Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by eJohn, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. Fella's, can I make a point? I agree that the river is getting loved to death and it doesn't make me happy. However, take a look at the view count of this particular post. Our happy discussion here on the board has attracted close to 5,000 hits. Now a portion of those are regular board members following this thread but the majority are folks searching for information on the river. I am as guilty as the next guy for talking about this river on a public forum but maybe we need to take related subjects to a different thread that doesn't have the river name in the title and let this thread die and fall off the front page.
  2. I think the point Jergens is trying to make is that the law about keeping fish in the water was put in place to keep anglers from dragging fish on to the bank and kicking them back in when they realize it's not a keeper. Not to prevent a quck lift and snap for the photo books.

    That being said, we should still try and abide by the law and keep those wild fish in the water, I however, wont be freaking out every time I see someone with a wild fish raised for a photo because I know almost every guide and angler who does this also knows how fragile these fish are, and they treat them with the respect they deserve. I bet every fish in the photos above was released and likely survived.

    My .02
  3. Ibn- I agree with you about the fact that all of those fish probably were released with no more harm done then if they had stayed in the water. The problem is that if some fishermen decide to break this law because they have determined that their own practices are not contradictory to the intent of the law, what right do we have to tell other fishermen not to do the same thing with other laws.


    1. "we can lift 'em out cuz they won't get hurt, and the intent of the law is to prevent 'em from gettin' hurt, thus we are within the intent of the law"

    2. "we can fish the ----- river which is closed to salmon because we wont be harming fish and the intent of the law is not to harm fish so we are within the intent of the law"

    3. "We can fish whenever we want wherever we want as long as we aren't harming the fish because the intent of the law is to prevent 'em from gettin' hurt, thus we are within the intent of the law"

    If we allow certain anglers to get away with example #1, this establishes precedant for examples #2 and #3.

    I think the law is poorly written myself, but the fact that guides are knowingly breaking it, potentially leading to the kind of situation I have tried to highlight, is utterly disgusting to me. Personally, I hope they are contacted by law enforcement and punished.

    -Tom B
  4. You'd think the law makers would preface their rules with the intentions that initiated them. It's kind of like those United Nations resolutions that start off with a couple of pages of paragraphs starting with, "Whereas..." I suppose that might mean more trees getting cut down to handle the extra text, but at least readers would be clear as to the motivation behind new rules. After a year or so of the intent being made clear, they can drop the declarations of motive. Eh, it's an idea...
  5. You guys are killing me. Your halos are showing due to your righteousness. There are a lot worse things than holding a wild fish up for no more than 5 seconds for a quick photo. Like was stated earlier, the law is poorly written and the intent is to avoid fish "abuse". I doubt any one of those fish failed to swim away.

  6. so its okay to break the law?

    i think the 55 and 65 mps speed limits in oregon are assonine because here in wa we can drive 60 and 70? so when i get pulled over in oregon for going too fast, should be given the right to just drive away without a warning or a ticket?

    i can not help but notice the hypocricy. those of us who are upset with well known outfitters and guides breaking the law are being called righteous because we want the law followed. but on the other hand you are the ones who believe it okay to be above the law and not follow the law because it is 'poorly written.' that is a whole hell of alot more righteous then actually wanting the law followed.

    by the way, i know many many guides who have not had a problem filling their website with photos that are in accordance with the law. some of these guides are as successful or more then jack and worley.

    and if you do not like the law, use your power as a citizen to petition the WDFW to repeal it, reword it etc. etc. etc. do not just go and put yourself above it. what a scary society we would live in if we all went and put ourselves above laws that we felt were poorly written (because God knows there is alot of them).
  7. Yak, with the way you're bulldogging this point of yours, :ray1: you have me wondering if you might be one of those "as successful or more" guides..... if so, what's the URL of your photo gallery? I'd like to see it.

    Yes, it's TECHNICALLY against the rules right now. No one can argue that, if those fish were caught under the current law. But you and others asking for contact by law enforcement and virtually a public caning of these guides is getting a little silly. Put down the torch and pitchfork for a minute.

