Umm? WDFW

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

  1. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    Follow the dollars. There's less $$ for hatcheries so the commercial interests are buying up spawning and rearing real estate. There would be negative ROI if they took the time to research every blue squiggley line and see if there is a barrier. I'll guarente we're 5 years or less away from a statewide Wenatchee flying circus. We'll only get to fish moving water when the commercials tell us it's cool.
  2. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,600
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,652 / 0
    You have to look close to the rules. I just down loaded the new rules and have been going over them. Olnely Creek is not closed. Only streams that empty into Puget Sound are closed or have restrictions on them. The ones that don't drain into the Sound are not closed They are open From the first Saturday in June.

    What a fucken Mess
  3. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Olney Creek does drain into the Sound Jim, it runs into the Sky, which runs into the Snohomish, which goes to the sound. I read the section pretty thoroughly, and Olney Creek wasn't included. I don't really fish the creek and don't really care that its closed, but it was just a notable closure.
  4. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    "We have adopted a new management strategy that offers additional protection to stocks in streams draining into Puget Sound or the
    Strait of Juan de Fuca. The basic rule in these waters is that all rivers, streams, and beaver ponds are closed to fi shing unless they
    are listed in the following tables in the Puget Sound and Strait Rivers section of pamphlet
    (see pages 33-48). These tables detail ALL
    of the fi shing opportunity in these drainages. Areas open to fi sheries are presented by river system unless the waters drain directly to
    salt water. All other waters in these drainages are closed to fi shing"

    Nope Jim. it is closed along with the rest of the skinny water draining into the Sky, Sans the South Fork Tribs, Wallace and Sultan.
  5. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,600
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,652 / 0
    Olney creek drains into the Wallace river Not the sound. If you want to add that there are four rivers between that creek and the sound so be it, but it is open in June.

    I know that you don't fish that little stream. And there is a 90' falls on the creek upstream from the Wallace. Nothing gets above it. And if you did you would know that there are some big fish above the falls.

    Since I don't live and fish there anymore I ought to just shut up but you all don't cipher the rules very well. You all see the closed thing but stop reading at that point.

    Maybe we ought to close the Clark Fork. Because in a round about way it drains into the Columbia.

    Every stream In the greater Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma area, in a round about way drains into Puget Sound. But a lot don't go there directly, they drain into another system and those systems are open on the first of June.
  6. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    All other waters in these drainages are closed to fi shing]

    Of course it did say "Areas open to fi sheries are presented by river system". Sounds like they need to clarify that a bit.
  7. Cruik Active Member

    Posts: 459
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +141 / 0
    Does anyone happen to know a warden personally? I'm wondering if this is one of those situations where something is expressly outlawed, but when it comes time to enforcement, the wardens are lenient. In my experience, the wardens I've met have been reasonable guys who legitimately care about the preservation of not only the species, but fishing opportunities. I think it's possible that unless you're an a-hole, fishing with barbless hooks and no bait above natural barriers will not be ticket worthy.

    This is all assuming they have any reason to reach those areas. If this is in fact, as said previously, the result of budget cuts, and this rule is to create a smaller area that they had to patrol, I don't think there's any chance of getting caught up on Olney Creek, or any other small stream. I will not be following this rule.
  8. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    I stand corrected, it does indeed drain into the Wallace, then the sky, instead of just the sky. However, it also drains into the sound. The water in Olney Creek still reaches the sound through the Snohomish. I think you're interpreting the rule as river draining "directly" into the sound are closed. Meaning all the little gulch streams along the sound would be closed. Thats not how the rule is, if it drains into the sound in anyway, it is closed unless otherwise listed. Olney Creek is not listed, under the wallace river section it says nothing about tributaries, meaning its closed.
  9. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,224 / 0
    I've just been told of an email report by a person who's a member of IFPAG (Inland Fish Policy Advisory Group) confirming that WDFW's strategy is to eventually close ALL Washington waters unless otherwise specified in the rules. The 2010-2011 default closure of all waters draining into Puget Sound will be followed in subsequent seasons by the default closure of all waters draining into the Columbia (yes, both directly and indirectly) and presumably, the Pacific Ocean.

    The rationale at WDFW is that doing so will serve to not only clarify understanding of if and when fishing is permitted, but also to streamline enforcement on all waters, thus conserving the department's ever-shrinking budget.

    K
  10. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,484
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +786 / 0
    As someone noted earlier in this thread, I suspect that the WDFW will consider well-reasoned requests for further openings in next year's process.

    If someone (or group) were to compile a list of waters closed under the new regs, but which need not be closed under the criteria established by the WDFW (protecting endangered anadromous fish stocks), it might be a service that might be appreciated by the folks at WDFW.

    In the meanwhile, it seems like many of us are stuck contemplating the slippery slope of selective compliance with the regulations. I think stepping onto that slope is something no one should consider lightly. Think about all of the posts on this forum about poaching, for example. One person's selective compliance is another person's poaching.

