Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: jon5hill on October 24, 2014, 10:52:38 AM
-
I would like to keep this thread objective, so please keep the replies constructive.
I wanted to pose a suggestion about the current regulations in light of the reality of enforcement on several clauses in our freshwater salmon fishing regulations to see whether or not there is agreement within the angling community.
On page 9 of the Freshwater Fishing Synopsis 2013-15, it clearly states:
Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately
It goes on to expound the definition of snagging on page 88:
snagging (foul hooking): hooking a fish in any other part of its body other than the mouth. Attempting to snag fish of any species is prohibited. Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately
It is well understood that enforcement on these regulations is either completely missing, hopelessly lacking in scale and subjective. In light of these facts, there are plenty of people out there willfully snagging fish, hauling them to shore, and yet keeping only those fish hooked in the mouth. This is interesting as it seems there is at least some partial adherence to the idea that a fish needs to be hooked in a particular location for it to be retained.
However, the result of this is that there are plenty of fish that are intentionally foul hooked in the caudal fin, pectoral fin, dorsal fin, gill plate, anal fin, and eye socket that are released back into the wild. The "angler" would then release said fish because it is not a "head shot". The consequence is that several fish are depleted of their energy reserves, mishandled, dragged onto the rocks, and then kicked back into the water. Ultimately the "angler" would remain at their post, snagging away until their limit was reached. This may result in many more than their limit of fish dying or being so depleted and abused that they would be unable to spawn or compete for access to spawning grounds. The ultimate end result is an effective withdraw of perhaps many more than 2-4 salmon out of the system, but could be much, much higher. In the broad strokes, if all "anglers" who practice snagging are releasing non "head shot" fish, the implications for a fishery may be much larger than if we simply allowed them to keep fish hooked from any location.
It's no secret that these "anglers" are intentionally, willyfully, and very purposely foul hooking fish - many times they don't even have a presentation on their hook. Yet they do so with impunity, and still retain only those fish hooked in the mouth. My suggestion is that if we are going to let them exercise this type of behavior as we currently do - we should allow them to retain fish hooked anywhere on their body so as to satisfy their daily quotas, prevent the foul hooking and subsequent release of other fish, and get them off the resource.
This has the added benefit of removing a lot of conflict that may arise between fishers regarding where their hooks were set. I have seen people scream at others for retaining fish that were hooked in subjective areas, like the side of the head, the maxilla, or the gill plate. It also would benefit all anglers by getting the snagging crowd off the water sooner. The entire fishery exists because monkey see monkey do, so ostensibly if there are fewer present on the river, fewer people will learn the technique and start buying betties at their local tackle shop.
I know this may be admitting defeat to some, but to date there has been zero interest from enforcement to wade into this issue and attempt to regulate it. In the interest of the fish, we're removing fewer effective spawners from the system by allowing snaggers to keep their tail-hooked fish.
I'd like to hear thoughts and opinions, but please keep the dialogue constructive.
Jon Hill
-
Although I do agree that it would reduce the amount of fish that get returned to the river harmed at first. I also think that more people would start snagging and that would not be good. We would see more wild fish dragged across the rock only to be kicked back into the water, or killed. Having more snaggers on the river would mean less spots to get away from them. The only solution I can think of is enforcement.
-
Although I do agree that it would reduce the amount of fish that get returned to the river harmed at first. I also think that more people would start snagging and that would not be good. We would see more wild fish dragged across the rock only to be kicked back into the water, or killed. Having more snaggers on the river would mean less spots to get away from them. The only solution I can think of is enforcement.
I would challenge that, I think it would reduce the number of new people fishing. It's exactly the same technique, only with less scrutiny when a fish is landed, so people are off the water sooner. People who are out there would get their limits and leave sooner - ultimately reducing the chance that a random stranger walks by and tries to learn how to snag as well.
-
--I believe we need more than one regulation to cover this.
--There should be an explanation of the intent of the regulation.
--If there is an area where the intent is a harvest fishery... ie it is a quota situation were fish can be removed until the quota is reached. Then I do not see any harm in allowing harvest by snagging, netting or whatever is deemed to be appropriate.
--I believe the regulations are in some cases abused by fisheries managers... ie they use fish catching regulations as a tool to limit the number of people as they do not have enough information on the fishery or they do not have enough enforcement of the fishery. Abuse of the precautionary principle in other words they don't know so lets just add some regs in case there might be a problem
--In areas where bycatch is an issue... that is there is a sensitive species in the same waters at the same time as there are other species that do not need to have a limited catch or there is a management reason for a slot limit *(size) then selective methods that allow for reduced mortality of non target species or size is a legitimate tool. This is where I would envision a regulation such that it indicated a willful take by the target species and use of a rigging that increases successful release when required.
