WDFW enacts a discrimatory fishing rule?

[Matt]

I feel like calling this discriminatory towards handicapped people is kind of a stretch. Even in our extremely liberal climate.

It is one stretch of one river. Yes, it does set precedent, and I am sure we can expect more closures on the OP.

I'd hate to be the barer of bad news but we can't keep messing with those late component wild fish if we want to have a fighting chance at saving steelhead in our state. Sure the tribes net the hell out of them, and do far more harm than the recs ever could, but we can't in good conscience stand by and not do OUR part to protect the resource in any way we can. Lead by example.... Those rivers are some of the last truly virgin strongholds for salmonids in Washington State. We have done such a superb job in destroying our Puget Sound runs, it implores us to protect what is still good.

[Mike Carey]

thanks for your opinion Matt.

I guess I see it differently because I've spent my whole life providing health care to people with disabilities, and have had many conversations with them on how society creates/places barriers on access others take for granted.

[riverhunter]

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.

We are getting off topic a bit but great response!

[Matt]

Want to protect wild fish? Get rid of the netting rules that are so often abused on those rivers. And

This is a circular argument and one that is getting very tired. It should be clear by now that the sovereign rights of tribal agencies operate under their own agenda. The state has 0 power to coerce them, and the fed has to tread lightly in their dealings, but it is not a simple matter.

What we CAN do, however, is set our own precedent and lead by example to protect a resource that we all very strongly support and are passionate to protect. Through our conservation actions we can PUSH tribal co-managers to reevaluate their fisheries, or bare the full burden of the destruction of the resource. If they choose the latter, no amount of internet ranting will change that, but we can at least say we did our part and did things the right way.

[riverhunter]

Want to protect wild fish? Get rid of the netting rules that are so often abused on those rivers. And

This is a circular argument and one that is getting very tired. It should be clear by now that the sovereign rights of tribal agencies operate under their own agenda. The state has 0 power to coerce them, and the fed has to tread lightly in their dealings, but it is not a simple matter.

What we CAN do, however, is set our own precedent and lead by example to protect a resource that we all very strongly support and are passionate to protect. Through our conservation actions we can PUSH tribal co-managers to reevaluate their fisheries, or bare the full burden of the destruction of the resource. If they choose the latter, no amount of internet ranting will change that, but we can at least say we did our part and did things the right way.

Another great response

[pacnwsteelheader]

I don't usually feel compelled to put in my two cents on these issues, but I think this is important to discuss.

Regardless of how one feels about the new regulations regarding OP rivers, painting this as a disability-right issue seems irresponsible and unethical. Accessibility to natural resources is an important issue; however it is impossible for all recreational natural resources in this country to be accessible to people with disabilities. No officially designated wilderness area is accessible... neither are a large majority of the trails and access areas in our national parks. Should we pave access to all of these places, so they are accessible to those with disabilities? No, because the need for conservation of our natural resources has been established by law, and making wilderness areas and national parks accessible to those with disabilities would defeat these conservation goals. The same rationale can be applied to the rules regarding this very small stretch of the SF of the Hoh River.

I haven't heard any cries for access to the Reiter Ponds stretch of the sky on behalf of people with disabilities. Fishing from floating devices is prohibited, and that boulder garden certainly isn't accessible to wheelchairs. Or an part of the Wallace for that matter, where its also illegal to fish from floating devices, and there is no access accessible to those who use wheelchairs.

If you disagree with the new rules for OP rivers, that's fine. I also agree it seems silly to ban boats from this stretch of river, but still allow people to tromp around on foot and damage redds. But don't try to paint it as a civil rights issue when it clearly is not.

-Jon

On a side note, bringing up tribal nets over and over again is pointless, at least to discussions like this. This a huge legal issue way outside of the reach of the WDFW. The fact that tribes continue to relentlessly net wild steelhead and salmon doesn't mean that any restriction relating to sport fisherman is unjust or illogical. Tribal netting is a much, much bigger issue and our state's dept of fish and wildlife certainly does not have the power to go against tribal treaty rights.