    Dick
  11. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,396
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,355 / 9
    Dick, I think your response here is exceptionally reasonable. If folks are concerned wtih particular skinny water spots that are now closed yet are above anadromous fish reach due to impassable obstacles, why not create a list and forward it to WDFW. I do not know these waters, but I believe that the compilation of such a list that is presented to WDFW with details of the impassable locations then perhaps a group would have collectively worked together to offer WDFW a no cost solution to their inability to scout all the tributaries and feeder systems. Would a group be willing to consider that as an option? I don't know squat about squat, but I sifted out a bunch of shuttle service info from posts and put it in one place (thanks to Chris' guidance). I would not mind taking some of my spare keystrokes to take your input via email or PM and putting it together in a clean fashion for sumission to WDFW. Maybe there are some here who actually are affiliated with WDFW that could even be better choices to collect this info...

    Just sayin'
  12. Old Man Just an Old Man

    Posts: 21,600
    Dillon, Mt
    Ratings: +1,652 / 0
    I think that I will now shut up on this subject.

    My states regulations are a book that is about 5" x 8" and has only 88 pages. It tell you when the rivers open up and when they close. The state is put into three sections and they are so easy to read a three year old could cipher them. Not so easy for Washington's.

    You don't need barbless hooks and anybody can fish in any water as long as it is open.
  13. Trent Ugly member

    Posts: 734
    Here
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Rory:
    The gal who called you back is probably the same one I talked to (if you called the office in Mill Creek or region four I believe). She is nothing, but a desk worker who answers phones and basic questions that she really has no understanding of.

    The more I think about this the angrier I get. And as Richard stated, it is a "slippery slope", but then again we are facing a giant who only cares for commercial interest and who has failed to represent the sporting sector time and time again. This "list of open" streams in the pamplet will only result in increasing pressure on a consoldated resource. Snohomish county only has three wardens on duty and one that is brought in part time for the waterfoul season. The only other sort of enforcment out there is the Forest Rangers, but they too are few in number. County Sheriff deputies don't enforce these laws due to the fact they are unfamiliar with them.
  14. Rory McMahon Active Member

    Posts: 1,615
    lynnwood
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    The person I'm trying to talk to is named Jennifer Whitney. She isn't the desk lady, i forget exactly who she is. there is at least one stream I know i'm going to fish anyway. I guess that technically makes me a poacher, but there is like zero chance I get caught, and there is absolutely no reason fishing shouldn't be allowed on the creek. I have a feeling most of us are going to be doing the same thing.
  15. hendersonbaylocal Member

    Posts: 966
    Seattle WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    And internal combustion engines are prohibited on the Pratt! WTF!
  16. nutsack angler newb

    Posts: 417
    Dedmonds, WA
    Ratings: +36 / 0
    Yeah this internal combustion engines thing that's going around is really odd. They added it to a trib of the nooksack that you can't even fit a canoe in. Either there are some major typos going on or it's just another example of how out of touch these olympia heads are with the resource.
  17. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,378
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +760 / 2
    OK, I think I figured out reasons for at least one specific set of new closures. They're headwaters streams above the big falls of the SF Sky next to Rte 2 (I can't remember the name of the falls) where no anadromous fish would naturally occur.

    But don't they still do that idiotic program where they truck steelhead above the falls? I always wondered why they spent $ and time doing that, but I think I now have a good guess: They want to exploit the habitat above the falls to rear smolt, and they don't want anyone harrassing those smolts/rainbows (or whatever we should call those non-natural fish) with #14 caddis all summer. Eventually those smolts become adult steelhead for commercial and sport fishermen to target. And that's $$$ for WDFW (and closed fishing for us creekers).

    Am I right?
  18. Smalma Active Member

    Posts: 2,797
    Marysville, Washington
    Ratings: +653 / 0
    OMJ-
    Sorry but Olney Creek is closed! It is not listed as being open. The way that section is organized is the those streams that are open for fishing will be listed under the major river basin in which they are found. The exception to that approach are those small independent basins that flow directly to the salt and not one of the major river basins which case those streams are listed separately.

    I agree that they whole thing is messy with lots of resident trout opportunities lost and less than a standard approach across the various basins.

    BTW
    To be fair this change was part of the proposed fishing rules changes process. This final product includes a lot fewer lost resident fishing opportunities that the proposal that went out to the public for review and comment. Did anyone hear comment that proposal? Another example of why it is often important to review those proposed changes to protect your interests.

    Tight lines
    Curt
  19. Matt Baerwalde ...

    Posts: 829
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +199 / 0
    No, those streams are still open. Page 39. And that program is being discontinued.
  20. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,378
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +760 / 2
    Matt - Thanks; my bad for missing that little section under the SF Sky regulations. Great to hear the bussing program is being stopped though!