that has a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

Oh yeah , and what about all of you fishing up in the primary spawning areas beating up the resource right on their beds!!!! I for one do not fish above 101 on the OP because it is my personnel belief that those waters should be closed period! I don't want to get into a debate but don't have any respect for anyone that calls me names because I like to fish the Quin. or other tribal rivers Its my choice and I have been doing it for over twenty years with many great memory's that did not involve catching fish!!!PEACE

And you're going to encourage them to spend money to develop a sport fishing industry by boycotting their EXISTING sportfishing industry?? Good plan.

I fish the Quinault from time to time. I fish with Cryingfish's cousin......if that's Archie. Every time I go with him I tell him how much more money the tribe could make by fishing with clients, rods, and reels instead of nets. And he tells me that not everyone in the tribe feels that way.......but I get the feeling that more and more DO see it that way as time goes by.

I ENCOURAGE them to favor sportfishing by PAYING them to take me sport fishing. Get it, Sparkey? There's more than one way to look at this issue.......and it ISN'T Sparkey's way and the Wrong way, either.

You keep shooting off your mouth about people you don't know......calling them hypocrites and such.......and just having YOU on their side is going to become a detriment to wild fish. I think I could do more for wild fish by bonking you than by boycotting tribal fishers.

Dan ... we usually seem to agree on most things, but I'll disagree with you here.

Things won't change unless the dollars stop coming in. Unfortunately, that's the way the real world works! As long as both industries continue to generate revenue, there will be no real pressure to eliminate the netting. That's evident enough by the use of netted fish to in attempts to promote the sport fishery.

FW .. Okay, no debate then, but saying that anglers who choose to fish above 101 are only pulling fish off of beds is BS. There are loads of fish spawning below 101 on all OP streams, especially in the latter half of the season. Knowing where fish actively spawn is a responsibilty of every angler and leaving them alone when doing so is something every angler ought to keep in mind!

It's OK for us to disagree, Bob. I see my money as encouragement to guide, not net. In my opinion, it's easier to swing them away from netting by encouraging them to guide......and I encourage guiding by being willing to pay for a guided trip on occasion.

If you don't agree with my conclusions........that's fine by me. I don't expect everyone to see things the way I do. I won't even call you names..........

Perhaps there is a middle road approach to the Quinault mix of commercial and recreational fishing. Boycotting the sport fishery would lend credence to tribal forces that favor the tradition (of recent memory) of net fishing. The number of Quinault guides has increased as members perceive a greater demand for the service.

Board members here have suggested boycotting the purchase of net-caught fish as a way of reducing the market incentive for net fishing. Observed results here in the NW show that reduced market opportunity has led to reductions in net fishing because it wasn't profitable. This is still the best way to reduce river gill-netting.

How would boycotting the recreational fishing guides persuade tribal members that net fishing is a bad idea? It will simply persuade them that sport guiding is a poor market, and fewer of them will bother to offer the service.

Market forces that favor sport fishing and disfavor commercial fishing are the surest ways of increasing the one and reducing the other. Also, the Quinault guides probably don't have a direct say in the matter of how the fishery is managed. My guess is that tribal managers are pressured to respond to interests (just like WDFW). They have commercial and recreational interests to respond to, and probably have to carve up the harvest pie to meet those competing needs.

When there were fewer recreational fishing guides on the Quinault, it seemed like sport fishing was just a by-product of over-all fish management - just like WDFW usually managed salmon fishing in our rivers. There was no specific allocation of salmon to the in-river sport fishery. My further guess is that the best way to reduce net-fishing on the Quinault is for even more anglers to book trips with Quinault guides. As the recreational fishery becomes more lucrative, the sport-fishing interest will be a more significant force in tribal fish management decisions. Except for subsistence fishing for cultural purposes - that will likely always have the Tribe's highest priority.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I agree with salmo. Guiding on the Quinault builds a constituency for sportfishing there, and that is a better use of the resource. Morally wrong? Isn't guiding also a commercial use of that natural resource? Tell me about morality. The Quinaults have been there for maybe 9,000 years (note that there is still native stock) and you're telling them how to manage their river? And about hatchery fish, are y'all against planting hatchery fish in the Bog/Cal and what about the Snyder Creek program? The Quinaults do use native stock I believe. Ripping the tribe and boycotting sportfishing there is not a great approach for encouraging higher escapement goals.

So most of you can keep blaming the tribes for poor returns, mis managment and so on, that way you have somthing to biotch about.

But what it realy comes down to is, unless ALL nets are gone, that includes commercial, then NO ONE would be able to use them. But that will never happen, atleast in our life time. Then trere is still other factors, ocean conditions, forein trawlers and netters, our own commercial people as well. basiclly quit complaining and go enjoy. But be smart.

As far as being a hypocrit, maybe you should take a look in the mirror. How many wild fish have you bonked........ I have never, nor will I ever bonk a wild fish.

Dan S.
Ya Archie is my cuz. glad to hear you got out with him from time to time. By the way, good reply.

I'm not going to enter the ethics of this issue, as I don't know enough to make an informed decision, living here in Oregon. I can tell you without a doubt, I would spend time fishing the OP and spending money, guided or not, in the area, if there were more big native steelhead. As it is, the winter steelhead fishing on the Oregon coast sounds like it's better than the OP the last several years, so why would I want to fish the OP. If there were numerous 20-30 pounders, I suppose I would. My big fishing trip this year is going to be SW Alaska for spring steelhead. The guides/businesses up there will get my money this year. I know I'm not the only fisherman in Portland that is not fishing the OP this year because runs are not what they used to be/should be.

I don't know how much money the indians make on netting, but I have to imagine they'd make a lot more on recreational fishing, as I'd pay hundreds, maybe thousands to catch a 25 pounder! Think of all the middle to upper income fishermen living in Portland, Seattle, and throughout the USA that would pay to be housed & guided on a Quinalt/Queets river with 20,000 fish averaging in the teens!