30 pound steelhead - continued!

[Brian]

OK guys, as you can see I have removed both of the posts around the 30 pound Quinault fish. I think everyone had plenty of time to vent and it's time to move on. Stan did want me to reinstate both threads, but I have opted not to. He would also be interested in a friendly debate over wild steelhead release, without the personal attacks. So if anyone wants to take him up on his offer feel free to reply here.

[The Codfather]

I am still of the opinion that the burden of providing valid evidence, or a well articulated argument lies on Stan's shoulders. I would enjoy a spirited debate minus the personal attacks, and off beat comments.

[Andrew]

You go fishing for awhile and look what you miss...  

I never saw a 30-lber thread besides the 5 pager that had been building for the last week or so, but if somebody could give a brief synopsis of what's transpired in the last couple of days, or perhaps just state Stan's position (I don't know who Stan is), I would be happy to get the ball rolling. Intelligent discussion is the only way to shift perspectives on matters such as these, and it's important to promote discussion among sports anglers if we can ever hope for changes in fisheries management. Thanks for keeping the topic going, Brian.

Andrew

[30ManStan]

Okay, now that we've got that out of our systems, maybe we can have a spirited debate.  Now, I realize that one of the primary principles/beliefs of many members on this site is that all wild steelhead be released.  Now, what exactly is a wild steelhead?  I took a bunch of heat about this very issue.  Unfortunately, I do no think there are any genetically wild steelhead left in the lower 48.  I think it's already too late for that one.  Considering the fish in question was caught in a river hosting both hatchery and "wild" runs do you think it's really fair to call any fish (steelhead or salmon for that matter) returning to this watershed "wild"? 

I would like to know what others think about this issue.  If the fish in question were not "wild" would any of the members that were critical feel differently? 

Codfather  asked that the burden of providing valid evidence lies with me, what proof are you looking for?

Thanks,

Stan

[fishingtechnician]

As was discussed before. Even though they might not be "true" wild steelhead the smolt that have to grow and travel in the rivers by themselves without being raised to a certain size will be a much stronger fish. The percentage of wild fish that do this is very small so killing them is not a good thing.

[Sturzman]

Generally a wild steelhead is a fish that was naturally spawned in the river. A native fish would be one that is a true wild fish that hasn't had any hatchery influence.

Oh and dude, isn't it the goal to rebuild the runs throughout the northwest whether they've had some hatchery influence or not? To me it is, I can't see how just because there's the "possibility" that it has hatchery genes, that it makes it ok to bonk a wild fish. These fish need to be let go in order for these runs to grow. We can't just give up and start bonking them.

I can tell you this, you're going to have a hard, if not impossible time, getting members here, at least members who have been with this site for a long time, to find any reason for keeping a wild fish, but good luck man.

[OPfisher]

30MS-"I do no think there are any genetically wild steelhead left in the lower 48."

When you hook one you'll change your mind. I've hooked two now that would have been around the 20lb mark that upon being hooked decieded that they didnt want any part of me. One pulled a crafty veteran fish move and went straight for cover (a nice log to bust me off in) and the other decided that he wanted to go back to the ocean. I've had a great oppertunity to fight some true native fish in alaska where there isnt a hatchery for miles to screw with those fish and even though we're talking two different species, thats what the native steelhead down here remind me of; untainted, grity, agressive, bad A$$ fish!

[Sturzman]

Another point.
On this system it can be difficult to tell the difference. In fact, sometimes there is no way to be sure. If you truly care about the system, why take the chance???

[30ManStan]

Generally a wild steelhead is a fish that was naturally spawned in the river. A native fish would be one that is a true wild fish that hasn't had any hatchery influence.

Sturzman - I consider a wild fish to be your definiton of a native. I am not trying to split hairs on this point.

Maybe, this difference could be part of our difference of opinions.  It will be interesting to see how other board members define a "wild" fish?

I can tell you this, you're going to have a hard, if not impossible time, getting members here, at least members who have been with this site for a long time, to find any reason for keeping a wild fish, but good luck man.

Believe me, I am not looking to change opinions all I want is to understand each other and respect our differences.  So far, our positions don't seem to be that far apart. 

Stan

[BC Steel]

Now, what exactly is a wild steelhead?

Why dont you take the lead and tell us exactly what a wild steelhead is to you. Although you have touched on it in a later post please clarify EXACTLY what you mean as I think you are using the wrong terms to describe your own personal ideas.

 
Unfortunately, I do no think there are any genetically wild steelhead left in the lower 48.

Where have you come across this information? Do you have relevant, peer reveiwed, scientific studies to back you up on this? Please provide links to your information.


Considering the fish in question was caught in a river hosting both hatchery and "wild" runs do you think it's really fair to call any fish (steelhead or salmon for that matter) returning to this watershed "wild"?

Yes I do, why dont you?



If the fish in question were not "wild" would any of the members that were critical feel differently?

If the fish was without a doubt a hatchery fish, bonk away. Fin condition isnt a fool proof indicator of whether a fish is wild or hatchery either. I have caught native fish that are guarenteed to be hatchery gene free that have messed up dorsal or worn fins. I have also caught hatchery fish that have shamed wild fish in every way shape and form and except for the missing adipose fin, there is ablsutely no way that you could tell the difference.


Codfather  asked that the burden of providing valid evidence lies with me, what proof are you looking for?

