Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Anybody commenting proposed trout regulations for CA?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Back to the subject at hand: (and a few more opinions)

    As for changing the season open dates some waters that do not have conditions suitable for natural reproduction should be open year round no one should worry about that. It may require the DFW to plant more fish but it will not affect the natural order of the fishery.

    However, in places where there is natural reproduction the months that fish naturally reproduce and where wading is the primary access, then the redds should be protected by having a closed season until after the majority of the fry have left the nest examples might be McCloud River, Hot Creek, Hat Creek, Putah Creek. I did not include the Fall River because the majority of fishing is done from a boat and there is a 0 take limit. I did not include Pit 3 because the difficulty to get in to that water does keep many people away from it.

    It seems that the DFW wants to reduce the use of slot limits in order to reduce confusion, slot limits are useful to manage fisheries but I can understand where some people find it confusing or frustrating. When using slot limits the size restrictions need to be closely monitored and adjusted or they no longer serve their purpose. This also requires more effort on the part of the DFW wardens which we know are under staffed already.

    Bag limits are a useful tool but unnecessary to go below 4 or 5 where the majority of the fish are stocked. In waters where there is natural reproduction reducing or eliminating bag limits is a useful tool for fisheries and it should be maintained in my opinion.

    I guess one bone of contention is can year round fishing pressure, the use of bait or artificial lures actually decimate a fishery or does environment play a larger role. Again if the fishery is naturally reproducing it certainly will have an effect. If the the fishery is all or mostly stocked fish than in my humble opinion it does not matter, it just means increased stocking may be necessary.

    As an example: Fishtopher asked for an example of a stream in CA where fish availability is in decline. Obviously in the case of Hot creek near Mammoth the fishery was decimated from it’s former glory and for the first time in many years stocking took place last year. That piece of water is open year round and it does have a restriction of artificial fly only (soon to be changed to artificial lure or fly).

    Was it fishing pressure from year round access, excessive vegetation, drought, or year round access with the potential for redd destruction to blame? Perhaps it was the NZ mud snails that reduced the available microorganisms which in turn reduced the insect population or the use of insecticides at the golf course or within the town of Mammoth that caused reduced insect populations thereby reducing food and reducing fish. I have not seen a complete study on that piece of water that was conclusive on the cause of the reduced fish per mile. Regardless the DFW decided to stock it in order to maintain it as a viable fishery. This was the press release from CDFG: “For unknown reasons, the Hot Creek fishery appears to have declined substantially in recent years, with markedly lower catch rates and few trophy (>18”) fish coming to the creel. Drought-related impacts are the suspected cause, including low flows, lack of flushing flows in late spring/early summer to mobilize fine sediments and expose spawning gravels, potential changes in water quality/chemistry and increased aquatic vegetation.”

    Changing the regs to allow artificial lures will probably not be a factor that would add to the Hot Creek waters decline and it is quite narrow so it is not necessary to wade it although some do. Of course having a reduced season and a no wading restriction might have stopped the mud snail and reduced the chance of a redd being trampled it might even have allowed enough fry to survive the drought and additional stocking would not have been necessary. It may be year round because I believe that the Hot Creek Ranch lobbied for that in order to maintain their business during the winter months. They also lobbied for the increased stocking for the same reason I believe.

    Regards,

    Tim C.
    Last edited by tcorfey; 04-20-2019 at 01:50 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    835

    Default

    I roll with several dfw biologists including from wild trout program. According to them slot limits are becoming ineffective because of the commitment from a large bloc of fishermen to c and r. In addition c and r of non native fish in places is impacting native fish populations. In a wierd way, c and r, in some places, is causing dfw to lose their ability to manage the fishery. Inking some brookies and some rainbows in cutthroat water is helpful. I didn’t see the increased brookie limit north of 80 like they were proposing. Did I miss it?
    I have pretty strong opinions like everyone here does. My opinions see to be a little portion of a bunch of peoples posting here. I appreciate the diversity of posts!

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    452

    Default

    John,

    I agree differing opinions is what this is all about. Interesting info regarding C&R and how it is impacting native populations.

    From the general regs
    (9) SPECIAL BROOK TROUT BONUS BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT

    (A) IN SIERRA DISTRICT WATERS OF SISKIYOU, SHASTA AND TEHAMA COUNTIES, UP TO 10 BROOK TROUT
    PER DAY LESS THAN 8 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED IN ADDITION TO THE
    OTHER DAILY BAG AND POSSESSION LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR THE SIERRA DISTRICT.

    (B) IN THE SIERRA DISTRICT SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80, UP TO 10 BROOK TROUT PER DAY LESS THAN 10
    INCHES TOTAL LENGTH MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER DAILY BAG AND
    POSSESSION LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR THE SIERRA DISTRICT. THIS ALLOWANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE RED
    LAKE IN ALPINE COUNTY OR KIRMAN, LANE OR ROOSEVELT LAKES IN MONO COUNTY.

