Feds preparing to shut down recreational fishing...

[sickbayer]

"the worst i saw was fall puyallup salmon fever. A guy wearing blue jeans was up to his waste pulling in fish after fish after fish. I watched him catch a good 12-15 and I know he had more before i watched, and kept more after I left. He would grab em, throw them on his stringer and bring in another. foul hooked or not. He had a couple kids in the mud playing behind him, all I can figure is he was trying to catch 'their' limit too. "

This would really piss me off, but still compared to comercial fishing what damage is he really doing there. Call me stupid but the shear numbers that the commies and tribes catch are nothing compared to what the anglers catch...Just so you know I have a 40k boat 40k truck and spend Gawd knows what on fishing but i would give it all up for 5 years if the commies and tribes quit too. Also if you foul hooked a fish that say is in the eye that fish is gonna die so why not keep it as a totel towards your limit. If you threw 6 foul hooked fish back and kept 4 pinkies like you could chances are the other 6 may die. Wouldnt we be limiting the damage by allowing foul hooked fish as keepers.

[sickbayer]

ok i replied inbetween dustin and gringo and its gone. Did i say something wrong or did i not really post it....(whistling the xfiles tune )

[sickbayer]

"the worst i saw was fall puyallup salmon fever. A guy wearing blue jeans was up to his waste pulling in fish after fish after fish. I watched him catch a good 12-15 and I know he had more before i watched, and kept more after I left. He would grab em, throw them on his stringer and bring in another. foul hooked or not. He had a couple kids in the mud playing behind him, all I can figure is he was trying to catch 'their' limit too. "

This would really piss me off, but still compared to comercial fishing what damage is he really doing there. Call me stupid but the shear numbers that the commies and tribes catch are nothing compared to what the anglers catch...Just so you know I have a 40k boat 40k truck and spend Gawd knows what on fishing but i would give it all up for 5 years if the commies and tribes quit too. Also if you foul hooked a fish that say is in the eye that fish is gonna die so why not keep it as a totel towards your limit. If you threw 6 foul hooked fish back and kept 4 pinkies like you could chances are the other 6 may die. Wouldnt we be limiting the damage by allowing foul hooked fish as keepers.

[hookorcrook]

It seems to me that it is not the recreational fisherman, or netting Indians or commercial fishermen who are to blame, it is all of us. We are the ones who put the demand on our environment. We are the ones who demand dams for cheaper energy. We are the ones who want navigable waterways and roadways to move and get commerce. We are the ones who demand the lumber to build our large houses. And maybe we weren't here when all those decisions were made, but we are left with the legacy of it and continue to feed it. If humans didn't alter the natural landscape to the degree that nature can't adjust, then there wouldn't be a probem to discuss.

In my mind, the problem isn't that recreational fishing might or might not be stopped, the problem is that there are not enough fish. Take salmon: Historically, tens of millions of salmon would come back every year. The Indians fished the hell out of them for thousands of years. That didn't stop the salmon. They continued to come. Why? Because it was self-sustaining. The Indians didn't or couldn't take more than what the salmon produced.

Now that's not the case anymore. Salmon and all the fish stocks cannot produce enough to be self-sustaining. And it's because we have altered their environment and continue to overtax their dwindling populations. Their millions of years of evolution cannot adjust to 200 years of greed, neglect, and apathy.

So worrying about losing fishing rights or writing a congressman to me is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm. It might make you or me feel better because we did something, but it's not going to heal the break. Yes, our fishing rights should be protected, and we should fight for them, but we are losing the bigger battle. With the system set up as-is, fish stocks will never get any better, and can only get worse (due in part to continued over-population and building in the region). There are alternatives.

Alternative forms of energy. Updated technology that can be built or applied to replace or lessen damage to the environment. New ways of doing out-moded things that are detrimental to fish habitat. Us actually demanding less from the environment and using less in general. Restoring and fixing mistakes that were made. Lessening pollution. I think these are the solutions to fishing issues, not banning certain groups of people from fishing.

