Are you for or against the new 2 year wild steelhead moritorium

I dont know which way to vote...

Is it yes you are for it or yes you are against it...

I'm assuming it is yes you are for it???

In an unexpected move, Todd of the WSC votes that he supports the moratorium and thinks wild steelhead need help to recover.

YES
AND
YES

Unfortunately, poll questions are often very limiting in explanation.

But...YES and YES.

As to "need our help", that may entail simply leaving them alone and letting them do their thing..and that would include the complete cessation of Native Fisheries for them, as well.

I find it difficult to understand that (some) those peoples who historically have had a spiritual connection to the land and sea and mother nature are the ones most guilty (currently) of raping her bounty.

I hate to paint with such a broad brush, therefore more specifically there are individuals, most likely a very small percentage, within the native tribes that are causing the problems, and the tribal councils don't have the juevos (or perhaps legal authority?) to make them stop.

The tribes need (read: MUST) be pressured into passing their own, biologically sound laws and then enforcing them. Without that I believe the wild stocks won't recover.

Mike

Yes means yes(You are for the moritorium) and yes means you think the fish need help to recover.

Gland to see 100% for recovery!

YES I am totally for the end of wild steelhead sport harvest.. I can think of no good reason to be against it..

Yes wild steelhead need help. however less help than some people want to give..

the help needs to consist of

1, not getting harvested

2, reproductive isolation

3, rearing habitat not inundated by hatchery fish

4. access to blocked spawning habitat..

1 vote that steelhead do NOT need help. Might I ask who did this and why?

While I'm for HELPing the wild fish, I am adamantly OPPOSED to nearly anything that divides the sporting groups. If you hunt with hounds, flyfish or baitfish, gun or bowhunt or whatever we need to stick together first and foremost! DIVIDED WE WILL FALL!
Remember, PETA and HSUS are watching and we are letting them lead us down the path of our own destruction.
Don't misunderstand me. I want as many wild fish as possible, but I want to be able to take my kids fishing in the future also.
My wish would have been in order to retain a wild fish you would need a tag (like a deer or elk tag) with all proceeds earmarked for wild fish recovery programs. That is more of a win-win situation for all sportsmen.

I'm against the wild fish ban! Every river in the state besides the northern coastal rivers already has a no wild fish retention. From what I have heard and read on the coastal rivers, the wild fish have been doing quit well. I believe that most people that fish the coastal rivers already catch and release most of the time anyway. I know that nothing really can be done to fix the real problem (INDIAN GILL NETS). I am just a firm believer that stopping the sport fisherman from keeping a wild fish every now and than isn't really going to help. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhansing the wild fish populations. I just don't think this will help. It will only allow the indians to net more WILD FISH!!!

what Fishmaster said

Who did what Fj15?

Even though Im not a WA resident Im all for the moratorium. There is no need to kill a wild steelhead when there are plenty of hatchery fish to be had.

The fish need help to recover. I dont know what the regs are regarding trout fishing in the rivers. Many smolts are killed by people who think they are trout. Oregon pretty much stopped trout fishing in streams that have steelhead and the numbers of fish increased big time.

Another thing is the tribal netters. Get then out of the rivers and the fish will make a huge comeback. It just blows me away that anyone, Native American or not can and will net in a river. You would think that there is some way to stop the nets.

I found it rather interesting that many of the folks for the moratorium are all holding pictures of big fish - OUT OF THE WATER - which is now illegal. I cannot wait to bust some of you guys with my camera and see you prosecuted by your own law. Be sure to smile for the picture boys! It is going to F&W and will be plastered all over the web.

Guess that offers a hint on what I think of this knee jerk, feel good decision. If a fishery will support a harvest, then it should be allowed. If numbers decline, reduce the harvest. Allowing fisherman 2 or 3 wild ones a year would have been better than a total cut off since it would have allowed an occasional kill. Emotion - not science - won out. I wouldnt be proud of what was 'accomplished'. The guiding industry will take a serious hit now. All the ex loggers turned guides will have you to thank for being unemployed.

Glad to see you are becoming involved. :p

Matt ... I find your comments on the impact on the guide industry interesting as I've never allowed any to harvest these fish on my boat and if you want a peak date on my boat you'd better book 6-8 months or more out.

??????????

Matt,

Chill out bud...

The harvest moratorium and not taking fish out of the water regulation are two different laws...the not taking fish out of the water reg isn't that useful, in my book, but it has nothing to do with this thread. Since you don't support the moratorium, would it be appropriate for me to say "I can't wait to take pictures of you killing wild fish so you can get busted?" I'm guessing not...

Perhaps this is a bit obvious, but the avatar photos are older pics, and the law hasn't even taken effect yet.

Two years ago the limit on wild fish went down from 30 to 5...and wild fish harvest has continued to go up on the OP rivers. If going from 30 to 5 didn't reduce harvest, why would going from 5 to 3?

The fishing guides will not go out of business. Several of them that fish the OP don't allow the kill of wild fish in their boats, already, and they're just as booked as anyone else.

The rest of the guides in the state, the other 85% or so, already can't keep natives in their boats.

The biggest difference for the handful of guides who encourage wild fish harvest in their boats on the OP is that they'll have to save their eggs from salmon and hatchery steelhead seasons...no more fresh wild steelhead eggs for bait.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

We always hold each others feet to the fire! And that is a good thing!

So with that said, how do you support you assertion that "The biggest difference for the handful of guides who encourage wild fish harvest in their boats on the OP is that they'll have to save their eggs from salmon and hatchery steelhead seasons...no more fresh wild steelhead eggs for bait."

How many is a hand full? And how many do not practice this?

I was once a state licensed guide for over 11 years, so I would want to know how someone would proclaim that if they did not have the "proof" ... how would they know? I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am just saying; how do you know that for a fact?

Since I do not fish those rivers, I do not understand how anyone could make that assertion without proof (fact)? What facts to you have or know of to support your assertions?

I am not trying to put the screws to you; I just want to know how you are developing that information. I think that as an attorney, you know the rule of making an "accusation" without proof.

Is that really what some of those guides are doing now? If so, why do the "other guides" tolerate their actions?

I have never been with, or met with "Bob", so I am asking a very reasonable question.

Isn't this the only real place that we have a trace of real wild steelhead left? Is that what "guiding" is about to some guides in these areas?

Some day I hope to meet Bob, and tell him how much his board as benefited the sporting fishermen of our State. He has my highest regards as a true "guide"


Cowlitzfisherman

I saw 1, now 3, people that voted that wild steelhead need no help at all. I was just wondering what their opinion as to why wild steelhead need no help is.

A "handfull" is an intentionally undefined amount, mainly because I don't know the exact numbers.

What I was getting at was that of all the fishing guides in the entire state who fish for steelhead, only the guides on the OP who allow CnK on their boats will be affected.

I figured that compared to all the rest of the guides in the state, that number would be about a "handfull".

Everywhere else where guides and their clients can't keep wild fish, the guides have no problem booking clients. Why the big fear that the "handfull" that do allow it are now going to go out of business. It's BS, is what it is. Not only will they lose little or no business now, think of how much more they'll get as the runs improve.

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Still waiting for your response to the answers I gave you for your questions reagarding the mix-stock fisheries, and others...

I think that as a group, there are a lot of knots!

Have one for me

Fish on...

Todd

Bob
I was thinking of addressing your case in my post - but I didnt. I havent ever fished with you. I am sure you are a nice fella, but I havent wanted to joing you on the river precisely because of your views on C&R. I am not a club wielding neanderthal, but I like knowing when I put the fish back in the water it is my choice to do so, not because my guide would have an issue if I didnt. I am pretty certain your clients are most all of the same mindset. I agree, you will not be affected. But it is selfish of you to imply that none of the other guides on the river will be affected. I know I will not be back next year, and will focus on rivers elsewhere. Want to say I am a special case and not representative? Go right ahead. I know how I feel, and I suspect I am not alone.

