Two Pole Fishing Permit

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Josh Potter on August 11, 2009 at 12:12pm

Jon,

A limit of small mouth is a limit of small mouth. I don't understand how the second rod changes the limit. It is possible that the second rod could make it easier to attain a limit but it doesn't change the limit. I don't necessarily agree that more rods will equate to higher revenue but I do agree that WDFW does and always has been in the business of managing people rather than resources. If 2 rods ends up with a higher harvest than is sustainable then adjust the harvest and let the participant participate however they choose. As a conservative minded thinker I hate being told what to do and don't believe that more rules necessarily equate to better results.

I am very active on the hunting side of things and have witnessed this hunter management first hand. Once a harvest quota has been set it should be allowed to happen but they set harvest quotas and then attempt to make that quota unattainable. Why not just be honest about the quota and let the chips fall where they may....within reason.

Jon Sessler said:

I totally disagree.

The resource is harmed by "over taking" and loss of habitat. The state does little to nothing on either of these fronts. Imagine the meat fishermen that we see from time to time with multiple rods, and no mechanism in place to limit the taking. If you don't agree, spend some time on the Yakima River next spring.........

The idea of more revenue equals better fishing is preposterous. I don't know for sure, but I would bet that revenue is at an all time high, the application of this revenue however has been shifted away from the resources that those revenues are intended for.

Marc Marcantonio said:

You wouldn't believe how difficult this was to get passed, and how long it took. I officially proposed the two pole rule ten years ago, and each year thereafter as I served on the Inland Fish Policy Advisory Group representing bass anglers. Every year it was shot down because the WDFW didn't want to increase the chances of angler's catching fish. They especially didn't want to approve the rule because they didn't want salmon anglers to use two poles. The Inland Fish Policy Advisory Group finally got the WDFW to consider the rule by agreeing to limit it to waters without salmonids.

As I pointed out to the WDFW, their mission should be to "Improve Recreational Fishing Opportunity". They don't agree that this is their job. Instead they have many rules that specifically limit recreational opportunity. This is counterproductive to fish and wildlife popluations in that biologists are mainly funded from license sales, and by Sport Fishing Recreation Act excise taxes paid by manufacturers of products used by fishing and hunting enthusiasts. These funds are rebated to the state based upon the number of licenses they sell. The more licenses WA sells, the more federal excise tax funds get sent to fund biologists.

The biologists should be limiting harvest of sportfish by bag limits, not by social engineering. Rules that limit "opportunity" such as limiting anglers to a single pole, are in place simply to control the behavior of anglers. In other words, the idea is to make it hard to catch a fish so nobody can hurt the population. This is so wrong! This is a big reason for people to NOT go fishing, instead of buying licenses, tackle, food, etc. to enjoy a day outdoors. It gets too expensive to go fishing if you don't have a good chance of being successful. A two pole rule makes sense to improve recreational opportunity.

Finally, the year I step down from participating in the Inland Fish Policy Advisory Group, they decide to pass my (and others) proposal.

I believe it will produce more license sales, which means more revenue to support sport fishing in WA.

Better late than never.

ciao,
Marc
P.S. As Mark said above, bass tourneys generally state only one rod can be used; however walleye tourney's may be different!

Permalink Reply by BigBass Dez on August 11, 2009 at 12:57pm

Thanks for the confirming this Gary !! you da man !

Gary Stiles said:

Jordon,
Thanks for the question.
Northwest Bass has no intention of changing it's "single rod per angler" rule. As always, feel free to call me with questions or additional considerations.
Take good care
Gary

Permalink Reply by Tim Bartle on August 11, 2009 at 1:04pm

A 2nd rod increases your chances at harvesting a limit over a given period of time. I assume the existing harvest limits were determined by taking into account species population dynamics, number of anglers and angling success (harvested fish per angling hour). I expect the 2nd rod to increase the overall harvest and it will impact smaller lakes the most. When I moved to WA I was surprised to find that there is no daily limit for panfish. I found a nice population of crappies in a small King County lake (less than 50 acres) and I believe that between a friend from AL and myself that we could have significantly damaged that crappie fishery if we decided to keep every single fish over a couple of months. I was releasing the crappies at the time and after seeing what other anglers were harvesting I was hesitant to even answer any questions about how I was catching the fish.

