As Elkrun has stated, questioning those in power is what make this country great! This is why I started this discussion, because i told everyone here that there was an underlying agenda going on here. That if they thought that this would bring back all those nates, Then where are they on all of these puget sound rivers? I do not agree with the moratorium. If my rights be infringed, then so should all others. I think it pityfully useless to release a native fish,so that it can be caught in a net.At least i have the option/ability to release this fish ALIVE! I have not joined a fishing group or organization here in washington because most everyone that i have interested in has a very narrow focus. Friends of the Columbia, WSR,TU,WT and so on.What continues to instill outright disbelief is that one group will vote as a block against another. There is so much in fighting that what increases we do make are so small as to be absolutely frustrating.Separation, narrow mindedness and internal infigting makes us an easy target for the commercials and the politicians/council members that could not care less about the little fishermen. We are thought of as weak, no political threat and a hinderance to their true agenda, Getting whatever the commercials want.
I fought with my brother like all life on earth depended on the outcome, but god help anyone that tried to fight one of us. This is the problem simplified, We need to stop the infighting, we need to stop the narrown focus of our each individual goals, and we need to really focus what is good for the resource in general. If we could come together as one group, through consensus find goals, and pick each of those goals in order of our ability to get the concensus of change in our favor, before long, all of our goals would be met, and we would be the major force to be dealt with. No behind the scenes deals with any particular group.None of this stealing from peter (the sportmen) to pay/give to paul (commercial interests).We fight with each other and the commercials are asking that they be able to rape more of our resources to be able to pay for an industry that is on the verge of collapse.I do not buy commercially caught fish and do not allow any commercially caught endangered fish to be eaten in my house. I feel that if you are doing these things you are providing more money for the commercials to take more of our resource from us, thus delaying the collapse of that industry and denying my right to fish for my family.
I wish i knew who said it but i will end this note with what someone smarter than i said,"We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us"

Unless you are fishing in the tide water most likey the fish you are releasing is well pass the nets. Not so pitifull now aye?

There are other nets in the water, besides if they can sell WILD fish in the market, then i should be able to kill my own too...

Which nets are those the sportsmans? The attitude of I'm gonna kill because he can kill is kinda immature don't you think? If you want the take a native and its open all the power to you but be honest on the reasons for it.

Tight lines

Kevin

Now this is an honest question, not flamebait or anything. According to the Boldt decision, the Tribes are only entitled to net if there's harvestable fish (fish above and beyond what's needed for escapement)? Am I correct so far? Therefore, if the Tribes are allowed to net, that means there are harvestable fish. If there are harvestable fish, shouldn't sportsmen also have the right to retain a couple should they choose to? If my understanding is incorrect, pleast let me know.

I said IF, i have never killed wild fish, but if i can go and buy one that someone else has killed, then I too should be ABLE to kill one also.
The real issue is,why should I give up my right, so that another group can do what i am being denied.......

Your retention would go to hook mortality and keep the rivers open longer. Rivers open longer means more fishing. And as far as a waste of fish for hook mortality mother nature doesn't waste anything. Some see the fish that is bleeding that you need to release as a waste because its not going to you but instead its going to the river and the nutrients for that system. As far as the indians realistically I would love to see them stop netting but how sheltered is that view?

Tight lines

Kevin

That's a good point. Even though hooking mortality does far less damage to the resource than a single gillnet does, that does raise a point I hadn't considered.

So be it,if the resource is healthy enough to support ANY single group fishing, then all groups should be able to fish it too.
Jacob, that question never seems to get answered does it. Good article, keep up the good work, Fishy..........

For the 100th time, if sportsmen ever want to put serious pressure on the tribes to stop netting, we need to stop harvesting the fish ourselves. And like Kevin pointed out (also for the 100th time I believe) most of the fish caught and released by sportsmen are above the nets already.

Jacob, do you really trust the state and tribes when they say there are harvestable fish?

All the stuff in the two PSA letters have been addressed in the other threads, ad nauseum, so there's not really any need to hash it out here again.

Jacob and SSF,

The "they can, so I wanna, too!" reminds me a lot of me and my sister arguing over toys and candy...only we were 3 and 5 at the time.

Why can they do it and not you? Because they're not you, and you're not them.

They can use nets...are you mad that you can't? Why not? What's the difference?

Also, the "they're just going to end up in a net, anyway" argument is the biggest chunk of BS I've ever heard...whoever actually tries to use that one is either really out of touch with reality, or really thinks that the rest of us who hear it are not very bright.

First off, 90% of the tribal fisheries are way downstream of anywhere we fish...the fish we're catching have already made it by the nets. And in the few tribal fisheries that take place farther upstream, believe it or not, just like the fisheries downstream, they don't catch every single fish...or even close. If they did we'd never catch any fish in rivers with tribal fisheries.

As far as the Reel News goes, I think it's a pretty good rag. It provides people the opportunity to openly spread their opinions...but there's not much in the way of fact checking. I've written editorials for it before, and they were just as happy to print my opinion as the opposite one. As with anything else, opinions presented as facts are still opinions, and most of us can tell the difference.

