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

shawn k

Active Member
#76
the escapement on the Hoh is not met simply because of lower river netting 6 out of every 7 days. rec angling has not much to do with this disaster.
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.
 
#77
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.
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
#78
I agree with this regulation on the Klick. It's not saying you can't still boat, but you need to stop, get out, and fish a hole/run and then move to the next. I see nothing wrong with this.
OMFG!!! I dont care how you word this, if you want to protect,then stop fishing. Period!!!! Oh wait,we can just takeaway someone else's fishing style,thats the answer......from a hater!!
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.
 
#79
yes guides can effectively fish clients for steelhead on just about every river on the planet!!!! on the other hand whats wrong with having one river where no guiding is allowed...

my recommendation would be to limit the entire river to say 10 guiding permits. and the guides who get them to start with are chosen based on how long they have LIVED in the area..


the idea however that you cannot guide people without them standing in a boat is silly...
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...
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#80
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...
 
#81
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...
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.
 

inland

Active Member
#85
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.
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
#86
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)
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.
 
#87
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.
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.
 

TD

Active Member
#88
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.
 
#89
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
 

gt

Active Member
#90
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

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?
 

Latest posts