A bonker dildo will kill 1 out of 1 everytime.

So the level of killing is the deciding factor?
You can't worship something you are killing.

If it was legally hooked and legal to keep, it was his choice whether to release it or bonk it. Sounds like envy is raising its ugly head.

For all the haters, do you really think that all the nats that you hook and release survive? If you really feel that is was wrong for him to kill that fish, then practice what you preach. Don't fish a river when nats are present.

Great logic! If you didn't fish when nats are present you won't kill any, on purpose or not.

Freespool, Blktailhunter,

For most of us, it's not about zero-kill. Few, if any, west coast wild steelhead populations have harvestable numbers of fish. Yes, those populations like all others would be better off with no human induced mortality whatever. But we love to fish. The social-ecological compromise we make is to limit mortality by fishing CNR. The intent is to conserve ecologically viable populations while continuing to extract significant social and economic benefits by fishing for them. In those cases where the populations are too small to sustain CNR, we favor and support closures to fishing. If the populations were healthy enough to support wild steelhead harvests, we could support that too, even if as individuals some would choose to release the fish anyway. (I release fish that are part of healthy populations routinely because I love to fish more than I care to eat them, depending on species, etc.)

Freespool, you can't know or decide what we can or can't worship. Just offering perspective and fact for you. And 10% is a high estimate of steelhead CNR mortality, for the record.

BTH, zero envy here or from most, and no hate either. Rather it's about this guy broadcasting his activity on a TV show. He's setting an example for others to be influenced by whether he realizes it or not. It would be difficult to successfully argue that there is any human or environmental benefit to killing a wild steelhead beyond ego stroking.

Sg

First of all I don't bonk native steelhead, but I do bonk wild salmon.
I also think that wild stocks need to be healthy enough for a limited harvest opportunity.
If these stocks can't tolerate a limited harvest, then all angling should cease until which time recovery and limited harvest could take place.
If this were the case mortally wounded fish could be harvested, instead of released dead.

Just to expand on Sg's points a bit...

Freespool's 10% mortality figure may well be accurate for all I know, but a large portion of that percentage is likely due to inexperienced or otherwise poor fish handlers keeping fish out of the water too long or injuring them, despite their best intentions. I'm not trying to belittle the significance of that 10% (as many have said, most fisheries can scarcely tolerate even that level of mortality), but I'm trying to point out, without getting into too many details, that experienced CNR anglers probably don't kill one in ten steelhead they release. Even if they did, they would still be doing only 10% of the harm to the species that someone who bonks everything he catches does, and that should be worth something, IMO.

As for the ego thing, although I don't mind eating them (and will when they are of hatchery origin), I don't ever take pleasure in killing fish. Personally, it does my ego a lot more good to watch a prime specimen (8/18+ pounds - who cares?) kick out of my light grasp and return to the river, where my hope is that I might have the thrill of encountering one of his or her offspring 2-4 years later. It does the heart good, even if it occasionally takes a toll.

Where does this 10% figure come from? How is that measured? During the CNR season, how many people have seen evidence of this? How many otherwise healthy looking, prespawn fish are seen laying dead from being caught earlier?

Olo,

There are steelhead CNR studies. Mortalities generally ranges from 3 to 5%. Ten percent is used by WDFW as a conservative estimate for mixed stock fisheries on the Columbia River where ESA fish must be released. The feeling seems to be that it's better to use the higher estimate to be safe.

Sg

Thanks Sg. I do not disbelieve but as a scientist myself, I like know where numbers come from. 3-5% observed when fish are handled by experienced WDFW personnel could easily be 10% for the general public. I've seen some ugly CNR. Trying to hold the fish, secure their rod and fumble for a camera all at the same time can lead to one beat up fish. I've been there and as a result, do not take photos when I'm solo much anymore. I just soak in the moment releasing it, sit on a stump for a touch and then start casting again.

None of the various studies show that 10% is the true number...but we as sportsmen have encouraged and supported the use of that number as a management tool to act conservatively as stewards of the resource.

The fact that other sportfishers would use that conservative number in their ridiculous arguments to directly harvest wild steelhead is the ultimate in irony...and retardedness.

Fish on...

