Jaydee - A gillnet ban for non-tribal commercial fishmen is very possible. But banning tribal gillnets can only be done by the tribes. If they choose to use a different type of fishing gear, the nets will be gone. But don't hold your breath.

Believe me cohoangler, I'm not. But like you said, it's a wonderful thought anyway.

Phish

I hate to tell you, but your kind of logic is what got us where we are now!

That analogy will never ever work!

CFM,

I know that 85% (I believe that is what one of their biologist told me last week) of people don't send in their cards and that is what extrapilate from and that is what they take into account as unreported fish. Not exactly the same as under reporting fish. And they don't and won't take into account poaching which is also an issue. They even admit that there numbers are flawed but they are the only numbers we have to go on just like the Tribe numbers are flawed but again that is what we have to go on.

There is a lot of hand waving going on both sides is the thing that should be taken from this.

JJ

So how about this, close all rivers after January31 to let all wild fish in all rivers deal with only the commercial pressure, and we as people that say we care about wild fish hit the streets and try to curve public demand for an endangered public resource.

So say that we close the C&R fisheries and everybody is giving up a little something. Is that out of the question? Or can everyone sacrifice for the good of the sport.

I'm just curious of how many people think this could make a difference, or if asking them to sacrifice is just out of the question.

Cohoangler and JayDee
You guys might find some interesting reading on this linc.
www.msaj.com/papers/commfish.htm
I found in there where the State made the tribes start using gill nets.Because there normal method killed to many fish.

So after 9 pages of wrangling I am having trouble coming to a conclusion.

Some say that their way is the only way and if you don't agree you aren't worth talking to.

Some say we shouldn't stop catching wild steelhead as long as the tribes keep killing them and some say we should quit keeping wild steelhead and turn a blind eye to the tribes harvest of those same wild fish.

Some say SUE!!!

Personally I think there is a bit of "in your face" in the commission's decision directed at WDFW for their embarassing end run asking for a tripling of ESA listed fish mortality.

No matter who ends up being right and who ends up being wrong I think we can count on changes to come that we will argue about.

I think you are right Grandpa.

Change has been forced and there will be much change. This is a 180 from current management and the entire idea as the book has been written in Washington State.

We will have much discussion about this and the change in management that comes.

CFM,

WDFW estimates the steelhead harvest from punch cards not turned in, based on those cards that are turned in and creel census information - which there isn't much of anymore. The method doesn't make an estimate of harvest that never gets punched, whether the card is turned in or not. So the point that under-reporting of both the tribal catch and sports catch is true. As you might expect, the sports fishermen contend that the tribes are worse violators, and wouldn't ya' know, the tribes contend that sportsmen are worse violators. Thus far, that has been a stand off that neither have the resources or will to reconcile.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

so its goning to be c&r for wild fish so why dont they close it down on feb 28 like they do on the sky and snoqualmie????? wouldnt that make more sence then trying to figure out how many fish die from c&r

Yep, shut it down. If you really gave a rip about the fish, that would be the thing to do.

I have found this thread really interesting. I didn't grow up in steelhead country, and learned fish for them after I turned about 30. the guy who taught me was (still is) a nate bonker. And he's still a friend I'd fish with. I'll admit that I bonked all nates til 3 years ago when I found this forum.

I'll put out a personal "THANK YOU" to Smalma, Salmo g, Vedder and Todd for putting out really well reasoned posts - and not flaming too badly after being flamed. It's guys like you - who know a LOT more about these things than I do - that really make this forum worthwhile. And I appreciate CFM for being so passionate but backing it up with data..... Where do you get it all?

I don't post much, because I don't have a lot to contribute sometimes. But I'll tell you this, I never thought I'd get such joy out of releasing native steelhead. I always thought they were meant for the grill, but watching them swim away really is the coolest.

