Don't bother On the stilly

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

  1. Dont know if some one said this between pg 1 and 6, but I am sure they felt the same way when that hunk of metal and cement went in near Stevenson called the BONNEVILLE DAM!!!!!!!!!

    Dont get me wrong, I am not for the nets by any means, but white folk pissed in their cheerios a lonnnggg time ago and screwed everything up just as much if not more...
  2. C'mon foofoo. Say race baiting time. Please? That shit is hilarious
  3. I agree with ty. I don't support gilnetting by any means, but I don't think white people have the right to bitch until every single one of their pos dams are ripped down. How's that for race baiting;)
  4. LOUD NOISES!!!!! Just when you thought this had finally died.
  5. "You'll lose your fishing privileges before they lose their fishing rights."

    This is as true as ever!
    bennysbuddy likes this.
  6. Well after four days in Worley Id watching this string on an I-phone I will try to do what was asked. Shut up or bring a solution. My solution is nothing but broadbased pie in the sky theory but it is ateast something more than the status quo which has lead to closing the entine puget sound watershed for spring steeelheading.

    First off don't be afraid to admit gillnetting is bad for rivers. Equally important to not demonize the supporters of gillnetting but try to find a solution that works for everyone. In any solution all sides will have to give something but in the end all parties would win with more healthy runs of steelhead. I now it sounds like an insult to call people "supporters" but I have no other word to describe the position of status quo. I don't mean it in a negative as much as you think I do. I understand that people want to fish for a living and support their family and I in no way want it to be worse for that person but it is time for something to change before there aren't enough fish to even worry about.

    My idea would involve making all gillnets in rivers illegal unless removing disease or intrusive species. Use the hatcherys as places where tribal members can take live fish while having ice and processing facility available at every hatchery during the season. This would allow a tribe to write orders and have control over the distribution by writing reciepts to their members for 20 fish or 100 fish whatever their desire and/or allowed under their own alotment system. Control the quality of hatchery fish in the system by removing weaker smaller fish donating them and any surplus to area food banks. Of course wild fish would be released back into the river to move on up stream. Try to make it a partnership where each tribe can request the numbers and informed upon arrival of the run to the hatchey. I would even promote the tribes taking partership in the hatchery programs.

    I know "hatchery" is a bad word to many of you scientific types so I would challenge you to think outside the box for a solution to having both wild a hatchery fish co-exsist. I am sure the sellers of these hatchery fish don't want beat up fish so I would start looking at new ideas. What if hatcherys where lower in river systems using a trib to draw the hatchery fish to more effective traps. Fresher fish for sale and keeping the them farther away from the native redds. So using the Stilly as an example. If the steelhed hatchery where at Pilchuck Creek instead of Fortson what happens? We all know the drive these fish have to aquire the scent. Build a better trap and no fishing within 400' to allow the fish to freely enter.

    Make it more of a co-op where both sides can succeed. There would not be hatchery on every river but easier access to more effective and thought out by location by being lower in the rivers and the tribal fish seller would no longer need a river net or a river boat as overhead in the fishermans new budget. Heck single mothers could profit from this program where they could probably never profit from their gillnetting rights.

    I know some would rather not talk about the subject because they may percieve only rednecks who hate the tribes would dare to oppose gillnetting and propose change but as I mentioned earlier in the string the Gov. of Oregon supports banning them and he is hardly a redneck. Let's try stop making it about taking away from people and start thinking of ways to promote giving more to those same people.

    Sorry if it is naive, stupid or already been thought of but I will not just shut up.
  7. HMMM What did you just say, Read Foo Foo
  8. i've only been around a handful of hatcheries when the adult fish return, but in every case those fish are way beyond inedible. i don't understand the suggestion to capture fish that far upstream unless you're talking about hatcheries where the returning fish are still in good shape to eat. are there hatcheries like that? i'm thinking of wallace river, issaquah creek. you couldn't eat those fish, right?
  9. That's the thought of building the hatchery lower in the river.

    I don't know. That's the point. We need to be thinking outside the box and looking for new ideas. You can tell me how stupid the post is but atleast it's an effort toward change for the better of all parties. I just think we can all win if atleast come to the debate with new ideas and solutions.

    It doesn't have to be "us vs them" forever. I know it seems impossible but we could approach the same issue with a "us and them" attitude.
  10. Off topic but...hatchery fish stray. That's putting their detrimental effects lightly.

    Jurassic Park comes to mind. It certainly appears in light of those scientific guys running around these days now that the quickest way to kill a fishery might be the introduction of hatchery fish to the system. The Skagit might prove very unfortunately to be a perfect example.

    Best science bites us in the ass yet again.
  11. Hookedonthefly -
    Understand your concern on hatchery fish but the Skagit may be the poorest example to support your case that hatcheries are the quickest way to kill a fishery. However that probably is a topic for another discussion

    Fifafu -
    It is always good to think outside of the box. Though folks might be surprised how much of that thinking actually takes palce. In regards to locating hatcheries it oftecomes downto where the best sources of water are to operate the hatchery. Even many salmon hatcheries which are producing fish to fuel marine and lower river fisheries. Kendaland Skookum creeks on the Nooksack, Cascade river on the Skagit, Wallace on the Sohomish etc are just some examples from here in North Sound.

    The issue that started this discussion was Stillaguamish coho; interesting that it would turn towards a hatchery discussion. Based on pre-season focecasts the Stillaguamish was expected to produce more than 50,000 adults (indcations are that the actual run may be larger than forecasted) of which 92% are expected to be wild fish.

