can steelhead digest gooey b@bs?

just don't buy the sour ones.
buy the normal worms lol.
and yea... gummy bears work real good.
those real dark red ones tied in a roe bag. WOW do they look good!
 
Anything made with gelatin in it is organic and therefore against the law.......bait-wise that is. If not that, then the fact that it's edible makes it outside the rules too.

But I agree that rubber stuff inside steelhead can't be good for them.

Take care.
 
I don't need no stinkin bait, doesn't hurt though :D.

Artificials can and DO out fish bait all the time. But us Canadian steelheaders are definately stuck in our ways.
Doing broodstock captures we have seriously outfished the Roe guys with our JIGS. Where legal,we will tip jigs with tiny pieces of raw prawn, but seldom does it make a difference.
Fishing in the US with my friends who guide down there, I was quite amazed being completely outfished by them. I was using prime Roe bags under the float, they had the goofy marabou jigs happening.
That day changed my approach on Steelhead forever.

Sorry to hi jack.

The fact is that a fish should easily pass most small rubber lures.
If you are so concerned with a fishes health, possibly NOT fishing for them is your answer. Aside from that,fish responsibly, avoid dredging and losing leader and lure/bait. Be quick to set hooks on "float downs" to avoid gut hooking.
Although bait bans seldom make sense, they do have their place.
Obviously Summer runs LOVE food, so allowing bait will certainly result in too many recaptures of fish awaiting springtime.
Not too mention smolts tend to savage bait to their own demise at times, although a small spinner is definately the most deadly smolt killer I have witnessed and avoid them during early summer run timing because of this. Sensible angling is the best form of conservation and if my son can eat plastic and money a fish can survive a gooey bob IMO ;).

Deadly jigs at www.bentrods.ca
 
I'm still dedicated to roe and ghost shrimp but i've started using blades and pink worms more. I might even try one of those reched jigs. (pieces of shiat!)
 
Mr Dave H. I hope this post isn,t too late? I,ve been busy fishing You claim to have some knowledge of of the legality in this situation. You have stated that gelletit is organtic and that makes it illeagle. Please explain to me how feathers, yarn, cork and paint wich all are of organic origin can be legal? Your Quote that gell is edible and that makes it out side the rules too is also rather grey? Every artaficial item that I've fish with over the years has been edible, swallowable, consummable or injestable but not nessesarily passable. Dave, I'm not rely understanding your leagle point can you please explain?
Bent rods guiding. Great post. You obviosly have many hours in the field. What is your take on idea of a bait ban on winter steelhead as a conservation measure or to lessen repeated captures if you always out fish bait with jigs? Thankfully, unlike steelhead, human anatimy disign makes our output end larger than our input end and I think if your son ate a rubber item in similar scale as a gooey bob is to a steelhead you have a diferent outlook to this. No disrespect intended.
 
"Mr Dave H. I hope this post isn,t too late? I,ve been busy fishing You claim to have some knowledge of of the legality in this situation. You have stated that gelletit is organtic and that makes it illeagle. Please explain to me how feathers, yarn, cork and paint wich all are of organic origin can be legal? Your Quote that gell is edible and that makes it out side the rules too is also rather grey? Every artaficial item that I've fish with over the years has been edible, swallowable, consummable or injestable but not nessesarily passable. Dave, I'm not rely understanding your leagle point can you please explain?"

Gelatin is made from cows, pigs and horses, and is used in a variety of foods.
It's a common ingredient in food.
It's food.
Foods are not allowed as bait where there is a bait ban.
Read the definition of "bait" in the regs.

And your other question about "feathers, yarn, cork and paint is almost too stupid to answer as none of those items are "food" or used in food or as a food, and, in the case of the definition of a fly, some of them are actually identified as being ok to use in the creation of a fly. You do know that a fly simply IMITATES something and really isn't edible don't you?
Food things are edible.
Now you go ahead and eat all the yarn and paint and feathers you want, rubber worms and gooey bobs too if that's what turns you on, but for gawds sake think a bit about what is and what is not considered food.
And besides, don't you feel slightly better when you actually "fool" a fish rather than when you just "feed" it something with a hook in it?
The first takes a smidge of skill but the second requires zippo in the way of skill.

