Over on Bruce's board Plunker and Cowlitzfisherman are trying to have a little fun at the expense of the WSC by trying to guess the names of the members of the WSC and then there is a veiled threat of posting the names of WSC members in the Forks paper, here's the quote from Cow

Yep, I hear its going to make a big hit in the Forks newspaaper next week


and then I thought that that is a hell of a good idea--- why not buy an add in the Forks paper-- full page-- with an explaination of why the moritorium and then signed by alot of people that support the moritorium. So what do you think-- is that something you can support, after reading the letter of course.

I'm there.

Finally found the thread. The servers over there are SSSSssoooooooooooo sllllloooowwww...even with high speed DSL it take 5x longer to load than any page here.

That's why I avoid that board...at least it was the reason...now I got a better one.

What the City of Forks might want to do, however, is a quick check with the local guides, motels, etc. and see how much $$ WSC members spent over there in the last couple years.

I am not a member of WSC, but my instinct says I am correct in thinking the amount of $$ support to Forks by WSC members is substantial.

Course, then again I could be full of beans...

Mike

Interesting idea Jerry, however, I'm afraid if there was anyone outside of Jefferson, Clallam, or Grays Harbor County, it would be another case of "outsiders" trying to tell Forks people what to do on "their" waters.

How pathetic. I wonder if Cow-man actually thinks posting little animated lynching icons along with names is going to intimidate anyone. If I were Bruce I'd be very careful, just in case anything actually were to happen. Some of these fellas have a deep misunderstanding of where the powerbase is and the generosity and understanding afforded to them by those who could choose to take another approach. I'm not sure Forks would be happy about a retaliatory full page ad in the Seattle times laying out the other side of the argument. Personally I've been on the fence about the WSR ruling, but veiled threats to personal safety put a line in the sand pretty quick. Is it really worth it?

Jerry
Lets do it!
It fun getting Cow & Plunker going, Myself and another guy where haveing fun with them for a few hours today. (Sorry Plunker, thats more than one line)

PS I allways like seeing my name in the paper (most of the time)

Cow shows his true colors by denigrating Bob's wife. Real class act that guy. Glad that kinda trash is booted from this board. Homer- you got em going all right !

It's time to forget about the feelings of Forks. We offered them every bit of help imagineable under the sun to insure that the moratorium would be a good thing for forks. It is sad that a few of the original settlers families in that town choose to screw things up because their family members make money off of bonking nates.

Put the add in the Sunday Times ask for support from the public and conservation groups when the public hearing comes up.
I would estimate that we could get between 2 and 3.5 thousand people out of the broad base of over three million people in the Metro area to show up for the next public hearing.

I know there are a lot of good people in Forks because I spend enough time there to know that the majority would support the moratorium if it were not for this type of fear mongering we see with the Mayor, with likes of Bruce and a little old man named plunk.

When people like those above who play the fear game then it is the time that you know the battle is just about won. When people resort to such crap they already know they are going down. I promise you that all those posts over on the other board have been copied and will be given to the commission, to the pols who said they are against the moratorium. They will see the mentallity of those who are against the moratorium and as far as I can see this is now a done deal, we have won. No one is going to bow to the fear of the hate game.

Just so I don't misunderstand you Land Tuna, How do you really feel?

This is too funny.

A threat on one board is comdemned here and then followed with one.

Is it any wonder why sports fishers get the shaft.

The tribes got it. The commericals got it.


But will the sports fishes ever get solidarity?

Could you highlight the threat in this tread T-rex. I'm having a hard time finding a threat.

Amen T-rex...

I posed this question a while back on another thread. I will pose it again..

I and most Table fare fishermen / Women are more than willing to cut the limit on the number of fish we can "Bonk" To allow the C&R fishers to maintain a decent fishing season. Is the Non Table fare fishermen / Women willing to limit the number of fish that they can Catch and release as to allow us to continue to "Bonk" a few?

This is a Yes or No question it is not rocket science..

Sure Jerry

"I promise you that all those posts over on the other board have been copied and will be given to the commission, to the pols who said they are against the moratorium."

I guess I didn't recognize it as a threat.

That's a threat?

You're grasping............

T-rex
You arms most be really long!

T rex,

That was not a threat it was not even intended to come close to a threat. I feel it is important that those who do not support the moratorium and who are responsible human beings should know about this threat by people who believe as they do. No one minds their name in the forks paper but the threats of a hangmans noose and the other BS that goes along with it now that's a different story. I have complete respect for those who are against the moratorium and will go about having their say in the proper way. All most all of us who support the moratorium will support the rights of those against, this is America right! But they should know that their are some folks making some pretty serious threats on their behalf.

River Shrk.
There are many of us who have volentarly cut back on our C&R fishing for just that reason and many more are following. Also many of us who believe in C&R on wild steelhead do eat fish that we catch. I eat flounder, salmon when legal, crab, shrimp shell fish you name it. For many of us we hope someday that we can kill a wild steelhead in the future for the table. We just don't feel it's now because of the dropping # even on the OP. It is sad that there are those who want to paint us as eleitests, most of us are just scratching by like everyone else. God I depend on what I catch on many weeks because the bills some months far out reach my wallet. If the rivers need closing down or a bottom fishery needs to be closed down then lets do it. But we are trying to let everyone still fish those beautiful rivers and trying to do the least amount of damage. It's not perfect idea but it is not going to kill nearly as many fish.

