Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Breaking the law

3K views 54 replies 23 participants last post by  ChrisC 
#1 ·
Last weekend on the Hoh I watched two different boats get pulled over and issued hefty fines and get gear confinscated because they were using bait in the fly only and selective rules water. It was great! Not only to see that the enforcement is out there but also because we had told these knuckle heads that bait and barbs were not allowed in that paricular area. Instead of listening, they blew us off and tried to hide it the rest of the time. They fainted ignorance that they didnt know any better and that they would change up but they didnt. Both of these boats were out of state and the trailer vehicles had Oregon plates, one guy was even driving a hummer! It was nice to see that enforcement is present and protecting the Fish.
 
#27 ·
"I panhandle for flies" - Joe Trowtbum.!!!

i think the hummer tax break is POOP! POOP I TELL YA! they benefit only the big guy, not the small businesses that really need a tax break for respectable safe transportation. the hummers i see that look like business right offs with their detachable little magnet placards ( business signs ) make me upset at the govt.

like they really needed a break :professor
 
#28 ·
something to ponder: obviously these "Fly Only" waters are adventageous and convenient for us but is there really a sound argument as to why such waters should exist as opposed to just say, selective gear areas(obviously there is merits to single barbless and C&R). i mean, im a fly fisherman too but i've thrown my share of gear in my day. in the posts before the Hummer tangent i sensed a certain elitism or animosity towards these "criminals" due to their gear type. i'm not sure what gives us the right(other than positive law) to claim a monopoly on some of the best "public" waters. while they were breaking the law and its nice to see some enforcement and not to mention the fact that if anyone is getting a fine, i'm glad it's "The Wheel" in the Hummer, I'd be much more pleased to see them nailing the real bad guys. the ones who are really breaking more than this arbitrary "fly only" law and breaking moral rules we all hold that are far beyond these that we rely on so conveniently here. you know: the ones bonking natives in peril, excess limits, and those who vandalize our rigs while we are busting the brush (which doesn't include putting a harmless but satiric bumper sticker on some dudes outwardly economic expression of a vehicle, that's just darn funny)-ryan
 
#30 ·
I suppose you don't dirve or use toilet paper or eat processed food or use electricity generated by rivers or your computer is not made of plastics or your tennis shoes are not made by slave labor in Singapore or ...........well I think you get where I'm going with this. Where do you draw the line? I guess it where ever you are comfortable with the amount of resources you use. Unless you are completely self regenerating I don't think your argument holds an once of water.
 
#31 ·
Kerry,

You missed the point totally. The guy could have carried his boat to the river for all I care, the point was that these persons were fishing illeaglly, and they got what they deserved. As for your threat of violence....Dont start nothing you cant finish. The reality is that even though I dont know turd as you put it. You wont cut off nothing either. Besides wouldnt it be easier to call the cops instead of going to prison your self? Jeez grow up.
 
#33 ·
I don't understand any of this. It started out with some one telling us about an out of stater getting a ticket and ended up with everyone slamming people that drive Hummers. If I had the bucks and could afford one I would buy it. And then you could all slam me.

I was going to make a comment on that it was a good thing and they should also try for a few in staters that also break the law on fishing just like they did. But it doesn't seem necessary as the point in question was being missed.

And I also don't understand why you people in general jump on other people if you don't even know them. God why do I even try.

Jim
 
#34 ·
I got the orginal point and I agree with you they got what they wanted.

Your right you don't know me. I don't make idle threats. I have had my rig vandelized before. If I catch someone vandelizing my rig I think the time I spend in jail will be about half the time the vandel will spend in the hospital. Fair enough trade to me.
 
#35 ·
I have no beef with any method fishing. To me we are all anglers and should work together to bring about positive change. My issue was the fishing of bait in areas that did not allow it. Fly only, C and R makes no differenece to me as long as the people obey the rules of that particular fishery. The reality is that this happens up there because no one else can, potentially making the fish very succeptable to bait, if this were not true they would fish with all the bait anglers and be stuck in a crowd. We are all responsible for being stewards of the river.
 
#37 ·
I'm sorry that's assinine. There is such a thing as a matter of degrees. 15 miles per gallon isn't good enough but it's better than 10; 20 is better than 15. The childish argument that if you don't live like a aborigine you have no room to talk is a red herring, the rhetorical version of plugging your ears and singing "lalalalalalala" (so is the argument that anyone is asking you to live like an aborigine). I'm sorry but there is a lot of room between dragging around a travois and driving a Hummer.

