Jerry-Todd- Bob- Double Haul

I have read through the WSC Mission Statement again and all of the rest of the WSC website. Several things are not very clear to me, so I have a couple of question for you and your group to answer. It may or may not help some of us better understand who and what WSC is, and are all about.

1) Is it WSC position to have C&R on all wild steelhead permanently, or does WSC promote other addition harvest to occur besides just C&R mortally when runs are stronger?

2) If so, how much stronger does WSC believe that each run of wild steelhead in each river system must be before WSC will support harvest of wild steelhead?

3) At what point in time, and at what numbers will WSC support future Harvest, if any?

4) Since WSC has developed charts to show that wild steelhead runs are declining, will WSC also support harvest if and when new charts show those numbers have/or are increasing?

5) Or is it WSC goal and position to never allow harvest again on any wild steelhead, other then C&R mortally? (this is differnt then question #!)

I have a lot more questions, but first I would like to hear what your group's position is on each of the above questions.

Cowlitzfisherman

Good questions CFM...I'd like to hear their answers as well.

Answers will come soon as these are questions we have discussed and if memory serves me right, not sure if we had reached consensus.

CFM,

We are in the process, along with the other two dozen or so groups involved in the last three Steelhead Summits, of creating a harvest management policy, which would include the answers to all those questions.

Since it is a work in process, there are no answers to those questions, yet, but there will be, and you'll know about it ASAP when the document is done and signed off on by a majority of the participants.

Fish on...

Todd

Jerry-Todd- Bob- Double Haul


Well since WSC can not or will not answer the above 5 question at this time, here are 11 more questions on the WSC website that also needs to have reasonable answer before people will give them any more support.
6) What does WSC intend to do once it succeeds in reversing "the decline"? The WSC Mission Statement does not say what WSC will do as far as future "harvest opportunity" is concerned, or what will be the target for recovery success. This makes the WSC goals very unclear, and makes it Extremely difficult to support.
7) Again, WSC does not show or say what those "healthy and viable populations and numbers of wild steelhead are. How can WSC restore them when they do not even know what those real numbers are?
8) Why is it that WSC purposed "To increase fish runs"? If not to increase sport harvest and oppertunity? What are WSC real goals? It also appears that "the WSC promotes year round, catch and release of all wild steelhead in the Pacific Northwest" How can WSC justify catch and release of "all wild steelhead", even when there are many wild stocks of steelhead falling below escapement needs or levels?
9) What "New Models" is WSC recommending or proposing to be use?

10) WSC says that "The WSC provides a voice for recreational fishermen" What voice did WSC "provide" for the "recreational fishermen" who enjoy harvest?

11) What has WSC done to better understand and "correct" the survival of wild steelhead besides lobbing for c&r?
12) I could not locate this "list" on the site. Did I miss it? If so, where can we find the list that shows these actions that WSC is proposing to improve and recover the wild steelhead?
13) It would be nice if WSC would tell us and its members who these "alliances" are. Did WSC develop any "alliances" when they lobbied the commission for year round c&r, if so who where these "alliances"?
14) WSC states "Harvest models have failed wild salmonids in the 20th and 21st centuries as they are too simplistic and do not account for environmental variations" What models does WSC have, or propose to use to correct this problem? How does WSC intend to account for environmental variations"? What is WSC Plan?
15) WSC said "The only way to plan for these changes is to manage wild stocks much more conservatively than they have been with “maximum sustained harvest (MSH)” guidelines.

What beside c&r does the WSC propose to use or do to "manage" all wild stocks with?
16) If the above WSC statement is really true and accurate, why is it then that WSC proposed a statewide ban on the "all harvest" of all wild steelhead in "all rivers", even if they are not experiencing poor environmental cycles?

I got a few more questions, but this should be enough for right now. Once these questions are fully answered, maybe more people will support WSC.

Finally, Todd you said "along with the other two dozen or so groups involved in the last three Steelhead Summits"

Will you please post a list of who these 2 dozen groups are? I for one would like to see who the supports are for statewide wild steelhead release is. People like to know who they are sleeping with, if you know what I mean

Cowlitzfisherman

TTT

Cow, We did not lobby for year around CnR, it was Wild Steelhead Release(CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW). We have discussed various models for CNR, but have not come up with a plan to have the membership vote on. Our focus now is for the steelhead stocks to rebuild through WSR(not CNR). Keep track of this thread as it may be a while before all your questions are answered. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR .
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR. WSR not CNR
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW, get your facts straight, thats the one thing you do that's patently unfair.

nope, move your wallet alittle more to the right lol

Can you repeat that.......

Ok.

CWF: I don't quite understand the history that brought on this slew of questions for WSC. I am not a member of that group, but it does seem to me that your giving them a hard time for a reason. Could you fill us in, specifically, on what is driving this Q&A session? (I just wanna understand).

Jerry:

You say (more than once, mind you) that WSR and CnR are different things.

Could you expound on this comment?

Seems to me if I catch a Wild Steelhead, release it back to the water, I have then performed a Wild Steelhead Release.

Prior to its release, however, I did have to catch it...therefore it was also a CnR fish.

Is my logic illogical?



Mike

Mike, here is the fundamental difference in my mind:

We have CnR fisheries that target wild fish for catch & release.

Wild Steelhead Release says that an incidental catch of wild steelhead while fishing for hatchery fish, must be released.

That's my distinction, subtle as that may be.

Mike -
My understanding of WSR and CnR is same as Eddie's.

Jerry -
given the above are you saying that as the moritorium is put in place you expect that there will be no spring fishing next two years on the Skagit/Quilleyute etc as there are few hatchery fish that time of the year? Any fishing would be CnR. Guess I'm confused again.

Tight lines
S malma

Eddie

Help us here!

You said "Wild Steelhead Release says that an incidental catch of wild steelhead while fishing for hatchery fish, must be released."

Can you possibly point that one out to us where that is said in the new commission ruling or their minutes?

Mike b

WSC has taken a strong position on this board. They should not have any problems defending there position by answering 16 simple questions that are directly related to their mission statement. If they can do that, then their mission statement becomes sounder. If they can not do it, well that tells us all that we may need to know much, much more about WSC. No personal attacks here against any members on this issue. It's 100% about who and what WSC mission really says and stands for.

My questions are all very simple questions to answer and they were taken directly from the WSC website, and if WSC statements are truly valid, should be very simple for them to answer.

I just went through the commissioner's minutes again, and I really can't see where c&r is any different than wsr, except that it names just one single specie (steelhead). This should be a cake walk for WSC to do!


Cowlitzfisherman

The fundamental difference is probably one of semantics. In my mind, CnR relates to the special season(s) that WDFW sets to TARGET wild steelhead. WSR says that wild steelhead, whenever and wherever they are caught must be released. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how WDFW can have CnR seasons on Wild Steelhead under the current moratorium. If every wild steelhead is valuable (as it seems to be under a blanket moratorium) then hooking mortality is too high a price to pay for a CnR season. That is the way that this supporter of WSR sees it. I will not participate in a targeted CnR season because the genetic cargo that Wild Steelhead carry is too valuable to waste.
Disclaimer: I am not a member of any group nor am I attempting to or speaking for any other supporters of WSR.

CFM,

Here is the final say that anyone from the WSC will have on your questions...not because I don't want to answer questions, but that I am going to give you the answers and that will be that.

#1-#5 As noted above, there are no answers yet. This has nothing to do with cannot or will not give you the answer...there is no answer. I'll let you know as soon as there is.

#6 Same answer as #1-#5, the WSC has not completed its harvest policy yet, so I can't tell you what it is.

#7 We are compiling stock status reports, and population trends, so that we know what we've had, what we have, and where we're going. This is an ongoing process, as is determining what a healthy population is for each stream.

#8 The WSC in no way, shape, or form supports any fishery at all on stocks that cannot handle even incidental impacts. Period. And I guarantee that you have never heard the WSC lobby for or support any such fishery.

#9 The models are being developed. Again, you'll all get to see them when they're done.

#10 Support to harvest all the hatchery fish you can possibly catch legally, which comprises well over 90% of the catch in the state. If what you mean is "what voice did we provide for recreational fishermen who want to eat wild steelhead", then the answer to that is no voice right now. As noted above, when the harvest policy is done, then there will be a voice for that, too.

#11 Instream flows statewide, habitat concerns on several streams, commercial bycatch on the Columbia, and dozens of speakers educating our membership on all issues that face wild steelhead. You already know all this...why are you continuing to imply that all we care about is WSR? Didn't you just read my letter to NOAA regarding the Col. River?

#12 The list was developed among the groups two years ago, but is under constant change and modification as issues come up or fold into others. Suffice it to say that the issues fall under all four of the 4H's; habitat, harvest, hydropower, and hatcheries.

#13 They've been listed before, and I'll get them for you again.

#14 See #9 above.

#15 See #9 above, and #'s 1-5

#16 There is no connection between the quote you cited and supporting statewide WSR, per se. If you want to know why the WSC supports WSR statewide for all rivers, I'd suggest you go and read the 9 page thread, where we discussed that very subject ad nauseum. I doubt, however, that you've forgotten that already, so why are you asking?

See #13 above.

Not only is it a cake walk, it's the same cake walk it has been all along. Now I know you can be a crotchety old bugger , but you must by now know the difference between CnR and WSR. If you didn't before, Smalma and Eddie just posted it for what must be the fortieth time someone has posted it in the last month.

The reason that it's not in the minutes is BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CATCH AND RELEASE (emphasis to allay any possible confusion :rolleyes: ). The discussion was about WSR, which is why CnR, tiger musky, grass carp, treble hooks, and hatchery runs on the Cowlitz were not mentioned, either. It had nothing to do with any of those other things, including CnR. It's just about WSR. It's just about WSR. It's not about CnR.

Those are the answers that exist. Nothing else can be said until the models and policies are done being developed. They've been being developed over the last couple of years, and will likely take a while longer to get done.

Fish on...

Todd

Okay CFM ... I'll bite.

I'm not quite sure where this vendetta of yours is coming from based on the fact that you've spent your life around a river of hatchery fish that is very unlike most of the rivers that are affected by the recent decision.

it's clear that you disagree with the beliefs of most WSC members, that's fine. Don't join. It's not for everyone, no "group" is.

As Jerry has stated as a fledgling group, not all stances / situations have been fully hammered out. What will follow is NOT offical WSC poilicy, but I know that many within the group share many of these same feelings.

