Recent content by ChrisC

Curt, thanks for guiding us to this dataset. I'm curious on rivers that have don't having any monitoring data but are closed to all fishing - what is the basis to keeping them closed if there's no monitoring data? Not to say that they should be reopened but I'm curious if a river is once closed...

I plan on casting practice with a piece of yarn at all of the rivers I used to fish. Since I'm retired, I have all of the time in the world to contest any potential citation.

I've wondered about the same but after thinking about it further, I think if we simply have a piece of yarn at the end of the leader, then it's "casting practice" and I find it hard for any citation to stick.

I'm all for this. Since I have decided to not renew my license for this year, can I be cited for casting and swinging/hitching a hookless fly?

Given how WDFW is failing to give consideration to sport anglers, maybe it would make sense to revisit the proposal back in 2010 to merge the agency into the Department of Natural Resources. I think the rationale for the proposal was to achieve cost savings by reducing some of the bureaucracy...

It's (CA's fishing regulations) been that way for at least 3 decades and I highly doubt anything is going to change that as there are several river systems that have rebounded despite the management regime they have.

If that’s the case why was there no monitoring to the same degree when the Skagit/Sauk was open back in the 90s and before? Ditto for other rivers like the Skykomish when escapement was met? And why isn’t there a similar layer of monitoring overhead on the Columbia tributaries today?

Could you explain why north Coast steelhead of Northern California aren’t subject to the same monitoring requirements even though they are also ESA listed? Particularly the Middle Fork Eel summer steelhead and other rivers with very distinct subspecies where fishing is still allowed on a limited...

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/a-look-at-washington-lawmakers-budget-proposals-for-wdfw/

The program is poorly designed and will not scale if other rivers have returning runs at a level to resume C&R fishing. Hypothetically if this is what WDFW believes necessary to enable C&R fishing, it would mean asking legislators to approve incremental funding for the Skykomish Spring C&R...

We are in this current situation because WDFW and the Feds agreed on a management and monitoring plan that is uniquely inefficient and costly to implement. I am not aware of any other state with ESA listed fish (that still allows fishing) that does it this way. California is the best example...

I know I'm beating a dead horse but I would like to see WDFW provide substantive evidence on how they have a more effective strategy of closing rivers completely than California's Dept of Fish and Game strategy of still allowing fishing for other species.

… Which is to actually encourage and teach bank anglers to catch more fish

The one single time I was checked in over the past twenty years (including several years in which I fished 50-100 days) was at a WDFW access site (takeout on the Snoqualmie when the Snoqualmie still had a decent winter season).

That’s the situation i understand for the Methow River. One single enforcement officer covering a very large area, making it nearly impossible to enforce the boundary areas well.