--Legal definitions can be painful as the law is most easily enforced if there is no discreation. I have most often found that knowing the intent and explaining the intent results in a higher degree of compliance.
-
well I believe that bottom bouncing should be banned altogether but that's probably not likely to happen so Jon your suggestion is pretty good I assume you are talking about Sockeye. getting the yahoos off the river sooner is a better idea.
-
well I believe that bottom bouncing should be banned altogether but that's probably not likely to happen so Jon your suggestion is pretty good I assume you are talking about Sockeye. getting the yahoos off the river sooner is a better idea.
The issue with this is that, you can ethically bottom bounce with a 20" leader and piece of roe, in northern rivers, and the salmon actually eat your presentation. A better idea would be to impose a leader restriction of say 36".
-
The issue with this is that, you can ethically bottom bounce with a 20" leader and piece of roe, in northern rivers, and the salmon actually eat your presentation. A better idea would be to impose a leader restriction of say 36".
And they would be free to ethically bottom bounce and entice fish to eat roe just the same.. that wouldn't change anything. The issue is that we're not regulating snagging whatsoever on the Fraser for Sockeye/Pinks, and it's making its way to our terminal rivers, where the real winners of the fish population show up to spawn - these fish are hauled in backwards and sideways just to be released and then eventually die without spawning so a snagger can get 2-4 mouth-hookups and bonk his limit. They should keep the first 4 fish they catch instead of only the ones that are mouth hooked. If we assume that this isn't going to be regulated, and there seems to be zero interest from enforcement to start regulate snagging any time soon, or ever for that matter - it would make more sense to allow them to simply take home a fish hooked anywhere than only those hooked in the mouth.. I mean come on, nobody is fooling anyone - we all know that the fish has not in fact eaten the green wool, or attacked it - it's just a farce to begin with, it's making a mockery of the rules, so we should just cut our losses of valuable spawners and allow them to take their limits no matter where they are hooked. Enforcement could then adjust limits, which are adhered to by most people including the snagging "anglers".
-
Reduce the Daily & possession limits. Make a rule like steelhead season where once your limit is retained your done fishing, 1 fish per day. I bet if the rivers were catch & release only it'd be a ghost town out there.
What's sad is that the majority of those people already have their Freezers stuffed with sockeye this year and are still out taking 4 a day. I wonder how many fish are wasted every year.
The only other thing people understand is heavy financial fines. Up the fines for snagging fish, make it so crazy that the word will spread like fire amongst them.
-
Reduce the Daily & possession limits. Make a rule like steelhead season where once your limit is retained your done fishing, 1 fish per day. I bet if the rivers were catch & release only it'd be a ghost town out there.
What's sad is that the majority of those people already have their Freezers stuffed with sockeye this year and are still out taking 4 a day. I wonder how many fish are wasted every year.
The only other thing people understand is heavy financial fines. Up the fines for snagging fish, make it so crazy that the word will spread like fire amongst them.
These are all things that we would all agree with, but they are a pipedream. They are not consistent with what is actually happening. Enforcement simply does not care about snagging as it is a political issue. It drives a lot of money into the sport fishing and outfitters industry in the lower mainland. As anglers who benefit from the resource we have a responsibility to put the fish first, and if we are going to go ahead and allow snagging to persist, then we might as well let them take the first fish they catch, regardless of where the hook was set. That's the point here.
-
These are all things that we would all agree with, but they are a pipedream. They are not consistent with what is actually happening. Enforcement simply does not care about snagging as it is a political issue. It drives a lot of money into the sport fishing and outfitters industry in the lower mainland. As anglers who benefit from the resource we have a responsibility to put the fish first, and if we are going to go ahead and allow snagging to persist, then we might as well let them take the first fish they catch, regardless of where the hook was set. That's the point here.
--This makes sense if this is a harvest quota fishery. This system is used on some USA rivers to reduce the number of people on the river and to ensure people do not cull for larger fish... again without regard for those released. Usually do not allow a catch and release fishery at the same time. That would mean that C&R types would have to just not go to the river until after the harvest fishery openings.
--In Osoyoos there was a 2 fish limit even though the limit on USA side of Osoyoos lk was 5 fish. What this does is reduce the number of people that are willing to travel greater distances if they can only keep 2 fish so basically makes it a more local fishery... The issue in LML would be that you have a lot of locals so it doesn't necessarily reduce the number of people on the water.
--Again the management objective has to be clear then regulation can be used in part to help meet the objectives.
--You have to conscider that there are those who believe that C&R is not ethical.
--Also if management plan is to an escapement number if "recreational" fishers do not take their full quota the quota will be given to other fishery constituents. In other words reduce the recreational quota to 2 fish the the other 2 fish could be given to commercial net quota.
