I just cant say anything to that besides wow thats what I thought. Anybody with half a brain can see you dont give a damn about sportsfishing after that response.

You guys just cant get it threw your thick heads and inflated ego's you havent done a single dang thing to actually save the fish until the nets are gone!

We have skip step 1 right to step 2!

Thats like giving george a blood transfusion without stitching his severed aorta! The nurse feels good, and when the doctor tells the family he completed a blood transfusion they feel relieved. But george is still bleeding to death dammit! Then when the doctor tell the family george died of global warming they will believe him!

Your all like broken tape recorders spitting out the same feel good nonsense over and over.

Fact: regulating the sports fishermen does not work.

Fact: getting rid of the nets does! Its proven!

Fact: the game wardens association is cringing right now because there workload just increased 10 fold and they know they wont be able to keep up with all the new state sponsored poachers!

Fact I havent kept a wild steelhead in years.

Fact: I just want our fish back!


Surecatch,

Your BC argument doesnt fly with me.
I have learned that the tribes in BC are much more heavily regulated. and there are rivers that you can keep nates in.

Also, I think many more fish will die. I have seen to many times people releasing fish after fish after fish with no regard of there survalbility. When it should be take your one or two fish and go home, people are killing many fish throughout the day catch and releasing.

Bruce,

As posted above, several times, the WSC has almost all aspects of steelhead management on its plate.

Since Jacob and Plunker decided not to answer these questions, will you? I don't remember seeing you at any of these meetings, either. What, exactly, are you doing to improve the plight of anadromous fish in this state?

BTW, Fred Shiosaki DID NOT vote for this proposal.

Fish on...

Todd

Aunty m,

Why the big change to the darkside? You have really changed in the last six months!
dont make me cut and paste your previous statements from the archives now.

Maybe they are working like me I cant get days off to go to meetings. I might be able too if I had two weeks notice but that rarely happens.

I do write letters and I have logged over a 1000 hours of volunteer time.

Smalma, apology taken. You don't have to worry about me having double standards, if we were restricted in taking of certain salmon species, I would abide by the law.
As far as my passions go, I just want more fish, plain and simple, I am not against hatcheries, and not against wild steelhead policies, just want more healthy fish.
When we tried to push the "BAN" iniative through, I was out there gathering signature and helping push that through, a quick peek in the archives will atest to that.
Like others have said, I have let more fish go than retained, actually I very rarely eat them. Usually they go to a family that doesn't have the means or chance to fish or a neighbor.
As far as that Avatar goes, if I had been required to release that fish.......it would have been released at the side of my boat. Therefore, I would have a really good story to exagerate now.....You should have seen that 78 pounder I had to release....

Steve
Steve

Rich

Like I said, I am neutral because I believe that we can have some limited harvest, and still have recovery of wild stocks at the same time. With that said, lets get back to the Commissioners moratorium.

The WSP went through a huge public comment process where every fisherman had ample opportunity to make his or her views known. The WSP even had to do an EIS before it became the states policy.

It would appear to me that this will end up just like WT did, and we all will be paying someone else's attorney fees because a few fishermen can "feel good" for a while. The Commissioners are no different then you or I, and they too must follow state laws and policies.

Their decision may be a noble one, but to me, legally, it was a foolish one to do. If they don't like the mandate of the states policy, they should try to change it, just like we must do to change the mandate of WDFW. You just can't make that kind of a ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS call when policy states otherwise.

There decision, as I read the WSP, was made arbitrary and capricious. It won't pass the straight face test in the court room.

I think this decision was only done to make some parties "feel good". It's only my opinion, so each of you must make up your own!


Cowlitzfisherman

On the contrary... you've got to clear a path to the door before you can open it...

Todd, I have always maintained that most groups such as WSC do indeed have some very good agendas and goals, however does that mean that I have to agree with everything you do?

The commission all along said that mandatory statewide C&R would not be considered in the 2004/2005 proposals and the rule change was not part of the published 2004/2005 proposals. This was a quiet behind the scenes deal. This rule change most likely would not have been passed had it gone through the public process. I was not given the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding this latest ruling. With this type of activity, I do tend to lose faith in the current process. Why even waste my time sending letters etc. when behind the scenes activities such as this ruling take place.

Thats like giving george a blood transfusion without stitching his severed aorta! The nurse feels good, and when the doctor tells the family he completed a blood transfusion they feel relieved. But george is still bleeding to death dammit! Then when the doctor tell the family george died of global warming they will believe him!


we will see Piper,

I still have some crow pie left over from last year. But I dont think I will be eating it any time soon. We shall see

Cowlitzfisherman -
I believe that the WSP was developed at the State legislature and the F&W commission adopt the current version of that policy to provide direction to the agency (WDFW). As such it is the Commission's policy so I guess they can modify when ever they see the need to provide additional direction to the agency.

Tight lines
Smalma

Cowlitz,

I dont think it was a feel good thing.

Policies are a guidline but are ment to change and evolve to the needs of the fish and the wants of the user groups.

Please Aunty... I didn't post on your thread... good greif. Now you assume that equates to a lack of involvment on my part.

