Check them out at this link

WASHINGTON proposed rule changes

If the wild steelhead foregone opportunity is challenged by the tribes....will you be able to keep wild fish with a indian guide? Lots of new changes in this major rule change year. Will net days be increased....guaranteed!!
This is about legal rights not opinions!! Lets see the senario coming..tribes increase net days to catch the foregone opportunity fish. They are co-managers so they will. OR the tribes take us to court to increase net days to catch the fish. This will in turn force the state to open the season on wild fish when the tribes win in court.

It will happen....fish have a better chance in the nets or on a line?
I am partial to the total CnR of all wild fish so they will reopen my usual and accustomed fishing grounds with bait!!

Fishhead5

--------------------
Fishhead5


It is not illegal to deplete a fishery by management.

Limit all U.S. politicians to two terms:
One in office and one in prison!

quote:

---

Anyways with CNR the tribes wont have anybody to blame but themselves for the continued decline of wild runs.

---

These are all tough issues, and not all of them have clear answers. Here are some of my personal opinions about them, and what I think we as sport anglers can do to increase our fishing opportunity.
1. Hatchery vs. Wild: The tribes will not be able to make a distinction between them in their fisheries. They fish with gill nets that cannot discriminate between adipose fins and smooth backs. Why don't tribal fishers use fish wheels or weirs that would allow for kill of hatchery fish and the safe release of wild fish? Because the tribal managers want to reward those fishermen who do the most work, or better work, when it comes to fishing. Fish caught in nets belong to those who catch them. Fish caught in wheels or weirs would have to be divided up between tribal members or fishers, as obviously there can't be one weir or wheel for each fisher. This would be contrary to the policy of rewarding individual fishers for their efforts.

As long as the tribes exercise their federally protected right to fish, they will use gill nets that will catch wild fish.

Sport fishers, on the other hand, can discriminate between the hatchery and wild fish in their catch. This assumes that the hatchery fish are marked so that they can be distinguished from wild ones. There is no excuse except greed for sport fishers to kill wild fish "because the tribes do". There are more than enough hatchery fish to fill your freezer with fish if that is important to you.

2. Foregone opportunity: The tribes will catch and kill all the fish we release, so we should kill them first. This is exactly what WDFW steelhead managers want you to believe. Even if it were true, what would be the motivation to kill them ourselves? Again, greed is the only one I can come up with. "If you're going to kill them (tribes), then I'm going to do it first."

It seems that sport fishers are quick to criticize the WDFW managers when they make management and harvest decisions, and to claim that they are in with the tribes, and that they're selling us out, and that they want to modify hatchery practices to minimize the impacts to wild fish, and that their regulations are confusing with limited openings here and there so as to allow mixed stock fisheries while attempting to reduce impacts on depressed runs, etc., etc., etc., ....and then to accept wholeheartedly with nothing legal, biological, or historical to back it up, when they say the tribes will kill all the ones we c&r. Why does this happen? Unless someone has an argument to change my mind, greed is the answer again.

Anything done that is perceived to limit our opportunities to fill our freezers is grounds for distrust and anger for WDFW, even if it has justifications that are easy to realize. Anything that makes it easier for us to fill our freezers is the WDFW finally putting fish first (in our freezers), and is accepted even if there is no justification whatsoever.

3. Political issues with c&r: In spite of the high horse that every non-tribal steelhead fisherman seems to place himself on, due to the fact that they don't use nets to kill fish, but do it the "honorable" way by catching them with hook and line and hitting them with a stick or a rock, everyone else in the northwest who doesn't steelhead fish thinks we are at best no different, and in most cases worse, than tribal fishers. We are perceived as greedy racists who want to kill fish and we're mad because every fish the tribe kills is one that we didn't get to.

Why is that perception there? Because it is pretty close to the truth. And don't for one minute think that that perception doesn't exist and doesn't have a basis in truth.

How do we change that perception and gain political clout with the rest of the world that doesn't fish (i.e., the great majority of the people in the NW)? Take away the basis for the perception. Stop being greedy. Put the fish first. Leave the tribal fishers being the only ones who intentionally kill wild fish.

4. Collateral anti-c&r issues: Lots of these exist, and they look like extensions of the "me, me, me" greed principle.

The high mortality associated with c&r is unacceptable. Why release them when they all die anyway? We may as well just put them in our freezer so they don't get wasted. Yeah, right. All credible studies put the mortality, depending on gear types and release techniques, between 3% and 7%, give or take. WDFW would have you believe it's more like 15%, though there is no justification for that number. Even if it is 15%, that equals and 85% non-mortal release. I haven't seen any studies, but I think I can confidently say that somewhere near 100% of fish hit with sticks and stuck in coolers are incapable of successful spawning. Why is this 100% mortality acceptable when 3%-15% mortality associated with c&r is not? Because one puts fish in our freezers, and the other doesn't. Unless there's another answer, greed is it again.

WDFW will lose license sales if we don't have kill seasons. First, anyone who's launched a boat at Howard Miller, Marblemount, Government Bridge, or anywhere else on the Sauk or Skagit, in March or April, knows that there are LOTS of folks who are fishing c&r seasons. They bought licenses, not to mention hundreds of dollars of other items to be there for a chance to c&r a magnificent wild steelhead. Second, license sales have nothing to do with WDFW budgetary concerns; the money goes into the general fund, not to WDFW. Their budget comes from the general fund, not from license sales.

How do we as sportsmen improve our lot in life? We educate ourselves on the science, history, and laws that control fisheries. We apply what we have learned to our own actions. Without the credibility lent from a little self-inspection and self-control, we are both no better than other user groups or perceived as being any better. We put fish first, and then instead of paying lip service to that, we actually do it. It is very transparent to everyone when sportsmen are "fish first" when it comes to nets, but "freezer first" when it comes to our fishing.

The science shows that c&r kills very few fish, and that catch and kill does. It also shows that more fish spawning equals more fish in the river, better fitness, greater genetic potential, and greater ability to deal with environmental shifts (i.e., marine conditions).

The history of fisheries managment in Washington shows that whatever we're doing now flat out does not work. Fish have been managed to extinction or near extinction throughout the NW. History has also shown that foregone opportunity has never been shown to be the hobgoblin that our steelhead managers would have you believe. History has also shown that every time non-tribal fishermen have fought against the tribes they have been sent home with their tails between their legs. Back in the late '60's sportsmen complained that the tribes were catching too many (6%-10%) salmon and steelhead. The final result? The Boldt decision. That means 50%. This is what happens when sportsmen get greedy.

The law and the history are somewhat intertwined, what with the Boldt decision controlling the relationship with tribal co-managers. The law does not support the fear of foregone opportunity, in fact is supports our ability to c&r without fear of tribal reaction.

I encourage everyone to come to the Dec. 7 hearings on catch and release to express their opinions and concerns, but also to hear other folks' ideas and concerns. Without being educated on the facts and issues surrounding c&r, no one can have a credible opinion. Please attend and provide others with the opportunity to hear what you think and take the opportunity to hear what others think.

Whew. My fingers hurt. Fish on...

Todd.

----------------------------------
Again, courtsey of Todd Ripley:

Challenged asked:

1) Why is the state so concerned over the "foregone opportunity" issues? Will this increase the tribes catch before it reaches the CnR fishing grounds?

I can't help but feel that the state is so wedded to catch and kill because that's the way they have always done it. To change pace now would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong in the first place and that ocean conditions and Indians weren't the only causes for declining fish runs. Therefore, when all credible science points to the validity of cnr as a scientific, economic, and sociological factor in returning our native fish runs to anything at all like historical levels, scare tactics and questionable justifications must be used to defend their untenable positions.

The proposal language lamenting the fear of foregone opportunity smacks of 1950's moms telling their daughters that they'll get pregnant if they kiss a boy in the back of a car. The only published case that ever even remotely dealt with this issue said that the 50/50 split rule from the Boldt decision requires only that each party be given the opportunity to harvest their half of the fish, not that they necessarily get harvested. If more than half of the harvestable portion of a run is netted in the lower river by tribal fishers then non-tribal fishers have been denied their opportunity.

The foregone opportunity doctrine at worst doesn't mean anything, and at best supports our ability to have cnr seasons.

Challenged further asked:

2) Isn't CnR a greed? Would it be better to close systems until fishable CnR levels exist? What are fishable levels for CnR? or is there a even threshold we need to be concerned with?
In a perfect world fishing would have no impacts.

Yes, it would be better to close systems until fishable cnr levels exist. Anyone who wants to cnr fish in a run that can't even handle the level of mortality associated with cnr is just as greedy as a catch and kill advocate.

In Washington, cnr seasons are closed if the preseason projection for a stream is less than 80% of the calculated escapement for that stream. However, not all streams have escapement levels set, or they are arbitrary, and preseason projections are inaccurate due to our lack of knowledge about the marine life cycle of steelhead, and in-season run assessments are nonexistent. The state manages a lot of steelhead runs in a vacuum of ignorance. Even the runs that have enough available information to manage via current management schemes are managed ignorantly because current management schemes (read that as Maximum Sustained Yield) don't take enough into account to make an informed and scientifically justifiable decision about how many we should kill.

One of the reasons I support cnr of native steelhead is that very lack of knowledge. Here's a thumbnail sketch of how MSY affects our fisheries; With a lack of key information, we guess at what the minimum amount of fish are required to spawn so that extinction will be staved off for one more generation. With a further lack of key information, we guess at what a future run of fish that we know very little about will number next year. Every fish that we guess will be above and beyond the number we guessed that will be needed to spawn will be killed, no guess about that one.

Doesn't it make sense to be on the safe side by not killing the fish when we don't know what escapement should be, what it actually is, and how many fish are actually returning next year?

I guess I am greedy as a cnr advocate. I want to fish for native steelhead for the rest of my life. I also want my kids, and grandkids, and their kids and grandkids, to have the chance to do it, too. I want an icon of the Pacific Northwest to be a reality rather than a memory. I want all the communities and businesses that rely on native steelhead fisheries to have continued economic success well into the future. I want the many small towns that lost their entire economic well being due to overharvest of trees, or salmon, to at least have steelhead fishing to hang their hat on well into the future.

As you can see, I'm pretty greedy. It's all about me... .

Fish on...

If you have any ideas or opinions on this subject I would be interested in reading them, but personally, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from spamming the board with such massive amounts of information that the thoughts of the majority of other contributors are drowned.

Thank you.

Todd is very well versed subject as he has studied court cases, past-management etc. pertaining to the issue of foregone oppurtunity.

If we really wanted to learn the issue and consequence of foregone opportunity why does it matter where my opinions and/or facts come from as long as I give you the chance to judge them and form your own opinions.

None of us knows everything so I was doing the best I could to convey my beliefs and opinions on the subject and I thought it was best just quoting Todd on the subject as many of my opinions and the facts that I have learned regarding this subject have come either directly from Todd or papers or court cases that he has told me about.

Todd makes some pretty bold statements about of states fisheries policies. Even going so far as to call them ignorant....wonder how that sits with the folks that are about to make decisions.

With all the information put forth it still won't stop the tribes from stepping up to net the rivers more days and longer in the season. If I was a fish coming upstream, I would rather take my chances with the fishermen than the tribal nets....

Why would we want to use the escapement numbers to establish the CnR season if they are so off base for the use of the present management?
There are so many factors that influence the run sizes. Anybody notice the fish returns this year?
The state must be doing something right.....

We all know that is not the truth...can you honestly name 1 factor whose effect is constant and predictable years in advance upon salmonids.

MSY is what allows the tribes to take as many fish as they do. If the escapement goals were properly set and it was not the manager's goal to harvest EVERY fish over that goal, the tribes to take would be minimal.

