Get involved-

If have not done so please remember to send in your Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) rules proposal packets in by July 18th.

Be sure to show your support for wild steelhead release by proposing-
“ Statewide release for all wild steelhead, no exceptions” It is important that you use those words exactly because the WDFW's default statewide policy is targeted as Wild Steelhead Release (only hatchery marked fish allowed for harvest). Harvest of wild steelhead is, however, allowed on systems that are consistently seeing run-sizes that exceed escapement goals. The following is a WDFW link to the website to obtain a proposal form:

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/2004-2005prop.pdf

why would you want to release wild fish on some rivers that have strong runs on them leave it at 5 fish per year.

why keep 5 wild steelies, when you can release them and have a better run in a few years, its people with your mind frame that bonked the hell out em on the nisqually and now we have no fishing access to them at all..

The reason is that 15 years ago there were approx. 30 rivers in this state that were deemed to have healthy enough runs of wild steelhead to have a harvest. Today there is approx. 12 streams that are open to harvest of wild steelhead. It seems to me something is amiss with WDFW's escapement numbers. Why not err on the conservative side. Nobody will starve because they don't have a wild Steelhead to eat.

...except maybe Plunker!

i agree with this, shut off all harvest of wild steelhead "including" targeted catch and release seasons, they also have to have a number of fish to harvest to let them happen, i say restore all the runs to historic run sizes. there are plenty of hatchery fish to catch and keep and catch and release.

LOL 4salt...

I'll bet he gets a good chuckle out of that...

Maybe it'll draw him out of the hole he's been hiding in.....

If you are for shutitng down fishing for catch and realese fo wild fish then the only place to fish are the ones that don't have wild fish in them anymore. Even if you are fishing for hatchery fish in Decemeber there are still wild fish present so if you are against catch and release then you would want that fishery closed down too. As it is a targeted catch and realese fishery on wild fish. In fact it might be more important to close that fishery down to protect the early returning wild fish that were hammered for years by the states early season catch and kill fishery on them.

Just want to see if people are consistent.

JJ

If you do not support this proposal you do not care about wild steelhead period!! The two are absolutely contradictory with absolutely no reconcilliation between the two. Killing wild steelhead in the state of washington is stupid and selfish no one should be harvesting them. The catch and release debate is an absolute red herring as mortality on released steelhead with selective regs is next to nothing.

If you are uncertain i suggest you get a copy of the wild steelhead coalitions white paper on the benefits of wild steelhead release statewide without exception.
nimber of healthy steelhead runs in Washington state? 0
number of wild steelhead it is smart to harvest in washington state? 0

I speak in absolutes because there is THE MOST black and white issue there is in wild steelhead managment.

boater, I am happy to take your "left handed" agreement, the most important thing is to get involved in the proposal process and make sure the proposal makes it to the hearings.

Rob Allen,
I see that you are a fishing guide and that you only deal in absolutes. Great! The absolute fact is this:
1) The rivers of the west end are consistantly hammered (by an overabundence of guides) in a way that no one, particularly locals, could have ever imagined.
2) 70-80% of all natives killed each year on west end rivers were laying in the bottom of guide boats (ask any fish checker).
3)Given both 1) & 2) above, even the simplest mind could deduce that the fishing guide factor adding to the demise of wild steelhead is fairly substantial.
How many trips a year do you need to pay the bills? Can we put that number in accidental wild steelhead kills. Surely you do not have a problem with the occasional fisherman that gets out twice a year and is fortunate enough to catch one fish (wild or not)?

Bulldog. you may be right however that doesn't bear out with what I have seen. Last wild steelhead i saw killed was poached by an angler on the Upper Washougal. The main problem is that people view fish as nothing more than something to harvest. That mentality HAST TO CHANGE!! This isn't about managing fish it's about managing peoples behavior! if we wanna save wild steelhead people have to view these fish as valuable not just a hunk of meat to stick in their freezer.

As a guide I operate primarily on hatchery rivers with single barbless atrificials. I will not allow anyone on my trips to kill a wild steelhead even if it were legal to do so.
I don't guide for a living. I guide to enhance the income of my job and because there is nothing more important to me then to help other anglers have a more enjoyable and hopefully productive time on the water. I focus on the expereince not meat hunting.

Last year i was able to make it out to the penninsula twice and in thoes trips i saw 3 dead wild steelhead all three were caught by 2 guys on the Bogie. Funny thing was is that they took out at the 101 bridge!!! these were not guides!! They were obviously locals and i'd be willing to bet sisnce they had 3 fish in one day theit 5 fish a year limit got surpassed by a great deal. These guys drove a green ford ranger and one needed a device to help him walk.. ( logging injury???)
anyway these two guys should be ashamed of themselves as should anyone who chooses to harvest a wild steelhead in Washington it is a greedy selfish act! especially with so many hatchery fish around. Harvesting wild steelhead is stupid!! Anyone who does it doesn't deserve to fish..

rob i got a question for you if they do make it catch and release for wild steelhead on all washington rivers would the tribes see it like hay theres more wild fish that they can catch? and do so and in the long run were in the same boat as it stands ?

