Was on the Green/Duwamish yesterday, fishing by myself, trolling with one rod out. However, there were several other solo fisherman and about half the guys were running two rods.

What's up with that?

I asked one guy where he was hiding the midget? He laughed and said he had two punch cards. I told him that was bull**** and he could only fish one rod. He kinda just laughed. But the next time I saw him he only had one rod out.

One other guy I asked about fishing two rods just ignored me.

While there are a lot worse things they could be doing, and believe me I'd love to be able run two rods while by myself, it still pisses me off to see people blatently ignoring the law.

maybe they're having a flashback to 1993 or so? i'm still mad about losing that privelege, but it pisses me off to see people doing it when i can't

I never could figure out the logic of only being able to fish with just one fishing rod! Depending on how one is fishing, what's the big deal? In the ocean they can keep fishing until everyone on a charter boat has gotten their limits, and it doesn't matter if it was just one guy who caught all the fish in that process, so can anyone explain why a guy couldn't use 2 rods if he was trolling? Once you got your limit, you're done! So what's the big deal?

If you really think about it………….it's all about just getting more money!

What other possible reason could it be?

Cowlitzfisherman

bring a blow up doll with you. kinda like the carpool lane. just don't borrow your friends doll.

shucks I fish 2 rods all the time.. down here in Nevada... $10 fee for extra rod stamp. Gets real interesting when you double up solo. Would love to do that no a couple of 30lb kingers. Maybe if the State thought they could get more money by issuing a second rod stamp they would incorperate it.

Love the $10 fee for extra rod idea. It would be great to be able to troll an extra rod when I am alone. Shouldn't need the fee though. Why did the law change in 93? Who was behind it?

I grew up fishing two rods and was surprised to learn you can only use one here in Washington.

What is the idea behind only one rod? Maybe we should only be able to use one, single, barbless hook also. Then what? How about one hand fishing?

That is a great idea- $1o for an extra rod...

I see this knucklehead all the time down south here- 2 rods and no one else with him. Don't know how many times I have called him in. Apparently they haven't vaught up with him, or they don't care.

Hey Desert dog! I saw where you are from and it brought back all kinds of memorys. During my wild Navy days we would spend a couple of days there partying with the all the girls in the cul-de-sac if you know what I mean. Must be nice to live there, like a kid in a candy store.

At my own peril I will criticize cfm.

Is everything about money and the wdfw with you?


I think one fisherman one rod is about a thing known as fishing ethics.

Sure fishing with multiple rods is more efficient and even fun, but given the fishing pressure placed on our salmon resource already is it ethical? I think not.

Using CFMs resoning, why don't we just legalize snaggin too? As long as everyone obeys the limits, what's the difference?

Geoduck: "I think one fisherman one rod is about a thing known as fishing ethics."

Here we go again..... as we worry about one rod, one single hook... snagging boot salmon at terminal fisheries.....

The commercial and indian nets go in and wipe out thousands of native fish.

Geoduck

I got to ask you, where in the devil do guys like you come up with that kind of logic crap?

You say; "I think one fisherman one rod is about a thing known as fishing ethics." What in the world does ethics have to do with fishing with more then one rod? Have you ever been out of this state? Obviously not! Lots of states allow fishermen to use more then one rod at a time.

Check out what the rest of the states say about using more then one rod at a time. Are all those millions of other fishermen "unethical" just because they are allowed to fish with more then one rod? If you're going to defend the "one rod" position, at least do it in a way that makes some kind of sense. If you can come with a logical explanation, why we can't use 2 rods, please post it! Then maybe people just might listen to what you are saying ....maybe!!


Cowlitzfisherman

Fortunately for me, I catch enough fish using 1 rod at a time to satisfy my fishing addiction, so it's a non-issue. IMO, fishing with 2 rods is just too much hassle anyway, whether legal/ethical or not.

For example:

Trolling - One rod goes off of the downrigger and you not only have to fight that fish, but you have to pop the other rod and crank in both 'riggers, or risk getting all tangled up and losing your fish.

Casting - Who can cast and retrieve 2 rods at the same time? This I'd like to see.

Plunking - Again, one rod gets bit and it's a Chinese fire drill trying to keep the fish out of the other line.

For me personally, even if it WERE legal to fish with 2 rods simultaneously, the above scenarios would make it too stressful, and one of the main reasons I fish is to relieve stress.

I am with 4salt on this one!One rod is enough work.

It just seems to me that fishing for a one or two fish limit with two rods is overkill.

With todays strict size limits and mandatory release of wild fish, how could one possibly assure the release of fish in a timely manner if playing two at a time?

If two rods were legal, wouldn't some people want three rods. If three rods is good, why not five?

Its about recreation, not maximizing harvest.

If harvest is all you care about, why not use dynamite or gill nets or whatever . . . these are all more effective tools for harvesting than a hook and line.

Also, if the state was really in this for the money, why don't they just sell a license for each rod. That way those that want to fish more rods can.

Even "IF" all that you have said 4salt was true, why in the devil should it be illegal? A lot of people CAN DO "2 THINGS" AT ONCE! So why not leave that choice up to the person who is doing the fishing?

I don't mind, nor am I opposed to reasonable fishing rules, but this rule really makes no sense at all to a lot of fishermen. If a person can handle it, what's the big deal? You may personally fish to relieve your "stress", but lots of fishermen don't feel the same way that you do. That's exactly why so many other states leaves that "choice" up to its fishermen (with some reasonable limit of fishing rods). I guess it all depends on how much a guy really wants someone else "telling him" how to think, fish, or when he can sit on the pot! Kind of like one pull, two pull of paper is enough! Let the guy on the "pot" be the judge!

Fishing with two rods can surly become a "hassle" at times, for some people, but do we need a law to tell us that you or I cannot handle a "hassle"? We are truly heading in the direction of having a "law" or "rule" for every function we do. To me 4Salt….that really sucks!

It's really kind of funny; maybe pretty soon, you guys can even get a law passed to stop cooking with 2 frying pans at the same time! It's a "hassle" to do it for some people, but somehow, some people, just seem to manage to do it anyway….until another law is passed saying they can't!


Cowlitzfisherman

I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough for you Cowlitz... for that I apologize.

I don't care one way or another! I fish with one rod and am satisfied with the results so far. If you, or anyone else wants to fish with 2, that's great! You know the process, I suggest working to get the rule changed.

