Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 01:02:29 PM
(This topic was split from another topic so the members who want to discuss the politics of fishing can continue in this topic. Do not post rants in the original success topic or you risk being banned.)
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 24, 2014, 01:29:31 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on February 24, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
No reason to put that on the wall. But at least your done killing for another year. :tdown:
What the what?
Post by: Swatson on February 24, 2014, 01:35:24 PM
No reason to put that on the wall. But at least your done killing for another year. :tdown:
Really? I've been Steelhead fishing my whole life trying to get a 20+ pounder and I have caught several nates this year and in years past and have released them all. I'm good with keeping one in my life! Hopefully you can get over it!
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 24, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
Post by: Swatson on February 24, 2014, 01:38:46 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 01:39:48 PM
Post by: MADMAX on February 24, 2014, 01:40:55 PM
did you use a flashlight on your pole ?
Watch out !!!!!
hahhahahha
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 01:46:58 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 24, 2014, 01:48:25 PM
I changed my mind on my 1st thoughts ... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 01:52:00 PM
It is very different than killing a deer over bait and the "whole forum" is not going to "come down" on anyone for saying you shouldn't be killing wild steelhead. Native steelhead populations aren't doing all that hot and killing your one a year because it is legal is short sighted and selfish. Hopefully people wake up and get over themselves so my kids have steelhead to fish for.
It isn't a bit different. They are both legal and just because you don't agree with one, doesn't mean your personal opinion means jack#$%. Mule deer heards aren't doing great either over here in a few parts and I'd like my kids to one day have the chance to kill a trophy muley. ;)
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 01:52:49 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 24, 2014, 01:53:54 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 24, 2014, 01:55:26 PM
It is very different than killing a deer over bait and the "whole forum" is not going to "come down" on anyone for saying you shouldn't be killing wild steelhead. Native steelhead populations aren't doing all that hot and killing your one a year because it is legal is short sighted and selfish. Hopefully people wake up and get over themselves so my kids have steelhead to fish for.One in his life is whole lot different than one a year. So go back and re-read what he posted so you are clear on that point.
Great fish Swatson and congrats!!!
Post by: snowpack on February 24, 2014, 01:56:14 PM
Does this area get netted ? If so kill them all ... JUST SEND ME HALF :twocents: :chuckle:Most of the rivers open to state retention get netted rather heavily. What the state doesn't keep, they let the tribes net the difference.
Post by: 87Ford on February 24, 2014, 01:56:52 PM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 24, 2014, 01:57:13 PM
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.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 02:02:53 PM
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. :dunno:
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 24, 2014, 02:13:07 PM
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 24, 2014, 02:17:08 PM
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on February 24, 2014, 02:21:00 PM
I really can't stand hunting and fishing Nazis who condemn any legal sportsman (or woman) for legally killing fish and wildlife. No different than a GD PETAphile throwing red paint on fur coats.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: akirkland on February 24, 2014, 02:21:59 PM
Post by: jackmaster on February 24, 2014, 02:25:12 PM
Post by: Swatson on February 24, 2014, 02:25:21 PM
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 yea I'm the problem! Gotta love the internet! I didn't mean to start a bitch session I was just pretty jacked to catch a big Steely! I guess if you catch 20+ pounders on a daily occurrence like some of these Legendary fisherman on here then it wouldn't be so special but for me it was a true trophy and I kept it after catch and releasing numerous Steelhead up until this point in my life. Please forgive me and lets move on!
Post by: cbond3318 on February 24, 2014, 02:27:33 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 02:33:09 PM
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. :dunno:
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.
1. No.
2. No.
Here are two for you?:
1. If a declining population of quality mature mule deer bucks were in jeopardy because of several factors including baiting during the late general season, do you think it would be wise to reconsider allowing it to still happen?
2. If the majority of all hunters were in favor of baiting to increase the chances of success even though it might be detrimental to their support and you were one of those that were not in favor, would you still stand your ground for what you thought was right?
I think I know your answers and I totally agree with you on there being a big difference of what's "right" and what's "legal". However, I will have to continue to accept those late season trophy pics to come in and not publicly bash somebody's decision to take part in something I feel is so wrong, even though it was legal. Doesn't mean we won't work harder trying to fix the "problems". :twocents:
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 02:40:01 PM
And, MM, it isn't the same as deer. There may be areas with unhealthy mule deer populations and some with healthy populations. Unfortunately, in Washington, we've managed to screw things up to the point where there are no truly healthy steelhead populations. Continuing to kill them because it is legal is shortsighted. I do agree with your point that we should be working to fix the legal problem though.
Post by: snowpack on February 24, 2014, 02:48:32 PM
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.
For the bolded, not exactly. He can still fish CnR while targeting hatchery fish or springers or resident rainbows. I know of some guys that are hitting the rivers every week Fri-Sun for CnR and one has caught around 40 wild fish this year. Statistically, some of them were killed.
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 24, 2014, 02:48:48 PM
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on February 24, 2014, 02:58:10 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 24, 2014, 03:32:29 PM
Can't believe how many people are ok with killing native steelhead. Legal or not. I'm disgusted with this mentality
That said....Swatson very nice fish congrats on a once in a lifetime fish. Just wish you didn't kill it. :bdid:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on February 24, 2014, 03:41:41 PM
I would have killed it, eaten it and not even bothered with the trophy! :chuckle:
Post by: 7mmfan on February 24, 2014, 03:45:42 PM
Part of the reason that 20# steelhead are the fish of a lifetime now, is because they have been caught and killed for generations. They didn't use to be all that uncommon. But when those fish are killed, those genes are GONE. It might be the only one you kill, but if 30 or 40 other people kill their once in a lifetime 20# fish, those fish won't get to spawn and pass genes on to make more 20# fish. For every one that gets killed, it makes it more and more rare that you will catch one in the future, and eventually those fish will simply be gone and 20# steelhead will be a thing of the past.
Its a vicious cycle, I know, and I can't blame you for doing something that is legal. Eventually though, I think we as sportsman need to step up and make personal changes to how we utilize a resource, even if the state is willing to .
Post by: singleshot12 on February 24, 2014, 03:47:06 PM
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 03:49:31 PM
Great fish Swatson, I know what its like to pursue a goal like this an finally achieve it. Heres the problem though.
Part of the reason that 20# steelhead are the fish of a lifetime now, is because they have been caught and killed for generations. They didn't use to be all that uncommon. But when those fish are killed, those genes are GONE. It might be the only one you kill, but if 30 or 40 other people kill their once in a lifetime 20# fish, those fish won't get to spawn and pass genes on to make more 20# fish. For every one that gets killed, it makes it more and more rare that you will catch one in the future, and eventually those fish will simply be gone and 20# steelhead will be a thing of the past.
Its a vicious cycle, I know, and I can't blame you for doing something that is legal. Eventually though, I think we as sportsman need to step up and make personal changes to how we utilize a resource, even if the state is willing to .
Exactly, except we should have made that choice already and stepped up. Many people have but, as you can see, some haven't.
I wonder how rare 20 pound steelhead will be when my 1.5 year old sons are old enough to what a trophy it truly is? Hopefully we haven't bonked them all by then.
Post by: jackmaster on February 24, 2014, 03:54:41 PM
Post by: GEARHEAD on February 24, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 03:57:29 PM
There are a helluva lot bigger issues to the demise of the native steelhead runs than sportsman whackn one in the head onece a year, I hope you realize that? I hope you feel as strong about those things as you are against a LEGAL SPORTSMAN......again awesome steely swatson
I do. Those issues, like logging, houses, roads, cars, etc., are a little tougher to address. The existence of multiple problems doesn't mean it is right to selfishly bonk our way further into an ever-worsening situation.
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 04:04:30 PM
Great fish Swatson, I know what its like to pursue a goal like this an finally achieve it. Heres the problem though.
