Carp fishing without groundbait?

Hello all. I know there haven't been a lot of people on this forum lately but if anyone can help me out here that would be great.

I am interested in knowing if there are any legal alternatives to groundbaiting in Oregon. Oregon's regulations as a whole are not very carp-friendly (no groundbaiting, no multiple rods without paying more, no tents), which is frustrating, but I'd rather be inconvenienced than have to pay a fine. I was wondering though if there are legal alternatives to throwing bait out in the water to attract carp to the area, as this technique (at least in traditional European carp fishing) is important. What I have in mind are contraptions that distribute extra bait while still being technically attached to the hook/rig. Examples include swim feeders, method feeders, and PVA bags. I want to know if any of these are viable options. If anyone has any input or questions about what the specifics of each of those methods entail, I'd love to hear some feedback. Thank you.
 

bubs

Active member
Are you from Europe or just watching too much Youtube haha?
  • Chumming: Putting any substance, not attached to the hook, in the water to attract fish.
I apologize for the snark, but I'm just not sure what's not clear to you about this extremely clear reg. If it's not attached to the hook it's chumming. The three devices you mention are not attached to the hook. They are attached to your line or rig, yes. Not the same thing.

Even if you bury your hook/bait into a ball of feed in a feeder, the idea is still clearly that the feed will disperse or be eaten away, ultimately exposing your bait/hook, which is in no way attached directly to the feed/feeding device.

I don't know what to tell you man, I catch carp all day on a small piece of nightcrawler threaded onto a small hook so that only the point is exposed. Why do all that fancy European bs? (Btw I actually think some of the rigs used in Europe and the UK are really sweet, just razzing you)
 

Camo

Member
The way you structured your post opened a window into the reasoning behind many of OF&W restrictions. Illegal to chum for carp? I believe most of us circumvent regulations at times, not as a deliberate attempt, but to even the playing field.

In my personal opinion, it's ''We The People'', not ''Them The Government''. I'm not in any way suggesting we bring a little can of cut corn for carp bait and spilling a bit of the liquid where we are fishing to draw the carp to the kernels of corn on our hook! What I am suggesting is that the Govmt back OFF and realize that a few of these restrictions have a negative effect on proposed outcomes. Unless violation revenue is possibly their main concern. There are many other avenues to pursue for revenue then to single out people traditionally carp fishing for recreation.

An example might be; You( or me) net a native salmon and see the hooks ripped it's gills to to point that this fish will become lunch for the nearest sea lion. In a few seconds it's DOA. This is not the first and surely not be the last time a fish is released- knowing the chance of survival is zero. That action may go against moral judgement and a better solution would be for OF&W to approach this matter differently.

Sorry for the rant.
I fell much better now.
 
Camo;n603441 said:
The way you structured your post opened a window into the reasoning behind many of OF&W restrictions. Illegal to chum for carp? I believe most of us circumvent regulations at times, not as a deliberate attempt, but to even the playing field.

In my personal opinion, it's ''We The People'', not ''Them The Government''. I'm not in any way suggesting we bring a little can of cut corn for carp bait and spilling a bit of the liquid where we are fishing to draw the carp to the kernels of corn on our hook! What I am suggesting is that the Govmt back OFF and realize that a few of these restrictions have a negative effect on proposed outcomes. Unless violation revenue is possibly their main concern. There are many other avenues to pursue for revenue then to single out people traditionally carp fishing for recreation.

An example might be; You( or me) net a native salmon and see the hooks ripped it's gills to to point that this fish will become lunch for the nearest sea lion. In a few seconds it's DOA. This is not the first and surely not be the last time a fish is released- knowing the chance of survival is zero. That action may go against moral judgement and a better solution would be for OF&W to approach this matter differently.

Sorry for the rant.
I fell much better now.

I couldn't agree more. Speaking to your salmon example I've caught numerous badly hooked/exhausted salmon that were not legal to keep and by releasing them I condemned them to a certain death. Salmon in particular have bad survival rates upon being released, as they are delicate and difficult to revive once exhausted (especially at sea). I've watch many salmon that I couldn't keep float away while bleeding to death and it calls into question the morality of such an action. There's lots of ODFW regs that seem nonsensical, and although I am no way going to break them or expect them to change, I do agree that the department should look into revising some of their policies.
 

bubs

Active member
I'll chime back in here. I believe that it's immature to think legal issues like this are black and white (not accusing anyone here of doing so by the way, that only happens on IFish ha ha!). Especially without a biologist who knows way more about this stuff than any of us explaining the environmental or biological reasoning behind a regulation like prohibiting chumming. I would like it if the ODFW spent a few hours to post such reasons online/publicly for all to see.

I think we can rule out the idea that regs like the chumming one are in place to collect violation revenue. I mean, come on, how many authorities are actually on the ground out there inspecting carp fishers' tackle in Oregon? Yeah... but I admit it's a curious one tho, given that carp are non-native and actually damaging to certain ecosystems (e.g. wapato plants in the Portland basin). Would love to know more about this one..but I mean, my gut instinct tells me that throwing a bunch of weird human food into a river or lake isn't the best idea, maybe that's just me?

The issue with releasing damaged salmonids you two bring up is tricky. But think about it for a minute: if it were legal to retain "damaged" native steelhead in the Tillamook system, for example, how could you stop people from lining the banks of the Wilson, keeping perfectly healthy natives by the hundreds if not thousands, while figuring if approached by an LEO they would just claim it was damaged? Those numbers, in my mind, would skyrocket waaay beyond the actual number of damaged salmonids we grudgingly release under current regs. Plus, from a biological perspective, a dead/dying salmon released back into a water system it came from is much less of a blow to the local ecosystem in general than that fish being removed by a human. So how would a reg involving keeping damaged salmonids even work? Some way of documenting they were damaged? I'm not buying it.

Lastly, consider this. Have you taken every reasonable step to avoid hooking/damaging no-take fish (modifying your rig, location, timing, approach etc)? Have you contemplated the fact that when you put a hook in the water, the basic nature of what you're doing is destructive (ripping a piece of metal into a living creature) and the consequences are your responsibility and yours alone? Have you got a better idea about how to manage fisheries that is at least as informed as that produced by the dozens of biologists etc who work on state regs like ODFW's? If the answer is "no" to any of these questions, my humble opinion is that any complaint about the regs is void.
 

EOBOY

Well-known member
Bubs, I tried to like your well thought out tristy, all I got was a sign saying no likes yet.........weird.
 
Top Bottom