Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on July 07, 2010, 10:50:22 AM
-
It is often suggested that using flossing as a fishing technique on the Fraser is unethical yet from a legal point of view it is allowed.
The question is: If flossing on the Fraser is legal, what makes it unethical or ethical?
Please do not make the discussion personal. Keep it specific to the Fraser, keep it objective and give some reasons why you think the way you think. For purposes of this discussion let's assume that no one is right or wrong, we just want to know why you think the way you do about the topic.
-
My opinion is that using flossing on the Fraser is ethical as long as you are catching the fish for food. On the other hand I believe using flossing as a catch and release sport fishing technique is unethical.
My rational is that natives use set nets, dip nets, spears etc to catch fish for food and ceremonial purposes and these techniques are not considered unethical. Commercial fishermen use drift nets to catch fish and this technique is not considered as being unethical. I see no difference when a licensed sport fisherman uses a legal technique such as flossing to put food on the table.
-
--OK I'll bite: my view is based on the management objective for the stretch of water. That is if their is a high % chance that none targeted fish will be caught and it is important to successfully release the non targeted species then the methods should be restricted.
--If as you say an area or time could be managed via quota for what in essence is an individual commercial fishery then I see no reason to restrict gear used.
--when the speed limit is 90.. I often follow the flow of traffic..say 100 however in a school zone I never exceed the speed limit no matter what pressure is being applied from the car behind me.
--So if there was an area designated in the regs as legal (not legal opinion but actually stated as OK in the regs) to floss I might give it a try in the designated area only.
--the reason I put the 90..100 reference is I believe some discreation can be applied to the so called legal definition of snagging or flossing...
--Catching a fish with a hook on the outside of the mouth is a good indicator of flossing but may not be the case. I believe in the willful take.. as spoon or spinner or fly "Moffit fly system" with short trailing barbless circle hook.
--I have been experimenting with circle hooks trailing spoons and spinners ( only a few inches back not a long line). The intent is the fish willfully takes the spinner, spoon or fly and the short trailing hook embeds in the outside of the jaw... thus alllowing for safer (no net or tailing) required to release the fish.
-
Fraser River Sockeye, floss away, get your two fish and be done for the day.
We already know it is legal, the only ones that say it is unethical are the ones that have evolved to other types of fishing.
I was introduced to flossing by friends that now say it is unethical, can't change the rules just because it is not something you enjoy anymore.
-
its funny i was reading field and stream and there was article about flossing and someone wrote in saying it was unethical etc and the person writing the article wrote back saying cause the fish is hooked the mouth and not in the throat or in the back of mouth its actually better for the fish, those flossing is better than lures and jigs. im just stating what i read so dont jump all over me lol
-
Fraser River Sockeye, floss away, get your two fish and be done for the day.
We already know it is legal, the only ones that say it is unethical are the ones that have evolved to other types of fishing.
I was introduced to flossing by friends that now say it is unethical, can't change the rules just because it is not something you enjoy anymore.
I agree floss away and go home
-
We know flossing is a common fishing technique and we also know people that wouldn't floss under any circumstance. Rather than making covert comments in threads that have nothing to do with flossing here is an opportunity to give your reasons why it's either ethical or not ethical....
The question is; Is flossing ethical or not ethical and why?
-
OK I'll bite. ;D
Thats your first clue.
Flossing whether by gear or fly... ;D is unethical in my circle. But may be ethical in others.
It's very very simple in my mind.
I believe in enticing a fish to bite not running line through his mouth.
As far as I am concerned snaggers, flossers bottom bouncers(fraser style) are one and the same.
Don't tell me what a great fisherman you are and all the fish you caught. Because in my eyes you are not a fisherman.
A true fisherman has skills that flossers are not even aware of.
Go to the Norrish and rip your croc through the backs of some chum. Go to the Fraser and floss your sox and bounce your betty
over some springs. Your not fisherman. Your a butcher a Meathead. Not a fisherman. LOL
Sarcasm aside ;D I believe most Fraser Flossers are just plain ignorant. Not Unethical just ignorant.
Bluesteele
-
OK I'll bite. ;D
Thats your first clue.
Flossing whether by gear or fly... ;D is unethical in my circle. But may be ethical in others.
It's very very simple in my mind.
I believe in enticing a fish to bite not running line through his mouth.
As far as I am concerned snaggers, flossers bottom bouncers(fraser style) are one and the same.
Don't tell me what a great fisherman you are and all the fish you caught. Because in my eyes you are not a fisherman.
A true fisherman has skills that flossers are not even aware of.
Go to the Norrish and rip your croc through the backs of some chum. Go to the Fraser and floss your sox and bounce your betty
over some springs. Your not fisherman. Your a butcher a Meathead. Not a fisherman. LOL
Sarcasm aside ;D I believe most Fraser Flossers are just plain ignorant. Not Unethical just ignorant.
Bluesteele
There, now doesn't that feel good to get that off your chest? ;D ;D
I would guess that you would put natives and commercial fishermen in the same category then?
-
really, again?
-
really, again?
It's that time of the year again. This time we are going to get to the bottom of it and settle it once and for all!! ;D ;D
-
There, now doesn't that feel good to get that off your chest? ;D ;D
I would guess that you would put natives and commercial fishermen in the same category then?
Actually puts the flossers in the same category ;D LOL
Let er rip! ;D
-
Actually puts the flossers in the same category ;D LOL
Let er rip! ;D
Why wouldn't you answer the question? I'm not sure what you mean by "Let er rip!" ???
It's clear that you consider flossing unethical. I don't have a problem with that. Do you think the techniques that natives and commercial fishermen use are unethical?
It's just a yes/ no question....
-
Thought this topic was about sportfishing :P
With that said...and ethics aside. I believe their are a higher percentage of illegal fishing activites committed by natives than commies or sport.
Thats what I think. Nothing like the Natives floating by outside of an opening right by the flossers.. Yeah baby..LOL GONG SHOW :D :D :D
Just calling them how I see them. Nothing more nothing less.
-
Why wouldn't you answer the question? I'm not sure what you mean by "Let er rip!" ???
It's clear that you consider flossing unethical. I don't have a problem with that. Do you think the techniques that natives and commercial fishermen use are unethical?
It's just a yes/ no question....
Go back to the HST thread, ;DI just posted some info for you that I said I would.
-
Go back to the HST thread, ;DI just posted some info for you that I said I would.
Thanks for your posting in this thread Chris!
It's funny how people throw out comments about how they feel about flossing in threads where the comments don't belong, yet when there is a thread specifically for this subject it only get looks..... ???
-
Thanks for your posting in this thread Chris!
It's funny how people throw out comments about how they feel about flossing in threads where the comments don't belong, yet when there is a thread specifically for this subject it only get looks..... ???
At this time it is legal but for my personal reasons that I have stated before I would never consider doing it again, I think it has been 8 or more years since I joined the sockeye mania on the Fraser which I have to admit felt good to have them on and were nice to eat and can.
At that time we did not know they were not biting, :o I had to have a green glow on but when my son got 2 on three casts with a bare hook that was the beginning of the end for me.
It will continue to happen with the only thing that could bring it under control would maybe be circle hooks and a leader length.
Each year people quit flossing but many continue and others take it up as there is no learning curve to have success.
-
say what you want about flossing,,,,at the end of the day IT IS SNAGGING. this method of fishing imo is no different from people snagging on the stave etc. only diff is flossed fish are snagged usually around the head and mouth area. how is this different?
-
say what you want about flossing,,,,at the end of the day IT IS SNAGGING. this method of fishing imo is no different from people snagging on the stave etc. only diff is flossed fish are snagged usually around the head and mouth area. how is this different?
Is this method of catching fish more or less ethical than a commercial fisherman using a drift net?
-
At this time it is legal but for my personal reasons that I have stated before I would never consider doing it again, I think it has been 8 or more years since I joined the sockeye mania on the Fraser which I have to admit felt good to have them on and were nice to eat and can.
At that time we did not know they were not biting, :o I had to have a green glow on but when my son got 2 on three casts with a bare hook that was the beginning of the end for me.
It will continue to happen with the only thing that could bring it under control would maybe be circle hooks and a lender length.
Each year people quit flossing but many continue and others take it up as there is no learning curve to have success.
I appreciate your comments Chris. I like your approach to arguing your position as I believe it is much more effective than an "us against them" approach.
If a person gives others enough reasons why they do or don't believe in something then they'll probably have a better chance of convincing them. (OK, HST may be the exception ;D)
Calling someone names because they don't believe the same thing just gets their back up... and doesn't advance the cause that you believe in. :o
-
Ethics is in the eyes of the beholder. It all depends on where you stand in the spectrums of things.
If you were a fish - do you like your killer more because you become his meal with a hook in the mouth than from the side? ;) Do you deserve to die more because you just want to eat a meal?
If you were a eagle, a bear, or all sorts of life forms which have to depend on the annual return of salmon for substaining them to live through winter (and therefore the survival of their species) - what? you crazy humans, you mean we have to bite, claw or beak the salmon in the mouth before we can deserve the fish ??? ;D
If you are among the starving people in the 3rd world - this debate is for you idiots of the rich and spoiled people of the industrialized world? Want to change place for a day? ;)
If you are buddist or a PETA member - do you think it is ethical killing a fish, even for a meal? You murderers and killers..... murder, murder murder, kill, kill, kill. ;D
If you are a flyfishing purist - the debate on your crude and unsophisticated way of fishing is a joke? Want to try weightless flossing which is lead free? ;D
If you are a catch & release purist - we are more ethical because we are going to put the fish through hell, then kiss it good bye & say 'thank you buddy' for a great fight to make my day a happy day'. What? It is unethical to build your fun on others' suffering? Na! Get lost! :D
If you are a bar-fisher, do you think it is ethical to fish with a ton of lead, polluting the river and its near shore ecology (forget about where the hook is located), as it is much more unethical and much worst to the fish and its habitat to flood the river with unretrievable lead bombs so that you can eat your fish. ;)
Alwaysfishin is right. Fishing was originally a way of collecting meat to feed the family in the ancient days, much like hunting for games. As long as you are fishing for food, using the most efficient and legal method is good and ethical. People of old used the most efficient methods which won't harm fish stock much, because they were not killing fish massively which made fishing sustainable in the past. Even when nets were used, they were small cast nets or dip nets, or spears, never the mighty fish killing machine like the drift/gill nets and seine nets of today.
So, I am happy to fish a legal and ethical method which is the most efficient method for a fisherman with one rod and one hook on the Fraser. In the smaller systems, it is a different story, as other methods are more efficient and it is foul hooking too many fish in the body other than the mouth. It should be banned or discouraged.
-
The fishing for food reason is a joke. I dont need to list all that is needed to get yourself to the river equipped and licensed.
Save yourself the financial hardship and catch the bus to save-on and buy one. Or better yet from out of the back of the local natives truck or trunk. ;D
Sport Fishing for food is a joke...an excuse...flossing is still 100% unethical no matter what the spin doctors say.
How bout this for a spin... ;) If I were stranded outdoors and in a survival situation..Fishing rules go out the door. Rock Showers for any fishys caught.. ;D
-
Not everything that is legal is ethical, just like not everything that is ethical is necessarily legal.
Let your innards be the judge.
To me it boils down to this: regardless of the catching method, Fraser sockeye tastes the same, and it doesn't give a rat's my friend if it fell victim to a tasty morsel, a chunk of metal or a swinging hook with a bit of yarn on it.
So, will I floss if the numbers are good and there is an opening for sockeye? Yes.
Two times out with my wife and that's eight sockeye in the freezer. Fast, inexpensive, efficient - enough for the two of us.
Plus there's the bonus of spending two nice summer days on the river.
Saying anything else beyond the above would be cheap rhetoric and I 'll spare you from it.
I have another 50-60 days a year of fishing when I scratch my head trying to decide which fly will work best in a given situation.
Like tomorrow on the Vedder. ;D
-
i would have to say that flossing can be a great technique for catch and release , who wants to keep a half dead salmon anyways and if you by chance hook a silver fish all the best to you. I got back into fishing in the vedder and probably only get 2 fish worth keeping during the late season . the rest of the time i release everything so what if you want to have a little fun . fishing is supposed to be fun isn't it ? some of you guys need to relax a little . We all want to be able to fish and flossing is a simple way for un experienced guys to get a little piece of the action. That is as long as they are being respectful and polite when fishing with the hoard. if you dont like it fish somewhere else.
-
Hmmm....Looks like my last post was deleted. Must have been my sarcasm. ;D
Seems like theirs a pro-floss bias on this forum. ???
Flossed fish don't bite. Pretty simple stuff.
Never ceases to amaze me how people justify flossing. But hey it's legal so it's OK.
No wonder our fisheries are in the state they are in with these attitudes.
But hey I forgot flossing is a great technique for catch and release.
Learn something new every day !
Maybe someone could put together a youtube video explaining the proper way to floss sox!
Bluesteele
-
This flossing topic always seems to rear its ugly head whenever a possible Sockeye opening may happen on the Fraser. Fishing for socks is a meat fishery, and if flossing were to stay there I don't have a problem with it. However, what happens is that some people learn this method and then try to use it on other river systems. That is where I have a problem with it. Because once you go down that slippery slope you basically have convinced yourself that the fish don't bite, and the only way you are going to get them to "bite" is to floss or snag them.
-
This flossing topic always seems to rear its ugly head whenever a possible Sockeye opening may happen on the Fraser. Fishing for socks is a meat fishery, and if flossing were to stay there I don't have a problem with it. However, what happens is that some people learn this method and then try to use it on other river systems. That is where I have a problem with it. Because once you go down that slippery slope you basically have convinced yourself that the fish don't bite, and the only way you are going to get them to "bite" is to floss or snag them.
Thanks for your comments dennyman. I am still trying to get a yes no answer on whether flossing is ethical for the Fraser "meat fishery"? Is it a fishing technique that should be viewed as an acceptable way to get meat for the table just like natives or commercial guys use nets? Is it more ethical when a sockeye bound for your table bites your hook or you floss it? It is definitely more "sporting" when a sockey bites a spin and glow rather than it being flossed..... Should we exchange the word ethical with the word sporting? No one likes being labeled as unethical! Especially if they are doing something that is legal.
I am not 100% convinced that flossing is either ethical or unethical. I am 100% convinced that a "holier than thou" attitude will not answer the question and instead just divides the fishing community.
You are correct that some folks take the slippery slope and use the technique in other rivers. As I've suggested before the best way to stop that is by talking about it and by talking, I mean discussing it without belittling others in the process as some on this forum do.
-
i think debating, talking, or mentioning flossing on websites should be banned.
-
i think debating, talking, or mentioning flossing on websites should be banned.
As long as the "unethical" references and slurs are banned as well, I'm fine with your suggestion....
-
No matter how a fish is caught at day's end when you keep a fish that is meat fishery.
As for C&R that's torturing fish.
If it's pure sport you want try swimming, jugging, or a walk in the forest, something that does not involve hurting other creatures.
Just my 2c.
-
Oh bwi bwi ...now you have done it. How about catching and releasing wild steelhead, with your arguement all forms of this type of fishing would not be allowed as you would have to kill any steelhead that is caught. ???
-
Only page 3 so far ;D I bet some years this would have already been page 5 by now. ::)
-
So, will I floss if the numbers are good and there is an opening for sockeye? Yes.
so what I dont understand about you Milo is you will not fish for the thompson steelhead because there are poor numbers returning...(even though its legal and its a catch and release fishery)..... but you will go floss your sockeye (when its open, and its a harvest fishery) , as I remember they closed the sockeye because the numbers were so low, even though they may open it due to a "surplus" (as DFO puts it) .
..?????
so what side of the fence are you on?...LOL ;D
conservation?
-
so what I dont understand about you Milo is you will not fish for the thompson steelhead because there are poor numbers returning...(even though its legal and its a catch and release fishery)..... but you will go floss your sockeye (when its open, and its a harvest fishery) , as I remember they closed the sockeye because the numbers were so low, even though they may open it due to a "surplus" (as DFO puts it) .
..?????
so what side of the fence are you on?...LOL ;D
conservation?
The thread discussion is about whether you believe flossing is ethical and your reasons for believing what you do.......
I'm sure you can P.M. Milo and he'll be happy to answer your personal questions.... ;D
-
soo the thread is about ethics RIGHT?
thats the question I asked!
-
No matter how a fish is caught at day's end when you keep a fish that is meat fishery.
As for C&R that's torturing fish.
If it's pure sport you want try swimming, jugging, or a walk in the forest, something that does not involve hurting other creatures.
Just my 2c.
LOL... What's worse a torturer or murderer? LOL Damn I was walking in the forest and stepped on a slug :o broke a few tree branches as well LOL
Damn I am confused ;D
Walking through the forest to get to a hole. Went for a swim in the hole..Jogged on the way back cause I think something wanted to eat me. LOL
Cuff me I am guilty of hurting creatures.
This is getting good !!!
Let er RIP ! hehehe
-
LOL... What's worse a torturer or murderer? LOL Damn I was walking in the forest and stepped on a slug :o broke a few tree branches as well LOL
Damn I am confused ;D
Walking through the forest to get to a hole. Went for a swim in the hole..Jogged on the way back cause I think something wanted to eat me. LOL
Cuff me I am guilty of hurting creatures.
This is getting good !!!
Let er RIP ! hehehe
Torture IS worth than death (especially if it's a swift death).
So really what is ethics? It really doesn't matter. Cause it's all dependent on who's view point you are coming from and on what issue.
-
so what I dont understand about you Milo is you will not fish for the thompson steelhead because there are poor numbers returning...(even though its legal and its a catch and release fishery)..... but you will go floss your sockeye (when its open, and its a harvest fishery) , as I remember they closed the sockeye because the numbers were so low, even though they may open it due to a "surplus" (as DFO puts it) .
..?????
so what side of the fence are you on?...LOL ;D
conservation?
Isn't it clear?
If the numbers are not there to warrant a harvest, I won't fish for that species at all.
I prefer not to target fish that are C&R only anymore. (an honorable and rare exception might be FF for trout one day or two in a year at lakes such as Morgan).
Ethics don't have to be black or white.
-
If you are having trouble with C&R
Go Dry Fly fishing on any stream, but cut the hook off the fly.
I've had great times on the Bulkley, Babine, Chilliwack, Skagit, and a number of other streams doing this
-
Bwi Bwi, science does not support your claim that fish are being "tortured". Science supports the claim that fish react to aversive stimuli, that's all.
For anyone feeling all mushy about putting a little hole in a fishes lip, I don't know how you sleep at night. You must be wrought with guilt over all the harm you have done over your life to life on this planet with all your polluting. If you've been driving for a decade, using plastics, whatever....do you know how much you've contributed to pain and suffering of animals? It's easy not to acknowledge when you're not directly connected to it, i know...
The other thing... I've caught a trout and released it, only to see it snapping mayflies off the surface not five minutes after it was released. Next thing you know we'll have counselors walking the riverbanks looking for fish with post traumatic stress disorder. ::)
-
Isn't it clear?
If the numbers are not there to warrant a harvest, I won't fish for that species at all.
I prefer not to target fish that are C&R only anymore. (an honorable and rare exception might be FF for trout one day or two in a year at lakes such as Morgan).
Ethics don't have to be black or white.
there are no numbers of sockeye compared to historical numbers ! you believe its ok to fish them because some government official tells you so?
I do see greed when it comes to fishing, too much greed.
-
Ethics don't have to be black or white.
Is GREY your colour of choice?
-
Bwi Bwi, science does not support your claim that fish are being "tortured". Science supports the claim that fish react to aversive stimuli, that's all.
For anyone feeling all mushy about putting a little hole in a fishes lip, I don't know how you sleep at night. You must be wrought with guilt over all the harm you have done over your life to life on this planet with all your polluting. If you've been driving for a decade, using plastics, whatever....do you know how much you've contributed to pain and suffering of animals? It's easy not to acknowledge when you're not directly connected to it, i know...
The other thing... I've caught a trout and released it, only to see it snapping mayflies off the surface not five minutes after it was released. Next thing you know we'll have counselors walking the riverbanks looking for fish with post traumatic stress disorder. ::)
Not according to Dr Lynne Sneddon's research. Fish does feel pain similar to higher level vertebrates.
-
Not according to Dr Lynne Sneddon's research. Fish does feel pain similar to higher level vertebrates.
Yup, and emotions too :)
Nothing has proven that fish feel pain similar to higher level vertebrates. Nothing has proven that the experience for fish is the same for humans. ALL that has been shown is that they display similar physiological responses!!!! That's IT! The rest is inferred through anthropomorphizing, a common pitfall for behavioral scientists. Look at the data for what it is, not what you want it to be.
