You need to check with Curt Kraemer as he has similar data on Skagit coho or chinook. He has the particulars but as I remember it, they had a program to net fresh fish for a tagging study. The first time they netted in the lower river and the short term mortality (24 hour I believe it was) was very very high. Well over 50% if I remember right.

The second netting was conducted up river after the fish had acclimated to fresh water. The mortality rate dropped into the low single digits.

Interesting stuff but apples and oranges from steelhead. As was the case with the Winkleman article. If you are really interested in mortality data on steelhead, I suggest the BC studies by Hooten or the piece by Jim Starkes which synthesizes Hooten's and others steelhead mortality data.

I know you are not trying to mislead your readers but these C and R articles on coho and lake trout could lead some to the wrong conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duggan:
...these C and R articles on coho and lake trout could lead some to the wrong conclusions.

---

Yes, it's a coho study. It's also a study on bait fishing. I have to see if I can find one of my old studies from college, but the morrtality rates of scented lures/bait was phenomily higher then unscented lures. If I remember right it was almost nil compared to bait. This was a salmon study to, not steelhead. But, when you get down to it, they're dying once they hit that freshwater anyways. Their goal iis to spawn and die.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Special ]

Double Yikes! Yikes!

All these fish dying is bad JuJu!

NO ONE in our BC group is seriously citing the mortality stats for deeply hooked, roe-caught Coho as in any way indicative of C & R fatalities for steelhead -- even bait caught steelhead. The Hooton study (which is a meta study -- a compilation of all the other studies he could find) cites an earlier study done by Mr. Hooton and another biologist that showed extremely low (3% or less?) fatality levels for C & R'ed steelhead on a Vancouver Isle river.

I haven't read these reports in the original for quite a while, but have a couple still on my hard drive (including Hooton's). In tandem with the informed views of my BC bulletin board members let me sum up what I believe to be the facts:

1. C & R fatalities for steelhead range from a low of 2% to a high of maybe (maybe) 7%. If bait is used, the death rate is at the higher end. Catch and release techniques also affect mortality.

2. It has NOT been proven that fly-caught steelhead suffer lower C & R mortality than lure-caught steelhead which in turn die less often than bait-caught steelhead. It also has NOT been proven that smaller (e.g. less than 2/0), barbless hooks will kill fewer steelhead, as well as smolts and trout caught by accident. Sensible, maybe but proven, "not yet".

3. Instituting mandatory C & R for wild steelhead has changed the character of the fishermen who patronize BC trophy waters -- the Dean and the Skeena system. Most kill-oriented anglers choose to fish on streams where they can keep fish. Fishermen more interested in the catching than the eating have taken over. The vast majority of these fishermen are fly fishers. Many are from overseas. I'm guessing that the average benefit to Canada's economy is more than twice that of the locals on a per day basis.

Steelhead C & R has helped the Skeena valley economy -- not hurt it. (Note: timber is the #1 and #2 industry in northern BC with tourism a distant #3.)

* * * * *

In my view, if you are arguing in favor of a kill fishery for native steelhead you can summon one or more of the following arguments:

1. The returns are so far above the minimum escapement that the continuation of current catch and keep practices isn't going to endanger the health of the run. THE BURDEN OF PROOF MUST BE HIGH -- there have been too many mistakes in the past.

2. If a kill fishery is eliminated, the Indians will have the right to net more. This is very powerful if true!

3. Case-by-case studies of watersheds/ rivers are much preferred to blanket policies of ANY stripe. Again, certainly true but is it feasible in an era of cut backs?

I don't think the following arguments hold water:

1. C & R anglers kill as many/ more fish than C & K anglers do. Clearly, C & R anglers are killing 1 fish for every 15-30 they hook. Yet this alone is not sufficient for C & K anglers to claim that, because they catch fewer than they could, they are having a less detrimental impact on the Natives than the C & R people.

2. "If there aren't enough to keep, there aren't enough to fish for." (Plunker's bumpersticker)We live in a gray world, not a black and white world. I can see a few rivers in WA being able to handle limited Native steelhead harvest, the vast majority only C & R, and then a few that are closed to all fishing. In an ideal world we'd have many more resources dedicated to stream surveys and enforcement, and each watershed would have flexible rules that changed weekly based on returns and catch rates. But we don't have more, we have less. And the C & R option can't be abandoned outright, leaving us with only TWO options: kill or close. Why tie both hands behind our backs?

3. "It's our birth right as Americans to hunt and fish for the table" and/ or "Well the Indians get to net fish, so we should get to keep some, too." Sad to say, those attitudes seemingly led to too many rivers staying open to Native retention for too long.

4. The economies of certain towns will be adversely affected by C & R. (See above.)

Good for you.

That is the first, and I repeat, the first rational article on this subject by someone who is pro-release that I have ever read.

Other than the fact that most of the "pro kill arguements that don't hold water" are proposed by C&R advocates (rather then their opponents) for the sake of having something to argue against, I must emphatically agree.

I don't understand this Holy Grail crap either. It all goes back to the early flyfishers frustration over Pacific Salmon and cutthroat and steelhead being the only fish around here that would take a fly. The truth is that there never were many of them and they're just plain old fish. They're not some mysterious and elusive difficult to catch creature hiding in the ether. They, in fact, bite better than about any salmon.

Quotes like "You already know that we here all feel it's a matter of national pride, in fact international pride to respect these magnificent fish as they so deserve to be respected. These fish are not meat and should not be managed as such." by Juro Mukai kind of crack me up sometimes.

Hmmm... That should liven the debate.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: BigStew ]

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: BigStew ]

I have been in your house and seen the half dozen killed steelhead nates over 20 lbs., mounted and hanging on your walls. What more could you possibly want for your satisfaction?!? Aren't pics enough for you by now? Or is this C&K of nates campaign of yours on your BB motivated by wanting to score some points with the few C&K Forks guides, like Jim M. and Guy R.? >>>

Snagly, thank you for an factual, informative, and well thought out post on this issue! You have saved many of us from having to say much more, due to your excellant post. Wow, even Plunker liked it! Cool.

What color paint should We use

You can't be as stupid as you 2 look,no one could be that dumb and live.

Can you see the headlines,about some loser on the Coast doing this and saying he read it in STS.

Chances are nobody knows you,but after this feasco you'll be famous.
That'll sell a few books

Woody

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Old Woody ]

Pers