Cowlitz Fishermen,

I think my original post is a little unclear. The example I was using was Hells Canyon Specifically. You are right in that the license he has is specific for that area. My point was because that is a dangerous river, I thought it was good that he had to show hours before getting that specific license. There was also a lot of BS paperwork involved that probably did nothing for him. He also has a license for the Columbia, which he got after already having the Hells Canyon one. That involved much more paperwork, and testing on Navigation rules etc, due to the fact that it has commercial traffic. B-Run is correct in that there is a limited number of permits for that area. My friend has a Hells Canyon Snake permit, and a lower salmon permit. He can however with that permit hire other guides who have the correct license to work under his permit. I was not trying to argue with you CowlitzFishermen, just pointing out that the requirement of hours before his license on that specific area was in my opinion a good thing. Also, his licensing is through Idaho and Oregon not Washington.
Tight Lines
Tom

TW.... and others

Thanks for your reply!

This is a great site that we can all attempt to explain what is going on in our fishery. It is also a great place that people can attempt to explain their own point of views. I like the way that no one takes it personally when another poster of this bb addresses issues. I really enjoy it when other bb members post replies like yours and "B-RUN STEELY". They are very informative, and address issues that are not very well known by others bb members.

Thanks,

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????