Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Steve Call, Nov 25, 2013.
Just in from the obvious department. Another entry for my study on trolling for steelheaders.
great popcorn !
Last winter I hit the sauce pretty hard and ended up blacking out. I woke up with a pocket full of hevi beads and a couple of chromers in the freezer.
I'm thinking we could really help the population if we renamed steelhead with something like the elusive "fragileface". On the side of conservation of course. If we could only educate everyone on how weak the species really is. Maybe through a new and exciting non profit, we could get enough membership registrations to save these fragilefaces. I'm really starting to feel bad for even putting a hook any where near them. I think I'll soon turn to the rich and exciting life of catfishin.
This study was done this year on Spring Chinook in the Yakima. http://ykfp.org/par13/html/Fritts2/siframes.html In summary, it looked like a 6.7 % mortality, but the strange part was only 75% recovery of marks.
in washington at least, this should mostly be a moot point with wild fish, thanks to sparkys law. at any rate, why not err on the side of caution when it comes to an (almost) endagered species anyway ? i dont take chances with wild steelhead, and no one should. if only we could get the decision makers to think the same way.
for those that disagree, you should realize that sparky's law was intended to deal with the lowest common denominator. and that would be YOU !
every step we take to insure their well being, is a step towards being able to continue cnr angling for them.
Nobody is complaining about Sparky's Law. A little push back at first, but nothing more than that.
Because some may disagree with Sparky's Law, that makes them the lowest common denominator?
What do you want the decision makers to do? Stop all fishing over wild fish, or have us take a course on proper fish handling?
many badly do need a course. plenty of them are using fly rods too. but bait, barbed and treble hooks, gill nets, etc, all unneccesary chances. beads ? more of a mangling issue. combine deschutes and umpqua rules, sparky's law and that would be a big step in the right direction for sport fishing rules.
why do so many think they always need to catch the most fish possible? and should be entitled to do so, even to the detriment of a species?
i would imagine those that disagree with spark'ys law, think its ok to drop fish in the boat, or drag them up on the bank. or, dont realize the law is designed to prevent the clueless masses from doing so, and isnt aimed at those that would lift a fish carefully for a 3 second photo op over knee deep water. even if some survive, why would anyone that aledgedly cares take the chance ?
Those that care don't take a chance. There isn't a course that could be put into place that will help people handle fish because that takes actually handling a fish..... many fish. Take people to a trout pond with a bunch of 7lb brood stock fish and show them the correct way to handle a slimy fish?
What do you propose our state do about gill nets?
I think SL was a very common sense approach to the issue.
all the info needed to properly and carefullly release wild fish is right there in the regs. problem is most have never read that page. all thats needed is a simple test to find out if you have read them. plenty of people still wont care, but at least that would be a step in the right direction. sounds complicated, but, afterall, insuring the survival of the species is not a simple task.
gill nets? simple. outlaw them. i know, easier said than done.
i like the idea of haybales too. seems they have worked on nets across the mouths of some op rivers, or so i've heard.
there just arent many simple answers to this problem.
without action soon, do you think there will be any wild steelhead left in the U.S. in 100 years ?
C&R mortality is an imaginary problem. Very few die from C&R angling. It is little but a diversion of energy from real issues. I'm truly amazed at all the energy devoted to the topic when the data is so clear and accesable showing what a limitted impact it is.
PT is correct in that Sparkey's law is a fine law. It's both unneccesary and fine. Just having the law should stop the discussion, but it won't. People will still go around thinkin and saying that C&R angling has a meaningful impact on fish runs. They'll try and outlaw gear types or methods all based on a false assumption that it will help. In fact these discussions have the negative effect of splintering conservation minded anglers.
Go Red Sox,
We didn't need a course, class, or test to change the saltwater (from a boat) handling rules and it's worked just fine. Not all agree with that new reg either but it's keeping fish from flopping around on the bottom of peoples boats.
TEST: "Is it lawful to completely remove a fish from the water that is unlawful to keep?"
Wow, that helped.
I'm with Charles, let's keep talking about things that have almost no impact on the fish.