C&R of wild steelhead is just a step in that direction.

I don't beleive the state should take too much credit for this years record numbers ....they got lucky

Hey Plunk why is it you don't show up till a topic involves Killin native Steelhead

quote:

---

If there's too few to keep... There's too few to catch.

---

Your License, Tags, etc. dollars do go towards hatcheries, but that does not entitle you that those are YOUR property.

You buy a license that helps support "Angling Opportunity", not a piece of paper that allows you this voice that those are YOUR fish.

Now that that takes care of hatchery fish, now onto the wild ones. If you keep removing a species that is not born into a "controlled" environment, how in the hell are you going to replace that once it's gone?

How are ya? I sure wish you'd just speak your mind instead of being so subtle and wishy-washy with your opinions I'm sure glad that we're on the same page on this issue!!

Marty, I don't feel that the fear of foregone opportunity is as big as some would have you believe. There is really only one case (Hoh v. Baldridge) that even tangentially dealt with the issue.

In that case the NMFS was attempting to set the commercial and tribal seasons for coastal coho. To make their job easier they lumped all of the coastal coho into one big number and divided it in half, half for the commercials and half for the tribes. (I'll leave out the sport catch since it was pretty minimal when we're talking numbers here).

As a consequence, nearly all of the harvestable Hoh River coho would have been caught in the offshore commercial fishery, while only a small percentage of other systems' fish, notably the Quillayute system's, would have been caught by the commercials.

Overall, this left half the harvestable coho for the tribal fishermen, but almost none for the Hoh Tribe. The court held that this was contrary to the law because the Hoh's were denied their opportunityto harvest their half of the Hoh river harvestable coho.

If a lower river tribal fishery is allowed to harvest more than half of the harvestable "surplus" of steelhead, then the non-tribal sport fishers have been denied their opportunity to harvest their half upstream.

While total harvest is a goal of the Boldt decision, it is not necessarily required. Only the opportunity to do so is required. No one is going to require the tribes to add netting days to their schedule if river conditions are such that they aren't netting half the fish.

A CNR season on the upper river does have the opportunity to "harvest" the sport allocation because even good CNR has an associated mortality.

While this has not been clearly litigated in the context of U.S. v. Washington, I feel that it's pretty likely that this would be the outcome.

Neither the tribes nor the state want to really hash out what "foregone opportunity" means. Neither is willing to take the hit that a clear decision would make, and a clear decision would remove an element of flexibility in management schemes that both parties would like to maintain. I don't think that anyone would challenge a CNR management scheme as being bad for the fish or the fisheries.

What would be the tribes' motivation to do so? If they lose, then the element of flexibility in management is gone. If they win, then the CNR regulation is removed and we're right back where we are now, with the added bonus that the state would make doubly sure that we kill more fish. In the latter scenario, we all lose, except for the dedicated freezer fillers, who also lose in the long run when there are no longer "enough to kill".

If we institute an unchallenged statewide cnr for native steelhead, then as run size increases, the harvestable portion increases. For every two fish it increases, the tribes get to net one more, and we get one more to fish for. It's a win-win solution, except for the aforementioned freezer fillers.

There's no way to please every single user group. However, in this scenario the tribes benefit. The state benefits by greatly simplifying their management schemes for native steelhead. Two-thirds of the steelhead fishermen in the state get what they want, which is cnr for all native steelhead, statewide and year round. All the guides and communities and services that benefit from more fish in the river for people to come and fish for come out ahead. Lots of money spent by tourists, semi-locals, and locals, in each fishing community.

The only ones who don't get what they want is the minority of people who want to BBQ native steelhead. And even they still get to BBQ all the hatchery fish they can catch, and all the available salmon runs are still out there to BBQ. It's not like we're talking about food here. It's a lot cheaper to buy fish than it is to go out and catch it.

It just makes sense to me.

Here are some examples to back up my bold statements about managing in ignorance.

Goodman Creek, Mosquito Creek, Tolt River, Sultan River, and Wallace River do not have escapement goals established, and none of them have actual escapement monitored. All are open to harvest of wild winter run steelhead.

The Skagit system has countless tributaries that carry native steelhead. Escapement is only set for the Skagit, Cascade, Sauk, Whitechuck, and Suiattle Rivers. Any fish caught in those rivers could easily be from any of the smaller tributaries. No escapement goals are set for those tributaries, and no actual escapement is monitored for them.

How can it be anything but ignorant management if we are allowing fish to be killed in rivers that have no set escapement, and no monitored actual escapement? We are killing fish with absolutely no data as to whether or not there are "enough to kill".

These are only representative examples, not an exhaustive list.

If we only fish where there are enough to kill, be ready for all the steelheaders in the state to fish the Quillayute system next winter, as it will be the only one open, except for maybe the Skagit/Sauk. In four years of killing, they close, too.

Time to take up bass fishing.

Thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion here. I welcome all informed views and opinions about this subject, and insightful questions and comments, as this is one of my greatest passions. I hope that more people are willing to participate in it so that we can all reap the benefits of information and discussion, rather than rely upon emotion, fear, and personal squabbles.

I'd also encourage everyone with a stake in steelhead to attend the Dec. 7 hearings in Vancouver, WA, to hear the discussions of all these issues. Those discussions will hopefully form the basis for the Commission's vote this spring on whether or not to require the CNR of native steelhead.

Fish on...

For those of you who would rather read the listed proposals to be discussed Dec. 7th instead of viewing all 65 pages on the internet, the WDFW will send you the proposals in the mail.

Call:

360-902-2200

They'll hook you up. I can't wait for the new ****ter reading material. Plus I get to highlight and highlight away..... Although miller highlife away sounds better

Yes they do kill alot of wild steelhead and yes it is a slaughter BUT the tribes take of wild steelhead in the Snohomish system is minimal. The last figures I have seen were for the 99-00 winter season and it was around 30 wild fish.

Yes, that is 30 fish too many BUT does that mean that we shouldn't do out part.

The tribes this and the tribes that argument will get us nowhere!! Am I right?? So what are you going to do to help our wild steelhead runs...??

The managers that I have spoken with, via my time as a WDFW attorney or my time as a Wild Steelhead Coalition board member, have not really embraced the idea of dumping MSY.

However, if we achieve year round, statewide, catch and release of all native steelhead, it will change for native steelhead as a matter of course.

They don't think it's a failure. Everytime fish runs are less than expectations, it is blamed on Indians and ocean conditions. Everytime a fish run is spectacular, like hatchery salmon this year, it's due to fantastic management schemes.

At the Steelhead Symposium in September I asked Bob Gibbons, WDFW's anadromous fish guru, "Why do we stick with MSY when it has proven to not work?"
His response was that MSY works fine, it's just the safeguards built into MSY are insufficient.

If there's a difference between "MSY doesn't work" and "the safeguards built into MSY are insufficient", it takes a brighter man than me to see it.

There are no safeguards in MSY. We voodoo up how many fish are necessary to spawn, then we voodoo up how many fish are returning. We attempt to kill the difference; not one fish more or one fish less. The insufficient safeguards in MSY are MSY itself.

MSY doesn't work. My comments above explain my personal opinion as to why WDFW sticks with it.

What if we get total CNR? Non-tribal fishers won't intentionally kill more than half of the "harvestable" steelhead. Fish runs will get bigger. The tribes will not kill the "extras". They have no reason to. They reap the benefits of larger runs as much as you and I do. A new management scheme will emerge. One that places more emphasis on economic yield, and angler satisfaction, over how many fish we can BBQ each calendar year.

Keep asking the right questions, and eventually you'll get the right answers. When anglers become accountable for their actions, and managers become accountable for their actions, then it's all up from there.

Fish on...

Todd.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Todd R ]

I may be out your way this week to do a combo hooknose/steelhead day on the Calawah.

Been hitting the C at all lately?

Definition of Forgone: To abstain from; relinquish

When discussing the "forgone opportunity" issue, we must remember to look back at why forgone opportunity exists in the first place. At the time of the court ruling, the tribes had the right to harvest but not the ability to harvest 50% of the fish. They simply did not have enough gear and enough fishermen to catch enough fish. The court then ruled that since they could not harvest their entire share, we could harvest the balance until the tribes could harvest their share. It must also be understood that this part of the ruling was more about salmon than Steelhead but did not exempt any species. For a period of years, the commercial fisherman harvested well over the 50% because of this clause. Commercial harvesters have always caught their fish in marine areas before the tribes had access to the fish. The "opportunity" to take the fish was not a consideration. The only consideration was the ability to take fish. In my mind, this leaves little doubt as to if the tribes can claim "forgone opportunity". Look at it this way, say the tribes and the state each get their 1000 fish of a 2000 fish quota. The tribes tell the state that they are harvesting their 1000 fish by gill net. The State tells the tribe that they are opening a C&R season and that they expect anglers to catch and release 2000 fish with a 10% mortality for a total harvest of 200 fish. The tribe then asks, "are you forgoing your opportunity to harvest those 800 fish". The states answer has to be yes.

EDIT: After some review, I must update some of my post. After kicking the hard drive in my head to get some more information out of it, I began to remember some other information relevent to the forgone opportunity clause in the Boldt decision.
I stand by my previous statements because I believe them to be totaly accurate, but I must add that I failed to remember some significant text that would currently eliminate the issue of forgone opportunity from some rivers.

The courts decision does not acknowledge differences in wild vs hatchery fish. I believe that it speaks to the 50/50 split as being across an entire species. In fact I recall a line in which the judge recomends that the tribes take their 50% of the steelhead from the winter run rather than the summer run.

What I am getting at is I see no reason that we could not harvest our 50% entirely from the hatchery component of the run. While I see no overall conservation improvement in this, it would remove the potential for a reduction of overall recreational opportunity in rivers that meet 2 criteria:

1) The river must have hatchery fish
2) The number of hatchery fish plus the expected anmount of wild fish mortality during a C&R season must exceed the total number of wild fish.

In rivers that have no hatchery but enough wild fish to have what is considered a surpluss, my previous statement stands.

end edit:

Will the tribes claim forgone opportunity? That's not easy to answer. I can't answer it. Todd brings up some valid points. Does it make sense for the tribes to harvest more if we were to go to C & R regs? It can be argued both ways. You could easily take Todd's perspective or the perspective that when you break it down, tribes are commercial fisherman and commercial fisherman take as much as they possibly can. It boils down to an individual judgement call on behalf of each angler.

The Consequences:

If wild steelhead release does not pass, everything stays the same. We still have problems with a management system that does not do a good job of providing steelhead returns that consistently provide fisheries. In short, there is still a lot of work to do.

If wild steelhead release passes and tribes on the 10 affected rivers do not claim forgone opportunity:
About 35,000 pissed off steelhead anglers.
About 68,000 happy steelhead anglers.
(The opinion of the license holding, non-steelhead anglers and the 2 day resident and non-resident steelhead anglers is unknown because it was not included in the survey)
Higher catching success rates for anglers.
Minimal biological impact with a higher probability of increasing run size.
See Todd's posts for more info on the potential benefits so I don't have to type all that out.

If wild steelhead release passes and tribes on the 10 rivers affected do claim forgone opportunity:
All steelhead fishermen are pissed off.
Lower catch rates than currently seen
Potentially devastating impact to the industries directly supported by wild steelhead fisheries.
Maximum biological impact because more nets or longer netting schedules result in larger by-catch numbers.
Potential loss in both angler participation and ability to draw youth into the sport.
Potential loss of management influence.

