...on the hatchery v. wild debate, perhaps.

From a personal ethics standpoint I usually fall on the 'protect the fish, especially the wild fish' side of the conversation, as most of you know.

Pretty sick of people who disagree with that stance characterizing that view as equivalent to the views of PETA... that's ok though, the same people say I wear Birkenstocks because I was against the war. Just have to keep repeating the mantra...consider the source, consider the source, consider the source....

So how about a completely different take on the whole issue, framed in terms of geologic time....?

Say us humans, despite our best and most well reasoned efforts fail to save most wild steelhead from extinction.
Who cares?

Say we fail to prevent the complete destruction of old growth forests in North America?
Who cares?

Say we fail to curtail the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the mean temperature of the Earth rises to the point that the Gulf Stream switches directions....
Who cares?

Certainly not me. I'll be dead by then...as will most of us. In fact I'm pretty comfortable in the knowledge that history proves mankind is in for massive global population correction of one kind or another, almost certainly from natural causes (asteroid, volcanic eruption (super volcano), tsunami (look out east coast, there's a bigun brewing in the Canaries....), Ice Age, mini-Ice Age...whatever)...doesn't matter how or even why. If you think I'm a whacko...so be it. Geologic history proves this idea out.

Only 14, 000 years ago North America was nearly covered by a sheet of ice two miles thick. Since their retreat, I think that mother nature has done quite nicely rebuilding herself. Too bad they couldn't cover the onset of an ice age on TV, millions of dead people would certainly be a Neilsen success. I can hear that conversation now...

Since we are all dead anyway, maybe these resources are here for us to exploit until they are gone? They'll just come back as the ice retreats or the atmosphere clears anyway so why not??

Pass me the bonking stick...screw that, pass me some dynamite, I'm goin' fishin'.

Along the same lines...

"No remorse, no repent
We don't care
What it meant
Another day, another Death
Another sorrow...another breath.

No re -morse......."

I'll end this ramble with a few line from my favorite comedian, that godless heathen Bill Hicks (RIP)...

Are there any non-smokers in the house tonight? (big uproarious cheer)
Good, because I've got a little tidbit of news for you.
Non-smokers die every day.

stlhdh2o
This war thing has not been very good for you!

Seriously, you need to take a vacation or some time off!

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty -

The one time I leave an error up there you give me heck for it?

Give me heck when I do edit...give me heck when I don't edit. Sup with that??

The only time I point out someones errors are when they funny, like shthlh2o...or shthdh2o...or CF's 'dull'...which by the way, was one of the most tantalizing pieces of comedy bait that's ever floated through my holding spot. Remember...all I did was titter at it, I mean c'mon...that's the kind of easy, home run line that even Chappy or Steelnerves could write funny....

CF-

You of all people should know that there is the thread of a pretty damn good question running all the way through my post....right?

News Flash!

God cares.

If we repent (don't you hate that word?), we can begin to care about more than just ourselves. There is no remorse or death in love.

Who do you thank for the first fish you caught or the last one you or anyone else is going to catch? I thank the one who lives beyond "geologic" time.

Mooch -

Lets not debate the merits of God as they relate to my post, k?

How would you like it if I answered one of your (mostly excellent)posts:

Newsflash!

Jesus is dead!

See, you don't like my views on religion either.

Can we move on?

Luving this! We have a bit O religion, a bit O fish politics maybe even a hint of existentialism. Let's add in some discussion on abortion, affirmative action and gun control and we can a real fun fest. Or I guess we could just go fishing. I?m thinking we ALL need to go fishing!

TIMOTHY LEARY'S DEAD
BUT THE CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY HIM IS ALIVE AND WELL FUNDED

Ok...

Does anyone dispute the fact that ice sheets covered the Olympic Peninsula 14, 000+ years ago?

If not...then my question is valid and worthy of consideration.

I ya carumba


stlhdh2o
stlhdh2o
stlhdh2o


Its not that were against protecting wild fish, or for that matter any fish. We just dissagree on how it should be done. Its definetly not because we all have an ah whos cares the fish wont be gone till were dead anyways atitude chances are we will all be alive and well to see the fish die out! actually most native runs have already went extinct and alot of those runs have been re-seeded with green river fish which are now so called native fish in those systems! more regulation on sportsfishermen is not going to bring our fish back! It hasnt since 1968! why keep riding a dead horse! Its time to concentrate on a new approach and consolidate are resources until we achieve victory.

Just because some people disagree with you doesnt mean there for :

Pasing the bonging stick...skrew that, pas mee sume dynamight, I'm goin' fishin'

wel sume peepole mite bee foor pasing the bonging stik.

