When this becomes reality we'll all don our ascots, have a few sips of single-malt while puffing on our cigars and make a toast to our success in ridding our waters of the mouth breathing bait flingers...after that we'll invade the waterways in full force to practice our casting.

Folks are missing the point on this. The opposition is pretty transparent. Same stale rationale.

1. If the indians are still gonna net then why should I change what I do?
2. The elitist fly-guys are trying to take over our rivers. Screw them.
3. If the fish are in such trouble that I gotta change how I angle, then why don't they just shut the rivers down?

And what's not being said but really friggin obvious? The folks who are belly-aching the most about this are doing it for selfish reasons. . .this is where you fish and how you fish. . .right in the gut bucket. Get over it. If you want to have any angling opportunity for these fish, you gotta face it and have incremental restrictions. Either that or shut er down. Pick your poison,

fb

It seems, at least for this topic, "they" will have all of us battling among ourselves. I think that someone at WDFW who is very crafty is sitting back and enjoying our angst on this issue.

WDFW has a miserable record in the management of steelhead. Banning fishing from boats will not compensate for the terrible steelhead manaagement history of the agency. I've been to too many commission meetings in the past where good proposals were put forward that would have gained some real measure of steelhead conservation and they were not adopted. That's because the staff contradicted the recommendations.

We needed to quit killing wild fish everywhere a long time ago. But in those rivers that still have treaty fishing going on, strict compliance with conservation and the Supreme Court's mandates must be followed. Why doesn't WDFW do that?

Salmo, I don't know if 1/2 the folks have even fully read the proposals since the basic reason and justification are in them. Here are some basic facts for folks agree or disagree.

1. With closures elsewhere and continuing strong interest in steelhead angling the pressure on the OP rivers have dramatically increased, pushing the stocks even harder.

2. The early wild component was pushed too hard and is in a depressed status in context to historical abundance and needs relief to help recover. The enacted proposal to close the sport harvest season til Febuary was adopted two years ago to support this fact.

3. The areas proposed as transportation only are important spawning
and staging areas for the early component of the run according to the
science and spawning surveys. The proposals are intended as a
proactive measure to provide the early fish some relief while still
providing opportunity and hopefully avoiding future closures.

I don't think anyone is misunderstanding the concept of what WSC is trying to do, but their intentions are poorly formed.

If there are problems, suggest closing the river to all. Alienating one user group to provide more opportunity to up to 2 other user groups only makes matters worse.

+1

It isnt complicated and silly new rules wont improve anything.

I have a few thoughts:

The way to preserve these fish will never be found in the sportfishing rulebook.

McMahon,

That is the single stupidest thing I've evr seen written here (your 1st post), including all of redhooks posts.

It's funny watching this debate happen just as I predicted on the other thread about it. It is not a "flyflinger ascot wearer" vs. "gear chucker" debate. I think it is an honest attempt at a rule WSC believes would be helpful. Unfortunately I don't believe any rule limitting sportfishing any more than present will be helpful. There are some things that could be helpful:

1.) Getting a Puget Sound steelhead management plan through that would allow for opening of the Skagit when run sizes rebound enough to allow for it. They are trending up. This would help with pressure.

2.) Finding a way to roll back "foregone oppertunity" in court. It's a ridiculous assertion. Has it ever been tested in the court? From there mandatory release would be helpful. Maybe the mandatory release should be passed first to get the theory into court.

Unfortunately the "no boat fishing" rule will only be taken as an attack by urban yuppie fyfishing elitists against the eternal victims of gear fishing. Let's all fight amongst ourselves now....great!

Go Sox,
cds

The "laugh test" I was referring to was not whether or not it would do what it says, which is reduce some angling pressure...the laugh test I was referring to was that it wouldn't go anywhere near accomplishing the goal of increased spawning escapement...we're all willing to accept restrictions that have tangible benefits...the only tangible benefit I see from this one is that if you prefer to fish off the bank you will not have to see so many people fishing out of boats around you.

The gain to spawning escapement, if it's even measurable at all, will be negligible...the loss of opportunity to gain an at best negligible benefit is not negligible, if it's your opportunity.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. If you want have a geographically limited "no fishing from boats" area, put it downstream where there are 60 trailers fishing in a four mile stretch of the Sol Duc nearly every day, where it's open to actual kill a wild steelhead, and where all the guides fish. That will have an actual benefit to the fish.

What Todd said.

Back in the day, rivers like the Green had the "no fishing from the boat" regulation in place, everyone understood it and followed the rules. We caught tons of fish with that regulation in place. So ingrained and accepted was the rule most anglers on the Green today still believe the rule is in place! Bank angler access in the middle section was and still is the issue for opportunity to fish in that section, and boats do provide that opportunity. Standing in the boat vs the bank does not change the opportunity one bit. Now if we place the original regulation back in place, opportunity will be still be the same.