Normally I don't chime in on these types of conversations. But I hear the same thing from so many people (in America in general, not particularly this forum or this thread, though it is here too). People who are interested more in keeping their rights and their status quo, then doing what is right because it's the right thing to do.

When alternatives are discussed, people freak about the money it will cost. Even if it makes sense, is good for the natural world, and fixes a mistake or solves a problem, people are not willing to make the personal sacrifice whether its rolling up the sleeves or pulling out the wallet. When something might need to be closed or altered, even for it's own good and legitimate reason, there's an uproar that "you can't do that to me, us, our group, etc."

Anyway, if you've gotten this far, that's the problem as I see it. And this is certainly no solution, just some thoughts. Somebody earlier said something about being a conservationist and not an environmentalist. I don't see the two as being diametrically opposed to each other. It's hard to conserve something without an environment. I guess I would consider myself to be both.

While the environmental issues are one of the main contributors, you definitely cannot rule out that us as fishermen, recreational and commercial don't put a dent in the population. You can't really talk about natives thousands of years fishing salmon and not putting a dent in the population, when there's probably 10,000 times more people fishing now if not more than what there was back then in Washington waters. It would be great to say tear down all the dams, stop logging, or stop using pesticides on your gardens and farms but it most likely won't happen because of money and what not.

Hi jjball. I wasn't ruling out that fisherman don't make a dent in the population. All take impacts the salmon. Plus, there's Orcas and sea lions too. I was saying that the problem was low numbers of fish, not fishing. I was using the thousands of years of Native fishing as an example of sustainability. They didn't have a problem because they had high numbers to work with. And yes, more people fish now, but we wouldn't have a problem (as much of one anyway, there'd still be regs) if we had higher numbers to work with. And we could have higher numbers if we changed some things. What those things are, are for us to figure out.

P.S. I never said anything about tearing down all the dams or ending logging. We all love our modern conveniences. I do not want to live by candlelight in a stick hut. And I love logging on to Washington Lakes.com, because after all, what else is electricity for?

[MikeFishes]

Just for informational purposes, I thought I'd go and see what the numbers looked like for Commercial versus Recreational.

I found some numbers at the Pacific Fishery Management Council website for 2008. It takes a bit of reading to find where to look for the numbers, but if you look in Appendix B, Tables 37 and 38, you can see the numbers for Commercial versus Recreational. At the time 2008 numbers weren't in for Recreational, so I'll list 2007 for both.

Unfortunately they are broken down to areas, so the numbers here are Puget Sound only.

Here's the Commercial numbers:

Code: Select all

Year         Fishery     Chinook         Coho        Pink        Chum    Sockeye
2007      Non-Indian       6,785       13,435     200,687     680,250      6,266
       Treaty Indian     115,263      212,925     313,383     782,907      7,334
               Total     122,048      226,360     514,070   1,463,157     13,600

Now, this is an Odd Year, so there's Pinks caught. And, that's alot of Chum (wonder, where does that meat go ).

Here's the Recreational estimates:

Code: Select all

Year      Chinook        Coho        Pink
2007       50,357      77,475     105,831

Now, I know some have said, or at least hinted, that Recreational fishing makes more of a dent in salmon populations than Commercial. But these numbers don't really look like it. Secondly, Indian fishing seems to have the largest impact on salmon populations. Thirdly, didn't any of you fish for Chum in 2007? Now, of course, the Recreational numbers are estimates since they rely on us submitting our catch cards.

I'll be interested in 2009 numbers, especially with the fisheries being closed in Cali and Oregon.

[bionic_one]

The numbers that the Indian Fisheries catch, are larger, but more importantly, most of them use non-discriminatory methods and kill LOTS of wild fish. Those are fish that need to survive. There are methods that could be used to eliminate 99% of the mortality rate, but they don't use them.