OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
3406 Cherry Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97303
2005 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation Development
A Public Process
Final Rule Adoption Results
This package contains a summary of Commission ruling on 2005 Oregon Sport Fishing angling regulation proposals.
September 20, 2004
2005 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation Development
A Public Process
Background Information:
Every four years the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) develops Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations by utilizing a Public Process. This process allows ODFW and Oregon State Police (OSP) staff and interested anglers an opportunity to propose new or modified sport fishing regulations.
This document contains a summary of Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) action on the 229 ODFW/OSP and Public Proposals that were submitted as part of the 2005 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations (several Public Proposals dealing with the same proposal were consolidated) by anglers. The Commission met on September 10th to adopt final rules for the 2005 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. At the meeting, the Commission considered ODFW staff summaries and extensive public testimony in their deliberations concerning adoption of the Staff and Public proposals. Of the 229 proposals submitted, 89 proposals were adopted and 140 were rejected. A summary of Commission ruling on individual proposals is shown below.
Proposals that are shaded in gray were rejected (not adopted) by the Fish and Wildlife Commission (also labeled as “Rejected” under the “Category” column). Proposals that were adopted by the Commission are not shaded, and are labeled as “Adopted” in the “Category” column. Proposals are listed by Angling Zone in the order that they would appear in the angling synopsis. Approved proposals are listed first, followed by rejected proposals. It is important to note that some of the Staff and Public proposals have been modified since the original proposals were submitted. Modifications of proposals are listed in the Staff Summary section of the proposal or are noted in the “Category” column.
Final rule language will be shown in the 2005 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. The 2005 regulations will be available at ODFW offices, on the ODFW web site () and from local venders in early December. Changes to the 2005 regulations will be highlighted in blue text in the 2005 pamphlet. All adopted rules will be in place effective January 1, 2005.
Thank you for your interest in Oregon's sport fishing regulations. The Department staff and the Fish and Wildlife Commission appreciate the time and effort members of the public have spent on assisting with development of the 2005 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations.
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|001S |New entry & New |Page 10 Statewide, Assisting Disabled Anglers |
| |Opportunity |Add new regulations to allow a licensed angler(s) to assist a disabled angler provided: |
| | |1. The person assisting the disabled angler has the appropriate license and tags in possession and a copy of the |
| |Note: Includes Public |disabled angler’s Permanent Disabilities Permit while providing assistance. |
| |Proposal 137P |2. The Permanent Disabilities Permit holder is present and participating in angling activities. |
| |modification |3. Fish harvested while providing assistance to the Permanent Disabilities Permit holder become part of the |
| | |Disabled Permit holder’s bag and possession limit. |
| | |4. Disabled angler and their assistant(s) may only use one fishing rod while being assisted or providing |
| |Adopted |assistance. |
| | |5. The person(s) assisting the disabled angler may be in possession of their daily bag limit and still assist the|
| | |disabled angler. |
| | |Rationale: The purpose of this rule is to allow assistance to disabled anglers who, by virtue of their |
| | |disability, require assistance to cast, retrieve, hook, play or otherwise angle for game fish. (Braun) |
|137P |Definition, |Page 27 North Fork Nehalem River |
| |clarification |Modify ODFW Staff proposal 001S that would allow a licensed angler(s) to assist a disabled angler. |
| | |Existing Rule: None |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add entry to 001S. |
| |Adopted |5. The person(s) assisting the disabled angler may be in possession of their daily bag limit and still assist the|
| | |disabled angler. |
| | |Rationale: Clarify the legality of allowing an angler who has limited out to assist a handicapped angler. (Rodney|
| | |Rice) |
| | |Staff Summary: This modification has been incorporated into staff proposal 001S. Has public support. |
|002S |Enforcement |Page 11 Statewide, Definition of Possession Limit |
| | |Change existing definition of Possession Limit. |
| |Adopted |Existing definition: Maximum number or amount of a type of fish or shellfish that a person may lawfully possess |
| | |(fresh, frozen, canned, smoked or otherwise processed) in the field or forest, or in transit to the place of |
| | |permanent Residence. The . . . . Oregon and Washington. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Maximum number or amount of a type of fish or shellfish that a person may lawfully possess in the |
| | |field or forest, or in transit to the place of permanent Residence. The . . . . in Oregon and Washington. |
| | |Rationale: Eliminate (fresh, frozen, canned, smoked or otherwise processed) from this rule language to avoid |
| | |confusion with rules pertaining to how fish may be processed in the field. This proposal is one of three |
| | |proposals dealing with Statewide Possession Limits and Restrictions regulating the condition (ability to process)|
| | |of gamefish in the field. (Cleary) |
|003S |Enforcement |Page 11 Statewide Definitions for " in the field, forest, or in transit" and "permanent residence |
| | |Proposed definition: In the field, forest, or in transit. Anywhere other than a permanent residence. |
| | |Proposed definition: Permanent residence. A residential dwelling where a person normally lives, with associated |
| |Adopted |features such as address, telephone number, utility account, etc. |
| | |Rationale: These definitions are needed to clarify ORS 498.036 (Possession in field of skinned or plucked |
| | |wildlife prohibited) and Possession Limit rules for enforcement purposes. (Cleary) |
|005S |Housekeeping |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Add rule language to General (Statewide) Regulation, Page 12, Item 12 to allow ODFW to collect parts of salmon |
| | |containing coded-wire tags. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: General (Statewide) Regulation, Page 12, Item 12. The following activities are unlawful: Denying |
| | |ODFW employees, peace officer or landowner the opportunity to inspect license, catch and gear. It is also |
| | |unlawful to fail to relinquish to an ODFW employee or designated agent any part of a salmon or other game fish |
| | |containing a coded-wire tag. |
| | |Rationale: This rule is currently stated in OAR 635-001-0035, but is not referenced in the Statewide Sport |
| | |Angling Regulations. Addition of this rule will improve angler education regarding this matter. (Braun) |
|004S |Simplification & |Page 12 Definition of Steelhead |
| |Clarification |Existing Rule: Sea-run rainbow trout over 20 inches in length except in the Rogue and Applegate rivers where |
| | |rainbow trout over 16 inches in length are defined as steelhead. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Steelhead: Sea-run rainbow trout over 20 inches in length except in Northwest and Southwest Zone |
| | |streams where rainbow trout over 16 inches in length are defined as steelhead. |
| | |Rationale: Simplify definition of steelhead and simplify regulations in the NW and SW zones by eliminating rule |
| | |allowing anglers to keep 2 rainbow trout between 16 - 20 inches if they possess a Combined Angling Tag. Anglers |
| | |will still be allowed to retain these fish by recording them on their Combined Angling Tag or Hatchery Harvest |
| | |Tag. (Buckman and Ziller) |
| | |Staff Summary: Concern expressed in NE Oregon where wild trout over 16 inches in length would not be harvestable |
| | |unless by special regulation and adipose fin-clipped residual steelhead over 16 inches in length would only be |
| | |harvestable during the steelhead season (September 1 – April 15). Currently, residual adipose fin-marked |
| | |hatchery steelhead under 20 inches in length are subject to harvest during the trout season (late May – October |
| | |31) and not harvestable during the Sept. 1 – April 15 steelhead season. Steelhead and trout seasons overlap |
| | |during the months of September and October in NE Oregon. Proposal was modified to include only NW and SW Zone |
| | |steams. |
|006S |Enforcement |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions |
| | |Change Restriction 5 (Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions). |
| | |Existing Rule: Unlawful to possess in the field gamefish dressed or mutilated so that size, species or fin clip |
| |Adopted |cannot be determined. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Unlawful to possess gamefish which are dressed or mutilated or otherwise processed so that size, |
| | |species or fin clip cannot be determined until the angler has reached their automobile or principle means of land|
| | |transportation and has completed their daily angling. |
| | |Rationale: Proposed change will allow anglers to clean or process gamefish (in such a manner that size, species |
| | |or fin clip may not be determined) at fish cleaning stations or other facilities if they have completed their |
| | |daily angling and have reached their automobile or primary means of land transportation. The proposed rule will |
| | |also result in Statewide consistency for fish processing restrictions. (Cleary) |
| | |Staff Summary: Well supported by most anglers. There is some concern over OSP’s reduced ability to enforce |
| | |angling regulations, specifically in selective fishery areas that restrict harvest to adipose fin-clipped fish. |
|072P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow anglers to catch and retain grass carp. |
| |See public proposal |Existing Rule: #18 (in part) No person may angle for or possess grass carp |
| |076P in Northwest Zone |Proposed Rule: Allow for the taking of grass carp |
| | |Rationale: These fish have a plus 12 year life span and will both denude vegetation and be available for |
| |Rejected |redistribution through floods and other means. Most fishermen simply recognize them as carp and they allow |
| | |additional harvest opportunity. (Oregon Bass and Panfish Club) |
| | |Staff Summary: This rule is needed to allow harvest of grass carp in Devils Lake. Grass carp are managed as a |
| | |Controlled Species and currently, can only be stocked, by permit, into private waterbodies that meet specific |
| | |conditions. Devils lake is the only public waterbody in Oregon where grass carp have been stocked. Grass carp |
| | |have been recovered from other public waterbodies in Oregon but the in very low numbers. |
|216P |Simplification |All Pages Statewide Angling Regulations: |
|107P | |Simplify angling regulations: Keep it SIMPLE! Don’t change the published rules. |
|215P |Rejected |Rationale: Simplify the presentation by reducing redundancy and wordiness. Don’t let other agencies (like the |
| | |USDA Forest Service) make changes. To simplify understandability and enforcement of fishing regulations. |
| | |(multiple proposals) |
|105P |Expand opportunity |Page 7 Statewide Angling Regulation Development: |
| | |Change the four-year cycle for Public input and conduct a major Public Review every two years. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The current 4-year cycle is too long for the public to give input on rule changes, especially where |
| | |there is considered to be more opportunity for the angler. |
| | |(Fred Worsley) |
|073P |Enforcement |Page 9 Angling License Requirements: |
| | |Require anglers to display a valid angling license on outer garment while angling. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Anglers must be in possession of a valid angling license. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Anglers must display a valid license on outer garment while involved in fishing activities. |
| | |Rationale: Officers can enforce the laws more quickly. The people who don't buy licenses are also the same ones |
| | |who violate the take limits. This would also generate more money to support ODFW activities. See other attached |
| | |pages from PA website. (Thomas L. Collett) |
| | |Staff Summary: This proposal is not supported by the angling public. |
|108P |Increase funding and |Page 9 Angling License Requirements: |
| |enforcement |All fishers in Oregon would be required to display their valid fishing licenses on the front, outside, of their |
| | |person, above the waist. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Increase funding for the Department and the State and enable enforcement personnel to tell at a |
| | |distance if someone had a license. (two similar proposals; Gail Campbell, Thomas L. Collett) |
|109P |Safety and planning |Page 9 Angling License Requirements: |
| | |Proposed rule requires anglers under the age of 14 to carry ID and emergency contact and medical information on |
| |Rejected |their person while angling. |
| | |Rationale: Safety, for Search & Rescue and emergency medical situations. 2. Revenue & Resource Planning. (Gail |
| | |Campbell) |
|178P |Increased opportunity |Page 9 and 10 Angling License Requirements: |
| | |Allow Disabled Veterans, their spouse and minor children to obtain free tags and angling license. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Because most disabled veterans are on a fixed income and because it is the right thing to do. To |
| | |honor those who served their country and paid the price. This could help entice more disabled veterans to get |
| | |out with their families and enjoy the outdoors where they did not before as it was and expense whey could not |
| | |justify in their budgets. (Garry Martin) |
|145P |Clarification |Page 9 Shellfish License Requirements: |
| | |Allow anglers to possess limited quantities of sand shrimp without having a Shellfish License. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Clarification of intent of the shellfish license was for harvesting various shellfish for personal |
| | |consumption. The use of sand shrimp in small quantities for bait is an oversight. This would clarify the intent|
| | |of the law for enforcement purposes. It potentially could reduce litter by eliminating the need for bait |
| | |receipts while fishing. (Dennis Richey) |
|211P |Clarification and new |Page 9 License Requirements: |
| |opportunity |Allow purchase of harvest tag for any or all species of fish. |
| | |Rationale: Allow anglers who do not wish to participate in fisheries that have been regulated to the point of |
| |Rejected |almost no allowable harvest of for which a boat is basically required an option to buy a less expensive tag. |
| | |Computer technology in the POS system should make this a very easy option. (Lance Morgan) |
|212P |New opportunity |Page 9 Shellfish License Requirements: |
| | |Include Shellfish Harvest Tag as part of daily angling licenses. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Not including shellfish harvesting in the daily tags works an undue economic hardship on charter |
| | |operator that offer shellfish harvesting as part of their fishing charters. (Richard Oba) |
|176P |New opportunity |Page 9 Shellfish License Requirements: |
| | |Eliminate or attach Shellfish License to regular Angling License. At the very least eliminate mud and ghost |
| |Rejected |shrimp unless ODFW plans on going into the bait business. |
| | |Rationale: Make Oregon appealing to tourists instead of chasing them away. Tourists spend money, might as well |
| | |be in Oregon. (Ronald Marcott). Other proposes (Curtis and Donald Vandre, Coos Bay). Regular license ok for |
| | |calming and crabbing. |
|147P |Increased opportunity |Page 9 Angling Tags |
| | |Recreate the salmon and steelhead only Harvest Card. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Having to purchase the combined harvest card is a rip-off of the person who will never fish for |
| | |sturgeon or halibut. Give a choice so those of us, especially in Eastern Oregon are not taken advantage of and |
| | |forced to continue buying the combination tag. (John Hoskins) |
|152P |Harvest opportunity |Page 9 Angling Tags |
| | |Allow 40 fish to be harvested on the Combined Harvest Card. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: It is time to give us our forty fish back. The sportsmen have supported the request by ODFW for |
| | |higher fees. I would like ODFW to give us the same respect and give us our forty fish back. As it stands now |
| | |you can spend even more money and buy a hatchery tag for $12.00. Hatchery fish are returning to create a fishing|
| | |opportunity to catch more fish. I don’t see why there is a need to pay to catch a surplus of fish that don’t |
| | |cost the state any money to raise. The hatchery surpluses are GIVEN away, thrown away or left to rot in the |
| | |streams. I would buy a hatchery only tag at a rate of $5.00 or the cost of printing and distribution. (Nick |
| | |Gilbo) |
|125P |Conservation |Page 11 Bait Definition |
| | |Change the definition of bait to include the use of scents as bait |
| |Rejected |Rationale: In areas where bait is prohibited, the use of scent and attractants that are applied to flies and |
| | |lures allows them to function as bait because of imparted taste or smell should also be prohibited. (George |
| | |Scott). |
|180P |Simplification & |Page 12 Definition of Steelhead |
| |Clarification |Make all waters open to steelhead 20 inch minimum length. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Make two rivers consistent with all other waters. (Ervin Sutton) |
|100P |Conservation & Quality |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| |fishery |Require forfeiture of fishing and hunting license for two years upon conviction for offensive littering. |
| | |Rationale: To improve the appearance of our landscape, improve the condition of waterways, and reduce the amount |
| |Rejected |of litter deposited in and around public and private waters and hunting areas. (Harold Smith) |
|112P |Conservation |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Prohibit the use of macro-invertebrates (aquatic insects) for bait fishing. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: There is a growing commercial business of aquatic nymph (e.g. dragonfly and damsel fly nymph) harvest |
| | |from State lakes and rivers for sale to bait shops. This directly impacts the available food for cold water fish|
| | |plus needed nutrients for aquatic insects. (David Tenney) |
|148P |Conservation |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Limit the use of fluorocarbon and copolymer fishing lines to 5 foot leaders only. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To protect and preserve all Oregon waters for future generations of fish, mammals, birds, as well as |
| | |future generations of anglers, swimmers, and other water users. Now is the time to limit the use of this line, |
| | |before we experience the adverse environmental effects that are sure to arise as a result of its irresponsible |
| | |use. |
| | |(Keith Slonecker) |
|118P |Enforcement |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Remove the regulation that gives landowners the ability to inspect license, catch and gear. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Landowners are not law enforcement personnel and should not be allowed to inspect license, catch and |
| | |gear. Allowing landowners to do so will only lead to conformations and frivolous lawsuits. (Tim Black) |
|102P |New opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow anglers to use two rods/lines when angling on lakes and when targeting different species. Charge a fee for|
| |Rejected |the use of two rods/lines. |
| | |Rationale: When lake fishing, it would be nice to be able to fish for two species at the same time. This would |
| | |effectively double one’s chances of catching a fish, without negatively impacting any one species. Allowing the |
| | |use of two lines could encourage more people to fish. (Todd Bartush) |
|117P |New opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow anglers to use two poles/lines when angling in standing water for non-anadromous fish. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This is a new angling opportunity that will target the hatchery segment and naturally reproducing |
| | |non-native stocks. Bag limits are still in effect to control over harvest. This is also an opportunity to |
| | |increase license sales by recruiting new anglers and the possibility of increasing use on some warmwater species.|
| | |(Bill Hall) |
|124P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| |Rejected |Allow anglers to use up to 2 rods or lines when angling for any fish. |
| | |Rationale: To have a better chance of catching and retaining a fish. (multiple proposals) |
