Ban On Steelhead Fishing From Boats?

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Bob Triggs, Oct 28, 2009.

  1. Ryan Nathe

    Ryan Nathe Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    We should all take steps to reduce our impact on the fishery and also to give the fish a fighting chance. To say 'I am not going to help steelhead by reducing my impact because of treaty netting' is just short sighted. This is the sort of greed shown toward steelhead that has led us into this situation. All I can say is I hope the younger generations are more forward thinking in conservation than the older generations have been.
     
  2. fifafu

    fifafu Guest

    Go ahead with the hollow rhetoric and namecalling but count me out on suggestions like banning fishing from the boat statewide.

    So I'm ignorant but correct?

    If the State made a statement that gill netting was the "primary reason" for the demise of native steelhead runs sportsmans groups would have a huge arrow in its quiver when they challenge the tribes. So don't say the State can't do anything. What has the State ever done?

    I would be willing to let the tribes run the hatcherys if they just pulled the nets. My friend is a Cowlitz member and just drove down to pick up about 20 fish from the hatchery(coho this time). He goes about 2 times a year to get "his" fish. He tells me the food banks from Portland take the rest. No wonder the homeless flock to Portland.
     
  3. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    17,783
    Likes Received:
    2,052
    Location:
    Kitsap Peninsula
    fifafu, the state could do plenty. They have enacted some regulations geared toward run improvement, closing sections, selective gear. What have you ever done? No one is asking you to voluntarily stop doing something, this is a discussion. No one is telling you what to do.
     
  4. fifafu

    fifafu Guest

    What have I ever done? I fish by the rules and buy a license. I respect the river and the fish. I fish that's what I've done.

    Can you say the same for a gillnet?

    Hey mumbles you said "No one is asking you to voluntarily stop doing something" but this thread is about "banning steelheading from a boat" to save released wild fish. Try to keep up okay?
     
  5. Troutrageous

    Troutrageous Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    46
    Location:
    Yakima
    Mumbles, I think its respectable that you are in fact setting an example and trying to avoid the "bitch fest". Most of us are too stubborn to settle down and "flex the brain".
     
  6. Trent

    Trent Ugly member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Here
    iagree I'll leave my usual response to old timers telling stories about the good ol' days because it'll just add more shit to this steaming pile waiting to get flushed.

    Back to the OPs suggestion. I'm going to have to disagree with that idea. I don't really use boats when fishing from rivers. I do have one, but I'm just to damn lazy to hook it up to the truck, luanch it and load it back onto the trailer and then unhook at the end of the day. I don't think that a total ban on all rivers is really that reasonable, it is sorta like a one shoe fits all thing in my opinion. I can see where on some rivers, or sections of certain rivers it could be wise and benificial, but not a total ban on all rivers. I think in actuallity it might cause more dammage do to more people trying to get shore access.

    As far as the banning wading thing...ha fat chance. That law would get me arrested because the first time some lawman told me to get out of the river, or tried to fine me would result in me telling them where they could stick that nice shiny badge of theirs.

    That's my turd freely contributed to this pile.
     
  7. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    17,783
    Likes Received:
    2,052
    Location:
    Kitsap Peninsula
    fifafu, the OP posted a subject about "banning steelheading from a boat". He did not post that banning steelheading from a boat has been passed, enacted, or even under discussion at the regulatory level necessary that such a ban would require. Please do try to keep up.;) Furthermore, the OP did not ask if you fish by the rules. He did not ask if you buy a license. He did not ask you if you respected the river, or the fish for that matter. He also did not start a thread on gillnets. You injected each and every one of those yourself and as such you've not provided any thought for or against the subject of "banning steelheading from a boat". What you've offered is your emotional and philosophical objections to gillnetting. Start a thread about gillnetting and some will come there (I for one) and say that we think that gillnetting is bad, so bad that we can't fathom how anyone would consider it acceptable. Until you get that thread rolling, I'm inclined to disgard your "damn the gillnetting" injects and seek out the response of those that think "banning steelheading from a boat" is a good/bad idea beacuse of {fill in the blanks with their views...not rants about gillnetting}. Again, please do try to keep up.;)

    Although I am not sure that I think any such ban will make any noticable beneficial impact to the steelheading population I would follow that ban if it came along. As for other types of bans such as bait (favor that ban) and wading (don't see that one getting much leverage) they are interesting, but off topic.

