E
everett464
0
Haha... fair enough. The conversation is probably a dead horse at this point, but no doubt we'll see it come up again.
its not the bait fishermen although bait does tend to br swallowed whole.,,,its the meat fishermen,,,people that feel entitled they should get their stringer of fish because their fishing,,,how many bait guys do you know that practice catch and release with bait?like you said most people wont fish for something they can't keep.so inturn odfw plants hot dog sized trout for the meat fishermen so they can feel humble with their stringer full of small trout...steelheadstalker31 said:Is there any data that shows how many native trout are being kept by bait fisherman? Is the issue the planters, or the bait fisherman, or both? It would seem to me that you could stop putting in the planters and make it a catch and release only for native fish and have the same results as eliminating bait fishing for trout, because people, for the most part, are not going to fish for something they can't keep. It would seem that making it no bait is a move that doesn't make much sense.
JeannaJigs said:I think The issue is the mortality rate in relation to the use of bait. Often they're hooked deep and don't survive being released. Barbless artificials don't do as much damage.
Spinners do just as much damage to native fish and smolts as bait! . . . You can catch just as many fish without bait so it really does not matter.
bigsteel said:how many bait guys do you know that practice catch and release with bait?like you said most people wont fish for something they can't keep....
so that only leaves the mckenzie . . . no place to go catch hatchery trout and eat them except the nastiest water in the county . . .
we are talking about fish that people who shell out their hard earned dollars on a licence can take home and eat.