Yakima River

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Greg Moore, Jul 24, 2002.

  1. I was in the lower canyon this past Sunday and the inner tuber armada made me wish that the Yakima had some special regulations. Not to stop the tubing or for that matter the spinner & spoon fishing but the give everyone a chance to enjoy themselves. I was thinking maybe the tubers should only get part of the river, say from the slab(or Lluma) to Roza. Maybe from Bighorn to the slab (or Lluma)should be designated fly fishing only water. Maybe there should be a boater's pass / license fee collected from everyone in a boat, raft or tube floating on the water. Maybe there should be a special parking pass fee charged to park along the road in the canyon.

    I got blasted before for suggesting that additional fees should be charged for fishing but once again I believe that we need to regulate this area. The Yakima River in general and the lower canyon in particular is being taken over by a group that does not have the same image that most fly fishermen have of what the canyon should look like - clean water, clean air, very little noise (not possible), no trash!

    The new fees do not need to be a lot but the revenue collected could help fund additional patrols from both the state patrol (for speeders and litters) and the F&G wardens making sure that the regs are followed.

    The amount of trash this summer continues to grow. The last three times I've fished the section from Bighorn down to mile post 9, I've picked up at least a full bag of beer/pop cans at all the put in / pull out spots. The cigarette butts are terrible but sorry I don't pick up the butts!

    Any thoughts from anyone who fishes the canyon?

    :DUNNO


    Greg :THUMBSUP
     
  2. Totally agree, man. The water of the lower canyon is too perfect to ruin with noise and garbage. The water below the slab is pretty unproductive and would be a perfect place for the trash chuckers. I'm glad to hear you pick up trash, I do as well, and encourage everybody to take a few minutes during your trip to do so. Cigarette butts are a pain in the butt. I actually witnessed a nice 16 or so inch rainbow smash a drifting cigarette butt this spring. The sad thing is that the butt did not float back up. It did give me some interesting ideas, though.
    I fully agree that something has to be done. But for now all we can do is talk and wait hopefully for a quiet fall season.

    Bryan :AA
     
  3. We need to send a petition and/or letters to the
    Canyon Corridor Safety Project
    6 South Second Street
    Suite 605
    Yakima, Wa. 98901

    The different groups involved in this project are
    Bureau of Land Management
    Wash. Traffic Safety Commission
    Wa. St. Dept. Natural Resources
    Wa. St. Dept. Fish & Wildlife
    Wa. Department of Transportation
    Wa. St. Patrol
    Kittitas Co. Sheriff
    Kittitas Co. Prosecuting Attorney's Office
    Kittitas Co. Public Services
    Kittitas Co. EMS
    Yakima Co. EMS
    Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
    Yakima River Canyon Property Owners
    Yakima River Canyon Business Owners
    Local Guides and Outfitters
    and others

    These various groups claim to have the best interest of the canyon in mind and they want the canyon to be enjoyed by the most number people but done safely and with the least amount of negative impact on the canyon (trash, deaths from drunk driving & speeding, etc.).

    We have a forum here at Washington Fly Fishing and some of the other fly fishing forum bulletin boards (Westfly & Fly Anglers on Line) that getting the ball rolling with a letter writing campaign should be a natural!

    Let's hear from more of you who fish the Yakima and from those of you who don't fish this river but think that if we are successful on one river there will be a chance to get more rivers cleaned up, designated fly fishing only, catch and release only, etc.

    Greg
     
  4. Normally I would agree with conserving the rivers for conservative use but not in this case. The lower canyon has been exploited by many, many people. This includes guides, the BLM and the DNR. My advice is to start thinking about fishing upstream from the canyon because the crowds only get worse the more Ellensburg gets populated. I disagree with charging people to access public property for recreational use. Especially if it means narrowing the stereotype to cater to only fishermen. I wouldn't mind limiting the access by removing the roads and boat launches and not allowing anyone to float the river if it means protecting the river's complete system. This won't be happening anytime soon since they spent so much $$$ blowing up the cliffs to install a road. I know how you feel about crowds but the solution isn't to act selfish. The solution is to limit the amount of exploitation from every group involved including the catch and release fishermen.

    Welcome to REDNECK country.

    Tony
     
  5. So who should pay for the recreational use on this "public property"? Tax payer's dollars, from people who do not want to or ever intend to use this recreational property! I say pay as you go for what you use. The tax payers wallet is not an endless pit. I'm not for excluding anyone, only maybe we can separate the various special interest groups so that there are fewer confrontations.

    It truly isn't the crowd factor as much as it is the trash factor from those using this recreational property. Rather than have an attitude that nothing can be done as this is the way it's always been, try to look for ways to improve a situation little by little.

    My point would be that the powers to be should make the river a profit center to off set the additional costs of preserving the canyon. If a for profit company ran the canyon - it would cost to get on the river, it would cost to park, cost to fish, camp, etc. But it would be cleaner and safer as long as they were required to pay back a percentage to the State and that money was earmarked specifically for the canyon upkeep!

    It's not REDNECK country so much as it is an anything goes as long as you don't get caught attitude! Which you're finding more and more in today's society. Even in the "Big City" atmosphere.

    I want to pay for what I use and not subsidize (with tax dollars) what I don't use. We can't keep paying for such a wide variety of recreation opportunities with tax dollars when health care, education, and transportation are much more in need of our attention and money.

    Just my opinion and you're entitled to yours. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle and do something that will benefit the canyon for future generations.

    Greg :THUMBSUP
     
  6. Pay to play is a Capitalistic approach to problem solving issues regarding public properties. IF you are really serious, I have a contact for you so that you can organize a clean up campaign for the Yakima Canyon. This would only cost time from voulenteers. This website would be a great resource to find such folks. I don't know if you remember a car down from RED's sitting in the river, this is the kind of example on how the flyfishing community got involved and towed the thing out of there.

    We are charged for hiking trails and parking in the woods and spending the night in the woods. This money does not go directly to maintaining the trails or cleaning up the garbage. The money goes into the general fund. So how can you expect that more pay to play is going to directly effect the kind of experience that you have fishing in the lower Yakima River? I am sorry but the answer is not charging people to float the river. The answer is to educate and develop a community that would be willing to voulenteer their time and energy to cleaning up the rafts and tubes left on the side of the river. Maybe then there will be a better experience associated with fishing the river.

    The other answer is to ignore it and float S.Cle Elum to River Raft Rentals. See ya this weekend!
     
  7. i hate to pay to be outside. but since i have to buy a lisense i feel that anybody else who uses the rivers should pay as well. i would support any notion that would require other users to match my lisense. tubers, kayakers, or any body else for that matter. but i dont want to pay more. already we pay taxes, licenses, wayerhauser passes, forest passes im sure there are a few more. add all that up and its not cheap. i want quiet productive streams, but i want it to be shared by all. jer
     
  8. Again, I ask who is the "all" you refer to when you state you want it to be shared by all. I don't fish in an area that requires a pass to get on Weyheauser property but if I did, I would pay it if that was what it took to fish on their property. If you didn't fish on the Yakima you wouldn't be required to pay additional fees under the ideas I stated earlier.

    I said, you only pay for what you use! How much of your taxes do you really think or believe goes towards fishing? A very small percentage, as the money goes into the general fund and our "elected" state officials (along with the special interest lobbyists) get to decide how / where the money is spent.

    Greg :pROFESSOR
     
  9. the "all" i was refering to, was stated above, in my entry as all users of the river. i agree with you about the taxes and lisences. i wish the money would be earmarked for the rivers. we as fishermen, or ladies, pay a lisence fee to use the rivers. why dont others have to as well? jer
     
  10. My point exactly. Why doesn't everyone who uses the river pay for that use? "We" use the river so "we" should pay for that usage. That includes everyone that floats on the river, whether in an inner tuber or a drift boat/raft. The fee doesn't have to be a lot. On the Deschutes, a boater's pass is like $2.00 per day per floater (like $15.00-$20.00 annually).

    Getting past the "public" land questions is handled by saying that people can still camp (seems there's a fee for that) along the river and enjoy the view/sites of the canyon. White Pass ski resort is on "public" land and you can enjoy the sites around the pass all you want without a fee. The charge is for actually skiing/snow boarding.

    A small fee paid by those who use the river will total big dollars to help preserve it!

    Greg
     
  11. I might be old---but I'm good.

    I think that you are all beating a dead horse. We don't pay a license fee to fish the rivers. It is so we can have fish to catch such as all the lakes that they put little fish in. I for one don't want to pay a fee just to use public lands. If we were in a perfect world where every one picked up their own trash. We wouldn't have anything to complain about. I think that most people that float these rivers are slobs and they don't care what we think as long as they have a good time at some ones else expence.

    I think that I will shut up now as I have done my venting.

    Jim :REALLYMAD
     

Share This Page