Todd
It is a shame you missed the point about the taking of photographs. Let me do a better job of explaining the irony and farce. Obviously many on this board are keen to pose and take pictures of big fish. Well, so along comes a law that instantly means your views are outdated and obsolete. You are now a neanderthal for having posed with a fish, gasping and sucking air instead of water. Suddenly, what you thought was okay isnt. Suddenly, you have become a harmer of fish.

In your post you dismissed the new stay in the water law as being not that useful. Hello. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean you dont think it applies to you, or do you simply mean you dont think it will make a difference. If the latter, how can you say that? Arent all new restricive fish laws good laws by definition? Careful with your answer here. It has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.


You said 'If going from 30 to 5 didn't reduce harvest, why would going from 5 to 3'? If what you say is true, then going from three to zero wont make any difference either will it?

You said 'The rest of the guides in the state, the other 85% or so, already can't keep natives in their boats.' We arent talking about the rest of the crappy rivers in this state. We are talking about the good ones that have strong enough returns to support a harvest, and should continue to do so as long as the numbers support some level of it.

I think this is very very bad. Dont ask me or expect me to chill when I am pissed. I am being honest - not disrespectful.

Well, there is one group that is going to go away, and that is the bubbas out on the OP that catch and kill way more than their 5 wild steelhead allowed per year, using creative methods like picking up an extra catch record card when they accidentally "lose" thiers, filling their first card with salmon and getting a second or third with, how about that, a whole clean slate of steelheard spaces on it just begging to be filled with the obligatory 5 wild fish and then be "lost" before it's time to turn it in, and being forgetful of things like pens, or pens that work, or who have an inability to figure out how to write in the rain with a pen, you know, all the sorry excuses for not dropping everything and punching that fish. Good riddence to you bubba - now if you have an adipose clip on a steelhead anywhere in the state you better be carrying a fresh receipt from your local tribal member - oh yeah, another creative idea, crap, should have kept that one under wraps, now there will be a run on receipt books, doh

Matt ... I'd say it's about a 50-50 split from what I've seen in the guide crew here. Many feel it didn't go far enough and want to see the elimination of bait in the fishery.

You mention all the other crappy rivers ... how do you suppose many of them go to where they are now?

Healthy? Who says so?

Over 90% of the streams that were "healthy" in this state 20 years ago no longer are ...

Might last year's big drop in fish #'s here been the start of our decline?

Has the Hoh not had total sports closures in recent years already??

Where are the early season wild fish? Have you heard of Snider Creek brood program, the reason it exists is to try to keep early numbers going to some degree.

I'd be lying if I was disappointed with your remarks of fishing elsewhere. Many of us have grown tired of seeing the harvest continue on these fish as we've become one of the few places to retain them and have watched the people looking to kill them follow them here.

Surprising enough, much of the support for this amongst local guides comes from some of the oldest ... they know what we once had and can see the writing on the wall if we don't act now.

You known Spwanout......even the best of us screw up once in a while!

People sometimes do forget to punch out a fish on their card and the sky shouldn't fall down on them when it happens! I guided for 11 years, an yes, a couple of time I forgot to punch out my cards too.

Not everybody screws up intentionally!

Cowlitzfisherman

Matt,

I've heard from some of the folks who proposed the new fish handling rule. It is intended to stop people from dragging fish up on the bank, having them flop around in the sand, and then get kicked back in the river.

There's no way to stop that via rule other than do it the way they did, and doing it the way they did also stops people who treat fish well for pictures, which I think is about 90% of the people.

Will the rule help? Maybe, maybe not. As I've noted before, it still doesn't prevent people from sticking their hands in the fish's gills, or standing on the fish's head in two inches of water to yank the hook out.

I'd say it's overinclusive, in that it prohibits too much perfectly safe behavior, and that it's underinclusive in that it doesn't address a lot of the problem it's meant to address.

Holding a fish out of the water doesn't harm a fish, whether a regulation says you can do it or not. It does, however, make it against the law.

Of course it applies to me, and to everyone else, and I'll make sure I comply.

Now, besides wild fish flopping on the ground before release, wild fish face an additional problem.

That problem is the application of sticks and rocks upside their heads.

1. biologically speaking, the more that spawn the better.
2. economically, it makes more sense to have longer seasons and more fishing days, both of which are possible with WSR.
3. politically it makes sense, we have credibility to ask for concessions from other stakeholders.