|151P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow anglers to purchase a permit to fish more than one rod. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: We can now only have 2 fish per day what difference does it make on rod numbers. To help many sport |
| | |fishermen catch limits. After all we are the people whom pay for these fish. Much more revenue for the ODFW |
| | |$10.00 for each rod after 1. Many sports fishermen will buy another rod. (Mike Dee) |
|175P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow anglers to use any number of fishing rods. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The purpose of this rule is to give angler a better chance at catching fish reducing boat time on the |
| | |water (which will lower pollutants). This is just a good idea. (Pat Bradshaw) |
|177P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow angler to use two poles (with a permit) in Lakes and Reservoirs. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Increase Revenue and broader angling opportunities. We primarily manage lakes and reservoirs with |
| | |hatchery fish. Special Regulations could address the special needs that occur if they are not addressed by bag |
| | |limits. We already have bag limits in place that control harvest when fishing is good. (John Bach) |
|232P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| |Rejected |Allow the use of two rods/reels in any lake and ocean. |
| | |Rationale: Put more fun in fishing. (LeRoy Beagley) |
|214P |Increased opportunity |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| | |Allow the use of two poles on the Columbia River to fish for northern Pikeminnow (squawfish) and warmwater fish |
| |Rejected |species only. |
| | |Rationale: This would increase revenue for the Wildlife Department. It would help eliminate the squawfish which |
| | |currently endanger our salmon. Other states that use this stamp and have used if for many years seem to have no |
| | |problem. In my opinion this would benefit the Wildlife Department and sportsman. (William Myers) |
|086P |Enforcement |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions: |
| | |Restrict leader length to under 40 inches when angling for salmon and steelhead to prevent snagging. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To eliminate long-lining (method of snagging) fish don’t actually bite the bait or lure. The line |
| | |passes through the mouth – the angler jerks or strikes at any resistance. Many times the fish are hooked outside|
| | |of the mouth. Too many people are into snagging steelhead and salmon when they go off the bite. Now we have |
| | |adults teaching their kids how to do it. (Craig Ivie, Paul Zlotek) |
|181P |Harvest opportunity |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions: |
| | |Allow maximum harvest of biological surplus in all Oregon waters. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To allow take home of catch to maximum degree within allowable biological parameters. "Catch and |
| | |release" is ok for those who don't want to take home their catch but those who do shouldn't be restricted if it |
| | |is biologically sound to harvest more fish. (David Sill) |
|094P |Conservation & Harvest |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions: |
| |opportunity |Allow anglers to retain fish hooked outside the mouth while "trolling". |
| | |Rationale: The existing rule is a very difficult rule to enforce. A new rule would cut down on the mortality of |
| |Rejected |legal fish presently being released. Some fish are hooked in the eye etc. Boats could limit sooner and possibly|
| | |cut down on the mortality of native Coho. This would eliminate clients from getting upset with the Charter and |
| | |Guide operators. |
| | |(Dennis Sherwood) |
|146P |Conservation |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions: |
| | |Eliminate harvest restrictions for warmwater game fish in waters where native fish species are present. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To reduce competition with and predation on native fish species. (multiple proposals) |
|119P |Increased opportunity |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions: |
| | |Allow anglers to possess in the field mutilated game fish other than trout, salmon or steelhead. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Allows the cleaning of fish such as catfish on lakes during very hot weather and also allows the use |
| | |of crappie and bass billets to be used for bait to catch catfish. |
| | |(Tim Black) |
|179P |New opportunity |Page 13 Harvest Methods, Hours and Restrictions: |
| | |Allow Disabled Veterans to take fish by any means and at any time. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This should be allowed, as disabled veterans can not always go out on the times and dates currently |
| | |set, due to their own personal medical problems which may cause them to be unable to fish at the particular date |
| | |and time set for the normal fisherman. Also they may not have the ability to catch fish like others. This would|
| | |allow them to catch more fish on the days they are able to go out. (Garry Martin) |
|174P |Harvest opportunity |Page 23 for the NW Zone. Also applies to other Zones Statewide. |
| | |Allow wild coho salmon harvest in bays and tidewaters. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The purpose of this is when releasing some hooked fish they do not live. No matter how careful you |
| | |are and how hard you try to revive them, they die. This rule would keep perfectly good food from being thrown |
| | |back in the water. I know this rule can only be considered if the coho are removed from the endangered species |
| | |list. |
| | |(Pat Bradshaw) |
|149P |Restore opportunity |Page 45 for the Willamette Zone. Also applies to other Zones Statewide. |
| |Note: see staff |Open more steams to trout harvest. |
| |proposal 236P |Rationale: ODFW wishes to promote youth fishing. But where can they fish after school for trout and keep them. |
| |Rejected |Suggestion, why not list all streams open to trout fishing unless list as closed in special regulations. Or at |
| | |least open all streams for trout fishing to any person under the age of 12, where a fishing license is not |
| | |required. (Samuel Phillips) |
|150P |Increased opportunity |Page 73 for the Southeast Zone. Also applies to other Zones Statewide. |
| | |Change the statewide trout bag and size limits from 5 to 6 trout per day and 8 to 10 inch minimum length. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Six trout will feed better than five on the table. Ten inchers are better fish, and have a hardier |
| | |make-up by that size. A ten-incher is a more mature fish; up to 10 inches may have more of a tendency to spawn |
| | |than 8 inchers. Predatory fish may think twice about gulping a 10 incher over an 8 incher. I have caught 10 |
| | |inch attach survivors, not 8’s. (Thomas VanDusen) |
|007S |Enforcement |Page 12 General Restrictions |
| |Withdrawn by OSP |Expand Existing Ocean Salmon Rule Statewide and put into Sport Fishing Pamphlet. |
| | |Existing Rule: “In all areas it is unlawful to fish for salmon when any species not allowed for that area are on |
| | |board. (Page 7, 2003 Oregon Ocean Salmon Sport Fishing Regulations). |
| | |Proposed Rule: |
| | |Insert into Restrictions for Recreational (Page 13): Bullet (new) 11. It is unlawful to fish for Game Fish in an |
| | |area with catch in your possession that does not meet the regulations of that area. |
| | |Insert into Restrictions for Nongame Fish-Marine (Page 13): It is unlawful to fish for Marine Fish species in an |
| | |area with catch in your possession that does not meet the regulations of that area. |
| | |Rationale: Currently Oregon Ocean Salmon and Halibut Sport Fishing Regulations (Ocean Regulations) cover anglers |
| | |that are fishing in one area and possess a species that is closed to take in that area. All coastal zones have a|
| | |reference to the Ocean Regulations and it is appropriate to have this rule language included in the Oregon Sport |
| | |Fishing Regulations (Statewide Regulations) and to apply the rule to all Gamefish and Nongame Marine Fish. Ocean|
| | |Regulation rule language is proposed to be inserted in Marine Zone Regulations (Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations)|
| | |under proposal #069S. (Cleary) |
| | |Staff Summary: The public supports this rule as stated for the Marine Zone (Nongame Fish-Marine) but not for the |
| | |rest of the state (Game Fish). In some stream fisheries that are accessed by drift boat, the proposed rule would|
| | |reduce current angling opportunities because downstream reaches are more restrictive than upstream reaches (Rogue|
| | |and Umpqua River wild steelhead fisheries). |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|009S |Consistency & New |Page 23 John Day River (Clatsop Co.) |
| |opportunity |Allow bait to be used while steelhead/salmon angling on the John Day River (Clatsop Co.) |
| | |Proposed Rule: Northwest Zone (Page 23), Regulations for this zone, Item 1: |
| |Adopted |Angling for all species in streams above tidewater is restricted to artificial flies and lures only May 28 - |
| | |August 31. See exceptions for use of bait in Siletz, Nestucca, Trask, Wilson, John Day, Lewis and Clark, Youngs |
| | |and Klaskanine rivers, Big and Gnat creeks, and Three Rivers. |
| | |Rationale: The District has submitted a proposal to open the John Day River to salmon/steelhead angling (proposal|
| | |#018S) to take advantage of returning adult adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon in 2005. This proposal |
| | |provides consistency between the General Regulation for the NW Zone and the Special Regulation for the newly |
| | |proposed fishery in the John Day River. (Braun) |
|013S |New opportunity |Page 24 Alsea River |
| | |Open Alsea River to retention of adipose fin-marked coho salmon. |
| | |Existing Rule: Closed to retention of adipose fin-clipped coho salmon. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Alsea River Section 1. Mainstem, including tidewater upstream to Fall Creek: Open to retention of |
| | |adipose fin-clipped coho salmon from August 1-December 31. |
| | |Rationale: Allow retention of occasional hatchery coho salmon that are caught incidentally during large fisheries|
| | |for fall chinook salmon in Alsea River. The Alsea Basin is not stocked with hatchery coho salmon so only a few |
| | |stray fish will be harvested. This will make coho salmon regulations consistent with steelhead regulations where|
| | |anglers can retain hatchery fish that are caught in basins that are not stocked. (Buckman) |
|010S |Expanded opportunity |Page 24 North Fork Alsea River |
| | |Expand steelhead angling opportunities on the North Fork Alsea River. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Change the location description to expand the fishing area near the hatchery as follows; North |
| | |Fork Alsea River from the mouth upstream to 100 feet below the Alsea Hatchery fishway, and from 100 feet above |
| | |the Alsea Hatchery fishway upstream 600 feet to an angling deadline marker. |
| | |Rationale: The regulation makes a temporary rule that has been in place for the last two years permanent. The |
| | |rule change will increase harvest of hatchery steelhead. During the 2002-03 winter steelhead season when this |
| | |regulation was in place as a temporary rule an estimated 500 to 1000 hatchery steelhead were harvested in the |
| | |expanded fishing area. (Buckman) |
|011S |Consistency |Page 24 Bear Creek (Clatsop Co.) |
| | |Split out spring and fall chinook salmon seasons for Bear Creek (Clatsop Co.). |
| |Adopted |Existing rule: Open for chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May – August 31 and October 1 – December 31. |
| | |Proposed rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31 and Open for fall|
| | |chinook salmon August 1-31 and October 1 - December 31. |
| | |Rationale: Makes rule consistent with other similar fisheries in Lower Columbia portion of NW Zone. Continues to|
| | |provide smolt protection with April through mid-May closure, and tule chinook salmon protection with September |
| | |closure. Provides opportunity on stray adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon. This rule change for Bear |
| | |Creek was overlooked in 2004. (Braun) |
|012S |Consistency |Page 24 Beaver Creek (Columbia Co.) |
| | |Split out spring and fall chinook salmon seasons on Beaver Creek (Columbia Co.). |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May – December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31 and Open for fall|
| | |chinook salmon August 1 – December 31. |
| | |Rationale: Makes rule consistent with other similar fisheries in Lower Columbia portion of NW Zone. Continues to|
| | |provide smolt protection with April through mid-May closure but provides opportunity on stray adipose fin-clipped|
| | |spring chinook salmon. This rule change for Beaver Creek was overlooked in 2004. (Braun) |
|014S |Expanded opportunity |Page 24 North Fork Alsea River |
| | |Expand steelhead angling season through April on the North Fork Alsea River. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Page 24. Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 – March 31 and August 1 – December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - April 30 and August 1 – December 31. |
| | |Rationale: Extending the season through April will allow increased harvest of hatchery steelhead from the new |
| | |hatchery broodstock derived from wild fish. The new broodstock will come on line starting in the winter of |
| | |2003-04. These wild broodstock derived hatchery fish will have a later return and spawning time than the |
| | |traditional hatchery stock. Many of the wild broodstock fish are expected to return during April based on |
| | |timing of wild fish in the Alsea and based on timing of broodstock collection. (Buckman) |
|015S |Consistency |Page 25 Clatskanie River |
| | |Split out spring and fall chinook salmon seasons on Clatskanie River (Columbia Co.). |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May – December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31 and Open for |
| | |fall chinook salmon August 1 – December 31. |
| | |Rationale: Makes rule consistent with other similar fisheries in Lower Columbia portion of NW Zone. Continues to|
| | |provide smolt protection with April through mid-May closure but provides opportunity on stray adipose fin-clipped|
| | |spring chinook salmon. This rule change for Clatskanie River was overlooked in 2004. This proposal has been |
| | |coordinated with North Willamette Watershed District. (Braun) |
|016S |Housekeeping |Page 26 Miami River |
| | |Change spring chinook salmon fin-mark retention rule for Miami River. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook in the Miami River will be marked with an |
| | |adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|017S |Consistency & |Page 26 North Fork Klaskanine River |
| |Conservation |Close North Fork Klaskanine River to angling from September 1 – October 15. |
| | |Proposed Rule: North Fork Klaskanine is closed upstream of Olney Lane Bridge from September 1-October 15. |
| |Adopted |Rationale: This change would help achieve select area bright (SAB) fall chinook broodstock collection goals at |
| | |the N. Fork Klaskanine hatchery, reduce the opportunity for illegal activity (i.e. snagging), facilitate |
| | |enforcement, and be consistent with September closures on other lower Columbia River tributaries. Extending the |
| | |closure period into October is necessary due to run timing of the SAB stock. (Braun) |
|018S |New entry & new |Page 26 John Day River (Clatsop Co.) |
| |opportunity |Open the John Day River (Clatsop Co.) to steelhead/salmon angling. |
| | |Proposed Rule: John Day River (Clatsop County) Section 1. Upstream from Railroad Bridge (new entry) |
| |Adopted |1. Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead entire year. |
| | |2. Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon Jan. 1- July 31. |
| | |3. Open for adipose fin-clipped coho salmon August 1 – October 31. |
| | |4. Open for fall chinook salmon August 1 – December 31. |
| | |5. Use of bait allowed. |
| | |Rationale: In 2005, initial returns of adipose fin-clipped adult spring chinook salmon will begin as a result of |
| | |an experimental select area fisheries site evaluation project initiated in the John Day River in 2003. This |
| | |proposal expands angling opportunity for the returning adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon, and also |
| | |provides opportunity for other adult salmon and steelhead that may occur in the area. These rules are consistent|
| | |with rules for other existing fisheries in the area (Klaskanine, Youngs, Lewis and Clark, etc.) (Braun) |
|019S |Housekeeping |Page 26 Kilches River |
| | |Change spring chinook salmon fin-mark rule for Kilchis River |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Kilchis River will be marked |
| | |with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|022S |Increased opportunity |Page 27 North Fork Nehalem River |
| | |Allow anglers to assist Disabled Anglers on the Nehalem Hatchery Barrier Free Fishing Platform. |
| |Adopted |Proposed change, add to last bullet of Special Regulations: A person may assist a Permanent Disabled Permit |
| | |holder in angling, provided that conditions of the permit (page 10) are followed. (see Proposal #001S). |
| | |Rationale: This proposed rule change, along with the proposed rules allowing for anglers to assist Disabled |
| | |Anglers (Proposal #1), will allow anglers to assist Disabled |
|020S |Housekeeping |Page 27 Nestucca River (Sections 1 and 2) |
| | |Change spring chinook salmon fin-mark retention rule for the Nestucca River (Mainstem up to Moon Creek, sections |
| |Adopted |1 and 2) |
| | |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring Chinook salmon April 1 – July 31st. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring Chinook salmon April 1 – July 31st. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Nestucca River will be marked |
| | |with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|021S |Housekeeping |Page 27 Little Nestucca River |
| | |Change spring chinook salmon fin-mark retention rule for the Little Nestucca River. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Little Nestucca River will be |
| | |marked with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|182P |Conservation |Page 28 Siletz River |
| | |Close section of upper Siletz River above Moonshine Park boat ramp to chinook salmon angling to protect chinook |
| | |salmon. |
| | |Rationale: The Siletz Watershed Group sees the need to eliminate the keeping of staging spring and fall Chinook |
| |Adopted |caught in the fall that are getting ready to spawn. It is very rare that a Chinook caught in the fall above |
| | |Moonshine Park is worth keeping for its flesh. It is not right that these fish are kept only for their eggs. |
| | |Endorsements from Siletz Watershed Group and others, Siletz Tribal Council Resolution) (Donald Larson) |
| | |Staff Summary: The added restriction is not needed based on the high fall chinook spawner abundance in recent |
| | |years. The restriction would however, provide a safety margin if runs decline, and would eliminate salmon |
| | |fishing in areas where dark fish are highly vulnerable. For the spring/summer chinook run, the run size is |
| | |limited by habitat and competition with abundant fall chinook rather than harvest. However, given the small run |
| | |size, it may be appropriate to restrict harvest further as a precautionary measure. Note: At the August |
| | |Commission meeting, there was a Public request to reclassify form C to B. Staff supports further consideration |
| | |of this proposal. |
|024S |Conservation |Page 28 Salmon River |
| | |Close salmon angling above bridge near Milepost 9 on Hwy 18. |
| |Staff proposal modified|Existing Rule: |
| |by 101P below |Open for chinook salmon, adipose fin-clipped coho salmon upstream to bridge located between Milepost 11 and 12 on|
| | |Hwy 18 May 22 – December 31. |
| |Adopted |Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead upstream to bridge located between Milepost 11 and 12 on Hwy 18 January 1 |
| | |– March 31 and May 22 – December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: |
| | |Open for chinook salmon, adipose fin-clipped coho salmon upstream to bridge located near Milepost 9 on Hwy 18 May|
| | |28 – December 31. |
| | |Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead upstream to bridge located between Milepost 11 and 12 on Hwy 18 January 1 |
| | |– March 31 and May 28 – December 31. |
| | |Rationale: The area has been surveyed extensively for angler use and spawning salmon by ODFW. These surveys |
| | |identify that this section of stream is used almost exclusively for spawning. Angling pressure in the section is|
| | |light with the few anglers frequently targeting spawning fish. This regulation change will provide additional |
| | |protection for these spawning salmon while having very little impact on legitimate fisheries. (Buckman) |
|023S |New opportunity |Page 28 Siuslaw River, Section 1 |
