Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: ....l hate your guts...  (Read 5210 times)

Roderick

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #75 on: November 13, 2019, 07:17:22 PM »

It isnt because of deep hooking and mortality but because its just too effective and too many fish get caught.


X2
Logged
You shoulda been here yesterday.

Hike_and_fish

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #76 on: November 13, 2019, 08:05:35 PM »

I'm in favor of bait bans for one simple reason. It's fine for salmon since they're pretty well dead once they're in fresh water. The resident fish or Steelhead are another story. If we can eliminate Borax bassed cures or just straight up ban borax that would be better. The borax is poison to those fish. The science is there. Borax is toxic. The one and only reason why I dont use Borax cures. Plus I'll land just as many Steelhead on a single bead than with roe.
Logged

Spoonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
  • Chehalis Canyon Vigilante
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2019, 08:35:45 PM »

lol, look what you started spoonman. Now you have 3 threads bashing the use of roe by uni brow knuckle draggers, lol
......oops...my bad... :o
Logged
member; Jack Daniels Pro-Staff / member;Team Hardcore Old Fart

Knnn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2019, 09:21:31 PM »

More biased blanket statements............

I'm sure I tried to make my point based on my experience, my friends experience, what I experienced, N=1 experience, etc, etc.   So where were the blanket statements?  Are we not all "biased" by our experiences and knowledge, or were you just trying to belittle my opinion by the use of an adjective that is often considered derogatory in general conversation?

My apologies, I did not realized that your argument was solely limited to salmon/steel-head under a specific set of conditions, because we all know that salmon and steel-head are only caught under those conditions; well only if you are not a tool. Therefore, for clarity, are you suggesting that tools should not use roe, and particularly if they don't know how to use it properly under specific conditions?

I'm not sure I have seen anyone argue that a large percent of fish swallow and get deep hooked causing mortality under the conditions you describe.  Under those conditions, I would probably agree with you.  However, the scenario you present will not apply to all the myriad of conditions anglers use roe; such as fishing roe in slow moving or still water for Coho or trout, where wild fish and/or other non-anadromous species may also be present.

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that "then ya you'll kill a lot by using bait" and that bait bans have a use.  Therefore, the only slight difference of opinion appears to be in the conditions under  and/or the extent to which bait bans should be applied. 
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #79 on: November 13, 2019, 09:28:32 PM »

...

Obviously bait bans on lakes and places where youre fishing for non anadromous feeding trout/char that are trying to swallow/eat food, especially lakes where the bait is stationary then ya youll kill a lot by using bait.

...

I also think seasonal bait bans should be in place ie no bait in rivers from april 1st thru summer while trout are abundant,especially small.. but even then.. small flys will reek havoc on those trout. Be ethical.. its not about what you use but how you use it.

you are starting to get it. :)
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

AaronWilde

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
  • Teh Fishes
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #80 on: November 14, 2019, 03:35:02 AM »

I'm sure I tried to make my point based on my experience, my friends experience, what I experienced, N=1 experience, etc, etc.   So where were the blanket statements?  Are we not all "biased" by our experiences and knowledge, or were you just trying to belittle my opinion by the use of an adjective that is often considered derogatory in general conversation?

My apologies, I did not realized that your argument was solely limited to salmon/steel-head under a specific set of conditions, because we all know that salmon and steel-head are only caught under those conditions; well only if you are not a tool. Therefore, for clarity, are you suggesting that tools should not use roe, and particularly if they don't know how to use it properly under specific conditions?

I'm not sure I have seen anyone argue that a large percent of fish swallow and get deep hooked causing mortality under the conditions you describe.  Under those conditions, I would probably agree with you.  However, the scenario you present will not apply to all the myriad of conditions anglers use roe; such as fishing roe in slow moving or still water for Coho or trout, where wild fish and/or other non-anadromous species may also be present.

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that "then ya you'll kill a lot by using bait" and that bait bans have a use.  Therefore, the only slight difference of opinion appears to be in the conditions under  and/or the extent to which bait bans should be applied.

