Jerry

WDFW Cindy LeFleur, says that the state's wild salmon/steelhead policy allows up to a 10 percent incidental harvest on runs not meeting spawning goals, so why did the Commission rule that there would be No harvest for 2 years of wild steelhead by sport fishers? They also said that "The science says this increase to 5 percent poses no additional risk to steelhead,''

http://www.columbian.com/02052004/sports/114914.html

If this is true why are the Commissioner's saying that the sport fisher must have a 2 year moratorium while the gill netters get an increase? If the Commission allows this to happen, fishermen should tell them where they can put their moratorium!

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

Or, we could use the moratorium, and our philosophy behind it, as reason WDFW should rescind their petition to increase incidental wild steelhead gillnet mortality. Heck, we should insist that the Commission require the gillnet fishery to decrease its incidental mortality to that of the recreational fishery, or suspend the gillnet fishery. Doesn't that seem equitable?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

If this policy results in that end result, I will estactic! However I believe thats a veiw looking through rose colored glass's. It's a gamble that I believe sport fisherman will lose.

Bruce,

What are we wagering? What do we lose?

Don't say hatcheries, and the end of sportfishing, because those things aren't going to happen.

So what is it?

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

I am still waiting to see if any of the attorneys who are members of BB will answer my question; were the commission action to make a 2 year statewide moratorium band decision made ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, and did they follow the polices and guide lines that are set forth in the WSP

(ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS - Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law.)

What were the "facts" or "science" that leads to their decision to invoke a 2 year moratorium on sport fishermen?

Cowlitzfisherman

I just want the nets gone too.

In the yellowstone and skagit harvest was not an issue after the catch and release regulations went onto effect.

In our case harvest still is an issue. Thats why Its my opinion that the yellowstone and skagit success stories have no bearing as an example to what may happen with are steelhead fishing now.

It remains to be seen just how much more or how much less the tribes will continue to take.

I have noticed that once we lose are privilages regarding fishing opportunity we rarely if ever get them back whether the outcome has been effective or not.

This still seems to me to be a do gooder law that does not address the main issues concerning fish survival. And as long as we avoid the main issues effecting fish survival our fisheries will suffer.

If proponets of this new law can rally and protest netting successfully on the basis of this new law that would be a miracle! But would be great.

In the past tribes have been offered fish directly from the hatcheries to keep them from netting the river. As a matter of fact they were offered the surplus hatchery fish on the bogey this season and declined. They still prefer to net. I guess its a traditional type thing or something like that. I cant see why they declined. The fish were nice bright fish.

Micropterus - I can see exactly why the tribes would not want excess steelhead from the hatcheries. Would you give up your fishing rights/privledges in exchange for excess hatchery salmon/steelhead? Me niether.

Ditto for the Tribal folks.

Although the idea of having no gill nets on the rivers may be appealing, it ain't gonna happen. At least with the Tribes. They've been using gill nets since time immemorial. And they'll be using them long after any of us are around.

Aunty

You correct that the "Commission has EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to consider proposals recommended by the public in addition to those recommended by WDFW staff.

It's when they take "action" that goes directly against the guidelines that are stated in the Wild Salmonid Policy that gets them into trouble! When they do that, it's my opinion that they have overstep their legal authority! It's pretty hard for them (the Commission) to make WDFW abide by the WSP, when they break the guide lines of the States only legal standards for salmon recovery.

Todd may not agree with me, but he knows what I am saying!

Answer: NMFS and the WSP!


Cowlitzfisherman

I'd love too!

http://www.gamefishin.com/gfboard/forum_posts.asp?TID=4870&PN=1

This is most excellent news, but it is a joke on one level:

2 years is not a long enough period of time to see the first returning adult, only jacks! So it seems that at least 3 years would be a far better number.....

Rob

Micro 101,

Harvest is nearly always an issue. But when does harvest result in over-harvest? Only when it occurs with gillnets? If you cannot look in the mirror and see that overharvest - period - regardless of gear type, is the important point, then you'll never understand how to manage and preserve a fish population.

During most of the 1990s it was allowable to kill wild steelhead on the Skagit up to March 15 each season. The Skagit tribes focused their steelhead gillnet fishery on the early running hatchery stock. At the end of each season, when the harvest analysis was complete, it turned out that the sport fishery was responsible for 80 to 90% of the wild steelhead harvested, not the gillnet fishery. So it doesn't work to allege that treaty gillnets alone are the problem with our steelhead stocks.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Maybe this question was addressed in some of the posts I have not had a chance to read yet.

If the new rule will require anglers to release any steelhead caught from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2006 that is not marked as a hatchery fish by a missing adipose fin and a healed scar, how will the Queets and Salmon Rivers work? On the Salmon they mark hatchery fish differently, something about a credit card sized ventral fin.

Thanks for any answers.

That's regulated by the National Parks Service, not the WDFW. Good question.
Check out: http://www.nps.gov/olym/regs/fishregsrivers.htm
It's also to my understanding that the dorsals become like that unintentionally, during captivity in the hatchery when the steelies are smolts. It's not a form of marking fish.

J.D

Brant, I fish the Salmon as well. At least in this years set of rules, they define a marked fish on the Salmon as one whose dorsal is less than 2 1/8" (I think thats the measurement). I do know that it is almost impossible to mistake a hatchery fish for a wild fish on that river because every hatchery fish I have caught has a deformed and stubby dorsal. My guess is that definition will stay until the Quinaults are forced to adipose clip all of their hatchery fish.

What was that word that you used? Did you say "harvest analysis"? The "tribes would never ever miss- report their figures now would they! Isn't this almost as good as " trust me"?

BTW eddie, like your signature!

CFM,
And sportmen would never not record their catch on their tags or poach fish. It is a two way street.

JJ

Micro, what do you call catching and keeping wild steelhead? I believe that falls under the harvest catagory.

By your statement, you should be in support of CnR. Even if its just sportsmen at the moment.

Again, with nets AND sportsman harvest, 2 wrongs dont make a right. Fix what you can, while you can, when you can.

P

Agreed, but those nets weren't always made of transparent monofiliment.
Mabye, like the Makahs initially used a harpoon to stick the whale for cerimonial reasons in the late 90's (before the cerimonial 50cal riffle was implimented), maybe the other tribes could go back to the original net materials. NOT.
(Soverign nation)
A gillnet ban whould be great. Ask a Floridian recreational sportfisherman what they think of the net ban in Florida back in '95.

J.D.