The numbers are the result of the angler preference telephone survey conducted by the WDFW. It polled a total of 2143 license holders but only asked the questions about steelhead to the 730 people who were steelhead anglers. Of those 730, 61% preferred C&R while 34% Preferred retention and 5% preferred closure or had no opinion. I extrapolated and approximated the total numbers based on approx. 300000 total licensees to approx. 103000 total steelhead anglers. As mentioned before, the survey did not include any 2 day licenses.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

And thank you Todd for speaking for your self. Your opinions are valuable contributions to this discussion. They not only cause my bull**** meter to jump off the scale but also alert me to some of the "smoke and mirror" arguments that must be addressed in my letters to the WDFW.

I won't waste time arguing with the faith based feel-good opinions, rationalizations and justifications of the CnR advocates here because whipping a dead horse is just that… a waste of time.

Here though are a few random thoughts on the subject.

*

We are under attack like never before. An orchestrated effort is being mounted to eliminate all personal use fishermen. This insidious campaign is shrouded beneath such noble ideals as species conservation and protection, quality fishing experiences and increased recreational fishing opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The vast majority of fisherman are personal use fishermen who not only thrill at the opportunity to test their skill at hooking and catching their prey but also value the experience of consuming the fruit of their enjoyable efforts. Most fishermen eat their catch and would not want to do otherwise.

In the early 70's an elitist group of environmentalist quasi-anglers, now commonly known as politically correct sportsmen, proposed the importance of preserving the quality of the angling experience as differentiated from the full-creel mentality. It all started with the major undertaking of Jack Anderson to save the cutthroat fishery in Yellowstone by closing angling at Fishing Bridge and establishing no-kill regulations. The stated goal is to better manage man's rapacious appetites in exceptional ways so that we can continue to save planet earth and the wild trout that seek to share it with us.

It would be difficult to fault such a magnanimous undertaking without closer observation. The purpose of the no-kill regulations is to allow intense fishing pressure upon a limited resource. This is the principle upon which arguments for C&R only fishing restrictions are based today. The insatiable greed for fishing opportunity is arguably best served by releasing the fish to be caught again and again. This provides maximum fishing opportunity with "minimum impact" upon the resource.

So… What's the problem?

"The vast majority of fisherman are personal use fishermen who not only thrill at the opportunity to test their skill at hooking and catching their prey but also value the experience of consuming the fruit of their enjoyable efforts. Most fishermen eat their catch and would not want to do otherwise."

Does that bear repeating? This whole C&R thing is being promulgated by a minority of elitist environmentalists at the expense of the vast majority of personal use fishermen who would like to put an occasional fish on the table.

These radicals have managed to seduce such commercial recreational interests as the publishers of Fishing and Hunting News and Salmon, Steelhead and Trout Magazine and also a number of fishing guides whose interests are best served by repeatedly targeting the same fish day after day with new clients.

Would "no kill" regulations result in greater numbers and healthier anadromous stocks?

The best science indicates that slightly higher returns would result from such regulations but repeatedly caught and released fish are certainly less healthy than their unmolested brethren are.

The emotional appeal of C&R restrictions is high but it flies in the face of good science and common sense.

The Quillayute and Quinault rivers are both known for the impressive numbers of winter steelhead returning to spawn each year. They both qualify as world class steelhead fishing rivers.

They are both MANAGED FOR HARVEST by tribal and personal use fishermen.

Here's some Quillayute system harvest data:

Year - - - - Run Size - - Tribal - - Sport - - Escapement
89-90 - - - - 13108 - - - 2742 - - - 2288 - - - 8078
90-91 - - - - 12352 - - - 2640 - - - 2054 - - - 7658
91-92 - - - - 12155 - - - 4615 - - - 2005 - - - 5535
92-93 - - - - 13370 - - - 4399 - - - 2701 - - - 6270
93-94 - - - - 10984 - - - 1738 - - - 1963 - - - 7283
94-95 - - - - 16780 - - - 2418 - - - 3436 - - - 10926
95-96 - - - - 21615 - - - 3357 - - - 3067 - - - 15191
96-97 - - - - 16487 - - - 3476 - - - 2453 - - - 10558
97-98 - - - - 18896 - - - 1773 - - - 0174 - - - 16949
98-99 - - - - 21463 - - - 3527 - - - 1434 - - - 16502

*

On October 7, 2000 Bob Gibbons presented the Fish and Wildlife Commission with a RECREATIONAL STATEWIDE WILD STEELHEAD "NO HARVEST" POLICY -- BRIEFING. This Department staff briefing was in response to a Commission request to evaluate the impacts of a recreational "no harvest" policy on wild steelhead.

In summary:

A catch and release fishery may legally be allowed only upon healthy stocks capable of withstanding their taking. Statewide policy currently prohibits the harvest of wild steelhead except by special rules that permit limited harvest from healthy stocks as determined by quality research information. A bias towards conservation has priority over fishing opportunity in all special rules decisions.

An absolute wild steelhead "no harvest" policy would:

Reduce the total sport harvest of all steelhead by a substantial 19%.

Increase wild steelhead spawning escapement, in streams currently permitting harvest, by an average of 11%.

Increase juvenile production in these streams by an average of 5%.

Increase the out migration of smolt in these streams by an average of 2.5%.

The above data provides no significant biological justification that the increase resulting from the proposed rule is needed to maintain healthy stocks. Up to 440 wild steelhead would die as a result of hooking mortality. This mortality would be unacceptable where the health of the stocks are in question.

The majority (58%) of anglers prefer to have some opportunity to harvest wild steelhead when the numbers are sufficient to allow a take. (note: The latest poll refutes this.)

A "no harvest" policy would open the door to a tribal challenge of foregone opportunity.

NOTE: After the report commissioner Van Gytenbeek remarked that he was personally insulted and had expected the elimination of harvest from healthy wild stocks to be included in this years proposed rule changes. He apparently expected something more than the evaluation of the impacts of a recreational "no harvest" policy on wild steelhead requested by the commission.

Mr. Van Gytenbeek and the radical extremists who he associates with will use any means to accomplish their goal of eliminating all harvest of trout and salmon. Be aware that the hatchery production of these fish is on their hit list too.

*

Where did CnR fascism originate?

The first National Wild Trout Symposium was held September 25-26, 1974 at Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel in Yellowstone National Park. The event was cosponsored by Trout Unlimited and the Department of the Interior US Fish and Wildlife Service, based on the idea for the event that originated with Frank Richardson, TU Executive Director and past FFF President PETE VAN GYTENBEEK, John Peters at a 1973 luncheon in Denver. The concept received the enthusiastic support of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and past FFF Senior Advisor, Nathaniel P. Reed. The sponsoring group was joined and the Symposium hosted by Yellowstone National Park's Jack Anderson. Willis King was also on the Organizing Committee. Over 300 anglers, writers, students, and professionals from every trout region in the United States and Canada met on common ground to talk about wild trout and establish a new tradition.

*

What about maximum sustainable harvest and foregone opportunity?

Run sizes are estimated annually in conjunction with coastal and Puget Sound treaty tribes to determine if there will be a harvestable surplus. The harvestable surplus must be shared equally with the tribes. The department then provides harvest and catch-and-release opportunities, appropriate to the predicted run size, taking into account any uncertainty related to recent trends, etc. This so-called maximum sustainable harvest procedure is mandated by law.

Another important subject related to this issue is that by federal court order the State and Treaty Tribes on the coast and in Puget Sound may claim “foregone opportunity” if the other party does not have the opportunity to take it’s share. In other words, if one side can not catch its share, the other party can harvest it. There have been some claims filed by the Tribes for foregone opportunity related to sport fishing for steelhead and salmon. So far the courts have not allowed the Tribes to take the sport share, but these cases have all involved sport harvest fisheries, not catch-and-release fisheries. The Tribes to date have not challenged any of our established catch-and-release seasons. However, the potential for a tribal challenge exists and adopting a “no harvest rule” for wild fish may give a higher profile to this issue.

The North Coast Tribes did in fact put the state on notice in 1998 that excess steelhead from the Quilliute, Hoh and some other rivers would be harvested in keeping with the foregone opportunity clause because sport anglers were consistently failing to harvest their allocation under the existing management practice.

The state proposed increasing the harvest through more liberal sport harvest opportunity last rule change cycle and did in fact do so. The tribal netting has also increased.

*

What about Oregon and California?

Advocates of mandatory CnR often state that no wild steelhead may be retained in the States of Oregon and California. They assume that if Oregon and California take this approach then Washington should get on board.

I don't know if those posts are blatant lies or the result of ignorance but in checking the regulations for that state I found the following rules.

Rogue River:
Tidewater upstream to deadline markers located downstream from Cole Rivers Hatchery diversion dam, including impoundment's.
Upstream to Grave Creek non-adipose clipped steelhead at least 24 inches in length may be kept; 1 per day, 5 per year, as part of daily or annual salmon/steelhead catch limit Jan. 1-April 30.

North Umpqua River:
North Umpqua River from mouth upstream to fly area boundary above Rock Creek.
Open for steelhead entire year.
Non-finclipped steelhead may be kept Jan. 1-Apr. 30; 1 per day, 5 per year.

Wild steelhead may also be retained in at least one California river.

Smith River Drainage:
Lower Drainage: Main stems of the Middle Fork below the mouth of Patrick’s Creek, the South Fork below the mouth of Jones Creek, and the North Fork below the mouth of Stony Creek.
Limit: 1 wild trout or steelhead over 16 inches total length, or 1 hatchery trout or 1 hatchery steelhead.
No more than 5 wild trout or steelhead over 16 inches total length may be kept per year.

In truth, the rules for management of steelhead in both of these states are exactly the same as the existing rules in Washington. The Current statewide rule is wild steelhead release. Exceptions are only allowed on known healthy runs that are above their escapement requirement.

*

Due to hooking mortality an angler that catches and releases a large number of wild fish may potentially have a greater impact on the resource than the angler that catches and retains one or two wild fish a season. The late season upper river CnR openings are contrary to conservation principles only further harming of these fish.

The attempts of those who would like to institute C&R only fishing for wild fish are an example of the declining moral fibre of American's disconnected from nature. This is management at it's worst catering to the perverse special interests of greed by those groups who demean these magnificent fish to mere toys. Many people consider this immoral and a cruel and wasteful practice.

Even when it is legal to kill a wild fish individual anglers still can make their own choice on whether or not to retain a fish. The legal seasons should leave it up to each angler to establish their own ethic in regard to the wild resource.

Ever wonder why so many CnR advocates ridicule anyone not in lockstep with this egocentric back patting, feel-good approach to saving the steelhead?

Perhaps this is because their commitment is based more on faith than reason.

Perhaps it's because their opinion is based more on selfish greed than on conservation principles.

If the wild steelhead can't withstand harvest, Why not let them spawn unmolested?

Thanks for responding with your opinions.
I'll try and address your concerns.

First, save the insidious conspiracy talk for PETA. It's more scare tactic talking that has nothing to do with the scientific, economic, and social reasons for going to cnr.

I don't know if the vast majority of fishers are personal use fishers, but I sure know that I am. I've eaten at least a dozen silvers the last few weeks (none with adipose fins), and a couple summer runs (again, no adipose fins). It would be a large pile of fish if all that I have eaten in the last ten years were piled up. Your assertion that to be a personal use fisher means you need to kill wild steelhead does not follow.

The science is across the board as to exactly what the benefit in terms of fish numbers will be if cnr is implemented, but ALL studies conclude that there will be a benefit. None of them say there will be the same amount or less fish.

Bob Gibbons has been a WDFW manager for a long time. Perhaps too long. At the Sept. 22, 2001, Steelhead Symposium in Seattle he stood up and defended MSY and harvest for wild steelhead. Each of his findings or reasons for that were refuted by each and every biologist from B.C., Idaho, Oregon, and California. As noted above, when I asked why we continue to use MSY when it clearly has managed our fish to near extinction in most river systems, he answered that MSY works just fine, only that the safeguards built into it don't protect the fish from overharvest. Hmmm...