From MY standpoint, this is how I feel, and I know many in the WSC will agree on most:

1) Permanent. No more, nada. The state of WA had enough sense 75 years ago to decommercialize these fish. I persoanlly feel it's grand time to treat them as a sport fish and not a food fish. Throughout most of the year, hatchery steelhead can be found somehwere in this state in appreciable numbers, so if it's about killing them for food, those anglers have that opportunity. I also don't buy the wallmounter argument either as there are now a number of taxidermists that specialize in mounts w/o a dead fish. Our time is coming, like it or not. Only so many fish to go around. Other parts of the country have accepted C&R without too much issue for a number of the billfish species and bass. Hell, even the Kenai peninsula where I spend my summers ... where thousands locals flock in droves to scoop up certain species of salmon in gillnets and dipnets ... the people have accepted the idea of C&R for wild steelhead. It's not the end of the world, trust me!

2) N/A, see #1.

3) Personally, perhaps never. If there ever comes a day when I see this fish physically fighting to spawn on top of one another or that I can somehow be guaranteed that the system cannot support even one more fish .. then maybe.

4) See #1 and #3, not likely in my book. And if for some reason, yes, it would be under a wide slection of criteria: all aspects of run healthy from timing, to natural age-class distribution, to natural levels of repeat spawning females -- one of the most important members of the steelhead community.

5) Not too different than #1 in my book. You do NOT have to have a consumptive fishery to have a successful one. This comes not only from a personal standpoint, but also that of one engaged in the fishing industry.

6) The effort to maintain these runs and angling opportunity just doesn't have a finsihing point. As is evident, there are a number of factors that influence these runs ... they will never all go away. C&R is the easiest, most direct way of lessing our impact on these fish with the total cessation of all fishing. Any regardless of the propaganda that some spew, that isn't what we all want is it? Kill them off so we get to apoint where we have no choiuce but to end all fishing? If you can honestly answer "Yes" to that, then frankly, I could care less about your opinion and you have nio right to consider yourself a sportsman of any type.

7) I touched on this briefly before ... when all aspects of a population can be considered healthy. It's an impossibilty to answer this question. If we (WSC or WDFW or Joe Blow angler) had the magic answer, this whole discussion would be moot! We work with 20+ year-old models on the primary coastal rivers, in some cases where wild steelhead retention
has been allowed, we don't even know the first thing about some of the runs ... the smaller creeks are a good example. What are the "real" numbers in terms of historical run sizes or tru carrying capacity or how many fish were of certain age classes or ...???

Talk to some of the folks that have been in this area long before Boldt or my lifespan, and you really start to wonder if we're even close!

8) To many, increased opportunity and increased success is a far better use of a resource than increasing harvest. Does crowding everyone into one section of river or a short fishing season increase opportunity or better the experience. I think not, and many others feel the same way. With the seond portion of question #8, you're twisting words. At no time has the WSC or myself condoned fishing of any sort on runs that are on their last legs. What that might mean is that you can continue to come fish the Bogachiel for hatchery fihs in Decemeber when there are few wild fish left, but you won't be able to crack that now rare December nate that you might possibly catch on the head. For all those that subscribve to the theory of "You should quit fishing for them", are you ready to tell me that you'll forgo any early season fishing opportunity and only fish in April ... when the numbers of wild fish are the strongest and that's when they MIGHT be able to support the harvest? I didn't think so.

9) OY for example takes socio-economic factors into consideration. That would be one option. Example: we have 100 fish over our goal. Do we have a one week kill season to harvest this 100 fish OR do we have a couple of months of fishing in which 100 fish are filled through incidental mortality. As a guide, I know the answer in my book. If you presented that exact scenario to most local bisinesses, I think they'd also choose the latter. That's part of looking at other models. perhaps we ight even go a step further and look towards models that put maximum numbers of fish in the river period ... instead of seeing what the most we can can take out would be. Not only does the later scenario make for the best quality fishing, it also gives more room for error on the behalf of the fish if for some reason we might have something like: a flood, poor ocean conditions, overharvest by tribal nets ... oh none of that happens, does it?

10) Oh no, you got me! But harvest of hatchery stocks is still something that myself and the WSC does support. As I mentioned, hatchery steelhead are available most of the year. If cracking one on the head is what it's all about to you, I'd suggest either visiting your local seafood market or participating in bratfest

11) All aspects of the H's. Perhaps go to a meeting and listen to some of the guest speakers. Many members are trying to educate themselves and the group as to all the factors that affect these fish. Over time, I would imagine that as connections and mebership grows, that other issues can be addressed. As I mentioned previously, the easiest way to immediately lessen our impact on these fish short of cessation of fishing is to let them go ... thus , goal #1.

12) Here are some identified issues per Steelhead Summit III ... I will refer back to the answers in this brief to answer other questions later:

November 8, 2003, Bellevue, Washington --

Twenty-six steelhead advocates from more than 20
angling and conservation organizations met for a third
Steelhead Summit, working together once again on
behalf of the northwest's very special seagoing
rainbow trout.

Summit I and II, also hosted by the Wild Steelhead
Coalition, were conducted in November 2002 and May
2003, respectively. At the earlier events, key
steelhead issues were identified, and committees
formed to draft policy and action plans on each.
Examples are habitat, harvest, hydropower, hatchery
practices, research, education and public outreach.
Summit III continued these, and other, discussions,
and inter-organizational liaisons were strengthened.

A summit group steering committee was established, a
communications network was refined, and future goals
were outlined. Another summit meeting is tentatively
planned for spring of 2004.

Organizations represented at Summit III were: Wild
Steelhead Coalition,Trout Unlimited, Puget Sound
Anglers, American Rivers, Washington Wildlife
Federation, National Wildlife Federation, Federation
of Fly Fishers (and several FFF clubs), Washington
Trout, Northwest Women Flyfishers, Willapa Anglers,
Olympic Peninsula Guides Association, North Umpqua
Foundation, Steamboaters, Little Bear Creek Protective
Association, and the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Other groups involved in the Summit's "umbrella"
organization are the Sierra Club, NW Sportfishing
Industry Alliance, Native Fish Society, Wild
Washington, Save Our Wild Salmon, and several British
Columbia fishing clubs.

Summit groups will continue to collaborate between
meetings, and are expected to make significant input
to WDFW and other agency policy processes, as
appropriate.

13) Please see #12

14) Please see #9. Also it's important to note that as I understand it, the push for the emplacement of the moritorium was to "stop the bleeding" while management policies are re-evaluated given the poor track record of MSY management across Washington State.

15) As previously mentioned, models that don't keep stocks managed on a harvest-only basis. Models that geared towards greater numbers of spawners and not necessarily the biggest potential harvest. Given the demise of so many runs in the state, isn't time that if we're going to goof, we do it for the good of the fish and not the stocking of the freezer or the egg bucket?

16) Because many of us believe that the way in which steelhead are currently managed is an endless downward spiral. Unfortunately, it often appears that we do so much damage to many of these stocks that once we take the harvest out of the picture, they still don't show significant increases in the short term. Why? State biologists seem to think that it's ocean conditions, but perhaps it's due more to fact that they're a fragile stock and once we mess things up just so much, the recovery process just isn't very fast to begin. perhaps it's the fact that we've wiped out those repeat girls that carry so many more eggs than the virgin girls, maybe it's the fact that people and nets selectively take the biggest fish out of the sytem on a regular basis. No one knows for sure right now, and no one may know for sure for as long as any of us are alive. We do know one thing though ... over 90% of the streams in the state have seen huge drops in the runs over the past few decades. Some saw quicker declines for a number of reasons ... it's time to help protect the few streams that haven't suffered total collapses yet before they do. Our belief is that C&R of wild stocks is the first step in a long process.

Well said TRBO! These fish are way too special to be relegated to just another meat fishery. Left to historic management, it's just a matter of time til we harvest them to extinction. The last thing we need is more rivers devoid of their wild heritage.... say another Cowlitz? No thanks!

its because no-where in the moratorium does it say you cant harvest wild steelhead

Bob, I will respectfully assert that steelhead have not been de-comercialized. There may not be any non-tribal netting for them, but steelhead are heavily commericialized.

Clearly many people in this state, yourself and CFM included have made and continue to make their living directly off of steelhead both wild and hatchery.

Many tackle shops and guides around the state do this. Seems like a pretty commercial enterprise to me. May not be strictly speaking an extractive commericialization, but it is definitely commmerical and has impacts on steelhead populations.

It is precisely this commericialization that has made the WSR issue so contentious in places like Forks.

I for one would like to see some of the proceeds from this commercialization benefit steelhead. Maybe a 5% tax used directly on steelhead habitat conservation. This would definitely benefit the steelhead business in the long run and genuinely help the fish.


Just my $0.02

CWF,

Thanks. Like I said, just wanted to better understand the issues.

Eddie, thanks for the explaination. Your right, it is a very slight distinction. That distinction (as I understand it) being that there could be WSR in place and not a single CnR or open season anywhere in the state, the other being a season with WSR as a requirement.

My opinion, for what its worth, is NO PROGRAM is going to have much of an effect (overall) until the non-tribal commercial AND tribal gillnets are BANNED from being in waters that could potentially contain Wild Steelhead.

If it takes a Federal mandate to achieve this, then we (as a single entity) must take the shortest path to achieve that end. It does seem to me that by the time all of these individual groups and state departments get through with all their "studies" there won't be a reasonable gene pool of fish left.

In essence (IMHO), there is too much discussion on the definition of what a "fire" is, or isn't, going on...while Rome burns.

Mike B

Your disdain for the WSC really shows through Cow.

Todd and everyone else from WSC. If you really loved the steelhead as much as you say, why are you fishing the skagit when there is no hatchery season? You guys preach about hooking mortality and not taking wild fish out of the water but you want to fish so bad that you come up here and fish on wild fish, what a crock of ****. Stay off of the wild fish or shut up about them.

I will give you a thousand dollars if you can prove I fished for any wild steelhead anywhere this year.

Thanks Bob for taking the time to attempt to answer some of my question. If you recall, an I know that you do, since day one (almost 4 years ago) I have always said that each and every river is a dynamic system and needs to be manage as so. I have never changed my opinion on this issue and you know that to be a fact.

When you and others go back and reread the "original thread" on this issue, you will see that my argument has always been about the "process" more so then if "wild steelhead" release is right or wrong. You, like me, both claim to have the fishes "best interest" in mind. But we do differ on statewide band on wild steelhead release. As a retired fishing guide, I fully understand why you, as a guide would love to see such a band in effect. Let's talk turkey with out getting mad at each other on this issue.

You have been up front with me, so I will be up front with you on this issue. If you choose to drop me from your board for doing so, that is 100% your right and choice. But not to be up front with you on this issue, would be a discredit to both you and me and the members of your board.

From a "guides" point of view, I can understand your desire to have catch and release on steelhead for several reason. One reason is that you are almost guaranteed that "fishing" will be to continued, even if it is only on a c&r fishery. That means that you would not have to worry about sending back any refunds to your customers because the river was shut down due to escapement problems. That's becoming a big problem nowadays.

It's pretty hard to have to return deposit money back that has already been spent (been there and done that) because that's the way it works for most guides that I know. The deposit are usually part of trips cost. If a guide has an existing established cliental for c&r, he would defiantly be in the driver's seat compared to the guide that has a cliental of only harvesters. Most likely the guy who business is c&r would increase, while others who have practice harvest, would most likely decrease for some time to come.

For some guides, that could mean the death of their business!

You also know, how important it is to a guides business to have a steady cliental of customers. As we both know, it takes years to establish a good cliental. As you and I have both learned from guiding, if condition don't change much from the day before, you are almost guaranteed to find that the steelhead you caught yesterday and released, in all likelihood will likely be there again tomorrow, holding in the same water…. if he hadn't been bonked by another fishermen.

He will probably be there again tomorrow too, if no one else harvests it before you get to fish on him again the following day (this is defiantly a "good point" that you can make for c&r). Some guys claim to have caught the same fish as many as three different times in the same day. Well that is the nature of steelhead, and it doesn't really matter if it’s a wild one, or he's a hatchery one. It's just the nature of the fish, because the fish lacks the ability to remember what pain is. Steelhead natural desire is to keep feeding when it returns to fresh water to spawn, where other salmonids begin to die. As you also know, even when steelheads are not very hungry, you can still piss them off and make them want to kill a plug or some other type of lure when you get it in front of their face. (Believe me… I know how to piss stuff off )

For the most part, fishing generally becomes much more easier for the guide if he does not have to worry about competing with others who are out for harvest. You may disagree with me, and it you're right to do so. I am only speaking from my own 10 years of personal guiding experiences. It is really a hassle when you have to bust your butt trying to get a person or two a couple of fish to "take home". When you fish for "catch and release" you don't really care if you release the fish at side of the boat, or the fish releases itself in mid air. Personally if I was still guiding, and especially in the rivers that you do Bob, I would probably want to promote a catch and release fisher too. It makes sense if you have the cliental that are willing to pay you the big bucks to do it. Apparently you have a good enough cliental built up, and do not have to worry, so that is one more good reason for YOU to promote c&r.

The number one reason that I am against this statewide band is not really the issue of catch and c&r of wild steelhead. Anyone who has followed my postings already knows that my complaint is about the "process" in how it was done! Most of the time I do not keep or kill wild steelhead… but I have killed a few. In the past two years, I have had plenty of opportunities to harvest wild steelhead, but I have not done so! The only different between me saying that I have killed a few, and the other guy that says he NEVER kills wild steelhead, is his own self-denial little world that he lives in! He thinks just because he doesn't bonk it in the head that he has done a good thing. But both you and I, and a whole lot of other fishermen know that some of those fish that we "release" will also die. So who's kidding who about killing wild steelhead? If you got a wild fish that has eaten your bait, jig, lure, or whatever, and it's bleeding heavily, it's got about a 0 chance of surviving. So why not allow a sport fisher to decide when it's best to keep one? Why does it always have to be "all or nothing"? If you really don't want to "kill" wild steelhead, quite fishing for them! Your c&r are killing wild steelhead and that is a FACT!

I really have to hold back my tongue when I hear people on your board make statements like "I NEVER EVER KILL a wild steelhead and I fished them for 20 years". They are just plain ignorant. They claim that the do not "intentionally" kill wild steelhead, but yet they KNOW that there is definitely a percentage of the fish that they hook that will die and that too is also a FACT. So again, who is kidding who?

I could and do support wild steelhead release in rivers that can not support harvest! But at the same time I do not support a "statewide blanket band" of all rivers just because a group of 100 or so fishermen think that it’s the right thing to do. If the statewide moratorium had been the wishes of the "many" instead the "wishes" of a hundred or so fishermen, you would not be hearing me now! IF this truly was the wishes of the MAJORITY of the sport fishermen, I wouldn't have a problem with wsr. But that is not the way that this was played out. Instead a group of about 100 or so people had privately lobbied with a couple Commissioners to get this moratorium passed.

Jerry

You have said:

You are probably correct, but I am not breaking any rules that Bob had asked us to agree to follow by speaking up! I would also have just as much contempt for any other special interest group or users that plans to dominate how I, or others may or may not want to participate in a fishery that I love so dearly. Both you and Bob can go back and reread all my posts concerning this issue, and you will both see that I have never changed my opinion on this issue. Statewide wild steelhead came about because a select group of fishers had lobbied a couple of there commissioners (or maybe a couple of their commissioners i.e., Pelly and Gytenbeek had lobbied WSC) Only WSC knows the real answer to that one!

Clearly, the majority of the public did not know that wsr was going to be considered by the Commission during this regulation cycle. So yes Jerry, I have a problem with how WSC has done its business on this issue. It's my opinion that they were not up front with the public or fishermen in general, and that they went through the back door to get there own way. I just can't forget what the 2 commissioners who brought this issue before the Commission board had said. It speaks mountains for itself!

"Commissioner Van Gytenbeek: I wouldn’t have felt good about asking if there was a proper legal way to bring it forward."

"Commissioner Pelly: So while it did not go through the normal public process with the regulations this year, I think it has been on the hearts and minds of all the fishermen this last year, whether or not it was an actual proposal"

Now that my friend, is why I may hold a little disdain for any "special" interest groups such as WSC.

I not only care about our fish, I also care about my fellow fishermen rights too! When I see that either one (fish or fishermen) rights has been abused, you can rest assured that I will be 100% up front to the parties who took the actions; even if the party truly believed that what they are doing is a good thing. In this case, WSC most likely did truly believe that what they were doing was the right thing to do. For that, I can respect that goal. But when they intentionally cut off OUR established legal process in which WE MUST ALL FOLLOW, then yes, this sport fisherman becomes very disdain!

Maybe the next time around we could support a state wide effort to release all wild steelhead for 1 or 2 years, if its done in an open fashion where all the public is allowed to make their comments and have a say before any decision is made. To bad that it wasn't done that way in the first place. My goal, rather you believe it or not, are to unite all sport fishers and not to divide them. To do that, one must include all sport fishers, and their concerns. There is a lot more to fishing then just hooking that fish! Maybe when this issue is finally resolved, we can all unite as one, and move forward to more important management issues other then statewide c&r for steelhead. To me, statewide c&r is like putting a band aid on a wound that really needs a 100 stitches to close it up. It may make you feel better, but does very little to make it any better!

Eddie

I respect you for not being a hypocrite! You are one of the few persons on this board that "walks the talk".

I have meant no disrespect for either Bob or Jerry. I know at times it may appear or sound that way. I know of no other way to say it other then the way that I truly feel or believe. I never have been one of those kinds of guys that use a lot of honey or sugar to express my views.

I think that you're both great guys, an I won't hesitate a moment to fish with either one of you even those we may have our difference on this issue. My record on this board clearly shows that I care about fishermen's right just as much as I care about the fish.

If I write one more word…..I will have written my first Novel

I will leave it at that!


Cowlitzfisherman

Anybody have an aspirin?

Cow, why do you find it necessary to put your words and thoughts into somebody else's mouth?

Jerry

Please be specific

And I will give a specific response to you question.
What words and in who's mouth?

You know that I can't say much more anymore, because I have been told not to argue!

Ask me a specific question, and I will give a specific answer.

Cowlitzfisherman

Your words as if they were Bob's

As a retired fishing guide, I fully understand why you, as a guide would love to see such a band in effect.

From a "guides" point of view, I can understand your desire to have catch and release on steelhead for several reason

so that is one more good reason for YOU to promote c&r.

From everything that I have read that Bob has posted about WSR the last 4 years I believe that his interest in WSR is that the WDFW's current management style does not promote healthy populations of steelhead. And of course no steelhead no fishing.

Now this I could and do support wild steelhead release in rivers that can not support harvest! But at the same time I do not support a "statewide blanket band" of all rivers just because a group of 100 or so fishermen think that it’s the right thing to do. If the statewide moratorium had been the wishes of the "many" instead the "wishes" of a hundred or so fishermen, you would not be hearing me now! IF this truly was the wishes of the MAJORITY of the sport fishermen, I wouldn't have a problem with wsr. But that is not the way that this was played out. Instead a group of about 100 or so people had privately lobbied with a couple Commissioners to get this moratorium passed.

Do you truly believe that only 100 people support WSR?

Okay Cow ... since YOU brought it up. You state that "... every river is a dynamic system and needs to be manage as so."

Here's the deal. The Quillayute SYSTEM is managed as a system, not on it's individual parts. There have been several instances where the SYSTEM's number is above this magical goal of 5900 fish, but the individual goals for streams such as the Calawah have NOT been met.

Yet, we manage it as a SYSTEM when it comes to the harvest end of things.

As I see it, that's all the more reason for a blanket policy when we're allowing this happen.

The Hoh situation is similar, yet even worse ... the lowest escapement number in over 25 years last season, and we're likley not going to meet escapement there this year either if the nicer weather continues, yet the kill fishery continues.

Why?

"Exceptions" that ought not be exceptions.

You're way off base with some of your reasoning why I support it as a guide. Yes, it's important for me to watch my own tail and the future of my chosen line of work. It's called foresight, it's also called giving a hoot about the resource without putting today's $$$ above everything else.

I chose from day 1 to make my guide service C&R on WS ... in the first few very lean years I painfully turned down trips in which people wanted to retain fish. It's a matter of principles. We all have an impact ... but we can try to lessen it.

Yes, it would likely make fishing better. There were several days this year of sharing stories with long-time clients of how fishing was 10 years ago ... and day-in, day-out this season, it's only been a fraction of that. Better fishing usually also means more fish on the beds, a strange but happy coincidence.

That being said, I don't buy your "competition" or "put the other people out of work" bits one bit. And frankly, I resent your implications of such.

I "compete" with these boats every day. It's actually quite the opposite of what you imply. And if it was all about trying to get the most fish, I would not have voluntarily made decisions over the years of about how we were going to fish that may not be quite as effective at times, but are far easier on the fish ... thus, often I'm putting more time in to equal the success of sometimes more effective, yet higher mortality methods. A landed fish is still a landed fish , regardless of whether it swims off or you crack it in the head.

I have no hidden plans of trying to drive others out of business. Why would I? In most instances, in the timeframes I want my boat to be full, it is. I have nothing to personally gain from drving others out of biz. Most of those that wish to fish C&K for these fish wouldn't fish with me anyhow because this whole thing is "my fault" anyhow.

Many of the local guides that choose to operate C&K will have to make the change sooner or later. It's a plain and simple fact that these runs will not support the harvest pressure forever ... espeically in light of the fact that we're one of the few places left in the world where you can legally kill one of these fish. For those seeking to reatin one of these, they've shifted from rivers with no runs left to those few that still do and sooner or later, C&R fisheries will HAVE to be in place. Hopefully, it'll be sooner than later so we don't have to suffer the same lean runs that other parts of the state now face.