Fish for life frankly i don't care what the tribes do. I meant what i said No one should be harvesting wild steelhead anywhere in the state period. no tribes no sport no commercial.
If WSR makes it so one wild steelhead doesn;t get harvested on the Hoh then it's worth it.
We do need to work to get the tribes and the commercials off too but we also need to not take thoes fish ourselves. for now we need to stop doing damage ourselves before we tell other user groups what they should do..

Good topic!
This is a major regulation cycle and for all those with ideas on how to improve the various fisheries through regulation changes now is the time to get those ideas in. If you have no new ideas please review the various proposals that will be coming up for consideration and comment later this year.

Get involved - as far as I'm concern if you don't you no longer have a legitimate right to complaint about the regulation/rules.

Jerry -
Wild Steelhead Release (WSR) is not a magic bullet that is going to restore wild runs. In nearly every case those populations that supported harvestable fish 20 years ago and don't today have problems other than harvest. If currrent escapements were less than carrying capacity (over fished) then the next generation's run size on the average would be larger than the previous escapement. That is not the situation for most of the above populations. Those popualtions will not rebound until those other factors change.

Boater-
Restoring fish runs to historic run sizes will take much more than WSR. Habitat modeling for Puget Sound chinook (ESA listed species) for example shows that the capacity of most of our rivers have been reduced 5 to 10 fold. Elinimating all fishing will not restore our runs to historic levels.

Rob -
To imply that hooking mortality can not be significant is being less than honest. If fishing results in a fish not surviving to spawn that is an impact. Those impacts include not only harvest but hooking/handling mortalities of both adults and juveniles. In my neck of the woods the current low flows and warm weather likley means we'll be seeing summer hooking/handling much higher than normal. Some how I think you'd be concern with a CnR bait fishery directed toward parr/smolts.

To the board -
WSR is a fisheries management tool that has been used to allocate fishing impacts. Originally it was used to access hatchery fish.
If you wish to allocate wild fish fishing impacts to just hatchery and non-consumative fisheries than WSR is a nice tool. However it is NOT a conservation tool.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

I know that we kind of butted heads on the Cowlitz issue recently, but I just wanted to let you known that I still do highly respect your opinion and thoughts. Too darn bad that you are not higher up in our fishery management chain! (Well maybe you're better off where you are).

I do enjoy the way that you do not let your emotions get away (one of my own short falls sometimes) from you. You do set a standard that is hard for most of us to beat. I for one, would like to thank you for all of your "logical impute", even though we may have disagreement at times. Our board is very lucky to have people such as you that are so willing to share there knowledge with others

Thanks again,

Cowlitzfisherman

Salama

I know that there is hooking mortality and that it does happen. I just am of the belief that with single barbless artificials ( swung flies inparticular such mortality is extremely rare. However you bring up another issue, that of warm water hooking mortality. I'd be all for regs that close wild steelhead fisheries when water temps are above (XX ?) degrees.
Having read the mortalitiy studies conducted in Canada I learned that nearly all hooking mortality is the result of serious injury to the fish caused by deep hooking, and or the associated injuries of removing hooks that are deep and barbed.
Since that discussion cam about while discussing my bussiness as a guidethe only reletive type of fishing to talk about is swinging barbless flies on single hooks, in doing so the number of fish hooked deep is near zero and seeing as how i wouldn'd run a guide trip in water over abou 65 degrees warm water mortality is also extremely close to zero.
I feel extremely confident in saying that in the course of my fishing life, 20 years or so, i have had no wild steelhead hooked deep or in water so warm as to have associated mortality. Therefore with confidence i can say I have never had a steelhead die as the resullt of hooking mortality.

Rob Allen (& the rest of this forum),
We now know that any future post you make will have zero credibility. After exposing your hypocrasy on wild steelhead release you could only reply by making a corrulation between 'device to help him walk' and "logger" (not birth defect, car accident, diabetes or any other of a plethora of ailments)
Does African-American = Rap music, Hispanic = stolen car stereo, Asian = UW Law School? You get the point. Your absolutes are without any merit! Convicted priests should discontinue preaching the word.

I sent my proposal document in today. They have to be received by WDFW by 7/18. I asked for statewide Wild Steelhead Release. Smalma, you are right, WSR is not a magic bullet, however it is part of the ammo. We clearly know that a bonked fish is dead and can not contribute to the gene pool. Out of 100 Steelhead released we have a good possibility of between 96 and 90 surviviing to spawn. It is admittedly a compromise and one that allows us to keep fishing. It is a compromise that I support. My $.02

Rob-
Wonderful to hear the you have not had to endure of the agony of a critically hooked wild fish that you had or wish to release. Many of us have not be as lucky.

Your idea of banning fishing when temperatures exceed a thershold is interesting though I'm sure how to implement such a standard - however it certainly would be helpful to the fish. We see large diurnal temperature swings with the magnitude dependent on daily weather patterns and stream flow conditions. Perhaps the simplest way would be for total closures during July and August.

In the same vein there is some information that kelts (spawnouts) also are likely to experience higher hooking mortalities - should we be closing fishing while they are in our systems? Say March 1 to the end of June.

I am somewhat surprised that in SW Washington you don't occassionally encounter suicidal wild pre-smolts. Here in the "overharvested" rivers of the North Puget Sound area in my experience such fish are fairly common even on swung single barbless flies (occassionally fatally impaling themselves on the barbless hook).