[Mike Carey]

Want to protect wild fish? Get rid of the netting rules that are so often abused on those rivers. And

This is a circular argument and one that is getting very tired. It should be clear by now that the sovereign rights of tribal agencies operate under their own agenda. The state has 0 power to coerce them, and the fed has to tread lightly in their dealings, but it is not a simple matter.

What we CAN do, however, is set our own precedent and lead by example to protect a resource that we all very strongly support and are passionate to protect. Through our conservation actions we can PUSH tribal co-managers to reevaluate their fisheries, or bare the full burden of the destruction of the resource. If they choose the latter, no amount of internet ranting will change that, but we can at least say we did our part and did things the right way.

Another great response

Agree 100%. Thanks Matt!

[Mike Carey]

I don't usually feel compelled to put in my two cents on these issues, but I think this is important to discuss.

Regardless of how one feels about the new regulations regarding OP rivers, painting this as a disability-right issue seems irresponsible and unethical. Accessibility to natural resources is an important issue; however it is impossible for all recreational natural resources in this country to be accessible to people with disabilities. No officially designated wilderness area is accessible... neither are a large majority of the trails and access areas in our national parks. Should we pave access to all of these places, so they are accessible to those with disabilities? No, because the need for conservation of our natural resources has been established by law, and making wilderness areas and national parks accessible to those with disabilities would defeat these conservation goals. The same rationale can be applied to the rules regarding this very small stretch of the SF of the Hoh River.

I haven't heard any cries for access to the Reiter Ponds stretch of the sky on behalf of people with disabilities. Fishing from floating devices is prohibited, and that boulder garden certainly isn't accessible to wheelchairs. Or an part of the Wallace for that matter, where its also illegal to fish from floating devices, and there is no access accessible to those who use wheelchairs.

If you disagree with the new rules for OP rivers, that's fine. I also agree it seems silly to ban boats from this stretch of river, but still allow people to tromp around on foot and damage redds. But don't try to paint it as a civil rights issue when it clearly is not.

-Jon

On a side note, bringing up tribal nets over and over again is pointless, at least to discussions like this. This a huge legal issue way outside of the reach of the WDFW. The fact that tribes continue to relentlessly net wild steelhead and salmon doesn't mean that any restriction relating to sport fisherman is unjust or illogical. Tribal netting is a much, much bigger issue and our state's dept of fish and wildlife certainly does not have the power to go against tribal treaty rights.

I couldn't disagree more. Never did I suggest adding access that isn't already there. That's you trying to change the focus of the new regs, i.e., throwing out a red herring. Using Reiter Pond as an example is another RED HERRING The rule change as enacted CHANGES what had prior been a handicap accessible fishery into a fishery only accessible by people WITHOUT disabilities. I've had comments that the word "discrimination" is inaccurate, however, I believe it falls under "institutional discrimination".

I don't know your level of ability, but try to put yourself in the shoes of a person who prior to this rule change had been able to float the river with a guide, from a boat, and is now told "no dice", but hey, if you can get out of that boat and fish from shore, like all the NON-HANDICAPPED anglers, then you too can fish. Oh, you can't get out of the boat and use your wheelchair? Gee, that's too bad. I guess your a second class citizen/angler then, all because of this new rule the GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY WDFW ENACTED.

So how's that feel to you now? Do you feel equal in your rights to your fellow anglers that don't have handicaps?

I am sincerely dismayed that abled-bodied anglers can't see this issue. I'm not suggesting the whole Option 4 be rescinded. It was picked by majority and that's fine. But in a free society it's incumbent on the majority to ensure that those with little voice be protected. A simple modification of the rule to allow handicapped anglers to fish from an anchored but in locations shore anglers are able to fish is what I'm suggesting. Is that so onerous for anglers that have healthy legs and the ability to walk up and down stream beds?

