OR Lisc. not OK in Camas Slough

[You Betcha]

Talked with guy at WDFG region 5 (didn't get name) this morning and he confirmed that WA is issuing tickets to OR fishermen without WA lisc. in the Camas Slough. He stated it is WA waters beyond the mouth of the slough as WA land is on both sides. There was information a week or so on Ifish that was contrary to this. I had heard last Sat. that WDFG issued warning tickets to OR boats and this prompted my call.

[graybeard]

What makes Lady Island different from any other island in the Columbia? (I'm assuming that Lady Island is the Washington land that you are referring to.) Strange, after all these years that Washington is claiming this. Something smells bad.

[Miss B Haven]

Is Lady Island the one with the small pond showing on this map? (I don't have a chart with me). If so and you are talking the slough that runs east-west between the island and mainland, then I believe the tickets are incorrect. If you are talking about the slough where it heads N-NE up into WA proper (up between oakpark and camas), then it is WA waters, not boundary waters. The definition is the high water mark on the mainland.
http://www.ifish.net/uploads/492610310.gif

[ 11-07-2002, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Miss B Haven ]

[Smily]

HI You Betcha,
I also made the call to that office and spoke to Jennifer and she said it was legal for Oregonians to fish in the waters described as Wahougal slough. Now there changing there story? :mad: :mad:

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=016602

[Troller]

I sent an email to Stacey He works at region 5 offices and is really helpful whenever I need info and also uses the pictorial pursuits site. I think he may even use this site. hopefully he can clear up this issue for you all.

[Steelie Steve]

One thing that makes this island different than most other islands in the Columbia is that this island actually has a state highway on it (SR14) and I believe that this is also the location of the sewer treatment ponds. This could be what you are referring to as smelling bad. :wink: :grin:

Steve

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

Hey everyone!

The sloughs are within Washington state waters - not open waters like the maintstem Columbia would be considered.

Washington anglers would not be allowed to fish in Oregon sloughs and up their tributaries from the Columbia without an Oregon license.

Basically in the sloughs you are inside the state's waters and must abide by that states regulations on licensing and fishing.

They aren't going to issue warnings forever, so make sure that if you are inside Washington waters (sloughs and river mouths on the Washington side) that you have a Washington fishing license.

Let me know if you need any further info.

I will talk to Jennifer and clear her up on this issue.

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

LOL!

Troller, you didn't know I was a girl did you!!! :tongue:

I just re-read your post above!! That's okay, it's hard to know online sometimes!

[Miss B Haven]

Stacie (the girl) - You are correct, the Oregon regs state that "sloughs" are not part of the boundary water! So now we need to determine what is "slough" and what is a side channel of the main river?
I'm going to have to pull out the chart and see how many of the islands have designations for these!
From the ODFW regs:Regulations for this zone: (didn't copy real well from Adobe - but...)
1. In the Columbia River where it forms the state boundary line, not including tributaries, sloughs and lands, the following rules apply:
a. License and tags of either state are valid except when the other state’s season is c cl lo os se ed d;
b. Anglers must follow the rules of the state in which they are fishing;
c. Anglers are restricted to one daily catch and one annual sturgeoncatch limit from the Columbia River, even if licensed
in Oregon and Washington;
d. Anglers that are residents of either Oregon or Washington may launch or take out their boats from either shore, regard-less
of which state license they hold;
e. Anglers that are n no ot t a resident of either Oregon or Washington must possess a nonresident license for the state in
which they are landing.
2. When fishing on tributaries, sloughs or from the land of a state, the angler must be licensed by that state and obey all
angling regulations of that state.
3. N NO OT TE E: : Mainstem Columbia River fisheries for salmon, steelheadand sturgeonare co-managed by the Oregon and Washington
Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the four Treaty Tribes, represented by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Based on discussions among the co-management agencies, Oregon may adopt in-season changes to sport fishery regulations
in the Columbia River. Regulation changes can occur on short notice and will be made available to ODFW field offices,

[Keta]

It looks like a side channel to me.

