Do you support License for smelt and crawdads??

[Ridgeratt]

Having not dip smelt for many years just how hard would it be to require a fishing license and then come up with a 5lbs tag. A tag would have to accompany your bucket. Since the limit is 10 lbs I believe. If you are checked, you should have to produce the tag. That way if you don't get your 10 pounds, you could still get the second half.   

Seems pretty simple . 

[HntnFsh]

Absolutely not!  Where does it end?  There is no management on smelt, never has been.  They guess as far as run size, and most times are way off.  As an ex-commercial fisherman, I can tell you this; there are so many thousands of ton of smelt wasted every shrimp season, it would blow people's mind.  When a dragger sets on a big biomass, they have no idea what it is.  When it's smelt, they are just dumped. If the WDFG would regulate that waste, we would have the runs like we did all through the 90's.  The year after they were classified as endangered was one of the biggest runs in history.  Why?  maybe it had something to to do with the lack of shrimp draggers off the coast that year?  As far as crawdads go, are you kidding me?  They don't even know how many there are, as they don't even do studies.  If the WDFG would study either species at all, then I'd agree to lumping them in with a fishing license.  Until then, we don't need to pay the WDFG any more of our money. 

As far as carp go, there should be a bounty on them.  (Should be a bounty on California Sea Lions as well, be we all know that).

I have heard this happens in Alaska and Canada to the smelt that enter the Columbia. But haven't heard of that happening off the coast of Washington.

Is that really the case?

[Stein]

There's certainly been management on smelt via bag limits, Castlerocker. I agree on "no" to carp and crawdads. But requiring a standard fishing license (no extra charge) would mean that more people would be paying for gamies in the field to make sure no one's abusing the limits.

I wouldn't assume that is where the money will go...

[washingtonmuley]

No!! We buy enough BS licenses as it is!!

[WAcoueshunter]

No!! We buy enough BS licenses as it is!!

It’s the same license you already have.

[KFhunter]

No!! We buy enough BS licenses as it is!!

It’s the same license you already have.

I wasn't sure that had been clarified yet 

[WAcoueshunter]

No!! We buy enough BS licenses as it is!!

It’s the same license you already have.

I wasn't sure that had been clarified yet 

Fair question if you just read the thread. But if you read the actual rule being proposed, they are just deleting a current exemption from the base fishing license requirement. I was surprised to learn you didn’t need a license for smelt and carp to begin with.  Now you would. But just your basic fishing license, like you need for every other fish that swims in freshwater. 

[bigtex]

Am I missing something......Wouldn't carp and crayfish be classified under your freshwater fishing license?  The only way to charge more for them would be to require a special license / catch card to report your numbers of these species caught.  If there is specific license required, where would it all stop??  Next thing you know, you would need a license for "rainbow trout" separate license for "Brown Trout", separate license for Large mouth bass and so on...... 

Sounds pretty dumb to me.

Carp, crayfish, and smelt are currently unregulated. A license isn't currently required to harvest them...and bullfrogs. The proposal, as I understand it is to regulate them by requiring a fishing license.

Smelt and crayfish are certainly regulated. Crayfish has a season with a bag limit, and smelt are protected federally under the ESA.

[bigtex]

No!! We buy enough BS licenses as it is!!

It’s the same license you already have.

I wasn't sure that had been clarified yet 

Fair question if you just read the thread. But if you read the actual rule being proposed, they are just deleting a current exemption from the base fishing license requirement. I was surprised to learn you didn’t need a license for smelt and carp to begin with.  Now you would. But just your basic fishing license, like you need for every other fish that swims in freshwater.

It just removes a long-held exemption. Those of us old enough may remember when you didn't need a fishing license in WA to fish the saltwater...

[HunterStrait]

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

[Encore 280]

I don't know if it's changed or still the same in Oregon but years ago a person needed a fishing license to gig bullfrogs but didn't need one for smelt. Figure that one out. I don't know if Washington is the same or not.

[WAcoueshunter]

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

Like bass and walleye?

[KFhunter]

Are they still invasive, or endemic? 

At some point they gotta be no longer invasive..

[KFhunter]

No!! We buy enough BS licenses as it is!!

It’s the same license you already have.

I wasn't sure that had been clarified yet 

Fair question if you just read the thread. But if you read the actual rule being proposed, they are just deleting a current exemption from the base fishing license requirement. I was surprised to learn you didn’t need a license for smelt and carp to begin with.  Now you would. But just your basic fishing license, like you need for every other fish that swims in freshwater.

If that's the case, then this thread is a nothing burger

[HunterStrait]

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.