Angler abuse on the Skagit?

#16
Passing laws and setting rules from an office is a pretty easy thing to do.

Enforcement, on the other hand, is expensive and requires manpower. Enforcement is not a pleasant thing. In some cases, enforcement can be downright dangerous.

Given the current state of finances in the State and in the Country, I find it hard to believe that there will be any expenditures of size to support these rules. I hope that I am incorrect, but the numbers are just not there for me.

Our courts are overburdened now, with lawbreakers of a more violent and troublesome nature. I can not see the addition of a few miscreant fishers getting much attention.

Perhaps the bold print in the WDFW statement is the giveaway. If they make the threat, then decent and law abiding fishers will not violate it, and we can all feel good about that and go home to a warm fire and cold beer. The few fish that fall prey to the unscrupulous will not bother the political folks and their appointees very much, if at all.
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
#17
Olive, I tend to agree with you but the Skagit and especially the Skagit Chinook maybe the exception. In the past few years a number of poachers have been busted on the Skagit for targeting kings. Some received a bit of publicity. Several of these poachers were specifically targeted by WDFW enforcement. The rule change could make it easier for enforcement to once again target specific poachers if that is the intent.
 

Smalma

Active Member
#18
Kery -
I agree that this is good news! The rule changes provide enforcement with a potential tool to address this long standing problem on the Skagit. Hopefully this means that the other shoe will drop and WDFW officers will be spending more time on the river and issuing ciations.

I have to chuckle about folks nto being checked by enforcement. Since retiring in June of 2005 I have been checked 38 times by various enforcement officers from several agencies - clearly I must look like a likely poacher -LOL. That said other than the Columbia I have not been checked on any river in the State during that time and I'm looking forward to seeing WDFW officers and even being checked on the Skagit.

Salmo -
If you check the timing and river areas of the emergency rule changes you will find that areas open for salmon fishing (for example the current sockeye season) are not included in the emergency rule change. It also does not apply during the steelhead seasons.

BTW -
I would love to selective gear rules being the normal on all of our anadromous rivers and in fact purposed such a change this regulation cycle.

Tight lines
Curt
 
#19
Olive, I tend to agree with you but the Skagit and especially the Skagit Chinook maybe the exception. In the past few years a number of poachers have been busted on the Skagit for targeting kings. Some received a bit of publicity. Several of these poachers were specifically targeted by WDFW enforcement. The rule change could make it easier for enforcement to once again target specific poachers if that is the intent.
Well sir, I defer to your knowledge of the situation. My comments were general observations about enforcement. I have not fished the Skagit and have only read of some early pioneer steelhead fishing. If enforcement is in place, there is no doubt that the new ruling will put some teeth in in. I am still skeptical about the courts, but perhaps I am wrong there also. I hope so.
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
#20
So that I'm sure I understand this, the change means no bait and no barbs and a limit on hook size. The downside being that "typical" sockeye gear includes a barbed hook and a piece of prawn or shrimp on the hook?

Sg
you can still fish bait for sockeye in the area thats open, Plus they never said you couldn't use sparkplugs , just the hooks can't have a gap bigger than 1/2 inch, I'm wondering what special kind of gillnet the indians are using to catch sockeye but not native endangered kings??
 
#21
I love when you guys start talking about the lack of enforcement because you have never been checked or perhaps only once in the last upteen years. Come on. Do you think they may size you up and based on, lets say experience, think you are not likely breaking any laws so you may not be worth the time to check? That time might be put to better use checking those that actually look like they may be breaking the law. Just sayin'.
Also they may have 'glassed' you from a distance and saw that you haven't retained any fish or aren't doing anything explicitly illegal and moved on.

It think if they changed the laws so that money from tickets (or at least a large portion) went directly back to salaries for more enforcement we would see lots more on river checks.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#22
Smalma,

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed the area/timing combo that allows the sockeye fishermen to keep on using what they have been.

Benny,

The tribes sockeye fishing days are limited by their expected incidental take of ESA chinook. If the chinook weren't present, they would have scheduled more days of sockeye fishing.

Sg
 
#23
Also they may have 'glassed' you from a distance and saw that you haven't retained any fish or aren't doing anything explicitly illegal and moved on.

It think if they changed the laws so that money from tickets (or at least a large portion) went directly back to salaries for more enforcement we would see lots more on river checks.
That is unlikely to happen, at least it seems to me. Getting a bureaucrat or politician to let go of money is a real hard thing to do.
 
#26
"BTW -
I would love to selective gear rules being the normal on all of our anadromous rivers and in fact purposed such a change this regulation cycle.
Tight lines
Curt"



I agree Curt