My Thompson Report...

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by BDD, Nov 25, 2013.

  1. it got cancelled. After making reservations and buying classified license fees Thursday night to fish Friday and Saturday of last week, a couple hours later, my fishing partner contacted me saying his wife went to the hospital to deliver their first child. I was really happy for him...really.

    So after 3 or 4 evenings of getting my gear together-re-tying leaders and nail knots, organizing flies, packing gear...I even replaced my pontoon floor to aluminum diamond plate so as to wear my studded wading boots, I reluctantly re-called the hotel to see if I could get credit for a different day. No luck. So I lost out on my classified fees and lodging. Had I known that, I would have just bit the bullet and gone on my own. By the time I figured it out, it was too late to make the trip.

    So my long anticipated return to the Thompson will have to wait...with the winter weather arriving, not sure I'll have another chance this year.

    Just another one of the many facets of steelhead fishing.
  2. What a drag. Call me next time, I'm down. :D

    Funny thing is I was just thinking I needed to get back up to the Thompson. I was not sure of the state of the fishery, I've been hearing some bleak things. I haven't been to The Bridge since 88 or 89.
  3. I'm sorry David-should have called me to go with you! Rick
  4. DD-The state of the fishery is up and down from year to year. It still appears vastly under-escaped to me, but what do I know? I have been hearing rumors that they are getting closer to a bait ban on the river in the next year or two so if nothing else, that should reduce some of the fishing pressure. I guess I won't feel so bad since my last time to the T was 98.

    Rick, next time I will!
  5. Coming in early to ruin a fishing trip, huh? Must be a girl. Sorry about the Thompson. I can't wait to spend a fishless day on its bank. Looks intimidating, but beautiful.
  6. The Thompson is a special place no doubt. There are currently proposed regulations to change the steelhead fishery, along with all other Interior Fraser steelhead fisheries, from a closed-till-open to an open-until-closed regime. This would allow anglers, especially non resident aliens (NRA), like many of the folks on here, to better plan a trip and pump some money into the fishery and the local depressed economies. Part of the proposal also calls for a time sensitive bait ban and hook size restrictions. It's important that anglers, including NRAs, let BC Fish and Wildlife know that:

    The lowering of the adult escapement threshold in the Albion test fishery from 850 to 650 fish is very disturbing given the fact that not even three years ago the threshold was 1200 (which in and of itself is low from a historical perspective). Has our understanding of this river's carrying capacity, which has well over 40 years of in-depth habitat study changed that drastically in the last few years?

    The proposed bait ban, while a good step forward, can and should go further. Recent research shows that sodium sulfites found in bait curing agents cause high mortality rates in juvenile salmonids that ingest them. This is reason enough to ban bait using these agents on all wild steelhead streams (as defined in the Steelhead Stream Classification Policy) at all times. Furthermore, the proposal currently allows for bait up until Sept 20 from Martel down to the Fraser confluence. After Sept 20, bait is banned in this reach however it can still be employed in the 1km mainstem Fraser reach below the confluence until Oct 1. This is both illogical and confusing. The regulation simplification paradigm that Fish and Wildlife has been pushing as of late would say that any date sensitive restriction should be uniform across the entire fishery. Also, it makes little sense to allow fish to be subjected to bait for 10 days in a lower reach while reaches further up have bait banned in that 10 day period. If it is decided a date sensitive bait ban is to be applied, the date should be consistent and it should be Sept 20.

    The hook size restriction is a good measure and should be used in other fisheries.

    Those are the three main points folks should be putting across as related to the context of the proposal but if you have the inclination, you can also tell them:

    The river still goes on without a comprehensive steelhead recovery program that addresses the real issues facing low adult returns. Ocean conditions will always be the biggest variables but it is beyond the scope of Fish and Wildlife's management regime. Downstream, non-selective, harvest fisheries are the number one issue followed by habitat loss and degradation which primarily manifests itself through water extraction. These issues need to be addressed and need to be made a priority.

    You can submit your feedback by going to this website:
  7. What's wrong with a girl? I have two and a grandaughter and couldn't be happier.

  8. I'm sure he meant no harm. And for the record I have 7. :eek:
  9. Bummer, BDD! I've always wondered what that river was like; that and the Dean. One of these days I'll have to make the trip myself
  10. I'm in favour of a permanent bait ban.
  11. I spoke with the owner of the Packing House today, while doing my part to spend money in Spences Bridge. He said that he has been pushing for the chum net fishery to be pushed back to Nov. 1. Seems like a much more impactful action than any restriction on C&R angling. Hope he gets it through.

    I tipped very well.

    Go Sox,

Share This Page