I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything but I would really like you guys that are against the wild steelhead harvest moratorium to explain to me in simple terms why you so strongly oppose this?
I really want to see what your reasoning for your oppostion is
Thanks

I don't like statewide blanket rulings. Especially when the rulings are mandated in the manner that this one was.

So bruce, you don't oppose WSR just the regulation?

So Bruce had this been done differently and the process would have been to your liking then you would be okay with not killing native fish?

I already stated on this board numerous times that I have no problem with WSR. However it should be a management tool used when needed and on a river by river basis.

I know there I go thinking like a Neanderthal again.

"So Bruce had this been done differently and the process would have been to your liking then you would be okay with not killing native fish?"

I don't like blanket statewide rulings.

So you would not kill a native steelhead even if you could Bruce?

If it were legal to do so maybe maybe not. To the best of my knowledge I have never intentionally kill one in my lifetime. I also don't target wild steelhead in areas where they are in trouble.

I can see Bruces logic behind the blanket rule theory, BUT dont all steelhead go to the same ocean? It is stil relatively unknown where steelhead travel in the salt, but one of the contributing factors STATEWIDE may be adverse ocean conditions???

If it were resident trout populations we were talking about than i would be 100% agianst blanket rulings, but since steelhead travel the high seas, the statewide moratorium sounds good to me. Besides, we raise ample number of hatchery fish for people that like to take one home, so i dont see the logic in killing a nate at all...

I agree BW! I cannot see the logic behind killing a native steelhead

Look, they made a state wide ruling because it has worked before. A few years back WDFW made a state wide release of wild sea-run cutthroat in marine waters. In the couple years that followed, these magnificant fish went from being on the verge of colapse to thriving in many places. It has worked before, so it should work again if people cooroperate.

i think it worked on cutthroat because they aren't targeted(to my knowledge) by commercials. it's pretty much a recreational only fishery, so it was us doing most of the damage. steelhead are a different matter. they are caught intentionally and accidently in gill nets

i'm siding with bruce on this one. blanket rulings are a very dangerous way to do things. i most likely would never keep a wild fish anyway, but i don't like the idea of it being mandatory everywhere

Wheres that damned remote, I'm sick of reruns...

Simple terms...


Because they taste good!!!


I agree with Bruce. State wide blanket are not a good thing.

i deleted my post, i think ive said that a few hundred times already.

Fishihngjunky -
Your cutthroat example is faulty - yes the marine waters are closed to the retention of cutthroat but it also closed to the retention of the wild steelhead and has been for some time. There are plenty examples of waters where retention of cutthroat is still allowed - for example the Nisqually, Puyallup, Green, Lake Washington, Snohomish, portions of the Stillaguamish, Skagit, Samish, and Nooksack.

Where the cutthroat were in mixed stocked areas (marine waters) the retention of the them is prohibited once they sort they themselves out in local rivers harvest is allowed where it was thought to be appropriate based on biologically sound bag and size limits. As you point out this system seems to have worked well given the good cutthroat fishing you and others report. They are being managed as steelhead were prior to recent WSR moratorium.

tight lines
S malma

I would say that in some cases blanket rules work and in others they just flat out suck. I can't remember which one, but one of the commissioners who voted against the moratorium brought up the point that Bruce has voiced, that being managing steelhead on a case by case basis. My question is, how long is it going to take to implement all the necessary case by case regulations? Seems like it would require constant monitoring for all streams that receive constant fishing pressure. I could see this moratorium having a positive impact on smaller creeks that only host small runs, but then you run up against a lack of enforcement. What will it take to educate the masses so that they can police themselves? I have mixed feelings about this moratorium and though I support it in spirit of wild steelhead release I also feel like it is somehow a copout.

I really don't have a problem with WSR since I've been releasing nates for the last 15 or 18 years. I do tend to agree with those who voice concern about how the rule was implemented. And, many on this board have been strong proponents of bubble fisheries and management by system but now many of those same people are advocating statewide rules AND bubble fisheries and management by system. I see some hypocrisy in that. I will continue releasing nates as I have been and only poachers and netters will now be killing them and I am willing to bet the runs will continue to decline.

Another just for the record I have never killed a nate. Im with bruce its got to be on a river by river basis.....DJ

actually, i believe you can keep cutties in just about everywhere but the salt. i'm not much of a cnk fisherman for trout(don't usually like the taste em) but i've been known to keep a few every blue moon

Just fish

harvesting or intentionally killing a wild steelhead is a slfish act of stupidity and shows great disregard for the future welfare of the species.

What HARM will WSR do?

Harvesting a wild steelhead shows great disregard for the future welfare of the species??

Consider this. Man is probably at the top of the evolutionary list here on earth and much more highly evolved than a fish. To catch, eat, and assimilate the material body, nutrients, energy and life essence of that fish offers it the opportunity to short-circuit the arduous evolutionary path to the top. Being consumed by a man or even a woman for that matter honors any fish. Releasing that fish robs it of any chance to experience life at the top.

And that is an unarguable fact rob! Period!!! :p

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me ................

