Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dryflylarry, Feb 28, 2011.
Apparently you just made that turn....
Guys like this certainly aren't helping:
Notice the "care" taken in to handling the wild fish
No, I believe THIS would have been the turn.
"Guides and nymphing...hookers and blow."
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.
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.
Here's a quirk for you. Statewide Rules on steelhead state that "steelhead..to be released may not be totally removed from the water" page 27. These guys need to prove they killed this wild fish, or they're committing an infraction. Looks like a lose-lose for these nimrods if WDFW enforcement got hold of this.
I sent these pics to WDFW weeks ago with no response
CRAP...you don' t like it because you can't hammer fish trying to hide or recover with your beads...
If guides need to earn a living like the rest of us, then I'd support a bank and wade only.... and think that upper systems should not be allowed any type of craft period....wouldn't hurt to implement gear restrictions as well...
this mentality in wa. state that you should be allowed to pound the holy shit out of fish in the only spots they get to rest and recover under the guise you are fly fishing is total bullshit....
As far as removing fish from the water Evan, who was it trying to get everyone on WFF to vote for their buddy on moldychum to win the monthly best fish? How was that fish held and did you send in pic's of that one as well??
Not saying you started that thread just stating if your going to single out this guy, there are many that fall in the same..
I don't recall participating in that thread.
What point I'm trying to make is that there are guides fishing day in, and day out, that have little respect for the resource, and are not handling the fish they catch every day in a manner that sets a very good example. I personally think guides need to hold themselves to a higher standard, being on the water day in and day out, and being an "example" for the people they are taking out. There are many things wrong with that picture other than just it being held out of water; that fish was obviously gravel raped. It's a spawner, even leaking its load all over the place in the picture... Then held high out of the water for who knows how long to top it all off. After watching the videos that guy posts (some have been removed), I know the fish he catches aren't being treated well.
That was me. I probably should have stated Pimps and blow. My bad.
Just the facts as I see them.
As I recall, the last time I fished the Deschutes (no guide) I not only could not fish from the boat, but also had to have a prior float permit for designated days. It does not have to be expensive, and is done by computer. This helps keep down costs. Getting caught without one would be the same as not having a license--a fine. 3d offense, the state gets to keep the boat?
I do not think we need to eliminate fishing from a boat. I think some states do limit the numbers of guides on some stretches of some rivers. As to limiting guides to being WA residents, don't some of our WA guides also guide out of state, such as in Alaska and Montana. Might those states not reciprocate? I am not a guide, but let's not put our WA guides at a disadvantage.
I also agree with closing some rivers, if necessary, for a year or so. And as to the comments on fish handling, etc, I could not agree more. A lot of it is ignorance, but a lot of it is guys who just don't care, the same ones who fling a beer bottle or cigarette butt out the truck window.
I got a couple of those spills to spit right back at ya....
I never said im prepared to break any regulation I dont agree with. I would be prepared to break a law which effectivly is saying "onyl people with "X" amount of money to spare can use the public resource.
There is a difference between controlling fishing pressure vs controling WHO can apply that pressure.
Lets for example, say they made the Spokane River (or any other river) Guide Only because of its struggling native fish population. Now, you have 5 guides that start to run the river, only taking paying clients. Lets not kid ourselfs, the guides are gonna have it dialed, and will prob consitently catch alot of fish.
If instead, a lottery system was put in place, everyone poor or rich, young or old, who want to fish for 1 hour or all day can fish, and these people are probably catching LESS fish then the guides would be catching.
So lets say that the guides could make 3-4 floats a week, thats 6-8 anglers a week on the river per guide.
So instead, issue a PUBLIC lottery. Have each ticket be good for 2 anglers (so u dont have to fish alone) (guides can enter too and can guide with there lottery tickets). Issue 2 (more if the river supports it) tickets a day for the season its open. If you when a 2 angler ticket, it should be legal to hire a guide for that day as well, as long as the guide is not actively fishing.
The majority of the lottery tickets will then go to the public, but guides will still have an equal shot at public resource. It sucks for both guides and anglers, but now you have a fishery where both sides made a comprimise that is in the best interest of the fish.
Now, look at the river. Less anglers, less pressure, fair equal access to all user groups.
This system works VERY well for high use wilderness areas that would other wise lose the wilderness experience from overpopulation.
So i think it would be bullshit to make a river "guide only", it is putting a high price tag and turning a river into a buisness/profit machine with the clever marketing of "wild fish conservation" when there are other solutions. (not saying my solution is the only, in fact I would rather just see rivers close to all fishing, if the species is truly in danger from overfishing.
And yea, this is a law i would break. Sorry if your belt is so tight that you never walked past a no trespassing sign or broken another law you feel is injust. I understand that isnt a risk everyone is willing to take.
If you wanna talk to me about it in person just come down to the under the freeway skate park in spokane, ill be down there bustin dice.
oh and to people who are saying ban lead/nymping as a solution, its just dumb. I will use tungsten puddy.
What is wrong with argyle?
And as far as the rest of your post, for someone that claims to "Guide some" you sure have a crappy attitude for the people that pay for your wares. I mean those
pay your bills don't they?
Maybe you should post the name of your guide service so I can be sure to never use it.
With all the guided fishing and charters I have done over the years I have never had any guide treat the resource or the area surrounding it with anything but the utmost respect, most of the time the only fish that are even removed from the water are fish that are going to be killed.
Evan, you have described the problem to a T. The Klick is one of many rivers - including several out on the OP, not to mention the Cowlitz, Kalama, and others - that are getting hammered with pressure. And we can't kid ourselves to thinking that C&R - many fish caught multiple times - makes it OK.
I love fishing and catching steelhead as much as the next guy, but have absolutely no interest in participating in those kinds of fisheries. Maybe I'm a snob, but that isn't what fishing and enjoying the outdoors is all about for me.
Frankly, the easiest and best method for self-policing would be to prohibit fishing from boats or other floating devices. Like the Deschutes, others on the river are the best means of enforcement in terms of chastising and reporting violations. Yeah, that would put a lot of great water out of reach. Well, that's good for the fish! Most of the other ideas suggested here would require WDFW to have enforcement officers at multiple launch and pull-out sites on multiple rivers to check permits or numbers or whatever - something they simply can't do.
sooo....leave the nets in, but take the guides off because they are the problem? dumb.
The nets aren't going anywhere. Let's deal with the issues we can actually control.
Any good guide will teach his/her clients about consevation and protection our resources. A good guide will do more good than harm by educating his/her clients. In Washington you can filter out the serious guides from the weekenders pretty easy. Ask them if they are bonded and insured. Since Washington does not require either, a serious full time guide will have both. Career guides understand that the rivers and fish are thier life blood and protectiong them is not only in everybodys best interest, but for theirs personally. Ban bait if you want. I would vote for that. Get rid of the 2 rod license, fish barbless, give WDFW a few bucks to enforce, whatever. There are WAY more issues than guides. Guides as a whole and guiding are not a negitive impact on any river. I gaurntee more non-guided boats and bankies kill wild fish and poach than guided boats. I have seen it over and over. Every year I personally turn in at least 20 snaggers on the Kalama during the silver runs. I'm sure its closer to 50, none of them guided.
*I know my spelling sucks*
I think that is exactly the point. There has to be refuge for the fish. If you can effectively cover every inch of a river either swinging nymphing or beading, the fish don't have much of a chance. It was kind of funny, reading a post by Salmo G last night. He talked about before the concept of the spey rod came along here in washington, there was safe zones for fish. This was water that was not able to be effectively covered by fishermen.
Evan I'm sure you ment wild buck.