FYI: Boat-ban suggested for Klickitat, Hoh, other rivers

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Dan Nelson, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. shawn k

    shawn k Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    buckets worldwide
    While i feel no love for the tribal netters. Your statement is Bs. The Hoh tribe nets two days a week and they have an enforcement guy that drives the river in a jet boat and pulls any nets that are fishing beyond the agreed to fishing times or fishing illegally. If you were to mention the queets or Chehalis than you would be spot on.
     
  2. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    599
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    We seem to be looking at this as a monolithic structure( maybe it's just me), when it is not. It is a set of proposals that WDFW may choose to adopt all, part of or not at all. As far as causing hate and discontent in the fishing community, sorry but any restriction you implement is going to piss someone off. It's not a panacea, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good at this point in the game. The fact that the Sol Duc will be managed as a wild Steelhead management zone gives credence to the proposal in my eyes, for that river at least. I also like the special regs on trout in all P.S. rivers.
     
    Chris Bellows likes this.
  3. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Location:
    m-ville
    I think we should ban boats on all rivers including the yak, then we'll see who the fishers are, This is another attempt by the Elitist to mess up the gear guys so they can have the river to themselfs. If you want to save the steelhead ban fishing for them all togather and let the runs rebuild.
     
  4. nutsack angler

    nutsack angler newb

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Dedmonds, WA
    Sure, but your idea of effectiveness is probably different from mine which is probably different from the gear guide that has 2 paying clients who have never seen a steelhead let alone an underwater rock the size of a VW. My point was that closing those two sections isn't going to change any overall impact on the fish. The impacts are downstream where you can use bait, barbs, and kill fish, which is where all the people are...
     
  5. Rob Allen

    Rob Allen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    914
    Location:
    Vancouver WA
    no one with a mind towards conservation should be targeting wild steelhead on any river where they are below escapement... I have given up fishing on most of my favorite rivers for this very reason.. I now target almost exclusively hatchery salmon and steelhead.. now I do not think that CnR for steelhead is a problem at all even with so many people's ignorance of how to fight and handle larger game fish... still I think we should be doing everything we can...

    I am of the opinion that the single best thing for our wild fish populations we can do as individual sport anglers is to kill as many hatchery fish as we legally can... hatchery fish are great nutrients for your garden or great Christmas presents if you don't like to eat fish...
     
    Chris Johnson likes this.
  6. Jeff Sawyer

    Jeff Sawyer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Tacoma WA
    Spot on. Closing hatcheries would do more good for wild populations than all the regulations Fish and Game can dream up, because without enforcement regulations are pretty worthless anyway. They can take the money they save by closing the hatcheries and hire more game wardens to enforce the regs they already have. From what I've seen, following the regs here is a matter of personal integrity, and unfortunately not everyone has integrity.

    I use to live in Alaska, and you could be in the deep woods, and not think there was another human for 50 miles and look up and there would be a game warden watching you and if you were at any of the popular spots you could just about count on getting checked, license and gear at a minimum. I don't know if I'm the exception or the norm, but I've lived and fished here for 4 years and I don't fish as much as I want to, but I do get out. I've never once been asked for my license or had an enforcment officer approach me in any way.

    Yes I know this is not Alaska and the population here is very different, and I'm not saying enforcement here is not doing their job, maybe they're not properly resourced, maybe because they are spending way too much money on hatcheries, which IMO it has been proven (and I know there are those that will disagree; and some of you probably don't believe shit stinks until someone sticks your nose in it) that hatcheries have a detrimental impact on wild fish populations. (and don't ask me what proof, google it, or search previous threads you'll find a plethoria of information).

    If Fish and game wants to get serious about improving wild fish polulations

    Tear down more damns.
    Close more hatcheries
    Stop Gill netting
    Increase enforcment
    Make all Hatcheries mark fish
    Make all Wild Fish C&R
    Make it illegal to sell possess wild steelhead
    Require single barbless hooks everywhere (fly and gear)

    If they do this maybe they wouldn't have to worry about a guy floatin' down the river watching a bobber. Though I have no real understanding why anyone would want to do that in the first place, I think, with maybe a very few well justified exceptions, they should have the right to.
     
  7. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    1,205
    Location:
    The Salt
    We should do nothing at all until we see unicorns flying over Seattle.
     
    Bob Triggs likes this.
  8. Jeff Sawyer

    Jeff Sawyer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Tacoma WA
    Painting the living room while the kitchen is on fire, doesn't make alot of sense to me.
     
    Bob Triggs likes this.
  9. PT

    PT Physhicist

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Edmonds, WA
    Playing a fish back up to your perch may have an impact that is being overlooked.
     
    Bob Triggs likes this.
  10. inland

    inland Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    .
    These types of regs are more for social reasons than biological. I don't see too many volunteering to take their impacts off the fishery...and why should they?

    I go fishing to recreate. Not to be in an even bigger competitive rat race then regular life. I also go to catch fish. That is a conflict with today's incredibly overhyped steelhead fisheries.

