Should you be able to fish for downstreamers ?

[bigtj]

PM sent

[Digger]

Darian, On the Middle Fork of the Smith upstream of Patrick’s Creek and upstream of (can’t remember the creek’s name) on the South Fork, the river is closed to fishing. IMHO, this is the ONLY reason the Smith River still has a healthy run of native fish. Allow motors and open up the entire river and the runs as we know them would be all but a memory.

And the landscape of the river hasn’t change much. I’d bet you wouldn’t notice much difference from the last time you were there 40 years ago. I agree with you, it’s continues to be one of the most beautiful steelhead rivers you’ll ever fish.

One major factor being overlooked on the Smith is the designation as a Wild and Scenic River. This status prohibits development, daming. etc. and is the true underpinning to keeping it much the same over the years.

[Covelo]

The Smith has lots of water, no dam, and a pristine watershed, therefore it has lots of fish. I believe the take of wild fish was allowed there because it was the only river in Calif that had a stable population over the last few decades. Not all rivers were experiencing population declines when steelhead were federally listed and CandR regs were mandated. They allowed barbed hooks again because some guides took the DFG Commissioners out fishing and showed them how easy it is to release a fish even with a barb.

The problem with comments like "a dead fish cannot spawn" is that they ignore the primary precept of wildlife management. That being that species over produce during reproduction therefore sustainable harvest can take place without endangering a population. Yes, a dead fish cannot spawn, but killing a fish has no effect on the population unless you kill more than the population can produce. This is basic science. The other side of this coin is that you can release all the fish and not increase the population size if the population is already at saturation. This is a point I have argued many times before regarding the American River where IMO the limiting factor on population size is the amount of habitat, not fishermen. This is where Lee's comments that this is a feel good measure would be true, since the only way to increase the population size for rivers already at saturation is to improve the habitat, with more water being a good starting point in most cases in Calif. The other point that should be made is that saturation refers to fry in the river, not the number of adult spawners though that can also be saturated if the amount of suitable spawning ground is limited such as in the American and Feather Rivers. Biologists can calculate the number of fry a river can sustain based on the surface area, water temp, and other factors. Therefore, any number of fry above this capacity will likely perish before out migration to the ocean. Since steelhead have to spend at least one year in freshwater this becomes a limiting factor, so you can see how you can add more spawners but not increase the number of smolts. Therefore, as long as there are enough spawners to attain saturation with fry, fishermen can kill as many spawners as they want without effecting the size of the population.

As a side note, I have never been one to follow the Precautionary Principal style of wildlife management. This is the policy of taking very conservative positions because we just do not know for sure. Generally it tends to be filled with a lot of "what ifs?". This policy is not based on science.

[Darian]

Hey Covelo,.... As usual, you provide a bunch of good info. A question comes up from your comment about how the guides demonstrated to DFG how easily a fish can be released from a barbed hook and were able to justify using barbed hooks in the Smith as a result.... If they were able to justify relaxing the barbless hook requirement for the Smith in this manner, I'm wondering how DFG can justify requiring barbless hooks in other rivers/streams Wouldn't that justification apply in all rivers/streams You seem to have a good handle on the politics involved in most of this stuff. Thus, the questions.

[WinterrunRon]

Covelo,

I agree with Darian, good input, mister.

"The Smith has lots of water, no dam, and a pristine watershed, therefore it has lots of fish. . I believe the take of wild fish was allowed there because it was the only river in Calif that had a stable population over the last few decades."

Let me interpret your words, if I may. We haven't screwed with it, therefore, we haven't screwed it up! What a surprise!

I only question the barbed hook stuff. It may be easy for the guide to release the fish, but who could argue with the obvious addditional damage it causes to the fish. Real world... it makes a big difference to the fish!