[Miss B Haven]

You suppose there is a legal definition that differentiates a side channel from a slough? I'm definatley checking the river charts this weekend. :whazzup:

[fishotom]

I'm from Oregon and fish the Lady Island area every year in October with family members from Camas. We launch at the Camas Port Dock. Usually troll on the river side or downstream of the island, but occasionally troll up to the paper mill in the side channel or "slough". If I take my rod out of the water when entering the "slough" and just troll the legally licensed Washington rod(s) while in the "slough", will I get a ticket for an Oregon boat and angler (one angler on board without a Washington license) in Washington waters?

[ 11-07-2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: fishotom ]

[Miss B Haven]

OK - So here it is then. Since the entire Columbia river is South of the OREGON Sand Islands in the area of B10/Baker Bay. Oregon considers that a SLOUGH. All WA anglers fishing without an Oregon Non-resident license will be cited by OSP (and trolled for Shark Bait). :grin: :wink:
Gutshotape - You make a very good point about Carrolls channel. What's the difference between that and the Camas "slough". None - based on the above! :grin:
Anybody want to make a call on whether the Washington Channel (IE- Church Hole/Meglar bridge) will be considered a Slough off from Desdamona(SP?) sands? :whazzup:

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

LOL!

I like the shark bait idea.

This issue seems to be a confusing one. I am actually confused as to why it is an issue now since we have been monitoring Camas slough as I mentioned above for awhile.

Irregardless, it is posted as Washington waters. If you are fishing within that posted area with an Oregon license, you could be cited if the officer so chose, although I believe they will be giving out warnings for awhile.

As far as Oregon logistics and definitions, I just don't know. I can only tell you about this area. Sorry that it isn't a popular answer!!!

If it helps any, we sell two day licenses for $6.57. :grin:

stace
probably first on the list for shark bait....
graemlins/icon_argue.gif

[ 11-07-2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Stacie L. Kelsey ]

[Seefood Man]

It sounds like to me that there should be just one license for all. graemlins/idea.gif or at least each state issue a stamp to fish in the other states boundry waters. PS. no more then 3 to 5 bucks for the stamp

[Miss B Haven]

Stacie - I would appreciate a call (on the board here) from you on "Carrolls Channel" (in all seriousness now!) Would that be considered a slough and WA water as well, or does the designation on the chart make it different. I think people here are more interested in following the law and not getting cited than catching fish in WA waters. :whazzup:
PS - Carrolls is just above where the Cowlitz dumps in if you're not familiar with it).

[ 11-07-2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Miss B Haven ]

[fishotom]

Monitoring the Camas Slough for quite some time now? I have fished that area for a week or more in October each of the last 3 years, and have seen plenty of OR boats in there, but never a law enforcement boat. Every year I have seen OR guides in there, do you suppose they had all there dudes buy WA licenses for trips out of the main river up the "slough"? Its an island for gawd's sake, the "slough" doesn't start until you get past the easternmost bridge over hiway 14, past the Georgia Pacific pumphouse.

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

Two things.

Yes, Carrolls is a channel - had to ask about that one.

Second, even though you don't see an official enforcement boat on the water doesn't mean that enforcement isn't there. :grin: I don't suppose anything about anything. Just trying to get the information out from the mouths that are in the know. How people use the information is up to them, although that is not to say that you can't debate whether a slough is a slough or a channel is a channel.

If there is a special reg in an area (closure, boundaries etc), we try to post it.. be aware of your surroundings and abide by those rules and you shouldn't have any problems should you happen upon and officer or vice versa.

:cool:

[FishinMission]

I dunno...You guys say what you want.

But a few years back..I asked the local sheriff who was patroling the Camas Slough if that was considered part of the Columbia River, and he told me "Yes..It IS part of the Columbia River... and my Oregon license was O.K. there."

That's all I know. :rolleyes:

Mark

[GutshotApe]

I think it depends on the nature of the channel ("slough"). Do appreciable river currents flow thru it? Are boats able to navigate it? Or is it a backwater area connected on only one end to the river (a slough)? Would be interesting to see what an impartial judge thinks.