For the record, I don't advocate or condone vandalism either. But the notion that someone might deserve a ticket based just on what they're driving is already well established (and sound in my judgement). Try driving around in a car with no tail lights, bald tires, or belching black soot. I don't think that it's at all far out to suppose some vehicles should be proscribed based on the unsustainable and inequitable use of resources.

Back in the eighties, Germany toyed with the idea of imposing SOME kind of speed limit on the fabled autobahn, like 100 mph or something. The slogan of the opposition was, "full speed ahead for a free people!"

Well, that was a load then and it's a load still. The idea that people have some inalienable right to drive as fast or burn as much gas or take up as much space as they can afford and damn the consequences for the rest of us is simply wrong, and not a little offensive.

Now again for the record, I'm not ready to advocate banning Hummers yet. I drive a 91 Trooper, not a travois by a long shot but I think I could probably drive it into your friend's dream ride (and I do actually use it for more than getting the boy to his choir practice or turning heads in the Larry's parking lot; or, to get back to the original point, to tow my jet sled to the coast so I can break fish and game regs). But I do object to being called a punk or accused of getting my panties twisted because I want to criticize people (with what I thought was light humor)for making such a public pronouncement of their selfishness.

Again I ask: who can actually sit in the driver's seat of one of those things and say to themselves, "yeah, I don't look like a jerk"?
 
#38 ·
1 last reply on this. You can take my original post figuratively or literally. I don't care.

The truth of the matter here is. If I were to catch someone trashing my rig and I thump the crap out of them I might go to jail for a few hours or the time it takes me to make bail. Prosecution for my crimes might be as extreme as some community service but I kinda doubt that. The only thing that could really hurt me is if the punk I beat the crap out of takes me to civil court but that most likely would not happen.

This whole conversation went downhill because of what I wrote and I would not have wrote it in the first place if I had thought about it a little more. I have a problem with people that threaten to vandalize other people's property. I have a problem with people that prejudge other people because of what they drive or what they wear or for any other reason for that matter. Who gives a crap about some guy driving a Hummer or for that matter a big ass diesel powered crew cab long box pickup jacked up to the sky or a 30 foot motorhome or what rod he has or what reel he uses, whether he fishes dries or fishes wets. To judge people like this is asinine.
 
#39 ·
I never said you had to live like anything. Your argument is still based on where you draw the line. I use less resources then you do so I have more say in what is acceptable. That is a rather arrogant and dare I say assinine.

No tail lights, bald tires and even belching smoke are driving hazards that could cause an accident hardly a comparison to driving a legal vehicle. Speed limits are the same thing. A measure taken to make the roads safe. Not to limit what you drive but how fast you drive it.
 
#40 ·
"Again I ask: who can actually sit in the driver's seat of one of those things and say to themselves, "yeah, I don't look like a jerk"?"

I can Ray. But I will ask why you get offended by someone calling you a punk (not me) for your opinion and then you turn around and call someone else a jerk for theirs?:dunno Things that make you go hmmmmm....
 
#41 ·
I havent judged anyone. The hummer was a description of the person(s) I saw only, not a testament to anything else. Your previous post said you would cut their *&^% off, not beat the crap out of them. Hopefully better judgement will come your way, untill then try to have a nice day..see you around...B
 
#42 ·
Well I hate to put this fine a point on it, because I meant it as a rhetorical question, not directed at any individual, but I guess I'm calling you a jerk for your choices and actions, not your opinion.

That's a cheap shot. I'm sure you're not actually a jerk. I'm just trying to make the point that no matter how nice you are, behind the wheel of that thing you look like one. Sorry about that. I am interested that guys in $60,000 rigs want to claim victimhood too, oppressed by unfair prejudice. We don't have to prejudge you; we can see what you're doing, the tinted windows notwithstanding.

Look, don't take it so personally. I'm an environmental advocate. If I can talk you and your peeps down from the official pace car of conspicuous consumption, it'll make me happy, and I think the world a better place. We're all in this together, after all, and you're taking more than your share, man. I imagine it's irritating getting called on that, but jeez, you can't recognize you're kind of asking for it? I mean you didn't get the Escalade, or the Duellie Ram crew cab, or a '68 vette tuned to spray a little unburned gas out the tailpipe; you went out and got the biggest, most ostentatious, most wasteful "passenger vehicle" available on the planet. You didn't see any of this coming?