-
A couple of truths, plain & simple. One, there is no such thing as flossing, it is just a fancy word for 'intentional snagging'. Two, intentional snagging is illegal. Anytime you wake up in the morning & head to the river with the INTENT on foul hooking fish you are a snagger, it has nothing to do with ethics. Three, contrary to popular belief & greed of the snagging masses ther will NEVER be a surplus of these incredible salmon.
Be a responsible angler & do the right thing, it's long overdue that snagging of our beautiful 'long run' Spring salmon be put down. These great fish deserve better. We as anglers should try to lead the way & not be part of the problem. ???
-
but green wool works so good on a 10 foot leader. ;D
-
what makes it unethical or ethical?
[/b]
Ethical = The fish takes the hook
Unethical = The hook takes the fish
Since most here know that wool is an acceptable and often successful lure short floated.
(the fish are actually taking it out of hunger, aggression or.....)
Shorten up that leader and see how well your wool works.
doesn't work quite as well does it?
Maybe that's because the fish were never taking the bait to begin with, it was being dragged through their mouths, over their backs, fins and bellies.
Might as well use a barbed treble hook; but that's illegal.
Flossing is just snagging pretending to be fishing.
And yes, I got your sarcasm JBJ
-
This is another problem this is causing and I feel why our opening for chinook opening was delayed this year. A number of people have predicted a while ago this type of activity would be used against the recreational angler.
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/will+nets+despite+warning/3286649/story.html
-
This is another problem this is causing and I feel why our opening for chinook opening was delayed this year. A number of people have predicted a while ago this type of activity would be used against the recreational angler.
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/will+nets+despite+warning/3286649/story.html
In the grand scheme of things flossing is just a dent in the bucket compared to the commercial fishery and native fishery. Makes no difference to me if someone flosses fish. I dont think many get the meaning of ethics. If a doctor is unethical he is doing something either against the law or is breaking a doctors code of conduct. When it comes to sport fishermen it seems the flossing debate is pretty much a 50/50 split. Because of the split their is no real "Code" among fishermen in regards to this. If it was 90/10 than yes. So since their is no true code you go to the law. The law has nothing against people flossing as long as its hooked properly. Than you have your own ethics. If you can live with the fact that you are catching fish that are not willing biters than do what you want. If your conscience gets to you when you do it than dont do it.
-
In the grand scheme of things flossing is just a dent in the bucket compared to the commercial fishery and native fishery. Makes no difference to me if someone flosses fish. I dont think many get the meaning of ethics. If a doctor is unethical he is doing something either against the law or is breaking a doctors code of conduct. When it comes to sport fishermen it seems the flossing debate is pretty much a 50/50 split. Because of the split their is no real "Code" among fishermen in regards to this. If it was 90/10 than yes. So since their is no true code you go to the law. The law has nothing against people flossing as long as its hooked properly. Than you have your own ethics. If you can live with the fact that you are catching fish that are not willing biters than do what you want. If your conscience gets to you when you do it than don't do it.
I have agree with you it is a dent in the bucket but because of it this is used as a leverage to keep us out of the river. I have said before the impact of the recreational angler in most cases is minimal in the whole scheme of things but we loose the argument the follwing statement when we have BB going on. If we were only bar fishing during the early part of the season, when the river is so turbid the success rate is very small. (Saying this the BB ing crowd take a lot of chinooks over the season, Scale Bar is a prime example but maybe once again it is a lot less than Ocean, F/N and commercial guys do and the recreational angler sure pours a lot more money into the economy, you would think the government would like this, especially with the HST now in effect. ;D Right AF ;D ;D
Even now with conditions fairly good for bar fishing one bar over the weekend, with a fair number of anglers on it had no success while on the other hand one BB er was into 4 chinooks. :o (Not the same bar)
Talk about another topic which is unfair. I was told a angler got a 79 cm fish, 2 cm over the size limit and it cost him $150 fine while F/N had a 12 hour opening, I saw one boat unload 38 chinooks into a tote with fish approaching 30 pounds, is this unfair to the recreational angler, I would say yes.
Is there an answer to all of this I donot think so but I feel we will now continue to loose ground in opportunities for salmon in a lot of fresh water rivers. Time to take up lake fishing, head to the ocean or as some say, take up golfing.
It is easy to make lots of comments like I have, but real concrete ideas are few and far between if any at all.
-
4 yr trial period with FN at the helm of our west coast fishery. Since the institution that is DFO can't seem to get its head out of its as$ maybe somebody else should get a kick at the cat.
-
This is another problem this is causing and I feel why our opening for chinook opening was delayed this year. A number of people have predicted a while ago this type of activity would be used against the recreational angler.
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/will+nets+despite+warning/3286649/story.html
the claims on this article is a crock...i've watched FN fish off island 22 during pink/sockeye season and indiscriminately net/drown unwanted fish, only to have them thrown over board...unwanted pinks and even sturgeon.
-
the claims on this article is a crock...i've watched FN fish off island 22 during pink/sockeye season and indiscriminately net/drown unwanted fish, only to have them thrown over board...unwanted pinks and even sturgeon.
You are correct but how do we change things or can we so the recreational anglers gets their share many organizations? The SDA, FVSS, Drift Fishers and the BCWF etc. keep trying but appear to be losing ground. The allocation allocation process, conservation, F/N food and ceremonial before the rec angler. The government's policy follows this and seem backed up by the courts of the land.
-
would using a circle hook reduce the chances of fowl hooking a fish when bottom bouncing?
-
You are correct but how do we change things or can we so the recreational anglers gets their share many organizations? The SDA, FVSS, Drift Fishers and the BCWF etc. keep trying but appear to be losing ground. The allocation allocation process, conservation, F/N food and ceremonial before the rec angler. The government's policy follows this and seem backed up by the courts of the land.
i think if anything, we need to follow suit with FN... regardless of band, they seem to unite when it comes to their so called traditions and so called inherited rights (albeit misguided)... the problem with organizations formed to represent the recreational sector is the lack of co-operation and co-ordination amongst its many bodies...if anything personal agendas and priorities dilute key issues.
-
i think if anything, we need to follow suit with FN... regardless of band, they seem to unite when it comes to their so called traditions and so called inherited rights (albeit misguided)... the problem with organizations formed to represent the recreational sector is the lack of co-operation and co-ordination amongst its many bodies...if anything personal agendas and priorities dilute key issues.
Yep
-
would using a circle hook reduce the chances of fowl hooking a fish when bottom bouncing?
--not much... if flossed through mouth.. circle hook might even be more effective in holding the fish from the outside of the mouth...especially one that is siwashed to a greater degree.
--some jurisdictions attempt to restrict the degree of siwash.. as with to much the circle hook will also deep hook just the same as a regular siwash J hook.
--gear restrictions aren't the cure.
--In many instances only the fisher knows for sure if they flossed or snagged so it up to them and their conscience wether to release.
-
--In many instances only the fisher knows for sure if they flossed or snagged so it up to them and their conscience wether to release.
(http://www.teamnesra.net/chris/images/Fisher.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_%28animal%29
-
You are correct but how do we change things or can we so the recreational anglers gets their share many organizations? The SDA, FVSS, Drift Fishers and the BCWF etc. keep trying but appear to be losing ground. The allocation allocation process, conservation, F/N food and ceremonial before the rec angler. The government's policy follows this and seem backed up by the courts of the land.
All these organization failed to move the government because they don't have political influence or power. Politicians only listen when they see the votes. They go to or pay lips service to the cultural functions of ethnic groups because they know these groups can collectively lean towards a party or a candidate. If they are perceived as hostile or not attentive to an ethnic group, the whole group can mobilize to influence the outcome of the election of a party or some of its candidates. Such is the power of united groups. Want to learn from the NRA (national rifle association) of the States? Or some powerful unions? They can mobilize their members politically. I can confidently predict that UNLESS FISHING GROUPS ARE UNITED AND ENERGIZED POLITICALLY WITH THE STATED GOAL OF VOTING OUT POLITICIANS UNFRIENDLY TO THEIR CAUSE, NO PROGRESS WILL BE MADE TO ANY RECREATIONAL FISHING ISSUES/AGENDAS.
If site such as this pouplar forum posts candidates' view on fishing issues and have its members gang up on the 'unfriendly candidates' and can prove it in the votes, then we have something going. But Rodney will have to be politically active himself to allow such to happen to his site. ;D Perhaps we need another 'fishing Vander Zalm' to unite the troup. But I think the ultimate problem is the fishermen themselves - too much division and in fighting for small issues such as this kind of debate and failure to unite for the bigger cause. :(
-
--Sports Anglers contribute nearly $1.2 billion annually to BC's economy according to recent report on Go fish BC site. No political party embraces this neither does the none fishing public. We have to get this message out. I write a column in a local paper... its not a hard thing to do... just keep submitting articles and use some poetic license to ad in items like the $1.2 billion.
--Oh yah this thread is supposed to be about flossing... just because it is not usually enforced doesn't make it legal and it is fodder to those that think sport fishing is barbaric. In a regulated select harvest fishery where ( I haven't seen this anyware yet) flossing is specified as legal then fill your boots.
-
--Sports Anglers contribute nearly $1.2 billion annually to BC's economy according to recent report on Go fish BC site.
the thing you dont think about is there are many more activitys that are less costly for the govornment to run, and are used by more people.
if you have ever been to a river/park protest/ralley you would see there are many more campers,hikers ect....that use the resources.
fishing is a very small part of our economy.
-
A couple of truths, plain & simple. One, there is no such thing as flossing, it is just a fancy word for 'intentional snagging'. Two, intentional snagging is illegal. Anytime you wake up in the morning & head to the river with the INTENT on foul hooking fish you are a snagger, it has nothing to do with ethics. Three, contrary to popular belief & greed of the snagging masses ther will NEVER be a surplus of these incredible salmon.
Be a responsible angler & do the right thing, it's long overdue that snagging of our beautiful 'long run' Spring salmon be put down. These great fish deserve better. We as anglers should try to lead the way & not be part of the problem. ???
I think you may need to re-read the regulations...... I've only read that a foul hooked fish may not be kept....
You must have a problem with natives and commercial fishermen who snag the fish with their nets then.....
-
This is another problem this is causing and I feel why our opening for chinook opening was delayed this year. A number of people have predicted a while ago this type of activity would be used against the recreational angler.
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/will+nets+despite+warning/3286649/story.html
I'd buy the natives argument if I saw them fishing selectively....
-
I have agree with you it is a dent in the bucket but because of it this is used as a leverage to keep us out of the river. I have said before the impact of the recreational angler in most cases is minimal in the whole scheme of things but we loose the argument the follwing statement when we have BB going on. If we were only bar fishing during the early part of the season, when the river is so turbid the success rate is very small. (Saying this the BB ing crowd take a lot of chinooks over the season, Scale Bar is a prime example but maybe once again it is a lot less than Ocean, F/N and commercial guys do and the recreational angler sure pours a lot more money into the economy, you would think the government would like this, especially with the HST now in effect. ;D Right AF ;D ;D
Even now with conditions fairly good for bar fishing one bar over the weekend, with a fair number of anglers on it had no success while on the other hand one BB er was into 4 chinooks. :o (Not the same bar)
Talk about another topic which is unfair. I was told a angler got a 79 cm fish, 2 cm over the size limit and it cost him $150 fine while F/N had a 12 hour opening, I saw one boat unload 38 chinooks into a tote with fish approaching 30 pounds, is this unfair to the recreational angler, I would say yes.
Is there an answer to all of this I donot think so but I feel we will now continue to loose ground in opportunities for salmon in a lot of fresh water rivers. Time to take up lake fishing, head to the ocean or as some say, take up golfing.
It is easy to make lots of comments like I have, but real concrete ideas are few and far between if any at all.
Great comments Chris (except for the HST shots.... ;D )
The natives use the flossing issue to try and keep the sports fishermen off the river because they know it is a divisive issue in the sports fishing community. On the other hand if it wasn't the flossing issue, it would probably be something else.
I think a lot of fishermen confuse a meat fishery with sports fishing. In the hunting community there are the meat hunters and there are trophy hunters.... Unlike the sports fishing community, the hunting community doesn't have a problem with that.... Sports fishermen need to drop the holier than thou attitude and just accept that a meat fishery is just as ethical as a trophy fisheryl.
-
the thing you dont think about is there are many more activitys that are less costly for the govornment to run, and are used by more people.
if you have ever been to a river/park protest/ralley you would see there are many more campers,hikers ect....that use the resources.
fishing is a very small part of our economy.
--never noticed there was a hikers licence or a wildlife photo fee that directly funds these activities. Not suggesting there should be as with fishing and hunting licenses government would take an unfair share for general revenue. I can hardly wait for the boaters license fee to become annual as well.
-
So this post bears on this discussion: http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24486.0 (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24486.0)
Is dipnetting (a legal, sanctioned, method to harvest surplus sockeye) ethical?
Would dipnetting be ethical, and flossing, with a rod and reel, not?
-
Hmmm....Looks like my last post was deleted. Must have been my sarcasm. ;D
Seems like theirs a pro-floss bias on this forum. ???
Flossed fish don't bite. Pretty simple stuff.
Never ceases to amaze me how people justify flossing. But hey it's legal so it's OK.
No wonder our fisheries are in the state they are in with these attitudes.
But hey I forgot flossing is a great technique for catch and release.
Learn something new every day !
Maybe someone could put together a youtube video explaining the proper way to floss sox!
Bluesteele
WOW...........hope your that ethical, moral, noble etc. in everything else you do in your lifetime.
-
That would be a triple NO... LOL But hey who's perfect ?
-
I think a lot of fishermen confuse a meat fishery with sports fishing. In the hunting community there are the meat hunters and there are trophy hunters.... Unlike the sports fishing community, the hunting community doesn't have a problem with that.... Sports fishermen need to drop the holier than thou attitude and just accept that a meat fishery is just as ethical as a trophy fisheryl.
To me the question of whether the fishery is ethical or not depends on whether you consider the fraser sockeye fishery as a recreational harvest or as a sportsfishing opportunity. If the fishery was promoted to be purely a recreational harvest, then flossing would not be unethical. It would just be another method of harvesting fish. If you consider it a sportsfishery, then to me flossing would not be ethical. The problem is that there is no clear distinction made between the sockeye fishery on the fraser and other fisheries in other rivers like the coho fishery in the vedder, therefore leading to the flossing method being used elsewhere. Having experienced fly fishing for pinks for the first time last year on Fraser, if I had to make a choice as to which I would choose (flossing socks or fly fishing for pinks) it would be a no brainer for me. Besides, smoked candiied pink salmon tastes great!
-
To me the question of whether the fishery is ethical or not depends on whether you consider the fraser sockeye fishery as a recreational harvest or as a sportsfishing opportunity. If the fishery was promoted to be purely a recreational harvest, then flossing would not be unethical. It would just be another method of harvesting fish. If you consider it a sportsfishery, then to me flossing would not be ethical. The problem is that there is no clear distinction made between the sockeye fishery on the fraser and other fisheries in other rivers like the coho fishery in the vedder, therefore leading to the flossing method being used elsewhere. Having experienced fly fishing for pinks for the first time last year on Fraser, if I had to make a choice as to which I would choose (flossing socks or fly fishing for pinks) it would be a no brainer for me. Besides, smoked candiied pink salmon tastes great!
I believe the Fraser fishery is a recreational salmon harvest, where surplus salmon are available for harvest by the non-commercial, non-native fishermen. Just like there are mesh size restrictions for the nets that are used by the "netting groups", there are restrictions to the equipment the sportsfishermen use. Just because a group of fishermen became creative in how they use the hook and line the law permits them to use, should not label them as unethical.
I also agree that flossing does not belong in a sports fishery!
Perhaps because many fishermen perceive the Fraser fishery as being a sports fishery is the reason that they strongly oppose flossing on the Fraser. Your suggestion of promoting the Fraser as a recreational harvest could help differentiate this fishery from the standard sports fishery. This could be a solution to educating the new fishermen to the fact flossing doesn't belong an a river like the Chilliwack, where the water is usually clear enough for the fish to see the presentation.
The question is "Who's responsibility is it to promote the Fraser fishery as a recreational harvest?"
As far as fly fishing for pinks, is it possible that some of the pinks get flossed?
-
I believe the Fraser fishery is a recreational salmon harvest, where surplus salmon are available for harvest by the non-commercial, non-native fishermen. Just like there are mesh size restrictions for the nets that are used by the "netting groups", there are restrictions to the equipment the sportsfishermen use. Just because a group of fishermen became creative in how they use the hook and line the law permits them to use, should not label them as unethical.
I also agree that flossing does not belong in a sports fishery!
Perhaps because many fishermen perceive the Fraser fishery as being a sports fishery is the reason that they strongly oppose flossing on the Fraser. Your suggestion of promoting the Fraser as a recreational harvest could help differentiate this fishery from the standard sports fishery. This could be a solution to educating the new fishermen to the fact flossing doesn't belong an a river like the Chilliwack, where the water is usually clear enough for the fish to see the presentation.
The question is "Who's responsibility is it to promote the Fraser fishery as a recreational harvest?"
As far as fly fishing for pinks, is it possible that some of the pinks get flossed?
I used to have the perception that most of the fly caught fish on the Fraser were flossed, but my perception has changed. I noticed that it did matter what type of fly you used :) I can't say for sure that I didn't floss any at all, but having fished the rivers for almost 20 years now, I like to think I can tell whether I've flossed a fish or not. In addition, our technique required short strips as opposed to drifting and swinging. Almost all fish were hooked inside the mouth which would be difficult to achieve on a stripped fly.
-
Sorry Always Fishing, I must have hit a nerve. Foul-hooking salmon, & fighting for the right to foul hook salmon is just plain stupid. It makes the rec-fishermen look like a bunch of spoiled, whining brats.
It has been common knowledge (since the mid-90's) that these fish aren't biting, they are being snagged...some new anglers are not privy to this info, so we must educate. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. The act of foul-hooking fish has always been illegal, the fact the poor Fraser River gets no enforcement does not make it OK.
Whichever method the natives use to harvest their fish is up to them, you see, they have a constitutional right to their river & their fish. If you are upset with native rights there are probably much better places to argue your points than on a fishing discussion forum.
Surplus, abundance & healthy stocks are just buzzwords made up by non-natives trying to justify their right to snag or foul-hook salmon. There will NEVER be enough fish to allow this unsporting, unfair meat fest to continue...too few fish, it's just that simple. :'(
-
I've only read that a foul hooked fish may not be kept....
So then shouldn't they all be released...as they are ALL foul-hooked
-
Sorry Always Fishing, I must have hit a nerve. Foul-hooking salmon, & fighting for the right to foul hook salmon is just plain stupid. It makes the rec-fishermen look like a bunch of spoiled, whining brats.
Don't worry, you haven't hit any nerves. I am not aware that any rec fishermen are fighting for the right to foul hook salmon. Flossing sockeye is a legal harvesting technique and if there was a problem with it, regulations would have been put in place years ago. If you re-read all of the flossing related posts, I believe the only whining you'll read is from folks like yourself. :D
It has been common knowledge (since the mid-90's) that these fish aren't biting, they are being snagged...some new anglers are not privy to this info, so we must educate. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. The act of foul-hooking fish has always been illegal, the fact the poor Fraser River gets no enforcement does not make it OK.
I think most fishermen are aware that a sockeye is not biting and is being flossed. I have on several occasions witnessed a CO go down a row of bottom bouncing fishermen and only ask to see licenses and to see whether their hooks had barbs on them. No tickets were written for snagged or foul hooked fish..... I may not be as smart as some people, but that indicates to me that the CO's had no problem with the legality of bottom bouncing. :o
Whichever method the natives use to harvest their fish is up to them, you see, they have a constitutional right to their river & their fish. If you are upset with native rights there are probably much better places to argue your points than on a fishing discussion forum.
Show me one post where I have indicated that I have a problem with the natives constitutional right to catch fish. What I have a problem with is them selling fish that were caught under their food and ceremony openings!
Surplus, abundance & healthy stocks are just buzzwords made up by non-natives trying to justify their right to snag or foul-hook salmon.
Surplus, abundance and healthy stocks are terms that were made up by scientists and fisheries personnel.... I have no idea if they were non-native. ???
There will NEVER be enough fish to allow this unsporting, unfair meat fest to continue...too few fish, it's just that simple. :'(
Are you aware of the inconsistency in your comments and fishing choices? You indicated in one of your earlier posts that your favorite fishery is the Thompson, chasing steelhead. I don't understand how you can participate in a catch and release fishery where the stock is down to the last few hundred. I personally won't participate in that fishery however I accept that you and others have the legal right to harass these fish.
