Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: chris gadsden on March 04, 2005, 10:27:19 PM
-
While at the Sportsman show in Abbotsford tonight it was brought to my attention WLAP is proposing a total bait ban on all BC rivers and streams starting in 2006. ???
To me this is totally unnessary. Pick up a copy of the new regulation so you can read the proposal. As it is a election year for the Provincial Government talk to your MLA and I would suggest you write to the WLAP Minister Bill Barisoff at bill.barisoff.mla@leg.bc.ca before it is too late. Also ask for an answer to your letter of concern. It would not hurt to write to WLAP as well, I know I will.
-
What or who is the WLAP and what is the rationale for such a move ?
-
What or who is the WLAP and what is the rationale for such a move ?
Water Air and Land Protection Ministry. Was once called The Ministry of the Environment.
I forgot to bring home my copy of the new regulations that I picked up at the show that they try to explain the rationale.
I am sure there will be lots of opposition to it if what I heard from those at the show is any indication to this unreasonable proposal.
The loss of salmon and steelhead due to the use of bait I feel is so small that I am sure a half a dozen illegal nets would take more fish than the hooking mortality caused by bait.
Maybe we should start culling seals as they take thousands of more fish than a baited hook. Then there are fish that are killed by pollution of pulp mills, maybe we should make them tighten their control measures and close them down if they do not. Add in logging practices that cause flooding due to fast runoff of the snow melt and rain water that destroys spawning beds and layed eggs.
The loss of habitat caused by gravel excavation that destroys good spawning grounds goes on every two years on the Vedder and now I hear they may want to do some in the Chilliwack River above the Vedder Bridge. Then there is gravel excavation on the Fraser.
Once again they want to take it out on the poor old recreational angler, where will this end? Recreational fishing puts millions of dollars into the economy each year but all levels of government seem to every thing they can to destroy it. Banning of lead, possible closing down sturgeon fishing on the Fraser River, allow hundreds of incidents of illegal netting to go on night and day and the list goes on.
In closing how many dead steelhead that have been caught and released do you see on the Vedder River were most of the steelhead are taken by bait. Over 25 of years of angling I may have seen a half a dozen, this year, so far none.
I believe I have made my case.
-
Apart from the Sturgeon fishery which is already exempt I think the Bait Ban as proposed is an idea who's time has come.
-
There's a bait ban in place on the Stamp and look what's happening there, Floss city.
-
Once again, misplaced priority. Shouldn't they be more worried about illegal native poaching ? Seems to me it's another attempt to direct attention.
-
;D OH LORD PLEASE DON'T TAKE AWAY MY PRECIOUS BERRIES!!!!! ;D
-
I don't even know what to say, I'm at a total loss of words.
There's a bait ban in place on the Stamp and look what's happening there, Floss city.
I don't think that would be the case. It seems to me that the people who are the most anti-flossing are the bait heads. I don't think we're too likely to see Randog, RW, CG, 240 etc. pick up flossing because they can no longer fish with berries.
As for what CG wrote: I think it's pretty clear to everyone that there alot of other factors that are effecting survival rates all of them doing much more harm than bait. However, if this resource is precious to us why not be the ones to step up to the plate and make the first move. Obviously, letting the greed of others ruin our resource is hainus and we should still advocate against gravel removal and illegal fishing activity but if we make the first move other would be more apt to follow suit.
Personally there are certain rivers which I already gave up bait on my own free will simply b/c I was catching far too many juvenile's and I can assure you that the survival was not the claimed 90%. Although I do not support such a ban, I think there are certain measures that we could take to help out. For example, why not have a bait ban on the vedder from july 1rst to sept 1rst. The river is loaded with juveniles, sockeye and the water temp is higher. Really, the only people who would be loosing out are the bucket fisherman who walk all over the 'residualized' smolts, which could just as easily be caught with artificials or on the fly.
My .02
-
Excellent post Biffchan.
-
I would like to see a ban on led use though. I use it personally, because there are no other choices so easily available, and I would assume they would be more expensive, but once led is out, market will take its course, and we will see more alternative sources, with affordable prices. just my 2c
-
GW Bush is currently touring the country keeping us stirred up about Social Security. During the last presidential campaign same sex marriages kept us hopping mad. MEANWHILE, a lot of people are dying in a war and we are flushing our economy down the tubes. Best to avoid that topic and keep the people stirred up with topics like faith-based initiatives.
I wonder if something like this isn't going on with the people in charge of policy for BC fisheries: keep things stirred up over a potential ban on bait fishing. Best to avoid topics like drift nets, poaching (and lack of effective enforcement of existing rules), and selling sport fish out of the back of pick-up trucks.
-
Bait ban is probably a good idea. This may prevent people from killing salmon strictly for the roe. I've seen so many times that dead fish left to rot on the river where the roe has been extracted from them.
-
Unbelieveable! a total bait ban, while they continue to ignore illegal netting on our rivers. I wonder who is going to enforce that one, OH Yeah the same guys who are watching out for the Illegal netters.
Personally I like to fish with bait, can I live without it? Yes! but I feel strongly about the fact that Sports anglers as usual are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to fishing opportunities.
Long live the FlOSS, Hey thats Legal! >:(
-
Bait ban is probably a good idea. This may prevent people from killing salmon strictly for the roe. I've seen so many times that dead fish left to rot on the river where the roe has been extracted from them.
Thats so true, the guy who lives at osbourne rd. lets one of his buddies fish on his property and on more than one occaision I've seen him 'thrill kill' springs and them dumb the carcass back into the river. Once he was so bold as to ask me if I wanted the fish. >:(
-
I guess I need to stop the panick here also.
Well...here's my update after reading the new reg's today (picked up a set at the One the Way)
Firstly it seems everyones doing allot of premature overreactiving.
1) There will be NO bait ban on Sturgeon angling, as stated on page 19 outlining the proposal.
2) There isn't a TOTAL province wide bait ban. As there will be exceptions to allow stream specific usage, where harvest allows.
As stated before, IMO and by angling standards....I can live with it.
btw- I believe there was a email address added at the end of this proposal in the reg's (The set I grabbed are in my bro's car...opps should of got 2) and asked for any commnets and input. So may I suggest we all do exactly that. Unless someone gets it first...I'll try and post the email address tomorrow.
-
btw- I believe there was a email address added at the end of this proposal in the reg's (The set I grabbed are in my bro's car...opps should of got 2) and asked for any commnets and input. So may I suggest we all do exactly that. Unless someone gets it first...I'll try and post the email address tomorrow.
fish.web@gems9.gov.bc.ca
-
Fired off emails to the two email addresses provided by C.G. The letter explains my position on this subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear fishery minister,
As a member of some of the most popular fishing web sites in BC, and an avid sport angler for many years, I am concerned about the proposed regularion changes for BC rivers. It is rumoured that there is a total bait ban on all BC rivers in upcoming regulation changes.
My opinion, like many among sport fishing communities, is that government should definitely protect the wild & C/R systems with this regulation, but leave the hatchery enhanced systems alone. A blanket bait ban will be seen as biased and unnecessary. Considering the impact of illegal nets fishery, bad forestry practices, commercial fisheries, environment degradation, the use of bait in hatchery-enhanced systems will have very little impact on fish stocks.
Every year the hatchery-enhanced systems like the Capilano, the Chehalis, the Chilliwack/Vedder, the Stamp etc have surplus returns, and these surpluses end up in fish fertilzer plants for pennies a lb. Why not leave them to anglers who pay ever increasing premiums to fish. There is no need to reduce catching efficiency in these hatchery enhanced systems. Unreasonable restrictions will be seen as bias, and perhaps causing one fishing group pitting against another.