Plunker a wild steelhead killed by a selfish idiot and used as nutrients for his body is one that won't spawn and perpetuate the species. Therefore every wild fish some idiot eats caused further extinction of the species.
anyone who harvests or wants to harvest a wild steelhead wants them to go extinct.

harvesting a wild steelhead makes a person a scumbag who cares only about his own gratification.

Robert,

That's aweful... All that talk about extinction and extinct fish going even more extinct.

And that's final. Period. :p

Good one Plunk: I didn't know you had a sense of humor!

I love my dog so I'm going to honor him by having him for dinner. The great thing about dog is there is a drumstick for everyone! But I fear he will "evlove" into a septic swimmer. Oh well everything evolves in diffrent ways.

Why are dogs made of meat?

Selfish idiot and Scumbag!

It's good to see people argue their points so eloquently. I'm surprised anyone is left believing that is appropriate to have a nice steelhead (wild or not) dinner.

Rob Allen AKA Robert Allen 3 :

Go to this website and address the people who kill the most wild steelhead. Tell them what idiots and scumbags they are and see if they stop.

http://www.salmonstewards.org/

Ya know, I love my wife so I think I'm going to eat ... Oh. Nevermind.

"Why are humans made of meat?" - George Donner, 1847

:D Does HE know this??

Coffee hit the monitor on THAT one Dave!

If people can't eat dogs and cats, who's going to fight for their rights?

I think we're on to something here!

Fish on...

Todd

{Why are "Plunker & Bruce" made of meat?}

Just playing with ya!

Aunty –
A fair enough question-

What HARM will WSR do?

The question likely needs some clarification – harm to what?

Harm to steelhead? While there should be no direct harm to steelhead there is some potential for indirect harm in a couple of ways. 1) Many feel that this moratorium is a conservation tool – it is not, for more than 20 years WSR has been a management tool to provide angler opportunities on hatchery fish while minimizing impacts on the wild fish of concern. 2) Many in the angling world and the non-fishing public may view the statewide moratorium on the retention as a magic bullet to cure what ails our steelhead populations – believe it or not; not everyone reads this bulletin board. 3) Some anglers may feel that it would be OK to continue to fish stocks in severe trouble as long as it was under WSR – even though at some point no fishing should be allowed. 4) Some folks would see this an opportunity to extend fishing time by either wanting to fishing after the hatchery fish are done or by encouraging the planting of hatchery fish in what may be inappropriate situations. Are any of these enough to negate the potential benefits from this approach – probably not but they do point out the need for continued education of the angling public. There reality is that WSR has been the normal for maybe 95% of our wild steelhead populations and it has helped none – so is it a help?

Will it likely reduce the diversity of anglers fishing for steelhead? Yes, it is likely that some “bonkers” may drop out of the fishery, at least seasonally. Is that a harm – depends on ones viewpoint however for me it is a loss as we lose a portion of our angler base. Clearly many feel it is a gain but is that because they now have a large piece of the pie for their own interest?

This has been as divisive as an issue for the angling community as we have seen for sometime. Given the general apathy and natural division within the community this is a harm.

Does this establish a management standard of sweeping strategies for resources that may be in trouble? For example halibut at one time were common in Puget Sound and even supported a commercial fishery. Given that they are now rare should we institute a statewide prohibition on all halibut fishing? Ling cod? All marine water salmon fisheries? This has a large potential for reduce angler opportunity - a harm.

Just my opinions – It is for each of us to weight these and other factors and decide for ourselves whether this largely symbolic gesture (provides some marginal benefits in a very limited area) worth the risks. As I have said before it is large a question of how much risk and what kind of risk one is comfortable with. However it is my hope that now that the moratorium is here folks and put it behind us (at least for the next two years) and focus on some of the more important issues facing our steelhead that we are all so passionate about.

Tight lines
S malma

S malma

I disagree WRS has greatly helped wild steelhead in the Washougal and East Fork Lewis rivers. Though runs are far from robust back in the 80's sport anglers harvested them in great numbers as bycatch when targeting extremely large hatchery runs. Had WSR not become law on these rivers it's extremely likely that these wild runs instead of being 100-400 fish a season they would be 10-15 fish a season. WRS has kept wild steelhead from foing extinct in the Washougal.

I'd also point out that at the time there was great opposition to WRS in the Washougal, which was in the top 5 rivers in the state by punchcard records. Northwest steelheaders even opposed WRS on the Washougal at the time.

I have said this over and over and over.. there are millions of hatchery fish all over the state of Washington.. fill your cards with thoes.. There is no need for anyone to harvest a wild fish ever..


Grandpa thanks for the link I will now so exactly what you suggested.. Those people also need to stop harvesting wild steelhead,,

Why would I harvest a wild steelhead? Because I don't think they're all wild.

To me the blanket rule shows pure laziness by the state. Instead of doing the reesearch to see what rivers actually need help they just shut em all down.

One postive thing is that with us not taking fish the nets will get they're share quicker. IMHO they only thing that is going to come from this is a larger harvest of fish by the nets.

Kris

One of the main reasons I am against this wsr rule is how its paraded around the fishing boards as a huge victory for native fish yet 90% percent of washington state rivers have been wsr for years now and in only one case have the"wild" steelhead #s rose with any significance and I think that has to do more with decreased netting in that system then wsr.

