Hoh

PT

Physhicist
#61
i know how it would be viewed. the reason all these fish are in perile is because everyone only cares about their own interests instead of what is right.

Here's what would be right. Stop fishing for wild steelhead. Punch your 1 wild fish on your card and max out your card (even if you retain zero) with hatchery fish. Turn it into the state. They use their forecast for the amount of fish that are available for harvest both tribal and non-tribal. If we all maxed our cards, it would mean there is a smaller portion available for their 50%. We are entitled to our 50% also. If we "take" less than our 50%, the tribes can harvest that portion. If you're serious about helping the fish, stop fishing for them. Or, just keep posting how much of a clusterphuck it is on the OP.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#62
i know how it would be viewed. the reason all these fish are in perile is because everyone only cares about their own interests instead of what is right.
With all due respect, I don't think that these fish are "in peril" due to C&R impacts. IMO C&R impacts are the red herring that keeps the angling community from looking at actual impacts.

In fact it is the only impacts (real or imagined) that is intentionally factored in as a larger impact (10% isn't the real number). We don't factor in a higher percentage of death in the native gil net fisheries than what is reported. I know for certain that there are fish that are not reported. We don't multiply that impact by 3 like we do C&R impacts. Personally, I think a 300% safety factor says something. It certainly helps balance out the tribal take doesn't it?

We all love to make sportfishing regulations in an attempt to save fish that aren't being killed by sportfishing. Bizarre really.

Go Red Sox,
cds
 

attack

Active Member
#63
I agree that there are much larger issues. But I think if you float the lower hoh during low water in february and march you might change your mind on the fishing from the boat thing. fish that are being landed multiple times are not successfully spawning. i think a boat ban makes for a responsible c&r fishery that does not have a big impact but i disagree with you about the impact of the current fishery.

pt, you have some good ideas and a valid point. im not giving up my rod today but it may come to that.
 
#64
How do you think that it would be viewed then from the perspective of the gear fisherman who fishes out of a boat?

Go Sox,
cds
At this stage of the game, any regulation change is going to be seen as an attack on some group. Be it guides, gear fisherman, fly fisherman, etc. It's unfortunate that we can't please everyone, but sometimes you have to stir the pot a bit to initiate change. The best way to spread the pain across all user groups and initiate a positive change is to ban fishing from a moving watercraft as many here have said. That impacts fly fisherman and gear fisherman...the only group it doesn't negatively impact is people swinging flies (actually it might since there will be more displaced pressure to fishable areas on the banks).

It's odd the way people see this differently...take the Vedder/Chilliwack in BC for example...despite the fact that angling from a boat is not banned, virtually nobody does it and it's quite frowned upon. The Vedder is only slightly smaller than the Hoh, more crowded typically than the OP rivers, and gear fisherman have no problem bank fishing there effectively (despite the fact that it would up their numbers of fish to fish from a boat).
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#65
I think the Vedder is a funny example for you to bring up. Almost all of the water is accesable and heavily fished by foot. There isn't too much water that is "conservation water" due to the lack of boats.The river is small enough that both sides can be fished from one side. Pressure is super high. I suspect it's higher than the Hoh. if Hoh fish are caught multiple times I shudder to think how many times Vedder fish are caught. It always meets escapement. Maybe just maybe C&R isn't the issue at all. Wait, come to think of it I think their was a pretty good study on C&R impacts on that very stream.

Go Red Sox,
cds
 

Brazda

Fly Fishing guide "The Bogy House" Lodge
#67
Stopping sport harvest will merely forfeit our 50% of the allowable catch to the tribal nets. Stopping the tribes from fishing for wild fish will not happen. Keeping sport harvest open is actually the best option to keep the fewest fish from being harvested.
Fricken A finally someone other than a lowly guide has said it,,,,maybe those Forks guides know a thing or two about there fishing politics,,,good words my friend!
 

o mykiss

Active Member
#68
Fricken A finally someone other than a lowly guide has said it,,,,maybe those Forks guides know a thing or two about there fishing politics,,,good words my friend!
I still don't follow this. Please explain. I understand the "theory" of foregone opportunity, but as Mello pointed out it is just that - a theory that hasn't been tested in court (as far as I know). You and Evan seem to be suggesting that if, for example, the co-managers decide that 100 wild fish can be harvested on a particular stream, and if recreational anglers take only 30 of our allotted 50 (including through assumed C&R mortality and extrapolated harvest data), then the natives' quota is upped by another 20. I had thought up to this point that the natives get their 50 and that's it, no matter what our actual impact is.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#70
I still don't follow this. Please explain. I understand the "theory" of foregone opportunity, but as Mello pointed out it is just that - a theory that hasn't been tested in court (as far as I know). You and Evan seem to be suggesting that if, for example, the co-managers decide that 100 wild fish can be harvested on a particular stream, and if recreational anglers take only 30 of our allotted 50 (including through assumed C&R mortality and extrapolated harvest data), then the natives' quota is upped by another 20. I had thought up to this point that the natives get their 50 and that's it, no matter what our actual impact is.
That's the idea.

Go Red Sox,
cds
 

Ringlee

Doesn't care how you fish Moderator
#72
Stopping sport harvest will merely forfeit our 50% of the allowable catch to the tribal nets. Stopping the tribes from fishing for wild fish will not happen. Keeping sport harvest open is actually the best option to keep the fewest fish from being harvested.
The Hoh tribe is currently demanding a substantial share of the non-treaty 50% share of the harvest surplus. No Steelhead harvest Management Plan has been signed and wasn't signed last year. The Tribe harvested 835 wild fish last year through direct harvest and net drop out mortality.

Just wait until their hatchery gets fully operational...
 

gt

Active Member
#73
Punch your 1 wild fish on your card and max out your card (even if you retain zero) with hatchery fish. Turn it into the state. They use their forecast for the amount of fish that are available for harvest both tribal and non-tribal. If we all maxed our cards, it would mean there is a smaller portion available for their 50%. We are entitled to our 50% also. If we "take" less than our 50%, the tribes can harvest that portion. If you're serious about helping the fish, stop fishing for them. Or, just keep posting how much of a clusterphuck it is on the OP.
damn, why didn't i think of this. makes me want to pull out my card and start writing fiction. this might also motivate me to actually turn the CRC in this year. everyone needs to do this simple thing!
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#75
A few comments:

Shawn K,

No coastal stocks of fish are listed or proposed for listing other than Ozette sockeye. Sol Duc summer chinook are not threatened in any official status, or unofficial that I know of. They may not be abundant, but that is a fundamentally different matter.

Evan,

You're very close. Under the concept of foregone opportunity in US v WA, if either side, treaty or non-treaty, doesn't take its allocation, the other side can. The notion of allocating more fish to the spawning escapement was never considered in court, so doing so remains unadjudicated. What would happen is unknown, but the state overall is more predisposed to harvest than to conservation, so WDFW won't make the move to test the case law.

Charles,

As near as I can tell tribes dislike CNR fisheries because just like most sport fishermen don't believe tribes report all their catch (and they don't), tribal fishermen think a significant % of sport fishermen illegally retain their catch in CNR fisheries. That and sport fishermen are part of the "cowboys" and traditionally the cowboys and Indians don't trust each other on any fishing issues.

A fishing from boat ban has little to do with conservation and more to do with quality of angling experience. Consequently this is below zero on WDFW's radar screen. WDFW hates that they are dragged into social issues like allocating fish and fishing opportunity among and between various fishing groups, commercial and sport, and then even between varying sport fishing interests. The agency much prefers to turn a blind eye to this.

They are totally uninterested in the aspect that different sport fishing approaches affect and determine the number and proportion of fish encountered and therefore the magnitude of the incidental mortality. High caliber gear chuckers hook 10x more steelhead than decent swing fly fishermen and thereby account for 10x the incidental mortality. Used to be if you caught two steelhead in a day and released them you were still considered "done" because you caught your limit whether you kept them or not. That somehow evaporated in the 80s and 90s as there were more CNR fisheries and all realized that CNR limits were unenforceable.

Attack,

There are several options to manage for the good of the fish, but the preferred alternative unsurprisingly varies directly according to the analysts personal bias.

PT,

Used to be that WA politicians didn't challenge anything tribal because of PC, but now the reason is because tribes are major political contributors. $$$

Thomas,

The Deschutes went to no fishing from a boat in the 1930s as a conservation measure because liberal catch limits were still the norm. With catch restrictions now being commonplace there is no conservation reason to restrict fishing from a boat on the D. Now it's a quality of angling experience issue, and no longer has any relation to conservation. Conservation is achieved by restricting harvest.

Attack & Charles,

The fish are in peril because the co-managers are both more invested in harvest fisheries than in conservation. Neither is willing to acknowledge that the era of sustainably harvesting wild steelhead into the future is gone and past even though any reasonably objective analysis indicates so. Only blindered MSY/MSH analyses reveal continued harvest as viable, and every honest biologist agrees that MSY doesn't really exist.

Freestoneangler,

Actually our fisheries were already headed down the shitter. US v WA just made treaty Indians a convenient scapegoat. Prior to US v WA, WA didn't even bother to count fish; the state had little idea what the status of the preponderance of most fish stocks were. US v WA made the state - and tribes - begin counting fish and discovering just how many or few there actually were. Catches were fairly well recorded previously, but escapements ranged from unknown to a wild ass guess. Management has improved by an order of magnitude since US v WA, but it has unfortunately coincided with the lag time delay of habitat degradation and massive human population increase even further habitat degradation and loss of our watersheds' capacity and productivity, and a few other things. Taking tribal fishing out of the picture only means returning terminal area runs would double, and that unfortunately is a sorry low, low figure when you consider how many runs were 5 to 10 times larger not all that long ago. And they weren't larger because escapement goals were larger before US v WA. Before US v WA there were NO escapement goals. Escapement was almost a matter of coincidence, whatever the non-treaty fleet, sport and commercial, could catch unfettered by obligations to share the harvest with those pesky Indians.

Ringlee,

Fishing without a signed management plan is ripe for a 3rd party lawsuit. Just sayin'.

Sg