Part of the reason that 20# steelhead are the fish of a lifetime now, is because they have been caught and killed for generations. They didn't use to be all that uncommon. But when those fish are killed, those genes are GONE. It might be the only one you kill, but if 30 or 40 other people kill their once in a lifetime 20# fish, those fish won't get to spawn and pass genes on to make more 20# fish. For every one that gets killed, it makes it more and more rare that you will catch one in the future, and eventually those fish will simply be gone and 20# steelhead will be a thing of the past.
Its a vicious cycle, I know, and I can't blame you for doing something that is legal. Eventually though, I think we as sportsman need to step up and make personal changes to how we utilize a resource, even if the state is willing to .
Exactly, except we should have made that choice already and stepped up. Many people have but, as you can see, some haven't.
I wonder how rare 20 pound steelhead will be when my 1.5 year old sons are old enough to what a trophy it truly is? Hopefully we haven't bonked them all by then.
This is one of the greatest myths about how big fish come into existence. The biological imperative of every fish is satisfied on its first successful spawn. Anything after that is gravy. How many times has this fish spawned? 3,4,5 times? That means its genetic code has been transferred successfully multiple times over. If she was 8# and spawned she puts out the exact same genes as she did when she was 18# and spawned. Just because she's bigger when she spawned does not mean she produces bigger fish. It just means she's got experience. Do all 8# fish have what it takes to live up to this 22#'ers potential? Nope, not every fish has what it takes. But to imply the OP is affecting genetics because he chose to keep this fish is not based in fact, it is just a projection of one person's set of morals onto another's. I believe it is far, far more damaging to a wild population to yank first-year spawning steelhead out of the river that carries these genes than fish that have made it several times over. That small first year fish being kept is actually removing many years worth of successful spawning.
I know from my walleye fishing buddies this is not a popular view, but...
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 04:11:59 PM
I mostly fish rivers where there is no native retention, except for one. If I'm gonna bonk a nate I prefer to bonk a buck. Since the Quinalts are raping the native fishery of hundreds of 20+ natives every year, I have no problem with a regular guy bonking his one nate per year. These fish snobs who show their vitriol for others who legally take one native per year yet boast about how many 20+ nates that they release are actually killing far more than the few guys who keep one per year and only get to fish a couple of times. The non tribal fisherman that are the problem are those who C&R dozens of natives per year. No matter how careful they are, they are still killing a good percentage of what they release. I would rather see some guy be proud and take home his one nate than some fish snob who is inadvertently killing a half dozen or more by thinking they are doing "the right thing". :twocents:
By the way, don't post this on ifish! Those Oregon steelhead elitists will crucify you!
Post by: wafisherman on February 24, 2014, 04:12:13 PM
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 04:13:25 PM
Great fish Swatson, I know what its like to pursue a goal like this an finally achieve it. Heres the problem though.
Part of the reason that 20# steelhead are the fish of a lifetime now, is because they have been caught and killed for generations. They didn't use to be all that uncommon. But when those fish are killed, those genes are GONE. It might be the only one you kill, but if 30 or 40 other people kill their once in a lifetime 20# fish, those fish won't get to spawn and pass genes on to make more 20# fish. For every one that gets killed, it makes it more and more rare that you will catch one in the future, and eventually those fish will simply be gone and 20# steelhead will be a thing of the past.
Its a vicious cycle, I know, and I can't blame you for doing something that is legal. Eventually though, I think we as sportsman need to step up and make personal changes to how we utilize a resource, even if the state is willing to .
Exactly, except we should have made that choice already and stepped up. Many people have but, as you can see, some haven't.
I wonder how rare 20 pound steelhead will be when my 1.5 year old sons are old enough to what a trophy it truly is? Hopefully we haven't bonked them all by then.
This is one of the greatest myths about how big fish come into existence. The biological imperative of every fish is satisfied on its first successful spawn. Anything after that is gravy. How many times has this fish spawned? 3,4,5 times? That means its genetic code has been transferred successfully multiple times over. If she was 8# and spawned she puts out the exact same genes as she did when she was 18# and spawned. Just because she's bigger when she spawned does not mean she produces bigger fish. It just means she's got experience. Do all 8# fish have what it takes to live up to this 22#'ers potential? Nope, not every fish has what it takes. But to imply the OP is affecting genetics because he chose to keep this fish is not based in fact, it is just a projection of one person's set of morals onto another's. I believe it is far, far more damaging to a wild population to yank first-year spawning steelhead out of the river that carries these genes than fish that have made it several times over. That small first year fish being kept is actually removing many years worth of successful spawning.
I know from my walleye fishing buddies this is not a popular view, but...
That argument does not make sense to me. First, you are assuming this fish has already spawned. There is no way to know if that happened or not. Only a low percentage of steelhead are repeat spawners. It is far more likely that the genes were never spread. Second, even if this fish were a repeat spawner, more genes would be spread through being allowed to spawn again. Either way, bonking that fish removed genes that would have otherwise spread (assuming something else didn't kill it before is spawned).
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 04:19:26 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 04:21:25 PM
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 04:24:59 PM
Here's a real thread jack........at least DFW manages/regulates steelhead............they quit managing walleye last year and a lot of you didn't give a single care and supported the unregulated harvest of ALL walleye in the prime Columbia River system. ;) >:(
I was one of those. Walleye (and bass) are one of the issues referred to by jackmaster that also are harmful to wild steelhead.
Post by: Rick on February 24, 2014, 04:26:32 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 04:30:27 PM
Here's a real thread jack........at least DFW manages/regulates steelhead............they quit managing walleye last year and a lot of you didn't give a single care and supported the unregulated harvest of ALL walleye in the prime Columbia River system. ;) >:(
I was one of those. Walleye (and bass) are one of the issues referred to by jackmaster that also are harmful to wild steelhead.
Cougars are harmful to wild deer. Wolves are harmful to wild elk. :dunno: Have you not caught a steelhead on roe? :dunno:
Post by: bingman on February 24, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 04:33:52 PM
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 04:37:18 PM
Ok seriously, though. Runs that are in trouble notwithstanding, and the possibility that a fish of this size has never spawned before changes the calculus - but this "release the big fish" attitude on hunting sites has always seemed hypocritical to me. If a huge racked, mossy-horned muley was standing next to a juicy, tender forkie with legal eyeguards, would you advocate shooting the fork horn to save the big boy so he can go cover does? :dunno:
Post by: Mfowl on February 24, 2014, 04:38:26 PM
Here's a real thread jack........at least DFW manages/regulates steelhead............they quit managing walleye last year and a lot of you didn't give a single care and supported the unregulated harvest of ALL walleye in the prime Columbia River system. ;) >:(
The lift on walleye/bass regulations was on waters were salmon/steelhead/native trout smolt survival was affected by the increasing populations of those predatory fish. Bass and walleye #'s are healthy and they feed heavily on smolts during their out migration. Regulations on bass/walleye are still in palce where there population doesn't affect smolt survival.
Why is this legally harvested fish any different than a tribal member legally harvesting an elk on its winter range? Its legal right?
Post by: FC on February 24, 2014, 04:45:22 PM
It blows me away the arrogance of some people on the internet!
I would have bonked this one, I've never kept a native steelhead before I don't think and i have put back some nice ones! I probably just would have ate it though lol.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 24, 2014, 04:45:51 PM
You are correct, I am assuming it has spawned before - I have always understood that steelies achieving that size have spawned multiple times. If that is not the case, I'll stand corrected on that one point about this fish having already met its biological imperative. If someone has some info to share about that, I'd appreciate it...
Only 2% or less make it back to the ocean to succesfully spawn again...
Post by: billythekidrock on February 24, 2014, 04:50:01 PM
Great feesh! Congratulations!
