Let's take a hard look into the justification of a one fish vs, two, limit.

It makes absolutly no difference if the limit is 1 or 4. The same exact amount of fish are gonna get taken out of the river everyday no matter what the limit, with the exception of a few prime water condition days.

Here's an exaple.

We are fishing the Willamette river at Oregon city with 50 of our closeset friends. A good bite starts in the garbage hole. We see 50 fish get taken out and then it dies. Later in the day another little push of fish moves through and 15 more get taken. How did the one fish limit help this situation? It didin't. The presure these fish recieve daily is beyond what they can handle. If one boat catches a limit of 1 fish a piece, the next guy moves in to get his share. It's not like the river becomes void of people once they catch their limit.

EVERY FISH IN THE RIVER THAT IS GOING TO BITE IS DEAD AT THE END OF THE DAY. NO MATTER IF THE LIMIT IS 2-OR 10. THE EXACT SAME NUMBER IS GONNA BE TAKEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, PERIOD.

How many days so you see the Wilson tidewater with no boats on it, because they all limited out and now with a 1 fish limit it will save so fish. What a crock of $hit. The presure transfers to the next boat waiting to get theirs.

My feeling in salt water selective fisheries are instead of a selective fishery with the factored in mortality of released fish a one fish limit no selective fishery would actually save lives.

I dont understand your logic? 100persons@ 1 fish a piece=100fish killed. 100person@ 2 fish= 200 fish killed I dont see how it could be the same.

matt

If you believe all fisherman have equal skill then your thought is valid. However, in reality, thats not the case. The same guys that don't catch a whole bunch of fish still won't. The guys who pound on them just would keep more.

While I agree with you for the most part, there are times where I think the one fish limit is Needed. On some systems when fish start to push in big numbers the "Snaggers" come out in hords. I have memories of hiking into one of canyon holes on the Wind River in 2003. This hole was loaded with Tons of bright springers. The limit was two, but the fish were not on the bite at all. About 7 a group of guys come down and start fishing the tail out. With in minutes they had a couple of fish on. Most of us thought, "sweet the bite is finally on". So, myself and a buddy started moving our way down the hole, and noticed these guys were tossing heavy weigths, eggs, and 6-8' leaders. Every fish they hooked were snagged. Most not even anywhere near the mouth. We left just short of an all out brawl on the bank with these guys to get to the top of the canyon to call the authorities. These guys got to the top of the canyon just as we were leaving and they only had their limits. Even though they were snaggin f-ers they were not going to get caught with more than their limits.

In my opinion these fish most likely would not of been caught, but I can't imagine how many more would of been caught had the limit been higher.

Im with Gilly somewhat. And you said it all in your first and last last sentence. "The presure transfers to the next boat waiting to get theirs. " Equal opportunity.
Plus, our quoto ends faster if the limit is increased and the guys in the know are going to get even more per day. Not thats that is a bad thing but I like the longer opening, especially since most cant fish it everyday like the guides.

Your right about the same amount being ded, but this way that same anmount is spread over more boats giving the less in the know more chances of hooking up.

From what I saw Saturday at Bonni, if the limits were higher we would have hit the quota way quicker with all you in the know guides hammering fish after fish. I was amazed at the amount of fish I saw caught compared to areas down below. After all, most guides have done nothing but bragged about how many they can catch there. Imagine if they could all get twice as much. Surely you cant think it would not have shortend the season by half if the limits went to 2?

So you would rather fish less days in a designated fishery for more fish for your clients?

I bet the majority will like the longer seasons for more chances.

Not sure were your logic lies, but its way off for guys who cant fish it everyday.

A one fish limit will usually allow for a longer season which in turn gives more people an opportunity. That was the rationale behind the one fish CR limit this year.

When more people have an opportunity because of a longer season, more money gets spent and more people get involved in fishing politics.

If it were a 2 fish limit, a good guide would realize he would book fewer trips because the season would clearly shut down sooner. Then he would be bitching about the "too short" season.

Amen Aunty.

Exactly.

Participation in the CR springer fishery has been falling off since 2003. WDFW really didn't expect the participation to be this high and almost "didn't" do the one fish limit.

Bet they're glad they did now! By most peoples accounts, this was the best year ever, even with a 1 fish limit. (yeah, I read Ifish. )

How can you go wrong when MORE people got to take home a fish?

When the wind river was a nightmare with a 4 fish limit.

Spread the wealth.

up on the Tog. we run a self mandated 1 fish limit. 2nd what matt said

I can see this from both sides of the page. I agree with Kevin on a 2 fish limit would be nice for those people who can't get out very often maybe only once in the season.I also like the longer season for the weekend warriors to be able to make more than one trip.
This was the theory I proposed in another post about putting a per angler/per season limit of 4,6,8 whatever as a way to keep the season open and spread the catch out to more people. We have it now on sturgeon with a 5 per year limit and I personally think it is working well.You can still "fish" all you want in the C&R seasons .We have only so many allowed per run and have to consider the upstream people who are waiting for the same fish to show up in high enough numbers to support a fishery. I don't know about you, but I would hate to live on/near a nice drift and have it never open because the quota was met down stream.

1 Fish limit is fine, who really needs that much fish in the freezer. Can't eat two in the same night, ok maybe some of you...Take a picture, you can share it when the fish are gone...

If a one day trip/one fish limit costs me $200 in gas for the boat and trip and food then that fish cost me $200. If instead it is a 2 fish limit then each fish cost me $100. Big difference in how the guides view it as opposed to the unguided sportees.

Your math is improving. Very impressive.

That only works if you actually do go out and catch two...they can make the limit 200 per day...it's still gonna cost you more than $1 per fish.

You of all people understand the importance of spreading the wealth and getting as many sport fishers involved as possible.

Where's my rotten chum to beat you with?

I don't think the fish care how much we spend. Thats what makes fishing different than catching. If everybody could know for certain that if that if they spent x-amount of cash they would get x-amount of fish for x-amount of time it would be called going to the store. Not all that appealing.

Seems when the majority of the people fishing this year have been able to limit, go pick up other people and get them some as well, then call somebody else who has never caught one and they get one also. Why complain ?? Its a gift this year. Take it and be happy.

I agree, Brent...people have pretty short memories, I guess, too...ten years ago we weren't even dreaming about having spring Chinook seasons on the Columbia, much less one every year...