Umm? WDFW

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Dehlan G, May 8, 2010.

  1. Plecoptera Active Member

    Posts: 622
    Bellingham
    Ratings: +28 / 0
    I just looked thru the 2010 regs and I think the new general stream rule is a good idea. It looks like I lost a couple of may favorite places (I may propose to have them added), but a lot of lower elevation spawning streams are now protected which is a good thing. Really this doesn't change most of the upper headwaters/ tribs with resident fish. Check pg.33, now each major watershed gets its own special regs section. From what I saw, it does a good job of opening up the upper reaches (and tribs) in the usual June-Oct time frame.

    Old Man, the regs read differently this year so that all streams around Puget Sound are closed unless covered under the special regs. There is no more blanket June- Oct season. Either way, I agree that people tend to make this way more difficult than it really is. Just take the stream you want to fish, figure out which watershed it belongs to and look it up in the special regs. If its covered, it has a season. If not then its closed. I don't get why people feel this is so complicated.
  2. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Foothill streams above barriers are closed, which were some of my favorite places to fish. Yes, the snoqualmie tribs, and sky tribs are open, but to be honest, I did most of my stream fishing in the foothill and in the SF stilly drainage. Ive been trying to get a hold of someone in the WDFW who can explain to me why all these places are closed, but no luck so far. I don't think the regs are that hard to read by the way, 99% of the places i fish fall under the general stream or lake rules, so i don't think i really count in that arguement.
  3. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,394
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +774 / 2
    I just spent the time to read the new regulations and the list of streams.

    Off the top of my head, there are 4 headwaters streams I occasionally fish that are way above barrier falls but would be closed according to these rules. I'd be interested in hearing how to get those streams added to the permitted fishing list.
  4. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    If it is all about protecting smolts, i would have no problem personally taking a wdfw official to barriers on certains streams that are now closed. It does feel like we should be able to request permission to fish certain streams. I understand that the WDFW can't investigate every tiny flow of water, but if ample evidence is displayed to show that fishing the creek does not harm smolts, it should be opened.
  5. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,394
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +774 / 2
    Rory - That's what I was thinking too, but I'm doubtful. If even a small number of headwaters fishermen try to get the WDFW to do that, it will quickly become a huge project for them.

    In the end, I wonder if this new "whitelist" approach (vs. the old "blacklist" of streams you can't fish) is the right approach. I can see how it might make reading the rules simpler, but at the same time, it seems like WDFW should be willing to quickly analyze and add streams to the whitelist of open waters.

    But given existing WDFW manpower constraints, my guess is that this won't happen. I just doubt that WDFW will make investigating "every tiny flow of water" a top priority. I think all they care about is salmon and maybe steelhead, and serving that mass-market fishery. Creekin' is a niche thing, and they're probably willing to take the heat from a few of us if it helps them more decisively protect their bread & butter anadromous fisheries - at the expense of closing some creeks that need not be closed.
  6. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,226 / 0
    Very insightful post. The same is most likely true of beaver ponds and goes a long way towards understanding WDFW's reluctance to expand the definition to distinguish between anadromous and non-anadromous ponds.

    K
  7. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,394
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +774 / 2
    And I'll cite this thread as evidence that not many fishermen will care about a few highland creeks being closed. Only four of us replied with any passion here. If this were a thread about steelhead closures, dozens would hurl insults at WDFW.
  8. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,744
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,704 / 0
    Well on another note.If all those streams are being closed why even get a fishing license. Shit everything that was enjoyable to fish is now closed.

    Now I'm glad I moved away.

    I just went back and reread the regs. And it came to mind that these things were written last year. Were those same places that you all say are closed now closed then? They only update the regs every two years. I believe that you all are missing something.
  9. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,744
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,704 / 0
    I just had a brain fart. I see that they did a new regulations this year. And are they ever screwed up. They should of used somebody with brains to proof read it before they printed it up. Must of had some commercial fisherman help them sort things out. I'm glad I'm not there to try and figure things out. But if I was it would still be easy.

    Jim
  10. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,226 / 0
    Word!

    K
  11. Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Posts: 3,891
    East Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +131 / 0
    I haven't read the west side regs, cause i don't fish the west side.
    This is what i get out of reading this post.
    The WDFG wants less water to patrol, wants less fishers fishing in remote locations.
    Lets just face it, the WDFG doesn't want you out there fishing.
    One more lost privilege.
  12. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,394
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +774 / 2
    Gary, I doubt they don't want us fishing. After all, if I don't fish they don't get $ from me for a license.

    Just guessing, but I bet the WDFW calculated that they can simultaneously protect their bread-and-butter anadromous fisheries (where most of their revenue originates) AND reduce their operating costs (by simply closing vast areas of watersheds).

    The rules as written do help simplify protection of anadromous fisheries. They may also have calculated that by simply closing vast areas of remote small streams they won't have to police/manage those watersheds.

    But I'm just speculating.
  13. Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Posts: 3,891
    East Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +131 / 0
    Lugan, your are right about the $ issue.
    The state wants the $ but does want to do anything to earn it.
    I see the anadromous fisheries as a very messy issue with many special interests involved and the sport fishers taking it in the shorts.
  14. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/board/showthread.php/66317-No-more-WDFW

    Just sayin.


    I am wicked pissed about this. I get maybe 3-5 shot per year to fish without my kids any more. I take that time to fish remote places that i wouldn't feel comfortable taking my kids. 4 of those places are closed now and another one may or may not be. I wish I knew because it may or may not be a beaver pond.
    This fing blows!!!!
  15. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    I was in class and the WDFW called me back and left a voicemail. The lady said it is to protect steelhead and native rainbows. Im wondering if there classifying steelhead smolts and rainbows as the same fish, regardless of if they go out to sea, or stay in the stream. Now that I think about it, all the closed streams do have rainbows in them and not cutthroats. I have a hard time believing that thriving populations of isolated stream trout need protecting.
  16. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,394
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +774 / 2
    So did WDFW and DNR merge in the end? Or was that idea killed?
  17. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Another thing, I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to budget cuts, seems to me their trying to simplify the process, and they're ok with screwing over a small minority group of fisherman.
  18. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    That's BS Rory. Don't buy it. Hell, They stock one of the now closed beaver pond systems with cutthroat.

    Lugan, no there was no support for getting rid of WDFW so it died. Pity.
  19. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Oh I know they've closed plenty of places with cutts, but the main cutthroat drainages (sky tribs, snoqualmie forks) are open. I left her a message telling her to call me back, im anxious to get a better idea of what there goal with the rule change really is. I get the feeling this is the beginning of the end for washington and logical fishing regulations
  20. hookedonthefly Active Member

    Posts: 570
    Ratings: +121 / 0
    Yet, it still appears to be legal to harvest Native Rainbows as well as Bull Trout, for instance, on the Skagit.

    While I like very much some of the staff, I am beginning to believe that WDFW as a conservation-minded, fisheries management entity is a pathetic POS.