Todd

The real irony is the fact that so many anglers think they can unharvest their way to recovering stocks.
And for those with a open mind, ODFW did a extensive hooking mortality study, it is what they use in making these unpopular decisions concerning mortality.
Look under Toman Study.
I can assure you that no inept anglers were used in the study.
So that is where the 10% comes from, I think they rounded it up from 8%.
Salmo, what's the mortality on C&R summer steelhead with 70 degree water?

WDFW did not even consider...did not even mention... the Toman study when applying a ten percent release mortality to steelhead released by sportfishers.

Fish on...

Todd

I will take your word on that, but my reference was from ODFW, and they got it from that study.
It may be a average when you consider the extremely high mortality associated with high water temps.

+1

At the American fisheries society meeting last year I sat in on a presentation about a CNR study that was done by ODFW on the Grande Ronde. The mortality rates were exceptionally low. Something like less than 3%.

For the record. I haven't killed a wild steelhead intentionally for quite some time. Years before they lowerd the limit to 5 on the coast. Heck I don't even remember the last one I punched. I stopped making trips to the coast about 5 years ago I felt so strongly about targeting them. Gawd I sure love to catch them tho. I target the rivers that have late run hatchery fish. Its a personal choise. I am thinking about changing up though. I don't begrudge those who want to bonk one were legal. Its usually someone who doesn't get to fish much that make a choise to kill one. I'm quite sure most the folks that catch, and kill one are elated about catching the fish. "Ego stroking Salmo". Comeon dude! Maybe in some cases, but take my father in law for instance. He is 83, and when I take him we target hatchery fish. If we were on the duc, and he caught a 20lb nate, and wanted to kill it. I would'nt stop him. He'd be so friggin happy It would make me happy to see him so friggin happy. Heck I'm happy now just thinkin about him being happy for catching that fish with the extra fin he didn't even catch. If It would be anyone else. I'd tell them not in my boat, and offer them fish from my freezer if they want one so bad. The way some of you on here talk one would almost think you are a member of peta to turn on your fellow fishermen like you do.

I have only watched a few minuites of hawgquest a few times. I sure hear a lot of negative hype about this Glen Hall. The little I saw of him on the tube. He was a bit high strung. So What! He's having fun making money while he's doing what he luvs to do..AND getting paid. I'm jealous of all the folks that get paid chasing game. I want that job! I have to say if I was gonna kill a nate it sure wouldn't be that boot. I don't look down my nose at him for doing it. You guys go ahead though.

You guys that preach some of this chit that catch all these nates kill fish. I really hate the I'm right, and your wrong mentality. A lot of that on the net. Lets call it passion. It doesn't sound to arguementitive then. Salmo..you fish for nates for luv. (actually you said "we") Anyone else its ego stroking...lol. Thats lame. I wish you the best of luck on the river.

If that was your legitimate cOmaint then you should be comfortable resting at ease knowing this show was taped and shown quite a few years ago and the only reason it's reaching the masses is because people like this thread starter make a big deal of it and show it around. Otherwise I don't see this particular episode being marketed and targeted toward people that are so influenced by the media that they would behave the same way as him, knowing now what they didn't necessarily know then. Then take in the fact that he's publicly renounced his native fish killing practices. ----before you ask no I don't have any proof he publicly says not to kill nates but I'm surmising from what others have said above.

Freespool,

Asking about the CNR mortality rate on summer steelhead in 70* water reads like you want to "cherry pick" your data. Why? Any well informed steelheader knows it's going to be many times greater than at 60*. Are you trying to make a point, or just looking to argue?

Actually CNR can be a very useful management tool for "unharvesting our way to recovery" in the form of significantly reduced harvest. The CNR season that began on the Skagit in 1981 did just that. The population went from extremely low escapements (3,000 - 4,000) up to a peak of 16,000, all the while being subjected to CNR sport fishing and a small CNK plunker fishery in the lower river. The run couldn't take the high harvest rates it was previously subjected to, but the greatly reduced mortality from the plunker fishery and CNR allowed most of the run to escape and spawn. And because freshwater survival conditions were average, and marine survival was fair to good, the runsize was on an increasing trend until the 1990s, when all Puget Sound and Georgia Strait steelhead populations began to steadily decline to the present very depressed status. The upshot is that CNR had no adverse effects on population status, and now that runs are below escapement, no fishing season is allowed. That's probably about as good as steelhead management can get.

Sg

any idea how old that clip is?