Bob Gibbons comes from the old school of catch and kill, it's your right as an American, and if you don't the Indians are just going to kill them all anyway. It wasn't true in the late 60's when those sentiments brought about the Boldt decision, and they're not true now.

Even if I agreed with Bob's findings, here are my responses:

CNR would;

1. Reduce sport harvest by a substantial 19%.

Good. If we're talking wild fish, I wouldn't call 19% substantial, but it's a good start.

2. Increase escapement by 11% in streams currently allowing harvest.

Good.

3. Increase juvenile production by 5%.

Good.

4. Increase juvenile out-migration by 2.5%.

Good.

I don't necessarily agree with those numbers, but even accepting them, the 11% increased escapement equals more fish next generation, whatever the amount is. Then that generation has 11% more escapement than with harvest. Now there's even more fish. So does the next one, and the rest in perpetuity after that. More fish each generation.

Which, of course, is exactly the point of cnr.

Additionally, no cnr advocate that I know thinks that if a population cannot even handle the limited mortality associated with cnr that we should have a cnr fishery over them anyway. None of my associates argued that the Skagit and Sauk should have been open last spring. We argued that the management scheme that caused the population to decline precipitously was faulty and needed to be fixed. Part one of fixing it is to stop killing fish.

Have you seen the actual data and pie chart that Mr. Gibbons prepared for his battle for harvest?

Here's what it says:

14.3% of anglers prefer to harvest hatchery and wild fish.

43.4% prefer to harvest hatchery fish and not harvest wild fish.

42.3% prefer to not harvest hatchery or wild fish.

Somehow he added "kill all" and "kill hatchery and NOT wild" to get that 57.7% want to harvest wild fish.

Using his own numbers, that survey shows that 14.3% want to harvest wild fish. It also shows that 85.7% of anglers don't want to harvest any wild fish (43.4% + 42.3%).

His conclusion from these numbers:

"Most Anglers Still Prefer Harvest Opportunity On Wild Fish".

I don't know where he got his numbers, but they sure don't come anywhere near his conclusion that most anglers prefer to kill wild fish.

(BTW, I have Mr. Gibbons' packet of material entitled "Department to study the anticipated biological effects of implementing Wild Steelhead Release rule" in front of me as I write this. If I had a scanner I'd scan out his pie chart for you that shows these numbers and his faulty conclusion.)

Elimination of hatcheries may be on somebody's list, but it's not on mine, nor is it on anyone's that I associate with. Review the above where I outlined all the fish I've eaten lately. Without hatchery fish we would not have any fisheries on many rivers, since they don't have anywhere near enough wild fish to support a kill fishery.

CNR fascism? As noted above, save your conspiracy theories for PETA. The call for cnr is not an appeal to the uninformed masses over the feelings of the poor fish. It is not step one in a campaign to force all fishers to use hooks made of rubber so as to not penetrate their poor mouths. It is an appeal to the scientific, economic, and social sensibilities of intelligent people to preserve what we have, enhance it into the future, and have the chance to steelhead fish forever.

The potential for a foregone opportunity claim to come up does indeed exist. However, it hasn't worked yet, and my opinion is that it won't work in the future. As noted above, there is not really any motivation for any user group to try to make such a claim anyway. We all benefit from more fish in the river, from recreational fishermen, to tribes, to farmers and cities who use the water, to businesses that cater to fishermen. The only odd man out is the person who doesn't enjoy fishing unless he kills a native steelhead.

The fact that we only have several drainages that allow wild steelhead harvest is not a reflection of how WDFW is already giving cnr advocates almost all they want. If there were more streams making escapement, then they would be open for kill, too.

The reason that there are a limited amount of places to kill native fish is that the state has kill managed the other drainages into submission. There simply aren't enough left even for the harvest-minded manager to justify a kill season.

Your claim that cnr fishers will in the long run kill more fish than you is unfounded. If you catch and kill ten wild fish this winter, then those ten are dead. Not "less healthy". Dead.

Studies show that cnr mortality is probably around 5%-7% (studies run from near zero to 12%). If mortality is, say, 10%, then I have to cnr 100 fish to kill as many as you. If it's 5%, then I need to catch 200. That's just to probably kill as many as you have surely killed.

If you truly only kill one or two native fish a year, what do you do with the others that you catch? Do you stop fishing for the rest of the winter once you have killed the first one or two natives you have caught? Or do you practice the despicable, cruel, and immoral practice of cnr?

Which is it? I'm betting neither.

Your comment that cnr is an indicator of our moral disconnection from nature is pure, unadulterated bull$hit.

Connection with nature? Hmmm....let's see.

Scenario One: Wow! Look at that beautiful wild steelhead I just caught. I'll just unhook it and feel the satisfaction of watching it swim away to spawn, or perhaps be caught again and let someone else feel as satisfied as I do right now.

Scenario Two: Wow! Look at that beautiful wild steelhead I just caught. I think I'll hit it in the head with a miniature Ken Griffey, Jr., baseball bat. Or maybe a rock. Maybe I'll just kick it into submission, or hang it from a tree until it stops squirming around. Man! Do I feel a connection with nature, or what?

You want to know why cnr advocates don't agree with catch and kill advocates? Because cnr advocates want themselves, their friends, and all other fishermen to fish for and catch wild steelhead forever.

If I'm greedy if I want to be able to fish for wild steelhead until the day I die, hopefully passing on the torch to a new generation of steelheaders, then guilty as charged.

Anyone who actually fights for the right to kill a fish as magnificent as a wild steelhead is displaying the greediest intentions I could imagine.

Just as the harvest-minded steelhead managers have done, you've countered my comments, based on science, the law, and social needs and desires, with misinformation and fear tactics to scare people into believing in your opinion. You've even taken it a few steps further by going off on unrelated rhetorical forays into conspiracies and the decay of America's moral fiber.

Fish on...
(and on, and on, and on...)

Todd.

I'm not sure, but I think it was Plunk who said cnr was the indicator that Americans are losing our moral connection to nature. No one said a cnr fisherman enjoys fishing more than a cnk fisherman.

Relax.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: RICH G ]

The Yellowstone fishery has only flourished with C&R (aside from the introduction of Lake Trout into Lake Yellowstone). This is the case with so many other fisheries. Do you seriously think the Selective lakes around the state would produce the numbers and the size of fish they did at minimal expense to the DFW if they were kill fisheries??

I see the cnr side winning the debate due to emotional/political backing...then I see the tribes taking the state to court based on MSY....then the state will open the kill fishery again so the tribe won't overfish their 50%....Right back where we started!!!

Plus, I honestly believe that the Indians would not give up their netting rights not only because in some cases it is all they got but they would not give up their rights to spite us.

I have nothing against Letty, all I have heard regarding her is great things BUT do you ever wonder why she shows photos of the fish processing plant in Talohah?? I cant imagine any of the non-tribal fisherman-her main customer-taking kindly to those pictures.

Money...would be easy if people actually wanted to make it a reality. I also doubt they would sell their full rights and would expect them to never do anything like that.

Total fish lbs x price = Cost for the years lease
Using plunkers numbers from above
3527 fish x 10 lb average fish= 35270 lbs of fish
in the quillayute fishery...even at $10/lb it would only be $350,270 a year for steelhead!!! Of course $10/lb is a riduculous price.

First WHY NOT make it C&R state wide ?

We all complain about the netting of wild fish yet some of you still feel the need to retain wild fish how does this make you any better than the people you complain about.

Oh I keep hearing the same bla blab bla "well if we realese our fish the Indians will get them all anyway ....PLEASE

By making them the Heavy's,We and the public out-cry will put it all on them to change their practices.

Something has to change because the way things are have been....are not working.

I like your idea about buying out fishing rights, at least for the commercial component. I also like the idea of fish traps that allow the selective release of native fish, or fish unfit for market, and the retention of hatchery fish.

Unfortunately, neither are new ideas. The tribes have flat out refused either one as an option. I think if the tribes would do either they would get great support from other interested parties.

Fish on...

What do bricks have to do with this topic,
It's a No Brainer!!!!

Just put it Back on THEM
Then they'd be the only ones killin nates....
well except plunker

Todd,

I asked why so many CnR advocates ridicule anyone not in lockstep with this egocentric back patting, feel-good approach to saving the steelhead and if their commitment is based more on faith than reason?

Your response is that…
"Bob Gibbons has been a WDFW manager for a long time. Perhaps too long. At the Sept. 22, 2001, Steelhead Symposium in Seattle he stood up and defended MSY and harvest for wild steelhead. Each of his findings or reasons for that were refuted by each and every biologist from B.C., Idaho, Oregon, and California. As noted above, when I asked why we continue to use MSY when it clearly has managed our fish to near extinction in most river systems, he answered that MSY works just fine, only that the safeguards built into it don't protect the fish from overharvest. Hmmm... "

You further state…
"Bob Gibbons comes from the old school of catch and kill, it's your right as an American, and if you don't the Indians are just going to kill them all anyway. It wasn't true in the late 60's when those sentiments brought about the Boldt decision, and they're not true now."

I rest my case on the ridicule.

The management of steelhead and other public resources is best managed in accordance with the best science. It is not considered the "best science" to adopt a conclusion and then deny all evidence but that which supports that conclusion.

The courts have clearly mandated that the Tribal Parties are entitled to 50% of the harvestable fish. That's what MSY is all about. It is a method of determining the amount of harvestable fish beyond a necessary escapement from harvest to spawn and perpetuate the fish for the future. "MSY puts the fish first"

MSY clearly is the best management device we have today. If you have a better approach then please make that approach known. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. It seems that our anadromous fish would better benefit from raising the escapement goals than by throwing them out.

The state and federal management entities must agree with the tribal co-managers when setting these escapement goals.

As Mike Gilchrist stated above…
"When discussing the "forgone opportunity" issue, we must remember to look back at why forgone opportunity exists in the first place. At the time of the court ruling, the tribes had the right to harvest but not the ability to harvest 50% of the fish. They simply did not have enough gear and enough fishermen to catch enough fish. The court then ruled that since they could not harvest their entire share, we could harvest the balance until the tribes could harvest their share. It must also be understood that this part of the ruling was more about salmon than Steelhead but did not exempt any species. For a period of years, the commercial fisherman harvested well over the 50% because of this clause. Commercial harvesters have always caught their fish in marine areas before the tribes had access to the fish. The "opportunity" to take the fish was not a consideration. The only consideration was the ability to take fish. In my mind, this leaves little doubt as to if the tribes can claim "forgone opportunity". Look at it this way, say the tribes and the state each get their 1000 fish of a 2000 fish quota. The tribes tell the state that they are harvesting their 1000 fish by gill net. The State tells the tribe that they are opening a C&R season and that they expect anglers to catch and release 2000 fish with a 10% mortality for a total harvest of 200 fish. The tribe then asks, "are you forgoing your opportunity to harvest those 800 fish". The states answer has to be yes. "

You go on to say…
"Even if I agreed with Bob's findings, here are my responses:
CNR would;
1. Reduce sport harvest by a substantial 19%.
Good. If we're talking wild fish, I wouldn't call 19% substantial, but it's a good start.
2. Increase escapement by 11% in streams currently allowing harvest.
Good.
3. Increase juvenile production by 5%.
Good.
4. Increase juvenile out-migration by 2.5%.
Good.
I don't necessarily agree with those numbers, but even accepting them, the 11% increased escapement equals more fish next generation, whatever the amount is. Then that generation has 11% more escapement than with harvest. Now there's even more fish. So does the next one, and the rest in perpetuity after that. More fish each generation."

