what happened?

[brownieman]

I need help from an energetic young 'go-getter' in interesting the local outfitters in extending their season and increasing their profit margins. Wanta volunteer? CC

CC,

I would be glad to throw my 2 cents worth in also...just give me directions, a time and a soapbox and I'll do my best to be there !

That being said, good thread by the way, I was raised by my dad as a bait fisherman no matter what the specie. If a TRUE bait fisherman presents to the fish what is the natural forage given by their habitat...well...what their natural diet consists of will be the most effective bait.

Why would one try to emulate what their main diet consists of when the 'Real McCoy' can be used if the regulations allow it?. I can lip hook a fish 90% of the time on live minnows...I'll miss allot of hook sets but feel if given the bait for too long they will indeed swallow it.

One can't help live bait being swallowed on occasion, if so just cut, burn, bite, whatever the line and do your best to not touch the fish, avoid gill damage and release the fish with as little stress as possible..

Don't even attempt to get the 2 cent hook back or you cost the fish it's life in most cases.

Concerning trout, spring river, any river whether born in a hatchery setting or a natural spawn itself the instinct to spawn "Natures Way" will take presidence above all...such being the attempt at Taney with the stairs...man created attempts to emulate Mother Nature herself...to entertain us.

Plant it they will come...this has been proven in various arena's whether it be quail habitat or stream structure.

Why man feels the urgency to create, control ???..is still hard for me to fathom.

No matter how hard man attempts to interveen on the natural world, Nature WILL have her way and until we understand and become 'partners' with her and forget the control factor we will continue the path we are on...as CC says...it wains on my strength also, but not being of his age I still get a re-charge now and then and I will keep going till my battery is dead and abide with and by Mother Nature.

To myself the decline we see is "Natures way of telling us something is wrong"...it is obvious and we need to help not hurt her...I for one just do not understand the mindset many have taken...guess to me it's the 'easy way out'...I choose to live with not above all creatures.

Our power of thought is a curse unless approached in a more environmentally concerned manner.

I aint no tree hugger but I do understand the world we live in and all it's wonder...it just makes me wonder...or should I say ponder about the direction we have taken.

Just my humble opinion...and humble it is, lol

bm

[Danoinark]

cc:

Danoinark

From all that you post, you are known as a gentleman and an example. I completely believe you when you say you fly fish because of the challenge. I suspect you haven't intentionally killed a fish in a long time. I am afraid I did not make myself clear enough in my original post. My point wasn't that allowing catch and release with barbless trebles makes things easier or harder for the individual fishermen. My point was that a much larger segment of the fishing public has equal access to a natural resource we all fund if my suggested regulations are implemented. I am sure you tell the truth about the fly rod costing less than $200. In fly rod circles that is a very modest rod. That is my point. In fly fishing circles a $200 dollar rod is considered modest.

Consider the fact that the majority of fishermen buy Berkley Lightning rods or equivalents at $25 - $50. They spool with Trilene or Stren and carry lead to sink the line instead of a different line. They buy Mepps spinners or some such to use as artificials for trout. Most of these people are law abiding and buy licenses for the same price as you and I. A regulation that prohibits them from using their gear without any scientific basis is simply inappropriate.

Lastly, the fish and game departments did not respond to scientific proof when they began to set aside single barbless hook areas. They responded to political pressure from activist fly fishermen who wanted trophies, who wanted spawning areas protected, and who told them the "only way" to do this was to set up catch and release areas with single barbless hook rules. Ultimately, anyone who believes fish and game bureaucracies are anything other than political is kidding themselves.

Once again - with no intention of disrespecting those here - I assert that single barbless hook regulations as enacted now are not based upon scientific fact and that their creation is elitist and serves a small minority at public expense.

RPS

I actually think there are more variables involved when talking about using single vs multiple hooks and fish death. I suspect that poor water quality, high water temperature, low dissolved oxygen, how much the fish is handled out of water and how long the fish is played contributes to as much mortaility as does treble hooks barbed or not. I for one have not bought into the barbless as opposed to barbed hooks. I do know that I have never gut hooked a fish using a fly.

If you research scientific studies on the internet of the controversy you will find as many articles saying treble hooks play no part in the early death of fish as you will find against it. Most say more STUDY is needed to make a conclusive deduction. But I think common sense also prevails. With treble hooks I think you will see more scaring of fish, but at the same time I understand fish do not take the treble as deep.

I have thought about what you said as to the fairness of excluding some fishermen from prime trout water. Primarily the big streams in Arkansas and Missoui are put and take fisheries. From that it appears that its intended that people take their limits. I have no issue with that at all. The C and R areas were developed for those that want a chance at a big trophy but I don't think it was designed to exclude anyone. If I understand you are able to fish lures with single hooks. The fact that the lures are not readily available should not prevent anglers from fishing those areas, the angler just has to be innovative and energetic enough to change out his artifical. I see single hook rooster tails all the time and actually bought some (Walmart)for my grandson within the last month. The C and R areas are also mecca's for fish biology research ie; growth rates, spawning studies, habitat and food sources. Maybe instead of worrying about the hook style, maybe we should close more areas during the spawning season to ease the pressure on the natural instincts of the fish.

By the way as to rod price...one of my favorite long poles is my 11 dollar Eagle Claw featherlights...

Thanks for your insightful post.

Dano

[RiverRunner]

I think that looking at the big picture puts things into perspective somewhat. I would say that approx 4% of the trout water in Arkansas is C&R. That leaves 96% open to any type of fishing. Even if you doubled the amount of water that was C&R you would have 92% as "anything goes", which is still most of the river. Another thing that these areas do is allow fish to remain in the river longer before being harvested. If we took away C&R regulations today, I would bet that the larger fish in those areas would be harvested very quickly and those areas would be comprised mainly of freshly stocked fish.

