Good Springer forcast

[Button Nubbs]

So cut some of these hatchery programs helping restore wild runs. Then just maybe our grandchildren will have a chance to catch some of these wild fish. I'm all about whatever is in the best interest of the fish and would sacrifice opportunity in a heartbeat if it would help the wild runs. My

[bullcanyon]

You want your wild fish back? Than get the dams out of the equation. Until then. Enjoy the flavor of a nice hatchery fish.

[Button Nubbs]

I agree that is another major obstacle.

[huntnnw]

Do the reasearch dude..there will NEVER be a wild fishery on this side EVER!   Just maybe if all the Dams were gone, nets outta the rivers and commercial fishing cut in half we just might get a wild fishery, but that WILL NEVER HAPPEN... and I will take my hatchery stocked rivers over here..I love to go catch steelhead and springers..the ID springer season is solely a hatchery fishery and is remarkable what ID has done in the last 15 years!

[WSU]

Simply planting more hatchery fish isn't the answer.  We have hundreds of years of history to prove that.  Relevant to this thread, the plants in the lewis, cow, and kalama haven't changed enough to explain the crappy returns.  The hatchery fish that are being planted simply are not surviving to return as adults.  I'm not sure what the answer is, but the arm-chair biologists' theory that WDFW has stopped releasing hatchery fish couldn't be more wrong.

[spookgus]

RIPPER
You didn't get people fired up. Many people have been fired up with the fishing prospects(good and bad) and the management, for a long time.

I think that many rivers should not have hatcheries and should be left for wild fish with no netting in or downstream of those rivers. I also think that some rivers, especially the ones with dams that don't have provisions for fish passage should give up on wild returns and run the hatcheries full bore to provide sport fishing along the system and commercial netting inside those rivers. The hatchery rivers further inland could provide sport fishing for hundreds of miles and the hatchery rivers closer to the salt could provide the commercial guys fish that are in better condition. This would mean no netting in the Columbia and only netting the tributaries that are managed for hatchery fish only.

The fish passage report goes back to the 1930's and shows record returns over Bonneville within the last 20 years for several species. Granted alot of these were hatchery fish. Smolt production is down and maybe the ocean is on the downside of it's cycle and the countries that commercial fish the Pacific are damn good at targetting US originated fish.

Obviously my opinion is flawed because nobody seems to agree on how to increase wild returns while maintaining sport and commercial fishing. It will likely continue to be a piss poor juggling act.

[Dhoey07]

RIPPER
You didn't get people fired up. Many people have been fired up with the fishing prospects(good and bad) and the management, for a long time.

I think that many rivers should not have hatcheries and should be left for wild fish with no netting in or downstream of those rivers. I also think that some rivers, especially the ones with dams that don't have provisions for fish passage should give up on wild returns and run the hatcheries full bore to provide sport fishing along the system and commercial netting inside those rivers. The hatchery rivers further inland could provide sport fishing for hundreds of miles and the hatchery rivers closer to the salt could provide the commercial guys fish that are in better condition. This would mean no netting in the Columbia and only netting the tributaries that are managed for hatchery fish only.

The fish passage report goes back to the 1930's and shows record returns over Bonneville within the last 20 years for several species. Granted alot of these were hatchery fish. Smolt production is down and maybe the ocean is on the downside of it's cycle and the countries that commercial fish the Pacific are damn good at targetting US originated fish.

Obviously my opinion is flawed because nobody seems to agree on how to increase wild returns while maintaining sport and commercial fishing. It will likely continue to be a piss poor juggling act.

How can you or anybody not agree that banning nets/commercial fishing is the answer?

[spookgus]

I agree net bans and stopping commercial fishing is the answer and would have impressive benefits but that's not going to happen. Even if we banned commercial fishing other countries wouldn't and we would be buying Pacific salmon from those countries and the sovereign nations that commercially net the Columbia now.
It is discouraging to see nets and ghost nets in our rivers.

[WSU]

Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets?  The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada.  It isn't simply the Indians netting.  Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.

[Dhoey07]

Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets?  The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada.  It isn't simply the Indians netting.  Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.

Then why add to the problem by netting in the puget sound and columbia?

[spookgus]

Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets?  The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada.  It isn't simply the Indians netting.  Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.

Nope, the nets in the rivers of Washington is what gets me festered.

Ok, I will admit I want to BAN nets,bears,orcas,sea lions, meteors, other fisherman and any other thing that could literally or theoretically kill a salmon returning to my favorite river.

[WSU]

Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets?  The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada.  It isn't simply the Indians netting.  Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.

Then why add to the problem by netting in the puget sound and columbia?

Don't get me wrong, netting in Washington is something that needs to go away for good.  It is an outdated, harmful, and inefficient practice that isn't much more than a hobby for most.  This, of course, refers only to non-Indian nets since the state can't do anything about that. 

[huntnnw]

I couldnt agree more with the nets outta the rivers! its disgusting to see the thousands of fish wasted!!

[wog]

I think that it not so much our nets dams or sea wolves but commerial fishing in the oceans by  japan; russian, and others

[WSU]

I think that it not so much our nets dams or sea wolves but commerial fishing in the oceans by  japan; russian, and others

My point is that the "others" you speak of are Alaska and Canada.  Those two kill far more fish than the tribes, japanese, russians, washington commercials, etc.