If this stands then perhaps MissBHaven is right about what needs to happen down at Sand Island/Illwaco. :wink:

[bassin]

Not to add fuel to the fire, But I had the same issue last winter in the Hayden Inland area. Just up stream from the lower end about 5oo feet. OSP came up on me and wanted to see my Or. fishing licenese. Am a Washington res. Boats Wa. So I showed them. Then ask why? It an island and I came up from the main stem Columbia. They responed that Hayden Inland is'nt a TRUE island. Looks like island, water all around, same river top and bottom. Oh well I carry both States F.L. and tags.

[SandySteel]

What I am curious about is the administrative process that made this policy. The history and the legal foundation are just as important as the actual administrative rule that was set up to carry out any laws that are passed.
Do you know the history on this Stacie? I think that is the most frustrating thing about this situation. To be informed that it is considered Washington water without knowing how this decision was made can be maddening.
Did the Sheriff just decide "hey that's Washington water". What was the history on this and the procedure that created the administrative rule?

[Pirate]

graemlins/lurk.gif :hoboy:

[Perfect Drift]

I believe fishing for smallmouth bass, the same is true on the Columbia. I can't fish boat basins and sloughs on the Oregon side. Only the main channel.

[whitewaterbill]

Great topic........

I have always felt it means main stream and don't go behind an island if you don't have a license for that state.

I normally have both states so it does not matter.

Instead of a definition subject to all the B.S. we have to sort through.....Why not just put a map in the regs....or..... A specific boundry definition.....kinda like the hunting regulations?

What do ya think???

Bill

[whitewaterbill]

Oh...And while I am at it........What is up with a annual license will let you land on both sides of the Columbia and a day license you must land on the bank of the state the license is for???????

Pain in the *&^%$ for some of the out of towners/Staters I take some times.

All done now!

Bill

[Troller]

Sorry about that stacie. One of my best friends growin up was a stacie or maybe it was stacey . I was best man at his wedding. Like I should of said she is very helpful. Thanks again and my apologies. Maybe we should have blue or pink avitars like you do with babies so you dont make a mistake. :grin: :grin: :grin:

[ 11-07-2002, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: troller ]

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

WAC 220-56-100 Definitions - Personal use fishing

(23) "Slough" means any swamp, marsh, bog, pond, side-channel, or backwater connected to a river by water. Waters called sloughs that are not connected to a river are considered lakes.

I am not sure what Oregon's definition is, but that is ours and that is what the slough in question falls under.

I understand now that the Clark County guys are also enforcing this issue.

Let me know if there is anything else I can help with!

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

Yeah, my dinosaur avatar is kind of misleading isn't it!!! LOL! No worries!

[GutshotApe]

If I received a citation for fishing in that channel on an Oregon license (even though it may be locally called a slough) I would fight it. The chart shows a distinct island and the body of water separating it from the mainland is a channel. Just like the channels separating Puget Island from the mainland, the Carrolls Channel that separates Cottonwood Island from the mainland, etc. etc.

[Pirate]

We were in the Camas Slough last Saturday and got to have a face to face with the county sheriff. He advised us we were not legal to fish here, but would only issue us a verbal warning and take down our boat number in case we tried it again without Washington tags. I told them that WDFW and ODFW confirmed it's OK to fish there, but they only asked who I talked to and stood by their decision to kick us out. I did some research and here's what the Washington Regs page 102 says: "COLUMBIA RIVER - where the river coincides with the boundary between Washington and Oregon, the license of either state is valid. Anglers must comply with the laws of the state in which they are fishing. An angler licensed only in Oregon may not fish on the Washington shore or in Washington sloughs or tributaries."
I feel fortunate they did not write us a ticket and let us fight it out in court. I guess if we want to fish there again we will need a Washington license. :depressed:

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

Yes but side channels fall within our definition of slough. The fact that it is called Camas slough is a pretty good indicator that it resides within Washington waters.

Two years ago our Officers and the county guys posted all along there that the area was Washington waters.

Remember it is not a matter of whether the water directly connects to the Columbia, it is the acutal location of the slough itself.

And if it is posted as such then it makes it a lot more clear for everyone to realize they are fishing within Washington waters. There are a lot of patrols going on out there so you could always talk to the Officers directly.

