Why do the anti-WSR folks only have two options when it comes to wild fish?

Option 1: Catch and bonk

Option 2: Close it completely

It seems the big stink from the anti's is the "loss of opportunity", yet they only can come up with two options, other than WSR/CNR, both of which have less opportunity than WSR/CNR.

Just for the record, I feel that bonkers are lessening MY opportunity, be leading us down the path of kill or close. Closed seasons, of course, have no opportunity (which doesn't seem to bug the anti-WSR guys...even though they complain that WSR takes away their opportunity ), and bonk seasons will reach an allowable impact 10 to 20 times faster than will WSR, if WSR ever reaches the impact level.

I'll show you a couple jealous doofuses...how about...

"If the Indians are gonna net 'em, then I'm gonna bonk 'em. They're just going to end up in a net, anyway"

and...my favorite anti-WSR/CNR reason...

"If I can't bonk 'em, we should just close it down"

Now there are a couple jealous doofuses for ya, Micro.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, I realize that you probably don't have time to read everything before you make judgements like that. Here's something that I posted a couple days ago in response to KK. Does it sound like I think there are only two options? Sometimes it sounds like you think there is only ONE option and that is statewide mandatory WSR. Some of you guys just want to see the season open all the time, for as long as possible so that you can catch and release the same fish over and over again, without regard to the impact it is having on the fish. You would like to pretend that it is good for the fish. Hogwash! It is good for you and your desire to keep fishing, but thats about it.

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

"Bruce...you often have rhetorically asked the same question, 'what is best for the fish', No sport, tribal or commercial fishing would, logic dictates, be best for the fish, A no brainer, ya think?"

Yep. In some cases this would be the best option. Especially if you really care about the resource.

"Would you rather 'err on the side of the fish' only to the extreme of no fishing,and to the exclusion of any other potential solution?"

Of course not.

"Can the need to be right (on both sides) be so blinding as to preclude any other possible solution, or combination of solutions?"

Some people don't want to see any other solution besides a statewide blanket ban. This is a key point and all along I have been saying that other possible solutions are available. I've seen many possible solutions posted here on this board but most of the time those ideas fall on deaf ears. Ideas such as slot limits, reduction of harvest i.e. tags, Guide restrictions etc and sometimes the current management policy is working and does not need to be "fixed".

"Maybe Dan S. is on to something here? I too, would rather fish than eat fish, and if those are the ONLY two choices this issue affords,,,,,,,,,,,,well Bruce , I firmly beleive you are in the minority."

Who said there were only two choices? Why must an Angler choose to either eat fish or just fish, why can't we do both. That is what the majority of Anglers want to do. Many Anglers enjoy sitting down at the dinner table with their family and their days catch as much as they enjoy the act of catching it. It's been that way since man first started fishing *gasp! eat steelhead, how barbaric, I only eat salmon and dead chickens!*. Of course sometimes thats just not possibe and in some cases only two choices do exist, but in other cases I tend to beleive better management options are availabe and should be used before WSR is mandated. WSR should be a last resort and/or used selectively. If you think I'm in the minority here, well then we disagree.

so you feel the bonkers themselves do that or the way the state manages the fish ? certainly you cant say it`s the states fault for the way they manage the fish because you never seem to have a problem with the way they regulate cnr fishing, that is unless there are "2" wdfw`s, one for the bonkers and one for the cnr fisherman.

Bruce,

You're right...I did miss that post...however, I doubt it would be too hard to find many examples of when you stated that if we need to have WSR, then we should just stop fishing and shut the rivers down.

I don't think that the wanting to sit down with your family and eat your catch example is all that compelling, either...it's been pointed out repeatedly throughout these threads, but wild steelhead comprise something like 3% of the harvest of steelhead in Washington...there are tens of thousands of steelhead harvested to eat every year...tens of thousands of them without adipose fins. This doesn't even count the hundreds of thousands of salmon that are caught and eaten, either.

None of us are going to miss out on eating our catch with our families and friends if we don't eat wild steelhead. You said you've never harvested wild steelhead...but you seem to know about eating fish that you caught. Looks like you're doing just fine without eating wild steelhead...

Fish on...

Todd

how do you know ?

Oh yea, just because I choose not to eat them means that no one else should either. Sorry Todd I don't buy into that. I don't think I have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do simply because that's what I do. Under certain circumstances I most likely would take one home. Just because I haven't doesn't mean I wouldn't. I see no reason why you, I or anyone else should have the right to tell the next guy that he or she is less of an Angler or that we are some how better than them because they choose to keep a fish.

If the resource can sustain a limited harvest then a limited harvest should be allowed. This issue won't stop at wild steelhead, it will be something else next. Sport fisherman are tired of taking in the rear, largely in part because of special interest people like you.

This statewide WSR ban doesn't protect wild steelhead it protects you and your desire to keep fishing for as long as you want. That's really what this is all about and I find the manner in which WSC and the commission went about it appalling.

Todd you have said that WSC is working on a plan that would support the harvest of wild steelhead. How is that coming along?

Bruce,
This is an interesting discussion and you bring up good points, as does Todd.

I don't fish for steelhead much, but do tend to lean towards restrictions requiring wild fish to be released until the population can sustain harvest again. (sounds like you do too Bruce) But with regard to WDFW, I might not always like how they manage the resource, but that's our problem. (angling community) WDFW is managing the resource for the state as a whole and future generations, not for only today's angler. I don't think those who support wild steelhead release are only doing it for selfish reasons. It sounds like you do.

Todd, now that I wrote that, I also don't think all who oppose WSR see the issue as having only 2 options, but I get the impression you have lumped everyone into one category.

Good debate, but IMHO, you two are not as far apart on this issue as you think you are.
JD

BTW: Us saltwater steelhead fishermen have been practicing WSR for years. It's not that different really because I can't seem to catch 'em wild or hatchery.

I feel guilty enough eating a wild coho in area 9 when just up the straights they have to release them. Same fish, but once they cross pt. wilson, they can be harvested. I leave the resource up to the state to manage, with my input of course.