Yeah Yeah! I'm sure ADF&G heard that same speil too when they enacted the rule, but by golly, they did it anyway!

I think that the REAL intent of that proposed rule is to protect ANY fish that is not going to be kept from being subjected to the kind of mis-treatment we've ALL seen. Whether it works or not in practical application well... we won't really know unless we try now will we.

Good plan.

Let's bog ourselves down with moronic regulations instead of focusing on regulations that actually might make a difference....like statewide wild steelhead release.

Oh, yeah, because that would be too difficult, huh?

What a joke.

I think I'll have to propose that we ban all nets to land fish...because of the additional "stress and mortality" that the net will cause to the fish.

I should probably add to that a proposal that would ban handling of fish, in or out of water....because of the additional "stress and mortality" that the handling will cause to the fish.

Oh, and a we'd better up the wild steelhead kill on the OP to 30 fish a year....because those rivers are "healthy" (like the Queets) and can and should support the kill fishery...but don't EVEN think of taking one out of the water for a photo, or to release it.

Ooops - get your facts straight Peri.

(Never trust a BIL second hand story, he said opening day, I assumed June)

I talked to Joe today. Aw Ha, opening day in October, and he C & R'd 26 not 21, (pretty good for fly fishing). He also said the river is high and murky now and fishing (catching) is very very slow right now.

Sorry for inaccuracies..

Who said ANYTHING about INSTEAD...

Remember also, it wouldn't just be wild steelhead, I'm pretty sure it's ANY salmon or steelhead you don't intend to keep.

Edit: I think my point is slippin' by you parker. It's NOT the conscientious anglers such as yourself who take careful photos that are the impetus for this proposed reg. It's the thousands of morons who drag fish over the rocks, drop them in the boat, hold them up by the gills, kick them back in the water etc...

See, in order to protect THOSE fish, we as concerned anglers ALSO have to sacrifice a little. I'm sure that we'll all be able to safely release AND photograph fish we intend to release, just not 3 feet in the air or 10 feet up the bank.

And I think parker's point is snagging is illegal, too. And yet...................thousand of morons are still doing it.

Once again, we're paving the road to hell with good intentions.

Nicely said Dan

Do you really think that by changing the law to read that the fish has to be left in the water that the people who mishandle the fish will change their ways - come on lets get real.

From memory - the rules for catching salmon say that if you are going to release a king salmon the salmon must be left in the water - do you think that happens?

I saw tons of people pick up fish and then throw them into the water - I even saw a girl release a pink after she ripped the spinner from it's gills - she dropped it on the bank, stepped on it, then ripped the treble hook out of it's gills...then she kicked it back in the water and nudged it with her boot to git it swimming downstream (might have been illegal - but when it went past my son he asked if we could take it home - and we did as part of our limit).

Just because we have rules and laws won't make those who disrespect the animals and wilderness change thier ways.

If I am not mistaken, it is illegal to litter on public ground in Washington - I have never witnessed such a state where littering on public ground occurs. Maybe we should make some more laws that are not enforced regarding litter too?

OK, yet another thread that has morphed into something else. Let me be clear - just because someone else does something wrong, it does not diminish the good I do when I do something right. I can not make people:

release wild fish
fish legally
not floss
not snag
etc., etc., etc

By example, I MAY make someone think about their actions. But if I just give up and say that because someone else does something wrong that I will not do the right thing makes me an even bigger part of the problem. BECAUSE, I KNOW BETTER and because of that have the responsibility to act ethically.

There's nothing unethical about how I land and photograph a fish.

If this rule is passed it WILL be illegal.

So, the net effect will be the lunkheads will continue to mishandle fish and the careful angler won't. Just like it is today...............

Great.

So the WDFW collects a few grand in fines from the few tickets that actually get written for this violation and screws over guys like me.

WDFW lacks the enforcement now to have any meaningful effect. I simply don't believe THIS rule will have any meaningful effect either. It's window dressing of the worst kind.

Nets in rivers, kill fisheries for wild steelhead, and they don't want me to do a grab-n-grin with a wild fish. Please.

I guess if you want to enjoy that trophy wild fish you can do it in your mind, by killing it up on the OP, or by putting a crappy photo on the wall. Sorry Sparkey, those photos aren't wall quality.

The thing is, I wouldn't care at all about this proposal if I thought it would have any meaningful effect. I don't think it will. It's just something WDFW is floating so we can pat ourselves on the back and say we're doing stuff to protect wild fish, while a statewide C&R reg on wild fish doesn't even make the agenda.

Sorry I don't share your enthusiam for this proposal...........but I think it's junk.

My VERY reasoning behind supporting the regulation.

To those that argue "well...who is going to enforce this regulation?" or "well...people will do it anyways!"...yeah but snagging is illegal, killing wild steelhead in most river systems is illegal, the vast majority of people want wild steelhead release in all rivers year round, etc. etc. etc.!

Whether it is concerning fisheries regulations or the general law governing society, I will NEVER not support what I feel will benefit the fish or benefit society because "uh well...people will do it anyways!" or "uh...who will enforce it?"!

BTW-The anecdotes I have been recieving from those that were out fishing Sekiu and the other areas where wild salmon could not be brought aboard the vessel seem to conclude that the mortality of wild coho was much less then in previous years because they were being handled with more care due to WDFW regulations.



I guess our values are very very differant. I enjoy trophy wild fish via the pursuit, the take, the fight, the quick photo and the release. For me, the above photos are more then enough...I do not need a "picture-perfect" photo on the wall to enjoy a wild steelhead.

And actually, that second photo of yours truly is one of my favorites (eventhough I have a goofy-ass look on my face) because the photo does a remarkable job of capturing the absolute beautiful coloration of that particular fish.

