Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Steve Call, Nov 25, 2013.
Nah, I rake the gills, I like to bleed them out before they die.
heart keeps pumping so i do both.
If you target wild fish, your killing wild fish.
Just in from the obvious department. Another entry for my study on trolling for steelheaders.
great popcorn !
Last winter I hit the sauce pretty hard and ended up blacking out. I woke up with a pocket full of hevi beads and a couple of chromers in the freezer.
I'm thinking we could really help the population if we renamed steelhead with something like the elusive "fragileface". On the side of conservation of course. If we could only educate everyone on how weak the species really is. Maybe through a new and exciting non profit, we could get enough membership registrations to save these fragilefaces. I'm really starting to feel bad for even putting a hook any where near them. I think I'll soon turn to the rich and exciting life of catfishin.
This study was done this year on Spring Chinook in the Yakima. http://ykfp.org/par13/html/Fritts2/siframes.html In summary, it looked like a 6.7 % mortality, but the strange part was only 75% recovery of marks.
in washington at least, this should mostly be a moot point with wild fish, thanks to sparkys law. at any rate, why not err on the side of caution when it comes to an (almost) endagered species anyway ? i dont take chances with wild steelhead, and no one should. if only we could get the decision makers to think the same way.
for those that disagree, you should realize that sparky's law was intended to deal with the lowest common denominator. and that would be YOU !
every step we take to insure their well being, is a step towards being able to continue cnr angling for them.
Nobody is complaining about Sparky's Law. A little push back at first, but nothing more than that.
Because some may disagree with Sparky's Law, that makes them the lowest common denominator?
What do you want the decision makers to do? Stop all fishing over wild fish, or have us take a course on proper fish handling?
many badly do need a course. plenty of them are using fly rods too. but bait, barbed and treble hooks, gill nets, etc, all unneccesary chances. beads ? more of a mangling issue. combine deschutes and umpqua rules, sparky's law and that would be a big step in the right direction for sport fishing rules.
why do so many think they always need to catch the most fish possible? and should be entitled to do so, even to the detriment of a species?
i would imagine those that disagree with spark'ys law, think its ok to drop fish in the boat, or drag them up on the bank. or, dont realize the law is designed to prevent the clueless masses from doing so, and isnt aimed at those that would lift a fish carefully for a 3 second photo op over knee deep water. even if some survive, why would anyone that aledgedly cares take the chance ?
Those that care don't take a chance. There isn't a course that could be put into place that will help people handle fish because that takes actually handling a fish..... many fish. Take people to a trout pond with a bunch of 7lb brood stock fish and show them the correct way to handle a slimy fish?
What do you propose our state do about gill nets?
I think SL was a very common sense approach to the issue.
all the info needed to properly and carefullly release wild fish is right there in the regs. problem is most have never read that page. all thats needed is a simple test to find out if you have read them. plenty of people still wont care, but at least that would be a step in the right direction. sounds complicated, but, afterall, insuring the survival of the species is not a simple task.
gill nets? simple. outlaw them. i know, easier said than done.
i like the idea of haybales too. seems they have worked on nets across the mouths of some op rivers, or so i've heard.
there just arent many simple answers to this problem.
without action soon, do you think there will be any wild steelhead left in the U.S. in 100 years ?