    Something to ponder in regard to the Stillaguamish and her wild anadromous salmonids. The two species in best shape appear to be sea-run cutthroat and coho; species that are largely dependent on the smaller tributaries for spawning and juvenile rearing. Of the species dependent on the main river for much of their production (pinks, chums, Chinook and steelhead) those that spend the least time in the river - pinks and chums - are doing better than the Chinook and steelhead which are dependent onthe main stem habitats for longer periods. Do yo suppose there is some sort of comment their about what maybe limiting production?

    Tight lines
  12. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have to ask your opinon about the thought of using tribs lower in the system. Pilchuck creek instead of Fortson as an example. Would the fish be apt to enter the traps in better shape and be less likely to cross breed with the natives in the upper river?

    Does anyone know how the tribal members of the Cowlitz get their fish? I have a friend here in Pasco who is a Cowlitz member. He drives straight to the hatchery a couple of times a year and picks up his alotment. I saw his take once and they were all bright 12 pound plus beauties. He told me the excess went to Portland food banks. That's what he told me and I saw the fish. Anyone know how this came about? Do they net the Cowlitz? Anyone know?
  13. i
    i didn't say it was stupid, i was just asking a question. i dont' think i read your post closely enough the first time. i like that you want to find a way.
  14. Fifafu,

    The Cowlitz is NOT a treaty tribe, and therefore have no treaty fishing rights. So they cannot legally net the Cowlitz or any other river. WDFW gives them and the Yakima Tribe surplus spring chinook salmon from the hatchery for ceremonial and subsistence use, but not for commercial sale.

    Your outside the box ideas are not original. Turns out it is easier to come up with ideas than it is to come up with ideas that are both feasible and gain enough public acceptance to become a reality. Doesn't hurt to try; nothing ventured, nothing gained.

  15. Thanks again Salmo. I'm glad other people have thought of my unoriginal thinking regardless something has to change for the benifit of all parties. The fish I saw him bring back were steelhead not spring chinook. He was not reselling them for sure. He calls the tribe office and requests his fish drives over White Pass to collect. Those are out of the trap fish and seemed to be perfect condition. So when we see nets between the Dalles and Biggs who are those fishermen? Which tribes Wa. or Or.? Why do the nets seem to end east of the Biggs?

    I am still curious if you think hatcherys on lower tribs like Pilchuck Creek would produce more quality fish in the traps and potenially take the need to net away since you can drive a truck to the trap and have ice on hand? I am asking you Salmo out of respect for your career and take your word serious even when I disagree. Thanks.
  16. Awesome--couldn't agree with you more.I am from BC and the Indians basically run the fisheries and make their own rules-the DFO is /are Pawns in the Indians hands-even when the Indians break their own rules nothing is done about it.Also in my opinion anyone buying fish from these people is also a LARGE PART of the problem.
  17. fifafu -
    Putting hatcheries on the lower Stillaguamish tribes would not do much for producing higher quality fish back to the rack. The main reason why (at least for salmon) is those tribs (and especially Pilchuck Creek) have very low flows until the rainy season sets in. As a result the returning adults would hold off the mouth of the creeks waiting for a rain and end up being as dark as fish returning to an upriver hatchery. The tribe has a hatchery on Harvey (Armstrong) Creek which dumps into the river between Alington and I-5 though they move their Chinook up river to Fortson for conditioning (holding for a month or so) before releasing as those fish are from adults collected in the North Fork and are used to supplement the natural spawning escapement.

    It might make sense for winter steelhead of course it would concentrate the fishery in the lower few miles of the river which for the majority of the season is essentially unfishable with very limited access. Such a move would probably render the program non-viable even in the best of times.

  18. Okay but I don't really think it matters if those hatchery fish are tough to target as long as they are able to be trapped in excellent eating condition making the need to have nets in the river less shocking to the tribal ecomomy since it would be more profitable to pick up 100 lbs of fresh winter steelhead in you motor vehichle instead of spending 12 hours in the rain after gassing their boat and truck. Meaning we can go back to fishing Seapost with success

    What about a hatchery on creek like Quilceda? The fish would find its constant scent and since it's tidal brack you could trap those fish without coming close to effecting natives running up the Sky, Wallace or Pilchuck. Seems like there has to be a way to make it easier for the tribal fisherman to have access to more fresh steelhead than they do now and in turn making the gillnetting of rivers less than appealing because it is more profitable and easier to take more fish out of a new system of harvesting without killing the native steelhead we all want to flourish. Thanks again Curt for your considrate responses to what I am sure feel like redundant questions.

    The Tulalips use a trickle of a creek to bring salmon to their nets in mission bay. Why can't hatchery steelhead be manipulated the same way using smaller coastal creeks that are not 80 miles up the mountains?

    If we gave the tribes a better way to harvest more fresh fish than they currently harvest using gillnets the issue might solve itself without all the uglyness that tends to stifle this debate. As fishermen we need to support the rivers and fish without attacking the attacking or deminishing our partners in these treatys by bringing a positive agenda to the table. I hope my side can just stick to the issue "Gillnets are bad for rivers" and look for solutions that are positive for both sides. More Steelhead is good for all of us.

    Someone asked me earlier if I fished any of those rivers last year. I did not. My father and I fish the Pilchuck and/or North Fork of the Stilly for a few days every february until the emergency closure last year prevented us. So last year we went golfing instead. My feet are still wet. Does Simms make a golf shoe?

    Thanks again Curt.
  19. Toto, I'm pretty sure we're not in Kansas anymore. Good luck.
  20. Just a thought to muddy the water. If you're going to give the tribes hatchery fish from the hatchery, someone is going to propose just giving them the money that would be spent to produce hatchery fish.

Share This Page