Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Restricting Guides Services on Some Rivers?

13K views 167 replies 64 participants last post by  isaacfab 
#1 ·
I fish around in some other states for trout. The best fishing I have found is where guide service is not permitted on the river. The fishing is fabulous. (I don’t know where there are many “No Guides Permitted” rivers, but haven’t researched it) So, I have come to the conclusion that guide services impact rivers quite negatively because of the tremendous fishing pressures put on the rivers. I think this rule should be applied on more rivers to enhance the fishing quality. What say you? What is your opinion or have you thought of this much before? I don’t expect to be popular after this post….
 
#2 ·
I definitely think there are several rivers that could benefit greatly from this; especially rivers with ESA listed runs. ESA listed runs in the Columbia system get absolutely HAMMERED by guide services, especially the Klickitat and Methow.

I know the OP runs are considered to be "healthy" by the powers that be; but with the increase in both guide and non-guide pressure, in addition to excessive gill netting, these rivers won't be far behind as far as the whole ESA listing thing goes.

(my opinion only pertains to steelhead. i don't know nearly enough about trout fisheries to have much of an opinion there.)
 
#4 ·
being right isn't always popular. the guide industry has a few good eggs but there are a ton of guides who care little about the resource. commercializing rivers does them little good.

it would be nice if certain stretches of rivers were guide free, but i personally think a "no fishing from floating device" would do as much good without as much negative reaction.
 
#5 ·
I like the rules on the Beaverhead River in Montana, as I remember them. Not sure if this is completely accurate, nor if it remains in place today. Essentially, there are two upper sections that are preferred floats on the river, Highbridge to Henneberry, and Heneberry to Pipe Organ. Guides are not permitted to take clients on the weekend, and out of staters are limited to one section on Saturday, and the other on Sunday. Guides cannot take clients on Floats below the second section. Not sure if that would work on any of the rivers that you're thinking of, but seems to work nicely on this particular river in Montana, and everyone remains relatively happy.
 
#8 ·
How elite of the locals who have paid off the landowners and the politicians for the "right" to fish public water...
I don't understand the point that you're making with this comment? Who has paid off for a right to do anything? Locals are given an opportunity to have an exclusive right to fish certain sections of the river without guides or even out of state self guided individuals. Of course, anyone can wade during these times, the rules only apply to floats. I don't get where you make the leap to Elitists or any payoff of the landowners and/or politicians. If I'm being ingnorant, I don't mind if someone calls me out on it, I just need to be able to understand the ignorance.
 
#25 ·
I don't understand the point that you're making with this comment? Who has paid off for a right to do anything? Locals are given an opportunity to have an exclusive right to fish certain sections of the river without guides or even out of state self guided individuals. Of course, anyone can wade during these times, the rules only apply to floats. I don't get where you make the leap to Elitists or any payoff of the landowners and/or politicians. If I'm being ingnorant, I don't mind if someone calls me out on it, I just need to be able to understand the ignorance.
You see what you did there?
 
#9 ·
I'm not particularly educated on the subject other than spending 4 years living in Oregon. We fished the Deschutes a ton and the "no fishing from the boat" law seemed like a great one. Of course we would have caught more fish if we could fish from the boat but so would everyone else. It was still a great time fishing and I'm sure it's a better fishery because of it.
 
#13 ·
Guides are incredibly important to conservation awareness. If not for guides only a hand full of people would have an interest in wild steelhead. There is no other group of people more interested in a healthy fishery. I'm not a guide but I can say this guide hating is a little absurd, its only proof so far being an anecdote about how fishing was great once. Conservation efforts are stifled by nonsensical charges like this. I'm new to this sport but not to consrevation. How about focusing on things that can be changed and have larger impacts like banning the use is lead in fishing products. Interesting that duck hunters have to use steel shot but fishermen are alowed to dump massive amounts of the stuff in every piece of water unfortunate enough to have fish.
 
#14 ·
Don, Our rivers have already been sold out to commerce far enough. These waters are a public resource for all. "Limited Entry" for guides could be applied here one day. Or they will simply shut down all fishing. That is a distinct possibility. How many seasons like this one; where they closed the Puget Sound rivers and displaced all of the fishermen and guides out to the Peninsula Rivers to hammer the crap out of the last fish, will it take to utterly destroy what is left? Not fishing out of or directly from boats/floats would help to limit the damages. As would stopping wild steelhead harvest.
 
#17 ·
How about this idea. Getting a float permit for a river. Might work like this. You stop by to pick up your permit no more than say 48 hours before hand. It's a hard plastic tag you hang on your boat. Must be returned the next day or a fine. There would be a limit on how many were issued for each day. Different color for each day of the week.

