Fishing for Native Steelhead

[PolarBear]

I don't know if this has been asked yet (too boring to read through all of the b.s.) but, for those of you "release all wild fish at all cost"  folks. If you are fishing on a river where you can legally keep a native/wild steelhead and you land one that has been hooked in the mouth but into the gills do you bonk that fish or release it knowing that it is going to die?  Either way you are killing a wild fish.

[Bullkllr]

a lot of the low % mortality studies usually only focus on one factor and on fish that were in all other ways completely healthy.  When the different factors start combining, the % can really shoot up.  A fish fresh from the ocean that dodged nets and seals, can probably hooked in the corner of the jaw and ideally handled and released with a high chance of survival.  When that same fish makes up river to the next hole and gets hooked/handled again the % survival drops again, and then again at the next hole.  Then figure in how many have net marks and seal swipes on them, or have a jig stuck in their jaw.  The coast rivers have so many people fishing now that many of the fish are repeat biters.  Another thing I see a lot in sol duc and hoh are the otters.  When they see you release a fish, they slide in off the bank and start going to where they think it was released to; and every now and then they come back with the fish just released.

Those are real concerns. As on the "Pilchuck" thread, I would state that what is going on the peninsula rivers lately is not sustainable (even if everyone practiced C&R- certainy not with a kill fishery/choice C&R). This is where I think the mis-management is happening. WDFW is so afraid of stepping on anyone's toes they're not making best choices for the fish. I think we need gear restrictions (hooks, bait, etc), more sanctuary areas, perhaps "no boat fishing" restrictions, limited days, others -if we are going to have sustainable fisheries on these fish. Look what has happened on 95% of our rivers... doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is going...

[Bullkllr]

I don't know if this has been asked yet (too boring to read through all of the b.s.) but, for those of you "release all wild fish at all cost"  folks. If you are fishing on a river where you can legally keep a native/wild steelhead and you land one that has been hooked in the mouth but into the gills do you bonk that fish or release it knowing that it is going to die?  Either way you are killing a wild fish.

I'll step up answer that, even if I'm not sure I'm one of the "release all wild fish at all cost"  folks. I'd like to be killing and eating every one I'm lucky enough to catch- it just doesn't seem pragmatic given our current situation.

After dozens, if not more encounters where I was reasonably confident the wild fish I had at-hand would survive when released- I play them as fast as possible on 15#UG usually, and quit taking pictures years ago- I landed a teener buck on a single-hooked plug that was clearly bleeding. I held it under water and thought out loud "I really should keep this fish". My partner, who was right next to me said "If you keep it, you know it won't live; if you release it, at least it's got a chance"- and back it went... (fish was bleeding, but not from gills as far as I could tell)

If the fish were obviously belly-up- I might think otherwise and bonk it.

[87Ford]

I don't know if this has been asked yet (too boring to read through all of the b.s.) but, for those of you "release all wild fish at all cost"  folks. If you are fishing on a river where you can legally keep a native/wild steelhead and you land one that has been hooked in the mouth but into the gills do you bonk that fish or release it knowing that it is going to die?  Either way you are killing a wild fish.

I can speak to this..  The last wild fish I killed was in 1997 on the Sauk. I was drifting sand shrimp from a drift boat and hooked a nice bright wild fish.  At time it was still legal to retain native steelhead on that river, but by then I had begun releasing all wild fish and had NO intention of keeping this one.  However, when we were taking a few pics, I noticed lots of blood coming from the fish and it was dead in my hands..  I had no choice..  I legally kept that fish, punched it, and took it home..  It didn't taste good..  I wasn't proud of it..  I still have a picture of that fish and, to this day, it bothers me to look at it.  I don't think I handled the fish poorly.  Not sure what happened that day, but I know I take extra care in releasing fish now and it has never happened again.

Here it is, late February, and instead of fishing my favorite river, the Pilchuck, I'm sitting at home.  I killed a few native steelhead years ago on that river too.  I think I was part of the problem and now I don't get to fish that river at all.  Yes, I think there is some C/R mortality, but a released fish has a good chance of survival.  A "bonked" fish has NO CHANCE.   

   

[bearpaw]

I have nothing against catch and release fishing, I sometimes do it myself, I understand fishermen wanting to conserve the resource. Maybe I missed something, I didn't read the last couple pages because the first 5 pages that I removed from the original topic seemed like nothing more than a bunch of opinioned fishermen complaining because some guy caught and kept his first big native steelhead. Exactly how many of these guys saying nobody should ever keep a native steelhead have never kept a native in their lifetime of fishing?

I wasn't going to say anything but there seems to be some hypocrisy in this topic so I feel compelled to comment. Apparently there are enough natives for the tribes to net them and apparently there are enough natives for WDFW biologists to set a limit of 1 per fisherman. Most likely the guys complaining have kept natives at some point in their fishing career. Apparently there is no biological reason or non-hypocritical excuse to flame anyone for wanting to keep their 1 fish limit. If some of you guys think there are not enough native steelhead and the possession limit is hurting the population I suggest you take your complaints to WDFW biologists and managers. To chew out other fishermen for legally fishing does nothing to unite fishermen.

just sayin... 

[duchunter]

So I have a question for all of you that have taken your fish and had it mounted for your wall (skin mount).
I thought that if I ever had this done I would just have a replica mount done, but when one does take in a fish for a skin mount I am guessing you want to get that fish into the freeze, (whole),  then to the taxidermy person as soon as you can? When the taxidermy person skins this fish out do you get to keep the meat and maybe the eggs? Or is that just wasted?

[wildmanoutdoors]

I have nothing against catch and release fishing, I sometimes do it myself, I understand fishermen wanting to conserve the resource. Maybe I missed something, I didn't read the last couple pages because the first 5 pages that I removed from the original topic seemed like nothing more than a bunch of opinioned fishermen complaining because some guy caught and kept his first big native steelhead. Exactly how many of these guys saying nobody should ever keep a native steelhead have never kept a native in their lifetime of fishing?

I wasn't going to say anything but there seems to be some hypocrisy in this topic so I feel compelled to comment. Apparently there are enough natives for the tribes to net them and apparently there are enough natives for WDFW biologists to set a limit of 1 per fisherman. Most likely the guys complaining have kept natives at some point in their fishing career. Apparently there is no biological reason or non-hypocritical excuse to flame anyone for wanting to keep their 1 fish limit. If some of you guys think there are not enough native steelhead and the possession limit is hurting the population I suggest you take your complaints to WDFW biologists and managers. To chew out other fishermen for legally fishing does nothing to unite fishermen.

just sayin... 

You need to go back and re read apparently. Bottom line Dale. If a river isnt meeting escapement, it cant sustain a kill, C and r or native netting.

[Rick]

I don't know if this has been asked yet (too boring to read through all of the b.s.) but, for those of you "release all wild fish at all cost"  folks. If you are fishing on a river where you can legally keep a native/wild steelhead and you land one that has been hooked in the mouth but into the gills do you bonk that fish or release it knowing that it is going to die?  Either way you are killing a wild fish.

That fish gets released. I'd rather the nutrients from that fish stay in the river than flushed down my toilet the next day.

[wildmanoutdoors]

I have nothing against catch and release fishing, I sometimes do it myself, I understand fishermen wanting to conserve the resource. Maybe I missed something, I didn't read the last couple pages because the first 5 pages that I removed from the original topic seemed like nothing more than a bunch of opinioned fishermen complaining because some guy caught and kept his first big native steelhead. Exactly how many of these guys saying nobody should ever keep a native steelhead have never kept a native in their lifetime of fishing?

