once again, the good folks at the WDFW are trying to reopen many kill fisheries for wild winter steelhead.

in their new proposals for the next season, they propose to do away with the 5 fish annual, 1 fish per day daily limits on the quillayute river system and replace the current regs with a 30 per year annual limit and a 2 fish daily limit.

the new proposals also propose to reopen goodman creek to a 2 per day, 30 a year wild fish limit.

if you thought the department couldn't do anything worse, they have dropped the annual limit of 2 fish on the hoh river, and are proposing that a large part of the upper river (morgan's crossing to the 101 bridge) be changed from a selective fishery to an anything goes kill fishery.

they are also proposing to do away with the yearly limits on the clearwater.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!! this is a serious proposal to set back rules that we fought for a few short years ago.

if you are also appauled by this lack of vision within WDFW i hope you will write the decision makers and let them know that you think these proposals stink.

public comments must be in by dec. 10th of this year. send all comments to:

Evan Jacoby
Rules Coordinator
600 Capitol Way N
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

a few letters and e-mails to the members of the fish and wildlife commission would probably also be a great idea.

hopefully we can all work together to shoot down this new bit of insanity out of WDFW.

feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions or need additional info.

chris

Chris,
This can't be true. I have got to read the proposal. This is absolutely sick. I think the whole olympic penninsula should be catch and release only. I don't think anyone should be able to keep even one wild Steelhead, thats what the hatchery runs are for. Do you have any phone numbers or e-mail addresses, I will send out several e-mails this weekend. This is just plain wrong.

Bob, Is this true? Do you know whos pushed this idea?

Do you guys know, or even care, what the projected run sizes are for these fisheries? Probably not. For your info wild steelhead are NOT a sacred fish. If there are surplus fish there's not a damn thing wrong with harvesting the surplus! Now don't misunderstand me. I don't know the projections either and maybe these proposals aren't a good idea BUT you guys are acting like killing any wild steelhead anywhere, anytime is a crime no matter how many will be returning. Why don't you try to find a little more info about the subject before crying "The sky is falling!"

Mountin' Man, Guess you missed my other posts. I'm for 100% C&R on wild steelhead. I Let the runs build up. Then we can consider limited harvest with tags or lottery.

Bruce, how do you suppose we let the run sizes build up with nets in the river? We don't! The fact is there are several rivers that still maintain a healthy run of native steelhead. You cut off ALL catch and keep and I am willing to bet Bob loses a good portion of his business while the tribes continue netting. And, if anyone here wants to talk purist crap....go to the upper reaches of the Sol Duc and watch a purist teach fly fishing on the reds.

My policy is 100% release on wild steelhead ... period. So no, I'm not going to lose any business from C&R. I believe that I'm the only guide offering both conventional and fly trips operating in this manner (I believe two of the fly-only guides operate this way). And the effect on my business ... my prime datesstill fill up six to eight months in advance and I constantly turn people away because I don't have room.

I would love to see C&R statewide w/o exception ... and not just for steelies, mark all the salmon too and I'll do the same ...

A couple of reasons why I don't think this should go anywhere: IMHO, I don't believe the state managers can as accurately predict the reurns of steelhead compared to salmon ... more varied life histories and role of repeat spawners. Current escapement goals (attn: Mountin' Man) are in all likelihood too low and we all too often see the effects of this ... need an example? How 'bout easing the regs on the Hoh River even though the state has closed it to all fishing twice and mandated C&R another season (this in just the last five years!) ... and they want to liberalize the harvest. BS!!! Once again, it is a 'kill 'em all' or 'no fishing period' pair of choices in WA state ... enough is enough!

Another problem is how these runs are managed as a whole in the Quillayute system ... the Sol Duc has met escapement goals for a number of years ... the Bogey, Calawah, and Dickey have also fallen short on many occasions over the last 15 years ... but because, the Sol Duc run is so large in comparison, the surplus from there usually makes up the difference in the other three rivers and the Quillayute system is then considered healthy ... again, a bunch of BS!

Goodman Creek, leave the few wild fish that do return there alone! I don't know an exact number for the goal in here, but I can't imagine that it exceeds more than a few hundred fish ... yet one angler can take two per day and thirty a year ... that's a pretty decent percentage of the run that one angler could harvest.

I'm sure that many of you have read my journal's over the past few years ... one thing I've never mentioned is that the estimated escapement in that river is around 1200 fish ... can one person honestly tell me that I or any other angler could enjoy the size and numbers of fish that we catch if such regs were in place ... I think not!

C&R works ... look at the Sky, Stilly, most of the BC streams ... this would be a tumble back down a very steep hill that we're part way up.

I'll be looking into this and visiting my 'buddies' in Montesano concerning this matter very soon.

Amazing, anybody know where this announcement came from? I sent a number of letters supporting some selective fishery regs on the peninsula streams and now they are going backwards. The peninsula streams have one of the last decent runs of wild steelhead in the state of Washington and now they want to piss it away. Some group must be pushing for this. I apologize for being angry, but if the peninsula streams would be managed for C&R they could be world class fishery for large wild winter steelhead, I JUST DON'T GET IT! Look at BC they don't allow a sports kill on their wild fish and fishers will come from all over to fish it. Time to start sending those letters again.

Makes me wonder what their true motives are to increase the to be published sport harvest.

mountin' man. what is wrong with the current regs that allow a conservative harvest? this is not an arguement of going c&r vs. a virtual unlimited harvest. it's about staying the course on a set of rules that many of us fought very hard to get implemented. these existing rules provide limited harvest opportunity for those who must harvest wild fish if they fish, but also manage harvest conservatively (golly, what a wierd thought in WDFW). these existing rules provide a good balance imo... in that nobody is 100% happy with these rules. the harvest only people must cut back their harvest and those who want full c&r on wild steelhead (count me among those) didn't get the rivers on the north coast 100% wild release.

we need to stay the course with these existing regs and make sure they are not weakened. another thing, in the state's reasons for dismantling these regs they cite higher than escapement escapements in the quillayute system. i believe that this "over-escapement" is the reason these runs are so strong compared to others in the state (besides the obvious better habitat). if the state managed to get escapement down to 5900 fish (that's the goal for the entire quillayute system) these runs would not be as strong as they are.

high escapements are a good thing, not a waste like harvest managers would like us to believe. lets work hard to keep the existing rules on these rivers the same and provide multiple opportunities while managing for higher than MSY escapements. we all know MSY has been a total failure in this state (namely because they purposely set escapement goals too low) and that we shouldn't place our wild stocks in jeopardy just because some groups must kill more than 9 wild steelhead in the quillayute, hoh, and clearwater (where the annual limits are being dismantled)

chris

Duntze,
There's really nothing at all in your most recent post that I disagree with. The only possible exception would be your desire to have 100% c&r regardless of run size. I don't agree with that but it's a matter of opinion and I respect yours. You're right on about "conservative harvest". That's exactly what I advocate as opposed to "preservationism" which, I believe, 100% C&R anglers espouse.

My original response to your first post was to make the point that increasing harvest in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. If exceptionally large runs were coming back there's nothing wrong with loosening some of the restrictions. I'll never side with the folks who believe that wild steelhead should ALWAYS be released even in years of great abundance. I didn't defend the WDFW, nor did I state that I supported these changes. I simply said (not very well, evidently) that a great deal more information is needed before deciding that this is a bad move by WDFW. Most likely I'll lean toward keeping what we have now, however I won't dismiss increased harvest as bad policy until I know more.

In spite of Bob's opinion that Fisheries sets the regs at one extreme or the other I agree with you that the current regs are a pretty good middle ground. In fact Bob gave an example of WDFW choosing the middle ground approach in a recent thread on chinook fishing, then admitted he illegally and unethically ignored the rules anyway. Not one person here stood up and chastised him for that, myself included (until now).

