Fishing for Native Steelhead

[pianoman9701]

I respect most of you guys. But this is really hypocritical. If your stand is that strong and you feel that deeply for protecting natural steelhead, your conscience should force you to stop fishing for them completely. Because according to ALL of the experts and studies, that's the only way you're going to stop killing them. And yes, I've seen your previous comments about the differences in releasing and fighting. You're lying to yourselves and are justifying behavior that's killing fish. Bash this guy all you want, (which I think is dumb). But as long as you're still catching these fish, releasing them or not, you haven't a single ethical leg on which to stand. Just my 

I thought the idea of separating the thread was to continue a relevant discussion while removing the OP as a bashing target (which I agree he clearly did not deserve).

I can understand calling someone a hypocrite for the bashing, if they believe in catch and release (because it is impossible to arrive at 0% mortality).
I don't agree with painting everyone who supports catch and release as a hypocrite; that's an awfully broad brush.

My comment was very civil and pertinent to the discussion. The problem that some people have with that guy's post is that he kept and killed a "natural" steelhead. If you're going to start a big campaign against killing natural steelhead, start with yourselves. Scientific studies back up what I and others have said about catch & release for steelhead - that the mortality rate is very high. Just because you don't see the fish die in front of you doesn't mean you hold any moral or ethical high ground. I didn't call everyone who supports catch and release a hypocrite. Only those who erroneously think they're somehow stewarding the resource more than someone else who keeps one fish per year. If the shoe fits,...

[wildmanoutdoors]

I believe the issue that needs to be address is the miss management of the resource!
There are rivers if managed for hatchery fish that could relieve the pressure on native fish but it will never happen because it is easier/cheaper/political to ban sport fishing then it is to manage it.

Who is mis manageing the resource?

I believe the better question is WHO IS managing it?

Ah yes for sure! The tribes manage it. And if the tribes fish so must we.

[wildmanoutdoors]

I respect most of you guys. But this is really hypocritical. If your stand is that strong and you feel that deeply for protecting natural steelhead, your conscience should force you to stop fishing for them completely. Because according to ALL of the experts and studies, that's the only way you're going to stop killing them. And yes, I've seen your previous comments about the differences in releasing and fighting. You're lying to yourselves and are justifying behavior that's killing fish. Bash this guy all you want, (which I think is dumb). But as long as you're still catching these fish, releasing them or not, you haven't a single ethical leg on which to stand. Just my 

I thought the idea of separating the thread was to continue a relevant discussion while removing the OP as a bashing target (which I agree he clearly did not deserve).

I can understand calling someone a hypocrite for the bashing, if they believe in catch and release (because it is impossible to arrive at 0% mortality).
I don't agree with painting everyone who supports catch and release as a hypocrite; that's an awfully broad brush.

My comment was very civil and pertinent to the discussion. The problem that some people have with that guy's post is that he kept and killed a "natural" steelhead. If you're going to start a big campaign against killing natural steelhead, start with yourselves. Scientific studies back up what I and others have said about catch & release for steelhead - that the mortality rate is very high. Just because you don't see the fish die in front of you doesn't mean you hold any moral or ethical high ground. I didn't call everyone who supports catch and release a hypocrite. Only those who erroneously think they're somehow stewarding the resource more than someone else who keeps one fish per year. If the shoe fits,...

Hmmmm, not sure Id say its "very high", and what is very high in your opinion?
Studies show that its 3% to 7%, with 5% being the benchmark. If the avarage guys C and R's 15 fish, thats .75%. Or 3/4 of a dead fish. Still too high in my book, but certainly not "very high".

If the indians did not take everything they can, after just a couple years those OP streams could bounce back to a limited killl and easily support c and r IMO.

Just look at Canada!

[Bullkllr]

I respect most of you guys. But this is really hypocritical. If your stand is that strong and you feel that deeply for protecting natural steelhead, your conscience should force you to stop fishing for them completely. Because according to ALL of the experts and studies, that's the only way you're going to stop killing them. And yes, I've seen your previous comments about the differences in releasing and fighting. You're lying to yourselves and are justifying behavior that's killing fish. Bash this guy all you want, (which I think is dumb). But as long as you're still catching these fish, releasing them or not, you haven't a single ethical leg on which to stand. Just my 

I thought the idea of separating the thread was to continue a relevant discussion while removing the OP as a bashing target (which I agree he clearly did not deserve).

I can understand calling someone a hypocrite for the bashing, if they believe in catch and release (because it is impossible to arrive at 0% mortality).
I don't agree with painting everyone who supports catch and release as a hypocrite; that's an awfully broad brush.

My comment was very civil and pertinent to the discussion. The problem that some people have with that guy's post is that he kept and killed a "natural" steelhead. If you're going to start a big campaign against killing natural steelhead, start with yourselves. Scientific studies back up what I and others have said about catch & release for steelhead - that the mortality rate is very high. Just because you don't see the fish die in front of you doesn't mean you hold any moral or ethical high ground. I didn't call everyone who supports catch and release a hypocrite. Only those who erroneously think they're somehow stewarding the resource more than someone else who keeps one fish per year. If the shoe fits,...

I generally support catch and release for wild fish- not because I don't think there is any mortality associated with it- but because it's like having your cake and eating it too. Sorry, it doesn't make me feel like a hypocrite by any definition of the word I am aware of. It merely makes the "sport" of fishing for them more sustainable.