As of this posting, the rules say you can legally fish with only 1 rod at a time. I follow the rules, and what do you know, all is good in my fishing life...

For the first time I'll have to take 4salts' side and also CFMs' opinion as well. I have a 5 year old son who has a punch card and is legal to catch salmon. I only run 1 rod with him in the boat because it just gets too difficult to handle everything. Rods, kicker motor, my sons' goofing around. He just isn't big enough to handle a rod without help yet. So on my boat, 1 rod.
On the other hand, I really don't have a problem with the state charging an extra fee for a 2 rod stamp. I do believe that is the way in California. It's just my opinion and not to be forced on anyone.

When I first moved to this state, you were allowed to fish with two rods per person in the salt. They reduced it to one rod in the name of "conservation". The logic was that two rods were more efficient than one. The hipocracy was that they kept the limit at two or three fish per person per day.(I cant quite remember the total)

What difference does it make how many rods you use as long as you dont exceed the limit. As for paying extra to fish another rod I say BULL! Why the hell should anyone have to pay any more just to fish another rod. The limit is still the same!

Here we go again. Is this one going to be 2 or 3 pages of bashing? You know what would make a entertaining night? the member's of this bord and a couple bottle's of tequila.

To get this thread back on track........

People in Idaho use two rods, with a $10 fee, while fishing for sturgeon. One sturgeon rod, one trout/small moutn rod. Makes sence to me because sturgeon are scarce up there. I could also see where it would be handy while blackmouth fishing when you need to find the depth of the fish. That way you could use diferent depths.

I agree on the two rod limit. Who or what are you hurting? The limit doesn't change so what's the big deal. Personally it'd be nice to have both rods out testing the different depths.

One thing that has changed in recent years is wild fish release. I fished two rods also when it was legal in the Sound in the 70s, and had my share of double headers by myself - not always with good results But one thing I did notice was that second fish was often pretty dead by the time I got the first one played out and dealt with. Would be a shame if the second fish was a wild one that had to be released now wouldn't it?

It was great back in 93 when we had a two rod rule. It balances the boat better with a DR running on each side :-)

I rather just find a friend to take along for the second rod.

The barbless hook rule would take care of the second rod on a double. Try it next time your out and the rigger pops off just leave it. Bet you that unclipped fish wont be there for long - come to think of it , neither would a clipped fish

I beg to differ Chaser, I have slacked lined many fish on barbless hooks, those that got hung up in gear, got around downrigger wires, around trees, or just plain cleaned me out under a log jam and had to be cut off and re-tied, and I rarely lose one. Barbless hooks hold just as well as barbed hooks in my experience. But I think the point I was trying to make is are we sport fishermen or meat fishermen? Is it really necessary to fish with two rods to enjoy our sport? I don't know about the rest of you, but most days I release fish so I can keep fishing. What the hell would I want two rods for, so I can go home earlier? One rod per angler is just fine with me, like Mike said, want two rods, take another fisherman along

Hey 4S,

It WOULD be kinda cool to troll a spinner in the Chehalis while tossing another one into the brush piles, wouldn't it?

I guess I don't care too much one way or the other. Spawndo made some good points about dealing with fish that must be released......if you were alone and doubled up, one of the fish is likely to suffer some ill effects.

But the fact remains, it's illegal now. That means YOU have to justify changing it, cfm......the other guys simply win by default otherwise.

I guess what really gets my dander up is this BS about use only 1 pole cause the fish are in danger but if you pay us more money its ok. As for being less sporting running 2 poles I'll have to disagree. You only fight one fish at a time with the pole they happen to have taken.

Wow, it's been along time since I've gotten my gear tangled while fighting a fish. I even make a practice of leaving the rigger down while fighting a fish and pinnipeds are around(little trick I learned from Capt Aagaurd of Anacortes). I must be doing something wrong!

A limit is a limit. What difference does it make how many poles are in the water. As for the difference between meatfishers and sporting fishers ( Your terms ) Say I'm a meat fisher -- I go out keep the first 2 fish I catch - - I've killed 2 fish. You being a sportfisher go out C&R 10 fish plus keep your limit of 2 - with a mortality rate of say 10%(conservative number) - - well, you've killed 3 fish - VERY SPORTING OF YOU!

what you guys are showing through is that this is all a matter of preference. YOU prefer to use only 1 rod, as do i(when salmon/steelie fishing) but i personally don't care how many others use

i would at least like to see the restriction removed on lakes, it would make fishing for perch/crappie a lot more effective especially in the winter when they're picky so i can use different lures/baits

Confession time..... I broke the law a few weeks ago

I was trolling in Puget Sound for salmon with a friend. We had two lines out on the downriggers and hadn't had a strike for at least an hour. We were watching herring surface all around us. I couldn't resist. I grabbed my ultralight, tied on some herring jigs and dropped them overboard with a weight to get them down

It didn't work. I didn't catch any herring and I felt like a teenager sneaking out of the house. After a few minutes I reeled the herring jig back in and thought, "What a stupid rule!"

If I couldn't handle two lines, I wouldn't fish them!!

Oh, BTW .... I was going at least 64mph down I-5 today!!!

And the nets go in Grays Harbor this week....

ET, that was perfectly legal. WDFW permits an additional rod to be used to catch "forage fish" Page 88 of the regs sez:

"While fishing for food fish in Areas 5-13, a second line using forage fish jig gear may be used to fish for forage fish."

But speaking of breaking rules, here's one I always bend. Page 17 says: "You may not: Use SALMON, HERRING, or HALIBUT for anything other than human consumption or fishing bait." After I fiillet and trim the cuts, there's always a wee bit of extra meat left. That gets poached a minute or two, and fed to my kitties. They love that stuff... it's like kitten cocaine.

http://slacktide.org:88/~dan/pics/kitty/Isis/Isis_salmon.JPG

Just to add to my earliar post,I see really no reasom for only one rod.I am guessing that if anybody in the know tried to justify only one rod it would have to do with not being able to be in controll of a second line durring a double header,inadvertly killing a wild ,endangered fish.I am not a fan of seat belt or motorcyucle helmet laws either though.

WDFW should put the option out there and let the multi tasker pay the $10. After all, 2 fish and your done! What does it really hurt... nothing and could even open up your favorite hole if someone beat you to it, count me in for the extra card.