Supporting WSR is avoiding the real issues affecting the healthy returns of our fish.

Again I believe its nothing more than a do gooder feel good law.

Micropterous

having been around the conservation issues my whole life and the same things always without excetption happens. I am not kidding this happens every single time..

A group decides it wants to do something good. They plan it out and get it all organized, do the politicking it takes they get commissioners on their side. then boom some other group comes in with a complaint and shoots down the whole works and nothing good for fish ever gets done. This happens every single time consequently nothing ever gets done for wild fish. Frankly i am sick of it I want things good done for wild fish and i couldn't care less what affects it has on anyone else because they never cared about the effects of their actions on fish..

Again you might see this as extreme but it's only extreme to the extent of the anti wild fish actions that have gone on for a centruy and are still going on today.
Foregive the crude analogy but it's 100% accurate. Wild fish have been taking it up the butt for 100 years. it's time for the reaming to end and I for one don't care how it ends as long as it does end..

wild steelhead in the state of washington are in decline in every single river system In every river there are fewer fish than there were 20 years ago This by deffinition means that wild steelhead are in the process of extinction, I for one want that process stopped by any mans possible.

People who don't think current wild steelhead populations are truly wild don't know and most likely don't care about the science and are factually incorrect.

Rob you are obviously very intelligent, so you should know that if you are really that concerned about our healthy populations of wild steelhead and their well being then you should hang up your steelhead rods and quit fishing for them.

Thanks for the complement rob. I wasn't sure until you pointed it out that I'm not a scientist. Sure is good to know I'm normal.

i agree

Good Grief RA3.

If you think steelhead are about to become extinct how does your conscience allow you to fish for them?

You make these extreme statements about the plight of wild steelhead and then act like CNR fishing has no impact. Sure CNR is easier on the fish than gillnets, but if you think they are in danger of extinction you should be screaming for a total closure of all fishing including CNR.


Wild salmonids are resilient fish. I don't think fishing pressure figures very prominently in the declines we have seen. Look the oldest watershed pictures you can find and then look at the same stretch of river now and it immediately becomes clear why salmonids are having some trouble. Salmonid habitat has changed so dramaticallly over the past 100 years, its a wonder the declines haven't been far worse.

As I've said before, overfishing is easy to fix, it's the habitat problem that is the tough one.

Reply to grampa..... Sic'em! We all know NOW who is responsible for the decline of steelhead in our lifetime....the tribes aren't the only cause of steelhead mortality.... corporations and commercials are equally to blame. Granted, the tribes rape and pillage on a scale which, by comparison, is tenfold to what the commercial and corporate( corporate meaning industrial) entities are doing. It seems that you are very passionate when speaking of tribal outrages with regards to OUR fish, and in the past, I think you have mistakenly come to believe that I am a supporter of tribal fishing rights that are screwed up thanks to the dear departed judge Boldt. I think the tribes have rights to sustenance fishing only, not the outright profiteering and slaughter that they so eagerly persue. I made a statement on an earlier post that I believed the tribes were doing their fair share of trying to conserve the resource, but I was sadly misinformed. To this I humbly admit, and hope that in the future, I will not be so easily swayed. I believe that NOONE should harvest wild steelhead.

Sport anglers, the tribes, the timber companies, and developers are all currently in a circle pointing fingers at each other. Until we step out of the circle by making a serious reduction in our impacts, our finger pointing is the same as their's.

Rob, so what your saying is that regardless if it helps the fish or not its the thought that counts?

I want to stop netting in the sound and in the rivers but those dang commercials and and indians keep getting in the way! That doesnt mean I will settle for anything that seems like it will help the fish regardless of its effectiveness and how it affects local communitys. I will settle for other things that will help the fish though like thinning out the pinnepeds and commorants and fighting for hatchery reform.

stopping nets is an absolute no brainer of course that would be good for fish. However that is not something we can do anything about. Until a court case gets challenged.

About habitat if you look at the habitat of the Washougal 100 years ago what you'll see is that the entire watershed was clearcut to the banks the river had 3 dams and a grist mill on it. What you'll see is that in the last 100 years the habitat has greatly IMPROVED!!!!!!!

Catch and release if done properly has almost no impact. What I cannot understand is why anyoine needs to harvest a wild fish or why anyone would want to other than greed. Explain that to me

Rob..for someone who sees the world in simple absolutes I cannot fathom why you do not hold the tribes to the same standards as everyone else. You give them a pass in the next breath after saying "WHATEVER IT TAKES"

Rob..for someone who sees the world in simple absolutes I cannot fathom why you do not hold the tribes to the same standards as everyone else. You give them a pass in the next breath after saying "WHATEVER IT TAKES"

You can't imagine how anyone could kill a wild steelhead...How about the tribes who catch wild steelhead all the time and feed them to their dogs? In your world it seems to me you would want to take up arms against them and wipe them off the face of the earth! Whatever it takes...your words....whatever it takes. Since the courts won't do it why don't you? Do you write to them and tell them they are idiots? fools? scumbags? Come on Rob even you can apply your brand of justice to everyone out there who doesn't follow your rules.

grandpa.