No one has ever said C&R is perfect. yes, there is mortality involved. How much often depends upon the angler. The state says 10% and that's probably close for an average number. It's documented though that with proper rigging and release, it can be significantly lower though too. You still must be near or above escapement though to support these fisheries. So lay off those that have chosen voluntarily to lessen their impact. Sounds to me like a guilt issue of some sort.

Regarding your last remark regarding the majority / minority issue. Let's go back two years. Wasn't over 90% of both written and oral testimony at the WDFW meetins in favor of WSR? Didn't the state's own survey show that is it was roughly 65 / 35 split in favor of WSR? If it's only 100 people, then why did nearly 500 people send in form letters from my site alone in favor of WSR?

Bob- Jerry- Todd- Double Haul

At this point we all differ.

I am done auguring this point/issue with all of you on this Board. It will do nothing more then to cause more resentment among us all who all love to fish. Most likely this issue will be resolved in the court room. I have lots more to say, but it is best to hold off until I am asked!

With that said, I am finished with issue, unless it goes to the next up!

Cowlitzfisherman

It's really bloody pathetic that we are bickering over the last of the fish.

What is even more pathetic is that those that seem to be fueling the bickering are those that are not as involved in the issue or have as high a stake in the issue.

Plus, those that are fueling the bickering, keep asking the same few questions but just in a differant manner. I've seen a few of those opposed to WSR ask the very same question over and over and over again yet each time it is worded a little differantly...maybe because they weren't happy with the first answer and each answer thereafter (because they didn't agree with it).

Those few just seem to be trying to find any little weakness in the WSC, WSR and/or the people that support the WSC/WSR.

And yes, Wild Steelhead Release is NOT perfect but give it a rest. Give those that support WSR a break, they have been defending themselves, WSR and the WSC non-stop the past month and a half and NOT because vaild questions are being asked but because a few of you are finding 20 differant ways to ask the same few questions.

Oh I get it....

Dont disagree anymore because you're tired of defending it. We dont have as much at stake as you therefore we shouldn't have an opinion and should stop discussing it. (sort of arrogant dont you think?)

You keep repeating yourself because you dont have the answers... you didn't think it through. Thats why the answers haven't goten any better!

Seems to me that this is THE place to discuss it, it is fishing related after all! Get used to it, the debate is far from over. Either ignore the posts, or find a way to convince us. But quit complaining!!!!

What ego??...you've made one snide remark regarding me after another. What gives??

Anyways, I do not have a problem discussing the issue but maybe the discussion would be a little worthwhile if those asking the questions could actually ask new questions instead of rehashing the same questions that have been asked over and over and over and answered over and over and over again.

Those in support of WSR keep repeating themselves because you, Cowlitzfishermen etc. keep asking the same questions (eventhough they've been answered over and over and over again...if you don't like the answer, then too bad!).

The questions to the supporters of the WSR have an agressive nature to them and include accusations and questions of one's integrity etc. etc.

ok, i`l ask a new question, lets say i go to an op river where i can retain a wild steelhead and i bonk it and take it home and eat it, that would be my only trip up there and i also dont fish in any targeted catch and release seasons, then durring the same year you go out and catch and release 20 steelhead and using a 5 percent mortality that would equal 1 dead wild steelhead, is my method of bonking 1 wild fish better than you killing 1 durring catching and releasing 20 and having 19 other stressed out fish in the system ?

Go back and read some of my recent posts. You will find answers to your questions a few times over.

i would much rather that you post it here as i`m to lazy to go look for it.

...and I'm too lazy to type it up for the 100th time.

Boater - I'll step up to the plate and take a couple of hacks. You ask which situation is better. Better, of course, requires a subjective judgement - ask 100 anglers, get 115 opinions

For the resource: Virtually no difference, you are left with one dead wild steelhead either way.

For the economy: It probably took Spakey at least 10 trips to catch his 20 fish, my expectation is that there were economic benefits of his 10 trips to the local area rather than your one trip.

For angling opportunity: My guess is that WSR offers more opportunity for anglers. It has been my experience (remember this is subjective) that not all steelhead are good biters. I would guess that the 19 surviving wild steelhead would provide some angling pleasure to other folks as well.

For ethics: (Again, remember this is very subjective, and one man's opinion) My belief is that it is morally superior to release a fish that I really do not need to eat than to bonk it. Changes in societal ethics happen slowly, as subsequent generations live under WSR I feel that the angling community will adapt to the new rules and provide a more vibrant sport for most.

Boater - I may think of more as the coffee kicks in, but hopefully this answers your question.

CFM ~ WSC will never support a haverst other than WSR anywhere in this state ever. For them to say anything else is just a smoke screen. I know that you have been told by Bob to quit arguing on this board, but I for one appreciate yours and a few others opposing opinions here. I feel that it is important to see both sides of the issue. Unless you are banned from this board for speaking out then I urge you to continue being a voice here. However I do understand your frustration. Opposing the recent WSR ruling here is kind of like going into one of those cigerette smoke shops and telling the owner to quit selling cigerettes becasue its bad for you.

I can't believe that a FISHERMAN would have to ask which is better.........one fishing trip or 10?

WTF?


What kind of question is that?

DITTO.


IMO, the WSC had ZERO vision when they lobbied to make state-wide WSR policy. Did you ever consider the reaction? Did the WSC ever ask themselves if this policy may be self-serving(or at least appear to be), and that it as an organisation, has a minority perspective. Successful managment must include selective harvest, or your not doing what you should as managers for everyone. No harvest means to me you are only concerned with your ability to play with fish. There are more than WSC members who fish. Alot more. And your solution not only DOESNT help them, state-wide WSR cuts them out of the picture entirely, while CnR guys would have their cake and eat it too. Did you think there would be no opposition? Do you think the opposition will stop when you silence CFM? THINK AGAIN!


To tell you the truth, if it doesnt pass public scrutiny, it shouldnt be public policy. If I were WSC, I might think about floating it by the masses before I jump in. Hammer it out here, and if it fly's here, it'l fly anywhere. If you did that, you may find more support for your cause as it will be created by, and supported by a broader group of interests. It's not like you dont have a FORUM for that... It's the whole "public involvement" thing again. I know it's hard right now, but this IS how you develope successful policies. You bring ALL the different entities together, and through discussion, and debate, you hash out a solution. That is what's happening here and now. This is the place to do it. It is the most respected BB on the web because of the involvement of people like CFM, Bob, Jerry, Dr. Todd, Salmo g, Smalma, Grandpa, and many many others. They have the smarts and experience to enlighten others. A BB is just a rant without experts. We have them here. Lets put them to good use, not keep them in a closet.

just one mans rant......Hairlip out.

The conspiracy crap can stop! Since you fellas want to bring it up ...

The PM has been deleted but it basically stated, subject of something like: The Belligerence can Stop Now

Stating that I was sick and tired of coming home and seeing who he was ARGUING with.

Nowhere in the PM did I ever say that he wasn't allowed a dissenting opinion. I made reference to the fact that despite how far Plunker and I are on a number of issues, that never once have I PM'd him and told him to stop saying things. A respectful voice was all that was going to be allowed and I think yesterday's post from CFM regarding my "ulterior motives for WSR" and business ethics is a perfect example of what I was referring to.

I've never once said that you have to think like me ... but if you "bash" others on the BB, you will be gone.

If you don't like my rules, make your own board

Oh, and for boater1's question: I think eddie pretty much sums it up with one thing I'd like to mention - it would be different if the dead fish came from early in the run, carried large fish genes, or was a repeat spawner. The harvested fish would stand a 0% chance of survival if it fell into one of these categories that are hurting / vital to run health, the released fish would have a 90-95% chance of survival.

How does the pro-harvest crowd feel about no harvest on wild fish until the hatchery run is done, say Feb. 1?

Bob,

As one who moderates several E-mail forums, as well as having had several very active boards of my own in the past, I APPLAUD your stand here about this site.

Good discussions and debates are a healthy thing for folks to learn from, but when it gets nasty and tempers flare there is a time for it to end.

Don't want or need my own BB site (or the headaches that can go with them)...this one here is the best I have seen.

Mike B

One more thing I would like to add:

I AM NOT A MEMBER OF WSC AND I SUPPORT WSR. I HAVE WRITTEN TO THE COMMISSION AND URGED ADOPTION OF WSR AND HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER.

There, that feels better.

So maybe there is 101 supporters.

well, from a fishes point of veiw, it dont matter to him if its bonked or caught and released 20 times its still dead

Sparkey you have made snide remarks all along, including posts under this thread and others... Including the one that led to me calling you arrogant.

CFM raises questions on this issue, he gets shut down. I have disagreed with CFM a ton, I just find it odd that he gets warned on this one and he wasn't really attacking anyone, he is just on the other side of the issue.

You want a new question... here it goes?

How do you feel about environmentalists aligning with WSC and WSR? It appears from these postings on a different board, that this one self proclaimed non-fishing environmentalist applauds the efforts and is looking forward to more closures...


"Thanks Rich:

Western Clallam and Jefferson Counties are not hotbeds of stewardship. There have been two pro-release letters to the editor (Peninsula Daily News in Port Angeles), both well written and both from out of town.

Some locals have petitions going to repeal the madatory release regulations, and our local state politicians (Buck and Hargrove)never take the side of salmon.

Most of the problem, I think, is lack of understanding. I see fishermen stomping through redds, yanking hooks out, throwing jacks back in the salmonberries so as to cleanse the gene pool of stunted fish.

I would go even further than the pro-release regs. I'd like to see no fishing on small streams with runs under 1,000 fish and no baited hooks anywhere because of the increased mortality. I think redds should also be protected."


I would agree with protection of the redds, but shut down smaller streams??? They also talked about closing chinook salmon, chum in the straits, a bait ban, and went on to say that a lot more closures are needed. I find it concerning when these type of people are in WSC's camp.

How do you feel about these issues? (if they haven't already been asked..)

(if you dont like the answer, too bad...) And that doesn't sound arrogant? By the way, you posted the quote I immediately edited out of the post because I thought it a little too harsh.. apparently you liked it enough to put it up here! IF you have read anything I posted, I have said OVER AND OVER... I am arguing about the process.... I catch and release everything but the occasional coho and halibut. The process has me worried. I think we have opened up a can of worms that we might not be able to contain.

But remember..... IF you really feel that strongly about wild steelhead Sparkey, stop fishing for them, Anything else is hypocracy.