Like it or not the sockeye fishery is legal and the techniques used to harvest the sockeye are legal.
-
So then shouldn't they all be released...as they are ALL foul-hooked
Definition from the regulations booklet......
snagging (foul hooking)… hooking a fish
in any other part of its body other than
the mouth.
Most fish that are flossed are hooked in the outside of the mouth... therefore by definition they are not snagged or foul hooked. Which is probably why no tickets are issued to fishermen using flossing to harvest their sockeye...
-
alwaysfishn
Chinook stocks are in trouble but we continue to persue them too the last fish. Just because DFO opens the fishery doesn't make it right. Political pressure from all user groups trumps
scientific data. We are managing our stocks politically not biologically. Chinooks are the least abundant salmon species but fished heavily by all user groups. It won't be long and they'll
all be gone and then we can start pointing fingers. Bottom line, flossing is killing too many chinook.
Sockeye on the other hand are one of the more abundant species which should be open for a limited harvest. However, how do you control the shear greed of some individuals?
Your comment about Jack Straw fishing the Thompson is a little desperate on your part, as you well know it's not the sports angler who is determining the fate of Thompson Steelhead.
Vedder River Steehead numbers are not great but we still fish them right on the spawning grounds. Once again managed by politics and economics.
Tried to get river closed above Tamihi after April 1 to protect spawning fish but was told they would have to check with local sporting good stores to see if it would have an economic
affect on their bottom line. Does anybody care about fish anymore? The agencies who are suppose too, are not doing their job. It's all about how much money can be generated for anything other
than fish production. Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! enough said.
-
Well said Buck. Hit the nail on the head as usual! Let's face facts here, this is a harvest fishery and nothing else. The trouble with this fishery as has been pointed out many times is that it is transported to other rivers and people think that this is the way you need to fish. Any idiot can floss but a select few really know how to fish efectively. That is why some anglers catch lots of fish ( The Master) while others only catch some fish ( insert favorite name here). If I had my choice I would allow a recreational gill net fishery for sockeye a couple of days a year and you get your allocation for the year ( 5, 10, 15 fish ) and then it's over. This is similar to what the Alaskans do on some of their rivers. Then ban flossing and go back to angling. That way everone knows that the fishery will be over in two or so days and you could actually take the fish out of a healthly run component. Enforce the dickens out of it and come done hard on non-compliance individuals. Would most likely be less of a mess than what is happening now and you can put in small mesh restrictions to limit chinook bycatch. That would then help the depressed chinook stocks that are being impacted by flossing while allowing the meat fishery to proceed. Many people talk about wanting to protect these small stocks but the reality of it is most people don't give a rats my friend, they just want their meat.
My solution and now you can have your say. Let the fireworks begin!
-
Bottom line, flossing is killing too many chinook.
Now that is just a silly statement. You have absolutely no way of backing that up!
-
Any idiot can floss but a select few really know how to fish efectively.
See there you go with the elitist attitude. I view things a little differently. The key to any sport is participation, not skill level. Some fishermen hardly catch anything yet they enjoy the time out in nature. Because someone chooses a fishing method different from yours doesn't mean that they are an "idiot".
If I had my choice I would allow a recreational gill net fishery for sockeye a couple of days a year and you get your allocation for the year ( 5, 10, 15 fish ) and then it's over. This is similar to what the Alaskans do on some of their rivers. Then ban flossing and go back to angling. That way everone knows that the fishery will be over in two or so days and you could actually take the fish out of a healthly run component. Enforce the dickens out of it and come done hard on non-compliance individuals. Would most likely be less of a mess than what is happening now and you can put in small mesh restrictions to limit chinook bycatch. That would then help the depressed chinook stocks that are being impacted by flossing while allowing the meat fishery to proceed. Many people talk about wanting to protect these small stocks but the reality of it is most people don't give a rats ***, they just want their meat.
While your suggestion is creative, it is not practical nor does it fit our free enterprise system. I could see this working in some communist country where government control is everything. And what about the sport fishing shops that are put out of business as a result? I believe that many fishermen while starting in this fishery continue by learning other fisheries. Participation is important or the sport will die. Unless we get more recruits into sports fishing the resource will dwindle because the governments will cut back on their support.
While the early chinook runs have dwindled this is the first time I'm hearing that the late chinook runs are in trouble. If you have information on that please share it otherwise you're just blowing smoke.... Suggesting that flossing is having a detrimental impact on salmon stocks is just your bias and you have no scientific data to back that up.
For the record I think if it everyone went back to bar fishing it would be great. The comaraderie on the bars is what is missing on many bars today. On many days bar fishing has been more effective for me than flossing. However I have no problem with flossing because it is a legal and ethical form of harvesting your fish.
Why end your comment with "let the fireworks begin". The only folks that have posted any form of fireworks on this thread so far are the non-flossers.. Over all I think we are having a fairly civil debate here.... ;D
-
Alwaysfishn
Are you saying you have no problem flossing , because it's legal? I guess you wouldn't have a problem then with people flossing steelhead?
Your making an assumption that I'm a none flosser. I enjoy fishing for sockeye when their open and have flossed for springs in the past. That
being said, I have observed many springs being taken on the scale bar far in excess that would have been taken bar fishing. Do you really think
that flossers are not having an impact on stocks ? If it were just flossers to content with fish stocks would be healthy but there are native nets,
the commercial fishery, and environmental concerns. All these combine to have a hugh impact on overall numbers making it back to the spawning
grounds.
Survival rates are way down for both coho and chinook and we are seeing fewer adults returning every year. If you think I'm blowing smoke just wait a few more
cycles and then we'll see . Oh, and by the way where are your numbers that suggest that mid timing chinook runs are in good shape?
-
Are you saying you have no problem flossing , because it's legal? I guess you wouldn't have a problem then with people flossing steelhead? Your making an assumption that I'm a none flosser. I enjoy fishing for sockeye when their open and have flossed for springs in the past. ................... If you think I'm blowing smoke just wait a few more cycles and then we'll see . Oh, and by the way where are your numbers that suggest that mid timing chinook runs are in good shape?
You totally confuse me.... I never said it was ok to floss steelhead and I still don't have any idea where you stand on flossing. ???
Unless you and bkk are the same person........... (are you??) I said bkk was blowing smoke..... If you re-read my response to your statement I said it was "silly" ....... ;D
As far as numbers, I rely on the fisheries department's assessment of the sustainability of all stocks and therefore accept that the openings they make available to us sportsfishermen indicate there are adequate fish for sustainability of the stocks as well as a harvest.
-
Alwaysfishn
Are you saying you have no problem flossing , because it's legal? I guess you wouldn't have a problem then with people flossing steelhead?
Your making an assumption that I'm a none flosser. I enjoy fishing for sockeye when their open and have flossed for springs in the past. That
being said, I have observed many springs being taken on the scale bar far in excess that would have been taken bar fishing. Do you really think
that flossers are not having an impact on stocks ? If it were just flossers to content with fish stocks would be healthy but there are native nets,
the commercial fishery, and environmental concerns. All these combine to have a hugh impact on overall numbers making it back to the spawning
grounds.
Survival rates are way down for both coho and chinook and we are seeing fewer adults returning every year. If you think I'm blowing smoke just wait a few more
cycles and then we'll see . Oh, and by the way where are your numbers that suggest that mid timing chinook runs are in good shape?
You are no flosser to me if you mention Scales taking too many chinooks. No sir. How often you fished Scales in the last decade? You are probably imagining the number. I have flossed springs for more than a decade in the Scales, and I have yet to see more than 30 springs taken out on the best weekend days, especially after DFO put up the new fishing boundary. Most of the time if you see 10 fish it is considered good day. The last trip I went there I was standing at the best spot of the entire bar, and bombed the water for 8 hours, only to see 3 fish taken out of 5 hooked. That is with weekend crowd. Other days should be even less. So I don't know where you get your figure. Justify your claim with real experience as a bouncer. It is no point spreading bias with false claim. Many anti-bouncing posters will go to quoting extremes to justify their attack on bouncing. I think those test nets plus the native nettings are taking thousands more times of fish than your fellow fishermen. Be real and go fight the real guys if you truly care for fish stock. ;) I don't care a dim if others don't agree with me fishing a legal methods based on their perverted idea about fishing. This is just human that we can have different opinion on the same issue. Just look at all the political parties.
-
Likestofish...I'm going to call you out here because you seem to be a pretty regular flosser.
Do you think that a flossed fish actaully bit the hook? If you have been flossing long enough, i assume you're smart enough to know that a flossed fish didnt bite the hook. So if a fish didnt bite the hook...um wouldnt you consider it snagged?
If you saw a guy walk into a run, cast out and reef back on his rod, and hook a fish....you would consider that snagging. If the fish was hook around the mouth would that make it legal?
So you fling a weight out into a river close the spool down on your reel and sweep the weight with a trailing leader and hook through the river. As your line sweeps through the run, your line gets caught in the fish's mouth and runs through the mouth until the hook is pulled into the side of the mouth.... well, usually. Sometimes the fish is hooked in the back, top of the head, wrapped around a fin, etc.
Either way the fish didnt bite. only real differnce is that flossing places the hook close enough to the mouth to get away with it . Just because its the rivers energy (opposed to a fisher yarding on his line) that drives the hook home, the intent is the same TO HOOK A FISH WITHOUT A SOLICITED STRIKE.
Thats snagging in my books and its nothing more than a simple tweak in the rules to make it illegal.
-
Likestofish...I'm going to call you out here because you seem to be a pretty regular flosser.
Do you think that a flossed fish actaully bit the hook? If you have been flossing long enough, i assume you're smart enough to know that a flossed fish didnt bite the hook. So if a fish didnt bite the hook...um wouldnt you consider it snagged?
If you saw a guy walk into a run, cast out and reef back on his rod, and hook a fish....you would consider that snagging. If the fish was hook around the mouth would that make it legal?
So you fling a weight out into a river close the spool down on your reel and sweep the weight with a trailing leader and hook through the river. As your line sweeps through the run, your line gets caught in the fish's mouth and runs through the mouth until the hook is pulled into the side of the mouth.... well, usually. Sometimes the fish is hooked in the back, top of the head, wrapped around a fin, etc.
Either way the fish didnt bite. only real differnce is that flossing places the hook close enough to the mouth to get away with it . Just because its the rivers energy (opposed to a fisher yarding on his line) that drives the hook home, the intent is the same TO HOOK A FISH WITHOUT A SOLICITED STRIKE.
Thats snagging in my books and its nothing more than a simple tweak in the rules to make it illegal.
Re read the regulations Gooey...... You are assuming too many things about fishermen that use flossing as a fish harvesting technique! ???
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 accidentally snagged must be released
immediately.
When fishermen floss they do so with the intent of connecting the hook with the fishes mouth (same as any fishermen using bait or a fly or a lure). The reason they don't want to hook it anywhere other than the mouth is that they are required to release the fish.....
Additional facts about flossing are that the CO's allow it. They wouldn't they allow it if it was illegal. They are there to enforce the laws!
What is snagging in your books is totally irrelevant to how the law reads and how the flossing technique is regulated. ::)
-
OK so if i position my hook under the chin of a fish and give it a yank and hook the fish in the jaw...then thats legal right...because its in the mouth...right? NO THATS SNAGGING!
thats the thing most flossers are sooo freaking clueless and what started as a way of harvesting sockeye in an environment where they dont bite, has turned into a cancer used to hook any type of fish, in any river, in any condition.
PS - lack of enforcement doesnt maek something legal.
-
OK so if i position my hook under the chin of a fish and give it a yank and hook the fish in the jaw...then thats legal right...because its in the mouth...right? NO THATS SNAGGING!
thats the thing most flossers are sooo freaking clueless and what started as a way of harvesting sockeye in an environment where they dont bite, has turned into a cancer used to hook any type of fish, in any river, in any condition.
PS - lack of enforcement doesnt maek something legal.
Lets agree that your view on flossing doesn't quite match how the law views it. ;D
It's just not necessary to go calling people "freaking clueless" as soon as you realize your argument isn't standing up.......
-
--I agree in part with Gooey.. I don't think flossing was intended to be legal. The law is a funny thing... once a practice has been accepted and becomes a general practice.. it is fairly difficult to prosecute.. The reported fact that it is not enforced means crown might not want to pursue prosecution.
--Easy solution for Fisheries to come clean and clarify the definition If they so choose or put out a supplement stating that the common practice known as flossing is not legal and then state that this interpretation will be enforced from the date of notice or conversely that on certain sections of a river sockeye may be caught using the common practice ( illustrate and define) know as flossing. This is no different than any other specific regulation.
--If flossing is intended as a preferred method of selective harvest.. ie easy release of non targeted species then maybe commercial and traditional controlled fisheries should conscider allowing flossers to harvest fish instead of using nets in sensitive areas where high incidence of by-catch occur.
--I still prefer the idea of a willful take in my own personal ideal of recreational fishing thus choose to believe that flossing is snaggin even given the present definition..
-
Gooey, you are probably the clueless guy if you think Fraser sockeyes don't bite. Many of my fishing friends told me they often hooked sockeyes inside the mouth bouncing, especially lately when water clears up. I have got quite a few fish inside the mouth myself. I have heard of another friend who said, unfortunately, one of his mouth caught socx inhaled the hook too deep to cause bad bleeding around the gill. Only the ignorant will say Fraser sockeyes don't bite. They base their bias on their own lack of skill or experiences. Those of us bounced long enough know the real story, from years of experience. During the murky water period and when socx are thick, yes, you get them mostly flossed. But now when water clears up, Fraser socx bite just like their cousins in other systems. If you don't know how, I will reveal you the skill to catch sockeyes inside the mouth so you can feel good eating a mouth caught sockeye when it opens (if you can overcome your mental prison of keeping a Fraser sockeye or bear the guilt of being mixed in with the bouncers). ;D You don't even need a super long leader. It takes skill and experience to find out the 'sockeye highway' , an area they stage in good number during travel and it takes certain river formation and good presentation to get them biting like any other reiver system. When they are moving, yes, the fish is mostly flossed, but when they are in staging mode, they bite just like fish resting in a riffle will bite. Don't be brain-washed into believing that Sockeyes don't bite and be closed mind. For those of us who have bounced since socx opened for retention, we just smile to hear all those silly statements from ignorant greenies that sockeye don't bite. ;) On the other hand, I for one don't care if people keep a sockeye flossed or in the mouth. Just enjoy a legally caught fish with the family. Why make fishing so complicated?
-
Gooey, you are probably the clueless guy if you think Fraser sockeyes don't bite. Many of my fishing friends told me they often hooked sockeyes inside the mouth bouncing, especially lately when water clears up. I have got quite a few fish inside the mouth myself. I have heard of another friend who said, unfortunately, one of his mouth caught socx inhaled the hook too deep to cause bad bleeding around the gill. Only the ignorant will say Fraser sockeyes don't bite. They base their bias on their own lack of skill or experiences. Those of us bounced long enough know the real story, from years of experience. During the murky water period and when socx are thick, yes, you get them mostly flossed. But now when water clears up, Fraser socx bite just like their cousins in other systems. If you don't know how, I will reveal you the skill to catch sockeyes inside the mouth so you can feel good eating a mouth caught sockeye when it opens (if you can overcome your mental prison of keeping a Fraser sockeye or bear the guilt of being mixed in with the bouncers). ;D You don't even need a super long leader. It takes skill and experience to find out the 'sockeye highway' , an area they stage in good number during travel and it takes certain river formation and good presentation to get them biting like any other reiver system. When they are moving, yes, the fish is mostly flossed, but when they are in staging mode, they bite just like fish resting in a riffle will bite. Don't be brain-washed into believing that Sockeyes don't bite and be closed mind. For those of us who have bounced since socx opened for retention, we just smile to hear all those silly statements from ignorant greenies that sockeye don't bite. ;) On the other hand, I for one don't care if people keep a sockeye flossed or in the mouth. Just enjoy a legally caught fish with the family. Why make fishing so complicated?
You just take all the word out of my mouth. Back in the early 90, there was very few people fish the scale bar. In early September when the river was clear, just have a ball fly fish for pink and sockeye. Now I don't fish much on the bar, cause it get a bit crowded, but is nothing like it when you hook a good spring and it make a 100 yard dash accross the Frazer, and you look at your reel and say I am in trouble.
-
Likesto fish - I reread your first 2 postings...2 comments.
1) as stated before, lack of enforcement doesn't equal legal.
2) you ask why flossing isn't ethical...I gave you my answer...the fish didnt bite the hook and I consider that to be a snagged fish.
I have flossed fish on the fraser for many years too. I can count on one hand the number of fish I hooked "in the mouth" ie as the result of a bite. I have hooked 2 socks and a spring as I retrieved my line - those fish did indeed bite. I think I started flossing the fraser around 1995 so I have hooked a number of fish too...heck I even have a mold to make and sell bouncing betties but I always have kept the fraser fishery in perspective: 99.5% of the fish flossed on the fraser didn't bite. I dont care what you or koko care to say on the issue, I have seen enough outside-in hooked fish to know exactly whats going on.
The real issue for me is that a lot of guys now accept it as the standard and thats what drives me nuts. I ran in to an absolute jackass at the allison pools that said the only people hooking reds are flossing them...I had one in the box already that day from roe. Flossers in general also so a low degree of respect for fish...I see more flossers hauling fish up and booting back then any float fishers...its a meat mentality thing and that too needs to change. I do believe that flossing is a serious cancer within the lower mainlands sports fishing community.
-
It is amazing how every year this topic gets debated to death. Listen I am not a die hard flosser but some of the logic used here has to make one step back and shake one's own head.
For instance, "When fishermen floss they do so with the intent of connecting the hook with the fishes mouth (same as any fishermen using bait or a fly or a lure). The reason they don't want to hook it anywhere other than the mouth is that they are required to release the fish.....
Additional facts about flossing are that the CO's allow it. They wouldn't they allow it if it was illegal. They are there to enforce the laws!
What is snagging in your books is totally irrelevant to how the law reads and how the flossing technique is regulated. Roll Eyes".
Flossing/lining a fish to me is simply getting a long leader drawing it through the fish's mouth, and bingo, bango, bongo, fish on!
Fishing shops love it because it takes very little skill to learn how to do it, and if a person can cast a spinning rod, they can catch a fish with this method. Twenty pound mono or braid line, plus bouncing betties fly off the shelf and life is good again especially in a tight economy. But let us not fool ourselves, if you think you have control over that 10 to 12 foot or even longer leader, then I have some swampland I want to sell you. It is IMHO, refined snagging. The person is not deliberately reefing back on the hook, but deftly getting it in the fishes mouth and then contact is made.
However, let us not confuse this with fly fishing. When I am nymph fishing for trout, there is no way I am lining the fish. I have seen underwater videos of this, and the fish without hesitation moves to the fly takes it in its mouth, and if the fisherman is awake it is fish on. Without a doubt totally different than flossing a salmon.
And for those who really want to see flossing in action, wait until Peg Leg appears later this summer, some of the stuff you see will leave you speechless.
-
It is amazing how every year this topic gets debated to death. Listen I am not a die hard flosser but some of the logic used here has to make one step back and shake one's own head.
For instance, "When fishermen floss they do so with the intent of connecting the hook with the fishes mouth (same as any fishermen using bait or a fly or a lure). The reason they don't want to hook it anywhere other than the mouth is that they are required to release the fish.....
Additional facts about flossing are that the CO's allow it. They wouldn't they allow it if it was illegal. They are there to enforce the laws!
What is snagging in your books is totally irrelevant to how the law reads and how the flossing technique is regulated. Roll Eyes".
Flossing/lining a fish to me is simply getting a long leader drawing it through the fish's mouth, and bingo, bango, bongo, fish on!
Fishing shops love it because it takes very little skill to learn how to do it, and if a person can cast a spinning rod, they can catch a fish with this method. Twenty pound mono or braid line, plus bouncing betties fly off the shelf and life is good again especially in a tight economy. But let us not fool ourselves, if you think you have control over that 10 to 12 foot or even longer leader, then I have some swampland I want to sell you. It is IMHO, refined snagging. The person is not deliberately reefing back on the hook, but deftly getting it in the fishes mouth and then contact is made.
However, let us not confuse this with fly fishing. When I am nymph fishing for trout, there is no way I am lining the fish. I have seen underwater videos of this, and the fish without hesitation moves to the fly takes it in its mouth, and if the fisherman is awake it is fish on. Without a doubt totally different than flossing a salmon.