    I wish I could claim to be without fault - maybe you'd let me fish with you sometime.
  8. Explanations for laws and statutes contained within the text can do more harm than good, ceviche. Consider the Second Amendment, with its explanatory prefice. This has only invited arguments and dissents based on interpretations of "militia" and "well-regulated...". If the amendment had been stated simply and directly: "...shall not be infringed" there'd be less wiggle room for those who don't like it, period.
  9. One note about the guides that have spoken on here. They have been having their clients keep the hatchery fish like the WDFW has asked. How many of the other fishermen that have commented on this forum have done that when they have fished the Methow in the last 3 yrs. I can tell you it is a very very small number.
    As far as the filming of the fishing on the Methow. The film crew that Jack was with was only one of 4 also the film crew that was with Jack also tried to show and explain what type of a fishery this is over here.
    Now about the comment about loving the river to death. On the weekend of the 15th there was over 150 people fishing the river at around 12pm. There was 3 fly fishing clubs from the westside of the state that came over together, with approximate 40 to 60 members combined. this is almost 1/3rd of the total anglers on the river. So how many new anglers do you really think these films will attract. Not as many as the clubs already bring over. Also there as been a few magizine article writen lately about the Methow, and some of them have been missleading and wrong on the information they have given.
    Now about the photos of the fish, well I'm here to tell you that the guides are not the only ones doing it. Regular Joe fisherman is doing it and doing it badly. At least the guides are mindfull of the time to get the fish back in. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying taken the fish out of the water for a photos is ok, state law say no.
    The guides on the Methow don't bring in near as many anglers as sites like this and word of mouth.
    Now as far as how the fishing has been. It's been slow, very slow. Not many fish are being caught. So I would hold off on coming over, you'll be beating quiet water.
  10. flyfish4fun,

    You hit the nail on the head. The more folks talk about or mention this and other rivers (some of which were nearly unknown to the larger fishing community only a few short years ago) the more people are going to fish it. Like you mentioned, there is a huge number of folks trolling around looking for information here and on other sites. And then we wonder why we go to a river we have fished just a few years ago and find evey run with a line up of fishermen.


    If you think the Methow is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. When the Wenatchee opens (if it does) the crowds will be mind-blowing at first because it is nearly equal distance from both the Puget Sound metropolis and Spokane.
  11. How about this for a new rule - if you cant walk to _______ river or ______ lake, from your domicile, you cant fish it. Technology, information, and good transportation has not been of much benefit to the fishes.
  12. Those anglers who are catching hatchery steelhead must be keeping them as encouraged by WDFW. I just fished it for 2 1/2 days and didn't hook a one. And it's not like I've never fished for steelhead before either. I only saw two steelhead in the several miles of river I covered.

    There is a lot of pressure relative to other seasons I fished there in the late 70s and 80s. However, that's about the way it is on most every river I fish. It's seldom about solitude anymore.


    Salmo g.
  13. If Jack truly believes the "Yakima is a river for all seasons" as his whitepaper is titled, why does he go north to Methow???
  14. I believe the "Yakima is a river for all seasons" yet i still fish SRC's at Purdy when i get the feeling....what's your point?
  15. Those who are complaining about the spread of information need to turn around and walk back into the cave from which they live. This is the information age and you are on this site right now for the information plain and simple. You'd have to live in a cave not to know what google is or how to use it.. and you can learn everthing you need to know about anything in 20 minutes with google and an internet connection.
  16. for the same reason everybody goes to the methow, to catch steelhead. yakima is a river for all seasons, and an angler can catch trout out of 12 months of the year. it does not however support a steelhead run with number that make targeting them a viable fishery. Do you ever desire to go bonefish even though we dont have them in the northwest?
  17. double post
  18. Was looking at the Evening Hatch website and they had posted a Methow report that included the following highlight.

    "Actually catching and hooking fish when a Camera for ESPN was present."

    That can't be good.

Share This Page