I just wanted to see what the consensus is of keeping LARGE (25+lb) native fish from the Quinalt River. I don't keep natives (any more), but 4 years ago I kept a 27lb. nate from the Quinalt to be mounted. The fish can be viewed on my web site, and I get a lot of emails from peoples about that fish. If I catch another 25+lb native steelhead on the Quinalt (Feb 23!), I'll take lots of pictures/measurements and let it go. Please be honest now, but in your shoes, if you happen to catch a 25+ native steelhead on the Quinalt, would you keep it? If yes or no, than why?
Tight lines,
Paker

If it was a hatchery fish yes! But what if its meant to go up to the head waters and make more? The Quinalts have the best Steelhead hatchery in the land and the state could take a few lessons. The size of some of the fish Ive seen going up Cook Creek amazed the hell out me. And the ones going to the lake hatchery are even bigger I hear, so I say you might even have a chance of finding it even in the hatchery varity! And thats what Steelheading is...chance!
Just my 21.98

Let em Live!

My first question to you is why in the hell would you want to keep a native steelhead!!!these fish are just way to valuable to kill,with todays technology you don't need to kill them,all you need is a length and girth mesurment and a couple of good pics and most taxidermist can make you a damn good graphite reproduction,if your a meat fisherman then thats what hatchery fish are for!!!in fact this raises a question that i've wondered for a long time now,on this bb who keeps natives?dont be shy if your willing to keep them then why don't admit it?well i hope i didn't ruffle to many feathers,just my .02

FISH ON!!!

There are more than enough big Hatchery fish on that water flow. When the native fish are gone they are just that GONE...

Well here's my 2 cents, I do not kill natives and haven't for at least 5 years,but if I was going to it would be and only be on the quinault,but I probably wouldn't, the reproductions are amazing and accurate, but I can honestly say that I have landed and killed 5 fish over 25 lbs,but it has taken me 25 years to reach that total.I have not caught one close to that in years ( 2 last year both about 18 or 19 lbs) not really a slump , but I don't spend nearly enough time as before ( something called a job ).But I believe the Quinault is the exception to the rule, this fishery is in a class by itself. Don't know if I answered the question just my little bit of input...

------------------
Tight Lines
<*)>><

Feather ruffling topic; gotta respond.

I'm not interested in mounts and I catch enough brats to keep the BBQ running. A couple of pics for proof to my buddies is all I need. However, I don't think my personal preferences as holy and good and those who disagree, criminal.

I do not feel that the wild steelhead should be, or should be managed, as a "Pedestal Fish". This just assumes that the population would never be healthy enough to harvest. That we can never restore habitats to provide sufficient spawning grounds or estuarine nursery areas. Work needs to continue to restore all of the habitats necessary to ensure a sustainable population, not just existence. And a sustainable population should be harvested at a level that wouldn't impact that population.

God knows WDFW doesn't have the resources to forecast steelhead runs with a great deal of accuracy, so conservative harvest policies are necessary. But I feel that conservative harvest policies, based on the best available data, is better than "no harvest period", which is based on emotion and passion. Shut'em down, if necessary to rebuild the stocks, but don't keep them closed based on a tradition. If so, management agencies would be just as guilty as when they are politically influenced by commercials, and this would just give the commercials fuel for their arguements to harvest.

My bottom line: To keep or not to keep should be based on science and sound management strategies(including enforcement), not personal outrage.

Any temperatures rising...

First why limit the question to the Quinault? Plenty of other rivers allow the keeping of wild fish. Not all guides are C&R. This BB host is! However, many others are not. I can say that if fishing with a C&R guide then my mind is already made up and camera is at the ready. If fishing with a non C&R guide I will be prepared for C&R with camera at the ready and let the guide know up front. When that trophy comes to the boat, that is not the time to decide. However, there is still part of me that says keep the trophy. Bottom line I go in prepared for C&R but may change my mind on the spot.