| | |Open Siuslaw River to retention of adipose fin-marked coho salmon. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Closed to retention of adipose fin-clipped coho salmon. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Siuslaw River, Section 1. Mainstem upstream to Whittaker Creek including tidewater. Open to |
| | |retention of adipose fin-clipped coho salmon from Aug 1-Dec. 31. |
| | |Rationale: Allow retention of occasional hatchery coho salmon that are caught incidentally during large fisheries|
| | |for fall chinook salmon in the Siuslaw River. The Siuslaw Basin is not stocked with hatchery coho salmon so only|
| | |a few stray fish will be harvested. A target coho fishery is not likely to develop. This will make coho salmon|
| | |regulations consistent with steelhead regulations where anglers can retain hatchery fish that are caught in |
| | |basins that are not stocked. (Buckman) |
|029S |Housekeeping and |Page 29 Three Rivers (Nestucca Basin) |
| |expanded opportunity |Expand the steelhead and spring chinook angling opportunities on Three Rivers, Section 1. |
| | |Existing Rule: |
| |Adopted |Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead Jan. 1 - March 31 and 4th Saturday in May – December 31. |
| | |Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May 22 - June 30. |
| | |Proposed Rule: |
| | |Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead entire year. |
| | |Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - June 30. |
| | |Rationale: This rule change will expand angling opportunity in Three Rivers for hatchery origin (derived from |
| | |wild broodstock) winter steelhead, hatchery summer steelhead, and hatchery spring chinook salmon. Beginning in |
| | |2005, fin-clipped wild-broodstock winter steelhead will begin returning to Three Rivers (and the mainstem |
| | |Nestucca) as part of a program initiated in 2003. Opportunities for expanded catch of adipose fin-clipped spring|
| | |chinook salmon and hatchery summer steelhead will take advantage of recently strong returns of returning hatchery|
| | |stock and reduce the need for trap and haul later in the year. Also, beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery |
| | |spring chinook salmon in Three Rivers will have an adipose fin-clip so the rule can be changed from fin-clipped |
| | |to adipose fin-clipped. (Braun) |
|153P |Conservation, improve |Page 29 Three Rivers |
| |quality of fishery |Eliminate angling from a floating device on Three Rivers. |
| | |Existing Rule: Angling from a floating device allowed. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: No angling from a floating device. |
| | |Rationale: To protect instream and riparian habitat. To protect spawning fish from harassment. To reduce social |
| | |conflicts between bank and boat anglers. (Ron Byrd) |
| | |Staff Summary: This proposal is addressing a social issue between bank and boat anglers on a relatively small |
| | |waterway. |
|026S |Housekeeping |Page 29 Tillamook Bay |
| | |Change the spring chinook salmon fin-clip retention requirement for Tillamook Bay. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Tillamook Bay will be marked |
| | |with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|030S |Housekeeping |Page 29 Tillamook River, tidewater |
| | |Change the spring chinook salmon fin-clip retention requirement for the Tillamook River, Section 1 (tidewater). |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1- July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Tillamook River tidewater will |
| | |be marked with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|027S |Housekeeping |Page 29 Tillamook River, mainstem |
| | |Change the spring chinook salmon fin-clip retention requirement for the Tillamook River, Section 2 (Mainstem, |
| |Adopted |upstream from tidewater). |
| | |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon 4th Saturday in May - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Tillamook River mainstem will |
| | |be marked with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|028S |Expanded opportunity |Page 29 Trask River |
| | |Expand angling season on the Trask River (Section 1). |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Closed from Gold Creek, at Hatchery, 200 feet upstream and 900 feet downstream May 15 – December |
| | |15. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Closed from Gold Creek, at Hatchery, 200 feet upstream and 900 feet downstream June 1 – November |
| | |30. |
| | |Rationale: This proposal expands the angling season in this section of the lower Trask River by an additional two|
| | |weeks in the spring because returns of adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon continue to be strong and |
| | |broodstock availability continues to be far greater than needed for hatchery production. This proposal also |
| | |opens the hole two weeks earlier in the winter to take advantage of opportunities for winter steelhead and |
| | |late-arriving fall chinook salmon. (Braun) |
|025S |Housekeeping |Page 29 Trask River |
| | |Change the spring chinook salmon fin-clip retention requirements for the Trask River, Section 1. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Trask River will be marked with|
| | |an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|032S |Housekeeping |Page 30 Wilson River |
| | |Change the spring chinook salmon fin-clip retention requirements for the Wilson River. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped spring chinook salmon April 1 - July 31. |
| | |Rationale: Beginning in 2005, all returning hatchery spring chinook salmon in the Wilson River will be marked |
| | |with an adipose fin-clip. (Braun) |
|031S |New opportunity |Page 30 Yaquina River |
| | |Open the Yaquina River (Section 1) to retention of adipose fin-clipped coho salmon. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule. Closed to retention of adipose fin-clipped coho salmon. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Yaquina River including Bay, Section 1. Open to retention of adipose fin-clipped coho salmon from|
| | |Aug 1-December 31. |
| | |Rationale: Allow retention of occasional hatchery coho salmon that are caught incidentally during large fisheries|
| | |for fall chinook salmon in the Yaquina River. The Yaquina Basin is not stocked with hatchery coho salmon so only |
| | |a few stray fish will be harvested. This will make coho salmon regulations consistent with steelhead regulations|
| | |where anglers can retain hatchery fish that are caught in basins that are not stocked. (Buckman) |
|008S |Conservation & Harvest |Page 23 All Coastal Rivers – NW Zone |
| |opportunity |Expand trout harvest opportunities in a portion of Northwest Zone streams. |
| | |Current Rule: Streams: Catch and release Neskowin Creek and north. |
| |Rejected |Proposed Rule: Streams: Lower Columbia River tributaries, Catch and Release only. Necanicum River and south |
| | |(includes Neacoxie/Neawanna), 2 per day, 2 daily limits in possession. |
| | |Streams would be open to trout angling under the Zone Regulations with a season from second weekend in May – |
| | |October 31, 8-inch minimum length. Special Regulations for specific streams would still apply (closures, special|
| | |seasons, and gear regulations). |
| | |Rationale: Expands opportunity in northern portion of NW Zone where data indicates increasing trend in relative |
| | |abundance of cutthroat trout. Rule change is consistent with existing regulations within NW Zone from Salmon |
| | |River and south. Continues to restrict retention in Lower Columbia tributaries where cutthroat trout abundance |
| | |and trend data is limited. (Braun) |
| | |Staff Summary: This proposal has mixed public support. Staff feels that this modest harvest opportunity strikes |
| | |a balance between harvest opportunity and conservation. A detailed biological assessment has been developed by |
| | |ODFW as part of this proposal (Biology, Status and Management of Coastal Cutthroat Trout on the North Oregon |
| | |Coast, Neskowin Creek – Necanicum River) |
|087P |Increased opportunity |Page 23 All Coastal Rivers - NW Zone |
| | |Allow retention coastal cutthroat trout in North Coast streams. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Catch and release for cutthroat trout. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Daily Catch and keep limit of two trout, 8 inch minimum. |
| | |Rationale: To increase recreational opportunities for both local and non-local citizens and to bring the fishing |
| | |regulations up to par with the Southern Coastal Oregon rivers fishery. (Dennis Callegari, Jake Thiemens, Dana |
| | |Clay, Joseph Jacob) |
| | |Note: The Angling Regulation Review Board deferred to ODFW Staff Proposal 008S for actual rule language that |
| | |would allow coastal cutthroat harvest on North Coast streams. Numerous Public proposals have been submitted to |
| | |allow retention of cutthroat trout in Northwest Coast streams, some specific to rivers like the Wilson, Nestucca,|
| | |Miami or Trask. These have been all combined into one Public Proposal, proposal 087P). |
| | |Staff Summary: This proposal is essentially the same as staff proposal 008S; therefore, staff recommends that |
| | |this proposal be rejected and consideration of a consumptive cutthroat trout fishery focus on staff’s proposal. |
|110P |Increased opportunity |Page 23 All Coastal Rivers - NW Zone |
| | |Allow limited harvest (14-16 inch slot limit, 30 day fall season) of coastal cutthroat in Tillamook County |
| |Rejected |Streams. |
| | |Rationale: Allow limited harvest of searun coastal cutthroat trout where abundant. |
| | |(Gary Brown) |
| | |Note: The Angling Regulation Review Board deferred to ODFW Staff Proposal 008S for actual rule language that |
| | |would allow coastal cutthroat harvest on North Coast streams. |
| | |Staff Summary: This proposal is related to staff proposal 008S; therefore, staff recommends that this proposal |
| | |be rejected and consideration of a consumptive cutthroat trout fishery focus on staff’s proposal. |
|076P |Expanded opportunity |Page 25 Devils Lake (Lincoln Co.) |
| | |Allow anglers to retain grass carp in Devils Lake. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Closed to the taking of Grass Carp |
| | |Proposed Rule: Allow for the catch and harvest of Grass Carp (2 fish per day). |
| | |Rationale. Grass Carp have been overstocked in the lake causing extensive vegetation lose and turbidity |
| | |problems. Allowing some reduction through angling would allow for a better balance of aquatic growth, fish cover |
| | |and reproduction of other species. (Oregon Bass and Panfish Club) |
| | |Staff Summary: Staff does not recommend allowing sport fishing of grass carp in Devils Lake. Anglers and |
| | |landowners who attended the public meetings were strongly opposed to this proposal. Currently, ODFW District |
| | |staff are attempting to organize a meeting of interested stakeholders to discuss fish management, vegetation |
| | |management, and water quality concerns in Devils Lake. District staff have presented Devils Lake fish management|
| | |issues to the Warmwater Working Group. Devils Lake fish management related to grass carp and warmwater fish |
| | |production has been identified as an action on the Warmwater Task List. This proposal was considered by the |
| | |Commission in 2000 and rejected. |
|101P |Conservation, maintain |Page 28 Salmon River |
| |fishery |Modify staff proposal for the Salmon River (024S) to keep steelhead and trout angling open above Milepost 9. |
| | |Existing Rule: Open to fishing to mile post 11. Open to fishing to mile post 9 only proposed for 2005. |
| |Rejected |Proposed Rule: Open for salmon fishing to mile post 9 but open to steelhead and trout fishing to mile post 11. |
| |Note: incorporated into|January 1 - March 31 steelhead and May 22- October 31 trout. |
| |staff proposal 024S |Rationale: Protect the salmon when spawning but allow trout/steelhead fisherman to fish the area above milepost 9|
| | |to 11. (Peter Celich) |
| | |Staff Summary: Staff supports the intent of this public proposal and has modified the original staff proposal for|
| | |the Salmon River to be consistent with this proposal. During steelhead season, flows are higher and fish spread |
| | |out creating a higher quality of fisher. Staff recommends rejecting this proposal and adopt staff proposal 024S. |
|154P |Balance warmwater |Page 23 Devils Lake (Lincoln Co.) |
| |angling opportunity |Catch and release only for warmwater game fish in Devils Lake. |
| | |Rationale: Provide protection from harvest for the remaining fish to increase the number available to catch and |
| |Rejected |increase the spawning capacity for the future. The lake cannot support the current limit and harvest set in the |
| | |regulations. Protection of the remaining fish will begin the recovery of the fishery lost due to the total |
| | |eradication of aquatic vegetation. (Chuck Lang) |
|155P |Balance warmwater |Page 23 Devils Lake (Lincoln Co.) |
| |angling opportunity |Catch and release only for all bass in Devils Lake. |
| | |Rationale: Provide protection from harvest for the remaining fish to increase the number available to catch and |
| |Rejected |increase the spawning capacity for the future. The lake cannot support the current limit and harvest set in the |
| | |regulations. Protection of the remaining fish will begin the recovery of the fishery lost due to the total |
| | |eradication of aquatic vegetation. (Chuck Lang) |
|106P |Increased opportunity |Page 23 All Coastal Rivers - NW Zone |
| | |Allow harvest of wild steelhead in NW Zone Coastal streams where there are healthy steelhead populations. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Allows for the limited harvest of native steelhead and permits anglers to keep fish that would |
| | |otherwise die. After this many years of releasing, if we can't keep a native, perhaps the program doesn't work. |
| | |(Ken Turnidge) |
|188P |Conservation |Page 23 North Coast Streams, Necanicum River to Neskowin Creek |
| | |Restrict trout angling on the North Coast streams to single barbless artificial flies and lures. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Adding single hook and barbless specifications will greatly assist in survivability of hooked wild |
| | |and native resident cutthroat trout (Dionisco Abing) |
|114P |Harvest opportunity |Page 23 Tillamook Co. Streams |
| | |Allow harvest on unmarked (no adipose fin-clip) jack spring chinook salmon during the spring salmons seasons for |
| |Rejected |Tillamook County streams. |
| | |Rationale: Jack salmon are already being caught in the fall run at the coast. Why not also allow harvest in the|
| | |spring. (Gary Walstrom) |
|189P |Conservation |Page 24 Big Creek (Clatsop Co.) |
| | |Restrict trout angling on Big Creek to single barbless artificial flies and lures. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Adding single hook and barbless specifications will greatly assist in survivability of hooked wild |
| | |and native resident cutthroat trout. (Dioniscio Abing) |
|187P |Conservation |Page 25 Lewis & Clark River, North Fork |
| | |Restrict trout angling on the North Fork of the Lewis and Clark River to single barbless artificial flies and |
| |Rejected |lures. |
| | |Rationale: Adding single hook and barbless specifications will greatly assist in survivability of hooked wild |
| | |and native resident cutthroat trout. (Dioniscio Abing) |
|184P |Conservation |Page 26 Lake Creek, Siuslaw Basin |
| | |Change salmon and steelhead angling deadline on Lake Creek from Deadwood to Indian Creek. |
| |Public request to |Rationale: The purpose would be for protection of wild fall chinook salmon – the two mile section would be closed|
| |reclassify from C to B.|to angling for coho salmon and steelhead through the end of November when the wild chinook run is winding down |
| |Staff does not support |and the protected run of wild coho has just started – typically the two mile section of stream has low flow |
| |reclassification of |conditions when chinook salmon are close to spawning. These dark fish bunch up in a few deep holes where they |
| |this proposal. |are vulnerable to snagging – in addition, this rule would be consistent with efforts to aid in the recovery of |
| | |wild coho stocks in Lake Creek. (Calvin Hood) |
| |Rejected |Staff Summary: Fish tend to keg up in a few holes in this section and become vulnerable to snagging. Fall |
| | |chinook spawner abundance in the Siuslaw has set a new high in each of the last three years. Siuslaw chinook |
| | |angling deadlines were lowered in year 2000 on both Lake Creek and the mainstem Siuslaw. Additional restrictions|
| | |of the fishery are not warranted for conservation. |
|186P |Conservation |Page 26 Lake Creek, Siuslaw Basin |
| |Rejected |Change regulations on Lake Creek to protect fall chinook salmon. |
| | |Rationale: Prevent the widespread illegal snagging of chinook salmon that move into Lake Creek during periods of |
| | |reduced flows. (Todd Miller) |
|074P |Expanded opportunity |Page 26 Tillamook County Streams |
| | |Remove chinook annual bag limit restrictions for Nehalem, Tillamook and Nestucca bays and streams. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To remove regulations that are not necessary for biological issues. Would be supported by a broad |
| | |base of fisherman versus a local concerned citizenry or specific interest group(s). (Dale Christensen) |
|077P |Conservation & Harvest |Page 26 Necanicum River |
| |opportunity |Allow anglers to retain fin-clipped coho salmon in Necanicum River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To allow the incidental catch of stray fin-clipped Coho Salmon while angling for Chinook Salmon during|
| | |the regular Chinook fishing season. (Richard Gammon) |
|075P |Conservation & Maintain|Page 28 Salmonberry River |
| |opportunity |Restrict the use of bait and require single point hooks on non-buoyant lures in the Salmonberry River. |
| | |Rationale: The fishery is primarily catch and release of late run native winter steelhead. These actions could |
| |Rejected |serve to avoid unintentional takes of a stock protected under 4(d) rules of the Federal Endangered Species Act |
| | |while continuing to allow angling opportunities. (Roy Bowden) |
|092P |Enforcement |Page 28 Salmon River |
| | |Restrict harvest (reduced daily and annual bag limits) of chinook salmon in the Salmon River until October 1. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Due to perennial limited water flows (July - Sept) the salmon are unable to migrate upstream above the|
| | |(Forest Service) area. These fish are trapped in small holes, which results in (Snagging and other fishing |
| | |violations). A group has been formed to help alleviate the problem but rule change seems to be the only answer. |
| | |(Hal Graves) |
|183P |Conservation & Quality |Page 28 Salmon River |
| |fishery |Close the Salmon River to salmon angling when low flows prevent upstream fish migration. |
| | |Rationale: To prevent angling access to referred area where spawning runs are prevented upstream migration during|
| |Rejected |periods of abnormally low water levels and thereby subjected to intense angling pressure in that area from bank |
| | |and boat traffic and a totally unsportsmanlike situation. (James Clarke) |
|185P |Increased opportunity |Page 28 Siuslaw River |
| | |Allow the use soft plastic jugs for shad fishing on the Siuslaw River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The existing rule is seldom enforced. More smolts and cutthroat trout are injured by treble hooks on |
| | |lures than with single hook jig-heads with soft plastics. Most all fish are hooked in the corner of the mouth |
| | |making for an easy release. (Tony Tantalo) |
|190P |Conservation |Page 28 Siuslaw River |
| | |Ban the use of lead sinkers on the Siuslaw River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To reduce the levels of lead in the Siuslaw River. Water samples revealed lead levels above EPA |
| | |standards for water quality. (Todd Miller) |
|191P |Conservation |Page 28 Siuslaw River |
| | |Reduce crayfish bag limits on the Siuslaw River and close Indian and Deadwood creeks to crayfish harvest. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Over the last 9 years, members of the Siuslaw Watershed Council have complained about the declining |
| | |numbers of crayfish in the local streams. Unfortunately there is no money being allocated to study these animals|
| | |and determine what their status is in the Siuslaw River Basin. Our proposed rules are an appropriate regulatory |
| | |precautionary measure in response to declining populations. We believe that in lieu of current scientific study |
| | |a closure of the Indian and Deadwood Creek watersheds for the 2-005-2008 time period would provide useful |
| | |information about the potential for these animals to expand their population. (Todd Miller) |
|193P |Conservation |Page 30 Youngs River |
| | |Restrict trout angling on Youngs River to single barbless artificial flies and lures and open to catch and |
| |Rejected |release trout angling all year upstream of Youngs River Falls. |
| | |Rationale: Adding single hook and barbless specifications will greatly assist in survivability of hooked wild |
| | |and native resident cutthroat trout. The added Aug. 31st to Oct. 31 catch and release dates will aid in the |
| | |survival of unknown populations of resident cutthroat stocks in Youngs River, upstream of Youngs Falls, while |