And anyone who thinks that a jig will outfish bait for steelhead day in and day out is delusional. You can catch steelhead on bait when they can't even see any other lure, jig or otherwise.
But I know some of you have to keep denying the obvious just so those damn fly fishing freaks don't get their way.
Keep up the good fight boys.
Amuses the heck out of me.

Take care.
 
Thank you, Dave H. Yes Dave, Gelatine is a food product but it is also used as a thicking agent for non food products like freezer packs, breast inplants and sole padding. The intent I use it is to IMITATE real eggs and not to feed the fish or attract buy sent. Gell does have some calories. Do you know if there could be any food value or calories in feathers, wood or yarn? I'm sure if a guy looked hard enough he could find some food or drug product that uses one of these materials.
I'm just fine with using artificials. Hell, steelhead worn't gifted with brains. Tricked with artificial or fed roe doesn't mater to me. I'm there to admire the creatures and the places they live and not challange my abillities. I've enjoyed playing with all kinds of artificial tackle designs and have confidence using them. The fact of pulling rubber geer out of a high percent of the steelhead I've dressed over the years and how efective these lures are makes me feel that roe or gell is definatly no worse for these fish.
Dave I think that bait bans do have their place. In the situation of a bait ban on a river with hevy hatchery input seems crazy. Why do you think that M.O.E. would waste enforcment resources chasing anglers for roe in an area that they figure had strong enough returns to propose alowing a roe fishery?
I have read some quotes from you in the past about the legality of guides other than Dave Murphy operating power boats in this region. I'd be happy to read your interpretation of that law and how it applys to me?
Thank you for your reply.
 
Ken,

Next time you get the chance have a visit to Matt's place (Stabler) and he might show you the transcripts from the trial.
I could explain it all again but it's hardly worth the effort and I doubt it will ever affect you unless some zealous enforcement officer tries to enforce it.
But technically, according to the ruling of Judge Joe, Dave Murphy alone is allowed to disregard the horsepower rule on the river. No other guide or non-guide has won that right except Dave Murphy.
It is not being enforced as far as I know which is why I doubt it will affect you or the other guides at all.
And why do you think I can or should answer questions about what MOE does or doesn't do? I have had virtually no contact with anyone in MOE for several years now and am out of the loop save for what friends still involved tell me and what I know from before when I was heavily involved.
Sorry that I can't help you out with that question.

If it turns out you simply can't visit Matt and read if for yourself then let me know and I'll explain it again when I have the time.

Take care.
 
Thank you Dave H. For your reply.
There is no need for me to visit Matt to read any transcript as I was in the court room the day of that rulling.
Dave, while publicly displaying this material you,ve lacked to mention the fact that this court rulling sets presedence for future court cases and applies all individuals that fall under that same exemption. Maybe this is why no enforcment officer is jumping at the oportunity to charge a guide on a regulation that was made, from what I feel, behind closed doors. Your lack to include this important fact leads me to believe that you trying to sell the Idea that only Dave Murphy is leagle and anybody else is indeed comitting an ofence. Are all others guides guilty untill prooven inocent in a court of law? Perhaps this is just the way you've comes across to me.
It maybe news to you but I and my guests gave statements to Gold River R.C.M.P. I've also talked with Campbell River crown council member Tom Bishop at that time and they have chosenF not to press charges. Now with that being said can you please give me your stand point on my legality in this situation? Am I leagle or not.
I ask you Dave, please include these said facts if you are to discuss this matter on this or any other public forum in the future.
For the M.O.E. Question I only ask your opinion.
Thank you Dave
p.s. I still would like to see your Gold River Council letter.
 