Are we really that callous?

[pacnwsteelheader]

My goal was to post a civil, logical response to this issue, even though I'm a "lurker" in this forum (i.e. I read pretty frequently but don't post). I'll try to keep this up, without making personal attacks, because I respect different opinions and would like some real, logical discussion about these issues.

I don't think the example of Reiter Ponds is a "red herring." At some point in history, people with disabilities were allowed to fish this stretch of river by boat (objectively the only productive stretch on the whole sky) and now they are not. That rule changed because bank anglers didn't think it was fair to have dudes anchoring up in their boats and fishing the best parts of the river. Changes happen all the time. The only evidence I see for Reiter being a "red herring" is that the change in policy happened in the past, instead of at this very moment in history. As I see it, the logic is consistent. If people with disabilities should be able to fish the SF of the Hoh by boat, they should also be able to fish Reiter by boat. If this logic is wrong, I'd love to hear some rationale as to why.

I would also like to hear any argument as to why boat access to this one part of the SF of the Hoh is different than than access to the majority of our national parks and wilderness. The fact that it is a new change isn't a valid reason; there are many wilderness areas that are new (instated in the last decade) and nobody is too upset about access to these areas for people with disabilities. If there is a difference in logic, please tell me why.

Also, the "how's that feel to you know?" comments seem inappropriately hostile to a fairly benign post that wasn't attacking anyone directly. I don't personally know how it feels to have a disability, period. This is true. But like you Mike, I have spent my life trying to make society accessible for those with disabilities- in my case as a public school teacher to those with severe developmental disabilities. But that fact doesn't matter, because the logic and rationale behind my argument is sound regardless of whatever background I have or don't have, advocating for those with disabilities.

-Jon

For the record, I am perfectly fine with an amendment to the new rules that would allow those with disabilities to fish this part of the SF of the Hoh with a boat, as long as this stretch of river is left open to bank anglers. My issue is with people trying to claim that this is a disability rights issue because they are upset about other things (bait ban, no retention of wild steel, etc.). It is not a disability rights issue. I would love to see anyone find a lawyer that actually thinks that they could win such a case. And frankly I would like to see this part of the SF of the Hoh closed completely to all anglers, if steel and salmon are actually spawning there. It just makes sense to protect the resource. There are miles of river available to all anglers to catch fish, they don't need to do it on redds, whether its from a boat or from the bank.

[Bodofish]

Thanks Mike! Again, I'm with you 100%. While I don't have my parking pass yet, with out the boats I would not be able to go fishing. This is not the first time this sort of discrimination has been levied or pushed. Several "Green" groups, clubs, "what have you's", have been pushing to close all forest service fire roads to all but foot traffic. It makes our States, public lands inaccessible to a segment of our population. Again, bad juju.
On top of the discrimination, no boats is very counter productive to protecting spawning grounds. A boat floating down stream is much less likely to disrupt any redds than a fly fisherman walking all over the wade-able area of a river. That just happens to be the area the Steelhead and Salmon build their redds. So if anyone try's to claim its a conservation measure, it's not, it's and exclusivity measure.

[Mike Carey]

-Jon,

Sorry if I came off sounding hostile. I'll admit the issue gets me pretty upset. I understand your points. I want to reiterate, I'm not using this concern as a way of circumventing or overturning the new rule change. I am fine with going with the majority decision. I am only interested in protecting those that are going to lose accessibility while others continue to enjoy it, through no fault of their own, and solely caused by a governmental authority's rule change.

I'm not familiar with the old Reiter location rule you mentioned (perhaps before my time moving here). I would only say that just because WDFW got it wrong (IMO) that time doesn't mean it should be used as a precedence, which is what you're suggesting. And, speaking of precedence, let's consider that if banning fishing from a boat proves to be a significant factor in wild fish recovery WDFW could then easily expand this ban to more waters even further reducing fishing access for disabled persons. Why wouldn't they if they thought it was helpful? Consider the impact on a disabled person if that one six mile stretch of river turned into six different rivers with 10-15 mile stretches of water. It could easily happen in the current activist environment.

