Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Bird, Nov 30, 2012.
Thanks for posting this.
Pat Lat, you should try bass sometime, those and walleye both are WAY better than troutIMOI.Having grown up fishing Roosevelt, Im all for the #4.I can even remember casting a bubble bobber and a caddis up north as a kid on what some refer to as "the Jurasic"(always laugh when i hear that) before the guides all started in, and there were walleye then. That was about 30 years ago when i first started fishing up there. Ill be 40 next month.Its about time they lift the limit on the tasty ones that are like pulling a stump in.
Thanks for the excellent report at your blog. Cool site. Good writing. (I tried to leave a comment but could not pass the word ID filter.)
I will say Steelie Mike's blog post is about as balanced as it can get.
Thanks for supporting option #4. Smallies are very good eating.
I should point out that I've lived beside the American Reach (upper Jurrasic)(I gave Jack a lot of sh*t about that! - amuses me too!) since 1972, & pulled my first guide license in 1979. Started out mostly guiding for walleye. And there were several guiding there before me that I know of, so guides "started in" long before you know. And that's a good thing, from my perspective, particularly in a county that is among the most economically depressed in the country. And particularly a county where much of the economy is based on extraction. Yet now we see the potential of a growing local economy based on sustaining our natural rescources, our fish, our scenery... Seems to me a healthy rural economy boosted by a catch & release flyfishing industry might be held up as a model for what sustainable economy could be, & one might even stretch to say, regarding all facets of our society.
The biggest problem I see with these options having any real effect is: not too many people are going to flock to this fishery for table fare, due to the high toxicity levels of of the walleye. I sure wouldn't eat more than one or two a year from that stretch of river.
Valid point. And should be factored into the overall equation. And, I think, bolsters my view that option #4 is the only one that stands to possibly make even a small chip in the walleye population. Factor that, the size of the fishery, the amount of pressure, & really, at best I see a very small reduction across-the-board. Walleye anglers may not even notice a difference. Yet if we could retain 1 or 2% fewer natives lost to predation, that would be very worthwhile in my view. Consider that creel surveys reveal walleye anglers are not, on average, catching limits at present. This is a measure intended to, hopefully, moderate the walleye population not wipe it out.
Valid point indeed. When the spawning season closure was proposed 8 or so years ago, John Newbury also proposed a lift on the 'eye limit then.F+G apparently didnt see it as an issue as much as the pressure that was beeing put on redbands?But like tripjunkie stated, how many people target them up there,as compared to lower reaches.Steve,I wasnt even born in 72! I was under the impression that you were a California transplant? Seems like #4 should have been considered and put into effect a few years ago.
P-FITZ98, these issues have been discussed & kicked around since at least 1972, the year I arrived in the Northport area (via Oregon, though I did graduate from Humbolt, in California) to contract with Boise Cascade's reforestation program. The discussion is not new here, really. Problem is: The Wheel is cumbersome & painfully slow-moving & there has always been very few with their shoulders to it. I think, perhaps, we're finally starting to see results. Maybe your friend would like to join UCNFA & get some help with his efforts? We welcome all supporters. Doesn't cost a cent. (And praise be to California transplants. They've certainly upgraded the gene pool with some better looking women, in my neighborhood.)
Steve, the "Wheel" cant be too slow, it didnt take long to shut down the spawn season a few years ago.When the subject at hand was brought to by concerned locals,It should have been fought for and dealt with then.Just sayin'...if youd rather have Californians upgrading the gene pool with women,I'd be more concerned about upgrading the fish myself. Must get lonely up there?
I don't recall the "spawn season" being "shut down" a few years ago. That didn't happen. If you are reffering to the creek-mouth closures, that is an area restriction, not a closure during spawning. We need a bit more than that. And sounds like I pissed you off with my joke. Sorry. No need to get yer pannies bunched. I'm concerned about women & fish, equally.
Received a notice from WDFW last night, stating that they have decided to extend the public comment period & will now be taking comments on reg proposals through January 29th. My intuit informs me that response from this site may be at least partially responsible for that. Your comments are energetic & public opinion is, bottom line, the major driver. Your accord is stronger than money. Never be mislead to think otherwise. There are about 70 proposals on the table along with Proposition #15. I urge readers to look them over & comment where you can. Some of these will affect waters in your neighborhood. WDFW is making it easy, with synopsis & comment box at this site: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/
I'll write an update on Proposal #15 & include more info with it, & post it here sometime over the next couple days, for those of you who are interested in that one. And there is updated content on my site.