Fishjunkie.. that would be incorrect. People in Idaho fish for sturgeon with 1 rod. You can indeed by a two rod tag. That applys to, trolling, bank fishing for trout etc. They just passed the law that you can use your two rod tag for Salmon and Steelhead, but it does not go into effect until 2004. This is for people who like to bank fish for them and they use side planers etc. The new regs may include sturgeon, but I doubt it. This is not to say that people have not been doing it all along.

Anyone got some science on that one? What studies do you know of that's now claiming to know what a 'timely matter is"? Is it your time, their time, my time, pacific standard time, or is it someone else's time????

Well that may be true for some, but what makes you think that all the others, or even the majority of the fishermen feel that way? Any studies to support that proclamation? I sure would like to see them if you can dig one of them up!

What really would be interesting, would be to find out what "special interest group" was responsible for removing the 2 rod use rule from the regulations. How much do you want to bet that the "charter boat" lobbies boys had something to do with it? Back in 93, the "wild fish" issue was not even into full swing yet, so why was the change made and who proposed or lobbied for it?

Seems to me that I remember the reason why the WDFW limited the sell of the "charter" boat licenses was because of the same type of "lame brain excuse"…. they said that it was suppose to "conserve" our fish! What a bunch of BS!

Isn't it really kind of funny that these same special interests groups who lobbied our legislators and WDFW to pass these kind of "conservative" laws to "save and conserve" our fish, were also the same turkeys who lobbied our legislators and WDFW, to pass a law that only allows license charter boats to keep fishing until the entire boat has caught it full limits of fish. And it really doesn't mater if it's just one or two guys that are doing all the "catching"! What hypocrisy!

When will our board members understand the need to just ask our state agencies …why?

It just seems that every time someone asked a question on this board, they are accused of either attacking WDFW or claiming that there is some kind conspiracy going on. Why can't people just ask hard question? Does anyone actually know why the 2 rod use was eliminated, and actually have any kind of documentation other then their opinion of why the rule was changed?

It just amazes me how people tend to use and support stupid laws in the name of saving our "wild fish"! Do you really believe that this rule was changed for the purpose of "saving" our wild fish? If so, you better wake up people before it's to damn late!


Cowlitzfisherman

I think the two rod rule is ridiculous. Most states allow two rods and in Canada you can fish as many as you like. If the two rods hurts the fish runs then something must be screwy to the north because most of their salmon runs are in much better shape than ours. When we make trips to Canada for example if there's two of us on board we will usually fish three rods and I have never had a problem with killing fish or having tangles this way. I think if someone wishes to fish more than one rod they should have the option of doing that.

My reply:

I'm with ya Dan!

One rod, two rods. Folks on this BB can be such pathetic wusses at times. I am so annoyed.

What's wrong with bringing back the ole sport-commercial license (ended in the early 70s) that allowed six (6) rods on a boat. Now, that was some serious salmon fishing off the Washington coast. Hell, a guy could take a month off work, fish like hell, and pay for his vacation and write off the boat, fuel, and bait as a business expense.

I think this state needs a good sport gillnetting license. I mean, just for a short rag, say 35 fathoms in freshwater and 100 fathoms in the salt. I'm not distracted and can handle that much web myself, all the while managing my boat and calculating the drift. And I'll make just short drifts so I can carefully release any unmarked wild salmon that I cannot retain as part of my daily catch limit. And I'm no meat fisherman. No one can tell me that man-handling a gillnet isn't sporting. It ain't easy to keep it from getting all tangled without a drum, and you don't want to get your feet caught in it when you're laying out for a drift, cuz it'll pull you overboard. It's fun as all get out when you see those corks dive, and a big king can lift a whole section of net from the water when he jumps. I mean, I know what is sporting to me. It doesn't take a fishing rod to make fishing a sport.

And how about blasting caps? Have you ever wondered how many fish are laying under a log jam? Blasting caps are one of the best ways to find out. And lots of the fish even survive! Probably not a good choice of bait when there's wild or ESA salmon around, tho, cuz it ain't very selective.

Sheesh! One rod, two rods - that is such small thinking!

t.i.c.

Salmo g.

Did they really end it then, or was that when they just decided to call it a "charter boat license" and make it like some kind of closed union? Or was it the "six pack" union fishing license? Funny what money can buy isn't it!


Cowlitzfisherman

For you salmon fishermen - something to think about!

A quick review of creel checks around Washington State reveals that the average angler typically catches way less than his daily limit. With an additional rod we each would be more likely to catch an additional fish or two. That in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing however consider the following:

Many of our salmon fishing opportunities are limited by Endangered Species (ESA) concerns. Our seasons (read number of rod days) are limited by the incidental mortalities on ESA listed fishes. Having more rods on the water clearly will increase the incidental catch and thus the mortality of these listed fish.

Are you willing trade for shorter seasons to be able to fish with more than one rod?

I am guess that if the sporting fishing impacts on ESA listed fish were to be held constant at today's levels and an extra rod was allowed that seasons would need to be shorten 10 to 30% (cfm -just an educated guess) depending on how many of us opted to use that extra rod.

For me days on the water are more important that taking home a couple more fish but again something for each of us to ponder!

Tight lines
Smalma

CFM,

Yes, WDFW (WDF then) ended the sport-commercial license, partly in response to the US v Washington treaty fishing decision, as I understood it. Charter boat licenses and commercial ocean troll licenses were both different.

The sport-commercials may also have been restsricted to the 3 mile limit of Washington coastal waters. This may have been the same salmon troll group referred to as "kelpers." I just don't remember.

I was trying to inject some levity in a debate that I don't have the heart for, but Smalma's information is worth your consideration. Any action that increases recreational angline efficiency or increases mortality to ESA listed fish will result in a reduction in fishing time and opportunity for us recreational anglers.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

You can buy that bulls#%& if you want I dont. How would that be any different than what is going on now in area 5 & 6 with all that catch & release

IMO, it's tough to rationalize. The impact of using two rods VS the large numbers of fish commercial and tribal fisheries are alloted. Hmmm..........


The fact is it's not directly about money. It's about percentages. But.... the percentages and the games that are played with them are the self-perpetuating tools of government.


So forgive me if I see no logic in a post that says shorten your length of season if you want to use two rods. The fisheries are far more affected by poor management than two rods per person.