Parker...from what I understand both photos I posted of myself would be legal because the fish was still partially submerged in the water.

I agree with Dan S and Parker. I fail to see how this reg will effect anyone other than those who do right anyways. What good will the reg do compared to other possible reg changes in this cycle? Zero, maybe a few fish? I see this as being motivated by a few dudes who don't like internet pictures. Petty and futile. If this rule is adopted at the expense of reg changes that have real impact on our fisheries, it will reflect the values of those that have propsed it. And potentially expose the organizations we trust as motivated by ego and small clique, and not real change. I agree that non-target fish should be released with care. Isn't that the law already?! This reg is specifically targeted at fishing pictures, it is petty and silly, and offers no value to our fisheries. To those who are spending energy on this reg, please focus on regs that will have a long term impact on our fisheries, like C&R water, selective reg waters, etc that have proven to work when applied in other states. I'm curious- has this proposed reg ever been tried anywhere, and how did it affect things? I just don't see the point. Meanwhile, my reg proposals were not included, regs that will benefit sportfishers, for absurd reasons. No wonder we sporties get screwed- we do it to ourselves. Jimminy christmas, wake up eh?!

On second thought, this rule makes sense, but with a step further. 10% of the fishers catch 90% of the fish right? The more you catch, the more you kill, C&R or no. Obviously we need a limit on fish hooked. My rule prop: we get to hook two wild steelhead per year, and we must cut the leader after a 30 second fight. Why not? A win-win! No photos, and we all get off the rivers. Another idea: we all take a "fishing test" like a drivers test. You need to ID and release a fish while it is underwater, otherwise no licesense for you! Makes sense to me. We can reg the hell out of us sporties with this nonsense and it won't bring back fish, but who cares? Get real! The gamies can't even enforce snagging at the spots where everyone knows it is happening- how do you see this "fish out of water" reg enforced other than pictures? The "other" motivations spoken are a scam. I know where this idea generated.

How about if it simply isn't an effective rule? THAT is why I don't like it. No other reason. I just don't think it will have any effect, therefore I'm against it.

Head down the "if it only saves ONE fish" road if you want, but PETA is waiting for you at the Cul-de-sac.

I want regs that have MEANINGFUL effects on the health of wild fish, not feel-ggod rules.

Funny, that's not what I heard from paying clients who were on charters out there this season. I heard countless stories of deckhands/captains that would bring the catch on board, let it flop around, bleed all over the place, and if it had a fin on it, would kick it back over board, all the time swearing at the WDFW for a stupid rule.


I was only commenting on the 2nd photo Sparkster, not BOTH. And, if I'm the judge in this case, that sure does look like that fish is completely out of the water. Naturally, we all know one can NOT edit or manipulate a photo, so it MUST be true.

Bail Denied! Life in prison for you! Or, pay the $150 fine.

So, does this mean that I can hold a fish up horizontal by the gills and keep it's tail in the water for my 2004 Grip N Grins? That would be legal under the new law, wouldn't it? No different than your supposed "partially submerged" fish from above, si?

You guys know the REAL sad part of this discussion? We already seem poised to be at each other's throats because we happen to disagree on what a PROPOSED regulation might mean to our personal fishing experience.

Let's find the common ground here. If this proposal doesn't work, why don't we put our collective intelligence to work creating one that will. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us care about the fish and would like nothing better than to see them protected. The problem is we NEVER seem to be able to agree on how.

Ain't that the truth!

I disagree with the proposal as well. Maybe something statewide like "a fish to be released cannot be netted, dragged onto the bank nor brought into a boat. Holding the fish for a photo opportunity is only legal while holding the fish over the water or in the water and then the fish is promptly released."

Here's my 2 cents worth.....release wild fish immediately! Too simple to work, I'm sure, but seems to make sense to me......no pics, no unnecessary handling of any sort....release immediately.

As far as whether to remove a "wild" fish from the water or not......depends on the river, doesn't it? Some rivers have long level bars to play and land fish...some fish are hooked from the short side of the hole while fishing from steep rocky banks in fast water.....now, I can hold the fish in the water still hooked on such a hole and drag his/her ass all over the place, trying to find a place where I can bend over and release it while still in the water, or I can pull it up short, unhook it and get back to fishing....which is worse?.....fish dies from lactic acid poisoning by being hooked too long (happens more with "sportsmen" using light lines and limber rods), or suffers a few bumps and bruises, but is released fresh?

I'm sure there are no perfect answers....why? Because the rivers are all different, techniques are different, fish are different.

But do tell me......what part of "being a sportsmen" is taking a picture??????

The best thing about this proposal is I hope it motivated many of you to take part in the process rather than pontificate and complain how dumb of a proposal it is. I am curious how many of you actually sent in a proposal? Personally, I am thankful there's public process.

Parker, Dan and others I challenge you tell the commission that we don't need a reg like this, we demand a real reg- statewide wild steelhead release, no exception, like some of you stated. I hope you can sacrifice a bit of self promotion and make it to the hearings, I'll look forward to meeting you.

Sthlhead, I believe that is a very good compromise.

Here's another good reg proposal to debate- Quillayute River Season- close the season on April 15 to provide consistent winter steelhead closures to wild steelhead retention on the north coast.
Instead, how about a real reg that states December, January wild steelhead release. Maybe this will help some to the early returning wild fish that are getting so depressed and maybe save some bio-diversity for the system.

Or how about this proposal to extend the upper Quinault season wild steelhead retention til April 15, Explaination: This proposal provides consistent winter steelhead closures on the north coast to help spread out angling pressure during the wild steelhead retention season. How come you don't seem to have an outrage over that proposal, I guess that isn't has important has a picture.

Assuming the proposal (God forbid) makes it to law, how will the results be measured? How will we know if it is working or not?