Jesus Loves you too stlhdh2o, but you have to lose the birkenstocks!

NEWS FLASH JESUS MAY BE DEAD BUT HE"S A COMING BACK!!!!!!
Where will you be when he does?????

Rudeness is the Weak Man's Imitation of Strength

stlhd: It must be 4:20 somewhere in the world

grandpa -

Did you not see my question? Or are you choosing not to answer?

Twice now you've posted on this thread, both times making drug references. My question is not about drugs. Its only even about God if you are a creationist...

Its about steelhead and their ability to recover from total devastation. Can't you see that the answer to that question has equal ramifications for both sides of the hatchery v. wild conversation and both sides of the 'environmentalist' conversation?

stlhd: Your contention that there is a "hatchery vs wild" debate going on is short sighted. It isn't about one or the other. It is about sensible positive approaches to move forward. Saving wild fish is a complex and huge undertaking which will not be solved by a small minority's thirst for lawsuits.

the rest of this is just babble back and forth with a few jokes thrown in

I disagree.

If you want to banter back and forth I can do that....but the nature of my question is serious and I would prefer to discuss its ramifications

You still chose not to answer my question.

Was the OP covered in ice 14, 000 years ago?

(edit: 500 hatchery v. wild threads and there's no conversation taking place??)

yes 14000 years ago the op was covered in ice and there was probably no such thing as a steelhead. If there were steelhead back then they were running up some river in mexico.

and if the asteroid hits tomorrow in 1400 years all steelhead that survive will agian be wild no matter where their ancestors were raised.

I'll play H2o
First yes..... the olympic penninsula wass at one time covered by ice,in fact our little planet has been thru almost 30 of those so called ice ages.

2) Jesus did die, but he came back,and he probably missed the last ice age as well.

3) Some where down the time line Hatchery steelhead ......had wild Parents ( I don't understand brat bashing)

4) That narrow mind set (who cares) ,is the reason we are in were in.....I plan on leaving something to my children and their children............Os

I am asking everyone to think for a moment in terms of geologic time.

An eye blink ago in geologic history there were no old growth forests on the OP, no steelhead on the OP etc. etc.

Os -

Since you seem familiar with history of ice ages, you know that we are overdue for another one. The preponderent theory right now is that the trigger for ice ages is global warming, naturally caused in the past. Large chunks of the greenland ice cap fall into the North Atlantic and act like ice cubes, cooling the warm surface water that drives the convection engine of the oceans.

You might also know that these changes have occurred in LESS THAN 100 YEARS. So the fishing 'resource' might be here for the next generation or the next ten....massive cyclical climate change is not theoretical, its certain.

Aunty-

Your beautiful grandkids may have an opportunity to enjoy fishing as much as you or I, in fact I would say that it is likely. Somewhere down the line however our environment is in for drastic changes. Do you disagree?

yes 14000 years ago the op was covered in ice and there was probably no such thing as a steelhead. If there were steelhead back then they were running up some river in mexico.

and if the asteroid hits tomorrow in 1400 years all steelhead that survive will agian be wild no matter where their ancestors were raised.

14000 years ago, me very cold. Hole rivr covered n ice. Cave covered in ice, hole damn place cover in ice. Fishing no good. Good thing no bait restrictions, so me kill not many fish with club. Not many fish in river covered with ice. The ones me see, very big. Me and caveman friend Ug kill one stealhed fish two moons ago. It weigh 600 pounds, me eat long time.

Me going to move to Baja. At least them have 3 months summer there.

Long live the Mastadon, Dodo Bird, Passenger Pigeon, and Snake River Sockeyes.

Proise the Lord and pass the bait.

Of course it depends on your definition of catastrophic. I think its not a very far stretch to imagine that, if the OP were to be covered with ice, it would be catastrophic to the flora and fauna of the region. No?

Remember, as Os said there have been many ice ages. Steelhead as a species have outlived at least the last of them. I'm far less concerned about the ability of the steelhead to survive such an occurrence than I am that of modern humans. Forensic anthropologists for the most part think our species of hominid barely survived the last one.

"That doesn't mean I should sacrifice the needs and desires of those that follow me to satisfy my own greed and selfishness."

Recreational anglers would do well to consider this statement in the context of declining native runs.

You must have watched the discovery channel special on Ice ages and the currents in the ocean on acid, pretty amazing stuff freshwater rivers running through the oceans around the world, and how that effects global weather patterns etc.....


Yes, there was an Ice age. so what?
Fish have been known to run rivers other than the one they were born in. Purely speculation though maybe during the Ice age Washington fish went on vaccation to California I guess we(as in humans) will find out during the next ice age. Again, There will be another ice age. That Isnt a reason to take all we can get now because this place is going to be covered in another sheet of ice.