I've seen that same thing out on the salt ALOT! I guess if your hard up for fish then you do what you have to do. They all get the big L.

F F F
l...i...r
y..s...e
.....h....a
........n.....k

Smalma

I guess a guy can look at this in many different ways! Maybe the same logic could work on rivers such as the Columbia River. Maybe our fish managers (WDFW) should consider the trade offs of such ideas. If your proposed logic is about trade offs, let's get WDFW to change the "length" or depth of the gill nets that are currently being used right now on the Columbia. Let's say we take 20 or 30 feet off the nets; or we make them half as deep, that should allow them to continue to fish and yet it will allow a much greater escapement of Endangered Species.

Then fishermen could use an additional rod on the Columbia if they wanted to and not have to "give up" or shorten their fishing season by 10 to 30% Or let's say that we force the damn dams to release more water when smolts are migrating down river. That too should increase the return number of ES fish. Or let's have a little more "hatchery fish" to harvest at terminal fisheries. What's going to be the states or fed's next set of logical moves to "protect" the endangered species? Too many ES being caught, so let's eliminate the use of hearing in the salt. That will give us a few more days of fishing. When that fails, let's eliminate the use of downriggers and flashers, next let's eliminate the use of bait in freshwater. When all that fails, now we will go to all barbless hooks with no bait. When that fails, we will go to only fishing every other day. When that one fails, it will be every other week!

Where will this Bull $hit ever stop! And some people wonder why fishermen are demanding more and more hatchery fish for harvest and sport! Lot's of fishermen are for recovery of wild fish, but not at all... or any costs! So often we hear the "agency folks" on this board tell us that it's not and option…and it's the "law". If what we are now seeing is true, that the oceans conditions are what is really is controlling our returns of salmon and steelhead, you will be seeing an ever increasing call for more hatchery fish. It's a hard pill for many members on this board to shallow, but at some point fishermen are going to rebel and say enough is enough!

There are an increasing number of fishermen that are getting feed up with the federal ESA and are beginning to talk about having this act amended. Personally, I think that it needs to be amended to address the times that we are now living in. the act was established almost 30 years ago, before the science was even there to support many of its past actions. In my opinion, the act has been misused by several special interest groups just to achieve there own personal goals.

As just one example, a group of California "seal lovers" had gotten their species "protected" and by doing so has caused an unnatural "off balance" to other species such as our salmon and steelhead species. Because they (seals) are now protected by federal law, numerous other species are now being put at jeopardy. The list goes on and on and just because a group of "federal employees" have the power to play god.

Well, I am getting a little off track so I will get back to the issue of using 2 rods. I for one am getting tired of an agency making rules that don't really make any sense. Many of these stupid "rules" were mad over ten years ago and are outdated in there use and intent. In years past, it was very difficult for fishermen to educate themselves about these issues in time to make any real effective changes before something became law. In to day's world, with the speed and knowledge of the internet, all that has now changed! In the "old days", only a few special interest groups or persons had the time, or power to be able to comment and critique what was being shoved down our throats by the various state and federal agencies.

Thanks to websites such as Bob's, we can now bring these issues up that have for years been swept under the rugs of bureaucrats. It's a fact that many state and federal employee's visit this board often if not daily and get the opportunity to read the "reality checks" of many of their own action or doings. Just like this thread about the use of more then one rod; it's almost laughable for some of us to see it being defended under the disguise of ESA. I will bet you money, that ESA had nothing to do with the removal of the 2 rod use rule.

So what to you think Smalma, was the two rod rule discontinued because of politics, or what it done in the name of ESA?


Cowlitzfisherman

I was pissed when californa went to a one rod rule. I troll a lot of lakes and part of my tatics is presenting what looks like a small school of bait fish. with my son or a friend on board i can put out 4 lures in a group or spread them out for different fish. a standerd set up on a trout lake would be one lure at 60ft or just under were the thermal layer is ,one just above the layer, both just ten feet or less off the rigger. The third would be at 30 ft 100 ft behind the boat and then another on a side planer 200 ft behind the boat and out to the side 30 ft. If the fish miss the deep lures they will some times see the one at thirty and hit it as they drop back from the boat. the side planer lure, always a broken back rapala, will pick up any fish that are shallow and move out of the way of the boat. I have seen fish in clear water move away from a boat about 20 ft and them move back in behind the boat after the boat moves by. the side planer put s a bait fish imataion right in their path. This set up also allowes you to find at what depth the fish are hitting, note I did not say holding. I have spent too many hours trolling were the fish are and not at were they are hitting.
another benifit is that by using differnet lures at different depths I can target macks and browns while getting some bows. I may only get one big brown in a weekend but by having lures at shallowers depths I can fill my limit with bows. that way the whole week end is not a bust.
As far as bank fishing goes I hate to sit and watch a rod do nothing. so having a spinning set up to fool with helps keep me from going stir crazy. I would like to say that at no time have I every reeled in a dead fish while dealing with multiple hook ups.
Lets be honest I love trolling becouse I get to fool around with my gear all day long. having just one rod to worry about is just not enough for me. by the way cailforna when to a $5 second rod stamp in a very short time and it was peta and the serria club that worked behind the scene to gett the one rod rule in the first place. they were hopping people would get pissed and stop fishing and for a short time they did. the number of licences sold dropped enough that Ca dept for fish and game was worrried about their buget and to help battle is they started the two rod stamp
I would be interested in seeing what it would that to get a two rod stamp going. It would mean a lot of money for projects that the eviro wacks like. Hows the saying go "show them the money" .

Flame me if you like, but I'd be perfectly happy to pay an extra $10 to be able to use two rods.

It would put extra revenue into the WDG&F coffers which is badly needed.

I fish mostly artificials and am constantly changing lures. Being able to do so with two rods would be wonderfully efficient.

To me its not about getting a limit faster, it's the oppurtunity to try more gear in the limited time I have on the water.

I'm all for asking the WDG&F to consider a rules change to two rods in fresh and saltwater with an additional fee for the second rod.

Limits will stay the same, it's just an oppurtunity to fish more gear and increase efficiency while experimenting.

I just registered, this thread made me doit...

I agrre on the value of using 2 rods to experiment.