-
I'm on the fence with your suggestion Jon.
If they were allow snaggers to keep any snagged fish, they would have to put a stop fishing rule once you'd got your limit. Snaggers are snaggers, but for the most part, they still enjoy what they're doing out on the water or they probably wouldnt be there.
-
If anything I think they need to be stricter and an almost zero tolerance rule when it comes to fishing. The RCMP and DFO need to be strict all persons and not be selective though.
Situations like video are reasons enough : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4G1R84swgU fast forward to the 4:10 point and watch on.... Gross.
-
That video is disturbing in more ways than one.
-
If anything I think they need to be stricter and an almost zero tolerance rule when it comes to fishing. The RCMP and DFO need to be strict all persons and not be selective though.
Situations like video are reasons enough : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4G1R84swgU fast forward to the 4:10 point and watch on.... Gross.
Reading the comments under the video, it seems this kid was killed in an accidental shooting.
-
I would like to keep this thread objective, so please keep the replies constructive.
I wanted to pose a suggestion about the current regulations in light of the reality of enforcement on several clauses in our freshwater salmon fishing regulations to see whether or not there is agreement within the angling community.
Hey Jon. Do you have the power to change the regulation. !!!!!!!!!!!
-
Everyone has power to change something, so long as we keep it civil and give them no way to fight back, aka a good strong argument. Not just a personal belief system, you give them facts, cold hard facts. Science if you have too to prove the contrary.
The reason Jon said what he said about keeping it civil is because this can easily turn into a "flame war"
-
I hate to bring up a point slightly off topic but I gotta ask the intent of the proposal you are referring to? If we are solely discussing these changes in the interest of fish escapement and reproduction than I would suggest there needs to be stricter regulations on FN and commercial boats. Their by catch and fish waste impacts the fishery way more than the snagging population annually. Having openings done at more appropriate times, and with greater regulation and enforcement would be a huge step in fixing the fish numbers IMO. While I do not agree with the snagging, intentionally or not, I do not see their impact causing more of an impact than those I mentioned.
-
I agree with Jon's idea. I have always thought this way about this fishery even though I don' t participate in it much (not something I do cartwheels for). It just seems pointless to just keep foul hooking fish and letting them go until you get the one that has the hook in the mouth. It's no mystery what this fishery is - it's a meat harvest fishery....so let the angler just keep his/her first 2 or 4 Sockeye, regardless where they are hooked, and go home. I believe it is worse to catch and release in these circumstances until you obtain your quota than the act of flossing/snagging/bouncing/or whatever. Guys I know don't do this for the sport of catch and release - they just want the fish to eat. The lure of having fresh Sockeye on the BBQ is very enticing. Sockeye tasted great smoked this year but actually the brookies from small lake fishing this fall were better.
-
I hate to bring up a point slightly off topic but I gotta ask the intent of the proposal you are referring to? If we are solely discussing these changes in the interest of fish escapement and reproduction than I would suggest there needs to be stricter regulations on FN and commercial boats. Their by catch and fish waste impacts the fishery way more than the snagging population annually. Having openings done at more appropriate times, and with greater regulation and enforcement would be a huge step in fixing the fish numbers IMO. While I do not agree with the snagging, intentionally or not, I do not see their impact causing more of an impact than those I mentioned.
Not sure what FN fisheries you are referring to? I don't believe you can totally blanket them all with the same criticism because FN commercial fisheries in the interior in the terminal areas greatly reduce bycatch of weaker stocks. They are licenced, regulated (quota) and enforced and they are not conducted if the abundances are not showing up past Mission. Personally, I don't see greater enforcement happening given the current fiscal climate. It's all about priorities now and available resources. Although it seems bad, foul hooking fish may not top the list of priorities given all the other crap that is going on.
-
This is a solution to a 1 per 4 year issue and provides zero incentive for these anglers to turn ethical...
-
Personally, this has nothing to do with making anglers more ethical. It just makes sense from a biological perspective if this fishery is going to happen. But really...how ethical is it to continuously hook and release fish, fighting them on a fishing rod to near exhaustion for personal enjoyment whether it is flossing, fly fishing, gang trolling, etc? That's why I take "ethics" with a grain of salt.
-
Good point. So often when certain anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences or prejudices and not really considering how all angling activities effect the fish and the environment.
Oregon has had legal snag fisheries in the past and may currently. They have also amended their regulations to require fish be hooked in the mouth, at least in salmon bearing rivers. In other jurisdictions there are administrative approaches to regulating foul hooked fish versus fair hooked. Usually anywhere in the head is allowed.
