I've had it!!!!!

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Rob Blomquist, Mar 9, 2002.

  1. Brian

    Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Rob,
    There are a couple of things your post brings to light.
    As fishermen, be it bait, lure or fly, we have all fished in areas where open to one species and closed to another. A good example of this was last summer in marine area 9. It is open to searuns and silvers, yet closed to kings which are a protected species. If I'm fishing on the beach next to you, using legal equipment, hook a king and release it, are you going to report me? I highly doubt it. Besides, I haven't come up with the "Kings won't bite it herring pattern" yet. Incidental catches do happen when fishing in mixed open / closed species waters. In the past five years, I have seen only one king that was poached and I did report it.

    Secondly, I believe this is your second post regarding this subject on various web sites. If you are that upset, why don't you express it directly to the individuals you feel have done wrong? Perhaps you should give these people the opportunity to explain what type of equipment / techniques they where using. You also mentioned nameless local fly shops. If you don't like what you were told or overheard, perhaps you should take your business elsewhere rather then possibly tainting a business's reputation over what you perceive as a rules violation.

    For the most part though, don't forget why we fish. It is to get outdoors, hopefully catch some fish and to relax. Playing junior game warden will only take up to much of your time and only distract from your fun.

    Brian
     
  2. ray helaers

    ray helaers New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    I fear we may have gotten a little afield of Rob's original point, which seemed to me simple and true enough: Have some ethics, and some sense of stewardship for a resource that you claim to love.

    Don't use the fact that a river or lake or marine area is open for one species as a subterfuge to fish for a species that is closed, whether or not YOU happen to think that species is healthy or weak, or your particular brand of angling will hurt it. Quit finding yourself so special (or clever); obey the letter AND the spirit of the law, whether you agree with it or not (unless of course you feel so strongly you're willing to commit an act of civil disobedience, but remember that means you have to be willing to face the legal consequences of your act).

    Be willing to go even farther. Even if you are sincerely fishing for the "open" species, consider whether the risk of impacting the "closed" species is worth a few whitefish or cutthroat or whatever, particularly when the closed species is in peril. (And don't simply dismiss that peril because it happens to be inconvenient for you.) Just because you have a "right" to fish someplace doesn't mean you have to excercise it.

    Yes, I'm an angler; I love to catch fish. I want to keep catching fish, lots of them. That's precisely why I try to only fish in places and in ways that don't subject at-risk fish populations to any more risk. (I guess I need a smilie with a little halo, huh? :WINK ) And you know what? I still manage to find plenty of good fishing; what do I need to fish the Methow for?
     
  3. Denny

    Denny Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    4,100
    Media:
    100
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    You are exactly right, and I don't know why Rob B__mquist (yes, I do know who you are)doesn't get it.

    Just because someone employs C&R on a fishery that is closed to fishing, whether the fishery is composed of fish approaching 'extinction' or not, isn't justification to illegally fish. Dude, bottom line, if fishing is closed, it's closed. It doesn't matter whether you practice C&R and there are lots of resident coho around, in your opinion, or not. I can't believe you, for being a reasonably intelligent guy, just don't get it (maybe it's because you don't want to . . . ?). If fishing is closed, it's closed, and folks fishing legally for whitefish, but targeting steelhead, is no different than you legally fishing for SRC's, but targeting coho. It's hypocritical to wag your finger at the Methow steelhead folks and then consider yourself different than they.

    You're just getting called on the carpet, and you're having difficulty accepting it.
     
  4. Denny

    Denny Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    4,100
    Media:
    100
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    Oops, I was responding to Rob, and I meant to note Randy was correct in his response to Rob.
     
  5. Rob Blomquist

    Rob Blomquist Formerly Tight Loops

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,343
    Media:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Mountlake Terrace, WA, USA.
    Nope, I'm standing on the carpet, and know that my sight is on target. Some are unethical, some do illegal things, and I don't.

    But quite frankly, I have never caught any salmonid in saltwater in the last 20 years, so I guess your point is null and void, no?

    But the key here is that I don't fish for fish that are in waters closed to fishing for them. And if I catch anyone I'm gonna report them.

    And I have to agree with Ray, this discussion has gone too far.
     