I mostly fish rivers where there is no native retention, except for one. If I'm gonna bonk a nate I prefer to bonk a buck. Since the Quinalts are raping the native fishery of hundreds of 20+ natives every year, I have no problem with a regular guy bonking his one nate per year. These fish snobs who show their vitriol for others who legally take one native per year yet boast about how many 20+ nates that they release are actually killing far more than the few guys who keep one per year and only get to fish a couple of times. The non tribal fisherman that are the problem are those who C&R dozens of natives per year. No matter how careful they are, they are still killing a good percentage of what they release. I would rather see some guy be proud and take home his one nate than some fish snob who is inadvertently killing a half dozen or more by thinking they are doing "the right thing". :twocents:
By the way, don't post this on ifish! Those Oregon steelhead elitists will crucify you!
I agree and the negativity posted in this thread about a legal act just shows how far apart we are as sportsmen.
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 04:50:42 PM
You are correct, I am assuming it has spawned before - I have always understood that steelies achieving that size have spawned multiple times. If that is not the case, I'll stand corrected on that one point about this fish having already met its biological imperative. If someone has some info to share about that, I'd appreciate it...
Only 2% or less make it back to the ocean to succesfully spawn again...
Thanks. Source?
Post by: bingman on February 24, 2014, 04:52:57 PM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 24, 2014, 04:53:34 PM
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 24, 2014, 04:58:17 PM
Great fish Swatson, I know what its like to pursue a goal like this an finally achieve it. Heres the problem though.
Part of the reason that 20# steelhead are the fish of a lifetime now, is because they have been caught and killed for generations. They didn't use to be all that uncommon. But when those fish are killed, those genes are GONE. It might be the only one you kill, but if 30 or 40 other people kill their once in a lifetime 20# fish, those fish won't get to spawn and pass genes on to make more 20# fish. For every one that gets killed, it makes it more and more rare that you will catch one in the future, and eventually those fish will simply be gone and 20# steelhead will be a thing of the past.
Its a vicious cycle, I know, and I can't blame you for doing something that is legal. Eventually though, I think we as sportsman need to step up and make personal changes to how we utilize a resource, even if the state is willing to .
Exactly, except we should have made that choice already and stepped up. Many people have but, as you can see, some haven't.
I wonder how rare 20 pound steelhead will be when my 1.5 year old sons are old enough to what a trophy it truly is? Hopefully we haven't bonked them all by then.
This is one of the greatest myths about how big fish come into existence. The biological imperative of every fish is satisfied on its first successful spawn. Anything after that is gravy. How many times has this fish spawned? 3,4,5 times? That means its genetic code has been transferred successfully multiple times over. If she was 8# and spawned she puts out the exact same genes as she did when she was 18# and spawned. Just because she's bigger when she spawned does not mean she produces bigger fish. It just means she's got experience. Do all 8# fish have what it takes to live up to this 22#'ers potential? Nope, not every fish has what it takes. But to imply the OP is affecting genetics because he chose to keep this fish is not based in fact, it is just a projection of one person's set of morals onto another's. I believe it is far, far more damaging to a wild population to yank first-year spawning steelhead out of the river that carries these genes than fish that have made it several times over. That small first year fish being kept is actually removing many years worth of successful spawning.
I know from my walleye fishing buddies this is not a popular view, but...
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 (http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Steelhead-Kelts-Summary-for-NFS-Allen-Evans-4-05.pdf)
Post by: singleshot12 on February 24, 2014, 05:00:17 PM
Great feesh! Congratulations!
I mostly fish rivers where there is no native retention, except for one. If I'm gonna bonk a nate I prefer to bonk a buck. Since the Quinalts are raping the native fishery of hundreds of 20+ natives every year, I have no problem with a regular guy bonking his one nate per year. These fish snobs who show their vitriol for others who legally take one native per year yet boast about how many 20+ nates that they release are actually killing far more than the few guys who keep one per year and only get to fish a couple of times. The non tribal fisherman that are the problem are those who C&R dozens of natives per year. No matter how careful they are, they are still killing a good percentage of what they release. I would rather see some guy be proud and take home his one nate than some fish snob who is inadvertently killing a half dozen or more by thinking they are doing "the right thing". :twocents:
By the way, don't post this on ifish! Those Oregon steelhead elitists will crucify you!
Absolutely the truth! :yeah:
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 05:01:20 PM
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 05:02:47 PM
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'.
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 05:10:52 PM
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 (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.
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 05:11:21 PM
Post by: bingman on February 24, 2014, 05:11:48 PM
Post by: WSU on February 24, 2014, 05:13:00 PM
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 (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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 24, 2014, 05:18:42 PM
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. :dunno:
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?
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2014, 05:24:29 PM
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 :chuckle:
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 24, 2014, 05:29:34 PM
No one can legally keep 30 nates a year. You get one from any river where it's allowed, then you're done.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 :chuckle:
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.
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.
Post by: 3nails on February 24, 2014, 05:39:52 PM
Tribal members can't in there gillnets?No one can legally keep 30 nates a year. You get one from any river where it's allowed, then you're done.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 :chuckle:
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.
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.
Post by: singleshot12 on February 24, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
Post by: snowpack on February 24, 2014, 05:53:03 PM
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.
Post by: Forks on February 24, 2014, 06:11:22 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/steelhead/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/steelhead/)This is the first year a checker has been on the Clearwater, he was moved from the Solduc.
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.
Post by: HuntandFish on February 24, 2014, 06:12:16 PM
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. :dunno: 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". :dunno: :chuckle:
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 :twocents:
Regards,
H&F
Post by: Bullkllr on February 24, 2014, 06:16:26 PM
Touche'.Tribal members can't in there gillnets?No one can legally keep 30 nates a year. You get one from any river where it's allowed, then you're done.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 :chuckle:
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.
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.
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.
Post by: Dan-o on February 24, 2014, 06:35:21 PM
Sounds like you had a pretty awesome day, too. :tup:
Damn shame that sportsmen crucify each other over differences of opinion.
I personally think that those who play CnR on the nates are way more of a problem than the guy who keeps the fish of a life time. As a matter of fact, I have no issue at all with a guy legally keeping a masher like this (Congrats again, but I am jealous). I do think the CnR guys kill a bunch. You guys should stop being hypocrites. If you've stopped the CnR, then at least you've moved on to zealot from hypocrite.
Post by: Houndhunter on February 24, 2014, 06:49:09 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 06:51:38 PM
The tribes are a bigger concern with their gill nets than sportsman will ever be. I've witnessed countless acts of them raking the river from bank to bank with there nets. Nets kill big fish, and alot of them, it's the small ones who can slip through. Tribes are a way bigger issue, get rid of those damn nets to protect those native runs :twocents::yeah:
Post by: Bullkllr on February 24, 2014, 06:52:33 PM
Awesome fish. :tup:
Sounds like you had a pretty awesome day, too. :tup:
Damn shame that sportsmen crucify each other over differences of opinion.
I personally think that those who play CnR on the nates are way more of a problem than the guy who keeps the fish of a life time. As a matter of fact, I have no issue at all with a guy legally keeping a masher like this (Congrats again, but I am jealous). I do think the CnR guys kill a bunch. You guys should stop being hypocrites. If you've stopped the CnR, then at least you've moved on to zealot from hypocrite.
Personally I support conserving what by all accounts are a really special fish. And Dan, I see some legitimacy to your points, even if by your definition I may be somewhere between a hypocrite and a zealot.
Swatson, congratulations;nice fish, you earned it. :tup:
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 06:58:50 PM
Post by: plugger on February 24, 2014, 07:09:49 PM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 24, 2014, 07:13:03 PM
Great fish Swatson, I know what its like to pursue a goal like this an finally achieve it. Heres the problem though.