I'd be the first to encourage COMPLETE CLOSURE if the runs were in very bad shape but that's not the case in many of our streams. C&R is fine on some streams and a limited kill fishery on others that can support it is not the least bit unethical. If a fisherman decides to release all fish, great. But trying to impose ones personal ethics upon others is unwise. I never much cared for people who think their way of doing things is the only way it should be done.

Total bans on killing fish when it's biologically unnecessary is usually supported by people whom it won't affect anyway (C&R fishermen) in the name of saving fish. Yet there are other ways to reduce harvest. In fact I can think of one now that would be very effective in reducing harvest, wouldn't reduce opportunity, yet most C&R anglers would be up in arms about because it would affect them as much as anyone else. I'll let you think about that one.

I do also agree that escapement goals should be VERY generous. Many times the numbers are set too low. Better to err on the high side, in my opinion.

Looking back at previous year's runs as the sole reason for supporting or opposing regulation changes is foolish. I, for one, will withhold my support or opposition to these changes until I have more information and encourage others to do the same.

Best regards,
Doug

thanks for the reply doug. to clear things up a bit, if escapement goals were set at a level that provides extra protection for wild runs (excessive floods, landslides, bad ocean conditions, etc.) i wouldn't have a problem with a limited harvest on wild fish... but a very cautious fishery (my position is the same for wild salmon). of course, i don't believe that we have run sizes at this level right now almost anywhere in this state to have heavy harvests like those proposed by the state for the north coast rivers, especially on the hoh, which i believe has been closed early (by emergency) 3 of the last 4 years. to me, reopening the hoh to unlimited kill is not responsible, but i hope you check into the figures for yourself and make up your own mind on this.

another question one must ask on this issue is how accurate are spawning counts done by WDFW. i believe that they consistently over estimate numbers. they use index counts where the index may not be representative of the entire river...ie picking a real productive stretch and trying to use that to cover the rest of the river, including unproductive areas. there are errors in counting redds. many fish start and then stop redd building, but it looks like two redds, although only one has eggs in it. also, lamprey redds can often be mistaken for steelhead redds by those without a lot of experience counting redds. so there may in fact be a large error when they tell us what the average escapement has been on the quillayute over the last five years is 12,181 fish (escapement is 5,900).

of course, 12,000 fish sounds like a lot of fish, and if correct it's great news. but remember those fish are divided between the sol duc, bogie, calawah, and dickey... now it doesn't sound like such a huge number.

hopefully, we can let the department know how we feel these rivers should be managed in the future. imo, it's all whether we stay the course with the existing regs, or whether we want to move backwards and let the state "manage" these fish stocks like all the others.... into the toilet. maybe a bit simplistic, but it's how i feel about it.

let's let them know we want to at least keep these existing regulations... at least for a few more years until we get to see the hopeful increase in wild fish numbers from these existing regs.

on another note, the existing and new proposed regs have nothing in them to protect a run of wild steelhead that is in bad shape in all these rivers... and that's the early-timed winter steelhead that once made up a large percentage of the total run, but has been knocked down considerably. seems to me, when there's hatchery fish in the rivers, there's no need to kill wild fish. just another thought.

chris

MM ... the situation this year around the Gray's Harbor streams is a perfect example of what I am getting at with the one extreme or another. Two kings a day (or silvers) for many a years, and now closure ... where was a one fish limit that some of us have asked for in the past in between. The Satsop was for a number of years closed to the retention of kings ... then the numbers came back up a little and the two fish limit was put back in place on them ... now, we're closed again ... where was the one fish limit???

The same on the Hoh ... in the two COMPLETE closure years we've seen recently, catch and kill was allowed on the lower river ... then a total closure ... no C&R reg in a season when the state knew going in that the returns were going to be marginal. Kill 'em all or nothing again. To drive the knife in a little further, the first year of the complete closure the tribes were allowed to continue netting for a period after the river was closed to sports fishing ... and the state didn't even have the guts to take the black eye (media people who came to observe)to come cite a few of us who informed the state that we were going to have (and did have) a "fish-in" to protest the netting.

