#983055 - 12/31/17 11:21 AM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3310
|
I presume the main reason anglers use downriggers and electronic depth/fish finders is because salmon have become relatively scarce, making it more difficult and time consuming to catch one. It's hard for me to realize that during the early years of Puget Sound salmon fishing, most recreational angling was done with skiffs - with oars, not outboard motors - and mooching gear. There were many dozens of boathouses that rented the skiffs, so the Sound was covered with hundreds, if not thousands of small salmon fishing boats. And they caught salmon. Because salmon were abundant. I think you might be on to something there....
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983058 - 12/31/17 12:11 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: Smalma]
|
Fry
Registered: 10/25/17
Posts: 25
Loc: Port Ludlow, WA
|
I remember that 20 or so years ago for a couple summers the fishing in MA 10 was limited to weights of no more than 2 ounces. As CM said those of us that adapted to the mooching game did quite well. An interesting side observation was that it seemed that we caught fewer shakers with a high percentage of the Chinook in the top 75 feet of the water column being migrating adults than when we were dragging the bottom.
Just an observation; the most constraining ESA listed Chinook stocks would not likely benefit significantly with a complete fishing closure. Those populations even with conservation hatchery programs are limited by habitat conditions (mostly freshwater). The one thing we have learned in the 20 years that Puget Sound Chinook has been ESA listed is that we as a society are not likely to restrict our activities (ability to make money) to benefit those fish. This of course that restrictive situation we currently find ourselves is likely to continue into the future. Having a discussion about how best use the available impacts in mixed stock recreational fishery seems appropriate.
One thing about limiting the effectiveness of those fishing mixed stock areas would benefit those anglers fishing many of the terminal areas and rivers where less constraining stocks are returning.
Curt So in practially speaking this has been done before, if I understood correctly. Are you able to shed some light on what the thought process was at the time? And the reaction to it?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983078 - 01/01/18 08:59 AM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Among the goals of rec management is to maximize time on the water and spread the catch over the most folks. For example, way back, WDG used to very closely enforce the rule that EACH steelhead be punched (released or not) and the daily limit was 2. C&R 2 and you're done so that somebody else will have access to those fish.
Same with hunting. ML and archery are both considered less effective (at least in a kill/day) so they get more days.
This has to be balanced by what is the minimum kill to attract an angler. A salmon limit of 1 or a razor clam limit of 5 may theoretically allow a longer season but fewer would participate.
This will get complicated by the business aspect of, say, the Westport Charter fleet. They need days, rather guaranteed, to book folks in. In recent decades the number of charter boats seems too have declined while private craft have boomed. Different drivers of who fishes and what they need.
WDFW needs (boy does it get old to say this) to take a long and deep public look as to how rec hunting and fishing seasons are structured; what the concepts are, what the benefits and costs are.
Just reading through threads here it is obvious that one size does not come close to fitting all. Which means that that we all won't get everything we want all the time.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983240 - 01/04/18 06:44 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 06/30/14
Posts: 135
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983251 - 01/05/18 08:16 AM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4481
|
I have a good friend who was the assistant director shortly after the state's management changed from DOE to the WDFW. He could not agree more.
The agency needs more people with balls who can get deals done and less biologists.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983258 - 01/05/18 11:57 AM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
State's management of what? What went from DOE to WDFW?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983276 - 01/06/18 09:49 AM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3310
|
I have a good friend who was the assistant director shortly after the state's management changed from DOE to the WDFW. He could not agree more.
The agency needs more people with balls who can get deals done and less biologists. I'd like to agree with the balls part, though I don't believe anyone at WDFW has enough authority to change this without losing his/her job, regardless of testicular fortitude. WDFW's "decisions" get made on the Hill, by people we never see and by means even less transparent than NOF. I doubt very seriously that Chuck Frigging Norris could turn the tide from any WDFW post today. Your friend was a manager in a very different political climate. When he was calling the shots, there were still enough fish to support all State fisheries, to your point, largely because we weren't shy about planting fish. The Tribes also had nowhere near the lobbying power in the pre-casino era, so what the Tribes got at NOF was what the treaty provided (you know, as it should be). Due to irresponsible, financially-driven decisions made at the Federal level (by the Department of frigging Commerce), mixed stock, open ocean fisheries have shrunk and depleted our native stocks to the point where whatever makes it back to severely compromised habitats is less in both number and fecundity. That paradigm assures more and more ESA impacts coming into play. As ESA impacts come into play, all of us (Tribes included) lose opportunity. The available opportunity is no longer enough to go around, so now someone has to lose. The treaty does a lot more to protect tribal rights in the current climate, so here we are. I don't blame biologists. The science selected to support policy decisions is often the science that causes the least political pain at the end of the day, regardless of whether the staff biologists put it forward as "best available."
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983281 - 01/06/18 12:05 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I would add that the science in WDFW is often directed by admin. That is, tell us what we want to hear. Unfortunately, this has been going on at some level since at least the late 70s.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983285 - 01/06/18 01:53 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3014
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
I would add that the science in WDFW is often directed by admin. That is, tell us what we want to hear. Unfortunately, this has been going on at some level since at least the late 70s. Yes, one only needs to look at the myriad of advisory groups which have been established ostensibly to improve communications between the Department and constituents yet which haven't met in years let alone have their information to include meeting dates, agendas and meeting minutes published on WDFW's webpage. Old adage: It is more important to look good than be good.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983286 - 01/06/18 01:55 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
An ounce of Image is worth a pound of Performance
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983403 - 01/09/18 08:15 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Shooting Instructor for hire
Registered: 10/26/10
Posts: 7204
Loc: Snohomish, WA
|
An ounce of Image is worth a pound of Performance
I'm stealing this. It's probably gonna get me fired upon snarky deployment, but it's pure smartass gold.
_________________________
“If the military were fighting for our freedom, they would be storming Capitol Hill”. – FleaFlickr02
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#983410 - 01/09/18 10:25 PM
Re: Ban Downriggers?
[Re: BillSteve]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Just plan carefully. More than a few wore "The beating will continue until morale improves" shirts. Morale never improved.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
807
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63786 Topics
645450 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|