Personally I would never kill a native no matter how big or what river it was caught on. Any more I don't even kill hatchery fish. If you'd like to hear a disgusting situation on the Green river the indians net the hell out of the nates and the muckleshoot biologist floats the river with his indian buddies and they kill all the natives they can catch by rod and reel!

You can talk the C&R talk, but can you walk the C&R walk? Screw 25lb+, fellas how 'bout a 40lb+ native buck steelhead, in all of its chrome grandeur? Would ya bonk it? What if you forgot your camera at home?

No need to specifically answer this post. Just internalize this question. If the answer is a resounding "no" to all of the above, then pat yourself on the back. You are a better man than me.

I've got another hypothetical question to add to Hohwaiian's. What if we're talking about native salmon (scaling the weights up or down to be comparable to that of a trophy steelhead)? I genuinely don't know if the same people who C & R native steelhead also 100% C & R native salmon. If not, I guess there are two valid reasons for the apparant inconsistency:

1. Steelhead can spawn again; salmon can't. True, but steelhead are basically on a one-way trip too. Return spawners are something on the order of 3-10% of runs (maybe the Kamchatka Peninsula excepted: is Ralph Waldo Emerson still out there?). OK, even 5% is a lot better than a ZERO rate of return but it's no sure thing either.

2. The native salmon run on the particular body of water isn't endangered, but the native steelhead run is. Nothing wrong with this argument either, except that it implies that it's OK to keep native steelhead in places where the run isn't endangered.

Now I know the quality of the information on returns is so poor in the Lower 48 that it may be more sensible to assume that every wild steelhead run is either endangered or could possibly (someday soon) become endangered. If so, then there's nothing inconsistent with releasing all native steelhead yet keeping native salmon. But in parts of British Columbia, South America and Alaska there are a few places where the steelhead aren't endangered, and eating a couple wouldn't be a crime against nature (or humanity).

The reason I'm trying to stir things up is that I suspect that WA, CA and OR legislators are guided less by pure intentions than by numbers of pissed off voters on one hand and campaign contributions from corporates on the other.

Most fishermen outside this board like to keep fish, native or non-native. But many of these fishermen are willing to temporarily forgo keeping natives -- and lobby their lawmakers to that effect -- to let watersheds recover and runs rejuvenate. These folks are natural allies of the 'release all natives (on a voluntary basis if the runs are healthy)' crowd. But if the lobby splits into two camps -- temporary and permanent 'no nates' -- then I suspect the lack of unanimity in recommendations to lawmakers is going to leave us (you) on the losing end of the debate.

What do I do? I throw back 100% of the steelhead and generally keep the good eating salmon up to my limit. (The salmon runs are very healthy where I fish in Alaska, and it's 100% natives. On the rare occasions when I catch hatchery fish somewhere else I let them go more out of habit than any conscious policy.)

[This message has been edited by Snagly (edited 02-09-2000).]

It's a thrill to catch a big fish, hell, my biggest isn't anywhere near what some of you have probably caught, a 14lbs Native Hen on the Snoqualmie. However the biggest thrill to me, was and still is, reviving that chrome beauty and watching it slip away into the depths of the river knowing you got the best of that fish.
I was on a work trip we booked through Bob last year, 6 of us in 3 boats. Myself and a co-worker were fishing with Bob, when one of the other boats working a slot below us hit a big fish. The guide motioned us to come down, when we got there I grabbed onto the anchor arm of his drift boat, while Bob worked the oars for both boats. We must have drift almost a mile before landing this fish. It turned out to be a massive 29lb native buck. Between us all we must have snapped off 15-20 frames of film. After that whole ordeal, watching that fish revive and slowly swim away, it was awesome and best of all, the pictures are still on the wall in our dept hallway.
I guess it's a personal preference, however there is no need to take these beautiful fish home for the grill or the wall. You can always wack a hatchery fish, but a picture and the memories of a trophy fish will be around forever.

Sorry to ramble...just my .02...