And to clarify, I'm not suggesting anglers with disabilities be allowed to anchor mid river and fish. That would be equally unfair to able-bodied anglers. I'm recommending that anglers with disabilities (which would be determined by some established threshold, such as a disability parking sign) be allowed to fish in a boat that has been beached in areas that other non-handicapped anglers are able to get out and fish from.

You may object to seeing it as a civil rights issue, perhaps you can see my concerns that it can erode disabled anglers access, regardless of how we may term it.

BTW, my son is also a teacher in the same area, students with learning disabilities. I salute your choice of careers and dedication.

[fish vacuum]

I'm recommending that anglers with disabilities (which would be determined by some established threshold, such as a disability parking sign) be allowed to fish in a boat that has been beached in areas that other non-handicapped anglers are able to get out and fish from.

That seems like a fair rule change that would accommodate all. We have accommodations for disabled people in fly fishing only waters, so I would think that an adjustment to this rule would be easy.
I really do support these new rules. We don't have a right to catch every single fish. And with the way the OP rivers are getting pounded I think it makes sense to back off on where and how people can fish.

[jonb]

I say they close all rivers for salmon and steelhead completely, during that time we should impliment brood stock programs and stock small amounts of salmon fry, in the hopes that said salmon fry will recolonize the river its in. They should also restore/clean up natural habitat along the river, and remove all private residenses from within 100ft of the river and rezone that area as a wildlife sanctuary. Commercial fisheries for salmon need to end along with native netting. All of it needs to happen. The rivers need to be a sanctuary if you TRUELY want to protect salmon. Cut off access to ALL angling not just from a boat on a 6 mile stretch of river. Continuing to plunder salmon, in the state the runs are in, will result in extinction.
As for me, im moving to bc canada in a month or 2, where the salmon runs arent in as bad of shape as here. Thats how ill do my part to protect washington salmon and steelhead, ill stop fishing for them completely.

[Teenangler07nwest]

I say they close all rivers for salmon and steelhead completely, during that time we should impliment brood stock programs and stock small amounts of salmon fry, in the hopes that said salmon fry will recolonize the river its in. They should also restore/clean up natural habitat along the river, and remove all private residenses from within 100ft of the river and rezone that area as a wildlife sanctuary. Commercial fisheries for salmon need to end along with native netting. All of it needs to happen. The rivers need to be a sanctuary if you TRUELY want to protect salmon. Cut off access to ALL angling not just from a boat on a 6 mile stretch of river. Continuing to plunder salmon, in the state the runs are in, will result in extinction.
As for me, im moving to bc canada in a month or 2, where the salmon runs arent in as bad of shape as here. Thats how ill do my part to protect washington salmon and steelhead, ill stop fishing for them completely.

I agree completely, if we just keep closing rivers like this every fall and winter in emergency situations it's going to make more confusion and angry anglers. As humans our job is to conserve and take care of our environment now as nice as it would be to tear down every dam on the Columbia and reduce global warming to increase snow pack it's not possible in the next 20years. We need a short term solution to the problems with king salmon on the duwamish we need strong wild runs on the snohomish river systems we need to find an alternative too chambers creek steelhead genes in all our rivers. We need too look towards the future and as a teenager myself addicted to salmon and steelhead fishing I am scared to see what might our salmon and steelhead returns look like by the time I'm an adult. Will I even be able to take my own kids fishing, no I know it might not be that bad but something needs to change. Now to the point, closing a section of river or rivers isn't sufficient. As much of a hassle this will be if we were to close all salmon and steelhead rivers in Washington and integrate steelhead broodstock programs like Oregon has successfully done and let wild salmon runs be strengthened. Clean up work on some rivers has started but we need to be doing that full force to protect these amazing fish. Ok I am done ranting but honestly something big needs to be done in the next 10 years we need to look towards the future and spend the little money the wdfw gets wisely because Washington salmon and steelhead are on a crash course with the 21st century and the odds are not in they're favor.
Tight lines and dry waders
Jakob the teenage angler not a video gamer

[goodtimesfishing]

I love how people say "its only a 6 mile stretch of river......hardly discriminatory". I can just see McDonalds, or safeway or any other company for that matter, saying" judge, it is only one store without handicap accessible bathroom how is that discrimitory?"
Guess what the judge is going to say and do! ouch! would not want to be that company!