In general our regulations is written so that enforcement is required to make it work. Anglers can be ticketed for simply trying to snag fish. It would interesting to see if the Oregon experience is leading to a reduction in snagging.
I personally don't think your proposal is sound or would be achieve what you think it will. Snagging has been an issue for several decades. Making it legal won't fix that or the issues you identify.
-
I hate to bring up a point slightly off topic but I gotta ask the intent of the proposal you are referring to? If we are solely discussing these changes in the interest of fish escapement and reproduction than I would suggest there needs to be stricter regulations on FN and commercial boats. Their by catch and fish waste impacts the fishery way more than the snagging population annually. Having openings done at more appropriate times, and with greater regulation and enforcement would be a huge step in fixing the fish numbers IMO. While I do not agree with the snagging, intentionally or not, I do not see their impact causing more of an impact than those I mentioned.
The intent is to see if we can find common ground to address a problem. If recreational fishers can agree on some principles regarding sport fishing that include a separate and distinct set of rules for meat-harvest type fisheries, then we may be able to unify and gather enough interest to propose changes to regulators by collecting signatures. At present it seems like the wild west, where meat-harvest/snaggers are breaking the rules - so to keep things in line with the law, we either enforce the rules properly (super low probability given funding limitations for enforcement and lack of interest due to revenue generation into the sport fishing/outfitters industry) or change the law. There is a lot of stigma generated by those of us who consider ourselves ethical anglers and those of us who consider ourselves meat harvesters. This is not necessary, and the root cause of this stigma is from the fact that the law suggests what meat harvesters are doing is not within the legal framework imposed by sport fishing regulations - an obvious source of conflict on the river. There is a lot of hate out there..
The ultimate goal here is to improve numbers on the spawning grounds by letting go of release-requirements for non-mouth hooked fish. One proximate goal would be to recognize that there is sport fishing and there is meat-harvesting and they should not be both held under the same rules, for obvious reasons.
Sure, addressing larger problems like commercial fishing by-catch would significantly improve escapement numbers, and definitely help populations of special concern (North Thompson Steelhead/Coho, Cultus Lake Sockeye), but it's a larger battle to fight and it's directly against industry. The change I propose is a small win for recreational fishers, and it's in line with reality, eliminates the illegality of what is happening anyway, and reduces incidental hooking mortality on non-mouth hookups. It's something tangible and it's a reasonable goal. It would also be helpful to bring together some voices in the fishing community for other purposes. We all enjoy the resource but we don't have a unified voice - it's time to get one and this is one way of starting.
-
This is a solution to a 1 per 4 year issue and provides zero incentive for these anglers to turn ethical...
That is the problem precisely. We have a common belief that what they are doing is not ethical. The root of that is because it states that it is illegal in the sport fishing regulations. Let's not kid ourselves, snagging is not going anywhere. Many excellent sport fishers I know also participate in snagging, and their view is that it is an entirely different thing. I can't agree exactly because I view fishing as something sacred like many of you, and we'd be damned to let these snagging idiots tarnish our wonderful sport right? Well take a single look at the Stave, Peg Leg, or any bouncing bar during a run of Sockeye/Pinks and now Springs on the Fraser mainstem. It's a gongshow everywhere you go - and it will only increase unless one of 2 things happen - we legalize it as a harvest fishery, with a distinct set of rules including the one I am suggesting in the original post with a legitimate harvest quota, and manage it properly - OR - we adequately enforce the current regulations (I would prefer this but it's not a reality). These people have figured out how to snag fish efficiently with bouncing betties and huge leaders and will continue to do so with a tuft of rainbow sparkly wool on their hook so long as it will produce a fish on the end of their line. I think that those of us who avoid this meat harvest and fish within what we consider ethical boundaries are the minority now - people want a fish on the table at the end of the day. It's hard for all these guys to justify the gas expense and gear just to snap a few photos. It's a value system that is different from what you or I believe and it's based on providing food. The video posted above is gut wrenching to watch, but why is that technically wrong - because the instrument he happens to use is the same that we use to entice a fish to take a presentation? We need to wake up and start regulating it properly instead of clumping it with our beloved sport and judging them all the time. Whose to say what impact it would have on converting a snagger to our ways? I think that it's a deep rooted respect for the sport that we all bear, and that's something that is taught from an early age. There is no way I could convince a single friend of mine who snags not to do it because it makes my sport look stupid. Stack my feeling up to putting a big bright sockeye on the dinner table and the filled belly wins every single time.
-
Good point. So often when certain anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences or prejudices and not really considering how all angling activities effect the fish and the environment.
Oregon has had legal snag fisheries in the past and may currently. They have also amended their regulations to require fish be hooked in the mouth, at least in salmon bearing rivers. In other jurisdictions there are administrative approaches to regulating foul hooked fish versus fair hooked. Usually anywhere in the head is allowed.
