Reg's Question

[salmonoid]

laszlo wrote:
I also fish a non-stocked Special Regs TT stream which holds a healthy population of wild brown trout. It annoys the crap out of me when I catch a rainbow. Would it be possible and legal to redistribute the rainbows to another part of the stream? I don't want to kill them but could they be put in a 5 gallon bucket and released in the stocked section of the stream 1/2 mile away? Is this classified as stocking?

What makes you think that moving them 1/2 mile away is going to do anything? If they weren't stocked, they're either wild, or they moved in from a stocked area (possibly > 1/2 mile away). It is a stream afterall - fish swim in it and through it

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Why does it bother you guys if you catch bows in trophy trout water? Browns aren't any more indigenous to the stream than rainbows are. They're both non-native species. Why favor one over the other?

 

[Foxgap239]

I don't mind catching them, I actually like the fight but they aren't going to spawn in this stream and I don't want them pushing out the browns that will. Just personal perference. Others who fish the same stream may disagree which is why I'll follow the reg's and not do anything illegal to move them out. Hopefully floods will move them out.

Signed, the non-scoundrel! :-D

 

[Chaz]

pcray1231 wrote:
afish,

In the Spring creek canyon example, was I technically in violation?

Bait on person. Walking to fish a place where bait is allowed. But the only access was past FFO section, which was not fished, just walked past. The path, however, gets closer than 25 ft to stream in FFO section.

WCO said I was fine, though he might have been exercising leniency. And of course, today, you can access that stretch from the top without going past FFO area. But back then, the posted stretch prevented that.

Yet another reason to get rid of FFO sections.

 

[Heritage-Angler]

Foxgap239 wrote:
Signed, the non-scoundrel! :-D

How did you get Dog to sign your post? :lol:

 

[Foxgap239]

Heritage-Angler wrote:

Foxgap239 wrote:
Signed, the non-scoundrel! :-D

How did you get Dog to sign your post? :lol:

That's okay guys. I won't soon forget how only PatrickC (someone that only knows me through my posts) came to the defense of my character. I guess I know where I stand. :roll:

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Okay so this isn't a wild 'bow population, just some stockers that come from somewhere else? Private stocking, perhaps?

 

[pcray1231]

Yet another reason to get rid of FFO sections.

I'm not all out opposed to FFO. In general, I think it should be VERY lightly used. But it is lightly used, I'm cool with using it in the historically significant places that it is. Don't really think it's necessary to use in the name of conservation, though.

Overall, of the special regs, my favorite is AT C&R. Think that one can be justified as conservation without excluding anyone, and thus I'd give my blessing for the PFBC to use it liberally.

Above paradise was just a strange situation. It's PFBC owned water, under AT no-kill regs. Completely surrounded by state posted property (Rockview prison), except along the stream corridor, which was FFO. So by the letter of the law, you could not take anything not approved in FFO water to the PFBC owned AT water. Kind of defeats the purpose of having AT water if you ask me, why not just make it FFO up to the posted signs?

Eh, but that's in the past now. Spin and bait guys can access the area from the top without passing FFO water.

 

[KeithS]

Pat, I think you were "situationally legal" since the only path to your destination was within 25 feet of the water.
f there was a path further away, you could have been nabbed.

 

[Foxgap239]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
Okay so this isn't a wild 'bow population, just some stockers that come from somewhere else? Private stocking, perhaps?

State stocked bows above the TT area but the TT area is wild browns and pretty good, at that.

 

[Heritage-Angler]

Foxgap239 wrote:
That's okay guys. I won't soon forget how only PatrickC (someone that only knows me through my posts) came to the defense of my character. I guess I know where I stand. :roll:

Easy now. It's our job to bust on you.

We wouldn't hang around you if you were a scoundrel. I'll go on record as describing you as a person of inestimable character. Just the fact that you've shown so much concern on this topic is further proof of that.

You've got nuthin' to prove to your friends - you're stuck with us. :-D

 

[PatrickC]

I would like to point out that the MOST COMMON WORD to follow "inestimable" in a sentence is the word "damage". Sooo, reading between the lines I think they're saying you have an inestimably damaging character? :-D

 

[pcray1231]

I'll go on record as describing you as a person of inestimable character.

As this thread devolved in not knowing how to take statements made in text:

That could be taken either way... Just sayin. :lol:

 

[PatrickC]

Great minds Pcray....GREAT MINDS!!!!!