| | |providing additional angling opportunity. (Dioniscio Young) |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|234P |Increased opportunity |Page 36 Glade Creek (tributary to the Little Applegate River below Applegate Dam). |
| | |Open Glade Creek to trout angling. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Tributaries to the Applegate River upstream to Applegate Dam closed to all angling. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Glade Creek open for trout angling above Forest Service Road 2030 fourth weekend in April – |
| | |October 31, two trout per day, 8 inch minimum, angling restricted to artificial flies and lures. |
| | |Rationale: To increase angling opportunity on a stream that contains no anadromous fished due to a natural falls |
| | |miles below the read crossing and contains a healthy, wild trout population. (Ian Reid, USFS) |
|034S |Increased opportunity &|Page 37 Coos Bay |
| |Simplify pamphlet |Eliminate striped bass closure for Coos Bay. |
| |format |Existing Rule: Catching Slough closed to angling January 1 - May 31 and November 1 - December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Eliminate closure. |
| |Adopted |Rationale: This regulation was instituted several years ago to protect striped bass in a winter/spring use area, |
| | |where the fish retreat to get out of the heavy flow of the Coos River. This regulation pre-dates a change in the|
| | |minimum legal size for harvest from 16 inches to 30 inches. The current two fish per day, 30-inch minimum size |
| | |limit now protects striped bass, and the area closure in Catching Slough is not necessary. (Gray) |
|033S |Expanded opportunity |Page 37 Coos River |
| | |Expand steelhead season on the Coos River, Section 2. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for chinook salmon and adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 – March 31 and 4th Saturday in|
| | |May – December 31, except closed for salmon upstream from Seven-mile Bridge. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for chinook salmon and adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 – April 30 and 4th Saturday in|
| | |May – December 31, except closed for salmon upstream from Seven-mile Bridge. |
| | |Rationale: Extending the steelhead angling season into April will allow anglers a greater opportunity to fish for|
| | |later returning hatchery steelhead which have resulted from changes in hatchery broodstocks. For over a decade, |
| | |the Coos-Coquille-Tenmile Fish District has implemented a change-over from out-of-basin hatchery steelhead |
| | |broodstocks (e.g. Alsea stock) to localized broodstock. One consequence of using localized broodstock and |
| | |incorporating wild fish each year, is an apparent shift to later running hatchery steelhead. (Gray) |
|035S |Increased opportunity &|Page 37 Coos River |
| |Simplify pamphlet |Eliminate striped bass closure for Coos River Section 1. |
| |format |Existing Rule: South Fork to head of tide closed to striped bass angling April 1 - June 30. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Eliminate closure. |
| |Adopted |Rationale: This regulation was instituted several years ago to protect spawning striped bass. After conducting |
| | |the five-year, Corps-funded Salinity Intrusion Study, and with long-term evaluation of striped bass recruitment |
| | |through annual estuary seining, there appears to be little, if any, successful natural reproduction of striped |
| | |bass in the Coos System. With minimal natural reproductive success, providing anglers with any substantial |
| | |fishery in the Coos will require support through the stocking of hatchery-produced fish. (Gray) |
|037S |Increased opportunity &|Page 37 Coos River |
| |Simplify pamphlet |Eliminate striped bass closure on the Coos River, Section 2. |
| |format |Existing Rule: Closed to striped bass. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Eliminate closure. |
| |Adopted |Rationale: This regulation was instituted several years ago to protect spawning striped bass. After conducting |
| | |the five-year, Corps-funded Salinity Intrusion Study, and with long-term evaluation of striped bass recruitment |
| | |through annual estuary seining, there appears to be little, if any, successful natural reproduction of striped |
| | |bass in the Coos System. With minimal natural reproductive success, providing anglers with any substantial |
| | |fishery in the Coos will require support through the stocking of hatchery-produced fish. (Gray) |
|036S |Expanded opportunity |Page 37 Coquille River |
| | |Expand steelhead angling opportunity on the Coquille River, Sections 2, 3,4,and 5. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for chinook salmon and adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - March 31 and December 1 |
| | |(Section 2) or Oct. 1 (Section 3,4 and 5) – December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for chinook salmon and adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1. - April 30 and December 1 |
| | |(Section 2) or January 1 – April 30 and October– December 31 1 (Sections 3, 4 and 5). |
| | |Rationale: Extending the steelhead angling season into April will allow anglers a greater opportunity to fish for|
| | |later returning hatchery steelhead which have resulted from changes in hatchery broodstocks. For over a decade, |
| | |the Coos-Coquille-Tenmile Fish District has implemented a change-over from out-of-basin hatchery steelhead |
| | |broodstocks (e.g. Alsea stock) to localized broodstock. One consequence of using localized broodstock and |
| | |incorporating wild fish each year, is an apparent shift to later running hatchery steelhead. (Gray) |
|143P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Eel Creek |
| | |Open Eel Creek to steelhead angling and retention of adipose fin-clipped fish. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for trout May 22 - October 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead from Jan. 1 – April 30. |
| | |Rationale: Eel Creek has a large run of hatchery steelhead returning to acclimation site on stream. Wild |
| | |steelhead compose less than 1% of run. January 1 opener would protect wild coho. (Armand Pena). Note: Angling |
| | |season of the original proposal was modified by staff to have the season open through April to be consistent with|
| | |proposed changes for nearby streams. |
|038S |Limited harvest |Page 38 Illinois River |
| |opportunity |Allow harvest opportunity for adipose fin-clipped rainbow trout and adipose fin-clipped steelhead in the Illinois|
| | |River |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Catch and release for steelhead and trout January 1 - March 31 and 4th Saturday in May – December |
| | |31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for steelhead and trout January 1 - March 31 and fourth Saturday in May – December 31. |
| | |5 adipose fin-clipped rainbow trout per day, 8 inch minimum length. |
| | |Rainbow trout over 16 inches are considered steelhead and must be recorded on Combined angling Tag or Hatchery |
| | |Harvest Tag. |
| | |Nonadipose fin-clipped rainbow and steelhead and all cutthroat trout must be released unharmed. |
| | |Rationale: Allows harvest of hatchery (adipose fin-clipped) half-pounders and steelhead that enter from the Rogue|
| | |River. (Haight) |
|039S |Expanded opportunity |Page 38 Middle Creek (North Fork Coquille River) |
| | |Expand steelhead angling opportunity on Middle Creek (North Fork Coquille) |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open adipose fin-clipped steelhead Jan. 1 - March 31 and 4th Saturday in May - December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - April 30 and fourth Saturday in May – December |
| | |31. |
| | |Rationale: Extending the steelhead angling season into April will allow anglers a greater opportunity to fish for|
| | |later returning hatchery steelhead which have resulted from changes in hatchery broodstocks. For over a decade, |
| | |the Coos-Coquille-Tenmile Fish District has implemented a change-over from out-of-basin hatchery steelhead |
| | |broodstocks (e.g. Alsea stock) to localized broodstock. One consequence of using localized broodstock and |
| | |incorporating wild fish each year, is an apparent shift to later running hatchery steelhead. (Gray) |
|040S |Expanded opportunity |Page 38 Millicoma River |
| | |Expand steelhead angling opportunities on the Millicoma River, Section 2. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 – March 31 and 4th Saturday in May – December 31.|
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - April 30 and 4th Saturday in May - Dec. 31. |
| | |Rationale: Extending the steelhead angling season into April will allow anglers a greater opportunity to fish for|
| | |later returning hatchery steelhead which have resulted from changes in hatchery broodstocks. For over a decade, |
| | |the Coos-Coquille-Tenmile Fish District has implemented a change-over from out-of-basin hatchery steelhead |
| | |broodstocks (e.g. Alsea stock) to localized broodstock. One consequence of using localized broodstock and |
| | |incorporating wild fish each year, is an apparent shift to later running hatchery steelhead. (Gray) |
|041S |Increased opportunity &|Page 38 Millicoma River |
| |Simplify pamphlet |Eliminate striped bass closure on the Millicoma River, Section 1. |
| |format |Existing Rule: Closed for striped bass April 1 - June 30. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Eliminate closure. |
| |Adopted |Rationale: This regulation was instituted several years ago to protect spawning striped bass. After conducting |
| | |the five-year, Corps-funded Salinity Intrusion Study, and with long-term evaluation of striped bass recruitment |
| | |through annual estuary seining, there appears to be little, if any, successful natural reproduction of striped |
| | |bass in the Coos System. With minimal natural reproductive success, providing anglers with any substantial |
| | |fishery in the Coos will require support through the stocking of hatchery-produced fish.(Gray) |
|042S |Increased opportunity &|Page 38 East and West forks Millicoma River |
| |Simplify pamphlet |Eliminate striped bass closure on the Millicoma River, Section 2. |
| |format |Existing Rule: Closed for striped bass. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Eliminate closure. |
| |Adopted |Rationale: This regulation was instituted several years ago to protect spawning striped bass. After conducting |
| | |the five-year, Corps-funded Salinity Intrusion Study, and with long-term evaluation of striped bass recruitment |
| | |through annual estuary seining, there appears to be little, if any, successful natural reproduction of striped |
| | |bass in the Coos System. With minimal natural reproductive success, providing anglers with any substantial |
| | |fishery in the Coos will require support through the stocking of hatchery-produced fish. (Gray) |
|043S |Simplify pamphlet |Page 39 Rogue River |
| |format |Change nonadipose fin-clipped steelhead angling deadline on the Rogue River. |
| | |Existing Rule: Whiskey Creek angling deadline (bullets 8 and 9) |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Change Whiskey Creek angling deadline to Hog Creek (bullets 8 and 9) |
| | |Rationale: Facilitates reorganization of Rogue River section 1 regulations to make them easier to understand. |
| | |(Haight) |
|088P |Expanded opportunity |Page 39 Rogue River |
| | |Expand areas and times where bait can be used on the Rogue River by changing angling deadlines for flies and |
| |Adopted |lures from Elk County Park to Shady Cove. |
| | |Existing Rule: Gold Ray Reservoir (not including the reservoir) upstream to boat ramp at Elk County Park, |
| | |restricted to artificial flies and lures, Nov. 1- Dec. 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Gold Ray Reservoir (not including the reservoir) upstream to boat ramp at Shady Cove, restricted |
| | |to artificial flies and lures, Nov. 1- Dec. 31. |
| | |Rationale: To open up more of the river so guides and bait fishermen can have a longer float – from the hatchery |
| | |to the above boat ramp. Would still preserve two main spawning tributaries, Little butte Creek and Bear Creek, |
| | |for wild fish. Would be losing some fish which might spawn in Ilk &Trail Creeks, but this compromise seems |
| | |worthwhile. |
| | |(Larry Bressler) |
| | |Staff Summary: Staff prefers proposal 096P but does not object to this proposal. Requested to be reclassified to|
| | |a “B” Category proposal by the Commission. |
|044S |Expand opportunity |Page 40 Tenmile Creek (Coos Co.) |
| | |Expand steelhead angling opportunity on Tenmile Creek. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule. Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - March 31 and 4th Saturday in May – December |
| | |31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - April 30 and 4th Saturday in May – December 31.|
| | |Rationale: Extending the steelhead angling season into April will allow anglers a greater opportunity to fish for|
| | |later returning hatchery steelhead which have resulted from changes in hatchery broodstocks. For over a decade, |
| | |the Coos-Coquille-Tenmile Fish District has implemented a change-over from out-of-basin hatchery steelhead |
| | |broodstocks (e.g. Alsea stock) to localized broodstock. One consequence of using localized broodstock and |
| | |incorporating wild fish each year, is an apparent shift to later running hatchery steelhead. (Gray) |
|046S |Conservation & |Page 40 Smith River |
| |Increased opportunity |Expand steelhead angling opportunities and protect coho salmon in the Smith River (Umpqua River Section 4). |
| | |Existing Rule. Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - March 31 and November 16 – December 31. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - April 30 and December 1 - 31. |
| | |Rationale: Protect coho salmon during November migration, and allow additional fishing access to late arriving |
| | |winter steelhead. (Muck) |
|045S |Harvest opportunity |Page 40 Tenmile Lakes |
| | |Expand harvest opportunities for hatchery origin rainbow trout in Tenmile Lakes. |
| | |Existing Rule. Rainbow trout over 20 inches are considered steelhead. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Rainbow trout over 20 inches are considered steelhead November 1-April 30. May 1 - Oct. 31 |
| | |rainbow trout over 20 inches are considered trout and may be harvested 1 per day as per the Zone Regulations. |
| | |Rationale: The Tenmile Lakes produce some holdover rainbow (unmarked) from our legal trout releases. Some of |
| | |these survive and grow to over 20 inches. While we want to protect unmarked winter steelhead as they pass |
| | |through the lakes, we can designate a seasonal closure to protect them (Nov. 1-Apr. 30). Outside of this period,|
| | |and especially during the traditional trout season, we propose to allow anglers to keep one rainbow per day over |
| | |20 as a trout. (Gray) |
|165P |Balance warmwater |Page 40 Tenmile Lakes |
| |angling opportunity |Eliminate the harvest of bass over 15 inches in Tenmile Lakes. |
| | |Existing Rule: Warmwater game fish: Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass catch limits: 5 per day, no more than 3 over|
| | |15 inches in length. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Warmwater game fish: Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass catch limits: 5 per day under 15 inches. |
| | |Rationale: Action taken to increase the number of larger sized fish for catch and release angling while providing|
| | |quality fish that can be taken in a daily bag. Increased fishing pressure and decreased spawning habitat have |
| | |reduced the lakes ability to support the high yield goals of the lake. The current basin plan calls for |
| | |protection of the larger fish to provide predator-sized bass to help control bluegill populations. The proposed |
| | |changes will support both goals and is consistent with the lake’s use as a major warm-water angling destination. |
| | |(Chuck Lang) |
| | |Staff summary: A highly contentious proposal supported by tournament bass anglers. Other angling interests may |
| | |not support this proposal. Native fish proponents do not support regulations that protect non-native fish. |
| | |Increased predation by larger bass would not be supportive of recovery goals for native coho in the Tenmile |
| | |system. The complex of warmwater fish species in Tenmile Lakes limits the affect and complicates evaluation of |
| | |potential management actions. Evidence indicates that summer salmonid rearing in the lakes has already been |
| | |eliminated or severely reduced, so that changes in the bass population structure may not have a detrimental |
| | |impact on native fish populations. A higher abundance of larger bass may also help to reduce negative |
| | |interactions between native fish and other warmwater fish species. If adopted, monitoring of the bass population|
| | |could be enhanced through intensified tournament bass angling reporting. Coho salmon monitoring is ongoing as |
| | |part of Oregon Plan monitoring activities. This regulation may assist in meeting Basin Plan management |
| | |objectives for a “high yield” consumptive fishery for small to mid-size bass, provide better quality tournament |
| | |angling, and have an acceptable level of impact to native fish (consistent with native fish recovery and |
| | |management). If this regulation is adopted, adequate monitoring and evaluation would be necessary to ensure that|
| | |native fish and introduced fish management objectives are being met. |
|091P |Expanded opportunity |Page 40 Umpqua River, Mainstem |
| | |Allow wild winter steelhead harvest in the mainstem of the Umpqua River January 1 - April 30 and December 1 - |
| |Adopted |December 31; 1 per day, 5 per year. |
| | |Existing Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead entire year. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead the entire year. Non-adipose fin-clipped steelhead may be|
| | |kept Jan. 1 - April 30 and Dec. 1 - Dec. 31; 1 per day, 5 per year. |
| | |Rationale: Expand the local fishery to the harvest of wild fish. Provide additional consumptive harvest on |
| | |healthy stocks of winter steelhead. Local ODFW staff has determined run size is in the range of 30,000 to 40,000|
| | |and are sustainable. Mainstem tributaries are closed for steelhead escapement. Hatchery catch rates in the |
| | |mainstem are also estimated below 10% of the catch. (multiple Public Proposals submitted) |
| | |Staff summary: A detailed analysis of this proposal is being developed as part of a biological assessment being |
| | |completed by Umpqua Fish District Staff. Since this assessment is still being developed and reviewed, the Staff |
| | |Recommendation on this proposal is pending until completion of this assessment. |
|New |Increased opportunity |Page 41 Umpqua River, North - Fly Area |
| | |Allow the use of weighted flies in the North Fork Umpqua River fly angling area from October 1 – December 31 and |
| |Adopted |January 1 – June 30. |
| |Note: Commission asked |Existing Rule: Angling restricted to use of single barbless unweighted artificial fly. |
| |Staff to develop this |Proposed Rule: July 1 – September30. Angling restricted to use of single barbless unweighted artificial fly. |
| |compromise proposal in |October 1 – June 30, Angling restricted to fly angling only with single barbless hook. |
| |response to public |Staff summary: This is a modified proposal developed by ODFW Staff following Commission direction to develop a |
| |testimony in this |compromise proposal as suggested by members of the public. The intent of this proposal is to allow anglers to |
| |issue. |use weighted flies during all but the warm summer months. Keep the no weighted fly restriction in place during |
| | |the summer months to minimize angling impacts to summer steelhead adults. |
|047S |Conservation & |Page 41 South Umpqua River |
| |Increased opportunity |Expand steelhead angling opportunity and protect late returning coho in the Sough Umpqua River (mouth upstream to|
| | |Jackson Creek Bridge, Umpqua River Basin Section 10) |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - March 31 and November 16- December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1 - April 30 and December 1 - 31. |
| | |Rationale: Protect late returning coho salmon during November migration and provide additional access to late |
| | |returning winter steelhead. (Muck) |
|048S |Conservation & |Page 41 Cow Creek |
| |Increased opportunity |Expand steelhead angling opportunity and protect late returning coho salmon in Cow Creek (Umpqua River Basin |
| | |Section 13). |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1-March 31 and November 16- December 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead January 1-April 30 and December 1 - 31. |
| | |Rationale: Protect late returning coho salmon during November migration and provide additional access to late |
| | |returning winter steelhead. (Muck) |
|224P |Conservation |Page 38 Illinois River Basin |
| | |Close section of Illinois River from "Little Falls" downstream 400 feet to protect fall chinook salmon |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: None |
| | |Proposed Rule: CLOSED from "Little Falls" downstream at least 400 feet. |
| | |Rationale: To help the fish, primarily the fall chinook and to be consistent with all regulations with respect to|