Tight lines
Smalma

I think everyone around here knows my feelings on this subject, but I'd like to respond to one thought brought up:

Bulldog, you state:

"Surely you do not have a problem with the occasional fisherman that gets out twice a year and is fortunate enough to catch one fish (wild or not)?"

Whom do you think is most often doing the fishing on a guided trip??

It's arguable whether or not guided boats kill more fish than private boats or the bank crowd, but regardless, the unguided crowd takes plenty of fish as well.

How many fish come off the plunking bars every year? How many local anglers do nopt abide by the 5 fish annual limit? I can think of a number of them w/o too much thought!

Bottom line is harvest ...

Smalma made good points. Most importantly, causes other than harvest mortality are responsible for depressed and un productive runs, and catch and release fishing is an allocation tool, not a conservation tool.

Total catch and release fisheries mandate you have hatchery programs to sustain consumption in most fisheries. These hatchery programs are suffering from declining productivity similar to wild fish. They therefore must be large to meet the multitude of harvest expectations. These large, dominating hatchery programs contribute to declining productivity of the entire system, including wild fish.

There are many areas where there is good habitat for anandromous fish, complete catch and release on wild fish, and wild fish populations that are extinct, or near extinct. In these situations, catch and release regulations fit in with hatchery programs that produce enough fish for harvest with complete release of wild fish. The wild fish release makes us feel good, even self righteous about our contribution to conservation, along with a sense of relief that we can maintain our fishery even if the wild ones go extinct.

We can promise to do our part to help the fish, we will release all the non clipped ones without hurting them to the extent feasible, but please don't get so extreme to make us not do our catch and release (so we can catch the hatchery fish), and absolutely, don't touch our mega hatchery, the great and essential conservation tool that allows us to release the wild fish.

Wild fish conservation will be stronger with direct harvest of wild fish. The biological information, when and if applied conservately, can identify where harvest is acceptable. This harvest will not impose a conservation risk, and will decrease future production only a very small amount if at all. Maintaining the value of harvest derived from wild fish makes perfect sense and is good for the future of wild fish.

"Total catch and release fisheries mandate you have hatchery programs to sustain consumption in most fisheries"

IMO, this exactly the kind of mentality that needs to change.....

Fair Hooker, you say that:
"There are many areas where there is good habitat for anandromous fish, complete catch and release on wild fish, and wild fish populations that are extinct, or near extinct."

Where are these rivers?

I am not a believer in any "silver bullet" solutions for bringing our wild steelhead populations back from the brink. Each river and probably each stock has its own suite of issues, many of which we haven't identified and/or don't understand. But the correlation between a bonked wild steelhead and a reduction in the spawning population is no mystery. And because most stocks are being negatively impacted by multiple factors, an appropriate respnse must try to remedy as many threats as possible. Direct harvest is one of those threats. And while some believe that "CnR" is not a conservation tool, it is clearly more conservative than allowing wild fish harvests. The state is faced with the conflicting goals of providing fishing opportunities AND protecting wild stocks, and to me CnR regs offer a much better tradeoff.

NM,
The Duckabush,Dosewallips,Hamma hamma,and the Skoke.Pristine watersheds all except the skoke.

ltlcleo - All of those watersheds have seemingly had a problem with seal predation at the mouths of the rivers. Am I wrong about that? If what I remember is true, then it is apparent that the problems wild steelhead face are numerous. Some we can do something about (Sportfishermen harvest) some we can do nothing about (tribal harvest). It seems to me we should concentrate on what we can do seeking to reduce the number of factors detrimental to the Wild Steelhead. That is why I support WSR.

thanks for the info lil cleo; if it is a seal predation problem in Hood Canal, maybe those transient Orcas will come back next winter and finish up the seal-cleanup they started last winter ...

It's crunch time only a few more days to get those proposals in! July 18th is the deadline! Be sure to request "Statewide release for all wild steelhead, year around, no exceptions" Instead of viewing it as an "allocation tool", think of it more as a "proactive tool" to preserve at least the "deemed healthy rivers" that still allow harvest.

Got mine in. - Thanks for the reminders Rich!

Sent in four proposals...
One concerning the Sauk River,
One concerning the Skagit River and
Two concerning statewide suggestions.

Each addresses conservation issues and I will be hoping for support from yourself and everyone else who values the future of wild steelhead when public comment becomes appropriate.

- Stewardship is realized beyond self-interest. -

The reason that the fish stocks in these rivers are so low is simply over harvest by the sportsmen in the past.

i'll quit applying the wood shampoo when all the nets are permanently out of the water ...

'Long as every one else is gettin' there's, you can bet I'm a gonna git mine!

Are you familiar with the expression: "Ya gotta start somewhere." ???

Salama

I just got back from Montana.. sorry about the delay in responding.

regarding hooking mortality being primarily a fly fisherman fishing on the swing nearly every fish i hook is hooked in the corner of the jaw, thoes that aren't are in the tip of the nose.
I think i have low mortality because mortality occurred in the BC studies when the fish was injured do to how it was hooked. Not from exhaustion or stress.

regarding smolts. the rivers i fish are primarily closed during smolt migration and i use methods to avoid them as best i can. Also we have so few wild fish that I haven't caught a wild juvenile in years.

