Bruce, doesn't look like anyone is biting...

Maybe you should have been practicing CnR all this time...

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz Fish on! :p

Piper for the record I have never in my life killed a wild steelhead so before you cast stones maybe you should ask.

I wasn't looking for a bite. I am dead serious, I will continue to have zero impact on our fish. Fishing and hatcheries kill fish period!! How many wild fish have you killed Piper? My steelehad gear has been retired how about you?

I'm not biting either!

Yea, that's what I thought.

Smalma, your point is well taken about the wild salmon in my avatar. That is the last one that I killed, 7/24/98. It will be the last one I kill period, the genetic cargo of the wild salmon is as valuable as that of the wild steelhead.

However, I will not rise to your bait either. I am a fisherman, it is what I do, it is who I am. I will continue to practice fishing legally while at the same time having the least possible impact on the wild fish.

For the next two years (at least), we have a new reality in the management of the wild steelhead. I know that you do not agree with the Commisions' actions yet it has always appeared to me that you care deeply about the resource. Please set aside your disappointment of this decision and continue to work for the betterment of the resource.

Salmo, you are one edumacated dude, keep up the good work.
You often make the most sense, at times when everyone is at each others throat!

Thanks.
Steve

yes JF but now we can have proof that the problem lies elsware and not with us. so if this moritorium makes no difference in returns in a few years, we can get the WDFW Commission looking in the right direction and working on the next step in the stealhead survival ladder. we can show them proof with there own numbers, counts, reports, rules, laws, predictions, and the rest of there magic, that sportsmen are not the problem. once we are taken off the list of contributing factors, they will still have presure to fix the problem but there focus will be on habitat and commercial/native harvest. if all the problems are removed through trial and error one by one, that to me is far better than nothing at all. i am all for it.

I hope you're right. I truely do. However, if the runs don't improve, rather than looking at other factors, I believe the state will determine the C&R mortality rate is higher than expected and will just shut it down like they've done with the Puget Sound Rivers and many others.

Surecatch
How many nets are strung acrossed rivers in B.C compared to Washington? I really dont know, but I bet its alot less. maybe thats why C&R works there?

Hey Bruce,
I will show ya ha to Bass fish we will be ahead of the game when salmon and steelhead fishing is totally shut down to sporties In a few years. good for us in money tourneys.

Yes, Bassfishermen catch and release and it works great. But tribes dont net bass here now do they! And though it is legal to keep native Bass, we dont but at least we have that choice!

Hmmm to bad, If someone catches a state record steelhead they have to let it go.

I havent kept a wild steelhead in years. I just want to see them return in great numbers so we can all have a great time. But this is another step in the wrong direction.Or you can say in the wrong order. We took step two when step one has been skipped (BAN THE NETS)That has been proven in florida and california. It just takes sportfishermen one step closer to being computerfishermen.

hmmmmmm.....some good....some bad

I missed this post somehow, and obviously a scorching topic. I have no passionate feelings about the WSR regulation. It matters not to me one way or the other...as long as the fish numbers are not endangered, I don't have a problem with people keeping their catch. I release wild fish, but that's been my choice.
This "Sparkey's Law" thing, however, is very worrisome to me.
Todd pointed out..... It's the that I find totally unacceptable. The "may" in the above quote can surely be changed to "will", don't you think?

I DO understand the reasoning behind this concept, but I believe it to be poorly thought out. It does not sound like it will be easy for those who like to fish alone, does it?

And I am surprised that there hasn't been more said about this aspect.

And I want to add, "Thanks, Todd and Salmo G" for your considerate and informative posts...always an inspiration....even when I disagree.

Smalma sometimes you raise anecdotal oversimplification to an art form

Smalma sometimes you raise anecdotal oversimplification to an art form

Micro 101:

I do agree that we took our steps in the wrong order. Nets are totally unacceptable to me. (I donated my time and my $$ to the net ban initiative. I went door to door with petitions and I wrote in support of the ban whenever possible.) BUT . . . the nests are still there. Should we do nothing to solve the other problems simply because we cant' yet solve the net problem? I think not. Let's do what we can when we can.