The problem is wild fish being harvested...the solution is stop harvesting them. There is no balancing act to make, it's a winner all the way around.

This is an example of a regulation that does exactly what it is meant to do.

No, they're not. Ones that address problems that need to be addressed are good rules. Ones that don't, aren't.

It certainly will...there's no fudge factor with zero. If a gamie sees you with a wild fish, how does he know if you're on your first, fifth, or twentieth? How does he know you've been good and accurate about filling in your catch record card? He doesn't.

If the limit is zero, it's pretty simple. You have a wild fish, you're busted. No fudge factor, no judgment call, no room to cheat.

They're still not going to lose any $$ over it, or bookings. In the long run they'll have more fish to fish over, which can only help business. The point about other guides elsewhere not being able to keep wild fish was to point out that it hasn't hurt their business, so why should it hurt the few guys out on the OP?

If you're worried about them going out of business, why would you insist that you're not going out there anymore? Are you just not going to fish in the spring anymore? Why would you concentrate on rivers elsewhere? You've been told, not chosen, that you can't keep wild fish there, either. What's the difference?

Fish on...

Todd

Spawnout has a very valid point ... and as you mentioned CFM .. it's not about the people that "forget" to punch one ... it happens, as I well know

What I'm referring to is the crowd that is killing dozens and dozens of fish a piece a year .. there are many that fit that bill. Many fish off private property so it's harder to get checked ...

Sorry if I come off as brash Matt ... but I'm frustrated by hearing from people that don't even live with 100 miles of these streams telling me how "healthy" they are. Spend a few thousand days on these streams over the last 15 years and live on their banks and see what really goes on and it might change your point of view ...

Todd, Bob, Spawnout:

Not too long ago all the north sound rivers were supposed to have runs healthy enough for harvest. Oops, I guess not. Nearly every river west of the Cascades was supposedly able to support harvest. Not any more. So now when I'm told that we have a small handfull of rivers that can still support harvest I'm a little skeptical.

Bob
Thanks for your thoughts. You are probably correct that I have not seen the decline through your eyes. But the two new laws together are a double hit, and remove the incentive for me - I see little point in travelling all the way to Forks so I can hook a big fish, and I cannot even take his picture, let alone decide this might be the one fish I chose to take for the year. By concentrating on other rivers I am referring to Canadian waters, which I won't name.

Some said that this will solve the poaching problem. Poachers dont care about laws fellas. Only honest people will be affected by this. A better solution would have been to go to 2-3 fish per year on a card. Or one fish, whatever. Punch card problems? Solve the problem - dont issue new cards. Poaching problem? Throw the book at them. I havent seen any river wardens on the drifts. Maybe there is a clue.

All this moritorium does is put a temporary band - aid on bigger problems... such as poaching and educating the public. The wardens are just not there because the $ is not there to have them out there all the time. To many times I see the poaching problems try to be solved by just shutting down river systems or cutting back seasons on which we all spend lots of money so we can fish. I am not totally against not keeping wild steelhead...but come on, a little education on fish handling will go a long way for some 10 year old kid to get a picture with a 20 lb. steelhead!!!

Matt T. - Welcome to this BB.

For someone with a total of three posts on this BB you certainly have strong opinions. Nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of folks who will agree and disagree with your views. I'm not suggesting that having an open disagreement with the owner/operator of this BB is a bad thing; but it never hurts to listen.

For what it's worth, there are some rivers in the State that might be able to withstand additional fishing pressure on wild steelhead. However the biological risks are simply too great. As any angler knows, WDFW doesn't have the ability to monitor and regulate angling harvest on all rivers all the time. It's too easy for a river to get overharvested quickly, particularly with the increase in angling pressure the State has experienced over the past 10-15 years. Todd has summarized much of that discussion already so I won't repeat it. Suffice to say, I agree.

And I'll do ya one better. If I'm lucky enough to land a wild Chinook or coho salmon this year in Oregon or Washington, I'll release all of those as well.

So Marsha, the idea of driving more anglers off the river is appealing to you?

