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