Don't kill wild fish period !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More science!

If this is true, why did the Commission put the 2 year band on WSR?

Science: Quote: "WDFW Biologist Dan Rawding (1998) found that encounter rates of wild winter steelhead in selective fisheries were similar to harvest rates that occurred when anglers were permitted to retain wild steelhead."

Dan is one, if not WDFW number one expert biologist who deals with Wild steelhead in Washington.

One more fact that shows that the Commission did not use all "available science" to make their decision!


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

Uh, oh...you missed that one...

"Harvest Rate"= amount of fish killed

"Encounter Rate"=amount of fish encountered, i.e., caught.

Using the probably more accurate mortality rate for fish that are released, (3% to 5%), one of every 20 to 33 fish "encountered" are killed. Even using the quite conservative number that WDFW uses to calculate mortality, which is 10%, one of ten fish released is killed.

The mortality associated with the "harvest rate" is 100%, it's the amount of fish bonked.

If a fishery changes from wild fish retention to wild fish release, and the encounter rate doesn't change, then the amount of mortality on wild fish automatically is reduced by 90 to 97%.

I'd say reducing mortality by over 90% without reducing the total fish landed by sportfishermen is a pretty good decision from the science end.

I'm sure you assumed, or read it too fast, that "encounter rate" and "harvest rate" mean the same thing, therefore just as many fish were killed in a WSR fishery as in a harvest fishery. Wrong by a very large margin on that account.

Fish on...

Todd

There were more posts on this topic earlier today...are they gone now? Where'd they go?

Todd

As you know I am a straight shooter. I do not play stupid childish games like a few professionals people tend to do. As you knew, I did post back my apology to you, and told you that I had erred in my reading of that issue, and that I was wrong. Real men accept others men apologies and move on.

But some people just love to look down on others when they error, in wallow in their own joy. That was what you were doing, and it reflects things about a person that are not very becoming to others. Many of times we disagree on issues, but I don't recall ever once playing with you as your were with me. I made my apology to you for making my mistake and I posted it on this boar. Even though the error was a small one, I admitted I was wrong and you just wanted to make sure that every person on this board had the opportunity to read that I had erred.

Are you happey now?

In a man's world, I was always taught to accept another mans apology and move on. Apparently you and I didn't have the same teacher.

I left my apology running on this board for over 4 hours, while you sat there in your own ego trip without replying back. That was more then enough time for you to reply to my apology. Real men are not afraid to do so!

I was wrong Todd, but who was the fool for playing such a stupid childish "game"?

I am done with this issue here, so if you want to make it personal, you have my email number.


Cowlitzfisherman

Good try Aunty!


If you get off of your high horse and read what I had said, you just might not be looking so foolish

I said That statement is a FACT!

Todd came back and posted what his interpretation of what that quote meant. If you had taken the TIME to read my post, I never disagreed with what Todd had said. In fact, I posted my reply back to his post and told him that I had apparently had miss read what that "quoted statement" had meant, and that he was right.

Maybe neither of you understands what a "quotation mark" means! I just showed you an exact statement that was made by WDFW, nothing more, and nothing less!

I then stated "One more fact that shows that the Commission did not use all "available science" to make their decision!"

It was my understanding when the Commission voted on this issue; they did not use this information to support their position. If I am wrong, can you show me in their minutes where this information was used to support their decision?

If they show in their minutes that they did in fact consider this information, then I would be incorrect in making that statement.

Until proven otherwise, my statement stands to be correct.

Until then, live with it!


Cowlitzfisherman

My favorite cfm quote of all time:

"I must have misread it incorrectly."

Like I said H2O, there is nothing to fear, but fear itself. Why else would you continue to mock?

Why are you so affaird to hear other people opinions?

Bob has set the rules; if you can't say someting good about someone, then don't say it!

So that all that I can say to you for now.


You know where to find my email, if you want to make it more personal.


Cowlitzfisherman

Jerry since you don't like tribe bashing why don't you get them to come to one of your meetings and sit down and convince them to stop netting wild steelhead.? If you honestly believe in saving wild steelhead do you think that releasing sport caught wild steelhead on the few rivers where it is still allowed will solve the problems as you see them? Do you honestly believe that you can put the blinders on when it comes to the tribes? Looks to me like you enjoy the personal bashing back and forth on this single issue topic.

How many times can one side say releasing wild steelhead is a good thing while the other side says it is unnecessary? 600? 700?

Glad to see that you have appointed yourself the boards "MOTHER" now

What was that old saying " Never send a woman to do a mans job"

Easy on the "lata's" folks! Some of you seem to have had one too many double talls.

I'm wondering here just what some of you might think about the city of Forks supposed intention to pursue leagal action against the Commissions decision. Do you think they have a legal gripe?

The cities attorney has been sending out letters that go something like what follows:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
The City ( of Forks has received) comments regarding the passage of Commissioner Van Geytenbeek's proposed moratorium on retaining wild steelhead for two years. The Mayor asked that a quick response go out regarding those comments.

In reading through the various comments we have received on this, it appears that there will remain a level of disagreement on this issue that probably cannot be resolved between e-mails, nor via postings at various message boards maintained by fishing enthusiasts.

The City will continue to pursue the various options permitted to it by law regarding its position on this issue. We hope that the discussion of this issue can continue in such a way as to ensure that the interests of all are included and considered.

Again, thank you for your comments.

Rod

William R. Fleck
City Attorney/Planner
Forks, WA
rodf.forks@centurytel.net
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Any comments about the issue?

cfm-

[img]http://car-nutz.com/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=90[/img]

plunk-

They are pissing up a rope imo.

Grandpa

I think we are supposed to be the ones who "set the example" Didn't you know that if we release all those fish, that the tribes will follow our example?

It's kind of like gun registration; we register ours guns but the bad guys don't! And look how that has solved the crime problem

Where have you been all these years?

Haven't you learned anything? (maybe you learned to much)

We should all do the "right thing"!

Cowlitzfisherman

"The seven boats in the commercial test fishery on Sunday near Longview caught five chinook (three were hatchery-marked) and 20 steelhead. They will go into the water again on Sunday, and based upon that, the earliest the commercial season could start is March 2."

Hear that Jerry??? 20 steelhead in the nets!!!