I wouldn't blame them if that's the case.

I am totally for 100% recovery for wild steelhead.Maybe we should all get together right now and go to the chehalis river in aberdeen and see if the quinault tribe is totally for 100% recovery for wild steelhead while they are netting there 5 days a week.Maybe if the indians still run the show for the wfdw 10 years from now we will be creating even more moritoriums and the sport fisherman will still only be doing their part. Sorry for being so harsh but when i see and hear everyone talk about this issue in trying to recover wild fish and i drive by the chehalis and see them netting it just pisses me off. i mean come on! Is the big hatchery run to all the tributaries of the chehalis going on right now? Yeah, thats what i thought!!!!

biglarfishin- Don't buy it, two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, there is a big hatchery run going in the name of brood stock programs on the Satsop, Wynoochee and a hatchery run in the Skookumchuck. There in lies the crux of the problem, the tribe is practicing their treaty rights to 1/2 of those late returning hatchery fish at the detriment of the wild steelhead currently in the system.

Double Haul

'For someone with a total of three posts on this BB you certainly have strong opinions. '

Yup. I suppose if I made hundreds of posts and thereby became a real fish instead of a little bitty egg (I gotta go hurl now) and learned to use the little smiley things that clink beer glasses together I will seem far more likeable and perhaps even blend in. But it wasnt my intent to fit in here. I wanted to express my opinion here because I know many who lurk here had a hand in what happened. They deserve straight talk from me and anyone else who wants to speak up. I dont mince words - I talk straight about what is on my mind - no games. But I am not a troll. I wont be back, since little here appeals to me to be honest.

I think a root of the issue in this discussion is that many fisherman have managed to delude themselves into thinking they are above other fishermen, and somehow their application of the sport trancends the ugliness of bashing a fish on the head. Therefore, they think their way of fishing is the only path to conservation and good sportmanship. It leads them to be advocates, nay, fanatics against other forms of fishing, and therein lies a source of needless friction, error, and laws that do little to fix the problem.

Example? I know a drift gear fisherman whose pet peeve is watching fly fisherman wading out in front of him to their waist or armpits and walking on fish reds. He delights in pointing this out to the stupid aholes, and has very little appreciation for their snobbish views on his style of fishing. He would just as soon kick their tails and get all the 'gays' off the river. I am chuckling just thinking about him.

Where was I going with this? Oh yes. Stripped to its essence (forget about the tranquility of the river and the pride in ones's skill and prowess and all the other familiar and fond trappings), fishing is jamming a steel hook on the end of a line into a fishes mouth. The fish, upon feeling the needle sharp sting and tearing of its flesh, feels the pain and rolls and thrashes wildly, leaps to shake it, and makes exhaustive run after exhaustive run, until it is finally bent in will to be grasped by the person who has made it endure this.

Someone from another planet, upon witnessing this spectacle, might argue that the person who does this over and over to different fish, for the simple pleasure in it, is the sick one, compared to someone whose desire is to bonk the fish on the head and go home. Many C&R fisherman have managed to convince themselves that it is all so beautiful. Well, not if you are a fish. Are we level set yet?

One could agree with the saying 'Fish are too valuable to be caught only once'. Or you could also agree with the thought that fish should be caught and quickly dispatched to be enjoyed as a part of nature's bounty for man. Who is right? Why does someone have to be right? Cannot both be right? I contend they can.

To fish is to make a choice. How you fish is also a choice. The key to saving fishing for everyone isnt to divide on that choice, as so many posts on this forum seek to do by insulting other fisherman who make different choices. The key is to focus on the real enemy of fish. The dams, the Indian nets, the pollution, the housing developments that create flooding and runoff.

I will close by pointing out that the thing that makes Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation so successful in land acquisition and preservation is that while there may be bunnyhuggers who are contributing members, and who never want to see elk shot, they dont create a division or seek to change the mission of the foundation. If there were, the organization would implode. See my drift here?

And now, since I have most likely worn out my welcome, I will split.

Your PETA membership application is in the mail, Matt.

They're fish. Inside an hour of being caught (or just minutes in some cases) they'll bite again. It's because they're stupid animals with a pea brain.........and here you are describing being hooked and landed as if they're human.


Do I feel bad about landing and releasing one because it might be traumatized by the expereince and require counseling? Nope........just like I don't fret too much about stepping on an ant. I don't do it on purpose, but I don't lose any sleep either. The stupid fish won't even remember it was caught in a matter of minutes, if care is taken in releasing it.

If someone offered me free beef for life to stop fishing, I'd tell him to stick it in his ass. Fishing's not about food to me, it's about fishing. I'll whack a hatchery fish in a minute because I like fresh steelhead and salmon, but the thought of converting a nice wild fish into a turd just doesn't sit well with me.

If you don't want to fish for something you can't eat, then stay home. But don't give me some PETA-like description of C&R fishing to support your position. They're stupid fish......but extremely important and awesome stupid fish. Do you get all bent about horse racing and rodeos too? That's another one that PETA likes to tell the Martian story about......you know, how they'd come down and think we were barbarians for doing it. So now we worry about people from other planets? Please.

I'll worry about the fish on this planet, and my ability to fish for them, thanks.

sure hope this isn't just another foot hold for the antis

Matt....first of all don't show up and throw rocks and then run off because we throw some back!

Anyway, there is surmounting evidence fish don't feel pain. They are preditors and live in a wild environment...if they live to see another day they are ahead of the game...especialy when out to sea...maybe you should protest against the mean sharks!

Read this and gain a little common sense and I hope you stop listening to this anti-sports retoric you're following
http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

And peta would argue that we are as fishermen are more likely to kill somebody or beat the crap out of them because of our cruel, cold, and selfish hobby.

Thats just sicking it makes me want to puke. I cant believe people enacted this law just so they can inflict more pain and suffering on the poor little fishy's. It must be like getting a tooth pulled without any painkillers. I dont think I could spawn for awhile after that! Let alone eat!

Even if it doesnt physically cause pain. Just think of the emotional damage! Imagine swimming 30 miles up a river and not seeing a single shrimp to eat then walla! a big juicy shrimp appears as if it was sent from God, Chomp chomp Hmmm that was good then rip! what the hell is happening? The poor fishy struggles against the pull only to be pulled back harder, all the other fish laugh and make fun as the poor fishy is out of control and helpless. Then the poor little fishy is pulled up on the bank naked and embarased , Shamed by his feebleness he knows now none of the hot hens will want anything to do with him after this! If that wasnt bad enough the air breathers blind the poor little fishy and jerk him back and forth through the water before finnally letting him go. Oh the trauma!,The horror. The poor little fishy dies alone with no hope of fulfilling his purpose in life.

This is a travesty. I appeal to you all. If you have any sense of caring about these special creatures lets ban together to overturn this terrible catch and release law! LOL's

Nice ones Dan and Micro:

I witnessed a horrble situation yesterday at a Sub Shop in Minnesota. I was standing in line waiting to place my order, when I witnessed the person behind the counter picking up what appeared to be a very ripe tomato. I said to myself "Self, isn't that nice that she is going to pick up that tomato and spend a little time to talk to it, fondle it lovingly, and tell it that it is loved". Much to my suprise, she instantly wielded a razor sharp knife in her off hand.

Within seconds, the expression on her face changed to one of discontent. She immediately dropped this loving veggie on to the counter top and drug the steely blade through it's torso. Upon being eviscerated the tomato lay motionless on the wooden counter with the contents of its reproductive organs spewing on to the counter top for all to see. It's life blood pouring on to the counter top. I was sickened to see all the helpless embryos hanging on to their last seconds of life. The total potential of these un fulfilled lives weakened my knees. Could this horrible scenario be played out each day with other victims such as cucumbers, olives, kiwis, mango, papaya, strawberries, and daikon radishes. I shudder to think about it. I instantly shrouded the eyes of my four children, as I knew this was much too horrific for their young minds to comprehend. It hurt me so bad that I turned to the lady and said, "Cripes almighty, stop this senseless slaughter, and give me an all Atkins Sammy piled high with cheese, ham and turkey. I could not participate in the mutilation of these docile, fun loving veggies.

