I just recieved my 'minor cycle' rule proposal packet from the WDFW.

In it, they are proposing (if the Moratorium sticks), selective fishery regulations in March and April on all the rivers that are effected by the Moratorium.

The Sol Duc and Quillayute would be exempt from this proposal however as they have targeted salmon fisheries during this time frame. However, the Hoh, Bogey, Calawah, Clearwater, Dickey, Hoho and Upper Quianualt would all be under Selective Fishery Regs come March 1.

Their reasoning behind this proposal was so that now these river systems would reflect the Department's "management approach for wild steelhead catch and release fisheries."

No bait!

I'm a proponent of catch and release, but that sucks a lot. The key term in catch and release is "catch." Selective gear rules will definately impact my success next winter. Nevertheless, if it goes hand in hand with the moritorium, I'm for it.

Sparky,

Great news....BTW, I think you ment the Hoko river, not the hoho.

Many of us have fished the Sky for C&R nates in March-April without bait or scent with great success.

Cigar

You don't need bait or scent. Al you need are flies Or a pink worm, spiner/spoon, yarn/corkie, okie, plug, etc.

Oh yeah way to go sparkey now every side drifter on the peninsula will be in the Sol Duc. I am all for the catch and release but no bait is bull.

I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't really do much, except maybe concentrate even more fishermen on the areas with concurrent salmon season so they can use bait.

The use of bait and/or barbs has been shown to have virtually no effect on adult mortality... even in combination, are very negligible on adults.

In the summer when there are juveniles around, that's a whole different story, as bait and barbs have profound effects on them. Not in March and April, though.

Fish on...

Todd

YASP. Yet another stupid proposal.

I will have to agree with Todd on this one. I see this proposal doing very little, other than to further restrict what Washington Anglers can do.

I'm starting to have 2nd thoughts on this whole moritorium thing.........expecially if it keeps cutting the throats of the Washington sportsman.

I will be sure to write to the commission to voice my opinion against this proposal.

Some people just need to be slapped. It might actually jar those neurons in their head and get them to work again.....

:rolleyes:

I received that thing yesterday as well. I think its good because it seems that fewer people are willing to fish where bait is banned. That means less pressure for those rivers.

And now....... one of the reasons I was against the moritorium (not against WSR). The sporties were so eager to give up their rights.

Now WDFWs going to give them another stick up the....

To Sparkey it is a step in the right direction. It doesn't affect his fishing, it actually enhances it by segregating fishing techniques.

Now to Pat, might as well cut his arm off too. Being a guide, a barb and bait may be the only thing that brings a fish to the boat some days.
Those fishing techniques that will be eliminated by the regulation change may limit his business in the future.

Politics.........

Pat, Todd & Parker, well stated!

Pat, Todd, & Parker,

No bait and no barbs are standard parts of the selective fishery regulations, so I presume that's why they're included in this regulation proposal. Most of us are aware that bait and barbs are not much of an issue with adult steelhead.

I have a hard time understanding why this particular bait and barb restriction is so irritating to you. I like to fly fish for steelhead, and I do catch them, even doing quite well under good conditions. So the regulation isn't likely to reduce my catch. However, my reading of this BB suggests that you guys normally catch steelhead in circles around me, suggesting you're pretty good anglers. If so, is a bait and barb restriction really going to affect your fishing success much, if at all? I mean, isn't the proposed regulation more of a restriction of your preference for bait than a restriction of your prospective fishing success?

It's not like restricting you to a fishing method that you lack experience with, which strikes me as the more significant impact. Like if I was restricted to drift fishing and you were restricted to fly fishing, then (assuming you don't fly fish for steelhead) we'd all be at a relative disadvantage. Many drift fishermen have told me that artificial lures are just as effective as bait for steelhead most of the time. Are they wrong? Or is there something else about the proposed regulation that I'm not getting?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Hey, Salmo...long time, no talk.

