Don't bother On the stilly

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TROUTsniffer, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. This is true. But don't forget, this isn't a good thing for nature either:
    I'm not a fan of gillnetting. But I can't claim that what I do when I go fishing is "good" for the river.
    Craig Pablo likes this.
  2. I read it. Thanks for trying to explain it to me but I think alot of people don't like to debate how horrid the practice of gillnetting rivers is and find any excuse to change the subjuct. Again thanks for trying help me understand.
  3. Evan you can choose to release protected fish alive in most cases. Evan have you ever killed a seal? Sea lion? Beaver? Otter? Mink? Ducks? or dog with your hook? Some say gillnets have. If true. Killing that indiscriminate it's WRONG.

    Comparing a hook to gillnet? That's like comparing a rifle to poison gas.
  4. I don't know guys, I see both sides. It's hard to see the gillnetts. Though it's a sad state of affairs what has been done to the Native Americans. In fact, they were doing a pretty good job of taking care of the land and rivers before settlers came and figured out how they could make a buck.

    Just trying to think big picture here...
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  5. that's not what i took away from evan's post. the value judgement on gillnetting a river is simple, as you say. but the issues and interests and many stakeholders involved surrounding that very fine philosophical point are anything but simple. there are a lot of moral choices you can surgically isolate from their context, call them black and white, and then back into the idea of simplifying the whole context along with them. the problem is someone on the other side of the issue has done the same thing with another moral choice within the wider issue, and feels just as strongly as you do. both choices look black and white when they stand alone, but when they are in conflict and both demand a decision, black and white departs the discussion. that's real life man.

    so, to me, i can acknowledge that gill-netting a river is always bad. but if you want that black and white premise to rule this entire issue, you'll have to to surrender the equally valid premise that breaking a treaty and trampling the rights of other human beings is also always bad.
    triploidjunkie and underachiever like this.
  6. Agreed on all points. The problem with arguing, however, is that neither side comes to the table to be convinced. Everyone in the conflict just wants to win the argument. So we're just going to keep spinning our tires.
  7. I gillnetted for years and I only ever caught a handfull of greebes in all those years , oh and enough salmon to pay for my house, never caught a beaver ,otter, mink or a dog except the salmon kind .Seals just tore holes in my net as they pulled fish out of it. The size of the mesh determins what size fish you catch which is highly regulated so you don't target unwanted spieces. That said, if you are against native american tribal netting stay out of thier casinos
    Old Man likes this.
  8. Really - gillnetting is always wrong? That's kind of an interesting proposition. One would think that at best, the answer should be "it depends." I'm not saying we're there on a consistent basis, but if the co-managers can figure out through sound scientific modeling how many fish can be caught by treaty fishermen and still meet conservation goals, who are we to tell the natives how they should take their share? Seems kind of paternalistic. Have we, a community that generally exhibits no moral wobbliness about the killing of all manner of mammals and fowl to provide materials for our flies, decided that all fish everywhere are somehow so sacred that it is morally repugnant to catch them using gill nets? I personally don't think I'm in any position to make that sort of moral value judgment. One thing for sure is that when the persons setting the nets are native, you can guaranty a much higher level of venom than if they are non-natives. (Yes, there are plenty of non-native commercial fisheries up and down the US and Canadian coast that use gill nets.) Hmmm . . . I wonder why that is?
  9. your spelling is improving
  10. Oh my kiss and bennybuddy if you go back a re-read my posts they state on a regular basis I am talking about gillnetting in rivers. If you don't want to find it I will tell you right now I am talking about the use of gillnets in rivers. I am happy that under less dire circumstances you made some money but under the conditions today gillnetting rivers is wrong.

    As far as your race baiting I have never mentioned anyone in this debate just the tactic of indiscriminate killing you seem to endorse. So save your pathetic rhetoric for the political forums this is about saving the enviroment. Did you know every river in Puget Sound was closed down this spring due to the dire state of the fishery? Sound like the good ole days to you guys?
  11. Thread of the year, Thread of the year, Thrad of the yea! Just had to throw that last one in there.
  12. Sport fishing on dimmished fish stocks is wrong, but last year I saw plenty of FLYFISHERS targeting chums on the skagit under the disguise of humpy fishing even thou there was no season for them. The reality is that there is not enough fish to go around with the present population that exsist.
  13. Save the environment...Get used to disappointment.

    A lot of us on the wet side are pretty aware of the situation here. So, from the eastsie, how may days have you spent recently on the Nooksack, Skagit, Sauk, Stillaguamish? More than a hundred in the last year? Have you had a chat with some of the biologists/fisheries scientists on the Skagit or Stillaguamish lately over a brew?

    As KerryS said, we most all agree over here that gillnets can be detrimental to stocks in some cases but if you aren't really aware of whose who in the treaty fishing world, you risk sounding like you're talking out of your ass. Again, there's good co-managers and bad co-managers.