Kerry don't take this the wrong way, but you seem like the kind of sarcastic asshole I could be friends with.
cnr mortality is not an imaginary problem. but, in a way you are correct. that in the grand scheme of things, it is only killing a fraction of the fish that gill nets, dams, over harvest by our native neighbors, etc... does. think of it this way, just for arguments sake, if all the nets kill 90 out of 100 of wild steelhead at the mouth of river X, and 10 of those fish enter the river, but, without sparkys law, 2 of those wild fish handled by the meat fisherman, and the uneducated masses, are accidently killed. thats only a 2 percet of the original 100 right? sounds like an insignificant number. but you have just reduced the # of fish that made it up the river, and might have spawned successfully by 20 % now add sparkys law to that equation, and again, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE, lets say half as many succumb to cnr mortality, you now have 9 instead of 8 that might spawn. thats alot more significant than 2 out of the hundred. so you really should say "of all the fish that MIGHT have made it up to spawn, cnr mortality only kills a fraction of what all the nets do" but it kills a much larger percentage of the fish that actually make it into the river. BUT, statements like yours , when read by the ignorant masses, and the vast majority of uneducated anglers, will lead them to beleive that wild steelhead are bulletproof, and its perfectly ok to handle fish carelessly, and drop them on rocks, etc. and they are only killing 2% do you really think they always survive that ? and its ok? you have to remember many of those reading this shit, actually think you know what you're talking about, and why should they bother to be more careful ? thats the whole point of sparkys law, to prevent those ignorant masses from adding, however insignificantly (IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS) to those mortality numbers.
and sparkys law is unnecessary ? you give people way too much credit. and even if they are not killed every time, do you prefer to catch beat up fish ?
now i dont claim to be an expert, but if the ignorant masses beleive that I know what i'm talking about, where is the harm ? so what, is it a bad thing that people are more careful? or should they beleive that YOU know what you are talking about? and even if you can prove to them that you can bash a fishes head on the rocks, or finger fuck their gills, and they will survive to spawn succesfully, you have done what? shown them that they dont need to be careful? and that is good how?
so on to the big picture. as a small group, us fly anglers can only do so much in getting bans on nets etc... that will take a majority of the population, not a majority of anglers. but we can make alot more of a difference by educating anglers that wouldnt otherwise know any better. and as far as wasting energy, why waste it telling people here that they dont need to be careful. where was the harm in the report that started this post, telling people they should be more careful. so why would you want to try and divide a group of anglers, except to justify mishandling fish? it is only diverting people from the real issues, when you argue that its ok to be careless, that it doesnt matter anyway?
the big picture problem remains, and will for a long time to come.
have you ever heard of the phrase "think globally, act locally" i think, true or false, the creator of the report was acting locally, and either way, thanks to him/her for actually caring enough. and you have, with your post here , attempted to help wild steelhead how?
You are a saint hydrological, I'm not sure how you managed to stop fishing for stellhead all together to protect them from any possible miss handling, my hat is off to you. I on the other hand don't have quite the same fortitude.
3-5% mortality from generally uneducated anglers would be a more accurate depiction of whats been shown scientifically. 20% is wildly high. So your for the sake of argument, argument, is designed wrong from the start. I understand it was designed so that you could win an argument, but like the article that started this thread, you lose credability when the science is mis-stated.
I am not advocating poor fish handling. I doubt you'll find anyone who handles fish lesss than I do (insert dig here). I am saying that in the grand scheme of things, C&R mortality has no effect on steelhead populations.
I don't think that giving accurate information to the general public tends to lead to poor behavior, nor do I think that legality generally dictates peoples behavior. Give people the truth and your better off. That's what I say.
Go Red Sox,
I've always wondered about whether or not sick or injured fish are more likely to bite. it could be that many of the fish that die after cnr were also desperate,weak fish to begin with. That being said, there are other lurking variables in the equation. For instance, how far up river were the studies done, if they were low in the system is expect fresher,stronger fish. Where as higher in the system a higher mortality may be the case after traveling many miles,converting to freshwater and having a gauntlet of fishing pressure since step one.
No real point to make here, just pointing out the fact that there are variables that can't always be calculated. I tread the fine line of trying to gently catch a fish, even though that doesn't always work. And I appreciate sparkys law.
You might as well drop the Indians out of the conversation also. As far as steelhead go they have little impact on them. On the Skagit, for example, the few that net the river for steelhead take less than 500 fish and likely more around a few hundred. Out of a run of 8500 fish those few hundred fish are not going to push them to extinction. Also, believe it or not the tribes are likely our best allies when it comes to management decisions on current runs. They are currently doing far more studies on steelhead than our own WDFW is. So instead of pointing fingers at them you might try to figure out how to work with them. I guarantee you the tribes are not going away and whining about them is not going to stop them from fishing.
This is probably the most revealing article I've ever read on the Skagit tribal fishing.
I realize that the article is nine years old, but my most recent visit with Scott leads me to believe that as far as the actual 'enterprise of fishing' it is still pretty accurate.
I think you may find that the inverse is true. Fish caught very low in hte system would be likely to have a higher mortality rate. That is if the scales hadn't "hardened".