You won't see me post "nate killers are scum" entries, because if it's legal I think it's still a matter of personal ethics. (not unlike the fact that I don't happen to think that hunting deer with a 300 super ultra maxi mag plus is all that chalenging. I's still legal and if you hunt that way, so be it.) Personaly, I don't mind the moratorium.... but I sure wish we could get the nets out of the water. I suspect (just my guess) that getting the nets out would do more god than this moratorium.

Anyway, to those of you that are able to actually debate in a reasoned way, I salute you. You really help the guys like me think through these issues.

Anybody know a good spot I can go CnR a few nates?????

Some stuff from the boldt decision. Please understand we have got to get rid of the nets first. This regulation only covers a few rivers. It is not the big victory the purist claim it is for sportsfishermen. The rest have already been C&R yet nothing has changed except that we are loosing more privilages. This was just a victory for people that prefer to Catch & Release and want evrybody else to fish the way they do. As long as there are harvestable fish the indians will have the right to fish for them whether we partake in are privilages or not.

[*403] 32. In order for regulations not to discriminate against treaty Indians, the Department of Fisheries' harvesting plan must provide for an opportunity for treaty Indians to take, at their off-reservation usual and accustomed fishing places, a share of the harvestable fish as set forth in the Final Decision, pages 342-343.

notice it says harvestable fish, not does not distinguish between native or non native.

. Regulation of off-reservation Indian treaty fishing by the United States, the State, or the Plaintiff tribes does not preempt the regulation by any of the other two. Jurisdiction of each entity to regulate is unimpaired by the exercise of another entity's regulatory jurisdiction. With respect to matters over which there may be multiple jurisdiction, the extent of exercise or non-exercise of regulatory jurisdiction by the entity having primary interest [**252] in the matter may be relevant to the appropriateness of another entity's exercise of its jurisdiction. Also the exercise of federal or tribal regulatory control may affect the finding of "necessity" which is required for the validity of any state exercise of its police power to preserve the resource .

The state cant show necessity to preserve the resource when they have already showed scientifically there are harvestable amounts of wild steelhead. Even if they could show necessity for wild stocks there is no distinction between native fish and hatchery fish in the Boldt decision!

I am not done yet I just got into the interesting parts! But its getting early in the morning and I gots to go to work later.

CFM,

You're right about that. But that's not the unestimated catch. It's those anglers who catch fish, slide them under the floorboards or stash them at bank access sites to be picked up later, instead of into the fish box and don't punch their punch cards. So if censused, they show up as zeros in the creel check survey, and are part of the sample of anglers/boats/cars on the river, and serve to underestimate total sport catch. The result is that WDFW's catch estimation method does not extrapolate to include all fish harvested. The upshot is that we don't know what the total treaty or non-treaty harvests really are. What we have is an "index" of harvest, based on reported catch and catch estimates based on data. The rest may never be known.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Rumor has it that the hoh tribe petitioned for more fish and were granted them..

I'm trying to get more info regarding this now.

No surprise there Bruce not alot pressure on that river this year

Thanks YBNORML, I'm hoping to be at the meeting tomorrow. Will you be there?

I hope its getting clearer that the state doesnt have a leg to stand on. Especially when they cant even count on the sportfishermen to keep there privilages, at least the state could fight for our 50% and slow the tribes down.The state is losing there bargaining power along with are privilages. I know its getting more complicated now but try to think really hard and go read the boldt decision thoroughly!

So Wild Steelhead stocks are in trouble in most rivers in Washington, do we agree on this?
I think the answer is yes.

So then I see folks here applauding a C&R state wide fishery where there is a mortality rate. Is the loss of fish due to C&R mortality acceptable or do you think a complete closure is a better idea?

You'll always have poachers that will get their fish anyway. Enforcement would be a lot easier with a total closure, I'm sure of this.

It almost seems that this was pushed through by a few special interest groups with their own agenda in mind and not the fish. If we really care about the fish shut it down and give them a real chance. No doubt this will hurt some communities and guides and that's not good, but sacrifices have to be made.

Please enlighten me if I'm off base here, but this is how I see it.