    Each watershed, management criteria, tribe, species and gillnetting impact is inherently, markedly different. If this were a private enterprise and I managed it, there's two biologists that are non-treaty that I'd have no problem firing immediately.

    Double D is noticeably absent. He must be wise or fishing; or, both. I think I'll join him in either case.
  14. Gillnetting rivers is bad for the enviroment.

    If you want to take up the issue of a Chum shortage on the Skagit due to law breaking flyfishermen have at I'm sure you can really complain your ass off but I think you are just enjoy changing the subject in trying to justify your own issues as a race baiter.

    Back to the Skagit did you call the authorities? If you see poaching you need to call the Hotline 360-902-2936 otherwise you are part of the problem. Did you call the hotline? Or is this more garbage to change the subject?
    troutpounder likes this.
  15. Ouch. You tried to play grammar police first. Sadly, yours sucks. "Should have" would be appropriate instead of "should of."
    Maybe I'll post some more on this thrilling topic after a few beers.
  16. Grew up fishing the Stilly, Pilchuck and Sky. Moved away 13 years ago to work on solid ground. Did I have to fish last year to have a voice in watching a the fishery I grew up on being destroyed? Kind of silly to think that talking to scientist in the face of such dire fishery conditions makes you feel comfortable enough to come on here and stifle debate.

    Is there something offensive about the issue? I keep trying to stay on subjet but it keeps coming back to other issues like grammar, race baiting and now geographical bias. Hookedonthefly why don't I find a similar complaint anywhere in the string concerning the Klick and fishing from the boat? Seems like lots of westsiders have an opinon on the Ronde or the Klick are you telling them to keep it to themselves if they didn't fish that river last year? If not it's seems like simple hypocrisy to try pull that garbage on me.
  17. this is why i've quit posting, because, for one, everyone has his/her own opinion of the matter for a reason, and truly believes theres is the right one. After that, it's human nature to try to force/prove your opinion to everyone else (i.e; religion)
    i didn't think this thread would escalate to what it is and is not what i intended. I then explained my OPINION in very black and white layman's terms which sparked some serios anger and accusations. I do apologize for a couple of the things i said after i was called a bigot, rascist, uneducated, shots at my family and upbringing etc... So some of the comments i made were wrong and again, i apologize. Nevertheless, my OPINION of native american rights and gillnets are, in fact, what I believe.
    now please don't bash my grammar and/or punctuation in my apology
  18. The subject seemed to be gillnetting the Stillaguamish according to the origian post. I did deviate from the original topic somewhat; but, IMHO, the OP was way off base regarding his opinions about this particular co-manager and their practices.

    I'm relatively comfortable saying, these Puget Sound rivers have not been "destroyed" in the last 13 years since you moved.

    The reasons behind the demise of these fisheries is both straightford and complex. The list goes on and on. In some to a lot of cases, the "best" science of the past has been far more detrimental to our stocks than treaty fishing rights. For someone to say something about the limited gillnetting by the Stillaguamish tribe is ignorant.

    Check the logging history on Deer Creek. It's pathetic.

    I spent 17 nights on the GR last Sept/Oct. In fact, the 3 raft stack in my avatar was taken on the GR. I have opinions about those other geographical tributaries; but, I don't know that I'd feel very comfortable vehemently voicing such. I'd be happy to listen and learn in that case.
  19. my netting comments weren't based towards the stillaguamish tribe only, and again, it was more a thread to tell people to maybe pick a different spot to fish (how many times have i stated this now?)
    hookedonthefly likes this.
  20. Here is what I see. Things are out of balance.

    Harvesting, not just in the Stilly but across the board for fish or any other harvested item, is completely out of balance for natures ability to recover. Things need to change. We are not really adopting a conservative enough strategy for fisheries, and we all know it. What pisses off most people is that they want the other guy to give up their rights/fish/access/whatever, so that they can selfishly enjoy themselves.

    We need balance. Balance will probably piss everyone off across the entire spectrum of however/whatever kind of fisherman you are. Nobody wants to feel the adverse effects of whatever the bridge is between current acceptable fishing and balance.

    The ironic thing is I couldn't admit that I was as much of the problem as the next guy when I was immersed in the Puget Sound fishery. I was focused on the wrong thing because I was too close to the issue. Now that I was geographically relocated, and have had some time to ask myself the right questions (ethically speaking), and maybe grown up a bit as a person, I actually feel bad/irresponsible/stupid/shortsighted/whatever for fishing over wild stocks that are severely severely depressed.

    Nets, hooks, dynamite, whatever the method we need balance. The pendulum has to make it back to equilibrium for us to have an objective perspective of what balance actually is..
    triploidjunkie likes this.

Share This Page