The guides would have a separate tag and limit per day on this same river. If your a guide. You must carry a Washington state guide lic. This you can only get if you live in the state. No more out of state guides flooding in during the high season. If your a guide and take one of the public permits, loss of guide lic.

I know there are tons of ways to make this sound like a bad idea. And I'm sure no one will like this idea. But, if you stop and think about it for just a second..... It will lower/spread out the pressure on the rivers. It will insure a uncrowded day for you and your customers. It will restrict the number of guilds in competition for a limited resource. Thus allowing guilds to make a living.

LETS TRY THIS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY. DON'T SAY ANYTHING!!!

Saying it's a bad idea without offering a alternative is not constructive.
 
#24 ·
How about this idea. Getting a float permit for a river. Might work like this. You stop by to pick up your permit no more than say 48 hours before hand. It's a hard plastic tag you hang on your boat. Must be returned the next day or a fine. There would be a limit on how many were issued for each day. Different color for each day of the week.

The guides would have a separate tag and limit per day on this same river. If your a guide. You must carry a Washington state guide lic. This you can only get if you live in the state. No more out of state guides flooding in during the high season. If your a guide and take one of the public permits, loss of guide lic.

I know there are tons of ways to make this sound like a bad idea. And I'm sure no one will like this idea. But, if you stop and think about it for just a second..... It will lower/spread out the pressure on the rivers. It will insure a uncrowded day for you and your customers. It will restrict the number of guilds in competition for a limited resource. Thus allowing guilds to make a living.
I think this is actually a very good solution to limit over-use of a public resource. Similar to hunting licenses currently. There could be an online registration system similar to the campground system with a first-come first-served priority, or some kind of lottery (perhaps for the more desired dates).
 
#21 ·
I promise you I will poach the first "guide only river"

fuck the idea that you have to be able to afford to pay a guide to go fish somewhere.

Unless of course the guides were "free" and a lottery system was put inplace.


In fact, I think a lottery system might be the best for the steelhead rivers, like there is for wilderness use.
 
#44 ·
I promise you I will poach the first "guide only river"

fuck the idea that you have to be able to afford to pay a guide to go fish somewhere.

.
Two reality pills for you.

1. The problem this thread discusses is that it's clear that there is too much pressure on too few fish, and the ratio continues to get worse. So, something has to be done to relieve the pressure on the most sensitive areas. If unlimited access were working, why are we having this discussion? I'd like to hear a better suggestion than you're prepared to break any regulation you don't agree with.

2. You might have to pay to fish some rivers that need the most protection until the situation improves. Increased user fees can pay for habitat and enforcement Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.

I will gladly pay a an added fee for a guide trip or buy a ticket in a lottery if it means there might be quality fishing available somewhere closer than Siberia.
 
#23 ·
If the availability of a public resource is being limited by a for-profit group these groups should be limited/regulated. The general public should not have to compete for access to a public resource with a for-profit group.

Guide only rivers? Would these guides be required to pay more into the system for a guide license? Required to contribute to conservation groups? Maintain boat launches and all other public access resources? Would their licenses fees etc cover the cost to maintain the hatchery programs on these rivers? Who would manage/regulate these rivers and guides? The same people currently manage and regulate the rivers? Etc? Etc? Etc? Etc?
 
#27 ·
We all need to concider the survival of the fish. That means that we have to stop being selfish and greedy and work together, determine whhat will help the fish survive and make that iinto law. THen work togeather to stop poaching, clean up the lakes and streams and maybe even stop fishin some streams some years. There are some ideas suggested that seem good and others worth trying but we need to START NOW and work togeather. I like the Deschutes system having fished it for years with the limits and not fishing from a floating device but there are other things mentioned here that sound good too.THe Guides still seam to get a fair amount of business too and we've got to leave them some chance to make a living and help improve the fishing too. !! happy fishing!! or not
 
#29 ·
Eliminate nymphing or at least lead. They'd be fewer guides rowing clients into fish.

Go Sox,
cds
I like this idea among others. I like Jeff's proposals, Mumbles concerns, and I like Bob Jones idea of closing a river. I could stand a river closing for one year... what the heck. Anything helps. Don't get me wrong, I would thoroughly enjoy a day on the river with a guide... a place that wasn't crowded of course and pounded to death!
 
#32 ·
I think the no fishing from a floating device is a bad idea. There's a lot of spots and runs that are only accessible by boats to fish. Fishing from a boat spreads out the pressure. Otherwise, you have bank accessible runs that just get pounded to hell. Talking mostly from the perspective of a trout guy here.

Guiding is a fact of life. Everyone has to learn how to respectfully share. People that whore out a resource should be accordingly called out. We should police each other through direct confrontation and feedback - not a suggestion to create a thousand new rules. Holy shit the reg book is already too complex.

