Is the ocean out of Westport still open and hot? (pretty accurate topic title, aye? :D) If yes, how much longer is it expected to remain open? Thanks.

Yes my friend it is still screamin'!!! As of last week the catch had filled somewhere around 15% of the Coho quota and 30% of the Nook' quota. They are predicting that it will be open at least through the end of August.
Good luck and tight lines, Jeff

Westport is fishing really well right now. You probably have a good month, if not more, left before things get close to being shut down.

The better king fishing is a little farther out but we've been nailing very nice silvers just past the jettys. Minus nasty water conditions on some days, it's been a very convenient fishery. Drop me an e-mail if you want more info.

I'm booked on the advantage on the 5th of august. Can't wait.
Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

Fished yesterday (Tues) at Westport. Fishing was good. Fished about 12 miles out in front of the harbor. Mixed bag, 2 nice kings, quite a few small feeders, Silvers where about 3-7 lbs. Fishing overall for me was a little slower than the week before, when it was wide open. Hogs will be on the beach in a couple more weeks.

Hey thanks much Jeff and guys! That is good news. I've never fished out of Westport and would like to experience it. And it could be a much nicer alternative to the long launch lines and boat crowds at bouy 10. The Oregon ports have closed for silvers. When I get back to fishing again after returning from our trip to Central Oregon next week I would love to go out of there. Is your boat big enough for that Jeff - if so, let's go. If not, I'll be a fishin ho. Will bring bait, gas (and buy some boat gas too ), and beer for a ride in a bigger boat. In fact I have a couple friends that can help me fill a boat out of there and take care of all expenses plus bring the beer and snacks. Thanks. - Steve

westport is redhot, got our fish in about 2 hours sunday.

Been hitting a 270 and heading up to 12 miles out with lots of Kings and silvers with a few Kings over 30 pounds. Lots of wild and marked silvers, as well as smileys.
I keep on hearing a rumor in town that because the sporties are catching so many kings, the season will end soon and then reopen with marked coho only regs in place with maybe even a bump of an extra coho. This does not make us sportboat guys very happy, because many of us feel that this is Charterboat driven. I know they have to keep the town running, but believe me we leave a huge money trail every trip.
Even though we have not reached the King quota yet and if you were to project it, we would have a while to go, I have heard that they were going to close it to kings with the quota unfilled to make up for the so called hooking mortality that supposedly will happen with the coho fishery still open.
By the way RT, the lines have gotten longer every week at Westport, but at least its a big ocean. Feel free to E-mail me if you are looking for a ride out to the deep blue, I try to go every Sunday and sometimes Monday, and often have a spot open. Just bring foo foo drinks as I leave the beer for my brother Ben......and he is in Alaska.

Hey there my friend!!!
I'd take the FishNg1 up on his offer. My boat will handle the ocean, but I just don't have the time right now to get out there. Looking for that buoy 10 action in a few weeks. I'll see you there!!!
Good luck and tight lines, Jeff

Does anyone know of any Westport charter boats that are owned by guys that supported I-696?? I've heard that most of those boats are owned by commercial fishing interests, and that they, through the Westport Chamber of Commerce, funded the "No on 696" campaign (along with all the other gillnetters, seiners, trollers, trawler, etc.) I'd like to know of someone out there that I can send people to and feel good about it.

-N.

I did e-mail Steve (FishNg) already Jeff. That was a nice offer. And let's keep in touch about fishing bouy 10 together. - Steve

Hi Norman,

Here's part of the story, but not all, as to why "some" of the owners and charter offices, and the Chamber of commerce asked others to vote against I-696.

1. It was a flawed initiative. It would have only impacted non-tribal commercials. There were no provision on how the charters were to get their herring for fishing, your herring as well. Try to supply all of the herring used in this state using only herring lampara and dip nets.

2. Many of these folks also fish commercially, or have friends and famiily who fish commercially. Fishing is an industry, be it sport or commercial. They decided to stand together instead of falling divided. (Think PETA chipping away at your hunting rights, Sarah Brady going after your guns.)

3. There are very few living wage jobs in western Grays Harbor County, so eliminating one of the major employers in the area would have meant even worse economic consequences. Timber took a huge toll in the 80's and 90's, the shipyard only provides so many jobs, and many of these folks (not all) are not suitable to work for the corrections facility. This bill would have pretty much been the death blow to their economy. Westport, as you know it today, would not have survived. This bill meant putting their neighbors, families, and friends out of work.

4. Commercial trolling, no nets involved, would have been banned within 3 miles of the coast.

5. There was no provision for paying the commercials for their licenses. How would you like to put money and effort into your house and then have someone take it away, even though you were following the rules. That is a huge investment to walk away from as some of these licenses are sold a lot like negotiable securities.