And for those who really want to see flossing in action, wait until Peg Leg appears later this summer, some of the stuff you see will leave you speechless.
My favorite type of fishing is lure fishing for coho in the fall. They aggressively nail the lure, not because they are hungry but they attack the lure because they instinctively see it as a threat. Often the coho is hooked out side the mouth.
The point is there are countless ways of catching fish. Flossing sockeye may be offensive to some folks, but to continue on about how you feel it is not a pure form of fishing is getting old. I know a fly fisherman that only fishes with a floating line and dry flies. He doesn't have a lot of respect for fly fishermen that use sinking lines and shrimp or leech patterns. Does that make the sinking line fly fishermen lesser fishermen? Of course not!
Slagging fishermen who floss won't get these fishermen to change, so come up with a new approach to get them to change their technique. Most of you who are so strongly opposed to flossing have admitted that at one point you used flossing to catch fish. Why not rather share your experiences as to why you stopped using flossing? Keep in mind that most fishermen flossing sockeye just want to put meat on the table. They don't mistake it at all for sport fishing. The very small number that take the technique to other rivers just need to be talked to. Most people respond to logic and personal stories. Few folks respond favorably to being slagged.....
-
I don't think its a small number of people taking the flossing method to other smaller rivers, ever seen the train bridge on the vedder in the fall.
-
Hmmm....so it seems the debate has come full circle. And who was the one who opened up this can of worms, oh my gosh at post #1, it was alwaysfishn. To me it is an ethical question, and most people know after using this method what they are doing. Call it what it is and if it is only allowed during the sockeye season so be it. Perhaps education is the answer maybe not. For example, I know this topic has been discussed to death on this forum. People can do a search on it, and see varying views on this type of fishing method. However, to me it comes down to the individual. Fisherman are smart enough to figure out what is going on, and at the end of the day you have to decide yourself whether this fishing method is ethical enough to use on other river systems, aside from the Fraser during sockeye season. Just my two cents worth.
-
I wonder if people are answering the question from the right perspective. I can see the skill argument causing people to disagree with flossing, as everyone pretty much admits that it's a less skillful form than other fishing methods, but ethics; what does that even mean?
I have a question; do those that feel it is unethical eat store-bought beef? Any hunters think it's unethical? Humans eat fish, meat etc to survive, so I respect that people purchase ground beef from Safeway, but have you seen how a cow is slaughtered? Is that ethical? Shooting a deer from behind a tree, ethical?
I think maybe the anti-BB crowd is just trying to say that it is a less skillful way to fish and using ethics (the wrong argument) to get the point across.
My two cents.
Rob
-
Last post for me on this topic, but that is what the original question asked by the person who started this thread, ethical or unethical. Flossing is seen like it or not as an acceptable way to harvest sockeye on the Fraser. Plain and simple that is what it is. However, take this method to the Vedder, and start using it. That is where the problem starts, smaller system and people start trying to snag salmon in the canal, for instance. One could argue the ethics of right and wrong about a mulititude of other topics, but that is not what was asked. Simply put is flossing an ethical way to fish, not to play games, but it comes down to the individual. You have to decide whether this is an ethical and acceptable way to fish.
-
I'm going to chime in on this thread,
I frankly could care less about what people are throwing in the river in regards to tackle. If something outperforms another, and catching fish is all that matters, then fill your boots.
I've used my spey rod to "hook" sockeye till the cows come home, I know I'm flossing, but I usually take my fish and get out.
My problem lies with the amount of idiots that come flying out of the woodwork and their blatant disrespect towards others when the meat fishery is opened, and sometimes even if it's not.....
To acquire a hunting license in this Province, or almost any other Province in this country, you need proof of taking a outdoor education course, and passing a test on the material.
To acquire a fishing license in this Province, or almost any other Province in this country, you need money, that's it.....plain and simple.
And while I understand that hunting can be viewed as much more dangerous than fishing most days, that still shouldn't count as the only reason fishermen shouldn't require proof of education in regards to the sport.
If it really bothers you that much that fellow sports fishermen/women are tarnishing your sport or the resource with what gear they throw in the river, maybe you should open your eyes and look at the absolute BS that other user groups get away with. Let's keep in mind, we're all fishing for the same fish.....
-
Without doing any research except what I read in newspapers and on forums, I would say that there are more people killed fishing than hunting, so I would say fishing is more dangerous. Or maybe Mr. Darwin just finds more choices of stupidity on the water. Easier to clean the gene pool there. ;D ;D
-
Ethics is in the eyes of the beholder. It all depends on where you stand in the spectrums of things.
If you were a fish - do you like your killer more because you become his meal with a hook in the mouth than from the side? ;) Do you deserve to die more because you just want to eat a meal?
If you were a eagle, a bear, or all sorts of life forms which have to depend on the annual return of salmon for substaining them to live through winter (and therefore the survival of their species) - what? you crazy humans, you mean we have to bite, claw or beak the salmon in the mouth before we can deserve the fish ??? ;D
If you are among the starving people in the 3rd world - this debate is for you idiots of the rich and spoiled people of the industrialized world? Want to change place for a day? ;)
If you are buddist or a PETA member - do you think it is ethical killing a fish, even for a meal? You murderers and killers..... murder, murder murder, kill, kill, kill. ;D
If you are a flyfishing purist - the debate on your crude and unsophisticated way of fishing is a joke? Want to try weightless flossing which is lead free? ;D
If you are a catch & release purist - we are more ethical because we are going to put the fish through hell, then kiss it good bye & say 'thank you buddy' for a great fight to make my day a happy day'. What? It is unethical to build your fun on others' suffering? Na! Get lost! :D
If you are a bar-fisher, do you think it is ethical to fish with a ton of lead, polluting the river and its near shore ecology (forget about where the hook is located), as it is much more unethical and much worst to the fish and its habitat to flood the river with unretrievable lead bombs so that you can eat your fish. ;)
Alwaysfishin is right. Fishing was originally a way of collecting meat to feed the family in the ancient days, much like hunting for games. As long as you are fishing for food, using the most efficient and legal method is good and ethical. People of old used the most efficient methods which won't harm fish stock much, because they were not killing fish massively which made fishing sustainable in the past. Even when nets were used, they were small cast nets or dip nets, or spears, never the mighty fish killing machine like the drift/gill nets and seine nets of today.
So, I am happy to fish a legal and ethical method which is the most efficient method for a fisherman with one rod and one hook on the Fraser. In the smaller systems, it is a different story, as other methods are more efficient and it is foul hooking too many fish in the body other than the mouth. It should be banned or discouraged.
Awesome post.
Flossers are eating their fish. Are you anti-flossers also anti-hunting? The animal doesn't have a choice whether or not it is going to be brained. Hey Chris, don't you hunt?
-
In reading BC's regulations and definitions online, it appears to me that the definition of snagging is very watered down. I think that is a huge issue.
Just for interest sake here is Washington State's definition of snagging: "Attempting to take a fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth. In fresh water it is illegal to posses any fish hooked anywhere other than inside the mouth..." The key is voluntary. I do believe that if a fish hasnt bitten the hook, it has been snagged...as we discussed earlier, we all agree that if I reef back on my rod and hook a fish in the belly,its snagged. If I climb on top of a log jam, lower a jig under a fish's jaw give the jig a yank...that fish is snagged too. the key element is the fish was involuntarily hooked (ie snagged). Koko and Likestofish...dieing to hear a response here: DO YOU THINK A FLOSSED FISH VOLUNTARILY TOOK THE HOOK?
If you answer is no then you by default must agree the fish is snagged. If you answer yes then you're in denial!
Guys who don't openly acknowledge that flossing is snagging are just fooling themselves and thats a huge part of the problem. Flossing evovled from a dirty water fishery on the fraser. If socs bit regularly, peple would fish em that way but unfortunately the only efficeint way to fish em is to floss em. Look at springs that take roe and glows eagerly...people bar fish em. Koko, likesto fish, you both claim sockeye bite...do you do anything but floss em? I bet not, flossing makes fishers lazy...why work for a strike when you can force feed a fish a 4/0 hook!
All I want is for flossers to acknowledge what they are doing: snagging fish. treat the technique (and fish) with respect and use it when appropriate (IMO only for the fraser).
-
Bhinky, I guess i'm just old school...I learned to fish when snagging was frowned upon...I guess you and your buddies are a different generation of fishers?
-
Bhinky, I guess i'm just old school...I learned to fish when snagging was frowned upon...I guess you and your buddies are a different generation of fishers?
I am a sportfisherman. I flyfish, I gearfish. I obey the law and my set of ethics (which fall in line with most other people's). I recognize that BB'n on the Fraser is a meat fishery. I'm out there to try and harvest a little meat for the freezer. Like you said, I realize that flossing is a form of snagging. I would never SNAG a fish nor would I floss one in any flow other than the Fraser. I am young but I have been taught to fish ethically. A lot of people think that flossing is unethical, I do not (as long as the law isn't being broken). As long as I am allowed to, I'll take my 2 fish and then put the flossing gear away.
-
In reading BC's regulations and definitions online, it appears to me that the definition of snagging is very watered down. I think that is a huge issue.
Just for interest sake here is Washington State's definition of snagging: "Attempting to take a fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth. In fresh water it is illegal to posses any fish hooked anywhere other than inside the mouth..." The key is voluntary. I do believe that if a fish hasnt bitten the hook, it has been snagged...as we discussed earlier, we all agree that if I reef back on my rod and hook a fish in the belly,its snagged. If I climb on top of a log jam, lower a jig under a fish's jaw give the jig a yank...that fish is snagged too. the key element is the fish was involuntarily hooked (ie snagged). Koko and Likestofish...dieing to hear a response here: DO YOU THINK A FLOSSED FISH VOLUNTARILY TOOK THE HOOK?
If you answer is no then you by default must agree the fish is snagged. If you answer yes then you're in denial!
Guys who don't openly acknowledge that flossing is snagging are just fooling themselves and thats a huge part of the problem. Flossing evovled from a dirty water fishery on the fraser. If socs bit regularly, peple would fish em that way but unfortunately the only efficeint way to fish em is to floss em. Look at springs that take roe and glows eagerly...people bar fish em. Koko, likesto fish, you both claim sockeye bite...do you do anything but floss em? I bet not, flossing makes fishers lazy...why work for a strike when you can force feed a fish a 4/0 hook!
All I want is for flossers to acknowledge what they are doing: snagging fish. treat the technique (and fish) with respect and use it when appropriate (IMO only for the fraser).
I question whether putting Voluntary in the regs would stop the practice of flossing. The opposite of voluntary is to be forced. No one is forcing the fish to take the line and hook. The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth and then the hook.... However we argue that, these are Washington regs not BC regs.
As long as the sockeye fishery is open to sports fishermen, they will be innovative enough to come up with a technique to catch them. The law recognizes that, and as a result have not made any attempt to add more rules.
-
Someone questions me calling the average flosser clueless and then alwaysfishn proves my point! "The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth "....you cant be serious. :-X
You think the fish swim up and grab the mono? that is utterly rediculous and your ignorance to what you are actually doing is so evident to anyone with a shread of knowledge!
when you cast out and sweep the bettie in across the river in a 45 degree arc, the line and hook hang out behind the bettie trailing it. Fish swimming up stream with the mouths open (so the can breath) have the line run into theiur mouths, the bettie pulls the line and the hook is drawn into the side of their face. If you look at a flossed fish, point it up stream and the the hook will always be in the far side of the fish's face/body.
"The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth "...ya thats a good one I almost wet my pants laffing so hard.
-
Someone questions me calling the average flosser clueless and then alwaysfishn proves my point! "The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth "....you cant be serious. :-X
You think the fish swim up and grab the mono? that is utterly rediculous and your ignorance to what you are actually doing is so evident to anyone with a shread of knowledge!
when you cast out and sweep the bettie in across the river in a 45 degree arc, the line and hook hang out behind the bettie trailing it. Fish swimming up stream with the mouths open (so the can breath) have the line run into theiur mouths, the bettie pulls the line and the hook is drawn into the side of their face. If you look at a flossed fish, point it up stream and the the hook will always be in the far side of the fish's face/body.
"The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth "...ya thats a good one I almost wet my pants laffing so hard.
I actually had a good laugh as I was writing that up as well!
However,I really don't find it funny when you suggest I am ignorant. It may be true, :D .... but it's very disrespectful on your part to actually suggest that! It also minimized the impact of any good points you may have made....
You need to take your blinders off Gooey.. You are so focused on how the technique doesn't fit your definition of fishing that you lose sight of the reason fishermen use flossing to catch sockeye.
If you've ever bought wild salmon in the super market you must know that it wasn't caught by a sports fishermen who waited till the fish bit his hook...... These fish were caught by an efficient net. If you buy beef in the market it's not a very pretty sight that transpired before it got there. As a hunter I don't try and give the animal a sporting chance. I try to use whatever devious means I can think of (as long as they are legal) in order to kill that animal so I can eat it.
Catching a sockeye is exactly the same thing. As fishermen looking to put meat on the table we are going to use the most efficient legal technique available in order quickly harvest our daily allocation. After we do that 99% of us leave the river and usually return the next day to do it all over again till the season is closed.
That should remind you of a commercial or native fishery because the only difference, is the gear we use... :o
-
Someone questions me calling the average flosser clueless and then alwaysfishn proves my point! "The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth "....you cant be serious. :-X
Give it a drink buddy.
Everyone knows your position on this topic - no need to blather on about it in response to every post.
Flossing Sockeye in the Fraser is an accepted practice and it's not against the rules.
You realize that too many Sockeye end up on the spawning grounds otherwise and that's why DFO allows a "harvest"?
Most people on this board would agree that the problems begin when people start doing it for other salmon and on other rivers.
-
alwaysfishin, this isnt a laffing matter plus your comment didnt come through as sarcasm, hyperbole, etc... I know there are fishers out there that actually believe what you wrote.
As well, it is not as simple as buying beef or some other mass produced food source. there are a host of issue from snagging to littering and fighting, to poor treatment of released fish, to lack of species identification knowledge....there is a wide array of issues that go hand in hand with the whole flossing thing and the fishers who regularly employ it.
Frankly, flossing makes it too easy...anyone with no skill or knowledge can have a great deal of success flossing. Thats why the slab run on the vedder right through to the cable pool on the capilano have their bottoms lined with snapped off flosser's gear :P
I will focus on the snagging issue though...its not "my opinion" or my personal ethics that cause me to take this position a flossed fish doesn't bite ergo it was snagged, snaggin is illegal ergo flossing is illegal too, it just isn't enforced. Thats the facts, Until every fisher that flosses realizes that then we will have all the beaks lining up at every decent hole on ANY river...thats my biggest issue.
PS - I asked a CO once why they dont patrol the capilano more, his comment was prioritization...its much more important to monitor sensitive systems like the Cheak and Squamish or police nets on the Fraser than worry about a man made/maintained run in the middle of the city. Its no diffeent on the fraser...enforcement priorities aren't on a flossed fishery right now....so don't fool yourself, flossing isn't legal, its just not enforce .
-
"Most people on this board would agree that the problems begin when people start doing it for other salmon and on other rivers"
Exactly, and thats a huge problem now...one that grows year after year! River fishing the vedder and chehalis was a much different story 15 years ago...I am only 37 and I can tell you there has been a high degree of degredation. Maybe newer fishers accept it as the norm? Maybe they don't see the issue that more seasoned anglers see? I dont know but every time I try and drift a run for coho and steelhead and hang up on 80 braid or a snapped off betty with a 10 foot leader, I know exactly what fishery to thank!
-
As well, it is not as simple as buying beef or some other mass produced food source. there are a host of issue from snagging to littering and fighting, to poor treatment of released fish, to lack of species identification knowledge....there is a wide array of issues that go hand in hand with the whole flossing thing and the fishers who regularly employ it.
Frankly, flossing makes it too easy...anyone with no skill or knowledge can have a great deal of success flossing.
Are you really that opposed to people "flossing fish"?
A heavy weighted fly line, high-stick nymphed through a the river can be as lethal as your general flossing rig. Would you be angered if you saw someone out with a fly rod swinging T-16 through an area on the Fraser?
I think your posts hint a little bit of pre-existing anger towards the zoo that accompanies sockeye fishing, and especially sockeye harvest openings. While I agree with you 100% on the mayhem that ensues, I don't think banning long leaders is the end all on the subject.
Remember, when it comes to fishing, for some people it's only about catching, and they'll do whatever they need to do to hook up with the fish they're after.
-
The year before last I was fishing in the Campbell River and right there at the logging bridge there were a couple of guys flossing springs, 12 foot leaders, bouncing betties the whole shot, they were doing quite well too obviously it works and it's legal I'm told, anyone that thinks it's ethical in the Fraser would probably believe it's ethical anywhere, even in one of B.C.'s most famous and gorgeous systems like the Campbell. It's nothing short of discusting, sry my opinion only thanks for you time.
-
on a side note i saw a huge spring in the hacthery channel the other day with a 10 foot leader and hook stuck in its belly, wonder how that happened :o
-
I will focus on the snagging issue though...its not "my opinion" or my personal ethics that cause me to take this position a flossed fish doesn't bite ergo it was snagged, snaggin is illegal ergo flossing is illegal too, it just isn't enforced.
Until you can show me a law that says flossing is "illegal" saying it is illegal cannot be anything but your opinion.
Suggesting that a CO is not enforcing flossing is just ridiculous. I've seen CO's go down a long line of fishermen and all they checked for was barbed hooks and licenses. I suggest that the reason the CO's didn't write tickets for the 50+ fishermen was because there was nothing illegal being done....
Why would they be doing the sockeye mortality study on an illegal technique? ??? Why spend all that money on researching the survival of a fish caught using an illegal technique? I'm just applying a little logic here Gooey..... something you are sadly lacking.... :(
There is no problem with having an opinion though. I have a few of my own. ;D
-
Bottom bouncing with a piece of pencil lead and a 2 foot leader and a spinner is legal, bottom bouncing with a bouncing betty and a 15 foot leader and a piece of yarn is just as legal.
Intentionally snagging fish anywhere on their body say by using 6 ounces of weight and a 4/0 treble is illegal.
People form their own opinion based on their views and beliefs. So rather than argue over an issue as stupid as flossing, why don't you take your anger and problems out on user groups that cause the most damage?
-
The only user group that uses the bar on St Elmo road is bottom bouncers, the last time there was a sockeye opening there was a pickup and a half load of garbage left behind when it was all over I consider that to be damage and maybe even unethical too.
-
Until you can show me a law that says flossing is "illegal" saying it is illegal cannot be anything but your opinion.
Suggesting that a CO is not enforcing flossing is just ridiculous. I've seen CO's go down a long line of fishermen and all they checked for was barbed hooks and licenses. I suggest that the reason the CO's didn't write tickets for the 50+ fishermen was because there was nothing illegal being done....
Why would they be doing the sockeye mortality study on an illegal technique? ??? Why spend all that money on researching the survival of a fish caught using an illegal technique? I'm just applying a little logic here Gooey..... something you are sadly lacking.... :(
There is no problem with having an opinion though. I have a few of my own. ;D
-when it is stated speeding is illegal they do not have to add speeding with a ford is illegal or speeding with a motorcycle is illegal.. it is implied and understood...however if it requires explanation it should be clarified
--I believe some of us have been through a radar trap at105 in a 100 zone and not stopped... whereas there is zero tolerance for exceeding the speed limit in a school zone.
--maybe they are doing the studies to determine if the regulations should be rewritten.. That is if they were to make flossing legal as a selective harvest method would none targeted fish survive release
-
EASYWATER
Too many sockeye end up on the spawning grounds and that's why DFO opens the river ? Over the last decade it's been a real struggle to get enough fish on the spawning grounds. Pressure from all user groups seems to have priority over conservation. Over spawning is a myth perpetuated by the commercial fisherman.
-
EASYWATER
Too many sockeye end up on the spawning grounds and that's why DFO opens the river ? Over the last decade it's been a real struggle to get enough fish on the spawning grounds. Pressure from all user groups seems to have priority over conservation. Over spawning is a myth perpetuated by the commercial fisherman.
Obviously, that's not the case when there are not enough fish but when there is an abundance of fish, then too many fish to the spawning grounds cause problems.
This year is shaping up to be a huge year.
