WDFW: Green River closed to Coho retention

[machewbacca]

Sorry guys but BentRod is correct, coho, like native/hatchery chinook, cannot be retained. The river is not closed to salmon fishing.

From the WDFW RSS feed: "From the mouth of the Green River upstream to the mouth of Cristy Creek (at Flaming Geyser State Park), the daily limit is 3 adult salmon, release chinook and coho."

[jonb]

For the purpose of clarification my response about coho being closed was to answer a question about if catching and releasing coho was ok, now that retention has been closed, the answer is no. Salmon is closed unless specifically noted in the special regs, in this case it is salmon daily limit 3 no king no coho. Which means no targetting coho even for catch and release as it is closed. Same goes for king illegal to target for catch and release.

[machewbacca]

I understand what you're saying but non-retention and closed are two different terms. How are you supposed to fish for hatchery kings, without "targeting" native? Same with steelhead. Non retention is non retention. It would be extremely difficult to prove intent, when fishing with corky and yarn, as that setup can be used to fish for a variety of different fish. I remember DJ saying something about this with regards to "targeting" sockeye on Lake Washington, while using Kokanee gear for cutts. It would be extremely difficult for WDFW to prove your "intent".

I do view this as an overall non issue, as those that tend to practice C&R do so with much more respect given to the fish and are more mindful of regulations to begin with...

[fish vacuum]

It is difficult for enforcement to prove if someone is intentionally targeting one species over another, but it is still against the rules to target salmon that are not listed as open. Other than a talking to, the only times I've heard of people being written up for such violations is when they admitted to the officer that they were fishing for the off limits species.
I did have a warden tell me once that he was pushing to have a certain river closed to all fishing because so many people were fishing for salmon when it was only open to trout/steelhead fishing.
And there have been instances of the state making changes to allowable gear because of people targeting closed species. One summer during the fly only steelhead fishery on the NF Stilly, they banned weighted flies because so many people were targeting kings.

[BentRod]

It is difficult for enforcement to prove if someone is intentionally targeting one species over another, but it is still against the rules to target salmon that are not listed as open. Other than a talking to, the only times I've heard of people being written up for such violations is when they admitted to the officer that they were fishing for the off limits species.
I did have a warden tell me once that he was pushing to have a certain river closed to all fishing because so many people were fishing for salmon when it was only open to trout/steelhead fishing.
And there have been instances of the state making changes to allowable gear because of people targeting closed species. One summer during the fly only steelhead fishery on the NF Stilly, they banned weighted flies because so many people were targeting kings.

I do remember hearing a few years ago of WDFW enforcement harrassing fishermen on Lake Washington during the Sockeye run claiming they were targeting Sockeye. So, I believe there may be a law against intentionally targeting a closed species, but I'd still like to know where the rule is written. I've been unable to find it in the regs aside from the general closure statement. However, it may be considered as harrassing wildlife which might be a general Washington State law.

[jonb]

Corky and yarn targets so many fish because a 6-8ft leader flosses them. Imo unless your using a 4ft leader or less your not even fishing in the first place. I place that in the snagging category. Humpies and chum are nearly non existant in the green right. All bsing and rhetoric aside, if your going to the green to salmon fish you are targetting coho, because thats whats mostly in the river.
Your hatchery vs wild argument is invalid, first of all steelhead are trout and can be targetted anywhere trout are listed as open (weather hatchery or native) if salmon is listed as being open for hatchery____salmon. Than it is legal to fish for _____salmon and then release the wilds, this is because they are the same species. Once an entire species has been closed, no more fishing for that species us allowed.

[machewbacca]

"BS'ing and rhetoric"? Interesting choice of words given we are debating interpretation. If you're fishing the Green for salmon, you're well within your legal rights, provided you "release" chinook and coho, that is the language per the release. If they wanted to close rivers, they could, as they demonstrated in this release:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efis ... sp?id=1707" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note how the language differs in the rules but really they are trying to accomplish the same thing. Believe what you want, but I see a difference between two.

The argument for hatchery vs wild wasn't what you think it is... it's to demonstrate that "intent" is difficult to prove if your interpretation is the standard. Would not hold up in a court of law.

If they want you not to target species, "close" for those species. "Non-retention" is "release", which coincidentally is 50% of Catch and Release....

