The merits (or lack thereof) for a wild steelhead retention tag

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by sleestak240, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Media:
    8
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,954
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Laying everything at the feet of the tribes will get you nowhere. Take care of what we can take care of and quit the blame game.
     
  2. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Media:
    8
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,954
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    See above.
     
  3. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,569
    Media:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    It's not a blame game. If we give up our "fair share" the tribes will have to do the same. As long as we have that co managed wild steelhead quota, there will be an allowed harvest by both parties.
     
  4. FinLuver

    FinLuver Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ban the "assault" fisherman...

    Problem solved ;)
     
  5. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Media:
    8
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,954
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    The treaty tribes are not going away and they are not going to give up what has become the largest victory for them since the Europeans arrived. Perhaps blame was the wrong word to use but as I see and I am not alone the only way anything gets changed with the way our fisheries are managed is with the cooperation of the treaty tribes, period.
     
  6. David Dalan

    David Dalan 69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,154
    Media:
    44
    Likes Received:
    888
    Location:
    Walla Walla, WA

    As non-tribal anglers, we do have (via our legislators) some ability to direct the WDFW. We have diddle to do with tribal angling practices.

    Perhaps this issue could be solved with a referendum? One outlawing the harvest/killing of wild origin steelhead and another one outlawing the sale, or transport for sale, any Steelhead regardless of the origin (hatchery or wild).

    In fact didn't someone try this before? Give the recent media attention about not eating wild steelhead, perhaps it could pass?
     
  7. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    Media:
    17
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Olympia
    Evan,
    That's not really how it works. For example, the state currently uses the majority of it's "harvest" of wild steelhead through catch and release impacts. We can 'harvest' our fish without harvesting them. And, the tribes won't have to stop harvesting just because we do. I believe that you're citing the 'forgone opportunity' argument. As it applies here, it would be nearly impossible for the tribes to prove that we weren't going to use our impacts through catch and release mortality--they would have to prove that the state was in fact forgoing a harvest opportunity. I'm not even convinced that there is any precedent for the successful application of a forgone opportunity argument the context of co-managed fisheries. (Note: I may have misinterpreted your point)

    That said, the tribes would much prefer that we just bonk our half of the allocation, and leave the rest of the fish alone.

    But, I think that the tag idea is a really good one. People don't value what they don't pay for. It also represents a good compromise between an outright ban and the status quo.
     
    Jason Chadick likes this.
  8. sleestak240

    sleestak240 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    WA
    Home Page:
    Glad to see that some people think it has merit. Realistically, I think it's unlikely we'll see any sort of ban soon unless we start to consistently miss the abysmally low escapement goal on the Quillayute, in which case the fishery should probably just be closed. While an outright ban is more preferable, I can see such an idea being far more palatable for the meat guys and the conservation side can score a minor win as well. If it adds some funds to the coffers...well, even better.

    As far as implementation goes...I can't see it being overly difficult...add a field(s) to the database system for licensing, propagate an update to all the terminals for the license layout and make it happen (at least in my little world it's that simple, who knows what kind of obfuscated system they actually do have).

    Wouldn't be any more difficult to enforce than the current system, and if people actually buy the tags before the season starts, the fishery managers might have an idea of the level of pressure to expect from the recreational kill fishery.
     
  9. Freestone

    Freestone Not to be confused with freestoneangler

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,550
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    Location:
    .
    Actually, I believe that it would first have to be approved by the Legislature; WDFW can not just do stuff like this on their own even if they wanted to.

    As for if it is a good idea, I am torn. I would love it if it reduced retention and raises additional funds but I worry it would make killing a wild steelhead even more alluring, kind of like finding the holy grail. There is enough bravado associated with (wild) steelheading already.
     
    Andrew Lawrence likes this.
  10. sleestak240

    sleestak240 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    WA
    Home Page:

    Correct, I left out the whole legislative process that would be involved in such a change. I was more thinking from a technical standpoint.

    Hard to say if that would be a side-effect or not...I don't think it would...I think the allure of killing a wild steelhead is already pretty much maxed out for those that engage in the activity. If anything, minimizing the area where you can legally kill wild steelhead to a handful of rivers and only allowing one per season has already had the effect of making it seem like the holy grail.

    From my perspective, I think most of the bravado seems to come from our side of the fence.
     
