Northwest Fishing Reports

Lately I am growing a little confused on what the regs. are for (What is considered a year round open lake and what is not?) Of course I have a copy of the regs. in my hand. Obviously some of the lakes that are listed under special rules westside lakes, etc. will show the season as April/Oct, and in other areas it will say maybe that a certain species is year round etc. But really, most lakes aren't even listed in there for any reason unless they have some strange reg.
So if a lake isn't listed at all.... does that mean it is year round?? ( I am thinking that this is so) And I know that people like to call the season opener as the "Lowland lakes season opening day" But seriously, you can't say really say what it means to considered a lowland lake.

My float tube is packed and I'm ready to hit my favorite local lake, depending on the feedback I get on this.

[quote="quadradomus"]...So if a lake isn't listed at all.... does that mean it is year round?? ...quote]

Yes

Shad eatin' grin,

Thanks, that is what I figured. Therefor, it's time to pack the car.

The WDFW could try and do a better job of identifying year round vs. seasonal lakes. It's tough sometimes because it's a real gray area for a lot of fishermen..

Hey Chris,

If you haven't done so already, (I'm guessing you have), check out page 28 of the 2007 rules pamphlet under "seasons". If the lake isn't listed in the special rules section, then it is open year-round. Bottom line is the WA State fishing rules pamphlet is not easy to understand and at times is confusing. Especially when they are trying to explain where on a river or parts of the Sound is actually open or not open. Like, "the third green can to the north of Joe Blow point." It's like, where the heck is that? It would be nice if the regs were a bit easier to comprehend. Let me know when you hit that lake we talked about earlier.

Dave

The answer to the question if found on page 28 of your pamphlet top center of the pate.

"The following rules and seasons apply unless listed otherwise in the Special Rules. For all game fish and salmon the special Rules show ALL of the fishing opportunities for each freshwater listed.

LAKES, PONDS AND RESERVOIRS are open to fishing for game fish (except DOLLY VARDEN?BULL TROUT and GRASS CARP) year round.

Sam -
Interested how you suggested how WDFW could do a better job on this question? And if you have an idea on how why don't you suggested it during the regulation rule change process.

One of the reference that I have lists nearly 8,000 "lakes" in the state - listing them all would result in a pretty large pamphlet.

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma wrote:
Sam -
Interested how you suggested how WDFW could do a better job on this question? And if you have an idea on how why don't you suggested it during the regulation rule change process.

One of the reference that I have lists nearly 8,000 "lakes" in the state - listing them all would result in a pretty large pamphlet.

Tight lines
Curt

I'm familiar with the rules and have no problem identifying which are seasonal vs. year around. I know how and where to look, so it's no problem for me. But people still have some difficulties determining whether or not a lake is year around or seasonal. It's not their fault, some just can't find it or don't know.

BTW I'm looking at page 28 of the rules pamphlet now. It's about seafood consumption, and no where on the page does it say what you claim it says. Page 26 is where people need to look.

My suggestions? It wouldn't be too tough to echo what they say on page 28 right before or after the "Westside" and "Eastside" special rules section. Some people just aren't going to be able to find it if it's in one place. Wouldn't be hard to put in a little more text so it would help those still confused with the rules.

Sam -
Thanks for the correction (I was looking at my 2006 pamphlet) though I think the relevant page in 2007 pamphlet is page 32.

Hope you pass on you idea along to the State.

Tight line
Curt

Smalma wrote:Sam -
Thanks for the correction (I was looking at my 2006 pamphlet) though I think the relevant page in 2007 pamphlet is page 32.

Hope you pass on you idea along to the State.

Tight line
Curt

No problem. Might have to shoot someone at the WDFW an email. Got any idea who it should go to or what email I should send it to?

The reason for your book saying page 32 is that I'm looking at the online copy. Maybe pages are listed a little different between the online PDF copy and the paper pamphlet...

Sam Kafelafish wrote:...
The reason for your book saying page 32 is that I'm looking at the online copy. Maybe pages are listed a little different between the online PDF copy and the paper pamphlet...

Page 32 printed on the bottom of page 26 of the online PDF image. So, you're both right.

One of the problems I have heard about, is that you may know a lake by a local name and it may be recognized by WDFW by a different name. The way I check, is to use the " Washington Atlas and Gazetteer", this has worked for me, the names there are usually the same ones listed in the regs.

Sam Kafelafish wrote:No problem. Might have to shoot someone at the WDFW

Kind of extreme, Sam.

I think that the firearm solution is way over the top in this situation.

The only thing they really do for unlisted lakes is tell you whether or not it has boat access or not.

lskiles wrote:

Sam Kafelafish wrote:No problem. Might have to shoot someone at the WDFW

Kind of extreme, Sam.

I think that the firearm solution is way over the top in this situation.

I said I might have to "shoot them an email..." implying I am going to send them one...Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Sam Kafelafish wrote:

lskiles wrote:

Sam Kafelafish wrote:No problem. Might have to shoot someone at the WDFW

Kind of extreme, Sam.

I think that the firearm solution is way over the top in this situation.

I said I might have to "shoot them an email..." implying I am going to send them one...Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding...just an attemt at humor, guess I missed the mark!

lskiles wrote:

Sam Kafelafish wrote:

lskiles wrote: Kind of extreme, Sam.

I think that the firearm solution is way over the top in this situation.

I said I might have to "shoot them an email..." implying I am going to send them one...Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding...just an attemt at humor, guess I missed the mark!

Or i missed it...lol...