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. . .