Wild Steelhead Photos

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Curtis King, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. :confused: OK, I just don't get it. It seems every time I pick up a fishing magazine or see a photo of a wild steelhead, the "host" has "hoist" the thing completely out of the water to take a shot. Now I am not one to grouse about the possible effects to the fish before release, but WTF as far as state law goes?

    I for one won't even consider lifting it half way out of the water in case the federalies are scoping me with an M16. What good does it do to enact a regulation that by obvious photographic evidence is not being followed, even by reputable fisherpersons?

  2. 1. Photos might be older than the regulations...it's only this season that you have to keep any fish in the water that you intend to release...in the past, if you were on a stream where you could keep the fish, you could take it out of the water, even if you released it. Now you have to keep it in if you intend to release it, regardless of whether the river is open for keep or not.

    2. Photo might be from Oregon, B.C., or N. California...where those regulations don't exist.

    3. The guys holding the fish might just be knuckleheads who are in violation of the regulations...if that's the case, then I wouldn't publish them on the cover, or on the inside, of my magazines.

    Fish on ...

  3. Doesn't make a hole lot of sense. That is one of those laws that is there just to discourage people with no real intention of punishment. I suppose that law only affects the people who care enough about the fishery to follow the law as well as other safe handling techniques.
  4. So has anyone heard of someone getting a ticket/warning from fish and game for holding wild fish out of water and snapping a picture?:confused: :confused:

  5. I know some people ignore the rule and lift the fish out for no more than 3 seconds, and I'm sure most people are careful and don't harm the fish but think about this...

    There are hundreds or thousands of pictures now available and recently taken that provide ammunition to the catch and kill guys who want to ban C&R and either close the fisheries or bonk the fish. They can take these obviously recent taken pics as evidence of "fly guys that don't follow the rules and harm the fish" etc. I keep them in the water, why not just play it by the rules. Just my thoughts.
  6. Or, they could change a dumb ass rule that is teaching people to not respect the law.
  7. I may get flamed for this, but why do we need a picture in the first place ? Isn't the whole thing supposed to be about personal satisfaction of the chase, the catch and the fight then a good clean release? Does it have to be burned in film and shared with the world to make it more satisfying ? Just a personal thought.
  8. I enjoy taking pictures and I enjoy looking back at them.
    It takes me back to the trip.
    When you've got a few years under your belt, you can't remember all the trips you've been on and by looking at the photos, it all starts coming back.
    They aren't all hero shots, just memories.
  9. ptyd While I agree that the experience is the coup-de-gras, I do carry a digital camera with me. Not so I can post a bunch of pictures on a web site, but to journal my fishing life so I can reflect years down the road.

    Also, it serves as a backup to those fish stories that sometimes must be told, but are not believed. Toss out a photo and the mystery is solved. I truly enjoy being able to share my experience and knowledge (albeit limited) with friends and family who want to experience such an adventure.


  10. Here is a link to a thread where others are explaining why pictures are important to them.

  11. Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to fish pictures in general, mainly native steelhead which is what the original post was all about. I completely understand people wanting to document their experiences and outings. I was just questioning why risk the Nate's just for the sake of a picture.

Share This Page