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

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

  1. Jeremy Floyd fly fishing my way through life

    Posts: 2,568
    Quesnel, BC
    Ratings: +322 / 0
    I don't see the tribes stopping netting for the opportunity to split the 100k, Curt. It would have to generate enough wealth to overshadow the income generated from commercial fishing for them.

    Not picking at you, just voicing my feelings.
  2. KerryS Ignored Member

    Posts: 6,755
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +1,777 / 0
    Curt, I wonder how many of those who would harvest a fish would simply wait until near the end of the season and then take their fish?
    sopflyfisher likes this.
  3. Smalma Active Member

    Posts: 2,831
    Marysville, Washington
    Ratings: +707 / 0
    Jeremy -
    I was not suggesting that the $$ be used to buy out the tribal fishers; I have always assumed that their fishing rights are not for sale.

    Rather I was suggesting how a "wild steelhead permit" might be used to regulate the non-treaty recreational fishery and our access to wild steelhead. I was hoping that something along the line of what I was suggesting would reduce the harvest pressure on the wild fish by forcing each angler to decide whether harvesting such a fish would be worth giving up the rest of their steelhead fishing for that year. At the same time it would provide $$ of steelhead work by all (harvesters and CnR anglers) that are interested in targeting wild steelhead.

    Curt
  4. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,557
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,688 / 0
    Smalma,

    I think I like your idea. I've been thinking that future fishing where wild ESA steelhead are present, NMFS will require monitoring. Monitoring needs $$, and your suggestion seems like a relatively painless way to generate the $$.

    Sg
    _WW_ likes this.
  5. sleestak240 Active Member

    Posts: 105
    WA
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    I really like this idea. There are a lot of attributes of it that make sense. The other option would be to simply sell it as an "Olympic Peninsula Steelhead Angling Endorsement" or something to that effect - similar to the current Columbia River Endorsement. You'd be able to reduce the cost to a very manageable level across all parties - perhaps $10 to $15.

    If necessary, in the future, the system would also already be in place to control the number of permits issued if it became a necessity - as a first-come-first-serve or lottery system.

    The other nice thing about this is that it would neither be a challenge nor an endorsement for retention.
  6. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 980
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +393 / 0
    As for the tribes.. I am 100 % for sport anglers giving up their opportunity to harvest wild steelhead and allowing the tribes all of the "wastage" let the blood be on their hands while we keep our clean
  7. Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Posts: 4,021
    Olympic Peninsula
    Ratings: +686 / 0
    Continued harvest of any wild steelhead here is utterly unacceptable. In many instances we shouldn't even be fishing for them any more.
  8. FT Active Member

    Posts: 1,242
    Burlington, WA
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    Curt,

    I like your idea as well and think it has a lot of merit. I'd prefer to see the fee for such a permit to be $15.00 rather than $10.00. $15.00 is not too high and would generate a bit more money. And like Salmon-g mentioned, it would provide a source of money for WDFW to monitor the rivers. And as you mentioned, the decision to kill a fish, use the tag, and end his fishing for the rest of the season lies completely with the fisherman.

    Since the vast majority of us here on this forum practice catch-and-release with wild steelhead, such a permit and the decision it will require the angler to make will help turn some others into catch-and-release anglers. This because some number of bonkers will wait to bonk fish they catch so they can keep fishing. And by doing so some of them, and others, will realize that catching and releasing a wild fish is still fun and not punishment or limiting the opportunity to fish.

    Such a permit would also blunt or take away the argument some use that the angler should decide to release the fish or not, not the state through the WDFW. It also blunt or takes away to argument that if sportsanlers don't kill them, the tribes will because it makes it a person decision to either bonk and not be able to fish anymore until June, or release the fish landed so he can continue fishing until the end of April.

