Restricting Guides Services on Some Rivers?

JesseC

Active Member
#32
I think the no fishing from a floating device is a bad idea. There's a lot of spots and runs that are only accessible by boats to fish. Fishing from a boat spreads out the pressure. Otherwise, you have bank accessible runs that just get pounded to hell. Talking mostly from the perspective of a trout guy here.

Guiding is a fact of life. Everyone has to learn how to respectfully share. People that whore out a resource should be accordingly called out. We should police each other through direct confrontation and feedback - not a suggestion to create a thousand new rules. Holy shit the reg book is already too complex.

Just my opinion.
 

ribka

Active Member
#33
I don't understand the point that you're making with this comment? Who has paid off for a right to do anything? Locals are given an opportunity to have an exclusive right to fish certain sections of the river without guides or even out of state self guided individuals. Of course, anyone can wade during these times, the rules only apply to floats. I don't get where you make the leap to Elitists or any payoff of the landowners and/or politicians. If I'm being ingnorant, I don't mind if someone calls me out on it, I just need to be able to understand the ignorance.

Ignore him. He thinks it is his right to profit off a PUBLIC resource. There are some great Guides on here and some of the Guides like to bully people.
 

dryflylarry

"Chasing Riseforms"
#34
Eliminate nymphing or at least lead. They'd be fewer guides rowing clients into fish.

Go Sox,
cds
Dang it, Charles Sullivan. Your idea is really sticking in my head! It makes more sense the more I think about it (even tho I'm a dryfly freak, but not always). There would be a much better survival rate of the trout, except for the days we slay them with dries. But, think about it, you are right, fewer guides rowing clients into fish!! Good job! I like it, even tho there are further solutions to be had.
 
#35
I think the no fishing from a floating device is a bad idea. There's a lot of spots and runs that are only accessible by boats to fish.
Thats the point. Part of the problem in a lot of high pressure rivers is that the fish get completely hammered and have little to no refuge from the bombardment of lures/flies. Gives them more "safe" places to feed without getting hooked every other day.

I fish a couple different trout rivers that have this restriction and think it works very well. Yes, i drool at a lot of areas I float by, but its worth it to give the fish a break. Our impacts from angling shouldn't include catching every last fish in the river.

Regarding the original topic, I've always supported having a lottery system for areas that have too much pressure. This same concept is used on wilderness floats in Idaho/Montana, and has been an effective tool for preserving the resource. Hunting also adapts this concept. Many hunts that cannot support a lot of pressure are drawn on a lottery system. If it was a free for all, over harvest would be a major problem. Our population is getting large enough where we may soon have to start doing this for fishing. Most parts of Europe have gone this route in some form or another.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#36
Dang it, Charles Sullivan. Your idea is really sticking in my head! It makes more sense the more I think about it (even tho I'm a dryfly freak, but not always). There would be a much better survival rate of the trout, except for the days we slay them with dries. But, think about it, you are right, fewer guides rowing clients into fish!! Good job! I like it, even tho there are further solutions to be had.
Guides and nymphing...hookers and blow.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#38
We had a similar long thread last fall... I think I started it... Anyways, I don't feel that guides are bad. But, I feel that TOO MANY guides is bad. What it does is limit opportunity for the average recreational angler to enjoy a resource.

Let's take the Klickitat for example; On the first weekend of October last fall, we counted 28 boats in the canyon (that we saw). On that small water, that is absolutely ridiculous. Not all were guides, but well over half the boats I saw were. When I fish that river, I either walk+wade, or float, get out and fish. My catch rates are typically a fish or two a trip, while those fishing out of the boat are putting in days in to the double digits. No fish is safe in that river, since every single pocket they hold in gets absolutely hammered day in and day out. Just from my personal calculations (which certainly are not fit to be posted as any kind of study), I don't see how any fish is not getting caught at least once. With the run sizes in that river, many fish are easily being caught multiple times. And unfortunately, it's largely the guides that are putting in those numbers. Most recreational anglers I talk to out there are putting in 0 to a couple fish tops.

I have many guides I consider friends, and don't wish many of the good, ethical, courteous ones that care about the resource to get the short end of the stick. But with a shrinking resource, we are alll going to have to make sacrifices, recreational guys included.
 
#44
I promise you I will poach the first "guide only river"

fuck the idea that you have to be able to afford to pay a guide to go fish somewhere.

.
Two reality pills for you.

1. The problem this thread discusses is that it's clear that there is too much pressure on too few fish, and the ratio continues to get worse. So, something has to be done to relieve the pressure on the most sensitive areas. If unlimited access were working, why are we having this discussion? I'd like to hear a better suggestion than you're prepared to break any regulation you don't agree with.

2. You might have to pay to fish some rivers that need the most protection until the situation improves. Increased user fees can pay for habitat and enforcement Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.

I will gladly pay a an added fee for a guide trip or buy a ticket in a lottery if it means there might be quality fishing available somewhere closer than Siberia.
 
#45
I have much the same experience that Larry described. In his OP, he indicated that he was talking about trout rivers, not steelhead (I know they are trout, too, but...), and that his perception was that rivers that often fish better are not heavily guided. I fish in Idaho and/or Montana every summer, and have sampled, sometimes pretty extensively, most of the well-known and many of the not-so-well-known rivers there.

On its face, this presents a conundrum. A guide's business is to get his/her client into fish. Ipso, facto, they should be taking them where the fishing is best, right? But that isn't always true. Hence Larry's (and my) impressions that the rivers that fish best are NOT frequented by guides.

I think there are a couple of explanations that intersect. One is that there are some rivers where pressure from guides is a significant factor in making fish more wary and, therefore, harder to catch. Of course, pressure doesn't come only from guides, but on most rivers, guides can more consistently find fish than can the tourist fisherman on a DIY trip. So, us poor schmucks who visit on our own suffer the consequences of trying to catch those wary fish (oh, wait a minute, isn't that the epitome of fly fishing? Yeah, but we still like to catch a fish now and then...).

So, why then are there still rivers where the fishing is great (which means the catching is more frequent); why aren't the guides taking their clients there? I think this gets at the point several of you have raised. Those rivers typically are the ones that are not conducive to fishing from boats. Not all, but almost all guiding for trout is done from a boat. Clients want it and expect it. Similarly, the increase in recent years of privately owned drift boats means those same rivers are infested with both private and guided boats, sometimes so thick a boat is never out of sight of the wading fisherman.

So, I think the bottom line is that easily floated rivers, which includes some of the most famous rivers in the west (thus the ones clients from out of the area expect guides to take them on) are the ones that get hammered the most and make the fishing a little tougher for everyone.

I suspect that Larry is like me, a wading fisherman, who prefers dry flies to rising trout. Sure, it might appeal to snobs like us to have rivers where nymphing is off limits, or guides are banned (intermittently or completely or via lottery), but I think the real factor comes from the quantitatively greater and spatially more distributed pressure that comes from rivers with lots of floating fishermen. Heck, some of the best rivers I know are not restricted to fly fishing (so nymphing restrictions won't do it), or even to catch & release.

My life's too short to worry about trying to change the rules to favor the style of fishing I prefer. I'm just grateful that so many pay-to-fish folks are too lazy to wade and fish and that so many people today want to emulate guides by having their own ride. Let 'em have the rivers that fit their style. I'll just continue to find the rivers they shun and continue to enjoy the experience.

D