Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and
lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted
the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear
that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based
biology alone.

The problem with respect to resident salmonids is that flyfishing is
too effective; the expected catch rate is too high. Congestion and
sublethal impacts can be significant on systems where the vast majority
of the effort is flyfishing.



I am
speaking to physical and financial constraints on some fishermen that
would be otherwise excluded, but also to a personal preference (it
takes a great deal of skill to fish a lure properly, is fun and is a
great education segue to other imitative angling methods) as well as to
exposing the class bias that exists for what it is.

Imposing tackle restrictions often results in anglers exiting the
fishery. In recreational fishing we never compensate losers so
gratuitous restrictions that really do not address the underlying
problem are perhaps best avoided.

The class bias issue is misleading as I demonstrate in the case of
resident British Columbia steelhead anglers. Household incomes are
indistinguishable.

The one area of fisheries management you do not discuss in your report
is the ethos of catch and release fishing and the impact this has on
recreational sport fishing. snip It does not cease to amaze me the moral high ground
claimed by catch and release flyfishermen that generally do not show a
great deal self restraint limiting the hours astream (which affects the
availability and quality of angling for everyone).


If you think of catch and release as simply a form of selective fishing
then it is not so mysterious perhaps. Easy-access public fisheries may
have spawned catch and release as a dominant mode of angling, yet we
observe private fisheries and jurisdictions with direct effort controls
governing public fisheries that are increasingly adopting catch and
release as a management tool.

I know many fly anglers who do quit early or who adopt less effective
techniques in the face of abundant, available fish. Some do the 75
trout/day thing once or twice and then never go back, or find a
different, less effective but often more interesting and rewarding
presentation.

I agree entirely with your assessment of the externalities of catch and
release. Daily fees on public fisheries will reduce some of that
resource damage. Restricting tackle to one fly rigs would reduce catch
rates on many US tailwater fisheries. If anglers are keen to avoid
direct effort controls, then maybe some trout fisheries should be
limited to no sinking-line, no additional weight rules? Would not be
my first choice but such a restriction would reduce catch rates.


Have you had a chance to read the report from the
Norwegian Fisheries council found at:

http://org.nlh.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

I just did, thank you. In Norway, the coast is an open access fishery,
but most of the valuable salmonid fisheries, migratory and resident,
enjoy some form of direct controlled effort management, typically
through daily fees. Quebec, which also enjoys intense management
regimes of high demand public sport fisheries has been reluctant to
integrate catch and release. But from all accounts many keen anglers
and the younger biologist-managers support catch and release. It is
coming. Many high-value, keen anglers are willing to sacrifice
enormously for the privilege of fishing an undisturbed distribution of
year classes. If the globe-trotting Swedes practice catch and release,
are the Norwegians far behind?

Personally I hope we retain and further develop opportunities to
harvest recreational fish, even if recreational harvesting is by
definition irrational (sic) to the extent that all of us would expend
fewer resources if we bought our fish at the market, and thus open to
the accusation of playing or torturing and harrassing one's prey.


I'm curious if you think applying BPAM with a sound biological 'ethic'
might be the watershed, definitive, overall management strategy
cornerstone.

'Ethic'? Not that strong. Mangement principles and heuristic decision
models--yes. However, I suppose that many will view the issues raised
as largely ethical in nature, for example:

* Should individual resource users confront their own resource costs?

* Should asset owners get a share of the loot from from natural public
assets?

* Should the resource be allocated in preference to high-demand, high
willingness to pay users as we expect from all well functioning markets
to do?

On a different level, there is another challenge. In the face of a
dysfunctional management regime, do managers give up trying to improve
outcomes? Additional tackle restrictions are generally best avoided but
if that is the only tool available, what is one supposed to do?

The message for managers and scientists is that the catch rate matters.

Apologies for the length of this; thanks for the interest. -Erik