... LMAO...
So you laughed your a$$ of - what's left of you then? Good that way!
... LMAO...
I don't know you Dave, and you seem like a nice guy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your sign off...."take care...." has very little to do with caring but seems to imply some taking.
I also noticed that when you sign off with..."I'm Out of Here....", you rarely stray too far.
Most people I know who fish from the heart say what they mean and mean what they say
Take Care
Looks like our friend is indeed forgetting the true essence of what my post was really about. Let me be perfectly clear. The rich steelhead angling heritage in BC dates back to days when both drift and fly fishers could freely pursue their sport together on all our BC rivers. There was no exclusionary regulations that pitted one angling method or group against the other. Period the end.
There are no regulations today that are exclusionary or pit one angling method against the other.
There are only anglers who choose to not fish under tackle regulations they don't like and who would rather ***** and moan about them and pine for the good old days.
All the fear mongering posted above about being first to kill 40 fish, is nothing short of that. Seriously! No one today would ever dream of that, nor was I ever suggesting that. Those were different times, with abundant stocks, when little was understood by anglers of the fragility of our steelhead stocks. To suggest my posts are implying we return to those days is simply disingenuous (big words around, you are full of BS) - when it was clear my posts are simply saying we should not forget or devalue our rich angling heritage and protect it.
Would you like to meet some old members of the Kingfishers who participated in a few "first to 40" derbies back in the day??
And mentioning historical facts is not fear-mongering my friend, just facts.
What were you suggesting then if not a return to the old days/old regulations?
You did post this: "My personal bottom line is we need to leave the tackle box out of the whole approach to regulations."
So what does that mean in reality if tackle regulations can't be used?
And your post from the other thread is right below your quote here so we can all see what you typed and if that's not implying we return to the old days what does it imply?
And no, it's not clear "my posts are simply saying we should not forget or devalue our rich angling heritage and protect it" at all, hence my questioning.
Tho protest too much - of course this is about ensuring the current FFO regulations continue to be protected and expanded...why else would one lobby protest when it is being suggested we need to re-open waters to all anglers and simply get rid of FFO regulations. Heck, if you are all fired up about "conservation" and limiting angling "effectiveness" what is wrong with "Artificial Flies Only"? Maybe its because the hordes of drift guys (your competition) would flock to the rivers ruining the efforts thus far to rid the earth of the evil ones.
Sorry. I'm not part of any lobby and once again you've trotted out the old crap about the fly guys afraid of the competition and all that. This is the same stupid argument used way back in the Gold River bait and powerboat debates in the 90's.
It was particularly hilarious then given it was being levelled against the members of the then Campbell River Branch of the SSBC, some of whom were and are extremely serious and excellent steelheaders. But, according to the pro-bait crew, the CR guys couldn't stand the competition from the visiting guides in their powerboats using roe so that's why they (the SSBC) went after bait and boats.
Funny to see a variation of the same old crap being used today.
Lastly, all the mumbo jumbo science posted is simply a bunch of trout studies using worms, not steelhead in BC caught on our tackle. If you want real science, then perhaps refer to the LGL study in BC. Looks to me like the science clearly indicates that a massive hook mortality of 1.1% from release to spawn over a 2 year study period is clearly demonstrating there is no statistically valid scientific reason that would support a connection between hook and released steelhead in BC waters and legitimate "conservation concerns".
I wonder how closely that study mimicked some of the things one sees when out angling on crowded rivers where bait is used?
My personal experience tells me that notwithstanding the mortality rate, (make it same for bait and fly...say 2%) it's the overall number of fish hooked played and released that actually counts and for winter steelhead in Vancouver Island rivers bait will outfish flies by a considerable margin day in and day out. More fish hooked and fought the more fish will be damaged or killed. Really simple thing to grasp. If you can't support tackle regulations designed to limit our effectiveness at hooking steelhead then you seem to want to support using the most effective method to hook steelhead.
Which is it?
Oh, take care...seriously...we all need to work together to protect our fish and rich angling heritage.
This debate is really about open access to all our rivers, not restricting a particular group of anglers from fishing their chosen method on 17 rivers on Vancouver Island alone. And, what is wrong with ensuring some kid can go fishing on a river like the Heber with his spinning rod? Can you explain that one for me?
So Dave, are you suggesting that FFO is helping save steelhead? Seriously! Let's see, 1.1% mortality from release to spawn...can you explain how that is statistically significant in harming a steelhead population? Don't think so.
This debate is really about open access to all our rivers, not restricting a particular group of anglers from fishing their chosen method on 17 rivers on Vancouver Island alone. And, what is wrong with ensuring some kid can go fishing on a river like the Heber with his spinning rod? Can you explain that one for me?
Well.....this thread went off the rails.
Ran out of popcorn
Dave, I'm done with these arguments, clearly there's a few people with differing opinions. But I've already answered your latest question so if you'd like me to copy and paste my response I could do that.... From the other thread:
"I already stated my post was my own personal opinion, and I stand by what I said. You're calling me out and going over my post with a magnifying glass as if I've personally attacked you or a particular flyfishing club or something?? I couldn't even name a group let alone a person lol, so you clearly need to relax. Sorry, maybe I should have said certain "individuals" instead of "groups", then maybe you wouldn't be so worked up."
I don't really know what else you want me to say.... I don't like the FFO reg and feel that we've proven there's no need for it. Thankfully, someone else must feel the same way as there has been a few FFO's lifted here on the island. I know there is still someone or some group of people that still try to make FFO proposals... I don't know who they are..... But I disagree with what they are trying to accomplish, regardless of their motives. Do you understand now? Lol. I'm not interested in wasting anymore time on here with you.
Take care
I simply don't like abject BS being posted and will call it out regardless of who posted it.
Finally, something we can both agree on! Nice to get one straight answer. Its the kind of mud slinging where you are trying to pin "anti conservation" on anglers who choose to gear fish as opposed to fly fish that makes me call BS. I got so tired of all that kind of BS that I quit fishing rivers 6 years ago...so hard to pin any "steelhead morts" on me bud. My hands are clean on that count...I wonder how many steelhead have met their maker at your hands - certainly way more than me.
These days I find it way more peaceful to strap on skis and go have some fun where I'm not made to feel guilty over my choice of boards.
Maybe one day when all this finger pointing about tackle methods ends, you might see me back on a river.