Another poor attempt to discredit the organization with innuendos. This response is one person's opinion response from the WSC BB when I posted an article on the news of the moratorium. Elkrun, I expect an apology, you are welcome to agree to disagree with organization, but please don't attempt the ploys of putting words in someone's mouth or laying out the guilty by association sly to discredit the organization. Anyone is welcome to read the thread on the WSC BB.

I don't have time or energy to defend the organization to people who will never agree with the WSC mission. I am busy moving on to work on the “other” issues for wild steelhead. I hope you find away to get involved to help our ailing steelhead runs aside from yapping on a BB. For me it's enough said on the issue.

"But remember..... IF you really feel that strongly about wild steelhead Sparkey, stop fishing for them, Anything else is hypocracy."

I couldn't agree more. Also, I feel that guilt by association is a valid point. I haven't read the thread on your BB, but I will check it out. Double Haul, everyone can choose to be involved in one manner or another and to whatever extent they choose. You don't have to be a member of WSC or any other group to have the right to speak out about your discontent with whats going on or to care about the resource. Maybe if the statewide WSR ruling would have been part of a public rule change process more people would have been involved.

What the devil is it with you guys at WSC?

WSC position is really becoming ridiculous!

Now you're telling Elkrun that he needs to apologize to you! You said All Elkrun has done was post a factual statement to you that came off of your own website. Why in the world should Elkrun want to apologize to you for doing that? I just when over to your Website at WSC, and read the thread that Elkrun was referring to. If you didn't agree with what that member had written, why in the world wouldn't you have scolded him like you just have done to Elkrun? Instead, you wrote back just before that persons had siad what he did, and said
I think you’re the one who owes Elkrun an apology.
I sure didn't see you telling that person that he was wrong with what he just said, and I sure didn't see any "disagreement with his opinion" from you on what he said.

Elkrun finds new information that's posted on your own board, and posts it here, and now you want him to give you an apology? You guys at WSC most be get pretty darn desperate, when you can't even take what your own board members are posting. Elkrun never said that you posted that! So why make it sound like he's putting false words into your mouth?

I guess it's coming down to if you don't like someone's else's opinion now about what's WSC members or supporters post, its becoming another one of these alleged "personal attacks" against someone.

And I suppose that now that I have agreed with what Elkrun has said, that I too am now making a another "personal attack" against you also.
WSC responses are starting to look pretty pathetic! Now I suppose I will in trouble for voicing my opinion on this one too.

Jerry

Why are there hundreds and hundreds of post about WSC actions here, and only a couple of post about it on WSC own website?

Cowlitz- I thought you said you were done...

Bob asked "How does the pro-harvest crowd feel about no harvest on wild fish until the hatchery run is done, say Feb. 1?"

I don't know. I am pro choice. Not on any fish that is threatened though. (like Steelies) If I know a fish or animal is threatened I would never knowingly harass them.

BTW anyone who hooks a fish is "pro-harvest".

One way or another.

What I do know is this. I'll state it again.


The "true" wild steelhead crowd believes if a particular river has a "truly" threatened/endangered fish that the river should be shut down to all fishing during the said spawning period until the wild stock has rebounded to a state that can handle mortality. If they (the fish) are in that bad of shape, don't we owe it to the fish to leave them alone?

If WSC truly "believes" that they "love" this fish so much why don't they support shutting down the river if the stocks are "supposedly" so bad off. If they are, and I beleieve they are, then lets give the fish a break so they can rebound. Why doesn't that make sense? If the river can sustain/maintain a certain level of harvest/hook mortality then at that time lets manage the river accordingly

This post isn't targeting anyone but asking a fundemental question. If they are that bad off, why aren't we protecting them until they have rebounded, and then MANAGE them effectively? MANAGE=ensure all have a stake, bonkers, cnr, natives etc. These fish are hardy, if we give them half a chance, they will thrive. At that point lets manage the harvest for the future. It can be done guys/gals.....

Bob, I respect your opinion and would like to get your take on this.

Thanks

Did you register on the WSC forum Cow? This is where the questions were being asked. What is your point this time?

Jerry

If I give you my honest answer, will it be considered to be "argumentative"?

Cowlitzfisherman

You can email me .

It is getting harder and harder to bite my tongue on this thread.

Luckily my opinion of the WSC is to well know to require posting.

I will affirm that they are against any harvest of wild steelhead under any conditions and that they were organized in response to the emergency C&R closures on the S Rivers a few years back.

Apparently they blamed the harvest proponents for changing the ocean conditions that resulted in the low returns requiring the closures.

Good thinking Huh?

***sorry, double post***

Plunk,

You are welcome to affirm or not affirm whatever you want, but as you already know, you're wrong on this one. If this were the case I can tell you that our harvest policy document would not be taking so long to complete. "No harvest, ever" wouldn't take very long.

Definitely organized at that time, but completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, wrong...and again, you know it. You hve been saying that for three years, and the truth is never anywhere close to that, and you and I, and others, have discussed it repeatedly. Read the rest of this thread, and the other ten, to see the reasons why the WSC supports WSR...I would love for one of you anti's to actually back up your assertions with a little fact, at least now and again.


All,

This whole thread is clearly an attempt by CFM to try and discredit a dedicated organization because he has a bee in his bonnet. If you've read his stuff over the years you already know that he doesn't trust anyone or anything...every fishing group except his own has personally screwed him at some point, specifically targeting him for the screwing, not to mention every government agency.

If this weren't the case...if he were actually interested in the answers to his questions, then why does he continually tell me what the answers should be, rather than ask me, who does know the answers, and accept the answers when I give them to him? I'm not asking him to agree with me, or give up his typical windmill tipping, but to actually listen to the people that formed and operate the WSC if he wants to know what WSC policy is.

Now if he's not listening to my answers, ask yourself why. Is it because he thinks I'm lying to him? Probably not...I'd have no reason to do that, especially when the answers to the questions have been repeatedly posted on multiple BB's over a few years.

Is it that he can't understand my answers? I doubt that, too. While I do think that he sometimes says things that I find pretty incredulous, I also think he's a pretty bright guy who has no problem understanding what is being said.

So...if he truly has questions, asks the people who truly have the answers, those people give him the answers, he can clearly understand what the answers are, and then continues to needle and nitpick, swapping topics back and forth, and attempting to create the answers he wanted to get from the WSC to begin with, rather than the ones he received from them...then what exactly is his motivation?

Fish on...

Todd

CFM, as you likely know now, your registration is in lockdown mode. Not booted yet, but as I made clear in my PM to you, I'm sick and tired of coming home from fishing to see who you're arguing with ... maybe I'll change my mind down the road on it, so I left the registration intact.

There

Bugle, since you asked so nicely , I'll be happy to address your question from my point of view:

If a system can't meet escapement, then it ought to be shut down for all types of fishing ... I have no issue with that at all.

What we have on the coast right now (basically the affected streams), is a fishery that has seen a very large increase in pressure in recent years for a number of reasons.

We have some pretty special strains of fish that boot out more trophy class winter-runs than other other areas.

We have seen a slight increase in sport harvest in recent years despite lowering the daily / annual limit ... I won't talk about the "poaching" factor.

We have had five straight years of decline in our escapement, from what we've seen this year, probably six.

One river (the Hoh) has failed to make escapement approximately 50% of the time over the last 12 years ... yet with C&R regs in place, even with mortality, we would have made escapement in each case and no total closures as we have seen.

We have some left, but not even close to what we once had ... do we continue the status quo until we get to the point where we HAVE to shut everything down completely.

Or, do we reduce our impact by roughly 90-95% and continue to have long seasons with presure spread out and plenty of hatchery fish to harvest in the first half of the winter and springers late in the run.

Obviously, a pretty simple decision for me.

Frankly, given the tribes' impact and the increaded pressure, I don't think we'll be able to see this fisheries support the status quo for too many years.

I may be wrong ... we may be wrong But, will it hurt the fish to err on their side for a change? Lots and lots of anglers in other parts of the state that can no longer even wet a line might wish WDFW hadn't waited as long in their area.

We must have the fish to go fishing

Todd - I stated those three facts as I see them being true from the evidence at hand and if, after three years of intermittent discussion, the validity of those three basic facts remains unchanged in my analysis, then it is unlikely that my appraisal of history will change in the future.

Bob - You mention that without harvest, the Hoh would have made escapement validates that the stocks there are in good health. In looking at the chart for the Hoh I notice that the stock has made escapement during 6 of the last 7 years. The escapement was missed by a large margin last year due to an unpredicted and large drop in run size that resulted in an over harvest.

It appears that this discussion has come to an end but I will leave you with few quotes fromGeorge Orwell.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."

And finally a corruption of one of Orwell's mos famous...

"All fishermen are equal, but some fishermen are more equal than others."
(Especially when it comes to increased opportunity.)

i think its a fact that you pretty much disagree with how the state manages wild stellhead until it comes to having a targeted cnr season, why is that ? why is it not ok to bonk a fish from a river that the state says is healthy enough to handle it but at the same time when the state says a river like the skagit is 164 fish over escapment you have no problem fishing it, why is that ? how bout this, if i was at a takeout on the skagit and you floated in and i asked you how come your fishing in the cnr season killing fish (5 to 7 percent mortality according to the state), what method would you tell me that the state uses to predict the fish run size on that river that convince`s you that they know what they are doing and your not worried about it ?

Plunk ... Without the sport havest last season on the Hoh, the river probably would have made escapement or been close.

Also note in 1998 that without the C&R restrictions that went into place for the entire river, that with a normal sport and tribal harvest, we would have missed again.

Ineteresting to note too that the only years since 1991 that the river has made escapement (97 could be an exception, I don't remember the exact implementation date) was AFTER over 1/2 of the fishable water was made a selective fishery.

Odds are we're going to have more harvest here this season than projected too given the drier spring ... the river was only projected to make escapement by 40 fish, so there's a good chance it'll miss again.

All this with an escapement goal that was LOWERED in 1988 by about 500 fish.

Sounds to me like we're on the bubble here ... take as much as we can until it becomes like all the other streams that faced similar troubles in their last productive years. Let's take some action before we add another to the list

And still nobody has answered....

If they are in that much trouble, and they mean that much to you, WHY CONTINUE TO FISH THOSE RIVERS WHEN YOU KNOW WILD FISH ARE THE ONLY THING IN THERE???

It boggles the mind??? Its hard to take the pro WSR people seriously when they continue to target Wild Steelhead!!!

I've obviously chosen to go against WSR as a blanket reg. (Remember.... I'm against the way it was done, not the rule. I dont fish for Wild Steelhead, and haven't for a very long time) I think it's fair to ask how a group feels about things posted on their site... ie: the "josey" comments. Its obvious here that on this site, If Bob doesn't approve of where something is heading he stops it, I would assume it would be the same on the board where those comments came from.

