Fishing for Native Steelhead

[PolarBear]

For those of you who are up in arms over this thread, I hope that you do not or have never fished for or taken a native steelhead out of the water even for a photo, otherwise you are a hypocrite.  If you are so concerned about native steelhead runs then you should not be fishing in those waters, period!

[Skillet]

Why are people so selective about when a legal thing is the right thing and when it doesn't matter if it is legal or not? 

Everyone on here is up in arms when an Indian kills a bull on the winter range.  It's legal, so what gives?  There are countless examples of the very people posting on this thread criticizing others for legal actions.  Go read the threads about shooting a turkey from the roost, shooting ducks on the water, sky busting, shooting arrows at game at "x" yards, ATVs, overcalling elk, and all other similar threads.  All those actions were legal and done by fellow "sportsmen."  Then, get back on here and explain why those that say killing a native steelhead is OK because it is legal have posted in those threads criticizing things that are legal for other "sportsmen" to do.

We're a diverse group.  We value different things differently.  I bet you'd have a hard time finding a single person with more than a hundred or so posts on this board that hasn't weighed in on one side of a "legal vs. ethical" debate in one thread and the opposite side in another.

I know I've done it, and it taught me a lesson - it's best not to judge other people and their legal actions.  There are enough people out there doing illegal crap as a "standard practice" that busting balls on a guy doing it by the book is just making enemies where you ought to be trying to find allies.  Just sayin'.

[Skillet]

Repeat spawners are about 10% on average (it varies greatly from river to river). And almost all female. That fish is clearly a buck, btw.
http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Steelhead-Kelts-Summary-for-NFS-Allen-Evans-4-05.pdf

Thanks bullklr, wildmanoutdoors, WSU for the info.  It does alter my perspective on the keeping of big nate's. 

But not enough to condone the attacks that the OP has had to endure because his legal actions are different than what others would have done in that situation.  I'll just give him a thumbs up for achieving a life's ambition. 

[WSU]

My point is that many are using the fact that it was technically legal as an absolute justification when they have criticized other legal decisions in the past.  It demonstrates that even those defending the action sometimes don't think an action being legal makes it correct.

[bingman]

As pointed out by WSU, you could make countless examples of what is legal but fails to meet moral standards. It boils down to ethics and controlling what we as sportsmen can control. I'm not trying to bash this guy but I don't fish for steelhead to put meat on the table or a mount on the wall, some people do I guess....

[WSU]

Repeat spawners are about 10% on average (it varies greatly from river to river). And almost all female. That fish is clearly a buck, btw.
http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Steelhead-Kelts-Summary-for-NFS-Allen-Evans-4-05.pdf

Thanks bullklr, wildmanoutdoors, WSU for the info.  It does alter my perspective on the keeping of big nate's. 

But not enough to condone the attacks that the OP has had to endure because his legal actions are different than what others would have done in that situation.  I'll just give him a thumbs up for achieving a life's ambition.

I do congratulate him on a great fish and accomplishment.  That is a hell of nice fish.  I just wish he had the foresight to not kill it.

[Bullkllr]

Perfect!  Just need something to complain about I guess then?

Dont see were I was complaining at all. I stated your fish wasent wall worthy. And am happy your done for the year. Your part of the problem. Thats all!

And MntMuley hasent a clue with his comparison. Lol. 

LOL, no different.  Because you choose to disagree with one LEGAL decision a sportsman makes surely doesn't make you in the right.

In this case legal and right are 2 different things. You obiously dont know why its legal. And why it isnt right. Lets see if you can answer these questions MM.
1. If the river in question hasent met escapement for 6 to 7 years or longer should there be a kill fishery?

2. If a local guide that has a Mom that sits on the Forks city council who overturns a ban on killing native Steelies knowing there isnt one river that has met escapement because it may lessen the fish killing tourists the right decision? Remember these rivers havent met escapement for years and the WDFW knows this too. After all, there the ones who do the counting.

I'm not going to bash the guy for keeping a really nice fish. But if you do not know the politics and realities of the situation- please listen closely to what Wildmanoutdoors is saying. He hit the nail on the head. Native retention is allowed for all the wrong reasons.

There are what-5 rivers you can keep a native? 30 years ago there were dozens. With the pressure on those few remaining streams, how long do you think it will be ....? Remember when you could even fish for steelhead on Puget Sound rivers this time of year?

[Skillet]

As pointed out by WSU, you could make countless examples of what is legal but fails to meet moral standards. It boils down to ethics and controlling what we as sportsmen can control. I'm not trying to bash this guy but I don't fish for steelhead to put meat on the table or a mount on the wall, some people do I guess....

I think anybody who fishes for steelhead as a primary food source would be starving... if they had my luck at it, anyway 

After watching (and participating) on both sides of different ethical vs. legal debates, I just got tired of watching fellow sportsmen beat up on each other.  I just prefer the folks who are keeping 30 natives a year to get some negative attention, not the guy who legally keeps his one.  If the runs are in that much trouble, let's put some effort into forcing no legal retention of natives, or maybe even more restrictive policies.  C&R is far from 100% effective... they may swim away, but only the raccoons, eagles and bears get to enjoy a significant percentage of what is released.

[Bullkllr]

As pointed out by WSU, you could make countless examples of what is legal but fails to meet moral standards. It boils down to ethics and controlling what we as sportsmen can control. I'm not trying to bash this guy but I don't fish for steelhead to put meat on the table or a mount on the wall, some people do I guess....