Land Tuna,
I agree with you in that I too will do what is best for the resource. My concern is that the commission makes too many one sided decisions. There is allot of information on C&R kill rates. How accurate I do not know for sure but have to go with what science has said. That 1 in every 20 fish that is C&R will die. If that is the case Then what is the difference if I C&R 20 fish or I just catch and keep 1. The effect on the resource is the same. The balance that I look for is very simple. For every allowed 20 fish to be caught and released I have the option of fishing and keeping the 1rst fish I catch.. I am not painting elietist marks on anyone. I just want the commission to set regulations with all aspects in mind.. Find a balance and the majority will be fine with it..

I love the math\logic of the anti-c&r folks.

How about this. 20 C&R guys hit the same OP river. They all catch and release 1 fish each that day.
Total dead fish = 1.

The next day, 20 catch and kill guys show up. They all catch and kill 1 fish each.
Total dead fish = 20.


So do you still think C&R impacts the resource as much as C&K?

PhishPhreak
Your right on, **** most have been hard for them. Will I Or Won't I get flame for say that, lets see!

OK I took parker divea, thanks parker

sorry PP but your analogy is not very accurate.

Both sides of this issue have not and will not change their stands so just go on with your life and pay attention to what you are doing and never mind what everyone else is doing.

Oh, I can guarantee that you will "get flame for say that".

Did I just hear someone say "pot calling the kettle black"?

"Me fail English??? That's unpossible!"

"And edumacation isa terible thang to waist."

GP2 - you are right. The analogy is not good. The chances that all 20 would actually catch a fish isn't likely.

How about a better analogy??

What allows for a longer season and more recreation?

Maximize recreation while minimizing impacts.

EXACTLY

Grandapa, ( the conclusion to this research is that if we stop the catch and keep fishers from fishing and let the C&R guys unlimited access ) something just doesnt look quite right here

>>if we stop the catch and keep fishers from fishing >>

You can fish all you want, just release the nates and bonk the brats. In fact you'll be able to fish more.

Racial slurs???
Hope this doesn't show your true character GP2

Hey PP man lets say this...

as an individual you are allowed to C&R 20 fish in any given day that equals one dead fish per person. PERIOD!

I as an individual am allowed one dead fish per day to eat it is still one dead fish PERIOD!

Remember the 20 C&R folks are not going to settle for just one fish they have to catch their 20 for the day.. And by the way I am not talking Nates I am talking either types you catch and release all and I catch and keep one rather it Nat or Hat... I will enjoy my dinner while you massage your soar arms...

The anti-CnR people like to talk about how we can either release 20 wild fish in a day, or keep one and have the same impacts. If it was common to catch 20 in a day we wouldn't need the statewide wild steelhead release. When is the last time anyone here caught 20 wild steelhead in one day in Washington?

If you can hook 20 wild steelhead a day you are a better fisherman than I (which may be the case either way

But... >>as an individual you are allowed to C&R 20 fish in any given day that equals one dead fish per person. PERIOD! I as an individual am allowed one dead fish per day to eat it is still one dead fish PERIOD!

5% would be the accurate figure based on barbless C&R studies.

So if you catch and kill the only fish you hook (I would say one or two fish would be a realistic number statewide of steelhead fishing success- maybe that number is high).

If 100 catch and keep fishers are on the water, with a limit of one, and success in hooking one, we have 100 less steelhead available to hook again, or to spawn. If 100 C&R fishermen are on the water 5 (or 5%) are killed incidentally, which leaves 95 steelhead in the system to fish for and spawn.

Without adding tribe and commercial catch (another battle) how do you suggest that C&R is killing as many fish as catch and keep?

Cupo -
a fairer comparison would be how many anglers catch and release 100 wild fish a year to the number catch and keep 5 per year - would not be surprised that they are not much different.

JJ -
CnR only produces more recreation with less impacts if anglers are willing to fish in a CnR fishery. In the last 2 weeks ling cod adn halibut seasons opened in Puget Sound; if what you really beleive is true (CnR produces more fishing) then maybe we should be lobbying for CnR ling cod and halibut seasons -

Let's you and I begin a push for ling and halibut CnR year round - much longer seasons thus more fishing for two more great game fish. Or do you suppose that a few folks would have issues?

Jerry?

Tight lines
S malma

Anuty -
don't disagree - that what the slot limit on lings is all about - having to release those fish over 40 inches.

The size limits on sturgeon and lings as well as the minimum size lmits on various trout (sea-runs and bull trout) are all examples of regulations based on the biological needs of the specific resource. With in those parameters see nothing wrong with limited harvest - sturgeon, lings, halibut all are pretty good chewing.

It was merely suggested that if we when to strict CnR there would be more fsihing opportunity. Of course I don't necessarily agree with that blanket statement - depends on the situation. In some cases CnR produces lots of recreation in others it does not - it depends in angler interest - somehow yoyoing 3# of lead up and down in 300 feet of water for halibut isn't most peoples idea of CnR fun.

Tight lines
S malma

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nailknot:
if we stop the catch and keep fishers from fishing

You can fish all you want, just release the nates and bonk the brats. In fact you'll be able to fish more.

Nailknot your post looks to me like you assume I bonk natives .I was simply pointing out something in GP's post that didn't seem right to me not arguing for or against WSR if this was not your intention than I apologize, if it was than I also could make an assumption by looking at the picture in your profile but I wont bother just as you shouldn't of