Just my opinion.
 
#35 ·
I think the no fishing from a floating device is a bad idea. There's a lot of spots and runs that are only accessible by boats to fish.
Thats the point. Part of the problem in a lot of high pressure rivers is that the fish get completely hammered and have little to no refuge from the bombardment of lures/flies. Gives them more "safe" places to feed without getting hooked every other day.

I fish a couple different trout rivers that have this restriction and think it works very well. Yes, i drool at a lot of areas I float by, but its worth it to give the fish a break. Our impacts from angling shouldn't include catching every last fish in the river.

Regarding the original topic, I've always supported having a lottery system for areas that have too much pressure. This same concept is used on wilderness floats in Idaho/Montana, and has been an effective tool for preserving the resource. Hunting also adapts this concept. Many hunts that cannot support a lot of pressure are drawn on a lottery system. If it was a free for all, over harvest would be a major problem. Our population is getting large enough where we may soon have to start doing this for fishing. Most parts of Europe have gone this route in some form or another.
 
#38 ·
We had a similar long thread last fall... I think I started it... Anyways, I don't feel that guides are bad. But, I feel that TOO MANY guides is bad. What it does is limit opportunity for the average recreational angler to enjoy a resource.

Let's take the Klickitat for example; On the first weekend of October last fall, we counted 28 boats in the canyon (that we saw). On that small water, that is absolutely ridiculous. Not all were guides, but well over half the boats I saw were. When I fish that river, I either walk+wade, or float, get out and fish. My catch rates are typically a fish or two a trip, while those fishing out of the boat are putting in days in to the double digits. No fish is safe in that river, since every single pocket they hold in gets absolutely hammered day in and day out. Just from my personal calculations (which certainly are not fit to be posted as any kind of study), I don't see how any fish is not getting caught at least once. With the run sizes in that river, many fish are easily being caught multiple times. And unfortunately, it's largely the guides that are putting in those numbers. Most recreational anglers I talk to out there are putting in 0 to a couple fish tops.

I have many guides I consider friends, and don't wish many of the good, ethical, courteous ones that care about the resource to get the short end of the stick. But with a shrinking resource, we are alll going to have to make sacrifices, recreational guys included.
 
#55 ·
Let's take the Klickitat for example; On the first weekend of October last fall, we counted 28 boats in the canyon (that we saw). On that small water, that is absolutely ridiculous. Not all were guides, but well over half the boats I saw were. When I fish that river, I either walk+wade, or float, get out and fish. My catch rates are typically a fish or two a trip, while those fishing out of the boat are putting in days in to the double digits. No fish is safe in that river, since every single pocket they hold in gets absolutely hammered day in and day out. Just from my personal calculations (which certainly are not fit to be posted as any kind of study), I don't see how any fish is not getting caught at least once. With the run sizes in that river, many fish are easily being caught multiple times. And unfortunately, it's largely the guides that are putting in those numbers. Most recreational anglers I talk to out there are putting in 0 to a couple fish tops.

I have many guides I consider friends, and don't wish many of the good, ethical, courteous ones that care about the resource to get the short end of the stick. But with a shrinking resource, we are alll going to have to make sacrifices, recreational guys included.
Evan, you have described the problem to a T. The Klick is one of many rivers - including several out on the OP, not to mention the Cowlitz, Kalama, and others - that are getting hammered with pressure. And we can't kid ourselves to thinking that C&R - many fish caught multiple times - makes it OK.

I love fishing and catching steelhead as much as the next guy, but have absolutely no interest in participating in those kinds of fisheries. Maybe I'm a snob, but that isn't what fishing and enjoying the outdoors is all about for me.

Frankly, the easiest and best method for self-policing would be to prohibit fishing from boats or other floating devices. Like the Deschutes, others on the river are the best means of enforcement in terms of chastising and reporting violations. Yeah, that would put a lot of great water out of reach. Well, that's good for the fish! Most of the other ideas suggested here would require WDFW to have enforcement officers at multiple launch and pull-out sites on multiple rivers to check permits or numbers or whatever - something they simply can't do.
 
#46 ·
Here's a quirk for you. Statewide Rules on steelhead state that "steelhead..to be released may not be totally removed from the water" page 27. These guys need to prove they killed this wild fish, or they're committing an infraction. Looks like a lose-lose for these nimrods if WDFW enforcement got hold of this.
 
#45 ·
I have much the same experience that Larry described. In his OP, he indicated that he was talking about trout rivers, not steelhead (I know they are trout, too, but...), and that his perception was that rivers that often fish better are not heavily guided. I fish in Idaho and/or Montana every summer, and have sampled, sometimes pretty extensively, most of the well-known and many of the not-so-well-known rivers there.