I wasn't going to say anything but there seems to be some hypocrisy in this topic so I feel compelled to comment. Apparently there are enough natives for the tribes to net them and apparently there are enough natives for WDFW biologists to set a limit of 1 per fisherman. Most likely the guys complaining have kept natives at some point in their fishing career. Apparently there is no biological reason or non-hypocritical excuse to flame anyone for wanting to keep their 1 fish limit. If some of you guys think there are not enough native steelhead and the possession limit is hurting the population I suggest you take your complaints to WDFW biologists and managers. To chew out other fishermen for legally fishing does nothing to unite fishermen.

just sayin... 

For the folks who do not know how and why these fiseries are the way they are....

The only real way to not send steelhead into extinction is shut it all down.
Even if we stop the tribes wont. They will cry foregone oppertunity. Did you know that the treaty gives them the right to harvest as long as they dont harvest it into extinction?

Did you know that C and R Forks guides like Bob Ball, Larry scott ect can log 400 steelhead a season easily?
At 3% kill rate thats 12 fish a season times maybe 15 guides alone! Thats 180 fish a year. And according to studies, 3% is low. Its probably more like 5 to 7 when you factor everyone playing C and R like other guides and sporties.
Bob Ball was also one of the founders of the WSC. It was a way to push his and like minded fisherpersons own agenda. They tried to force a statewide no kill ban. But they tried to push it thru the back door and when Forks city council found out they overturned it on the OP alone. This mostely came from one local catch and kill guide Jim Mansfield and his mom who was on the Forks city council.  And also one of Bob Balls biggest proponents.  This was a war to the point of the local guide playing dirty and even got to the point of no contact orders.
Imagine Bob launching first and Jim comming from behind. He cannot legaly be within set amount of space between the 2. So now legaly the guy in back cant catch or pass the front guy. Lol

So now we have greedy indians, greedy c and r guys and greedy
I wanna kill one too guys.

This all equals disaster for the fish.

Another fact people need to know is what it would take to stop the native peoples netting. Cause most of the uninformed always think its the WDFW's call. And couldent be more wrong.

The tribes set there own agenda. Then they bring it to the WDFW and have there closed door talks. The indians tell them what there going to do, the state says we dont have the runs to sustain that kind of impact, the tribes threatens a FEDERAL lawsuits with Fed Lawers you pay for and the state backs down because they cannot afford that kind of case. The State dosent have that kind of fundage.

So they easily get there way EVERYTIME!

Personally for me after 30 plus years of fishing both as sport and proffesional, I have pretty much given up on Steelhead fishing because of declined runs, over fishing, too much pressure, too many guides ect, ect. Its just not as fun anymore.
I will admit I have been a part of the problem. I will admit I am too passionate about it, and lastly I was wrong to flame anyone about not letting a wild steelhead go. I should have flamed for even fishing them in the firstplace.

[Bullkllr]

I have nothing against catch and release fishing, I sometimes do it myself, I understand fishermen wanting to conserve the resource. Maybe I missed something, I didn't read the last couple pages because the first 5 pages that I removed from the original topic seemed like nothing more than a bunch of opinioned fishermen complaining because some guy caught and kept his first big native steelhead. Exactly how many of these guys saying nobody should ever keep a native steelhead have never kept a native in their lifetime of fishing?

I wasn't going to say anything but there seems to be some hypocrisy in this topic so I feel compelled to comment. Apparently there are enough natives for the tribes to net them and apparently there are enough natives for WDFW biologists to set a limit of 1 per fisherman. Most likely the guys complaining have kept natives at some point in their fishing career. Apparently there is no biological reason or non-hypocritical excuse to flame anyone for wanting to keep their 1 fish limit. If some of you guys think there are not enough native steelhead and the possession limit is hurting the population I suggest you take your complaints to WDFW biologists and managers. To chew out other fishermen for legally fishing does nothing to unite fishermen.

just sayin... 

Right.

And I think you can separate supporting C&R for wild steelhead and NOT bashing the guy for keeping that one. Different issues IMO.

