"If I know there is a potentially dangerous situation that I can avert BEFORE it happens, I'd be stupid not to take that action."

You should just quit fishing then!

In most cases where hatchery fish and wild fish co-exsist, isn't your view that hatchery fish "hurt" wild fish?

WoW What a thread...

I speak in absolutes because i believe in cutting through the BS..

For instance it's BS to say that because the tribes can kill wild fish that sport anglers should be able to... Who gets the very last one???

We have to have clean hands ourselves before we can even begin to ask the tribes for anything!! Otherwise we are being hypocritical...

in the winter on 1998-99 the Skagit had a return on over 11 thousand wild winter steelhead. now MSY says the river is supposed to have 6000???? Where is the science there????

WSC is right on decisions need to be based on science not politics... MSY is a political decision not a biological one...

while WDFW offered this ruling they stand ready to give commercial netters on the Columbia a huge impact allotment , close to 10% according to yesterdays newspaper, on wild winter steelhead in the lower columbia..
A local WDFW biologist says that an impact of 7% is enough to cause the extinction of wild winter runs on at least one river in Southwest Washington..

As for careing about sport fishing. I care on about sport fishing on every level imaginable.
It is my life everything in my life revolves around fishing.. There is nothing eles in my life PERIOD. I have no other hobbies or interests. I have no friends who are not also fishing buddies. My job is dependent on the future of sport fishing. Everything in my life without exception has directly to do with sport fishing..

here is a fact that is OBVIOUS to every other group of sportfishermen in the world!.... Healthy populations of self sustaining species are critical to the future of the sport...

Therefore whatever is good for wild fish is good for sport fishing... This regulation is great for wild steelhead and is therefore good for sport fishing..

Bruce,

I don't have a ton of time right now go into depth I will have more time tomorrow but the answer is sometimes they hurt and sometimes they don't have an negative impact. I know some systems where hatchery smolts are dumped into the system with no method for collecting them as adults and they are left to intermingle with wild fish. I would say that is a hurt. But there are others where they are so isolated by run timing and maturation timing and collection facilities where their impact is very minimal so why should we mess with those "good" hatcheries.

I won't go so far as to say that hatcheries help wild fish, but if someone can show me the science I wll gladly look at it and admit if I am wrong.

Would it surprise you that the HSRG found that the majority of the hatcheries they talked to didn't have stated goals or objectives like are called for in the WSP? Hatcheries and wild fish can exist together they just need to be done right.

JJ

Thank you JJ. If you would rather you can email me more info regarding this hatchery issue to nwcustomrods@hotmail.com, I would like to hear what you have to say in more detail.

I will look for some more things in the mail. Just so everyone know I am a VP in the WSC. Just thought full discloser was best.

JJ

Dave,
Just one question on the Yellowstone.After the near collapes of the fishery.I seem to remember that it was totally closed for a number of years to let the fish rebound.Before it opened to C&R.Am I mistaken on this?I was there afew years ago and remember reading something about it.

DB: I dont know if there was a complete closure on the Yellowstone or not. I do know its made a great comeback. Now they are concerned about a non native species someone introduces. I can't remember for sure, but think it may be lake trout. Life is never simple for a fisheries manager.

Dave,
Yes your right about the lake trout.When I was there you were required to keep them if you caught them.At least you were in the lake.

I think Eddie is right .The positions taken here are firmly entrenched and have been overstated ad nauseum. One misconception I would like to point out though...Some say that many who oppose WSR are opposed because the idea that if the indians get to keep wild steelhead then by God I can too....A similar confused view was repeatedly taken during the Ban All Nets campaign. So many people said they were not supporting the ban on nets because it would no apply to the tribes.

I think that WSR is but a small part of a complex effort to save wild fish in this state. I think that the fact that the tribes are not participants in solving the problem but appear to be a big part of the problem insults all of us working on solving the problem. We resent it. We are angry. We want the tribes to join the rest of the population in cooperating to save the runs of wild fish. We don't want to sit by and watch them slaughter 10s of thousands of wild steelhead every season. So far they are the benficiaries of every cut back sports fishing is slapped with. So it isn't that we want the same rights as the tribes it is that we want everyone to be on the same team working to save our wild fish. I believe that if all sports fishing was halted tomorrow on all waters the tribes would simply step in and net the hell out of what we left for them.

How can you have a WSR policy on all waters of the state and simultaneously advocate and plead for a three fold increase in wild steelhead mortality by commercial gill netters?
If it is wrong to kill wild steelhead for sports fishers why is it ok for gill netters?

Grandpa I agree I wish everyone was on the same page but the fact of the matter is we are not!!
I want to save wild steelhead at ALL costs PERIOD.. You don't.. You and I are not on the same page and we are both sport anglers who love our sport.
It's my contention for instance that given the overwhelming science that you cannot be against changing hatchery practices ( they aren't changing) and pro wild fish..
if you want hatcheries to continue to operate as they are then you are opposed to wild steelhead recovery.. Thoes two positions are as much opposed as black is opposed to white..

That statement is something you'd never agree with.. I have made very sincere attempts to bridge this gap by posting theoretical ideas of how to manage fisheries that are drastic compromises from my personal position and have always meed stiff resistance which soon turn to personal attacks. There seems to be no interest in compromise even among sport fishers..

right now there is a move among some sport anglers to complain to the commission about the decision they have made and to get all the catch and release season's closed.. They are not doing this out of concern about wild fish they are doing it out of spite and malice and hatred and revenge for getting the wild steelhead release regulations through..

We saw the same things in Vancouver 4 years ago at the comission meeting where we were all portrayed in a derogotory way by members of a couple prominent Washington fishing club as " left wing yuppie flyfishers"

The hostility coms from that side of the tracks not the WRS side..

WRS and CNR of wild fish is a very good thing for Washington state, the sport of fishing and for wild steelhead.. Someone finially turned on the light in Olympia. This is the best ( and only good) decision WDFW has made in years..

Grandpa your wrong I have talked with lots and lots of fishermen on the Penninsula who keep wild fish.. The attitude is very much " they do it so I should do it"


On the other hand Just yesterday I was talking with a local streamside landowner and bait fisherman.. last year from this stream he caught 40 wild steelhead and was happy releasing them all. In fact he made the statement " maybe someday there'll be enough wild fish they can do away with the hatchery."

Thats the mentality we should all have.. Thats the mentality that cares about wild steelhead...

Man, I go fishing for a couple of days and look at this monster when I get back! I don't have time to read all the posts, just read the first and last page. Don't think I want to read the middle - I want to stay happy about this. Do think I want to say I am wholeheartedly in favor of releasing all wild steelhead and always have been. Do want to say that what we should be getting PO'd about is the WDFW push to kill off the rest of the wild steelhead in the Columbia with commercial gillnets, and I hope our Commissioners put the squash on that one real soon. Do also want to say that if you want an example of wild fish release having a positive effect on a fishery just look at the Puget Sound cutthroat. Yeah, we still got nets in the water for steelhead, we also got degraded and rapidly degrading habitat that is causing more problems than you can imagine. But we as fishermen are no longer going to be part of the problem and for that we should be glad and proud. We can all now say that we don't kill them, and we can now in good conscience insist that others knock it off too

Havent logged in for a long time. This however, got my attention enough that I feel like posting.

First: Reading Comprehension 101- This seems to be lacking in a lot of responses. Read what individuals are saying. Read it a couple times. Bruce, a lot of your questions have been answered, yet you ask them again and again.

Second: Communication- Being an emotional topic, it makes it a bit harder to get across what one really intends to say. Take time to read what you are posting. There is nothing worse then weeding through posts of jibberish posts lacking facts.

Third: Thank you, thank you Smalma, Todd and Salmo G. Its not easy teaching about a subject that on the surface may seem cut and dry but at the heart, its insanely complex.