On its face, this presents a conundrum. A guide's business is to get his/her client into fish. Ipso, facto, they should be taking them where the fishing is best, right? But that isn't always true. Hence Larry's (and my) impressions that the rivers that fish best are NOT frequented by guides.

I think there are a couple of explanations that intersect. One is that there are some rivers where pressure from guides is a significant factor in making fish more wary and, therefore, harder to catch. Of course, pressure doesn't come only from guides, but on most rivers, guides can more consistently find fish than can the tourist fisherman on a DIY trip. So, us poor schmucks who visit on our own suffer the consequences of trying to catch those wary fish (oh, wait a minute, isn't that the epitome of fly fishing? Yeah, but we still like to catch a fish now and then...).

So, why then are there still rivers where the fishing is great (which means the catching is more frequent); why aren't the guides taking their clients there? I think this gets at the point several of you have raised. Those rivers typically are the ones that are not conducive to fishing from boats. Not all, but almost all guiding for trout is done from a boat. Clients want it and expect it. Similarly, the increase in recent years of privately owned drift boats means those same rivers are infested with both private and guided boats, sometimes so thick a boat is never out of sight of the wading fisherman.

So, I think the bottom line is that easily floated rivers, which includes some of the most famous rivers in the west (thus the ones clients from out of the area expect guides to take them on) are the ones that get hammered the most and make the fishing a little tougher for everyone.

I suspect that Larry is like me, a wading fisherman, who prefers dry flies to rising trout. Sure, it might appeal to snobs like us to have rivers where nymphing is off limits, or guides are banned (intermittently or completely or via lottery), but I think the real factor comes from the quantitatively greater and spatially more distributed pressure that comes from rivers with lots of floating fishermen. Heck, some of the best rivers I know are not restricted to fly fishing (so nymphing restrictions won't do it), or even to catch & release.

My life's too short to worry about trying to change the rules to favor the style of fishing I prefer. I'm just grateful that so many pay-to-fish folks are too lazy to wade and fish and that so many people today want to emulate guides by having their own ride. Let 'em have the rivers that fit their style. I'll just continue to find the rivers they shun and continue to enjoy the experience.

D
 
#79 ·
I have much the same experience that Larry described. In his OP, he indicated that he was talking about trout rivers, not steelhead (I know they are trout, too, but...), and that his perception was that rivers that often fish better are not heavily guided. I fish in Idaho and/or Montana every summer, and have sampled, sometimes pretty extensively, most of the well-known and many of the not-so-well-known rivers there.

On its face, this presents a conundrum. A guide's business is to get his/her client into fish. Ipso, facto, they should be taking them where the fishing is best, right? But that isn't always true. Hence Larry's (and my) impressions that the rivers that fish best are NOT frequented by guides.

I think there are a couple of explanations that intersect. One is that there are some rivers where pressure from guides is a significant factor in making fish more wary and, therefore, harder to catch. Of course, pressure doesn't come only from guides, but on most rivers, guides can more consistently find fish than can the tourist fisherman on a DIY trip. So, us poor schmucks who visit on our own suffer the consequences of trying to catch those wary fish (oh, wait a minute, isn't that the epitome of fly fishing? Yeah, but we still like to catch a fish now and then...).

So, why then are there still rivers where the fishing is great (which means the catching is more frequent); why aren't the guides taking their clients there? I think this gets at the point several of you have raised. Those rivers typically are the ones that are not conducive to fishing from boats. Not all, but almost all guiding for trout is done from a boat. Clients want it and expect it. Similarly, the increase in recent years of privately owned drift boats means those same rivers are infested with both private and guided boats, sometimes so thick a boat is never out of sight of the wading fisherman.

So, I think the bottom line is that easily floated rivers, which includes some of the most famous rivers in the west (thus the ones clients from out of the area expect guides to take them on) are the ones that get hammered the most and make the fishing a little tougher for everyone.

I suspect that Larry is like me, a wading fisherman, who prefers dry flies to rising trout. Sure, it might appeal to snobs like us to have rivers where nymphing is off limits, or guides are banned (intermittently or completely or via lottery), but I think the real factor comes from the quantitatively greater and spatially more distributed pressure that comes from rivers with lots of floating fishermen. Heck, some of the best rivers I know are not restricted to fly fishing (so nymphing restrictions won't do it), or even to catch & release.

My life's too short to worry about trying to change the rules to favor the style of fishing I prefer. I'm just grateful that so many pay-to-fish folks are too lazy to wade and fish and that so many people today want to emulate guides by having their own ride. Let 'em have the rivers that fit their style. I'll just continue to find the rivers they shun and continue to enjoy the experience.

D
Dick, what would you charge to take me along?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top