Here goes another Ramblin Post from Gettnsnapper.. I just came home from a river on the OP. One of these- 1)Physt, 2)Sekiu,3)Hoko,4)Soose,5)Clallam,.I 8hrs of fishing, I did CNR on chrome coho,7-15lb non stop. I got 2 steelhead,one hatchery,one wild. The wild hen was about 10lb and awesome. A true airborne show that left me shaking. I have never caught a wild fish this early?? All fish were taken on #3-#4 Vibrax,or Aglia. All single barbless gamu hooks. I never keep any fish even hatchery, unless hooked deep, or family has asked to bring one home for the BBQ. In 7-8 years of fanatical fishing, I have never bonked a wild fish even if it is legal. This river opens Nov1, non retention on salmon. Water is a tad low, but high enough to allow for fish protection and movement without being seen. All fish were taken in the snout or side of the mouth, and not one fish swam away bleeding or in a condition that would worry me about mortality. I took numerous splashes to the face, and a few close calls from a angry buck or two while helping get them back on their way revived and in good shape. I was all alone both days. Solitude and excitement were at their best. My question is Did I do something that was not ethical, I came for steelhad with the knowledge that coho were going to be present and biting. I fished a spot that has been fantastic to me for steelhead wild, and clipped.I used the same gear as I do for Steel, The same gear as many others do. I had fresh eggs and did not use them for fear that I would get some deep hook-ups, and for sure would be in danger of releasing fish that may not make it to spawn. If I did an illegal act then I will take responsability and write DFW to inform them of my actions. If you think I am BSING about that then think again. I am a man of my word,regardless of what Allmighty know nothing AuntyM has stated on this board with only bad intentions as a motive. Again I will provide my Home Number for any person who wants to get more info, or if anyone wants to question my posts, and not hide behind the computer and make statements about me that have no merit,or proof. I have no desire to stir the pot, just the desire to be considered credible on this board and someone who can provide info to others without concern of fabrication. In turn I hope to be able to use the board as a tool to help make my fishing a little more successfull in the future.I think this board was created with that scenario in mind as well as others. 206-932-9931 before 10pm. Please no bashes Its getting old.

Your going to have to get off of the bash AuntyM trip snapper. It sounds like you were fishing ethicly to me.

I am often more concerned with what I think is right than what the law says, but in this case I think you were both ethical and legal.No poprblem. Cept for the Aunty bashing. Give it a rest.

Jerry and Surecatch - Ditto on all points.

I was wondering the same thing.... I was going to fish one of those rivers you listed, primarily targeting coho cnr. I decided to float the solduc in my pontoon boat instead. Had a great time, nearly died only one time. I should have went left! Did manage to pick up a few fish, One nice king. I might hit the other river this weenend. Maybe I could even float it..... on second thought I better walk it first.

I usually avoid these types of judgemental topics, but here goes...
I like to apply two rules for determining ethhical behaviour while fishing, and I have broken them- I'm no Saint.
1. Am I acting in a socially responsible manner- i.e. in compliance with the rules. If targeting steelhead then you were fine.
2. Am I actively demonstrating care for the environment. It sounds like you took extraordinary care to minimize the adverse impact of hooking coho. Sounds good to me- I believe they will still do their thing and spawn.

I just wish there wasn't the title that says- "target coho..". It seems inconsistent with your dialogue.
let your conscious be your guide.

Sounds cool to me.

Just be careful with the coho, and have fun.

Here's how I see it, take it with a grain of salt...

If you are targeting steelhead, but are consistantly catching coho (out of season) you should change your methods. If you don't and continue to fish with the same lures, flies, presentation, etc, than you're targeting cohos and that's not right. C&R or not, you're going to have mortality.

As a side note, on another board I post on someone asked the WDFW if taking a picture of a fish caught out of season was illegal. A lawyer from the WDFW responded that taking a photo is considered "posession" and illegal under the law.

Yeah, well he can call it "possession" if he wants, but I got money that says a judge won't see it that way.

If WDFW wants you to treat fish to be released with extra care they'll make it illegal to remove a fish to be released from the water, just like they do in saltwater areas..

That WDFW lawyer is full of crap. Did I "posess" every wild steelhead I CPR'd last season? Hardly.

I don't know why they even make dumbass comments like that. Illegal under WHAT law?

I too agree with Eddie, Jerry, and the others except for the AuntyM statements....... Believe me, she can take care of herself and does not need anyones "protection" from someone bashing her. Quite adept at doing that herself.......

If you had no intention of catching Steelhead then maybe it would be unethical, but by-catch while targeting another species is not wrong.

MC

WHO CARES what other people think unless your asking for advise.
AS being ETHICAL you shouldn't even worry about it,ya let them go

I'm with CWU girl on this!



If your targeting one species and all your getting are protected fish, then you need to change something. These fish are protected for a reason, and incidental kill % is too high a price to pay.

Fish someplace else till the run finishes!

(Dan S. quote)

(If WDFW wants you to treat fish to be released with extra care they'll make it illegal to remove a fish to be released from the water, just like they do in saltwater areas..

That WDFW lawyer is full of crap. Did I "posess" every wild steelhead I CPR'd last season? Hardly.

I don't know why they even make dumbass comments like that. Illegal under WHAT law?)

This sounds like your getting your ethics confused with legalities to me Dan.



herm

Exactly Herm! C&R doesn't make it ok!


Dan, here's what the WDFW said..
http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/d...ing_type=search

When WDFW has judges on the bench, I'll care what their legal opinion is. As it is, they have no legal ground to stand on.