Overharvest leads to what we have hear in south west. our best rivers get maybe 3-4 hundred fish a year in an extremely good year!!! For instance most years the washougal gets 200 or less wild summer runs. up until the 1960's it had 1500 every year and that number just from index pool counts, a more realistic number is 2,000-3,500.

The Kalama is the healthiest river down here getting returns around 400.

I fear the day when the Sol Duc returns 150 wild winter runs and if we keep harvesting them that IS exactly what WILL happen. That is exactly what happened here!

Rob -
Hope the Montana trip was productive - I find trout fishing a nice change from chasing anadromous fish.

a couple points -
This discussion started with a state wide proposal - in many areas wild juvenile steelhead are common (even in underescaped systems) thus they need to be considered. By the late summer/early fall these pre-smolts can be in the 5 to 7 inch range. I still maintain that hooking mortality on these fish needs to be considered. While my fly fishing skills are likely limited compared to yours my experience with flies while fishing for steelhead/sea-runs/Dollies is that 1-2% of the pre-smolts that I catch accidentally are dead when landed.
(bait caught much higher - in excess of 30%).

I have had the unpleasant experiecne of hooking adult steelhead in critcal areas with swung flies as well as skated and drag free dries. While those encounters are less frequent than most other methods I have used they were not much different that my critical encounters with drifted eggs on winter steelhead - perhaps 1 or 2 out 500.

Your comparison of the collapse SW steelhead with that potential on the coast is an apple and orange comparison. Steelhead management on the coast and on Puget Sound has been with minimum escapement goals - harvest is limited when escapements aren't likely to be met (we an argue about escapement levels later if you wish) while in SW at the time of the population's collapse escapement goals for those system had not been established or rigorously managed for- the populations didn't have protection of escapement goals.

If over-harvest was the sole or major cause of population one would expect that all or most of the populations would rebound when the harvest pressure was removed. In my little corner of the world a couple examples of this rebound has been with sea-run cutthroat and Dollies/bull trout which both have rebounded to levels not seen in decades in most North Puget Sound systems. The fact that many of our steelhead populations haven't rebounded with simiar or greater harvest restrictions indicates that other factors are limiting the populations.

Please take the above to mean that I don't feel harvest issues shouldn't be address; just that I don't expect much (any?) benefit unless freshwater and marine survival conditions improve. Our collective efforts need to diorected towards what I consider large issues and not diverted by these endless arguements over harvest on "healthy populations".

Tight lines
Smalma

Salama
I don't disagree with anything you have said, however. We have 0 ability to improve the ocean enviroment. There is 0 ability because of political concerns, for us to do much with tribal harvest, commercial harvest and in most cases freshwater habitat.
The only thing we can address in any meaningful way is sport harvest.

It is my firm belief that it will take a comprehensive approach to save our wild fish however i see absolutely no political will to do so in any government agency or any elected official.. I have 0 faith in any of the managment agencies. I do mean 0.
Salmon revovery is a complex problem with very simple answers. The problem is that no one is willing to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done.
The Bio's at NMFS came up with the 4 h's and they were absolutely dead on with that. However no one is following through on any of it.

Hydro.. BPA spends millions on various fish bypass systems only hoping that they will work. They don't care if they work at all they just have to spend X amount of dollars to say they tried. So basically hydro is not being addressed in a meaningful way.

Habitat.. some habitat is being restored but not enough to compensate for habitat that is still being developed and destroyed. and Most habitat projects have coincided with hatchery plants which totally negates any benefit of the habitat restoration to begin with. Most habitat restoration is done in the same manner as the hydro is addressed.. Make an areal look good and say we tried with very little actual benefit to wild fish.. So basically the habitat card is not being afddressed..

Harvest.. Columbia river tangle net fishery for spring chinook catches 20,000 wild winter steelhead.. enough said harvest is not being addressed in any meaningful way.

Hatcheries... nearly every steelhead river in the state is pumped full of hatchery fish. I have seen nothing to indicate any government agency is doing anything to address the impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish. If anything the agencies are trying to increase hatchery programs by passing them off to the tribes and letting them do what they want.. So no one is addressing hatchery issues..

All this leads me to believe that there is no will in any government agency to save these fish. As far as i am concerned they are and have been failing at their jobs for decades.
managers in WDFW need to be fired because they have failed so miserably . If this were the private sector these people doing extremely poor jobs would have been canned years ago.
I have no faith at all in anyone in managment positions in any of the govorning agencies. They do not have the best interests of the fish in mind. They are the enemy..
I cannot find words strong enough to convey how i feel about these people. some of them should be in jail for their gross mismanagment of our resources.

So when it comes to regs if i can get a few people to stop killing wild fish then by God thats the right thing to do..
anyone opposed to WSR year around without exception hates wild steelhead and wants them to go extinct. This issue is black and white..