Cummins on the Cohen Inquiry: http://www.johncummins.ca/docs/S%20Inquiry%20-%20June%2012%202010%20-%20CKNW%20-%20Sean%20Leslie%20Show%20-%20Cummins%20on%20Cohen%20Inquiry.pdf
The International Commission was putting about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 spawners on to the spawning grounds each year. Since the Department took over it's got into a program that it would refer to as weak stock management, and it's been crowding these spawning grounds and putting sometimes three, four, and five times as many sockeye into the spawning ground.
That became a concern in British Columbia and three of the scientific advisers here -- LeBlonde, Riddell, and Walters -- co-authored a study for the Department and they said that this over-spawning wasn't a factor in the serious declines of the run. Well that's in sharp contrast to findings in Alaska where the fishery is very successful and the science there says that over-spawning is not helpful and that it can be detrimental to successful sockeye runs.
http://www.sustainablecoast.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=239:this-is-not-a-science-seminar&Itemid=121&tmpl=component&print=1
June 17, 2010
The real issue before the Cohen Inquiry is DFO's failure to manage the Fraser River fishery.
" Why were the policies and procedures of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission so effective in increasing the size of sockeye runs when the management of the fishery was under their control and why have stocks collapsed since DFO took over management in 1986? " Did the Department's policy of weak stock management, which resulted in over spawning throughout much of the Fraser system contribute to the disastrous decline of the Fraser River fishery?
-
If you look at some of the data they have compiled over the years, on average if 100 million sockeye smolts hit the ocean, only 10 percent make it back to the coastline. That means about a 90 percent mortality rate when at sea. I tend to scratch my head, when people start talking about too many salmon making it back to the spawning grounds.
-
Someone with the "absolute" knowledge may want to step in and correct me on this.
I've spoken to numerous staff up at the Fulton Creek Spawning Channels in Granisle. They have a series of man made runways perfectly suited for spawning sockeye, and they only allow up to a certain number of males and females into the channels, the one's that don't make it typically swam at the gate until it is their time to go. I've heard of years where they've opened up an "in-lake" commercial fishery to take place at the mouth of Fulton Creek just to scoop up all the left overs. They called it ESSR, excess-salmon to spawning requirements.
The folks at the spawning channels told me that almost every year they fill up the channels with their needed allotment, which means they are essentially getting 1:1 ratio or higher of returns. I've been told over-competition and disease break out is the main reason they only allow so many salmon to make it in the spawning channels.
So my personal belief is that there is legitimacy to simply putting too many spawners on the beds so-to-speak.
Now, where I think the concern should be, is some of the methods of commercial harvest cough* gillnet cough* are ridiculously unselective at targeting the fish passing by. So allowing a 16 hour opening say in the migration route may seem harmless, you may take alot of the ESSR from one stream, but you may also eliminate a run from a smaller stream....
I just thought I'd share my opinion, I'm not an expert so take this with a grain of salt :)
-
Until you can show me a law that says flossing is "illegal" saying it is illegal cannot be anything but your opinion.
Suggesting that a CO is not enforcing flossing is just ridiculous. I've seen CO's go down a long line of fishermen and all they checked for was barbed hooks and licenses. I suggest that the reason the CO's didn't write tickets for the 50+ fishermen was because there was nothing illegal being done....
Why would they be doing the sockeye mortality study on an illegal technique? ??? Why spend all that money on researching the survival of a fish caught using an illegal technique? I'm just applying a little logic here Gooey..... something you are sadly lacking.... :(
There is no problem with having an opinion though. I have a few of my own. ;D
Go with you conscience, if you think it is OK to take fish by a method where you quarry is not biting, go for it. For me and many others they want no part of it. I donot need a fish that badly that I would have to fish that way.
Sorry for being a bit blunt but, I went after the Liberal with this letter that ran yesterday in the Chilliwack Progress. I have to tell it the way I see it even though many will say I have it wrong but so be it.
I have to agree with Randy White's statement that the B.C. Liberal rein as government will come to an end in the next provincial election. (Former conservative Conservative MP predicts election defeat for B.C. Liberals July 27, 2010 by Robert Freeman ) Bringing in the HST I feel has signaled the final death blow to Campbell's government and for most of his cabinet ministers and MLA's. Many other issues and decisions made over their term as government has seen the voter loose confidence in the BC Liberals. As in many causes governments lose power as it is their own actions that defeat them, in other words, they defeat themselves.
One reason I feel why Campbell and his finance minster Colin Hansen were forced to find another way to bring in more revenue to the provincial coffers is because their government cut taxes starting back when they were first elected. A total of 37 percent since 2001 the Premier said this in a previous article while defending his government's stance on bringing in the HST on July 1. When we see the financial mess we are in now how wise a move was that to cut these taxes so much? We now have had a ballooning deficit the last few years with the news now filled with how our education, and health care services that we so treasure in British Columbia continue to suffer. Many other ministry including the Ministry of the Environment has been slashed to the bare bones. The Liberal party always boasts about these tax reductions but it leads one to ask was it more about using this statement time and time again just to get elected 2 more times then good fiscal management? The proof now seems to appear in the pudding as because of the financial mess we are in the Liberals, in a desperate move have had to bring in the HST to try to prevent our deficit from growing even more.
Then we had the 2010 Olympics that I have to admit I enjoyed along with most British Columbians and people throughout the world, we were all thrilled by the accomplishments of many of our Canadian athletes. However I believe our tax base in British Columbia is too small to be able the afford the tax dollars that had to be spent to put this 2 week party on. More money added to our deficit. Where do we get these funds from Hansen must have asked himself. Well the HST now appears to be the latest one while core services continue to face financial hardships.
Also the fish farm issue has been handled so badly, they continue to ignore the evidence provided by Dr Alexandra Morton and others, just another example of how they really do not seem to care about the environment and our wild salmon that are a cornerstone of British Columbia. The same wild salmon that have helped build our province with these salmon substantiating our First Nation people for thousands of years. This issue is a prime example how the government has stopped listening to the people, they I believe have become too arrogant and self centered. If they do not like what you are saying and it is not on their agenda they tune you out, hoping you will just go away.
I know being a government MLA or a cabinet minister is not easy and some time hard decisions have to be faced but over the years but I have seen this once fresh government change and lose touch with the people, the people that put them in power to represent them. Transparency on so many issues disappeared. Many other ways of being good government slipped away also, we are all familiar with them. Two years ago I was so disillusioned and left the party and did not renew my Liberal membership. I am glad I did as the way the HST was brought in it would have been the final nail in the coffin for me as it now will be for this once great party in less than 3 years time from now, if not sooner if recall is successful.
Where do I go from here, back to my family roots of the NDP where my mother's cousin son Grant Notley was the NDP leader in Alberta before he was killed in the 1980's in a plane crash or will it be another party that will surface in the months ahead that will garner my support.
All I ask of the next government, please donot do what the Liberals have done, lose the trust of many of us, over 700,000 voters who signed the anti HST petition. The people have spoken and the B.C. Liberals will now pay the price as Randy White says, in the not too distant future.
-
blah.. blah.. blah.. blah
after 6 years on this forum nothing's changed...always the same argument and always the same (or should i say lack of) conclusion.... who cares?! :P
snagging/flossing same crap. it comes down to intent.
do i bottom bounce the Fraser...YES. the Vedder?...Never! so how do i fish it? by using my level wind or my centerpin...shortfloating roe, blades, corkies, shrimp/bugs, and wool. does that make me ethical or unethical? (don't care)... i'm abiding by the Rules and Regulations.
however, i do believe some of you are either confused or misguided with 'bottom bouncing' and it's alleged crossover to the Vedder... i personally have witnessed half a dozen newbies try this method only to laugh at them because of their constant snagging and loss of expensive tackle.
most flossers/snaggers are seasoned fishermen who set their tackle to line fish with the aid of their polarized glasses...either levelwind or centerpin... very little weight, small hook (with little wool), and fluorocarbon line...in turn, fly fishermen with leaded line sweeping the drift... so why argue over something that doesn't make sense? last i checked, flossing the Fraser in this manner (Vedder style) proved unproductive and non existent.
the debate should be over intent and not over methods used.
99% of bottom bouncers intend to floss sockeye (myself included)...have i ever enticed them to bite? YES...especially fishing the Chuck...and inadvertently while shortfloating for springs in a deep run...on the Vedder....and bottom bouncing (legit way with 2 foot leader) at seabird, and chucking spoons for pinks at island 22 (over ten years ago).
-
Go with you conscience, if you think it is OK to take fish by a method where you quarry is not biting, go for it. For me and many others they want no part of it. I donot need a fish that badly that I would have to fish that way.
Sorry for being a bit blunt but, I went after the Liberal with this letter that ran yesterday in the Chilliwack Progress. I have to tell it the way I see it even though many will say I have it wrong but so be it.
I have to agree with Randy White's statement that the B.C. Liberal rein as government will come to an end in the next provincial election. (Former conservative Conservative MP predicts election defeat for B.C. Liberals July 27, 2010 by Robert Freeman ) Bringing in the HST I feel has signaled the final death blow to Campbell's government and for most of his cabinet ministers and MLA's. Many other issues and decisions made over their term as government has seen the voter loose confidence in the BC Liberals. As in many causes governments lose power as it is their own actions that defeat them, in other words, they defeat themselves.
One reason I feel why Campbell and his finance minster Colin Hansen were forced to find another way to bring in more revenue to the provincial coffers is because their government cut taxes starting back when they were first elected. A total of 37 percent since 2001 the Premier said this in a previous article while defending his government's stance on bringing in the HST on July 1. When we see the financial mess we are in now how wise a move was that to cut these taxes so much? We now have had a ballooning deficit the last few years with the news now filled with how our education, and health care services that we so treasure in British Columbia continue to suffer. Many other ministry including the Ministry of the Environment has been slashed to the bare bones. The Liberal party always boasts about these tax reductions but it leads one to ask was it more about using this statement time and time again just to get elected 2 more times then good fiscal management? The proof now seems to appear in the pudding as because of the financial mess we are in the Liberals, in a desperate move have had to bring in the HST to try to prevent our deficit from growing even more.
Then we had the 2010 Olympics that I have to admit I enjoyed along with most British Columbians and people throughout the world, we were all thrilled by the accomplishments of many of our Canadian athletes. However I believe our tax base in British Columbia is too small to be able the afford the tax dollars that had to be spent to put this 2 week party on. More money added to our deficit. Where do we get these funds from Hansen must have asked himself. Well the HST now appears to be the latest one while core services continue to face financial hardships.
Also the fish farm issue has been handled so badly, they continue to ignore the evidence provided by Dr Alexandra Morton and others, just another example of how they really do not seem to care about the environment and our wild salmon that are a cornerstone of British Columbia. The same wild salmon that have helped build our province with these salmon substantiating our First Nation people for thousands of years. This issue is a prime example how the government has stopped listening to the people, they I believe have become too arrogant and self centered. If they do not like what you are saying and it is not on their agenda they tune you out, hoping you will just go away.
I know being a government MLA or a cabinet minister is not easy and some time hard decisions have to be faced but over the years but I have seen this once fresh government change and lose touch with the people, the people that put them in power to represent them. Transparency on so many issues disappeared. Many other ways of being good government slipped away also, we are all familiar with them. Two years ago I was so disillusioned and left the party and did not renew my Liberal membership. I am glad I did as the way the HST was brought in it would have been the final nail in the coffin for me as it now will be for this once great party in less than 3 years time from now, if not sooner if recall is successful.
Where do I go from here, back to my family roots of the NDP where my mother's cousin son Grant Notley was the NDP leader in Alberta before he was killed in the 1980's in a plane crash or will it be another party that will surface in the months ahead that will garner my support.
All I ask of the next government, please donot do what the Liberals have done, lose the trust of many of us, over 700,000 voters who signed the anti HST petition. The people have spoken and the B.C. Liberals will now pay the price as Randy White says, in the not too distant future.
Chris - just when I was thinking you "hijacked" thiis thread, I realized that you feel that we've been "flossed" by the government. ;D ;D
-
Chris - just when I was thinking you "hijacked" thiis thread, I realized that you feel that we've been "flossed" by the government. ;D ;D
Hey Chris, If the Liberals start charging HST on every sockeye that we floss I may start thinking the way you do....... ;D
Congrats on your letter being published!
-
Excellent entry Chris now back to the legal versus ethical thing, we all know the liberals have no ethics, ::) even when I still BBed for springs when the sockeye showed up I would quit till they were open, yesterday i talked to a friend of mine that told me he and his buddy released 18 socks the other day bbing for springs. Every time I released a sockeye that fought hard and long it was always hard to revive. I'm a deer hunter too and a couple of times in the past I've seen deer get busted up by a poorly placed or poorly timed shot and get away wvr it happens, but it just leaves you with a sick feeling that doesn't go away for the rest of the season, this is the way i feel when I release a sockeye that I don't think is going to revive. I do realize the odd sockeye gets caught while bar fishing but in 38 years of bar fishing I can count the ones I've caught using this method on my ten fingers and I'll take that as an acceptable risk. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder and I'll be out snagging sockeye with everyone else tomorrow but I sure won't sugarcoat it and call it sportfishing or ethical in any way I'm just going out to legally fill up the canner. Otherwise I'd do what my father and grandfather did and buy em off of the natives.
-
Well put noesy I agree with everthing you said, I will out tomorrow after work looking to get the start on filling the freezer, but once it closes the BB gear is put away till next time.
-
I am going for sockeye too, later this week but they will have to bite the good doctor, on the bar gear. Enjoy the combat activity tomorrow for those that will be entering the war zone, and keep the boxing to a minimum ;D ;D and the knifes in the pockets. :o
I wonder how things will work out a Grassy when they tie up the bar for the sockeye study, timely. Maybe they will close the sockeye by then.
-
I am going for sockeye too, later this week but they will have to bite the good doctor, on the bar gear. Enjoy the combat activity tomorrow for those that will be entering the war zone, and keep the boxing to a minimum ;D ;D and the knifes in the pockets. :o
I wonder how things will work out a Grassy when they tie up the bar for the sockeye study, timely. Maybe they will close the sockeye by then.
I believe the Harrison opens for sockeye tomorrow as well. There is another option to catch a sockeye without using your bouncing betty....
-
I believe the Harrison opens for sockeye tomorrow as well. There is another option to catch a sockeye without using your bouncing betty....
Only up as far as the Hwy. 7 Bridge, OK if they school there like they did a few years ago but they are already up river. They now keep it closed above the bridge because of the snagging that goes on in the Harrison rapids area. >:( ??? ::) :-[ :'(
It hard to make them bite the further they get away from the ocean. For an example I was at the Thompson last week and thousands of sockeye going through but I did not get one bite over 3 days although I did not fish hard and was using roe, krill or ghost shrimp may have worked but no interst as I could not keep them if hooked and do not like catch and release on these guys. Jack fishing slow, only 2 including one clipped, head sent in.
-
I guess flossing sockeye could be seen as exactly the same as bird hunting with a shot gun. Does a flock of birds have the same chance with all that buck shot coming at them as a sockeye does with a long leader no, so why do these same people think it is ethical to hunt birds in this manner to put meat in the freezer but it is not ethical to catch sockeye for the same reason. ::)
-
I guess flossing sockeye could be seen as exactly the same as bird hunting with a shot gun. Does a flock of birds have the same chance with all that buck shot coming at them as a sockeye does with a long leader no, so why do these same people think it is ethical to hunt birds in this manner to put meat in the freezer but it is not ethical to catch sockeye for the same reason. ::)
In all respect Geoff_ T there is no other way I know of the hunt birds so I belive it is hard to compare the 2.
-
In all respect Geoff_ T there is no other way I know of the hunt birds so I belive it is hard to compare the 2.
Hey Chris I do respect you alot especially with everything you do for the environment but when it comes to this debate I just do not get it. You can compare the 2. Both with fishing and hunting there is always other methods that can be used. You choose to us a shot gun that shots alot of buck shot at a flock of birds when you can us a single shot gun like a 22, yes it is less efficient but I am sure you will hit one once in a while. Then there is fishing for sockeye on the fraser. A long leader is used when there are other methods but these methods may also not be as efficient but I am sure one will be caught once in a while. So why is a shot gun more ethical for birds then a long leader for sockeye on the fraser.
-
Have to agree with Geff_t on this one.
Shooting birds with a shot gun is a logical choice because your aim is to kill the birds with the best method possible. Fishing sockeye with a long leader is a logical choice because you want to harvest your fish with the best method possible.
Perhaps you shoot the birds and one of them drops but doesn't die, ethically, do you kill the bird to take it out of its misery? It probably won't survive if you leave it.
How about sockeye, by catching one for the sheer enjoyment, your going to seriously hinder it's ability to reach it's final destination if you release it....
It comes down to peace of mind and the old rule that what I don't know doesn't hurt me. Would you feel bad walking out of a field with a few geese hobbling along because one of it's wings is ripped up? Probably. Would you feel bad after releasing a sockeye when you played it for 10 minutes and know its got 500km to swim? Probably not, because once it's back in the water it's "out of sight, out of mind."
If the name of the game is to harvest meat for the freezer, do it, do it with the least harm to the animal and use all the animal or as much of it as you can.
-
Hey Chris I do respect you alot especially with everything you do for the environment but when it comes to this debate I just do not get it. You can compare the 2. Both with fishing and hunting there is always other methods that can be used. You choose to us a shot gun that shots alot of buck shot at a flock of birds when you can us a single shot gun like a 22, yes it is less efficient but I am sure you will hit one once in a while. Then there is fishing for sockeye on the fraser. A long leader is used when there are other methods but these methods may also not be as efficient but I am sure one will be caught once in a while. So why is a shot gun more ethical for birds then a long leader for sockeye on the fraser.
I donot want to create hard feelings over this debate but using a 22 is very dangerous to use if one would try shooting waterfowl with it, especially around water where the bullet can ricochet. I am not certain but it may be illegal to shoot waterfowl with a single projectile but in any case no true water fowl would hunt with a 22. I will leave it here and I feel the season will be short and the river will return to some sort of order then.
-
(http://coreygilmore.com/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
-
Sorry about your horse Andy..... ???
Perhaps we should start another thread where we can show pictures of dead pets. ;D ;D
-
Re: Birds, buckshot, .22s, and flossing:
Go back a little farther, guys- like pre-gun era. That horse picture was not far off. Birds were hunted with clubs (for the larger ones) or, somewhat ironically, with...
NETS!
Don't that open up a can o' worms? They used them for a lot of stuff. Let's go a'hunting with our nets and get some ducks!
-
Your are absolutely right Geff, its way more efficient to snag sockeye than to try and get then to bite, congrats, your figured out flossing ;) But thats as close as you get with your little analogy...i don't think chris has ever questioned the "efficiency" of flossing, just the morality of it.
-
It is often suggested that using flossing as a fishing technique on the Fraser is unethical yet from a legal point of view it is allowed.
The question is: If flossing on the Fraser is legal, what makes it unethical or ethical?
Please do not make the discussion personal. Keep it specific to the Fraser, keep it objective and give some reasons why you think the way you think. For purposes of this discussion let's assume that no one is right or wrong, we just want to know why you think the way you do about the topic.
I'm gonna take one more swing at the dead horse LOL....
The bottom line is everyone has their own moral compass. What one man can do and live with and justify can be vastly different from other men.
Alwaysfishn wants to split the ethics of flossing down the middle. OK for food. Not OK for sport. Which I understand.
Personally I wont qualify whether flossing is ethical based on food. Reason being it is far more economical to simply goto the
store and purchase a fish. If you are that hard up financially maybe you should not be eating sockeye and buy a bag of pinks or pork ;)
The most important fact to remember is laws change but ethics usually stand the test of time. We have folks here that say hey it's the law so it's OK.
Think back to 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Hey the law said white folks sit black folks stand. Ethically at that time this law was wrong.
But many hid behind the law saying hey it;s the law so it's OK.
Slavery was allowed under the law. Ethically it was wrong and many folks shunned that law because it was not right.
Bringing things up to modern times. What about drinking and driving? It's against the law. But to stop someone whois drunk from getting behind the wheel
and driving off is not against the law in many jurisdictions.
But hey I am not breaking a law by letting Billy drive off blasted.
The point is you can hide behind the law all you want and call it what you will. When the sockeye are all gone you can tell yourself I didn't break any laws must have been
the commies or natives. Wrong. You are all part of it. Go daily take your 2 fill your freezer throw half of them out later LOL...
I see flossing as a part of the whole me me me selfishness problem we seem to have with society today.
Is it too much to go beyond what is written as law?
Maybe you should ask yourselves "what should I do" vs "what can I legally get away with"
As I said Laws change over time. Ethics stand the test of time.
It was alright for child labour to slave away in the coalmines. The law said it was OK. Starting to see my point ???
Most of you need to grow a pair and stand on your own two feet and quit hiding behind the law.
Just because the DFO stands behind you and lets you floss means absolutely zero. Lousy excuse folks.
Bluesteele
-
I'm gonna take one more swing at the dead horse LOL....
The bottom line is everyone has their own moral compass. What one man can do and live with and justify can be vastly different from other men.
Alwaysfishn wants to split the ethics of flossing down the middle. OK for food. Not OK for sport. Which I understand.
Personally I wont qualify whether flossing is ethical based on food. Reason being it is far more economical to simply goto the
store and purchase a fish. If you are that hard up financially maybe you should not be eating sockeye and buy a bag of pinks or pork ;)
The most important fact to remember is laws change but ethics usually stand the test of time. We have folks here that say hey it's the law so it's OK.
Think back to 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Hey the law said white folks sit black folks stand. Ethically at that time this law was wrong.
But many hid behind the law saying hey it;s the law so it's OK.
Slavery was allowed under the law. Ethically it was wrong and many folks shunned that law because it was not right.
Bringing things up to modern times. What about drinking and driving? It's against the law. But to stop someone whois drunk from getting behind the wheel
and driving off is not against the law in many jurisdictions.
But hey I am not breaking a law by letting Billy drive off blasted.
The point is you can hide behind the law all you want and call it what you will. When the sockeye are all gone you can tell yourself I didn't break any laws must have been
the commies or natives. Wrong. You are all part of it. Go daily take your 2 fill your freezer throw half of them out later LOL...
I see flossing as a part of the whole me me me selfishness problem we seem to have with society today.
Is it too much to go beyond what is written as law?
Maybe you should ask yourselves "what should I do" vs "what can I legally get away with"
As I said Laws change over time. Ethics stand the test of time.
It was alright for child labour to slave away in the coalmines. The law said it was OK. Starting to see my point ???
Most of you need to grow a pair and stand on your own two feet and quit hiding behind the law.
Just because the DFO stands behind you and lets you floss means absolutely zero. Lousy excuse folks.
Bluesteele
talk about derailment of a debated topic...no one is hiding behind the law which by the way is not written in stone...it is a guideline meant for humans to prevent chaos and total anarchy...to compare human slavery and suffering to animal cruelty is totally mindless... you want to talk semantics... i take it you would agree with vegans that killing for meat is murder and therefore should be punishable by the letter of the law? you're comparing apples to oranges so please stop flossing for scenerios just to try to get your own point across.
-
talk about derailment of a debated topic...no one is hiding behind the law which by the way is not written in stone...it is a guideline meant for humans to prevent chaos and total anarchy...to compare human slavery and suffering to animal cruelty is totally mindless... you want to talk semantics... i take it you would agree with vegans that killing for meat is murder and therefore should be punishable by the letter of the law? you're comparing apples to oranges so please stop flossing for scenerios just to try to get your own point across.
Killed all sorts of fish. All legally AND ethically. No I dont agree with killing for meat is murder LOL...
Point is flossing is legal and it is an individuals personal ethics whether they participate in this "questionable" fishery.
I understand you flossers just make a different ethical choice. ;D One day many of you will see the light as you become more experienced anglers. ;)
Hopefully you leave a few socks for the next gen.
-
I'm gonna take one more swing at the dead horse LOL....
The bottom line is everyone has their own moral compass. What one man can do and live with and justify can be vastly different from other men.
Alwaysfishn wants to split the ethics of flossing down the middle. OK for food. Not OK for sport. Which I understand.
Personally I wont qualify whether flossing is ethical based on food. Reason being it is far more economical to simply goto the
store and purchase a fish. If you are that hard up financially maybe you should not be eating sockeye and buy a bag of pinks or pork ;)
The most important fact to remember is laws change but ethics usually stand the test of time. We have folks here that say hey it's the law so it's OK.
Think back to 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Hey the law said white folks sit black folks stand. Ethically at that time this law was wrong.
But many hid behind the law saying hey it;s the law so it's OK.
Slavery was allowed under the law. Ethically it was wrong and many folks shunned that law because it was not right.
Bringing things up to modern times. What about drinking and driving? It's against the law. But to stop someone whois drunk from getting behind the wheel
and driving off is not against the law in many jurisdictions.
But hey I am not breaking a law by letting Billy drive off blasted.
The point is you can hide behind the law all you want and call it what you will. When the sockeye are all gone you can tell yourself I didn't break any laws must have been
the commies or natives. Wrong. You are all part of it. Go daily take your 2 fill your freezer throw half of them out later LOL...
I see flossing as a part of the whole me me me selfishness problem we seem to have with society today.
Is it too much to go beyond what is written as law?
Maybe you should ask yourselves "what should I do" vs "what can I legally get away with"
As I said Laws change over time. Ethics stand the test of time.
It was alright for child labour to slave away in the coalmines. The law said it was OK. Starting to see my point ???
Most of you need to grow a pair and stand on your own two feet and quit hiding behind the law.
Just because the DFO stands behind you and lets you floss means absolutely zero. Lousy excuse folks.
Bluesteele
Take a breath bluesteele......... you're hyper ventilating.
I don't know where you got the quote "Laws change over time. Ethics stand the test of time" .......I suggest you made it up. ???
The definition of ethics is..... a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual. The question is how do we determine what the accepted code of behavior is for the fishing community? Judging by the number of people out flossing today, I would suggest that the vast majority of fishermen believe that flossing for sockeye on the Fraser is a code of behavior considered correct.
Can we agree then that flossing is ethical?
-
Take a breath bluesteele......... you're hyper ventilating.
I don't know where you got the quote "Laws change over time. Ethics stand the test of time" .......I suggest you made it up. ???
The definition of ethics is..... a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual. The question is how do we determine what the accepted code of behavior is for the fishing community? Judging by the number of people out flossing today, I would suggest that the vast majority of fishermen believe that flossing for sockeye on the Fraser is a code of behavior considered correct.
Can we agree then that flossing is ethical?
LOL thats funny quick give me a paperbag ;D
The point being made was laws change over time as we hopefully progress as a society. Ethics/Moral compasses generally stay the same.
You like my quote "Laws change over time. Ethics stand the test of time."-Bluesteele
You heard it here first LOL
Flossing is 100% unethical in my view...
As for your definition. I prefer "a system of moral principles."
Actually the vast majority of fisherman were not out flossing today. ;)
So if a whole big whack of people start low holing me in the graveyard run oh for several yrs say.. It can then be considered ethical behavior?
Fuzzy logic at best. We all kicked the blacks out of the seats way back when. Was that ethical behavior because groups of people were doing that?
Just because you witness a large group of people doing a certain activity does not then define it as ethical behavior.
-
I understand you flossers just make a different ethical choice. ;D One day many of you will see the light as you become more experienced anglers. ;)
Hopefully you leave a few socks for the next gen.
hahaha... so now you're assuming lack of experience because i don't agree with your stance? funny considering i've been fishing since i was seven.
i think you're barking up the wrong tree and exerting energy on a group of fishers that have the lowest impact on sockeye mortality. you talk ethics and morals, but don't back up your argument with relevance to key issues... in essence, you yourself, are a flosser.
unless you boycott all forms of animal harvest either commercially or recreational you're nothing more than a hypocrite.
-
You know everything is on wikipedia now a days...check out the definition of snagging: "It is a common term used to describe a method of fishing that entails catching a fish using bait without the fish having to bite it...." West Virginia Fishing Regulations, 2009, P. 8
Forget ethical etc, a flossed fish doesnt bite the hook hence it was snagged...I have always maintained flossing is just a matter of being low on enforcements priority list.
By many peoples standards here (ie bladrnr, alwaysfishn, etc), selling drugs must legal too...I mean they do it on granville street and hastings in broad day light...same with the hookers down on richards etc, etc, it must be legal cause the cops don't bust em 24/7..... ::)
PS - you will find that numerous other states have anti snagging laws along with verbiage the the one quoted above...check out Washingtons regs....they'd be writing tickets right n left if we took our fraser river circus south of the boarder.
-
Killed all sorts of fish. All legally AND ethically. No I dont agree with killing for meat is murder LOL...
Point is flossing is legal and it is an individuals personal ethics whether they participate in this "questionable" fishery.
I understand you flossers just make a different ethical choice. ;D One day many of you will see the light as you become more experienced anglers. ;)
Hopefully you leave a few socks for the next gen.
i suppose when ever you buy meat at a store you make sure they're free range and lack growth hormones? or check to make sure they were not genetically altered through selective breeding? you make sure all your seafood is non farmed (regardless of species) or check to see if the fish were gill netted or long lined?
where do your ethics lie with these? or is it only bound by the compounds of fwr discussion forum?
-
sports fishing has rules and laws that we are supposed to abide by...there are now laws about where i can do my groceries ::)
Seriously I like debating things so if you disagree with me, please do reply but also try and muster up a response that shows a ounce of inteligence!
here's another for you - albert' s definition of snaggin:
Alberta Regs 2010
Snagging – means attempting to catch or catching a fish using a hook:
(a) other than to induce the fish to voluntarily take the hook in its mouth
don't you see, flossing goes against sport fishing...call it something else (food fishery), manage it separately...fine...just don't wrap it up and manage it with sport fishing thus bastardizing something so dear to so many british columbians!
-
You know everything is on wikipedia now a days...check out the definition of snagging: "It is a common term used to describe a method of fishing that entails catching a fish using bait without the fish having to bite it...." West Virginia Fishing Regulations, 2009, P. 8
Forget ethical etc, a flossed fish doesnt bite the hook hence it was snagged...I have always maintained flossing is just a matter of being low on enforcements priority list.
By many peoples standards here (ie bladrnr, alwaysfishn, etc), selling drugs must legal too...I mean they do it on granville street and hastings in broad day light...same with the hookers down on richards etc, etc, it must be legal cause the cops don't bust em 24/7..... ::)
PS - you will find that numerous other states have anti snagging laws along with verbiage the the one quoted above...check out Washingtons regs....they'd be writing tickets right n left if we took our fraser river circus south of the boarder.
Not sure why you keep quoting laws from the US and other provinces. What do they have to do with how we catch fish in BC?
Maybe you can also answer why a 4 year study has been commissioned to understand the survival rates of flossed sockeye? Why study something that is illegal? ???
-
hahaha... so now you're assuming lack of experience because i don't agree with your stance? funny considering i've been fishing since i was seven.
i think you're barking up the wrong tree and exerting energy on a group of fishers that have the lowest impact on sockeye mortality. you talk ethics and morals, but don't back up your argument with relevance to key issues... in essence, you yourself, are a flosser.
unless you boycott all forms of animal harvest either commercially or recreational you're nothing more than a hypocrite.
Hmmm...flossers have the lowest impact on sockeye mortality??? Show me the science.
Enlighten me with what the relevant key issues are and maybe I can address them for you.
-
i suppose when ever you buy meat at a store you make sure they're free range and lack growth hormones? or check to make sure they were not genetically altered through selective breeding? you make sure all your seafood is non farmed (regardless of species) or check to see if the fish were gill netted or long lined?
where do your ethics lie with these? or is it only bound by the compounds of fwr discussion forum?
Beef/pork/poultry I eat em all ..Yum...growth hormones like those too ;)
I do tho only eat wild seafood and if at a restaurant will not eat seafood that isn't wild. No farmed salmon for me.
BTW I believe we should have a bait ban on the Thompson as well.(stir) ;D
But hey the rules say bait is OK. My personal ethics tho tell me to not use bait. Although for the record I have used bait on the T in the past :o
Anything else you would like to know fire away and I will help you if I can.
-
You know everything is on wikipedia now a days...check out the definition of snagging: "It is a common term used to describe a method of fishing that entails catching a fish using bait without the fish having to bite it...." West Virginia Fishing Regulations, 2009, P. 8
Forget ethical etc, a flossed fish doesnt bite the hook hence it was snagged...I have always maintained flossing is just a matter of being low on enforcements priority list.
By many peoples standards here (ie bladrnr, alwaysfishn, etc), selling drugs must legal too...I mean they do it on granville street and hastings in broad day light...same with the hookers down on richards etc, etc, it must be legal cause the cops don't bust em 24/7..... ::)
PS - you will find that numerous other states have anti snagging laws along with verbiage the the one quoted above...check out Washingtons regs....they'd be writing tickets right n left if we took our fraser river circus south of the boarder.
low on the enforcement list? quite the contradiction there considering i've bottom bounced side by side with you and your dad without you even knowing who i was...my brother and his friend pointed you out on several occasions, but never took the time to introduce myself because of our past disagreements and grievances.
you compare bbing the fraser with drug trafficking? how ingenious...maybe you and bluesteele need to form a coalition and new forum titled "fishing with ethics and morals...the hypocrisy version"
you want to play the mirror game? look into one and ask yourself...where are your holy ethics when you go out and sell betties or when you bottom bounce the fraser with your dad? does that morally make you a drug dealer who don't do drugs, but will sell it to kids?
-
Beef/pork/poultry I eat em all ..Yum...growth hormones like those too ;)
I do tho only eat wild seafood and if at a restaurant will not eat seafood that isn't wild. No farmed salmon for me.
BTW I believe we should have a bait ban on the Thompson as well.(stir) ;D
But hey the rules say bait is OK. My personal ethics tho tell me to not use bait. Although for the record I have used bait on the T in the past :o
Anything else you would like to know fire away and I will help you if I can.
Nope, thank you... you've pretty much explained yourself and your stance on ethics and morals ::)
-
Not sure why you keep quoting laws from the US. What do they have to do with how we catch fish in BC?
Maybe you can also answer why a 4 year study has been commissioned to understand the survival rates of flossed sockeye? Why study something that is illegal? ???
My spin on what GOOEY is saying is.
Ethics and law are seperate. He is simply showing in other jurisdictions flossing is considered to be snagging. Their are many laws that are very different from area to area.
It is generally wise for one to have a more broad view of these issues. Rather than keep on hiding behind the DFO does nothing ,this is BC etc.. etc...
We can learn from others ;D
OR
Keep hiding behind our crappy vague snagging regulations. Ride it out to the end till their is no more meat for you to take .
Are all of the pro-flossers also ,pro-HST, pro ROR projects?
Perhaps the powers to be may like to know if flossing is having a negative impact on the fishery. With that said I think the study is a farce as it is very very limited in scope.
As well as not being a true example of how alot of fish are handled.
-
Hmmm...flossers have the lowest impact on sockeye mortality??? Show me the science.
Enlighten me with what the relevant key issues are and maybe I can address them for you.
you don't need science, just basic mathematics...just look at the fishery notices and dfo bulletin board for commercial openings...they will provide you with the numbers. there's also public records of how many sockeye were harvested in the past few years in comparison to their forcasted numbers...i believe they even include how many were taken by FN.
the relevance is the issue of moral and ethics vs. legality... i feel to be ethical, one must practice this standard in all facets of their life...to pick and choose whenever its convenient is mere hypocrisy
-
My spin on what GOOEY is saying is.
Ethics and law are seperate. He is simply showing in other jurisdictions flossing is considered to be snagging. Their are many laws that are very different from area to area.
It is generally wise for one to have a more broad view of these issues. Rather than keep on hiding behind the DFO does nothing ,this is BC etc.. etc...
We can learn from others ;D
OR
Keep hiding behind our crappy vague snagging regulations. Ride it out to the end till their is no more meat for you to take .
Are all of the pro-flossers also ,pro-HST, pro ROR projects?
Perhaps the powers to be may like to know if flossing is having a negative impact on the fishery. With that said I think the study is a farce as it is very very limited in scope.
As well as not being a true example of how alot of fish are handled.
in the States, it's also illegal to have eagle feathers in your possession, unless you are FN practicing religion or a chieftain.
it makes a child a criminal if they pick one up from the ground...parents usually are held accountable and are hit with heavy fines.
-
Not sure why you keep quoting laws from the US and other provinces. What do they have to do with how we catch fish in BC?
Maybe you can also answer why a 4 year study has been commissioned to understand the survival rates of flossed sockeye? Why study something that is illegal? ???
i was wondering the same thing...i believe in the US it is ok to fish with barbed hooks, cull fish, and hold them by their gill plates prior to release.
i've had Americans tell me how strict our laws were compared to theirs...how ironic.
-
i was wondering the same thing...i believe in the US it is ok to fish with barbed hooks, cull fish, and hold them by their gill plates prior to release.
i've had Americans tell me how strict our laws were compared to theirs...how ironic.
YIKES....thats way off base LOL ...Might want to familiarize yourself with the laws of our close southern neighbors.
In alot of cases they have stricter fish handling laws then we do.
How about "“It is unlawful to totally remove salmon, steelhead, or Dolly Varden/Bull Trout from the water if it is
unlawful to retain those fi sh, or if the angler subsequently releases the salmon, steelhead, Dolly Varden/Bull Trout.”
No Hero shots with the wild steelhead ;) Not even going to get in on that one or gloves.
-
Hmmm, I don't want to be hated and promised myself to stop getting involved because I see how personal people take this, but I'll throw out something controversial..
Isn't a group of people arguing about ethics highly hypocritical considering 'sport fishing' (whether you believe in god or science) is a form of toying with living things for personal pleasure?
If you're religious, did god intend for you to torment his creatures? If you want to preserve nature, should you tire out fish, put a hole in them, bruise them up and send them on their way?
IMO, eating them is the only thing that sounds like a reasonable excuse..
I dunno..
Rob
-
Hmmm, I don't want to be hated and promised myself to stop getting involved because I see how personal people take this, but I'll throw out something controversial..
Isn't a group of people arguing about ethics highly hypocritical considering 'sport fishing' (whether you believe in god or science) is a form of toying with living things for personal pleasure?
If you're religious, did god intend for you to torment his creatures? If you want to preserve nature, should you tire out fish, put a hole in them, bruise them up and send them on their way?
IMO, eating them is the only thing that sounds like a reasonable excuse..
I dunno..
Rob
Hmmm...I hear ya but I must confess I enjoy toying with living things for personal pleasure as well as eating them. Cant I have my cake and eat it too. ;D
-
Technically, catch and release is toying with creatures. Stressing them out, giving them a new piercing etc...
If you harvest what you catch, your just the same as a hunter.
This thread is a good one though, bag of popcorn and some pop. Watch sparks fly.
-
Technically, catch and release is toying with creatures. Stressing them out, giving them a new piercing etc...
If you harvest what you catch, your just the same as a hunter.
This thread is a good one though, bag of popcorn and some pop. Watch sparks fly.
Couldnt agree more. ;D ;D ;D
-
YIKES....thats way off base LOL ...Might want to familiarize yourself with the laws of our close southern neighbors.
In alot of cases they have stricter fish handling laws then we do.
How about "“It is unlawful to totally remove salmon, steelhead, or Dolly Varden/Bull Trout from the water if it is
unlawful to retain those fi sh, or if the angler subsequently releases the salmon, steelhead, Dolly Varden/Bull Trout.”
No Hero shots with the wild steelhead ;) Not even going to get in on that one or gloves.
i was being sarcastic...however, i'm starting to feel like you're more concerned about adding to your post count than defending your stance.
if ethics is what you're arguing, then why bring in the Statutes of Law pertaining to the US??? what does their regs have to do with your morals and ethics??? c'mon at least quote standards pertaining to our own jurisdiction... this is getting ridiculous.
-
Blaydrunner, you are so funny in a sad way. you misenterpret just about everything. I compared flossing to drug dealing on granville street because you said DFO doesn't enforce it, so it can't be legal. I quoted several other sets of fishing regs because you say the average fisher in BC accepts flossing so its moral...I was just showing you the position most ofther juristictions take on snagging. You say the US has lax fishing regs...you are absolutely incorrewct, as blue steel noted, you can't lift a fish out of the water if its not going to be retained. You cant even NET a fish that is going to be released...do some reading please.
Another misinterpretation you have is that I hold some mallace to any one of you here that has an opinion different than my, if you see me and my dad on the bar, say hello, I'd be happy to shake your hand and sell ya a few betties...I'll even give you a deal! ;) :D is it hypocritcal to take the position I do... my ethics say no :D. In all seriosuness, I do floss the fraser for socks, I don't think it really falls into what Sports Fishing is, and I KNOW it has a negative impact on numerous other rivers and fisheries.
Heck I snorkelled the capilano on sunday and pulled 300-400 yards of line, 8 betties, 20+ "capilano special", etc. I used to get more crocs and blue foxes than betties and trebles...not the last couple years. What this indicates to me is that there is a shift in fishing practices in BC. I think that it stems from flossing. Heck if flossing a sock is OK, why not just snag all your salmon?
