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.