Salama
Montana was great.. great things happen when you have catch and release going on over naturally reproducing stocks of wild fish. Even in completely dewatered, damed up streams with cattle running through them..
None of my anger is towards you at all just venting frustration. I agree with most everything you say just at this point WSR is better than nothing..

an interesting note about the Washougal...

the wild summer steelhead run collapsed at a time directly correlating to the opening of and the increased production at the Skamania hatchery. They planted fish, people came to catch them. People caught the wild ones and took them home and the hatchery fish spawning in the wild took care of the rest. Habitat has imporved since the 60's and wild steelhead release regs were adopted in 1985. The wild summer steelhead still have not recovered. The problem is not harvest, not hydro, not habitat.. whats left? THE HATCHERY!
That is the only thing preventing the recovery of wild summer steelhead in the Washougal.
in my stupid little opinion

Just a couple of thoughts about the politics of anadromous fish management in Washington State:

My next door neighbor is a prominent state senator whose kids I take fishing (along with Dad) with me - Especially when the pinks are in and hookups are more common.

He supports and practices WSR personally. When we talk of this, however, he's educated me as to the politics of anadromous fish management in this state. Politicians, including my neighbor, don't want to touch this issue with the proverbial 10' pole. That's why they've fobbed it off to the bureacrats.

According to my neighbor, the vast majority of voters in this state (1) Do not fish, (2) Don't read fishing magazine editorials (2) Don't access the internet to read the myriad fishing forums, and (3) Think that the difference between steelhead and, say, catfish lies in the gear one uses to catch 'em.

For a politician to take up this issue (mandatory WSR) would require a substantial and sustained lobbying effort. Logic and/or emotion will not prevail. Period. Numbers of voters are what rule the day in Olympia.

As for me personally, I am a strong proponent of mandatory WSR. However, I believe, and I think the science suppports the observation that the real culprit in the demise our once plentiful anadromous fish is watershed degradation.

WSR notwithstanding, with a pristine watershed I believe our fisheries could sustain a harvest (of hatchery fish) that would exceed our wildest expectations.

We need WSR, but most especially in the absence of aggressive habitat restoration.

Cheers,

Michael

Luv2Spey,

With all due respect to your neighbor, he is wrong about politicians being unwilling to tackle WSR. Those who oppose WSR have had no problem trying to force their agenda through the various House committees. For example look at the shot fired across the bow of the WDFW commission when they were considering wild steelhead release without exception. I will agree with you though that the greater public doesn't know or care about the subtlies of steelhead management.

I also agree that habitat is a major component but am confused at your comment "with a pristine watershed I believe our fisheries could sustain a harvest (of hatchery fish) that would exceed our wildest expectations". In my experience the watershed has about as much to do with the hatchery return as what type waders you wear. Hatchery return is a factor of # of smolts released, predation and everyone's favorite; ocean conditions.

Unless you are thinking that given pristine conditions hatchery fish would be able to spawn in greater numbers. I seem to remember that you feel this would be a good thing.

sinktip

>With all due respect to your neighbor, he is
>wrong about politicians being unwilling to
>tackle WSR.

Well, he speaks from explicit (and long term) experience and, as such, I am inclined to attach to it a greater weight.

As for my own observations, in general, the political will to take the tough stances required to effectively manage Wild Steelhead (and Salmon) does not exist - To any appreciable extent. If it did, you'd see a much more active role played by the various oversight committees and individual [elected] politicians.

>Those who oppose WSR
>have had no problem trying
>to force their agenda through
>the various House committees.

Precisely my point. No political courage/will is required to go with the crowd. It's really easy for a politician to accept the argument of the [uninformed] majority.

Political courage is standing up and advancing the cause of conservation in the face of the overwhelming majority of voters who associate conservation with denial and harvest with plenty.

My speculation about pristine watersheds leading to greater harvests of hatchery fish presupposes that some rivers might be safely designated as "wild" and would support only WSR year around - No hatchery fish whatsoever.

Others might support a mix of hatchery and wild, while still others might be only hatchery fish.

However, after thinking about your skepticism, I think you're correct and I don't think this would result in increased harvest of hatchery fish. I do believe it would take pressure of the wild fish in those waters known NOT to have hatchery fish and in which WSR was the law.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

It appears for the most part, we are arguing the same point. It is not that politicians are ambivalent to fish management issues, it is that the majority are old school wack em and stack em types. It only takes a few of them in key comittees and WSR becomes a pipe dream. Don't think that they are all uninformed though. There is a current ban on the banning of bait in this state simply because one of the bait companies greased the skids of the legislature some years back.

As for your ponderings about various types of rivers: hatchery only, mixed and wild only, I think you are dead on. I fear we are coming to that sooner than later. It might be the only thing we can do to save some wild stocks.

sinktip

Sinktip

You said that; "There is a current ban on the banning of bait in this state simply because one of the bait companies greased the skids of the legislature some years back."

Where did you here that? Are you referring to law, or are you just passing on something that you have heard?

I have never seen any law that relates to your statement, so I would like to find out where such a rule can be found. Since there appears to be several rivers and areas that already have bait bans at certain times and places, how does this proclaimed rule work?

Cowlitzfisherman

Bob,

I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I'm sure you'll be able to look it up in the RCW's...the law states that it is illegal to create a blanket ban on bait in state waters. Bait bans must be specific to an area and have a specific reason to back it up...i.e., bait is banned on the summer in the Snoqualmie to protect the small run of wild Tolt River summer runs.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd
I could not find anything under the Title 77 RCW: FISH AND WILDLIFE.
What other RCW would such a law be listed under?

One would think that it would fall under the game codes in RCW 77.

