I have seen on a couple of threads that some of you say you would quit fishing to save the wild fish. You would put their needs above your need for fishing. even saying others are selfish because they wouldn't quit.

Do it then, stop now!

Before it's too late!

If its the doom and gloom being painted here by some people, stop talking about it and quit fishing. Put the rods away for good, or at least until the wild fish have rebounded to an acceptable level. I'm calling you out! so do it, or stop saying you would. The runs are in danger NOW. what are you waiting for???

I dont think you CAN do it. I think its just a tatic some of you use to make yourself sound more devoted to the fish, when debating on the board. Its an attempt to make your opponent look self centered, and you seem "above that".

I was thinking about it last night. The say the average male thinks of sex about every minute or something along that line... How much do you think of fishing in an average day? Its at least a close second. It is an addiction, a way of life. No way could I just walk away from it, and I seriously doubt any other serious fisherperson could either. I'm calling BS on those who think they could.

Flame away!!

YOU SPEAK IT ELKRUN

No kidding why would you stop fishing for a FEW WEEKS and to a REAL FISHERMAN that is a lifetime. I did not get to go out this weekend and I am going through withdrawls. If you really want to save the Wild run then don't bother to show up at the river cause that is pretty dumb of you to say that. If you catch a native it will not die, just take the hook out snap your picture and release it safely. Thats all there is to it

Elk,

There's one minor flaw to your stated idea:

Not ALL fish runs are in danger!

There is ABSOLUTELY NO need to quit fishing altogether.

The members who suggested that they would stop fishing, I would bet anything, meant they would stop fishing if it would eliminate impact on the fish that were potentially endangered!

Chum and pink salmon, the various warmwater species, shad, trout etc... All of these species would still be available for sport angling if it was mandated that no more fishing would occur (commercial or sport) for endangered chinook, coho or steelhead.

I know, I know, all of the die-hards will say "Humpies and dogs? you gotta be kiddin' me!" Personally, I would MUCH rather fish for them than NOT fish at all.

So yes, even though we may be potentially limited as to what species we fish for, IMO, the whole "I cannot give up fishing cause I'm an addict" only really means "I've got to fish for what I WANT to fish for."

Back in the end of jan. this year I posted that I was puting my steelhead rods away for the season.That of course meant giving up my anual spring on the west end,which I did.I have been steelheading once since the middle of jan. My friends still cannot believe that I took a season off.This one trip was with a friend to the skookumchuck.This trip was good enough to remember why I do not fish hatchery runs.The garbage,the impolitness,and the crowds too many of you consider fishing make me sick.

This does not mean I have not been fishing though as there are still plenty of my favorite fish the sea run cutthroat out there.Which by the way are flourishing under the state wide catch and release rules which so humbly apply.There are also the beaver ponds that I get to fish again with the low land lake opener.No leaving wild steelhead alone has nothng to do with not fishing.Although I do not consider fish for hatchery fish fishing.

First of all...comparing fishing to sex only goes so far. Sex is an instinct. Fishing is learned behavior.

If you have any sort of willpower you could deny your urge to fish in the same way that you do when your particular fishery of choice (notice the drug related reference...if you want to make analogies, fishing as an addiction is a good place to start) closes for the season. There are of course exceptions to the closures but most of us have an idea of what that feels like.

Who on this forum can't control their addiction to fishing to the point that they fish their river when it is closed? I would venture to say few on this board would admit to that...

So suggesting for even one minute that I couldn't or wouldn't discontinue fishing to help protect wild fish is way off the mark. If what you are suggesting is that you think I am a hypocrite because of my stance on this issue juxtaposed against the fact that I still fish then your argument becomes more credible.

My response to that idea is that I have taken every step to mitigate my impact on wild fish in this state short of discontinuing to fish entirely. With the exception of maybe five out of 75 to 100 fishing days each year I fish in rivers with healthy wild fish populations. I release all wild steelhead. This year will be my first year releasing all wild fish (coho, chinook and steel) in one river and all wild fall chinook in another.

In my estimation the returning wild populations in those rivers are still healthy enough for limited harvest. This year I intend to harvest 1 wild spring chinook and two wild fall coho.

I'm wrestling with the idea of trying to harvest all of my fish from hatchery rivers and releasing all other wild fish I catch. Right now, due to the health of the populations I don't think that's necessary. The important point here is that I know to the best of my ability the relative health of my fishery.

In introducing my brother and others to the ways of fishing for salmon and steelhead I try to pass on my concern for wild fish first, explain to them to the best of my ability the sad state of wild fish populations, especially wild chinook, in our region. Of course I would like everyone to see things my way but instead I try to encourage everyone to form their own opinion the same way that I have....by caring enough to find out on your own.

I do not fish with bait when smolt are present. Except for spring salmon, I use single siwash hooks on all of my lures. I know how to properly handle fish for release. I use slightly heavier pound test than I would like so that I bring fish in before they are tired.

Just by committing to fish in a river with healthy wild fish populations I am making a pretty big sacrifice....how many of you spend eight hours driving every time you want to go fishing? I do...I'll bet there are a few others too but not many...

Too long, I know. My point is that if the time were to come where those populations were put under pressure I would easily give up fishing...

I mean, I've gone without sex for a whole month before and that's a biological urge fer cryin out loud....I could certainly go a few years without fishing if that's what it took, even if I did need a prescription for wellbutrin in the end....

I have to agree with elk run. I can barley go more than two weeks without fishing and only a few minutes without thinking about it, a very close second to sex. I would not stop fishing if it meant saving the salmon runs, but I do and would release most of my fish if it ment saving the runs. Of all the coho, chum and steelhead, and sea-run cutthrout I caught last fall, I only kept a large hatchery steelhead hen. I still believe that the biggest problems that we need to face to save wild fish are banning all comercial and tribal fishing and improving habitat. We as sport fishermen don't do very much damage compaired to the comercial guys and the Indians..opps, Native Americans.

