Spear Fishing

[STEELIES/26c3]

I do believe this lil piece of water has been flogged to to point of absurdity. Perhaps it’s time to just let it rest a bit?

He be a dirty flosser
a steelie double crosser
that dude there fishin water that's clear
ought to get the hell outa here
go downtown where the water be brown
like the governor who wants to sell it
down, down, down the river
and the fish don't stand a chance
down, down, down the river
As the takers all advance
sticky, stinky stan be baitin' up his hook
and fly guys with polarized eyes give him their dirty looks
as they wade the redds, I scratch my head and the spawning fish disperse
This urban fishery it seems is oh so badly cursed
Skagit Sam and Scandi Stan lookin' down their noses
at the single handed, nasty nymphin', indi-bobber-bozos
Dry fly purist Paul he skates his big 'Skawally'
and damn you using sink tips man, at least attach a poly!
We all disgrace ourselves somehow... and this river we've been given
and yet, together, here we are by its unifying force we're driven
down, down, down the river
and the fish don't stand a chance
down, down, down the river
As the takers all advance

ME
TONIGHT

[Rossflyguy]

He be a dirty flosser
a steelie double crosser
that dude there fishin water that's clear
ought to get the hell outa here
go downtown where the water be brown
like the governor who wants to sell it
down, down, down the river
and the fish don't stand a chance
down, down, down the river
As the takers all advance
sticky, stinky stan be baitin' up his hook
and fly guys with polarized eyes give him their dirty looks
as they wade the redds, I scratch my head and the spawning fish disperse
This urban fishery it seems is oh so badly cursed
Skagit Sam and Scandi Stan lookin' down their noses
at the single handed, nasty nymphin', indi-bobber-bozos
Dry fly purist Paul he skates his big 'Skawally'
and damn you using sink tips man, at least attach a poly!
We all disgrace ourselves somehow... and this river we've been given
and yet, together, here we are by its unifying force we're driven
down, down, down the river
and the fish don't stand a chance
down, down, down the river
As the takers all advance

ME
TONIGHT

Well said.

[winxp_man]

So I’m to believe every fish you’ve ever released didn’t die? I guess you keep in touch with all your fish? Wonder what type of service fish use to contact you? And what credentials do others and people on this forum have to make me believe your ethics and fish releasing abilities are “legendary”? The way you criticize people makes me think very little of your ethics. You need to come off your high horse. You’re a legend in your own mind.

Rossman I guess you must not know about fish handling much. I even net bass if I'm not wading.

But whatever floats your boat bud. You have your mind made up that striper are a big enough cause to the low salmon and steelhead numbers. So a person with no fact links posted should not be talkin in my opinion. Its how this whole subject got started. You come on this forum with what seems your hate for stripers and bluntly show it to everyone. And that is fine but without facts to back it up it does not make one bit of difference what your opinion is.


The people that created this state back in 1850 knew they had a problem with fish numbers by 1870 its one of the reasons why hatcheries where even commissioned. Also there was so much knowledge (from the late 1800's even!) that with out a fish bypass above the dams that have been built back then, the fish numbers will go down! This was before stripers where even a dam thing. I f you truly want to read about all of this I can make a away for anyone to get a hold of all the reading material. FACT is the minute dams and commercial fishing started numbers of salmon/steelhead would be screwed! Here is another fun fact. The bull trout died off and are gone from the mccloud river for ever...… Not a single damn striper was involved.


You Rossfly would make a very bad detective...… Again let me know if you want info on facts. Would not mind sharing it, but I do mind if I waste my time.



As posted above me, NO ONE IS SAYING stripers don't have some sort of effect! The POINT is stripers have as much effect as sport fishermen (non poachers).

In the end hey lets kill off all the stripers..... this way the people with a clear view of what is going on can tell the ones blaming stripers...….We told you its not it!

I even mentioned to one of the anti striper guys on here to look at Canada and its fish problems with no stripers in the area to make the problems and even less dams!!!!!!!!! But this type of info is over looked because once again it does not fit and agenda of some sort.

[winxp_man]

I am not sure why you capitalized clear.... Do you want people shooting spears in opaque water ?