The 115 % escapement = 2.5 % juvenile out-migration. That 2-1/2 % would be the net gain in smolt if all harvest were eliminated. That gain is possible only if the ecosystem is capable of supporting increased smolt production.

Your reference to the next one and the next one and on and on is absolutely unfounded. We're not talking compounded interest in a retirement account. We're talking about living creatures in an ecosystem with limited resources. The only way to increase smoltation is to improve the entire equation.

Greater spawning escapement + better spawning success + Greater nutrient availability + better shelter from adverse stream fluctuations + plus better shelter from predation = consistently greater juvenile out-migration.

A halfway measure like the abolition of sport harvest while still permitting the taking of fish through CnR activity addresses only one part of the equation. Even if we stopped all taking of the steelhead by abolishing CnR and tribal netting there would be no real gain without addressing the whole equation.

A more holistic approach to increasing the number of fish spawning would be for the managers to simply agree upon higher escapement goals. That will happen if it can be shown that particular systems can support greater numbers of juveniles.

As to your statement that…
"None of my associates argued that the Skagit and Sauk should have been open last spring. We argued that the management scheme that caused the population to decline precipitously was faulty and needed to be fixed. Part one of fixing it is to stop killing fish."

The recent low returns to the Skagit and Sauk are an interesting phenomenon worth further examination.

The adult escapement was considered adequate on the years that spawned these dismal returns. If the biologists are considered credible the problem was not lack of spawners. The problem was the lack of success these fish had with producing a decent out-migration of juveniles.

What went wrong?

Apparently no one knows for sure but I'll take the liberty of speculating a bit.

There had been no major changes in the ecosystem during the years in question so it seems unlikely that a lack of good gravel or siltation caused the lack of success. Likewise it seems unlikely that the nutrient base collapsed or that predation had dramatically increased. There is also no evidence of disease decimating the juvenile population.

There is one thing that had changed. The adult steelhead that failed in their spawning success at producing reasonable numbers of out-migrating juveniles were subjected to a dramatic increase in harm from CnR fishing pressure. Hmmm…

The Sauk River fish, as an example, primarily spawn in the stretch of river between the Suiattle River take out and the Darrington Bridge. It's no coincidence that this is one of the most popular stretches of river fished by the same catch and release anglers who maintain that they would never fish on spawning beds.

In the mid to late ninety's the number of anglers working the late CnR season there increased dramatically. It seemed like every time I went to a sport shop there was another angler, usually a guide from outside of the area, bragging about the phenomenal size and numbers of fish they were catching. Most of the time they had photo's some had even found "no harm" methods for weighing the larger ones. I particularly remember A guide visiting the Holiday Market with a polaroid of a huge steelhead that he brought to the net and then into the boat where it was measured at 53" in length (I forget the girth), weighed (mid thirty's), photographed several times and finally released "unharmed" to spawn or be caught again by another fortunate angler.

I contend that It's possible and, in fact probable that this dramatic increase in angling pressure was effectively responsible for the lack of spawning success and the resulting dramatically reduced out-migration of juveniles and finally the poor adult returns.

One cannot repeatedly drag a fish off its spawning bed and then expect it to perform this function as if nothing had happened. An exhausted fish simply cannot dig as effectively as one that is not played out. Does a fish repeatedly harassed in its chosen spot move to another location? Does anxiety affect a fish's ability to choose a proper mate? These and other questions remain unanswered and many unasked.

Until it can be shown that catching fish on their spawning beds does not harm these fish the late season upriver CnR fishing should be shut down. Let the poor things spawn in peace after what they went through to get there. We can have our fun somewhere else.

Quote:
"Have you seen the actual data and pie chart that Mr. Gibbons prepared for his battle for harvest?
Here's what it says:
14.3% of anglers prefer to harvest hatchery and wild fish.
43.4% prefer to harvest hatchery fish and not harvest wild fish.
42.3% prefer to not harvest hatchery or wild fish."

Fine so far…

"Somehow he added "kill all" and "kill hatchery and NOT wild" to get that 57.7% want to harvest wild fish.
Using his own numbers, that survey shows that 14.3% want to harvest wild fish. It also shows that 85.7% of anglers don't want to harvest any wild fish (43.4% + 42.3%).
His conclusion from these numbers:
"Most Anglers Still Prefer Harvest Opportunity On Wild Fish"."

Oops! My BS meter just jumped off the scale again. Did you say that on purpose?
The 57.7% number is old data and was accepted by every biologist and manager as being correct at the time that number was determined. We mustn't confuse the old with the new.

(BTW, I have Mr. Gibbons' packet of material entitled "Department to study the anticipated biological effects of implementing Wild Steelhead Release rule" in front of me as I write this. If I had a scanner I'd scan out his pie chart for you that shows these numbers and his faulty conclusion.)

Could that be a misprint? The numbers are the result of the angler preference telephone survey conducted by the WDFW. It polled a total of 2143 license holders but only asked the questions about steelhead to the 730 people who were steelhead anglers. Of those 730, 61% preferred C&R while 34% Preferred retention and 5% preferred closure or had no opinion.

You say…
"Your claim that cnr fishers will in the long run kill more fish than you is unfounded. If you catch and kill ten wild fish this winter, then those ten are dead. Not "less healthy". Dead."

There goes my BS meter again. Re read my post. You are putting words in my mouth.

BTW: The quote "Due to hooking mortality an angler that catches and releases a large number of wild fish may potentially have a greater impact on the resource than the angler that catches and retains one or two wild fish a season." Is from a prominent biologist who is also a fly fishing fanatic and proponent of wild steelhead release.

You ask…
"If you truly only kill one or two native fish a year, what do you do with the others that you catch? Do you stop fishing for the rest of the winter once you have killed the first one or two natives you have caught? Or do you practice the despicable, cruel, and immoral practice of cnr?
Which is it? I'm betting neither."

Hey! I'm not running for public office here. My fishing practices are my personal business so long as what I do is legal. Let's let each individual develop their own fishing ethics.

OK! Here you go. When I fish for natives I keep the first one or two that I catch and quit for the day. When I'm fishing for hatchery fish I usually release the native's unless it's an exceptionally tasty looking one. Then I eat it and savor its goodness.

I think it's time to rest my three thumbs… Shut off the computer… and…
Go try to catch a nice native coho for dinner.

See Ya! - Plunk

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Plunker ]

I also accept that CNR does lead to SOME mortality. Call 3% or 5%, some fish just don't make it to the redds. So there's more than a hint of selective memory (or whatever you want to call it) when highly adept CNR anglers condemn catch and kill anglers who take 1-2 fish only and stop fishing. What's my solution? For one thing, I think bashing anglers who obey the existing law is divisive. While I disagree with Plunker's approach, he has thought his position through and buttressed it with good arguments. It's unlikely we're going to persuade him to change his mind (and vice versa). Wouldn't the cause of steelhead preservation be better served by trying to find a single (or two or three) areas of common agreement among the various lobby's and then unite to petition the DNR/ politicians? The effort expended in pissing on each other's legs has a net result of zero. Meanwhile more united foes of steelhead continue to benefit from the lack of unity on sport fisherman's parts.

I don't know your watersheds so I don't have specific suggestions other than the benefit of the doubt should be given to the fish, be it lower daily/ seasonal kill limits, closed periods of time (or stretches of river) and perhaps gear restrictions (e.g. single barbless hooks) to reduce CNR mortality.

I am also a believer in the value of hatcheries as a means of guaranteeing sport harvest opportunities. While I may not like tribal netting of wild steelhead, I believe they have a right to their 50%. The rest of us, like it or not, only have a privelege to fish. While we can't manage the tribes 50% we can better manage ours.

I am not here to support Todd or state the WSC view, Todd has done an excellent job of that himself. Nor am I here to personally attack Plunker. As a french philosopher once said, "I disagree with everything you have said, but I would defend to the death your right to say it". That sums up by position on Plunker.

I am here because I also believe that decisions must be made based upon the best science. The best and the brightest in fish management and biology were brought in for the recent Steelhead Symposium. The message that came out was MSY is a flawed management strategy and C & R a viable replacement. Now I am sure there are those that will claim a conspiracy to exclude "pro-kill" voices on the symposium panel. If you are going to claim that, please submit some names and qualifications of those you feel were excluded. In the absence of that, I have to assume that the biologists from B.C., Idaho and Oregon were in fact the best available. In fact, they must have been good as Bob Gibbons and Jim Leyland kept referencing their work.

It has been stated above "MSY puts the fish first." MSY actually says that any fish in excess of the minimum escapement needed to ensure a viable stock is wasted if not harvested. This of course assumes escapement projections are exact and reliable. They are not now nor have they ever been. I submit the North Sound emergency closures last spring as evidence of this. Even if escapement projections could be exact and reliable, MSY ignores the value, both recreational and economic, of catch and release fisheries. Even more important, it ignores the biological value of increased escapement. MSY does not put the fish first; it simply puts the dead fish first.

I have heard several calls for increasing escapement goals. Amen brother! On many of our rivers escapement goals need to be raised to ensure the health of native stocks. Of course in the name of MSY and the fear of foregone opportunity, the WDFW recently lowered the goals for the Skagit. Is this putting fish first?

That is an interesting theory on C & R causing the emergency closures on the Skagit/Sauk. Is there any empirical data to back this up? Supposition is fine but remember we are trying to make decisions based on science. I don't usually like to quote Bob Gibbons as I find his methodology suspect and conclusions arguable but since he has been referenced above as an example of the best science, how do his claims of C & R yielding increased escapement, juvenile production and out-migration mesh with the new theory which seems to argue the opposite?

I did get a good smile out of the anecdotal story where "it seemed like every time I went to a sport shop there was another angler, usually a guide from outside the area, bragging about the phenomenal size and numbers of fish they were catching". Thank God they were hanging out in sport shops, imagine how much damage these out of area guides could have inflicted if they were on the rivers actually fishing.

I feel that this discussion needs to be put in perspective. The rules proposals that are before the commission do not involve C & R seasons. They involve the non-retention of wild steelhead. The winter season will remain with thousands of hatchery fish co-mingling with substantially fewer wild fish. All I am asking is if you catch a wild one, put it back. Last I checked, wild fish didn't taste any better than hatchery ones.

Accusations of fishing on redds are not relevant to this discussion. Do I think that fishing on redds is wrong? Of course I do. I also think that poaching of wild fish is wrong and the answer to both is education and enforcement. They are not the issue here though. The bottom line is that we as sport anglers have an opportunity to take a stand and make a difference for the future. If we truly believe that the tribes should stop killing wild fish, then we should have the guts to step up and say we will stop first. If things continue as they are, it will make little difference who bonks the last wild fish, they will still be gone for good.

Best of luck to those who are making the same old tired argument that the best way to save the fish is to kill them. I think that is going to be a tough sell. As for me, I'm not buying.

Duggan

Hatchery fish for the table, wild fish for the future.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Duggan ]

Come march and april wild fish are a lot easier to catch than a hatchery fish and would defineately taste better in those months. For the simple fact you will rarely catch a hatchery fish that time of year here on the Peninsula. I could catch my own to eat or just buy it from the tribal net...hmm
Seems like a obvious answer....these are real issues that will arrise at the meeting. Along with the numbers of the increased in spawning escapement with the existance of a kill fishery.

It has always been a privilage for you to fish. Your ability to fish rests at the whim of the WDFW. If you don't believe me, tell me how many days you got in on the North Sound rivers last March and April. Or if that is not your thing, how many wild fish did you bonk in the same rivers last December - February. The legal answer of course is zero. This is not bad, it is just the way it is. As sportsfishers, the State gives us a privelage to fish in exchange for our dollars to purchase a license. If we screw up, they take the privelage away.