I was talking with Tony Floor this summer about this same topic, evidently the WDFW has approved the science of 2 rod fishing, they belive the resource is controlled by the limits and selective fishing. However the Pacific Fisheries Council will not play that card, they most like will give us this when they need to take some big away, Hold on to your 10 bucks,

Have you ever stopped to wonder just why the wdfw is so short on funds. Could it be that they are driving people away with all their hypocracy? Or maybe monies being diverted to the general fund?

I forgot to mention that the two rod stamp in ca. is only good on lakes and salt not rivers.

Okay, here's what we need...

You can fish a second rod if you buy a $10 stamp. This regulation will be in small print on page 683 to catch the uninformed.

You can only use it in the salt or in the tidal zone of coastal rivers. Only in areas open to salmon not listed as "endangered". This detail will be in small print on page 215.

You can only fish two rods if there are less than four people on the boat. (Don't want too many lines on one boat!)

You can't fish two rods on holidays or Sundays in the months of February, June, and August.

On second thought, I don't need a second rod!!

I think you REALLY need to go fishing

Here's an idea that will shake a few of you do-gooders guys all up!

Since WDFW can never seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel or connect with what sport fishers want, why don't they propose a trail 2 rod fishery? If WDFW needs some "extra" funding (and they never stop whining about that) why don't they use their heads…..we already know that answer to that one ?

Here's a quick and simple easy way that WDFW could simply make hundreds of thousands of dollars without spending almost anything. All WDFW has to do is to hold a special "raffle" for let's say maybe 50 permits for a fishermen to be allowed to use 2 rods on any waters in the state for one year! It couldn't possibly have any measurable effect on any endangered species, and think of all the money WDFW could raise! Tickets could be sold wherever WDFW fishing or hunting licenses are sold and the permit could simply be a special set of numbers that can be issued on the current cards that they are now being used when you get that extra salmon card.

They could charge 2 to 5 bucks for each ticket and run the raffle for a month or so. It certainly would generate a lot of free money for WDFW and also show just how much interest there is for the future need of allowing 2 rods for fishing. They could even raffle a special number of limited permits off for the guys who may want to keep a couple of wild salmon or steelhead each year. Yes, a few wild fish may bite the dust; buy think what all those "special" funds could be used for to enhance the wild fish populations.

So what can the do-gooders find wrong with this suggestion? Think hard now, because I know you can do it ….if you really try hard


Cowlitzfisherman

Do gooders? Huh? Is that supposed to mean something?

You can see the problem already, can't you? 87 boats using multiple rods per angler. So the gamey has to check each and every boat to see if they're really a permit holder or not. Nah, it's an enforcement issue.

Am I a do-gooder now that I think your idea is bogus?

Flame me if you want but I would be happy to pay an additional $10 a year to be able to fish two rods.

I don't care about catching more fish, even thought I am a hunter-gatherer type, I release far more fish than I retain.

I'd just like the conveniece of fishing two rods with different lures/bait. Fishing mostly artificials, I like to try a lot of different gear.

I probably wouldn't fish two rods with the same bait/terminal tackle. The excitement to me is trying different stuff. If a guy wants to fish two rods with identical gear, I don't object, but I rather have the oppurtunity to use two rods to see if a cut plug ourtishes a coyote spoon on a given day.

It also seems to me a reasonable way to increase the income for WDG&F which could help in many ways to improve our fishing in Washington.

Boy Dan,

That’s a real tuff one to figure out isn't it! "87" boats fishing with 2 rods per person and there was only 50 permits in the entire state issued! Now when I went to school, that adds up to no less then 37 tickets to those guys! Do you know what the fine is for fishing with 2 rods? Maybe these guys in enforcement could play their wages for a change….you think?

It wouldn't take to long for fishermen to figure that one out….you think? I knew I could count on you to come back with that kind of logic!...jk

What the devil do you think the gamey's are being paid to be out there for in the first place?

No, I am wrong! Lets just pay these "gamey's" to sit in their boats and have a nice day!.... hellow… Dan!!

I love your "logic" Dan

Are you trying to say that this would be any different then the current Buoy 10 fishery, or anywhere else!

1000 plus boats fishing…and you would ask us to expect WDFW not to check them for fishing licenses, punched cards, barbless hooks unclipped fish? Wake up Dan! The last time I checked, that’s the reason why we have "enforcement" in the first place!


You already know what I think about that one Dan!

Posts in this thread are among the best evidence I've ever seen of the collective ignorance of anglers.

What do you want?

More fishing opportunity? YES!!

Fish two rods? YES!!

When the two are mutually exclusive options, which do you want? I BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. IF THE AGENCIES SAY IT IS, THEN THAT'S BS!!

I've come to believe that anglers are their own worst enemy when it comes to fish management. An angler who's been fishing for somewhere between 3 days and 30 years is a fisheries management expert. And an agency bureaucrat with a degree or degrees in biology and management, and who studies and understands the laws that govern fish management is full of BS.

Those members of the public who are unable or unwilling to develop reasoned, and reasonable, arguments are always going to be the ones who are blown off when management decisions are being made.

In a post above, Smalma described a very simple concept relating to angling efficiency (two rods) and length of fishing season. Most anadromous fisheries in this state are based on harvest allocations - excluding exceptions like the huge surpluses of hatchery coho expected to the Cowlitz and Lewis this year. For a simple example, consider that a harvest allocation for a particular run is 1,000 fish, then the season is based on the expected effort (number of angler days) and catch per effort. If anglers are using two rods instead of one, the estimated catch per effort is higher, and the harvest allocation will be reached sooner. And the season will close that much sooner. A choice must be made between efficiency and opportunity. The public usually sends WDFW the message that they want more opportunity, so WDFW does what they can to accomodate that interest.

Yet, several of you said that's BS. Well, you don't have to agree with what WDFW or any other fisheries person tells you. But fish agency personnel do have to do their jobs according to the laws and policies that govern them even if you think it's BS.

I don't care if you fish with two rods or not. Heck, I made the post about sport gillnetting and blasting caps as more interesting than using a second rod. But I've tried to use this BB as an educational tool. It's a great forum for fishing ideas, from CFM's coho jigs to choices in rods, reels, lines and even where to fish - altho that requires a certain discretion. It's potentially a great place to discuss fish management concepts and details. However, that potential is severely diminished in the presence of rants that "WDFW is a bunch of BS!!" I cannot educate a fool. And unreasoned criticism sounds foolish.