Uh like I'm going to crash my truck on purpose because the stats show I will probably get in a wreck down the road anyways.

Confucious say: Impending death is no reason for premature death DUDE

why is it so important that we all agree washington was covered with ice.
when are you going to drop the big bombshell
and make us go ooooh, ahhhhh

Again you still have the blinders on! yes fish need a helping hand. We just disagree on how. recreational anglers are not the problem. they havent ever been the problem. how many more rule and regs are you going to waste your time on before you realize that.

Is the glass half empty or is it half full?
For some people the glass is not a glass but a solid cylinder in which information cannot not be given out nor taken in.

I say sportfishermen are not the problem because 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish.

when I see 300 people at blue creek and only 15 to twenty fish caught compared too the hundreds of fish caught in the same amount of time by one native and a net, or 30 boats out blackmouth fishing all winter and maybe 10 of those boats getting one or two fish consistently compared two one 3 hour trip with a pursein boat with over 2000 pounds in one haul.

Call me a blockhead or what ever but I still say sportsfishermen are not the problem.

Poachers and scumbags are a problem, but they dont go by rules anyways. poachers and scumbags are not sportsfishermen.

I used to fish the skok and the Quil alot and 90% of the fish kept by people were snagged. more like 98.6% of the fish on the quil are snagged its just a hatchery meat factory. I now wish I took some pictures to share so people can see what a poacher fest these two hatchery fisheries have turned into. The native fish in both those rivers were toast long before the snag fest began. and more regs and closures arent going to stop the poachers that just gives them free reign i.e Tah... and Dew..... rivers. Theres so many people concentrated on these rivers thanks to closures elsewhere that It would be very hard to catch a fish the old fashion way. I am sorry but fish dont bite when there is 20 people standing right above them yanking away ripping the water and more and more people are turning to snagging to bring something home. Thats one of the problems I have with more rules, regs, and closures they concentrate people on certain fisheries and it turns into a snag fest.

I have found other places to fish that I will never list due to this fact. I prefer the challenge to get the fish to bite. for me There just isnt any gratifacation in snagging fish. I dont need to show the world that I catch fish. I fish for myself. I guess you could say I am selfish, but it beats the alternatives.

But even at that poachers cant compare to nets, and sportfishermen are still not the problem.

Easy there, H20, you're making their heads hurt!

People don't like to hear that in 5,000 years or so, the odds say all of Washington State will be covered under ice..again...regardless if the human species is still around or not.

As for steelhead - they are a relatively new fish. They will come and go fairly quickly (geologically speaking) like most of the fish.

Didn't I read some place that 99% of all species to inhabit the earth are now extinct? Those odds don't bode well for any of the current non-extinct species.

Besides, it's all a moot point, as our planet will not be capable of supporting "life" in a billion years or so. Damn that sun of ours! She is such a harsh mistress!

In the meantime, you all can gaze at the stars, ponder the future, think about geology, or pray to whom or what ever it is you pray to, but I'm going fishing!

Beautiful grandkids AuntyM....If I could figure out how to post a picture I'd post one of my 1 year old grandson...He and I already have fishing plans..he just doesn't know what fishing is yet. He is the future and hopefully he won't spend alot of time worrying about an ice age on the distant horizon. He will appreciate what he has and respect the natural resources around him if I have any influence on him.

H20: I can't for the life of me understand where you are coming from. Ice ages??? Jesus is dead?? Beats the heck out of me what your vision of the future of fishing may be, not to mention your action plan for the present. All I can drag out of your ramblings is that you might be reading Al Gore's book...you and the other 12 people who bought it.

Wild fish need to be saved but they are not the end all answer to the problems we face with our envorinment and natural resources. Wild fish can be an indicator of our neglect in the past....Wake up call maybe...As far as I am concerned we need to look at several causes that need addressing. The impending ice age is not even on the list.

AuntyM-

I'm sure you are the one person participating in this thread that Parker was NOT referring to.....

Perhaps it will disappoint you but there is no real punchline.

I quit posting on this thread for awhile because my intention is not to get into a 'sporties v...or wild v....' conversation (and I'm a touch busy) , but to explore the philosophical question 'If OP rivers are predestined for a natural extinction event, then what difference do barbless hooks make really? What difference does it make if you hold the fish out of the water for a photo or leave it in? What difference does it make if we catch wild or hatchery steelhead? What difference do all the things we usually discuss around here really make in the context of geologic time? This thought occurred to me as I was driving through the Smith river valley on my way to San Francisco this weekend and the answers I kept coming up with conflict with my general belief system. When this happens I like to talk it out, especially with people that will challenge me to potentially think a different way.

