Northwest Fishing Reports

As many of you are aware, WDFW recently enacted new regs for O.P. rivers that no longer allow fishing from a boat. The goal is to protect wild steelhead.

As I've been mulling over this rule change it occurs to me that anyone who has a disability that prevents them from getting in and out of a boat, except at a boat ramp with handicap access, is now unable to fish these rivers. So guys that need wheelchairs to get around will no longer be able to fish these public waters. The rule change has essentially denied this class of anglers (handicapped) the ability to fish the O.P. rivers except at a boat ramp or handicapped area, whereas non-handicapped anglers will be able to fish the entire river.

I can't see this rule as anything but discriminatory to handicapped, boat-bound anglers. I'm really curious if this was ever discussed in WDFW meetings. I did look through the Americans With Disabilities Act and couldn't find anything (which I didn't expect to find anyway). That said, this rule change just doesn't sit right with me. Our government agencies shouldn't be able to pass rules that affect one group of people unequally from the majority.

I'm curious your thoughts about this. I'm also wondering if there is a disabled angler out there that would be willing to be a test case and fish these rivers out of a boat, get the ticket, and then fight it in court to have the rule overturned. I'm also wondering if there are disability agencies/advocates that would be willing to take this rule on to have it overturned, or amended to protect the access of handicapped anglers to fish these rivers.

If the issue is truly about protecting the wild steelhead, the rivers should be closed to all, not denied to a few.

Amen. Until they do something about the nets, where they are allowed, there won't be an increase in overall populations. No boats, particularly for handicapped individuals, is not going to be significant, and it is discriminatory. Closing various rivers, say in an every other year rotation, to ALL fishing, could make a difference, and I know I'd be willing to forgo a river or 2 to increase future runs, but I don't live on a river, and it would be quite a sacrifice to not step out the door of your waterfront expensive investment in fishing, and not fish. Nothing will make everybody happy, but these half measures really bother me. Anyway, I agree. Probably should have stuck with that...

ADA lawsuits are quite expensive. WDFW best get a supplement to the rule or our state will be paying out millions! Who ever the attorneys are that over looked this should be fired on the spot! It is this kinda chit that cost our state millions. Now with that said I should mention I have not read the rule/regulation and am only going by what has been said in this thread. ADA laws are nothing to mess with......

double post, this can be removed.

The rule about fishing from a boat applies to one 6-mile stretch of one river. It's a bit of a stretch to say people are being denied access to all the peninsula rivers.

Thank you Mike for standing up for those of us that are disabled

fish vacuum wrote:The rule about fishing from a boat applies to one 6-mile stretch of one river. It's a bit of a stretch to say people are being denied access to all the peninsula rivers.

OK, they are being denied access on one six mile stretch. It's also a precedent for future closures.

If you want to contact your representatives about this issue the WA representative site is here:

http://leg.wa.gov/

I found it very easy to navigate and find my reps and senators and send off e-mails.

The Deschutes (oregon one) has had a no fishing from a floating device reg for a long time. The way it's written it allows those with disabilities to still fish from a boat. I take it the WA reg did not have that part. Should be simple to add.

Grizz wrote:The Deschutes (oregon one) has had a no fishing from a floating device reg for a long time. The way it's written it allows those with disabilities to still fish from a boat. I take it the WA reg did not have that part. Should be simple to add.

Cool. I'll be sure to mention it to the Powers That Be at WDFW when I contact them. Perhaps it is in there and just wasn't mentioned in the press release.

Just one more step to taking away the rivers from anglers. I myself have a handicapped friend who loves to fish for steelhead and salmon. Now he wont have the privilege of fishing the OP, which has been on his agenda for quite some time.

I find it ironic that the wfc ( wild fish conservancy) is trying to get rid of hatcheries to promote only wild steelhead in our rivers yet i found an article online promoting a fishing trip to fish for salmon and trout in chile! Wait did i say chile? As in south america? Now that makes we wonder how native those species are to that country! Or how those species can impact native fish of chile yet the wfc has no problem promoting fishing trips as if those waters dont need protection themselves from outsiders like the wfc. I am all for saving our wild steehead. Instead of closing down hatcheries that we sporties depend on we need to take a serious look at netting. Which is the root of the problem. Tribal and non tribal. There should be no netting of our steelhead or salmon from non tribal members. Its also time to restrict tribal netting for substinence ONLY. No selling of fish at market for profits. Lets stand up for our fisheries before they are all gone!!

