Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Bob Triggs, Oct 28, 2009.
Punch and Pie?
That'll get them in the room.
Namecalling, I'll apologize for; Sorry I called you a troll. Saying you are ignorant isn't name calling though. It's an association made about your when making statements that are simply not true. Once I again, I EMPLORE you to read the Boldt decision prior to talking about tribal gilnetting any further. If you want more info on this feel free to PM. I can provide lots of info that is pretty much requisite reading for anyone serious about steelhead.
Jason Decker: I was fishing from boats before you were born.
We manage to fish from shore, shallow wading etc, without trudging into redds. And what do you think dragging anchors does to redds?
Perhaps amongst all of the comments posted so far here I think that Salmo G's were the most chillingly accurate regarding the WDFW policies on Wild Steelhead management here; regardless of the precipitous decline of these last wild fish- especially on the coastal rivers of the Olympic Peninsula- the state still promotes harvest, even on rivers with failed escapements. He further points out that the wdfw stance would be that such exploitation goals should be maximized by the use of boats to fish from. And so, reasoning from WDFW management's standpoint- my idea is "D.O.A."
My only consideration here was to suggest a way that we sports anglers and guides could agree to make less of an fatal impact on these runs while still being able to fish for them. The way things are going now I think that we will see an outright, total closure on some of these rivers soon. Look how well that has worked out on some other rivers. How has the Wild Steelhead recovery gone elsewhere after they had waited so long to reduce or close fishing?
It was not a cheap shot towards boats in particular, but only based on observation and personal experience in the field of the severe impacts on the fish here. I made no mention of the tribal netting as it is actually irrelevant to what we do and how we do it as non tribal fishermen. I merely suggested that we take a step toward limiting our own impacts on what little we have left. These kinds of conservation measures do have an effect on other stakeholders and how they manage things in the long run.
By using boats only as river transportation but not to directly fish fromwe could still continue to fish, and also create some sanctuary water by virtue of the remaining "less fishable" waters. An example would be the lower Elwah River where such a rule is already in place, and as has already been noted here by others the Oregon fishermen and guides have adapted quite well to such a rule.
And of course a rule partially exempting handicapped anglers would be in line with the same rules of access for handicapped hunters.
My reasoning on having this as a Statewide Rule is based on an understanding that Wild Steelhead have evolved over millennia throughout an huge geographical eco-region; from Russia to Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California, not just by one river run at a time. And the history of managing runs of wild steelhead here, on a river-by-river and run-by-run basis, has obviously been catastrophic for the fish. And in the face of those millennia of evolution it only took a few human generations to crush them; one river at a time.
If we can not put the fish first there will be no fishing left here.
Unless aliens have gained control of my computer or I have resumed sleep walking and begun posting in my sleep I don't think I have posted anything on this thread until now.
Let the debate continue!
It didn't take very long before this thread degenerated. Good provocative thread Bob. I suspect the only real enforcable rule is to simply close rivers down. Let them heal. 7 to 10 years later let the carnage start all over.
My appolgies to everyone for being a grump.
Cross contamination from the other hatchery thread thingy...
JD, good exchanging viewpoints with you today. Good to hear from you about your viewpoint. For the record, I never said you were a steelhead guide. I merely asked for your point of view, which you have provided. Thanks. Ed
Re: the Deschutes in OR. The ban of fishing from a boat is unrelated to steelhead fishing. I can't remember the year it began, but it was when all drift boats were made of wood, not fiberglass or aluminum. And the reason the rule was adopted was related to trout fishing. In those days, before CNR, there was a daily catch limit on trout, and anglers typically kept some trout. Prohibiting fishing from a boat created sanctuaries in the river, protecting many trout from exploitation and harvest. This ensured that there would be spawners every season, even though a generous number of trout were harvested annually. Clearly this was a time when the human population was about 1/3 of what it is today, so there were far fewer anglers.
The regulation has persisted even though fishing regulations on harvest have changed dramatically. Whenever someone suggests removing the boat fishing ban, it gets shot down by the legion of anglers who have come to appreciate the quality of the experience that results from no one fishing from a boat. So, to reiterate, the boat fishing ban, which was once a biological issue and a conservation tool, is today a social tool relating to quality of the fishing experience and has nothing to do with fish biology or conservation.
really????? i think a great many folks in oregon, including the big D guides, would take serious issue with that statement. but, believe what you wish, makes no never mind as the fishing continues to be excellent for redsides as well as steelhead.
My take on your thread is that it's the effectiveness of fishing from a boat that's at the heart of the suggested ban as much or more than any damage from hulls or anchors across the spawning beds?? Leaving bait fishing out of the discussion (lots of documentation that has higher mortality than artificial), there is no doubt, in my opinion and experience, that backing plugs into holding water is way more effective at hooking fish. However, if single, barbless hooks are used, I don't think the mortality is any higher given the same care is taken handling the fish.
Certainly fishing from a boat, be it with a fly rod or conventional tackle, increases the odds simply by the amount of water covered. So if the idea of banning fishing from a boat is to simply reduce the chance of hook-up's then I see your point.
Tell you what, when the nets (the ultimate killing & efficieny machine) come out of the rivers for good, I'll stop fishing from a boat..fair enough?:thumb:
No offense to any guides or guide service here. But, in a river I fish in Idaho, guides and guide service on this particular river are NOT PERMITTED. I think this is the smartest thing ever to protect trout. Idaho has their stuff together. The fishing is great too! That's my STATEWIDE RULE!!!
The trout bum,
I mean no disrespect to your or your guiding profession but wonder what you might think of another perspective. As a fishing guide I'm guessing you're familiar with the book or movie "A River Runs Through It." This is strictly a social and not a biological or ecological aspect of the fly fishing pass time that fuels our passion. Recall when the younger brother said something to the effect that, "a trout is too valuable to be caught by someone who doesn't know how to fish." Let me submit my personal bias that a person who cannot wade and cannot cast 15', but nonetheless catches trout due to the machinations of a guide and his boat, is not having a quality fishing experience. They might think that they are, but it easily arguable that they don't know enough about fishing to understand the basic elements that constitute a quality fishing experience. The quality of the experience you describe is not fundamentally different than a customer at the Pike Place Fish Market having his salmon thrown through the air and caught by the sales person before plunking down his money and walking away with his "catch," but for the obviously differing scenery a float trip in your drift boat provides.
My guiding experience is extremely limited, but I did guide a couple clients who couldn't wade for shit and couldn't cast for shit. I should add that I didn't depend on guiding to earn my living; I did it for the varied experience it gave me. So I told them that skillful wading and casting were requisite to effective fly fishing and a "quality experience" and that I would help them learn to do both if they wanted.
I replied to your thread because it read to me like it's more about the money clients pay than the quality of the experience they receive, although I strongly doubt you meant it that way. And I know that quality is subjectively perceived, but I've yet to see an angler who has done it both ways: having his guide do the fishing for him by whatever means and doing it himself in terms of wading, casting, making the presentation and hooking the fish who did not regard the latter as a significantly higher quality experience. Maybe that's food for thought in terms of the product/service you care to market; ;maybe not.
Curt, You are absolutely correct, I made a mistake here- you were not the poster of that overview on the WDFW management stance. It was Salmo-G. I am very sorry for that mixup. I will do what I can to correct that now.
I love you Bubba!!!