In general our regulations is written so that enforcement is required to make it work. Anglers can be ticketed for simply trying to snag fish. It would interesting to see if the Oregon experience is leading to a reduction in snagging.
I personally don't think your proposal is sound or would be achieve what you think it will. Snagging has been an issue for several decades. Making it legal won't fix that or the issues you identify.
Would it be accurate to state that you don't believe it will achieve the issue of incidental hooking mortality on non mouth-hooked fish?
-
To add to my above.
Enforcement is required to stop people from snagging.
Enforcement is required to make people harvest the snagged fish and stop fishing once quota is met.
See the problem with your idea? The proposed fix requires the very solution to the "problem" in the first place.
-
First off, I'll refer to snagging as the intentional foul hooking of fish which is illegal under the regs, and not the legal technique of flossing.
However, the result of this is that there are plenty of fish that are intentionally foul hooked in the caudal fin, pectoral fin, dorsal fin, gill plate, anal fin, and eye socket that are released back into the wild. The "angler" would then release said fish because it is not a "head shot". The consequence is that several fish are depleted of their energy reserves, mishandled, dragged onto the rocks, and then kicked back into the water. Ultimately the "angler" would remain at their post, snagging away until their limit was reached. This may result in many more than their limit of fish dying or being so depleted and abused that they would be unable to spawn or compete for access to spawning grounds. The ultimate end result is an effective withdraw of perhaps many more than 2-4 salmon out of the system, but could be much, much higher. In the broad strokes, if all "anglers" who practice snagging are releasing non "head shot" fish, the implications for a fishery may be much larger than if we simply allowed them to keep fish hooked from any location.
I think your intentions are good and your proposal would probably have the desired effect on a some small percentage of anglers but overall I think it would not have the overall end result you envision.
We should not reward unrespectable behavior by allowing people to benefit from those actions. I feel that would open the floodgates to blatant snagging on all systems all the time if it were legalized and would spread like wildfire if legitimized in any way shape or form.
IMHO most people are ethical and try to learn to do things the right way but there is a portion of the fishing community (possibly larger than we realize) that would absolutely explode if keeping snagged fish were allowed. Believe you me, that sub-segment of the community are not too concerned about resource management, conservation, and respect for fish. Allow the retention of foul-hooked fish and we'll have lost any leverage to convert the receptive ones about selective techniques and appropriate methods.
Current snaggers will then go off and teach their friends, families, kids the only 'proper' way of fishing they will probably ever know. Would they ever bother learning any other technique if snagging is suddenly legal?
I agree current enforcement currently leaves much to be desired, but at least the current regs gives us regular people some ammunition and basis with which to educate whenever possible, and call out/report violators.
It's no secret that these "anglers" are intentionally, willyfully, and very purposely foul hooking fish - many times they don't even have a presentation on their hook. Yet they do so with impunity, and still retain only those fish hooked in the mouth. My suggestion is that if we are going to let them exercise this type of behavior as we currently do - we should allow them to retain fish hooked anywhere on their body so as to satisfy their daily quotas, prevent the foul hooking and subsequent release of other fish, and get them off the resource.
If we want them off the resource, I firmly don't believe that the answer is to reward such behavior and hope they go home early. They'll just be back the next day and in greater numbers because it's so darn easy.
From a human psychology perspective, people respond to incentives. If you want to reduce a behaviour, you have to reduce the incentive in doing it or make the alternatives more desirable; not make it even easier to do and rewarding.
-
Good point. So often when certain anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences or prejudices and not really considering how all angling activities effect the fish and the environment.
That's kind of what I wanted to say but you said it better than my mumbo jumbo.
-
I don't think that most anglers that engage in flossing/snagging/bouncing/or whatever are intentionally trying to purposely foul hook salmon. I concede that I don't know every personality on the river and their intentions, but from the people I have met that participate in the fishery they would rather hook the fish in the mouth and feel better about their catch than to drag it in by the tail or the belly. Yeah there is just a chunk of wool or nothing at all on the hook, but they fully understand that these Sockeye are not interested in feeding.
I don't think Jon's idea rewards anglers that do this or that snagging will explode because as Ralph states has been an issue for decades. Under the current regulatory environment, anglers in this fishery are doing it anyway so why not let then take their first 2 or 4 fish foul hooked or not and let them be on their way....because I believe most folks would comply. They want the meat - not the sport. Spending time losing gear while trying to keep Sockeye that are all properly hooked is not fun. As I said before it just seems pointless to keep catching and releasing salmon like Sockeye until you get one that is hooked in the mouth. What is better for the resource in this circumstance: Keeping the foul hooked Sockeye and adding that to your daily quota or continuously catching and releasing Sockeye with limited energy resources until you get that one that properly hooked according to the regulations?
