Do you support License for smelt and crawdads??

[Jake Dogfish]

IMHO you shouldn't have to have a license to fish for invasive species...

Like bass and walleye?

You could say that even though they're not considered "invasive", but yeah them too, honestly.
I'd catch them by the dozens in the mid Columbia all the time so they're plentiful.
If WDFW wants to promote salmon recovery then i see no reason for them to put fishing for non-native species, that do in fact prey on salmon smolt, behind a paywall.

If your fishing with a pole you should have a license and provide it to a gamey.  Illegal immigrants should no be able to say they are fishing for invasive species and tell the officers to buzz off.
The only issue with the new rules would be bowhunters for carp as previously stated.   

[Special T]

IMHO you shouldn't have to have a license to fish for invasive species...

Like bass and walleye?

You could say that even though they're not considered "invasive", but yeah them too, honestly.
I'd catch them by the dozens in the mid Columbia all the time so they're plentiful.
If WDFW wants to promote salmon recovery then i see no reason for them to put fishing for non-native species, that do in fact prey on salmon smolt, behind a paywall.

If your fishing with a pole you should have a license and provide it to a gamey.  Illegal immigrants should no be able to say they are fishing for invasive species and tell the officers to buzz off.
The only issue with the new rules would be bowhunters for carp as previously stated.

I personally think this is the main reason forth rule change.  I dont know but id bet this is an enforcement issue

[fireweed]

I don't really have a dog in the fight but I wouldn't mind them being added to a regular license without additional charge. It would mean more people getting licenses and paying into the WDFW.

  It looks like they want to remove the "exceptions" for smelt, carp and crayfish.  There was a big brush up over this in SW Washington years ago when they wanted to require a license for smelt.  Politicians got involved and screamed.  Now, with so many out-of-area abusers of the single day smelt season, I'm for making people get a fishing license--most people have one already.  Crayfish I'd say no.

[Stein]

I agree, fishing for any fish, yes.  Crayfish, no.  Are they going to go ticket all the kids at lakes and streams picking them up all summer even if they don't keep them?

[bigtex]

I agree, fishing for any fish, yes.  Crayfish, no.  Are they going to go ticket all the kids at lakes and streams picking them up all summer even if they don't keep them?

Kids don't need fishing licenses

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[fireweed]

I agree, fishing for any fish, yes.  Crayfish, no.  Are they going to go ticket all the kids at lakes and streams picking them up all summer even if they don't keep them?

Kids don't need fishing licenses

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

  But at a certain age they do.  And then they have to prove their age.  Leave crawdads--the absolute key to a happy, healthy rural childhood experience, alone!  It's probably illegal for kids to "play" with them anyway on some technical grounds.

[Bullkllr]

I'd support including them under the standard license. You need a license for all other forage fish and crustaceans that I'm aware of. The exceptions for smelt and crawdads seems pointless and must certainly create enforcement issues. I'd throw rod/reel angling for carp in there too.

[bigtex]

I'd support including them under the standard license. You need a license for all other forage fish and crustaceans that I'm aware of. The exceptions for smelt and crawdads seems pointless and must certainly create enforcement issues. I'd throw rod/reel angling for carp in there too.

That's what the proposal is. This is not creating a special license.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[duckmen1]

I'd support including them under the standard license. You need a license for all other forage fish and crustaceans that I'm aware of. The exceptions for smelt and crawdads seems pointless and must certainly create enforcement issues. I'd throw rod/reel angling for carp in there too.

That's what the proposal is. This is not creating a special license.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Yeah as far as rod reel angling for carp needed it under your same license why not. Just add carp into the fine print of species on a license. No harm. And of course they can manage the same as our management on walleye, bass, and catfish on our rivers with no management at all. No size restrictions and no limits and wreck our fisheries. Only with carp it won't matter as they are not going anywhere no matter how many get taken. Its one species that you just can't get rid of.

[Stein]

I agree, fishing for any fish, yes.  Crayfish, no.  Are they going to go ticket all the kids at lakes and streams picking them up all summer even if they don't keep them?

Kids don't need fishing licenses

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Good point.  Hopefully they aren't thinking about crayfish punch cards.

[Angry Perch]

IMHO you shouldn't have to have a license to fish for invasive species...

Like bass and walleye?

You could say that even though they're not considered "invasive", but yeah them too, honestly.
I'd catch them by the dozens in the mid Columbia all the time so they're plentiful.
If WDFW wants to promote salmon recovery then i see no reason for them to put fishing for non-native species, that do in fact prey on salmon smolt, behind a paywall.

If your fishing with a pole you should have a license and provide it to a gamey.  Illegal immigrants should no be able to say they are fishing for invasive species and tell the officers to buzz off.
The only issue with the new rules would be bowhunters for carp as previously stated.

This. If I'm on at Potholes dragging around a Lindy Rig and a worm, am I fishing for carp? Perch? Walleyes? Bass?

[Jamieb]

Smelt should require a license, (be covered under a freshwater license.) Crawdads no.

[Special T]

I'd support including them under the standard license. You need a license for all other forage fish and crustaceans that I'm aware of. The exceptions for smelt and crawdads seems pointless and must certainly create enforcement issues. I'd throw rod/reel angling for carp in there too.

That's what the proposal is. This is not creating a special license.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

It appears that this is some things that the WDFW may request for legislation. Do you have any insight o the Carp Bowfishing issue?

[NRA4LIFE]

IMHO you shouldn't have to have a license to fish for invasive species...

Like bass and walleye?

You could say that even though they're not considered "invasive", but yeah them too, honestly.
I'd catch them by the dozens in the mid Columbia all the time so they're plentiful.
If WDFW wants to promote salmon recovery then i see no reason for them to put fishing for non-native species, that do in fact prey on salmon smolt, behind a paywall.

If your fishing with a pole you should have a license and provide it to a gamey.  Illegal immigrants should no be able to say they are fishing for invasive species and tell the officers to buzz off.
The only issue with the new rules would be bowhunters for carp as previously stated.

This. If I'm on at Potholes dragging around a Lindy Rig and a worm, am I fishing for carp? Perch? Walleyes? Bass?

A Lindy Rig.  That's funny.  If I didn't know already, I could narrow down your origin to probably 2 states.

[Gobble Doc]

Could only support more regulation only if WDFW is going to actively enforce it. Otherwise it's purely red tape. If the added license revenue could go to hire an enforcement officer I could support just about anything. Especially if they just took your gear on the spot if anyone is blatantly abusing the resource.