It wouldn't cramp my style fishing at all...neither would a regulation requiring that all casting must be done with the right arm and hand. I don't even use bait or barbs when I'm fishing in March and April anyway (well...not much )

It just doesn't seem like a useful regulation in the winter/spring months, as there isn't much of an increase in mortality to the adults that are there then.

It would, however, probably reduce angler effort, and that, while attractive to me on a fisherman level, is a little harder to swallow on a fishing politics level, as I'd hate to lose more numbers when it comes to fighting for the fish.

However, if reducing angler effort were the goal of a conservation regulation, then we're talkin'. If it's just a general policy that goes along with WSR, then it might be unnecessary.

Fish on...

Todd

If I read that correctly, my understanding is that the state wants to put the recently moritoriamized (is that even a word??? ) rivers under a selective fishery regulation. Why just those rivers? Seeing how the entire rest of the state is wild steelhead release, why not put a selective restriction on *all* the state waters where there is likely to be a wild steelhead? Why stop there? Better include the fall and winter months, as I've caught native steelhead right along side the brats.

Heck, why not just put a selective fishery on the Bogie during the winter brat run? You never know - you just might hook a native fish.

Oh sure, let's start with the OP rivers now....but who can say what restriction will come next?

As a state resident who annually's pays a lot of money for a fishing license, I don't like to see unecessary regulations that further restrict my (or any) fishing opportunity. Maybe "opportunity" isn't the correct word (as you pointed out), but I am totally against restricting the one thing I really love to do - and that is to fish.

Hell, in 5 years, we will all be lucky to "just fish" at this rate.

Saving the fish is one thing, but it shoudn't be at the total expense of the sportsman.

As others have often pointed out, there are other ways to save the wild steelhead than to restrict the living crap out of the paying state angler.

Regardless of what others think, I'm putting my foot down and will voice my opinion against this rule. I don't see the need for it. It is pointless.

On those OP rivers? Probably not. Across the state? Sure, you bet it will effect my fishing success.

It's not about my success, but my anger at seeing the state reducing my fishing opportunities. I guess I use the word opportunity because if it comes down to me spending more of my $$$ to go fishing, where do I chose to go? Selective gear rules on the OP, or fishing with bait on a SW river? Odds are, bait will do better than no bait, so screw the OP, I'll go down to the SW river. In my eyes, that reduced my fishing opportunity.

I won't even bother talking about the Duc. That would become a zoo - more so than it is now.

Directly, yes. Indirectly, no.

I like to chuck bait. It is no more lethal than pulling plugs, or using spoons.

Uh, yes. They are wrong. "Most of the time" bait will outfish artificials. As one who has been on both sides of the fence, but has been a solid egg whore the last 3 years, I have hooked way more steelhead with bait than artificials. Not even close in the comparison.

Amen.

What galls me is the proposal is seemingly not for the sake of conservation, which was the cornerstone in reasoning behind the moritorium in the first place, but instead for the sake of a selective few who wish to impose their fishing methodology on the rest of us.

my kid fishes with bait.

Todd & Parker,

Yeah, long time. I know, but I don't get out as much as I'd like.

Thanks for the good answers, guys. Yeah, I see that would make the OP rivers just like the Skagit, Stilly, & Sky spring regs, and I can see where that wouldn't be the best arrangement, speaking from a fishing politics perspective, to have all rivers under identical regulations, unless for conservation reasons.

On the other hand, perhaps a Parker restriction would be useful. I'm quite sure he took home a couple summer runs I was going to catch the next day, had they still been there. [insert joke symbol]

Parker, I gotta' disagree about spending a lot of money for a fishing license. Fishing in Washington is still cheap, if you take a look around. I was looking at salmon fishing in Quebec. $50 per day on mediocre water. $100 to $400 per day rod fee on reasonably good rivers. Fly fishing only, and non-residents are required to hire a guide (a provincial guide full employment act). We got it pretty cushy here.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Perhaps it has been proposed by those against the moratorium to create more dissent and resentment against WSR.