I guess comprehension is not a thing any longer. The POINT was based off the aquarium sized river! Have you ever fished the yuba? And to add on top that when you dive fish are not as freaked out? I know because I have dove around fish populations....

So lets simplify it...…. Aquarium Size + Clear river + Fish that are not that afraid...… Should I write out the sum for you???

[Rossflyguy]

Rossman I guess you must not know about fish handling much. I even net bass if I'm not wading.

But whatever floats your boat bud. You have your mind made up that striper are a big enough cause to the low salmon and steelhead numbers. So a person with no fact links posted should not be talkin in my opinion. Its how this whole subject got started. You come on this forum with what seems your hate for stripers and bluntly show it to everyone. And that is fine but without facts to back it up it does not make one bit of difference what your opinion is.


The people that created this state back in 1850 knew they had a problem with fish numbers by 1870 its one of the reasons why hatcheries where even commissioned. Also there was so much knowledge (from the late 1800's even!) that with out a fish bypass above the dams that have been built back then, the fish numbers will go down! This was before stripers where even a dam thing. I f you truly want to read about all of this I can make a away for anyone to get a hold of all the reading material. FACT is the minute dams and commercial fishing started numbers of salmon/steelhead would be screwed! Here is another fun fact. The bull trout died off and are gone from the mccloud river for ever...… Not a single damn striper was involved.


You Rossfly would make a very bad detective...… Again let me know if you want info on facts. Would not mind sharing it, but I do mind if I waste my time.



As posted above me, NO ONE IS SAYING stripers don't have some sort of effect! The POINT is stripers have as much effect as sport fishermen (non poachers).

In the end hey lets kill off all the stripers..... this way the people with a clear view of what is going on can tell the ones blaming stripers...….We told you its not it!

I even mentioned to one of the anti striper guys on here to look at Canada and its fish problems with no stripers in the area to make the problems and even less dams!!!!!!!!! But this type of info is over looked because once again it does not fit and agenda of some sort.

Glad you’re putting words in my mouth. Guess you haven’t read anything I’ve said about my opinion on striper and just cherry pick phrases as you skim through it. When I offered proof of what I’ve been saying you guys focus on “stripers aren’t the only cause” and quote ONE scientists results where as I can link several. If you base your facts on “they aren’t causing salmon decline” than you haven’t heard anything I’ve said because I never said that. Especially if you’re going to talk about hatcheries and fish ladders in the 1800’s when California didn’t start building dams until the mid 1900’s. All your “facts” don’t justify that striper still eat smolt. As much as you stomp your feet they eat smolt. Just seems like you’re googling facts and posting them on this forum just to see if someone will jump on your band wagon. You even went as far as to bring up the extinction of bull trout. Lol, that has nothing to do with salmon and striper relationships. Just stop man, you’re not gonna win this when we all know they eat smolt. This has gone on too long for such an obvious thing.

[STEELIES/26c3]

I'm a long time striper guy and also a serious steelhead and salmon angler with a very deep love and healthy respect for our delicate American River fisheries...

I know tons of anglers from the over nearly 30 years I have fished the river on a regular and often daily basis...

I have VERY FEW fishing friends with whom I readily and openly fish and openly share reports and information. This is primarily for the greater good of the fisheries and ecosystem/s at large and secondarily for my selfish reasons.

Aron (WINXPMAN) is one of the exceptional few, I hold no secrets from. Over the 10 or so years I've known him, he has continuously and constantly demonstrated an absolute respect and selfless love for our river and the fish and other creatures therein.

I selectively harvest my fair share of schoolie-sized stripers, as well as salmon and steelhead for the dinner table.

Aron has a zero limit philosophy but beyond that, he also takes the time to research, to know the issues, to refrain from bragging about his skills as an angler or say/do anything that would compromise the well being of the river.

This year, I caught and released a 48 inch striper in a certain, favorite run of mine. I told Aron the whole story and the next day, he sent me a photo of HIS (different) 48 inch striper. It could very well have been an IGFA, fly-caught record on our river but his priority was a fast photo, revive and release.

Yes, stripers eat salmonid smolts but the science (and my 60,000 hours on the AR, fishing and studying its ecosystems) suggest that it pales in comparison to so many other human-caused and biological factors which affect salmonid mortality.