The likelihood of this fishery going away is pretty slim (IMO) due to the revenue generated not only for local businesses, but for the financial coffers of the Pacific Salmon Foundation. If you reduce participants you will reduce the amount of money generated by the sale of salmon stamps. Why purchase a stamp if the likelihood of catching and retaining a Sockeye has greatly diminished? That money goes to projects that many here would agree are necessary. Trust me...government money for these projects is limited to non-existent. It's not a conservation issue because if the abundances of Sockeye are not coming past Mission or the lower river test fisheries then the recreational fishery is not happening...and that is basically once out of every 4 years. If water temperature are deemed too extreme the fishery is not happening. The fishery is closed at a certain point to prevent the bycatch of endangered species albeit not perfect. Sockeye on the spawning grounds this season are showing up in generally good condition. I agree with what Ralph said....when anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences and prejudices.
-
I am impressed with the conversation in this forum.
I think it just comes down to education and the community. Like what Flytech has done on the water and what I see a lot of other fishermen whom I am sure may or may not come to these forums but taking the time to help each other and getting around to help sway the few to a better course of fishing and more enjoyable.
-
To add to my above.
Enforcement is required to stop people from snagging.
Enforcement is required to make people harvest the snagged fish and stop fishing once quota is met.
See the problem with your idea? The proposed fix requires the very solution to the "problem" in the first place.
I see the point you are making, but there is definitely a distinction to be made here - often those who snag fish intentionally, yet only retain fish that are caught in the mouth only retain their limits - they respect that rule - that is because the number of fish you have on your possession is not subjective like proving if you are intentionally foul hooking a fish is. It would require no more enforcement than exists now - as people actually respect that rule because counting the number of fish on hand is a very objective measure of whether or not someone is breaking the law.
-
We should not reward unrespectable behavior by allowing people to benefit from those actions. I feel that would open the floodgates to blatant snagging on all systems all the time if it were legalized and would spread like wildfire if legitimized in any way shape or form.
I feel you have a very pessimistic viewpoint :(
It is occuring anyway at the cost of fish on the spawning grounds because we impose an ideal that we think our grandfathers would scoff at on others and because we put the words illegal around it in the fishing regulations. This is reality - we don't enforce it at all and they snag them anyway. Have you ever even heard of someone being ticketed for intentionally foulhooking a fish?
My feeling is that it already has rapidly proliferated to the point where entire families are going out there yanking tons of sockeye out of the river while Billy McSportFisherman stands beside them waving his finger saying, "You know, you have to let that one go because it came in backwards hooked on the tail". The naive family looks at him and nods, and out of fear releases exhausted fish back into the system - just to go ahead and bonk the next one. What's the point? The great majority of these people respect objective rules, and that means they own licenses, salmon tags and follow retention limits. I'm saying remove the clause about intentionally foul-hooking fish because reality would suggest its pointless (uninforced) and damaging (deleterious to the salmon population). As users of the resource we have to look out for the fish first.
... there is a portion of the fishing community (possibly larger than we realize) that would absolutely explode if keeping snagged fish were allowed...
At what fisheries? The sockeye openings are rare (maybe 1 of every 4 years) and already a zoo - I'm saying let it be one and get them off the resource faster and stop harrassing fish that they can't keep because a rule suggests its wrong. Those fish will go on and likely not spawn. What's the point?
Generally speaking, people obey retention limits, and fishers reinforce it with one another. I have seen on hundreds of occurances one fisher pointing out to another fisher that he or she is over their limit. People are generally honest about how many fish they are keeping - they fear and respect objective laws.
Allow the retention of foul-hooked fish and we'll have lost any leverage to convert the receptive ones about selective techniques and appropriate methods
Really? I would challenge that outright. I have on several occasions shown blatant snaggers that by enticing a fish to take a presentation you only take the brightest, energetic, and fresh salmon from the system - the point sells itself once they taste a few boots. Merely watching someone else who can provoke a fish to bite rather than snag is exciting for people. Consider the pink salmon fishery on the Fraser mainstem. The entire system is lined with people who prefer to catch them with pink spoons because they willingly take a lure and are brighter, stronger, and fresher than terminal area snagging. There are very few places except at maybe peg-leg and some terminal areas (lower vedder) where the droves go and intentionally snag colored up mega-humpies off the gravel beds.
...at least the current regs gives us regular people some ammunition and basis with which to educate whenever possible, and call out/report violators.
...They'll just be back the next day and in greater numbers because it's so darn easy.