It is just a proposal at this point. Beat it down.

"What galls me is the proposal is seemingly not for the sake of conservation, which was the cornerstone in reasoning behind the moritorium in the first place, but instead for the sake of a selective few who wish to impose their fishing methodology on the rest of us." Sol on the Duc----- this reg is being presented solely by the WDFW, not by those that favor the moritorium. So then somehow "their" best sceince doesn't suit those that wish to rescind the moritorium. I guess then that best sceince is relative to a fishermans opportunity.

Solely by those within the WDFW that fish how?...................

I'll venture a guess.

What best available science do you refer to? We're not talking about a summer run fishery where smolts are present by the thousands. And, in my experience and in the experience of those I know, adults are not hooked any deeper than they are using artificials w/single hook.

Don't get me wrong. I am 100% in favor of the moritorium. I spend much if not most of the year fishing selective gear water only water because I prefer the relative solitude. It's the escalation of unnecessary regulation that bothers me.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of disgruntled steelhead managers attach the words "because of the moratorium" on pretty much every restrictive rule they can come up with...there are a couple of noses out of joint down there in Olympia who would love to get back at the moratorium backers by incurring the wrath of everyone by banning everything else in the name of the moratorium.

Fish on...

Todd

One thing to remember guys scented artificials are NOT legan in selective gear areas that rules out the vast majority of plastic worms I know the 4 inch seducers i like to fish would be illegal Frankly i see both sides of this debate umm but it doesn'f affect me cause when i go to the penninsula I fly fish.. i guess that means i have no strong opinion either way I know thats unusual for me but thats how it is.. In all my years of fishing i have hooked very few winter steelhead on bait that were hooked deep, in fact i cannot recall any however I can recall fish hooked on spoons that were in the tongue and bled a little before release.

I think barbless single hooks are always a good idea regarless of mortlity issues, i simply think they hook fish better and are easier to deal with

As ususal Salmo is right on the money - everywhere in the state where a CnR fishery targets wild steelhead selective gear rules are required. What is there about the coast steelhead populations that would make it different?

Todd -
The Draft WSC white paper (#2) very clearly calls for more extensive use of selective gear restrictions in steelhead fishery management. This regulation proposal would seem to be a natural for WSC; especially given its position as put forth in the white paper.

Regarding the need during the spring. While hooking mortality on adults during the winter is normally not a large issue the case with kelts (spawn-outs) is an entirely different matter. My experience and that of most anglers that I know is that kelts eat bait big time with a substantial portion of them caught on bait being hooked in critical areas. It would be fair to say that hooking mortality on bait caught kelts would be very similar that of trout - that is we could expect a 1/3 of them to die.

In WSC's first white paper a whole section was devoted to the importance of kelts to the overall population. This is based on the large contribution that repeat spawning females make to the total number of eggs deposited in the gravel each spring. In addition they provide stability to run sizes.

Why is that you don't think it is important to protect those kelts on the coast as much as those in Puget Sound? Especially given that the onset of wild steelhead spawning on many of the coastal rivers is a month earlier than on Puget Sound rivers making even more likely that anglers would encounter kelts during their fishing.

Given the rheotic of WSC and yourself about the need to err on the side of the wild steelhead resource I'm surprised that this proposal doesn't have your full and vocal support. In fact I would have expected your position to be one of questioning the allowing the use of bait in the spring chinook fishery on the Sol Duc/Quillayute. After all we are talking about allowing bait to catch hatchery chinook at the risk of wild steelhead - that doesn't seem to be putting the wild resources as the primary priority.

Tight lines
S malma

My testimony will be against the selective fishery rules.

If the stocks are healthy, selective gear rules are not needed, a small amount of mortality is not an issue and the moratorium should not even be considered. If the numbers are so depressed that there is no harvestable excess it is more reasonable to prohibit all fisheries that target the wild fish.

The imposition of a harvest moratorium for conservation reasons should by default include a moratorium on all fisheries that target those stocks requiring such essential conservation concern.

