E
everett464
Haha... fair enough. The conversation is probably a dead horse at this point, but no doubt we'll see it come up again.
Bait fisherman beware.
B
bigsteel
its not the bait fishermen although bait does tend to br swallowed whole.,,,its the meat fishermen,,,people that feel entitled they should get their stringer of fish because their fishing,,,how many bait guys do you know that practice catch and release with bait?like you said most people wont fish for something they can't keep.so inturn odfw plants hot dog sized trout for the meat fishermen so they can feel humble with their stringer full of small trout...steelheadstalker31 said:
jamisonace
Fly fishing has the lowest, then lure and bait has the highest. Personally, on the stretches that I fish that are all wild/all C&R I'd like to see single hook only too. I do like the idea of taking my friends for a float around leaburg and them having the opportunity to fish for thousands fish however they please. Even if flies outfish bait 5 to 1 it's just harder for them to use the fly gear so a lot of times they revert to eggs or worms.
JeannaJigs said:
S
steelhead_stalkers
Spinners do just as much damage to native fish and smolts as bait! A #3 spinner slammed by a nice redside has a great chance at puncturing its eye, gills and many other vital areas!
Make it catch an release for trout. Allow bait for steelhead and salmon. This will take away the trout meat eaters and let the steelhead and salmon anglers fish. You can catch just as many fish without bait so it really does not matter. :lol:
Make it catch an release for trout. Allow bait for steelhead and salmon. This will take away the trout meat eaters and let the steelhead and salmon anglers fish. You can catch just as many fish without bait so it really does not matter. :lol:
Last edited:
E
everett464
I agree, treble hooks will jack a trout up in a hurry. I have seen single hook quickfish and spinners, but the reality is that almost no one is using them.
C
crusty old fisherman
bigsteel said:
Personally I eat very little salmon or steelhead and I dont even fish for trout, but I can see people wanting to keep some fish ; heck the price of a licence seems like you should at least get to have a meal now and then for that price. on top of the price of the licence how are you going to tell some little kid that just caught his first fish ever that he can't keep it and brag to all his friends?
the fly fishermen pretty much have everything above leaburg and from haydn bridge down to harrisburg I am a firm believer that there should be a section of the mckenzie that is managed for catch and keep fishing. one last thought... most people wont eat the trout and frown heavily about eating any fish that comes out of the willamette so that only leaves the mckenzie dont you suppose that ODFW would lose huge amounts of licence sales in lane country if there were no place to go catch hatchery trout and eat them except the nastiest water in the county?
one other thing you need to think about is that from lane county we have many rivers but ODFW has stripped most of them of any hatchery fish period out of 11 coastal rivers and streams that used to be planted with steelhead and trout there are only 2 drainages that are still planted in a very limited way, the siuslaw lake creek and the alsea. lane county gets very little in the way of plants of any kind. letting them remove the trout plants from the mckenzie is just one step closer to us not getting any plants of any kind in the upper valley.
Crusty
Last edited:
E
everett464
Joking? I can't tell if this is a real person, or someone with an alias account posting ridiculous stuff to flame the thread.
You do realize this is Oregon, and there are roughly ten billion places to fish within 45 minutes of any spot in the state, right?
How about Fall Creek, Salmon Creek, Salt Creek, The Coast Fork, The Row, even the Siuslaw and its trib's, or if you really have the urge to get your money's worth, Alton Baker pond.
C
crusty old fisherman
i assure you I am a real person and I also assure you I was not trying to flame this thread so simmer down hoss.
like I said nasty water alton baker, and only the fall creek impoundment has hatchery plants of which there is very little bank access for kids to fish , as for the others you mentioned they are all wild fish are those wild fish not worthy of protecting? we are talking about fish that people who shell out their hard earned dollars on a licence can take home and eat.
I think instead of looking at it in a selfish manner one should look at it from a point of view about who all it would affect.
like I said nasty water alton baker, and only the fall creek impoundment has hatchery plants of which there is very little bank access for kids to fish , as for the others you mentioned they are all wild fish are those wild fish not worthy of protecting? we are talking about fish that people who shell out their hard earned dollars on a licence can take home and eat.
I think instead of looking at it in a selfish manner one should look at it from a point of view about who all it would affect.
E
everett464
I guess when it comes down to it, we are talking about a difference of philosophy.
I really love fishing, if I fished all year, and never ate a fish that I caught, I would still, no doubt, be happy. It cost roughly ten dollars to see a movie these days, and when you add in popcorn and a soda, it is almost a Hamilton. 37 bucks for a fishing license is not something that I feel bad about spending, but I do understand that some folks feel the weight of that expense more than others.
I can admit that, at some level, I see both sides of this argument, but as someone who enjoys the "sport" element of fishing, I just can't see any good reason to continue to degrade waters that could be some of the best in the country.