Now this year, despite the southern river closures and the extreme increase in fishing pressure on the Forks area rivers that we all knew was coming ... the state, despite please from a number of people, opted to leave the two king limit as is ... their reasoning: plenty of fish for escapement, no need for it. This despite the fact we're going into another La Nina fall and winter in which we are likely to have many high waters scouring or covering many redds ... any foresight here by the WDFW ... NOT! Just kill 'em all again.

Needless to say, if we have a closure down the road from this year's spawn ... I will be filing suit ... and I'm sure others will join in too.

As to my "illegal and unethical" practices ... I can live with walking this grey line. The state says I can't even C&R a salmon 10 yards above the 101 bridge ... but I can go below it ten yards and kill two.

Does this make sense?? I don't think so. Many of our coastal kings spawn in the lower river ... take the flats below the Wilson's put-in the Bogachiel ... maybe 8 or 9 miles below the fishing boundary and a good portion of the river's kings spawn there.

The upper portion of the Hoh was long open for salmon fishing ... then the state said: no, you can't fish for them there ... but you can still fish down below and kill two. And of course, it is now open again. But never, was there an option discussed to allow more of the river to be fishable (making for a lighter load of traffic per mile, making for a nicer experience for everyone) with a lower limit of one fish.

I can live with the fact that odds are, we killed fewer fish going "steelhead" fishing (and certainly staying away from active spawning areas) than if we had fished catch-and-kill to our limit on the lower river. If the impact of my actions were so detrimental ... then certainly the limit should have reduced to one or even none at all ... has the state ever once promoted C&R for salmon ... never!!!

I'm not asking you to condone my actions ... only to perhaps understand my frustrations, concerns, and reactions in spending the day on the river fishing ... and not neccessarily killing. Bash me if you wish ... but I'm sick and tired of the short-sightedness and inflexability of the WDFW and will live with your criticisms of one manner in which I say: "I've had it!"

Well put Bob! I have felt the same way ever since they let the featherheads NET! I remember how it use to be!

------------------
Tight Lines!!

i know very little about the peninsula rivers but this could apply to all rivers. if there is a good hatchery component available then it should be mandatory release of all wild steelhead period! my reason for this is there is no true accounting for the exact numbers of fish in the particular system to spawn and nobody really knows what the particular river can/cannot support. if the hatchery component is limited or non-existent them it should be c&r only unless the wdfw has HARD numbers in hand as to the return size then maybe a 1 fish limit. wdfw needs to start making more logical/rational decisions(that doubtful and laughable) regarding our fisheries and their management strategies. steelhead and salmon need to be managed for msy rather than msh for wild fish. to make this happen all hatchery fish must be fin clipped including tribal plants.
just my 2 cents worth here.

Bob,
I've lived on this peninsula for forty years and have hunted and fished with a passion all my life as have generations of my family before me. There's not much of it that doesn't have my bootprints. As you know I, too, make my living from sportfishing. One thing that has always been very consistent in the state of Washington is the mismanagement of our fish and game by the agency charged with protecting it. One doesn't have to be a trained biologist to recognize many examples of policies and regulations that are detrimental to wildlife populations. At times it has seemed as if they couldn't have made worse decisions if they had tried. So you'll get no argument from me on that.

I've always believed that never are personal ethics more important than in the outdoors. Much of the time there is no one around to judge your actions save for your own consience. Decisions we make while in the field involve the lives of other creatures and should never be taken lightly. I also strongly believe that regulations should strictly be adhered to. Does this mean I've never broken a game law? No, I've "stretched" the laws on occasion in my younger days. I'm not proud of that and believe it's the wrong thing to do. If I was overly concerned about you "walking this grey line" I'd have no problem turning you in if I saw it. But the fact remains it is illegal to target a closed species and is unethical to do so especially in light of the fact that you have clients with you. A person in your capacity is often looked up to by the sports and if you encourage this kind of activity (to make a buck, no less) you're setting a very poor example.