I don't expect you to agree with me. Or with WDFW. Those who know me also know that I can criticize WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, and the tribes with the best of them. But I do try to make reasoned arguments and criticism. I long ago learned that the unreasoned and unreasonable are the first to be blown off by management.

Stuff I'm reading in this thread is equivilent to having 2 fish plus 2 fish equal 5 fish. That is unreasoned and unreasonable. It'll get you no where. Fast. Some of you may just be having fun on this BB, and don't really care about outcomes. Others of you might think you don't know enough about science and management to effectively contribute to a desirable outcome. I'd say, if you can type on a computer and post information on the internet, you know enough about logic to use it in your thinking and be an effective contributor to successful fish management solutions.

And, truly, I do not care how many rods you fish with.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Do I hear the fear of desperation here?

CFM,

Not even close. But if I really am wasting my time posting here, I can stop.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Like I said!

Do I hear the fear of desperation here?

TWO FRICKIN RODS!!!

How in the hell can I Floss Salmon throwing 12ft leaders with two 10ft rods???

I don't know everything, but I am willing to learn new tricks

Salmo, I REALLY enjoy your posts so please don't let those desperate others keep you from posting. It is true that you are wasting your time with a select few but thats because all they can hear is their own voice and they are so impressed by their supposed cleverness. I saw Smalma on the news the other night.

Here is another problem with your idea CFM. The WDFW creates a budget every year that must be sumitted to the legislature. I think it was AuntyM (and if I am wrong here I will hear about it) who did the research and found the licenses and fees do not provide enough money for thier budget. The rest comes out of the general fund.

If there is some extra income it is confinsated for by receving less monies from the general fund. They don't get to keep the money to do what ever they one.

That is way it kind of bugs me when someone writes about some big campain by the gamies, and someone else replys with a comment like "extra income." Things just don't work like that.

Salmo -
Right On!!

Inspired in part by your various postings I opted to join the fray here a couple of years ago. I thought that our unique backgrounds, experiences and passions would bring something to the various discussions and debates. I had hoped that the end result would an increase in all of our collective knowledge. I had long believed that an educated user group was the best hope for enlightened management resource protection.

It has become clear to me that thinking was naive. As a result I find I'm posting less frequently and not responding to some of those that do.

Regarding two rods - want to bet how many of those posting on this discussion in favor of multiple rods actually cared enough to submit a proposal in WDFW's recent request for regulation proposals or take part in the North of Falcon salmon season setting process to lobby for an extra rod? I'm thinking ZERO!

I believe that if one is not part of the solution then they are part of the problem!

Just want to thank you for your time and willingness to share your knowledge.

Wishing you productive times on the rivers and tight lines.
Smalma

Well, when you get older the memory fades. :p

Salmo g. & Smalma,

I for one, sure hope neither of you quit or even reduce the number of your informitive and well thought out posts.

Not only do they portray your knowledge of the subject, they exhibit your great patience with us. Which by itself is a great example!

Thanks!



herm

So tell me Mr. Logic, (that's you, cfm)

Snagging is illegal, too, right? And WDFW enforcement is doing such a stellar job of preventing it aren't they?

So don't tell me there is anything logical about assuming WDFW enforcement will catch the cheats. I've been fishing long enough to know better.

Dan maybe it's because WDFW hearts not really into stopping snagging in the first place! It wasn't that many years ago (the 70's) that WDFW management was proposing to have a "snag" fishery in special dual use ponds at the Cowlitz Hatchery, or didn't you know that? One would think that it may be a little hard for WDFW to propose snagging at one place while writing you a ticket at another place!

You would truly be amazed what one finds when they do a compete check of WDFW records

CFM,

You would be amazed if you did a complete check of the records of any government agency.

For that matter the records of any organization involving more than 10 people.

It is human nature to do stupid things, especially in larger groups. Certainly the WDFW is not immune to this.

There is nothing special about WDFW as far as these things go. Yet for some reason you they have earned your unending ire and that you spend countless hours trying to discredit them.

Is this really a satisfying thing for you to do?

I know many of us on this board get tired of it . . .


At any rate, if you really are set on sniping at the WDFW at least share the love with the rest of government.

Just my $0.02

Geoduck

Geoduck

I hate to tell you this, but I would not be "amazed" at all about other "government agencies" records! I would almost bet you money that there isn't a single person on this board that has done any more public discloser request then I have. Nothing amazes me anymore about our state or federal agencies!

I see that you are relatively new on our board, so maybe you haven't had the opportunity over the last 3 years to read many of my earlier posts. If you had followed them, you would understand why I sometimes have a problem with WDFW and their policies. I believe that I have a right to complain about issues that I have personal knowledge of. I have also worked with many WDFW staff over the years and have repect for many WDFW staff.

I have been contacted by several WDFW employees over the years to "blow the whistle" on some pretty shady deals that some WDFW staff had been involved in. Maybe that's just one reason why so many of them either fear or respect what I have to say today. When I was the president of a large sport fishing group (the FOC) lots of people turned to me and our group with information about wrong doings in our fishery management. When I make a statement about a wrong doing in WDFW, you can bet your last dollar that I have already done my homework, and I can back up whatever I say!

If you don't believe me, just ask Salmo G! He knows me, and he also knows that I always do my homework!

Soon, I will be writing a thread that will be an update to our "older members" on our board concerning our public access and WDFW. When you get done reading it, feel free to come back and criticize me again. Until then, you will just have to take me and my positions for whatever you want to.

Cowlitzfisherman

Jerry and others,

Thanks. I continue to contribute here because I'm led to believe that I can reach and inform anglers who might never otherwise get answers to questions or even think about fish biology and management issues. I've been around the block enough times to know I'm not reaching those who've already made up their minds. Although I think there's a bit of teacher in me. Few things are as satisfying as reaching through a clouded mind and having someone say, "Aha!! I understand it now, and it is very different than I always thought it was." I don't mean to sound like I'm always right and others are always wrong. I'm a long time student of biology, ecology, fish management, law, Native Americans, and fly fishing. I've been in the business in various ways nearly 30 years I guess.

I'm a good fly caster and bait caster - childhood bass fishing, but a lousy spin caster, although I've heard it only takes 15 minutes to learn! Yikes! Guess I'm still waiting to discover the miracle 15 minutes, as I almost single-handedly keep Mepps in business during coho season. Thanks to CFM, I've learned to use less expensive jigs, too. I've been able to provide a few good fishing and technique tips, but among this BB membership, I'm more the student than teacher in that regard.