Do you even realize how much time and effort I put into building a community for Anglers to have a forum for discussions and concerns, a place to get these issues out? I'm sure Bob knows. You don't have a clue how much time I commit to the promotion of our sport. "I didn't post in your thread, oh brother".

Yes aunty I am stubburn and pig headed, but I like you believe I am right.

I have not seen one shred of evidence that C&R will help anything at all till the nets are gone and people have been better educated on proper fish handling. I have seen way more fish killed by catch and release then catch and kill. I believe what I see and know from 25 years of fishing hardcore.

catch and release has increased 110% since the seventies yet fish populations continue to decline. What does that tell ya

I agree with everything you've said Rob

WOW, can't you just feel the love!!!PEACE

Bruce, Please get your facts straight in your posts.

Fact: 2 years ago statewide release for wild steelhead, no exception was very narrowly voted against 5-4.

Fact: Approximately fourty requests were made this year for input into the rules proposal to WDFW requesting for wild steelhead release, statewide, no exceptions and they choose not to include in the rule proposal for consideration by the Commission. The Commission as a right to make amendments.

Fact: Commissioner Shiosaki voted against it.

Fact: It was Commissioner Pelly who motioned a five year moratorium and Commissioner Cahill amended the motion to two years. Not the WSC.

Fact: The WSC is more than a single focus group here is the website where the mission statement and action plan reside, they have nothing to hide: http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com/
The WSC is simply an organization that cuts accross the cloth of steelhead fisherman and is dedicated to increasing the return of wild steelhead to the waters and rivers of the Pacific NW. They also sponsor a bi yearly steelhead summit with many diverse groups sending represtitives to work on issue on behalf of steelhead.

Last: For what it's worth-An Opinion, Before anyone thinks that doing without the Commission is in your best interest please think again what the alternative would be.
And the cutting off your nose in spite your face and if I can't have mine you can't have yours mentality is not going benefit anyone. Let's tell the commission good job and move on to get involved on the other important issues regarding wild steelhead

My facts are straight Double Haul.

Gotta say I find all of this really interesting.

As an angler who is passionate about wild steelhead, and who has been active in this issue from the time it was first brought to the forefront, I know this is true:Most of the pro and con I'm seeing here has been nothing new or unexpected.


Science here, emotion there...what are we really talking about?...

(I think I need to review this just to keep things in perspective.)

...Four river systems, that's what.

Four river systems out of the dozens in Washington State that historically supported steelhead. They supposedly have "healthy" runs of wild steelhead. Sport anglers have been allowed to kill wild fish because the state claims there are "enough" to allow this. Tribes net the wild fish heavily in all 4 systems, which makes management of wild fish for sport purposes infinitely more complex than it is in comparable wild steelhead fisheries that are nearly all managed for catch and release only.

Via this decision, sports anglers on those 4 systems will be required to release all wild steelhead as they already are required to do in virtually all of the other streams in Washington.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the driving motivator among sports anglers who support the decision is to allow more fish to spawn, thereby increasing the possible returns in future generations of fish, thereby allowing better angling opportunities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of those who don't support the decision mainly do so because of the tribal harvest. As stated many times here "I PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER KILLED A WILD STEELHEAD, BUT..."

The fact is that there is very little either side can say or do that will affect opposing opinions. The never ending debate for the past 10-15 years will not be ended here.

And I must admit to a rather "hollow feeling" reading many of the past 150 or so posts. God, we can't ALL be right, can we? Emotions run high, but why the attacks? In the end, aren't we all on the same "side"?


These are some of the things, based on my humble opinion, that are true regarding this issue:

1) It is a great thrill to catch wild steelhead. More and bigger is even better. I want the opportunity to catch more of them.

2) I don't know what a "healthy" number of wild steelhead in a system is. No data I have seen has convinced me of this nebulous number.

3) If I kill a wild fish, it will not spawn. Less spawners= less juveniles= less potential return. Multiply this by the thousands of other anglers on these systems. Yeah, I know, carrying capacity, yada, yada, yada.

3) Comparing those 4 systems in question with others does not work very well because of the multi-faceted complexities of each specific situation. If they were comparable to the other streams even in our own state, we wouldn't have many fish left in these 4 systems in question either.

4) The reasons there are some fish left in these systems are habitat related, and can pretty much be summed up as location, water supply, and Olympic National Park.

5) Tribes will continue to harvest wild steelhead, and if by some insane policy they are able to harvest "our" share, then our worst fears will be realized.


I have questions that some of the experts out there will hopefully be able to help me out with:

1) Has fisheries science recently advanced to the point where managers really have a handle on wild fish management yet? Look at the record.

2) Is there really something that can be done to address the "foregone opportunity" thing?

and mostly

3) Why are so many apparently so afraid to try, just to try, to save a piece of what we have left?


I, for one, am willing to try.

The two biggest impacts on wild Steelhead are Environmental and Tribal netting. I am all for 100% C&R on native Steelhead but telling a sportfisherman to C&R and in the same breath telling a Tribal member to throw in his nets is Anal! I also agree that this is a very very small step in the right direction but until we all have to abide by the same laws in this country I don't see this really helping. It's 2004 people should NOT have special rights because of color or heritage! We should all be treated equal. Telling one man he can and another he can't is just plain wrong. It's time for this to change! The state and fedaral goverment need to get some balls!!