Special Regs

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Greg Moore, Feb 1, 2002.

  1. Greg Moore

    Greg Moore New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellicott City (Baltimore), Md.
    Would you be willing to pay an extra fee to the state to have your favorite river open to fly fishing only? Should it be catch and release only? Should a river that's currently closed be opened to fishermen who pay that additional fee? How much extra would you be willing to pay on top of your fishing license fees? What if these additional fees paid for additional fish and game wardens to monitor those "specail regs" waters?

    Greg
     
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    Where do you think your at. In Scotland. Lets not try to make it any harder to fish. Jim S. :TSKTSK
     
  3. Greg Moore

    Greg Moore New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellicott City (Baltimore), Md.
    What makes it harder to fish? You'd rather piss and moan about how rude people are, about how tough it is to find open water or an open spot to fish. Complain about the trash left behind by those that don't care about cleaning up after themselves. Gripe about those that target fish that may be in danger. The questions were asked with hopes of gettting an honest discussion going, not to have someone give me the finger.

    Maybe if you opened your mind a little you would be cancatchem instead of cantcatchem!!

    Greg :THUMBSUP
     
  4. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    451
    Media:
    4
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    Chasing trout and birds
    I am all for raising license fees to increase the number of wardens on all the rivers. I think the fees are too low and should be raised to cover the costs of better management and enforcement. These are public rivers and should be as open to the public as much as possible but all users of the rivers should pay a useage fee. Rafters, kyakers, drunks on inner-tubes etc contribute to litter, pollution, habitat destruction and should carry their share of the burden. Also, commercial use of these rivers should be taken into consideration. Individuals and companies who profit from our rivers (ie guides, rafting companies etc should pay higher use fees).

    I am strictly a fly fisherman but would not suggest we go so far as to start to exclude gear fisherman from the river. Use of the selective fishing rules (single hook no bait) is a much more moderate approach and would get a lot more approval.

    I would guess a lot of the people who cause problems (litter etc) either don't buy a fishing license and poach or are in the user group you does'nt currently pay for access. There are of course they few bad apple fisherman who litter etc, but increased law enforcement would cut back on this problem.
     
  5. Greg Moore

    Greg Moore New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellicott City (Baltimore), Md.
    I agree wholeheartedly that others who use the river should also pay for the upkeep. You will get those who claim that their taxes pay for that "right" but realistically in today's world it should be pay as you go (use). If I don't care to hike up Mt. Rainier than don't pay for the snow parking pass.

    I was thinking along the lines of hunting and how they have special seasons for different wildlife as well as seasons for rifle and bow hunting. There are also lotteries which make wildlife available in certain areas each season for a limited few while helping to maintain the numbers.

    I don't think they should make all rivers fly fishing only but certain times of the years each type of fishermen could have their time on select rivers. I also don't think it should be like a pay lake or pay spring creek but that the fees are too low. From the number of fly fishermen I've spoken with, they all have said that they would gladly pay more if it meant more opportunities to catch fish and have wardens to monitor abuses.

    Greg :THUMBSUP
     
  6. ray helaers

    ray helaers New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Interesting. The idea of some seperate types of seasons on some waters might have some merit. But I don't think that paying anything extra is going to take upper Columbia steelhead of the Endangered Species List, for example. Rivers get closed because the resource is in such bad shape that the agencies can't close their eyes to it anymore. They rarely have any slack left by the time they finally close.

    There is a lot of areas and waters in the state that you have to have a WDFW license to use whether you fish or not; it's called a "conservation" license or permit I think, and it costs something a little less than a basic freshwater fishing license, so not all those people are getting off scot-free, at least they're not supposed to (who knows how effectively it's enforced). Your point still stands to soem degree, but I didn't know if most people knew this.

    As far as more money for enforcement and effective management. Sure yeah the dept could use more money, but it's also a question of priority. Here's an example: the Tokul Creek Hatchery blocks all fsih-passage to about a mile of chinook-spawning habitat and about 12 miles of steehead-spawning habitat (WDFW is supposed to enforce the law against passage barriers; how's that?). WDFW has been claiming for years that they don't have the money to fix the problem, but they continue to budget money for the hatchery to raise and plant exotic species like brook and golden trout into waters where they displace native species. How many years of that might it take spend the money they could use to fix the illegal barrier at their own hatchery?

    WDFW loves to plead poverty, and they have a point, but it doesn't stop them from spending money on things that are not that good for the resource, instead of more enforcement. What WDFW really needs is funding independent from license sales and user fees, so they could start treating the fish like their clients. THAT would make fishing better all the way around (maybe even get some rivers reopened by actually recovering some runs).
     
  7. guest

    guest Guest

    I don't complain about crowded rivers. If there are too many people in one place I find another. I don't complain about too much. And I don't like being accused of things that I don't do. I go fishing whenever my little heart desires it. And I didn't give you the finger. I gave you what I thought. If you took it as such,well so so. I will say no more on thus subject. This is one thread that I will stay away from. :REALLYMAD
     
  8. Greg Moore

    Greg Moore New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellicott City (Baltimore), Md.
    Good points! I wasn't aware that there was a conservation (?) permit but I agree with your comment that it probably isn't enforced like it could be.