As far as spin fishing in C&R areas with large numbers of fly fisherman, if you're following the law, I wouldn't worry about it. You've got just as much right to be there as they do! I imagine that these are the same people that give me a dirty look when I tell them I'm catching fish on wooly buggers, microjigs, or egg patterns. I would agree that there are way too many people out there who are striving for a career as a model for Orvis and Cabelas who really just get in in the way and don't know a thing about these rivers or fishing in general. At least you can get some good deals when they give up and sell their stuff on ebay. I'm not one to take a bunch of trash talk when I'm fishing from people who don't know what there talking about. On the other side though, I get some dirty looks from people when I walk into the river carrying my fly rod, and I've had plenty of corn and powerbait land at my feet as well. The "war" between bait fisherman and fly fishermen has been going on a long time and I doubt it will end any time soon. This is unfortunate, because most fly fishermen and bait fishermen want the same thing, a quality fishing experience with a chance at good sized fish. I think that increased fishing pressure has forced us to look at options for preserving our trout fisheries, and I think C&R areas are a good answer to preserve and grow them.

And yes, there is a difference between chunking corn and serious bait fishing with sculpins, crawfish, and crickets. It takes considerable skill and knowledge of the river to use those techniques with success. The only problems is that the majority of people who are trout fishing are using powerbait, corn etc and not the above techniques. If the regulations were changed and "live" baits were allowed in C&R areas, we would then be on a real slippery slope when people demanded power baits be allowed in C&R areas.

This has been an interesting conversation to say the least. Its always amazing where some of these threads go.

[Crippled Caddis]

rps wrote:

<With respect, please identify scientific studies that compare the kill rate of single barbless hooks to barbless trebles.>

With the same respect I'm speaking about my understanding from 40 plus years of reading and study of the subject so I'm hardly going to back up and do that sort of research for you. The information and studies are readily available on the 'net and elsewhere if you have true curiosity on the subject. In any case <I assert that single barbless hook regulations as enacted now are not based upon scientific fact and that their creation is elitist and serves a small minority at public expense.> it appears that you have already arrived at a fixed position in the matter and I'm not one to beat my head against a solid object to no avail. While I readily agree with some of your statements---<I am careful when fishing bait, but I will acknowledge the risk to the fish is higher with bait.---- You can put a single hook on a spoon or a spinner and catch nearly as many.----Ultimately, anyone who believes fish and game bureaucracies are anything other than political is kidding themselves.> I find that you have a fixed position not amenable to considering the opinion of others. Believe it or not I respect that for even though I will readily consider other opinions my own are dear to me. Human nature at its' most human! CC

>

[Crippled Caddis]

Brian & brownieman:

I'm not much of the sort to call public meetings. I'm more the sort to plant seeds when I see or can create fertile ground, but should the occasion arise where I can see an advantage to the resource I'll call on both of you absolutely shamelessly! Thanks for the offers in any case!

Rather than attempt to comment on all the points raised I'll just say that I am delighted to see the response to the subject. Whether or not we all agree on methods it seems we ALL agree on the value of the resource and the worth of saving it. While opinions seem to diverge widely I see no less love at either end of the spectrum. That indicates to me that if 'push comes to shove' that we can work together for the benefit of the fisheries we all love. I hope that all who have taken the time, effort and investment of earnest concern to comment see it in the same encouraging light as myself. CC

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.----Aldous Huxley

[rps]

Gentlemen:

I have enjoyed the discussion. I believe we agree in more areas than we may disagree. Oddly, I do not see this as an us versus them discussion so much as an opportunity to expose how often others turn things into a me versus them.

My best wishes to all of you and I hope to meet you in person some day.

rps

[rps]

A separate note to Danoinark:

I don't know what it is - well actually I suspect I do -, but I agree about the Eagle Claw Featherlight. They, and the Browning Silaflex rods, have a comfortable, efficient, and well designed action. Before my father passed, I rebuilt one of each for him with modern Fuji guides. I have those rods now, but I do not have the nerve to use them. Some things are too valuable.

rps

[Danoinark]

rps..

The Norfork and Little Red in Arkansas may be under some new regs that apply to just what we have been discussing. You might want to look at this thread.

http://p222.ezboard.com/fflyfishingarkansa...t=1&stop=25

Dano

[rps]

Danoinark:

Interesting. Many opinions, some very strongly stated in me versus them terms, all unsupported by scientific studies. It will be interesting to read the actual regs instead of the preconceived notions of those who speculate.

rps

[brownieman]

Dano,

just read the link you supplied...interesting.

I live in Mo. and have written many letters to the NPS, DNR, MDC and other agencies.

From my experience most decisions have already been made by a select few...the so called "town hall meetings" are nothing less than a facade to make the common fisherman feel his opinion matters...just covering their butts...most comments I truely feel fall on deaf ears and ultimately are filed in the old round file cabinet.

All I have ever received is "thanks for your comments, they will be taken under consideration"...have never seen much results from any suggestions given because they involve a simple common sense approach which imo pull little weight with such agencies. My best hopes is Ark. is more receptive for knowledgable and genuine concern.

I hope Ark. is more receptive than Mo. to input from the very ones whom frequent the waters in question the most.

I know in Mo. often the bioligists in charge of certain waters live hrs. away from the water and imo have little knowledge of the 'waters' in question from my personal experience. IMO they perform their own sampling methods and draw the results themselves that are published, so, if they were instrumental in the implementation of certain regs. are they going to give an honest evaluation of the conditions if negative or pad the numbers to stick a feather in their hat...imo most take the feather no matter what the true results may be.