Is this our future?

J

joefromchicago

Steelhead
Was amused to read an article describing the case of some fishermen convicted and fined $4200 for over-harvesting carp from a Connecticut river designated as "trophy carp water".
Any thoughts about this?
 
Carpin' is pretty big here. We actually have a few cool fresh water "flats" and the bros are way into it.

However, I didn't realize there was a high demand for carp meat.

Sign of the times I guess.
 
Carp are the one species of fish you don't even need a fishing license for in WA. As treaty tribes continue over-taking management of salmonid fish in WA, this could be the route by which WDFW manages to remain relevant in the fishery management arena.
 
What is Rocky Ford Creek classed classed at ?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS
joefromchicago said:
Was amused to read an article describing the case of some fishermen convicted and fined $4200 for over-harvesting carp from a Connecticut river designated as "trophy carp water".
Any thoughts about this?
Click to expand...

Fine is totally justified imo.
My thought is rules are rules and work to change them if you don't like them not break them.

As far as "trophy carp water" goes given the decline of steelhead and salmon creating a trophy fishery for carp in waters not connected to the waters steelhead and salmon utilize is an interesting concept for WA.
 
Here is the reasoning for the regulation.

portal.ct.gov

Common Carp Fishing in Connecticut

Information about common carp fishing in Connecticut
portal.ct.gov

Carp fishing is popular in the state they are not considered “invasive” (though they were introduced). IMO, if you have a popular target for anglers and the species is not considered invasive, why not regulate their harvest. Growing up in CT, brown and rainbow trout angling was heavily regulated and they are not native either.

Seems as reasonable to me as regulating non native trout populations, especially if the fishery is as popular as they say it is.
 
A little personal history...

As teenagers, my friends and I targeted carp on a local river that was also excellent salmon and steelhead water. We would catch fish three pounds and up that pulled as hard as you could want all day long and all you needed was a can of corn or some white bread (Langendorf was super soft and made the best doughballs). We had pretty much outgrown this when an influx of Vietnamese immigrants showed up and all of the carp suddenly got scarce.
 
It's always seemed funny to me how we as anglers place odd values on certain fish. I understand much of this likely stems from the "eat everything you catch" mentality, which makes some fish less appealing.

But in the fly fishing world, largely dominated by cnr fishing, it sure seems weird to me that certain fish are looked down upon.

Carp are cool as hell. I've never caught one on the fly but I've caught a few on gear rods and they have all pulled harder than any 5 trout I've caught combined. Yet carp are lowly to many, and trout are revered. I know fly fishing for carp has gained a lot of traction, but they still have a fairly lowly reputation it seems. Plenty of other examples of this type of thing in the fly world.

If we remove the "how good is it to eat" variable from the equation, then what factors remain to judge a fish's worth as a fly target? How hard they fight? How challenging they are to catch on a fly? The beauty and quality of the environment where they can be found/caught? If the first two factors were truly important to people then carp would be waaaay more popular than trout.

I dunno, kinda rambling I suppose. Just always thought the whole concept of how we rank the worth of certain fish to be pretty odd.
 
Nick Clayton said:
It's always seemed funny to me how we as anglers place odd values on certain fish. I understand much of this likely stems from the "eat everything you catch" mentality, which makes some fish less appealing.

But in the fly fishing world, largely dominated by cnr fishing, it sure seems weird to me that certain fish are looked down upon.

Carp are cool as hell. I've never caught one on the fly but I've caught a few on gear rods and they have all pulled harder than any 5 trout I've caught combined. Yet carp are lowly to many, and trout are revered. I know fly fishing for carp has gained a lot of traction, but they still have a fairly lowly reputation it seems. Plenty of other examples of this type of thing in the fly world.

If we remove the "how good is it to eat" variable from the equation, then what factors remain to judge a fish's worth as a fly target? How hard they fight? How challenging they are to catch on a fly? The beauty and quality of the environment where they can be found/caught? If the first two factors were truly important to people then carp would be waaaay more popular than trout.