Thank you Dave H. For your reply.
There is no need for me to visit Matt to read any transcript as I was in the court room the day of that rulling.
Dave, while publicly displaying this material you,ve lacked to mention the fact that this court rulling sets presedence for future court cases and applies all individuals that fall under that same exemption. Maybe this is why no enforcment officer is jumping at the oportunity to charge a guide on a regulation that was made, from what I feel, behind closed doors. Your lack to include this important fact leads me to believe that you trying to sell the Idea that only Dave Murphy is leagle and anybody else is indeed comitting an ofence. Are all others guides guilty untill prooven inocent in a court of law? Perhaps this is just the way you've comes across to me.
It maybe news to you but I and my guests gave statements to Gold River R.C.M.P. I've also talked with Campbell River crown council member Tom Bishop at that time and they have chosenF not to press charges. Now with that being said can you please give me your stand point on my legality in this situation? Am I leagle or not.
I ask you Dave, please include these said facts if you are to discuss this matter on this or any other public forum in the future.
For the M.O.E. Question I only ask your opinion.
Thank you Dave
p.s. I still would like to see your Gold River Council letter.
 
"Dave, while publicly displaying this material you,ve lacked to mention the fact that this court rulling sets presedence for future court cases and applies all individuals that fall under that same exemption. Maybe this is why no enforcment officer is jumping at the oportunity to charge a guide on a regulation that was made, from what I feel, behind closed doors. Your lack to include this important fact leads me to believe that you trying to sell the Idea that only Dave Murphy is leagle and anybody else is indeed comitting an ofence. Are all others guides guilty untill prooven inocent in a court of law? Perhaps this is just the way you've comes across to me."

I'll answer the above first and then we'll move on.
First, the court ruling and the reasons given could be used as a "precedent" in any case relative to the horsepower limitation on the system, which is the law. That's a given and I didn't think I needed to point that out. And I'm not trying to sell anything to anybody other than expressing my opinion based on some intensive study and research a few years back.
The precedent, however, applies only to the circumstances surrounding Dave. If you read the reasons for the judgement given by Judge Joe you cannot escape the fact that his rulings apply to the one individual he was ruling on, Dave Murphy. He did not rule on any other boat user on the sytem and indeed, I seriously doubt any other boat user on the system can claim what Dave did and have it be true.
The Judge also made a very egregious ruling which I think would be easily overturned upon appeal but at the time the Prosecuter wasn't aware of all the facts and didn't bother to appeal it.
Now, to clear that up for you and also to probably answer your Gold River oriented question, here are the three exemptions allowed in the case of both a horsepower limitation and a complete powerboat ban, ala the Gold.

Note: These may not be word-perfect right because I'm doing this off the top of my head, but they are accurate in their meaning.

1...If you live on the waterway and can only get to and from your home via powerboat then you are exempt.

2...If you hold a Provincial Fishing Permit and make your living from fishing then you are exempt.


3...Any bonafide Search and Rescue or government sanctioned research is also exempt.

That's it. Those are the three exemptions and Dave went for #2, for obvious reasons, i.e. he's not exempt under #1 or #3. Neither is anyone else on the SSS or the Gold.
Note the use of the words Provincial Fishing Permit and remember this is a Federal law. The exemptions given were given to cover all the exigencies that may exist anywhere in the country.
There are Provincially managed commercial fisheries in a couple of Provinces, mostly Manitoba and Ontario, wherein the participants have what is called a Provincial Fishing Permit and make their living from fishing.
Now here's where Judge Joe screwed up and where the Prosecutor missed the boat too.

When the Judge was told that there is nothing in BC that is called a Provincial Fishing Permit by the Prosecutor, the Defense claimed that Dave had a valid BC Fishing License and that should be the same thing. The Judge, clearly not grasping the intent behind the wording of that exemption, allowed an ordinary BC Fishing License to sustitute for something that doesn't exist in BC......and the reason it doesn't exist is because there are no Provincially managed commercial fisheries in BC that would require a Provincial Fishing Permit. Ergo, nobody in BC could claim that as an exemption.....until the Judge made that ruling.
Now, it appears, any of the roughly 300,000 or so people who have an ordinary BC fishing license are half exempt already.
That was not and is not the intent of the exemption.