IMHO, If we want to reduce impact to esa listed stocks or fish like the wild rainbow ( genetically, and possibly the same fish as the esa wild steelhead in that system) as well cutts, smolts, and other non targeted species, then add the no bait, single hooks and no barb rules to reduce un-intended impact to those other critters. Now add the "boat for access only" rules to mix as well. Angler opportunity remains, yet the impact and efficiency of plug pulling and bait divers fished from the boat would help to reduce the un-intended impacts to the non targeted fish...

As much as I enjoy fishing from my anchored pontoon boat, I could live with such a regulation, though I am more uncertain as to the potential precedence it sets for future regulations to be imposed. I can appreciate providing fishing opportunity when possible especially while minimizing impacts to the resource.

The first item addresses a biological issue; the impact to juvenile mykiss and should lead to better survival. The second item is addressing a social issue, which can be more difficult because people react with emotion and there may or may not be any rationale behind it.

The area we are talking about on the Sol Duc is...

1. Remote, and difficult to row, and likely has less than 5% of the traffic of the stretches below it.

2. No bait, barbless hooks. No worries about bait divers and the like.

3. CnR for wild steelhead, so no direct harvest.

The shorter stretch downstream I alluded to above is...

1. Easy to row, and you may have to park 1/2 a mile from the launch parking lot during peak times to launch there...60 boats in a four mile stretch is not an exaggeration.

2. You can use bait, with barbs.

3. You can bonk wild steelhead.

So tell me again which stretch is the one that would make the most sense to close to boat traffic?

Oh, that's right...the one with little boat traffic, no bait and barbs already, no direct harvest, and few good bank spots.

Math out for me how many fish this will save...you can probably do it on your fingers as the final number will probably less than the amount of fingers on one hand.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd paints a pretty clear picture for the Duc. The other rivers may not be so cut and dry. I'll have to look into those a bit more.

Tiger woods should be banned from golf.....like Kobe should be banned from Lakers, and last but not least, Earl Anthony should of been banned from bowling:) ..........dont strive to dominate,you may be banned by haters!!!

.....and probably why we haven't heard more guides chime in on this one.

It's also why it's the wrong crowd of "boat fishers" to go after...find some that are actually having a measurable effect on the fish spawning.

Fish on...

Todd

That's a start. We've come so far as humans, and as a culture. I think it's time that we free them of their indian-ness, their entitlements and claims. We have done nothing but throw trillions of dollars at them for everything from housing to fish and what do they have to show for it? Nothing. They want to be sovereign nations, FINE! Then they shouldn't vote in our elections. Whoa nelly that would shake up the politics in this state more than any other. All that sweet sweet indian gaming cash to the candidate who promises to keep things exactly the way they are would be gone forever. They get to have cake and eat it too, and I am sick of it.

If you think breaking some sacred treaty promise made nearly two centuries ago is a big deal then you need a history lesson. This government hasn't upheld the language in any treaty, ever. If you think we should honor them then why don't we just go one further and give them everything west of the Mississippi River because there's a treaty that guarantees them that. The bottom line is that we need to focus on being americans, not separatist nations. But hey, they want to be the separatist, fine, we can refuse to trade with them because their fishing practices are so disgusting. We could impose tariffs on their imports to OUR country from theirs, and they could be exceptionally high on endangered species like wild steelhead. If they don't like it they can raise an army and go to war with us although that didn't work out so well for them last time around.

I hope that doesn't sound racist. I have a degree in native american studies and have spent the better part of my life thinking about this stuff.

I agree with the proposals but understand and agree with much the opposition says.

It seems that we always try to be accommodating to others when proposing regulations. The compromise is made before the regulations are proposed. We should press for more. WDFW will likely set up a no fishing from boat section on the least intrusive stretch of river, and then sit back, pat themselves on the back on what a great job they are doing in protecting wild steelhead.

While the back-patting goes on, the bait fishing and kill goes on (the WSC is proposing a year-round no-kill on wild steelhead fyi) and on certain rivers a huge % of the run will be caught and released.

Historically we have been slow to recognize our impacts on fish. We will likely look back in a few years and wonder how we could have thought that unrestricted guiding and catch and release would have no impact on spawning success. Unfortunately we will be looking back on only memories of what fishing for wild steelhead in the spring used to be like. We will point the fingers at everyone one else except the person looking back in the mirror.

If we waited to do something until everyone and everything else behaves perfectly nothing would ever get done.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!