The tribes have a legal right to fish as established by treaty with the U.S. government and upheld in U.S. v. Washington. If you feel you indeed have a right to fish, please reference the case law to back up your claim.

In the mean time I will be anxiously awaiting your explanation of how I am totally wrong.

Marty --

I am all for getting the nets out of the rivers. Buyouts of commercial netting has been successful in some parts of the country. It is less of a concern for local in-river steelhead fisheries but there are places like the Columbia River commercial sockeye fishery that impact steelhead runs. The WSC has taken a stand against this particular fishery and will continue to do so.

When it comes to buyouts of tribal rights, I have less hope. Is it possible? Yes. Do I feel it likely? Not in the whole. As mentioned before, while we fishermen tend to lump the tribes into one collective, they are actually multiple autonomous groups with different needs, politics and priorities. For this reason, I think that some might be more open to buyout overtures than others. It is unlikely that any would sell their right to net but for the right amount, might agree not exercise the right to for a period of time.

I agree that theoretically "if the escapement is lowered for a system, it may actually increase future runs because of the ecosystems ability to better sustain the smolts". I defer to the biologists on discussing the Richer curve and the specific impacts of too many fish for the river to sustain. However, that is not the case with the Skagit/Sauk system. The problem is there are not enough fish coming back. If there were, why close the rivers down last Spring. WDFW has stated that the runs were so low that they could not even withstand the incidental mortality of a C & R season. If their numbers were valid, then WDFW did the right thing in closing the system. Increasing kill on the wild fish will not result in increased escapements.

On a side note, a few months ago I sat down with one of the regional biologists and discussed the potential impacts of a total C & R rule for wild fish. He layed out the Richer curve numbers for the Skykomish and we talked over a number of what ifs and what thens. His concern was not in the Skykomish seeing decreased escapements because too many fish are let go. In fact he felt that for at least 3-4 brood cycles, the increases would only be modest. After this time, the increases would build upon themselves until such time that the carrying capacity was reached.

You brought up river suplementation. Great topic and yes the early research shows much promise. The WSC had one of the leading scientists in this area in a few months ago to speak to this. (Sorry I can't recall his name but I can dig it up if anyone wants it.) His results were very impressive but he warned there was still many questions that needed to be answered in regards to artificial supplementation and widespread implementation. Apparently there are concerns over disease introduction that need to be looked at. On a related note, I was wondering last Sunday as I trudged up a bank on the Sky, what impact the thousands of dead humpies I was stepping on and over would have on the ecosystem.

I agree that the whole picture needs to be acted upon. The WSC mission is to increase the runs of wild steelhead in the rivers and waters of the Pacific Northwest. Stopping the sport harvest of wild steelhead is simply one facet of this mission. As you have stated, there are many others. Some we have started action on and some we will soon.

In closing, there are no Washington streams that are even close to a state of overpopulation. Theoretically you might have an argument but the best science available, including the WDFW numbers, shows a decline in run trends when examined over a 40-50 year time frame. Besides, as the Richer curve has been explained to me, once a river reaches carrying capacity, escapement trends don't decline but simply flatten out. The issue here is no one, the WDFW included, has any idea what the carrying capacities of rivers are. We have historical data to show that it is higher than current levels but what it is, we can only guess. If I am going to make decisions without relevant data, I am going to err on the side of the fish.

Duggan

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Duggan ]

also, i always thought that the wdfg`s job was to manage "our" resourse, to try to make sure "our" fish and game dont get fished and hunted to death and buying a licence was simply paying for that.

My eyes hurt, I do have one question, it might sound that I am out of touch, but...........

As quoted somewheres in the middle of this...

"Neither the tribes nor the state want to really hash out what "foregone opportunity" means."

My question is what exactly does the term "foregone opportunity" mean in simple terms?

And I want to thank all that responded to my question when I first entered this board about my upcomming 100% Titanium bait casting reel and what are the "most important to you and what you want in the perfect reel"............

Thanks again! if you have any more thoughts please add to the correct board.

Dogsalmon,

Nothing in this thread is a personal attack on you. There are some facts that are out there, and Duggan's response to you about them is not deserving of your attitude.

"The tribes also reserved the right to off reservation fishing 'at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations' and agreed that 'all citizens of the territory' might fish at the same places 'in common with' the tribal members. The tribes and their members cannot rescind that agreement or limit non-Indian fishing pursuant to the agreement. However, off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty fishing rights may require." U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 332 (1974).

That is text from the Boldt decision. The Indians have a federally protected treaty right to fish. We have a privilege to fish, granted by the state, subject to revocation or limitation to protect either the fish or the tribes' right to fish.

This is not an argument to support that, or to not support that. This is simply stating the fact. That's the way it is.

Plunker,

I'm still not clear about your "riducule" contention. I pointed out that it's not ridicule to recognizd if the cnk advocates are wrong. I gave examples of Bob Gibbons being dead wrong. I have no intention of ridiculing him or his beliefs, though I have every intention of calling him on them if I think they're wrong.

Duggan touched on the MSY issue, and here's my take. Maximum Sustained Yield was created as a management scheme to accurately count just how many fish we can kill without causing extinction. Not one more, and not one less. It has nothing to do with putting fish first. Escapements are set at the minimum level, and heedless of any factor that may affect fish populations except for direct harvest, the remaining fish are targeted for harvest.

I am all for setting escapement levels higher. I don't think anyone has suggested throwing out escapement levels. I have, however, suggested that we get all the information required to set escapement levels. Earlier in this thread I pointed out several cnk rivers that have not even had escapement levels set at all.

As for my own cnr philosophy, cnr is setting the escapement levels higher. As high as possible, as a matter of fact.

It seems to me that you further go on to suggest that since killing fish is only part of the equation that affects fish populations, that we should do nothing about it until all the other factors are addresses, too.

My response to that is spelled out clearly previously in this thread, but I'll paraphrase it here: There are lots of factors that affect wild steelhead. Sport fishers blame it on the tribes, but continue to kill fish. Tribes blame it on habitat destruction, but continue to kill fish. The state blames it on ocean conditions, but manages steelhead for maximum harvest potential and continues to allow kill fisheries. Do any of these parties have any credibility to point fingers at anyone when they are also at fault?

No, they don't. We can't make the state dump MSY completely. We can do absolutely nothing about the tribes and their fishing. We can't affect ocean conditions, and we can't stop habitat destruction via develpment and resource exploitation. What we can do, however, is remove our actions from the factors that contribute directly, and then have the political credibility to go after the actions of the others.

Interesting speculation about the Sauk/Skatgit situation. I'll admit that I haven't heard that one before. I'll also say that any fish that were incidentally killed due to cnr during that brood year were important to the returning population that was too low to support a spring fishery last year. I don't know how many were incidentally killed, but they were important. Also important were the fish killed by cnk guys in December, January, and February. I don't have the numbers handy, but I'm sure that three months of a targeted kill fishery killed more fish than two months of incidental mortality due to a cnr season.

If the reason for the poor returns centered on poor juvenile out-migration, then I have at least a partial solution for that problem. If successful outmigration is normally a certain percentage of the available juveniles, wouldn't it make sense to raise the number of available juveniles to counter a reduction is outmigration success? Wouldn't juvenile production increase if three months worth of kill fishery were not allowed on that river? Would it be enough to have made the difference last spring? There's no way to know that with the information we have, but I'm sure it would have helped to have more fish outmigrating, from more fish spawning.

Where did you get your information about a "dramatic increase" in cnr impacts on that particular brood year? I'll agree that there are lots of spawning areas and fishermen between Suiattle and Darrington, but there are also miles and miles of spawning grounds above Darrington. There are winter steelhead spawning all the way up at Monte Cristo on the S.Fk. Sauk, the Whitechuck River, the N.Fk. Sauk, and all along the main Sauk from the Forks down to Darrington, approximately 18 miles of river. That 18 miles, combined with the Whitechuck, and the North and South forks of the Sauk, is much more river than the entirety of the rest of the Sauk, much less the seven miles from Darrington to Suiattle. The fish do not primarily spawn in that section of river.

That also wouldn't explain why the Skagit had a corresponding drop in populations.

Sorry about your BS meter, again, but I don't understand what set you off about my observation of Bob's pie chart and the 57.7% number. I'm not trying to confuse the old with the new. You brought up that study and that number, and I pointed out that it was a faulty conclusion.

I know what the current angler preference survey shows. It shows that two out of three steelhead fishermen in this state support not having a directed kill fishery on any wild steelhead, statewide, year round.

I did not intend to put any words in your mouth regarding how many fish you kill. You stated that a cnr fisherman kills more fish that a cnk fishermen. That is patently untrue.

I pointed out that fish killed are dead, and fish released have anywhere from a 90%-97% chance of spawning successfully. Using 90% since the math is easier, that means for every fish a cnk guy catches, a cnr guy needs to catch ten to do the same amount of damage to the fish populations.

If catch and kill fishermen actually only cnk one or two a year, then quit fishing, then you've got me on that one. A good cnr guy will likely kill as many fish as him. My point, however, was that this scenario does not happen.

The reason for this discussion between you and me, and the rest who have participated, is that your fishing habits are indeed at issue. Mine, too. If they weren't, then you wouldn't be working so hard to defend them, nor would I.

Duggan, Marty, others,

I've heard lots of explanations for the lowering of the Skagit escapement numbers. Besides the ones you pointed out, I've also heard that the tribes were going to fish either way, and their fishery was going to catch the majority of the "harvestable surplus". The lower escapement allowed tribal and non-tribal fishers to have their kill seasons. The number was generated purely by politics, no science in sight.

Fish on...

Todd.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Todd R ]

I also seem to have secondly brought up some of the same issues and apologize to all for the redundancy.

Hey dogsalmon - You certainly hit the nail on the head when you said, "look up "privilage" in the dictionary." Being inquisitive I did just that. I was unable to find privilage or privelage (school admin? Hmmm… sorry. cheap shot.) but the definition of privilege was interesting. It seems that the Tribal fishermen are those with a privilege. It is they who have " A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, a class, or a caste."

While we, the non-indian fishermen have no privilege or "special fishing rights" we do have a legal right to fish as established by treaty with the U.S. government and upheld in U.S. v. Washington.

Each of the individual treaties states that "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory."

We do, as "citizens of the Territory" (now citizens of the state) share the common right to take half of the harvestable fish.

But haven't we strayed from the subject of fishing rule proposals a bit far?

Does the diversion, posturing and impressive techno-talk of richer curves and such help put this discussion in perspective? we seem to have forgotten that the rules proposals that are before the commission are about wild steelhead release. No one has proposed that we stop fishing for them, only that we release them. The question is essentially "Should we replace conventional fishing practices with C&R only?"

It has been stated that "MSY is a flawed management strategy and C & R a viable replacement." That's apples and oranges. The MSY is what the court has ordered the WDFW and co-managers to determine in order to allocate the fish. C&R is a fishing practice involving the taking (or kill) of some of that allocation. You cannot determine an allocation of harvest through harvest.

Fact: "MSY puts the fish first." The maximum sustainable yield is the estimated number of harvestable fish "above and beyond" the number of spawning fish required on an average year to saturate a stream to it's estimated carrying capacity with juveniles. Harvest levels greater than the MSY will result in diminishing returns and lesser levels of harvest will provide little gain in out-migration of smolt.

Duggan, you are flat out wrong when you say, ""I disagree with everything you have said, but I would defend to the death your right to say it". That sums up by position on Plunker."