The intent of that exemption is to allow the very few commercial fishermen in the small Provincial fisheries to use whatever boats and/or horsepower they need to do their job. Their job is catching and selling fish to make their living.

Note the second half of the exemption says, "and make their living from fishing."
IMHO a "guide" does not make his living from fishing but rather from guiding sports anglers who are fishing recreationally, not commercially.
Judge Joe ruled, after testimony regarding it, that because Dave kills the odd hatchery fish and eats it, the that fish is providing part of his sustencance or his "living".
Pretty loose and favorable rulings for Dave in both cases but the clincher is the one that basically outlaws everyone else, and that is because Dave testified he had never done anything else in his life since age 13 when he first started guiding professionally using Marilyns license (he was the Assistant Guide) that he knew no other way of making a living etc. etc. and the Judge factored that into his decision. You may have been in the court when the ruling came down but until you carefully read through the reasons for judgement you don't know why the ruling came out the way it did.
The Prosecutor botched a couple of things and the Judge made at least two incorrect decisions.
In the end it appears there is little appetite to charge anyone on the SSS system and personally I couldn't care less, that's why I don't think you have anything to worry about.....over there.


Moving on to this now......


"It maybe news to you but I and my guests gave statements to Gold River R.C.M.P. I've also talked with Campbell River crown council member Tom Bishop at that time and they have chosenF not to press charges. Now with that being said can you please give me your stand point on my legality in this situation? Am I leagle or not.
I ask you Dave, please include these said facts if you are to discuss this matter on this or any other public forum in the future."

Not news to me at all as I also talked with Mr. Bishop at length and gave him a comprehensive analysis of the Dave Murphy case along with where the Judge IMHO erred.
He explained to me that a case such as operating a powerboat illegaly on the Gold doesn't carry much weight and that as he was then the contract Lawyer prosecuting Federal cases in Campbell River he had to weigh out the importance of the infraction vis a vis how much attention he would put to it. At that time he didn't think he was into prosecuting anyone unless it became a problem and lots of noise was made about it.
If you are asking me if you are legal or not regarding operating a powerboat on the Gold I'd say you are not legal. And, given the three exemptions under which you would be legal you don't qualify under any of them, nor does anyone else.
I heard you and maybe Matt G. were taking pictures of any stray hatchery steelies you caught in the Gold to use in any future case. That true??

Anyway, to sum up, I don't care what happens on the SSS system regarding the use of ppowerboats with more than 9.9 HP but I do care about people breaking the law and using powerboats on the Gold.

And I can arrange for lots of noise if need be.


Take care.

 
"Dave, while publicly displaying this material you,ve lacked to mention the fact that this court rulling sets presedence for future court cases and applies all individuals that fall under that same exemption. Maybe this is why no enforcment officer is jumping at the oportunity to charge a guide on a regulation that was made, from what I feel, behind closed doors. Your lack to include this important fact leads me to believe that you trying to sell the Idea that only Dave Murphy is leagle and anybody else is indeed comitting an ofence. Are all others guides guilty untill prooven inocent in a court of law? Perhaps this is just the way you've comes across to me."

I'll answer the above first and then we'll move on.
First, the court ruling and the reasons given could be used as a "precedent" in any case relative to the horsepower limitation on the system, which is the law. That's a given and I didn't think I needed to point that out. And I'm not trying to sell anything to anybody other than expressing my opinion based on some intensive study and research a few years back.
The precedent, however, applies only to the circumstances surrounding Dave. If you read the reasons for the judgement given by Judge Joe you cannot escape the fact that his rulings apply to the one individual he was ruling on, Dave Murphy. He did not rule on any other boat user on the sytem and indeed, I seriously doubt any other boat user on the system can claim what Dave did and have it be true.
The Judge also made a very egregious ruling which I think would be easily overturned upon appeal but at the time the Prosecuter wasn't aware of all the facts and didn't bother to appeal it.
Now, to clear that up for you and also to probably answer your Gold River oriented question, here are the three exemptions allowed in the case of both a horsepower limitation and a complete powerboat ban, ala the Gold.