  6. FishPirate

    FishPirate New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    107
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Darrington, WA, USA.
    Rob, your first post was a good one, but I have to side with Brian and Richard on this one----we need to stop fishing the sound altogether, except true "terminal" fisheries as we may incidentally hook ("harass" or perhaps "harm" as defined under the ESA) chinook salmon or bull trout. Or even sensitive species like cutthroat and native coho stocks. Richard made a great point, so don't plan on seeing him on any beaches. Hatchery chums in Hood Canal seem to be a good option. Unless you want a $25,000 fine for "take" of a listed species ("harassing" IS taking), then I suggest you stay away from Rob while landing that ESA listed Puget Sound Chinook---it would be best to break it off---and don't even THINK about a photo.

    Back to CnR, and "no effects", do you ever fish for spawning rainbows or cutts? I really hope you don't wade while fishing in rivers for anadromous fish either. The effects of simple vibration on incubating eggs. . .Mortality? If salmon die after they spawn, where are all the carcasses? Sure I see a few, but with all the pinks around last fall? Small mammals you say? Birds? They blend it? Fish swim into aquatic veg mats and disappear? Surely you jest.
     
  7. Robin

    Robin New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, Wa.
    I guess we really have blinders on.......selectively so it seems.
    When my parents told me NO- they meant it. I believed them. Growing up, when I was told you couldn't do something because it was against the law by my parents or teacher or I read it in a book or it was posted someplace or written in my drivers manual- you just didn't do it- of course there is always those out there who- think they are exempt. Unfortunately because of them, people die on the road everyday because they break the law by drinking and driving, or how about this the children who follow in the footsteps of their heros maybe a parent, big brother or sister, uncle, aunt or who ever of those who break the little rules on a regular basis- do so also- eventually, ohhhhh what a society we have become.......

    The Big Picture vision here is turned off it seems as well.

    They have elk season NOW- only a few weeks out of the year any more, why do you suppose that is? Sure would be hard to have to fish two weeks out of the year in the future........

    Where is that rewind button on the remote?
     
  8. rockfish

    rockfish Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, Wa
    I will always fish the shoreline for src no matter what is open or not. thats why its opened all year anyway for a fly/ultralight fishery. ben
     
  9. Denny

    Denny Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    4,100
    Media:
    100
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    Here's the deal.

    If you've TRULY "had it" and plan to do something about "it", then you should talk to the person you referenced, in your initial posting, who works at the fly shop. I know who you are, who the shop is, and who the employee is. Tell him; maybe he'll be receptive, maybe he didn't think about the perspective you have, maybe you can enlighten him, maybe all you will have is a conversation and possibly agree to disagree.

    Step up.
     
  10. Randy Knapp

    Randy Knapp Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Warm Springs, Virginia, USA.
    Read your regs. It is not open all year on all shorelines! You have to look at the exceptions footnotes and you also have to check the WDFW web site for special closures from time to time.
    Randy
     
  11. DEREK

    DEREK New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Media:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Olympia, WA.
    To all

    Hello all, I'm a new user and have been following this board for the last couple weeks. I've subscribed to a few message boards like this and found with darn near all of them someone has some unpleasant things to say and arguments break out. It seems to me that people have a lot easier time being rude when they are hiding behind a computer under the guise of some cute username. I've been attacked before on other boards for stupid things I've written, and even once was a jerk and wrote somethings about somebody I didn't know a whole lot. I had to apologize. On the last board one guy would grammer check EVERTHING and then reply with corrections. Drove me nuts. Would he do that in face-to-face conversation? I doubt it.

    I might bring your attention to the agreement that I made when I joined this groop (fresh in my mind, because I just did it). It stated something to the effect of being curtious to others. I had to click on the submit button to continue. Maybe some of you were able to get around this message? I doubt I know many of you, but I have to say the origional message was inflamitory, I felt that way about it before anyone had posted. The intentions were probably good, but it seems to say that if I post something about fishing in closed waters, say, carp in the culumbia, and I read the regs wrong and was fishing illegaly, this guy on the board is going to hunt me down and turn me in. I too agree that they should leave those steelhead alone, and as well I feal tightloops had every right to tell THEM about it, but I wouldn't threaten everyone on the board.

    Unfortunately, this just escalated from there, with people attacking tightloops' caracter and another righting something racist. If this continues on the board I won't be a member for long.