Any action to create C&R fisheries or other special fisheries should be proposed and discussed through normal rule making process rather than indirectly through a harvest moratorium on harvestable stocks.

Sorry plunker you are wrong.. WDFW should take whatever steps necessary to protect wild steelhead and provide fishing opportunity.. If numbers become healthy then and only then should harvest even be brought up..
The default position WDFW should have is that harvesting wild fish is bad and that there are enough hatchery fish around that wild harvest is not necessary.

"I spend much if not most of the year fishing selective gear water only water because I prefer the relative solitude."

Every so often this little bit of reality comes to the fore. Selective fisheries are cool because they eliminate the annoying crowds of amateurs. I'm all for them. Problem is that in a huge debate like this one the solitude is a reason to prevent people from fishing if they don't like selective waters but not a scientific reason to put restrictions on a fishery.

So many crackers so few fish to keep.

Nope! You are wrong Robert!

Smalma, Todd is offering his own opinion of the issue as the WSC has not had the opportunity to review the minor rules proposal together as a board so no official position has been developed. The WSC offered you a copy of the recent white paper and is truely looking forward to your review and insights, but not necessarily on a bb forum.

Double Haul -
My only question was directed directly to Todd and not the WSC. I merely commented that given the position in the white paper support of the selective regulation proposal seem to only be a natural for WSC.

I might also comment that when the upstream sanctuaries (WSR) were created on the OP streams several years ago they all were enacted with selective gear restrictions. For Todd to imply that these new selective gear proposals were some vindictive plot is uncalled for - it is just a continuation of the very regualtions that wild steelhead advocates have pushed for in the past and consistent with wild steelhead CnR season through out the state. Sometimes one needs to be careful what one asks for.

I only mentioned the draft white paper because JJ had posted a link to it on this site and there has been discussions on various aspects of it.

I thank WSC for a copy of the Draft White Paper - it has been reviewed and comments sent to the authors.

Tight lines
S malma

YAPR - Yet Another Parker Restriction!!!

Thank Glub for my fishing alter egos! Opher and Bone can easily make up for whatever restrictions are put on Parker! Go ahead. Take your best shot. Restrict away!

I'd say I was sorry about catching your summer runs, but those poor fish really didn't stand a chance once they saw this coming down the pike!

Guess we all better put our noses in the air and learn to fly fish. Spey rod here I come!!!

Give the guys a few more years and they will selectivley take that rod from my hans as well.


Hacheries, hacheries, bait and BONK. YEA!!!!

Thanks for the clairification Smalma

We already have selective gear rules in place on the upper watersheds of all these streams, that's true. I'm glad. And, it's true that selective gear rules have gone hand in hand with catch-and-release in those areas in the past. But it's been for the purpose of distributing fishing pressure equally, while providing opportunity for all types of users and protecting the resourse at the same time.

What we're talking about here is the unalateral closure of the west end for a huge number of fishermen. What kind of fishery are we going to create? One in which we segregate Washington rivers into two catagories? On one hand we'll have the Cowlitz type rivers where snagging is rampent, people fish 24 hours a day and a car fully engulfed in flames in the parking lot goes unnoticed, and on the other hand we'll have flyfishing only rivers.

What about the hundreds of fishermen that enjoy floating a pink Berkely worm under a float and practice the catch-and-release ethic? I guess they can suck wind. Same with the sidedrifters and bait fishermen.

RK43 you nailed it on the head.

Its an evil plot by Sage to turn all of us outlaw bait drifting barbed hook using lowlives into snobby flyfishermen and buy their rods.

I can't believe how much the state is into micromanaging steelhead and salmon fishing. Its like self preservation so they can write a ticket for trivial stuff to pad their pockets and justify their existence. :rolleyes:

Be careful what you ask for you just may get it!

Frankly I'm suprised at some of the responses here, some of you act so shocked. You could have seen this coming from Mars.

Several posters on this forum said this would happen before they were banned.