I think anybody who fishes for steelhead as a primary food source would be starving... if they had my luck at it, anyway 

After watching (and participating) on both sides of different ethical vs. legal debates, I just got tired of watching fellow sportsmen beat up on each other.  I just prefer the folks who are keeping 30 natives a year to get some negative attention, not the guy who legally keeps his one.  If the runs are in that much trouble, let's put some effort into forcing no legal retention of natives, or maybe even more restrictive policies.  C&R is far from 100% effective... they may swim away, but only the raccoons, eagles and bears get to enjoy a significant percentage of what is released.

No one can legally keep 30 nates a year. You get one from any river where it's allowed, then you're done.

I believe firmly that the current situation is not sustainable and I'd love to see more restrictions before the whole thing is shutdown like basically everywhere else.

[3nails]

As pointed out by WSU, you could make countless examples of what is legal but fails to meet moral standards. It boils down to ethics and controlling what we as sportsmen can control. I'm not trying to bash this guy but I don't fish for steelhead to put meat on the table or a mount on the wall, some people do I guess....

I think anybody who fishes for steelhead as a primary food source would be starving... if they had my luck at it, anyway 

After watching (and participating) on both sides of different ethical vs. legal debates, I just got tired of watching fellow sportsmen beat up on each other.  I just prefer the folks who are keeping 30 natives a year to get some negative attention, not the guy who legally keeps his one.  If the runs are in that much trouble, let's put some effort into forcing no legal retention of natives, or maybe even more restrictive policies.  C&R is far from 100% effective... they may swim away, but only the raccoons, eagles and bears get to enjoy a significant percentage of what is released.

No one can legally keep 30 nates a year. You get one from any river where it's allowed, then you're done.

I believe firmly that the current situation is not sustainable and I'd love to see more restrictions before the whole thing is shutdown like basically everywhere else.

Tribal members can't in there gillnets?

[singleshot12]

Seems kind of funny we blame each other for the demise of native steelhead when in actuality it's the tribes that have done the damage. That is where our time and energy should be spent,finding ways to pass a 100% no netting the rivers rule Boldt decision or not. I understand some of the native runs are gone forever but the rest are definitely restorable to where we could have native run retention again.

[snowpack]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/steelhead/
You can track some of the steelhead fishing from this page.  It doesn't include the Clearwater or Quinault numbers.  But this is just from fish checkers, so they only see a percentage of those numbers.  I've never seen a checker on any of those rivers for all the times I have been on them.

[Forks]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/steelhead/
You can track some of the steelhead fishing from this page.  It doesn't include the Clearwater or Quinault numbers.  But this is just from fish checkers, so they only see a percentage of those numbers.  I've never seen a checker on any of those rivers for all the times I have been on them.

This is the first year a checker has been on the Clearwater, he was moved from the Solduc.

[HuntandFish]

I'm with you Swatson.  A guy fishes his whole life for a 20+ and finally gets one and decided to hang it on the wall forever with a skin mount (the only mount as far as quality goes in my opinion), and he gets bashed?  It is legal, right.   No different than a guy killing a late season deer of a bait pile......if you were to snub him, the whole forum would come down on you because it is "legal".    

I just had to comment on this terrible analogy.... A large buck gets the opportunity to "spawn" at least 2-3 times spreading it's genes, while a large steelhead most likely is on its first trip to spawn (I am no expert but this is true of steelhead I beilive). Thus removing a trophy steelhead removes those genes and continued harvest like this causes an exponential decline in the resource, while shooting a large buck causes almost no decline in the resource, in fact there is a really good argument it is better to shoot big old deer than young ones.... The reason for the deer decline is most likely due to other factors not someone shooting a large buck, but steelhead harvest is directly linked to over harvest. Also a large buck has also had a chance to spread its genes that season, while a steelhead is intercepted on its way to "spawn". And this is why your very wrong with your comparison.

I also wanted to make the point that having these laws allowing the killing of one a year are abused. Anyone that spends anytime out on the peninsula knows that some locals keep whatever they catch because no one can prove they have kept multiple natives, there are no tags that have to be validated, it is on the honor system....so you know that never works!

Bottom line is that public shaming and uproar over things that are not right is how society keeps people in check, I am not a fan of more laws but do think threads like this really help educate the public and are very important to our sport.

Anyway, my 

Regards,
H&F

[Bullkllr]

As pointed out by WSU, you could make countless examples of what is legal but fails to meet moral standards. It boils down to ethics and controlling what we as sportsmen can control. I'm not trying to bash this guy but I don't fish for steelhead to put meat on the table or a mount on the wall, some people do I guess....

I think anybody who fishes for steelhead as a primary food source would be starving... if they had my luck at it, anyway 

After watching (and participating) on both sides of different ethical vs. legal debates, I just got tired of watching fellow sportsmen beat up on each other.  I just prefer the folks who are keeping 30 natives a year to get some negative attention, not the guy who legally keeps his one.  If the runs are in that much trouble, let's put some effort into forcing no legal retention of natives, or maybe even more restrictive policies.  C&R is far from 100% effective... they may swim away, but only the raccoons, eagles and bears get to enjoy a significant percentage of what is released.

No one can legally keep 30 nates a year. You get one from any river where it's allowed, then you're done.

I believe firmly that the current situation is not sustainable and I'd love to see more restrictions before the whole thing is shutdown like basically everywhere else.

Tribal members can't in there gillnets?

Touche'.
Been fighting that battle since Boldt- Where has it got us? It is unfortunate that the best we can do (for now) is to allow fish that are already past the nets to do their thing.