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