I think people often hold too high a regard for themselves when it comes to their views on the natural world. Often people can't look past the end of their own lifetime when examining how we humans impact the environment. Very, very seldom do I hear anyone anywhere talk about the impact of the environment on human beings. This is illustrative of my point....

Grandpa -
Its not surprising to me that you would not 'get' what I am talking about. Not because I think any less of you than I do myself but because I know that you already 'don't like me', you have me 'pegged', you know my 'type', you think I'm a 'lib', I'm 'on drugs'...from what I have read from you this makes you much less likely to take anything I write seriously. Fine.... You can't see past my dark sense of humor far enough to see that I may, as do 99% percent of other human beings in the world, have something to offer you in terms of conversation if you would just take the time to listen to what I have to say. You'll never do that though will you?...because you have me pegged. I submit to you sir, that is your loss.

I can tell you this much with certainty. I don't know you, my only frame of reference for you is what you post on the board. Granted, I disagree with most of what you have to say but at least I afford you the respect of listening to what you have to say. I've even been known to *egad* acknowledge when I'm wrong...even alter my views based on conversations had on these boards. There are even some board members who have many more reasons than you do to dislike me would acknowledge that I keep an open mind in nearly every conversation, sometimes even while vehemently arguing one particular side.

All you saw was Jesus is dead? Remember if you would that I didn't bring religious beliefs into the conversation. If some other guy can jump in and thump the figurative Bible without even addressing the actual question I raised, then I should be able to thumb my figurative nose at it. I'm sure you will add 'heathen' now to your list of reasons why you don't like h2o. BTW...this conversation was never about religion.

I disgree sportsman are a problem!!

most people die of lots of little bugs/germs
very few die by .45

the wild steelhead will die one fish at a time because they will quit netting when they can't get a bunch but we will all still fish as long as they let us no matter how unlikely it is to actualy catch one. need an example how many trips for hatchery steel were made in january after the dismal returns of december??

ARE YOU PART OF THE PROBLEM I AM

Enough already H20...How could I like or dislike you not having met you? I don't hate people who have different ideas than I do. You disagree with most of what I say , as you admit. So rather than dislike YOU it is your ideas I dislike and do not buy for one second. If I wasn't trying to listen and understand what your central point is I wouldn't bother writing you back to tell you I think you are full of ****. Don't think for a minute that what you are trying to say is so profound and intellectual that mere mortals simply can't understand it....You aren't as intriguing as you think you are.

Now one more time: What's your point?

Reminds me of a class discussion that one of my college professors initiated regarding the theory of "Pre-de-ter-min-ism".... and just as in this thread it stimulated a lot of thought.

I still remember after more than 30+ years... must have been a good discussion.

I gotta tell you grandpa. You've been pretty pissy lately.

Relax and enjoy your grandkids.

This whole thread is just chock full of some rank, smelly, CRAP!
Sportfisherman, Commercial Fisherman, Native Fisherman, The friggin' next Ice Age. We are all the problem.We are causing the extinction of all life on this beautiful world. Even the world itself.
This stupid finger pointing has got to cease. It doesn't solve anything. Lets blame someone for something. While you sit at your fishing hole complaining about how bad the fishing has gotten or how bad the weathers getting. What are you doing to help things improve.
I think what H2O is saying. Why is he trying so hard to improve things if no one else will. So why prolong the inevitable. So tomorrrow I'm going start both my cars and let them run all day long. Cut down every tree in my yard. spray paint my house and garage. And lastly I'm going to go buy a 50 gallon drum of some potent weed killer an dump it the stream in my back yard.
P.S.
Lets all go snagging!
Anglin'4Salmon

I just had to get a post in on this thread. Remember there is allways me for liberal bashing. but on a real note rattletrap- there did use to be a steelhead run in mexico. it was on the tijuana which is basically as far north as a river gets in mexico but it was there. now those must of been some welcome ********.... ooops Im a liberal I cant say that.

Thanks for the advise Dan..I am going to take you up on that..Gotta go out and buy a rod and reel for the grandson who turns 1 year old soon. He makes me happy and he never once has brought up politics or religion.

Yep, and I'll bet you enjoy every minute you spend together. Some of my most memorable days were spent fishing with my grandpa.

If your view towards the environment (huge topic obviously....peaceful coexistance with other species is probably the key catch phrase) is indifference or exploitation, then it doesn't matter. If you lean a little more towards symbiosis, then of course it matters.

Duh.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:
[QB] Is this about the upcoming ice age, religion, or was H20 subtly trying to get the "group" to analyze what their personal feelings were and why it might be more important to save wild fish and not our immediate opportunity?

Yes.