Part of the reason that 20# steelhead are the fish of a lifetime now, is because they have been caught and killed for generations. They didn't use to be all that uncommon. But when those fish are killed, those genes are GONE. It might be the only one you kill, but if 30 or 40 other people kill their once in a lifetime 20# fish, those fish won't get to spawn and pass genes on to make more 20# fish. For every one that gets killed, it makes it more and more rare that you will catch one in the future, and
eventually those fish will simply be gone and 20# steelhead will be a thing of the past.
Its a vicious cycle, I know, and I can't blame you for doing something that is legal. Eventually though, I think we as sportsman need to step up and make personal changes to how we utilize a resource, even if the state is willing to .
One of the best ways of explaining reason that i have seen on this forum in a long time! Well said! I love constructive criticism!
Post by: 87Ford on February 24, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
I'm glad that was 16 years ago when I bonked my 26 pound native on the Hump and not today, some of these posters probably would have burned my house down, raped my cattle and rustled my children! :chuckle:
Yeah, you're probably right. Especially since the Hump IS NOT one of the eight rivers from which you can still keep one wild steelhead per year.
No reason to kill wild steelhead... Take a pic and let them go!
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: 87Ford link=topic=148272.msg1966988# :bash:msg1966988 date=1393279012
It may be legal, but those days are over for me. I couldn't kill that fish.
Agreed 100%....
It's funny how many "seasoned" steelhead anglers bonk nates... ALL seasoned anglers that I know, would never intentionally kill native steelhead...
And the only reason there is a kill fishery for native steelhead for non-natives, is because of the tribes... And not because this handful of rivers have met escapement and there is a surplus. In fact 90% of these rivers have not met escapement in a long time...
CnR all native steelhead period.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 24, 2014, 07:36:14 PM
There is only one reason I would not have bonked that fish and that's because I have one bigger on the wall.( Probably wont until I top the one I have). If I do get one bigger, and its legal, I will be looking for a stick. Now if it came from a river were there was no netting, then that might change things, but every river you can keep your 1 a year in gets the living $#$^ netted out of it. That is a hell of a nice fish, A true trophy you will be able to enjoy for ever. Now, this isn't the 80's anymore and if you go to the right place to get that hog mounted, it wont fade or crack and its your fish you will be looking at not a replica.
Never understood the theory of killing more wild steelhead because the tribe is netting the piss put of them. :dunno:
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
it's BS... Because of the way the system works, technically every released fish is there for foregone opportunity and thus allows those released fish to be allocated to the nets. People like to use this to feel better about koi long wild fish...There is only one reason I would not have bonked that fish and that's because I have one bigger on the wall.( Probably wont until I top the one I have). If I do get one bigger, and its legal, I will be looking for a stick. Now if it came from a river were there was no netting, then that might change things, but every river you can keep your 1 a year in gets the living $#$^ netted out of it. That is a hell of a nice fish, A true trophy you will be able to enjoy for ever. Now, this isn't the 80's anymore and if you go to the right place to get that hog mounted, it wont fade or crack and its your fish you will be looking at not a replica.
Never understood the theory of killing more wild steelhead because the tribe is netting the piss put of them. :dunno:
And FYI if you don't want your released fish to be allocated to nets, don't tell your fish checker how many you released.
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 07:43:33 PM
it's BS... Because of the way the system works, technically every released fish is there for foregone opportunity and thus allows those released fish to be allocated to the nets. People like to use this to feel better about killing wild fish...There is only one reason I would not have bonked that fish and that's because I have one bigger on the wall.( Probably wont until I top the one I have). If I do get one bigger, and its legal, I will be looking for a stick. Now if it came from a river were there was no netting, then that might change things, but every river you can keep your 1 a year in gets the living $#$^ netted out of it. That is a hell of a nice fish, A true trophy you will be able to enjoy for ever. Now, this isn't the 80's anymore and if you go to the right place to get that hog mounted, it wont fade or crack and its your fish you will be looking at not a replica.
Never understood the theory of killing more wild steelhead because the tribe is netting the piss put of them. :dunno:
And FYI if you don't want your released fish to be allocated to nets, don't tell your fish checker how many you released.
Post by: plugger on February 24, 2014, 07:43:59 PM
Post by: 3nails on February 24, 2014, 07:44:58 PM
Tony- Is that a native fish in your avatar? Was it released?Quote from: 87Ford link=topic=148272.msg1966988# :bash:msg1966988 date=1393279012It may be legal, but those days are over for me. I couldn't kill that fish.
Agreed 100%....
It's funny how many "seasoned" steelhead anglers bonk nates... ALL seasoned anglers that I know, would never intentionally kill native steelhead...
And the only reason there is a kill fishery for native steelhead for non-natives, is because of the tribes... And not because this handful of rivers have met escapement and there is a surplus. In fact 90% of these rivers have not met escapement in a long time...
CnR all native steelhead period.
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 PM
That fish is a northern b.c. fish...
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 07:59:56 PM
Maybe one of these days I'll share some more of my photos with the board...
Post by: duchunter on February 24, 2014, 08:08:23 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:12:07 PM
Post by: Shane54 on February 24, 2014, 08:13:49 PM
Post by: kenzmad on February 24, 2014, 08:22:08 PM
Sorry, just had to. :chuckle:
Post by: deerlick on February 24, 2014, 08:26:14 PM
Post by: wafisherman on February 24, 2014, 08:40:57 PM
Holding the fish out of water for pictures increases mortality rates. As I said before, if you are truly concerned with wild steelhead stocks, you should not be fishing those waters otherwise you are a hypocrite! By the way, I haven't bonked a native since they made the restriction.
if you know how to fight a fish quickly, remove the fly or lure hook from the corner of the jaw, gently revive while your buddy snaps a few pics... The fish is never fully removed from the water and quickly returns to finish its journey.
I have even taken a few pics myself (nobody with me), and didn't gave to remove the fish from the water - but a friend helping is a huge advantage.
Post by: mallard79 on February 24, 2014, 08:41:12 PM
Ethics, legality, and right or wrong aside. Polar bear hit the nail on the head. Why fish for them at all if you are worried about their survival. Maybe you all do it for the exact same reason he bonked this one.....BECAUSE YOU CAN! Just because you released it and it swam off doesn't mean a damn thing. My guess is that most of you would be up in arms if hey shut the catch and release fisheries down all together.
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:44:18 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:46:08 PM
According to most studies, you are killing fish wether you realize it or not, no matter how "gently" you think you are handling it which makes you no better than the guy who bonks one.Holding the fish out of water for pictures increases mortality rates. As I said before, if you are truly concerned with wild steelhead stocks, you should not be fishing those waters otherwise you are a hypocrite! By the way, I haven't bonked a native since they made the restriction.
if you know how to fight a fish quickly, remove the fly or lure hook from the corner of the jaw, gently revive while your buddy snaps a few pics... The fish is never fully removed from the water and quickly returns to finish its journey.
I have even taken a few pics myself (nobody with me), and didn't gave to remove the fish from the water - but a friend helping is a huge advantage.
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 08:46:50 PM
There is talk about shutting the Clearwater (WA) down to all non tribal fisherman. That is an all native river. The tribes net the living crap out of it.
Please share where you got this???? The Clearwater runs straight out of the park, and through DNR land mostly... The mouth is really the only section on the Quin Rez
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:48:08 PM
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 08:48:43 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:50:04 PM
Post by: Smossy on February 24, 2014, 08:52:18 PM
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 08:52:26 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:56:07 PM
Post by: GoBeavs85 on February 24, 2014, 08:56:13 PM
Great feesh! Congratulations!
