I agree with much of what is said in the various suggestions.
While I do enjoy flyfishing and have caught Steelhead on the fly, I do not necessarily agree with making the system "flyfishing only" for a length of time.
One of my more successful outings, I landed a decent number of Steelhead on my 5 wt while targeting Cut-throat. I happened to be using sparkle buggers and while my buddy had a drift rod, he was not hooking up. The next day, I returned to the same location with my eight weight and did well, but as an conscious angler, realized my potential impact from the previous day of playing fish with light equipment.
Using fly rods does not guarantee a "more ethical, or morale" angler is targeting the fish. Why would those who still wish to fish and catch fish not switch over? We know and understand many fish are taken in the lower river, at places such as "The Gauntlet" effectively by both fly fishermen and drift anglers. The world of flyfishing has evolved and improved immensely in the past 20 years to become effective and efficient. To be honest, the world of drift fishing and the gear used has pretty much stayed the same during that same time period.
I mention this, for there have been times when we have been targeting steelhead we could visually see were holding with all sorts of items, from roe, to blades, to rubber worms. No success. But the minute I put on my sinking line with a popsicle leech, I had the fish on first cast. Many anglers now swear by gigs above all other gear they may deploy. How is the fly designed with the same colours and materials as a gig any different?
I would be a supporter of earlier closures and closures which affect all anglers equally.
I think anglers cannot do this goal/plan in isolation, and regulations must be made which affect all other areas which have an impact on these fish and their survival.
I saw these same types of arguments deployed by anglers who were adamant they were the true advocates of the Thompson River Steelhead. For years, I would post against gear restrictions on the Thompson which pitted different angler groups against one another. My reason for this was once anglers were divided, and the other various groups (not recreational anglers) who were having a drastic impact were ignored, the Thompson system would be irrelevant, efforts become non existent, and decline would take place quickly. We had gear restrictions set in place, and once that happened, any discussions I ever heard about the Thompson system disappeared and became non existent. Now, where is the Thompson at? Even in it's horrible state of decline, it takes a poorly done global news article to generate measly discussion on the subject.
One of the points made which I am confused by and do not agree with is as follows:
"8. To allow anglers the opportunity of harvesting (killing) steelhead, increase hatchery production on the Chehalis, Allouette, Stave and Campbell River systems."
I fish these systems for Steelhead. Maybe it is time to not keep things back, but the Statlu (feeds into the Chehalis) without a doubt produces some of the largest, most fiercest fighting wild steelhead I have ever caught. Why must systems who cannot sustain a large number of anglers be regulated to having their populations of wild stock steelhead reduced to hatchery kill fishery systems? Why not convert the whole lower mainland to catch and release fisheries? Even in systems where we may see the "native" stock has been impacted by hatchery clones, left to their own and given time, they will revert to an evolved, native Steelhead of a sorts once again. I would argue a surviving, altered, evolved, wild steelhead would be much better than no steelhead at all. Efforts should be employed to support all strains of Steelhead in the Fraser valley, including systems not mentioned such as the Pitt, the Coquitlam, Coquhalla, the Seymour, Capalino, Norrish, Kanaka Creek, Whonnock Creek, and those in the Harrison watershed. I have even seen images of wild steelhead in Marshall Creek.
Hatcheries should remain, but as research centers, focusing on enhancing salmon stocks through hatchery production, but maybe research for Steelhead, dedicated to learning more about them and as places to preserve their genes (genome banks?). Maybe a program can be devised to incubate and raise a certain number of eggs, to ensure they are not washed out of the gravel, buried by mud or landslides, or eaten by predators. Once the eggs are hatched, the fish are released quickly into the system, rather than raised in tanks. I know some would argue for a complete halt to human intervention and assistance, but I think in light of all the damage and impact we have had on their ecosystem, we need to admit this is likely impossible, and without some intervention on our part, their future years in the lower mainland and Fraser tributaries will be much shorter than we would wish for. Even at that, I feel their days are limited and future expropriation is unavoidable.
These are a few of my thoughts on the subject.
While I find internet discussion and conversation interesting, I am unfortunately more inclined to accept Andrew Weaver's hypothesis he formulated on West Coast Salmonoids back in 1989/90. He predicted as climates warmed and ecosystems changed, our most vulnerable salmonoids on the West Coast would go extinct, as those which survived evolved and made their way north to propagate ecosystems which were more favourable to their survival. As we are content to discuss what should happen, point fingers at one another, and do nothing to change things to make it happen, I am more inclined to see this as our salmonoids future fate.
We and the selfish needs of our current society are these fishes worst enemies.
Dano
Author
Topic: Decline Of Steelhead On Global Tonight. (Read 39046 times)