-
Oh and by the way, maybe DFO is doing the sock study so that when the springs are running and socks are closed, they can close the entire river to flossing?!? Remember a year or two back when DFO started to ask for the sporties to use 3 foot leaders when "targeting" springs when the socks were closed??? No one really paid attention...maybe they are looking for the data to support an all out closure to flossing outside a sock opening?
Bottom line is just because they are doing a study on it doens't mean they agree with the fishery nor does it confirm the fisheries legitimacy.
-
Blaydrunner, you are so funny in a sad way. you misenterpret just about everything. I compared flossing to drug dealing on granville street because you said DFO doesn't enforce it, so it can't be legal. I quoted several other sets of fishing regs because you say the average fisher in BC accepts flossing so its moral...I was just showing you the position most ofther juristictions take on snagging. You say the US has lax fishing regs...you are absolutely incorrewct, as blue steel noted, you can't lift a fish out of the water if its not going to be retained. You cant even NET a fish that is going to be released...do some reading please.
Another misinterpretation you have is that I hold some mallace to any one of you here that has an opinion different than my, if you see me and my dad on the bar, say hello, I'd be happy to shake your hand and sell ya a few betties...I'll even give you a deal! ;) :D is it hypocritcal to take the position I do... my ethics say no :D. In all seriosuness, I do floss the fraser for socks, I don't think it really falls into what Sports Fishing is, and I KNOW it has a negative impact on numerous other rivers and fisheries.
Heck I snorkelled the capilano on sunday and pulled 300-400 yards of line, 8 betties, 20+ "capilano special", etc. I used to get more crocs and blue foxes than betties and trebles...not the last couple years. What this indicates to me is that there is a shift in fishing practices in BC. I think that it stems from flossing. Heck if flossing a sock is OK, why not just snag all your salmon?
i think you've got me confused with another member i never mentioned anything about dfo not enforcing the regs....as i also stated, i was being sarcastic when referring to the US.
there's always negative impact when it comes to fishing...doesn't matter if it's commercial, first nations, or recreational.
i have no animosity towards you and i know you're a seasoned rod...however, i sometimes feel you have a tendency to play both sides of the fence when it comes to some issues.
-
I can understand why you think i am playing both sides of the field....with flossing though I think you have to. I don't think we can treat it as such a grey area anymore.
I floss the fraser for sockeye have been out maybe 6 times in 20 years for springs while socks are closed. It is a meat fishery not a sports fishery and i think everyone here acknowledges that. Issue is this - DFO, the regs, and the average fisher treat the sockeye fishery the same as any other sport fishery...but hang on, didnt we just agree its not a sports fishery?!?
go snorkel the cap and pull some gear...you will see what I mean. Someone earlier in this thread said he laffs when snaggers come on and floss the vedder (funny how they're snaggers on the vedder) and he laffs when they snapp off a bunch of expensive tackle....I get upset by stuff like that. litters the river, ruins the run, and its not neccesary, whites and coho bite. But flossing indoctrinates a mentality when you will get a fish regardless of whether or not they want to bite. It promotes an expectation that you will be going home with fish, and it carries over to every other river with a vast number of anglers now a days.
-
No shortage of soap boxes here :P
-
I can understand why you think i am playing both sides of the field....with flossing though I think you have to. I don't think we can treat it as such a grey area anymore.
I floss the fraser for sockeye have been out maybe 6 times in 20 years for springs while socks are closed. It is a meat fishery not a sports fishery and i think everyone here acknowledges that. Issue is this - DFO, the regs, and the average fisher treat the sockeye fishery the same as any other sport fishery...but hang on, didnt we just agree its not a sports fishery?!?
go snorkel the cap and pull some gear...you will see what I mean. Someone earlier in this thread said he laffs when snaggers come on and floss the vedder (funny how they're snaggers on the vedder) and he laffs when they snapp off a bunch of expensive tackle....I get upset by stuff like that. litters the river, ruins the run, and its not neccesary, whites and coho bite. But flossing indoctrinates a mentality when you will get a fish regardless of whether or not they want to bite. It promotes an expectation that you will be going home with fish, and it carries over to every other river with a vast number of anglers now a days.
yes we both agree sockeye is a meat fishery...where we part is the ethical stand point.
and yes, i also stated that i laugh at the newbies trying to bb the vedder... not in the humorous sense, but more in cynicism. i was try to relay that bbing is NOT as prevalent on that river as people make it out to be...it's just not a viable way to fish a very rock filled flow....however i do agree flossing is a major problem...stemming from a totally different technique that i don't believe evolved as a result of the fraser sockeye fishery.
take the time to research a book written by Charles White on "how to catch salmon" circa 1974 and you'll see a section where he depicts an experience he had when he foul hooked a chinook on the back dorsal and it shows him with his hands together in prayer hoping the fish did not get away...back then sockeye wasn't even on the radar of most sports anglers, yet it was already an accepted practice to retain snagged fish...of course this doesn't make it right, it just shows that the problem has been around longer than people have bottom bounced the fraser.
-
So you think guys on the vedder with 10 foot leaders and bouncing betties arent a direct result of the fraser fishery? I can tell you that when i just started river fishing, flossing sockeye was just catching on. We never flossed the ved nor did you see anyone else doing it 15 years ago. As the fraser floss fishery became more common, so did flossing on the ved. to think that there is no corilation between the fraser flossing and vedder flossers is totally nieve.
......yet it was already an accepted practice to retain snagged fish.
Good thing we evolved beyond that!?! ::)
-
So you think guys on the vedder with 10 foot leaders and bouncing betties arent a direct result of the fraser fishery? I can tell you that when i just started river fishing, flossing sockeye was just catching on. We never flossed the ved nor did you see anyone else doing it 15 years ago. As the fraser floss fishery became more common, so did flossing on the ved. to think that there is no corilation between the fraser flossing and vedder flossers is totally nieve.
Good thing we evolved beyond that!?! ::)
oh i see people flossing all the time, but not with betties and not bbing, i think you got the two techniques confused.
the people i see fish the pocket water using very little weight and smaller hooks under a float, running their line down the shoot intercepting ascending fish.
what i believe you're referring to is the limit hole where people long lined to reach fish resting on the bottom...that run is now permanently closed.
also lets not jump to conclusions...sometimes people lengthen their leader because they are depth gauging in deeper runs...i'm not talking about 10 ft...but more like 3 to 5 ft.
-
I guess banning river fishing for salmon would end that argument. :P
-
What I don't understand is how gooey is so anti-flossing yet he makes and sells betties? Makes me think of the crooked government where it's the almighty dollar is all that matters, heck it even over rides ethics. :-X
The only way to stop/eliminate flossing is to shut down the sockeye fishery altogether, and in time the numbers of snaggers will hopefully drop however that may take a generation or more.
-
i was being sarcastic...however, i'm starting to feel like you're more concerned about adding to your post count than defending your stance.
if ethics is what you're arguing, then why bring in the Statutes of Law pertaining to the US??? what does their regs have to do with your morals and ethics??? c'mon at least quote standards pertaining to our own jurisdiction... this is getting ridiculous.
Number 1) I could care less about post counts ??? LOL Unless I get a prize or something !!!!!!!!
Number 2) You obviously do not understand fully ethics. Ethics are borderless. My ethics are not based on where I live. More of a global scope grasshopper ;)
Ridiculous??? Could be. Admin enjoys this I am sure ;D
-
Number 1) I could care less about post counts ??? LOL Unless I get a prize or something !!!!!!!!
Number 2) You obviously do not understand fully ethics. Ethics are borderless. My ethics are not based on where I live. More of a global scope grasshopper ;)
Ridiculous??? Could be. Admin enjoys this I am sure ;D
you're absolutely right "borderless" because everyone have different levels of opinion therefore ethics can't be used as an argument...that's where the law is put in place to maintain the balance.
-
you're absolutely right "borderless" because everyone have different levels of opinion therefore ethics can't be used as an argument...that's where the law is put in place to maintain the balance.
I agree and disagree. Yes the law is needed to prevent society from tailspinning into anarchy. But ethics are the biggest part of the picture. Ethics are what this thread is about. I think LOL
To blindly follow the letter of the law is foolish. And that is what you seem to be saying. ???
Consider the following quote:
"•Are our responsibilities limited to what the law requires of us?
•If we are legally allowed to do something, does that mean we ought to?
•If there is no relevant law to speak of with respect to a "What should I do?" problem we're facing, does that mean that anything goes?
The answers to these questions are: No. No. No. "
Ethics can't be used as an argument??? I really dont get it ???
Bottomline flossing is unethical behavior.
-
I agree and disagree. Yes the law is needed to prevent society from tailspinning into anarchy. But ethics are the biggest part of the picture. Ethics are what this thread is about. I think LOL
To blindly follow the letter of the law is foolish. And that is what you seem to be saying. ???
Consider the following quote:
"•Are our responsibilities limited to what the law requires of us?
•If we are legally allowed to do something, does that mean we ought to?
•If there is no relevant law to speak of with respect to a "What should I do?" problem we're facing, does that mean that anything goes?
The answers to these questions are: No. No. No. "
Ethics can't be used as an argument??? I really dont get it ???
Bottomline flossing is unethical behavior.
whether you like it or not the law govern over ethics. that's the constitution which gives the free world freedom of speech and choices...unless you live your life as a saint, you can't preach ethics whenever it suits your need.
i don't believe in abortion, but who would i be to tell a young girl she has no right to terminate a pregnancy resulting from a brutal rape? (a little off topic, but totally relevant to the issue of ethics).
"flossing is unethical behavior"... in comparison to what?....gill netting? which have been known to result in the bi catch of non intended species..ie sturgeon....dip netting and gaffing from first nations? for the purpose of ceremonial and food? ??? ::)
our responsibility is to use common sense because every different scenario require different calls of judgement.
-
I guess banning river fishing for salmon would end that argument. :P
That is the direction we are headed ::)
-
(http://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/602__image_091.jpg)
-
Yikes Gooey, if it wasn't pointed out for you, at what point were you going to mention that you are not only a flosser, but you actually SELL BETTIES, ON THE RIVER!! I might be missing something but your stance seems a little hypocritical.
-
Just because you sell drugs, as long as you and your family don't do it, it fine ? Some body got to do it. ;D ;D ;D
-
take the time to research a book written by Charles White on "how to catch salmon" circa 1974 and you'll see a section where he depicts an experience he had when he foul hooked a chinook on the back dorsal and it shows him with his hands together in prayer hoping the fish did not get away...back then sockeye wasn't even on the radar of most sports anglers, yet it was already an accepted practice to retain snagged fish...of course this doesn't make it right, it just shows that the problem has been around longer than people have bottom bounced the fraser.
he was fishing the ocean with down riggers. his intetion was not to foul hook the chinook.
that is a legal fish to bonk.
-
he was fishing the ocean with down riggers. his intetion was not to foul hook the chinook.
that is a legal fish to bonk.
absolutely correct, but according to some the intentions shouldn't matter because ethically the fish did not willfully take the hook in the mouth, therefore it should be released.
-
Saw a guy a few years back during a sockeye opening land a fish that was hooked behind the gills beat the crap out it pinning it down on the rocks to remove the hook then released it because he wouldn't keep a foul hooked fish, ethics are definitely in the eye of the beholder. Yesterday I went down to the river I saw cars parked in my neighbors field that he earns a living on farming, garbage starting to pile up on the river bank, people yipping and yapping at each other because some lacked the casting skills of others and pretty well a total lack of kids fishing because of the full combat attitude. Just made me want to drive down to Surrey, park on someones lawn swear at their kids and dump some of my garbage on their sidewalks, maybe go to their place of business and see if I could reduce their annual income while I'm at it, the"sport"sockeye fishery in the is pretty hard to defend on any basis. Get real people, legal, ethical, wvr this is BS, go home save the gas money and buy some fish, 60% of the people out there bottom bouncing shouldn't even be allowed to own a fishing rod, that's my ethical stand. You can argue with me all you want but you're just wasting your time you won't change my mind, my ethics are those of one of them old opinionated um.....guys. If you're one of the 40% that should be allowed to own a rod ffs pick up some of those other a-holes garbage on your way home do the river a favor. I don't give a crap whether flossing is ethical or not a large percentage of the people out there doing it aren't.
-
I don't remember if I said it on this forum or the BCFR forum, but the morons come flying out of the woodworks when they open up the sockeye fishery down here. What me and another member on this forum witnessed the other day was nothing short of pathetic and had us both shaking our heads.
I'm used to fishing sockeye up on the Skeena drainage, and have never really noticed a big influx of idiots on the river when sockeye is open up there. Is it really that worth it to get in line with lots of other people and combat fish....?
-
Saw a guy a few years back during a sockeye opening land a fish that was hooked behind the gills beat the crap out it pinning it down on the rocks to remove the hook then released it because he wouldn't keep a foul hooked fish, ethics are definitely in the eye of the beholder. Yesterday I went down to the river I saw cars parked in my neighbors field that he earns a living on farming, garbage starting to pile up on the river bank, people yipping and yapping at each other because some lacked the casting skills of others and pretty well a total lack of kids fishing because of the full combat attitude. Just made me want to drive down to Surrey, park on someones lawn swear at their kids and dump some of my garbage on their sidewalks, maybe go to their place of business and see if I could reduce their annual income while I'm at it, the"sport"sockeye fishery in the is pretty hard to defend on any basis. Get real people, legal, ethical, wvr this is BS, go home save the gas money and buy some fish, 60% of the people out there bottom bouncing shouldn't even be allowed to own a fishing rod, that's my ethical stand. You can argue with me all you want but you're just wasting your time you won't change my mind, my ethics are those of one of them old opinionated um.....guys. If you're one of the 40% that should be allowed to own a rod ffs pick up some of those other a-holes garbage on your way home do the river a favor. I don't give a crap whether flossing is ethical or not a large percentage of the people out there doing it aren't.
i'm sorry to hear about your friend's farmland...i find this conduct disgusting and inexcusable...unfortunately being so close to the city many weekend warriors will partake in this fishery, only to hang their gear or sell them at the end of the season...very common to see during the pink run also (only difference is less arguments because of the longer run and abundance of fish).
i haven't fished for sockeye for the past 4 yrs...that's my choice, but it doesn't mean everyone else should follow suit.
you can't get everyone to think alike therefore the real problem is enforcement not ethics...that's the bottom line.
-
Saw a guy a few years back during a sockeye opening land a fish that was hooked behind the gills beat the crap out it pinning it down on the rocks to remove the hook then released it because he wouldn't keep a foul hooked fish, ethics are definitely in the eye of the beholder. Yesterday I went down to the river I saw cars parked in my neighbors field that he earns a living on farming, garbage starting to pile up on the river bank, people yipping and yapping at each other because some lacked the casting skills of others and pretty well a total lack of kids fishing because of the full combat attitude. Just made me want to drive down to Surrey, park on someones lawn swear at their kids and dump some of my garbage on their sidewalks, maybe go to their place of business and see if I could reduce their annual income while I'm at it, the"sport"sockeye fishery in the is pretty hard to defend on any basis. Get real people, legal, ethical, wvr this is BS, go home save the gas money and buy some fish, 60% of the people out there bottom bouncing shouldn't even be allowed to own a fishing rod, that's my ethical stand. You can argue with me all you want but you're just wasting your time you won't change my mind, my ethics are those of one of them old opinionated um.....guys. If you're one of the 40% that should be allowed to own a rod ffs pick up some of those other a-holes garbage on your way home do the river a favor. I don't give a crap whether flossing is ethical or not a large percentage of the people out there doing it aren't.
elmo?
-
The problem with ethics is that they are a luxury and more importantly, a matter of individual perspective, ethics are NOT simply a matter of black and white, otherwise it would be called a law. What some people people view as "sports fishing", others might view as an ignorant way of treating an animal, much the way, some view "trophy hunting"
When I speak of "luxury", if you are starving, and see a fish you can hit over the head, who would begrudge a man his sustinence? So the better along in society you are, the easier it is to hold to ethics as far as I can tell. If a man brings his entire family out to get thier "quota", is that ethical? I guess its a matter of perspective. If I am one man getting a fish for my freezer, and okay with flossing, I may look down on this mans behaviour, considering it unethical, yet here I am partaking in the same fishery, so what allows a man to harvest the river with his entire family, how does his conscience allow him to justify his ethics, maybe this man is the sole supporter of his family(back to the starving man ethics) or maybe it's simply a matter of "victimstance" and beleives that, if we allow for netting, than how is his behaviour any less ethical, than the man who buys it from superstore as a direct result of netting?
Ethics, and more importantly a mans belief system (think religion) has caused wars and civil unrest since the beginning of time, and will not be solved by (1) thread on a board.
Although the fact we can speak together on a board with out resorting to a brawl or war is a good start.
-
The problem with ethics is that they are a luxury and more importantly, a matter of individual perspective, ethics are NOT simply a matter of black and white, otherwise it would be called a law. What some people people view as "sports fishing", others might view as an ignorant way of treating an animal, much the way, some view "trophy hunting"
When I speak of "luxury", if you are starving, and see a fish you can hit over the head, who would begrudge a man his sustinence? So the better along in society you are, the easier it is to hold to ethics as far as I can tell. If a man brings his entire family out to get thier "quota", is that ethical? I guess its a matter of perspective. If I am one man getting a fish for my freezer, and okay with flossing, I may look down on this mans behaviour, considering it unethical, yet here I am partaking in the same fishery, so what allows a man to harvest the river with his entire family, how does his conscience allow him to justify his ethics, maybe this man is the sole supporter of his family(back to the starving man ethics) or maybe it's simply a matter of "victimstance" and beleives that, if we allow for netting, than how is his behaviour any less ethical, than the man who buys it from superstore as a direct result of netting?
Ethics, and more importantly a mans belief system (think religion) has caused wars and civil unrest since the beginning of time, and will not be solved by (1) thread on a board.
Although the fact we can speak together on a board with out resorting to a brawl or war is a good start.
Very well said!!!!
-
well said!But people not all the morns come from SURREY ???
-
That is true .I have even known the rare one to come from Hope ::)
-
.....the morons come flying out of the woodworks when they open up the sockeye fishery down here.
I'm used to fishing sockeye up on the Skeena drainage, and have never really noticed a big influx of idiots on the river when sockeye is open up there.
It's a numbers game (compare the populations), rest assured there's just as many idiots up there. They just blend in better ;).
We need the voice of reason on what is ethical when fishing, Someone call "PETA"
-
You know, I don't post very often but I had to "take the bait" on this one. Its a topic that I've been concerned about for quite a number of years. I'm not that old so I hope I don't sound old making these comments.
Not that long ago sport fishing on the Fraser River was, what I believe, to be truly that, a "sport". The idea of fishing as a sport still lives strongly among many of us as can be detected in the passion which with which many posts are written. For those of us that maintain this culture I think we all agree that the Fraser should have been left as a bar fishery (ie. plunking).
The legalization of snagging (what else can you call it!) through the Fraser "bottom bouncing" fishery has had a dramatic impact on river fishing in BC. Not only are we lowering ourselves to snagging as a means of "sport" fishing but there are more far reaching negative effects. It wasn't that long ago that we would report people with leaders over 36 ". Now we sell specialized gear at all the tackle stores to accommodate 20 ' leaders! :o Why?
Remember being introduced to fishing by someone who ensured that you respected the resource? I do. Now think about how many people out there are being introduced to river fishing in the form of "bottom bouncing" today? They don't even know any better when they show up on the Vedder with the wrong gear and the wrong ideas. Its what they learned from the get go. How can we fault them? It's our fault for ever condoning this.
Yeah, maybe over time they will all come to realize that there is a better way but it could have all been prevented. Let's make the Fraser River a Bar Fishing (spin-n-glow or bait on bottom) only environment again. There is just so much wrong with 10 to 15 foot leaders? Don't you think?
The whole idea of this form of bottom bouncing is hypocritical. How can you tell someone that just learned how to be a great fisherman (snagger) on the Fraser that they now have to change gears and employ an entirely different mentality everywhere else they fish? It won't happen. People that start out in this mind set will always be looking to fill their creel, even if it is by flossing. There is a better way and we should get back to it.
They really aren't that hard to catch in the ocean. Its how we caught Sockeye before. Really. :-[
Just my thoughts.........................
-
Not everyone can afford a boat... My .02
-
i sold my boat when georgia st. went dead. i like flossing and so do thousands of others. 130,000 out of 34 million taken by sports fresh and salt water big deal.get off your high horse. its LEGAL.
-
Nervo69...... You are sounding like my parents!