Now for my take on it, since you asked :p . A dead fish cant spawn. Plain and simple. Yes CnR can result in dead fish. But not like taking a fish and bonking it with a rock. The main fear here seems to be not if harvesting a fish is bad but will it encroach on our overall "rights" to fish.

Nets. Yes they do have impacts on runs. Agree or disagree with them, there are governing contracts that allow tribes etc. to harvest. Nets are another issue that are being dealt with on a continuing basis. More progress is needed.

The attitude " Dem bas**** are nettin all my fish, I want my fair share!"

Good attitude. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

"Well geez, if I cant harvest wild steelhead, and netters can, that just means they will get more and I wont be able to fish!"

Thats a narrow minded un-educated assumption. This new rule does not apply to being able to fish but what you can do when you do catch a fish. If there are more Wild steelhead, will netters harvest more? Maybe so. Then think about this a bit more. More fish in a river means more fish for both sides. We just cant kill our portion.

Finally, "CnR doesnt work. Steelhead populations are still declining".

Oh my! I would hate to think what fish populations would be like if CnR was NOT in effect. This is were it becomes a highly complicated issue. CnR is just a small portion of the big picture. You have water quality, growth and development of human populations, upper watershed habitat degradation, lower watershed habitat degradation, ocean netting river netting etc etc. You see, the amount of variables involved makes managing fish runs a very difficult science, far from perfect. (READ NEXT STATEMENT). Now with being said, we DO have factual, scientific information that allows us to make better decisions overall. We know that sportsmen harvest of Wild steelhead DOES have an impact on runs. WE know that CnR DOES have an impact on Wild steelhead runs BUT not near as much as catch and kill harvesting.

Keep in mind CnR is just ONE portion in this complicated science. Its a partial fix to helping maintain future fishing oppurtounitites. Yes there are other areas that need repair but we have to do what we can with what we have and do it when we can. Will this take away our so called "right to fish"? I know this for sure, low steelhead runs take away my "right to fish". Having more fish to spawn, decreases the chance of river closures.

Its good to see individuals so pationate about steelhead. Even on both sides.

Go out a fish! Enjoy the outdoors.

Later

P

This is nothing more than a fish grab by many of the members on this board. Your comments directed at me Phish, Todd and other members here just go to show me that I can not reasonably discuss this issue here.

You simply want more opportunity to kill fish with longer seasons. I won't participate in that mentality. Most of you have killed more fish than I have or ever will and you will continue to do so. It is time to divide and conquer. This is the most devisive issue that I've ever seen and it's time to realize that we are indeed divided. I'll see you CnR guys on the river and while you and the tribes are killing our wild fish, Myself and others will be standing next to you protesting and raising attention.


I'm outta here... have fun killing wild steelhead fellas.

Bruce im lost? Did you happen to read my whole post? It was not directly intended at you. If you read my whole post you would have noticed that I was trying to make an attempt to better the explanation given by Smalma, Todd and Salmo G. Im sorry if you took it as a complete personal attack against you. I brought up your name in particular because you keep restating a question to Todd that had been answered multiple times.

To have a reasonable conversation you need to understand it.

I want more to kill fish with longer seasons? And I have killed more fish then you ever have?

Where did you get that information? There is absolutely no facts in your statements at all. In fact im hurt that you would say such things. You do not know what I do for fish and others (including myselfs) fishing oppurtunities. I care greatly for the resource. Please I ask you, re-read my post. Read the entire thing. Try to get some bit of understanding on the issue.

Bruce, if you believe this ruling will lead to adverse effects on steelhead runs, please by all means, give me some scientific data/factual information to back up your claims. I am more then willing to hear different points of views on it. Just back it up! Emotions dont count!

Take care and good fishing to you Bruce,

P

Ok, I do apologize for my cocky response.

I'm still outta here.

Tight lines.