Note: These may not be word-perfect right because I'm doing this off the top of my head, but they are accurate in their meaning.

1...If you live on the waterway and can only get to and from your home via powerboat then you are exempt.

2...If you hold a Provincial Fishing Permit and make your living from fishing then you are exempt.


3...Any bonafide Search and Rescue or government sanctioned research is also exempt.

That's it. Those are the three exemptions and Dave went for #2, for obvious reasons, i.e. he's not exempt under #1 or #3. Neither is anyone else on the SSS or the Gold.
Note the use of the words Provincial Fishing Permit and remember this is a Federal law. The exemptions given were given to cover all the exigencies that may exist anywhere in the country.
There are Provincially managed commercial fisheries in a couple of Provinces, mostly Manitoba and Ontario, wherein the participants have what is called a Provincial Fishing Permit and make their living from fishing.
Now here's where Judge Joe screwed up and where the Prosecutor missed the boat too.

When the Judge was told that there is nothing in BC that is called a Provincial Fishing Permit by the Prosecutor, the Defense claimed that Dave had a valid BC Fishing License and that should be the same thing. The Judge, clearly not grasping the intent behind the wording of that exemption, allowed an ordinary BC Fishing License to sustitute for something that doesn't exist in BC......and the reason it doesn't exist is because there are no Provincially managed commercial fisheries in BC that would require a Provincial Fishing Permit. Ergo, nobody in BC could claim that as an exemption.....until the Judge made that ruling.
Now, it appears, any of the roughly 300,000 or so people who have an ordinary BC fishing license are half exempt already.
That was not and is not the intent of the exemption.

The intent of that exemption is to allow the very few commercial fishermen in the small Provincial fisheries to use whatever boats and/or horsepower they need to do their job. Their job is catching and selling fish to make their living.

Note the second half of the exemption says, "and make their living from fishing."
IMHO a "guide" does not make his living from fishing but rather from guiding sports anglers who are fishing recreationally, not commercially.
Judge Joe ruled, after testimony regarding it, that because Dave kills the odd hatchery fish and eats it, the that fish is providing part of his sustencance or his "living".
Pretty loose and favorable rulings for Dave in both cases but the clincher is the one that basically outlaws everyone else, and that is because Dave testified he had never done anything else in his life since age 13 when he first started guiding professionally using Marilyns license (he was the Assistant Guide) that he knew no other way of making a living etc. etc. and the Judge factored that into his decision. You may have been in the court when the ruling came down but until you carefully read through the reasons for judgement you don't know why the ruling came out the way it did.
The Prosecutor botched a couple of things and the Judge made at least two incorrect decisions.
In the end it appears there is little appetite to charge anyone on the SSS system and personally I couldn't care less, that's why I don't think you have anything to worry about.....over there.


Moving on to this now......


"It maybe news to you but I and my guests gave statements to Gold River R.C.M.P. I've also talked with Campbell River crown council member Tom Bishop at that time and they have chosenF not to press charges. Now with that being said can you please give me your stand point on my legality in this situation? Am I leagle or not.
I ask you Dave, please include these said facts if you are to discuss this matter on this or any other public forum in the future."

Not news to me at all as I also talked with Mr. Bishop at length and gave him a comprehensive analysis of the Dave Murphy case along with where the Judge IMHO erred.
He explained to me that a case such as operating a powerboat illegaly on the Gold doesn't carry much weight and that as he was then the contract Lawyer prosecuting Federal cases in Campbell River he had to weigh out the importance of the infraction vis a vis how much attention he would put to it. At that time he didn't think he was into prosecuting anyone unless it became a problem and lots of noise was made about it.
If you are asking me if you are legal or not regarding operating a powerboat on the Gold I'd say you are not legal. And, given the three exemptions under which you would be legal you don't qualify under any of them, nor does anyone else.
I heard you and maybe Matt G. were taking pictures of any stray hatchery steelies you caught in the Gold to use in any future case. That true??