| | |"Falls" in the area. (Robert Cornet) |
| | |Staff Summary: Little Falls is a common local name but not identified on maps. May be confusing to some anglers|
| | |and therefore would require signing. Most of the public at the Central Point meeting supported this proposal if |
| | |there was adequate signing. A problem only exists in the fall when chinook and coho bet backed up by low flows |
| | |at these falls and are vulnerable to snaggers. |
|096P |Increased opportunity |Page 39 Rogue River |
|222P in | |Expand the use of bait in the Rogue River (Gold Ray Reservoir upstream to boat ramp at Rogue Elk County Park, |
|part. | |upper Rogue) to increase harvest opportunities for salmon and steelhead. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Page 39 10th Bullet- Use of bait allowed except: “c.” Gold Ray Reservoir (not including the |
| | |reservoir) upstream to boat ramp at Rogue Elk County Park, restricted to artificial flies and lures, Nov. 1 - |
| | |Dec. 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Remove restriction on the use of bait in the upper Rogue River by deleting exception "c." to the |
| | |use of bait under 10th bullet. |
| | |Rationale: Increase angling opportunities for adult summer steelhead; and increase harvest opportunities for |
| | |hatchery adult summer steelhead and hatchery coho salmon in the upper Rogue River where hatchery fish are in high|
| | |abundance. By increasing the harvest of hatchery fish, fewer hatchery fish will be available to spawn naturally,|
| | |thus reducing potential adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild populations. |
| | |(Roger King, Jim Broman) |
| | |Staff summary: Would simplify angling regulations. There is no biological need for this restriction. |
|095P |Increased opportunity |Page 39 Rogue River |
|200P | |Expand the use of bait in the Rogue River (Foster Creek upstream to Whiskey Creek, Rogue River Canyon) to |
|222P (in | |increase harvest opportunities for salmon and steelhead. |
|part) |Rejected |Existing Rule: Page 39 10th Bullet- Use of bait allowed except: a. Foster Creek upstream to Whiskey Creek, |
| | |restricted to artificial flies and lures, Sept. 1 - Oct. 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Remove restriction on the use of bait in the Rogue River Canyon by deleting exception "a." to the|
| | |use of bait under 10th bullet. |
| | |Rationale: Increase angling opportunities for adult summer steelhead and half-pounder steelhead, coho and fall |
| | |chinook salmon, and sturgeon; and increase harvest opportunities for hatchery adult summer steelhead, hatchery |
| | |half-pounder steelhead, fall chinook salmon and hatchery coho salmon in the Rogue Canyon. By increasing the |
| | |harvest of hatchery fish, fewer hatchery fish will be available to spawn naturally, thus reducing potential |
| | |adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild populations. (Roger King, Dave Strahn, Jim Broman) |
| | |Staff summary: Would simplify angling regulations. There is no biological need for this restriction. |
|233P |Conservation |Page 40 Smith River |
| |Similar to staff |Close steelhead season on the Smith River in November. |
| |proposal 046S. |Existing Rule: Open for adipose fin-clopped steelhead January 1 - March 31 and November 16- Dec. 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead Jan. 1 - March 31 and December 1 - December 31. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Protect spawning fall chinook salmon from angling mortality of eggs below Smith River Falls until |
| | |water comes up. (Dan Kristoffersen) |
| | |Staff Summary: This is essentially the same proposal as staff proposal 046S, but does not allow steelhead |
| | |angling in April. Staff recommends that this proposal be rejected and staff proposal 046S be adopted. |
|127P |Increased opportunity |Page 41 Umpqua River, North - Fly Area |
|141P | |Allow the use of weighted flies in the North Fork Umpqua River fly angling area. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Angling restricted to use of single barbless unweighted artificial fly. |
| |See adopted modified |Proposed Rule: Angling restricted to use of single barbless artificial fly. |
| |proposal on page 36. |Rationale: There is no biological evidence or historical data supporting the need for this prohibition. The |
| |Allows weighted flies |current prohibition on weighted artificial flies reduces overall recreational opportunities on the North Umpqua |
| |to be used from Oct 1 –|fly area by eliminating those fly fishermen who prefer to fish weighted flies and by reducing the opportunity for|
| |June 31. |fly fishermen to hook both summer steelhead and winter steelhead in the North Umpqua River. The current |
| | |prohibition weighted artificial flies has the unintended consequence of preventing trout fisherman from using |
| | |small weighted flies while trout fishing. The current prohibition on weighted fishing flies is opposed by |
| | |numerous fly fishermen who utilize the North Umpqua River fly area and is favored only by a vocal minority of fly|
| | |fishermen. The current prohibition adversely affects the local economy surrounding the North Umpqua river fly |
| | |area by reducing the overall number of anglers visiting the North Umpqua River fly area and by reducing the |
| | |wholesale and retail sale of weighted fishing flies. The prohibition is problematic for the Oregon State Police |
| | |to enforce and diverts their time away from more pressing fish and game issues. (Jeff Mornarich, 141P similar |
| | |proposal submitted by Phil Price and others) |
| | |Staff summary: Hotly debated issue in 2000. Staff does not feel that the unweighted fly regulation is |
| | |biologically necessary for native fish conservation. This proposal is well supported by anglers attending the |
| | |public meeting, although there was support for the current restriction. This proposed rule would expand angling |
| | |opportunities and be easier to enforce than current regulations. |
|203P |Increased opportunity |Page 35 All Coastal Rivers - SW Zone |
| |Rejected |Allow wild steelhead harvest in all streams in the Southwest Zone. |
| | |Rationale: Allow retention of up to 5 non fin-clipped steelhead per year to increase the ability of fisherman to |
| | |share in the harvest of the tremendous increase in the amount of non fin-clipped steelhead that are being caught.|
| | |(Lance Morgan) |
|223P |Enforcement |Page 37 Isthmus Slough |
| | |Prohibit salmon fishing in Isthmus Slough from Greenacres tide gate downstream 200 yards. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Fishing for chinook and hatchery coho salmon allowed from tide gate to mouth at Coos River. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Prohibit salmon fishing from Greenacres tide gate downstream 200 yards. |
| | |Note: Angling Regulation Review Board suggested a signed deadline for clarification. |
| | |Rationale: To help end persistent illegal snagging of salmon in a very shallow and restricted area where they are|
| | |extremely vulnerable. Enforcement is otherwise almost impossible. There is ample opportunity for several miles |
| | |downstream for legitimate angling. (John Ward, NW Steelheaders, SW Chapter) |
| | |Staff summary: This proposal addresses a chronic social problem at the Greenacres tidegate. This area is |
| | |notorious for snagging. There are large surpluses of hatchery fall chinook salmon returning to the Noble Creek |
| | |STEP facility and there is minimal spawning habitat in Isthmus Slough tributaries so this is not a biological |
| | |issue. ODFW has taken steps to change acclimation and release locations and release numbers in an effort to |
| | |reduce surplus returns to Noble Creek and target returning adult chinook to areas where exploitation rates are |
| | |higher. This proposal would also restrict some handicapped angler access to chinook in Greenacres. |
|197P |Improve fishery |Page 37 Coos Bay Streams and Sloughs |
| |Note: similar to Staff |Eliminate striped bass closures on the Coos River, Catching Slough, SF Coos and Millicoma Rivers to let the old |
| |Proposal 035S |fish be caught off and improve the fishery. |
| | |Existing Rule: Coos River from forks upstream closed April through June. Catching Slough closed 7 months of the |
| |Rejected |year for striped bass. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Eliminate Closures, open waters year round. |
| | |Rationale: The hermorphadite rate on the Coos River stripers is well above 50%. This is the reason for no |
| | |reproduction. Introduce new blood. Let the old fish be caught off. This on of the jobs ODFW is paid to do. |
| | |Create a healthy fishery. (Ronald Marcott) |
| | |Staff summary: Staff have proposed similar rules changes but staff’s rationale for this rule change is the |
| | |regulation is not needed due to lack of successful reproduction in these areas as a result of habitat changes. |
|201P |Conservation & Quality |Page 37 Coquille Watershed |
| |fishery |Close salmon fishing in the Coquille Watershed during low flow periods. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: In the fall when Fall Chinook enter the Coquille system, the low flows do not allow the salmon to |
| | |migrate upstream until higher flows occur. Fall chinook are trapped in the tidal areas and become the target of |
| | |salmon egg fishermen. (Leo Grandmontagne) |
|130P |Conservation |Page 37 Coquille River |
| | |Additional season and area closure on the Coquille River to protect fall chinook salmon. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This is a conservation closure to protect mature Chinook to allow them to spawn successfully. This |
| | |also provided angling regulation simplification. (Myron Cole) |
|131P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Coquille River |
| | |Expand the area where adipose fin-clipped salmon to be kept on the Coquille River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Adipose fin-clipped coho are put in the Coquille River to be caught by fishermen. Fin-clipped Coho |
| | |that stray upstream from Lampa Creek and are caught and released may die anyway. We don’t want to waste fish. |
| | |The cost of licenses and tags has increased and many fishermen complain of higher costs and less fish to catch |
| | |and keep. This change will lessen the chance of fin-clipped Coho spawning with the native wild Coho. (Myron |
| | |Cole) |
|163P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Coquille River |
| | |Allow wild steelhead harvest on the Coquille River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To keep fish that will not survive after being hooked deep. The help the average fisherman bring home|
| | |winter steelhead. This would be less waste of the unmarked (native steelhead). (John Lakey) |
|132P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Coquille River |
| | |Allow the harvest of wild steelhead on the Coquille River up to Argo Boat Ramp. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Catch and release of wild steelhead for the last 8 years has helped the Coquille River have a very |
| | |good run of wild steelhead. Many retired people plunk the lower river around Coquille where the ratio of wild to|
| | |hatchery fish is about 5 wild to 1 fin-clipped fish. Many released wild fish die from being hooked so deeply. |
| | |This causes fish to be wasted. The cost of licenses and tags has increased and many fishermen complain of higher|
| | |costs and less fish to catch and keep. (Myron Cole) |
|198P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Coquille River, South Fork |
|195P | |Open the South Fork Coquille River above the USFS boundary (Coal Creek) to catch-and-release steelhead angling. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Increase public bank access. Most of the lower south Coquille is accessible via boat only. Other |
| | |area rivers have similar bank access limitations. This proposal would open several miles of river completely |
| | |surrounded by National Forest. |
| | |(Chris Ellis, Nick Schaffner) |
|205P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Coquille River, South Fork |
| | |Open the upper South Fork Coquille River to trout and steelhead angling. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Allow more participation in a river in which the bank anglers are severely restricted from fishing |
| | |because almost all river access below point of closure is private property. Rescind regulation biologists at the|
| | |time said was "not critical". |
| | |(Lance Morgan) |
|144P |Conservation & Harvest |Page 37 Coquille River |
| |opportunity |Increase the bag limit and reduce the minimum length (5 fish/day, 18” minimum length) for striped bass in the |
| | |Coquille River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Reducing the size limit and increasing the bag limit will increase angling opportunity as well as help|
| | |protect our wild Coho. The coquille River has a small estuary that cannot support a large population of stripers|
| | |without having an adverse effect on native cutthroat trout, coho and fall chinook. (Myron Cole) |
|202P |Conservation |Page 37 Coquille Watershed |
| |Rejected |No bag size or bag limit on striped bass in the Coquille Watershed. |
| | |Rationale: To not repeat the history of the severe salmon decline in the Coos River system in today’s Coquille |
| | |Watershed. (Leo Grandmontagne) |
|218P |Increased opportunity |Page 37 Diamond and Lemolo Lakes |
| |Rejected |Allow ice-fishing at Diamond and Lemolo lakes. |
| | |Rationale: Make it a fun time in Winter for Ice-Fishing so people can fish in the Winter and help out the Lodge |
| | |at Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake. (Stephen Redmond) |
|166P |Increased opportunity |Page 38 Illinois River |
|162P |Rejected |Allow the use of bait and the harvest of wild steelhead on the Illinois River. |
| | |Rationale: Increase angling opportunity; bring this waterway into line with other surrounding waters with similar|
| | |rules. Overall population of Winter Steelhead is healthy and this limited take would not adversely affect |
| | |populations. (Jim Broman, Richard Edwards) |
|168P |Increased opportunity |Page 38 Illinois River |
| |Rejected |Allow "soft" baits to be used on the Illinois River but require barbless hooks. |
| | |Rationale: To use soft artificial baits for a greater opportunity to catch and release steelhead. Barbless hooks|
| | |may reduce any damage. (Robert Klumph) |
|204P |Increased opportunity |Page 38 Mill Creek (Umpqua Basin) |
| |Rejected |Allow fly angling with single barbless artificial flies on Mill Creek. |
| | |Rationale: Provide a fly fishing only river or stream on the Oregon Coast. Opens closed stream to the public and|
| | |easy enforcement because of style of fishing. Should help stop illegal fishing. With Catch & Release, there |
| | |should be very little impact on the fish or stream. (Stan Washington, Lower Umpqua Flycasters) |
|199P |Restore opportunity |Page 39 Rogue River |
| | |Reduce the use of bait in the upper Rogue River by reverting back to 2001 Sport Fishing Regulations for Rogue |
| |Public request to |River upstream from Gold Ray Reservoir. |
| |reclassify from C to B.|Rationale: It would seem logical that what was biologically and socially sound in 2001 would hold true today. |
| |Staff does not support |Why risk over-harvest, particularly increased mortality on NATIVE stocks, as return numbers will naturally and |
| |reclassification of |inevitably decrease in future years as cycles run their course. Preemptive measures will help to insure, as best|
| |this proposal. |we can, that Upper Rogue native steelhead and salmon runs remain healthy and viable. Additionally, with |
| | |thousands of Oregon river miles in which steelhead can be legally angled for, less than 70 miles (including the |
| |Rejected |Rogue) are restricted to flies-only! For those fly anglers who enjoy the fly-only fishing steelhead environment |
| | |their opportunities are minimal in the extreme. |
| | |(Michael Goreman) |
| | |Staff Summary: There is no biological need for this regulation. This proposal was in the 2001 regulations; |
| | |however, it was modified into the current regulation due to intense public pressure. |
|126P |Conservation |Page 39 Rogue River |
| | |Reduce use of bait in the upper Rogue River and prohibit the use of scents or bait attractants with flies and |
| |Rejected |lures, and all flies and lures restricted to single hooks. |
| | |Rationale: To limit the impact from bait fishing on wild summer steelhead in the upper section of the Rogue River|
| | |from Gold Ray Reservoir to above Big Butte Creek. The proposal will provide more protection to wild fish buy |
| | |using angling methods that allow faster and easier release of fish while significantly reducing stress and gill |
| | |damage caused by excessive handling and time consuming hook removal. George Scott) |
|164P |Improve fishery |Page 39 Rogue River |
| |Rejected |Designate the upper Rogue River as navigable and prohibit the use of treble hooks. |
| | |Rationale: Give sportsman access. Increase Salmon numbers, reduce snagging. (Everett Goettsch) |
|133P |Expanded opportunity |Page 39 Rogue River |
| | |Allow spring chinook angling after 7pm on the Rogue River below Cole Rivers Hatchery. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This would allow law-abiding anglers to enjoy the best fishing hours on the upper river. Law |
| | |enforcement needs to ticked or arrest the individuals who continue to break the law or cause problems. It would |
| | |not take long for the word to get out, that unlawful behavior is not acceptable. (Charles Gallagher) |
|161P |Conservation & Quality |Page 39 Rogue River |
| |fishery |Change bait, gear and catch limits on the upper Rogue River (no wild steelhead retention, single hooks only, |
| |Rejected |restrict hook size for bait fishing, require barbless hooks for some hook sizes) |
| | |Rationale: Protect wild fish and to perpetuate a world-class fishery. (Lester Melton) |
|196P |Enforcement |Page 39 Rogue River |
| | |Allow only conventional Fly Angling on the upper Rogue River to make it easier to enforce angling regulations. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Allow law enforcement to visually determine lawful or unlawful anglers from a greater distance. (Todd|
| | |Ostenson) |
|221P |Create trophy fishery |Page 40 Umpqua River, Mainstem |
| | |Change bag and size limit for smallmouth bass in the Umpqua River to: |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule. 10 smallmouth bass per day of any size, 2 daily limits in possession. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 5 Smallmouth bass per day with a slot limit of 8'- 14". |
| | |Rationale: To be consistent with similar waters and to be easily understood with clearly defined limits. To |
| | |continue economic revenue and growth by helping to create a trophy fishery.(Scott Wolf, Wolfe Brothers Guide |
| | |Service) |
|142P |Increased opportunity |Page 40 Umpqua River, Mainstem |
| |Rejected |Allow harvest of wild coho salmon in the Umpqua River. |
| | |Rationale: Stop waste. (Phil Price) |
|098P |Expanded opportunity |Page 40 Umpqua River Basin |
| |Rejected |Expand wild summer and winter steelhead harvest opportunity (1 per day 5 per year) to include the entire Umpqua |
| | |River Basin. |
| | |Rationale: We now have substantial biological data within the basin to support the harvest of a 1/5 regulation |
| | |and still maintain target/adequate escapement levels of wild fish. Allows consistency within the basin of which |
| | |primary the resource is protected and secondary allows angler opportunity to harvest some of the surplus wild |
| | |fish that is available per the ODFW’s data. Specifically allows for the take of fish that are mortally hooked, |
| | |trophy fish, and those individuals that wish to keep a fish to consume, first fish etc. (Fred Worsley) |
|093P |Increased opportunity &|Page 40 Umpqua River, Mainstem |
| |Simplify pamphlet |Allow harvest of wild steelhead in the mainstem Umpqua, 1 per day, 5 per year, as part of daily or annual |
| |format |salmon/steelhead catch limit. |
| |Rejected |Note: No season specified, implied season is open all year. |
| | |Rationale: To increase angling opportunity. To make rules consistent with other S.W. Zone Rivers (North Fork |
| | |Umpqua, Rogue, Chetco, Elk, Sixes, etc. There is no shortage of native fish in the Umpqua. (Steve Schaefers, |
| | |Richard Short and (multiple other Public Proposals) |
|138P |Increased opportunity |Page 40 Umpqua River, Mainstem |
| |Rejected |Allow harvest of wild steelhead in the mainstem Umpqua River consistent with North Fork Umpqua regulations (Open |
| | |for adipose fin-clipped steelhead entire year. Nonadipose fin-clipped steelhead may be kept Jan. 1 - April 30; 1|
| | |per day, 5 per year.) |
| | |Note: See proposal 091P which specifies the same season but also includes December. |
| | |Rationale: To keep fish that will not survive after being hooked deep. To help average fishermen bring home |
| | |winter steelhead. (Ernest Wheeler) |
|167P |Conservation |Page 40 Umpqua River, Mainstem |
| |Rejected |Prohibit the use of barbed hooks on the mainstem Umpqua and Smith rivers from December 15 - April 1. |
| | |Rationale: Most steelhead are not clipped and thus must be released so they can spawn. Barbed hooks kill too |
| | |many. (Harold Ettelt) |