Does WSC agree with shutting down steelheading in small rivers, bait bans, other blanket closures? I cant really tell from what I read on the site. (For the record, I am for the first two, not a fan of the closures, and I think people should voluntarily stop harassing wild fish in rivers where they are declining.)

Not sure I need to apologize DH, I kinda feel like those of us on the "other side" should be getting the apology. When an organization is so actively involved with such a controversial decision, it suprises me that they wouldn't expect scrutiny. Thats the way it is when you become political as a club or organization, you please some and pi$$ of others. This is a huge decision that effects a lot of anglers, you didn't think the questions would go away, or get easier did you? The comments I read there concerned me. The "pro" camp kept asking for some new questions.... "tired of answering the same thing over and over...." I asked a new question, do you as a group agree with these ideas posted on your BB? I felt it a fair question. Since it wasn't a personal attack, I'll skip the apology.

PS: As for the do something comments: I got involved, I quit fishing for them.. I highly recommend it. I absolutely will not have any negative impact on the wild steelie runs on the OP during March and April. Also involved with a couple of clubs that generally promote fishing, good times, and some legislation here on the OP. No real big political plans however, If I could I'd make it so people could only use flyrods (preferably custom sage flyrods, armed with barbless clouser minnows) while pursuing coho in saltwater. What a wonderful world it would be! Well, at least I think so.

I can't believe CFM got the boot!!

Bob ~ Isn't the upper Hoh where you do a lot of your fishing known to be a prime steelhead spawning area?

Since I do not know the answer to this question and it is not an attempt to make accusations or point fingers, but since you brought up escapement goals, I am wondering.. Do you continue to fish that stretch of CNR regulated water when escapement goals are barely reached or not reached at all and how many Anglers to you put on that stretch of water every year?

"If they are in that much trouble, and they mean that much to you, WHY CONTINUE TO FISH THOSE RIVERS WHEN YOU KNOW WILD FISH ARE THE ONLY THING IN THERE???"

I'd like someone to address this question also...

Bruce, No need to try that hard. I can't answer your question since I don't fish for wild winters.

He wasn't asking you Jerry, he was asking Bob. And it's a valid question!

Another question - Why did you lock CF's account? Because You were tired of him?

That is pretty pathetic, Bob. I thought you to be bigger than that.

,


Not just pathetic.

A great many of the people who make policy read this site. Some of them even contribute. You'll notice most of thier recent remarks seem to mirror many of the posts here. At times, word for word. Point is they are watching and listening to what goes on here. Hpoefully they read through CFM's posts, and see he said nothing to violate any rules. Because of his natural ability to get in your kitchen, he took more attacks than anyone here. Yet not once, did I ever read where a moderator(WSC) defended him against an attack. It was him against all of you. And he is more than holding his own.

If policy makers take anything from what's said here, I'm betting they see the obvious conflict of interest going on with the moderators, the WSC, and PP.


So enjoy your CFM free zone. Your stellar vision has brought the credibility of this site to areas previously unexplored.


See Ya.

I guess the timeout is kind of like you are a guest in somebodies house (in this case PP) and you are given a set of rules that you have to follow to stay. So you push the envelope a number of times over the years- right up to the line, sometimes over. So your asked to cool it a little(didn't see Bob's email to Cow so don't know exactly what it said) but you decide that you just have to be you and you push again.

I don't come to this site much...for obvious reasons now, but I don't see where CFM violated the rules...but I also haven't read any of his other stuff. Kinda BS I think to boot someone who doesn't agree with your views.

Bob, thanks for the reply.

I guess I just have a problem with the idea of using WSR to be the end all to protect fish when in reality that type of fishing amounts to harrasment and mortality also. (PETA will most definetly use this in the future) I don't think that it is wrong (WSR) and I won't pass judgement I just do not think it is the correct or fair way to manage this fishery. It may be the best for a certain group(and that is great), but it is not best for the resource or for all anglers across the state. I commend WSC for working towards saving this resource. I only wish they were saving it to ensure everyone would be able to enjoy the resource how they wish. I believe it (WSC) would be much more succesful if it approached this issue as a united group of all anglers and all users to save this great fish. By alienating anglers it is is worse for the cause. Anglers being(natives, commercials, bonkers, CNR's, guides etc.) I know, your thinking I am naive, fine think away, however we owe it to "our" kids (all anglers kids) to start looking to work together. To do anything less would be and is a great diservice to the fish. If we give up the harvest it will only be a matter of time before another much more united and powerful special interest group figures it out and works towards getting us off the river for good. They will do this in the name of harrasment. It is a grave mistake to give up the harvest and concede that WSR is the answer. A great tool yes, the answer.....probably not.

Again, my comments are not focused at any one person. It is focused on the subject and how we might come together to help these fish.

Any thoughts?

In principle, on WSR, I agree with CFM.

But his style of arguement is abrasive at best. He frequently relies on underhanded stratgies of arguement not based on facts, but rather inuendo, out of context quoatation, or putting words in anothers mouth. This can be irritating, I know personally, having butted heads with CFM on occasion.

I have disagreed with Bob on this issue repeatedly and on many different facets of the WSR. However, I have made an effort to be respectfull.

CFM has not.

CFM has needed some disciplining for bad behavior on this board for years.

Hopefully he will learn his lesson. I think he can make a vaulable contribution here. Especially where the law and fish are concerned ( CFM knows a lot about state law).

I still agree with CFM on the principle of the WSR issue, but I think Bob was clearly in the right to do what he did. In fact, he may have waited too long before acting.

Just my $0.02

Hairlipangler,
Good post and I agree with you.From what I have seen in my time here.Is CFM has had more personal attacks directed at him than anyone and I havent seen where he has broke any of the rules.I have seen where he has defended himself after someone has attacked him but thats about it.I could but wont name board members that almost always start the mudd slinging if you have a differant veiw than they do.But there isnt much use in that because they seem to be exempt for the rules.

Todd,

I hope my concerns way into the WSC's policy and stance that is being prepared. I do believe the group would be much stronger and provide more opportunties to better the current state of Wild Steelhead if it embraced more than year round CnR of wild steelheead. It would also be a group that many strong advocates for Wild Steelhead would feel better about joining and fighting if they felt they could. As it stands people that believe it is ok to harvest fish that are self sustainable feel alienated and looked down upon. I don't think this is the best way to save the fish or bring people together to better the cause....

Thanks

I am going to keep this simple With respect to both bob, cfm and everyone else.
I think we all agree on one thing If and when there ever comes a time there is enough wild steelhead to sustain a population in any river than a keep season should be established with bias. maybe a lottery so many tags such as doe tags in a lottery to be drawn or whatever.
Until then CNR of all nates should be the rule.
No B.S. No arguments we have to remember at all times what we are really fighting for!
I want my children and grandchildren to know whats its like to catch a fish! not some clone out of some disease ridden hatchery but a real fish!
Untill then I beieve that the power companys who built the dams should be responsible for the devastation of our fish runs and compensate fish for fish for the damage they have done by reducing the thousands of miles of spawning grounds for these fish.
Just a couple of other things!!! BAN ALL NETS and To **** with boldt!!! I am a native american too(I was born here) I am tired of seeing nets, in the rivers, Stripped out carcasses of hen salmon and little kids snagging salmon with trebles!!
Just my 02
Ramprat

Elkrun ... Not trying to start something here, BUT coho fishing in the salt? perhaps one of the highest mortality fisheries there are for released fish. I imgaine you're fishing mixed stocks out there ...

If you fish for anything, there is an impact. In every fishery there will be something someone can point out that isn't the best for fishing.

Along the same lines, if you're fishing for hatchery fish and accidently kill an early nate that swam along ... you've made an impact on the early portion of the run which is in far worse shape than late component.

This no fishing when wild fish are around mentality is simply a cop-out and nothing more in my book.

Bruce ... Yes, wild steelhead spawn in the upper Hoh. Many fish also spawn in the lower river, it depends on the time of year.

The upper Hoh is fewer river miles upstream than any of Calawah, or a good percentage of the non CnR water on the Sol Duc.

Your inference that because someone fishes a piece of water they're trying to target spawning fish is way off base.

Fish spawn all up and down the rivers!

It's up to the angler to know where they tend to spawn in each section of river and do your best to lay off.

If you want to close all spawning grounds, then I'd suggest we all get saltwater boats because that's the only place they don't spawn. Even the Quillayute itself gets a number of spawning fish.

As for the escpaement issue on the Hoh and my fishing there ... closer to escapement means that there's usually less fish around, so I've been fishing more and more elsewhere myself.

As for CFM ... GD is right on with his comments. I PM'd CFM and told him the dissenting opinion was fine yet it needed to be more respectful of other posters.

No change, so see ya.

I've had a number of emails from people that no longer post here because of his attitude ... I've given lots of leeway as I usually don't like to become too involved.

People can read whatever they want into my decision. I'm sick and tired of the crap posts and now the nasty email from him, so I have even less inclination to reinstate the registration.

I am really confused by this statement from above?

"This no fishing when wild fish are around mentality is simply a cop-out and nothing more in my book."


I thought that WSC and everyone for the most that posts on this site was for saving the steelhead??? If its truly threatened and truly endangered and truly in such bad shape (which I think they are in many areas) why would we want to target them? Again, I'm confused??

Is this truly about saving the fish or saving a "way" of fishing? Or is it to save fishing? I am really confused because if this is about saving the fish, I believe it (WSR) may flawed ?????

My point is if they are so bad off, MAYBE and thats a BIG MAYBE we shouldn't be fishing for them in ANY way until they recover. Am I wrong? Please tell me how this is wrong given the scenarios, charts and all the information that has been presented here and in the media and by the biologists? Just trying to get to the bottom of this. Unless all of this information that has been so adimetly posted as being correct is actually wrong.

Or is it that they aren't that bad off in some areas? What is it? Does anybody know?

Or is the REALITY that we are all just really stuck in the mentality to get as big a piece of the pie as possible without really addressing the issue in fair manner? Which is saving these fish? I am still confused???


I certainly don't have the answers, just asking questions...

Bugle1in,

If you click here , and have a few hours of free time, you should be able to find all of the answers to the questions you pose.

My thought on that is that on the rest of the streams that would have been open to retention(before the moritorium) we are intervening before the stocks get to the levels of the rivers that are now closed even to CNR. So can those rivers handle full blown harvest-- NO, Can they handle the reduced mortality of CNR- Probably.

Jerry,

If I understand what you are saying, you think that some rivers can handle some lesser degree of angler impacts, but not the full impacts of the catch & kill regulations that have been in place the past few years.

Seems like a reasonable assertion. I won't object for the sake of arguement.

Lets assume some rivers need to have reduced angler impacts. That could come in many ways. Banning bait & fishing single barbless only would reduce impacts (better smolt survival), having a C&R season in place of catch and kill would reduce impacts, having a very short catch and kill (with no C&R)would reduce impacts, and having no season at all would eliminate angler impacts.

