Should we?

or however that dang word is written! : ) Use this forum to discuss those things that are related to, directly, or indirectly, fly fishing, i.e., tackle, catalogs, single malt scotch, cigar preferences, pipes, camera gear, etc. This is sort of an off topic area but one related to bamboo and fly fishing.

Moderators: czkid, Whitefish Press

Post Reply
User avatar
carl otto
Master Guide
Posts: 863
Joined: 01/31/10 19:00
Location: Michigan

Should we?

#1

Post by carl otto »

Some time ago (10 years? 15?) Trout Unlimited and others organized a campaign to get the Gila Trout listed and the 3 remaining watersheds they were contained in protected. Times being what they were, there was a letter writing campaign to directed responsible individuals, to politic this into being. This effort succeeded. It was surprising, at the end of it all, only 78 persons wrote in, but those 78 made the difference. The fragmented, remote watersheds these fish were surviving in is extremely sensitive to even the smallest disturbance, being it cattle grazing, upstream migration of invasive rainbows, weather, fire, etc, etc,. The fact they still exist is remarkable. I think at that time there were only some 300 fish in existence.

In reading posts I have to ask; Should we be going out and fish for these unique, fragile, remote and low population trout species?

Carl

jim royston
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1291
Joined: 08/20/08 18:00

Re: Should we?

#2

Post by jim royston »

No

3creeks
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1292
Joined: 08/28/16 00:19
Location: South Bay of So. Cal

Re: Should we?

#3

Post by 3creeks »

If all we get to do is look at them, then maybe the passion to save them won't burn as hot. After all, the "lookers" probably weren't the ones who wrote the letters, but the fishermen who appreciated them enough to take the time. As a wise friend once quipped, "catch and release, you filthy animals!"

canefisher

Re: Should we?

#4

Post by canefisher »

I’m with Carl on this one. No,we shouldn’t. It’s about preserving threatened species. What’s wrong with “just looking”? To suggest we should be allowed catch them to save them is confusing to me.

mlarocco
Master Guide
Posts: 671
Joined: 11/03/13 11:41

Re: Should we?

#5

Post by mlarocco »

I think I would need to know allot more before making a decision. Allot of information on the New Mexico Game & Fish web site.It lists waters and retention policies. Many of the water bodies have been 'stocked'. How robust is their hatchery program that it supports put and take fishery. Seems like you could restrict fishing to naturally reproducing populations but allow angling on those bodies of water that can only support the species through stockings. If allowing 'harvest' jeopardizes the natural; stocks than maybe the ban should be total.

https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/fishin ... y-angling/

Expsp4043
Sport
Posts: 88
Joined: 01/31/16 20:26
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Re: Should we?

#6

Post by Expsp4043 »

My latest issue of TROUT has an update on these trout beginning on page 26 under Pocket Water.

User avatar
flyroder72
Sport
Posts: 50
Joined: 03/01/16 00:22

Re: Should we?

#7

Post by flyroder72 »

Arizona has been working on Gila trout recovery and now has fishable populations. The Gila is also one of the trout listed on the Arizona Trout Challenge Program. As soon as Monsoon season comes to an end I will be heading out for my first Gila. It will be carefully released as are all of the fish I have been blessed to catch.

galt
Master Guide
Posts: 668
Joined: 07/01/13 23:37
Location: California, USA

Re: Should we?

#8

Post by galt »

Look but don't touch? I don't think so. Can't tell you the last time I put money towards saving the threatened animals at the zoo by purchasing admission. My sporting licenses are purchased annually. Pretty sure there is a 10% excise tax on everything sporting I purchase. If enough river systems become off limits to angling, how do you think that would affect revenue used for management? Sportsmen care deeply about their pursuit, prevent them from pursuing and I am afraid their interests will wander elsewhere. Conservation; never preservation.

Galt
Know the reasons for your actions

User avatar
Hellmtflies
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 8036
Joined: 01/14/12 10:27
Location: Bozeman, Montana

Re: Should we?

#9

Post by Hellmtflies »

galt wrote:
08/29/22 20:30
Look but don't touch? I don't think so. Can't tell you the last time I put money towards saving the threatened animals at the zoo by purchasing admission. My sporting licenses are purchased annually. Pretty sure there is a 10% excise tax on everything sporting I purchase. If enough river systems become off limits to angling, how do you think that would affect revenue used for management? Sportsmen care deeply about their pursuit, prevent them from pursuing and I am afraid their interests will wander elsewhere. Conservation; never preservation.

Galt
I kind of like this idea.

User avatar
carl otto
Master Guide
Posts: 863
Joined: 01/31/10 19:00
Location: Michigan

Re: Should we?

#10

Post by carl otto »

I used the Gila trout as an illustration of the more broader question.

Yes, if you have a recovered and sustainable unique salmonid population then fish for them.

The question is for the populations that are not, but a fisherperson, if they choose, can target them.

Carl

User avatar
steeliefool
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1675
Joined: 09/07/16 15:28
Location: Jersey

Re: Should we?

#11

Post by steeliefool »

Cut you hooks off at the bend and everybody is happy!

User avatar
cdmoore
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3740
Joined: 03/23/04 19:00

Re: Should we?

#12

Post by cdmoore »

Perhaps anglers interested in pursuing the Gila trout or any other threatened species should to more than merely pay an annual license fee for the privilege. Perhaps a special tag or stamp is merited, with the money going to conservation. Perhaps a concerted effort by individuals to let their policy makers know how important these fish are to (a) keep around and (b) make available for angling possibilities--don't just leave it up to groups like TU to do the heavy lifting, but if you do, then support those groups. Perhaps a few more donation dollars, hours, hands, etc. are warranted. Maybe mention why you are in town next time you pop in the general store for some craft brews so the locals see a value to the fish and habitat they previously might not have. Touch-and-go fishing is a good idea, perhaps as a follow on to actually netting one for the bucket list. Catch one and done. Maybe some words of encouragement to your local Fish & Wildlife folks to let them know how important it is to you; you might learn something along the way, perhaps get some good intel, and certainly your interest could affect basin planning going forward. Perhaps a policy of some streams for fishing and some that are closed. Or maybe a more expansionist view, where possible, on re-population of the original species range, including a little more aggressive removal of invasive species. Combined with some good marketing. I mean heck, you can catch rainbows, browns and brookies just about anywhere these days--what's so special about that? Rep your locals! Flaunt it if you got it, right?

canefisher

Re: Should we?

#13

Post by canefisher »

cdmoore wrote:
08/30/22 10:26
Perhaps anglers interested in pursuing the Gila trout or any other threatened species should to more than merely pay an annual license fee for the privilege. Perhaps a special tag or stamp is merited, with the money going to conservation. Perhaps a concerted effort by individuals to let their policy makers know how important these fish are to (a) keep around and (b) make available for angling possibilities--don't just leave it up to groups like TU to do the heavy lifting, but if you do, then support those groups. Perhaps a few more donation dollars, hours, hands, etc. are warranted. Maybe mention why you are in town next time you pop in the general store for some craft brews so the locals see a value to the fish and habitat they previously might not have. Touch-and-go fishing is a good idea, perhaps as a follow on to actually netting one for the bucket list. Catch one and done. Maybe some words of encouragement to your local Fish & Wildlife folks to let them know how important it is to you; you might learn something along the way, perhaps get some good intel, and certainly your interest could affect basin planning going forward. Perhaps a policy of some streams for fishing and some that are closed. Or maybe a more expansionist view, where possible, on re-population of the original species range, including a little more aggressive removal of invasive species. Combined with some good marketing. I mean heck, you can catch rainbows, browns and brookies just about anywhere these days--what's so special about that? Rep your locals! Flaunt it if you got it, right?
+1

Post Reply

Return to “Ephemera, empherma and Ephemerella.....”