The drift fishing group already starts questioning if the government is yielding to the flyfishing elitists who are more vocal and better at lobbying the government. Their opinion is that the government is increasing fishing license premiums every year, but reducing fishing and catching opportunities at the same time.
In this time of general mistrust towards the government due to fishery's inability to enforce rule of law with the natives in regard to the Fraser fishery, the sport fishing community in general are waiting to see if they are getting a better deal from the government this time.
-
when thinking about the bait ban, how about considering those people that fish for other things besides steelhead and trout. Those that fish Thompson jack springs and many more of the other river salmon fisheries can kiss those all away. How about guys fishing for carp and other creatures like carp? All those fisheries will disappear. This bait ban will do nothing to bring back more fish of any type. There is no guarantee that sturgeon will be exempt. People need to realize there is more than just steelhead and trout to fish for in streams and this blanket type of regulating does nobody any good. The east coast of vancouver island has had a bait ban, catch n release and now for the last how many years? (7 plus) a fishing closure and still there are no steelhead only less people fishing and nobody caring about what happens in those streams. WLAP is just trying to manage the people fishing and not the fish. I would like to see any examples, if there are any ,of how this is going to create any more fish of any type. All it's going to do is put more people off of fishing and at this time when WLAP needs license sales for the revenue to help run the ministry. Even guys like Brian Chan and Nick Basok were shocked when they found out this was proposed for 2006-07.
-
what I sent:
Before adding new regulations, how about making a serious attempt at enforcing the ones already on the books, like those against drift net fishing, commercial sale of sport fish taken in fresh water, harvesting of undersized crabs? What's the use of heaping on more regulations when you're not willing to enfore those already in place? This only tends to make people cynical about the whole process.
Thank you. Keith Ramsay (concerned neighbor and sports fisherman who spends money when fishing in BC waters.)
-
Excellent posts rln, funfish and keithr, very good points for WLAP to considerand I am sure they will be swamped with emails when they arrived to work this morning. I am sure a lot more will follow in the next few days. I am sure this topic will have one of the the most posts on FWR that we have every seen. It will be great if a number of members post their thoughts as a number have already as it gives us alll good information that some of us may not think of. Please keep them coming.
The Thompson jack fishery in the late Summer is one that I certainly have enjoyed over the last 25 years. With a bait ban that fishery will be all but gone, they will most likely close it all together as well. :'(
It will be left to some other user group who in the last few years have started to harvest the adult chinooks as well by rod and reel with no enforcement that I have seen to curtail it.
Once again time to stand up and be counted before it is too late.
-
It will be left to some other user group who in the last few years have started to harvest the adult chinooks as well by rod and reel with no enforcement that I have seen to curtail it.
Um Chris, don't you barfish? do you never keep any fraser chinook? If both answers are no then I will stop. If you do in fact bar fish the fraser for chinook than your previous statment is rather sanctimonious.
-
It will be left to some other user group who in the last few years have started to harvest the adult chinooks as well by rod and reel with no enforcement that I have seen to curtail it.
Um Chris, don't you barfish? do you never keep any fraser chinook? If both answers are no then I will stop. If you do in fact bar fish the fraser for chinook than your previous statment is rather sanctimonious.
I should have been clearer in my post. I was talking about the harvest of adult chinooks in the Thompson River in an area were nothing over 50cm. can be retained.
-
I don't like the idea of a bait ban in the rivers but personally it would only somewhat affect me for Steelhead. But even then, I don't need bait to catch Steelies either. It would sure keep our hands a lot cleaner. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the Chilli/Vedder is not a fly only river. If it ever went that way I know I would certainly still be there. Guys, you'll still catch fish. Just learn to adapt.
-
Thanks for clairifying Chris
-
Rieber, the Chilliwack/Vedder has not gone flyfishing only because there are all walks of life fishing the river, with varying skills, styles and knowledge. There has to be room for every one, not only a special group fishing a certain way. It is a hatchery-enhanced river, so there are surpluses. Why are we always responding in such a way that if other people are catching a fish legally but using a different approach, it is just not acceptable. The river is a public domain for every one to enjoy. Personally, bait ban does not affect my catching efficiency too. None of my steelies were caught on baits. None of my coho too, as I just cannot get up that early for the early morning roe fishing. But we cannot force others to fish a certain way, as long as fish stock is not in danger. Freedom of choice is paramount in a free society like ours.
-
Ya know guys, while the effects of bait/artificials fishing has long been debated here and on other sites, I can't help but think that the effort wlap is making regarding this proposal is simply 'moving deck chairs on the Titanic' ::). Even if not using bait made a whole lot of difference (which I don't beleive it does) to fish survival, who will enforce it and how? As mentioned earlier by someone else, seems a whole lotta distraction from the real issues, which if not addressed soon, will leave nothing to be hooked and it won't matter if you use bait or not :'(. My 2 cents. E-mail has been sent.
-
While it is great to see many of you voicing your opinion on a possible drastic change, I just want to caution you that this is simply a proposal and its outline is very generic in the regulation synopsis. It's best to find out who is behind the proposal first. The generic write-up in the regulation synopsis indicates that they have probably already made up their mind on what changes are going to be made, making it hard for the public to provide feedbacks as we have to second-guess.
Once we track down what exactly is going on, we'll let you all know. If it turns out to be a change that is as drastic as we perceived, then be prepared to see one of the biggest petition launching off this year.
-
Ya know guys, while the effects of bait/artificials fishing has long been debated here and on other sites, I can't help but think that the effort wlap is making regarding this proposal is simply 'moving deck chairs on the Titanic' ::).
I agree.
-
Then watch out for the biggest anti bait petition you've ever seen. It's going to happen. And the fish will finally get the break they deserve. Because the issue here is to many anglers are hooking to many fish and if you think about it were are doing more damage as a sport anglers by targeting fish in the last stages of there life (on there spawning run) in the rivers they spawn in. Specially on the vedder the fish just dont get a break anymore. Better no bait then nothing at all because something has to change before it is to little to late AGAIN. I think they should move the boundry on the vedder down to tamihi bridge to increase the "safe" zone for Steelhead because that upper river is where they really get beat on. Ban Bait on all wild rivers!! Thompson should be the first to go. CG times are changing you and I will have to give up some fisheries we enjoy but when it puts the fish first in any sort of way your sefish not to agree and accept. Lastly bait will catch more fish which increases the % of mortality weather you like it or not its not bS its called math.
-
Sorry FF I cant entirely agree with you, first off conservation starts out at sea including overfishing and the bycatch, then you have the habitat destruction issue, illegal poaching, netting in the rivers and the flossing thing including Flyflossing. Bait may be a great attractor but I have fished many a day with bait and have been skunked while wool ties were picking up the fish. As I've said before, I can live without bait but do I want to. NO! not while there are people fishing with floats put on upside down ( because they don't even know how a rig is put together) and then snagging them with eight to twelve foot leaders. (under the Veddder bridge is a great example of this during the coho run) Taking fish that are not actually caught in the mouth and so on. You could go on forever about all the ways fish are injured or overcaught, I would like to wager a hundred times more fish are injured or die through foul hooking than through being taken by bait, this seems to me, more of pressure being applied by some self interest groups than a valid way to protect the fish stocks. I strongly believe that "most" of the anglers using bait are ethical fishermen who care deeply about the resource and the handling of fish with extreme care.