Selective gear regulations are the norm for catch and release fisheries. Did you seriously think this would not happen???

Most excellent proposal. They should have banned it on the doc too. It will save lots of cutts and smolts.

Good post Phishinman!
My thoughts exactly.Im amazed at some of the moritorium supports posts.How could anyone be shocked by this? This is a natural step for catch and release fisherys.I wouldnt be shocked at all if the moritorium is upheld to see at least afew of these river systems go fly fish only.

The Hoh river has a targeted salmon fishery in this time frame as well, why not exclude that river with the Quil and Duc? I am sure that would relieve a great deal of pressure from the Sol Duc. The pressure on the Bogachiel is minimal and the Calawah is mostly fished by Pat and a few others, so at least open the Hoh. What about the Queets? If the upper Quinault (which is within the ONP boundary) goes selective why wouldn't the Queets up to Hartzell be selective? You did list one Queets trib already.

With the unavoidable increase in boats on the Duc just imagine how many more down river nates will suffer. I see very little difference in hookup location with fresh up river fish, when fishing bait vs. artificial but those returning down just seem to inhale bait.

And all I want is for the South Fork to be open one more month. Maybe not a fair trade off but one I can live with.

What's really bad is I find myself agreeing with Grandpa a little bit every time some new petty restriction is imposed upon us and the blatant disregard for the conservation of fish by the nets that remain the river. Why can't your boy George play cowboys and indians out west?


Sol on the Duc you might need to change your name if this sticks.

Who will be left out? It still allows drift fishing, float fishing, plugs, and hardware.
Pink worms will still be allowed, just not the scented ones.

Just being dramatic, cupo.

The truth is I favor selective gear rules. I drive a thousand miles north to fish BC's most selective fisheries every year. If it comes to pass here as is apparently proposed, it will only benifit the resourse and us anglers in time. Fishing the places that had those rules in effect prior to my frequenting them is somehow different than having opportunities that I have historically enjoyed taken away. It's difficult, thats all.

Another point about bait fishing....I believe Parker and others when they say fish they hook on bait are not typically hooked deep....but isn't this because of the style of fishing you are doing? Drift or boondogging where the bait is moving, relatively light weight and you are holding the rod and so quickly detect the bite and set the hook. I think mortality is much higher for plunkers (stationary weight, heavy gear etc) and bait divers. I'm not proposing we make the regulations even more complicated, just an observation.

two words sum it all up: RED HERRING

Smalma,

There is no way that any organization can fully back every belief of every one of its members...if people required that, there would be no organizations.

Here on the BB's, unless specifically saying otherwise, I am speaking as "Todd", a concerned angler.

I will continue to advocate the same things here as I do as a board member of the WSC, which is necessary regulations for conservation purposes, or necessary for whatever reason...so long as it is necessary.

When the WSC looks at the new proposals, we will discuss them as a board. If I see that the particular regulation that we are talking about has a necessary goal, and that that goal is being serviced by the regulation, then I will vote to support it.

If it helps juveniles in the summer months, I'll support it while the juveniles are present. If it protects downstream kelts in March on the OP, I'll support it. If there is a conservation need to protect the returning adults, and the fishery will be open, I will support it.

If there aren't juveniles or kelts to protect in March on the OP, or some other necessary goal, conservation or otherwise, that requires the regulation, then I won't support it.

To imply that I don't care about kelts is disingenuous at best...the subject just hadn't come up in the conversation yet. Are there kelt concerns on the OP in March? If there are, then I'll reconsider...but the reconsideration will also include things like hatchery fish removal success, etc.

I apologize if I got your ire up with the "managers" comment...that was probably unfair. We both know there are a couple very angry policy guys down in Oly after the Commission essentially told them that they weren't doing a very good job protecting steelhead runs.

I'm sure you know that my respect for you and your opinons would never include you in such a category, even if it were a fair comment about the others.

Been out fishing at all lately? SRC time yet?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd –
Regarding your statement – “To imply that I don't care about kelts is disingenuous at best...”