[jonb]

Look guy, despite whatever legal loopholes you can lawyer your way into, the green has coho right now and very very few other salmon. Fishing it right now is targetting coho wether they can prove your intent or not. You may be able to bs your way out of it, but that doesnt make it any less wrong to do.

[machewbacca]

Look dude, you no longer have my respect to hold an adult conversation. This was a clarification of rules, not a position regarding my personal fishing philosophy. It's not like the WDFW doesn't have biologists that understand what you're saying. Facts are, they can close rivers. They understand salmon runs, probably better than you. The Green is open for SALMON FISHING, release chinook and coho. Last I checked COHO and CHINOOK are species of salmon. The question was, can one C&R coho? I believe you can. Lawfully so. If you don't agree, don't do it.

I fail to see how an agency that can be so specific with the Stilly closure, can to be so ambiguous with the Green non-retention. Perhaps there's a reason for that. Would love to see that "targeting" rule...

[BentRod]

Guys, let's try not let this thread go downhill. Jonb, you're stating opinion, not fact. You can't difinitively state that there are no Chum in the Green right now. I'd actually argue that there are at least a few. However, that is also opinion based on previous years experience. I've asked for a reference to written law for which I have yet to see any legitimate reply. I'm not arguing that it might be unethical to target Coho in the Green with the current restrictions, but would it actually be illegal? Where is it written? Let's back some of these statements up with factual evidence.

[spokey9]

because all freshwater areas are closed to fishing for salmon (not just retention) unless otherwise stated in the special rules, targeting coho in the green even for c&r would be illegal now. check page 16 of the regs for clarification.

the closure notices for stilly & skagit are worded differently because there is no chum fishery on either river like there is on the green.

[primetime]

The ethics police are out. Same people saying it's unethical to target wild steelhead.

[spokey9]

its not an ethics issue. feel free to call wdfw enforcement and ask if its legal to intentionally target coho on the green for c&r fishing, see what they say.

[machewbacca]

Page 16 states all areas are closed to the HARVEST of fish. Non retention, does not equal harvest. Harvest includes retaining fish. I'm all for your personal ethics, just don't push them onto other law abiding citizens. Unless I'm shown a rule against targeting. I don't see how that interpretation is correct. Keep in mind this is a govt agency, their rules cannot contradict law. If they don't want you to target, they will close the river. If non retention is the issue, then C&R should not be an issue.

To those that claim this "targeting" rule. You guys read it yourselves, or hear it from someone?

[jonb]

I have better things to do with my life than argue on the internet, I dont fish the green anyway. Enjoy your debate, ive said my point, and im done here. Call wdfw yourself, im not doing your homework for you.

[BentRod]

I have better things to do with my life than argue on the internet, I dont fish the green anyway. Enjoy your debate, ive said my point, and im done here. Call wdfw yourself, im not doing your homework for you.

You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the participation. Tight lines.

[spokey9]

seems to me like some are looking for a loophole. if not, the best i advice i can offer is call wdfw enforce to clarify whether targeted coho c&r on the green is legal. i dont care about being right or wrong on this. i was trying to help everybody stay legal on the water. that's the last i'll post on this thread.

[machewbacca]

The purpose of these discussions is to help the people out that are looking for information and enjoy fishing. OP and I have both asked for clarification, if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to state that. You've insisted on this rule that frankly I can't find, and you disregard and disrespect the opinion of others that don't agree with you. Educating the willing is the best way to ensure highest level of compliance. I've shown the willingness to do my homework for the good of the community, if your position here is to take your ball and go home, you're well within your right. For as helpful of a fisherman that you seem to be, your self righteous smugness has been a surprise.

As for calling WDFW... reason these things are public record, is to ensure that the public can verify rules are being interpreted and enforced properly. I'm pretty confident in my reading comprehension.

For those interested, PG16 goes on to say that fishing is closed in season, unless it's open, which the Green is.

[machewbacca]

With respect Spokey, no loophole. I'm interested in the CORRECT interpretation. I personally won't be fishing the Green, just don't think it's right to call someone out that is, and doing it legally. If we know better, then our duty is to educate those that don't. Part of education, is correctly interpreting to begin with.

[BentRod]

.....i dont care about being right or wrong on this. i was trying to help everybody stay legal on the water.

Same here. Not looking for a loophole, just clarification. I pour over the regs in an attempt to stay educated and legal. The last thing I want to do is give someone misinformation based on my mis-interpretation of them.
Thanks for helping keep the thread civil.