Just one mans opinion
-
seems the dfo is taking the "easy"way out,instead for enforcing the rules already in place.i think it will hurt the sport in the long run
less people will fish=less money for fish.seeing how i have here in front of me heres there reasons:
1 conserve fish resources
2 maintain as many angling opportunities as possible
3 help harmonize angling regs across the province
i don t even use bait,and i think it s wrong province wide,biff made some good points about juveniles and i could see that helping.but a total ban with out proof,of any kind that it will "help",there is alot more the dfo could do to help than this.weak.
-
Fired off emails to the two email addresses provided by C.G. The letter explains my position on this subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear fishery minister,
As a member of some of the most popular fishing web sites in BC, and an avid sport angler for many years, I am concerned about the proposed regularion changes for BC rivers. It is rumoured that there is a total bait ban on all BC rivers in upcoming regulation changes.
My opinion, like many among sport fishing communities, is that government should definitely protect the wild & C/R systems with this regulation, but leave the hatchery enhanced systems alone. A blanket bait ban will be seen as biased and unnecessary. Considering the impact of illegal nets fishery, bad forestry practices, commercial fisheries, environment degradation, the use of bait in hatchery-enhanced systems will have very little impact on fish stocks.
Every year the hatchery-enhanced systems like the Capilano, the Chehalis, the Chilliwack/Vedder, the Stamp etc have surplus returns, and these surpluses end up in fish fertilzer plants for pennies a lb. Why not leave them to anglers who pay ever increasing premiums to fish. There is no need to reduce catching efficiency in these hatchery enhanced systems. Unreasonable restrictions will be seen as bias, and perhaps causing one fishing group pitting against another.
The drift fishing group already starts questioning if the government is yielding to the flyfishing elitists who are more vocal and better at lobbying the government. Their opinion is that the government is increasing fishing license premiums every year, but reducing fishing and catching opportunities at the same time.
In this time of general mistrust towards the government due to fishery's inability to enforce rule of law with the natives in regard to the Fraser fishery, the sport fishing community in general are waiting to see if they are getting a better deal from the government this time.
excellent post mind if i copy it and send it in?thx funfish.cheers
-
First to say: I am a bait fisherman.
Second: I would like to try fly fishing.
Third: In my oppinion both methods are completely correct ways to fish.
There is much more bait fisher people than fly fishing (I think, based on a simple observation whenever I go fishing). This simply means that you will have many more people who will be doing unethical or illegal things on the water when bait fishing, because of proportion. If government bans bait fishing, I am almost completely certain, I will be seeing a lot of fly fishing people doing many different illegal or unethical things. Simply people who are doing it now baitcasting will be shifting to illegal fly fishing methods.
If you are using proper methods (short floating mostly), when bait fishing, fish (salmon) which isn't a baiter any more, will not be hooked in most of the cases. If you fish in a stream with a sinking fly fishing line, and "pull" your line through a scull of spawning salmon, you will be "hooking" on almost every cast. This is something I have seen with my own eyes. At first as I didn't understand fly fishing, I thought I should just throw away my baitcaster, buy fly fishing rod, and come back to river. After few minutes of carefull observation, I realized that fly fishers on the other side of river where snagging almost every single fish.
In my oppinoin when it comes to fishing for salmon in rivers, it isn't about bait or fly fishing, it is about how you do either of them. Maybe fish is more eager to go after a bait, but banning bait fishing on all rivers will not solve the problem. There must be done much more, and many different things to find a solution. Personally I do not think we will see a solution to all problems, and I just hope there will be some changes before we come to the stages of NewFoundland, or some other places, where people started thinking when it was too late.
I can not believe that government did cut hatcheries programs. This is the first thing that it should be back, and in greater numbers than before. Fish has so many predators (including us) that we simply need larger numbers to start with. Otherwise comercial, sport, and all other industries in connection with fish will suffer, including ordingary people who buy fish in the store. What do you think how much will Sockeye be in the store when they come back in 4 years (because of last year overkill, caused for whatever reason)?
-
Well Sassyboy just because these fishing methods are happening on the vedder does not mean that 90% of the other rivers in bc should'nt have a bait restriction.
Cammer If I could ever make out what your posts on this forum mean i'll be sure to send you a reply.Till then Go fish the vedder and have a good ole time.
-
Then watch out for the biggest anti bait petition you've ever seen. It's going to happen.
Its possable that it will come down with little to no exceptions in the regs.
And the fish will finally get the break they deserve.
What fish? And what break exactly are they going to get? Maybe you could clarify this a little more.
Because the issue here is to many anglers are hooking to many fish...
Actually the problem is a lack of fish. There is a plethora of problems that come in much higher on the mortality scale to the fish than an angler using bait.
...and if you think about it were are doing more damage as a sport anglers by targeting fish in the last stages of there life (on there spawning run) in the rivers they spawn in.
How so? Unless you are picking them off of their reds or targeting dark fish in known spawning areas how is it anymore stressfull than hooking a fish in the ocean?
Specially on the vedder the fish just dont get a break anymore.
If there was more than one river with more than a skeletal run of salmonids for the lower main land anglers to target there would be no problem. I'm sure that there are many, many anglers who would like to fish closer to home rather than drive out to Chilliwack every time they want a chance at a fish.
Better no bait then nothing at all because something has to change before it is to little to late AGAIN.
Actually it would be better to enforce the rules for all user groups that we have now. Adding more regs for the sports angler will only regulate them off of the river. Maybe somewhat better for the fish but it will be detrimental to the entire sport fishing community in the long run. This proposed bait ban will not bring back the fish from their critically low numbers and no matter how hard WLAP tries to spin it like that, the paltry number of fish that die to bait induced mortality wont make up the difference from the abuses of all the other user groups.
I think they should move the boundry on the vedder down to tamihi bridge to increase the "safe" zone for Steelhead because that upper river is where they really get beat on.
And what about in low water years like this one? Hundreds of steel were holed up in the fish traps in the lower end being pounded relentlessly by hoards of fishermen every single day. Its been my view over the past few years that the biggest effort has shifted to the lower river but you may have s different experience. How would lowering the boundry do any good anyways? You'd be cutting out roughly 1/3 of the fishable water and forcing the same number of anglers to fish in a more confined area. This would ensure that even more fish will not make it though unhooked since there will be guys behind every rock and in every shallow riffle and the fish will have no where to hide.
Ban Bait on all wild rivers!! Thompson should be the first to go.
I could live with this, it makes the most sense of anything you've put up on this topic yet.
CG times are changing you and I will have to give up some fisheries we enjoy but when it puts the fish first in any sort of way your sefish not to agree and accept.
Maybe you should quit harassing those fish on the upper Pit then. Now since the bait ban is proposed to limit the number of fish caught to, in theory, limit the associated mortality I think it would only be fair to say then you are doing some serious damage on the Pit. Here's a quote from one of your previous posts on jet boats in the Pit, "As a guide working for the lodge on this river I am on it more then anybody period." Now I'm not taking a run at guides here, just posting an interesting change in attitude. Maybe then you should agree to limit your days on the river because other wise that would just be selfish would it not?
Lastly bait will catch more fish which increases the % of mortality weather you like it or not its not bS its called math.
Of course more hooked fish equals a higher mortality but that statement rings true with every method. Bait will catch more fish in certain situations but everything has its time and place. The good anglers will continue to rack up big numbers of fish while the new anglers strugle to get any, regardless of wether there is a ban on bait or not. Maybe we should limit the good anglers then instead.
-
Limitkiller has an excellent rebutal to FF's post. Sorry to say that FF's post sounds too much a petition on behalf of PETA, therefore it brings on Cammer's comment in reaction to the post. Hiker is right that flyfishing is not a totally clean way to fish. I have 3 fly rods and tie my own flies. Besides fishing trout lakes, I initially tried them on salmon for a while. But after trying them on the Big Qualicum for springs (the only allowed method) years ago, and actually seeing how the fly could actually foul-hook into fish accidentally & frequently while it swinged through schools or packs of fish, I concluded that it is really not that target specific way of fishing when applied to places with high number of fish. Just watch flyfishers this coming season when they target coho in lower Vedder, and see how many pinks can get foul-hooked. Therefore, to say bait fishing, particularly short-floating like how CG does it, can harm more fish than flyfishing is just not proven statistically. Fish mortality does not come only from inhaling baits too deep. How about a fish foul-hooked mutiple times by flyfishers, each time taking forever to land because the fly rod just does not have enough body strength to horse the fish in to avoid causing fatigue to the fish. You can argue forever about this kind of things. So why do bait fishers take all the blame for fish mortality and not flyfishers?
Another point on FF's post that bothers me is attacking people who has to fish the river where salmon return to spawn. Sorry to say
most of us are not rich enough to own an ocean-worthy boat or a jet boat. So are we saying that salmon are only reserved for those who have the bucks, or who guide for a living? If a fish is harvested, it is one fish less to spawn whether it is harvested in the ocean or the river. At least in the river, it is more species and run specific. So surplus stocks can be open for the taking without affecting other endangered rivers. You cannot say that about fishing in the ocean. Say a Thompson coho strays to American waters, and say they do not limit catch to wild coho, that precious Thompson coho will be toasted. So, should we close the ocean fishing too. Ocean fishers are already getting better deals, don't they? They are allowed 4 socks per day, but 2 for us.
I'll say, if fishery cannot enforce the rule of laws on FN poachers and cannot addresss the other big-picture problems that can harm fish in a major way, all their token gestures to regulate us, the least effective group in fish catching, are mere tokens only. They want headlines that imply message like "See, public at large, we are doing something to regulate the sporties so we are actually actively managing fish stocks!" ;D LOL It is about time for us sport fishers to unite, not divide in our fights with the government. We are regulated to death already. We don't need more meaningless regulation like this blanket bait ban, and we don't need one fishing group pointing the accusing finger to another. Fishery will love to see the infightings going on among us.
-
Do any of you believe in conspiracies? Its all just to distract the concerned fishers from the fact that over half of the sockeye run from last year magically vanished. On top of that people are starting to show disrespect towards the fishing "authorities", so heres a draconian measure to get them all divided and disorganized.
But don't get me wrong. I think a bait ban is not such a bad thing, on some small and wild rivers.
-
I believe it's a proposal at the moment.
-
Is it official yet? if it is is there any way we can fight it.
Write letters to WALP and your MLA's. Ask for a reply in your letter. Remember it is an election year.
If you wish to write a letter and send it by land mail here is an address:
Ministry Water, Land and Air Protection,
Fish &Wildlife Branch
PO Box 9363,
Victoria, B.C.
V8W 9M2
Att. Al Martin, Fisheries Director
-
. NO! not while there are people fishing with floats put on upside down ( because they don't even know how a rig is put together) and then snagging them with eight to twelve foot leaders. (under the Veddder bridge is a great example of this during the coho run) Taking fish that are not actually caught in the mouth and so on. You could go on forever about all the ways fish are injured or overcaught, I would like to wager a hundred times more fish are injured or die through foul hooking than through being taken by bait, this seems to me, more of pressure being applied by some self interest groups than a valid way to protect the fish stocks. I strongly believe that "most" of the anglers using bait are ethical fishermen who care deeply about the resource and the handling of fish with extreme care.
Just one mans opinion
Could not agree more. If you visit the Chilliwack Hatchery during the peak of the run in the Fall take notice of all the gear that is snagged in all parts of a salmon's anatomy. Also if you go into the office you will see on the wall a display that could be called "a wall of shame".
Not much of it is put there by anglers fishing with bait.
-
Ya know; it's kinda like a buddy of mine says: unscrupulus logging practices, illegal netting, overfishing in the ocean (netting), in-river netting (gill, drift and set), fishfarms ruining an entire run of pinks and getting a paultry fine, and the powers-that-be want the poor old sportie not to use bait in order to conserve fish? Gimme a break!
-
Well on the flip side hardware sales (lures, spinners etc...) will go up which i'm sure Rod will enjoy ;D and the 'what did you catch it on' questions will be much more limited :P
-
Ya know; it's kinda like a buddy of mine says: unscrupulus logging practices, illegal netting, overfishing in the ocean (netting), in-river netting (gill, drift and set), fishfarms ruining an entire run of pinks and getting a paultry fine, and the powers-that-be want the poor old sportie not to use bait in order to conserve fish? Gimme a break!
The exact same argument could be said for barbed hooks
-
Mr. Pink, of course you can copy my letter & send it out to as many politicians as you can. We need people to knock on some dummy heads out there who are neglecting the big pictures and too chicken to confront the illegal FN poachers, but jump on us law abiding citizens with rules which are ridiculous and mean little for saving fish stocks. If we don't exist, they could look pretty bad, because no one cares about what they say except us. We are easy targets, thus we get all these sour deals. We make them feel that they are still important & relevant. What a joke!
Are you sure you read printed regulation changes? I thought Rod said it is only in the proposal stage.
hi funfish
the regs say its going into effect 2006-2007 season.i assume we can still fight it by letters,emails etc.maybe even protests of some kind.any suggestions?i m not really against a bait ban,its just there is some much more they could do to protect the fish by enforcing the rules already in place,they just want to take the easy way out.thats why the cover of this years regs is such a joke(in case you havn t seen it)a pic of a co checking someones license,lol.where were they during flossing season?
-
Biff,
You are probably correct, except for one thing; barbs always leave holes (usually big tears) when removed; bait does so very rarely, as long as the're not attached to a barbed hook ;D. Anyway, the point my buddy was making (and the one I sympathise with by restating it) is that if the rule makers were truly responsible as resourse stewards, there would be no thoughts about, or need for a baitban because there would be alot more fish (or at least that is how I think they make their argument for a baitban, lack of fish). I think this is at least part of the Cheam argument; if the folks taking fish ahead of them (commercial nets) took a lesser proportion, their (Cheam) impact would be sustainable. When most of the fish are intercepted before they reach the river, the Cheam impact becomes devastating. Now I'm not certain that this is their strategy and I certainly do not condone it if it is, but for the survival of the fish, we need to do much more than a bait ban. In fact, personally I think a bait ban is almost meaningless in the bigger pic. Cheers.
-
I remember when I was living in Fort St. John the Bait Ban was brought in for the Peace river. That basically killed the Burbot and Whitefish fishery. I think a bait ban should stay as it is now. River by river not a blanket ban like is being proposed.
I like whitefish fishing now in the Stave and a maggot on a fly(royal coachman) seems the best way to catch them, so if a ban is in that fishery will end, it would suck as there is an abundent amount of whitefish. I also like carp fishing so that fishery will end as well.
You have brought up a couple of excellent points. I think those making this proposal of a bait ban have not thought it out how some fish like carp can not be caught as far as I know without bait. Corn that I believe is a popular bait to fish for them will be included in this ban. Of course there is many different methods of catching some species of salmon and the most popular mehod will become one that most of you know I have no use for.
Gone will be the days when a lot of us started our first fishing experiences as youngsters, with a garden worm, a bobber tied on some line attached to pole cut from a willow tree. They call it progress, getting on with the times but to me these fisheries bureaucrats have got it all wrong but this should not surprise us one bit by their performance the last few years. :(
-
Wonder what they are going to do when there is a great proliferation of carps and other coarse fish when the province wide bait ban is implemented.