I mostly fish rivers where there is no native retention, except for one. If I'm gonna bonk a nate I prefer to bonk a buck. Since the Quinalts are raping the native fishery of hundreds of 20+ natives every year, I have no problem with a regular guy bonking his one nate per year. These fish snobs who show their vitriol for others who legally take one native per year yet boast about how many 20+ nates that they release are actually killing far more than the few guys who keep one per year and only get to fish a couple of times. The non tribal fisherman that are the problem are those who C&R dozens of natives per year. No matter how careful they are, they are still killing a good percentage of what they release. I would rather see some guy be proud and take home his one nate than some fish snob who is inadvertently killing a half dozen or more by thinking they are doing "the right thing". :twocents:
By the way, don't post this on ifish! Those Oregon steelhead elitists will crucify you!
Haha I was skimming and thought I was on ifish until I read this.
Post by: PolarBear on February 24, 2014, 08:57:14 PM
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
I also read an article where the tribe out of Lapush was trying to trade land in the Clearwater and another river system to move part of their reservation because of tsunami danger. I wish that I would have kept that article. I don't really see how they could get away with that. :dunno:
Yeah, that was the quileute tribe that was screaming that they were below the tsunami zone... They were granted park land just up the road from La push...
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 09:10:24 PM
Post by: Halo on February 24, 2014, 09:46:16 PM
Post by: Smossy on February 24, 2014, 09:48:59 PM
Wow, note to self, don't post on HuntWa, especially pic's.That's old news!
Post by: _TONY_ on February 24, 2014, 10:02:44 PM
You are correct, I am assuming it has spawned before - I have always understood that steelies achieving that size have spawned multiple times. If that is not the case, I'll stand corrected on that one point about this fish having already met its biological imperative. If someone has some info to share about that, I'd appreciate it...
Most times the fish's size is directly linked to how long it was at sea, before reaching sexual maturity the first time... Ie 1-salt 2-salt 3-salt 4-salt
This has been proven by pit tag data...
Post by: huntnnw on February 24, 2014, 10:09:19 PM
I'm not gonna bag on ya for bonkin a nate. BUT...if I were in your shoes, I would have taken a handful of pictures and measurements. Then slip her back in the river. Skin mounts don't last as long or look as good. But congrats on a beauty. I'm still chasing the 20 pound mark. Been close, but no cigar.
:yeah:
Post by: Forks on February 25, 2014, 01:18:42 AM
There is talk about shutting the Clearwater (WA) down to all non tribal fisherman. That is an all native river. The tribes net the living crap out of it.A half dozen hatchery fish came out of it last weekend.
Post by: fish vacuum on February 25, 2014, 02:40:44 AM
This is one of the greatest myths about how big fish come into existence. The biological imperative of every fish is satisfied on its first successful spawn. Anything after that is gravy. How many times has this fish spawned? 3,4,5 times?
Few steelhead survive for repeated spawning trips. Fish making it back to the salt don't put on much weight because their bodies are focused on recovering and not growing. Making it up the river, spawning, then going back out is hard on their bodies.
Post by: fish vacuum on February 25, 2014, 02:53:07 AM
So I guess the state has mismanaged every other steelhead fishery we have, but they're getting it right when they say the OP steelhead runs are healthy enough for sports harvest.
Post by: Wanttohuntmore on February 25, 2014, 05:03:53 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 25, 2014, 05:33:33 AM
Post by: whitey on February 25, 2014, 06:28:38 AM
Its not like he puts everyone he catches on his wall. :yike:
I would like to see them tossed back, but he wanted to keep it.
So what!! :bash:
Nice fish..Would love to see the mount when you get it back, now I will take my ban and be back in a month or so.
P.S.. I cant see the difference between a big fish or bonking a monster mulley or Bull. WTF is the difference..None.. :twocents:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 25, 2014, 06:40:26 AM
Post by: jackmaster on February 25, 2014, 06:42:50 AM
Get out of his a$$ you bunch of tape worms. :dunno:just out of curiousity, do the tribes net this river that this sweet steeli was caught :dunno: if it is, you guys on your high horse saying i would of done this and i would have done that as long as it didnt end with crackn that fish upside the head, need to go preach your all high and mightyness somewhere else, nets do more damage than a sportsmans hook and line.....oh and at one time wasnt the puyallup river one of the best steelhead fisheries in the world :dunno: i believe it was :tup: well what do you think happened to that river :dunno: it damn sure wasnt the hook and line that destroyed it, was it :dunno:
Its not like he puts everyone he catches on his wall. :yike:
I would like to see them tossed back, but he wanted to keep it.
So what!! :bash:
Nice fish..Would love to see the mount when you get it back, now I will take my ban and be back in a month or so.
P.S.. I cant see the difference between a big fish or bonking a monster mulley or Bull. WTF is the difference..None.. :twocents:
Post by: Smossy on February 25, 2014, 06:47:20 AM
What a bunch of tools! :bash: A guy catches "his" trophy, does nothing wrong and some just have to bash on the guy. Get a life, you overgrown babies. Nice fish man, post a pic when the mount is done. :tup::yeah: :tup:
Post by: HTCS on February 25, 2014, 06:59:09 AM
These a$&holes can't figure it out...that was a big day for you and all your catching is hell. I learned a long time ago not to post stories or pictures on here because I'd catch nothing but crap about what I did or didn't do, how I did it wrong, etc, etc, etc. Your fellow "sportsman" ruined a totally legal experience for you. You guys are a bunch of a$%hats.
Nice fish!!!! Post pics when it's on your all!!!
Chief
Post by: Bullkllr on February 25, 2014, 07:10:06 AM
Post by: jackmaster on February 25, 2014, 07:14:39 AM
I vote for continuing the discussion in a different thread to deflect opinions away from the OP.:yeah: to bad swatson has even got to come back and enjoy the few compliments he has gotton, friggin sucks that he has to get bashed for somethn that is legal
Post by: ICEMAN on February 25, 2014, 07:15:25 AM
Great fish and congratulations!!!
Bullkllr, great idea. I am heading to work now, but maybe another mod may take a look at clean up....if not, I may do this tonight.
Post by: Cap.Silver on February 25, 2014, 08:00:09 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 25, 2014, 08:05:48 AM
BTW to the OP, Nice fish.
Post by: Swatson on February 25, 2014, 08:29:25 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 25, 2014, 08:43:52 AM
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on February 25, 2014, 09:19:37 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 25, 2014, 09:24:59 AM
Nice job catching a great looking fish.
PMan
Post by: PolarBear on February 25, 2014, 11:14:12 AM
AAAAAMEN!
Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2014, 11:40:27 AM
Post by: TheHunt on February 25, 2014, 11:47:21 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 25, 2014, 11:48:07 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 25, 2014, 12:44:24 PM
People are passionate about Steelhead as I know I am.
This is an understatement!
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://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/documents/CR%20survival%20of%20winter%20sth%20AFS%202005.pdf)
http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/Repository/WSR%20rpt%20full.pdf (http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/Repository/WSR%20rpt%20full.pdf) Especially chapter 4
Post by: Swatson on February 25, 2014, 01:07:49 PM
Post by: wafisherman on February 25, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
According to most studies, you are killing fish wether you realize it or not, no matter how "gently" you think you are handling it which makes you no better than the guy who bonks one.Holding the fish out of water for pictures increases mortality rates. As I said before, if you are truly concerned with wild steelhead stocks, you should not be fishing those waters otherwise you are a hypocrite! By the way, I haven't bonked a native since they made the restriction.
if you know how to fight a fish quickly, remove the fly or lure hook from the corner of the jaw, gently revive while your buddy snaps a few pics... The fish is never fully removed from the water and quickly returns to finish its journey.
I have even taken a few pics myself (nobody with me), and didn't gave to remove the fish from the water - but a friend helping is a huge advantage.
Of course there is a mortality rate, but it is very low IF you know how to fight a fish and aren't throat\gut\gill hooking them using bait... So if there is a 5% mortality rate (pulling a number out of my a$$ since I don't have time to look it up... even assuming they have a study like this for native steelhead on our coastal rivers and take into account the duration of the fight, how hard it flopped in the boat or rocks, and where it was hooked) then it would still be way better than the 100% mortality rate of bonking the fish.