Jay

The trouble with ceasing all fishing is that the tribes who get to fish "in kind" would not participate. The sad fact is that their 50% of zero does not equal ZERO....When we all stop taking our 50% (some say about 40%) of the harvestable fish we won't save the fish they will simply become "foregone opportunity." I think the treaties meant that the tribes should be able to participate in fishing on the same playing field as the rest of the people in the land. That argument is worse than this wild fish quagmire.

By the way does anyone have a measure of when we have "saved" the wild fish? And when they are officially saved what then? I think by the time that day comes salmon will only be available as a genetically engineered paste in one of those squeeze tubes the astronauts use to feed themselves in space.

LOL !

"Hey h2o......pass me that SalmoWhiz will ya?"

Just laughing about a bogus situation.........

Here is a horrible hypothetical for you...I say horrible only in that it would only ever happen under a a Republican administration...

If it is ok to reneg on international treaties when it suits our national security interests then why isn't it ok to reneg on domestic treaties in defense of our domestic resources?

Hasn't the US Government proved it would act first to defend itself in those situations saving the court battles to drag on and on to be solved at a later time?

elkrun,
I like the way you think. I see alot of folks on here preach and preach about how they would stop fishing (for endangered fish) to help the future of the run. Then I look over at their avatar and what are the holding, most likely the very fish of which they speak.

Good call. Keep em coming.

RL

Well lets see, I gave up steelhead fishing about 15 years ago. Decided to leave the rivers to all those happy steelheaders. Does that count? (As all those natives are safer now that I'm not fishing for them) Give up salmon fishing? Sure , when and if there is a crisis. Right now I'm convinced there is'nt, so for now I'll continue to chase those salmon.

Quit? Hell no! However I think that some of us could stand to at least mow the lawn everyonce in a while!

Quit fishing!! Thats crazy talk.

If it is ok to reneg on international treaties when it suits our national security interests then why isn't it ok to reneg on domestic treaties in defense of our domestic resources?

I like it. Lets overthrow the Boldt decision. I can see all of the confiscated nets and boats in a pile. COOL. After you shut down the tribes, you buy out the commercials. Let them learn how to fwrm fish in a Gov supported Co-op Atlantic fish farms.

Now we get all of the fish YAHOOOOOOO!!

Elkrun (Bob)-

Laura and I got your e-mail last week and when we went to reply this past weekend I mistakenly had deleted it.
\
Could you send another with the dates that are open for your summer. I would love to hit some of those coho's!!!


Thanks,

Jeff Jones

I don't think I could

Sorry to say, but we will NEVER see the Boldt (Traitor bas#ard!) overturned. Too many bleeding heart liberals out there that need to appease their conscience for the crimes committed 150 years ago.
IF anyone reads the actual treaty(s), they only speak of allowing the indians to continue to fish "in their usual and accustomed manner, in kind with the citizens of the Territory". How the hell the Boldt jerk ever got 50% out of that I will never undertstand. Now of course, I feel that "usual and accustomed manner" means they should be using spears and fishtraps like they used to when the treaties were written, not mono nets and outboard motors.... Kinda like the tribe that sued to be able to kill the whale "to ensure our heritage". Took away all meaning for me when they whipped out the .50 cal cannon and shot it.
I am sure their ancestors had one of those in their boat too.
I believe that if they would cease ALL commercial fishing of salmon for 5 years and only allow farmed salmon on the market, they would see a rebound that would surprise even the staunchest supporter of blowing the dams up. Of course, then we would have many biologists that earn $60 k to $100k a year looking for work.

MC

Since the Boldt decision has reared its head once again, I have a question for those of you who want it overturned or disagree on Boldt's decision. This question is for those who are also 2nd Amendment supporters. Or even 1st Amendment supporters. Do you think that the means and methods at hand when The Constitution was written or when the Treaties were signed should govern the way those documents are enforced today? In other words, if we want the Indians to go back to spears, dip nets, and cedar bark nets, shouldn't we go back to muskets? We may need to get rid of the Internet and TV as well since the First Amendment really spoke to state sponsored religion and the written word. I chuckle whenever I hear carping on the Boldt decision, but mostly I cringe - so much wasted energy when there is so much to be done.

eddie,

You know, the 1st and 2nd Amendments are under constant attack. Why should Boldt be any different?

You have GOT to be kidding.... Right?
We are not the ones biotching about how good we had it until someone came along and screwed us, then embrace the technology that the same jerks who screwed us use. That is the issue. The treaties were meant to allow the way of life to be retained as much as possible with the change that came with the Europeans arrival in America...... That beautiful "Tradition" has been polluted with the use of "White man" technology. I am all for the retention of Tribal customs and passing down of the "Old ways", but raping the resource for a buck is White upper-class America at it's best, and should not be adopted as method by peoples speaking the "Tribal Heritage" talk.
My problem with the Boldt decision is this..... We live in a country where you are not supposed to be better, or get more, simply due to your race/ethnicity. But giving less than 3% of the population 50% of all game and fish is doing just that. The treaty never said anything about the indians getting half of the resource, only that they be allowed to continue to fish and hunt.
Read the treaty man! Also, do some searching on a Yakima group by the name of SoHappy. They raped the resource on the Columbia and tributaries for years, and were hauled to court many, many times for fishing closed waters, killing wild fish, selling illegally taken game, and each time the charges were dropped because of a fancy lawyer waving the "Treaty" in the judges face. They were renegades pure and simple, and used the "Treaty" as an excuse to do whatever, whenever they wanted, stating it was their right as Indians......


MC