    After 20 years of chasing steelhead with a fly I can see my future days are numbered. Not entirely because there are no fish/going to be no fish. In fact it is the opposite on many fisheries. Too many fish = too much hype = too many anglers all vying for theirs, doing whatever they deem neccessary at the time to ensure they get theirs at your expense. The skagit and sauk are done. Gone with them is my desire to winter steelhead. The once peaceful time on many summer steelhead rivers (all steelhead rivers really), well it isn't so peaceful anymore. I have already cut my steelhead time in half from what it was a decade ago. Down the road as long as my son enjoys it I will keep going with him for a summer steelhead trip. And a week or so in the fall to meet up with friends. The rest of my 'anadromous' time will be spent fishing elsewhere for other species on controlled waters that are nearly 100% wild and native fisheries. Hell I had a blast a week or so ago going trout fishing with my son on a small high elevation tailwater with plenty of beaver ponds. A little over an hour from 2 million people. Nice fat browns that required finesse and patience in the flat water. Once a 1/4 mile away from the parking area...not another angler. Just mule deer, re-established native cutts and naturalized browns with a sweet evening spinner fall. No sleds. No highway. Mile after mile of very lightly fished water.

    Banning fishing from boats will do nothing to biologically help the fish. It might result in fewer fish being hooked, which could result in a few more to those that like fishing from the shore...which is really what is behind this proposal. However it does nothing to establish 'rules of the road' so we can equally share the water we equally own. Which IS the problem.
     
  11. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    1,205
    Location:
    The Salt
    serious reply. ;)

    dams - WDFW has little to no power over removing dams
    close hatcheries - WDFW can do it... but they face incredible public and political pressure when they do. look at the process in closing snyder creek and honestly answer if you think we could politically close hatcheries like on the bogachiel.
    stop gill netting - WDFW can not stop tribal gill netting.
    increase enforcement - with what money?
    mark hatchery fish - what state run hatcheries are not marking their steelhead?
    c&r wild fish - proposed with the boat fishing ban - likely not going to happen
    sell, possess wild steelhead - hard to enforce with treaty rights and legal kill fisheries
    require barbless hooks - WDFW could enact this along with a bait ban

    we fish on rivers where many of the impacts are not fixable in the short term. there has been a major pressure shift with closures elsewhere. much of what we would like to see done either cannot or would take a significant amount of time. the question i ask is what should we do in the short term to ensure that those longer term fixes have fish to work with?

    the better analogy is stopping the bleeding on an arm to save a cancer patient, knowing the patient may end up dead anyways.

    we need to take a look in the mirror and be honest about our own impacts. people saying this will have no biological impact are fooling themselves. less fish caught equals more fish spawning.

    it aint perfect, but making small changes is better than nothing. remember, if small changes weren't good enough we'd still have a 30 fish wild steelhead yearly limit. small, incremental changes brought us to 1 per year. small changes got us selective fisheries in the upper watersheds. small changes get us closer and closer to the regulations many of us think would have larger biological impacts. aim high but take what is given.
     
  12. Jeff Sawyer

    Jeff Sawyer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Tacoma WA
    Chris,
    I think you and I probably agree on more than we disagree on.

    I know these are complex problems with lots of players and everyone looking out for their own interest and I agree that very little of what I proposed is a quick fix. We didn’t get in this situation over night and we’re not going to get out of it over night. I also know that WDFW doesn’t have unilateral control over all these issues. If we are going to correct this course we’re on, they are going to have to find their voice and start standing up to the public and political pressures. It’s going to take lots of negotiations with tribes and energy companies, and politicians and god knows who else. And I couldn’t agree more, we need to look in the mirror and be honest about our impacts.

    And if I could see more being done towards a long-term solution some of the band-aid fixes might make more sense. But my fear is they’ll place the band-aid and say let’s wait and see if the bleeding stops and never get at the root of the problems.

    To answer your question about short term; the below are things that IMO could happen almost immediately.

    C&R all wild fish
    Barbless hooks (and the Bait Ban you mentioned)
    Cut hatchery funding by 20% across the board, and use that money to fund more enforcement.
     
  13. TD

    TD Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    495
    Location:
    North End
    Jumping in here rather late.

    For decades there have been Wildlife Refuge Areas that provide protected resting/feeding locations for migratory birds. These areas allow no hunting, no dogs, no guns, etc. Anyone who hunts birds can attest to the effectiveness of these areas. Most everyone has spent at least one evening watching thousands of birds frolicking in the Refuge Area while the sun sets and not a single bird flies 50 yards off the protect course.

    Translate that to the river system. Fish seek out protected lies in which to rest as they migrate upstream. They naturally move to areas that protect them from current flows, predators, etc. If eliminating fishing from a floating device results in a similar effect as the Wildlife Refuge does for migratory birds then this could have a significant impact in the quality of the migration routes of anadromous fish.
     
  14. nutsack angler

    nutsack angler newb

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Dedmonds, WA
    The only creatures that would get refuge under these proposals are fisherman that don't fish from boats. There's already miles of "refuge" water on the sol duc and calawah i.e. CLOSED TO FISHING
     
  15. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA

    and, these rivers form the quillayute, a short run river that is heavily netted, bank to bank. so the upriver sanctuaries are hardly the issue when the fish can't reach them. last time i checked, there was a net actually deployed blocking the channel just below the mouth of the Duc.

    has the Duc ever made escapement goals?