|220P |Maintain current |Page 41 Soda Springs Reservoir |
| |opportunity |Retain Soda Springs Dam so people can fish in the reservoir. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: They need to leave it alone. People like to fish but all the people who don’t like to fish should |
| | |stay away. If they removed the dam it would kill the fish with all the fines from the Dam. Don’t remove it. |
| | |(Stephen Redmond) |
|113P |Conservation |Page 41 Umpqua River, North Fork |
| |Rejected |Prohibit harvest of wild steelhead in the North Umpqua River. |
| | |Rationale: The current policy of wild winter steelhead kill cannot be justified in view of the absence of hard |
| | |data to confirm the run can be sustained in the face of ever increasing pressure on the resource. It also flies |
| | |in the face of common practice extant toady on most other systems throughout the Pacific Northwest. The wild |
| | |winter steelhead of the North Umpqua River are a unique resource which deserve better than to be harvested for |
| | |consumption or even "Trophy" verification. (Paul Zipp) |
|099P |Restore opportunity |Page 41 Umpqua River, North Fork |
| |Rejected |Reinstate a hatchery trout release program for the North Umpqua River and allow the harvest trout and non-native |
| | |brown and brook trout (2 per day). |
| | |Rationale: To allow a trout fishery with a take of either hatchery stocked fish or a take of non native predatory|
| | |fish, i.e. brown trout and brook trout. This allows the opportunity for families, individuals, and kids in |
| | |particular to be able to trout fish and keep part of their catch the way it use to be for years in those areas of|
| | |high use such as the Rock Creek area, Amacher, Whistlers Bend and the campground areas in our fly water section. |
| | |By reintroducing this regulation change brings back the chance for our youth to get involved in fishing. (Fred |
| | |Worsley) |
|219P |Harvest opportunity |Page 41 Umpqua River, North Fork |
| |Rejected |Expand trout harvest opportunities on the North Umpqua River. |
| | |Rationale: Need to get more people to fish the river for kids and parents. Because the people don’t have |
| | |anything to do. The closing down the fishing with high prices on fishing tags. They need to cut them in half so|
| | |more people can fish and hunt like mom and dad. (Stephen Redmond) |
|129P |Enforcement |Page 41 Umpqua River, North Fork |
| |Rejected |Eliminate the use of treble hooks in the Swiftwater area of the lower North Umpqua River. |
| | |Existing Rule: General Statewide hook regulations. |
| |Request to reclassify |Proposed Rule: Angling restricted to the use of a single point hook only from Lone Rock Boat Ramp to the Yellow |
| |from C to B. Staff |Mark deadline below the fly area. |
| |does not support this |Rationale: Reduce the number of intentional or unintentionally snagged salmon and steelhead in the Swiftwater |
| |request. |area of the North Fork of the Umpqua River. This area has increasingly been getting a larger number of snagging |
| | |complaints from the public. Law enforcement officers are spending more and more of their tome in the area and |
| | |are unable to concentrate efforts in other areas of concern. (Ed Frankenstein) |
| | |Staff summary: This proposal was rejected by the Angling Regulations Review board by a vote of 9-0. This |
| | |proposed hook regulation will not prevent snagging from occurring and will curtail legitimate angling |
| | |opportunities. District staff supports the need to address this issue but does not believe that snagging issues |
| | |will be resolved with this restriction. |
|097P |Increased opportunity |Page 41 Umpqua River, North Fork - Fly Area |
| |Rejected |Allow harvest of wild steelhead in the North Umpqua River (Section 7 from fly area boundary upstream to Soda |
| | |Springs Dam)) and allow barbed hooks. |
| | |Rationale: Consistency, enforcement, and primarily not warranted by the biological data from ODFW and counts over|
| | |the Winchester Dam. Allows for opportunity to take surplus fish which is evidenced by the biological data of |
| | |ODFW. Also allows for the keep of a trophy fish, mortally hooked fish, or a persons first steelhead or to have |
| | |one to eat, when in fact it is biologically proven to warrant a take of surplus wild fish. In this section of |
| | |river the take is usually wild and there is a surplus and should have the opportunity to keep a fish. Barbless |
| | |hooks are not warranted. (Fred Worsley) |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|049S |Harvest opportunity |Page 45 Willamette River and Tributaries above Willamette Falls |
| | |Increase the adipose fin-clipped steelhead bag limit from 2 to 3 fish per day for the mainstem Willamette River |
| |Adopted |and Tributaries above Willamette Falls. |
| | |Existing Rule: In the aggregate, 2 adult salmon or steelhead per day, 5 jack salmon per day, 2 daily jack salmon |
| | |limits in possession. |
| | |Proposed Rule: In the aggregate, 2 adult salmon or steelhead per day, 5 jack salmon per day, 2 daily jack salmon |
| | |limits in possession with the exception that in the Willamette River and tributaries of the Willamette Basin |
| | |above Willamette Falls, 1 additional steelhead may be retained per day for a total aggregate of 3 adult fish |
| | |harvested. |
| | |Rationale: The proposed rule change eliminates the need for the periodic enacting of temporary rules designed to |
| | |increase harvest opportunity on surplus hatchery summer steelhead. This change would save staff time (ODFW/OSP)|
| | |and reduce the potential for public confusion associated with the in-season enactment of temporary rules. |
| | |(Mamoyac) |
|050S |Increased opportunity |Page 46 Blue River |
| | |Eliminate the 8-inch minimum length requirement for adipose fin-clipped rainbow trout in Blue River, Section 1. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, 8-inch minimum length. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day no minimum length. |
| | |Rationale: Remove minimum lengths on adipose fin clipped only trout fisheries. Some adipose fin-clipped hatchery|
| | |trout and residual hatchery steelhead smolts are less than 8 inches. This regulation would allow increased |
| | |harvest of hatchery trout with no impact on wild populations. (Ziller) |
|051S |Enforcement |Page 46 Clackamas River |
| | |Clarification of angling deadline on Clackamas River below Cazadero Dam (Section Mouth upstream to North Fork |
| |Adopted |Dam). |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add new Special Regulation. No angling within 275 feet (or painted line marker) below the |
| | |entrance of the fishway/fish trap at Cazadero Dam. |
| | |Rationale: Clarification on deadline marker for law enforcement purposes. A specific deadline is needed for this |
| | |area because the distance differs from the general statewide regulation. (Boechler) |
|053S |New entry & |Page 47 Lava Lake and tributaries |
| |Clarification & |Expand trout angling opportunities for Lava Lake and tributaries. |
| |increased opportunity |Existing Rule: Zone Regulations (Lakes 5 per day, Streams catch and release). |
| | |Proposed Rule: New listing with Special Regulations. |
| |Adopted |Open for trout fourth weekend in April 23-October 31. |
| | |5 trout per day, 8-inch minimum length. |
| | |Use of bait allowed. |
| | |No limit on size or number of brook trout. |
| | |Rationale: Allow opportunity for limited harvest of abundant trout. Clarification of existing open dates for |
| | |trout. (Ziller) |
|156P |Consistency & |Page 47 Leaburg and Walterville Canals |
| |Conservation |Change Leaburg and Walterville Canal trout regulations to be open all year, catch and release for trout. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for trout April 24 - Oct. 31. 5 trout per day, 8-inch minimum length. Use of bait allowed.|
| | | |
| |Modified after public |Proposed Rule: Same as McKenzie River and Leaburg Lake. |
| |meeting to include |Open all year, catch and release for trout. |
| |Walterville Canal and |Angling restricted to artificial flies and lures only. |
| |make catch and release |Rationale: Make both canals on McKenzie the same. Ease of enforcement. Allow the native population to rebuild |
| |only. Modification |while providing year-round fishing opportunities. |
| |approved by proposal |(Dana Burwell) |
| |sponsor. | |
|054S |Conservation |Page 48 McKenzie River |
| | |Close steelhead angling in South Fork McKenzie River. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for adipose fin-clipped steelhead April 24 – October 31. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Delete entry |
| | |Rationale: Few if any steelhead are present in the South Fork McKenzie. Anglers confused about fish |
| | |identification are harvesting chinook and possibly bull trout thinking they are steelhead. (Ziller) |
|055S |Conservation |p.48 McKenzie River |
| | |Close to angling within the Carman Spawning Channel and in the McKenzie River (Section 4) 200 feet downstream of |
| |Adopted |the Carmen Spawning Channel entrance. |
| | |Existing Rule: None |
| | |Proposed Rule: McKenzie River, Section 4 Add Bullet: Closed to angling within the Carmen Spawning Channel and in |
| | |the McKenzie River 200 feet downstream from the Carmen Spawning Channel entrance. |
| | |Rationale: To further protect spring chinook and bull trout in this man-made spawning area. This area has become|
| | |a popular place to watch salmon spawn. (Ziller) |
|056S |Conservation |Page 48 South Fork McKenzie River |
| | |Close the South Fork McKenzie (McKenzie Section 5) from Cougar Dam downstream 700 feet to protect bull trout and |
| |Adopted |salmon. |
| | |Existing Rule: None |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add Bullet – Closed to angling from Cougar Dam downstream 700 ft (to the concrete supports of the |
| | |old adult fish trap). |
| | |Rationale: Increasing numbers of spring chinook salmon and bull trout are holding in the South Fork McKenzie |
| | |River immediately below Cougar Dam. These fish are trapped in a dead end and illegal harvest is occurring. ODFW|
| | |has a program to collect the bull trout and return them upstream to Cougar Reservoir. (Ziller) |
|057S |Increased opportunity |Page 48 McKenzie River |
| | |Eliminate the 8-inch minimum length requirement for adipose fin-clipped rainbow trout in the McKenzie River, |
| |Adopted |Section 2. |
| | |Existing Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, 8-inch minimum length. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, no minimum length. |
| | |Rationale: Remove minimum lengths on adipose fin clipped only trout fisheries. Some adipose fin-clipped hatchery|
| | |trout and residual hatchery steelhead smolts are less than 8 inches. This regulation would allow increased |
| | |harvest of hatchery trout with no impact on wild populations. (Ziller) |
|058S |Clarification |Page 48 McKenzie River |
| | |Clarify 200 foot angling closure upstream and downstream of Leaburg Dam. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: General restriction that closes angling 200 feet upstream and downstream of a fishway. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add new entry (d) under Closed within for McKenzie River Section 2. |
| | |d. 200 ft downstream of Leaburg Dam to 200 ft upstream of Leaburg Dam. |
| | |Rationale: Clarify existing general regulation closure. Angling in this area is a reoccurring problem. (Ziller) |
|059S |Increased opportunity |Page 50 Trail Bridge Reservoir |
| | |Remove 8-inch minimum length requirement for adipose fin-clipped rainbow trout in Trail Bridge Reservoir. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, 8-inch minimum length. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, no minimum length. |
| | |Rationale: Remove minimum lengths on adipose fin clipped only trout fisheries. Some adipose fin-clipped hatchery|
| | |trout and residual hatchery steelhead smolts are less than 8 inches. This regulation would allow increased |
| | |harvest of hatchery trout with no impact on wild populations. (Ziller) |
|060S |Conservation & Harvest |Page 50 Timothy Lake |
| |opportunity |Modify trout angling regulations for Timothy Lake. |
| | |Existing rules: General Trout Regulations |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Add Special Regulation - No limit on size or number of brook trout taken. Catch limits on other |
| | |trout species do not apply to brook trout. |
| | |Rationale: Add a Special Regulation to remove the size and bag limits on brook trout for conservation of a native|
| | |species. Reduce population of non-native brook trout through increased harvest and reduce potential competition |
| | |with the native cutthroat trout population. (Boechler) |
|061S |Increased opportunity |Page 51 Willamette River, Section 9 |
| | |Remove 8-inch minimum length for adipose fin-clipped trout in the Willamette River, Section 9. |
| |Adopted |Existing rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, 8-inch minimum length. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, no minimum length. |
| | |Rationale: Remove minimum lengths on adipose fin clipped only trout fisheries. Some adipose fin-clipped hatchery|
| | |trout and residual hatchery steelhead smolts are less than 8 inches. This regulation would allow increased |
| | |harvest of hatchery trout with no impact on wild populations. (Ziller) |
|062S |Balance warmwater |Page 51 Yamhill River |
| |angling opportunity |Expand warmwater angling opportunities in the lower Yamhill River. |
| | |Existing Rule: Open fourth Saturday in May - October 31. Use of bait allowed. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Add Special Regulations: |
| | |1. Open to angling for warmwater game fish March 1 - October 31. |
| | |2. Use of bait allowed March 1 – October 31. |
| | |Rationale: This proposal opens the lower Yamhill River prior to the general trout season to allow angling and |
| | |harvest opportunity on a smallmouth bass population and other warmwater species. Current regulations preclude |
| | |anglers from participating in the spring smallmouth bass fishery. Other similar Willamette tributaries allow this|
| | |opportunity because those streams are open for adipose-clipped steelhead or chinook salmon. A special regulation |
| | |is also needed allowing the use of bait during this fishery so anglers can use soft plastic lures. (Boechler) |
|236S |Restore opportunity |Page 45 Willamette Zone Trout Regulations |
| |Adopted |Streams: Open fourth weekend in April – October 31. Catch and release, artificial flies and lures. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Open sections of Abiqua Creek, Butte Creek, Silver Creek (Molalla/Pudding River Basin), Little |
| |New staff proposal in |Luckiamute River and Mill Creek (Yamhill River Basin) above anadromous fish to consumptive trout angling, 2 trout|
| |response to Public |per day, 8 inch minimum length, artificial flies and lures only (Zone Regulation) or bait allowed (if |
| |Proposal 149P. |appropriate). |
| | |Rationale: In 1999, when new trout angling rules were adopted to protect ESA listed winter steelhead, sections |
| | |of some streams above anadromous fish barriers were also closed. Prior to the 1999 closures, these streams were |
| | |open to consumptive trout angling under Zone Rules (May or April opener, 5 per day, bait allowed). District are |
| | |reviewing reviewed opportunities to reinstate limited consumptive trout angling as requested by the general |
| | |public (see Public Proposal 149P) |
|052S |Conservation & Maintain|Page 47 Foster Reservoir |
| |opportunity |New adipose fin-clipped trout regulation for Foster Reservoir. |
| | |Existing Rule: 5 trout per day, 2 daily limits in possession (Zone trout regulations) |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Only kokanee and adipose fin-clipped trout may be taken. |
| | |Rationale: Minimize angling-associated impacts to ESA listed juvenile winter steelhead. Recent studies have |
| | |shown that harvest of wild winter steelhead is quite low in Foster Reservoir (2-3% of the wild population). The |
| | |proposed regulation change will provide increased protection to listed winter steelhead without significantly |
| | |disrupting existing trout and kokanee fisheries. (Mamoyac) |
| | |Staff Summary: Extensive ODFW investigation of this proposed rule has occurred over the past several years due |
| | |to public concern over loss of angling opportunity and accuracy of previous assessments. Creel information |
| | |indicates that there will be little impact to anglers but survival of juvenile winter steelhead smolts will be |
| | |increase with elimination of directed harvest on unmarked trout. |
|225P |Expanded opportunity |Page 49 Sandy River |
| | |Allow angling from a floating device on the Sandy River from Oxbow Park to the Columbia River. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: No angling from a floating device upstream from power line crossing located 1 mile downstream |
| | |from Oxbow Park. |
| |Note: This proposal |Proposed Rule: Allow angling from a floating device from upstream to approximately 200 feet blow Oxbow Park boat|
| |was combined with 194P |ramp year round. |
| |(Michael Drais |Rationale: Broaden boat angling opportunity. |
| |proposal) but since |Staff summary: This is a social issue that has been extensively debated in the past. Boat and bank angling needs|
| |there was a slightly |conflict and there is no biological benefit or detriment. This is one of the few areas in the lower Sandy River |
| |different upstream |where bank anglers have easy access. Boat anglers can fish from the bank in this area. Metro controls access to|
| |boundary, it was split |Oxbow Park and was opposed to changing the regulation last cycle. Staff recommends keeping current restriction |
| |out for Commission |in place. |
| |ruling. | |
|235S |Increased opportunity |Page 50 Willamette River, Section 7 |
| | |Allow harvest of adipose fin-marked rainbow trout in the Middle Fork of the Willamette River from Lookout Point |
| |Adopted |Reservoir to Hills Creek Dam (Section 7) |
| | |Existing rule: Open for trout the entire year, catch and release, flies and lures only. |
| |Note: proposal |Proposed Rule: 5 adipose fin-clipped trout per day, no minimum length. |
| |developed in response |Rationale: This regulation would allow increased local harvest opportunities on stocked of hatchery trout that |
| |to Public Proposal 217P|have dropped down from Salmon Creek, Salt Creek and Hills Creek Reservoir. (Ziller) |
| | |Staff summary: Public concern that this proposed rule would cause anglers to increase effort in an area where a |
| | |good catch-and-release fishery exists and therefore increase the incidental kill of wild trout. |
|217P |Conservation & Harvest |Page 45 Willamette Zone Streams |
| |opportunity |Allow harvest of adipose fin-clipped rainbow trout in streams of the Willamette Zone. |
| |Note: See staff |Rationale: Allow the harvest of hatchery smolts that do not migrate to the ocean and hatchery jack summer |
| |proposal 236S |steelhead. These fish compete with the native trout and native salmonid smolts for food and should be removed. |
| | |Note. (Don Wenzel) |
| |Rejected | |
|160P |Harvest opportunity |Page 45 Dairy Creek (Willamette) |
| | |Allow use of bait and trout harvest in Dairy. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: There’s never been any sea run trout, steelhead or salmon in this creek as long as I’ve known and |
| | |I’ve been fishing this creek for 60+ years. A lot of young people learn how to fish in this stream. (Joe French)|
|226P |Expanded opportunity |Page 49 Sandy River |
| | |Allow angling from a floating device downstream from Oxbow Park on the Sandy River and use of electric motors |
| |Rejected |February 1 - October 31. |
| | |Rationale: Broaden boat angling opportunity. (Jack Glass) |
|227P |Maintain current |Page 49 Sandy River |
| |opportunity |Maintain current angling regulations restricting angling from a floating device on the Sandy River. |
| |(existing rule, |Existing Rule: No angling from a floating device upstream from power line crossing located 1 mile downstream |
| |opposition to changing |from Oxbow Park. |
| |rule) |Proposed Rule: No change in the existing regulation. |
| | |Rationale: Changing the regulations to allow fishing from floating devices in Oxbow Park (above the power lines)|
| | |will seriously compromise where bank anglers can fish. Some boat fishermen who use plugs unfortunately do not |
| |Rejected |use them with consideration of others. I have seen them backed right through others drifts too many times |
| | |(Michael Churchill) |
| | |Staff summary: Not a proposal for a new or modified angling regulation but simply wanting to maintain current |
| | |rule. |
|194P |Expanded opportunity |Page 49 Sandy River |
| | |Allow angling from a floating device on the Sandy River from Oxbow Park to the Columbia River. |
| |Note: This proposal |Existing Rule: No angling from a floating device upstream from power line crossing located 1 mile downstream |
| |was combined with 225P |from Oxbow Park. |
| |(Jack Glass proposal) |Proposed Rule: Allow angling from a floating device from Gordon Creek, upstream boundary of Oxbow Park on Sandy |
| |but since there was a |River, down to confluence with Columbia River. |
| |slightly different |Rationale: The Sandy River is a heavily fished urban river. It has limited public bank fishing access, and even |
