So glad to hear that after 35 years of fishing this water, the gate has been locked, launch reworked to allow boats to launch again, and two leases given to both launch sites. The first group of 5 keys was leased to an Eastern Washington fly fishing lodge. Not offererd to a local group. The second group of 3 keys a local group got. Well at least some locals will reap the benny's.
My problem is why not offer it to the highest bidder, I have max insurance and a Million dollar umbrella. That was the prerequisit....
A grand a key, big money wins again....

Now go on the WDFW site and voice your support for the public process on securing access to these launches, the duck hunting sites are asking thiers to not support any site that does not support duck hunting. Let your voices be heard

Matt

If Green Diamond is willing and able to lease out access at $1,000/year/key while retaining strong control on access what would be their incentive to providing general public access?

I did not say public access, I am bummed everyone did not have a chance to bid on a key if they met the requirements. if they lease it to the State, then they have no worries, and the State maintains the road

I take it you are a guide?

I am much more concerned about the loss of the public access.

This is much different than Uncle George selling Tree Farm Permits to access land for 100 -200 dollars.

If this is allowed to continue and becomes the norm on other privately held timberland. Joe Schmo Sportsman is in trouble.

Let your politicians know how you feel.

I really missed your point! With your clarification let me say that if there is no general public access onto/through that stretch of water maybe it just needs to be closed to fishing all together.

After all, WDFW will not plant lakes that do not have public access so why should they allow fishing where access to the resource is controlled by the adjacent property owner(s) who lease(s) out access to that public resource at, in this case, $1,000 per key?

I am not a guide, and since this year they have chosen no public access. The part that concerns me is, they only leased it to guides. Without the general public having a chance to the lease, since lease as thier direction they chose to go. And secondly, 5 of the 8 keys where leased to fly fishing lodge from eastern washington. Not even offered to the guides or general public that live in the general area.
And at a grand a key, it will follow the same path as the hunting leases.. A game for the few rich and famous..

So the third point is, they are still trying to lease the gravel bar to the State for public access, for next and remaining years, The WDFW published a list of 17 sites they have chosen for lease or purchase, the Nooch 7400 is one of them. All 17 will not get approved, they are taking public comment and openion on each of them.
There are members on hunt washington and refuge gang urging thier members to give positive comment on only those that are geared toward duck hunting. So if you would like to see the 7400 access chosen, you need to post comment in support of on wdfw site.
If it is not one of the chosen ones, next year access will possibly go to the four highest bidders........

I agree with you Matt. This is a trend that is happening all over our state. Private access only to public water. We (the common guy) are systematically being either shut out of access or pushed to over crowded spots with very limited access on many, many of our rivers and lakes which are listed as public, navigable water!

Comments sent...(if words were only votes)


Thanks for the heads up.

Remember.....there was Green Diamond allowed access......because of some "sportsmen" and how they blocked the road off, Green Diamond did what they had to do.

I've said many times, we have lost many access points on many of the Grays Harbor rivers.....still I see the trash, bait containers, cans, paper coffee cups, line, left at boat launches and gravel bars.

"We have met the enemy, it is us"!!!!!!!!!

Drifter, I agree, people are [Bleeeeep!] slobs. Leaving a sand shrimp container on the bank instead of taking it home and putting it in the garbage is like the people who smoke in their car and then throw the butt out the window because they don't want their ashtray to get dirty of the rig to stink.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Instead of allowing the upper river to become the private playground of a select few, if the public doesn't have access to that stretch of river the WDFW should just close it to fishing.

My tax and license dollars shouldn't be used to subsidize the fisheries of private entities to the exclusion of the public.

The river access is not closed off you can walk in and fish anywhere you want on GD's property or most anyway. It appears they chose to utilize a private property launch to generate a monetary return on property they owned due more to problems with the public use vehicle concept for property management. This outcome is very prevalent in most every place I have fished most certainly outside this state.

To put it simply when you put huge numbers of Rec fishers in any fishery without a plan to manage the traffic nothing good happens. Hunters have faced this for years and most states have adjusted but with fisheries in this state we continue to think you can pour in tourism driven fisheries without structure and it worked kinda for sometime. It is starting to not work now and in the future our present system will totally collapse as there are just way to many of us.

