# What...no worms allowed?



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I've often wondered about the rational for the "no bait" rules on certain waters around the state. In my mind, they seem to be senseless. I can understand the "catch and release" rules on certain waters, and understand how the use of bait leads to a higher mortality rate for "fish hooked", but on fisheries that allow the "taking" of fish, what difference should it make whether the fish are caught using bait or not? You catch and keep your two fish, or whatever the limit is, and you stop fishing. It's that simple.
"Artificial lures and flys only" on waters that allow you to keep some fish seem to be discriminatory to me. Are these just "snob fisherman" rules? Are guys that use flys just more deserving, better human beings than guys using bait? That guy throwing that Jakes Spin-a-Lure shouldn't have to be exposed to that lowly bait fisherman any more than that guy sitting in the private box at an NBA game should have to endure the presents of that low life making his way to the nose bleed section of Vivant Arena. That guy with his kids drowning worms surely doesn't spoil your day as you delicately present a size 22 dry fly with your $800 fly rod and $600 reel does he? Are we once again just trying to limit opportunity for other users just to improve our recreational outing?


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Are guys that use flys just more deserving, better human beings than guys using bait?


....yes


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

gdog said:


> ....yes


Dang it! Beat me to it.

Artificial flies and lure regulations have proven effective in helping maintain sensitive fish populations. You can argue if you think a water needs them or not, but they are effective when implemented. When bait is used, more fish die.

It's the same principle where you don't get to use a rifle during the archery hunt. If every tag issued across the state was an "any weapon" tag, we'd have a lot less animals.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I've never understood why the bait crowd hasn't caught on and attempted to work out a fishery where they can get a "bait only" fishery established. Why not?


Fisheries management stopped being biological many years ago. In today's world our fisheries managers need degrees in sociology. They no longer manage fish. They manage fishermen....errrr....rather, fisherpeople.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla says, "Artificial flies and lure regulations have proven effective in helping maintain sensitive fish populations"

PHB says, "Fisheries management stopped being biological many years ago. ... They no longer manage fish. They manage fishermen..."

Humm....can these both be true statements?

Oh, and Vanilla, how does one know there would be "less animals" with any weapons only hunts. Yes, more animals are harvested(%) with any weapons hunts because the tags are getting punched and kills reported, but what about the unreported "wounded" animals that crawl off and bleed to death from arrows sticking out from them. We never figure them into the count 'cause we really don't have the data. I don't know...just sayin. Is there a chance there are unreported or delayed fish kills out there from fly/lure fisherman?...no data, no reality.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> When bait is used, more fish die.


Right. While I also wish I could fish with bait everywhere I understand there are a few factors to AFL waters that make those areas different. The main argument is that bait fishing kills more fish and this is true, they swallow the bait and your average fisherman may try to retrieve the hook when he shouldn't. Maaaaany long time fisherman believe fish will die with a deep hook anyway and this simply is not the case. If you use bronze tackle it greatly increases the fish's chance of survival as bronze decays fast. Stainless steel hooks are really bad of course. I once caught a rainbow out of Deer Creek with a stainless steel swivel sticking out of its side like a pimple....with three feet of line running from the other side of the swivel into its digestive tract and "out"....trailing for a couple feet. The fish was doing fine.

Of course those AFL waters almost always have an accompanying slot limit. The main idea behind the AFL restriction is that since fish tend to die when hooked deep, even if you cut your line when catching a fish that isn't legal, fish in the slot limit will end up dying. I know I've caught plenty of reptile-lipped browns on the Provo that have so many holes in their lips that they look like a lizard. It's pretty much guaranteed those fish would die if deep hooked that many times.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Vanilla says, "Artificial flies and lure regulations have proven effective in helping maintain sensitive fish populations"
> 
> PHB says, "Fisheries management stopped being biological many years ago. ... They no longer manage fish. They manage fishermen..."
> 
> Humm....can these both be true statements?


why not? Both statements can absolutely be true. AFL regulations have proven effective in helping maintain sensitive fish populations. That is fact.

Also, fisheries managers are required to do much more "social" managing in today's fisheries that at any time in the past. That is also true.

what's the issue?

Again, if you want a bait only fishery, I'd support it if you could make a case for a particular fishery. Why not a few urban ponds that are bait only? Heck, maybe even Utah Lake -- I'd support it. Let's do it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Is there a chance there are unreported or delayed fish kills out there from fly/lure fisherman?...no data, no reality.


Yes. Absolutely!

But there is data. And the data clearly shows that mortality rates from fish hooked using bait are higher than from fish hooked with artificial flies and lures. There is plenty of data to support this. It is readily available.

Look at the history of Minserville Reservoir. The fishery has unequiviocally been a better fishery since the inception of new management practices including AFL restrictions. There is no doubt it is better than it was. Certainly there is a measure of mortality from released fish -- especially in summer months when temps increase -- but those rates are less than what they would be if bait were allowed.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

For the other question, ie catch & release only vs harvest....

We know people don't just stop once they catch their first x # of fish allowed by the bag limit. They often selectively harvest fish and release others. Hence the rules.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Turkey, you're overthinking this way too much.

Again, you are free to argue whether a particular water needs the special regulations, but there is no debating the effectiveness of the regulations. This has played out over, and over, and over, and over again. 

The information is out there if you want it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

TOTP!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Yes, more animals are harvested(%) with any weapons hunts because the tags are getting punched and kills reported, but what about the unreported "wounded" animals that crawl off and bleed to death from arrows sticking out from them. We never figure them into the count 'cause we really don't have the data. I don't know...just sayin.


What about the fact that we have many many more any weapon/rifle hunters than archers hunting? Wouldn't that mean that potentially many many more animals are wounded and not recovered from rifle hunters? What about those animals?

And, yes, we do have the data....besides the actual harvest data we also have post-hunt data that tells us how many bucks or how many bulls are present following the hunts. So, even though may we may not know how many bucks/bulls are wounded and later die, we do know how many survive.

As for AFL waters, most of them in Utah allow for some harvest. That harvest usually involves a slot limit which requires some fish to be released. IF you want to assure that a higher percentage of released fish will survive, you reduce hooking mortality and bait. AS PBH said, lots of data exists that bear this idea out.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Again, if you want a bait only fishery, I'd support it if you could make a case for a particular fishery. Why not a few urban ponds that are bait only? Heck, maybe even Utah Lake -- I'd support it. Let's do it.


How about the entire middle Provo? 

Thin out those stunted browns.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

^^

With mandatory redd stomping!


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

PBH gets me every time with his redd stomping parties lol the middle Provo has good fish in it. Just 90% are small browns haha


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

TPrawitt91 said:


> PBH gets me every time with his redd stomping parties lol the middle Provo has good fish in it. Just 90% are small browns haha


I'm not giving him my credit!


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> How about the entire middle Provo?
> 
> Thin out those stunted browns.


Can you even imagine the heartbreak, the quickly emptying parking/access points, the anger and frustration when these guys pull up in their big jacked-up 4x4's, start to unload and assemble their Sage rods, only to find the beautiful, pristine flyfishing stream over run with...OMG...guys drowning worms.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Good luck! We don’t even let you degenerates use San Juan worms on that stretch.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

There really is a social factor (I guess that's what you'd call it) to all of this.
Here are a couple scenarios I've personally been involved with. Yes, it is probably stereotyping but it's what was said and what was witnessed. 

I participated in a river clean-up one summer. We met every Wednesday evening. The first few times we were rather surprised at how many Styrofoam worm containers we gathered--some with the nightcrawlers still in them. There was tons of other junk too that could be associated with the use of bait without stretching too far.

One evening I was fishing up behind some houses. A man came out in his backyard and talked with me for a minute. He said, "I don't mind the guys I see fishing like you. They are polite, they let my pet fish go, and they move through the area fairly quick. I don't like the fisherman who sit on the rocks, prop their pole up and then eat lunch. They always leave cans, bottles, wrappers and sacks tucked in the rocks. I feel like they are staring in my windows."

I've witnessed some real dink fly fishermen too. But for the most part fly fishermen move through an area pretty quick (unless they are fishing honey holes on the Provo or Green), they don't typically bring fast food lunches and they don't stare in windows unless there's a real reason too. :mrgreen:


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

BPturkeys said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > How about the entire middle Provo?
> ...


Out of curiosity, where is the sudden concern coming from? Seems like this is a well-established and justified regulation for sustaining a stream/river fishery.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I can't imagine why anyone would ever want the change the regs on the m. provo.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> Can you even imagine the heartbreak, the quickly emptying parking/access points, the anger and frustration when these guys pull up in their big jacked-up 4x4's, start to unload and assemble their Sage rods, only to find the beautiful, pristine flyfishing stream over run with...OMG...guys drowning worms.


Actually, that crowd tends to favor Subarus and Priuses instead of the jacked up trucks.

As the UOTF alumni on here will attest, the local flyfishing community lost their collective minds several years ago when the lower section of the middle was opened up for bait by the DWR. Strangely enough, both sections are still alive and kicking.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Maybe this will help:

"In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing. We lived at the junction of great trout rivers in western Montana, and our father was a Presbyterian minister and a fly fisherman who tied his own flies and taught others. He told us about Christ's disciples being fishermen, and we were left to assume, as my brother and I did, that all first-class fishermen on the Sea of Galilee were fly fishermen and that John, the favorite, was a dry-fly fisherman."

And:

"If our father had had his say, nobody who did not know how to fish would be allowed to disgrace a fish by catching him."

Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It and Other Stories


You can substitute any other denomination and use UT for the state if you wish...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

PBH said:


> I can't imagine why anyone would ever want the change the regs on the m. provo.


Ah, is that the context? Wasn't mentioned in the original post but I could see how that water is highly fought over.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Maybe this will help:
> 
> "In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing. We lived at the junction of great trout rivers in western Montana, and our father was a Presbyterian minister and a fly fisherman who tied his own flies and taught others. He told us about Christ's disciples being fishermen, and we were left to assume, as my brother and I did, that all first-class fishermen on the Sea of Galilee were fly fishermen and that John, the favorite, was a dry-fly fisherman."
> 
> ...


The gospel truth!!!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Catherder said:


> Actually, that crowd tends to favor Subarus and Priuses instead of the jacked up trucks.
> 
> As the UOTF alumni on here will attest, the local flyfishing community lost their collective minds several years ago when the lower section of the middle was opened up for bait by the DWR. Strangely enough, both sections are still alive and kicking.


I actually prefer to fish(fly-fish) the lower sections of the Middle where bait is allowed....

Fewer crowds, and I tend to catch better sized fish on average.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm not sure that they were fly fishermen. However, like many of us, they certainly were obsessed with fishing!

_"Like gamblers, baseball fans and television networks, fishermen are enamored of statistics. The adoration of statistics is a trait so deeply embedded in their nature that even those rarefied anglers the disciples of Jesus couldn't resist backing their yarns with arithmetic: when the resurrected Christ appears on the morning shore of the Sea of Galilee and directs his forlorn and skunked disciples to the famous catch of John 21, we learn that the net contained not "a boatload" of fish, nor "about a hundred and a half," nor "over a gross," but precisely "a hundred and fifty three." This is, it seems to me, one of the most remarkable statistics ever computed. Consider the circumstances: this is after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection; Jesus is standing on the beach newly risen from the dead, and it is only the third time the disciples have seen him since the nightmare of Calvary. And yet we learn that in the net there were "great fishes" numbering precisely "a hundred and fifty three." How was this digit discovered? Mustn't it have happened thus: upon hauling the net to shore, the disciples squatted down by that immense, writhing fish pile and started tossing them into a second pile, painstakingly counting "one, two, three, four, five, six, seven... " all the way up to a hundred and fifty three, while the newly risen Lord of Creation, the Sustainer of all their beings, He who died for them and for Whom they would gladly die, stood waiting, ignored, till the heap of fish was quantified. Such is the fisherman's compulsion toward rudimentary mathematics!
....Concerning those disciples huddled over the pile of fish, another possibility occurs to me: perhaps they paid the fish no heed. Perhaps they stood in a circle adoring their Lord while He, the All-Curious Son of His All-Knowing Dad, counted them all Himself!" _
*― David James Duncan, The River Why*


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I like the way Kolob res. has been set up. It's a win / win for both sides.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I like the way Kolob res. has been set up. It's a win / win for both sides.


Except for one thing--Kolob Reservoir has a totally different set of circumstances that allow such win/win regulations--a lot of natural reproduction of trout. This same regulation wouldn't work at somewhere like Minersville because of the lack of natural recruitment of trout and the predation of stocked trout by birds. The strict slot limit and regulations at some waters are biological and not just social.

So, while Kolob's regs seem to work well there, they may not work well at other places.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I like the way Kolob res. has been set up. It's a win / win for both sides.


Right up until the point that someone brings green sunfish and bluegill and dumps them in the reservoir....

It is great when the DWR is allowed to look at individual circumstances of fisheries and make good decisions that work. Kolob was a good example. With natural reproduction happening, there wasn't enough mortality to allow the fish in the reservoir to grow larger than the harvest restriction size. The fish simply hit a ceiling and the lake was chock-full of 16-18" fish. The regulation to allow summer-time bait use provides enough "extra" mortality that we soon started seeing larger fish showing up -- like, over 25" fish.

and then green sunfish showed up. and other panfish.

Next year should be worth heading up there to fish.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I've really had a change of heart since I started looking at worm fishing from the worms point of view.

Here I am (worm) minding my own business helping fertilize and aerate lawns. I come out at night to find a mate and some guy shines a light in my eyes, grabs me a pulls me from my hole. He puts me in some smelly container with a bunch of nightcrawlers that are cousins of mine. 

He takes me to a lake or river and proceeds to impale me with a sharp object hooked to a weighted line and tosses me in the water. I'm down there thinking about drowning and how to get out of the situation when a fish swims up and starts nibbling on me. 

Next thing I know, I'm half way down the fishes throat when the fish starts going crazy. I mean here I am in this fish throat while the fish is swimming all around in circles, jumping up out of the water, then back in the water turning and jerking around. 

The fish pretty much wears himself out and then leaves the water again. I see a human hand reach in the fishes throat and grabs me and pulls me out. I'm thinking great, this same guy that has been torturing me is now saving me. Just as that thought crosses my mind, he flings me out through the air and I'm sinking in the water again. Geeze! Here comes another fish!


----------