-
so here is some ammo against this nonsense bait ban, which we can assume is meant mainly to protect steelhead but not just steelhead.
1997 study co authored by Fisheries Section Head Ian mcGregor and the now deceased Fisheries Biologist Ric Olmstead, that documented mortality over 5000 steelhead caught and released in regions 1,2 and 3.
DIRECT MORTALITY FROM BAIT WAS 3.16%
DIRECT MOTALITY FROM ARTIFICIAL INCLUDING FLYS WAS 4.14%
THIS INFO IS READILY AVAILLABLE IN WLAP FILES.
Documented evidence of several years of brood stock capture on the Nicola USING BAIT with virtually ZERO mortality. SEE DFO FILES
2 years of radio tagging steelhead on the chilliwack/vedder using mainly bait with VIRTUALLY ZERO mortality. see LGL (Troy Nelson) studies. WLAP commisioned this study and groups such as the BCFDF donated money for the study.
they state in this proposal that this new reg will HARMONIZE and establish UNIFORMITY
in that common sense dictates that all other arbitrary restrictions ie:fly only must be discontinued.
the ministry has on file documented from surveys on the Dean River from 1999, which other than a small area is "FLY ONLY". The run size estimate was at 3500 steelhead. Stream guardians throughout the season reported capture of 4700 fish. Obviously these fish had been captured numerous times resulting in undue stress and increased mortality. Based on the WLAP logic that they use to justify the bait ban, then FLY ONLY on the Dean should be banned.
*the above information is taken directly from a recent letter to WLAP from the B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers from the groups president.
Now, more ammo
the following is taken from a letter from Eric Carlisle , I trust that in the effort to fight this nonsense, he won't mind me taking a few tid bits from this letter and sharing.
he records that between JAN 1st 1974 to March 15 1985, it was found that in a sample size of 1010 steelhead caught by himself in a variety of water conditions and on a variety of rivers, only 37 fish or 3.66% where bleeders. A bleeder is defined as a steelhead hooked in the gills, brachial aorta under the tongue or where the gills come together at the roof of the the mouth. While many people think that bleeders are doomed, Bob Hooton's work on the Keogh showed that 30 to 50% of the bleeders survived, so Eric's actual steelhead mortality rate was somewhere near 2%.
In his original study he found that he landed 843 steelhead on organic baits, and of these 812 did not bleed, and 31 bled for a bleeder rate of 3.67%. The nonorganic totals ( steelhead caught on gooeybobs, jensen eggs, spoons, spinners , plastic worms, lilcorkies, spin n glo, wool ect) were 167 landed, 161 non bleeders and 6 bleeders for a bleeder rate of 3.59%.
point of this..... the bleeder pecentages are so close that regardless of gear of choice, there will always be a mortality concern on catch and release fishing.
this proposed bait ban will cause nothing more than infighting among the different gear type users, preventing us to all band together and defend each other's right to fish.
WLAP is NOT representing the interests of the fish or the fisherman they are bending to the voice of special interest groups and environment anti fishing / hunting rhetoric.
THE PEOPLE WHO HAMMER THESE TYPES OF "PROPOSALS" TO THE GOVERNMENT TABLES HAVE TONNES , MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEHIND THEM...... AND CHANCES ARE DON'T EVEN LIVE HEAR, LET ALONE FISH HERE.
WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DEFEND AGAINST THAT??????
THIS IS A FORMAL CALL TO JOIN THE FRASER VALLEY SALMON SOCIETY, A $10.00 MEMBERSHIP AND ALSO, SUPPORT THE SDA, SPORTFISHING DEFENSE ALLIANCE.
WETHER YOU ARE A FLY, BAIT OR GEAR FISHERMAN, ALL OUR INTEREST AND RIGHTS TO FISH ARE THE SAME.
THIS BAIT BAN WILL NOT MAKE A MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE IN OUR FAILING SYSTEM.
WE NEED STRICTER CONTROLS ON NATIVE AND COMMERCIAL HARVEST
MORE AND STRICTER ENFORCEMENT IN GENERAL
CHANGES TOI INDUSTRY PRACTICES BE THEY LOGGING, MINING OR ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPEMENT.
WE NEED A BAIT BAN LIKE THIS LIKE WE NEED ANOTHER FISH FARM OR BETTER YET A HOLE INTHE HEAD
-
Thanks for the last post allwaysfishin. I had the same info and should have posted it sooner as it nails down a number of very good reasons why the proposed bait ban is very poorly thought out.
I know a few anglers think the proposal is ok but I believe they are in the minority. There is so many many more very important issues to spend time and money on to really do something to protect our fish and the habitat they occupy.
-
Right on Tom!!
-
Well I applaud MWALP for taking this bold step (blanket ban or not) 30 plus years of studies will show that bait consistently outfishes artificial and has a higher mortality rating. If there are things we can change in the name of conservation, that are within our grasp, without having certain rivers shutdown completely to angling would you embrace it? I certainly would, now how about you?
We can rant and rave all we want about flossing and bait bans but the two have very one distinct feature... Catch rates We all know fishing is a blood sport and we do have an impact everytime we catch fish. So are we all going to carry on playing the catch rates game?
the ministry has on file documented from surveys on the Dean River from 1999, which other than a small area is "FLY ONLY". The run size estimate was at 3500 steelhead. Stream guardians throughout the season reported capture of 4700 fish. Obviously these fish had been captured numerous times resulting in undue stress and increased mortality. Based on the WLAP logic that they use to justify the bait ban, then FLY ONLY on the Dean should be banned.
ok I'm down with that... lets lift the fly only sections at certain times of the year no less (something you failed to admitt in your post) on the Dean River, so if the Dean River gaurdians were allowed to fish roe (which is banned) NOT artificial offerings fished with a gear rod (which you also failed to also admitt) how many steelhead do you think would have been hooked?
Tell me who are the Dean River guardians? what groups are they comprised of? is there any gear fisherman or are they all flyfisherman?
First Nations poaching is a problem, BUT it is a FEDERAL problem which has nothing to do with PROVINCIAL law makers, to deflect attention away from a bait ban and put FN poaching in the light is simply ridiculous. The only thing the Provincial politicians can do is try and persuade the Feds to buck up and admit that there is indeed a problem... but that is all they can do.
'Alwaysfishin' have these studies been reported in any scientific journal for peer review?
As for the whole "its election year" I made my mind up along time ago who I'm voting for... Start looking up what the liberals have done in the name of "cutting the red tape" in regards to development and habitat destruction, or aggregate removal on the Fraser River... my mind was made up along time ago.
-
I don't know how anybody can support the mismanagement that a blanket bait ban would do. WLAP needs to manage on a stream by stream basis and quit managing people and try to manage fish stocks. There are many other fisheries out there besides steelhead and the steelhead fishing crowd needs to realize this. Under WLAP guidance, steelhead and cutthroat stocks are in tough shape and because of the attitude WLAP has there is almost no hope for a recovery. The february swim ciunt on the seymour was reported to be 3 steelhead and what is WLAP doing about this? Nothing. I see such great leadership in their plan to recover steelhead stocks that I have now purchased a washington state freshwater license where there is still oppurtunity to fish in rivers with reasonble steelhead returns.
-
Is there a reason why flyfishing purists/elitists are always the most vocal, most effective in lobyying, and most eloquent in writing or advocating their points? Yet, they may not even be the majority, and the government are listening to the minority in proposing rule changes that favour a minority group among fishermen. Flyfishing is not that innocent in harming fish stocks. How many chums and pinks are fouled hooked by them while flyfishers are targeting coho? Yet they alway assume that they are on higher ground and their craft is beyond reproach.
