If you wondered whether we were fighting over scraps, wonder no more. Seagulls, chimpanzees and humans all look about the same when the resources get thin.

I vote for a meritocracy where fisheries management is concerned. If you need side drifted eggs and a boat to catch a fish that eats hair and feathers in the surface film and swims upstream, then you get to fish once per year, and your license costs $100. If you fish in canvas waders with a split cane rod and silk line on a Hardy Perfect (royal coachman at the end, preferably), you get to fish every day of the year for free, with complimentary breakfast at the Hungry Bear. If you fish with a gill net, sorry about the confusion, check is in the mail; enjoy the last one.

IS out.

Gone are the days of justifying the cost of fishing with the savings in gathering the eats.

Glad I got to experience the times when fish were plentiful and seasons liberal.

Too bad for my kids, though.

Money would work (and people would hate it). In the end, I think that is what will happen.

Getting rid of most guides would reduce the number of dead CnR'ed steelhead significantly. The number of the out-of-towner guides in the spring is problematic in several ways.

AuntyM again cuts right to the chase!

I go back and forth on this issue...I can't help but think that in certain areas it could be useful...and I enjoy fishing from boats like many of the folks here. It's not an issue of fly fishing versus gear...there are more guys fly fishing from boats out here than fly fisherman walking the banks...I'm not sure why it always turns into a face-off between the two groups with the perception that fly fisherman walk the bank and gear fisherman run boats.

If anything, as some people have said, fly fisherman should be adamantly against this idea...bank real estate will be at a premium...guys will be standing in spots fishing gear, swinging, or nymphing...it will be impossible to fully swing an entire run or bucket. I realize that and yet I still support the idea in certain spots...

I'll quit fishing from a boat if the Indians agree to do the same.

+1 on the cost thing. 50$ per year per river system. Extra funds go to management of that system (in a perfect world).

But at least the extra cost would be mitigated by more elbow room in any event...

did ya'll here? sky kings opens tommorow!!!!!!!!

Respectfully, I would like to understand why these proposals are offensive to Todd and others. The proposals put forth are for limited sections in the upper sections of the river to help provide some refuge water for the depressed early portion of the wild run, it is not for the whole river. In recent years you have been heading to the Skeena and fish tribs that have a boats for transportation only as part of the quality waters regulation which doesn't seem limit your success nor stems much complaints. What's the difference? I would like to understand.

The unfortunate thing is as limited places to angle become a reality and the fish are put under increased pressure some limitations may have to be adopted to preserve our opportunity. I would rather see us be proactive now and still be able to fish than to keep going in the same direction and continue to experience more closures. It is important to conserve the fish, but I also believe it is important to take steps preserve our opportunities because without anglers the fish will loose
their advocacy base.

Because they will have approximately "zero" benefit to the fish...especially in light of:



So we'll keep the good fishing spots open...you just can't fish out of the boat. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as a "refuge" for anyone other than some anglers who don't want to see people fishing in boats.

If it's a "refuge" and there's a conservation reason to have it, then at least come up with a conservation action that addresses the problem...like have it actually be a refuge, like "no fishing".



Then I'd be happy to help...you can walk virtually every foot of the Kispiox River, the river is full of fish, and there's room for dozens and dozens of anglers in those long and easily walked stretches. If we had a river like that around here...which we clearly don't...then we could compare the two rivers.

Why is boat fishing not allowed on the Thompson and Skeena River system?

Is it to provide a "refuge"?

No...the reason is so that plug pullers won't be catching the fish...and they don't apologize for making regulations to accomplish that exact goal, to remove a sector of the anglers from the mix...and they are honest about it, and don't even pretend it's for any conservation reason.



I agree...but I also think that those limitations should actually be connected to an actual conservation benefit...not limitations that are limitations either just for the sake of having limitations, or limitations that accomplish a different goal than is being shared.



Which is a fantastic reason to make sure when you propose to limit someone's access to the resource you better be able to explain how there is actually a useful conservation benefit that will follow...and in this case, as I said above, this doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Fish on...

Todd

word

Thanks for the response Todd. But I have to disagree and will stand up, while sitting down on this issue.

Double Haul,

The reason for the opposition is that the actual conservation benefit is so incrementally small that the beneficial increase in spawning escapement may not be measurable. I could be wrong on this due to my limited familiarity with the river systems in question. Some data on effort and CPUE would be necessary to make a decent estimation.

The second reason for opposition is that the proposal hits too close to home for several of the posters IMO. High liners usually boat fish and are in the camp of killing as many or close to as many wild steelhead through incidental mortality as the once a year angler who fishes and keeps his one wild steelhead a year.

Small incremental restrictions that achieve desired increases in spawning escapement through decreased angling mortality are the province of legitimate management options. There appears to be some reasonable question that the proposed action will do so.

Todd's wrong about the proposal not passing the laugh test. The proposal is almost certain to reduce angling pressure and success. What is uncertain is whether it is enough to significantly increase spawning escapement.

Sg

Well said Todd.

this will destroy that river...

I won't get into netting, but limiting access or fishing opportunity is exactly what the feather flickers want. It has nothing to do with preserving fish. The ascot-fuks will be out in full force after the bait flingers are gone.

This is precisely why some consider hatcheries evil. Less fish = less opportunity = more feather flickers.

When this becomes reality we'll all don our ascots, have a few sips of single-malt while puffing on our cigars and make a toast to our success in ridding our waters of the mouth breathing bait flingers...after that we'll invade the waterways in full force to practice our casting.

Folks are missing the point on this. The opposition is pretty transparent. Same stale rationale.

1. If the indians are still gonna net then why should I change what I do?
2. The elitist fly-guys are trying to take over our rivers. Screw them.
3. If the fish are in such trouble that I gotta change how I angle, then why don't they just shut the rivers down?

And what's not being said but really friggin obvious? The folks who are belly-aching the most about this are doing it for selfish reasons. . .this is where you fish and how you fish. . .right in the gut bucket. Get over it. If you want to have any angling opportunity for these fish, you gotta face it and have incremental restrictions. Either that or shut er down. Pick your poison,

fb

It seems, at least for this topic, "they" will have all of us battling among ourselves. I think that someone at WDFW who is very crafty is sitting back and enjoying our angst on this issue.

WDFW has a miserable record in the management of steelhead. Banning fishing from boats will not compensate for the terrible steelhead manaagement history of the agency. I've been to too many commission meetings in the past where good proposals were put forward that would have gained some real measure of steelhead conservation and they were not adopted. That's because the staff contradicted the recommendations.

We needed to quit killing wild fish everywhere a long time ago. But in those rivers that still have treaty fishing going on, strict compliance with conservation and the Supreme Court's mandates must be followed. Why doesn't WDFW do that?

Salmo, I don't know if 1/2 the folks have even fully read the proposals since the basic reason and justification are in them. Here are some basic facts for folks agree or disagree.

1. With closures elsewhere and continuing strong interest in steelhead angling the pressure on the OP rivers have dramatically increased, pushing the stocks even harder.

2. The early wild component was pushed too hard and is in a depressed status in context to historical abundance and needs relief to help recover. The enacted proposal to close the sport harvest season til Febuary was adopted two years ago to support this fact.

3. The areas proposed as transportation only are important spawning
and staging areas for the early component of the run according to the
science and spawning surveys. The proposals are intended as a
proactive measure to provide the early fish some relief while still
providing opportunity and hopefully avoiding future closures.

I don't think anyone is misunderstanding the concept of what WSC is trying to do, but their intentions are poorly formed.

If there are problems, suggest closing the river to all. Alienating one user group to provide more opportunity to up to 2 other user groups only makes matters worse.