Rich,

I really do admire your spirit, but it does make me a little nervous to know that you are in law enforcement and so often see you letting your emotions get the best of you.

The WDFW Commission's decision to allow a one wild steelhead harvest is NOT the same as 5. According to WDFW's data and harvest projections, any season limit greater than one would be about the same as 5. The one fish limit is expected to result in a reduced wild steelhead harvest. Perhaps the reduction isn't a lot, but it isn't the same as the existing condition. Of course, that projection doesn't consider that there may be a steady increase in fishing pressure on OP rivers by anglers wishing to catch and keep a wild steelhead.

The Commission's decision appears constructive toward conservation and cautious toward potential legal action by tribes, a prudent compromise. The interesting thing is that the Commission no doubt will extend the statewide ban on keeping wild steelhead to the OP rivers. It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when. They had the opportunity to do it pro-actively, before the runs were thoroughly depleted, or they will do it reactively - as they did with the rest of the state - and do it after the runs are pretty much depleted. The steady increase in the human population in this state, and the obvious lack of political will to protect and recover fishery resources, pretty well insures that abundant harvestable wild steelhead will not persist indefinitely.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

After reading these posts and an article about those who believe in C&R and those who don't in one of the fishing mags yesterday at the dentist office I just got to wonder if this whole thing does not boil down to the same foolish BS that is taking place in our national elections and the division our country is in.
The article seem to show that those who wanted to kill fish and thought C&R wrong were strongly conservative Christian or had Native religous ties. Those who were for C&R did not mention their ties to any religion but seemed more science backed in their beliefs.

Does anyone else see a pattern here or am I just paranoid. I'm a religious man and I love to eat fish I catch but I'm a foolish man to not see the writting on the wall that certain fish can no longer be killed as in the old days. There are just too many of us now in this world. I know C&R is not the total answer but it is something I can live with because I at least get to go fishing and I don't think God gonna get me for wanting to be outside enjoying what's left of his once bountiful world. I have a distrust for all those who are selfish. This includes the bonkers of wild steelhead and those who constantly C&R fish on a daily basis. That includes guides that fish rivers releasing 5 or six fish a day. I wish the C&R people when it comes to steelhead would be happy with hooking one fish a trip watching it swim away and calling it a great day just to have done that. At least that really reduces death By C&R. I wish the bonkers would understand we just don't have many wild steelhead left and fish to eat on other more plentiful fish. Let the steelhead be that sport fish it should have always been.

For me both sides are on a high horse a self rihtgious horse myself included But damn I can only think that God and Country can only respect me for letting that one beautiful creature go to spawn again. We humans screwed it up real bad, God must be mad about it but he also must understand for both sides on this issue we need to be out enjoying what he has given us to some degree. Food for the table is a good thing but if the food is gone forever if it don't swim in the river anymore it does not give anyone any enjoyment at all.

I think the best comprimise in this would be this. If the mortalitty rate most talk about and a conservative number is 10% then those who practice C&R should be able to land and release 10 wild fish then they are done for the year. Those want one for the table must keep the first wild fish they catch and stop fishing for steelhead, hatchery and wild both for the rest of the season. Those who decide to C&R can not change course and keep one and those who want to keep one can only fish till they catch there first and can't change course.
Now both sides have a one dead wild steelhead to their credit and no chance of killing more.

Love and Peace

What Dan?? You having a problem with understanding what they are?? A quick look in the dictionary may help you understand.

PS. It has nothing at all to do with PETA!

LT,

Limiting catch and release to a certain number of steelhead per day is good as a concept, but impossible to enforce is what I've been told.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Duro,

Oh, I understand perfectly. Whether you do is unclear to me.

Hey have you guys checked out the IFISH board about this subject I am in arguement with them they are stating that CNR is wrong over there if I can get soem of you guys to back me up over there that would be outstanding

Salmo g. wrote
“Limiting catch and release to a certain number of steelhead per day is good as a concept, but impossible to enforce is what I've been told.”

You said a mouth full there!
Man, that’s the next fight in my mind!
WDFW doesn’t have the personal to do it!

Grow up.

Salmo g. I don't share your bleak outlook. I think we have come a long way in how we view the conservation of our fisheries and wildlife in general. Great strides are being made by management the user groups and the general public. All is not lost simply because the moratorium failed to become a reality. Hang in there buddy, the future may not be so bad.

Both kill fisheries and CnR fisheries harvest fish. If the stock isn't healthy enough to support harvest neither fishery should be open. I think the commission got it right and tried to make both sides happy.

excuse me phishin you telling me to grow up because I am trying support CNR and not bonking everything that I catch or you catch. Please you are in the wrong place telling me that because I love the natural resources that I dont want to see depleted and I know a lot of people support CNR on this website so I was asking for help. To help me possibly prove my point. But thanks for your support and have a fine day.

SD,
Please read Lofty's post carefully. If you believe by CNR your helping the fish . You are not part of the solution your part of the problem. If you really want to do something that may help the native fish. Stop fishing in the rivers with large numbers of natives at the end of Febuary. That would do far more to help the natives than CNR.

Oh, I get it.

Stop fishing, rather than trying to lessen your impact first.

That would sound good to me IF I WASN'T A FISHERMAN.

Dan,
That falls back to the morale's and Ethic's thing we were talking about.

What does? The fact you won't try to minimize your impact until a run is in such poor shape that the system needs to be closed altogether.

Jerry,

My thought on your statement-- VERMACAST.

That ain't it.

Nets and habitate. or Habitate and nets. What ever order you want.

No Dan I dont fish for steelhead after Febuary now.Just to make sure I have No impact. And I stick to fishing rivers that already have very low native percentages. Im proud to say i have been lucky and have never hook a native steelhead not one. My morales and ethics are very much intact. Can you say the same? Have you ever killed a native steelhaed?

PS. I didnt need a moritorium to tell me to do the RIGHT thing!!

Salmo,

My compassion and spirit when it comes to fish issues has nothing to do with how i do my job.

I tell the truth and speak my mind. Im not always the most popular person but people know where I stand and that I can be trusted.

When people are affraid of you the first thing they attack is your character. Fortunately for me my character is about as good as it gets.

Yeah.........I've killed more wild steelhead than I can count. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. See, back then WDFW said the rivers I fished had runs healthy enough to support harvest too.

We'll just agree to disagree..........and I apologize if I came off kinda harsh before.

Dan, it is pretty narrow minded to say one way of harvesting fish is better then another.
They both do the same thing KILL FISH, both have the same impact, dead fish.

This issue has been debated enough. I am just glad that the commission used common since with there ruling.

No, it's a fishing state of mind. In order to kill one fish, I can likely catch and release 20 fish. Or you can catch and kill one. The net effect is the same, but since when is fishing less a good thing?

Again.........you say tomayto, I say tomahto. Narrow-minded is simply the view from where you're standing.

OK, I'm done now.