North Sound Beach report

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Willie Bodger, Jul 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mingo

    Mingo the Menehune stole my beer

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    428
    Location:
    Happy Hour, WA
    Old Man don't worry so much......guys on here regularly use $600 Sage XPs with Abel reels in the salt. There is a miracle rinse called H2o, just use some of this special rinsing liquid on your gear when you are done and you will be fine....remember that code designation for the special rinsing sauce...H2o.....your reel and guides will be fine...are you going to use this reel in the salt from your arsenal?

    [​IMG]

    you successfully fished that reel since Lincoln was in the White House, I'm sure that tough old bugger can handle some searuns....just keep it out of the sand! :p :p
     
  2. Old Man

    Old Man Just an Old Man

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Messages:
    24,357
    Likes Received:
    3,278
    Location:
    Dillon, Mt
    Well the last time I fished in the salt I used a older type Sage reel,a 506 or something like that. And after I got home the gear got the bath thing and after a few weeks the reel had rust on the shaft and was hard to turn. But since then I've cleaned up the reel and now it works fine. That is why I don't fish the salt.

    Jim
     
  3. ChrisW

    ChrisW AKA Beadhead

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Salt Dog, let me jump in here at the defense of Mr WT (no pun intended).

    I was actually the recipient of the afformentioned personal attack in regards to posting a coho catch (and release) in open SRC waters that were closed to salmon. I too was using light tippet and surface techniques. Unlike you, I was unaware that the area was closed to salmon, but it didn't matter because I released the fish and I knew I was targetting SRC anyway- as I almost always do, even when salmon season is open. In short, I knew enough about the regs to know that my methods were legal.

    The difference between these two situations is I was was personally attacked and called out as a poacher from a certain member who is prone to (and recently reprimanded for) such behavior. From where I sit, it looked to me like Mr WT (again no pun intended) was going out of his way to make sure there was no intent to judge your methods or ethics. I looked at his first post (before reading your response) and I took it as a friendly reminder to others who might read the report and run up to target some of those salmon in the North Sound. The term poacher was used but it was jokingly directed at members of his or her own group that were thinking of heading out but hadn't studied the regs yet.

    But please don't attack Washington Trout as an organization. I have a lot of respect for the work that they do and I am a professional in the conservation field so I am aware of some of their accomplishments.

    Please re read the posts and try to look at it from their perspective. They were not trying to crush your glowing report (which I enjoyed by the way...keep 'em coming!) I think maybe you were reacting to the proven tendancy of this board to overly scrutinize fishing reports and slam the author if the slightest mistake was made. I am sure that your C&R skills are quite good and that your Coho is still swimming strongly. I may even decide to "target" your fish this fall!


    This brings me to my personal pet peeve...........THE REGS ARE BROKEN ON THIS ISSUE! The regs need to be more clear about what is acceptable tackle and technique and completely do away with the intent clause. For example if during salmon closures WDFW limited acceptable tackle to single barbless size 4 (max) hooks and no weight above 1/2 oz it would go a long way to cut down on incidental catch while increasing eforcibility. (Flyfishing only would be fine too, but it is a bit self-serving from my point of view). At the very least prohibiting bait and treble hooks during selective seasons makes sense to me.

    This would be very complicated but it is necessary IMO. WDFW would have to allow tackle that could accurately target lingcod, halibut and other bottom fish during their openings. But whatever is allowed, it should be implemented with the goal of decreasing salmon mortality. Currently it would be legal fish a buzz bomb with a treble hook in the north sound if you were "targetting" flounder , or a whole herring if you were "targetting" dogfish. Downriggers/flashers/hootchies with might be stretching things a bit, but as Mr WT put it, only the angler knows his own intent. The current regs are completely unenforceable with regard to methods used and targetted species, they only kick in when a fish is actually caught. So lets do away with the stupid intent clause and make the use of certain gear illegal during selective fisheries!

    WT could help us with this I believe.

    ChrisW
     
  4. Willie Bodger

    Willie Bodger Still, nothing clever to say...

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA
    Chris, I like the idea with regard to changing the regs to more accurately target what they are trying to do and give the wdfw 'cops' something that they can enforce 'before' the fish pay the price. On the flip side, perhaps a good innovative tyer (like you... ;) ) could come up with a cutthroat only fly, no salmon allowed...? :hmmm:
     
  5. Desmond Wiles

    Desmond Wiles Sir Castaline

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Snohomish, Wa
    Great report!

    I can understand how Saltdog became defensive on behalf of his buddy's report in light of the recent fireworks show on the boards,but at the sametime I believe it was overboard considering the honest statements made by WT. Most especially when myself, along with about 100 more WFF.com guys contributed $13 bucks which ended up in the hands of WT.