Kev

Ok, looks like I wasn't clear enough. Let's keep this discussion about keeping large natives on just the lower Quianalt (Indian guided only) river. Also, let's keep this discussion focused on trophy native fish over 25 lbs.

Are you guys really telling me that if you caught the WA State record fish (native) on the lower Quinalt while fishing with Robin Rhoades, you'd let it go?

Why? The regulations state that you can keep one native on the lower Quinalt (at least they did last time I checked). Are you saying that all/most fisheries peoples/biologists are idiots and that they have no idea what they are doing?

Some food for thought:

I graduated from the UW School of Fisheries in 1991. I specialized in salmonids (ie salmon and steelhead). I'm very familiar with the Quinalt river and what goes on there. Seeing how a good portion of the hatchery fish on the Quinalt are not adipose clipped, how do you know what you are catching? Yeah, I know the "rule of thumb" about perfect fins on natives, but that does not always hold true. If you think it does, than you've never worked in a hatchery. Last time I checked, the Quinalt had a very healthy native population. With so *little* fishing pressure (key point there) on the Quinalt, taking a native or two does not hurt the population.

Are you also telling me that only genetics contributes to large fish? Doesn't easy access to the coast and low predation have any effect on a 2-time returning fish (IE, large fish?)

Don't get me wrong. I release natives, although I generally keep what I catch when fishing my one day a year trip on the Quinalt. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I have yet to see any evidence that tells me keeping a native on the Quinalt is bad.

I can't and won't say that for any other river in the State.

PS. I don't keep natives on any other rivers (period), reglardless of size. Our State Managed (non-tribal) rivers are all messed up and unfortunately there's very little we can do. Personally, I think no one should be allowed to keep any native on any State Managed (non-tribal) river.

Don't get me started, but why the heck is the Sauk open for natives? Now that the Sky, Sno, and Stili are closed for nates, guess where all the fisherman are headed for meat fishing? Yup, the Sauk. How many years of this do you think it will take until the Sauk has an "endangered" run of natives. Not long. Sad.

Keep those lines tight and I might sound like a hypocrite for saying "release the natives on our public rivers."

Parker

I don't fish the Quinault (Why would I bother? see Kev's post) But if I did, as a matter of personal ethics ... I'd let it go. You ask why. I ask why not?? I killed my first fish over 20 pounds (out of the Sky) some years back, and now regret doing so. It remains to this day, the only wild fish that I have ever intentionally killed. Even on the most "trophy-class" watersheds, fish of this class are rare ... maybe 1 to 2% of the returning fish. Why not release it to allow this small percentage of the population's genetic make-up be passed on?

Parker, I disagree with your assessment of the genetics theroy. Studies of the largest WA coastal steelhead show that the largest members of the population are NOT repeat spawners. Most are three or four year salt fish that HAVE NOT spawned previously. The traits of these fish to spend such time at sea are genetic and are passed on. More proof on this: what's the state record steelhead in WA, a Snake River (presumably) bound summer fish from the Columbia - a population with virtually no repeat spawners. The world's largest steelhead come from the Skeena system with fish often having 3/4 life histories and NO repeat spawning. In both cases, these fish travel hundreds of miles inland before spawning. No "easy access" in either case. It simply a matter of life history.

You readily take away the fish that spend four years at sea, and you take away the big fish ... period. The Quinault is no exception.

Way to go Bob! Finally, we see a good reply with some factual merit! Good arguments, too! Looks like if I catch my state record fish on the 23rd and it's a native, you'll be able to see a *picture* of it on my web site..just before letting it go!

On a different note, does anyone know where the *original* hatchery brood stock came from? Are they Quinalt native fish, or where they imported from some other river?

If they were from a different river, it would be interesting to see the genetic make up of a large native vs. hatchery fish. Seeing how the hatchery fish are just as large as the natives, I'm going to guess the original broodstock came from the Quinalt.

Also, I believe it's FishGal holding a monster steelhead on the Forums site. How large was this fish? It *looks* huge.....