It's just my 2 cents but I'm afraid that the 2nd rod is only going to hurt the warmwater fisheries on smaller lakes. However, I'm sure it will be wonderful for those chasing bathtub trout.

Permalink Reply by Jake Anderson on August 11, 2009 at 1:34pm

I'm not sure I can agree with the theory that more people will buy licenses if they get to use two poles.

If you can't figure out how to catch fish with one pole.....how are you magically going to get white hot with two poles?....I know for a fact that fishing with two poles would not increase my luck. I am challenged as is with only one in my hands. I believe it would create a situation where I am now making bad presentations with two rods, vs. 1 average to good presentation with 1 rod.

In my mind, fisherman knowledge and execution, and fish populations are the only variables that will increase success. It seems having two poles only helps people that are fishing with Night crawlers. Those are the same folks generally that dont put anything back in the water.....

Permalink Reply by Zackery Shaff on August 11, 2009 at 2:32pm

Clearly, the new rule isn't intended for us Bass fisherman. Although it could be useful at times for us, possibly while prefishing, it is for the sit down and wait or the trolling type fisheries, where more rods can simply mean more fish. This is how most kids learn to fish, and having sucess then is important to the industry. My opinion on this matter is somewhere between Jon and Mark's. I agree that this could be very big for recreational fishing, and raising money, but I see the obvious problem that comes along with it: meat fisherman. I'll admit, I'll keep enough walleye for a good meal or two, an occasional trout, etc, but since I have been on the Yak in the summer I know what goes on there. Most people there keep ANYTHING they catch, including spring run salmon, and as many smallmouth as they can carry. I have also never seen any rule enforcement on the Yak. Unless the extra money earned from selling more licenses is poured into enforcement, this rule could be dangerous.

Permalink Reply by Marc Marcantonio on August 11, 2009 at 3:07pm

I'm sure this means different things to different people, but think about this thoroughly and you may change your mind how you feel about this. I grew up on the east coast where in most places there are no restrictions on the quantity of tackle you use, only on the amount of fish you can retain.

I don't buy the meat fishermen arguments since by your own admissions, these guys don't follow rules or care about the resource, so how does a two-pole limit change anything with meat fishermen? If the meat fishermen on the Yakima "keep ANYTHING they catch" and there is no rule enforcement, then do you think that maybe the problem is the latter...no rule enforcement?

How many of you have taken kids out fishing (I do on a regular basis) when you go bass fishing. Bass fishing can be boring and tough on inexperienced anglers. Think about how nice it would be to take a kid bass fishing but at the same time troll or drag some bait or a lure for trout or panfish or walleye so the kids have something to get excited about! That is exactly how I got my kids interested in fishing in other states.

The financial picture is not that hard to understand...as I said in my initial post manufacturer's (like me with QuickDrops) pay a 10% Federal Excise Tax on every single product I sell. This happens with boats, rods, reels, lures, line, hooks, you get the idea. That equates to a lot of Federal Excise Tax money aka Wallop-Breaux or Sport Fishing Restoration Act money. The Feds divie it up to the states by the number of licenses they sell. If WA sells twice as many licenses as Oregon, then WA gets twice as much Federal Excise Tax. This money does go to improving fisheries, as it is earmarked and audited and must be spent for the people who pay the tax. By selling a 2nd rod license, WA will be selling more licenses.

Also, if people are more successful at catching fish, they tend to buy licenses in the future...again more license sales. Look back at the license sale history in WA...in years of good salmon harvest, license sales increase the next year.

Also, you spend to try fishing as a new activity, and you don't catch squat. Do you think you will buy tackle, or other items that produces Federal Excise Tax funds to WA? Do you think you will buy another license?

