Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Go Fish, Sep 2, 2008.
Obviously you are a gearhead.
...and not a fan of punctuation :clown:
...and hostile, opinionated and also have no idea what the lady had or did not have.
Go Fish- I myself believe that you did the right thing. Some here would rather you have a lawyer present and a law ennacted before you say a word! I would say fair is fair and let's just leave it alone.
It has been my goal to address the TROUT loop hole in the regs. unfortunately I was too late for the 2008 pamphlet rules change this year and but will addressing it in the 2010 changes. Why there is no distinction of Searun Cutthroat in our west side rivers is beyond my compression especially since they are protected in the sound and obviously are more prone to fishing pressure in the river. In my view this adds to the confusion much less enforcing it. If we can make the distinction for Bull Trout there is no reason we can’t do the same for Searun Cutthroat.
Direct from the WDFW pamphlet:
The term TROUT includes: Steelhead, Brown, Cutthroat, Tiger, Rainbow, Lake, Golden, and Eastern Brook, Grayling, Kokanee, Landlocked Atlantic, Coho, and Chinook Salmon.
I don't think it is a loophole, rather I believe the rule is written FOR Sea Run Cutts. Their "thinking" is that if the limit is 14" and above, cutts will have spawned at least once.
Why thank you. :thumb:
Gearhead, it is refreshing to see that you are also for
protecting the SRC's of Puget Sound. Thanks for the
kind words. David
I am. I apologize for my less than civil response, but felt it necessary to smoke out elistists and make a point. I have a bad habit of raging against those that think they are better than others, and those that presume the worst of people. I may have unfairly used you to do it. It just rubbed me the wrong way reading the responses to your thread. I respect your staying above it, with your kind response.
Gearhead, that was mighty nice of you to 'smoke out' some of the elite on this website :rofl: I'm all for sharing beer, but you my friend, took it to 11. :thumb:
In all seriousness people here were only concerned about someone harvesting a protected fish, nothing else. When there are few types of salmon, many bottom fish, shellfish, etc. that are o.k. to harvest from the sea, there's no reason to take a protected fish.
It might be better if we called these great trout Coastal Cutthroat, or Sea-Run Cutthroat rather than SRCs, which somewhat demeans their status in my opinion. Telling some ignorant soul that they've just caught a SRC doesn't sound like such a bad thing to do. We really need to add some $$$$ to the state budget and target it for ennforcement. If we started really coming down on these people, ignorant or knowing poachers, things would get better pretty fast. Another thing is to change the law to make them catch-and-release in rivers as well as the marine environmnet.
More enforcement is badly needed, but that is a very expensive fix and we'll never get enough to cover the need. How about more information posted at the launches, in the kayak stores, and in the tackle shops? I know WFC posted some nice informational flyers at many launches recently covering SRC and bull trout conservation. That's a cheap way to reduce impacts from ignorant anglers, and education about the resource creates more advocates for the resource. In this case, I am pretty sure that a little more education before they hit the water would have made a difference.
That's not exactly correct. When fishing with bait, any fish caught, whether kept or released, counts as part of the limit. Therefore, if you fished bait in C&R water, the first fish you caught and released would put you over the limit.
Just a little background on the catch-and-release regulation for sea-run cutthroat in salt water: Thanks to Les and others, one of the main reasons we were able to get the marine area restriction put into place is because sea-run cutthroat stocks, while in salt water, are mixed. Stocks from a healthy, productive streams may very likely to be mixed with cutthroat populations from a stream or river that is just barely hanging on and a consumptive fishery over these mixed stocks might very well do that stream in; a powerful argument. In the rivers, if additional protection is deemed necessary, there are other options. As mentioned, the 14-inch minimum ensures that any cutthroat caught will, most likely, have spawned at least once.
Whether we have the data to accurately determine which in-stream populations need additional protection is an entirely different matter. When the WDFW analysis of the health of most of western Washington's sea-run cutthroat populations in the "not determined" category one can only pray for more data and wonder where the money to fund such research will come from.
I believe that rule only applies to trout (as in small t trout- not including steelhead) caught in freshwater. But I could be wrong...there is always a first time for everything.
Not advocating a position just my interpretation of the regs