But I'm not knocking the OP. It is a nice fish. But knowing how this stuff works on the internet, I'd have gone about it differently. Have your buddy getting a cool shot of you tailing the fish. Head in the water at least half way. No fingers in gills or giving a death squeeze or holding over rocks or a boat... Post THAT picture on the internet. Then guess what I'd do with that fish? Trick question since it would be none of your business and I wouldn't tell either way. And the internet police would have nothing to cry about and you wouldn't be encouraging others to bonk native fish and post them all over the internet as well. Win win.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 25, 2014, 01:21:35 PM
Even if we stop the tribes wont. They will cry foregone oppertunity.
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.
Post by: TheHunt on February 25, 2014, 01:29:40 PM
I would bet we would not see any change.
I think the WDFW should be focused on having more fishing opportunities in the rivers. Native fish at a statewide view... Well, either they are all gone or they are so deluded it really does not matter.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 25, 2014, 01:33:42 PM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 25, 2014, 01:37:54 PM
You have to stop the nets first! Then you could have a limited kill and a c and r fishery. We need to take lessons from our northern neighbors. Look what this has done for the Skeena system. Except they have no kill fishery. But I believe a c and r season is the same as a limited kill season. You just dont get to bonk and eat in a c and r season.
Even with there c and r season, the fish are making a comeback! granted these are BIG fish with completely different genitics and are much stronger during there fisheries. These fish come up in Sept thru Nov. Winter and feed under the ice, then spawn in June. So when there being tergeted. Sept thru Nov. There much stronger and still months from spawning.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 25, 2014, 03:15:22 PM
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 :twocents:
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.
Post by: REHJWA on February 25, 2014, 04:26:21 PM
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 25, 2014, 04:38:41 PM
I believe the issue that needs to be address is the miss management of the resource!:yeah: Management has been quite the mess, hasn't it?
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.
Looking at the progression throughout the Puget Sound area- from catch & keep - to wild release - to full blown closures, it's pretty clear that's the way the WDFW prefers to manage. I think a lot of fishermen (myself included) see what has happened around the state and think it's only a matter of time for the peninsula rivers too. There are steelhead fisheries that attract tons of fishermen that coexist with catch & release rules. Tons of guys would love to be able to c & r on the Puget Sound rivers right now. Who knows if we'll ever see that again :dunno:
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 25, 2014, 04:43:06 PM
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?
Post by: REHJWA on February 25, 2014, 08:47:01 PM
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 05:47:43 AM
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 :twocents:
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,...
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 06:21:27 AM
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.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 06:28:10 AM
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 :twocents:
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!
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 06:47:27 AM
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 :twocents:
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://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/documents/CR%20survival%20of%20winter%20sth%20AFS%202005.pdf)
http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/Repository/WSR%20rpt%20full.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
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 07:02:23 AM
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 08:06:53 AM
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 (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.
Post by: 7mmfan on February 26, 2014, 08:13:18 AM
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.
Post by: TheHunt on February 26, 2014, 08:20:16 AM
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.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 08:40:29 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 08:49:13 AM
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.
Post by: Curly on February 26, 2014, 08:52:48 AM
Post by: TheHunt on February 26, 2014, 08:56:52 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 09:12:05 AM
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.
Post by: Gobble Doc on February 26, 2014, 10:23:15 AM
Post by: snowpack on February 26, 2014, 10:29:26 AM
Post by: PolarBear on February 26, 2014, 10:49:01 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
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 :dunno: -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...
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 11:13:29 AM
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.
Post by: 87Ford on February 26, 2014, 11:37:05 AM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2014, 12:09:18 PM
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... :twocents:
Post by: duchunter on February 26, 2014, 12:09:46 PM
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?
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 12:12:08 PM
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?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.
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... :twocents:
Post by: Rick on February 26, 2014, 12:17:15 PM
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.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 12:19:54 PM
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... :twocents:
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 12:30:42 PM
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... :twocents:
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?
Post by: WSU on February 26, 2014, 12:31:47 PM
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... :twocents:
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.
Post by: deltaops on February 26, 2014, 12:47:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2014, 12:48:07 PM
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... :twocents:
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?
Quote
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?
Post by: TheHunt on February 26, 2014, 01:17:03 PM
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. :-)
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 01:27:20 PM
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.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 01:31:34 PM
Well that can be a tough one. The problem with the Quilliute system is its managed as a whole. The Solduc, Bogy, Calawah, Dicky and Quilliute. The indianss net in the Quiliute, so if one rivers escapement is way to low, there still netting those fish. Indians also dont report there catches honestly. If they did they might just get shut down by tribal councils. If they care enough for the resource.
I think on a good year a river like the Duc could see 2000 fish in a season.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 01:51:06 PM
Quote
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?
Im not sure what you mean? The netting isnt to the point of extinction yet. But someday could be.
Post by: snowpack on February 26, 2014, 02:09:18 PM
Other than the fact that Steel Head are Sea Run Rainbows, what are the differences between a Rainbow and a Steel Head?legally it's 20 inches. Below 20 in a river where they could access the salt they are considered rainbows, over 20 and they are called steelhead. They can breed with each other, and I've heard 10-15% of steelhead are spawned by resident trout that never went to sea. When they go to sea they grow faster because they eat better--squid/shrimp/large baitfish vs bugs/minnows. Some go to sea, some don't. And when they come back, most go back to where they were spawned from, but some stray into different rivers. They were originally from Mexico and worked their way up the coast as the ice sheet retreated during the last ice age.
Post by: deltaops on February 26, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
Other than the fact that Steel Head are Sea Run Rainbows, what are the differences between a Rainbow and a Steel Head?legally it's 20 inches. Below 20 in a river where they could access the salt they are considered rainbows, over 20 and they are called steelhead. They can breed with each other, and I've heard 10-15% of steelhead are spawned by resident trout that never went to sea. When they go to sea they grow faster because they eat better--squid/shrimp/large baitfish vs bugs/minnows. Some go to sea, some don't. And when they come back, most go back to where they were spawned from, but some stray into different rivers. They were originally from Mexico and worked their way up the coast as the ice sheet retreated during the last ice age.
Does it say anything in the Regs about this? I couldn't find it, maybe I didn't look hard enough. :dunno: I have never targeted Steel Head when I am fishing the Rivers or Lakes.
Post by: 7mmfan on February 26, 2014, 03:00:17 PM
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... :twocents:
The one and only wild steelhead I kept was when I was 11 years old, and Dad put an end to killing wild fish shortly there after. That is part of the reason I'm so passionate about it.
Also, as has already been said, there doesn't have to be enough fish in the system for the Indians to continue netting them. THey do whatever they want. Its publicized on the OP because there is a lot of sportfishing going on there, but the other Puget Sound tribes net the Snohomish, Stilliguamish, and Skagit, despite the fact that those rivers have not been open for wild steelhead retention in YEARS, and have been shut down for C&R for YEARS as well. They're still killin them.
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2014, 03:06:16 PM
Quote
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?
Im not sure what you mean? The netting isnt to the point of extinction yet. But someday could be.
Sorry for confusion...
You said to shut it all down to prevent extinction, but the treaty says they can't harvest to extinction. :dunno:
Thanks for all the info.
The one and only wild steelhead I kept was when I was 11 years old, and Dad put an end to killing wild fish shortly there after. That is part of the reason I'm so passionate about it.
Also, as has already been said, there doesn't have to be enough fish in the system for the Indians to continue netting them. THey do whatever they want. Its publicized on the OP because there is a lot of sportfishing going on there, but the other Puget Sound tribes net the Snohomish, Stilliguamish, and Skagit, despite the fact that those rivers have not been open for wild steelhead retention in YEARS, and have been shut down for C&R for YEARS as well. They're still killin them.