 

[pcray1231]

GREAT MINDS!!!!!

This is the internet. Those aren't allowed here.

 

[afishinado]

pcray1231 wrote:

Yet another reason to get rid of FFO sections.

I'm not all out opposed to FFO. In general, I think it should be VERY lightly used. But it is lightly used, I'm cool with using it in the historically significant places that it is. Don't really think it's necessary to use in the name of conservation, though.

Overall, of the special regs, my favorite is AT C&R. Think that one can be justified as conservation without excluding anyone, and thus I'd give my blessing for the PFBC to use it liberally.

Above paradise was just a strange situation. It's PFBC owned water, under AT no-kill regs. Completely surrounded by state posted property (Rockview prison), except along the stream corridor, which was FFO. So by the letter of the law, you could not take anything not approved in FFO water to the PFBC owned AT water. Kind of defeats the purpose of having AT water if you ask me, why not just make it FFO up to the posted signs?

Eh, but that's in the past now. Spin and bait guys can access the area from the top without passing FFO water.

I know, I know you are a skilled bait fisherman, but bait fishing and C&R do not go hand in hand...a [d]little[/d] lot wasteful IMO.
Bait fishing, practiced by most anglers, deep hooks an awful lot of fish, and releasing them to die is a waste, IMO. Bait fishing should be allowed in harvest areas only.

I bait fished for a lot of years and have watched others bait fish over those many years. I would estimate I deep hooked more fish in one year bait fishing than adding up all the years I have Fly-fished.

I can't seem to find it anymore, but a report from the Missouri F&G Department, where they run trout fishing parks with FF, ALO & bait fishing regulations in different sections of the Park. It's C&R until the fish reaches 15". Long and short, the report states that 80% of the fish die in the bait section and it has to be restocked at a rate 3 to 4 times more than the FF or ALO sections. They even list instructions on tight-line bait fishing.

Nothing against baiters, just take them home and enjoy your catch. Use artificial lures or flies if you wish to practice C&R.

 

[PatrickC]

WHAT??? They can't post it on the internet if it ain't true ;-)

Sorry for my board insanity today. I'm SC and it's pouring rain. The waves on the beach are pounding and my buddy with the boat said..."Let's wait until tomorrow." There are NO brown trout streams near by to fish in the rain. And as much as I lover the 4 ladies in my world...they are starting to get a little crazy here in the condo. MUST GET OUT TO FISH....

 

[Heritage-Angler]

Ahem.

From Webster's:

Definition of INESTIMABLE
1: incapable of being estimated or computed
2: too valuable or excellent to be measured or appreciated

In the interest of quality Fox busting, carry on. Just remember, he practices voodoo. :-o

 

[PatrickC]

Oh I understand what the definition is. I simply pointed out where it is used most commonly...preceding the word "damage." I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin' ;-)

 

[pcray1231]

Afish, I'm pretty much 100% fly fisherman now. But on a % basis, I probably deep hook more with flies now than I ever did with bait. Which is, a very small % either way.

A lot of it is what type of bait you're using though. Worms = very bad. Powerbait/corn = bad. Eggs = medium. Minnies = not so bad. My typical was strung live minnow rigs, with a single hook in the lips and a single through the tail. Wasn't that different than using streamers, drift, strip, drift, strip, then the rod doubles over. Probably the biggest concern, regarding harming the fish, was that extra hook. If they hooked themselves on the front hook the rear hook would wave around and occasionally grab an unintended piece of fish. But if you didn't use the 2nd hook, you don't hook them unless you let them eat it for a while, which leads to more deep hooking.

Same goes with fly fishing I guess. If you fish a lot of midges/tricos, it's much more of a problem than it is with bigger flies. The worst for me is midge pupa. Nymphing, so sometimes you don't notice the hit as quick as you'd like, and they inhale those little things quickly. Not unsual to hook them as deep as the gills.

Anyway, I tend to think beginners/occasional fishermen are the ones who tend to do more deep hooking. They're also the ones harvesting. And they may be the majority among the bait crowd, but IMO, C&R regs already keep them away. Bait is allowed on Spring Creek, it's used often, and I certainly wouldn't say that stream suffers from too much mortality. I can't think of ANYWHERE with C&R regs where I think accidental fish mortality is a major problem.