| |upstream boundary, it |more limited boat fishing access. The Sandy is public and navigable. There is no valid purpose served by the |
| |was split out for |present rule prohibiting fishing from boats in the Oxbow Park area. Boat/bank conflicts are rare. Much of the |
| |Commission ruling. |area cannot be fished from the bank alone. Boat fishermen are forced to wade in dangerous places, where they |
| | |otherwise could fish safely from their boats. (Michael Drais) |
| |Rejected |Staff summary: This is a social issue that has been extensively debated in the past. Boat and bank angling needs|
| | |conflict and there is no biological benefit or detriment. This is one of the few areas in the lower Sandy River |
| |Note:225P was adopted. |where bank anglers have easy access. Boat anglers can fish from the bank in this area. Metro controls access to|
| | |Oxbow Park and was opposed to changing the regulation last cycle. Staff recommends keeping current restriction |
| | |in place. |
|157P |Improve Fishery |Page 49 South Santiam River |
| | |Establish a fly fishing only area on the South Santiam River below Foster Dam. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This would be a better solution than closing that section altogether especially with the large number |
| | |of fly fishing persons there are these days who do not litter. This would solve the existing problem of that |
| | |unruly bunch that use that area for a drinking party including beer, wine, hard liquor and lots and lots of. |
| | |(Steve Christensen) |
|158P |Improve Fishery |Page 49 South Santiam River |
| | |Eliminate angling from a floating device on the South Santiam River above bridge at Waterloo. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To eliminate conflict between bank fishermen and boaters. Fishing should be a pleasure not a |
| | |conflict. The Northwest Steelheaders built a new boat ramp at Waterloo and there will be boats potting in that |
| | |will row up and anchor where the bank fishers tackle will drift into their anchor ropes as well as fish they have|
| | |on. The boaters have lots of river to fish while the bankers are limited. (Steve Christensen) |
|206P |Restore opportunity |Page 50 Trail Bridge Reservoir |
| | |Allow bait angling and harvest of unmarked trout in Trail Bridge Reservoir. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This is a popular camp grounds and fishing lake. The current regulations will continue to see less |
| | |visitors every year. (Mark Lee) |
|103P |Expanded opportunity |Page 50 Willamette River, Middle Fork |
| | |Expand spring chinook salmon harvest opportunities on the Middle Fork Willamette by opening up additional areas |
| |Rejected |after hatchery broodstock are collected. |
| | |Rationale: This would allow more harvest opportunity for anglers and the fish would not die and go to waste in |
| | |the river. They do not spawn naturally in the river otherwise the fishery would be better than it is in this |
| | |location. (Patrick Harris) |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|064S |Conservation |Page 58 Crane Prairie Reservoir |
| | |Reduce the "over one per day" maximum length limit for rainbow trout in Crane Prairie Reservoir. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: 5 trout per day, only 1 trout over 20 inches may be taken per day. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add Bullet - Daily trout limit may include only 1 rainbow trout over 16 inches in length. |
| | |Rationale: Increased conservation protection for naturally produced rainbow trout. Rainbow trout production has |
| | |declined due to illegally released species. We are observing declines in redd numbers and poor carryover of |
| | |juvenile rainbow trout. Length limit protects most spawners. (Marx) |
|065S |Conservation |Page 58 Deschutes River |
| | |Catch and release only for rainbow trout in the Deschutes River, Section 6 (Crane Prairie Reservoir upstream to |
| | |Little Lava Lake). |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: - 2 trout per day (includes brook trout) |
| | |Proposed Rule: - Catch and release only for rainbow trout, 2 brook trout per day. |
| | |Rationale: Increased conservation protection for naturally produced rainbow trout. This section of river is |
| | |primarily a spawning and rearing area for rainbow trout recruiting to Crane Prairie Reservoir. Rainbow trout |
| | |production has declined due to illegally released species. We are observing declines in redd numbers and poor |
| | |carryover of juvenile rainbow trout. (Marx) |
|066S |Limited Harvest |Page 58 Cultus Reservoir |
| |opportunity |Eliminate minimum length for lake trout in Cultus Reservoir. |
| | |Existing Rule: Trout daily catch limit may include only 1 lake trout that must be at least 24-inch minimum |
| |Adopted |length. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Trout daily catch limit may include only 1 lake trout. |
| | |Rationale: Expand harvest opportunity for lake trout. Anglers indicate high catch rate of lake trout less than |
| | |24 inches and few fish greater than 24 inches. Proposed regulation meets policy directive for Cultus Lake |
| | |management to provide features species fishery. (Marx) |
|078P |Enforcement |Page 58 Lake Billy Chinook |
| | |Provide better signs to define fishing boundaries in Metolius arm of Lake Billy Chinook. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Metolius arm of Billy Chinook closed after Oct 31st. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Give a definite description of the boundary. Several fishermen I know have been |
| | |harassed/threatened by the tribal police for fishing in the so called closed area. The area they were in was the|
| | |western side of the dam/embankment. According to the tribes own fishing permit this area is open year around. |
| | |Large signs need to be place on opposite banks for a reference point at the two points closet to each other on |
| | |the Metolius arm only. |
| | |Rationale: The Warm Springs tribal police claim they can confiscate all fishing equipment including boats and |
| | |pickups. A major loss to anyone. Definite boundary markings would help avoid a major court battle and expense for|
| | |fishermen. |
| | |(Steve Black) |
| | |Staff Summary: Not an actual rule change proposed but rather a request for better signage of existing rule |
| | |boundaries. This request is being pursued by Upper Deschutes Watershed District staff. |
|234S |Conservation |Page 59 Hood River |
| | |Close the Hood River to chinook angling. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Open for Chinook salmon, August- December 31, from the mouth upstream to Powerdale Dam. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Chinook salmon angling closed entire river. |
| | |Rationale: In order to be consistent with the recently approved Lower Columbia River Chinook Fisheries Management|
| | |and Evaluation Plans (FMEP’s) by NOAA Fisheries, fall chinook angling should be closed. Hood River fall Chinook |
| | |are currently listed as threatened in the Lower Columbia River ESU. Fall chinook escapement is monitored |
| | |annually at Powerdale Dam (RM 4.0) on the Hood River, and has numbered less than 75 fish since 1992. No fall |
| | |chinook hatchery supplementation occurs in the Hood Rive (French). |
|111P |Conservation and |Page 60 Ochoco Creek |
| |maintain opportunity |Protect native redband trout spawners during the winter and early spring months. |
| | |Existing Rule: Open entire year, 5 trout per day, Use of bait allowed |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: November 1- May 27, 2 trout per day, artificial flies and lures only (Zone trout regulation) |
| | |May 28 - October 31, 5 trout per day, Use of bait allowed |
| | |Rationale: Provides additional conservation for native redband trout while remaining consistent with Basic Yield |
| | |Management Alternative for trout. Recent sampling indicates there is significant spawning of native redband |
| | |trout in lower Ochoco Creek. Outside spring/summer hatchery stocking period, trout population is dominated by |
| | |native redbands. (Gene McMullen and Phillip Havens) |
|063S |Enforcement |Page 60 Wickiup Reservoir |
| | |New channel boundary for Wickiup Reservoir. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Closed upstream of ODFW marker September 1-October 31 located near West South Twin campground. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add and modify bullets: |
| | |1. Restricted to flies and lures with a two trout bag limit upstream of ODFW marker located near West South Twin |
| | |boat ramp July 15-August 31. |
| | |2. Closed upstream of ODFW marker September 1-October 31. |
| | |Rationale: Establishes defined channel boundary to aid enforcement. This area is within the drawdown zone of |
| | |Wickiup Reservoir. Changing water levels affects river/reservoir boundary creating confusion among anglers. |
| | |(Marx) |
|121P |Restore opportunity |Page 58 Lake Billy Chinook |
| | |Redefine boundaries for the Metolius Arm of Lake Billy Chinook. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Metolius Arm (tribal water) from Rounde Butte Dam upstream to cable car crossing. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Metolius Arm should stop at a point directly across lake from a point south to the point on |
| | |tribal land straight across where the original Metolius River ran into the Deschutes River. |
| | |Rationale: The Deschutes River was dammed up not the Metolius River. Go ahead and leave the Metolius river |
| | |closed during the winter but make sure the boundary is left the same as it was before the dam was built. Do not |
| | |change the boundary of the Metolius to satisfy the tribe. (Tim Black) |
| | |Staff Summary: Upper Deschutes Watershed District staff have contacted the Warm Springs Tribe on this issue. |
| | |Tribal boundaries are defined by treaty. If changes to boundaries for the Metolius Arm are possible, staff will |
| | |propose rule changes at a later date. |
|134P |Clarification |Page 58 Deschutes River, Section 5 |
| | |Clarify boundaries between the Deschutes River and Wickiup Reservoir. |
| |Note: similar to staff |Existing Rule: Section is defined as “Wickiup Reservoir upstream to Crane Prairie Dam” |
| |proposal 067S |Proposed Rule: Define a clear boundary as to where the river ends (and the reservoir begins), such as: "Mouth |
| | |of Browns Creek (Wickiup Reservoir upstream to Crane Prairie Dam" |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The Deschutes River and Wickiup Reservoir have very different regulations in both gear restrictions |
| | |and catch limits. Depending on the extreme seasonal water fluctuations, the slack water portion of the |
| | |reservoir’s Deschutes Arm can extend well above Sheep’s Bridge C.G. in the spring or just barely above Gull Point|
| | |C.G. in the summer. This leads to confusion among many (particularly anglers not familiar with the area) as to |
| | |just what is considered the reservoir and what is considered the river, and consequently, what regulations apply |
| | |where. Browns Creek is just a suggested boundary; it could be replaced with another point. (Daniel Coleman) |
| | |Staff summary: Staff have addressed this concern with staff proposal 067S. |
|122P |Expand opportunity |Page 57 Ochoco Creek and Crooked River, upper |
| |Rejected |Allow youths under age 18 and adults 65 or older to use bait on Ochoco Creek and Crooked River above the |
| | |reservoirs. |
| | |Rationale: All of the small streams above Ochoco and Prineville reservoirs are places for children to learn to |
| | |fish. By limiting the fishing methods on these streams, pretty much eliminates the children and juveniles from |
| | |being able to learn to fish. Not everyone can afford the gear required under current regulations. (Tim Black) |
|230P |Increased opportunity |Page 58 Deschutes River, Section 4 |
| | |Change opening of trout season on Section 4 of the upper Deschutes River from May opener to April opener. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Return the trout season back to the late April opener. If you are all worried about spawning |
| | |rainbows, we don’t know why. No one we know or anyone we see targets the rainbows early in the season anyway. |
| | |They are all dark and spawning and most people know to leave them alone. There’s getting to be a nice population|
| | |of them in some areas, and that is nice to see. (J.D. Gamwell) |
|170P |Improve fishery |Page 58 Deschutes River, Section 6 |
| | |Catch and release for all trout, including brook trout, in Section 6 of the Deschutes River (Crane Prairie |
| |Rejected |Reservoir upstream to Little Lava Lake). |
| | |Rationale: Would like to see catch and release for brook trout also. (Randy Prociw) |
|169P |New opportunity |Page 58 Deschutes River, Section 1 |
| | |Allow handicapped anglers to angle for spring chinook salmon with bait at the "Blue Hole" handicap ramp on the |
| |Rejected |Deschutes River above Sherars Falls. |
| | |Rationale: Handicap access angling is limited on the Deschutes River. The only designated handicap access is |
| | |located at the "Blue Hole" which is located upstream from Sherars Falls. Current angling regulations do not |
| | |permit chinook angling upstream from Sherars Falls. Heavy angling pressure, and limited access, in the Sherars |
| | |Falls bait fishing area makes it very difficult for handicapped anglers to fish for chinook salmon in this area. |
| | |(Henry Melhorn) |
|228P |Expanded opportunity |Page 58 Deschutes |
| | |Increase the area where bait can be used downstream from Sherars Falls on the Deschutes River about 8 miles. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The purpose would be to mitigate the impact the Warm Springs Tribe has imposed on anglers at Sherars |
| | |Falls by placing a day or annual fee for use of Tribally held land. (Randy Deblock) |
|135P |Conservation |Page 59 Little Deschutes River |
| | |Eliminate the use of bait on the Little Deschutes River downstream from Gilchrist Mill Pond. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: While the upper river is predominantly brook and brown trout (non-native species) the lower river |
| | |contains strong numbers of (largely juvenile) redband trout, which are susceptible to swallowing bait, causing |
| | |mortality after release. The piscivorous brown trout in the lower river are more susceptible to flies and lures |
| | |than bait anyway. (Daniel Coleman) |
|120P |Increased opportunity |Page 58 Lake Billy Chinook |
| | |Allow anglers to continue to angle after retaining a bull trout. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: There are bodies of water that have several species of fish. An angler should be able to continue |
| | |fishing for other species such as bass or kokanee. (Tim Black) |
| | |Staff summary: Bull trout are listed as a threatened species under the federal ESA and this is the only location |
| | |in Oregon with a direct take of bull trout. The current regulation was adopted to prevent selective holding of |
| | |bull trout (high-grading) and to reduce the incidental harvest of bull trout in the kokanee fishery. |
|079P |Expanded opportunity |Page 60 Odell Lake |
| | |Open Odell Lake to angling all year. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To provide hardy fishermen an opportunity to fish after all the skiers and water-spout people are off |
| | |the lake and gone for the season. It would also help the financial security of the two lodge owners and |
| | |restaurants, tackle shops in the nearby communities. Central Oregon fishermen's fishing opportunities seem to be |
| | |getting smaller and smaller every year. (Steve Black). |
| | |Staff summary: There was a high incidental catch of bull trout in Odell Lake when the lake was opened year round.|
| | |There is very limited access to the lake during the winter and prior to the late April trout opener. |
|229P |Expanded opportunity |Page 60 Odell Lake |
| | |Open Odell Lake to kokanee angling in early March. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: More fishing chances. |
| | |Staff summary: See staff comments for 079P. |
|139P |Conservation |Page 60 Odell Creek |
| | |Close section of Odell creek to all angling to protect bull trout. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Protection of threatened Odell Lake bull trout population from incidental catch. This isolated |
| | |population is depressed with an estimated spawning population of less than 100 individuals. Adults and juvenile |
| | |bull trout have been documented in this section of Odell Creek during recent years. (Paul Powers, USFS) |
| | |Staff summary: Current regulations (catch and release, artificial flies and lures only) adequately protect |
| | |juvenile and adult bull trout utilizing Odell Creek. Vulnerability of juvenile bull trout to angling mortality |
| | |is negligible due to size and behavior of juveniles and angling gear restrictions. Odell Creek is closed to |
| | |angling or receives little angling pressure during time periods when adult bull trout are present in the creek. |
|123P |Balance warmwater |Page 60 Wickiup Reservoir |
| |angling opportunity |Adopt Statewide size and bag limit for largemouth bass in Wickiup Reservoir. |
| |C |Rationale: As part of ODFW’s directive to focus more on warmwater fisheries, until bass plan review, this |
| |Public request to |regulation change would provide minimal protection to the largemouth bass fishery that had the highest catch rate|
| |reclassify form C to B.|of trophy bass (> 3 lbs) in the state in 2002. The present regulation was changed, without public input, from |
| |Staff supports further |the statewide bass bag limit because the Wickiup bass population resulted from drift down from Crane Prairie |
| |consideration of this |Reservoir, and therefore deemed illegal by ODFW despite lack of an approved, publicly-reviewed ODFW policy to do |
| |proposal. |so. (Jim Day) |
| | |Staff Summary: District has maintained a no tolerance policy for illegally introduced species. At this time |
| |Rejected |there is no biological need to adopt a more protective regulation for largemouth bass in Wickiup Reservoir. |
| | |Anecdotal reports seem to indicate harvest is having no significant effect on the bass population. Staff supports|
| | |reclassification of this proposal to facilitate further discussion and receive Commission direction on the issue |
| | |of how to manage for illegally introduced fish species. |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|067S |Conservation & Harvest |Page 65 John Day River |
| |opportunity |Eliminate slot limit for smallmouth bass in the John Day River from Service Creek to Hwy 19 Bridge at Kimberly. |
| | |(Section 2a, Mainstem from Tumwater Falls to North Fork) |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: |
| | |Slot Limit (Smallmouth Bass, 5 per day, no more than 1 over 16 inches; bass between 12 and 16 inches must be |
| | |released unharmed. |
| | |Proposed Rule: |
| | |Zone Regulations (5 per day, no more than 3 over 15 inches in length). |
| | |Rationale: To allow anglers to keep any sized smallmouth bass in the basic yield section of the river. This would|
| | |allow a more consumptive fishery in an area that is readily accessible to the public (Highway 19/207 follows the |
| | |entire section) and potentially reduce interactions between smallmouth and juvenile salmonids. The quality |
| | |section of the river that is subject to more float traffic and a more intensive fishery below Service Creek would|
| | |remain under the current slot limit. North Fork deadline changed to Hwy 19 Bridge at Kimberly to clarify angling |
| | |deadline and assist in enforcement. (Unterwegner). |
|068S |Improve fishery |Page 66 Umatilla River |
| | |Modify spring chinook angling seasons and areas on the Umatilla River (Section 1) to meet harvest goals and |
| |Adopted |quotas. |
| | |Existing Rule: Open to angling for spring chinook salmon April 16 - June 30, 2 per day, including both adults and|
| | |jacks and 10 spring chinook salmon per year. |
| | |Proposed Rule: From Hwy 730 bridge upstream to Three Mile Dam. |
| | |Open to angling for spring chinook salmon April 16 - May 21, 2 per day, including both adults and jacks and 10 |
| | |spring chinook salmon per year. |
| | |From Three Mile Dam upstream to reservation boundary located upstream from Hwy 11 Bridge at Pendleton. |
| | |Open angling for spring chinook salmon April 16 - June 30, 2 per day, including both adults and jacks and 10 |
| | |spring chinook salmon per year. |
| | |Rationale: Through co-management of the Umatilla River spring chinook fishery with the Confederated Tribes of the|
| | |Umatilla Indian Reservation, the fishery is managed closely to meet and not substantially exceed a harvest goal. |
| | |Over the past few years the harvest goal would have been substantially exceeded without emergency closures that |
| | |were implemented. This regulation is intended to provide a season length that will allow the sport harvest goal |
| | |to be achieved without the need to routinely implement an emergency closure. In addition, the earlier closure on |
| | |the lower river is proposed to balance harvest opportunity between the lower and upper river fisheries. Early |
| | |closure of the lower river, with no change proposed for the upper river, will provide additional harvest |