I can understand the state not planting fish in waters inaccessible to license holders. But, if say to a landowner that your land is closed to hunting or fishing because you don't allow public access just how much habitat protection you think will occur?

While the resources are public property, the land isn't. Why should a timberland owner have deer, elk, and bears on his land if he can't control access (essentially control behavior) on that land? Getting your equipment and roads and land trashed for the public sucks out money.

Maybe WA can do like WY does. Each big game tag has (or had) a voucher. Kill a deer, give the voucher to the landowner, and he gets money back from the state for providing access.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

One can argue that being able to nibble at the edges or take a long hike to reach the entire length of that section of the river constitutes having access. And while that may be technically accurate I would suggest that it is not the same level of access that the property owner is selling to a select few at a high price.

But the point that increasing demand without a plan to ensure ongoing access has reached a crisis point is spot on. Private property owners have tired of the problems or have sold out to higher valued use of the properties which are incompatible with continued public access.

Look at the fisheries that WDF pushes and promotes. Marine salmon, marine rockfish, marine halibut, lowland lake trout, walleye, kokanee.

All pretty much require a boat. The launch in most places can be provided by somebody else. The non-boat angler is close to ignored.

Those river fisheries, especially if they require bank access, are close to ignored and are way too much trouble to manage.

Look at the Skok. At least out in marine waters it all just floats away.

"Look at the Skok. At least out in marine waters it all just floats away."

If WDFW is looking toward the future, they can see that there isn't much of a future in river bank accessed public fishing. It makes economic sense, if not entirely social sense, for WDFW to focus on boat accessed fishing. Boat accessed fishing returns more dollars per fish landed to the state economy than does bank fishing. Add to that the high cost of generating a landed steelhead, whether of hatchery or wild origin, and it becomes readily apparent that this is a fishery of the past, and not the future.

Not to drift too far off topic, but a hatchery steelhead has the least favorable return to the economy. If it costs $6/pound to produce steelhead smolts at 6/pound and the SAR rate is less than 1%, it makes more sense to raise coho smolts at 15 - 25/pound and get a SAR rate of 4% or higher, depending on location. And when those coho are caught by boat anglers in marine waters, the $$ contribution per fish to the state economy is even higher.

Public access to public fish resources will probably get worse instead of better. I hope WDFW can obtain this access lease.

Sg

Salmo. That's all well and good and probably true. For those of us who really don't do well in boats, or who like walk and wade, and perhaps don't worship Chrome Cod, that leaves other states, provinces, and countries.

As long as WDFW is clear about what they are doing.

Here's one to consider, though. What will the economic benefit be to a walleye fishery, year-round in Lake WA vs. continuing the experiences of the last 20-30 years in the lake? If it gets down to pure economics, anadromous salmonids will lose so long as BC and AK low-hole WA.

Salmo g.

There is more to the story of the economic returns of various species smolt returns. While it is obvious that the more fish the better the real measure of economic returns in recreational fisheries is the number of man-days supported by the production releases.

Let's face it steelhead fisheries are less than sane and are willing to spend a surprising amount of time and effort to capture their quarry. Many steelhead fishers will continue to fish at catch rates at which many coho fishers would quit. As a result even at some pretty low return rates the release of steelhead smolts has a positive cost:benefit ration. With steelhead the non-treaty share goes to the recreational fishers while with coho that non-treaty share is split between commercial and recreational fishers. Final if one is interested in river fisheries steelhead generally support a higher exploitation rates than coho. It is not uncommon for in-river recreational steelhead fisheries to be able to harvest over 50% of the available fish (typically that rate can be over 70%) while that in-river harvest rate of the available coho is typically less than 10%. All of which is along way of saying there may be more to the decision of whether to raise steelhead than just the cost/low return rates.

BTW -
It is looking probable that the SAR for wild coho this year on north Puget Sound may have been at or below that 1% range.

Curt

just call the best guide. he has a key..... usually up all hours too.

My understanding is the WDFW did buy the property. The keys are for the remainder of this season which I find strange..The whole damn thing is strange. If the property was bought will the WDFW be able to get a launch built before next season? Heard talk of a power boat restriction on some parts of the river now as well. Good for those who got keys bad for those who don't. Just saw a pic of a 23 foot Wooldridge parked right under the 7400 bridge on Facebook.

Good for them. Glad they found access....