    Seems like the WDFW does a lot of things that most people on this forum aren't real happy with. Is it a matter of electing the right people to congress and for govenor so they will put the right appointed people in office? Or are these people in their government job for life and unless they commit a serious crime don't have to worry about losing it?

    Greg :DUNNO
     
  9. Fly rod

    Fly rod New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Perhaps someone should find out how present license fees are being spent. Would a sportpersons concern group have any effect on changes?
    how much should we charge the power companys for using our rivers? Perhaps we could charge the utlities enough to hire addition wardens. Why does a utility company have so much authorty over fish population re-establishment.
     
  10. bobkt76

    bobkt76 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sumner, wa, good old usa.
    they helped kill off the the size of fish pop and they shoould help pay to fix it the dams have cut the fish runs down to less than a 1/3 on the columbia dont qout me but i hered this in hight school we were doing some stream repair and trying to save a salmon run on a small sream that is nothing more than a dranage dich now but i still to day see many king salmon and siver salmon in there because of our work i see alot of people talk about saving the fish so maby if some of us got togethere and maby some help from chris we could get to gethere with the game department and maby others and help save a stream if we all gave a few weekends of out fishing time and maby a few $ we could make a stream or a small river better for the fish i have seen alot of work done in green water in the erly 90 the fish in those wateres were almost gon no fish over 5-6 in now i hooked a fish well over 17 and now i see meny nice fish i have no idea how to start a progect of this size but i can say it will be hard and well worth the efert and very self satifing to see what u have done years later
     
  11. Greg Moore

    Greg Moore New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellicott City (Baltimore), Md.
    Good information and good ideas. I'm embrassed to say that I'm not a member of Trout Unlimited or Federation of fly fishers but it seems to me that these are the organizations to ask for help and then get behind their efforts. They would seem to have the number of members to start off with that it would take to have any power or voice.

    Chris would probably know more organizations that could be contacted to get their support as well. It would seem that if all the fly shop operators, guides and the fishermen who frequented those shops got organized (could we all agree on what needed to be done - ?) there would be enough numbers to make the state and the dam operators stand up and not only listen but have their actions accounted for with regards to stream use / abuse, fish recovery, etc.

    I remember a few years ago, when the state said they didn't have enough money to rehabilitate Nunnely and Lenice's sunfish problem, there was shop owner (?) (I believe it was out of Kaufman's) who started a grassroots operation to raise money privately to have the lakes poisoned. He got the money needed and the state flinched and came up with the money in the budget as they said they couldn't take privately funded money to do state projects. That seems totally ludacris. If fishermen are willing to put time and money in to their sport to make it better for everyone than it shouldn't be that hard to make it happen.


    Greg :CONFUSED
     
  12. Greg

    Greg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Gig Harbor, WA, U.S.A.
    Greg,

    I may be wrong, but I think Ray is referring to the Access Stewardship Decal. They were included with each license you purchased. Additional decals could be bought for $5.00 each. They are required to be displayed on your vehicle if you park at one of the WDFW access areas throughout the state. WDFW says the revenue from these decals go toward the upkeep of these access sites. For 2002, the, the name has been changed to the Vehicle Use Permit and they’ve made it transferable from one vehicle to another. More info can be found at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/steward/steward.htm.

    The Other Greg
     
  13. fishnfella

    fishnfella New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grand Coulee, Washington, USA.
    Fish till ya drop.
    Then suck it up
    and fish the evening hatch.

    Special regs,lake rehabilitation,quality sport,etc., do not seem to be big concerns of our Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Last year Koening outlawed the use of Rotenone to rehab lakes full of stunted panfish based on some bogus research done completely out of context vs. the safe use of Rotenone for fish management.
    It is still questionable, though he's said to have reversed his position,whether there was any rehabilitation done last year. Has anyone heard of any? Is any planned for this year?

    There are those that say our Director is pretty much owned by the Commercial Fisheries Interests.

    The only way I can see we will ever get more quality trout fishing lakes is if someone documents the crowding on our present lakes with quality regs. and gets some sportsman groups and fly fishing clubs with numbers to request more quality water management. Numbers are the only thing that counts to F&G.
    At present they play up to the twice a year, powerbait chucker who is happy to go out on a lake crowded with boats and yard out a mess of 10" trout with a broomstick of a $10 Fred Meyer spinning rod, and fry them. As everyone who fishes much knows,within a month those waters trout are 95% yarded out of the lake and fishing from that point on is for "practice". It is further insulting that they load up many of these catch and kill waters with advanced sized triploids which have little potential for reaching their potential beyond the expensive hand fed size when planted. Another fine example of "Political F&G Management."
     
  14. Trout Master

    Trout Master Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonds West of the interurban by 3 feet
    Well said Fishingfella, I agree with you 100%. :THUMBSUP
     

Share This Page