Have some respect for the disabled! Accommodations are required by law!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pacnwsteelheader]

Fishing

No worries Mike, I totally understand. Our sportfishing community is dealing with a lot of tough issues right now and we all tend to get heated about things we care a lot about.

Not to make this go on forever, but a few ideas- first, no problems with your recommendation that anglers with disabilities be able to fish from boats beached on this stretch of river. I don't think anybody would oppose that and I hope such an amendment would be made.

Reiter might have been a poor example... my point was that at some point in history, that stretch was open to boaters, and then a change was made, a hatchery was created and it was decided that boat anglers (and therefore those with limited mobility) couldn't fish it. Changes to policies are made all the time, and should continue to be made as necessary. Sometimes, changes related to the conservation of a resource may limit access to the resource. This is just the nature of the whole thing.

Here is a better example: in Canyonlands National Park in Utah, a whole drainage called Salt Creek with many amazing arches and ruins, used to be open to jeeps and off road vehicles (and people with limited or no mobility). It was closed and turned into a wilderness because of the level of damage the native american ruins and natural resources were taking as a result of the traffic. Now its only accessible to hikers- i.e. fit, able bodied people. I don't think most people would view this as discriminatory, but as a necessary decision made to protect an important and finite resource.

In this situation, I don't see why anglers with disabilities shouldn't be able to fish from boats on this stretch of river. My main argument is broader... I'm trying to say that banning access that previously existed isn't inherently discriminatory, and may be necessary to conserve a given resource (native steelhead, wilderness, cultural resources, etc.) if the majority decides so. That may sound harsh, but I think its a reality as well as a legal precedent that has been set countless times in recent history.

Lastly, I realize your concern with this issue is genuine. But I worry about others using it inappropriately, and in the end, doing harm to our community's credibility. My hope is that we can all work through these issues related to wild steelhead rationally and advocate for our sport fishing. And on that note, (not directed towards anyone particularly), I've heard a lot of inflammatory and hateful speech from folks on the steelie rivers recently, directed towards fly fisherman, native americans, etc. I hope we all think about how these sorts of statements reflect on our community.

Cheers and tight lines to all, hope the rivers aren't blowin out again as I write...

-Jon

[Mike Carey]

Thanks Jon. I appreciate your thoughtful response and see your point of view. Best of luck on the rivers.

[Bodofish]

If the goal for this rule change is to protect the Steelhead, banning boats is not the way to do it.
If this rule change was truly to protect the Steelhead, the section of river would be closed to everyone.

Walking in the river and disrupting the redds is what damages the eggs and habitat, not drifting by in the boat.

This rule change was recommended, submitted and pushed through by a Spey club. Sorry can't remember the name off the top but I will find it. The only thing it accomplishes is exclusivity.

[fear_no_fish]

We don't have a right to catch every single fish. And with the way the OP rivers are getting pounded I think it makes sense to back off on where and how people can fish.

This is exactly why these rules are being added. Its either limit angler encounters on wild fish or close it down. Not because some fly guys want their own water.

[fish vacuum]

Bill Herzog has promoted something like this to counter the increase in angling pressure. Basically, eliminate fishing from boats so that the fish might have a few pools where they won't get hooked. I believe in CnR fisheries, but the late winter boat parades on the OP rivers need to have some restrictions so every fish in the river isn't getting pounded over and over again.