Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Eliminate hatchery and make it strictly C&R

4 (4.3%)

Declare it classified waters and make people pay 50-100$ a year if they want to fish it.

15 (16.3%)

Limit daily retention to one salmon (any species), with a ten fish a year maximum, making it mandatory to stop fishing after you bonk your fish.

27 (29.3%)

More area closures (Similar to Boundary Hole)

3 (3.3%)

Leader restriction (3 feet maximum) strictly enforced!

34 (37%)

Other (please explain)

9 (9.8%)

Total Members Voted: 91

[Nucks]

I'd also like to add that the majority of the "problem" fisherman do not read forums like this one or the others so its very tough to teach and educate them and thats the main reason why changes need to happen.

[Fish Assassin]

I think all of the options are not necessarily that great.  They all come down to enforcement, until that changes none of those changes will have as big of an impact as they should.  

Agree

[ion]

i vote for the third option because i think the problem is with the numbers.(any fish out the system is out no matter if snagged or hooked by the rules); would be fair to put money in as much as you get fish out, and this money can really help hatcheries;
lets look at an example lafarge lake; it was stocked this week, 1000 rainbows about 200 grams each; durring the next 2 weeks you'l see on the shore the same fishermens, everyday, and catching by the rules 4 rainbows (no snagging); the fish will last max 1 month;
We pay the same licence fee. Why the stocking while the most of the fish is taken out by a small group of fisherman, and why should i pay for this? This can't go on to long.

[Herrie]

Tex, good point that all new introductions of rules is band-aid, the current rules are sufficient (except for a yearly limmit maybe) and that enforcement of the rules and a solid education is the only way.

Sending CO's out there continuously costs money so where do we pay them from if it isn't from an increase in salmon fishing license or making it classified waters. I don't know...

Education: why not having the angler pass a test for a salmon fishing license? I agree most people know the rules (although there are also quite some people who I meet while fishing whose english is so minimum that I think they won't be able to read the rules). With a test you can focus on why the rules are there in the first place.

Great discussion!!

[Herrie]

Tex, good point that all new introductions of rules is band-aid, the current rules are sufficient (except for a yearly limmit maybe) and that enforcement of the rules and a solid education is the only way.

Sending CO's out there continuously costs money so where do we pay them from if it isn't from an increase in salmon fishing license or making it classified waters. I don't know...

Education: why not having the angler pass a test for a salmon fishing license? I agree most people know the rules (although there are also quite some people who I meet while fishing whose english is so minimum that I think they won't be able to read the rules). With a test you can focus on why the rules are there in the first place.

Great discussion!!

[Nucks]

Sending CO's out there continuously costs money so where do we pay them from if it isn't from an increase in salmon fishing license or making it classified waters. I don't know...

The money should come from stiffer penalties, more penalties, and classified waters tags. All this extra money should primarily go towards hiring another CO. I work for the government and things are getting tighter and tighter these days. The money has to come from somewhere and this is the most logical place.

[bentrod]

Leader restrictions is tough when you are not mandating float fishing.  I'm more interested in seeing an education/enforcement/ program put into place with higher licensing fees to pay for it. 

[chris gadsden]

Leader restrictions is tough when you are not mandating float fishing.  I'm more interested in seeing an education/enforcement/ program put into place with higher licensing fees to pay for it. 

I agree leader restriction on the Vedder may help some but a lot of long lining happens with short leaders, they just lenghten out their float line. This has been mentioned many times before. Then there is some people fishing in a confined space like the Abutment Hole this year with a short leader and a betty and are into the fish regularly, caught in every place but the mouth.

As I said to Gwyn yesterday the only way to stop the way too many are working the water these days would  be you could not have more than 4 feet of line from your fixed float to your hook. 

 I realize this statement is not practical and should most likely not even mention it as it would penalize those that fish properly including those that like to fish a fly in the proper manner fishing in proper fly water or those that chuck a blade or a spoon.

[kingpin]

leader restriction is the best thing.... spot closures do nothing about the type of fishing, it just moves spot to spot and less area for everybody to fish.... the hatchery is there for a reason...if it shuts down that river is in trouble. 1 fish a day is ok, id prefer 2 and unlimited per year... but with recording of hatchery coho a must. and only 10 a year of them.

[alamis99]

i voted on retention limit....we are there for enjoying fishing, not for seeking something for dinner

[fish321]

The only reason these problems are focused to the Vedder is because it is all that is left. Our once great LM fisheries have all gone for a crap. Every little creek and river From hope to Squamish supported coho fisheries and spread both the good and bad fishers around. Why not look at the big picture here instead of trying to over regulate what we have left.

[adriaticum]

None of the above would work in my opinion.
What would work is enforcing the already existing laws and punishing those who break them severely.

- Close the hatchery is out of the question. We need more hatcheries, not fewer.
- Leader restriction wouldn't work. It's not necessarily the leader that's snagging fish. It's the whole rig working together.
- I don't want to pay $100 to some government bureaucracy. The money never goes to what says on the label. Plus it's not goverment's property.
- Catch & Release doesn't work, I like to eat fish every once in a while.

We should have the cops to the job we are paying them to do!

Or maybe we should all go PETA! 

[bbronswyk2000]

If you had a leader restriction, how could you fly fish? 

To fish salmon in a river you dont need more than a 2-3 foot leader. I never use more than that. Their is your answer.

As far as the poll goes. Personally I dont see an option I would choose. This being a major hatchery enhanced river the retention limits are fine. Restricting leaders is not an issue as the snaggers will just not use floats and snag them that way.

The only thing I truly believe that needs to be done is more enforcement. They should have atleast one CO if not two CO's on that river during peak times. Just think of all the fines they would collect and the revenue it would generate. The government is too stupid to see that though. They see paying for another couple CO's as an added expense they dont want to pay for, but the fines alone would pay their salaries and bring in way more money than they would have to put out.

[Colorado Grinner]

I liked the idea of retention limits.
I think with alot less "fill your freezer"guys on the river it would make for a more enjoyable day on the river.

[Camman]

Use as anglers have to do are part and not kill every fish we catch, if its that serious.