I fished Reiter on Wednesday and left empty handed when the river had risen so high that I was fishing from the parking lot and expecting the animals to start pairing up.

I also fished Reiter on Friday morning and though the river was in decent shape by then, still left empty handed. In order to avoid the crowds I fished the non-hatchery side. I saw four or five fish landed on the hatchery side. A couple of them looked dark (chums or late summer run maybe) and a couple bright but small winter run steelhead.

Anyone else had any luck with the metal heads yet?

We picked up a few today, including these:

Nice fish, B Mac....good photos too!

where those wild fish?

I will say it before anybody else does. You cannot remove wild fish from the water anymore. Just for your FYI

Perhaps it's not a wild fish you moron. Seems like there's a lot of folks who either are too quick to play keyboard gamewarden, or don't know enough about the fisheries in this state and they spout off with a comment like the one above. It only shows thier ignorance...

Nice fish Brian!

Exactly! For all we know, those are unclipped hatchery fish off of the Quinault, Cook Creek, or the Salmon River.

Or, they are wild fish off of the Skykomish. Either way, who cares? It's a stupid law.

Nice fish and nice photos!

They look like hatchery unclips to me...

I agree with the internet game-warden comment.

Like I said before.....nice fish and pics!

First of all I wasnt trying to be no internet game warden I love steelie pics just like all of you. I was just stating that because there is a lot of people that dont know about the new rule !!!!!! I agree tthat is a stupid rule. But if you get caught by a game warden will you think it is a stupid rule then when you have a 150.00 ticket on your hands.

I loved the keyboard gamewarden comment

You can't keep native fish, we are trying to preserve the run and besides they belong to Native Americans.

Every Native fish you keep is one less fish they get to kill in their nets.

Does this REALLY make sense ?

Kevin,

TrailRat obviously got up on the wrong side of the bed. ANYONE can clearly see, from the pics, that those are unclipped fish. SO, to the "letter of the law", you are dead-on in your assessment. Yes, they could be OP hatchery stock from the Quinault...but that is an open ended thought, as the source of the fish was not reported.

As to following that law...well, I say FIE on that rule!

While the law may say you can't take them from the water for pics or ??, anyone who knows the first thing about how to handle a fish can hold it out of the water long enough to take a pic or two without harming the critter.

They (WDFW) also did not include any suggestions about how to get a 1/0 Octopus hook (barb pinched) out of a 15 lb.+ steelhead, without securing the fish in some manner, or taking it out of the water. You either have to wear the fish down to exhaustion in order to get it to sit still (which can kill the fish with lactic acid, later) , or you have to use a broomstick for a pole with 40 lb. line and just horse the fish in.

I'm no "old pro" like come of you guys, but my common sense tells me that, while the intentions are good, this is a stupid law that never should have hit the books.

Mike

Can't tell with the first pic but it looks to me the dorsal fin is clipped on the other two fish. I do beleive certain hatcheries still practice this.

DOGOFF!

Here's the exact text from the regs:

"In freshwater, (except the Columbia River
downstream of the Rocky Point/Tongue
Point line) it is unlawful to totally remove
from the water any SALMON or
STEELHEAD required to be released."


So actually, in waters where it is legal to retain wild steelhead, it would be legal based on the explicit wording in this rule to totally remove a WILD steelhead from the water for a photo.

Another thing occurred to me the other day while fishing a small river full of chums: many of my chums were legally hooked in the mouth, while others were (unfortunately) snagged. I released all the snagged fish as required by law.

However, it was difficult, if not impossible to remove a hook from a tail, vent, etc. of a snagged fish unless the fish is totally removed from the water. This is especially true if fishing from a high bank and the fish is hooked on the underside. A snagged fish is a fish that is "required to be released." So, based on the explicit wording of the law, beaching a snagged fish and then releasing it would be a violation.

This particular law, while probably passed with good intentions, is difficult and impractical to practice and enforce.

Good luck and good fishing,

Cheapskate aka keyboard gamewarden

IF they were OP hatchery stock AND caught in/on the National Park, then the "letter of the law" as it pertains to the State of Washington doesn't mean squat.
RL

Hmm....a bunch of Wild Fish in November... Once again, doesn't the dorsal fin in two of those pics look suspicious?? I've caught many of fish with clipped dorsal fins.

DOGOFF!

stlhd_dreaming isn't it predictable to hear a comment like the one below yours? Just for stating the law he said your a moron, a keyboard gamewarden, don't know anything about washington fisheries, you spout off and are ignorant. I don't get it.

When i first saw the pics i thought, here we go, lets see how many knock B Mac down for holding up a fish for a pic. Just like has happened on other posts over and over. Then i see you(stlhd) post the rule for his info incase he didn't know and to head off all the others that are going to say it anyways. And what happens? You get called a moron for it. Well i guess most of us are morons then because most of us have stated rules and mostly for info, not to flame. Yet you(stlhd) get shot down for it.

And you can only guess if it is an unclipped hatchery fish. And a guess means your unsure. If your unsure then follow the rule. Just don't pick up fish with dorsals intact and there will be no problem. Why try to make the fish legal with a loophole or rewording of the law? I agree though, it isn't perfectly clear. But we all know what it means without reading too deeply into it trying to make it work to our advantage. If there is an advantage, then it should ALWAYS be on the conservations side, not the harvest.

Nice fish though, by the way. Wish we could have more posts but less hassle,negativity and the wondering if your going to be called a moron because of your reply.

Sparkey should be fed raw potato's via the potato gun. After his last meal---a drift boat keel-hulling in some shallow rapids. This might dissuade others from such stupid ideas in the future. I might suggest the Snoopy Rod Classic as the appropriote venue.

Local;
Not one bit of your "blurt" above makes any sense.

There are some systems in which you can still keep Native Steelhead. It sucks, but its true.

The Steelhead belong to the people. All of us. Not just the Native Americans.

The next part makes so little sense that I can not even comment on it. It makes no sense at all.

So the answer is no. None of what you said makes any sense.

Well Gutz (sp?) If you lived down here (Grays Harbor) and you had the chance to share 27 days of fishing with the indian gill nets you might feel a little different.

Like the regulations about not keeping Chinook one year or not keeping Native Coho because we are trying to protect the run and then have a gill net season that allows the Indians the chance to keep every single fish they can net. Does that make sense ?

Do you get it now ???????????????