The above issues have been beaten like a dead horse (why would you beat a horse that's already dead anyway???) alas, I have refrained from comment.

My biggest problem with the mindset that 'stripers are the enemy' and need to be eradicated... is that buying into it blinds so many to the real issue of maintaining sustainable flow regimes in our rivers which in turn, keeps our bay and delta saline-balanced and allows for the perpetual ebb and flow of anadromous fish species between our state's headwaters and the Pacific Ocean.

It will be a sad day if those tunnels are constructed and the power of the people to have a voice and a stake in the management of our public trust resources goes to the wayside.

Stripers, our now a part of the life history of California and as such, deserve protection. As has been noted ad infinitum... they lived in harmonious balance with salmon and other species for well over 100 years.

If we eradicated all game fish not non-native to California, there would be very few species to fish for...

We ought make the balanced best of what we have and spearfishing, though likely will not ever completelty wipe out the striper population, just does not seem a good fit for a multi-use recreational area where folks fish, snorkel, raft, kayak and swim. Additionally, it isn't very sporting to stalk- with a high-powered, lethal weapon -a large, slow moving fish which will swim up to you and eat a crawdad out of your hand.

You'll see me on the river... unless I see you first

[leicafish]

This has been a painful read at times mainly because it is clear to me that vilifying the striper as a major cause in the decline of salmon is a strategy that is working for the big water users south of the Delta. As we as fishermen argue about whose fish is eating what, they suck away more water so they can sell nuts overseas. If you drive down I5 you can see them planting on the west side in the foothills now. I love the the propaganda on the freeway: Signs reading "Where water flows food grows" It should read "where water flows money grows" or "where money flows water goes"

This is a nice article from the Bee summarizing what's going on. Peter Moyle and other biologists are quoted in it.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/en...e76228187.html

Fishermen of all types and other users of the environment need to come together to fight for more water for all our fisheries instead of falling prey to their propaganda. For those of you who don't know, Kevin McCarthy from Bakersfield might very well become speaker of the House next year when Paul Ryan retires. We're in trouble then....

[ycflyfisher]

I looked up the regs for spearfishing on the American. It is legal from May 1 to Sept 15 only a mile downstream from Arden. The stretch upstream to the dam is closed to spearfishing. So to Bryan's original question it appears that the shooter was legal if the fish was shot at Watt. If anyone sees someone spearfishing above "a mile below Arden" then they ought to call the warden or ranger. The other stuff related to transport etc is less clear to me.

Why not try and get the regulations changed? It's not written in stone and obviously a bunch of spear fisherman snookered us a few years ago by getting this through the FGC. There would be a lot in favor of banning spearfishing for stripers. 1) Safety. Spearfishing season on the A is also rafting season on the A. Spearguns and rafts are a bad mix. Great visual there. 2) The rule is inconsistent with other regs. There are no other gamefish allowed to be speared in inland waters. 3) Perhaps most importantly there must be a ton more fisherman(and not just fly fisherman) that would favor a ban on spearfishing stripers than there are those in favor. Think the next FGC regs review cycle is 2019.

Gary

Respectfully, I don't see this as a viable argument, let alone one that could gain traction with the FGC. First matters of public safety fall outside the scope of the FRC (to make regulatory decisions in regards to fisheries and ecosystem management). And until you have recorded incidents of spearfisherman endangering the public, you have nothing regardless of how strong a visual you may think it presents.


I think you'd be hard pressed to convince members of this very forum, let alone the general public, that the potential public safety threat to rafters from spearfishers is somehow more significant than it would be from flyanglers who are whipsawing 2/0 flies on 90+ feet of leadcore and flyline around.

I have no doubt that you'd have no trouble finding a large group of both fly and gear anglers that would like to see spearing on the American banned. Likewise, you'd have no trouble finding a large contingent of gear anglers that are against the fly only designated section on the Trinity. Would you also argue they should proceed with that?