I would add that this has been brought to WDFW on many occasions.

General question- not just for you Dale-
What about the other 95% of rivers where wild steelhead release IS mandatory or are already shut down completely-? Where do they fit into the equation?

[WSU]

I have nothing against catch and release fishing, I sometimes do it myself, I understand fishermen wanting to conserve the resource. Maybe I missed something, I didn't read the last couple pages because the first 5 pages that I removed from the original topic seemed like nothing more than a bunch of opinioned fishermen complaining because some guy caught and kept his first big native steelhead. Exactly how many of these guys saying nobody should ever keep a native steelhead have never kept a native in their lifetime of fishing?

I wasn't going to say anything but there seems to be some hypocrisy in this topic so I feel compelled to comment. Apparently there are enough natives for the tribes to net them and apparently there are enough natives for WDFW biologists to set a limit of 1 per fisherman. Most likely the guys complaining have kept natives at some point in their fishing career. Apparently there is no biological reason or non-hypocritical excuse to flame anyone for wanting to keep their 1 fish limit. If some of you guys think there are not enough native steelhead and the possession limit is hurting the population I suggest you take your complaints to WDFW biologists and managers. To chew out other fishermen for legally fishing does nothing to unite fishermen.

just sayin... 

I missed the last day or so because I was out fishing (it sucked, by the way).  For the record, I have never kept a wild steelhead and would release a bleeding wild fish. Like 87 Ford said, it has zero change of survival if I bonk it and put it in the fish box. 

The reasons the tribes and WDFW allow kill fisheries are more complicated than you seem think.  First, WDFW knows damn well that the rivers that are open haven't consistently met escapement for a long time.  They know there are not enough fish but allow catch and kill seasons based on political pressure.  I may very well try to change that.  Hopefully the new region six fish manager will see the light.  He seems to be a straightforward guy who really is cleaning up the problems in region 6. 

The tribes do their own thing and WDFW doesn't force the issue with them.  The current "co-management" is totally dysfunctional and needs to be fixed as well. 

[deltaops]

Other than the fact that Steel Head are Sea Run Rainbows, what are the differences between a Rainbow and a Steel Head?

[bearpaw]

I have nothing against catch and release fishing, I sometimes do it myself, I understand fishermen wanting to conserve the resource. Maybe I missed something, I didn't read the last couple pages because the first 5 pages that I removed from the original topic seemed like nothing more than a bunch of opinioned fishermen complaining because some guy caught and kept his first big native steelhead. Exactly how many of these guys saying nobody should ever keep a native steelhead have never kept a native in their lifetime of fishing?

I wasn't going to say anything but there seems to be some hypocrisy in this topic so I feel compelled to comment. Apparently there are enough natives for the tribes to net them and apparently there are enough natives for WDFW biologists to set a limit of 1 per fisherman. Most likely the guys complaining have kept natives at some point in their fishing career. Apparently there is no biological reason or non-hypocritical excuse to flame anyone for wanting to keep their 1 fish limit. If some of you guys think there are not enough native steelhead and the possession limit is hurting the population I suggest you take your complaints to WDFW biologists and managers. To chew out other fishermen for legally fishing does nothing to unite fishermen.

just sayin... 

For the folks who do not know how and why these fiseries are the way they are....

The only real way to not send steelhead into extinction is shut it all down.
Even if we stop the tribes wont. They will cry foregone oppertunity. Did you know that the treaty gives them the right to harvest as long as they dont harvest it into extinction?

Did you know that C and R Forks guides like Bob Ball, Larry scott ect can log 400 steelhead a season easily?
At 3% kill rate thats 12 fish a season times maybe 15 guides alone! Thats 180 fish a year. And according to studies, 3% is low. Its probably more like 5 to 7 when you factor everyone playing C and R like other guides and sporties.
Bob Ball was also one of the founders of the WSC. It was a way to push his and like minded fisherpersons own agenda. They tried to force a statewide no kill ban. But they tried to push it thru the back door and when Forks city council found out they overturned it on the OP alone. This mostely came from one local catch and kill guide Jim Mansfield and his mom who was on the Forks city council.  And also one of Bob Balls biggest proponents.  This was a war to the point of the local guide playing dirty and even got to the point of no contact orders.
Imagine Bob launching first and Jim comming from behind. He cannot legaly be within set amount of space between the 2. So now legaly the guy in back cant catch or pass the front guy. Lol

So now we have greedy indians, greedy c and r guys and greedy
I wanna kill one too guys.

This all equals disaster for the fish.

Another fact people need to know is what it would take to stop the native peoples netting. Cause most of the uninformed always think its the WDFW's call. And couldent be more wrong.

The tribes set there own agenda. Then they bring it to the WDFW and have there closed door talks. The indians tell them what there going to do, the state says we dont have the runs to sustain that kind of impact, the tribes threatens a FEDERAL lawsuits with Fed Lawers you pay for and the state backs down because they cannot afford that kind of case. The State dosent have that kind of fundage.

So they easily get there way EVERYTIME!

Personally for me after 30 plus years of fishing both as sport and proffesional, I have pretty much given up on Steelhead fishing because of declined runs, over fishing, too much pressure, too many guides ect, ect. Its just not as fun anymore.
I will admit I have been a part of the problem. I will admit I am too passionate about it, and lastly I was wrong to flame anyone about not letting a wild steelhead go. I should have flamed for even fishing them in the firstplace.

I will admit I don't have much knowledge on steelhead.

If clients of the guides and DIY fishermen are taking far fewer than the tribes are netting I do not see that as the biggest problem.

How many native steelhead go up the stream?

Why do biologists and managers still allow a 1 fish possession?

The only real way to not send steelhead into extinction is shut it all down.
Even if we stop the tribes wont. They will cry foregone oppertunity. Did you know that the treaty gives them the right to harvest as long as they dont harvest it into extinction?

I'm not taking sides, but this comment seems to contradict the whole paragraph?

[TheHunt]

I think if we get the fish huger group came along the sport fishery group together we might be able to get the Federal Government to outlaw all gill nets in the US. NOT in the ocean say X yards off the coast.  Include the Indian as part of that law.

Anyone using gill nets would have to go to save nets.  That would provide a method for non discriminatory killing of fish that go into the nets.

So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying; you're proposing that we ignore treaties we've signed, is that correct? If so, why stop at fishing? Why not ignore all of the treaties that apply to Native rights with regards to any wildlife resource and pass laws making it illegal to violate state game and fish laws and rules? And, if that's the case, who's to say we wouldn't violate any treaty with any independent nation? Please clarify your stance. Thanks.

No, The treaties say fishing.  The Indians are under Federal control.  If the Federal Government outlaws the gill net.  They will have to use Live Nets.  That is what I am saying.  A net is a net... One kills all the other does not.

OK, so first off, the Indians are not under Federal control. Nations like the Yakimas are independent. If they violate treaties, it's the federal government who would step in. But, treaties with the Indians are just like treaties with France or England. They're a binding contract that have been agreed to by ALL parties and must be changed by ALL parties.

I am not sure you are correct.  From my understanding tribal governments are not "states" in a constitutional sense, nor are they "foreign states". Instead, they are "domestic dependent nations," with sovereign powers retained.  The word "Domestic" makes a sense they only answer to Federal authority.  But I might be incorrect. My wife tells me all the time.  :-)

[wildmanoutdoors]

Why do biologists and managers still allow a 1 fish possession?

At the time when the WSC tried to push all this thru it was full retension on those rivers. When the deal fell thru cause the city of Forks learned of its back door approach, They at least settled for 1 per year.

If the indians get to fish Dale we get to also. No matter the state of the run size. Plus the Forks city council.

Its all about money! Not whats good for the fish.