Anyway, to sum up, I don't care what happens on the SSS system regarding the use of ppowerboats with more than 9.9 HP but I do care about people breaking the law and using powerboats on the Gold.

And I can arrange for lots of noise if need be.


Take care.

 
Thank you Dave H. Or should it be Mr. Judge Dave H.
Seems that Judge Joe didn't agree with your rulling in this case. Are all prosicuters that don't act to your preference incompitant?
That is some humble opinion!!!
Yes, I have taken pictures of several hatchery steelhead that I harvested from the Gold river and I must have eaten them.
Anyway, thank you Dave I think I fully understand what your all about now and I've read enough.

Oh but wait. Please don't be afraid to present your letter to Gold River Council. I am still eager to read THE LETTER!!!

Thank you
 
It's not just my opinion alone Ken, it's the opinion of several lawyers I've talked to as well.
And virtually anyone who reads the thing through comes to the same conclusion, the Judge made a couple of very loose rulings that would probably not stand up to an appeal to a higher court. Nobody is appealing however, so I wouldn't sweat it.

And I'm not into trying to dig out a copy of "the letter" you seem so entranced by as it's filed away somwhere in the archives (read basement) of one of the old SSBC members.
I really don't get why you are still on about that anyway as it's old history and nothing about it needs be re-hashed as far as I can see.
As well, your snarky little comments don't invite any cooperation from me anyway.
I've been giving you the straight goods and my opinions on a couple of things with no malice towards you, and that doesn't mean I think the Prosecutor is incompetent or anything like that. He WAS ignorant of a couple of things that might have changed the outcome of that case however, but any Prosecutor in the future will know all the salient facts should a case with the same exemptions ever arise.
Count on it.

If you can't grasp what happened in that case and the decisions that were made in ignorance then you're suffering from a lack of reading comprehension or something. It's pretty straightforward.

And I seriously doubt you know what I'm all about at all Ken.
I think you're just caught up in the polarization bwtween people who care about the resource and put their money and efforts into protecting it and guys like you and your fellow guides who make money off the resource and are always looking for ways to beat the rules and maximize their catches.
Maybe you're even still pissed off because we actually won a couple of things for a change, the bait ban and the powerboat ban.
Who knows?
Frankly, I don't care.

I'm done with this topic for now as I've got lots better things to do than waste time on old stuff.
See ya around.


Take care.
 
Dave, implying your opinion be backed by many laywers does not intimidate me it only reveals your desperation for credibility in your own leagle perseptions.
Yes I wish to read your letter to Gold river council to see if it may contain slanderous accusations about me and wether they be fact or fiction. The promptness at wich you answer my posts tells me that you have all the time in the world to go dig it up. Anyway your obvious reluctency to display it has supresses my curiosity. My, as you say, lack reading comprhention still allows me to read between your lines dude.
Yeh, I'm a little caught in this up alright. I'm caught up between people who utilized or manipulate the regulatory system to fullfill thier own ideals or prefrences uncarring of anybody elses oportunities and the public who is dominatly ignorant or left in the dark when regulations are proposed and prosessed.
So you think I'm just trying to just beat the rules, increase my catch and make more money from the resource? Now thats "frigging hillarios". If you realy think that than you have seriosly degraded my perception of your intellegence.
Well Dave you have "amused the hell out of me" and I'm done on this topic too for now.
I thank you for the exchanges.
 
Oh Dave, I forgot one thing last night.
That's some big bad blowhard tale of how the Judge is wrong the prosecutor was incompitent and how you will be there standing beside the prosecutor next time to assure things get done your way. Frankly I still don't think that gives you the right to blab on the internet that all the boat operators are illeagle untill these idividuals are prooven guilty in a real court of law and this I will be checking into.
Thank you
 
Back
Top