You're new here, but as you've probably gathered from comments from others, this isn't a new discussion to this forum. It's one Tony has forced on this forum over, and over, and over, and over, AND OVER, ad infinitum. The notion that spearfishers that likely number in the dozens, over a truncated season on a small designated section of the American River( probably less than 0.001 percent of all available striper habitat in the Sac-SJ ecosystem) ARE DEFINITELY going to have a measurable, and terminal effect on recruitment is nothing short of bizarre. The average 'party boat' probably has more of an impact in a month than the spearfishers do in an entire season.

What's really going on here is knee-jerk levels of pure emotion and IMO an untenable position to deny an entire group of anglers access because their methods are not approved of.


If you're really considering expending the effort, I really think you need to ask yourself if your rationalizations are defensible and if the impact 'concern' is really a legit concern.

[ycflyfisher]

I dont understand the argument, because Stripe Bass only eat smolt when smolt are present they do not hurt salmon populations. If SB diet consists of 10% smolt considering smolt are only available 10% of the time means when smolt are present they are being gorged...

Smolt have to eat to make it back to the ocean. What do juvenile SB eat? Are smolt not competing for much of the same food as juvenile SB?

Dont SB also live in the ocean and are they not preying on smolt their entire journey up the coast?

Last but not least, returning salmon bring valuable nutrients back into the river systems that energizes the food web both SB and smolt.

My 2 Cents, paint a stipe on the sea lions and let the spear fishermen have at it.

I would think that interspecies comp between SBs and premigrant/ smolting Chinooks is minimal.

First you've got a large degree of spatial separation between habitats typically utilized by developing juvie Chinooks and larval SBs. There's undoubtedly some overlap, but where that occurs, it's more than likely marginal habitat for both species.

Second, you've got differing temporal development rates- by the time the first larval SBs are spawned, Chinooks are typically in excess of 75mm FL and aren't limited to zoo and phytoplankton. By the time those larval SBs are nearing the end of their 1st year of life, they're~ twice the size of Chinooks. Likely some overlap in exploited food resources, but again over a fairly short outmigration window. By the end of their 2nd year of life I'd think the majority of the interspecies impact results from predation.


The predation potential of SBs on Chinooks definitely doesn't end once the salmon hit the salt, but to my knowledge, little to no effort has been made to determine this impact.


I think this is still an excellent question because this aspect of comp is ignored in totality by the linesides contingent on this forum. Interspecies comp between age 1- SBs and age 1- Delta Smelt ( a native listed species on the doorstep to extirpation) and age 1- LF Smelt (which would be listed if it didn't exist in places outside the Sac-SJ Delta) has the potential to be more significant.

[ycflyfisher]

I've read about 6 of the most recent predation studies and (there's a LOT more than that out there) and it's difficult for me to draw any definitive conclusions about how severe the SB impact to Chinooks really is. It's something that simply cannot be reduced to a 'net sum' linear relationship as SBs are opportunistic and prey everything native and non-native species alike. Many of those non-native species not only are also potential predators of Chinooks and other natives, but are likely driving other non-beneficial interactions with pelagic natives.

The reality as I see it is if SBs were significantly less abundant there would be some release on Chinooks and other natives, but there would also be meso-predator release amongst the numerous non-native species SBs also prey upon and potentially limit. Would the net result have a positive impact? I'm skeptical.

The Delta and it's tribs is a geomorphically manipulated ecosystem that's described in peer reviewed science as being more 'like Clear Lake' than an alluvial floodplain. The number of non-native/ invasives outnumber the native species by factors of hundreds of percent. In terms of total biomass, that factor becomes thousands, not hundreds. There aren't any easy or obvious solutions.

Predation is a very complex multispecies interaction that seems to be very difficult to study. The predator density manipulation studies suggest to a degree that predator density doesn't seem to matter in terms of net predation and that location (bottlenecks and predator hotspots) is what drives predation events.


Yet some of the watershed specific studies show that predation hotspots move based on conditions. And can vary wildly from seasons to season.

Some of the confidence intervals ( SBs could be consuming 0-12 grams of D. Smelt per bass per year) don't inspire much confidence. At 0 grams, you have no problem, at 12, you have no smelt.


It's not that the science is bad or deficient, but the conclusions some of that science draws isn't as helpful as it could be in terms of helping manage fisheries or ecosystems.