The tribes have a right to harvest those given to them by the court of the United States. I hate the fact that they chose to act upon that right and I desperatly wish they wouldn't. However as a sport angler I have no influence over what they do or the legality of it.
With sport fishermen however i might have some influence and potential influence of the legality if wild harvest. I feel the same way about the columbia river gillnetters. and i feel exactly the same way about sport fishermen. No one should be killing these fish. Any user group we can keep from killing these fish is a good thing. I totally do not buy into the "if we don't get them they will philosophy" I think that way of thinking is morally bankrupt.
An analogy
Hmm that sleeping hobo there has a dollar bill hanging out of his pocket, I should grab it because if i don't someone else will.

I don't think thats the attitude sport anglers should have. If we have that attitude then we have no legitimacy to any requests for the end of tribal netting.
It's like going to a gunfight and telling the other guy to drop his gun which is pointed at you while you have yours pointed at him.

Still no one has answered my basic question. With so many hatcher fish avalible for harvest years around why kill a wild one??

And why is it I offer any type of compromise at all that I am met with contempt. It seems that you a re only interested in having it the way you want it and nothing else. My way or the highway so to speak.
I have offered many compromises in the past and been basically blown off. since a compromise isn't workable why shouldn't i take a hard line aganst wild harvest? If your not interested in reason why should I be?
Wild fish are more important than your ego, more important than you having a full belly and vastly more important than a trophy over anyones fireplace.
Harvesting wild fish is stupid therefore anyone who harvests a wild steelhead is doing a stupid thing. Stupid is as stupid does so anyone who harvests a wild fish is therefore stupid. Don't like it??? TOUGH.

ok Rob I will answer your question.

There is alot of people out there that enjoy fishing and also (shame on us!) enjoy eating fresh fish, not the crap they supply in the stores. Why wild fish? because of the "enjoy fishing part of it".

Sure there are plenty of hatchery fish out there to eat but It kind of hard to enjoy fishing when half the time your tangled up every five cast by some greenhorn, or your have to fish shoulder to shoulder with people who "set the hook" three or four times in one cast, or how about the morons that wade out where the fish are lying, or idiots using planner boards in prime drift water , or fly fishermen who just watched a river ran through it and like to watch there flourescent line whipping back and forth through the air more than actually working on the presentation, or getting snagged evry three cast and hollering fish on while playing there huge rockfish E.T.C....................................................................................................................

Hatchery fish attract hords because they are so easy to catch or snag.

Wild fish on the other hand are virtually ignored by the newbies and snaggers. I can have several hundered yards of bank to myself or fish with other knowledgeable and courteous fishermen.

Selfish? you might say. Ya I guess a little bit.
But so are the catch and release fanactics who want everything there way regardless of effectiveness or how it affects other people.

Face it ,without wild fish I am screwed to. We can have are fish and eat them too, but we need to act according to effectiveness not this "have to get our house in order first" B.S

There are things that we can target other than nets that would help the fish return, though nets would be the #1 priority. The state really screwed themselves when they just gave the tribes casinos. They had a huge bargaining chip. In colorado the tribes are suing the state for 28 million acres but they say they will drop the suit if the can have one casino!

Micro, one point I want to make about your post there. We have both hatchery and wild fish in the system at the same time here in Idaho. Unless its right at the hatchery... wild fish are much easyier to catch than hatchery fish. They are a lot more aggressive. They look and fight totally different also. 9 out of 10 times I can tell its a wild fish before I ever see it.

B run steelie, alot of our rivers here in washington are the same way (combined runs)

But because the fact that hatcheries fisheries attract so many people most of the rivers with combined runs have property owners sick and tited of all the garbage and other problems so it seems every year there is less and less bank access on those rivers besides WDFW public access. On the Skokomish we cant even count on the state to provide access anmore. The indians just bought 160 acres bordering the reservation on the opposite side of the river including the WDFW accesses next to both bridges. The only access now is through private property or the purdy creek cuttoff road.

Perhaps better hatchery practices could spread the hatchery run out over the season, rather than have them all show up at once, run up to the hatchery, and have all the dingbats in three counties show up to trash the place and snag fish.

Any fall salmon fishery around these parts is evidence that something is wrong with the picture...

Micro,

Not trying to change the subject, but it's been two months...have you found that long list of times that the tribes have claimed Foregone Opportunity and got all of our fish, yet?

If so, you ought to start a new thread to get them all out there so we can all see them...

Not trying to stir the pot...well not too much at least ...but you were pretty adamant that you knew all about them and were going to get them all for us to see, and I for one would really like to see them.

Fish on...

Todd

I am not sure that spreading the hatchery season out is a good thing. At least not on rivers with a healthier than average run of wild fish. A good model for me is the Bogy and Calawah hatcheries. This is also where you may see some of the problems you mentioned Micro. because of the hordes of fish stacked by the hatchery and that this fishery is the only game in town in Dec. It can be short and sweet with hopefully little impact on the native runs.

Micro *LOL* There are plenty of hatchery runs that have very little pressure where there is miles of water between anglers. Blue creek ain't the only hatchery in the state of washington. Most rivers are uncrowded...

