Can we fishing at red circus area at TRAVERS inlet?

[dennisb]

FYI, Just spoke to the Vulcan F&W officer. He says that as long as your fishing outside of the buoys your legal to fish. He also mentioed he has signs on order and that the signs will indicate that there is no fishing allowed between the buoys and the STRUCTURE.
He also mentioned that he personally measured the distance from the buoys to the structure and has confirmed the distance to be 98m.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by dennisb

FYI, Just spoke to the Vulcan F&W officer. He says that as long as your fishing outside of the buoys your legal to fish. He also mentioed he has signs on order and that the signs will indicate that there is no fishing allowed between the buoys and the STRUCTURE.
He also mentioned that he personally measured the distance from the buoys to the structure and has confirmed the distance to be 98m.

So you are saying the outside of the two side berms is "fishable"...as would be fishing at the ends of the berms as long as you are not inside the bouys?

I guess the question is what are they defining "structure" as?

LC

[SCHOOCH]

Pretty simple if they are putting the buoys out with signs to figure where your legal or not......im guessing opening weekend a whole ton of tickets will be handed out regardless.....

[dennisb]

YES, thats exactly what im saying. I thought that my message was very clear. Good news is he mentioned he lives very close and will be spending alot of time patroling around the lake.

Lefty-Canuck Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisb
FYI, Just spoke to the Vulcan F&W officer. He says that as long as your fishing outside of the buoys your legal to fish. He also mentioed he has signs on order and that the signs will indicate that there is no fishing allowed between the buoys and the STRUCTURE.
He also mentioned that he personally measured the distance from the buoys to the structure and has confirmed the distance to be 98m.


So you are saying the outside of the two side berms is "fishable"...as would be fishing at the ends of the berms as long as you are not inside the bouys?

I guess the question is what are they defining "structure" as?

p

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by dennisb

FYI, Just spoke to the Vulcan F&W officer. He says that as long as your fishing outside of the buoys your legal to fish. He also mentioed he has signs on order and that the signs will indicate that there is no fishing allowed between the buoys and the STRUCTURE.
He also mentioned that he personally measured the distance from the buoys to the structure and has confirmed the distance to be 98m.

Originally Posted by dennisb

YES, thats exactly what im saying. I thought that my message was very clear. Good news is he mentioned he lives very close and will be spending alot of time patroling around the lake.

p

I mean, he's the one enforcing the regulation, but I'm pretty sure the outside of northern berm is less than 100m from the inlet. Maybe my estimation is wrong though.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

I mean, he's the one enforcing the regulation, but I'm pretty sure the outside of northern berm is less than 100m from the inlet. Maybe my estimation is wrong though.

They must be using 100m of shoreline and not 100m as the crow flies to measure.

LC

[huntsfurfish]

Was afraid this might be the result. Last year was No Fishing with in 25yds. (22.86m). Buoys were already 100 meter out(currently). Better than nothing but still leaves legal spots. So no reel improvement. Terry said there could be issues(legal)(I believe with DFO) with moving the buoys. Guess we will see.




Inside lines could be the new enforceable areas.

This would leave the "tips" open to fishing and the east shore line. Boaters would be unaffected but would cover the interior areas.

[Walleye99]

Looks like ill be doing lotsa night fishing

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by Walleye99

Looks like ill be doing lotsa night fishing

Sounds about right....

[Jack&7]

Well....it seems to me that if the berms are not enclosed within the 'no fishing zone' then the poaching will continue. Granted, I have seen guys in boats fishing right on the buoy line and keep illegal fish...but I think the shore fishermen that hook one and run it up to their car are the bigger problem.

Taking away their access (via the berms) is IMHO is a a massive step in solving the problem...that and more enforcement.

[Cory1]

Originally Posted by Jack&7

Well....it seems to me that if the berms are not enclosed within the 'no fishing zone' then the poaching will continue. Granted, I have seen guys in boats fishing right on the buoy line and keep illegal fish...but I think the shore fishermen that hook one and run it up to their car are the bigger problem.

Taking away their access (via the berms) is IMHO is a a massive step in solving the problem...that and more enforcement.

Taking away the access will only keep the honest folk out.
Will it stop the poaching? I doubt it.
Will it make it more difficult? I hope so, might make it easier to catch them when there is enforcement taking place.

But at the end of the day the people responsible for the poaching are making a deliberate choice and I don't think it will make much of a difference either way with what restrictions you put on them. At the end of the day they made the decision not to follow them.

[The Fisherman Guy]

Understanding the regulation regarding the closed area around the spillway will encourage law abiding anglers to inform poachers that their illegal actions are punishable.

Fish & Wildlife are well aware of the issue, and will be frequenting the area to punish poachers who neglect to read, understand and follow the regulations.

[Jack&7]

Originally Posted by Cory1

Taking away the access will only keep the honest folk out.
Will it stop the poaching? I doubt it.
Will it make it more difficult? I hope so, might make it easier to catch them when there is enforcement taking place.