As for you Kerry, go back and re read my post and then try to rebut the points I actually made.

Anyway, old hands around here will know that I sometimes like too much the sound of my own words and I'm starting to have an inappropriate amount of fun. so I'm going to move on to something else before I get myself in trouble with Cris. I feel I'm treading a thin line already.
 
#43 ·
"Look, don't take it so personally"

Now Ray I didn't take anything personally. Sticks and stones,water off a duck's back,etc. I just find it humorous (and sad) how quick folks are to judge someone's character based on their choice of vehicle. Or fishing equipment. Or beer...
 
#48 ·
New River Mike

If you'll look back at Post #6, I warned fortuna he'd started something. I was hopeful it'd blow over, but oh, well.:dunno

I've got a theory on this, although I think it was actually CWUGirl who first noticed it. Credit where credit is due.

I think some of us - me included - get a little cabin-feverish once in a while. We start to suffer from testerone overload, or something like that. Then someone posts something a little provocative, someone else takes it personally, and we're off.

Frankly, I enjoy it - sometimes participating and sometimes just reading. Old Man asked a relevant question - why it is that we'll jump on a perfect stranger over something?. Why is it that we'll cut off someone on the highway and/or flip someone off in traffic?

Because we can. It's safe and easy and maybe helps us burn off a little frustration that otherwise we'd take out on someone we really care about. Which doesn't necessarily make it right. It's just the nature of the human beast sometimes.

Here's a little joke I recall that kind of illustrates the point...

Johny was having some troubles at school. He came down the lane from the school bus one afternoon and on his way to the house, he gave the old milk cow a kick. His mother, who was watching from the kitchen window, stopped him at the door and said, "Young man, I saw that! Just for that, you're not getting any milk for dinner."

"Aw, come on, Mom..."

Sure enough, here comes the dejected little boy home another day, and this times he boots a chicken clear off the porch. "Okay, mister," says his mother, "No eggs with your breakfast tomorrow morning!"

"Aw geez..."

Finally, Johny has a good day at school. He and his mother are watching that afternoon when his father pulls into the yard from work, slams the truck door, stomps up the porch steps, and proceeds to kick the family cat clean into the pasture.

Johny looks solemnly at his dad, then up to his mother. "Momma, are you gonna tell Daddy, or am I?"
 
#49 ·
I don't know how I missed such a good fight as this one.
Oh well, it was enjoyable reading.
My only comment is about the fly only water. I don't think such restrictions are well understood by the general public, neigh, not even the fly fishing public.
Fly only is an attempt to reduce impact by the fishing public.
Everyone can use fly gear. There is no attempt to shoot us a little freebie. Fact is, we catch little or nothing and so we are just one step above complete closure. By creating these special areas, good things happen. Fewer fish die, the fly boys tend to get out of the gear areas and give them more room, and enforcement can be moved to other more violator prone sites. Fly only sets a higher standard for everyone. Poaching is more difficult when fishermen are present in sensitive area.
I would not oppose and I think I could defend a fly only restriction in all of Washington. Sorry to piss off the gear boys who sneak and lurk around here, but I think I'm right.

Bob, the no, I don't win many friends, sooner or later I have stepped on everybody's line.
:professor :smokin
 
#50 ·
Bob, you could, and probably would. But it wouldn't work... Not many salt water fishers would support that (namely those who often target halibut, ling cod, chinook, and other deep water dwellers). How about sturgeon? Springers? The columbia river? Lake washington sockeye? Perch and crappie lakes? Let's be smart about this and maybe we can gain a few more fly only and\or selective gear only waters. But with a "fly only, anywhere, anytime" approach, you'll be done before you start down that road. But I appreciate your passion :thumb
 
#51 ·
Nailknot - you forgot the smiley icon after your post, indicating that you were just kidding.

"For the sake of the planet move closer to your job!"

So each time a person changes jobs, they should pack up their home and family and move? I'm sure in someone's mind, this would work, if you didn't own a house, have a wife and kids, and have any community ties. That's why we have apartments and metro buses\trains right? Or is possible that people can be 'commuters' and still try to be environmentally conscious, even if just in little ways (no pesticides\lawn chemicals, car washing, economic vehicles, etc)?
:dunno
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top