Interesting. No salmon and steelhead are not native to Chile.

http://exchile.com/fish%20of%20patagonia.html

I wasn't able to find the article on their site, do you have a link?

http://wildfishconservancy.org/resource ... chile+trip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You will find the chile trip at the bottom of this page. The article is from March 2003 a little old but still makes me wonder what their real agenda is

riverhunter wrote:Just one more step to taking away the rivers from anglers. I myself have a handicapped friend who loves to fish for steelhead and salmon. Now he wont have the privilege of fishing the OP, which has been on his agenda for quite some time.

Again, the boat rule only applies to a 6-mile stretch of one river. Your friend can still fish the OP rivers. I think an exemption to the rule for people with disabilities would make sense and be easy to implement.
I'm surprised at how much resistance these new rules are receiving. The pressure on the peninsula rivers is ridiculous and I think these rules make total sense. Yeah, I know, the nets, the nets, the nets. WDFW can't do jack about the nets.

fish vacuum wrote:

riverhunter wrote:Just one more step to taking away the rivers from anglers. I myself have a handicapped friend who loves to fish for steelhead and salmon. Now he wont have the privilege of fishing the OP, which has been on his agenda for quite some time.

Again, the boat rule only applies to a 6-mile stretch of one river. Your friend can still fish the OP rivers. I think an exemption to the rule for people with disabilities would make sense and be easy to implement.
I'm surprised at how much resistance these new rules are receiving. The pressure on the peninsula rivers is ridiculous and I think these rules make total sense. Yeah, I know, the nets, the nets, the nets. WDFW can't do jack about the nets.

You are correct about the 6-mile stretch on one river. And the nets I don't expect wdfw to do anything but I would like to see federal government get involved. I don't see anything wrong with tribes netting the rivers as they have done for generations but like their ancestors they should respect the resources and only take what they need for substinence. My roommate is full Canadian First Nation and he is also disgusted in the fact that our tribes sell fish for profit. He even tells me how they only net what they can use and if they did see any fisherman on the river with no luck they would share some of their catch with them. I am not implementing that tribes start giving away fish but come on they take well over their share of fish and most of it will just be wasted anyways even if it is sold. That is my opinion on that and I don't expect everyone to be on my same page on this subject just thought I would share

Mike, I'm with you 100%, not only is it discriminatory it doesn't make sense when trying to protect the fishery. Floating a boat down a river is less disruptive and damaging to Steelhead Redds Than anyone wading the shoreline. People wading the shorelines inadvertently step on Steelhead and Salmon Redds, disrupting and crushing the eggs. This does not happen from a boat. We need none of this with the state of all of our fisheries.
This was a small group of Spey fishers that got the ear of WDFW because they feel the need for their own section of river. The sport does not need the negative publicity, the "protected" area on the Skagit has done nothing but create ill will. I fish the fly too but I'm all about access for everyone. Just because they've chosen a more difficult way to catch fish is no reason for them to have special rules. We don't need to convert any fisheries where everyone has access to awesome fishing. This just a bad thing all around. Everyone should let the WDFW know how you feel and that you buy licenses and spend money when you go fishing.

riverhunter wrote:http://wildfishconservancy.org/resource ... chile+trip

In my opinion These guys should be in jail for single handedly ruining all of our PS Salmon and Steelhead runs. They are no friend of the fish or rivers.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec1415a/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like to see wild steelhead protected. Lets just hope this decision doesn't lead to more closures and it will be of beneficial impact.

Want to protect wild fish? Get rid of the netting rules that are so often abused on those rivers. And the Nooksack and Skagit as well. That way when natives are "fishing" for coho or chum for goodness sake, they won't catch a native steelie and throw it in the "meh" garbage pile. I've seen it happen and heard of it way too often. People need to stop abusing their privileges. And don't take this as a bash of the natives or anything; if they properly used nets and were attentive, I would be fine with it... but when the WDFW and authorities go in and remove 60+ derelict nets from the Nooksack, maybe there needs to be more enforcement? Like if that's not a big enough hint, I don't know what is.

You'd think that the wild salmon/steelhead coalitions that are fighting to destroy the hatchery system in Washington would also take a look at our economic practices before removing all of the steelie smolts. Less fish in the water means that more wild fish will undoubtedly be harvested in order to reach commercial quotas.

Netting is a non-discriminatory method of fishing. It effects all species and there isn't a way to only catch one type of fish netting. Salmon, steelies, wild trout, sturgeon, and marine mammals are all affected by nets.

This is getting off topic, but if the WDFW is trying to protect wild fish, they should attack the problem at the source.