I'm surprised anyone would want the WDFW to make rules that are not based upon science (such as controlling harvest by dictating use of only one rod, or not allowing boats with outboards on electric only lakes instead of simply allowing the boater to use his electric only and tilt the outboard out of the water, etc.). Limiting Recreational opportunity by dictating social behavior without considering science is an abuse of authority in my opinion, and a slippery slope to allow.

I will add more but have to run.

ciao,
Marc

Permalink Reply by Josh Potter on August 11, 2009 at 3:52pm

My friends in the 208 area code have reminded me that Idaho has had a 2 rod permit system forever and everyone in that state is a fish killer. There fisheries seem to be doing just fine as a lot of us in Eastern Washington fish those waters frequently and often times they are better fisheries.

I think some of us may be reacting before we think through this deal.

Permalink Reply by Jake Anderson on August 11, 2009 at 4:21pm

Josh:

I hope your not referring to Brownlee reservoir, where all the fish there are stunted due to massive overharvesting of crappie, bass, and catfish. To suggest Idaho has better fisheries for bass is suggesting that Banks lake is a better fishery than say Wallula, or Moses/Potholes. That statement may be true if numbers is your game.

Marc makes great points in theory. I'm not educated enough to completely disagree, or agree....I'm just not sold that your casual anglers are going to want to shell out the extra money for the permit in the first place, let alone will it make a profound impact if they do.

I don't think the negative aspects will have much impact either though.....so why not give it a shot and see what happens?

I do know that the walleye/Salmon guys will be pretty stoked about it, and maybe that would get a bunch of Oregon guys to buy Washington licenses when fishing the columbia for meat.

Josh Potter said:

My friends in the 208 area code have reminded me that Idaho has had a 2 rod permit system forever and everyone in that state is a fish killer. There fisheries seem to be doing just fine as a lot of us in Eastern Washington fish those waters frequently and often times they are better fisheries.

I think some of us may be reacting before we think through this deal.

Permalink Reply by Josh Potter on August 11, 2009 at 5:18pm

Snaker,

With all due respect (Ricky Bobbie TM) you can't say you aren't educated on the subject and then make a definitive statement about Brownlee like you did. I have no idea what the issue is at Brownlee as I have never been there. However, I do fish Cda quite a bit and it is awesome and way closer to a massive 2 rod (please stop referring to them as poles) fish killing population than Brownlee. Is it possible that the fish in said reservoir are small because of something other than over harvest? I certainly don't think that over harvest is the issue at Banks or they wouldn't have raised the limit from 5 to 10 yet it is full of rats. I also don't htink you can pre-determine what will sell and what won't until you have made it available. It is very popular in Idaho amongst certain user groups.

I think it is one of those things that appears to have some possible up side and little downside and if it turns out to be the wrong idea I am confident that the fun police will put an end to it. We all think we are biologists (myself included) but very few of us are. That being said in my work with big game biologists I have found that you can rarely find 2 biologists with the same opinion either. As much as we would all like to believe that somehow the true answers are found in scientific data....that data can be interpruted in more than a few ways and used to argue many opposite opinions.

The Snake said:

Josh:

I hope your not referring to Brownlee reservoir, where all the fish there are stunted due to massive overharvesting of crappie, bass, and catfish. To suggest Idaho has better fisheries for bass is suggesting that Banks lake is a better fishery than say Wallula, or Moses/Potholes. That statement may be true if numbers is your game.

Marc makes great points in theory. I'm not educated enough to completely disagree, or agree....I'm just not sold that your casual anglers are going to want to shell out the extra money for the permit in the first place, let alone will it make a profound impact if they do.

I don't think the negative aspects will have much impact either though.....so why not give it a shot and see what happens?

I do know that the walleye/Salmon guys will be pretty stoked about it, and maybe that would get a bunch of Oregon guys to buy Washington licenses when fishing the columbia for meat.