My point was that the guy who got bashed only kept one fish.
I definitely agree, too bad they can't stop the netting on the streams with no possession and no C&R.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 03:20:12 PM
Quote
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?
Im not sure what you mean? The netting isnt to the point of extinction yet. But someday could be.
Sorry for confusion...
You said to shut it all down to prevent extinction, but the treaty says they can't harvest to extinction. :dunno:
Thanks for all the info.The one and only wild steelhead I kept was when I was 11 years old, and Dad put an end to killing wild fish shortly there after. That is part of the reason I'm so passionate about it.
Also, as has already been said, there doesn't have to be enough fish in the system for the Indians to continue netting them. THey do whatever they want. Its publicized on the OP because there is a lot of sportfishing going on there, but the other Puget Sound tribes net the Snohomish, Stilliguamish, and Skagit, despite the fact that those rivers have not been open for wild steelhead retention in YEARS, and have been shut down for C&R for YEARS as well. They're still killin them.
My point was that the guy who got bashed only kept one fish.
I definitely agree, too bad they can't stop the netting on the streams with no possession and no C&R.
If the manage it as system how will they know if they net the last pair on a given stream? ;)
Even if its one stream, how do they know?
What if the bulk of the run did not make it back due to bad ocean conditions ect. They have a preseason forecast. But how often is that right? ;)
Post by: deltaops on February 26, 2014, 03:52:28 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 04:03:34 PM
So when two hatchery Steel Heads spawn do the smelt now become native?
Smelt= Eulacheon- Candlefish are all native as far as I am aware.
Smolt=immature steelhead/steelhead heading out to sea.
Answer would be "sorta". Progeny of hatchery fish would be classified as "wild" if not native. Most hatchery steelhead are not native to the river they are released in. Hatchery fish are really ineffective spawners- studies show them producing very few viable adult returns in the next generation.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 26, 2014, 04:04:50 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 04:08:42 PM
In my book they do. That's why I say there's no true native "Steel Heads" anymore in certain areas. :chuckle:
Just curious... what's funny about that?
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on February 26, 2014, 04:16:55 PM
In my book they do. That's why I say there's no true native "Steel Heads" anymore in certain areas. :chuckle:
Just curious... what's funny about that?
He put a quote around "Steel heads". They would be called Steelhead...
Post by: Bullkllr on February 26, 2014, 04:37:17 PM
Thanks. Missed that. I thoght the "smelt" was quite a bit funnier.In my book they do. That's why I say there's no true native "Steel Heads" anymore in certain areas. :chuckle:
Just curious... what's funny about that?
He put a quote around "Steel heads". They would be called Steelhead...
Post by: fish vacuum on February 26, 2014, 06:35:51 PM
but the other Puget Sound tribes net the Snohomish, Stilliguamish, and Skagit, despite the fact that those rivers have not been open for wild steelhead retention in YEARS, and have been shut down for C&R for YEARS as well. They're still killin them.
Any nets in the Stillaguamish right now are illegal. The tribe hasn't netted the Stilly for steelhead in years. Their season during the hatchery run last year was their first in a long time but didn't draw any participants. It's not worth their time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Tulalips have given up on steelhead in the Snohomish too.
Post by: whitey on February 26, 2014, 09:03:59 PM
This topic was split so the ones who want to discuss the politics of fishing can continue. Do not post your rants on the original topic where the guy was showing us photos of his fish.
Maybe best in the "off topics" area. Then I can really flame the Na Sayers. :bash:
Nice fish. :tup:
Whitey..OUT!!~!
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2014, 09:12:06 PM
:tup: Good answer...the anadromous form can produce resident off-spring and vice-versa.Other than the fact that Steel Head are Sea Run Rainbows, what are the differences between a Rainbow and a Steel Head?legally it's 20 inches. Below 20 in a river where they could access the salt they are considered rainbows, over 20 and they are called steelhead. They can breed with each other, and I've heard 10-15% of steelhead are spawned by resident trout that never went to sea. When they go to sea they grow faster because they eat better--squid/shrimp/large baitfish vs bugs/minnows. Some go to sea, some don't. And when they come back, most go back to where they were spawned from, but some stray into different rivers.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on February 27, 2014, 09:35:12 AM
In my book they do. That's why I say there's no true native "Steel Heads" anymore in certain areas. :chuckle:the beef with that whole argument isn't that the fish aren't genetically pure to a certain drainage, but that hatchery fish are pretty lousy at reproducing in the wild. once a fish spawns in the gravel, it's offspring are wild...but the odds are, those fish will never come back to the river. if they do, they will spawn and recruit more offspring though, just at a much lower rate than fish that were wild to begin with. it's natural selection in fast-forward in this case.
it's too bad that they don't reproduce like bass or perch, we wouldn't have to have this conversation.
Post by: HUNT-HARD on February 27, 2014, 11:41:56 AM
Post by: Swatson on February 27, 2014, 12:49:32 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 27, 2014, 03:11:42 PM
Punch card? What's a punch card :dunno: lol. On a serious note this has been a very informative discussion as I've been following along. Definitely some guys on here that are much smarter and more knowledgeable about some of this stuff than me. It doesn't hurt my feelings if someone was bothered by what happened as I get it. People get passionate about certain things, god knows I've gotten fired up about certain things on here as well!
It's all good, bro! :brew: If nothing happened to spur discussion this would be a pretty worthless and boring forum.
This is topic very worthy of discussion. The more attention it gets the better imo!
Post by: YoterHunter on February 27, 2014, 09:35:34 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 27, 2014, 11:27:21 PM
I've been reading this for awhile decided to put my two cents in . I'm over 50 and I've fished river sense I was a kid . A lot of these natives are not true nates . There hatchery fish that did not get clipped . Plus I have seen hatchery fish spon in river . So a lot of your true natives are not even a native. A lot of rivers they don't clip all the fins on the fish so they will get more returns to the hatcherys. Look at the Columbia river if I emember right 3 tribes admitted to the state that they dident clip all the fins. So when it comes back it's a native to us but it's really a hatchery fish so the fish go up river to be netted. So taking the so called native is a bad thing . So fish exsperts how do you know what's what. : :twocents:
To find out what the fish experts know about what's what, I might suggest going to them.
This link http://nativefishsociety.org/index.php/science-research/wild-vs-hatchery-salmonid-interactions/ (http://nativefishsociety.org/index.php/science-research/wild-vs-hatchery-salmonid-interactions/) connects to many studies and reports on the exact topic. It is a lot to sort through. And even though it is on the Native Fish Society website the research is independent. It's not all slanted to favor native fish proponents' opinions- but it is where the research is. I don't know of any "Anti-Native Fish Group" posting scientific data.
From the standpoint of a fisherman who has experienced a little and learned a little from the science (take it for what it's worth- but you seemed to be asking a sincere question so I'll do my best...), I would say what you mention in your post is pretty much true (in general). That said, I would like to point toward some possible exceptions in the case of Oly Pen steelhead.
(I'm over 50 and have been fishing rivers for as long as I can remember, too- for what it's worth).
Hatchery fish intrusion into native populations has been happening in some streams for over 100 years. The hatchery fish have impacts on the wilds by competing with them in the given habitat, as well as through interbreeding. It is generally considered fact that wild salmon and steelhead populations are impacted negatively wherever hatchery fish are present.
This has in part resulted in wild steelhead finding their way onto the Endangered Species List throughout the Puget Sound Basin, the Strait of Juan De Fuca drainages, all of South West Washington rivers, and all of the Columbia river tributaries in Washington (I'm covering only WA here-but you can throw in most streams in Ore. and all of Ida. and Cal. if you want). The only wild steelhead populations to so far avoid ESA listing (and the restrictions that follow) are in a handful of streams on the Oly Pen. And those are the streams at issue in this recent discussion- they are the only ones in the entire region where wild steelhead sport harvest is still allowed.
