No Harm no Foul

W

wetline dave

Steelhead
This is a bit of curiosity and not intended to be contentious by any means.

If a fishery is recognized as being threatened but yet open to fish will you fish the run? Or if the fish IE steelhead are greatly stressed through out their range but certain rivers allow a fishery that claims minimal impact will you fish it?

This is a personal philosophical question and there is no correct answer. Pertaining to the Skagit I know Salmo -g and ww fish it and they do so with clear conscience and I respect that as they come from a scientific perspective.

Now I know the Skagit is not an easy river to fish as I have been there and done that with some bit of success. But the problem as I see it by opening any fragile fishery, which may be the correct thing to do. the run will be over fished.

Can the fishery and it's future be relied upon with minimal oversight be kept in bounds?

I started fishing winter steelhead in the mid 1960"s and continued to so until the early 1990's and then hung it up. The runs had dropped off the charts for many reasons and I felt I didn';t need to be one of them.

Dave
 
If you need further clarity....read what salmo posted in your other thread.

The science doesn't change.
 
I’ll continue to fish where allowed if I feel like fishing those waters.
Most closures and listings haven’t resulted in fish stocks rebounding. If closures or reduced seasons work, why aren’t we fishing those stocks now that have been closed or having restrictive seasons for a number of years?
An example would be one of my home rivers, the Nisqually. Closed to winter steelhead fishing in 1993. 30 years and still waiting……
It’s a lot easier to just close things then to ever get them back open again.
SF
 
I am not questioning your ethics as I for the most part agree. I am just curious what people think in general.

Personally I opt not to fish but it is a personal decision and not something I would expect anyone else to endorse. Is it "wrong" to fish for these fish? No not at all It is just my choice and philosophical feelings that are mine and mine alone.

I am just looking for how other people feel about the issue not just in the Skagit but other rivers as well.

Dave
 
I do not believe that sport fishing, even intensive sport fishing has much of an impact on the survival of any fish species, nor would its effects add cumulatively to other effects to cause extinction, nor would the lack of sport fishing be a element of a species survival, as a whole or as part of a region.
That said, I would not bait fish for summer steelhead while wild fish were present.
I would however bait fish for winter hatchery steelhead while there were wild winters around because of the vastly different behaviors of summer and winter steelhead have towards bait.

Other than that, I'd feel little to no guilt fishing for a threatened or endangered species in most situations.
 
Call me conservative. I do not fish when water temps get high even on put n take waters. I definitely will not fish in waters where there are struggling/threatened species planted or not.
 
the decline that occurred for many of the PNW anadromous fishes from the 1960’s to 1990’s must have been tough to witness. Since that time I would argue that most of those same populations of fish that crashed from historic abundance have been relatively stable and many salmon runs have rebounded somewhat from the lows that triggered ESA listings. Given how many more people are around and the continuing preferences for industrialized society, we’re probably seeing the runs we’re going to have for the foreseeable future. Ocean conditions can swing the run sizes like we saw this year in the Columbia.

My preference for local fishing is to target non-native and/or hatchery-origin. I’ve recently had some opportunities to re-discover the fun and satisfaction of harvesting salmon from the salt. Good eats!
 
Since I so rarely catch fish....especially steelhead...I fish without guilt. Being out on the river is just too great a feeling for me to pass up. I'd try to get out even if they made us fish only in high water, dry flies, and cack handed the entire time. I have lost a few nice fish due to trying to land them too quickly. A lot of swearing involved, but I still get a huge rush and still always land fish quickly if I intend to C and R.
 
It kinda depends on what I'm fishing for and what I'm fishing with.

But generally, I don't worry too much about my personal fishing affecting the survival of fish. Between my catch rate, fishing with fly gear, hooks without barbs, and making the effort to handle fish gently, I suspect that I'm not doing much harm. And more than that, I'm not sure that limiting my fishing would really do anything for the fishery.

Now, can you say the same thing about a gear guy fishing bait as you can about an unlucky fly fisher? Can you say the same thing about someone who thinks lifting a fish by the gills and then putting it back is "catch and release" as you can about someone who fishes with a rubber net and tries to "keep em wet"? I don't know.

I just doubt my fishing matters much in this context. So I mostly don't limit it. If a river is open, I'll probably fish it.
 
Stonedfish said:
I’ll continue to fish where allowed if I feel like fishing those waters.
Most closures and listings haven’t resulted in fish stocks rebounding. If closures or reduced seasons work, why aren’t we fishing those stocks now that have been closed or having restrictive seasons for a number of years?
An example would be one of my home rivers, the Nisqually. Closed to winter steelhead fishing in 1993. 30 years and still waiting……
It’s a lot easier to just close things then to ever get them back open again.
SF
Click to expand...
This idea of closing rivers and then not reopening them sucks, I know of several in the Wenatchee drainage that were closed many years ago. They have been closed for over 20 years now. I used to fish those rivers and also caught fish out of them when they were open. It seems like they keep closing the Skinny water in Washington and then raise the price of a license.
 
I can get all philosophical about fish and fishing, but for me, the details matter. If a fishery is recognized as being threatened, it matters to me who is doing the recognizing and especially the why. I'm a boomer, and I question authority and damn near everything. What does ". . . greatly stressed throughout their range" mean? Nearly every steelhead population of the NE Pacific rim is experiencing reduced abundance due to reduced marine survival rates. And most in southern BC, WA, OR, and CA are also reduced because of the degradation of their freshwater habitat. Fishing, particularly recreational CNR fishing, has zero influence on that.

Dave, you say that, "But the problem as I see it by opening any fragile fishery, which may be the correct thing to do. the run will be over fished." Like I said, details matter to me. What makes a fishery "fragile?" You think that opening any fragile fishery will cause the run to be over fished. I suspect that you mean over fished in the sense that fishing will contribute to or cause further depletion of that fish population. That's fine, you can think whatever you want. However I'd rather we manage fish based on empircal knowledge instead of our feelings. The evidence is plenty clear that while fishing contributed to declines in steelhead populations in the past, fishing over the last 30 to 40 years has had no measurable impacts on wild steelhead abundance with the possible exceptions of the Queets and Quinault. When evidence shows that recreational CNR fishing adversely affects a fish population, then I will not fish on that population. Otherwise I probably will so long as the experience provides me with satisfaction.
 
I had to stop, because I was just to good at it. I’d go out there and land 0-1000s of steelhead each trip and that just puts too much pressure on the system. My sacrifice of my roping skills is your benefit. Of course I always cheated when I fished, by using an indicator and a single hand rod from the shore. Dirty Azz Nympher I was. 😁

In reality though, I think more of the right bodies and eyes on the rivers is likely an overall plus, towards limiting opportunities for poachers.
 
Endangered species of any sort? Fishing or even hunting? For me it is a Hard no. They already have enough problems to deal with. Id rather give them a chance to come back for my kids and grandkids. Case in Point....Mule Deer Oregon...Steelhead Oregon.
 
It's not unusual to see an area opened to catch and release as a management measure to determine the health of a population. That method has been used in BC before. Test fisheries and experimental fisheries in commercial fisheries have been used for decades to guage population and the same logic allows for managers in recreational fisheries to understand returns by allowing an area to open, monitor effort and catch, and thereby further understand overall run health. I don't know if that is what goes on south of me but here in BC it has been done.

I'm not advocating it's right. My personal view is that anything endangered needs the highest level of protection. There is no longer the luxury of risk taking, especially for many of the few remaining wild steelhead stocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top