Any evidence that proves anything that your saying 


Sturzman - I consider a wild fish to be your definiton of a native. I am not trying to split hairs on this point.

Yes you are, or you are using terminology that is wrong and/or misleading.


It will be interesting to see how other board members define a "wild" fish?

It doesnt matter how other members define wild fish. In terms of scientific literature the definition of wild fish and native fish is already agreed upon.

[chumdog]

The distinction between "wild" and native fish, is a moot point, as any fish(excluding the rivers where no hatchery clipping occurs) with an intact adipose fin and full ventral and dorsal fins is considered a wild fish by the State of Washington.  The full unrubbed fin is a dead giveaway as to the origin of a fish.  In Washington, 20 or so years ago, before fin-clipping, we used to have to measure dorsal fins.  Anything over 2" was considered wild. 

I don't feel bringing genetics into the discussion is a valid agrument.  Whether it's "wild" or "native,"  in both cases, they have full fins, and should be allowed to complete their life cycle.  Just my $.02  worth.

[Fllyfishy]

Well I guess I will give some input here.  I had a lot of feelings about the prior threads, here and on the other boards.  I kept my trap shut though.

I believe that if a fish that is spawned in the river, navigates it way to the ocean and back to spawn itself, needs to be released.  We can debate forever about native vs. wild, but in my opinion, they are one in the same.  I don't eat much fish, and I have no problem stopping by the fish market and picking some up.  I have fished on the quinault reservation a few times, and for the memories, I still look at the pictures often of the river and the company I had on the river.  The fish are second in my opinion.  I have only kept one small hatchery fish from there, mainly to see how the native guide fillet their fish without cutting the belly.  The customs that they have for filleting them that was are interesting to me.  

The trips to the river for me are more about the experiance and the time on the river.  If I am lookiing to bring fish home, I will got to a rive with a large hatchery program and hope to catch a couple.  

I guess I chalk it up to my flyfishing days, and not keeping about anything I catch.  Even the trout that I catch where it is legal to keep, I let them go.  I will take the kids out and fish the local lakes and ponds, and keep some planters, but that us about it.  I take my 11 year old daughter fishing, and she would rather float the river and release fish all day rather than fish a lake or pond and kill the fish.  

I think that here in the northwest there my be a different mentality about C&R, especially for wild Salmon and Steelhead than in different parts of the country.  I look at the Yakima and its trout as an example.  Impose manditory catch and release, and now it is a Blue Ribbon Trout fishery.  I believe that if the state would impose more Catch and Release restrictions on more rivers, our grandchildren might have a chance to see and maybe even catch a wild steelhead.

[Brian]

Here is my simple take on the issue of sportsman releasing wild steelhead. Most often a wild steelhead hooked by a sports angler has already made it past a number of obstacles, including a multitude of predators in the ocean, a maze of commercial nets in the ocean, lots of seal & sea lions both in the salt water and the estuaries, and an almost impassable wall of tribal nets in the lower parts of most rivers. The way I see it, I am the last obstacle these fish have to get by to complete their sole purpose of reproducing. If I choose to release the fish, there is a very good chance that it will fulfill that mission, whereas if I decide to kill it, it has no chance to do so. I know I may be oversimplifying this but I think everyone will agree that it is the reality. The sportsman has the last say in this matter. I choose to release!

And by the way, I'll be on the upper Quinault tomorrow hoping to find some nates that were not bonked!

[The Codfather]

What I gathered from your last statements is that you are not hurting the population by taking one fish. You can do the math when our states angler population alone, starts to buy in to that sort of mentality. I feel the damage from the scenario could be devastating. Here Stan is how you summed it up-

"One day, I learned that 28 steelhead were caught in a net and 20 of those were over 20 pounds.  Do you truly believe that me killing that 1 fish of a lifetime really is going to make a big difference?" No I dont Stan. But I feel that the nets in combination with this kind on mentality will.


You also stated that fish had contributed its genes, its time had passed. There it sits in your freezer serving no purpose, but to have its flesh stripped to further stroke your ego ( a camera could have helped you re-live the memory quite well). Please elaborate for me, why you only believe in skin mounts.

Please also explain to me the mentality of keeping a fish of greater size, if you are given the opportunity to do so. One trophy on your wall is not enough? My friend they are not baseball cards, you can get by without collecting the whole set.

Explain to me how you are doing anything to benefit the fish stocks by taking a fish of that caliber.

Thanks, Reinhold

[Sturzman]

I think, as I said would happen, you'd find your arguments would be put down by people who have spent the greater portion of their lives chasing these fish. As I said there can be a difference between a wild fish and a true native. Example, Green river native summer runs coming from the previous plants of hatchery fish. However there is no way to tell the difference between the two. Your argument seems to be that just because it "could be" a relative of a hatchery fish that it makes it ok to bonk it. I think you can agree that there is in fact, no way to tell and even if there was, why keep a wild fish that has overcome all those obstacles that Brian and company listed. For me, after thinking about what that fish went through, I would feel horrible about killing that fish and denying it opportunity to fullfill it's mission in life, to create life.

As Codfather pointed out why does a skin mount make that experience more memorable. If I'm not mistaking there are talented taxadermist artists that with a set of dimensions and a quality picture, could produce a brilliant replica of that trophy.

Lastly I'll say it again. You're right it could've been a hatchery fish, but why take that chance?