Obviously all four of these things cannot be done simultaneously. We need to figure out which works the best.

1. If we want to have any fishing at all, then the most effective option (no fishing) is out. Maybe this should be considered for some rivers (although it hasn't helped the cedar).

2. A bait ban would send more smolts out to sea (maybe a lot more), this might solve the low escapment problem, it might not. I think its worth experimenting on a couple of rivers to see. Bait fishers will hate this option

3. Having CnR only would reduce impacts provided you monitor how many fish are CnR'd. If enough people fish, the impacts from a CnR season could reach levels that some rivers cannot support. Without monitoring there is no way to be sure what the impacts are. Fish bonkers will hate this option.

4. Having short kill only seasons would also reduce impacts provided they are monitored closely. With proper monitoring and short seasons the impacts here could be set so they are no different than 3 above. C&R fishers will hate this option as they won't be able to fish very many days.

Obviously with each option some people will be unhappy. If instead of blanket WSR(#3), we had a mixture of 2,3,4 each in place each on a different river, at least there would be something for everyone.

Also, we could figure out if any one strategy for reducing impacts was better than the others. Each one seems like it should be effective in helping the steelhead. Which is best, I don't know. I think some experimentation might help determine which is best.

With blanket regulation, we won't be able to find out which method is best or to test other approaches to steelhead managment that might come up.

I think choosing WSR as the best option in the absense of data as to its effectiveness is unwise. There are alternatives to WSR, that may be just as effective (or more so) at recovering steelhead, too bad the commission didn't consider any of them.

Hey jerry how come when I asked that question you came back with a challenge, Now when someone else asks you give them a civil answer.

Geoduck, there is hope yet. Very well reasoned post with good questions. Thanks

This was your post pimpin

Todd and everyone else from WSC. If you really loved the steelhead as much as you say, why are you fishing the skagit when there is no hatchery season? You guys preach about hooking mortality and not taking wild fish out of the water but you want to fish so bad that you come up here and fish on wild fish, what a crock of ****. Stay off of the wild fish or shut up about them

You said Todd and everyone else from WSC so I answered for ME, I cannot answer for anybody else for what they do. I haven't fished for steelhead since mid November. You were accusing all WSC members of fishing on wild fish and that statement was untrue, hence my answer.

Geoduck, I need to give your post some thought.

Bugle ... You seem to have missed a good number of posts on this board because the issues you bring up have been discussed around these parts for years.

But to rehash it again:

It's about both, they go hand-in-hand. Healthy fish runs mean we get to enjoy fishing. Poor fish runs mean everyone gets to watch Saturday morning bass shows.

Obviuosly, there are some streams affected by the decision that I fish while working and that certainly affects my livelihood, there are other streams affected that I've never fished and likely never will, but I'm just as happy to see those under this ruling, not only for the sake of the fish, but for the people that enjoy those streams.

There are rivers that are in such dire shape that there should be no fishing period.

There are rivers about which we have no idea what is really happening, yet we've allowed kill on those. How can you allow a harvest (in some case, much less C&R) fishing if you have no idea what sort of shape a stock is in.

There are rivers that are healthy enough to allow some angler impact, but in all probability not as much as we currently have.

GD ... Some valid points / questions, I'll go down the line:

1) I'd hate to see the day that comes around, not only as a guide, but also as someone who enjoys the sport as much as anyone else. It's obvious (as I mentioned above) that we need this in some areas, but due to other factors, the runs may never come back ... especially if the other factors aren't corrected. It would be an option, but that would also mean that we've probably failed completely in our efforts to manage a run.

2) Don't think you won't see this with the C&R reg in place. I fish bait at times, I also fish lots of artificials at times. Frankly I could live either way on this one. However, I kow of a number of people out this way, including some of the oldest blood in the guide community that felt the moratorium did not go far enough and you may well see a push for this in the near future ... kill or no kill. If you think the C&R issue has the angling community divided, I think you'll see this option raise even more issues than simply letting the wild ones go. The C&R reg only means no harvest for a couple of months out of the year ... a bait ban would be year-round to be effective, that's somehting that would affect a greater percentage of anglers of a longer period of time.


3) Obviously, people know I'd support this Gives maximum number of days to all anglers of all gear types. Hatchery fish (steelhead) and hatchery springers mean there's only about two months out of the year in which there wouldn't be a harvest opportunity ... although you could even call that less given the fact that I see some awfully ugly looking wild fish going home which really wouldn't be any better table fare than a hatchery kelt that you still run across in that Feb - March timeframe where fresh hatchery fish are usually not present. There is no question that with a limited resource, that the maxiumum economic return would be realized. This option also helps to protect against overharvest by our friends att he river mouth or down years that are not forecast (frankly, it seems like the weather to me in the predictions anyhow).

Most of us don't feel that it is the "end all to protect fish". It is the first step. It's the easiest step with an immediate impact to put a couple of thousand extra fish on the beds in the Quillayute system. It's about helping to ensure we have enough around while things are being re-evaluated (trust me, there are, and not by WDFW or the tribes) to see if the numbers we are all arguing about are even the corrct ones. It's also about putting our foot forward first in the efforts to decrease tribal impacts ... while netting will never go away totally w/o an act of Congress, days might be decreased if studies show we need more fish on the beds in these streams. It also about fighting for a strict quota system instead of a day allotment for tribal netting on these streams. It's about protecting the weakest part of the run ... the early fish, that often hold up with the hatchery fish around the terminal areas and don't make it to the early fish spawning areas way up in the headwaters of these streams. I'm sure I could go on, but I think most get the point, it's not prefect, but more than likley the best option we have in our laps.


4) Regarding a limited kill season. I would be opposed for several reasons: a limited kill season allows for much more over limit takes than a total no-kill ban as it's much easier to sneak an extra fish or two (or five as I know happened not too long ago in the lower Hoh) than to sneak one out under a C&R fishery. It's a matter of taking the chance of anyone seeing you take one vs. taking the chance that you don't write one down or chancing it that someone within sight hasn't seen you harvest another one. It sounds bad, but I guarantee you that LOTS of this goes on. I'm on these waters daily and talk to anglers fishing these waters daily and you can thank these sort of anglers for encouraging some of us to push even harder for no-kill regs.
Other factors to consider under the limited kill season: some anglers (as we see now) purposely try to harvest hens (bigger often better) to keep egg supply up. Harvest should be based upon an "equal chance" situation as would be the case with C&R mortality. Along these same lines, you still would have a number of anglers trying to kill the largest possibel memebers of the run ... big fish don't always make big fish, but as you wipe out all the big genes, we're left with runts. If you want to learn more about this in a fishery, please refer to ongoing issues with the Kenai River and slot limits that are now in place to ensure that some of the bigger fish make it.

If the city of Forks thinks the moratorium will hurt business, just wait until you see a couple of week season or, if things continue to decline, no season at all ...

PS ... "Stay off of the wild fish or shut up about them"

?????????????????????

I'd encouage you to run that line by a tens of thousands of members of DU, or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

I'm a member of the WSC, not PETA.

Loving a steelhead doesn't mean that you can't angle for them.

If you fish any body of water connected to the ocean, or even the ocean itself, at any time in this state, you have the chance to run across a wild steelhead.

There's happy balance PS. Many of us feel we've found it, perhaps one day you will as well.

"4) Regarding a limited kill season. I would be opposed for several reasons: a limited kill season allows for much more over limit takes than a total no-kill ban as it's much easier to sneak an extra fish or two (or five as I know happened not too long ago in the lower Hoh) than to sneak one out under a C&R fishery. It's a matter of taking the chance of anyone seeing you take one vs. taking the chance that you don't write one down or chancing it that someone within sight hasn't seen you harvest another one. It sounds bad, but I guarantee you that LOTS of this goes on. I'm on these waters daily and talk to anglers fishing these waters daily and you can thank these sort of anglers for encouraging some of us to push even harder for no-kill regs."

I'm having a really hard time with the above thought process Bob. That line of reasoning is very dangerous in regards to fisheries management. I can't even imagine what would happen if WDFW started thinking that way.

If you are concerned about too many big fish being taken then why not use slot limits? Slot limits can be effective.

Why is that line of reasoning dangerous? Because it reflects what actually goes on?

Slot limits would likely be one the conditions that I'd support a kill fishery. Their use in anadramous runs are relatively new though I believe ... we'll see how the results pan out on the Kenai over the next few cycles.

Do we have that much time though in these fisheries to find out? Maybe, quite probably not. And again, because steelhead and salmon are like appleas and oranges, what works for salmon management, may not for steelhead.

If a person is a poacher and the game department can't stop them now, then that same person will still be a poacher after May 1st. Setting rules and regulations and penalizing the mass's based on what a FEW bad apples do is not the best way to manage our resource.

Why not make the penalty for poaching a LOT more painful. If the penalty were painful enough it would do more to deter poachers than a statewide blanket ban will.

I guess you read only part of that post that explains why it is different.

It will be far easier to enforce down the road, basically because of simply now watching for the game agent, a potential poacher now will have to wonder if ANYONE's eyes are on him / her and it will be easier to enforce after to the fact as well.

Given the limited enforcement in this area, that's all the better for the fishery.

Sure it sucks Bruce, but so do a lot of things in life. We deal with them everyday and there wouldn't be a saying regarding "A few bad apples .." if it wasn't the truth.

This is only part of the reasoning as well Bruce ... don't make it sound like it's the only reason for that option.

No I read the entire post, I just don't believe that mandating a statewide policy base on what a few bad apples do is wise. I believe there are far better management options available to use.

I'm not making it sound like anything, I'm just responding to the statements in your post Bob.

Liken it to having to purchase Uninsured Motorist car insurance. You really shouldn't have to, but you do ...

It's a factor that I believe is factored in to some degree, but more than likely not nearly to the extent that it actually occurs.

That being said. Management is already set this way anyhow ... perhaps 1% of the users harvest over 50% of the run in something we call square hooks

Oh gawd don't even get me started on car insurance! But I guess I can kind of see the resemblance with car insurance and statewide WSR

Bob I just get tired of hearing about hooking mortality, then hearing the same people that talk about how high it is going and fishing on a wild fish CandR. Is that a happy medium to say that the mortality is high but still fish on these fish? That question is not meant to piss anyone off, just asking a question. I am a hatchery worker and get tired of the people bashing hatcheries and hatchery fish....We are NOT the ones that make decisions it comes from the politicians in Olympia. I just tend to take things personal when my livlihood might be taken away.

PS ... Properly equipped, and handling fish with care, mortality is actually quite low.

Not only do studies show this, but real-life experience in seeing what we lose in our broodstocking efforts also more firmly ingrain this theory for me.