As far as the lack of netting in B.C. rivers, unfortunately it is a problem in many. A huge chum net fishery in the Fraser hammers the Thompson River steelhead. There is also native and commercial netting in many other rivers, but I admit that I am not aware of much, if any targeting of steelhead. C&R will work if there is not an unacceptable level of pressure and if the other factors are not too bad. With many of our O.P. rivers C&R should work quite well. Some of those rives still have solid runs of wild fish in spite of netting and all the other problems. Those rivers may well become world-class destinations now.

SALAMA: How can you say that harvest is not an issue in declines of salmon and steelhead? Perhaps SPORTS harvest is not much of an issue, but how do you account for dramatic declines in rivers, like the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, Dosiwallips, etc. etc. Rivers with no dams, and relatively intact environments.

I still believe that every wild fish that we do not kill has a chance to spawn. 100% of the wild fish we kill do not.

After two years have gone by with no proof that Statewide C&R works, which is what will happen. Do you think WSC is going to admit that C&R does not work? No! They will continue to chomp away at our rights, they'll go for another 2 or maybe 4 years next time claiming that 2 years is not enough time. Mark my words on that folks!

Eddie/FishNg1 -
I owe you both an apology - it was unfair to single you both out on the those large salmon. As Eddie points out they were taken in legal seasons. I used you as examples of how folks often apply double standards between steelhead and salmon. I personally don't have any hard burn with the taking of those fish but then someone taking a wild steelhead from the Quilleyute doesn't give me heart burn either.

Eddie -
Yes I do care about the resource, in fact my passion for the wild salmonid resources of this state probably matches most on this site. And don't worry it isn't likely that I will drop out of these living debates anytime soon.

Am I disappointed with the commission ruling ? - no, I don't think so.

Surprised ? - no, as a long time observer of fish management issues in this state I have been expecting it.

Concerned ? - Yes, greatly. To my mind this split decision based on resource conservation issues sets a potentially very high standard for the managers and future decisions. That in itself is not a problem for me however I'm not sure how that would play with most of you. In addition I share the concern expressed by others that the portion of our steelhead productivity that historically support recreation fishing (whether bonking or CnR) will by default be used by competing interest; additional commerical fishing, another development, another clear cut or another dam.

Perhaps the above should be an item for a future dicussion.

Tight lines
S malma

Ahhhh, in the words of Martha Stuart " It's a good thing".

Ahhhh, in the words of Martha Stuart " It's a good thing".

I don't know much about WSC but as a casual observer without much backfground the organization seems to have been a single issue group. Now that WSR is a reality will the group focus on something else?

Grandpa,

THe WSC is nothing close to a one issue group.

There are many issues they are currently working on.

Dave -
What I said was: "In nearly every case where a population has been limited by harvest the population abundance rebounds when that harvest pressure is removed. " That doesn't mean that I don't feel that over harvest isn't a problem.

The situation of the Skagit bull trout illustrate my point in the above quote. When the amount of harvest was reduced (with the regulation changed that protected the fish through their first spawning) in 1990 the population responded very positively - a 10 fold increase in the number of spawners since. Harvest was limiting the population and it responded with increased abundance when harvest was reduced.

However contrast that with the situation with Puget Sound steelhead where there has been little or no improvement in run sizes in rivers that have been closed or had extremely limited wild fish harvest. An example would be the Snohomish wild winter steelhead where in spite of extremely low harvest impacts (less than 3.5% - commercial and recreational impacts combined) the fish continue to return at less than 0.5 fish per spawner in the parent brood year.

We see much the same thing in many of the chinook populations in Puget Sound where harvest rates (as I'm sure any salmon fisher can attest) have been greatly reduced without much postive response in escapements. An example would be the North Fork Nooksck spring chinook where reduced fishing and the use of a supplementation hatchery prgram has not increased the number of naturally produced chinook above a couple hundred fish. This is spite of the natural escapement increasing to thousands of fish (due to the supplemental fish).

In both of the above examples the popualtions clearly are being limited by factors other than harvest and harvest reductions have bought them little relief.

Tight lines
S malma