I enjoy the give and take of spirited debate, but I don't have any use for threads that degenerate into personal attacks and irrational arguments. That's what pushed my button on this one, I guess. I don't think I'm thin-skinned. If I was, I doubt I would have been posting here since nearly day 1.

You're fortunate to be up in Smalma's territory. We're very long time acquantances, and I have a lot of respect for his professionalism. I really appreciated it when he joined the BB.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo

No one wants you to quit posting on the board, especially me! Who else can call you a "turkey" and not have you take it as a personal insult or attack?

But sometimes you push people a little bit too far with what you have written! As just a couple examples, you starting out by saying;

That probably was not the best way to get everyone's attention. We have known each other now for over a decade, so we can get on each other pretty hard without offending one another. That's something that a lot of board members on this board do not know or understand.

But calling other members "pathetic wusses " puts a lot of members on the defensive side of this issue. Just because other members have disagreed with you and Smalma agencies point of view; certainly doesn't justify you calling or to insinuate that they are "pathetic wusses.

You also said;
Just because both you and Smalma both work for state or federal fish agencies, and have strong views that represent your own agencies views; that certainly doesn’t mean that the public (the anglers) all have "collective ignorance" views. It's really not the angler's lack of knowledge that is at issue here, it's the fact that many anglers may be disagreeing with the state or federal agencies point of view.

You said;
Just because you or Smalma may have a "degree" in biology or in fish management; that doesn't mean that they are anymore knowledgeable or better informed then a person who has actually had "30 years" of real life experience. In fact, I personally think it's the other way around. I am sure that you will disagree, but we are each entitled to our opinion.

This is probably one of the main reasons why we have so damn many attorneys today! It takes an "attorney" anymore to get the agencies to understand why us "common folks" are not being heard! It's your guy's way or it's no way at all!!

Do you have any documentation that supports this theory, or is this just your personal opinion?

Salmo, you know that is not really true, so why even make such a statement? Did you already forget about the WDFW and Cascade Aqua Fish Farm fiasco? Or why NMFS listed all Lower Columbia "chinook" as threaten, and still allows the entire unmarked run of wild "fall chinook" to be harvested. NMFS listed ALL lower Columbia chinook, (not just spring chinook) so why is NMFS allowing WDFW to stop all "fall chinook" from being allowed to spawn and recover back in their "natural" habitat and spawning grounds in the Cowlitz? I can keep going on if you need a few more "examples" of how well the "agencies" are doing there mandated jobs "according to law and policies that govern them!

In the real world, not everyone can be paid to sit around in meetings all day long and kiss each others butts. How many meetings have both you and I set in on when nothing ever gets accomplished? If a person doesn't have the same "reasoning" as you or I do, does that mean that there criticism is "foolish"?

Can you explain that one a little more clearly for us? Everything thing that I have read in this thread simply talked about a person getting there limit with 2 rods and then quit fishing. So how are you using "2 fish plus 2 fish equal 5 fish" as an example?

Salmo, you know that I have always been right up front with you so I will not change now. So the way I read your last post, it appears to me that you are asking your supporters and followers to jump in ask you not to leave. I may be wrong, but that is how I am reading your last post. No one had asked you to "stop posting" or to leave, so why would you have brought that up? I would have thought that you would simply not reply back to posts like these if you didn't expect to get some heat back from the others who fill differently than you do.
---------------------------------------------

Smalma
Smalma, agency people never fail to amaze me! Where and how do you think a "proposal" gets started? If proposals can't openly be discussed as they are being done here, how in the devil do you expect any thing to ever get to the proposal stage? This thread as allowed people to see the pro and the cons on using 2 rods, so why are you opposed to letting fishermen debate the merits of this issue? People would much rater debate issues here before they send them off to WDFW to review as a final "proposal". The only problem that I see occurring here is that the agencies are not getting there usual way of "crafting" a proposal into the fashion that that may prefer it to be before such a proposal is officially proposed.

BW

you have stated;

Smalma
I am surprised that you have not yet corrected this misinformation that was given by BW. As a WDFW employee, you should know that WDFW has many different special fund accounts that are set up to be used only for special things, and can not be used for any other purposes other then what it was delegated for. It was my understanding that WDFW kept these accounts separate from their general funds, and that they are NOT deducted from the annual general fund account that they receive each year from the governor.

The money from a 2 rod raffle could easily be set up to be transferred into a special WDFW account without being mandated to go back into the WDFW "general fund" account.

I have never heard where the government has "deducted " any special funds accounts from the WDFW general funds account.

If I am wrong, please tell me where I am wrong!


Cowlitzfisherman

You wrote- "They love that stuff... it's like kitten cocaine."

Man, I'm a pusher! My cat (a tiny fifteen pound beast) Is hooked. He has a bad habit. It keeps me fishing constantly, to appease his meow jones. That 'splains it! As soon as I get the fish out of the cooler in the truck he works me like a crack-wh@#$ for his fix. Too much is never enough. (Notice how I stayed out of the two rod arguement?)
Jeffro

http://slacktide.org:88/~dan/pics/kitty/Isis/Isis_salmon.JPG [/QB][/QUOTE]

Oops-
The above was supposed to go to another message, not the botttom of this. Sorry. Please ignore.

CFM,

The wusses comment was in a post that concluded: t.i.c., meaning, tongue in cheek. I’m sorry you didn’t catch it; perhaps others did not as well, altho there were hints all along the way with my promotion of sport gillnetting and blasting caps as fishing lures.

I stand by my collective ignorance statement. Note, I don’t call anyone an ignorant person; we all make ignorant statements from time to time, and I think many posts in this thread contain examples.

Yes, I’m educated in fisheries and other things, but I’ve also been an angler for more than 40 years, so I’ve got my expertise covered on all sides! I do agree that some educated people act woefully uninformed at times, and you and I have had to deal with them far more than should be necessary.

I don’t have documentation at home or even at the office that proves two rods will catch the harvest allocation sooner, but I have access to such information. Do you really need to see it? It is a principle of fisheries management that there is a direct relationship, usually linear, between standing stock, effort, CPUE, and harvest. That’s the thumbnail rationale for saying that a two rod regulation would result in a harvest allocation being achieved sooner. Yes, there are also exceptions; this is a discussion of generalities, not a specific fishery.