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who has sunk the barb past the epidermal layer of one's own body, KNOWS that that the barb makes a huge difference in the amount of damage, not to mention pain, it causes when trying to remove it. In the words of Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

[Covelo]

As for barbed hooks, Oregon has relaxed its previous requirement for barbless hooks on rivers where natives need to be released, ie Deschutes River. I see no reason why Calif should keep this reg for rivers other than the Smith. I have used both for many years and have never had a steelhead that was damaged or tough to release due to the barb even when using bait. IMO treple hooks are a bigger pain when 2 or 3 points are buried. Also, as was eluded to in a post above, how you fight and release a fish is critical. Fighting a fish to exhaustion, then beaching it for a photograph probably causes the death of more fish. Even when they swim away and seem fine, they can still succumb later due to complications from the length of the fight. If you intend to release them anyway, it is best to give them some slack and let them do their thing. The tug is the drug anyway, not beaching them.

[jhaquett]

I don't even know if you were hitting upon the topic of, "do fish feel pain when hooked" Winterrunron, but whatever, I thought I would
The epidermal layers of our skin, especially our mouth, have thousands more nerve ends than a fishes mouth does. Actually, the only people who have "proved" that fish feel pain when hooked is a British University that was paid off by PETA so that they could use the study in their campaigns. They proved this by injecting fishes mouths with bee venom and acetic acid and recording their response
I do completely agree that barbs tear up the mouth, create holes in the thin membrane around the jaw, etc, and in smaller, softer fish (planters especially) barbs can really cause some major problems when attemping to dislodge them!
My personal experience is that barbs have miniscule effects on steelhead though, being that they are such a tough fish
Covelo has an excellent point, lactic acid poisoning due to too long of a fight and respiration complications due to post-fight photography and "show-off" are the main causes of death in sport fish, especially ones that put up such a fight like steelhead. I've read that fish, especially planters and other weak fish in oxygen-deficient lakes can die up to three days after release! I personally try to minimize this by hauling in fish whenever possible and unhooking/releasing without them ever leaving the water.

[WinterrunRon]

"I see no reason why Calif should keep this reg for rivers other than the Smith. I have used both for many years and have never had a steelhead that was damaged or tough to release due to the barb even when using bait."

I fail to understand why barbs are needed on a hook. If the tug is the drug, what's the point? (no pun intended). Respectfully, I see no reason not to require barbless on every steelhead river system. And never? Really? Fishing many years for steelhead and never... hard to believe. I've hooked fish in their eye, I've had them bleed trying to extract a hook with a barb I've forgotten to pinch, I've ended up cutting the line rather than trying to extract the hook. And this happens every year! I've been fishing for many years as well, and I have yet to have a fish bleed or needed to cut the line leaving the hook embedded in the fish when using a barbless hook. Seems to me, prevention is the best medicine. Of course, I'm coming from the position of what's best for the fish, not the guide.

jhaquett, I don't know about the pain aspect. My guess would be they've evolved with the need for little in the way of sensory about the mouth. But my point is more towards the tear and bleeding that can and does occur when a barbed hook is forced from a vascular area of the fish.

[jhaquett]

Definitely no argument there. It seems to me the only people who would be upset about a state-wide barbless regulation are people who plan to keep the fish, because of the fact that you lose a few more with barbless hooks. I am completely 100% against the keeping of any wild fish, and about 95% against the keeping of a fish period. Although I like to land all of my fish, I don't mind losing one or two more for the better of the fish

[Covelo]

If you are hooking fish in the eye I do not think the barb really matters. I cannot remember the last time I hooked a fish in the gills. Probably a salmon when I was back bouncing roe and you let them practically swim away with it before setting the hook.

Comparing from when we used to fish the Deschutes with barbless, we found that we lost just as many fish as we did after we went back to using a barb after the regs changed. The hook either hits a good spot or it doesn't. The rest is how good you are at keeping up, not whether you have a barb. There is a reason they call it coffin corner. My problem with a barb is in the enforcement. You can use it in one stretch of the river but not in another. It makes no sense. I often just plain forget to pinch it. Why should that be criminal? Then you hear about the nightmare LE stories with wardens dragging pieces of cloth over the hook to see if it catches. In the end, barbs have a minimal impact to a fishery. We tend to get caught up in these smaller issues and miss the causes of the declines. We are often bailing with a thimble.