Article WDFW Proposal #15 A Fighting Chance For Washington's Greatest Native Trout Fishery

The biggest problem I see with these options having any real effect is: not too many people are going to flock to this fishery for table fare, due to the high toxicity levels of of the walleye. I sure wouldn't eat more than one or two a year from that stretch of river.
 
The biggest problem I see with these options having any real effect is: not too many people are going to flock to this fishery for table fare, due to the high toxicity levels of of the walleye. I sure wouldn't eat more than one or two a year from that stretch of river.
Valid point. And should be factored into the overall equation. And, I think, bolsters my view that option #4 is the only one that stands to possibly make even a small chip in the walleye population. Factor that, the size of the fishery, the amount of pressure, & really, at best I see a very small reduction across-the-board. Walleye anglers may not even notice a difference. Yet if we could retain 1 or 2% fewer natives lost to predation, that would be very worthwhile in my view. Consider that creel surveys reveal walleye anglers are not, on average, catching limits at present. This is a measure intended to, hopefully, moderate the walleye population not wipe it out.
 

P-FITZ98

Active Member
Valid point indeed. When the spawning season closure was proposed 8 or so years ago, John Newbury also proposed a lift on the 'eye limit then.F+G apparently didnt see it as an issue as much as the pressure that was beeing put on redbands?But like tripjunkie stated, how many people target them up there,as compared to lower reaches.Steve,I wasnt even born in 72! I was under the impression that you were a California transplant? Seems like #4 should have been considered and put into effect a few years ago.
 
Valid point indeed. When the spawning season closure was proposed 8 or so years ago, John Newbury also proposed a lift on the 'eye limit then.F+G apparently didnt see it as an issue as much as the pressure that was beeing put on redbands?But like tripjunkie stated, how many people target them up there,as compared to lower reaches.Steve,I wasnt even born in 72! I was under the impression that you were a California transplant? Seems like #4 should have been considered and put into effect a few years ago.
P-FITZ98, these issues have been discussed & kicked around since at least 1972, the year I arrived in the Northport area (via Oregon, though I did graduate from Humbolt, in California) to contract with Boise Cascade's reforestation program. The discussion is not new here, really. Problem is: The Wheel is cumbersome & painfully slow-moving & there has always been very few with their shoulders to it. I think, perhaps, we're finally starting to see results. Maybe your friend would like to join UCNFA & get some help with his efforts? We welcome all supporters. Doesn't cost a cent. (And praise be to California transplants. They've certainly upgraded the gene pool with some better looking women, in my neighborhood.)
 

P-FITZ98

Active Member
Steve, the "Wheel" cant be too slow, it didnt take long to shut down the spawn season a few years ago.When the subject at hand was brought to by concerned locals,It should have been fought for and dealt with then.Just sayin'...if youd rather have Californians upgrading the gene pool with women,I'd be more concerned about upgrading the fish myself. Must get lonely up there?
 
Steve, the "Wheel" cant be too slow, it didnt take long to shut down the spawn season a few years ago.When the subject at hand was brought to by concerned locals,It should have been fought for and dealt with then.Just sayin'...if youd rather have Californians upgrading the gene pool with women,I'd be more concerned about upgrading the fish myself. Must get lonely up there?
I don't recall the "spawn season" being "shut down" a few years ago. That didn't happen. If you are reffering to the creek-mouth closures, that is an area restriction, not a closure during spawning. We need a bit more than that. And sounds like I pissed you off with my joke. Sorry. No need to get yer pannies bunched. I'm concerned about women & fish, equally.
 
Received a notice from WDFW last night, stating that they have decided to extend the public comment period & will now be taking comments on reg proposals through January 29th. My intuit informs me that response from this site may be at least partially responsible for that. Your comments are energetic & public opinion is, bottom line, the major driver. Your accord is stronger than money. Never be mislead to think otherwise. There are about 70 proposals on the table along with Proposition #15. I urge readers to look them over & comment where you can. Some of these will affect waters in your neighborhood. WDFW is making it easy, with synopsis & comment box at this site: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/

I'll write an update on Proposal #15 & include more info with it, & post it here sometime over the next couple days, for those of you who are interested in that one. And there is updated content on my site.

Steven Bird
UCNFA
http:columbiatrout.blogspot.com/
 

Latest posts