Think how you felt, if you hunted with hounds, after the hounds intiative passed. Think about how you felt after the trapping intiative passed. It may not have affected you directly, but I had friends who hunted bears and cougars with hounds. I knew trappers, too. This is how these guys felt. Someone else from out of town was coming in and saying "I don't like what your doing, so you can't do it anymore!" The folks of Westport took a Libertarian stance.

Our intiative process is certainly flawed, just look at that joker, Tim Eyman.

I voted for 696, but there were a lot of problems with it. There were many far ranging effects to this intiative, depending on where you lived, so it wasn't a clear cut issue if you lived or worked in western Grays Harbor county. I am not supporting what these folks thought, just reporting it.

Andy

P.S. If you are looking to refer someone to a boat that isn't fished commercially, except for charters, I would go on the Gold Rush 2, out of Westport or Washington Charters. I think that they use the same office. Kevin is a schoolteacher by trade who fishes on his summer break. Best of luck.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Dogfish ]

Come on Dogfish, do you really think that those of us that put in long hours getting signatures and donating time and money to the BAN initiative are going to lie down and listen to some of your retoric about the poor commercial boys. I will let a few other members chime in on some of your comments, but come on now.....who do you think is driving the economy in Westport as we speak......sportsfishing dollars! It is great to see the ocean alive once again with abundant salmon, and charters fishing for them, as well as the sporties. Okay, lets all net the hell out of them and destroy the runs so we can stop this fishery, and lets not use the old "Oh BAN would not have impacted the Indians" sob story, you know that is another issue.
I myself do not entirely disagree with commercial fishing, and if one would check the records you would find my name as a past holder of such, but it must be managed in a non-biased and proper manner. I don't think that is how it is always done now. If you have been to Westport lately, you would have noticed that most of the commercial trollers have been doing their thing about 12 miles out, right alongside the charters and sportboats......and peacefully at that.
The BAN iniative might have had a few flaws, but it would have been a step in the right direction. As for herring, it would have still been allowed to have been harvested as bait and guess what, even though I am a moocher by heart, I can troll an apex, a plug or other hardware with great success for salmon. And if you have a strong arm, my jigging stick with the old "dart" is great fun too! And then there is always the old herring jig that is always rigged on my old ambassadeur setup!
Sorry for all the ranting, but my heart started pumping hard when I read your post and I just couldn't resist the reply.....and yes I did note that you voted for 696.....if we did it wrong the first time lets do it again and do it correctly. If they can pass those sorry trapping and cougar iniatives, why can't we see the light when it comes to Salmon and Steelhead?

Oh man, I just got back from thte ifish Roadhouse party and chugging contest and am seeing double right now - but I can see that I agree with Steve on the I-696 issue! I have a lot more to say anbout it thwan that, but I will wait until my mind is clearer. - RT

Thanks for the info, Andy... there are some things in there that I hadn't heard.

I've got a couple of points, though.

1. Show me an recent State Intitiative (doesn't matter if it's one that has passed or hasn't) that isn't flawed. Tell me how you would propose affecting the Tribal (federally governed) fisheries with a State Initiative. 696 made provisions for bait fish fisheries... plus, why, when herring was scarce this past spring, was everyone saying that all of our bait herring here comes from Canada and Alaska?? and let me take you out some time and show you how to catch salmon with spoons, no bait.

2. Historically, when fishing becomes an "industry" someplace, it lasts, at most, three or four generations. These days, with the technology we have at hand, it rarely lasts more than two generations. (examples: cod in the eastern North Atlantic, striped bass off the New England coast, lobsters in Maine, cod off of Newfoundland, Atlantic salmon in New England, what was it, redfish in Florida, the list goes on) Why? Because when it's an "industry" people get greedy.. they need bigger and bigger boats to compete, they need to catch more fish, they get inrooted in the political structure and lobby and pass laws to allow them to try to get rich... all at the expense of the resource. So now the tought time has come for the "industry" here, for some of these people to go out of business... I say good riddens.

3. If there are no living wage jobs in an area, there is probably a pretty darn good reason for it... like all the freakin' resources have been exploited for 100+ years and there's nothing left!!! No trees, no fish. Move, or figure out something else to do, like everyone else has to do.

4. The trollers troll way offshore as it is, and if they can't target chinook anyway, what's the big deal about the 3 mile boundary?

5. I didn't buy the "I can't put my neighbor out of work" stance then, and I don't buy it now. These commercial fishermen are the buffalo hunters of the 21st century, whether we stop them before they kill the absolute last fish, or let the business die out on its own in 10 years, doesn't matter to anyone but the fish. Actually, let me rephrase that... these commercials are not the "farmers" many make them out to be, they are the GOLD MINERS of the 20th and 21st century, and guess what, the seam has run out... maybe they should have thought about their OWN pension and retirement when they were catching all those fish back in the "Good 'ol days" why the heck should we have to support them now, what have they done for the taxpayers, other than cost us money? and I haven't ever heard someone say it, so I will... when is someone going to give me a buyback program on my sportfishing boat?