I'm not confused about legality vs. ethics either. There's nothing unethical about releasing silvers when fishing for steelhead. Silvers and steelhead will take similar gear, so it's not like you have to "target" coho to catch them.

If you feel it's unethical, then you probably have issues with C&R fishing for native steelhead too.........or at least you should as most rivers aren't "open" for native steelhead either. I don't.........and I sleep just fine at night.

I don't remember asking for anybodies opinion about this round of Aunty bashing by 'snapper. Knock it off

Thanks for the tips, and personal thoughts on the matter. I apologize for my comments about Aunty, I am only responding to my last post in which Aunty stated that I was posting on a moiker of Lupo,or chappy, and that my post was only a line of bull---- to start trouble. I live my life in a manner in which these kind of acusations are never made. I take personal pride in being a guy who you can count on providing credible information for others to use as a tool in the hope that maybe it could better their fishing experiance. When I offer many means to check the validity of my posts and none are taken but still i am called a liar, and,trouble maker without a single action taken to back up those claims.This is unfair and with AuntyM being a long time member who carries clout on this board, her comments carry the ability to harm my standing on this board, and without any chance of a rebuttal due to the topic being closed after Auntys last serious charges against me. I only ask if someone were to challenge aunty posts and state that she is a liar, there would be a brawl on the board and she would be given the chance to prove her innocence. I was not given the same courtesy. Is it a good policy to allow for a member to respond to the claims against them,or forbid personal attacks to discredit a member without a shred of proof, even after a serious attempt to give the accusser the info needed to prove or disprove the claims that were made. It seems to be a pattern in which certain long time members have the go ahead to post at will even if the claims are false and malicious in nature. I will no longer post about this topic.

Dont sweat it.... you are not the first one to feel this way, probably wont be the last. Most people who frequent the board know those who have tendencies to "debate" (for lack of a better term) Keep posting.... you have raised some interesting questions on what is ethical on both of the previous posts. ANYTHING you post here can and will be ripped by someone at some point. Lets just say there are some "Master Debaters" around...

THis is like reading an epilogue to "Survivor"


On the main subject: Coho typcally lie in different locations than steelhead, but the two can intermingle at times, if that occurs just try to release each one as carefully as possible... i'd guess over 50% of our fisheries have mixed stocks when targeting a specific species, whether it be wild mixed with hatchery or just different(salmon) species

I think "will be" are the operative words here. The rule does not exist now.

So no more wild steelhead pics, huh? Oh well, if they pass the rule, they pass the rule.

Dan, just read the first part of the WDFW's response, "will be" are not the key words...

"The CURRENT law would use the prohibition of possession of an unlawfully taken salmonid to say that if the fish was possessed for a photograph, it was, well, possessed. ("How did you get caught?" "I had a buddy take a picture of me with an illegal fish.")."

Like I said, let them convince a judge that holding a fish is "posessing" it.

How could they prove when a picture was taken? If I was lucky enough to get a picture of a hooked fish clearing the water while jumping is he possessed (not like demons)? If I use photo shop to add an adipose to a"possessed" hatchery fish am I in violation of the law? Seems vague and unenforcable to me.

Aunty falsely thought you were somebody else. Memories tend to be short on these BB's, if people could overlook the BS and not reactit would be a beautiful world.

Taking a picture of a non-retainable fish illegal?

I call BS on that one. Every fish that is landed and released is temporarily "possessed" by the fisherperson. The proposed rule would only prohibit removing such a fish from the water, not holding it in the water for a pic, similar to how oversize sturgeon fishers do.

I hope I don't ruffle anyone's feathers here, but there is a group of attorneys in Washington called the Attorney General's Office. They not only represent all the state agencies, including WDFW, but their opinion on the legality or illegality of acts coming within the purview of a certain agency is the only one that matters, until a judge decides.

I know Mr. Jacoby to be a good man, one who is dedicated to his job, which he has held for a long time. However, he does not have opinions about the legality or illegality of WDFW regulations that carry any legal weight.

I'm not saying he's definitely wrong (though my opinion is that he is), I'm just saying that if you want to get an answer that carries any weight, request that WDFW sends the question over to the AGO, or contact the AGO directly.

That being said, how can holding a fish that must be released for a picture possibly be unlawfully possessing a fish? What about when you hold it by the tail to unhook it? Illegal? How 'bout when you use a fancy pants CNR net to land a native steelhead in a river where native steelhead release is in effect? Illegal? What about a walleye or bass that must be measured to determine if it is indeed of legal or size or not? Can this measurement possibly be done without "possessing" the fish under Mr. Jacoby's definition? What about measuring a crab, or "possessing" a female crab to take it out of your pot? Or a razor clam, or any other clam with a size limitation?

I could list similar scenarios ad nauseum, and they would continue to get more and more ridiculous until the whole idea must be abandoned.

Whew...sleep deprivation and a morning of catching a few dozen silvers has got me pretty wired up, after two thermoses of coffee!!

Fish on...

Todd.

gettin snapper, i would like your home phone number, so i can call ya and come out that way for some fishing with ya..

Well said Todd. The legal ramifications of such a ruling would border on the ridiculous.

I wonder if Mr. Jacoby thought about a Gamie's legal rights to even look at your camera. They can't look in your dope-filled film canister because it's not being used to harvest or conceal fish or game. IMO a camera fits the same description.

I would hope that once WDFW's legal team looks at it, they'll see that it's nothing more than an effort to pave the road to hell with good intentions.

A good rule in theory, maybe, but it would surely become a legal can of worms.