| | |opportunity for upper river anglers. (Bailey) |
|237S |Inadvertent restriction|Page 66 Wenaha River |
| | |Open the Wenaha River to catch-and-release bull trout angling above Crooked Creek to the confluence of the North |
| |Adopted |and South forks. |
| | |Existing Rule: Wenaha River upstream to Crooked Creek. |
| | |Open to angling for fin-clipped steelhead Jan. 1 – April 15 and Sept. 1 – Dec. 31 |
| | |Catch and release for bull trout. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add additional section for the Wenaha River from mouth of Crooked Creek to confluence of North |
| | |and South forks. |
| | |Catch and release for bull trout. |
| | |Rationale: When the original bull trout catch-and-release rule was proposed, the intent was to have the system |
| | |open to catch and release fishing for bull trout up the Forks. No additional section was added to the existing |
| | |Wenaha River entry, therefore the catch and release section for bull trout only extended up to the mouth of |
| | |Crooked Creek. |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|159P |Increased opportunity |Page 76 Poison Creek Reservoir |
| | |Allow bait to be used in Poison Creek Reservoir. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: 2 trout per day, 8 inch minimum. Restricted to artificial flies and lures. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 2 trout per day, 8 inch minimum. Use of bait allowed. |
| | |Rationale: As the manager of Poison Creek Recreation Site for BLM, I am recommending the change to enhance the |
| | |opportunity for children to have a better chance of catching fish. I feel this site should not be managed for a |
| | |so called “trophy fishery.” This was not the intent when BLM scoped the project with the public through the |
| | |Environmental Analysis. BLM's goal was to have a quality fisheries for use by the public from Grant and Harney |
| | |County allowing the use of bait. I would like to be able to host the free fishing day event at Poison Creek |
| | |Recreation Site; however with the current regulations it is not conducive for kids to catch fish. (Frank |
| | |McDonald) |
|231P |Improve fishery |Page 73 Pilcher Creek Reservoir |
| | |Close Pilcher Creek Reservoir from November 1 - March 31. |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: Zone trout regulations. 5 trout per day and open all year. |
| | |Proposed Rule: 5 trout per day, closed from November 1 - March 31. |
| | |Rationale: To increase the size of fish caught therefore providing a higher quality fishery for the public. The |
| | |fishery now provides catches of small (6-9") trout with very few holdover trout. The reservoir draws down too |
| | |far during winter months and concentrates fish, making them very easily caught. The size of fish has dropped |
| | |dramatically since the all year rule has been implemented. (Paul Cilvik) |
| | |Staff summary: There is no biological need and insufficient public interest to change this regulation. Pilcher |
| | |Creek Reservoir is managed as a basic yield trout fishery. Over-winter survival and growth rates of trout |
| | |restrict the reservoir’s ability top grow large trout. |
|172P |Restore opportunity |Page 73 Small streams in Southeast and Northeast Zones |
| | |Allow bait to be used on small streams in the Southeast and Northeast zones. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To reintroduce the concept of stream to the young. (J. Hakanson) |
| | |Staff summary: Angling regulations are set to protect native fish in streams of the Southeast Zone. Allowing |
| | |bait in all streams in contrary to conservation efforts to protect and enhance native trout populations. |
|171P |Restore opportunity |Page 73 Small streams in SE Zone |
| | |Allow bait to be used on small streams in Klamath and Lake Counties in the Southeast Zone. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Reinstate the concept of family fishing in campgrounds allowing youth to gain experience and |
| | |knowledge. (A.D. Rosth) |
| | |Staff summary: See staff comments for 172P. |
|208P |Restore opportunity |Page 73 All Lake County Streams |
| | |Allow bait angling in all Lake County Streams. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To return to our usual, accustomed and historic methods of angling that were arbitrarily taken in |
| | |2000. To be allowed to teach kids how to fish and eliminate the hypocrisy of the situation as illustrated by |
| | |the opposing pages 64 & 65 in the 2000 synopsis (included). You want people to teach kids how to fish but don’t |
| | |really want them to learn anything. This also means a lot economically to the local economy. This was an |
| | |arbitrary decision based on no biological reason. (John Bach) |
| | |Staff summary: See staff comments for 172P. |
|207P |Conservation |Page 75 Blitzen River |
| | |Allow only catch-and-release trout angling on the Blitzen River. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Reduce losses in fishery due to extreme drought and increased angling pressure due to area popularity.|
| | |(Stephen Miller) |
| | |Staff summary: Restricting anglers to catch and release on the Blitzen River is unlikely to improve the fishery. |
| | |Estimates of natural annual mortality for redband trout are as high as 50%. Given this high natural mortality, |
| | |additional restrictions on angler harvest will probably have little or no impact on the population but will |
| | |reduce harvest opportunity. |
|128P |Conservation |Page 75 Owyhee River |
| | |Require artificial flies and lures in a section of the Owyhee River to protect brown trout. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: To protect brown trout from high mortality rate from use of bait. |
| | |(David Rudicel) |
| | |Staff summary: See staff comments for 140P. |
|140P |Conservation |Page 75 Owyhee River |
| | |Require the use of artificial flies and lures in Owyhee Rive to protect brown trout. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Increased conservation protection for the brown trout. The proposed regulation change will provide |
| | |increased protection to brown trout that ODFW was trying to protect with the mandatory catch-and-release of brown|
| | |trout. Catch-and-release bait fishing for brown trout just doesn't make sense. Inconsistent to what your |
| | |objective is. (Shawn Peters) |
| | |Staff summary: The population of brown trout in the Owyhee River is healthy and continues to provide a trophy |
| | |fishery and therefore do not need additional protection. This regulation would also restrict warmwater angling |
| | |opportunities in the lower portion of the river. |
|173P |Harvest opportunity |Page 75 Harvest opportunity |
| | |Allow the harvest of brown trout in the Owyhee River |
| |Rejected |Existing Rule: 5 trout per day, use of bait allowed. Catch and release for brown trout. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Allow 2 brown trout to be kept as part of the 5 fish per day limit. |
| | |Rationale: To allow people to keep 2 brown trout because you catch 20 or 30 brown trout before you catch a |
| | |rainbow. Myself, I like to eat fish. Would like to catch more rainbow trout and more big rainbows than big |
| | |browns. Reducing the number of browns to catch more rainbows. (Robert Apple and David Gantenbein) |
| | |Staff summary: The Owyhee River below Owyhee Reservoir provides a destination trophy fishery for brown trout. |
| | |There is no biological need to harvest brown trout so more rainbow trout can be harvested. |
|136P |Increased harvest |Page 77 Williamson River, upper |
| |opportunity |Allow the use of bait on the upper Williamson River with a one fish per day bag limit. |
| | |Rationale: This would allow the property owners on the upper end to more fully enjoy the river. Being that this |
| |Rejected |portion is mostly private, access is very limited and the river would not be over-fished. (Charles Gallagher) |
|192S |Conservation |Page 85 Columbia River, Youngs Bay, and Willamette River up to Willamette Falls including Multnomah Channel. |
| | |Allow only one single-point, barbless hook to be used for sturgeon. |
| |Note: this rule will |Existing Rule: Up to three single-point, barbless hook may be used for sturgeon angling. |
| |also be incorporated |Proposed Rule: Only one single-point, barbless hook may be used for sturgeon angling in the Columbia River, |
| |into the Willamette |lower Willamette up to Willamette Falls including the Multnomah Channel, and Youngs Bay. |
| |Zone because it |Rationale: ODFW and WDFW staff have worked together to reduce injury and mortality to releases sturgeon, |
| |includes the lower |especially oversize fish. Some anglers use two hooks for sturgeon angling which can result in deeper hooking in |
| |Willamette River up to |gills and gut. Limiting anglers to one hook will reduce deep hooking. WDFW will propose the identical |
| |the Falls and the |regulation in their 2005 angling regulation process. (Curt Melcher, Steve King) |
| |Multnomah Channel. | |
| | | |
| |Adopted | |
|116P |Improve fishery |No Page Columbia River, above Bonneville Dam |
| |Rejected |Prohibit the sale of walleye by Native Americans. |
| | |Rationale: Stops the targeting of walleye as incidental catch and sale of walleye at twice the price of salmon. |
| | |(Dan Tuinstra) |
|115P |Create trophy fishery |Page 86 Columbia River, above Bonneville Dam |
| | |Create a 18-20 inch slot limit and a 5 fish per day bag limit for walleye on the Columbia River to create a |
| |Rejected |trophy walleye fishery |
| | |Rationale: Change length and bag limits for walleye on the Columbia River to create a trophy walleye fishery |
|Pro. | | |
|No. |Category |Proposal |
|069S |New entry & Consistency|Page 91 Marine Zone Regulations |
| |Late modification by |Put existing rule found in the Federal Regulations for Oregon Coastal Waters into the Oregon Sport Fishing |
| |OSP to include Marine |Regulations (also see related Proposal #007S in Statewide) under Marine Zone. |
| |Fish because of |Proposed Rule: Add Bullet under Regulations for this zone- |
| |recently imposed Ground|Regulation 8. It is unlawful for any person to fish for, or take and retain, any species of salmon or Marine |
| |Fish restrictions. |Fish while possessing on board any species not allowed to be taken in the area at the time. |
| | |Rationale: This addition to the Statewide Sport Regulations will provide consistency with existing federal |
| |Adopted |regulations for West Coast Salmon and Fisheries and Groundfish Fisheries. It will improve angler education and |
| | |compliance with the West Coast Salmon Fisheries Regulations and Federal groundfish regulations. (Braun, modified |
| | |by OSP, Cleary) |
|080P |Enforcement |Page 91 Pacific Ocean |
| | |Put GPS coordinates for Marine Zone angling boundaries in Angling Regulations. |
| |Adopted |Existing Rule: Marine fishing boundaries are defined by land features such as North or South of Tillamook Head, |
| | |Cape Falcon, ad Humbug Mountain. (The map provided in the regulations does not help. See the attached.) |
| | |Proposed Rule: Add to the printed angling regulations the "GPS" coordinates in addition to the land features: |
| | |Cape Falcon [latitude 45 degrees 46'00" N] Humbug Mountain [latitude 42 degrees 40'00" N] Tillamook Head |
| | |[latitude 46 degrees 00'00" N] to establish the North and South boundaries of the fishing zones. |
| | |Rationale: Clarification, make consistent with ODFW administrative rules & federal documents. Many anglers are |
| | |not sure of the land structure when they are a couple miles off shore even in good weather. Foggy or other low |
| | |visibility conditions make it impossible. Nearly everyone who goes on the ocean now carries a GPS unit. Law |
| | |enforcement should be easier. (Norman Ritchie) |
| | |Staff Summary: Not an actual rule change. Currently being implemented when practical in all ODFW Sport Fishing |
| | |Regulations (Ocean/Halibut and Sport Fishing). |
|070S |New entry & |Page 92 Marine Zone Regulations |
| |Clarification |Define octopus sport harvest rules. |
| | |Existing Rule: Harvest rules founder under other Marine Invertebrates. |
| | |Proposed Rule: Create New Species Categories and rules: Species Name – Octopus; Daily Catch Limits - 1 octopus; |
| |Adopted |Harvest Methods and Other Specifications - May be taken by angling, dip net, pot, and hand; Season – Waters are |
| | |open all year 24 hours per day except as noted under Other Specifications or Special Regulations. |
| | |Rationale: By default, the existing species category also includes octopus which may be encountered while |
| | |angling, although they are generally targeted by using pots or by hand while diving. The legality of some of the|
| | |standard methods for taking octopus is ambiguous under current rules, and need clarification. In review of the |
| | |rules, it is also recommended to reduce the current bag limit to one, this would be consistent with rules in |
| | |Washington state. (Schindler) |
|071S |New entry & |Page 92 Marine Zone Regulations |
| |Clarification |Define squid sport harvest rules. |
| | |Existing Rule: Harvest rules found under other Marine Invertebrates. |
| |Adopted |Proposed Rule: Create New Species Categories and rules: Species Name – Squid; Daily Catch Limits - no limit; |
| | |Harvest Methods and Other Specifications - May be taken by angling (squid jigs and herring jigs allowed), dip |
| | |net, cast net, hand, and hand powered tools; Season – Waters are open all year 24 hours per day except as noted |
| | |under Other Specifications or Special Regulations. |
| | |Rationale: By default, the existing species category also includes species such as squid, which are typically |
| | |taken on hook and line. The legality of preferred methods for taking these species is ambiguous under current |
| | |rules, and needs clarification. It is also recommended to drop the current bag limit as there is minimal concern|
| | |as to the impact of the Oregon recreational fishery on the populations of market or Humboldt squid (the two |
| | |species most likely to be caught). Current bag limit in Washington is 5 quarts or 10 lbs., while California has |
| | |no limit on squid retention. (Schindler) |
|081P |Definition |Page 12 Pacific Ocean - Marine Zone |
| | |Add definition of "Spearfishing" in Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The Washington regulations do a good job of accounting for dive hunting in their definitions, |
| | |restrictions and harvest methods. The Oregon regulations define most of the other harvest methods but not |
| | |spearfishing. The above proposal is taken directly from the Washington Regulations. (Tony Norris) |
|089P |Expanded opportunity |Page 91 Pacific Ocean - Bays & Inlets |
| | |Allow retention of the first two coho salmon caught to reduce hooking mortality. |
| |Rejected |Rationale. Allowing the first two Coho to be retained would have a positive effect on their population. I have |
| | |witnessed numerous injured, bleeding native Coho being returned to the water with the comment -- Oh well, the |
| | |seals have to eat too. In that regard, the existing rule seems inappropriate. (James Micheletti) |
| | |Staff summary: This proposal would eliminate current selective coho fishing and replace it with a much shorter |
| | |open season. Staff estimate that during the 2003 season, the selective coho season which last over 9 weeks would|
| | |have been closed in les than two weeks if a first two salmon rule were in place for coho. |
|209P |Conservation |Page 91 Pacific Ocean |
| | |Allow retention of Yelloweye and Canary rockfish. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Effectively protect these two species. Eliminate wasting of fish. When these two species are brought|
| | |to the surface from the depths at which rockfish can be taken, their bladders are protruding from their mouths |
| | |and they are invariably "belly up" when returned to the water. It is a shameful waste of to add them to the bag |
| | |limit. Not doing so only prolongs the fishing and often results in even more killing of these species. The |
| | |regulation does much more harm than good. (Garry Bullard) |
| | |Staff summary: This regulation was set by the federal management agency under Magnuson and Sustainability fish |
| | |acts. |
|090P |Consistency |Page 91 Pacific Ocean - Marine Zone |
| | |Require an angling license to harvest surf smelt. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: Fishing license is required to harvest surface fish (sardine, anchovy and herring). Make the law |
| | |consistent as all of these can be caught at the same time when jigging. (Jock Headlee) |
| | |Staff summary: This rule is in State Statute and can not be changed by Administrative Rule. |
|082P |Definition |Page 91 Pacific Ocean - Marine Zone |
| | |Define spearfishing restrictions and harvest methods. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The Washington regulations do a good job of accounting for dive hunting in their definitions, |
| | |restrictions and harvest methods. The Oregon regulations define most of the other harvest methods but not |
| | |spearfishing. The above proposal is taken from the Washington regulations. This definition further identifies the|
| | |harvest method for the Marine Zone. (Tony Norris) |
|083P |Expanded opportunity |Page 91 Pacific Ocean - Marine Zone |
| | |No size limit for lingcod taken while spearfishing. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This proposal is taken from the Washington regulations. This specification accounts for the fact that|
| | |the act of catching a fish with a spear would mortally wound the fish. The change should prevent the unintended |
| | |encouragement for divers to release an undersized fish. The daily limit statement further identifies that the |
| | |first 2 fish should be taken. If the lingcod daily limit is reduced change the text accordingly. (Tony Norris) |
|084P |Expanded opportunity |Page 91 Pacific Ocean - Marine Zone |
| | |No size limit for cabazon taken while spearfishing. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This is taken from the Washington regulations for lingcod. This specification accounts for the fact |
| | |that the act of catching a fish with a spear would mortally wound the fish. The change should prevent the |
| | |unintended encouragement for divers to release an undersized fish. (Tony Norris) |
|210P |New entry |Page 92 Yaquina and other saltwater bays |
| | |Make it illegal to mark and claim clam holes. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: The purpose of this rule is to end the practice of pre-claiming existing clam holes by the act of |
| | |placing rods, or markers in many clam holes in an attempt to expert ownership, or control of those clams. The |
| | |only clam you should be able to claim is the one you are currently working on. The attitude of "All these clams |
| | |are mine because I marked them with rods" should be prohibited. A practice I have observed at Newport, Oregon. |
| | |(Bob Dick) |
|104P |Expanded harvest |Page 92 Pacific Ocean |
| |opportunity |Allow harvest of Dungeness crab year all- year in the ocean. |
| | |Rationale: To help tourist trade plus local people would be able to catch crab in summer. Crabs molt according |
| |Rejected |to growth rate, and that is tied to their food resource. People will return soft crab to the water as they are |
| | |not good eating. What percent of the total take of crap is by sport-crabbers? Give us something for $6.50. |
| | |(Elden Bovey) |
| | |Staff summary: Currently, Oregon’s ocean recreational crab fishery and season structure matches the commercial |
| | |season (December 1 – August 14). With a year-round recreational fishery, the ocean would be open to sport but |
| | |not commercial fishers during he September-December period, with no wt to determine, and enforce, the location of|
| | |commercial crab as being from the by or ocean areas. |
|085P |Conservation |Page 92 Pacific Ocean - Marine Zone |
| | |Define Harvest Methods and Other Specifications for the harvest of octopus. |
| |Rejected |Rationale: This is taken directly from the Washington regulations. This specification accounts for the fact that |
| | |the intentionally penetrating an octopus would mortally wound the octopus. I have never heard of anyone spearing |
| | |an octopus but apparently Washington thought it was necessary and Oregon may in the future. I don’t think there |
| | |are too many divers that currently harvest octopus, but as time goes on there will be more. (Tony Norris) |
-----------------------
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- sensitive invertebrate profile
- activity type bureau of land management
- oregon department of fish and wildlife
- species fact sheet home us forest service
- odfw home page
- national park service
- conservation assessment for the oregon state university
- chugach national forest fire management plan
- table of contents marion county oregon home
Related searches
- oregon department of education report cards
- oregon department of education school
- oregon department of education report c
- oregon department of education curriculum
- oregon department of education website
- oregon department of education school report cards
- oregon department of licensing
- oregon department of education forms
- oregon department of ed
- oregon department of education jobs
- oregon department of education oregon
- oregon department of justice