Mortality is often what the angler makes it. Fish smart and it stays low. Put success rate first and it will rise ... thus the efforts of many to educate anglers that might not know any differently to enlighten them.

Some stocks cannot handle any mortality at all and should not be fished on, others that are hangin' tough can more than likley handle some asociated mortality with C&R. This is that happy medium.

I'm sorry, but IMO, hatchery fish will NEVER be a replacement for wild stocks. I'm not anti-hatchery, but I'd rather have my fish come back in all sorts of sizes, through all the winter and spring months, and I love taking a lunch breaks near active spawning areas and watching fish do their thing, from hens digging as hard as they can to big bucks chasing away smaller ones. I like the fact that I can go out on my deck and watch the progress of the redd digging.

Sporties have been screaming for many years that "times change" as they battle for fish against the commericals that use the argument that they are fourth generation fishers. Guess what, our times change too.

Your commment of "I just tend to take things personal when my livlihood might be taken away" goes both ways. How do you think I feel when I watch a fat wild hen get cracked simply because someone wants some eggs to be used for bait because the angler won't pay $2 for a tub of sandshrimp or didn't put enough hatchery steelies eggs away earlier in the season.

Something else for to consider about CNR besides hooking mortality (this is merely speculation).

Perhaps on average, a fish that is CNRed repeatedly is not as effective in spawning as a fish that has not been caught ever.

I am not aware of any data that addresses this issue. However, it stands to reason that it might have an effect. Steelhead have limited energy resources (and no way to obtain more in river) and extra energy is burnt every time a fish is caught.

Sure a CNRed fish is more productive than a bonked fish, but I bet on average not as productive as an fish that was never caught.

I just think the assumption that a CNR season will automatically have less impacts than a catch and kill season is potentially false.

I am sure that if you have 5 times as many fishermen and a season 4 times longer under CNR as you would catch and kill, then you will have more impacts under CNR just on hooking mortality. If you assume each fish was CNRed multiple times before spawning, that will probably be a negative impact too. I think we need some data on CNR fish spawning productivity before we adopt it as the permanent managment strategy of the future.

The method is irrelevant, it is the impacts to the fish that need to be controlled.


Just something to ponder. . .

Why do you say there would be 5 times as many fisherman ??? Not sure I follow you there. Thats a lot of extra fishing days. It would seem to me that you would have less fisherman or maybe the same amount ???

I've heard many of the supporters of the ruling claim that the statewide WSR ruling will create a bonanza angling opportunity on the OP. If the statewide ruling results in less Angler participation on the OP, which like you B-RUN STEELY I believe it will, then it would make sense why the City of Forks doesn't like it. right? If it creates a bonanza of Angler participation like some claim then it will most likely create a scenario much like GD pointed out.

Hi Bruce,

This is just a convenient hypothetical example.

I doubt initially there will be as many fishermen, but if the econmic argument that good fishing will bring out lots of fishermen is true, then one might expect as many as 5 times as many fisherment as presently fish, especially if these CNR fisheries are heavily promoted to bolster economic activity.

Bruce,

It is not black and white between a bonanza and a drop in angling pressure...there's a LOT of room in between where everyone is happy.

For incidental impacts to equal direct impacts, anywhere from 10 to 20 times the steelhead encounters would need to take place, perhaps even more. (This is calculated using mortality studies that range from 3%-5% for the most part, but adding in 5%-7% additional mortality to both cover any cumulative impacts that Geo is talking about and to be extra conservative, just in case.)

With angling pressure anywhere from exactly where it is now, to quite a bit more, would still be less impact. If the fishing were to get so good that more and more people visit Forks to fish those rivers, then more restrictive regulations to reduce the impacts would probably be appropriate.

You also have to remember that CnR hooking and handling mortality will not take a big leap over there now...there are already lots of folks that fish only CnR on tose fish, and those impacts are already there...it won't just show up now that harvest has been stopped.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks Bob for putting it together one slide. Its easy to see on your post that there are options. Options worth looking into for all anglers/angling. That is the key......

Your comment

"There's happy balance PS. Many of us feel we've found it, perhaps one day you will as well."

Please GIVE everyone the chance to find it and you know what, they probably will. It seems to be a fairly natural progression.....

Legislate it, and they never will.


Your right there is a happy balance. Please see that the happy balance isn't necessarily finding what you and WSC have found. (because we know that will never happen for everyone) But working together to find a lasting solution that doesn't alienate people and that ensures lasting runs of wild fish. That can be done, will it be harder? Yes, but its the right thing to do.

That, I believe is the balance that will most help all wild fish.


Cheers to all of your hard work!!

Keep in mind that the city of Forks Wa was all about logging at one time... that went away for the most part and the town is still there... Logging went away a lot like the steelhead are now. Nobody wanted to accept the fact that old growth forests were being decimated, did nothing about it... and then the Feds got involved and look what happened. You face a similar situation now in the form of an ESA listing which would really make some of you un-happy.

The two issues are very similar when you think about it.

Sorry this is a couple days late, I've been busy.

Bob- So there shouldn't be a coho fishery, where there are hatchery fish for harvest? Thats one of my fears with WSC and their agenda....whats next.

Yet, fishing for an admittedly depressed stocks in their spawning rivers is acceptable? THAT sounds more like a cop out to me. While I agree there is high mortality rates in the salt on silvers, theres more of them, so fishing them is making a smaller impact overall. In the rivers you have a confined, limited population, hammered daily on the way to their redds (and sometimes on the redds). Sounds like a no brainer to me as far as which has the higher impact on depressed runs.

My flyfishing coho in the salt comment was put there to get a reaction. This regulation seems more like a group imposing THEIR favorite way to fish on everybody else. Just like I implied in my comment.

I also have to respectfully say that I feel CFM was given too short a leash. I have seen him and MANY others take it a lot further without being kicked off. I know that this is your sight, and its your choice how you handle it. I have seen other people on the more "favorable" side of an issue be extremely abusive without reprecussion. It seems that CFM's stance got him in trouble here. At least thats the iimpression I have.

Now I wonder if I'll get the boot for disagreeing....

Now I wonder if I'll get the boot for disagreeing....

Very unfair Elkrun.

But most likely true...

That would not most likely be true--- So Aaron you've been registered all of three months and made 6 whole posts and your an expert on what it takes to get booted. You have alot to learn about PP.

Geoduck,

You’re the scientist, and now you’re asking me to consider “mere speculation” about CNR? Why?

“Perhaps on average, a fish that is CNRed repeatedly is not as effective in spawning as a fish that has not been caught ever.”

Perhaps can apply to a lot of things. But I’m not buying into this. I survived an adolescent car wreck, was knocked around more than a few times, and was winded by a few athletic endeavors, but I still managed to “spawn” and raise two outstanding kids. So yeah, perhaps, but I’d bet that most CNR’d steelhead survive to spawn just fine. And repeatedly? The average is less than once, so the fish that is caught two or three times is unusual indeed. If you need to pigeon-hole this somewhere, stick it with the incidental mortality.

“I am not aware of any data that addresses this issue. However, it stands to reason that it might have an effect. Steelhead have limited energy resources (and no way to obtain more in river) and extra energy is burnt every time a fish is caught.”

The data closest to this issue that I know about would be wild steelhead broodstocking. Those fish are truly abused. Caught - and not released - but “tubed” or tethered, man-handled into a tank truck, dip-netted into holding ponds, crowded and checked for ripeness twice a week until finally they are spawned artificially. And although a different situation, they spawned quite effectively. I have absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn’t have spawned effectively in the natural environment. Why does it stand to reason? Everything’s got limited energy resources, but as long as the energy expenditure doesn’t exceed the available supply, the fish should withstand the energy loss of one, or even two or three extra wind-sprint events caused by CNR. This could be analyzed with an energetics equation, but I don’t think you can be appeased by anything positive about WSR or CNR, and I’m not gonna’ waste my time, however, I recommend that you do so, since you think this should be considered.

“Sure a CNRed fish is more productive than a bonked fish, but I bet on average not as productive as an fish that was never caught.”

Since we cannot prove it with what we now know, what’s to bet on?

“I just think the assumption that a CNR season will automatically have less impacts than a catch and kill season is potentially false.”

Every assumption is potentially false. That’s one reason why they’re assumptions. Further, the direct impacts in hypothetical (assumptions) examples have been calculated, and the impacts of CNR are less than CNK. Will you feel better if we manufacture a hypothetical example where the impacts of CNK are less than CNR? I could do that, but it wouldn’t be meaningful.

“I am sure that if you have 5 times as many fishermen and a season 4 times longer under CNR as you would catch and kill, then you will have more impacts under CNR just on hooking mortality. If you assume each fish was CNRed multiple times before spawning, that will probably be a negative impact too. I think we need some data on CNR fish spawning productivity before we adopt it as the permanent managment strategy of the future.”

Just because you are sure doesn’t mean you are correct. And if you’re sure, you should construct a model and calculate the outcome. That might give your “sureness” some credence, provided we don’t think your assumptions are silly. Why would you assume each fish was CNR’d multiple times when the average is less than once (based on run sizes and and informal catch estimates on CNR rivers)?

I think you need a better model supporting your position before I have the time to worry about adopting CNR as a permanent management strategy. Heck, if I need data for that, what kind and amount of data do I need to justify fishing CNK the last best wild steelhead populations of Washington State into the ground?

I think you have decided that you cannot be satisfied with this two year WSR moratorium, and will pick at any and all aspects of its potential flaws while ignoring the flaws continued CNK seasons and ignoring the flaws of not adopting WSR and CNR.

I am taking the time to point it out this time, but it is my last time.

“The method is irrelevant, it is the impacts to the fish that need to be controlled.”

Thank you for including one cogent, relevant thought in your post.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Testy, Testy Salmo.

Just some speculation on my part. Please forgive me. I had forgotten a scientist is never allowed to speculate, especially when it is qualified as "merely speculation" After all its totally inappropriate to think about an issue when no solid data is present addressing that issue . . .

So why is it that you did not comment on my proposed alternatives to WSR for reducing impacts (see my previous post)
Do you think these are not valid alternatives to WSR or did you not see them?

Do you know of some data that suggests WSR is a superior method for helping fish when compared to the other 3 alternatives I proposed?

Please Salmo, you want to compare your reproductive suscess with that of a CNRed wild steelhead? I think that might be an apples and oranges comparison.

At least we can agree its the impacts that are important not how the fish dies.

I've been on a crusade to get people to think about what WSR will mean and what may have been sacrificed to put it in place. I don't think most people realize there are a lot of way to reduce impacts and WSR is not necesarily the only or even best way to do that.

For better or worse, we are looking at WSR for a couple years. I will be interested in carrying on the debate once some more current data become available.