I dunno, kinda rambling I suppose. Just always thought the whole concept of how we rank the worth of certain fish to be pretty odd.
Click to expand...
I took a recreational fisheries class from Gil Pauley many moons ago (1975?) and one big factor he pointed to in attracting sport fisherman to a particular fish was appearance. In those days SMB were known to fight well but people preferred a "silvery" fish and SMB were largely ignored.

In the late 1970's there were many people who agreed with Billy: Why are we wasting money raising and releasing trout in E WA when we could just use better management and have trophy LMB, SMB and other warm water species. But people wanted to catch a "silvery" fish...what would Lenice be like if it were managed for trophy LMB? There are a few private lakes very near Lenice that have great LMB due to warm water fish management strategies and do not require costly rehab and restock.

In my opinion carp clearly fall into the "a face only a mother could love" category!
 
Nick Clayton said:
It's always seemed funny to me how we as anglers place odd values on certain fish. I understand much of this likely stems from the "eat everything you catch" mentality, which makes some fish less appealing.

But in the fly fishing world, largely dominated by cnr fishing, it sure seems weird to me that certain fish are looked down upon.

Carp are cool as hell. I've never caught one on the fly but I've caught a few on gear rods and they have all pulled harder than any 5 trout I've caught combined. Yet carp are lowly to many, and trout are revered. I know fly fishing for carp has gained a lot of traction, but they still have a fairly lowly reputation it seems. Plenty of other examples of this type of thing in the fly world.

If we remove the "how good is it to eat" variable from the equation, then what factors remain to judge a fish's worth as a fly target? How hard they fight? How challenging they are to catch on a fly? The beauty and quality of the environment where they can be found/caught? If the first two factors were truly important to people then carp would be waaaay more popular than trout.

I dunno, kinda rambling I suppose. Just always thought the whole concept of how we rank the worth of certain fish to be pretty odd.
Click to expand...
To me fish are fish and tugs are tugs. The better the tug, the better the fish. If tugs are equal then it becomes about technique. In a perfect world, I'd like to throw long ass casts and get savage topwater eats. Then comes environment, other things equal I'd prefer to do it in a place thats stunningly beautiful or filled with wildlife.

I think I'll swing dries in the morning for Springers then lick my wounds doing poppers for bass in the afternoon
 
longputt said:
I took a recreational fisheries class from Gil Pauley many moons ago (1975?) and one big factor he pointed to in attracting sport fisherman to a particular fish was appearance. In those days SMB were known to fight well but people preferred a "silvery" fish and SMB were largely ignored.

In the late 1970's there were many people who agreed with Billy: Why are we wasting money raising and releasing trout in E WA when we could just use better management and have trophy LMB, SMB and other warm water species. But people wanted to catch a "silvery" fish...what would Lenice be like if it were managed for trophy LMB? There are a few private lakes very near Lenice that have great LMB due to warm water fish management strategies and do not require costly rehab and restock.

In my opinion carp clearly fall into the "a face only a mother could love" category!
Click to expand...


Interesting. Never considered that angle of things.

Personally I think carp are a super cool looking fish. But then again I make my living all spring catching lingcod which I think are the coolest looking fish in the PNW, so what do I know.

I suppose it does make some sense though, especially in the PNW where silvery fish were historically abundant and the focal point of many anglers.

Then again, brown trout are vastly more popular than whitefish. ;)
 
Nick Clayton said:
Interesting. Never considered that angle of things.

Personally I think carp are a super cool looking fish. But then again I make my living all spring catching lingcod which I think are the coolest looking fish in the PNW, so what do I know.

I suppose it does make some sense though, especially in the PNW where silvery fish were historically abundant and the focal point of many anglers.

Then again, brown trout are vastly more popular than whitefish. ;)
Click to expand...
Don't forget that was 45 years ago....damn I'm getting old!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top