-
Is there a reason why flyfishing purists/elitists are always the most vocal, most effective in lobyying, and most eloquent in writing or advocating their points?
True fly fishers fly fish in a true fly fishing manner but there is others that I have seen use it as a method to just catch fish. I have seen some pretty bad fishing habits with a fly when coho, pink and other salmon stack up in periods of low water in the Fall, especially in places on the Vedder where the gravel excavations have taken place.You just see so many fish coming in side ways, tail first etc. in these areas, a sorry sight to say the least.
I am sure a number of others have noticed it as well. I am afraid if a blanket bait ban comes in you will unfortunatly see more of this type of fishing. I certainly am not picking on fly fishers as some gear fishers need to change the way they fish as well.
We must do all we can to educate anglers that the goal of fishing is to make a fish actually chase and grab your offering, not the hook chasing and grabbing on to some part of the fish's body.
-
Noneone has really said this but will this happen or is it just something that might happen but will probably not? I would also like to know that about the lead proposal I think they should only allow so much lead to be used losing 3 or 4 split shots isn't likely to happen I think that they want everyone flyfishing.
want everybody flyfishing? hardly... simply put this is going to effect flyfisherman just as much as the gear fisherman. Lead beads...gone, lead wire for flytying...gone. There is some excellent lead substitutes on the market and when lead is replaced your going to see them on the tackle shop floors. Sure thing, they will be marginally more expensive then lead... but were not talking the price of gold here.
Is there a reason why flyfishing purists/elitists are always the most vocal, most effective in lobbying, and most eloquent in writing or advocating their points? Yet, they may not even be the majority, and the government are listening to the minority in proposing rule changes that favour a minority group among fishermen. Flyfishing is not that innocent in harming fish stocks. How many chums and pinks are fouled hooked by them while flyfishers are targeting coho? Yet they alway assume that they are on higher ground and their craft is beyond reproach.
The BCFFF and BCDF have agreed to put arguments on what is in our tackle box's long ago... this decision is backed by sound science. Its somewhat sad to see so many posts with "flyfishing purists/elitists" in there context. The good old internet rumour mill is doing a fine job in creating mass hysteria over this supposed "blanket ban".
Flyfishing is not that innocent in harming fish stocks. How many chums and pinks are fouled hooked by them while flyfishers are targeting coho?
your 100% right flyfishing is detrimental... and so is gear fishing. In fact, fishing in general is bad for fish. Sure you point to flyfisherman snagging pinks and dogs, I can point to gear fisherman doing the same. For instance take a look at the Stave fishery, there are 50 gear fisherman snagging fish to 3 flyfisherman. Why bother pointing fingers? we all know its done in both camps. Again this proposed bait ban (on a stream by stream basis) isn't proposed for chum and pinks. It is proposed for catch and release streams where conservation is a concern. It always seems that a proposed bait ban= flyfishing only... hardly. This is nothing short of mass hysteria. Go through the countless studies done on bait, and you will see bait is consistant with higher mortality rates.
It's not like a gear fisherman have nothing to fall back on. Spoons, spinners, gigs, many plastic artificial offering and a spectrum of coloured wool. I still fail to grasp why anglers would rather have bodies of water shut down instead of just fishing artificial offering, it seems so counter productive. Perhaps if you can't lay the smack down on the fish you would rather not fish it at all?
True fly fishers fly fish in a true fly fishing manner but there is others that I have seen use it as a method to just catch fish. I have seen some pretty bad fishing habits with a fly when coho, pink and other salmon stack up in periods of low water in the Fall, especially in places on the Vedder where the gravel excavations have taken place.You just see so many fish coming in side ways, tail first etc. in these areas, a sorry sight to say the least.
Sad and 100% true Chris, what do we do about these people? I try and educate them. The media makes flyfishing seem so diabolically hard... its not. You can buy a cheep outfit and a handful of flies and your off and running. We are going to see these people ( I won't use the term anglers) in both fly and gear. Some simply don't know any better... others seem to gravitate towards the numbers game... IE fishing where fish stack up, flossing (snagging) of fish (both fly and gear).
Its a tough call sifting through fishing forums... it seems the majority of us are very ethical anglers and hold fishing so close to our hearts... for us fishing is a very serious distraction, if were not fishing were on the internet talking about fishing. For many you high caliber gear fisherman, deep hooksets are not a problem, but what about "X" % of people out there who don't know how to fish properly and ethically?
Kudos to people like 2:40 who haven't lost a piece of pencil lead. I know many gear fisherman that fish pencil lead held by surgical tubing. In fact I fished this way for years. It always helped me if I were to get my lead wedged between boulders the lead would simply be pulled out or "popped out" and I would save my setup. Though rarely I would lose lead this way it did happen. I can tell you that I often loosed lead when the line went tight as I was playing fish. Lets not even talk about the amount of bouncing beddy's on the bottom of the Fraser... lets not even go there! :o
-
sorry gotta go there.Been to many bars this winter often the same bars several times to collect bettys and gather as much line and junk left behind by the crowds.Its phenominal how seemingly endless expanses of gravel bars are just paved with line and old hooks ect.Laidlaw is the worst, several of us all afternoon the other weekend couldnt make a dent in the line ect tangled in the rocks.Yes Im ranting but Im also doing something about it.
-
Lost a piece of lead yesterday morning :'( I was quite attached to that guy. Even carved a little maple leaf in it for when they were beating up the Senators last season in the playoffs. ;D
Headstone is right on in saying dont paint flyfishers with the same brush just because a bunch flock to meat holes and floss/snag away with flyrods. I wouldnt like it any more from my standpoint if people see the hoards of guys with drift rods flossing/snagging away and say gear fishermen are a bunch of snaggers.
I dont like the term 'elitists/purists' these days. This used to mean guys that would only fish dry flies, use centre pin reels and etc. Now it seems to include people who refuse to meatfish and would rather keep fishing correct and make the fish bite. In flossing debates, how often have I been called an elitist just because I state "FISHING IS ABOUT MAKING A FISH BITE!!!" Something is wrong here.
No worries Randog, not getting into anything here ;D, but my point is, are the ones that dont meat fish are the ones that the word 'fishing' has a much deeper meaning to it. They dont go out to get as much as they can, rather they enjoy the resource itself for many many reasons. For this, they get more scared when they see this resource being abused or dissappearing and work to protect it. People who view fish as only something to eat and dont really care how they get the fish on the beach dont seem to care as much. If they did, there would be a pretty strong angling voice out there. Why do I only see relatively few people attending Vedder River clean ups? It's not like everybody is working on those days as the river is always packed with guys. Not saying all of them are meat fishing, just stating an observation curious why more cant give up a morning's fishing, even if you can only ever get out on a weekend, to give something back.
Pretty sad isnt it leadbelly. :(
-
In answer to headstone's query about the source and documentation of my comments.
I work in the sport fishing industry and the "availlability " of info is higher I beleive than the average fisherman. Many reports and publications pass through my hands.
ALL the mentioned info is availlable through WLAP and DFO files. I trust that if you are truly interested in the validity of those studies you will seek the information out yourself.
It seems that on the various internet forums we have locally, that the members seem to keep turning this into a FLY GUY vs BAIT/GEAR guys.
Well, wake up and smell the coffee boys and girls it AIN"T ABOUT THAT and boots to the butt for anyone who insists on turning it into that.
The point is that if WLAP can "propose" a blanket bait ban or similar, then they will be gunning for other restrictions that eventually WILL be detrimental to FLY guys as well..