True. Agency personnel are supposed to do their jobs consistent with law, regulation, and policy. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen 100% of the time, as indicated by your example. That is one of the reasons I’m such an avid supporter of citizen watchdogs like you. You, and others like you, help keep agencies more honest and responsive to the citizens we serve. Yeah, it shouldn’t be necessary, but where there are pluralist interests and politics, it is necessary.

I didn’t say criticism is foolish. I mean unreasoned and unreasonable criticism is foolish and a waste of time. There is no logical response to unreasoned arguments, so agencies end up blowing it off. Anyone would unless they enjoy or are forced to engage in useless and pointless debate.

The 2 fish plus 2 fish equals 5 fish is my analogy to posts suggesting that a two rod regulation would have no effect on others aspects of fish management, such as season length, after Smalma and I explained that it would. It’s OK to disagree with me on that, but I’m not letting someone off by labeling it BS. I want the critic to post a reasoned, intellligent, and persuasive argument proving his opinion correct and mine wrong. Reasoned debate like that can be informative and educational to this BB. Mudslinging and calling BS and one another a clueless idiot neither informs nor educates. It simply alienates me. Which leads to your last comment about my posts: I was responding to your post, not asking supporters to rally ‘round me. The statement is what it is. If you and others whose opinions I respect (even if I disagree occasionally) think I’m wasting my time posting here, I’d seriously consider quitting. My garage sure needs cleaning. And I need to tie some flies.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I was surprised to see this debate still going on...didn't think anyone cared this much...hmmm

Salmo

You, like me, will never quit!

Sometimes I feel like Charlton Heston…holding up my fishing rod…and saying over my cold dead body!

We both care too much to let criticism effect either of our views on or about our fishery. Thanks for taking the time to clarify what your post said. Knowing you, the way that I do, I appreciate your honesty in your reply.

Maybe a few other board members can follow our ongoing battle to keep fishermen aware of what is really going on!

grandpa…. A lot of us care more then you may think!

Cowlitzfisherman

The first time I posted it did not post every thing I wrote so have paitence and read the whole unabriged post as it was intended.


I go away for a couple of days and all hell brakes lose. I was just reading the post from the last couple of days and I noticed something that I want to address.

All comments to the 2-rod stamp post (except mine) and to most regulations questions on this board seem to concentrate on salmon and steelhead. I under stand that these two species are the reason most of us continue to draw breathe everyday but they are not the only fish out there. Many people in this state love fishing for trout and walleye in lakes. I assumed (that’s how you make a ass out of u and me) that when the talk of two rods came up we were talking about lake fishing. In my post I even mentioned that California does not allow two rods in the rivers and I may have misspoke about the salt. I will have to check on that and get back to you.


Anyone can make an argument about why not to use two rods in the rivers and even salt when we are targeting salmon. In fact anyone, and many at the local collage I attend do, can make argument against fishing at all for salmon and steelhead.

What I want to talk about is fishing in lakes with two rods and nothing else. California has a two-rod stamp that is good on the lakes and is used by everyone. If you are caught with out it you get a hefty fine and they take your pole. To say that it is a enforcement problem is unreasonble. Here we can carry our license in our pockets. In some states they call that an "enforcement problem" and require you to pin it to your cloths above the waist.


As far as lakes go fish are not allocated the same. We are mostly talking about planted trout and holdovers. They are going to plant a certain amount of fish and that’s it. Catching them is up to you.

I would also like to address what I believe is a misconception by most people, even those in the "business”. First I have to say that I have been trolling with multiple rods in lakes for trout for about 25 years on and off (no trout on camp lejeune) I was taught by my grandfathers when not fly fishing. Trolling with more then one rod does in no way catch more fish then trolling with only one rod. Now stop and read more before you crash a server with you reply’s. Yes you can get a double hook up, hell my son and me have had 4 on at once. Hooking a fish and landing a fish are very different things. First you have to find the fish then you have to pick the right lure then you have to present it in the right way then at the right depth..etc etc etc... Get the point. I have never successfully landed more then two fish at a time. Now using more then on rod will help you do all these things faster, maybe. But I can guarantee that the one lure the fish want on any given day will be the one you only have one of anyway!!!!!!!!. What I am trying to say is that first you have to have a good day to fish then you can catch fish. Having two rods in the wrong place with the wrong bait at the wrong depth is still a good skunking. Besides you can only catch your limit once a day. After that (as i have been told lately) you have to stop fishing.


Now a little word about funds, just because the state only gives the wdsfg so much money does not mean that if the wdfg can come up with a way to get more funds for them selves that the state won't let them. Remember that by not asking the answer is always No.


Tell me what you think about a 2-rod stamp on lakes only whit lures only that funnels all the money back in to the wdsfg. Ok now you can crash a server

geez i think i'll take my megger next time i hit the river

Or, just getting tired of the criticizm? I call BS! Does the tax on gear, gas, bait, boats, licenses(boats/trailers and personal)and every other fishing/hunting related sale make up for the funds used from the general fund? BS! Spin , spin ,spin. If in private bussiness I cant turn a profit, I have few options. Government creates it's own costs. And instead of cutting costs, they increase funding, and find very visible ways to say the kitty's empty. Not all government, not all the time. But i'm watching it happen every day. So cry me a river with your "no one understands the government" . Take a look at the big picture in F/G management, the numbers of the resource, and where they go.

I dont see every person who works for the government as "evil". In fact it's the oppisite. I feel the actions of the policy makers are not aligned with the honest Joe that works within the system. And they(policy makers) dont represent the people of this state, rather thier own politicl future. I say that because at every point the public oppinions that should be part of the criteria for the policies, are shut out and portrayed as ignorant. You can do all the legwork to help establish workable policies, only to be sideswiped by another agenda in the end.

But dont be discouraged, I honestly believe it will be the people within the system(like yourself) that will be the leaders in turning it around.

Hair lip

Your mother and father appear to have raised a pretty smart guy…assuming you’re a "guy"!

For a new person, most of your posts make a lot of sense….watch out.. sooner or later we will get you!

Cowlitzfisherman

Boy if that's not the kiss of death!

You talkin bout my momma?


I'd rather talk about fishing, but someone has to preserve my granchildrens fish. It may take a bit of politicing to do that.