I don't know the reasoning behind the regulations in this example but it looks to me like a compromise situation. Part of the river is closed to protect fish yet other parts remain open. Perhaps this was to protect an upriver population of fish. Perhaps it was to cut down on the killing of fish that are no longer in good enough shape to be edible. I can only speculate. But I do doubt that the harvest remains the same when the upper river is closed as opposed to when the whole river is open. As I said, this looks to me as something of a compromise but it doesn't make one bit of difference if the regulations are ignored. The state of our wildlife populations due to the tribal situation is a perfect example of what happens when rules only apply to some of the users of a given resource.

Now I certainly am not implying that you need to justify anything to me personally. But I will say that I find it extremely hypocritical for you, and others, to break the rules when it suits you and then to scorn others who LEGALLY bonk a wild steelhead. Come on Bob, admit it, you may have seen me on the bank bonking a fish and have mumbled under your breath (or worse!) about that %<#*,@! killing a nate. But it's perfectly legal and ethical to do so. Not to mention, for all you know it may be the only one I've killed all year (or several years, for that matter). Besides that, you've been responsible for killing many more. You had over 400 hundred to the boat last season and at 10% mortality that's 40 dead steelhead. Rotting on the bank. At least I'll make a meal of mine and probably mount it too!If you disagree with limited harvest then do what you can to get the regs changed. But don't look down your nose at someone who doesn't share your opinion on this and who, by the way, is not "walking a grey line". If you think you should be able to C&R chinook in a stretch of river that's closed then obey the law and see what you can do about getting that changed too. Don't forget, whether you want the role or not, you're setting an example for anyone who gets in your boat as well as the people who frequent this board and hold you in high esteem.

Regards,
Doug

Doug, I personally DO find it unethical to intentionally kill a wild steelhead ... so we both seem to feel that the other fishes unethically ... so be it. I stand by and sleep just fine with my actions ... whether it be a "steelhead trip" in the upper Hoh or having the "ethics" to require C&R of wild steelhead on my boat, whether mandated by law or not.

Ethical or not is a matter of personal opinion and surrounding circumstances.

"To make a buck, no less" - strange comment from someone who is mounting dead wild steelhead ... a sin in my book. See how it works both ways?

And I'm sure you've never driven 36 miles an hour or more at any point along Lake Crescent on your way out here ... 'cuz if you did, you're driving unethically (endangering others?) and are an outlaw ... because you just crossed some imaginary "gray line" set up by the government.

Since you seem to have forgotten the topic at hand here and instead apparently want to focus more on a PERSONAL attack ... I ask that you do so off of the forum as the posted rules dictate ... as much as I've wanted to break this over the past few seasons and bring some attention to certain individuals, I've refrained (they're my rules after all) ... and since it seems so important to you to follow mandated rules, I expect you to do so.

Thanks, Bob and ditto to all of the above. That is one of the reasons that 696 did not pass, with rhetoric like that from one of our own.
I too see and hear many that kill native steelhead and can't understand their reasons. After all it is usually after they have had their fill of Salmon fishing in the same rivers....usually enough hatchery fish to keep and consume.
Lets keep pushing for the regs that "improve" the survival of native steelhead. If they want one to eat, send them down to Blue Creek on the Cowlitz, plenty of fish and fishin-fools there, many with the same values. Of course I have fished there myself, but that was before I had my boats and could put up with the "fighting" that sometimes took place there. I would rather fish the Queets any day!

------------------
Steve Ng....The FishNg1
99 F-350 4x4 SD, 18ft Alumaweld Formula Vee Sled, 115 Yamaha.

Duntze, Where can we get the details on this proposal? I haven't been able to find anything.

preston, i received the pamphlet of rule changes from WDFW last thursday. i would suggest calling WDFW ...evan jacoby at (360)902-2930. ask for the "package of proposal changes to the rules governing recreational fisheries...". they should send you a copy right out. if not e-mail me and i will send you a copy with just the coastal stuff (deleted the bass and cutthroat stuff).

chris
bellows@olypen.com