YOU ALL NEED TO REALIZE SOMETHING proposals such as this don't come on the heels of GOOD SCIENCE and INVESTIGATION, they come on the heels of a bunch of maybes and inconclusive studies. The last time this bait ban issue was visited by the former entity that has become WLAP, the evidence was based on a study done in Oregon on STILLWATER catch and release mortality rates.
The findings from these lake studies were then applied to our rivers and streams ????? How is that proper use of science and investigation????
So the big environmentalist anti hunting anti fishing conglomerates are dictating through our government bodies that a bait ban is necessary and because thier bank accounts are bigger and thier collective voice is louder, we have to pay the price.
These same groups will push to graduallly erode our abilities to fish, and will use propaganda and pointless studies to change the way we conserve our resources.
They want to see ALL catch and release fishing banned.... what do you say to that???
-
I say I agree.
Bait bans are the beginnings of fishing bans. PETA will get involved even more than they already are.
On this topic, all who fish, regardless of method, must stand together. We can have a huge voice too. Let's worry about how we can/should catch a fish once we have ensured we can still do it period and that there are stll fish to actually fish for.
-
allwaysfishing is dead on with the intent of the proposed blanket bait ban. It is just the forerunner of things to come if it is easily passed and forced on the fishing public.
Personnally I don't trust the people who hold the power to regulate us. Who are they? How many are fishermen? Do they rather stay on the golf course or the shopping mall than to go fishing. I know they have a job in DFO, but what are their personal inclination in regards to fishing, a blood sport? Are they more inclined to the reasoning of PETA or some other environmentalist or X rights groups? Yes, these organizations are loaded to lobby government. The money source may not even be from local donations. There are also the Parks dept and we know what their staff's inclination are. That may be why they try to close out chunks of the ocean in the name of protecting fish, but not backed by science.
Fishing regulations & opportunities seem to be progressively limiting. Closed fisheries seem to stay closed. When and where is this going to end? Eventually, we may be so politically incorrect as fishermen that they can just declare an end to fishing, or meaningful fishing. License fees are forever increasing, and fishing opportunities decreasing, that is another enigmatic trend. PETA does not have to shut us down by reasoning. Eventually there will be less and less people engaging in fishing, and less and less people giving a dime about fish welfare because they just cannot afford it. Perhaps, by then, only the rich elitists remain. They can afford heli fishing or go fish the rest of the world.
-
Fishing with sweet, juicy, ripe, plump berries is part of my religion. I'm claiming religious discrimination on this one. I will not lay down my berries for any political B.S. no matter who, or what tells me to!!!!! ;D ;D :o >:( ;D ;D
Just trying to keep it fun, boys.
In reality, I think we're waisting time with the accusations back and forth on the fly vs gear deal. Lets not let this bait ban stunt create bad feelings between the groups of fisherman. We know there's already too much of that going on. We all share the resource, and we obviously all like being out there enjoying the water and wilderness. I both fly, and gear fish, it's ridiculous to berate one or the other just because someone prefers one over the other.
The facts are that no matter how we fish, there is a hook at the end of our lines. We all have a negative impact on a fishes stress level when we hook and fight one. Of the 25 years of fishing I've done; bait or non bait; I have only seen a few fish take my presentation deep in the stomach. A few of them were small trout which swallowed small hooks with worms. The trout were taken home and eaten. Out of all the salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and bottom fish I've caught, I can only remember two Coho salmon which swallowed the hook completely. One was on roe, the other on a single J-egg. Both these fish were caught on small hooks, #4's. Blaming high mortality rates solely on the use of bait, seems a waste of time, and $ on enforcement. Especially a bait ban on a hatchery enhanced river, how ridiculous is that. There are no truly wild stock in a hatchery enhanced river. What are they protecting there?
I have outfished bait with artificial gear at times, and outfished artificial gear with bait at times. I have also been outfished by a fly fisherman, when I was throwing bait. The most recent studies I have seen publicized have determined that the mortality rates of bait hooked fish is much, much lower than previously thought. I am going to try to find some of the articles I have read recently, so I can hopefully use them as references.
-
In answer to headstone's query about the source and documentation of my comments.
I work in the sport fishing industry and the "availlability " of info is higher I beleive than the average fisherman. Many reports and publications pass through my hands.
ALL the mentioned info is availlable through WLAP and DFO files. I trust that if you are truly interested in the validity of those studies you will seek the information out yourself.
I belong to one of the oldest fly fishing club's in BC and believe me, everyday I recieve emails down the pipe. I chat with MWALP "movers and shakers" past and present... and fish with members of another flyfishing club who are the Dean River Guardians. Your posts are pure propaganda... plain and simple. Nice but you are surely not pulling the wool over my eyes. ;)
As for bait bans on hatchery subsidized rivers... and course fishing... I sure hope not and I stated this in my letter to MWALP...
seems the dfo is taking the "easy"way out,instead for enforcing the rules already in place.i think it will hurt the sport in the long run
less people will fish=less money for fish.seeing how i have here in front of me heres there reasons:
1 conserve fish resources
2 maintain as many angling opportunities as possible
3 help harmonize angling regs across the province
i don t even use bait,and i think it s wrong province wide,biff made some good points about juveniles and i could see that helping.but a total ban with out proof,of any kind that it will "help",there is alot more the dfo could do to help than this.weak.
Mr. Pink if your going to send in your letter of protest don't send it to Fed's :P
Sorry FF I cant entirely agree with you, first off conservation starts out at sea including overfishing and the bycatch, then you have the habitat destruction issue, illegal poaching, netting in the rivers and the flossing thing including Flyflossing. Bait may be a great attractor but I have fished many a day with bait and have been skunked while wool ties were picking up the fish. As I've said before, I can live without bait but do I want to. NO! not while there are people fishing with floats put on upside down ( because they don't even know how a rig is put together) and then snagging them with eight to twelve foot leaders. (under the Veddder bridge is a great example of this during the coho run) Taking fish that are not actually caught in the mouth and so on. You could go on forever about all the ways fish are injured or overcaught, I would like to wager a hundred times more fish are injured or die through foul hooking than through being taken by bait, this seems to me, more of pressure being applied by some self interest groups than a valid way to protect the fish stocks. I strongly believe that "most" of the anglers using bait are ethical fishermen who care deeply about the resource and the handling of fish with extreme care.
Just one mans opinion
Sassy boy...
Sorry FF I cant entirely agree with you, first off conservation starts out at sea including overfishing and the bycatch, then you have the habitat destruction issue, illegal poaching, netting in the rivers and the flossing thing including Flyflossing.
Just wanted to point out that you missed a word in front of flossing, that word should be gear flossing.
I would like to wager a hundred times more fish are injured or die through foul hooking than through being taken by bait, this seems to me, more of pressure being applied by some self interest groups than a valid way to protect the fish stocks
who is the "self interest group" sassy boy???
2:40 I personally think your looking at this with a level head, I admire you for that.
Now we all know that Cutthroat trout are a "species of special concern" and we all know that over- harvesting and habitat destruction are primarly the causes of the cutthroats demise. Cutthroat are glutton's for bait (well documented) and the cutthroat by-catch is incredible when anglers descend on streams in search of other species.
Most maiden cutthroat show up later in the season, but most repeat spawners (the big hens that lay bigger eggs... produce bigger aliven... in turn get a jump start on life) return to rivers to spawn earlier... and intecepted by coho fisherman using roe.
Where does the cutthroat fit into the picture? does anybody care. I fished bait for years and absolutely hammered cutthroat while in search of coho and steelhead, they were a very pleasant suprise when caught. I certainly wasn't going out fishing and targeting them...