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman,

It's RCW 77.12.010

Limitation on prohibiting fishing with bait or artificial lures.
The commission shall not adopt rules that categorically prohibit fishing with bait or artificial lures in streams, rivers, beaver ponds, and lakes except that the commission may adopt rules and regulations restricting fishing methods upon a determination by the director that an individual body of water or part thereof clearly requires a fishing method prohibition to conserve or enhance the fisheries resource or to provide selected fishing alternatives.

Thanks for the information!


What this tells me is that the "Commission" could close 99% of the streams for bait use and still leave the lakes open for bait use if they choose to do so. In effect, it could literary close down almost every stream that contains anadromous salmon or steelhead and leave all other none anadromous streams and lakes open to the use of bait.

Cowlitzfisherman

The RCW's addressing of both bait and artificial lures also brings into question sinktip's allegation that, "There is a current ban on the banning of bait in this state simply because one of the bait companies greased the skids of the legislature some years back."

Todd, Plunker and Cowlitz,

Many thanks for saving me the time to look the RCW up. Yes Cowlitz, I do believe that you are right in that the commission could take this step although it would probably need be done one system at a time. I suspect this is an unlikely outcome though and would certainly prove greatly devisive among user groups. While I personally think there are instances where limiting bait makes management sense, I would not want to see a statewide ban.

Plunker,

Perhaps Smalma or another of the well informed members can confirm or refute my claim of the bait companies involvement. It was told to me from two credible sources that Pauztke's Corp., of Balls of Fire fame, spearheaded the push to get the above mentioned RCW passed. This may just be hearsay and if false, I apologize for passing it on.

sinktip

Sinktip,
You're right on. In 1988 the WDFW considered a bait ban in order to manage the small existing populations of resident rainbows as well as to reduce mortality of steelhead parr and smolts during the summer season. When word got out, Pautzke quickly lobbied the law in question through the legislature.

No one else will say it so I will.. All wild and mixed stock fisheries shoule be single barbless artificial period.. end of story.. time to come out of the stone age and think about more than filling your freezer. The day of harvesting wild fish is going away and should have been done away with decades ago. Who cares what any law states. If you care about being able to fish next year you should be fishing in such a way now as to minimize your impacts/ single barbless artificial is proven to do that.

Whoa, this boat on releasing all wild steelhead is getting full, but I'm in too, especially since I can't seem to catch one anyway, I would sure like to see my chances raise. Ha ha.

You gotta be kidding! How come they were doing so great before the boldt decision? and so terrible so quick just after?

I agree with no take for wild steelies as long as they are that particular rivers true genetic stock.

No I am not kidding micro!

What is so great about wild steelhead anyway? Where did the hatchery fish come from in the first place? I don't think they pulled them out of a magic hat. Genetically they are the same fish, it's not like they turn into a cutthroat when the egg hatches inside the hatchery. Here's another thing to consider, the hatcheries don't clip all the fish, only about one in four. So, there is no way to know if a fish was born in the hatchery or born in the river. It doesn't really matter to me, the fish can be traced back to their "wild" ancestors anyway. The only benefit I can see for wild fish to spawn in the river, is that their carcasses are used by the smolt for food. Then again, steelhead can return to the ocean so that isn't such an issue.

These biologists have their own agenda when they release their research findings, alot of them would like to see fishing shut down altogether. They hide behind science all the while pushing their insane environmentalism on the public. I'm sick and tired of the government telling me what I can and can't do and that doesn't stop with fishing. I buy a license only because it works as an insurance policy against the game nazis. I keep fish when I feel like it. I'll fill up my freezer with fish and when it's full I'll release fish because I can't use them. Unless I'm being watched closely, I'll keep any fish I catch with no regrets because I know it's going to be put to good use.

Ocean conditions affect the amount of fish returning more than any one thing. As long as nets aren't strung across rivers for long periods of time there will always be fish coming back. The sport anglers will never have the capacity to destroy a run of fish as long as there are reasonable daily limits. There are too many days during a fish run where the conditions of the river are not conducive to catching fish, yet the fish continue up the river to their home.

My beliefs are based on common sense and logic and not rooted in emotion. Many of you may think I am insane or just some outlaw. More power to you, I could care less, but I just wanted to put out another point of view that I hadn't seen much written on.

Good Luck....rip some lip!

Oh. Oh now ya did it!

Ah come on, you really are kidding arent you? If you really believe that sportsfishermen are responsible for the decline of steelhead and salmon you really need to talk to a few of my friends who fished the same rivers you do before the boldt decision. For instance them canyons you fish on the skok my buddy everett used to catch and release up to thirty steelies a day in there, sometimes when he ran out of eggs he caught them on burlap from his gunny sack! my granpa and great granpa fished all over the place used to slay them in the lower river and in many other rivers. They were there fishing before and after the masacre!

what concerns me about these kind of issues is that they could become permanant. i think the current type of rule we have now(e.g. WSR unless noted) works alright, we just have to figure out which fisheries can support harvest, we just need a better way of determining these areas.

what i would like to see are "test rule changes", where a regulation is put into effect for a period of say, 10 years, just to see how it would work. if some day the wild steelies return like they're chums, reopen the meat fishery on them. i was around to witness the slaughterhouse on the nisqually in the late 80s, and really doubt that could happen today. i mean, let's get this straight, the department of fisheries actually _raised_ the limit on wild fish after the fishery became popular and people wanted more! today it would have been the opposite, and who knows, if the run was managed with a little intelligence, maybe the fishery would still be there.

were the tribes responsible for the chum fishery that's allowed so much commercial fishing in hood canal? seems that had more of an effect(especially on big hood canal coho) than the boldt decision ?