KK...keep looking real hard for accurate information on tribal catch rates ...self regulated and all....Hard to know what is really going on when the "comanagers" don't really manage anything but control everything. They do what they want and we can't do anything about it.

a friend of mine turned in a poacher last week on either the calawah or the upper sol duc can't remember.. anyway he had 8 wild steelhead that he killed... Sport fishers are no better than the tribes when we have scumbags like this among us...

Also if you don't like fishing hatchery runs because of snaggers then turn them in!!! Down here in southwest Wa we saw how public ourtage against snagging lead to increased enforcment just this last fall.

Todd, I never reciecved a response from the state about forgone opportunitty. So I guess I cant prove it right now.


Rob, I thought all hatcheries led to blue creek , dum me.What was I thinking? Duh.

I dont know where you have been fishing but Blue creek aint nothing compared to some other places I have been including the skok, hoodsport, minter creek,bogie, lewis,wind,drano,white salmon, nisqually,etc........................

Sometimes your better off keeping your mouth shut and letting people think your an idiot rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Rob didn't you say a few weeks back how some old guy was fishing somewhere on OP and he caught something like 30 wild steelhead using bait and released them all. Your were using this as an example of how we should all be fishing.

The lewis ain't crowded unless you insist upon fishing at the hatchery, also the cowlitz is only crowded at blue creek and barrier dam, the rest of the river sees very little pressure.
the wind and drano.. are you not aware that there are hatchery runs of fish within an hour of thoes locations that go virtually unfished?

R A 3 (quote) There are plenty of hatchery runs that have very little pressure where there is miles of water between anglers. Blue creek ain't the only hatchery in the state of washington. Most rivers are uncrowded... What state are you referring to? Also I was curious since you are so adamant about wild steelhead release do you feel the least bit guilty about building rods or are they only intended to catch or kill hatchery fish

Are you aware that there are healthy native runs within minutes of my house that are unfished?

why should I have to drive 3 hours so I could fish these virtually unfished hatchery runs your talkin about in WA, and no I am not aware of any hatchery runs that are virtually unfished. Hell there use to be quite a few but these wild steelhead release rules have concentrated more people on the hatchery rivers all over the state in the last 5 years.

Hell there use to be quite a few but these wild steelhead release rules have concentrated more people on the hatchery rivers all over the state in the last 5 years. [/QB][/QUOTE]

So what would you have on the few rivers that a few of you think should be open to retention of wild fish ????

Forget the commercial fisherman and forget the gillnets. Arguments that include them are off the topic at hand (The moritorium against the "sportfishing" harvest of wild steelhead).

The ONLY impact on steelhead that succesfully accend their natal streams is OUR harvest of them. We are it, man, the last domino between them and "sex on the redd," and our negative effect on their population has been greater than you might think. Think about it. The native winter steelhead that are so abundant imediately after a high water event are present because the the gillnetters cannot fish under flood conditions. This hydrology is not going to change in the future. If all those fish are released instead of being killed their numbers will grow exponentially. Take responsibility, folks.

Sol o' Duc,

You assume that reproduction is what is limiting steelhead populations. That is almost certainly not true on most streams showing a declining run size trend (ie cedar R or puyallup.).

Once again, THE PROBLEM IS HABITAT. Its not sexy or controversial, but it is true.

If harvest limits the population, when you stop harvest there should be a population growth response. The fact that there hasn't been on many rivers where WSR has been in place for a decade or more suggests that WSR will not solve the problem of decline for many rivers. Only remedying the limiting factor (poor habitat) will recover these runs.

One HUGE difference in your example there Goeduck, The Cedar and Puyallup (as well as almost ALL of the other WSR rivers in the state) had BOTH over-harvest and degraded habitat issues.

The OP rivers still have habitat that is in pretty good shape, (thanks to the National Park) so that half of the battle is already won. We'll NEVER know if harvest is the primary limitation or not on those streams if we don't eliminate harvest.

p.s. I mean sport harvest of course. I wish we could eliminate ALL harvest (Tribes) at least for a while, then we'd really see... wouldn't we.

I both agree and disagree.

Habitat destruction, logging, loss of spawning gravel/siltation, etc., does impact anadromous fish poputations. However, I have not seen less available spawing habit (on rivers with striped watersheds) than than I've seen wild steelhead, i.e. there are still more gravel beds than there are steelhead to spawn on them. I'm not sure about the hydrology on the Cedar or Puyallup or other rivers you speak of, but I know the Forks rivers may actually be a stronghold for native steelhead because of the annual floods caused by logging. It's a catch 22 situation.

"Why the need to kill native fish?"

Good question!

Why do catch-and-release anglers need to kill native fish?

I like to eat them but if one does not kill them for food...
Then why not restrict your catch-and-release mortality to Hatchery stocks.

The following letter seems to fit this thread exceptionally well.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Debating the Merits of Catch-and-Release

Dear Mr. Letherman:

My name is John Nelson, and I'm writing in response to your editorial, "Just My Opinion," in the May 2002 issue of Fish Alaska magazine. I'm 61 years old, and I've hunted and fished all my life - still do. I helped build Nick Botner's lodge on the Talachulitna back in the 70s, and my wife and I ran Stephan Lake Lodge one summer back in those days. While working for Botner, I guided Europeans for king salmon and trout during the summer and American hunters for sheep and caribou in the fall. I've dry fly fished the Boardman in Michigan and the Big Horn in Montana and a few places in between. Let me offer some considerations on catch-and-release fishing. What follows is fact - not conjecture, not opinion - but fact.