The basis to educate is based on an ideal about the sport of fishing, not the harvest of fish. The fishery is a harvest of fish, has been for years, and should not be regulated like a sport. We will never convince a family who is out there on the gravel bars with 5 licenses that they should try egg patterns for bull trout on the Mamquam in November - they aren't into the sport, they are interested in bagging their legal limit of fish as efficiently as possible and getting the hell out of dodge.
...If you want to reduce a behaviour, you have to reduce the incentive in doing it or make the alternatives more desirable; not make it even easier to do and rewarding.
Why should we want to reduce the behaviour? Enforcement regulates limits effectively, and if people are fishing it down too hard, they will just close it or decrease the retention limits. What planners and managers can not keep track of is how many fish are being released back into the system that are dying from incidental hooking mortality - the few studies that have been done were not very effectively conducted but we know there is incidental hooking mortality occuring on these fish - we can make that number diminish by allowing people to keep what they snag and get them off the resource. More licenses and more salmon tags drives money into the hands of conservation efforts, and the retention quotas keep people from overfishing. This wishy washy business about where a hook should be set is far too subjective and obviously damaging to be of any use for a meat-harvest type fishery.
-
--Evolution: I was a participant in a test fisher. The intent was to capture pre-spawning fish that had a spaghetti tag attached. The tag was visible in the clear water. It was also intended to capture non tagged fish for measurement and sampling.
--There were no rules within the physical boundary of the test area... ie one could snag with a treble hook.
--Participants were monitored and ideas where exchanged daily on what worked and what did not. Within a few days all participants were "catching" the fish... ie willful take. The take could be observed due to the clear water.
--A few days into the experiment some new participants arrived. As they had not yet been on the fishery they started snagging (which was allowed). Within maybe 1/2 hr they observed that others were catching targeted fish. They observed what we were doing and changed their technique... only pressure on them was seeing that we could actually catch targeted fish at a higher rate than those who were snagging.
--What we also observed is that at certain times of the day (could not determine reason) the fish got lock jaw and no fish would bite. Also we observed that at certain times all methods enticed willful take. That is different geographic location and fishing techniques yet more fish caught during these bite time. In several instances observed multiple fish chasing presentation. We would need more time to determine if the bite times were predictable.
--We determined that it was possible to get a willful take from fish that are on the spawn area... and with refined techniques the take % could be improved.
--There would be areas if desired that could be designated as a willful take fishery. I expect clear water was a significant factor however we have not experimented in low vis water.
--So what am I getting at? I think the problem with the lower Fraser fishery is that even though it is generally known to be a harvest fishery that it is not officially designated as such thus it is difficult to assign specific rules to this unique fishery. The fishery should be officially designated as a harvest fishery with rules that may apply only to the harvest fishery.
--That is to say Sockeye can be caught.. willful take...in clear water conditions thus the harvest rule does not have to be applied throughout the province.
--You may have better success with a rule change if it is specific to this unique harvest fishery which can be defined with geographic, species and time limited boundaries.
-
skaha, I agree entirely.
Why don't we have a sockeye tag or something, where meat-harvesters are required to buy a special permit to participate - those who want to try for mouth hookups may do so and continue damaging the stock - or they can pay for a salmon tag which enables them to retain fish hooked anywhere, and it would drive money back into conservation efforts. I know this is not a well fleshed out idea but there are definitely ways of managing it that would be better than the way it is currently set up. We need to stop people from repeatedly releasing fish that are not hooked in the mouth just so they can go on and kill one that happens to be hooked properly - one way or another this behaviour has to stop because it is impacting more fish than those removed for harvest.
-
You seem to think everyone who snags does so in a nice visible spot shared by all anglers and otherwise is basically a legal fisherman... This is not the case. I suggest you read poachers. Polluters, and politics. The regs we have today worked, as there was a lot of enforcement unlike today.
Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery? There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch. Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.
Further you would have to push for this kind of reg to be implemented. Your energy would be better spent on lobbying for more enforcement/educating snaggers that would contribute a lot more then a snag retention fishery.
Ill repeat my summary from an above post but modified slightly.
your proposal attempts to fix a problem to which a solution that works is known, just not implemented due to politics/b]
-
Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery? There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch. Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.
-- Areas where selective harvest is a significant factor would not be areas designated for a harvest fishery.
-- Harvest fishery should only be considered where bycatch would be within acceptable limits.
-- Other gear restrictions where required can still be employed to reduce snagging.
--We have areas such as school zones where speed limits are Strictly Enforced and advertised as such.
--In areas as described where there is a high likely hood of snagging non target species a no snagging rule would have to be strictly enforced.
-
Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery? There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch. Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.
-- Areas where selective harvest is a significant factor would not be areas designated for a harvest fishery.