    Regards,

    Tim C.
    Last edited by tcorfey; 04-20-2019 at 03:49 PM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    139

    Default

    I get the inclination from CDFW staff that Hot Creek may not see reg changes from a fly only water. The argument can be made as one of opportunity....this one for the opportunity to fish this water as should by as many as it should like the regulations that are in place there have created over the years. Yes this is a review process and pointing out that this is ground covered many years ago when a vision for a quality fly fishing venue could be had. There is no lost opportunity by anyone using any legal gear short of bait having the regs the way they are now.
    Maybe this argument can be made for other similar situations up to the north as well.
    Please comment on something. You don't have to make a complete argument to tell them that you are being effected in your fishing expectations.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Rosa
    Posts
    338

    Default

    "Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
    And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive.
    When i lived in East Sac for 20 years, every spare moment i had i was down at Paradise Beach/H Street drifting mini crawlers. Caught way more fish than the fly guys and that's a fact. When i was very young and stupid and didn't know what regs were, i actually fished the Lower Yuba with worms one day. Lol. You would not believe the numbers of fish i caught that day. I must say probably 40 or so. Thought i died and went to heaven. A fly guy across the river "informed" me that bait wasnt allowed there. As i said before, no trout will refuse a crawler. If you allow that on wild trout streams, with a 5 fish bag, kiss it goodbye. I could have 50 perfect drifts through a prime run and not get a bump with a fly. But if i put on a live worm you better believe I'd get bit.
    Last edited by Jeff F; 04-21-2019 at 03:45 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Rosa
    Posts
    338

    Default

    And just one more thing to say before im done with this thread. Ponder this for me please.....
    Picture in your mind walking down to your favorite go-to spot and you see 3 people coming up the trail with 5 fish each on stringers. And you end up with a slow frustrating day. Id really be interested in knowing your thoughts when you're driving home from the river.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Stockton
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Regardless of what anyone thinks of the proposed changes that might or might not happen. Bottom line is if we have no fish to catch to enjoy whether we like to c&r or take home to eat. There will be a lot of jobs being lost. Becasue no one will fish again . If we loose all the fish and regardless if they give us a 12 month license, that won`t save our fisheries and if your strictly a trout fisherman . I don`t believe we can afford to loose the fish we have either , bad enough as when i was a kid . All the rivers had natural spawning fish . And that is not coming back . So really ,can the state afford to loose all those jobs and revenue? From those associated with trout fishing???? Lets hope not.it effects everyone.not just the fish.
    Troutaholic61

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    97

    Default

    tcorfey,

    Thank you for finally listing an example of a declining fishery. I'm still waiting on all these 'depleted' fisheries I keep on hearing about.

    You hit the nail on the head on your Hot Creek example. It's difficult to address a fisheries decline solely on fishing regulations. In order to manage populations all you really need to measure is age composition, growth, recruitment, and mortality (both fishing and natural). If any one of those things changes, your population will as well. CDFW only has a direct say in fishing mortality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff F View Post
    "Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
    And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive.
    When i lived in East Sac for 20 years, every spare moment i had i was down at Paradise Beach/H Street drifting mini crawlers. Caught way more fish than the fly guys and that's a fact. When i was very young and stupid and didn't know what regs were, i actually fished the Lower Yuba with worms one day. Lol. You would not believe the numbers of fish i caught that day. I must say probably 40 or so. Thought i died and went to heaven. A fly guy across the river "informed" me that bait wasnt allowed there. As i said before, no trout will refuse a crawler. If you allow that on wild trout streams, with a 5 fish bag, kiss it goodbye. I could have 50 perfect drifts through a prime run and not get a bump with a fly. But if i put on a live worm you better believe I'd get bit.
    Jeff, I fly fish almost exclusively and I know that fly fishermen are a pain in the ass to work with because many believe catch and release is the only way to manage a fishery. This thread is case and point. Most anglers are not fly fishermen and a significant portion of those want to harvest fish. They have as much of a right to the resource as fly fishermen do. I'm all for opening up fisheries to as many user groups as the fishery can support. I realize not all rivers can support all user groups but I also know that harvest can be an effective way to manage a fishery. CDFW agrees as their proposal still includes many waters where catch and release remains. For example, I don't think that a 2 fish limit on Pit 3 will affect the long term viability of the fishery. There are literally thousands of fish per mile in an extremely difficult to access river that is extremely productive. These characteristics alone would make it extremely difficult to become 'overfished'. It is just as naive to think that opening up a fishery to bait means the end of a fishery. It doesn't matter that bait is effective, that is exactly why regulations exist. I do not think these changes will be the end of our wild trout fisheries like you and several others are portraying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff F View Post
    And just one more thing to say before im done with this thread. Ponder this for me please.....
    Picture in your mind walking down to your favorite go-to spot and you see 3 people coming up the trail with 5 fish each on stringers. And you end up with a slow frustrating day. Id really be interested in knowing your thoughts when you're driving home from the river.
    You know what I would say to that? Good for them. I've caught plenty of fish in my life. I'm happy to share the resource with them. It may suck that I may not have the fishing success that I had hoped for, but I wouldn't let their legal retention of fish bring me down. If the fishery is well managed, that spot may be even better next time.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    On the River in Shastanistan
    Posts
    162

    Default

    <<<"Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
    And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive. >>>

    WOW, glad to see this thread devolving into personal attacks and name calling, just because someone disagrees with someone else.
    Last edited by WLREDBAND; 04-22-2019 at 07:45 AM.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Maybe we should focus not on fisheries that are depleted to fisheries that are not because of regulations in place presently.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •