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.