I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat veggies. Like my buddy says "Theres room for all of gods creatures right next to the mashed potatoes". Peace

I myself am not a WA Angler, but i feel that the wild steehead moritorium is the way to go. Any time you can protect a fish so it will reproduce naturally you got my vote Hatchery fish..and even better broodstock fish are the answer to a strong native stock....I don't believe that in OR the native stock will ever be strong enough to allow a harvest but they are getting those feisty broodstock numbers up so we can get a "taste" of what it's like.

Love them and let'em go !

Louis

Bottom line?

Change sucks sometimes. Having said that, I will gladly travel 4 hours to catch and release nates. If I catch a big one, I might be tempted to take an illegal photo. Hope no one is looking. Gosh, I may even speed several miles over the limit on the way home.

Does a wild steelhead taste different than hatchery bred? If it does, then add more seasoning.

Grain Belt Premium in Bottles. Oh Yeah Baby. A nice step up from Shmid Beer.

Austin is miles west of Rochester, and about 90 minutes south of Minneapolis. Basicalyy 4.5 hours form the North Shore steelies, 5.5 hours form Wisconsin steelies, 6.5 hours form Indiana Steelies, and 10 hours form Michigan steelies. Kind of centrally located int he middle of nothing. Only county in the state without a natural lake.

Last December I went to the Commission meeting in PT. My support was voiced for the the proposed WSR regulations.

I'm going to unfeature the topic, but at 75% I don't think that people that support WSR are elitist or special interest. It would appear to be that groups supporting wild steelhead kill are special interest and elitist.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Contact: Anne Pressentin Young (503) 947-6020
Internet: www.dfw.state.or.us Fax: (503) 947-6009

For Immediate Release Monday, March 01, 2004

First commercial spring chinook fishery to occur Tuesday on the
Columbia River

CLACKAMAS - The states of Washington and Oregon working as the Columbia
River Compact today authorized a 16-hour commercial gillnet fishery for
Tuesday in the lower Columbia River for hatchery-bred spring chinook. The fish caught by commercial boats in this fishery are prized for their flavor and will soon be found in local restaurants offering fresh local seafood and specialty markets. Spring chinook provide tremendous economic benefit to both the commercial and sport-fishing industries because of its high quality and because it is the first fresh non-farmed salmon of the season.

The commercial fishery will begin at 5 a.m. and conclude at 9 p.m. on Tuesday, March 2, from the mouth upstream to Kelley Point, which near the mouth of the Willamette River. Another 16-hour fishery may occur Thursday, March 4, depending on the results of tomorrow's fishery. A decision will be made at 1 p.m., Wednesday.
Commercial fishermen must use gillnets that have mesh openings no smaller than 9 inches and no larger than 9.75 inches to lessen the
chance that steelhead will be caught in them. Nets may not be in the
water longer than 45 minutes before being brought in the boat for fish removal. All fish that are not adipose fin-clipped spring chinook must be released. Boats must have a recovery box on board to revive all lethargic or bleeding wild salmon or steelhead before being returned to the water.
Fish biologists from the Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife predict the total run of Columbia River spring chinook will be the second-highest since 1938, when counting began. About 500,000 wild and hatchery spring chinook are forecast to enter the Columbia River in 2004. Of the total run, 70-80 percent are marked by a missing adipose fin to designate them as "keepers." Biologists estimate a total mainstem harvest of about 50,000 hatchery-bred spring chinook, split between sport anglers and the commercial fishing industry.

Fish managers set the Columbia River spring chinook fishery based on the number of fish expected to return from the ocean and the allowable impact to wild salmon and steelhead stocks listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. "Impacts" are the unintended mortalities associated with handling and releasing wild fish. The allowed non-Indian impacts are 2 percent of the total runs of ESA-listed Snake River spring chinook, Upper Columbia River spring chinook, and Columbia Basin winter steelhead.

The total 2 percent allowable impact is split 1.2 percent to the sport
fisheries and 0.8 percent to the commercial fishers for the 2004-2005 fisheries.
Sport angling will continue during the commercial fishery.