Ban On Steelhead Fishing From Boats?

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Bob Triggs, Oct 28, 2009.

  1. hookedonthefly Active Member

    Posts: 570
    Ratings: +121 / 0
    And this thread will have 62 pages next year, still arguing, while they decide at NOF who gets the very last fish. Like rec fishing from boats or wading is the real problem.

    Ed
  2. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    the deschutes r. in OR has had this rule in effect for decades. what it does is provide sanctuaries for the fish that are not reachable by the casting public. works great and should be the norm everywhere we have threatened or ESA listed fishes.
  3. East Fork Active Member

    Posts: 1,200
    Vancouver, WA
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Maybe we should require watershed specific, fishing from a boat permits that we would have to wear on our hats like f'n cow ear tags. That way, the people that may or may not be adversely impacting a fishery could pay for mitigation that may or may not address the real problems. Did I just say that? No, that's the system we have. I have to get back to work.
  4. BDD Active Member

    Posts: 2,226
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +214 / 2
    I guess you have never seen me throw a BC Steel? :rofl:

    A statewide proposal for anything is often very difficult to get passed because of the many different angling groups that access the resource. If this were a biological reason, then it would be easier to adopt. But this being primary a values or social issue, they are much harder to implement because of the different values the public has towords the resource.

    There are regulations that have been passed that are minor adoptations to this, however. Running the Skagit/Sauk under power during the C&R is illegal. Not sure if that was a biological or social issue; perhaps a little of both.
  5. MasterAnglerTaylor Member

    Posts: 749
    Poulsbo/Pullman, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Ok i will get out of boat, wade and then fish the run....not much different.
  6. o mykiss Active Member

    Posts: 1,303
    .
    Ratings: +176 / 0
    Decker, are you actually capable of catching a steelhead by any other means than nymphing beads or yarnies from a boat? :clown:

    To apocolypse's point about the Deschutes, our rivers have become a total gong show. It's hard to watch guide boats running two nymphers with pegged beads through the same slot 10 times in a row. Don't get me wrong, fellas, you have a right to earn a living but let me just be blunt and tell you you are starting to ruin the experience for those of us who harbor this admittedly quaint notion that there's more to steelhead fishing than "slayin' 'em dude". I suppose it's hard for some in the guiding community to get repeat business if their clients actually have to possess some skill to catch fish. And all you non-guided people who have started following their lead, save your souls before it's too late! Get down on your knees, repent and go back to honest methods. :beer1: Saw a guy pulling plugs from a pontoon boat on the Methow this year. What's next? Sheesh, doesn't anyone actually want to work for their fish anymore?

    So, yes, I would support a statewide ban on fishing for steelhead from a boat, particularly if it was aimed at so-called "fly fishers". :) I suppose there might be some conservation benefit in addition to enhancing my fishing experience so I'd be all in favor. :thumb:

    By the way, I own a couple different types of watercraft and have hired (and have the means to hire) guides, so no need to chalk this rant up to envy.

    Rant off.
  7. fifafu Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Until gill nets are banned from freshwater I refuse to support any rule change to make it harder on sportfisherman of all technique.

    It seems funny that eastside steelhead can swim to the Ronde or the Methow over multiple dams, that the Toutle can support fish after running mud for 15 years after the eruption but the Sol Duc and the Hoh have been wiped out by what? Why so many fish down the road in the Quinault?

    Anyone else think the problem isn't the sportfishing rules, habitat or dams? I think that gill nets are the problem.
  8. kjsteelhead Member

    Posts: 157
    Bellingham, Washington
    Ratings: +16 / 0
    One of my best friends and flyfishing buddies has Parkinson's disease. He can still cast fine, but can't wade or walk around on the rocks any more. So to deprive him of one of the few outdoor activities he can still do, just because someone mistakenly thinks fishing from boats is a reason for our depleting fish stocks is just ludicrous. Even with this debilitating disease, I'm sure he can still handle a big fish better from a boat better than the arrogant minority who would like to enforce their rules on the rest of us.
  9. John Hicks Owner and operator of Sea Run Pursuits

    Posts: 2,129
    Olympia
    Ratings: +180 / 1
    Oh yes you gill net idiots will use any excuse to toss your opinion around. Hey I'm sure you could work something about gil nets on the best fishing rig thread if you work hard enough.

