I agree, but it's not just the crowds, it's the guys guiding illegally etc. etc. or at least that's the b.s. that is being thrown around...Oddly there is a huge Euro contingent as well up there..once they figure it out they aren't buying the guiding trips either...so that's really going to interesting...The town/hotels etc. were dead against this restriction...the driving force was the guides...I participated in the questionnaire etc. but if you read the whole spew you'll see who is out for what... My major bummer was this had been my first vacation in ten years...and I loved it..and it is REALLY crowded in some sections..others are not bad at all..but I have to admit, If I lived up there and wasn't dependent on tourism dollars the I would be some pissed to see my home rivers over run as well...Kind of cool thing was I didn't anyone trashing the place, Lots of respect from us foreigners for the most part...though I do kind of hope "Sir" finds and puts the fear of god into the yahoo's camping at owens flat....
I honestly dont see a problem with it. Its not like you can do a weekend up there very easily anyhow. I see their logic, and maybe the states should do the same on certain rivers. Btw, as you can see by my profile pic, the k#sp*!x is my fav!
Another example of Canadians learning from other (exploited) countries' (America in particular) mistakes and saving what resources they have left.
The rule does nothing for conservation or saving what they have. It does serve the guides interests and to some extent the locals interests. It's their country and province, so they can enact the rule. It's their right. It's a social rule not a conservation rule. If conservation were what the canadians were interested in then they would look differently at their natural resource extraction. That would be conservation based. C&R fishermen are not responsible for fish declines, warm showers and wood decks may be. Go Sox, cds
Charles does have a point but remember there is mortality related to C&R fisheries. I think the guides are pushing for this but there has to be some pause to reflect on the increased pressure on an opportunity not found in the States. While we criticize them about decreasing non-resident fishing on their waters we still allow the harvest of wild fish on the OP.
The OP issue with harvest of wild fish is an odd one. If you read the testimony from the hearings the most vocal voices opposed to it were the tribes, and local red neck sorts who continually expressed that it was the elitist flyfishermen from the city who wanted to keep them from whacking a steelhead. I feel that the tribes influence is the one that won the day. While there is a super duper small amount of mortality from C&R it is super duper small. If we stopped harvesting steelhead at the amounts we do and only factored in a super duper small amount of mortality from C&R then the tribes look like unsustainable glutons. The tribes opposition showed one thing more than anything and that is that they understand the politics. If they are the only people intentionally killing steelhead then they look bad. Their power is derived from people's perception of them more than anything else. If they lose their luster with regardsto being "for the fish" people may actually see the effects of their actions. Hard to place the blame for low returns on the "other" people when your responible for all the harvest, the Quinalt hatchery (an abonimation) and the Habitat appears to be there. Unfortunately, the average steelhead bonker that testified hates city folk, has bought into the falacy of the flyfishermen elitist, and is unable to see that their bonking aids in the native nettting that they also hate. Go Sox, cds
I am not sure but we could probably find out relatively easy. I am surprised it didn't get more attention when the rule changes were last up for public comment.
Here is the answer that I recieved. I would value this gentleman's opinion on the matter. Tribes, City of Forks, Director Koenings (not there anymore), Bob Leland (Steelhead manager)...among others, many of them guides out there, as well. Go Sox, cds
The intent with the rule is not conservation of the fish necessarily, but rather conservation of the experience. Many wilderness areas in the states are already doing this such as the MF Salmon in Idaho, and Smith in Montana. If these areas were not restricted the crowds would be horrendous and the quality of the experience would be greatly diminished. We can learn a lot from this approach. Look at what happened with the native winter runs in PS. When they closed everything but the Skagit/Sauk, that place turned into a complete circus. Now that its closed too, everything got shifted to the OP. Last year the OP rivers got pounded as a result. Personally I would rather have the number of days i can fish limited if it means fewer crowds. Waiting in line to get to a spot and fishing used water all day gets old. As our population starts to increase this problem is only going to get worse.
Plecoptera, That is true. Well said. I will be honest. I get very frustrated when people continually believe that C&R fishing hurts populations. It's a pet peeve of mine. There is an impact, just not one large enough to waste time discussing. It's the ultimate red herring. Go Sox, cds
Whether it is an estimated 3% or 10% it will always be brought up by the co-managers and commercials in discussion on impact of fish, allocations, etc.
