Bad news comes early--- coho declines again

[NWBoater45]

Nw boater 45 jfyi those kings you saw being sold on the tulalip rez came from their OWN hatchery

The argument for the Boldt Act was for Rights to fish for salmon to retain to feed their Nations. NOT for resale and profit!!!

[NWBoater45]

Nw boater 45 jfyi those kings you saw being sold on the tulalip rez came from their OWN hatchery

Bassplayer17.....actually you bring up a very good point and thanks for pointing that out to everyone. If the Nations can produce fish out of their own hatcheries and have such a surplus they can sell it on the streets....Then what the F* do we still need the Bodlt Act for and they still need 50% of the salmon?!?!?!?!

[fear_no_fish]

Pretty much half of all the fish are caught in BC, Alaska and various off shore Fisheries. All before they come back to Washington for the tribes to take their 50%. This is after an over abundance of seals and birds eats a good chunk of smolts.
So sure removing nets might help, but most of the fish are dead long before our tribes even set a net in the water.

[spokey9]

So sure removing nets might help, but most of the fish are dead long before our tribes even set a net in the water.

That's a much bigger issue than the tribal netting. It's also something we potentially come together with the tribes and fight for changes in the mixed stock fisheries to ensure more of WA fish make it to the gravel.

[dj2loud]

Problem being the tribes mange their own catch records and the only numbers are those that come from when a tribal member sells to an authorized fish buyer and they fill out the forms supplied by the State. If they go from the net to Jonny's fish sales in the back of Jonny's pickup there are no records kept period.

An actual number would give clarity but that would be asking way too much.... Each sport fisherman has to account for his catch, why no one else?

[NWBoater45]

dj....not only do the sport fishermen have to account for their catch but we can't even take a native salmon out of the water. Kill-Nets don't discriminate between natives and clipped fins. The nets kill everything that goes up the rivers. As a sportsmen we have to do everything in our powers to save the native runs while netters get to kill everything in sight. How the F* does that equal out? Now we have special legal groups suing the states to stop the release of hatchery fish. These groups are suing the wrong entities. They should be targeting the ONLY confirmed source that kills native fish and that is the Kill-Nets. We got free drifters banned off the coast of the states in the early 1990's now it's time to get the native salmon killers out of our rivers!

[spokey9]

Truth is more of our wild fish are killed well before they enter the state of Washington's waters than in tribal nets. I'm not a huge fan of gillnetting the rivers. If we got the Tribal nets out of the river, more than likely, we wouldn't see much of an increase in fish returning to the gravel. Those extra fish in the ocean means a bigger quota in the mixed stock fisheries up north. We need to pressure the WDFW and our state government to negotiate a better deal for us, so the fish we pay for aren't supporting Alaskan commercial fisheries. That would bring more fish home and then would be a better time to focus on the tribal gillnets. Til then the tribes, our in state commies, and us rec fishers are just fighting over crumbs.

Those people that are suing the state run hatcheries, are zealots. They whole heartedly believe that hatchery fish are the most evil thing in the water. They'd never sue tribes though, it would be a complete loss for them. The treaty rights & the boldt decision make it pretty much impossible to win against them.

[Bodofish]

I'm not really sure how far any Steelhead migrate. Kings move to the gulf of Alaska, Silvers go out the ocean in front of the straights, Sockeyes go all over the place, no idea with the pinks. But I do know that Sea Run Cutts only go a few miles from their spawning rivers. It wouldn't surprise me to find the Steelhead only migrate into Puget Sound. Maybe someone more biological/knowledgeable than me can weigh in. Matt, you watching this thread?

[BARCHASER10]

Information on what Steelhead do in the ocean seems scarce. There are some that behave almost like Sea run Cutts, like the half pounders in the Rogue System. But 40 years ago I read the Steelhead Trout by Trey Combs and he seemed to think that Steelhead were much more heavily traveled than Salmon. He mentioned troll fishery information that showed northwest Steelhead being caught in places north of Japan and off of Siberia.

I do know one thing, I've fished offshore of Oregon, Washington, Alaska and BC going back to the mid 60's on my boat, other private boats and charter boats. I've asked folks including charter boat skippers and never once have I ever heard of anyone catching a Steelhead in the salt. I've never asked a commercial troll guy though. But it just doesnt seem to happen, its like they disappear.

[BARCHASER10]

FYI I did find this research paper from UW. I just glanced at it but the discussion on pages 11 to 15 seems to say that the distribution of Steelhead in the ocean is very diverse. They can be just about anywhere and different runs can have different habits. Kind of interesting.

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/rese ... 5/8913.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[spokey9]

thanks barchaser I gave it a quick glance and it looks to be a pretty good read. i'll read the whole thing as soon as I get a chance.

[fear_no_fish]

The tuna boys pick off steelhead every once and a while trolling x raps. I forgot the site, maybe ifish or bloody decks had a post talking about ocean steel.

[BARCHASER10]

Back to Coho. The WDFW post for discussion is pretty dire. We'll see when the regs are done but it sounds like a salt water Coho season will be very short to non existent.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/ ... eAreas.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;