    Back to the morning news and refreshing my bowl of popcorn.
     
  8. lostriver99

    lostriver99 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    My take is if you are going to "fly fish" for steelhead then learn to swing your fly and do it the right way. With all the nymphing going on these days, its no wonder we are seeing more fish floating belly up on the Ronde, Methow, Wenatchee etc.. If you are nymphing for steelhead you might as well just get the gear rod out and use the fly rod for another day. 10 fish on a nymph still doesn't equal 1 great wild fish taken on a swung fly. Just my take. Too many people trying to maximize the fish count instead of the true experience.
     
  9. Brett Angel

    Brett Angel Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    5 pages of BS, superiority, and name calling and not one substantial fact. I WILL NOT SUPPORT A LAW BASED ON THE PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF A SINGLE GROUP!! PERIOD!! If said law was just and benefitial to the recovery of steelhead I would support it whole heartedly.

    Where's Bob? You started this thread and I'd really like to hear what you've based your proposed law on. Feel free to PM if you prefer.
     
  10. the_trout_bum

    the_trout_bum ifish

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    mumbles ive never disliked you more than i do right now:beathead:
     
  11. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    AMEN brother.

     
  12. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    what has happened to the west end rivers??? simple! bank to bank net sets which non selectively kill everything.

    WDFW has and will do nothing to upset the co managers, that is the political reality which drives wildlife decisions. the meager science of fisheries management has zero to do with the decisions we all get to live with. WDFW is a politicial agency, not a science based agency. you must first digest that fact before you can make much sense of what they throw at all of us.

    unfortunately, the state is not the one charged with enforcement of the ESA, enter NOAA and the NMFS. could we get the nets out??? you bet, but it would take legal action to force NOAA to then force the state to get the nets out of the water.

    the indians had used very effective and efficient techniques for harvesting the village needs. the white man wanted those same fish so baned fish weirs, traps and wheels. once boldt was in place, the indians saw the green in the dead fish and went after them with the same greedy eyes as the white man. (end of short history lesson)

    could the indians still harvest their 50% while releasing, unharmed, all wild fish? yes, just get the nets out, allow weirs and support the non-indian troll fleet. simple solution which will cost big bucks to force into place, but doable.

    now back on topic................

    i fished from a drift boat for years on the oregon coastal rivers. i must say that trying to wade fish on a majority of them would have been next to impossible. but what we did do was anchor up and cast to likely fish lies. so in this case, the boat was still a transport mechanism and since we could not get out on the bank, we used it as a fishing platform. the problem with this strategy is we could access virtually every likely fish lie down an entire river run thereby providing zero refuge for fish from fishing pressure, not a bad thing if you are trying to rid the river of raceway fish.

    the deschutes in oregon is a different story. getting out of the boat is the law and the river system encourages you to walk, wade and fish. there are, however, large stretches of that river that you really can't reach by casting while wading. once you have done the entire river from warm springs down to the columbia multiple times, you will catch on to what i am talking about. now this is a good thing from the fishes perspective as natural refuges occur which you and i can't disturb.

    the interesting thing about this thread, at least to me, is here we are on a fly fishing web site. the notion any number of you have is that fly fisher people are naturally conservation oriented why the conventional tackle folks are meat seekers. and yet the predominant theme that continues to come up is 'not on my river' or some varient. so much for the notion that fly fisher people are conservationists!

    and, of course, that is exactly why the commerical fishing industry continues to win on all decisions. there is zero unity here to the extent that a simple petition regarding steelhead is electronically signed by an insignificant number of BB readers. i am now theorizing that turning to the conventional tackle folks may provide a means to make progress in saving anadramous fishes. at least these folks recognize the importance of taking in their lives and may just get worked up enough to protect that taking to actually do something to save wild fishes...........we shall see.........in the mean time, you conservationists might want to start thinking more globally.
     
  13. Brett Angel

    Brett Angel Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    gt, was there a change in the survival rate of fish in the deschutes after the ban on boats?
     
  14. smc

    smc Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Up River
    2009 is a record year for steelhead on the Deschutes (since the dams went up). They must be doing at least a few things right.

    Not on my river.
     
  15. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    not sure 'survival' is the correct word. more fish/mile? yes.