First, catch-and-release kills fish. Period. At a catch-and-release mortality rate of five percent, one out of every 20 fish caught and released dies, or, said another way, the fish dies the 20th time it's caught. At a mortality rate of eight percent - the catch-and-release mortality rate for Kenai kings as defined by ADF&G studies-one out of every 13 fish caught and released dies. Period. Moreover, the closer the fish are caught to saltwater, the more that rate rises.

If the guide mentioned in your editorial is serious about not being able to stomach a client killing a Kenai king, he should stop guiding. Even with catch-and-release fishing, that guide is killing kings.

The guides and their clients on the upper river rainbow trout fishery are killing the rainbow trout at a rate of five percent. In 2000, there were 78,000 rainbow trout caught on the upper river from a population of 25,000, which means each trout was statistically caught 3.1 times during the year. Five percent of the rainbow trout have only one eye, and 85 percent of the six-year-old trout present mouth damage. Moreover, by the time the fish is seven years old, it will have been caught 20-plus times. Statistically, the fish is dead. Area biologists are noting a decline in large upper river rainbow trout - it would seem that fewer and fewer of the fish can live long enough to get truly large.

Second, catch-and-release fishing, that is fishing for the fun of deceiving an animal, fighting it to exhaustion, enjoying the animal's struggle, and releasing it to do it again, killing some in the process is simply animal abuse that panders to boorish human impulses.

An angler fishing for table fare must on occasion release a fish: too small, wrong species, etc., but that kind of catch-and-release is an unavoidable concomitant of "meat" fishing. All harvest of human food involves some waste - it's unavoidable. However, catch-and-release simply for its own sake is another animal altogether. How can we justify deceiving an animal and then taking pleasure in its fear and violent efforts to free itself? As one has concluded:

"The enjoyments of catching fish for sport, in large measure, consist of purposely inflicting fear, pain, and suffering on fish by forcing them to violently express their interest to stay alive. [ . . . ] The very real challenge to anglers, then, is to find a justification for their cruel treatment . . . ." -from a paper by a professor of ichthyology at a Canadian university."

That catch-and-release fishing kills fish simply to gratify the crude human impulses that enjoy experiencing an animal's struggle to live is fact. That kind of enjoyment is synonymous with the kids back in grade school who'd pull the wings off flies or turpentine a cat. Conservationist rhetoric to the contrary, catch-and-release kills and abuses fish for no other reason than that some dolt can get off on the animal frantically expressing its will to survive. That, Mr. Letherman, is fact.

Simply put, catch-and-release fishing is driven by money. A fish that can be caught 13 times or 20 times before being killed generates more money for the sport fishing industry than does a fish killed the first time it's caught. All the hypocritical blather aside, catch-and-release fishing makes guides and sports writers more money. And that's the bottom line.

Someday, Mr. Letherman, catch-and-release fishing will go the way of Jim Crow laws and cigarette smoking in public buildings. We'll never be rid of human stupidity, but we increasingly disallow its public expression. Think about it the next time you hook a fish. Does anyone imagine a fish jumps and pulls and twists to amuse us?

Sincerely,
John Nelson
Soldotna, Alaska

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Plunker... your reaching dude, I mean, even you can't post that junk and believe your making a point can you.... You sound like a PETA guy more and more each post. Your old angle was more entertaining.

Plunker,

I take it that you approve of tormenting animals so long as you kill and eat them. OK, so those are your values, and I'm not judging you negatively for it.

And Mr. Nelson's values tolerate waste (catching and releasing under-sized fish or wrong species) while engaged in the process of tormenting animals to kill and eat. Fine. He's entitled to his values.

See where I'm going here? I'm not going to tell you or Mr. Nelson what your values ought to be. And you won't be telling me what my values ought to be. We're square, buddy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

If catch & release fishing is purely cruel and unusual torment of fish, doesn't it follow then that having the state fund and raise fish so so-called "sportsmen" can catch them in any kind of a "fun" way(even if they eat them!) even more perverse? Hatcheries are nothing but state sanctioned pervert attractions!

No one who eats fish should ever stoop to the level of actually enjoying the thrill of catching one. All fisheries should be commercial only, perhaps even some kind of automated collection device because I've heard some commercial fishermen actually enjoy what they do.

Any fish product destined for human consumption should only contain finished ready-to eat meat like fish sticks. Under no circumstances should any consumer be able to buy a fish "in the round" or with the head attached because the torture and anguish the fish was subjected to may be permanently imprinted on its face.

Is golfing perverted? If not, I guess I'll go shopping for clubs. I was going to join PETA, but then I remembered I enjoy gardening...
wouldn't want to play with my food...

Actually Salmo, were not square. Seems how the state has decided to pass rules determining whos "values" should be followed.


B run steely

Plunker a member of peta? LOL.

last I heard peta was for the ban and also for the ban on body griping traps. There the ones that evidently like to watch animals die a slow and agonizing death seems how everybody uses poison now.