    I'm sure there could be exceptions built into the law. Just like hunting from a vehicle. Next.
  10. Big Tuna Member

    Posts: 1,958
    Wenatchee, Washington
    Ratings: +39 / 0
    Now that's a top quality rant:ray1:
  11. fifafu Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    I stand by my post.
  12. Big Tuna Member

    Posts: 1,958
    Wenatchee, Washington
    Ratings: +39 / 0
    attaboy:thumb:
  13. Troutrageous Active Member

    Posts: 420
    Yakima
    Ratings: +33 / 0
    I think there are some cool ideas in this thread, but the original one is ridiculous. I'd have given a lot of thought to the idea, if Bob hadn't felt the need to stress STATEWIDE. I can't say anything about the rivers on the OP, perhaps such a rule is needed on certain rivers there. However, aside from that region I think the suggestion of banning boat fishing for steelhead is almost like saying that speys should be banned because their ability to cast further puts more pressure on native fish. Or banning bobbers, or intruders, or bait, or globugs, pick your poison.
  14. Freestone Not to be confused with freestoneangler

    Posts: 2,337
    .
    Ratings: +1,172 / 0
    So he practices what he preaches - a rare thing indeed!
  15. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,396
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,355 / 9
    JD, you've still not addressed Bob's point with anything but calling him out for not using a boat. Then you go off on some spey tweed crap. Take a deep breath, relax and ponder the idea of guiding your way but rather than using your boat to fish from, use it to access fishing places that can't easily be hiked into by your clients. Some of us who pontoon rivers (not a fancy guide with a drift boat, just a dude with a bunch of contained air) use our boats not to fish from, but to access fishable runs. Would not a boat fishing guide who learns the best mapping routes of rivers to maximize out of boat or even anchored stationary fishing time and minimize non-fishing floating time be a guide that one would want to book? Think outside the box a bit. Of all the guides, who right now could adopt this fish only when stationary process and be the most successful? Would your clients care that for the next seven minutes you'd be forward rowing to speed them to the next hole or run that you are certain would be holding fish. Is this concept so impossible for you to examine and find a single shred of benefit for the fisheries? Since you a new guide don't you think that the declines in fish populations is enough concern that you might not get to do that guide thing as long as you might like? Be creative man, I'm sure you've got it in you.

    Fifafu, anglers of all types are part of the problem. Dams are part of the problems. Over irrigation is part of the problem. Riprarian zone infringement is part of the problem. Excessive land development is part of the problem. Gill netting is part of the problem. Commercial fishing is part of the problem. Hatchery genes contaminating wild strains is part of the problem. Have I identified enough parts of a problem to demonstrate that a wide spectrum approach might be in order.

    Good ideas here, rather than make it a bitch fest, lets make it a good though provoking thread. When was the last time you flexed your brain around something like this?
  16. Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Posts: 6,440
    Duvall, wa
    Ratings: +1,618 / 2
    genius :rofl:
  17. fifafu Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    bLAH Blah blah...It's the gill nets.

    If it's the dams explain the healthy run of wild steelhead in the Clearwater and the Grand Ronde. Then explain the demise of wild rivers like the Hoh and Sol Duc (no dams-irragation-habitat change).

    You can call me names like John Hicks did and continue your convaluded rhetoric but it won't explain the examples I have given. You've been lied to my friend.

    I wonder the mortality rate of native steelhead released from a boat compared to the mortality rate of a native steelhead coming in contact with a gill net.
  18. ospreysteelhead Member

    Posts: 72
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  19. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    The ignorant usually do... Read why the state can or can't do anything about the nets... Nobody disagrees with the notion that nets aren't good, but we can't control them.
  20. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    Man, you really need to figure out what is healthy or not when it comes to a run. Based on historical rates, even this years run is only a small percentage of what it was in the past. You're not seeing healthy runs on the Ronde or Clearwater, what you're seeing is significant expense being thrown into a hatchery population that is a shadow of the past.

    The "demise" of the Hoh and such *is* related to overharvest, but really read the Boldt decision before you open your mouth. Furthermore the only harvest the state can control is wild harvest of fish, and we *still* continue to allow some form of harvest on these rivers.

    If you plan on not supporting any initiatives, that is totally your right. But it would probably be best supported by actual facts rather than emotional anger at the situation.

    Second off, I would probably state that the health of the wild run