    Kerry S,

    In my opinion, the more who wait until the last week or two of April before thinking about bonking, the better because a significant number of fish will have moved upstream to areas closed to fishing, many have already spawned, and there are fewer fish entering the river in late April.
    Matt Baerwalde likes this.
  9. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 441
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +98 / 0
    Anybody that "targets" wild steelhead should have to purchase the "tag"; that way when the fish bleeds in any way, you're done fishing for the season...regardless if you released it or not.
  10. jeff27 GUN SLINGER

    Posts: 20
    lacey, washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Why not put it up to a vote like marijuana.... Go around gathering signatures see if it goes and put it to a state wide vote! Banning the harvest of steelhead period.... Fuck it! Shoot for the moon!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
  11. BDD Active Member

    Posts: 2,237
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +220 / 2
    Make it $1,000 so WDFW can really see how much steelhead fishing means to anglers. It would still be less than going to the Skeena or the Dean for a week. For those who really want to access our natural resources, make them pay through the nose. Start with anglers and then keep moving up the line until you hit every single person, corporation, group, company, developer, commercial fisher, timber harvester, irrigation district, dam operator, miner, farmer, road builder, jack ass, dumb ass, and fat ass who doesn't currently pay their fair share for using the resources they are impacting.

    We could either bring wild steelhead back through proper mitigation or bankrupt the country trying. And since we are almost to the latter anyway, we might as well shoot for the former!
  12. Jeff Sawyer Active Member

    Posts: 450
    Tacoma WA
    Ratings: +249 / 0
    Obviously I'm missing something.

    Why does anyone want/need to retain a wild steelhead?
  13. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,557
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,688 / 0
    Jeff,

    The families around Forks are said by their former mayor to rely on wild steelhead to feed their families. Apparently that's the status of the food supply in 21st century Forks.

    Sg
  14. Jeff Sawyer Active Member

    Posts: 450
    Tacoma WA
    Ratings: +249 / 0
    Thanks for enlighting me. I thought those skinny folks I saw were tweekers.
  15. Jason Chadick A Fish, A Fish, A Fishy, Oh...

    Posts: 128
    Naches, WA
    Ratings: +37 / 0
    Is there a way to restrict the harvest to west end residents?

    I never really realized it before living out there, but people really do come from all over the country to fish those rivers. The magazines and fishing shows have made the OP out to be the working man's Skeena. It drives me crazy to know that a lot of people are putting in some serious travel to go to forks and bonk a native. It may be petty, but thinking about people driving up from Cali or over from Montana to abuse the last of a local resource really gets my goat.

    Maybe if you were only eligible to harvest if your residence was in Clallam or Jefferson Counties, maybe Grays Harbor? Actually, I like Smalma's idea more...
  16. golfman44 Coho Queen

    Posts: 1,749
    Kirkland
    Ratings: +1,074 / 0
    Haha I was saying the same thing this summer when people living in "central" Washington were getting all pissed off when "non-locals" were inquiring about the Methow River. There were a few individuals here who would flame the shit out of anyone inquiring about the Methow...then if you brought up them fishing on the OP, they would also flame you. Can't win with some people, best to just move on.
    Jason Chadick likes this.
  17. Jason Chadick A Fish, A Fish, A Fishy, Oh...

    Posts: 128
    Naches, WA
    Ratings: +37 / 0
    What kinda jerk would live in central WA, and then fish the rivers on the OP?!

    Entitlement is a fickle, and irrational feeling I suppose.
    golfman44 likes this.
  18. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,128
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +789 / 1
    We cannot control the current regulations because there are those among us that will not play by the rules... until that is resolved, options like this are DOA. And, it's because of that I say stop fishing over stocks that are in bad shape... us and the tribes.
    For any systems that they are deemed fishable... don't keep any...NONE. 1146.gif

    The truth is, our pencils are not that sharp and we don't know everything we think we do about the science and future...best to err on the conservative side.
  19. Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Posts: 2,313
    bellingham wa
    Ratings: +558 / 0
    I agree Freestone. ...... There is some common ground there.

    Go Sox,
    cds
  20. PT Physhicist

    Posts: 3,571
    Edmonds, WA
    Ratings: +732 / 2
    People aren't traveling to Forks to "bonk a native." They are traveling there for a chance to fish for steelhead. They may bonk one because it's legal but that's not why they are headed there. Make it CnR on wild fish and those same people will still spend their money traveling to Forks to fish. Folks spend their money to go to BC, Montana, and South Andros for the fishing, not the keeping.