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?