Micro,
The canyons on the skoke that "I" fish have alot more affecting them than the rest of the canal tribs,the boldt decision being one of them.

I am refering to the three north of there with limited androminous reaches.

Edit: We should hook up and do some steelhead fishing this fall.compare some notes.Hell see if you can drag Ben off of long lake and bring him too!

There is no room for harvest on wild steelhead in the state of Washington. No exceptions!

WSR is the beginning and a good start but there are other issues that also need to be delt with before things can recover.

There are some tribes that like to cheat a little. In many different ways. I have seen it first hand and saw it for almost 4 years. The truth is they do what they want the rules they put on themselves are not enforced or followed. Some are better than others.

Rich G If there is no room for harvest of wild steelhead, then there is no room for catch and release on wild steelhead. No exceptions! Catch and release angling kills and stresses the fish.

Statements such as yours only divide anglers and reveal them as hypocrits. If you truly were advocating for conservation you would advocate to shut the fishery down. It appears your only playing on conservation to re-allocate more fish to yourself. Very selfish.

Fair Hooker..you have just made the most sense of all of these people. Why should we touch the fish if they are so much in danger of extinction? Or is this about "bonking"? What a hypocritical crock.

The tough part is that there is no steelhead river on the west side that does not have a mix of hatchery and wild fish. I want to catch hatchery fish and sometimes bonk them but I don't want to bonk wild fish. Certainly if I want to not stress wild fish, I should not fish for them but hatchery fish are present, so what should I/we do? If there were rivers with no hatchery plants, I would advocate shutting them down completely so that we could use that stream as an incubator of sorts. I just don't know of any. Anyone else?

Eddy - Most of the genetic studies have shown little if any mixing between native and introduced stocks.

A couple of proven sources of pure genetic stocks are the Skamania and Chambers Creek.

Why in the world would anyone want large populations of wild fish if not to eat them?

Plunker, two points.

1. I'm not talking about wild and hatchery intermixing or interbreeding, I am talking about them being in the same river at the same time thus making it impossible to close the river (for protection of wild steelhead) and to harvest hatchery fish.

2. Why do I want wild steelhead? Very simple, I want to insure that there is a relatively pure genetic strain of wild fish available if the hatcheries go gunnysack.

There is an interesting angle to all of this. What is the end game? Let's just say we do what alot of sports fishermen have said ...Stop fishing all together until fish rebound. OK so how do we know it has rebounded? When do we start fishing again? Do we continue to release all wild fish? If we stopped all hatchery operations and fishing would the hatchery fish all die off and only wild fish remain? If only wild fish are to be tolerated what do we do with all of them when they rebound? Do we start all over and fish them to the brink of extinction again or just keep them there so the kayakers and hikers can look at them? Do we all convert to veganism?

Interesting thoughts Grandpa. I'm not certain what the end game is. One thing I do know, it is rare for closed waters to reopen. I know that for myself, I come at this from wanting to have the following:

1. Opportunity for fishing.
2. Quality environment that benefits fish and all of us.
3. Opportunity for bonking fish.
4. A good feeling from being a steward for future generations.

I see WSR as being the best strategy to achieve my goals.

Grandpa, you ask what would happen to the hatchery fish if we stopped producing them. Hard to say, I'm certain that some rivers would become barren - but look at what happened in the Cedar with sockeye. Hatchery stops planting (back in the 30's or 40's??) and 20 or 30 years later the right match has been made from the returning remnants and voila, we have a new "wild fish" fishery. I put wild fish in quotes because some on this board will claim that they are not wild at all because they came from hatchery stock. Just for the record, I believe that any fish born in the wild, reared in the wild, and spawned in the wild fits my definition of a wild fish. I don't want to take this thread in a different direction, just want to be clear as to what I think a wild fish is.

So, to answer your question - my end game desire is for large quantities of wild fish that will support a catch and release fishery, and quantities of hatchery fish (on selected rivers) that allow me to take some fish home to eat.

Thanks Eddy, for the clarification on what you meant by mixing between wild and hatchery stocks. The confusion was my mistake but...

Again I am confused in how to interpret your latest post?

You stated that you consider naturally spawning introduced sockeye to be wild fish and that you would prefer a catch and release fishery for wild fish.

Would you prefer that sockeye in Lake Washington be managed as a wild sockeye release fishery?


RA3 - I wonder why the introduction of so many hatchery sockeye here has not wiped out the wild fish?

Plunker, As I understand it we now have a sockeye hatchery again on the Cedar. And yes, I would prefer a wild fish release everywhere on all species until we truly can see a sustained improvement in numbers of wild fish. I do not have enough faith in the science or operations of our Hatcheries to put all my eggs in that basket. I do consider the sockeye that are naturally spawning in the Cedar to be wild because even though several generations ago they were hatchery fish, they have adapted to the birth, growth, and spawn cycle of their native cousins. Hopefully I have been clear on this. We talk about native and wild and sometimes I don't see how we can carry on a conversation unless we have some common definition. And I am NOT suggesting that my definitions should be the right ones. I just share them so that folks can understand what I'm trying to say.