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

We would not confirm it is okay for Oregon anglers to fish in there with Oregon licenses because it is not.

Fish and Wildlife Enforcement and Clark County Enforcement are on the same page with this matter. We just got off the phone with Oregon Fish and Wildlife because apparently they are getting calls this morning and we explained to them the situation.

This isn't a new regulation or issue. This has been in effect for quite some time.

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

Hi everyone!

I am not sure what the history is, but I do know it originated with Department of Wildlife.... before we merged with Department of Fisheries. Now, how long it had been going on within WDW, I am not sure.

The best thing to do if you do not like a regulation is to put in a reg change proposal during our reg cycle. That will be occurring next May-June for the next major cycle I believe.

My primary focus within WDFW is resident/inland fish (trout-warmwater and grass carp) - but I offer up myself as a resource for anadromous issues as well, since I work with all the bios here.

So I don't have a lot of expertise in some of these areas but I have access to them!!

As always, if you need anything else let me know!

graemlins/applause.gif

[Keta]

Stacie,
It sounds to me like the state's lawyers need to discuss this and clear up the interpretation before we try to change the regulation.

[You Betcha]

Talked with ODFW this morning and they stated that it might not be resolved this season but it should be fixed by next Sept.-Oct. when the silvers return :cheers:

[Bounty Hunter]

I can't believe there are any Portland area fishers who haven't bought the out of state WA license. It's a deal at around $45. (especially on this site graemlins/eek13.gif ) I like to motor up the waters on both sides of the river, so it comes in handy. I just wisht the out of state hunting tags were that cheap! :depressed:

Come on you tightwads, Stacie needs new shoes! :grin:

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

Yeah, that is the catchy part because we include side-channels as our slough definition. And I do believe that there are separate... or rather, "special" definition regulations for some sloughs.

Hopefully the process won't be too painful!!!

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

I want a new 23-foot electroshocking boat!!

LOL! Our out-of-state license really is a good deal, but like I mentioned above, the 2-day is a bargain too.

graemlins/applause.gif

[GutshotApe]

I read both Oregon and Washington regs and both say about the same thing: channels OK, sloughs not OK (to fish on the other state's license). However, neither state regulations booklet defines what a slough or channel is.

According to Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary:

channel - n. 1. The bed where a natural stream of water runs 2. the deeper part of a river, harbor, or strait 3. a strait or narrow sea between two land masses

slough - n. 1. A place of deep mud or mire 2. swamp 3. Inlet from a river 4. a creek in a marsh or tide flat

Seems to me that under these definitions the water body that runs east-west north of the island is a channel. The branch that leads north-northeast is a slough.

Just my opinion. :cool:

[MPT]

Why don't all of you concerned Oregonians just go out and buy the out of state license than everything will be ok! I Buy my 67$ non-resident license for Oregon every year to fish Oregon waters, the Sandy, Lake Billy Chinook, Off-shore areas, etc.

[Perfect Drift]

Pay backs, for us that pay Ore. income tax.

[Stz ll]

I also buy both Oregon & Washington tags so it does not really matter to me. However does any Oregonion have enough extra money laying around to get a ticket and fight it in federal court. My gut feeling is that Washington would lose the fight. It is just easy money for the sheriff's dept at this point because t you have to go to court in Washington. Most people will just pay it. :shocked:

[GutshotApe]

MPT - I was born & raised in SW Wash. and spent first 1/2 of my life there. Possibly would have agreed with you once but now see things entirely differently! :grin:

Seriously, if I wanted to fish lakes & rivers in WA, and I do almost every year, I'd buy a 2 day license. But we're talking about boundary waters and Oregonians, like Washingtonians, have the right to fish anywhere in the mainstem Columbia River and its channels without buying two licenses.

See you in the channel! :wink:

[Stacie L. Kelsey]

You are right Keta. The definition needs to be refined and adjusted in the WAC. I know it is on the board at our end, so hopefully all of this will be a 'non-issue' for next year.

:grin:

[Keta]

Stacie,
I hope so. Intra state squables here will only hurt those from both states that fish the Columbia River where it is the border.
It does look to me like it's a channel. If it wasn't open to the river on both ends then it would be a slough.