Gsiegal, Interesting post.

Thats exactly where were headed if people keep letting the state pass rules that are not based in science.

because they are in trouble and they want to save them ?

boater you need to get it through your skull that wild steelhead release and catch and release are two different things. That's why WDFW has them listed differently.

That's it Bruce when all else fails start with the name calling you and your buddies are so good at!
Oh that's right you've been kick off of here
:p
Nevermind

Why can't we just go out and fish, if you catch a fish with an extra fin, throw it back as it says in the regulations. If the river you are fishing allows the retention of a fish with the extra fin then you make the call wether to throw it back or not.

Hey stew
Bruce's "idiot comment" is nothing that anyone on that board wouldn't or hasn't already said.

We're talking about how the regulations we all follow are set.

You can either take part, or just live with what they give you. Either way, it's your choice to make.

wsr= catch fish, unhook and let go

cnr= catch fish, unhook and let go

JG,

Don't bother with the WSR/CNR distinction with boater...he knows the difference...he's just being difficult.

I wouldn't worry about it...

Fish on...

Todd

Have to agree that we will never be rid of human stupididty.. But is seems that we embrase it's public expression these days...


So if one out of 5 released fish die. what is the difference in catching two fish knocking them dead and heading on your merry way. Or catching 10 fish and releasing them all having two die? Maybe it should be that you are not allowed to release any fish! Keep what you catch period. and set the limits accordingly...

So Rivershrk---- where did you come up with the 20% mortality rate?

Sorry JG,

1 out of every 20 fish....

So I catch two bonk em and go home or catch 40 fish and two die.. Now I know by reading here that 40 fish days are all too common..

The point being is not everyone is going to catch 2 fish everytime out. However the ones that are going to catch 2 fish are most likely the ones to catch the 20 fish in a day.

Limit the take to one fish.. You catch it you go home for the day.. One fish caught and dead.. Seems to take allot of the guess work out of it. Anglers report the catch on the catch card and that is that.

Shark. What about those anglers that don't wish to eat a fish. Are you suggesting that they waste them?

Once again, a fisher argues that the best deal is to minimize fishing. Let's just say I'm happier catching 40 than 2. And if the net result is the same, how can you say you're NOT better off catching 40 fish and eating Hungry Man dinners?

For the love of Pete..........what's wrong with you'se guys?

Bob,

Why kill a fish if you do not wish to eat it?
My granddad and pops taught me you kill it you grill it otherwise you are a waste!

But Actually Bob I do believe there is a balance and a state wide ban on native fish is not the balance.

Dan
Why should I give up what I love eating for your pleasure?

You like eating fish better than fishing?

Ok, I guess........I just don't understand.

I've heard others express the same opinion........I just can't fathom it myself. I can't think of anything I'd rather eat instead of fishing..........well, maybe something.

Dan the only reason I fish is to eat them!! Understand that the pursuit of food and the setting of the table is the ultimate reward.

The chase gives the saticfaction to know that all the work put forth into fooling the fish that I am about to eat has paid off. The ablility to wake up in the morning and the ability to be able to still use my own body and strength to pursue food is what makes it great. I love the outdoors too much to not pursue them. Same falls true for the hunt.

I understand.

I'd still give up a fish dinner for an extra couple days' fishing though.

That is great.. But I am not willing to give up my dinner for your pleasure...

But you think I should give up days worth of fishing for yours?

Oh.......I see.

Nope I did not say that either.. I mearly pointed out that there is more than one way to skin a fish.. ..

As I said there is a balance..

There are many ways to keep it balanced. However our so beloved commission decides all to often to lean to extremes. Mostly because there are a bunch of whiners beating them down all day screaming extreme measures are needed we have to do this.. Blaaa blaaa blaaaa... Orgs that take measures the same way PETA or other anti orgs use.. It is pretty clear to see..

I am very reasonable and have no problem releasing a wild fish if SCIENCE can prove that it will save the resource.
So how about a system where you are allowed to catch and release up to 20 fish in a given day and I am allowed to Catch and keep one?? You have to record all fish caught and released and I have to record all my keeps..

The way the stocks of wild fish are going downhill the day will come when you won't be able to keep a wild fish if the harvest numbers stay where they are today. That's a fact.

What harvest number Anglers or NETS? Do harvest numbers account for the 1 in 20 fish that die from C&R? NOPE no way to track that cuz they are not recorded... Jerry the numbers for harvest do not take allot of other things into concideration that need to be. It is not just harvest that is declining the population. It is many eliments... That is fact!

I get ya.......and I wouldn't be opposed to a reg setting a limit on the number you can hook and release, either. But it would be very difficult to enforce. Without anything for a gamey to look at, how could this count be confirmed?

Yup Dan I agree enforcement is and always will be an issue. However the folks that are going to buck the system are going to buck it no matter what the laws are..

Wdfw does include hooking mortality in their numbers(not harvest numbers) when they figure total run size and escapement etc.
Can't do anything about the nets without an act of congress--- so that argument is senseless. So your telling me that you think that fisherman (maybe you) from Seattle will drive to the Forks area and catch a fish in the first 5 minutes (have to bonk the first one) and start their drive home and be happy with their experience.