Josh Potter said:

My friends in the 208 area code have reminded me that Idaho has had a 2 rod permit system forever and everyone in that state is a fish killer. There fisheries seem to be doing just fine as a lot of us in Eastern Washington fish those waters frequently and often times they are better fisheries.

I think some of us may be reacting before we think through this deal.

Permalink Reply by Jake Anderson on August 11, 2009 at 6:10pm

JP:

I agree with everything you just said with 2 exceptions:

1. That CDA is a bigger meat factory than Brownlee. Just trust me on this one. Were talking people bringing home 1,000 fish in 3 days of fishing. Burning up electric knives in a sitting. Its actually pretty impressive just watching how efficient they are at the cleaning stations at Hewitt park, and Woodhead at Brownlee Reservoir. Granted you are correct in that water levels also play a part in recruitment which has aided in stunting.

2. i will call it a Pole if i want. Tomatoe, Tamata, Potatoe, Patata.Lets call the whole thing off.



Josh Potter said:

Snaker,

With all due respect (Ricky Bobbie TM) you can't say you aren't educated on the subject and then make a definitive statement about Brownlee like you did. I have no idea what the issue is at Brownlee as I have never been there. However, I do fish Cda quite a bit and it is awesome and way closer to a massive 2 rod (please stop referring to them as poles) fish killing population than Brownlee. Is it possible that the fish in said reservoir are small because of something other than over harvest? I certainly don't think that over harvest is the issue at Banks or they wouldn't have raised the limit from 5 to 10 yet it is full of rats. I also don't htink you can pre-determine what will sell and what won't until you have made it available. It is very popular in Idaho amongst certain user groups.

I think it is one of those things that appears to have some possible up side and little downside and if it turns out to be the wrong idea I am confident that the fun police will put an end to it. We all think we are biologists (myself included) but very few of us are. That being said in my work with big game biologists I have found that you can rarely find 2 biologists with the same opinion either. As much as we would all like to believe that somehow the true answers are found in scientific data....that data can be interpruted in more than a few ways and used to argue many opposite opinions.

The Snake said:

Josh:

I hope your not referring to Brownlee reservoir, where all the fish there are stunted due to massive overharvesting of crappie, bass, and catfish. To suggest Idaho has better fisheries for bass is suggesting that Banks lake is a better fishery than say Wallula, or Moses/Potholes. That statement may be true if numbers is your game.

Marc makes great points in theory. I'm not educated enough to completely disagree, or agree....I'm just not sold that your casual anglers are going to want to shell out the extra money for the permit in the first place, let alone will it make a profound impact if they do.

I don't think the negative aspects will have much impact either though.....so why not give it a shot and see what happens?

I do know that the walleye/Salmon guys will be pretty stoked about it, and maybe that would get a bunch of Oregon guys to buy Washington licenses when fishing the columbia for meat.

Josh Potter said:

My friends in the 208 area code have reminded me that Idaho has had a 2 rod permit system forever and everyone in that state is a fish killer. There fisheries seem to be doing just fine as a lot of us in Eastern Washington fish those waters frequently and often times they are better fisheries.

I think some of us may be reacting before we think through this deal.

Permalink Reply by Shawn O'Connell on August 11, 2009 at 6:32pm

When I was a kid in Montana we were allowed multiple "rods" and in certain areas a number of handlines (not the popcan style!). The fisheries were all still fantastic and it usually just means a faster limit.

I'm certain that the approval of this was not scientific. I don't believe they had any scientific pressure to do something like this. I would definitely "guess" that this was done to boost license sales as a financial gain is the only one that makes sense.

Look at the bright side, we can finally justify all of the rods we keep buying. Now we need double what we had before!

Permalink Reply by Josh Potter on August 11, 2009 at 8:13pm

Snake,

You are a smart guy with a funny sense of humor but here is the deal with the poles.
Poles are from Eastern Europe and have been the brunt of too many jokes to even mention.
A rod is an instrumnet used as an aide to catch fish. Are we clear?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page