Print

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

[RalphH]

There’s way more wild summer run populations in region 1 would be my guess.

Wild steelhead release and bait ban on summer runs regulations were put in place on all wild summer run streams in 1982.

Bait bans were placed on all streams and rivers May 1 to Nov 30th in 1985. That was to protect trout and parr.

Perhaps no one recalls but almost every river on the East Coast of the Island saw dramatic declines in steelhead returns in the 1990s regardless of hatchery enhancement.

Because most rivers in the LM without a bait ban are factory hatchery kill rivers?

Again this is a steelhead-centric reponse. The Squamish system had a roe ban and then a bait ban imposed to protect it's bull trout. Those are now the dominate sport fish in that system

There are several smaller rivers in the LM/FV that have small returns of winter steelhead and no bait ban. These streams often have cutthroat populations. Don't the trout deserve protection? Evidence is cutthroat experience significantly higher bait caught c&r mortality than steelhead . The hatchery enhancement program for cutties has been cancelled. So now there will be a bait fishery for not abundant populations of wild trout that have to be released and are susceptible to high c&r mortality.

This fall on the little coho streams I fish I noticed that when the bait anglers showed up in number, the trout disappeared...but that may be do to their avoiding the salmon by moving upstream or out of the river.

[buck]

Rodney: Brood stock mortalities usually started to occur after checking fish for maturity. Some of these fish look like they had just arrived in the system. No abrasions, wounds or sign of disease but dead in holding. We felt these mortalities were stress related due to handling and months in isolation.

Regarding the hooks found in the holding condos, they appeared to have been ejected from the fishes mouth. The hooks were generally rusted and appeared to have been eroded to some degree. How they accomplished this feat is a mystery.

[RalphH]

 ...

In a lot of places the trout did all but disappear. There is nothing random about this information and it's your problem you are not aware of or able to mentally process it.
 
Browsing the water specific regs for Region 3, 4 and even 5 bait bans are among the most common kind of restriction of both lakes and rivers. Why do you think that's the case?

[Knnn]

I'm not sure about the specific statistics, however based on my experience, and I believe many other anglers have found this, when fishing artificial like chironomids, wet or dry flies, spoons, spinners, twitching jigs, 6 inch pink worms or beads set 1.5-2 inches above the hook, I have rarely experienced a deep hook set (I'm not saying never, just that it is rare and I acknowledge that it may also depend on angler experience etc.).  In the past when I fished with roe or an occasionally real worm, the chances of a tongue or deep throat hook set seemed to go up dramatically; certainly enough that I noticed the difference and now very rarely use bait.  I now also use the trailing hook method on spoons to try and minimize deep hook sets and from my N=1 experience, this has been a worthwhile technique.  Therefore, the theory/conjecture that roe and other real baits result in increased mortality due to increased risk of deep hook sets and increased risk of blood loss appears to be both logical and reasonable to me and also fits my experience.  The fact that it is banned by regulatory authorities (with a lot more experience and access to research than I) in many (most?) non meat fisheries provides additional credence to this theory.

I'm not sure why discussions on the potential merits of banning roe or other real baits generates such angst.  Everyone would be on a level playing field and good, experienced anglers would still catch plenty of fish. 

[stsfisher]

.....was holding off but time to rant...two different threads that end up bashing the use of roe...calls for roe bans on hatchery harvest rivers....descriptions of  roe fishers that paint a picture of  unskilled unibrow knuckledraggers.....all self righteous drivel that smells of eliteism ...new laws to address the lack of compliance or enforcement of existing ones only impact those that follow the existing rules....a good example would be the closing of parking areas because of garbage dumping or break ins......if you don't like roe,don't use it....your game,your rules..... curing and presenting roe is just as satisfying as tying and fishing a fly ,building a spinner etc....roe does work but is not like using a net or dynamite...washed a lot of roe only to have it ignored....its  only one tool in a box full of others that are needed to be a successful angler.....even if it was the silver bullet and was used to fill somebody's freezer, as long as its within the existing rules that's their busines ,mind your own.....time and effort would be better spent elsewhere on things that benefit the fishery  and all users.......

lol, look what you started spoonman. Now you have 3 threads bashing the use of roe by uni brow knuckle draggers, lol

[milo]

lol, look what you started spoonman. Now you have 3 threads bashing the use of roe by uni brow knuckle draggers, lol

Well, roe is for little fat kids, what did ya expect?

[clarki]

lol, look what you started spoonman. Now you have 3 threads bashing the use of roe by uni brow knuckle draggers, lol

Hah, says you. It’s been years since I could touch my toes!

[firstlight]

I wonder how many fish die after being released after a too long fight with some hero and his 6 wt. fly rod?

I also remember how the argument went about banning roe.
It isnt because of deep hooking and mortality but because its just too effective and too many fish get caught.

I like how the story allways changes to suit others personal gains.

[RalphH]

I wonder how many fish die after being released after a too long fight with some hero and his 6 wt. fly rod?

2.275/100

I also remember how the argument went about banning roe.
It isnt because of deep hooking and mortality but because its just too effective and too many fish get caught.

that too

I like how the story allways changes to suit others personal gains.

well if roe catches more and you fish roe - whose gain?

[Roderick]

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

X2

[Hike_and_fish]

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.

[Spoonman]

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...

[Knnn]

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. 

[RalphH]

...

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.

[redside1]

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

It’s reported that the Thompson steelhead started to decline in the 1990’s. 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.