And just how does the wdfw track that hooking mortality rate? There is no method to track it is there?

As far as the truck to the coast.. I have already stated that there is more than one way to skin a fish.. If 1 fish dies out of ever 20 caught. Then why not make the catch and release limit 20 and the catch and keep limit 1? Those who want the meat can have it and those who want the experience can have it. Both being limited eaqual..
Make it manditory to mark down every fish caught and released..

Yes enforcement is an issue but It is an issue with every game regulation. Beings that everyone here is a law obiding sportsman or woman there should be no problems....

WDFW estimates the mortality rate from CNR or WSR just like they estimate for poachers. So under your plan what would keep somebody from CNRing 10 fish and bonking the 11 one?

Once upon a time, didn't they have a system like that here in Washington? I seem to remember a year or two period where we had to mark whether we released or killed a native if caught.

Shark ... Anglers are queried by creel counters as to how many fish have been released on all the remaining open streams.

On the Hoh this year, they have even gone as far as asking what every single fish was hooked on and where it was hooked.

Jerry brings up a big issue here ... nearly all anglers that do harvest a fish also catch and release that day, especially those in the guide boats that put up larger numbers as a whole.

AHHH that is simple you are either meat fishing or pleasure fishing.. There is no both ways..

You keep a fish you best only have one marked...

Yes there is a hole that non law obiding sportsmen and women could certainly not mark their fish off and keep one and only mark that one.
Pick one either you want to fish for meat or for fun.. I know why I go! I feel accountable as I know I practice common sence and do not abuse the resources...

Perhaps in your eyes RS, but in the real world, this is what happens every day on these rivers.

I guess I was a little confused by your response regarding limits and continuing to fish and such: the limit is one wild fish, but with the loophole of the mythical hatchery fish that swims until March 15th in these streams, anglers can legally C&R'ing wild fish even after retaining their one wild fish.

Bob,

One Dead fish per 20 C&R fish period.. Wild Hatchery whatever One dead meat fish... 20 C&R fish. The net effect of the population is the same.

If there is a lack of enforcement to uphold the laws.. Well what can I say I surely do not see to many orgs in olympia ralley for more dollars to be spent on enforcement. I have been there The past two legistilative sessions and pushed for more $$ specificly for enforcement. I am sure if all sportsmen would ralley up and join together Olympia would listen. But as I am gathering not too many people want to be policed.. i.e. they won't police themselves either.. So we can just sit around and watch it destroy what we the law obiding sportsmen and women enjoy..

If you do one OR the other, it is (also remeber that an angler can make that 20 number much higher by fishing methods & handling).

BUT, plenty of law-abiding anglers do both on the same day ... so we've doubled their impact.

How do we address that, or do we ignore it?

With limited enforcement dollars, shouldn't we look towards real-life scenarios that make it easier?

If you don't get my meaning of this, please refer back to a bunch of the other threads that discuss this issue in more detail

No not one then the other... They count the same wild or hatchery are equal.. Catch 20 of either... Or keep one of either.. This will also cut down on the # of hatchery fish we need to spend money one. Leaving more to help the wild fish...

The point is very simple. 20 C&R fish = 1 dead fish. If you are fishing C&R you do not get the option to keep a fish It does not matter if it is hatchery or Wild.. If you are fishing Meat fishing.. You get one fish It does not matter if it is Wild or hatchery...

So Make up your mind very early when you rise to go to the river.. You going to put food on the table or are you going to catch and release.. Takes all the guess work right out of it..

Shark,

I look at it like this. WDFW says 100 fish can be "harvested" as excess. At the released fish mortality rate of let's say 5%, that allows us to fish until 2000 fish are landed under WSR regs. If the C&K regs are in effect, it allows us to fish until 100 fish are bonked.

Which scenario allows us to fish more?

Like I said, it's a no-brainer to me..........but to me, fishing is WAY more important than having a fish dinner.

If you don't see it that way, I can dig it. Maybe you can see where I'm coming from too.

If we had runs that could produce days of 20 wild steelhead per angler, then I would agree to some retention. We don't have any runs that put out like that so the idea of limiting anglers to 20 fish released or 1 kept is irrelevant.

Cupo,

Go back and re read again.. I am not talking wild only steelhead..

Dan,
I can appreciate your veiws as well. However I do not agree that the commission should regulate based on personal prefrences they need sound science as what we have does not appear to be working to well.

Shark,


I don't disagree. The problem that always comes up is the science and whether it's "good" or not.

Fisheries science is unlike many fields of study in that there seems to be an endless list of variables which aren't well understood. How these variables effect the overall health of a particular run also seems very difficult to predict.

It's kinda like weather forecasting..........difference is, when the weather man is wrong, you get rained on for a day or two. When the fisheries guys get it wrong, the repurcussions can last years.

Crafting a set of regs to protect fish while providing the most opportunity to fish is definitely a tightrope walking act.

Dan that in my mind is where the problem is.

I feel that the WDFW need to Craft a set of regs to protect fish while providing the most opportunity to harvest fish..

However as a consumptive user I and most I know are willing to accept lower limits and less table goods to allow the non consumptive sportfishers to continue to enjoy their sport. Is the same true of the C&R fisheries?