-- Harvest fishery should only be considered where bycatch would be within acceptable limits.
-- Other gear restrictions where required can still be employed to reduce snagging.
--We have areas such as school zones where speed limits are Strictly Enforced and advertised as such.
--In areas as described where there is a high likely hood of snagging non target species a no snagging rule would have to be strictly enforced.
So basically (in the case of the mainland) this reg proposal works for only one river.
* I have no idea why its decided to quote like this
-
skaha, I agree entirely.
Why don't we have a sockeye tag or something, where meat-harvesters are required to buy a special permit to participate - those who want to try for mouth hookups may do so and continue damaging the stock - or they can pay for a salmon tag which enables them to retain fish hooked anywhere, and it would drive money back into conservation efforts. I know this is not a well fleshed out idea but there are definitely ways of managing it that would be better than the way it is currently set up. We need to stop people from repeatedly releasing fish that are not hooked in the mouth just so they can go on and kill one that happens to be hooked properly - one way or another this behaviour has to stop because it is impacting more fish than those removed for harvest.
--I would also amend the defenitions of snagging and foul hooking by officially recognizing flossing.
--Flossing should only be allowed in the newly designated "harvest fishery" areas.
--Outside of the harvest fishery any fish caught without a willful take should be released. ( I realize this doesn't solve the delema of releasing a foul hooked fish that is not going to survive)
--Sport fishing defenitions should add the concept of a willful take or bite.
--Some hatchery based USA fisheries allow flossing as a management tool where main objective is to catch hatchery stock. This would be similar to the newly defined Harvest fishery.
--I sometimes flyfish the Adams... for trout thus obviously am not trying to floss as there is an abundance of sockeye stacked up with mouths open.
--We usually drift a single egg pattern so any swing would result in a frustrating sockeye snag.
--We have to ensure the leader is directly vertical to the drift either by wading and casting direct up or downstream or if a side drift mending several times to keep the leader vertical.
--It takes talent to not floss in these situations where fish are stacked. If we find we are flossing we change methods or simply quit fishing the area.
--I think we need to add the concept that you must stop fishing if you cannot get a willful take or that there is not a reasonable chance for a willful take of a target species.
-
You seem to think everyone who snags does so in a nice visible spot shared by all anglers and otherwise is basically a legal fisherman... This is not the case. I suggest you read poachers. Polluters, and politics. The regs we have today worked, as there was a lot of enforcement unlike today.
Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery? There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch. Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.
Further you would have to push for this kind of reg to be implemented. Your energy would be better spent on lobbying for more enforcement/educating snaggers that would contribute a lot more then a snag retention fishery.
Ill repeat my summary from an above post but modified slightly.
your proposal attempts to fix a problem to which a solution that works is known, just not implemented due to politics/b]
I have not read that Poachers, Polluters, and Politics. I will try to locate a copy and give it a read. I also know that what I have witnessed with my own eyes is not an insignificant fraction of the crowd who have their fishing license, purchased a salmon tag, fish within the limits set out by enforcement, and retain only mouth-hooked Sockeye. I have seen it time and time again when a non-mouth hooked fish is landed, the peer pressure from other anglers to release that fish is perhaps the leading motivator for them to release it. What you seem to be insinuating is that a majority of the people who engage in the willfull snagging of fish are more unlawful and secretive than I suggest they are. I would definitely contest that. I think that's a very pessimistic view and does not align at all with my observations at places where bouncing betty type snagging exists. People in general are afraid of the punitive damage that may arise from not having a license, fishing over their limit, and law enforcement in general - mostly because a lot of these types of 'fishers' are not in fact in touch with sportfishing culture and etiquette. We're imposing our sportfishing etiquette on meat harvesters, and it's causing more fish to die than would otherwise. Let's regulate the Sockeye fishery in a special way, and allow them to retain the first few fish they hook, regardless of location. With the number of law abiding people who are willfully snagging fish (because there is no enforcement), yet retaining only those hooked in the mouth, there would be more fish on the spawning grounds. The argument is quite simple. I perhaps initially suggested that we remove the clause carte-blanche but with some follow up dialogue on this thread it has become apparent that it would perhaps not be as effective as simply managing the Sockeye harvest differently. It's not a huge change, but I believe it is one that could improve escapement numbers.
In regards to the comment about where to spend my energy - I believe it's a lot easier to work within the system than against it. It's an easy win for the fish instead of perhaps a long arduous battle with regulators to allocate more money into conservation efforts - particularly with this federal government - it would not be an easy feat. Simply suggesting we work within the current regulations to remove the clause about mouth-hookups during Sockeye openings on the Fraser requires no extra enforcement, and improves escapement numbers - it's a simple change with some modest improvements for the fish.