I'm sorry Knn, you're not a tool, I shouldn't call names. You seem to be a respectable and ethical angler. I actually didn't notice it was you I was replying too and wouldn't of called you that though that doesn't make it okay. It set me off because it feels like you and Ralph were arguing just to be right by throwing out statements about mortality that cover lakes and other fisheries that shouldn't really be included in a discussion about Steelhead/Salmon mortality. We're discussing float fishing for Salmon and Steelhead, it's not just my argument but we're talking about bait bans on local rivers - not lakes and the entirety of BC trout fishing, where, undoubtably a bait ban makes a big difference. I couldn't agree with you more. There are conditions and times where it's unethical to use bait. I think we all know this and anyone who argues it either doesn't care about mortality or doesn't understand. Catch 100 trout out of a lake on a worm and tell me how many swallow? A lot. Catch 100 Steelhead or Coho on a worm drifted down a river under a float and tell me how many swallow? Barely any.
Totally different situations. Even in slow moving water from what I have seen, generally Coho are spook light biters, though I cannot deny that without a flow the chance increases and if you have a chance to release a fish then you probably shouldn't use bait if you want to be as ethical as possible.
Logged

redside1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 172
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #81 on: November 14, 2019, 11:29:09 AM »

Iíve learned to respect your single mindedness, Robert, and your absolute confidence in your singular grasp of the truth.

Itís reported that the Thompson steelhead started to decline in the 1990ís. When did the Fraser chum gillnet fishery begin?

if you were around long enough to talk to the true old timers that fished the Thompson from the 1950's on wards, they would tell you that the last good year was in 1958 (could be out by a year or so) when nylon gill nets started to be used on the Fraser instead of cotton gill nets.
Steelhead and larger salmon could break through the cotton nets but not the new nylon nets back then.
Logged

milo

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2007
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #82 on: November 14, 2019, 03:38:03 PM »

if you were around long enough to talk to the true old timers that fished the Thompson from the 1950's on wards, they would tell you that the last good year was in 1958 (could be out by a year or so) when nylon gill nets started to be used on the Fraser instead of cotton gill nets.
Steelhead and larger salmon could break through the cotton nets but not the new nylon nets back then.

Wow! That is rather revealing information.
Why did nobody back then speak up to try and ban the use of nylon nets on the Fraser?
Nothing traditional in using nylon gill nets, that's for sure.
Logged

greyghost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
  • Poach the poacher!
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2019, 07:59:32 PM »

Why did nobody back then speak up to try and ban the use of nylon nets on the Fraser?
Nothing traditional in using nylon gill nets, that's for sure.

I will take a stab at this? It was the 50’s!!!! Tradition or is it Evolution!!!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2019, 08:04:38 PM by greyghost »
Logged
Have you talked too someone for a while and thought too yourself.......
"who ties your shoelaces for you"

cas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: ....l hate your guts...
« Reply #84 on: November 23, 2019, 12:42:30 AM »

Here it is, plain and simple:

- NO, the use of bait on the Thompson didn't kill the Steelhead population.

- NO, the bait ban wasn't implemented too late - Ironically, the 30%, 40%, and then 80% collapse happened as soon as bait was banned in 2014. Figure that one out! Self-righteous, self-centred, and and egotistically agenda driven anglers could have done THEIR part in standing up for the real issues that faced Thompson Steelhead and IFS; fighting for minimal by-catch regulations, collaborating habitat restoration projects, joining clubs, writing letters, and overall, just working together as ANGLERS and CONSERVATIONISTS no matter the preferred method fishing.

It's plain and simple folks. Many fought for the wrong things when Thompson Steelhead needed our voice the most. The writing was on the wall 10 years ago, heck, even 20 years ago - some were just too focused on making sure they'd get to fish a fly through the Spur Bar before the selfless and volunteer driven gear angler "maybe" beating them to the spot.

If half the amount of nonsense that occurred up there in the last 10 years was put forth in building a better voice, the ball would be rolling a bit better on this topic - Am I saying it would have made a difference? Well, nobody really knows. Fisheries and Oceans can never seem to get this one right because if Thompson Steelhead and IFS were extinct, it would make their life a heck of a lot easier. The simple fact is that regardless of the outcome, more people would understand the severity of this, and a few more folks within the general public would certainly know as well.

Countless organizations have fought tooth and nail (and still do) for these fish, and many other iconic wild steelhead populations while many just sat on the sidelines bickering about a few bait guys enjoying their day on the most iconic and most important steelhead river.

For what it's worth, I have seen more Steelhead die on flies than on gear in that river. While not many, I'm sure most that are experienced and seasoned on this river, that most would say the same. And those dry flies... sheesh, those fish gobble them up like no tomorrow.

It is what it is.

Now - how about some people focus on the issues that still plague our governing bodies and the demise of Thompson and Interior Fraser Steelhead.

Logged