PS The fish in my avatar is not a hatchery fish, I am not holier than thou, I have killed my share of wild fish - I hope to never do it again.

I think the Sockeye are hatchery fish as they descend from hatcdhery fish and were never "wild" in the true sense in Lake Washington and the Cedar. That run was introduced here from hatchery stock. One of the practices of hatcheries that I think is positive is the practice of using wild fish eggs from Redds and simply ensuring a higher survival rate. As far as too many fish in a river I think you can look at Alaska for rivers so thick with fish you can't see the bottom of the river and they seem to spawn just fine.


Eddie..I noticed the adipose fin in your avatar and you certainly don't need to be ashamed unless , of course, you're worried about what Rob or Ramon think of you. There are tons of hatchery Chinook out there with adipose fins. It's ok....

Grandpa - Great fishing report from yesterday. I don't really care what Rob or Ramon thinks of me, I tend to be my own worst critic (other than CFM that is ). The sockeye run in the Cedar is a perfect example of why the wild fish/native fish/hatchery fish debate is so complicated. You are right, the Cedar's outfall has been changed by man so that it became sockeye habitat (river to lake, lake to river, river to saltwater). So, no question that this run is "man-made" but what do we call these fish when they adapt to the wild and succesfully have multiple generations of birth and death in the wild? I believe that we call them non-native wild fish. Because they have shown themselves to be succesfull adapting to the Cedar, I believe they become a more valuable genetic resource than a hatchery fish.

As you know, I love to steelhead fish most of all (well, actually I love to steelhead CATCH most of all!!). I also love to eat fish. As stated before, I want to maximize the opportunity for fishing, catching, and eating while maintaining the valuable genes that the wild fish carry. I think WSR is the best tool for this.

I heard that remark eddi!

Cowlitzfisherman

So if we successfully planted the Sockeye in the Cedar and they have adapted and are thriving why are we to believe that such hatchery initated runs of other species in other rivers are such a bad idea and that hatchery fish are to be eliminated in favor of "wild" only runs? Some of these arguments seem to be at odds with each other.

Good question grandpa

I too would like to hear the answers that some guys will attempt to come up with!! Most likely you hear a lot of BS….but little factual science!

Cowlitzfisherman

Interesting question that I will try to answer with another question. How many rivers, other than the Cedar, have a hatchery run that has been discontinued? The Cedar is so unique in that there was never a sockeye run in the river (to my knowledge) prior to the hatchery. I don't know of any other rivers that have this unique set of circumstance. But, one thing that is true (cue the Jurassic Park music), nature will find a way if given time. It certainly seemed to have found the way in the Cedar. Benign neglect as a management tool? I don't know. I have wrestled with the issue of the Cedar for some time and don't have an answer. I think it is probably true that the ancestors of the current "wild" run in the Cedar were a small percentage of the orginal hatchery plants. After all, in my recollection, the reason the hatchery plants stopped was that there was a consistently poor return. I do know that I would not necessarily be prepared to accept the lack of fishing opportunity that a total closure awaiting nature finding its way would entail. Hell, I don't know, I'm just a fisherman, I've got opinions and thoughts. I would love to see some science as well.

Grandpa -
interesting question.

Clearly hatchery fish have successfully established self-sustaining populations; however in most cases it has been in cases like that in the Cedar. The hatchery fish are introduced for one or more years and then the releases discontinued the natural selection process will proceed allowing each new generation to become more adapted to the environment. As I recall it took several decades for the sockeye in the Cedar to become very productive in their new environment. This is not unlike the process of colonization and re-colonization of habitats by wild fish that has been going on for 10,000s of years.

This is different from what we commonly think of hatchery and wild fish interacting in the wild. As most know the rearing of salmonids in a hatchery environment results in "domestication" of the fish. Thus hatchery fish tend to be less productive when spawning in the wild than naturally produced fish (whether hatchery or wild). The annual input of hatchery fish in the natural population continues this loss of productivity. Of course if the hatchery releases were to stop the offspring of this last generation would have the chance to adapt through the natural selection process and may become productive "wild' fish.

Tight lines
Smalma

So what you are saying is that if we had some really good science we could adapt hatchery salmon to a watershed and then restrict the release of new fish gradually until the strain of hatchery born fish adjust and thrive...something like that? Reform the hatcheries on an individual and unique basis as every situation is slightly different?

Grandpa-
No, what I'm saying is that if hatchery fish are left alone (no further introductions) in an acceptable habitat that is not occupied or under utilized they have a chance to evolve over time to become successful in that environment. Nothing to do with good science.

The hatchery fish would not have the chance to be successful if there is not a niche for them. That niche could be from fish gaining access to new habitat (removing barriers such as culverts) or in situations where over-fishing has occurred.

The question is why would anyone be interested in using hatchery fish and the number of generations needed for the fish to reach full productivity when the existing wild fish can do the job better is we would just give them the chance.

Tight lines
Smalma

those naturally spawning sockeye redds are frequently eliminated on purpose because of severe ihn infections...i bet if they were left alone the run would disappear completely....