Northwest Fishing Reports

I was thinking of submitting a rule change proposal to Fish & Wildlife but I wanted some feed back before doing so. What does this group think about allowing tiger muskie anglers to use 2 poles while trolling? The population density of these fish would negate any unfair advantage for the angler. I know this has been suggested, and denied by F & W, by several groups of anglers but their target species are widely stocked with much higher populations in each fishery. Just testing the waters here, any comment would be appreciated.

There are lots of fish that are hard to catch. I think that it is wrong to argue that because the population of these fish is low using a second pole doen't give you an advantage. What is the point of proposing this rule if it doesn't give you an advantage? And the fact that the population of these fish is so low is even more reason to put stricter rules on them like C&R only.

In a lot of other state you can use as many poles as you want, even as many jugs that you want when going for catfish, spider rigging for crappie I mean the list goes on. I think it was the colvile indian tribe , allowed you to pay an extra $8 for a "second pole" licence. You were only allowed to use it on the reservation and that was after you paid $35 or something (cant remember the exact cost but it was more than the WA state fishing licenece) like that. Im not sure if they still do it or not though. I think it would be kind of hard to pass a multi-pole fishery on just one species, I dont know how it works but I think its "all or none" sort of deal. I suppose you could do it for one species, but that would probally piss off all the other anglers who want 2 poles for trout or what ever. And in this state with all the salmon I think it would be pretty hard to pass that, being how the salmon cant make up there mind about being on the endangered species list or not,. But like I said Im not too sure how this all works, just giving my opinion. To tell you the truth Iv never fished in any other state

Yeah, this wasn't really written as good as I could have, I was under a bit of a time crunch. I didn't mean for a species specific rule for muskies only. I understand how that would effect other anglers and I said "unfair" advantage.

Also, please put up your own suggestions about regulation changes you would like too discuss. Nothing I post is intended to be a single topic, just a general statement to get the ball rolling. I know Don W. has suggested a catch and release only regulation. Maybe there are others with additional ideas?

If this state doesn't adopt catch and release only, I would like to see the minimum size raised to 48" like on many trophy lakes back east. What about making only certain lakes catch and release only? Fishing with barbless hooks only? Having angler's tag caught fish for gathering study data, stuff like that.... it's a discussion.

I definitely would support a special regulation allowing multiple rods for muskie trolling. You can't effectively troll for suspended open water muskies with only one rod per angler. The standard trolling set up is 6 rods -- 2 planer boards on each side (at different depths) and 2 off the stern (1 shallow, 1 deep). However, it will be uphill convincing the Commission that muskie anglers should be allowed to do something no one else can do, and I don't think an all-species multiple-rod rule is a good idea.

I think a two rod per fisherman would be great. But don't limit it to just Musky fisherman. You can fish with two rods pretty much everywhere else in the country. Personally it would be nice to drop a line with a crawler for some panfish while your casting for bass or walleye or musky. I think it would work just fine. Even trolling for salmon. Two different lures at one time...For all freshwater fishing. As far as a length limit for Musky I'd say go to 42 inches now. That would be a 6 inch increase from 36. Then increase it each year to top out at 48 inches? Just a thought. Thanks, Todd

"barbless hooks"?!!! please lord, NO! it's hard enough. lol