Lastly, SSF, don't confuse "fishing" with "harvesting fish"...harvest can't occur without fishing, but lots and lots of fishing without harvesting takes place every day all over the state. With longer seasons we'll be fishing MORE than we were before over those runs, not less.

Fish on...

Todd

Jacob, could you please address the few issues I brought up above, 11 above.

Todd, some people will never learn, give them an inch and they will take a mile. Just as i proposed when this issue first came to light, there was an underlying agenda, that is to take the opportunity to those fish and give that opportunity to others. I do not care who those others are, I have just as much right to those fish and every other group. If in the wisdom of the forces that control these issues, my rights are infringed, then every other user groups right should be infringed also.This is my point.I will never stand by silently and let anyone infringe my rights, just so that others my have more rights than I. Maybe the questions that your asking me,you should be asking the people making those decisions. Why, if the resource is in such dire straights are others allowed to use these resources and not others? What makes one user group more rightful to those resources than another?
If one groups rights are infringed, to the detriment of the resource, and to be given to another user group, then are not all user groups infringed, one way or another.
I started this conversation with the hopes of having meaningful, open dialog, without infringing on others right to what they believe. Having heated discussions will open us ALL up to new thoughts,ideas, and perceptions. Denegrating anyones ideas, thoughts or perceptions should not be part of this discussion. Meaningful dialog should be.

You need a reason to give up your right to kill fish? It would be nice if everyone played fair and this country was fair. But the reality is that it is not fair and just like the real world we need to take responsiblity for our own actions. If that means that I need to not kill natives so that of the 10 offspring of that fish that I released 2 or 3 make it through the nets so be it. Thats 2 or 3 fish more that we have. This resource that we have is not unlimited. We talk about pre bolt disiction and how there were so many fish that we could take. Well that is great but in todays PC world the indians are going to net and there are going to be fish that get pass the nets and spawn. If you want to kill those fish because you want to eat one so be it I can respect those resons if it is open. But if you are killing that fish because its your right or because the indians do thats just not a good excuse in my book. But that is just one guys opinion.

Tight lines

Kevin

Geoduck
I am impressed that you are one of the few dare I say "old school" guys that realize that thou this new rule is not what you want you are willing to accept it and work with it. You have learned that you can grow beyond the gimme gimme gimme attitude. Right Todd?

Geoduck,

I have very much enjoyed your contribution to the conversations...unlike a few others you managed to bring some very good points to the table, express your belief that WSR is not all it's cracked up to be, and not search for a secret agenda or attempt to expose a made up conspiracy to do it.

SSF,

That, of course, is BS.

Check out the picture of me in my avatar...do I look like a spy for the tribal fishing lobby? See that fishing rod I'm holding? It's not a net...I caught that fish with a fishing rod. Why would you and some of the others actually think that I intend to take away our opportunity to fish for steelhead?

It's not "meaningful conversations" when your contribution is to make up a point like that one, or to bring up a situation like "they'll all go in the nets anyway" argument that also is not valid...it just doesn't happen that way.

You are very welcome to have the opinion that WSR is not your cup of tea...everyone has that right...but if you want to have "meaningful conversations" about your opinion, say something more meaningful than the above made up justifications for directly harvesting wild steelhead.

Fish on...

Todd

Well Todd, to you anyone that has a different opion than you means that that opinion is "your term" "BS". That is truely meaningful conversation.
Never in any of my posts did i say that YOU were a spy,(fabrication on your part) or imply that all fish released would automatically go to the nets. If you had spent more time thinking about the real problem here, then you perhaps would be less inclined to call everyone else's opinion ( other than what you believe in,BS).
I have continuely stated that i think the real problem here is not whether one believes that natives should be retained or not, but that stopping one group from doing so, while allowing another group to increase the catch of natives is conterproductive.
This board is a microcosm of the fishing attitude in our state, if you have a different opinion then you are blathering nothing but (BS), while we are doing that, the fox is eating very well in our henhouse.

.



OK Aunty, how about you take a crack at questions #1-#5 on CFM's thread.

Geeze, CFM's posts were benine compared to your comments.

And as far as "how long?" , I think it's more appropriate for you to ask yourself that question. Time will tell Aunty.

Aunty's back!

SSF,

If I misinterpreted your above comments to mean that a released native fish will be caught in a net, and that there is a hidden agenda to steal your fish and give them to someone else, I apologize.

However, it still looks a lot like that's exactly what you said in those quotes.

I also note above that those are not opinions...those are being stated as facts, not as opinions, and the fact is, they are not true. LIke I said, opinions are cool, misstating facts and calling them opinions is not.

Micro started it in the earlier threads, and Jacob ran with it, and now you are, too...foregone opportunity will lead to tribes catching all of our share.

No one yet has come forward with a single time that it has happened, or any reason to even bring it up other than to instill fear in people to keep harvesting wild steelhead.

Jacob and Micro were going to get back to me when they went out to find the many, many examples of when it had happened...it's been a month, and I haven't seen one example yet. Do you know where they are? Maybe you can help them find them and put them up so we can see if this is a real threat or not. Both the P.A. Chapter of PSA and the PSA State Board said it, too...maybe they have the examples on hand.

I know that I don't know of any...

Fish on...

Todd