There are many things you and I agree upon. For instance, you say, " If I am going to make decisions without relevant data, I am going to err on the side of the fish."

That is exactly what I advised the WDFW in my testimony concerning increased retention of wild steelhead on the North Coast Rivers two years ago. Here is a quote from that testimony.

"After reviewing the proposed rule changes available at the WDFW website, I feel that the retention limits would be quite liberal considering the depressed condition of many of our wild stocks. As an avid steelhead angler I welcome the increased opportunity for retention on our Olympic Coast rivers but must mention that any error in the estimate of these stocks ability to withstand the harvest should favor conservation."

Now, it seems we agree that when it comes to steelhead conservation, "if we err in management decisions, we should err in favor of the fish." I think we in fact agree that we should not kill wild steelhead from stocks with less than healthy populations.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that CnR fisheries do involve the taking (or killing) of wild steelhead and that increased opportunity at the expense of stocks to weak to support harvest can only further harm them.

That, in a nutshell, is why I believe that the Wild Steelhead Coalition should stop promoting 'Catch and Release Fishing' on stocks that by their own admission are too depressed to withstand harvest.

In areas where returns are to feeble to support harvest, a good management practice is the closing of these waters to all fishing.

What could be simpler? If there's too few to harvest… There's too few to catch.

Thanks for the heads up at the top of your post, I'll wait for the rest when it's convenient. God knows, there's more to life than debating on a chat page!!

Dogsalmon, at the risk of giving your "argument" more credence than it deserves, I'll answer your question.

You asked:

? is a fish that dies due to cnr difrent from one that goes to the dinner table ?

The obvious answer is an emphatic yes.

What do we each spend for a day of fishing?

I'll make a general assessment. I just went up to the Cascade this afternoon to catch a few silvers (Caught six, brought home two nice bright fin clips, as if anyone were asking!).

Gas: $20
Bait: $10 (were I buying rather than having my own)
Gear: $20 (several home-tied leaders, line, slinkies, corkies, wear and tear on rod and reel)
Food: $6 for lunch (plus $6 more for beer )
Plus: Wear and tear on vehicle for 220 mile round trip, ten hours of time (five driving, five fishing)

That's $62 plus time and vehicle wear. For one afternoon of fishing.

Instead of silver fishing, assume I was steelhead fishing. If I did that to catch and release one steelhead, then that's about $80 per fish. If I killed it, it's an $80 fish. If I released it, and, on average, it were cnr'd ten times so that it was dead, too, it would be an $800 fish.

That's $800 to the local economies of Rockport, Darrington, Arlington, Burlington (lots of 'ton's in that part of the world!), or Mt. Vernon, etc. Depends on how you get there and back.

All fish death being equal, which is what you're stating, a cnr mortality is worth about $800, and a cnk'd mortality is worth $80.

It is that simple.

You lost me on your other argument about the Snohomish system. Let me know what you're talking about and I'll try to respond, unless it was already covered in the above statement.

Plunk, you're reassertion that MSY puts fish first is still faulty. It puts a premium on dead fish, setting the minimum escapement level through an equation that leaves out many important factors.

Fact: Bob Gibbons admitted that the safeguards within MSY do not protect fish from overharvest.

So far as arguing, again, that cnr fishermen want to fish over depressed runs, I think we've dealt with that issue above. I'm sorry if that's one of the issues you have yet to address...but as I stated, no one in the Wild Steelhead Coalition wanted to fish over the under-abundant Skagit/Sauk, Skykomish/Snoqualmie, or Stillaguamish fish. We as a group were concerned with the management scheme that inevitably lead to depressed stocks in those streams.

We don't want to fish depressed stocks. We want our management scheme to stop depressing them.

If you attempt to cast the WSC and cnr fishermen in general as just wanting to cnr fish in spite of depressed populations, then you are either mistaken or intentionally misleading folks other than you or me, or the WSC.

Just to be clear, the goal of the WSC is not to fish over depressed stocks while not allowing catch and kill advocates to do so. The goal is for all of us to fish over healthy stocks, and not to kill them so they maintain their health.

That's it in a nutshell.

Fish on...

Todd.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Marty ]

Just to be clear, the goal of the WSC is not to fish over depressed stocks while not allowing catch and kill advocates to do so. The goal is for all of us to fish over healthy stocks, and not to kill them so they maintain their health

Is that a serious question, or are you being argumentative?

For future reference, unless specifically noted in any of my posts, when I refer to "killing" steelhead, I mean hitting them with rocks or sticks and taking them home to eat.

There are lots of other factors that have detrimental impacts on wild steelhead, including cnr, that have been discussed all throughout this thread. If you think I haven't acknowledged them then I'd recommend taking a closer read of the above posts.

Do you have any comments or criticisms of the rest of the questions and concerns you have brought up in your posts and I have discussed in my posts? I'd still like to hear what you were talking about in your Snohomish River example above.

Fish on...

Don't worry about the cheap shot. Hey I deserved it. That is what I get for staying up late engaged in passionate debate instead of getting some sleep and typing (and spelling) later with a clear head. Oh well, if the word police were out in force, there would be a lot fewer posts.

I think you may be suggesting that some rivers be set aside for steelhead release, while others are set aside for catch and kill? Or maybe some set aside for total cnr, and reduce or eliminate the hatchery programs on them?

I've considered the possibility, such as rivers like the Cowlitz, which are almost entirely hatchery fish anyway, being catch and kill year round, for whatever you manage to catch, and rivers with higher numbers of natives, like the Quillyute system or Skagit system, eliminating hatchery programs and going to total cnr for the native runs.

At first blush it sounds attractive, as it would make the regulations pretty stable for a particular system. The problem is that some of the best rivers for cnr, i.e., the ones that still have decent runs of natives, also support massive hatchery fish angling opportunities.

If rivers were to be set aside for purely native fisheries, the first one to go there would be the Quillyute system. I, for one, wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to fish for the great hatchery runs in the Bogie and Calawah, and I advocate cnr. Imagine what the cnk guys would feel about that possibility. Or on the Skagit, either. What would you think, Plunk?

Other rivers would be a tough call. While the Skykomish has a pretty good native run, it is predominantly fished for its hatchery run. Would there be widespread support for ditching its native fish for a hatchery fish, cnk, designation?

I know lots of folks who would rebel against an idea such as that.

In spite of the simplicity of the idea, I don't think it would fly. If I were king of the world (thanks for your vote, Plunk!!), here are the rivers I'd choose for total cnr:

Skagit (and tribs), Sauk (and tribs), Bogachiel, Sol Duc, Calawah, Hoh, Queets, Humptulips, Skykomish (both forks, and tribs), Stillaguamish (both forks, and tribs), Kalama, Goodman Creek, Mosquito Creek, Wenatchee (and tribs), Methow, Yakima (and tribs), Nisqually (assuming we ever get to fish into March and April there again), Elwha, Dungeness, Pysht, Hoko, and probably the Snoqualmie and its tribs.

Catch and kill would get the Cowlitz, Lewis, Chehalis system, the rest of the lower Columbia rivers besides the Kalama, the Puyallup, Lyre, the Green (both of 'em), the Toutle (both forks), Grande Ronde, Tucannon, Walla Walla, Quinault (buy a guide, catch a pile!), and all the Hood Canal streams.

That divides them up pretty evenly. The rest we'd draw straws for.

I wonder how many votes I'd get for king of the world with that scheme?

Dogsalmon, believe it or not, I'd embrace your idea. The problem is that the cnr guys would want all the good rivers, and so would the cnk guys. Then we'd be right back where we are now.

I think you pointed out the big problem a few posts ago. There are X numbers of anglers, and Y numbers of fish. X is bigger than Y. Now what? The fish need Z to survive, some anglers need to cnk A numbers of fish, and some anglers need to cnr B numbers of fish. While cnr anglers may be making up a bigger percentage of fishermen, both cnr and cnk groups are getting numerically larger as the population grows. The fish runs are getting smaller, and the rivers that support good native runs are, too. The Z that they need to prosper is also getting smaller.

Since I find the most important thing about steelhead fishing is the wild steelhead themselves, the simplest solution is to stop harvesting them anywhere. Since I love to catch and eat fish, I find regulations allowing you to always catch and kill hatchery fish, coming from hatcheries run in such a way that the impacts on wild fish are minimized, to be a good idea, too.

That, also, is pretty darned simple. And we wouldn't have to fight over who gets what river to kill fish in, and who doesn't. We could kill hatchery fish in all rivers, and not kill wild fish in all rivers. No fighting over rivers, no direct harvest of natives, and lots of hatchery fish to catch and eat, out of all rivers with hatchery runs.

One thing I've never understood is closing rivers to hatchery fish retention late in the season. I can understand closing them in January if the hatchery has not met its egg quota, but why close them in March? If the egg quota is met all those extra fish are going to do is spawn in the river (bad idea, unless you're Judge Hogan, a power company, or own a large cattle ranch on the banks of a river with native fish in it). That is missed opportunity that we could all enjoy right there, besides being responsible anglers by removing those fish from the potential wild spawning gene pool.

Well, it's getting a bit late tonight, so I'll stop here. Sorry it's not the usual "novel" I've been writing but that'll have to do for now.

Fish on...

I re-read your last post and I think you may have meant something other than what at first thought.

Are you suggesting that, say, 100 harvest permits are sold or raffled for a particular river? In other words, 100 tags are applied for and randomly distributed amongst the folks applying, and they are the only ones who can kill wild fish, and that they must fill out and return their tag immediately upon filling it?

IF there had to be a mechanism to allow some sort of direct sport harvest, then at least this would put a limit on it and make it easier to keep track of. If you must kill wild fish, then you apply for tags on several rivers, and fish the ones you get drawn for. Once you fill your tag(s), or if you don't get drawn for any, then you either are done or fish cnr.

If you choose to fish cnr, then, of course, you don't need to apply for any "harvest permits".

Interesting.

There are some problems with it, but they're not really any more than what we already have: almost a complete lack of enforcement presence to combat poaching, the creation of more paperwork and busywork for licensing folks, and additional costs for fishing opportunity. Not to mention that wild fish get harvested.

Another idea, if there had to be some harvest, would be a "trophy" tag. A certain amount of these would be offered via drawing, and would be valid only on rivers deemed healthy enough to support a trophy fishery. Each tag entitles the holder to kill one wild fish during a fishing year. This way someone could kill the "fish of a lifetime" were one to present itself.

My concern with that one would be that the only fish being killed would likely be the biggest and the best, the fish that we would definitely like to see in the gene pool.

None of these ideas would sway me from advocating total cnr of wild fish, but at least they're better than essentially unregulated killing on the open rivers. I realize that some of the rivers have seasonal limits, or one daily limits, or both, but there's no limitation on how many people can come and get their daily or seasonal limit. In that sense, the number of fish caught is unregulated and depends entirely on fisherman success.

Anyway, we're getting way off topic all of a sudden. The rule proposal deals with the year round statewide release of all wild steelhead, no exceptions. It doesn't deal with alternative ways to kill fish, nor does it deal with the possible impacts of cnr fisheries. It does not deal with the possibility of foregone opportunity. All of those issues are sidelights to the real issue.

It deals only with this question: "Should it ever be legal for a non-tribal fisherman to directly harvest a wild steelhead in Washington?"

My opinion is still "No".

Fish on...

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
The principle of granting and maintaining a special right or immunity: a society based on privilege.

Law. The right to privileged communication in a confidential relationship, as between client and attorney, patient and physician, or communicant and priest.

An option to buy or sell a stock, including put, call, spread, and straddle. - courtesy of dictionary.com

It's quite simple to say fishing is your privilege. There's probably 100 countries in the world where people are not privileged to fish...let alone eat fish.