    Derek :SAD
     
  12. Brian

    Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Ray,
    You make some fine points regarding your "rights" to excercise whether or not to fish in an open / closed species waterway. I for one choose to fish them. Again, lets look a Marine area 9 last summer. We had a fantastic silver run. Protected chinook are present also. The state allows fishing for silvers with specific rules such as barbless hooks. I could sit on the beach or fish. I fished and the fishing was fantastic. Out of the thirty days of saltwater fishing last year, I had two incidental hook ups on chinook.
    Both fish were quickly released. I had great fishing and had what I believe to be very little impact on the resource.
    We all make our own choices. While I do not target threatened species intentionally, incidental catches do happen.
    Having lived and fished in this state for over forty years, I can agree with everyone that our fishing opportunities have diminished.
    If you choose no to fish these areas based on your own ethics, more power to you, but may be missing out on some great fun also.

    Brian
     
  13. rockfish

    rockfish Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, Wa
    To all

    I know whats open and what aint I spend at least 200- 250 days fishing the sound, this winter is an exception cause all the wind. area 9 fishiong from shore wasnt nothin compared to all the trollers fishing. talk around the campfire was that silvers and kings were 50/50 at possessoin. landed quite a few to fishing the pinks with a 2 inch pink sqiud. you will never get away from that. not one hooked king of mine from neah bay to manchester died from being caught. this year in rivers fishing for silvers. there were all open but just for the retention of silvers in most cases but there were kings all thru the deep holes being snagged by anglers. my buddy has a picture of a 60 lber from the humptulips, he's holding it and its bleeding from its gills like there slashed but he swears that it swam away. he sais he caught so many large kings he couldn't remember. he's a chump to, got to tie all his knots for him and such, but that just goes to say impact on the sound is nary compared to rivers. my friend cant catch a salmon in the sound if his life depended on it except with a downrigger and i cut plug and rig his herring but he sure LOVES THOSE RIVERS. ben
     
  14. Chris Scoones

    Chris Scoones Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,740
    Media:
    268
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    North Bend, WA
    To all

    Rob's post may have been sharp and to the point, but the reasoning for his frustration is sound and it was clear to whom he was targeting his message. I don't have a problem with it.

    There were some good points made overall in this thread. There were also as Derek noticed some minor lapses in the level of courtesy. The 'agreement' that Derek refers to many of you have not seen. When new members are signing up, they are asked to accept terms. Pretty simple really:

    "Be nice. The group of folks on this forum have impressed me with their courtesy & respect of others. Please follow their lead."

    I've only had to step in once before where I requested that the thread wrap-up. I'll do that again here but only since this thread is off the original topic and starting to spin a bit.

    If you have any questions toss me a line.

    Chris
     
  15. ray helaers

    ray helaers New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Brian,

    I'm replying because you've given me a chance to clarify my post a little.

    I probabaly made it sound like I'm a little more saintly than I am. I do always obey the letter and the spirit of the law, and I do try to stay away from any fishing in waters with severely at risk populations in them (for instance, I would never fish in the Methow, Wenatchee, Wind at any season for any species, or target hatchery chinook in the Sound, etc.). But rather than say I won't subject at-risk fish to ANY more risk, I should have said "any more unacceptable or uncertain levels of risk." For instance, I too flyfish the Sound for coho and sea runs (in areas open for those species). Yes there is some level of risk to chinook, but I think we can all agree that it is pretty remote. I've never hooked a chinook, and never seen a listed chinook hooked with a flyrod in any of the places where I fish. If I started having a different experience, I'd stop. I don't fish in ways for any species that would likely hook chinook incidentally. I target steelhead on the Peninsula, where bull trout are present, but I never target them, and if I started hooking any, I'd stop fishing, or at least go somewhere else. My point is I try to go the one extra step in my stewardship responsibilities, but I have no right to -- and don't mean to -- paint myself as St Francis.

    And having said all this, I will repeat what I've written on this board and many other places: While I advocate for my approach, it is MY CHOICE, and I don't mean to force it on anybody. I have no beef with anybody fishing legally (letter AND spirit), even when I may have a beef with the regs for not being conservative enough. Hell, it's legal to target marked chinook in some places, so if you wanted to I won't fault you, as long as you're sincerely not targeting the wild fish (and of course only we know what's in our own hearts).

    And lastly, to all:

    Rob does have a good, true point, even if he did express it a little passionately for some or your tastes, and even if you think he's not "pure" enough to make it (that's a weak way to make an argument, not to mention it seems like he may have struck a nerve). So I'll come to his defense and say that some of the "rebuttals" have been way too personal and harsh, even if some did make good points.
     

Share This Page