I have friends that are commercial fishermen. They all fish in Alaska, they all realize it's a dying industry here, and I think in the back of their head they realize what they're doing up in AK won't last forever, either. I think that's why they are encouraging their sons to do someting other than fish.

P.S. Was Kevin the schoolteacher a commercial troller back in "the good 'ol days"?

-N.

Hey guys,

Reread the entire paragraph where I said that I voted for 696. You will see that I said that I didn't support their views, but I was merely reporting them. So breath before you jump all over me, I can't take that much weight.

I work with many businesses in the Westport area which gives me a unique insight into their world, and their economy. I merely was explaining to Norman what the other side of the issue was for those folks who lived in Westport. Not taking a side, but trying to put it in a perspective that we could all understand. Nuff said?

As long as initiatives are put together by humans, they will always be flawed. That's just life.

There was no clearcut provision for bait fisheries in I-696. Just as there were no exemptions on mole traps with the trapping initiative. Show me where the loopole is:
I-696

But I agree that we need to get the nets out of the water, with the exception of "SUBSISTANCE ONLY" fisheries for tribes with properly negotiated treaties.

Do you understand what I was saying now? Other than that, have a marvelous day, and catch some fish this weekend, 'cause I'll be doing that too.

Finally, I am not sure if Kevin V. was a full time commercial fisherman before his teaching carreer began, but I can say that he is one heck of a nice guy, can get you to fish most every time, and he keeps his deckhands running.

Andy

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Dogfish ]

Hey Dogfish,

I didn't mean to jump all over you, sorry. I saw that you said you voted for 696, what bothers me is that people still think that the supporters of 696 didn't know what effects it would have had (had it passed) on certain towns and economies... I was pretty well aware, and I think everyone else was, too. At the time, I was working on West Commodore Way, right behind the Fisherman's Terminal in Seattle. I talked with a lot of commercials about the initiative, both there and "in the trenches" while gathering signatures that summer at a bunch of public events (street fairs, parades, etc.) and rallying at places like Husky games. I learned a lot from those guys, all about what kind of ramifications it would have.
Like I said, no initiative is perfect, including that one... I personally had a conflict with it including trollers, but the people that wrote the text were advised (I think by lawyers) to include trollers in the wording.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that link you posted doesn't have the entire text on there...

Again, thanks for the info on Kevin, and good fishing.

-N.

Dogfish, what bothers me, is that when the general public reads the kind of thing that you posted, they tend to believe it and side with the poor guys family issues, etc. I believe it is because of similar misinformation like that printed in the papers and on the news, is the real reason that 696 failed.
BTW....great perspective Storm, thanks for helping spell out the issues. And like I stated before, Andy I read your post thoroughly and know that you are a sportsman and indeed voted for 696, but like they say, fish come first! or something like that?

I tend to provide a little more info than others, just in case someone out there didn't know what the meaning behind the whole discussion was. Plus, you never know how much info the other guy has, so always assume they know just a little when trying to educate. I wasn't trying to talk down, just educate. Sorry if I came across that way.

The initiative as posted was the final draft as submitted to the Secretary of State's office. Section 3 leaves some leeway if part of the initiative had been struck down had it had been approved by voters. But then you have to trust the lawyers to figure that one out, no thanks. That is the complete text. There is no other wording.

Take care, and have a good day. Andy

Hey FNG,

How's it going? Thanks for the input. I am sure that had the intiative addressed some of the points that were given to me by the Westport folks, the initiative would have had a better shot as passing.

If a new initiative were to be drafted that included funding for retraining programs, license buybacks, along with short term economic assistance for heavily impacted areas, it would have a much greater chance of passage.

Most initiatives are somewhat shortsighted. They only address part of the issue, and often lack key pieces that would draw more support. Bargaining should be done on a compromise basis, and I-696 had no room for compromise in it. In the next net-ban initiative, I would highly suggest that some of these issues be addressed.

Tribes are off-limits in the referrendum process because they are primarily a Federal issue. So we just have to keep on top of that one. Those who voted against Slade but were for fish made a big mistake. He was our biggest ally in the issues with the tribes. Do you think Cantwell or Murray will have the balls to stand up against them? (Sorry, they don't have balls, and I didn't mean to offend any ladies, just democrats.)

If you have concerns about how the general public percieves the issue, then educate them, and allow for concessions. But to draw a line in the sand, or in this case water, and say "I'm not budging!" will do nothing but make the line drawer look belligerent. Address the issues fully, and we will succeed.

Anyway, best of luck, and keep catchin'. Andy