I pointed out the situation with the kelts in response to your statements in your first post –how else was I to interpret the following statement?

”The use of bait and/or barbs has been shown to have virtually no effect on adult mortality... even in combination, are very negligible on adults.

In the summer when there are juveniles around, that's a whole different story, as bait and barbs have profound effects on them. Not in March and April, though.”

From all reports kelts are certainly are a potential concern on coastal streams in March and April (likely even earlier).

I thought I was clear I was asking questions of you and not WSC (see my second post). I did mention that the proposal was something I would expect WSC to support given their positions in the latest white paper. I try hard not confuse your or other posters with the organizations that you (they) may belong to.

It is time for Sea-runs however haven’t been out – the Skagit is way too dirty and the other streams are too warm for me to be comfortable in fishing on the fish. Hopefully things will cool off in a couple of weeks. Been out on the sound some chasing salmon.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

If there indeed is a kelt issue on the OP rivers as early as February, or March, then I'm finding the regulation to be more and more necessary.

Is it the WSP that recommends selective gear fisheries during CnR fisheries? Is it only during CnR fisheries? It seems kind of odd that it was OK to use bait during harvest seasons, when there are kelts present, but not during CnR seasons at the same time of year in the same place.

This is also a bit troubling about the Sol Duc allowing the use of bait, then, too. Besides concentrating so many of the bait fishermen on that river, doesn't the Sol Duc receive the lion's share of the Quillayute wild fish? Wouldn't there be a conservation issue that should use selective fisheries there? Is there an exception because there is a salmon fishery?

Thanks for the heads up on the kelt issue, I hadn't considered it at the beginning...when I said "adults", I was referring to pre-spawn adults, hence the extremely low mortality I was talking about.

The warm weather has been a killer on some of my favorite fishing holes...no water, sluggish fish if I do find them. Been too busy to fish more than three or four times a month lately, anyway

Will you be in Oly on the 28th?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd –
As Sparky stated in his first post -
"The Sol Duc and Quillayute would be exempt from this proposal however as they have targeted salmon fisheries during this time frame".

My last paragraph in my first post referred to that issue. It has been my belief that wild fish needs should supersede access to hatchery fish – wild fish with a higher priority for protection. Of course that is not universally held!

At least during harvest seasons folks would have the option of retaining a deeply hooked fish; during a CnR season that is not an option.

I don’t a great deal about the fish distribution on the Quillayute but you may be correct about the steelhead use on the Sol Duc. I don know that some of the folks that I talk with that are familiar with the Quillayute fishery tell me that wild kelts begin showing up in the sport catch about mid-February.

Thought the meeting was in Bremerton on the 28th. Haven’t decided whether I’m going or not.

Tight line
S malma

I actually would be much more in favor of a single-barbless regulation that allowed bait if that in fact covered the Sol Duc as well.

Given what the studies have shown regarding adult steelhead, it is not bait that raises the mortality rate substantially, it is actually the use of barbed hooks.

I would comprise and ask the State to put forth a single-barbless hook regulation for the Sol Duc and leave the rest of the rivers be to get those God Damn stinger hooks of that river. They are are left in a fishes mouth because there are some that are too lazy to actually release the fish (just pop the leader)and/or there are some that are not a good enough guide so that they must fish a barbed stinger hook rig so their clients can actually catch and land a fish.

Baited, barbed hooks due a minimal amount of damage when compared to what these rigs do to the wild fish on the Sol Duc.

Oops, you're right...meeting is in Bremerton.

If you go, see ya there. If not, I'll see ya around.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Thanks for the additional info...do you have any idea about the distribution of wild winter runs in the Quillayute system? I'm going only on anecdotal evidence, but I'm hearing that the Sol Duc and Calawah are getting the bulk of the fish (mainly the Sol Duc), while the Dickey and the Bogey are not doing all that great. I don't have any idea how many of the fish are Quillayute spawners...