Back to your point... in many areas where hatchery plants were made early and over a period of decades, combined with other impacts to the native fish (habitat and harvest, namely) it may indeed be difficult to find a true "native" fish or to separate the genetics of a hatchery fish from a wild-spawned fish in the same river.
Take the Cowlitz for example. Massive hatchery plants and dams built without fish passage have combined to nearly obliterate the wild fish. Some say they are gone completely- the state/feds claim some still exist and are trying to rebuild the wild run (which is required under ESA). This leaves sport-fishermen feeling stabbed in the back as hatchery plants are curtailed and the river is producing fish at something like 10% of what it did a decade or so ago.
Back to the Oly Pen streams... what has kept wild steelhead populations there more viable (and so far avoiding ESA listing) is the fact that the habitat conditions are generally better than elsewhere
(the headwaters of those rivers are all in ONP) and the fact that compared to other streams in Washington state, hatchery intrusion has not been as evident. Reasons for this include fewer rivers planted, a shorter history of plantings, plantings focused on the lower ends of the rivers, etc. Timing of returns/spawning is a factor too, but many consider the early-run native-component to be nearly gone as they show up at the same time as the (Chamber's creek stock) hatchery fish and are inter-bred and harvested at a higher rate than later returning wilds.
So yeah, I think you could make a case for the wild steelhead on the peninsula rivers being more genetically "native" than anywhere on the continent outside of BC and Alaska. That and the overwhelmingly bleak situation of surrounding wild populations makes treating them with care pretty important.
Post by: chukar58 on February 28, 2014, 02:19:58 AM
Post by: Forks on February 28, 2014, 03:57:22 AM
I've been reading this for awhile decided to put my two cents in . I'm over 50 and I've fished river sense I was a kid . A lot of these natives are not true nates . There hatchery fish that did not get clipped . Plus I have seen hatchery fish spon in river . So a lot of your true natives are not even a native. A lot of rivers they don't clip all the fins on the fish so they will get more returns to the hatcherys. Look at the Columbia river if I emember right 3 tribes admitted to the state that they dident clip all the fins. So when it comes back it's a native to us but it's really a hatchery fish so the fish go up river to be netted. So taking the so called native is a bad thing . So fish exsperts how do you know what's what. : :twocents:Common practice everywhere. The upper Quinault hatchery, on the lake, only clips 10% of their fish. Right or wrong, it's the only reason we are fishing in many systems including the ocean.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 28, 2014, 06:11:34 AM
"Native Fish Society" equals NO FISHING SOCIETY....... Enough said.
I see your point...More said.. they have a ton of independent research linked to their website. Cuz bein' informed iz impotent. I'm sure some of it reinforces their agenda, but I can vouch that some does not. It does represent some of the best science available. It might actually make sense, or even be true...
Post by: chukar58 on February 28, 2014, 07:16:29 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 28, 2014, 07:55:25 AM
Honestly... If the steelhead and salmon hatcheries were as evil as the Native Fish Society wants the public to believe most runs of salmon and steelhead along the west coast should be extinct. The Wild Fish Society has purchased studies and research to fit into their agenda and to brainwash the public and politicians. Close all the hatcheries and the closure of sport fishing for salmon and steelhead will be next. A balance of naturally reproducing salmon and steelhead and hatchery reared fish is the solution to keep our fish runs healthy and productive.
I couldn't agree more with that last idea.
So are you saying that wild steelhead/salmon being listed under the ESA- and the impacts on state hatchery practices because of that- is purely a conspiracy generated by the NFS who concocted the science to fit their agenda?... seems kinda far-fetched considering a lot of the independent science pre-dates the existence of the NFS.
And I'm not saying I'm buying whatever the NFS is selling by any means- but like I said- where is the "Hatchery Fish Society" linked data to compare it to?
As far as wild runs going extinct- I think you could find evidence that quite a few actually have... obviously not only due to hatchery fish displacing them.
Post by: WSU on February 28, 2014, 11:52:59 AM
Post by: snowpack on February 28, 2014, 12:20:43 PM
Post by: deltaops on February 28, 2014, 12:22:28 PM
So if steelhead are just searun rainbows, I am pretty sure steelhead would never go extinct unless we killed all the rainbows in the world. We may have some low numbers in WA Rivers but as long as we have rainbows we will have steelhead.
Post by: snowpack on February 28, 2014, 12:57:31 PM
So if steelhead are just searun rainbows, I am pretty sure steelhead would never go extinct unless we killed all the rainbows in the world. We may have some low numbers in WA Rivers but as long as we have rainbows we will have steelhead.Kind of. On the whole, extinction is unlikely; because as you pointed out they are rainbow trout. The issue for the fish groups is distinct population segments and basin/river specific genetics. The fish have a certain percent that stray into other rivers and change up the genetics from time to time naturally--some of it makes a better suited fish and they carry on, some are less suited and die off. The stray rate/genetic change is kind of slow going, so it could take a while for fish at one end of a coast to recolonize and then have strong runs all the way to the other end of that coast. The fastest way to get a fish population back for a specific area would likely be to use the fish that have already gone through a few thousand years of living in that specific river. One of the issues going around now is whether or not to use wild fish for hatchery donors. Although I think most any steelhead would with enough time eventually get to that same point. Example being that an out of basin steelhead can be used at a hatchery and can successfully make it back up river--so it already shows it has most of the characteristics to survive. Some places the difference might be run timing or number of years in salt water that make or break the long term survival.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 28, 2014, 04:09:13 PM
Nice post.So if steelhead are just searun rainbows, I am pretty sure steelhead would never go extinct unless we killed all the rainbows in the world. We may have some low numbers in WA Rivers but as long as we have rainbows we will have steelhead.Kind of. On the whole, extinction is unlikely; because as you pointed out they are rainbow trout. The issue for the fish groups is distinct population segments and basin/river specific genetics. The fish have a certain percent that stray into other rivers and change up the genetics from time to time naturally--some of it makes a better suited fish and they carry on, some are less suited and die off. The stray rate/genetic change is kind of slow going, so it could take a while for fish at one end of a coast to recolonize and then have strong runs all the way to the other end of that coast. The fastest way to get a fish population back for a specific area would likely be to use the fish that have already gone through a few thousand years of living in that specific river. One of the issues going around now is whether or not to use wild fish for hatchery donors. Although I think most any steelhead would with enough time eventually get to that same point. Example being that an out of basin steelhead can be used at a hatchery and can successfully make it back up river--so it already shows it has most of the characteristics to survive. Some places the difference might be run timing or number of years in salt water that make or break the long term survival.
So in other words, it probably wouldn't work very well to try to rebuild a steelhead run by planting a bunch of resident rainbow. If it did work, it would take so many generations that none of us would likely see the results.
I found this read on the topic somewhat interesting: http://mag.audubon.org/articles/blog/fishy-date-steelhead-and-rainbow-trout-mingle-northwest (http://mag.audubon.org/articles/blog/fishy-date-steelhead-and-rainbow-trout-mingle-northwest) Exerpt: "But Christie’s team found “there’s very little genes being contribute by these hatchery fish"
To "Example being that an out of basin steelhead can be used at a hatchery and can successfully make it back up river--so it already shows it has most of the characteristics to survive. Some places the difference might be run timing or number of years in salt water that make or break the long term survival." I would add spawning success/adult recruitment; as most hatchery fish are notoriously poor at producing more returning adults (in the short-term, at least) even if they do spawn in the wild. I know you're thinking long term over generations and I'm sure there would be some adaptation- but who knows how many generations that may take? One reason the WDFW still uses Chamber Creek winter stock (besides early run-timing) is that they're such bad spawners the thought is they may not impact wild fish as much as more "productive" hatchery stock might.
Post by: snowpack on February 28, 2014, 07:06:50 PM