Thanks for the discussion guys! It's been fun. I'll try not to post such feather-ruffling questions in the future. I'll behave.

Parker

Yep .. that's Fishgal with the approx 25 pound hen. And to our lady flyfishing friend, no it wasn't caught on a plug ... let call her "Spoongal" nowadays.

Parker, your comment on the size of the Quinault hatchery stock just reinforces my comments ... genetics is the name of the game.

More reason I find fault with our steelhead fisheries management in this state: steelhead CANNOT be managed like salmon, because their life histories are NOT the same. Some spawn twice (sometimes three, four, even more times) - and these fish can be forced to run the gauntlet of nets and anglers going, up, going down, going up again, and perhaps going down again ... basically increasing the chances that this fish (a smaller, yet important percentage of the stock) is removed from the gene pool.

In addition, nets and often times anglers (your big fish is a perfect example) selectively kill the bigger members of the stock.

This is one of the primary reasons that I am so strongly opposed to any intentional kill of wild steelhead by sporties and netting by tribes ... we selectively remove the bigger fish and repeat spawners from the possible spawning population. Over time, we see the effects of this ... smaller fish, less repeat spawners, less genetic diversity. Run all the numbers you want in a model to achieve escapement, but the fact is ... the models have ZERO consideration of this fact. We mess with Mother Nature on this one and it WILL screw things up eventually.

Want to see an example of this ... simply look at the state's hatchery fish. Take the first fish back to the hatchery for spawning, and don't have any sort of check in place to see that only the stronger members of such a population are the ones that spawn (if it make it back to the hatchery ... it's good enough - doesn't work that way in the wild), you get brats. Fish that come back earlier and earlier, all look like they came from a cookie cutter, and are even beginning to mutate - I've had two fish come aboard in the past few years with milt on one side, eggs on the other, another with a couple of dorsals, and another yet with two ventrals (same side, three total).

While there is no question that even in C&R, anglers play a role in impacting the runs ... but unlike the other major user group, we can attempt to limit our impact. In fact, I think it is our reponsibility to lessen our impact as much as possible, and the way to do that is to let ALL of them go.

Well, since this post is confined strictly to the Lower river. Well then I'm Audi.

Potter hook me up!

Bobs right on here. Its like this. If you take all the good looking people out of the human race you would have mutts like me doing all the breeding... what would that be like. So far nobodys bonked me on the head, and for that I am greatfull. Most of the data I have read suggests it takes 4 year fish to make 4 year fish. There have been 6 salt fish in the Skeena river basin, and you know what potential there is for a true monster up there. The true Idaho Clearwater B run... Which happens to be what the current Washington state record steelhead happened to be, is damn near gone. The hatchey fish just don't have the genes ( or seem to be getting weaker) But hell thats because of Dworshack dam and I have beat on that drum enough already..

i've talked about this with many people,just like bob said if you remove all the large individuals from a population you start to get smaller fish for example take california's kalamath river,after decades of tribal gill netting removing all the large individuals,the size of the fish in the run has dramatically decreased,they used to have fairly large fish in the kalamath run,but now the average sized steelhead is 4-5 pounds and a large steelhead in that system is 8-10 pounds.if you caught one that was 12 pounds it would be a real trophy!!!,even the size of there salmon has decreased were talking only 10-12 pounds on average,so i hope this helps.


FISH ON!!!

Parker,

Bob's right regarding genetics. Large animals produce more large offspring than small animals. Same with salmon and steelhead. A corolary to the steelhead example is Puget Sound chinook. The average age at maturity used to be 5 years. Years of gillnetting pushed that to age 4 and a smaller average size. Now there seems to be an ever larger proportion of the adult return coming back at age 3 and yup, you guessed it, even smaller average size again.

The key difference with the lower Quinault is the overall harvest rate on steelhead, coupled with the continued mixing between the natural and hatchery populations. The effect of you retaining one large steelhead on the population is decidedly small. But for that matter, the effect of me taking one large steelhead from the Sauk River population is decidedly small. But cummulative effects do count, and as a matter of conscience, I don't retain wild steelhead from any population. True, I haven't fished the lower Quinault, but when I do, I won't be retaining those steelhead either. That's not why I go fishing.