Assuming that a population has some "surplus"- or harvestable number- say in a particular river that is 500 fish. Is it better to have those 500 fish caught and killed in less than a month- then shut it down completely?
Or might it better to have it open for C&R, where it would likely stay open for several months before coming close to that level of mortality. I see a lot of benefits for the latter.

As far as your statement: "Scientific studies back up what I and others have said about catch & release for steelhead - that the mortality rate is very high."- I would love to see these studies.
Perhaps what I posted earlier applies here?

This issue has been hashed out on forums, in bars, on riverbanks, in WDFW meetings, around campfires etc. to the Nth degree.
No matter where it is discussed, a lot of polarity eventually shows in opinions. It is a complicated issue for sure; and anyone who looks for a single or easy answer is fooling themselves.

I would like to see on-going civil discussion here, as I feel we all have a lot to contribute, as well something to learn. I know everyone feels like an expert, but research and investigation can sometimes uncover otherwise over-looked and very valuable information.

I'll start with suggesting a couple "good reads" on the subject:

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/documents/CR%20survival%20of%20winter%20sth%20AFS%202005.pdf

http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/Repository/WSR%20rpt%20full.pdf Especially chapter 4

Both links are for studies regarding mortality of sport-caught steelhead that are considered some of the better and most applicable in this situation. I'm not going to try to summarize, but I would not call their scientific findings for mortalty "very high".

Peace-G

[pianoman9701]

Again, I didn't say that being a catch and releaser was being hypocritical. I implied that being one and chastising another for keeping a single fish per year is, however.

There have been dozens of studies posted on HuntWA and other sites about the mortality rates of steelhead (and other fish) after release. I suggest that an earlier post citing 5% is low, but even then, One out of every 20 you catch is going to die. I don't have the studies. I don't don't see anyone posting that is contesting that they exist. I can dig if you need but you get the point.

[Bullkllr]

Again, I didn't say that being a catch and releaser was being hypocritical. I implied that being one and chastising another for keeping a single fish per year is, however.

Completely agree- thanks for clarifying for me.

There have been dozens of studies posted on HuntWA and other sites about the mortality rates of steelhead (and other fish) after release. I suggest that an earlier post citing 5% is low, but even then, One out of every 20 you catch is going to die. I don't have the studies. I don't don't see anyone posting that is contesting that they exist. I can dig if you need but you get the point.

Well, actually no- the point is lost when the only evidence available (and like you mention, it's easy to find) is rather contrary to your claim. Anyone can claim evidence for anything they want to say...and many do...

Most of the studies I am aware of have found from 2-5% for in-river steelhead. Reading at least the abstracts from the links I posted might be helpful. It would take forever to fish a run out at that rate- or the 5% you suggest as too low. The Feds use 5%- the state uses 10% (to account for gross mishandling) for released mortality. There are factors- handling/removal from water notably that make a huge difference. And obviously the rate can be higher and lower when expanded to different types of fishery (gear, etc). The state uses 10% on everything from bait-caught trout- to ocean-caught salmon.

On the earlier thread someone suggested the Bruce Tufts study as showing much higher mortality. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/congress/2002/Stress/Tufts.pdf
Problem with that study is that it was done with rainbow trout in 68 degree water. It is widely known that salmonids typically suffer mortality due to stress considerable more at higher water temps. Hard to argue that it applies to winter steelhead.

[7mmfan]

Anyone who does a lot of c&r fishing knows that some of the fish die, its bound to happen. But even if its 1:20, that is better than a guaranteed death in a gillnet, or ending up in someones freezer. There are fishing techniques that minimize mortality from hooks that very few people use. Pegging yarn or corkies or beads or whatever 2"-3" above the hook forces most fish to be hooked outside the mouth instead of in, this effectively eliminates tounge and gill hooked fish. Almost no one does it though. Most of the OP rivers still allow bait into March which blows my mind. I know you can catch fish on bait without killing them, been there, done that, but its a risky endeavour.   

Regardless of how divided sportsmen are on this topic, we are the only ones willing to do anything about it. The natives certainly aren't. The Puget Sound rivers have been shut down for years now, but if you float the lower stretches of any of them or even just drive across Hwy 9 on the Skagit, there will be nets in the river. There isn't enough fish to harbor a catch and release season but the natives can gill net? WTF!?

If I knew shutting it down completely for 10 years, nets and all, and then re opening it with new regulations for both natives and sportsmen that would allow for sustainable fisheries, I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. I want to be able to take my kids out on an April morning when the sun is warm, trees are green and the swallows are back, and have an opportunity for them to catch any wild steelhead, just like I did growing up. Those are my favorite memories and its sad to think it might be a thing of the past. It can be turned around, we still have that ability, but everyone needs to be on board.

[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.

[wildmanoutdoors]

Lets clarify something. Holding a steelhead out of water and just keeping the corner of its tail in the water doesnt make a bit of difference as to the percentage it places of the fishes chance of survival.
The rule was put in place so fish dont have as far to fall when they slip out of someones hands and land on the rocks.

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Curly]

It might be nice to revisit the Boldt decision 40 years later, but sadly I don't know if that is possible?    It really does amaze me that Boldt made the decision that he did........just doesn't make a lot of sense; I think most indians were shocked at the ruling too.

[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. 

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Gobble Doc]

Eventually it won't matter because the wild fish will be gone and everyone will be able to sleep well at night because it was all legal. 

[snowpack]

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.