    By the way, what pun are you talking about Chris? I don't see it. :confused:
     
  6. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    ChrisW- on wednesday morning, fishing with a size 4 hook for cutthroat in an area I know to hold cutthroat, I hooked and landed a pink. If WDFW really does want to eliminate the gray area of the "target rule" they should close all fishing in such areas, otherwise all they can do is eliminate gear that is particularly harmful to fish (barbs, bait) and be more vigilant as enforcers in preventing mutiple "incidental encounters" in one trip...my personal rule is if I catch more than a few non-target closed species, I move.
    -Thomas
     
  7. salt dog

    salt dog card shark

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Edmonds WA / Mazama
    Poaching sea-cucumbers; Mingo you crack me up.
     
  8. ChrisW

    ChrisW AKA Beadhead

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    I never said that smaller hooks & surface flies wont take salmon, just that if we are to be targetting trout, then WDFW should be specific about what that means. Also single barbless hooks, no bait and not removing from the water help insure a safe release. If the fishery is so fragile that it can't withstand hooking mortality using selective gear rules, then it should be closed to all fishing. But if they feel they can protect one species while allowing for some incidental C&R (and associated hooking mortality %) then they should keep it open and have enforceable rules. This is what WDFW does in many freshwater areas but they seem reluctant to apply it in saltwater situations. They have made a few changes in some fisheries but I would like to see them use the established term "Selective Gear Rules".
     
  9. salt dog

    salt dog card shark

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Edmonds WA / Mazama
    Dear Mr. WT.

    It appears that we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. Thank you for your clarification and your partial response. You're apology is accepted. I still think that you should post as an individual, and indicate your representative capacity, or just list your affiliations like many others due.

    I am sending you a Personal Message regarding additional matters.

    Jim Hawes
     
  10. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,669
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    What I got out of this entire exchange is to not read or respond to any posts by Mr. salt dog or by Mr. Washington Trout. Geez, you guys are something else.

    The fishing report basically sucked and the warning of illegal fishing was un-needed.
     
  11. Old Man

    Old Man Just an Old Man

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Messages:
    24,357
    Likes Received:
    3,278
    Location:
    Dillon, Mt
    I really don't want to get into this but I have to add just a little. It doesn't matter where you are fishing at,the waters are not open for everything. Say if you were fishing the N/F Stilly and you hooked a King. You could be called a poacher but you were fishing for Steelhead. The same could be said for most streams around here as a lot are not open for Salmon. They just happen to bite on the same flies that Cutts like. And the same for the salt. What do you all want,to close the streams all down. Peta would like that. And most who do fish in the salt know what they are fishing for. It's that fly thing,they all like them.

    Jim
     
  12. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    ChrisW- agreed.
    -Tom
     
  13. one eyed poacher

    one eyed poacher New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Wus up wit da Dawg? maybe dat boy play dat "Mr la, la, new to da board" bull cusin he ain't got da balls or literary skills to express his true opinions regarding what apears to be WTs' attempt to inform and engage the WFF forum.

    I"ll concede WTs' posts often tend toward the pedantic eco-activist dry drivel that makes my good eye roll, however... Regardless of where your politics stand these guys are engaged with the organizations and civil bodies that truly determine the fate and future of our sporting resources. As I see it fighting with the BIG dogs, engaging and advocating mostly sound measures to protect and preserve our sorry ass fishery is both commendable and worthy of our support. Worthy of our money? To be sure their exists an army of advocates needing our support.

    At least this one has both "Trout" and "Washington" in it's title.

    Maybe da dog got da salt getting all dry and crusty up his indignent "Mr. new to da board" blowhole cuss as eye seen it a truly "Mr. new to da board" mighta got da messed up empressin youse, dawg, was gonna use da "mojo" to catch dem silvers with your "pink fly" open.

    Yah Bra!
    It's all about da fishin mon.
     
  14. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,323
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    a good topic gone wrong.
     
  15. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    ChumStopper- You have quite the imagination. Your attempt to describe Washington Trout is thoroughly misguided and misleading to those reading it. Washington Trout works yearound to preserve and restore native fish and their habitats in Washington State. Their staff can hardly be characterized as a band of aspiring UW lawyers. It is rather a compilation of experienced and devoted scientists and career native fish advocates. Yearround they gather valuable data which assists the state in monitoring our native fish populations. In addition they restore acre upon acre of fish habitat. Whatever your agenda is, please refrain from slanderous attacks. I don't want to hear it, and if you ask around, I don't think many others will either.
    -Tom
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.