Flawed rationale in WSC's proposed boat bans? (Part 1)

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ChrisC, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. At what point in the decline of the fisheries do we finally make decisions on behalf of the fish rather than on behalf of fishermen?
     
  2. We operate under a msy system, with ridiculously low escapement goals,

    Maximum Sustained Yeild is statiscly weighted to harvest levels, not to historic native populations. If we want to ensure abundance, escapements need to be given priority.
     
    Chris Johnson and Bob Triggs like this.
  3. WDFW has made Winter Steelhead escapements a priority in North Puget Sound where they are conducting basin-wide surveys and comparing them to established indexes to be sure the escapements are still reflecting "all that's out there" (to the best of their ability). I hope it won't take an ESA listing to change things on the coast.
     
  4. While I agree with this statement, look at the numbers of upper Columbia steelhead now vs 10 and 20 yrs ago. The averages have gone up over time. It's one of the only areas that seems to be happening.

    Edit: Somehow, I mixed this thread up with the Methow boat ban. So disregard my statement.
     
  5. Certainly it would make sense to include exclusions for folks with legitimate disabilities...can't imagine too many opposed to that.
     
    Bob Triggs likes this.
  6. I particularly like the idea of mandatory retention of legal bonker steelhead, and of course, no more fishing once the limit is retained. I like that fish intended for harvest, get harvested and a few of the fair weather zoo's would probably depopulate. I'm not sure how it would work for guides (what do you do with a client who bonks two fish in 45 minutes of their 8 hour booking...drink and float?) or for some of the popular long term fish camps (you can only keep so many fish in possession). If you're looking to reduce impacts, it think keeping anglers from doing C&R all day would be more effective that banning fishing from boats. And this rule could be applied evenly to anglers of all walks, and not cut anyone (disabled, etc.) out of the game.
     
  7. David, this is already the situation for guides on the Upper Columbia and tribs - Wenatchee, Methow, Entiat, Okanagan, etc. - as people must harvest the first two fish.
     
  8. Don't get me wrong, good policy should not be taken off the table for a single user group. I think your idea has lots of merit.
     
  9. Nature abhors a vacuum. If angling from boats becomes illegal, then won't anglers simply develop methods and tools to reach those fish from the banks? Oh, is that already happening? My bad.
     
  10. there's always a chance some new technique will be developed, but what no-boat angling does create is a rule that requires every angler to fish and it is the angler's ability that results in fish. it is tougher for guides who can get clients into fish pulling plugs or side drifting, but i think we can agree that good guides should certainly be able to teach people how to fish.

    there are many guided anglers that do not care to actually fish (examples include plug fishing or downrigger fishing in the salt) but there will still be more water available for these techniques under the proposals (which the department is not recommending and will not happen) than water closed to fishing out of boats.
     
  11. Chris, you write a fishing blog based upon fishing with a kayak. Are you advocating for no fishing from all floating crafts, or just drift boats? A lot of anglers prefer the drift boat experience for many reasons over wading.
     
  12. You can make this a very complicated issue if you want. But it can also be very simple. There are two sides. One is willing to sacrifice a little for the good of the fish (ex. ban fishing from a boat). The other side is willing to place the blame on everything but themselves and will fight til the bitter end over the very last fish.
     
    Nailknot, bennysbuddy and KerryS like this.
  13. no one, let me repeat, no one is trying to ban fishing from boats statewide... or even on the majority of water on any single river system. even if every proposal for "no fishing from boats" passed there would still be far more water on the coast open to fishing from a boat than without. this is hardly an "all or none proposition."

    i understand the joy of fishing from a boat, and find your bringing up my kayak fishing amusing. almost every place i fish out of a kayak cannot be wade fished. i hear there is a halibut angler who favors a boat fishing ban... maybe he's a hypocrite too.
     
  14.  
  15. one of my favorite reasons for fishing the Deschutes. no one will drop anchor 50' below, in the middle of the run you are swinging, and start chucking bobbers and gear. wouldn't that be nice on the Klick? or the Ronde? an especially good idea for those smaller rivers, where the potential for conflict is much higher. and the rule doesn't discriminate against anyone except the laziest , and those that feel they need to catch trout size numbers when they are steelhead fishing. you can get out of the boat to wade and throw nymphs or hardware. and leveling the playing field where boat "anglers" were'nt catching those numbers of fish is a good thing, for fish and fisherman. every fish not caught from a boat is one more that's willing to grab for someone making the effort to earn it.
     
  16. [quote="David Dalan, post: 770756, member: 811 If you're looking to reduce impacts, it think keeping anglers from doing C&R all day would be more effective that banning fishing from boats. And this rule could be applied evenly to anglers of all walks, and not cut anyone (disabled, etc.) out of the game.[/quote]

    This would be very hard to enforce, given the staffing levels @ wdfw.
     
  17. Have not read through the 3 pages of debate - my 2 cents...this boat ban needs some more thought. Its only a few boats screwing this up for everyone and causing the complaints. I don't fish gear and would be glad (sorry) if gear were gone.

    BUT, Banning ALL boats is way too reactive. I'd like it sometimes because of the super floating douches that occasionally go by while i'm fishing (fly/gear/bait whatever), but i see just as many walking douches on the banks. I highly doubt the boat fishermen with good etiquette are effecting the #s as much as ocean nets, poachers, netting etc....if that is the logic behind this ban. If it is, i want to see the study.

    Why not create a license system for guides like other rivers.
    Ban anchoring up?
    Are jet-boats 'bad' for rivers - do you ban those first to start? (Dont know, throwing it out there).

    Think this is a bad idea. Those who are mad that a boat pulled up in their swing run (I like to throw the spey more than any other method) voicing their opinion more than everyone else catching fish?

    Lot of guys rely on guiding. This will put them out of $$$, i think this could hurt small town $$$ etc. Lets look at some other ideas to accomplish the same objectives....
     
  18. washington doesn't require guides to be licensed?
     
  19. WDFW regulates guides through guides licenses, but it's simply paying $180 in the case of guiding for steelhead. No other requirements...
     

Share This Page