Duroboat 15,

(With thanks to Dave) No, the Yellowstone as an example is not grasping at straws. Harvested fish do not spawn, doesn't matter whether by hook or by net. If I recall correctly, there was no interruption in the Yellowstone fishery. I think it went from CNK in 1972 to CNR in 1973. What makes the example relevant is that both fishing and the fish population were limited by overharvest. Reducing the harvest was directly responsible for the rebound of the trout population.

Because of lower ocean survival, CNR may not result in an immediate rebound in wild steelhead runs, as Smalma has stressed. However, there will still be an immediate direct benefit to fishing. Every wild steelhead that remains in the river as a result of the new regulation will be available to be hooked and caught by another angler. That is a direct and immediate increase in angling opportunity if we define opportunity as the chance to fish water that actually contains fish.

Rob,

Gotta' give it to you, same as Micropterus, my friend. Your absolutes that cut through the BS are often opinion and not fact, and many of your facts are incorrect, I'm sorry to report. Your absolute and hostile attitude towards opinions you disagree with probably causes the personal attacks on you, even tho that doesn't serve anyones' interests either. If you'd separate your opinions from facts, and check to get your facts correct, your credibility here would soar. As it is, your passion is your best, and perhaps only positive attribute.

An example, you refer to the Skagit and the reduction in the escapement goal and ask where is the science. Well, the science is exactly the problem. Using MSH/MSY as the science-based management objective, you get more harvestable steelhead with the lower spawning escapement. Sorry. That's just how it works. Every fish population supports a larger harvest at lower escapements than it does at high, or maximum, escapements. I understand that it seems counter-intuitive, but that really is how it works. That is why I strongly encourage trying to shift WDFW's management objective to embrace the MSR concept. It favors larger fish populations, usually requires CNR, and includes a healthy buffer against management error.

Spawnout,

Where you fishin' guy? My yardstick showed every river I'd like to fish as still a bit too high, except a couple that are just too far for a one day drive. So I was fishing here on the BB like so many others.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Great post Bruce I think you it the nail on the head.Like I said earlier in this thread.The C&R guys have no problem with killing native fish as long as they get to keep fishing.And there is no dought they do have a impact on the wild fish.
Rob Allen just loves to tell people that they are stupid if they kill a native fish.Rob you need to take a good hard look in a mirror.
because C&R does kill some fish.A dead fish is a dead fish.Do you think by releasing a dead fish it will somehow come back to life to spawn? The only way to protect these fish is to stop fishing for them.If that means closing the rivers so be it.

Just for the pure simplicity and the fun of it, can we get back to that "George" analogy that was posted several hundred pages back somewhere by Micropterus?

I liked the analogy, but thought I would edit it a bit.


George is in the hospital, dying from a ruptured aorta. Instead of the hospital staff giving him a transfusion, someone sneaks in and withdraws a pint of his depleted blood supply.

Does that mean I should sneak in and hasten George's demise by doing the same thing?

Look what I missed by going fishing today. Eight pages of comment on Friday's decision by the commission to halt the kill of wild steelhead for 2 years. In my opinion, AND I WAS THERE, a truly great decision was passed after careful consideration and discussion.
The original motion was made by commissioner VanGytenbeek who observed that (close quote) "of the 16 rivers that the department said could sustain a 5 fish wild harvest 2 years ago, there are only 11 left today." He said that present regulations were obviously not working. His motion failed on a 4-4 vote. Commissioner Pelly offered a moratorium compromise which passed on a 5-3 vote.
Contrary to Mr. Bruce Pearson's repeated assertions, commissioner Shiosaki (T.U., fly fisherman, etc.) voted against both motions, asking for maximum harvest in both cases.
It bothers me that Mr. Pearson and others continue to assert that the commission action somehow subverted public process when, in fact, about 83 citizen proposals to stop the kill of wild steelhead statewide - in the last major regulation cycle - were ignored by WDF&W.
Mr. Pearson and others continue to dilute the issue by raising the issue of Native American treaty rights and commercial gillnetting which, in my opinion , should be a different thread.
Wild Fish Forever.