  11. Rob Allen

    Rob Allen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    543
    Location:
    Vancouver WA



    It's Washington state government it's not gonna be easy
    The money would go into the general fund
    People who want to bonk and fish are going to do it legal or not
    we need to start thinking of fishing for wild steelhead as a privilege so valuable that you wouldn't want to kill one..

    change your mindset to think beyond your punchcard of do not fish for salmon and steelhead. I am all for cramming catch and release down the throats of all salmon and steelhead fishermen whether they like it or not. Humans ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS over harvest and always will. We have had the anti wild fish agenda crammed down our throats since white men first got here. I am all for some payback on this issue.
    maybe that makes me a jerk but i am happy to be one in this case.
     
    sopflyfisher likes this.
  12. Alexander

    Alexander Fishon

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,309
    Media:
    20
    Likes Received:
    431
    Location:
    WA
    Maybe see a different system altogether other than netting. (I know this would cost too much money). But it would be cool if they had ways to divert the fish into a shiloh/holding area so they could separate the keepers from non keepers and the non keepers would be released to continue their mission, thus doing away with all netting practices and substituting with diversion dams/gates.

    Anyhow this would probably take care of much of the unchecked/unintentional wild Steelhead killing wouldn't it?

    Where is the bigger wild Steelhead killing impact? By way of netting or the individual fisherman?

    Even if my idea is out of whack I think that new improved harvesting methods aimed at non-target fish release (whatever the method may be) would probably show better wild steelhead impact results then dealing with the individual fisherman.
     
  13. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Media:
    8
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,954
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.

    They are called fish traps and were used a lot in Western Washington before being outlawed. There are many that think fish traps should be brought back for the reasons you have stated.

    http://www.informationliberation.com/files/salmon-trap1-630x558.jpg
     
  14. Jeremy Floyd

    Jeremy Floyd fly fishing my way through life

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,624
    Media:
    176
    Likes Received:
    378
    Location:
    Quesnel, BC
    I would be interested in seeing the numbers on what something like this would actually cost for a feasibility study, and then enact. I am guessing you would be looking at a couple hundred dollars minimum to try and harvest one. Half of the proceeds would be going to the state, and the other half to the tribes.

    I think they should have a special season too if you pay for the tag/draw.. Make it easier to enforce by having only the tag holders on the rivers..
     
  15. sleestak240

    sleestak240 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    WA
    Home Page:
    Interesting idea...but I think that would create the situation that Freestone was talking about. Creating a day(s) where only tag holders are allowed to fish would really add to the "mystique" of it I think. The result would be a sort of "African big game hunt" feel where people that might otherwise not be interested would engage in the activity solely because of the exclusivity of it.
     
  16. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,892
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1,980
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    I think this would be a hard sell to WDFW. First of all, WDFW thinks steelhead management is just about perfect the way it is, except for the low, one-fish wild steelhead limit on the OP. WDFW doesn't want fewer wild steelhead killed per year. They want every wild steelhead over and above the designated spawning escapement goal to be caught and harvested. Killed. Othewise a dangerous over-escapement will occur, causing wastage.

    Charging a special fee to kill a wild steelhead doesn't brighten WDFW's day unless the Legislature directs the proceeds into the state wildlife account instead of the General Fund. I think WDFW will remain philosophically opposed to the idea even if it were a fiscal plus for them.

    Sg
     
    KerryS likes this.
  17. Stonefish

    Stonefish Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    3,866
    Media:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Location:
    Pipers Creek
    English Pete might be interested in a tag or two.
     
    Jason Rolfe likes this.
  18. sleestak240

    sleestak240 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    WA
    Home Page:

    Agreed about the difficulty of getting it through the powers that be. It's definitely a restriction on opportunity, albeit a compromise.

    As far as the WDFW is concerned, I generally agree with your analysis. Anything that survives beyond the minimum goal is an inefficiency in their minds.

    So, the process going into 2014 seems to be business as usual - harvest until the systems don't make escapement anymore, let the feds list Olympic Peninsula steelhead as endangered and then close the fisheries down once they reach a barely sustainable level?
     
  19. sleestak240

    sleestak240 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    WA
    Home Page:

    That reminds me of the photo of his signed glory shot I saw earlier this year:
    [​IMG]

    Maybe if he needed a retention tag that he didn't have, he wouldn't have been able to kill this one under the guise of "bleeding from the gills"?
     
  20. ambassadeur10000

    ambassadeur10000 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    7
    So someone with $$$ is entitled to kill a wild steelhead because it is their privilege? I would think it is a right, being a citizen if anything. Education about steelhead is important for the future of the sport, but more government regulation is not an answer. The government fails at everything it does
     

Share This Page