Oh hey Plunk , I didn't realize fishing over redds was a C&R thing ...loser

First, as far as I know, Osprey is not a WSC member.

Second, the only people who speak officially on behalf of the WSC are its nine board members, or people appointed by the board expressly to speak for the WSC. The names of those people can be found at our website, http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com .

Comments from anyone else, whether they be WSC members or not, are their own.

Fish on...

If the Tribes push for foregone opportunity, more fish would die in the nets than they would with 65% of fisherman practicing voluntary C&R (plus or minus)

I know the Native American's will continue to net
Like I said before,make it state wide,that puts it all on them to do something about it.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

In response to your last post,

I wouldn't take my chances with the anglers, since that's what we've been doing all along, and look what that's gotten us.

As far as the tribal issue goes, we've debated it ad nauseum, and I guess we're just not going to agree. I don't think there's a legal basis for 'foregone opportunity', and even if there were, there's no motivation to use it. If we stop killing fish, then their half gets bigger, too. If they insist on killing those we are attempting to save via cnr, one of two things can happen. First, they look bad politically because I can promise lots of publicity that the tribes are the only ones intentionally killing these fish. Second, if we have to, then we dump the regulation and go back to where we are now and try to find a different way. This is really a side issue, anyway.

Nearly 100% of hatchery steelhead in Washington are marked, even tribal fish. The only major exceptions I know of are the lower Quinault fish, and a good percentage of the Queets fish. I'm not too sure about those, either, or if there may be more, but I am sure that most all of the fish are marked. I'd appreciate any info that anyone has on this topic. Besides, that's another side issue.

The effects of a full-blown cnr season is really a side issue. This rule proposal has nothing to do with that. It in no way suggests longer cnr seasons, or opening other areas that aren't open now, or anything of the sort. We could debate about cnr mortality, etc., until the cows come home, but it will still have nothing to do with this rule proposal.

This rule proposal, as I stated above, deals with one issue and one issue only: Should sport fishermen be allowed to intentionally harvest wild steelhead?

That is all. How the tribes react to any possible outcome is a side issue to be dealt with if and when that happens. Same with marking fish, and same with cnr seasons. They have nothing to do with the rule proposal.

None of those things necessarily have to change at all if this rule proposal is adopted by the Commission.

Personal note: I find the attitude that "if we go to cnr, the tribes will claim foregone opportunity and kill them anyway, so I want to kill them, too" to be extremely counter-productive. Way back in the beginning of this thread I noted that the non-fishing world (the great majority of people) do not think that sport fishers are any better than Indians when it comes to dead fish. In fact, we look worse in many situations. At least the Indians have heritage, culture, etc., they think, while we are a bunch of racist rednecks who want to kill fish just to spite the Indians.

Sometimes they're right. Sometimes we're not racist rednecks, just greedy. Sometimes we just don't think about our own impacts. Sometimes we just really want to fish. It's all across the board where we're coming from.

Sportsfishermen killing fish will never help fish. Period.

Fish on...

Todd

You jumped to a conclusion in your personal note. (one of many)

quote:

---

I find the attitude that "if we go to cnr, the tribes will claim foregone opportunity and kill them anyway, so I want to kill them, too" to be extremely counter-productive.

---

Just because someone has concerns about foregone opportunity doesn't mean they kill wild steelhead. I don't even fish for them.

I do put fish in the freezer, so I guess I am a "freezer filler".

I was borderline on this issue until this thread. I like some of the members who support the WSC, but I have to tell you all that if you don't check the "arrogance" at the door, you're going to lose support. Please state your case clearly and avoid the attempt to sway us with BS. When you bring arguments in like the public perceptions of fishermen, you clearly are no longer stating facts. Besides, it's a "side issue"

I stand by my previous statements because I believe them to be totaly accurate, but I must add that I failed to remember some significant text that would currently eliminate the issue of forgone opportunity from some rivers.

The courts decision does not acknowledge differences in wild vs hatchery fish. I believe that it speaks to the 50/50 split as being across an entire species. In fact I recall a line in which the judge recomends that the tribes take their 50% of the steelhead from the winter run rather than the summer run.

What I am getting at is I see no reason that we could not harvest our 50% entirely from the hatchery component of the run. While I see no overall conservation improvement in this, it would remove the potential for a reduction of recreational opportunity in rivers that meet 2 criteria:

1) The river must have hatchery fish
2) The number of hatchery fish plus the expected anmount of wild fish mortality during a C&R season must exceed the total number of wild fish.

I will edit my first post accordingly.

I certainly meant you no offense, and I wasn't referring to your comment, in particular. Looking back through this long thread, and the similar one on *********** Pursuits, that attitude has come up many times.

Last Cast,

I do agree with you that members of a group and their actions do reflect upon the group. My point above was that Osprey, as far as I know, is not a member of the WSC.

I'm sorry you've had a couple of bad impressions from WSC members. As a diverse group of anglers from many places, representing many types of fishermen, differing educations and experiences, and different individual reasons for being a steelhead fisher, there are many, many opinions that differ greatly among our membership. In fact, about the only thing we do all agree on is catch and release for native steelhead.

If you are truly curious about the WSC, I'd encourage you to attend a meeting and see what the WSC is about.

Our recent meetings have featured biologists discussing their studies on seeding rivers with salmon carcasses, the interplay between wild and hatchery steelhead on the Kalama River, habitat analysis of the Stillaguamish and Skagit Rivers, the federally funded task force to evaluate state, federal, and tribal hatcheries and make them more effective, and more.

Last spring Curt Kraemer from WDFW came in and spoke to an over-full house about the scientific and political issues that control the management scheme for steelhead on the Skagit and Sauk River systems.

We've had presentations on hooking mortality, genetic diversity, foregone opportunity, the economics of sport fishing, repeat spawner contributions, etc., all presented by people who have worked in those particular fields, some lesser known, some very well known, in their fields.

I'd also encourage you to check out our website, http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com , where our Mission Statement is posted. There you would find that cnr is only one of many steps in the WSC's road to support steelhead perpetuation and recovery in the Northwest.

I've tried throughout this long thread to sift through the BS and emotional scare tactics that run rampant through this topic. I think that public perception of sport fishers is a very important topic, and that we have an opportunity to help our image.

I don't think it's arrogance to forecefully present one's opinion, back it up, and point out where counter-arguments don't work. If it were than everyone on this thread has been arrogant.

I welcome challenges to my opinions. I've made an effort to go through each post responding to my own, or voicing a concern about something I've stated, and respond to each and every one. I've appreciated folks like Plunker who have done the same. I think we've helped each other to at least understand our own ideas, and each other's, a little better. I haven't been offended by the questions or comments posted about my opinions.

I think that a topic as important and controversial as this one deserves no less exchange of opinions, ideas, concerns, etc..

Fish on.......

Todd

That's an excellent point. I think that they are managed as separate runs (hatchery and natives) right now, but I think your observation could be an additional tool in the management tool belt if the issue came up.

Another point that hasn't come up yet is that not all rivers have tribal fisheries, and that there is no fear of foregone opportunity on any of the rivers that do. I realize that right now there are very few rivers that are open for cnk that don't have tribal fisheries, but there are some and there have been a lot more in the past.

Fish on...

I belong to the N.W.O.
New Washington Order
they have a lot of radical ideas that are not politically correct and so I won't post them here

but I beleive a lot of organizations are just started by people interested in furthering their own pocketbooks...i.e. guides etc....oh I just stepped on some toes,
this comment was not directed towards any one group O.K.

They (groups)mention all these rivers that need help

Well hell how about the Nisqually!!!!!
we haven't been able to fish the thing for Steelies in over 10 years....where's the effort there???
why ...........because no ones making any money except the Indians ...more toes

what is so hard to understand about,
when you run you're mouth about how you are conserned about Wild Steelhead and you continue to Kill them......in the words of Mr Spock...that is not logical........

The views expressed are my own.......Os

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Plunker ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Osprey ]

WSC has a bunch of sharp guys who've made great points in this thread.

I agree with you Aunty by the look at history and reality point. They don't operate with a conscience when money is concerned from what I've seen.

I represent an organization as well, but my views and beliefs are those of my own. When I speak on behalf of my organization, I let it be known that's who I'm speaking for. It's just like any other job. When I'm not working, I don't take it home.

Todd,

I understand the importance of saving the wild fish. I just want to be sure that this approach is the best one for the steelhead. I appreciate it when words are written so as not to offend. I comprehend better.

Hey yall,

Stand on the other side of the fence and look at how the "pro" side sounds to bystanders. I am not knocking you, I just want you to be aware that people will identify you with the positions you take, especially in a forum. I like you no matter what position you take.

How come we never see you post any pics of yourself?

When you read through these posts, I don't think you will find that most people are against C&R, but I do not find it unusual that some people would be very upset when C&R by regulation is shoved down their throat. This steelhead situation is unique and does not apply to the point I am about to make, but around the country there are usually 2 reasons why C&R regulations are imposed on sportsman.

1) C&R regs are imposed to preserve the catch of the industrial fishing fleet.
2) Managers don't want to do the hard work of managing recreational fisheries so they try to impose a simple management strategy like C&R.

Freshwater Bass is the perfect example of a proper C&R fishery. There are generally not regulations imposing C&R, but they are not needed. Most people do release fish and the few who do can't make enough of an impact to be an issue.

I also must point out that most of the people who are avid supporters of this wild steelhead release still want steelhead for the table. They just want to protect a certain population segment.

Some fisheries just are not very adaptable to C&R. C&R on rockfish would be a disaster. Halibut is not a C&R fishery, and I can't imagine it ever will be.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

Let's hear your perfect plan for saving wild fish, or should only the WSC be held to such high standards?

At least Plunker had a foundation for his argument. I think his foundation is flawed, but he has obviously looked at it closely.

Why is it that if things don't go your way, the other side is "shoving it down your throats"? If these changes are made, it will be because many people believe it is best for the fish, not because they are looking to shove anything down anybody's throat. In contrast, do you feel the state is shoving C&K regs down the throats of the majority of the anglers, who favor C&R? That's just a weak catch phrase used by those whose side didn't win, or wasn't chosen.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: dogsalmon ]

I think we try to learn from other states. Unfortunatly we can't just learn and then act on it.

Unlike anywhere else in the country, nearly every fishery in this state is co-managed by a government that we have no representation in, we do not vote for, and does not answer to us. Everything sportfishers want do do in the state of Washington has to be based on a educated guess of what the reaction of this government is going to be.

To confuse matters for you, what I just wrote is simplified. When I talk about a government, I am actually talking about a network of small governments, connected, and yet each able to go their own way. We have no representation in any of them.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread. I'm impressed that a thread of this length on an issue this controversial has maintained a civil attitude. Mostly

I think we've pretty much beat this one down to the ground, though, and it's starting to get a bit repetitive. I'll forego anymore of my lengthy diatribes, and would prefer to move any further discussion into an e-mail correspondence.

My e-mail is c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com and my homepage is Wild Steelhead Coalition.

I'll still check on this thread and will respond or comment briefly, but I think this thread has run its course. Feel free to hit me with an e-mail. Better yet, is there any better spot to discuss fish issues than a riverbank? I'm guessing this rain will bring the first big push of winter runs!! You can't have too many fishing partners, so if anyone wants to talk it up face to face, look me up.

Thanks, again, everyone.

Fish on...

I know this is a dumb reason, but here's what put me over the top and made me change my mind.

It streamlines the regs.

Also, 66% may say they support it, but after looking at the data, it doesn't look like that many are releasing fish on some of the rivers.

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: AuntyM ]