I switched over to the fly but still continued to fish with my bait fishing partner, he always gave me first water... and he always picked up cutthroat behind me. I have fished runs that I absolutley peppered the hell out of the water with flies, only to see him come in and pick up fish where I swung a fly 3 times over...
-
Headstone
I'm not questioning your "long time" membership to a fly club. All info i posted is NOT propoganda and is availlable in factual form.
whether you choose to acknowledge it's merit, your call
It certainly is not propoganda, it's documented. I trust your movers and shakers past and present can find and direct you too the documentation
anyhow, I'm not replying to further comments, the facts are there, pull the wool off from over your eyes and see the big picture.
-
the ministry has on file documented from surveys on the Dean River from 1999, which other than a small area is "FLY ONLY". The run size estimate was at 3500 steelhead. Stream guardians throughout the season reported capture of 4700 fish. Obviously these fish had been captured numerous times resulting in undue stress and increased mortality. Based on the WLAP logic that they use to justify the bait ban, then FLY ONLY on the Dean should be banned.
*the above information is taken directly from a recent letter to WLAP from the B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers from the groups president.
Ok lets ban flyfishing and lift the bait ban how many fish do you think would be caught?
Read the Dean River regulations the river is NOT fly only... half truths and deception... propaganda plain and simple..
pull the wool off from over your eyes and see the big picture.
okay ::)
see the big picture.
So the big environmentalist anti hunting anti fishing conglomerates are dictating through our government bodies that a bait ban is necessary and because thier bank accounts are bigger and thier collective voice is louder, we have to pay the price.
I'd still would love to know who these special interests groups that are pulling the puppet strings of the Government LMAO ::)
-
I think every angler's best interest is to secure his or her fishing opportunities, but at the same time to ensure the his or her negative impacts on the fish stock are minimized so sustainability is reached and future opportunities are not lost.
Those negative impacts should be scientifically measured before management changes are implemented, not basing on past personal accounts by a few.
Banning of bait during specific time of the year at specific locations would most welcomed by anglers. I'm sure no one would like to see a throat hooked steelhead smolt with a #2 hook in spring after it engulfs a chunk of roe. No one would also like to see a chinook being hooked on the back after a fly has been dredged across a river bed of spawners. Specific regulations to reduce the occurence of these are needed.
Again, that's as much as I will comment for now. We can go on and on for 20 more pages on pro-bait vs anti-bait, but in the end these discussions are worthless if they are not voiced beyond the cyber space, and WLAP is the one making the final call. I'm looking forward to the next few weeks (or not looking forward to at the same time) as there are several meetings where this will be brought up for clarification. Stay tuned.
-
I am sure Fishery Managers from both WLAP and FOC know about fishing forums including FWR and will be reading them often so a lot of excellent posts made the last 2 weeks have not gone unnoticed.
From a recent email dated March 14 I received, FOC has been inundated with emails and phone calls. A sentence from the email "Folks are not happy that an issue as important as this has been left to on-line input"
An answer from Alan Martin from WLAP 4 days later included the statement "The notice in the synopis was intented to provide a year's notice of our proposal and intent. We will provide a the forum and timelines for this policy discussion with stakeholders in the coming months".
-
An answer from Alan Martin from WLAP 4 days later included the statement "The notice in the synopis was intented to provide a year's notice of our proposal and intent. We will provide a the forum and timelines for this policy discussion with stakeholders in the coming months".
I'll believe it when I see it.
-
I have put together a petition opposing the proposed bait ban. It is directed to Premier Gordon Campbell. Copies will also be sent to WLAP and some other key MLA's. We have gathered about 200 signatures since we started circulating it last Saturday.
If interested it is in Fred's Custom Tackle, Chilliwack Dart and Tackle and Hub Sports.
Will attempt to get it in some Lower Mainland shops as well.
-
Thanks Chris
-
they should put as much effort into policing the poachers. :-\
-
Chris, good for you on the petition!! I've got about 300 alias' I can use for that sheet. ;D Let me guess, your buddy Nick signed it about 1 million times. Nick without roe. That's not a pretty sight. :'( ;)
-
I have put together a petition opposing the proposed bait ban. It is directed to Premier Gordon Campbell. Copies will also be sent to WLAP and some other key MLA's. We have gathered about 200 signatures since we started circulating it last Saturday.
If interested it is in Fred's Custom Tackle, Chilliwack Dart and Tackle and Hub Sports.
Will attempt to get it in some Lower Mainland shops as well.
Berry's Bait now has the petition, drop in if you wish to sign it. Will start sending some of them in next week as we have gathered up a good number of signatures here in Chilliwack.
-
Hope the powers to be will reconsider their proposal.
-
Hope the powers to be will reconsider their proposal.
We with the support of many will do the best we can. What else can one do.
-
An update on the petition. We have received good response in the first week since we started to circulate it and have the first batch almost ready to send in to the Premier with copies going to some other key MLA's and the Water, Land and Air Protection Ministry.
Got word today that one of our local MLA's talked to WALP Minister Barisoff on our request and we heard back he will not be supporting this proposal by his department so it looks like the complaints have been coming in hot and heavy. We may be winning this one but better not count the chickens before they hatch. ;D ;D
Thanks to all that have written letters ansd signed the petition so far.
Keep them coming. ;D
-
So, does anyone know who is running agains't Barisoff in his riding?
If he does not get in, have to start again?
-
So, does anyone know who is running agains't Barisoff in his riding?
If he does not get in, have to start again?
The NDP flag barer that is running in this riding, Penticton Okanagon Valley is Gary Litke.
-
The NDP flag barer that is running in this riding, Penticton Okanagon Valley is Gary Litke.
================================================================
Is he a good chance to knock off Barisoff?
-
The NDP flag barer that is running in this riding, Penticton Okanagon Valley is Gary Litke.
================================================================
Is he a good chance to knock off Barisoff?
No idea how good a candidate he is.
My prediction is the Liberals will win another majority but not as many seats as before.
Barisoff got 62.73% of the vote last time.
-
Chris, thanks, however was this an old NDP riding?
In my riding it was and the feeling is they will go back to the NDP.
By the way who is running agains't Vandongen? Is this a tight race?
-
Chris, thanks, however was this an old NDP riding?
In my riding it was and the feeling is they will go back to the NDP.
By the way who is running agains't Vandongen? Is this a tight race?
This riding has been Liberal since at least 1996 and before that Social Credit.
John van Dongen will not be in trouble in his riding Abbotsford - Clayburn were his chief rival is Michael Nenn from the NDP.
The NDP are also rans Provincially in the Bible Belt (Fraser Valley Ridings)
-
I have put together a petition opposing the proposed bait ban. It is directed to Premier Gordon Campbell. Copies will also be sent to WLAP and some other key MLA's. We have gathered about 200 signatures since we started circulating it last Saturday.
If interested it is in Fred's Custom Tackle, Chilliwack Dart and Tackle and Hub Sports.
Will attempt to get it in some Lower Mainland shops as well.
A update on this petition. It is going well and I have decided to hold sending them in as I thought I would wait to to see if there is a new minister for WLAP as will want to send him copies of the petition as well as Campbell. Maybe our MLA here in Chilliwack/Kent may get this portfolio and I can deliver them by hand. :D :D
-
I am pleased to announce that my prediction on the post above this one came true today as Barry Penner was announced the cabinet minister in the new Environment Ministry.
After he gets settled it will be a 10 minute drive from home to deliver them. ;D ;D ;D Barry also has been a supporter of The CVRCC and has attended our cleanups. He knows the problems we have faced and I am sure we can count on him to toughen the litter act.