A note. I FULLY SUPPORT THE EAST SIDE GUYS AND THEIR PLAN! We just hope for a slightly different outcome here.
I think that's part of the plan. Both locations have seen a severe upswing in seasonal out of state guides. I don't have any official numbers as I'm not sure anyone's counted, but it seems like half or more are coming from out of state to guide these rivers.Proving that you've been a washington state resident for 4 years would keep the seasonal guides from out of state away.
I am confused by the requirements. So no new guides? Because if one doesn't already have 2 years experience guiding on the north coast, one can't obtain a permit. If one can't obtain a permit, how does one gain the required experience to be eligible for it? Dont get me wrong, I am all for having less guides on the river, but the way this is written seems a bit exclusionary to all those who aren't already there.Hey, there is a draft bill out....A DRAFT, that is there will be a lot of changes. I support some parts, not others.
Here are some notes.
http://raincoastguides.com/wordpres...tion-is-introduced-for-op-and-klickitat-only/
But the problem is there are too many "there" already. And by there I mean coming in during prime season. The best way I can see it is to stop the growth, let attritian get us to a decent number, and then figure out how to add new people when the time is right.I am confused by the requirements. So no new guides? Because if one doesn't already have 2 years experience guiding on the north coast, one can't obtain a permit. If one can't obtain a permit, how does one gain the required experience to be eligible for it? Dont get me wrong, I am all for having less guides on the river, but the way this is written seems a bit exclusionary to all those who aren't already there.
Yes, many of us feel there are already too many for the resource. The bill means no new guides for the next 5 year pilot period. What comes after would be informed by much better data on the rod days and catch rates. Given that data we could make better decisions on whether to expand or further contract the fishery.But the problem is there are too many "there" already. And by there I mean coming in during prime season. The best way I can see it is to stop the growth, let attritian get us to a decent number, and then figure out how to add new people when the time is right.
Matt, Bill SB 5302 has no reference to "resident" or "resident guide license" nor does it establish a residency requirement. This Bill doesn't appear to restrict out-of-state guides any more than it restricts in-state guides. It simply says:...Proving that you've been a washington state resident for 4 years would keep the seasonal guides from out of state away. This additional rule would make it so only the established local residents there now would be allowed to guide there for the foreseeable future.
Maybe the Bill should restrict one's guiding to their official County of residence.Need a a similar bill to keep all the out of state and OP guides off the Methow.
Problem is, out of state guides are bringing many out of state clients with them and their out of state fees and housing and food needs during trip. They are creating supplemental income for the state and local industry the local guides are not. They are setting up these trips while floating their fisherman that took persuasion while on a lazy float in the summer in Montana on both of their "home waters"..All other opinions aside. I think limiting the number of guides is a good thing.
As for who gets to guide? I can't think of a better method of doing it.
Local guides keep the monies local. (good for the local economy).
Having a selected group of guides should make policing future rules more enforceable. (who's going to risk their license just for a single good tip).
Who's going to have the most to gain from a healthy run? (their jobs will depend on it).
Out of area guides may or may not care.(they live somewhere else and only go there to supplement their income.)
I do have a worry thou. Will not this group have a larger voice in what rules do get passed? What if they push for guide only days? Rod days? What assurance do we, the layfisher have that these to won't come to pass?
Jim, I fully support this idea. I just worry that a group can get out of hand in its own self preservation. There probably will come a time (if it hasn't already) when these fisheries need to just shutdown entirely. How can we expect someone who's entirely reliant on them to willingly give up their source of income, especially with so few optional jobs available?
The point of all this is that there's so many of them now, that there may be 0 out of state anybody there in a short time if they fish the place to death.Problem is, out of state guides are bringing many out of state clients with them and their out of state fees and housing and food needs during trip. They are creating supplemental income for the state and local industry the local guides are not. They are setting up these trips while floating their fisherman that took persuasion while on a lazy float in the summer in Montana on both of their "home waters"..
The state sees this and knows they do not want to kill that golden egg. The local economies want as much as they can get from anywhere, as does the Fish and wildlife.
Yes, but I am afraid that the out of state guides and their higher fees and their out of state clients that pay more fees to fish, the local fisherman and guides may get the boot. THAT, is the spooky thing.The point of all this is that there's so many of them now, that there may be 0 out of state anybody there in a short time if they fish the place to death.