Posts: 1,919
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
The proclamation states an artificial lure "means a device made of rubber, wood, metal, glass, fiber, feathers, hair or plastic with a hook or hooks attached. Artificial lures (including artificial flies) do not include fish egss or other or other chemically treated or processed natural baits or any natural or human-made food, or any lures that have been treated with a natural or artificial fish attractant or feeding stimulant."
Wow, that sounds like a lot of stuff lumped into one generalized restriction.
Have you seen the comercials on T.V. about the telecom laws? back when the laws were written, current technology didnt apply. Now we need to update our telecom laws?
Well, sounds to me like we need to update the definitions and restrictions pertaining to artificial only.
As I understand it, the artificial only restrictions on fisheries are to reduce the mortality of fish catches. It cant be to protect populations. Harvest limits, size restrictions, and slot limits are supposed to do that.
But todays technology with treated plastics and scent additives like smelly jelly applied to a fly, or a spinner, or a soft plastic dont increase mortality.
Are the scent treated lures being unfairly lumped into the restrictions pile on some utah waters?
Should the definitions be updated to specify the difference between worms, powerbait, and scent treated plastics and lures?
I for one believe our lakes and rivers do not have enough specific regualtions on them. I would like to see more specifics in the managment of specific bodies of water to properly maintain healthy fish populations.
Our lakes and rivers these days are so "multi-specied" that generalized regulations lead to lower quality fisheries. Or worse yet, regulations set out to protect one species of fish, in a body of water, while four other species suffer due to the regualtions should be a concern to all of us as utah anglers.
The question is, is there enough of us out there who feel the same that we could get the definitions and regualtions changed for next year?
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Predator, your saying the exact thing I've been sayiing for years. People always complain about size of fish or how many they catch but never think about why it is that way. I would love it if every lake that would benefit from a slot had one. The fishing would be better. The put and take lakes would have more fish stocked. The only problem is people don't like changes. They would rather complain about the way it is and dream of the good old days then have something change. Plus, the DWR is trying to make the proclamation simpler. Basically, people in Utah and visitors that fish are to lazy to spend 10 minutes and read the proclamation or check the rules for the lake they are fishing.
Artificial flies and lures basically means no scents or baits. I think they do it that way so everybody has a fair chance and the fish don't get used to a certain scent. I've noticed they feed more aggressively and on more natural food selection they would of ignored on other lakes.
I love the restrictions but with that comes the fact that people don't care about laws. They hear about people catching plenty of fish and they swarm the area until the DWR gets tough and checks people. We all know they don't have the money or the man power to enforce the laws so people get away with it. I take a nice little note book and take a few pictures of those law breakers and send them in. I rarely get any kind of thank you or even a undate on what happens to my reports to the DWR. I'll still do since they think they are getting away with it until a fish cop shows up and gives them a ticket. I've never had to go to court so I figure they just pay the ticket or they don't get one at all.
[signature]
Posts: 111
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Right on hedgesd! We all need to do our part as ethical sportspeople (don't want to offend any ladies out there)to help the under staffed DWR. A little "community policing" goes a long way. Thanks!
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
I mainly fish the lake will all the problems and over two years of reporting violations I haven't noticed a decline. I had to make a few calls and emails to a few of there bosses just to get them to start making a round or two. I've seen them up there twice last year and once the year before. I'd say they could at least do a check once a week since their is two officers that are suppose to check this lake.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
yes, another great analytical insight. Are you an english major or something? You're doing an excellent job deconstructing the language within the fishing proc. I totally agree. Especially at Mantua. Over 90% of my soft plastics for bass have been eliminated from my backpack because of the all inclusive restriction. We need to get the laws and definitions changed. Let me know how I can help.
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Hey considering how many artificial lakes their are and how good the fishing is somebody will always want there favorite thing to be the exception to the rules. The way artificial rules are set makes it easy for anybody to understand and follow but only and I mean ONLY if your I.Q. is above 30.
You guys that complain about not being able to use scents is just as bad as complaining about not being able to use PB. Same argument and same B.S.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Give people an inch, and they'll take a mile. If you allow scented lures then people will soak foam earplugs in cod liver oil and let the fish swallow it. Yep. That's exactly what happened at Minersville.
The regs are just right. If you can't use bait, you can't use scents.
Fishrmn
Posts: 549
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
That is the truth. The problem is that we live in a society where people think that an illegal act isn't wrong UNTIL you get caught. Then they are sorry. This means that people need to be compelled to obey the law. AND the law needs to be so clear that there is no question as to what it means. That is because common sense reasoning isn't used much anymore as people do what ever they want instead of what is right for the resource.
Personally, I think scented lures should be banned in 'Artificial Only" waters because those scents chemically trigger the fish's instincts to gulp the lure down. Then the fish is hooked deep just as if natural bait was used anyway. The advantage to using virtually any kind of artificial lure or fly is that it pretty much must be moving to be of interest to a fish. That movement means that few fish are hooked deep and therefore are easily released unharmed. What are the chances of a fish swallowing any lure just sitting on the bottom unless it is scented? Practically none. So I think the current rules are good for protecting fish in those waters.
m
[signature]
Posts: 26,682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I think that some of you guys are correct on the scent thing. When I lived in Utah, they never had such a problem. You are lucky that your bodies of water don't turn out like some of the ones that are here in So. Cal. We have a couple of lakes here that are so bad as far as scents go that the fish are even  .
They wont even hit on aritficial lures unless it is coated, tipped or scented with the newest formula. Forget trying to flyfish there. That is futile.
There are only a few places left that you can fish with either the latest in flies or lures, or still use some of your old favorites.
It is not my personal business to say that one is wrong and the other is right. We just need to appreciate what we have while we have it.
[signature]
Posts: 1,646
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[#800080][size 2]IMHO, I think any water that has sunfish, bass, or walleye should have an option to use plastics that are scented. No meat or dough mind you, just plastics,flies, spinners, and crank/jerkbaits. [/size][/#800080]
[signature]
Posts: 1,397
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
Whooooooaaaaa....hold on. The part of our statewide regulations pertaining to scented or chemically treated or processed baits was just put in....and, for a very good reason. On several of our waters that have flies and lures only regs, artificial baits were being used that were causing an increase in fish mortality. Problems of artificially scented baits were being documented at places like Kolob Reservoir, MInersville Reservoir, and Mantua. It seems that fishermen were using artificial salmon eggs soaked in fish oil much the same way they would use real eggs. Scents added to soft plastics are also known to increase fish mortality...hell, read the packages--they all claim that fish will hold on longer and take deeper.
[signature]
Posts: 296
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
I guess the new berkley GULP worms are considered bait?
[signature]
Posts: 26,682
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
They are supposed to resemble a natural worm. They are scented though. I never smelled a nightcrawler that smell like the Gulp worm. I did manage to catch a Sea Trout on one though. It sure suprised me.
![[Image: gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2886;]](http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=2886;)
She is a beauty though and mighty tasty.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
I agree with Tomegun about the scented baits for warmwater species. I also feel that the current regulations are appropriate in trout managed waters. The reason is how these baits are fished. Generally, when bass or walleye fishing, one is retrieving, jigging, or trolling a lure or bait. It is quite unusual to have the fish swallow the lure deeply when the lure is actively moving about and a hook set is needed for a hookup. The problem on the trout lakes is that these Schmos are using these super soaked "lures", tossing them out, knocking back a case of brewski's, then reeling in the fish when it has swallowed the hook, Just like if one was fishing with a gob of cheese or power bait. If you were actively retrieving a scented jig in a trout water, I doubt you would have very much enhanced mortality but  ly, the law has to cover the "bait style" type of fishing. I would also point out that it is rare to have hook swallowing when ice fishing. I have caught multiple hundreds of fish through the ice this winter and had only one fish swallow the hook and required that I keep it. That might be something the DWR might consider for Mantua where they are wringing their hands about the perch. Permit baits and a 50 fish (perch) limit through the ice, and the perch population would be in check. Just my 2 cents.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Okay, I'll agree. If there are no trout in the fishery, go ahead and use scented lures. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it there are NO artificial only waters that do not contain trout. In other words, every water that has an artificial fly and lure only regulation has trout in it. Therefore they are trying to protect the trout from hooking mortality.
Fishrmn
|