I believe it may be true that the cummulative effect of recreational and net fishing combined may have a negligable effect on the Quinault River steelhead. So you can keep whatever fish you catch with a clear conservation conscience I suppose. But if you choose to release the fish, consider the statement you're making about yourself. Even though the interests of conservation may not require your action, you choose release over retention as a measure against the uncertainty of loss to a very unique steelhead population.

Not exactly to the point, but I figure when the cost is small, it's a good time to be big. Releasing wild steelhead is easy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I hear you guys! For what it's worth, I wish the state would put a mandatory CNR restriction for native steelhead on all WA State rivers, reglardless of populations. Somehow, I don't think a lot of fisherpeople would mind. I certainly would not mind.

Maybe Bob can create a page that auto-emails a leter to our senators/legislators addressing this issue. You simply go to the page, sign the letter with your name/address/email address and off it goes. If enough people in the state send out letters demanding that wild steelhead be preserved, someone will eventually listen. Than again, if the past is any indication of the future, it's looking grim for wild steelhead.

Parker

Correct me if I'm wrong--but isn't true the Quinalts don't clip their hatchery fish? How are you supposed to tell if its native or hatchery? Granted the beat-up fin thing is a dead give away-but last time I fished the Quinalt we landed 11 fish and most of them had perfect fins (that was in early Feb.) Mabye they were or mabye they were not, but I took my #17 home with me-that by the way is my biggest to date. We then returned and fished the Clearwater where I gladly released a #16 chromer hen that I could have kept! I release every native I catch, but when you can't tell-then what? 25 pounder---one time--in the Quinalt--KONK!!

Crafin,

You bring up a valid problem on the Quinalt. I've fished the lower Quianalt for the last 4 years. To date, only 1 fish had it's adipose fin clipped. Every time we would bring a fish in to the boat and ask "Is this a hatchery fish", the guide would say "Sure.". Granted some fish were just so perfect that we knew they were nates and let them go. Others, it was really hard to tell and was a judgement call.

I'll let you guys know what happens when I fish the Quinalt on the 23rd. I'll take a bunch of digital pictures and post them on my site. I'll let you judge whether these fish are nates or brats. Of course, they'll be 30+ pictures to look at... Look for a post from me on the 24th/25th.

Tight lines!

Parker

Native fish are NOT replaceable! If you kill a native hen, you are taking 3 or 4 fish out of the river (its offspring) and this may sound like a very small amount but add to that 500 other fish taken, and you end up taking alot of fish out of the river for the future. Hatchery fish were put here for a reason - to allow people to keep fish at the expense of paying more to keep the hatchery programs putting more fish in the rivers. Bottom line is: Release the Nates and keep the brats.

tight lines *

Even if it was legal and I caught a state/world record steelie I would release it. The only reason a angler would keep it is because of their ego and the need to prove it to someone and see their name in print. I guess you just get to a point in your "angling career" where your confidence is at such a level that you proved it to yourself and no one else's approval matters (self actualization?) I like a quote I heard "I know I caught him and he knows I caught him so why should i worry about anybody else"

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 02-14-2000).]

Jigman, you dont know s***, the biologist you are referring to does not kill native fish and knows far more about that river than you ever will and fishes it with a bunch of white guys like you and I. So I suggest before you open your white trash mouth get your facts straight. this world does not need any more biggots such as yourself. Peace


[This message has been edited by Bob (edited 02-18-2000).]

hi fisher peeps, well i was wondering where the is the quinalt..or however you spell it.. i had good fishing on the carbon this weekend..hooked 4 landed 3..all nates..man it was a blast 2 fish in 45 mins..best ive had yet..lol..well anyway..if anyone has directions to the quinalt..could you write me or sumthin..welps..im outie