I just had a thought.

As of now the Quileute tribe fishes on a scedual rather than a quota, alowing them to harvest more fish. Maybe this is due to forgone opportunity already as the sport fishers havent harvested all or their alocation for a good numbers of years and the tribe fishes more in order to get the excess fish.

Even though portions of the Quileute System are CnR for wild steelhead the system is managed on a whole for harvest, both sport and tribal harvest. Harvest is the main goal for the system without a doubt as far as management goes.

Here is what got me thinkin.

Now that it is wild steelhead release for sport fisherman wihtout exception, our goal is not harvest. There is no way our alocation can be managed as a harvest fishery, can it? If our goal is not harvest how can excess fish be taken by another party when we want those fish for maximum angler opportunity?

Wasnt the Boldt decision and alocation set up with a harvest goal for tribal and non-tribal? What happens when we change our goal? This does not mean our intenet is to give the other party our alocation. I dont think the decision ever intended or made revisions for the possibility that one of the user groups changing how they use their alocation did it?

Can someone help me with this?

What I am saying it would not be the intenet of the decision to give our fish away when we have changed our goal and we want maximum opportunity instead of harvest. Am I wrong?

I give up...

Good luck in your battles fighting the tribes and commercials. My steelhead gear is officially retired and I will join you in your efforts to save our wild fish by supporting a total ban on sportfishing for steelhead and closing our hatcheries.

Nice, Bruce...

That's your justification for your above statements?

I'll be happy to have one more rock to stand on as I go out to happily fish for and harvest hatchery fish, releasing the natives.

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Come on, Lunch Time, I've known you for what? 15, 16 years? I know you're smart enough to come up with some type of justification for your above comments, rather than just say 'em...let's hear it!

Bruce I couldnt agree more!! A total Ban on steelhead fishing including C+R.

Hatcheries and C&R most certainly have a negative impact on our fish, so while you are out there killing wild fish I will have the peace of mind knowing that I am not part of the problem.

For all you guys that are going to quit fishing now, I need a couple of new reels...

y'all got anything you're willing to sell?? :p

CFM,

Nowhere does "opportunity" equal "must harvest fish"...and no one, not WDFW or anyone else, "brought in" wild steelhead...they've been bringin' themselves in long before there were people here to catch 'em.

Fish on...

Todd

I guess I will be buying my steelhead from now on.Its cheaper than fishing for them anyway.But Im kinda picky so no farm raised fish for me.I will be buying only tribal caught wild fish.Yum!! And it should be cheap with the amount of extra fish they will have.

Duroboat: It has always been cheaper to buy fish. For most of us this has little to do with gathering food to feed the family. If that was a goal we would all be better off selling the boats, rods, reels etc and buying chicken.

CFM: I think you know better than most that our WDFW has done a mighty poor job of protecting wild salmon and steelhead. Estimates vary but something like 50% or more of all native salmon and steelhead runs are extinct or endangered. I feel little reassurance when WDFW tells us a run is healthy enough for catch and kill. They all were once! Just because a run is not listed by the Feds doesn't mean WDFW should do nothing to protect it. In this case they did what many avid steelheaders were asking them to do. For once I am proud of them.

To whoever asked, what other group has asked to have their rights limited? I would answer bass fishermen. They were in the forefront of the C&R issue and look what it has done for them. With 6 million people in our state and more added every year we simply cannot continue to kill wild steelhead and expect anything except extinction.

Hee hee hee... I guess that makes Bob just like a bass fisherman...

Are you gonna change your name to "BUBBA BALL"

:p

CFM,

The attitude that "fish and game are there for us to harvest" and that "fishing opportunity means harvest" is what got us here in the first place.

Fishing restrictions, and harvest restrictions, exist on almost all fish and game, and there are numerous reasons, almost none of which include the ESA and the feds.

Did you make this same argument when the state went from 3 steelhead limit daily to 2 daily back in the 70's? I bet you did.

How about when the seasons got shorter and shorter to protect fish?

How about when steelhead were officially taken off of the directed non-tribal commercial harvest list? Commercials have just as much "right" as you do to harvest those fish. Were you arguing on their behalf?

Fish on...

Todd

WOW....that took a long time to read all the passionate exchanges on this subject. I'm especially glad to read Vedder's comments which I think are refreshingly to the point and on target. AuntyM , too, is on the same page I am on this. I do not have blind passion on this issue and have never retained a wild steelhead in my life. Not because I am holier than thou but because my steelheading has been pretty limited. I release most of the fish I catch and that numbers in the hundreds each year. I release in the water and have for a long time. I will use a net with special coating at the boat in the ocean if need be to subdue a fish for release.

I sincerely believe that alot of the passion for WSR has its roots in limiting participation in the sport. I have read enough posts about steelheading to see that when C&R goes into effect the crowds dramatically drop. Whether the passionate steelheaders admit it or not I think alot their hard work has roots in wanting to see "the good old days" again with less crowds , beer cans and garbage. Nothing wrong with that.

I think it is evident also that the commission is starting to bend so as not to look so blatantly pro-commercial. The hard work some of us do is also working. To those of us in the mix the cause and effect is obvious. To those on the outside looking at this process it might seem more ominous . I think that WDFW, NMFS, the commission, and especially the politicians are all trying to listen and respond to the new sports fishing community. I say new because we are finally starting to speak with almost one voice on issues. It is working and so now it is time to shift into high gear. C&R is the ticket to future opportunity whether we like it or not. WDFW is educating about it and fisheries are being offered that were not offere before.

To my firend Eddie I see your points and of course the 4 H's are the cornerstone of our state's Wild Salmonid Policy. No brainer there...Sure there are several culprits and harvest can be the most manageable.

I am staying focused on the commercial harvest right now because in light of the latest fiasco with WDFW and ODFW pleading for an exemption to NMFS to allow a tripling of mortality on wild fish while attempting to publicly support the current 2% limit there is a real need to expose what these folks are willing to do for commercial interests and for the tribes. For the tribes it is blackmail that keeps that going. The tribes threaten to sue and the state has to back down. They always lose and can't afford the litigation. Land owners went to court and successfully stopped the tribes from over stepping their rights under Rafeedie concernig shellfish harvest. We need to now focus both barrells on the outrage of killing the very fish we are going so far out of our way to protect in so many ways.

What sense does it make to any rational human being to spend billions of dollars and huge amounts of time to modify dams, enhance habitat, cut back on harvests and then lobby to allow a higher mortality level so more of the fish that we are going to all that trouble to save are killed? All in the name of providing a "viable" commercial fishing industry.

We are making some good progress but the knife is always ready to be plunged into our backs if we turn away too long.

Having it more to yourself is probably the real goal anyway.

Grandpa2, well said. What you stated is the basis for all my cynicisms.