Area 9/10 chinook closing early

The wild fish caught in the Native's nets is what drives closures in most rivers.  So yeah, it has an effect, and they don't come last in the pecking order.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The wild fish caught in the Native's nets is what drives closures in most rivers.  So yeah, it has an effect, and they don't come last in the pecking order.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The wild fish bycatch by recreational fishermen is what cause most recreational closures.  And (for the most part) they get first crack in the salt before the Natives even set their nets.

Everyone has their predefined allowable catch.  The farther you get away from a particular river, the harder it is to tell what the impact is on that river's run.  The closure you get to a river, the easier it is to point fingers.  But by the time the fish get to the river, everyone else has already had their impact.  If that's not last in the pecking order, I don't know what is.

-Allen

Recreational by-catch is released, and not legal to be removed from the water.  WDFWs use of 'recreational by-catch' as an excuse for a closure is deplorable.

Tribal nets 'by-catch' isn't by-catch at all.  THOSE wild fish are killed and kept, not released, and they keep the nets going until they reach a quota of wild fish caught, if they even bother to report it.  Some tribes are better at reporting than others, and just like recreational fisherman, some follow the rules, some don't.

Puyallup river used to be netted 5-6 days a week, then three years ago the fish count started getting abyssmal, now they only net 1 day a week, which is great.

Other places (skokomish for example) have a net schedule, but don't adhere to it, and keep the nets in 24/7.

Recreational by-catch is released, and not legal to be removed from the water.  WDFWs use of 'recreational by-catch' as an excuse for a closure is deplorable.

Tribal nets 'by-catch' isn't by-catch at all.  THOSE wild fish are killed and kept, not released, and they keep the nets going until they reach a quota of wild fish caught, if they even bother to report it.  Some tribes are better at reporting than others, and just like recreational fisherman, some follow the rules, some don't.

Puyallup river used to be netted 5-6 days a week, then three years ago the fish count started getting abyssmal, now they only net 1 day a week, which is great.

Other places (skokomish for example) have a net schedule, but don't adhere to it, and keep the nets in 24/7.

The allowable impacts are calculated assuming a mortality rate times the actual bycatch.  For the native netting scenario, it just happens to be 100% mortality rate.  For the recreational it is a different rate.  At the end of the day, "they" are monitoring the effective number of fish killed.  I assure you, it is not the raw number of wild fish caught and released by recreational fishermen.

-Allen

I realize they use calculations and allowable impact models etc.  It's a farce.

The few hundred wild fish caught (and released!) by recreational fisherman have no significant impact compared to Tribal and Commercial fisheries.  (Realistically, Tribal fisheries are a commercial enterprise as well)

Tribal and commercial fisherman catch and kill wild fish by the hundreds of thousands.  This has a direct result in lower and lower wild fish populations.  So you can talk about management methods all you want, but at the end of the day, the tribal fishermen and commercial fishermen are the ones creating the problem, and recreational fishermen are the skapegoat.  Seriously man, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of wild salmon, killed on their way to spawn, with NO chance of release to continue, and you're going to try and say recreational fishermen have a big impact?

Reality is, there are methods available to tribal fishermen (and commercial fishermen) that are affordable that would nearly eliminate the mortality of wild salmon (99% effective in testing).  They just choose not to use those methods. 

"allowable impacts" and "mortality rates" for recreational fishermen are total BS.  It's like putting a bandaid on an amputated leg, while ignoring the bright red spewing from the femoral artery.

Should impacts on wild fish be minimized?  YES.
Are recreational fishermen blameless?  NO.

These arguments are independent of each other.

You should read the following, http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00854/wdfw00854.pdf , I think you'll find it enlightening.

-Allen

I realize they use calculations and allowable impact models etc.  It's a farce.

The few hundred wild fish caught (and released!) by recreational fisherman have no significant impact compared to Tribal and Commercial fisheries.  (Realistically, Tribal fisheries are a commercial enterprise as well)

Tribal and commercial fisherman catch and kill wild fish by the hundreds of thousands.  This has a direct result in lower and lower wild fish populations.  So you can talk about management methods all you want, but at the end of the day, the tribal fishermen and commercial fishermen are the ones creating the problem, and recreational fishermen are the skapegoat.  Seriously man, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of wild salmon, killed on their way to spawn, with NO chance of release to continue, and you're going to try and say recreational fishermen have a big impact?

Reality is, there are methods available to tribal fishermen (and commercial fishermen) that are affordable that would nearly eliminate the mortality of wild salmon (99% effective in testing).  They just choose not to use those methods. 

"allowable impacts" and "mortality rates" for recreational fishermen are total BS.  It's like putting a bandaid on an amputated leg, while ignoring the bright red spewing from the femoral artery.

the state says the wild salmon belong to the natives and the rest belong to them. they tell you when, where, and what you can catch. it's their fish, not yours. it's their land and waterways, not yours. if they say you can't catch them, well... too bad.

the state says the wild salmon belong to the natives and the rest belong to them. they tell you when, where, and what you can catch. it's their fish, not yours. it's their land and waterways, not yours. if they say you can't catch them, well... too bad.

Actually it's the Feds that say it.  The state just manages it.

Why exactly are you mad Maverick?  I know this is an emotional discussion, but emotion alone shouldn't drive it.  Some facts and figures would be useful.

-Allen

Actually it's the Feds that say it.  The state just manages it.

Why exactly are you mad Maverick?  I know this is an emotional discussion, but emotion alone shouldn't drive it.  Some facts and figures would be useful.

-Allen

I think you misread, that was directed towards lee. I'm not mad at all actually. its quite the opposite. I'm completely indifferent towards the matter. they say I can't catch kings and like the sayin goes, plenty other fish, i went and caught coho.

My dialogue was mad bro?

I think you misread, that was directed towards lee. I'm not mad at all actually. its quite the opposite.

Well, between your last statement/picture, and your previous one, below, it sure seemed like you were mad.

man fuc% natives and fuc% the wdwf as theyre the reason and the response for the salmon laws that primarily affect sport fishers. my first season for salmon was cut short by "wdfw" to preserve mortal hookups of "native" fish.

Or maybe you're inciting madness?   

Either way ... no big deal.

Nice coho!

-Allen

I stick by that, fuck both of them. simply said, no anger. they lay down the laws and I follow them. I give them a finger, change my rig and keep casting. after all I'm interested in catching fish, not protecting them. ill leave that to them.

and thanks 

This should cut the tension..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This should cut the tension..

What tension?  I'm proud to say we do quite well here at NWKA when it comes to "engaging conversation".  Some of the other sites are downright ruthless.

-Allen

This should cut the tension..

What tension?  I'm proud to say we do quite well here at NWKA when it comes to "engaging conversation".  Some of the other sites are downright ruthless.

-Allen

I agree with you there. Still..
The reality is I wanted to post that pic somewhere and felt this was as good a thread as any :p
Paul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk