keepers?

[Dean]

Just curious. Do you guys keep any of the steelies that you bring in?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for catch-and-release. But, I do like to eat fish now and again.

[David Lee]

Hi Dean , I never keep anything , but would have NO problem whacking a small (under 5 lb.) Steelie if it was clipped . Only problem is I couldn't catch it again ...... D.J.L.

[Dean]

Thanks for the reply, David. It would appear that you are one of many conscientious fisherman. In my very limited experience, I have yet to see a *fly* fisherman keep a steelhead! I'm new to the Sac area and trying to get started in fly fishing. I was afraid of looking like a poacher if I drag one of those hatchery fish outta of the river

[Gregg]

After seeing gearheads drag steelies out of the water with a double treble hook, then jamming a rope into its gills, I just couldn't bring myself to keep anything. I think if the fish population was substantial then I might feel better about keeping a fish or two, but I'm not sure if the present population is large enough yet. Also, I know mercury levels are an issue with many valley fish but is it also a problem with steelhead? What a great day it would be if we could keep some healthy fish without risking future populations...

[Darian]

Hello everyone,..... I like to eat fish of any sort but believe that native stocks should get as much help as possible until they're re-established. I release most of the anadromous fish I catch. However, catch/release is a personal choice where not mandated.

Now, having said that, I'm not overly offended by "gearheads" as most of them I've observed fish legally and do not exceed limits on Hatchery fish. I certainly would keep a hatchery bred fish caught from tidewater but not in the valley. This is due to personal taste in eating not conservation.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Hi Dean,

I would let one of my grandkids 'wack' a fresh looking little hatchery fish and then take it home and eat it fresh.

No freezing please.

It would be great if everyone would let those wild beauties go.

[Covelo]

The toxins of concern in the Valley rivers are mainly an issue with resident fish. Migrating fish like steelhead and salmon do not typically spend enough time in the rivers to build up levels to where they are a risk.

Most game agency personnel that I have spoken with have actually encouraged the take of hatchery fish. Most do not want the excess hatchery fish interbreeding with the wild stock.

Lastly, I have a slightly different take on "wild" fish in some of the valley rivers -- American, Feather, Yuba. First, all these streams are dammed and the native spawning grounds are no longer accessible. These "wild" steelhead are spawning in sections of these rivers where they never did historically. Second, I believe some of the stocks are not pure and may even be mostly non-native. Aren't the American River fish actually of Eel River origin? While I am definitely in favor of preserving wild stocks, I think we need to be careful about how we define wild as it seems to have been bastardized as we have allowed our expectations to be set lower and lower.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I think you are very close to 'right on' here Covelo.

I think they have tried many different stains of Steelhead when they had some budget for it in the '60s and '70s.

I know they put a Washougal River summer-run strain in the American River back then.

People say the 'halfpounders' might actually be the orginal native steelhead run in the river.

[Darian]

Hello Covelo,..... I'm wondering if your interpretation of what is a natural spawning fish isn't a little too narrow?? It seems to me that any fish spawning in a watery environment is natural, regardless of location, and may be indicative of natural adaption/selectivity.

If I understand/accept your point about fish spawning below dams as bad because they didn't spawn there before the dam was built, then I would be forced to adopt that same approach to all tailwater environments. Thus, I would be forced to look upon the lower Sacramento and the Klamath below dams on each river, as a potential for removal because they're non-native.....

In my estimation, your point is unrealistic and may be inaccurate. Applied to any species, that position would deny diversity thru hybridization and/or adaption. under your position, Steelhead that migrated up the Toutle river in Washington before the eruption of Mt. st. Helens would be viewed as native but not afterwards as they migrated up an alternative river to spawn after the Toutle was virtually destroyed by the eruption. Would any biologist believe that these fish were not entitled to adapt to a new environment until their original was available to them again??? And, would other biological entities that occupy that river in the meantime thru adaption/opportunity be, somehow, non-native???

What about fish that're stocked behind impoundments (warm and/or cold water species) and "carry-over" thru spawning either in the lake or tributaries thereto for many generations??? Under your definition of not spawning where they traditionally spawned these fish might not be of value....

Please accept my apology for sounding as tho I'm lecturing but I'm really trying to make the point that adaption/change/diversity is natural in nature. To remain static is to invite disaster thru possible extinction.....

[Covelo]

I agree that the smaller fish in the American are most likely native considering that run of fish is similar to the steelhead in the Sac and Feather as to size and timing of run.

Darian - No offense. Some good questions and I certainly want to hear what every one else thinks.

A volcano is a natural act. A dam is not natural unless created by a landslide. I think you need to look at the tailwater systems of the Feather, Yuba and American a little differently as they have no viable tribs below them. The Sac, Klamath and Eel Rivers all have dams but they are higher up on the rivers and there is still a considerable number of wild streams below them where natural spawning does occur.

The game agencies (which I support and believe are under funded) and other interest groups have done a good job of lowering the expectations of sport fishermen and naturalists in general. For the most part we are happy if the river gets a decent run. The make up of that run seems to be less important. Most seem to agree that hatchery fish are valued less than wild fish. This is because the hatchery system (raceways, hand feeding) selects differently than the wild river spawned fish. In other words their genetics are assumed inferior though this is currently being challenged in court. Well if a hatchery fish is inferior and not in need of absolute protection then why is a fish that hatches out of the gravel below a man made dam with controlled flows in a stretch of the river where that species never naturally spawned. Even without the introduced strains of steelhead from other rivers, the genetics have once again been screwed up with these fish. They might fight better but they really are not any more representative of the wild stock than are those fish coming out of the hatchery. So why protect them and why only have a one fish limit for hatchery fish on rivers mainly supported by a hatchery? I do not understand that logic. The managers of the American River should be doing everything they can to eliminate the introduced stocks of steelhead while trying to propagate the pure native strain if it still exists. This has about as much of a chance of occuring as having ladders added to all the dams to open up the natural spawning grounds in the Sierra. Can you imagine what it would be like to hook into a spring salmon in June up on the North fork of the American as the river is filled by snow melt. Yikes! I'd be satisfied with watching them leap through the rapids like you can on the Umpqua or Trinity Rivers.

Above the dams are a different story and certainly one that has not been managed any better considering the number of introduced species that have displaced the native ones. Many of which have spilled over into the lower rivers and created huge nightmares -- ie. squawfish in the Eel River. Why many of these non-native species are protected (bag limits) I do not understand. The DFG wants to protect the native fish species usually by restricting the fishermen, but refuse to reduce the number of non-native fish (especially Bass) which they know are a part of the problem.