But at the end of the day the people responsible for the poaching are making a deliberate choice and I don't think it will make much of a difference either way with what restrictions you put on them. At the end of the day they made the decision not to follow them.

Valid points....

I guess what I was trying to say was that it seems the fish would congregate around the spillway and people fishing off the berms (and the guys in boats, too) have easy access to them with the past set-up. If everyone has to move 100 m away, and the berms are no longer accessible, yes, you still will have guys on shore right at that 100 m mark...but since they will be farther away from where the fish are hanging out, the fish stand a better chance of making it.

And there still will be those that will poach no matter what...hence the need for more enforcement at that location. If you turn it into a hotspot, hopefully the bad guys move elsewhere.

[Walleye99]

Who needs regs if its dark out fishermangirl

[anthony5]

I do believe the fish fuzz in Vulcan has a good set of binos that works best at night

[WayneChristie]

Originally Posted by Walleye99

Who needs regs if its dark out fishermangirl

wondered when your ugly head would pop back up again shoe salesman

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by Walleye99

Should just shut Travers down completely!! All this crap is bs!

Where ever its easy to cast and catch a fish ,its ilegal , only thing thats legal is buying your lic , and dont ya dare keep one to eat either , getting to the point where fishingis no fun anymore .
Spending over a hundred bucks on gas to go out and catch a fish and then kiss it goodbye may be fine for some who dont like fish , to me its just plain stupid.

Dont give us sob storys about our kids not having any fish left , fish have been in our waters for ever , and will still be around when your little Johnny is a great granpa and long after that , as long as theres water there will be fish , its all about saving our fishing resourses for outfitters catering to rich clientel from the states .

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by Walleye99

Who needs regs if its dark out fishermangirl

No fishing at travers half hour after sunset either , stay home , go to legion.


Also they better put up signs at that location in Chinese , because threres lots.

[burbotman]

[QUOTE=Jimboy;2406743]Where ever its easy to cast and catch a fish ,its ilegal , only thing thats legal is buying your lic , and dont ya dare keep one to eat either , getting to the point where fishingis no fun anymore .
Spending over a hundred bucks on gas to go out and catch a fish and then kiss it goodbye may be fine for some who dont like fish , to me its just plain stupid.

Dont give us sob storys about our kids not having any fish left , fish have been in our waters for ever , and will still be around when your little Johnny is a great granpa and long after that , as long as theres water there will be fish , its all about saving our fishing resourses for outfitters catering to rich clientel from the states .[/

True people fish for different reasons. Some for the table some for the experience. Harsh reality that that one of the above may be disappearing

[Winch101]

Burb good one .Jim I do believe that is a racial slur and they should add
Russian , Bosnian , to that sign .

A camera is a great weapon , scatters those shore poachers .

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

For what it's worth, Terry Clayton got back to me this morning and he believes the 'canal inlet structure' begins where the cement from the inlet touches the water in Travers. So in his opinion, the no fishing boundary would look something like this (rough estimate obviously):

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

I should mention that my drawing is just my interpretation of what he said in the email. I replied back to make sure I'm not putting words in his mouth, so to speak.

Terry got back to me this morning, and I did interpret what he initially said wrong. The above picture IS NOT how the regulation is interpreted. Huntsfurfish's drawing is correct. The "canal structure" includes the berms of the inlet, so fishing off of the berms would in fact be illegal.

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

This was what was discussed at the meeting. Extending 100 meters in all directions. Not sure if it went through though(law). red lines are about 100m.

rough

Buoys would be at the end of the red lines in a half circle to protect the fish in that area. As well as the fish within the structure itself.

So we should see some new buoys going in this spring and Terry also mentioned they will/try to get signage up as well! Good news!

[Team Beef]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

Terry got back to me this morning, and I did interpret what he initially said wrong. The above picture IS NOT how the regulation is interpreted. Huntsfurfish's drawing is correct. The "canal structure" includes the berms of the inlet, so fishing off of the berms would in fact be illegal.







So we should see some new buoys going in this spring and Terry also mentioned they will/try to get signage up as well! Good news!

Exactly as was proposed at the Meeting. Glad to see follow through on recommendations.

[the local angler]

with the new buoy markers at the 100 mark the set up kinda reminds me of the old spillway where the markers didn't run across the mouth of the spillway and would kinda wrap around the outside. i hope this also detours people from driving and parking on the rock point(old spillway side), one day i went down to check out the new spillway setup and there was a bunch of vehicles parked half way up the rock wall point. till this day i am not sure how these people were able to drive that way.

[iliketrout]

I cannot wait to see those new buoys! Just need the appropriate amount of enforcement as well!

[the local angler]

what they also need is a cell tower down there so people's cell phones can work down in the valley too.

[eightdoor]

ANY PICTURE today???