I don't know how old you are but I would guess you have played the odd video game or 2. As you know most of them are filled with violence.
I have never played them myself however all 3 of my son's play them on occasion. They are grown up and one of them is married. Although they play them they have never gone out into the public and exhibited the violence that the video games have. I watch TV on occasion. I know the difference between the fiction shown there and reality.
The point I'm making is that you need to give Fraser bottom bouncing fishermen the benefit of the doubt that they have the intelliigence to know the difference between a meat fishery and sports fishing. You and many people are being too tunnel visioned on this topic.
Yes there will be people that will take this knowledge and try and use it on other rivers. I for one would not hesitate to have a conversation with them. Not in a confrontational way, but an educational way. It's not a big deal!
On the positive side, look at the benefits. There will be more people getting invoved in the sport of fishing! This is essential in that the more people fishing the more the sport is top of mind and the governments of the day will do more to protect and promote the sport. The more people fishing the more there will be an awareness of the need to protect our environment. The more people fishing, the better the economic returns for the industry and the people involved.
You and others need to start looking at the glass half full rather than a half empty glass..... :)
-
130,000 out of 34 million taken by sports fresh and salt water big deal.get off your high horse.
I'm curious where you got your numbers from?
The following was taken directly from dfo notice FN0774 posted September 3rd
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=127593&ID=recreational (http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=127593&ID=recreational)
"DNA analyses indicate that Late-run sockeye are the dominant run-
timing group in the marine assessment areas, with Summer-run sockeye comprising
a low proportion of the migratory abundance. The diversion rate of Fraser
sockeye through Johnstone Strait is presently estimated to be approximately
95%. The migration of sockeye past Mission has been lower over the past few
days, while the migration of sockeye past Hells Gate continues to be strong.
The estimated total catch of Fraser sockeye to-date is 9,594,000 fish.
-
I think he meant salt and freshwater sports fishermen have taken 130,000 out of the 34 million.
-
yes we are talking sports.
-
How old are you exactly? This flossing thing is not new. Its been going on for over 10 years.
-
They using nets at the mouth and in the river to harvest tons of sockeye.
Me. us standing on a river bank casting with appropriate weight,a leader length and hook,barbless I might add to attempt to catch 2 Sockeye per day! Me , us cant control the hooking method if in fact the leader/hook drag through the depths and apparently floss the things. The tackle works for the caster/sportsmen ie license titlement. What are we supposed to use? You tell me/us.
Sure if you have a boat,commercial license and work that for a living and net your qouta fine,no problem with that but dint start slagging on us bank fisherman for catching 2 per day, 2 the next day whatever.
If you have found a alternative without using 8-10 ft leaders tell me,Im curious
-
Its the fiirst time this past week that Iretained fish by the flossing set up,I wasnt sure I would do it agian but I went out one more time since my first trip Its not the same as a fish chasing a lure or a bait but that doesnt make it wrong,Im also a hunter and with a clean opening will harvest a deer or bear moose ect for my family I loss 2 sockeye thery were close to shore and I fought them for 15 minutes it was awsome.I take great care in the way I harvest any of God's creatures and am greatful for it,many hunters choose only to bow hunt like my brothe in law,its more sporting to him and I agree but my method isnt any less humane or respectful Im enjoyinh a sockeye dinner tonight with my wife and kids ;)
-
As has been stated before the Sockeye fishery is a harvest fishery. You catch your two fish and you get off the river. As far as a fishing method, it should also be used only during this type of fishery. Basically your 10 to 15 foot leader is being dragged through the water, and with any luck it goes through the fishes mouth and you have a fish on. Call it what you will it is basically a refined snagging method. You throw this rig out there, and when the Sockeye are running thick you stand a good chance of flossing one. However mix some Coho and Chinook into the water you are fishing you might be flossing those too. With this type of fishing rig, there is no way you can target what you are going to catch. Why do I point this out, because it seemed a broad analogy was being made to hunting here. In hunting you pick out your target whether that be moose, deer, what have you , you shoot it and dispatch it humanely and quickly. A big difference in my eyes.
-
Fishing is done primarily for sports and food.
Let's look firstly at sports. Envision this, you're hiking peacefully, enjoying nature at it's best before coming upon a hungry looking bear. After a 15 minutes chase the bear has you flat on your back. As you see the giant paw swing toward your head a last prayer quietly slips past your lips. On contact the bear roars out "Thanks for the chase, that was fun"; completes the pat on your head, and quietly walks away looking for the next "sports hiker". Sure was sporting fun for the dominate specie.
Food fishing, well, catch the fish, eat the fish, nuff said. Important point is to minimize the impact. Proper Flossing or enticing the fish to bite results in hook in the mouth and minimal damage in case the fish gets away. Intentional snagging can result in lots of injured escape fish, cruel and wasteful.
-
As has been stated before the Sockeye fishery is a harvest fishery. You catch your two fish and you get off the river. As far as a fishing method, it should also be used only during this type of fishery. Basically your 10 to 15 foot leader is being dragged through the water, and with any luck it goes through the fishes mouth and you have a fish on. Call it what you will it is basically a refined snagging method. You throw this rig out there, and when the Sockeye are running thick you stand a good chance of flossing one. However mix some Coho and Chinook into the water you are fishing you might be flossing those too. With this type of fishing rig, there is no way you can target what you are going to catch. Why do I point this out, because it seemed a broad analogy was being made to hunting here. In hunting you pick out your target whether that be moose, deer, what have you , you shoot it and dispatch it humanely and quickly. A big difference in my eyes.
You are correct that hunting is more selective than flossing sockeye. The only non-selective hunting method out there is called poaching which is illegal. ;D
The hunting analogy was made to suggest that the sockeye fishery is a meat fishery. The hunter/fisherperson are attempting to catch/kill the prey as efficiently as possible using legal methods. Whether they enjoy doing it is irrelevant.
Ultimately it is food for the table. The only difference between the food that non-hunters/non-flossers put on their table is that someone killed the animal/sockeye for them....
-
I think what gets people so entrenched on this subject, is that folks get so defensive about it. If flossing stays on the Fraser River for Sockeye I don't have a problem with that. However, as a sports fisherman flossing is what it is, as the weight does most of the work in this lining of fish. Does this make everyone feel better since the (snagging) word is not used. Anyhow I am out of here, as in a week or so this will be a moot point on the Fraser, and maybe in another four years this subject will rear its ugly head to be discussed to death once again.
-
Flossing is flossing (ie snagging). I see no difference between the guys snagging their 2 or 3 or 4 or more socs at pegleg or the guys up on the stave with their sturgeon gear snagging chums or springs. They are 2 sides of the same coin. If one form of snagging is illegal then all forms of snagging should be illegal. As a quote goes that I live by, "those who don't know how to fish shouldn't disrespect a fish by catching it."
-
Flossing is flossing (ie snagging). I see no difference between the guys snagging their 2 or 3 or 4 or more socs at pegleg or the guys up on the stave with their sturgeon gear snagging chums or springs. They are 2 sides of the same coin. If one form of snagging is illegal then all forms of snagging should be illegal. As a quote goes that I live by, "those who don't know how to fish shouldn't disrespect a fish by catching it."
Your points would be valid if flossing was illegal as you suggest. However flossing is legal. More than 150,000 sockeye have been flossed by fishermen this year and I would suggest that no tickets have been issued for "snagging" the fish.
Although I hunt there are many folks out there that think it's wrong to do so. It's ok for them to have their opinions, however hunting is legal and I will continue to harvest the wild meat I enjoy eating. The anti-hunting group may say that I am disrespecting the animal by hunting and then shooting it but that doesn't make it wrong for me to do it. It's really just a difference in values. They have someone do the killing for them, I do my own.
Sockeye flossing is no different.....
-
actually I'm a hunter too. It's just that my style is a little different than most. While flossing is legal, the fact is that snagging is snagging. It's just one style is different than others. Since flossing is a legal activity (not just for sockeye), then where is line drawn for where a fish is hooked that makes the difference. while flossing for sockeye and you hook a fish in the back, is that ok to keep. You floss a fish in the gill plate, is that fine. If while spin fishing I hook a spring or hatchery coho in any place other than on the inside of the mouth, trust me that fish is going back to finish it's journey (no matter how long or short it may be). This is my stance. It is what it is.
-
14 pages later once again proves human nature rules supreme. One's own action is ethical whilst opposing groups are seen as righteous or unethical. "IMHO" are up there with Sunday funnies, good for a quick laugh. Thank goodness civilized countries have laws.
-
We all know that a fish that didnt bite the hook is snagged. Snaggin is illigal but based on some pretty flimsy wording in our regs, a hook around the mouth is close enough duing sockeye season. Flossing isn't legal, it just isnt enforced during sockeye. Many people here know Marco, he and I shared a fishing budy in common. That idividual was tickets for keeping a flossed coho at the tamahi...like I have stated before, its a lack of enforcement. Its kind of like saying the speed limit is 120km on the #1 because thats what I drive and I have never been ticketed. We all know not being ticketed doesnt make something legal.
But heres the thing, I saw lots of fish hooked in the back, belly, etc that were kept... they weren't even close to the mouth. As Sterling documented in another post, wild coho were kept, steelhead, barbed hooks are being used, people double dip...this summer fishery of ours is truly a debacle.
-
Flossing isn't legal, it just isnt enforced during sockeye.
Let's summarize........
- DFO allocates 5% of the sockeye catch to the sports fishermen.
- DFO knows that other than in the ocean the sockeye seldom bite.
- DFO knows that unlike your speeding analogy in the case of sockeye fishing in the upper Fraser everybody catches sockeye by flossing.
- On occasion CO's do stop by the popular bars and hand out tickets to those fishermen who are breaking the law, but never ticket them for using a long leader and bouncing betty.
- The fishing regulations do not state anywhere that it is illegal to use a long line and a bouncing betty.
........ and yet you say "Flossing isn't legal, it just isnt enforced during sockeye."
Wow! ???
-
Good thing we have enforcement officers, lawyers and judges to interpret the law otherwise they would be lots of stoning occurring right on the beach courtesy of citizens playing judge, jury and executioner.
I too have heard stories of CO complaining fishermen are flossing on the Vedder but can do nothing when fish are hooked in the mouth.
Quote of the day to COs "Flossing isn't legal..."
-
Does anyone disagree with this statement: if a hooked fish didn't strike the hook then it was snagged.
I think most people here are educated enough to know that a flossed fish didn't strike the hook.
There for if you believe the first two statements to be tru then a flossed fish is a snagged fish (due to the fact it didnt strike the hook) and we all know a snagged fish is illegal to retain based on the regs.
There are some diehard meathead flossers here so go ahead and poke holes in that if you can Burnaby and Always snagn.
-
Does anyone disagree with this statement: if a hooked fish didn't strike the hook then it was snagged.
I think most people here are educated enough to know that a flossed fish didn't strike the hook.
There for if you believe the first two statements to be tru then a flossed fish is a snagged fish (due to the fact it didnt strike the hook) and we all know a snagged fish is illegal to retain based on the regs.
There are some diehard meathead flossers here so go ahead and poke holes in that if you can Burnaby and Always snagn.
There are folks on this forum that disagree with your statement, those that agree with it and there are those that don't really give a d@mm because they are confident they are using a technique that is effective and legal as shown by the fact this fishery exists.
Your extrapolation that a flossed fish is a snagged fish under the definition of "snagged" in the regulations is just your opinion. It is not supported by the folks that enforce the regulations. While I respect your right to have an opinion, debating on the basis of your opinion is not much of an argument. Try using some facts. ???
I'd also like to suggest that referring to us as "diehard meathead flossers" is childish, and does nothing to further your argument. :D
-
The simple fact is that flossing is a legal form of snagging. Just like the porn industry is a legal form of prostitution. But like I asked earlier. While flossing, when is it that you don't keep a fish. If you floss a hatchery coho in the side of the mouth is that ok too. It's a slippery slope, one that I take no part in.
-
The simple fact is that flossing is a legal form of snagging. Just like the porn industry is a legal form of prostitution. But like I asked earlier. While flossing, when is it that you don't keep a fish. If you floss a hatchery coho in the side of the mouth is that ok too. It's a slippery slope, one that I take no part in.
Aww man! That makes two things I do that make me unethical. Damn!
Rob
-
If trollers seiners gill netters ... 1st nations nets laid up river from Hope...are taking millions of fish in a short period of time....with their methods then is it wrong if people floss them from their boat or river side ???
The question for me: Is flossing wrong as the method only works IF there are alot of fish in the river....
The bottom line is will there be enough fish to get to the spawning grounds so future runs will have good numbers.
Surely if millions are going up river then will fossers hurt future stocks ??? No they will not.
Eating a net caught Sock is no dif than eating a flossed fish.
But another question is how many of these fish get hooked in the body & escape but are badly injured ???
What happens if 3000 boats were to go on the river & 1000's of shore fishers & they floss away...& they decide to keep 20 fish each (daily) then it definately in my books would become wrong.
I'm not about to say flossers are doing a bad thing as long as they keep it to 2 fish per day.
Bottom line is... are enough fish getting to the spawning grounds???
We all know we can wipe out runs if we over fish by whatever method. Is flossing sports fishing...no it's like a small commercial method. ;) Is it wrong...possibly ...it depends on each person to answer that question for themselve. For me being a christian to veiw porn is wrong to others who have no faith..to them it is not wrong.
-
Why would we want to poke holes in your personal opinion. After all this is the Internet and you're entitled to your opinion. The only expert opinions that matters are the COs and the judges.
I've had COs stood watching while I passed a rod to a kid, then help them land it, remove the hook from the outer corner of the mouth without issues. NUFF said.
Does anyone disagree with this statement: if a hooked fish didn't strike the hook then it was snagged.
I think most people here are educated enough to know that a flossed fish didn't strike the hook.
There for if you believe the first two statements to be tru then a flossed fish is a snagged fish (due to the fact it didnt strike the hook) and we all know a snagged fish is illegal to retain based on the regs.
There are some diehard meathead flossers here so go ahead and poke holes in that if you can Burnaby and Always snagn.
-
Whether the fish took the presentation willingly or unwillingly really doesn't matter. The moment the fish feels the hook in/at its mouth and the pressure of the line, it stops being a willing participant and does everything it can to free itself from the source of pain/discomfort.
Those of you who really want to be ethical about fishing, do the right thing and give up the sport and take up golf or any other sport that does not involve torturing a lesser creature for pleasure. In doing so, you can kill two proverbial birds with one stone: spare the fish from your sadistic trickery and make more room on the flow for those of us who can still stomach the fact that fishing is a bloody sport in which the fish are usually the bleeders.
-
Whether the fish took the presentation willingly or unwillingly really doesn't matter. The moment the fish feels the hook in/at its mouth and the pressure of the line, it stops being a willing participant and does everything it can to free itself from the source of pain/discomfort.
Those of you who really want to be ethical about fishing, do the right thing and give up the sport and take up golf or any other sport that does not involve torturing a lesser creature for pleasure. In doing so, you can kill two proverbial birds with one stone: spare the fish from your sadistic trickery and make more room on the flow for those of us who can still stomach the fact that fishing is a bloody sport in which the fish are usually the bleeders.
Excellent points! But what if I still like the taste of salmon? ;D
-
For an even smaller impact take up hiking using your bicycle for transport. Golfing does have a high environmental impact.
Whether the fish took the presentation willingly or unwillingly really doesn't matter. The moment the fish feels the hook in/at its mouth and the pressure of the line, it stops being a willing participant and does everything it can to free itself from the source of pain/discomfort.
Those of you who really want to be ethical about fishing, do the right thing and give up the sport and take up golf or any other sport that does not involve torturing a lesser creature for pleasure. In doing so, you can kill two proverbial birds with one stone: spare the fish from your sadistic trickery and make more room on the flow for those of us who can still stomach the fact that fishing is a bloody sport in which the fish are usually the bleeders.
-
Only 7 more sleeps until this is over for the next 3 years on the Fraser River, with no pink salmon this year in the Chilliwack Vedder we will have limited flossing going on, we can only hope. :-\
-
This thread started out as "flossing:legal vs ethical"....the initial focus was on the way the fish was hooked and wether its lega/ethical.
I would like to suggest that flossing is much more than just a method to hook fish...its become as much of a culture as anything else.
As the opening drags on, I think we can see that in general, flossing brings a lot of things to sports fishing that true sportsmen and people that care about the resource cant support: fights, garbage, greed, waste, damage to endangered stocks, lack of respect for the resource, etc etc. I guarantee at least one of these things happens everyday on every bar on the Fraser during the sockeye opening.
Is flossing ethical...I have to say NO...force feeding a fish a hook isn't ethical for a sportsfisher. As a guy who wants to put some meat on the table when there are enough fish around, I can stomache snagging a few sockeye, but as a whole when I look at the fraser floss fishery, it is pretty disgusting and I don't think that anyone who cares about the envirnoment, endangered stocks, sports fishing culture, etc can not truely support a fishery like this.
-
For people who are concerned about fish stocks I don't understand why they get so caught up against the sport fishery. Why not go after the commercial or native fishery. Just a matter of perspective here but if you hope to make a difference that is where the significant impact lies.
For the elite sport fishermen on this forum that consider themselves so much holier than anyone else because they are so skilled that they don't need to floss fish... try spreading some of your knowledge and better be damn sure to never eat fish that may have been commercially caught etc. It seems that most of the elite fisherman are really just pompous people who try to stroke their own ego under the banner of fish preservation. Failing to be a humane individual who treats others poorly, as if they themselves are somehow better, is IMO equally as bad as a fisherman who abuses the resource. There are many good hearted people with an environmental conscience who floss a few sockeye.
I should say that I am totally against anybody leaving any kind of mess behind. It is in this regard that I can appreciate people's desire for this fishery to end and the masses to go home. There is no excuse for leaving your garbage on the river banks. It's rediculous conduct and to see it so rampant is truly dissapointing. My family has a hard rule that we always take more out with us than what we came in with... and not just fish!
I know some backlash will come but I felt the need to comment as I have had one of the best years of my life with my boys on the river and we are not bad people because of it. My Dad, who spent tons of time and money trying to get us (when we were kids at home) into salmon in the interior rivers with ZERO success, caught his first 6 salmon ever this year on the long weekend. When he left to go back home he cried with emotion and elation. He will probably never fish in his life again (just getting old) but he knocked another one off the bucket list.
-
we can only be responsible for our own house (ie sports fishers)...should one company not heli log (more ecologicvally sensative) because another one is clear cutting? If the world opperated based on what the lowest common denomonator is then our planet would be even worse than it is now.
Under current management practices, I feel the fraser floss fishery is out of control. Look at the mess on the rivers, the attitudes toward the resource and fellow fisher, the lack of knowledge leading to wild coho being killed...it all points to a fishery that needs to be better managed as it is out of control.
-
I know some backlash will come but I felt the need to comment as I have had one of the best years of my life with my boys on the river and we are not bad people because of it. My Dad, who spent tons of time and money trying to get us (when we were kids at home) into salmon in the interior rivers with ZERO success, caught his first 6 salmon ever this year on the long weekend. When he left to go back home he cried with emotion and elation. He will probably never fish in his life again (just getting old) but he knocked another one off the bucket list.
Thanks for sharing that! I've talked to a lot of people that have been thrilled with the experience they've had individually, and as families. These are all good people who are so thankful for the opportunity to participate in the bounty that this year's sockeye run has provided. I've explained to them the fact that they are flossing the fish and that this technique is particular to the Fraser. There is absolutely no concern that they will be taking this knowledge to other rivers.
On the other hand the experience of catching fish has inspired them to go fishing more with their families. The investment they have made in the fishing gear is also an incentive for them to use the gear more.
Yes, there are the negatives, and if you choose to just look at those, then you'll be very strongly opposed to this fishery. On the other hand if you expand your thinking a little, I'm sure you'll see some of the positives of this fishery as gordc has written about so well....
-
Went Fraser sockeye fishing yesterday. Walked in, asked nicely to squeeze into a space, offer to leave if it became a problem, gentlemen there was nice and let me in. Had a nice discussion with him, made another friend. After he left the space was vacant. As I was landing my fish a new group came in and immediately offered to help me with the fish. Chatted with them for a while. Fishing was quiet so I left my gear bag behind to walk to another spot. Came back 1/2 hour later with sockeye in hand. Fellow who moved into my old spot upon seeing me immediately asked if I wanted my spot back. I told him no thanks, I'm done, grab my other fish, moved to his left to get out of his way to clean the fish. Grab my gear (I can leave it unattended for hours with no concern of theft), said good luck to everyone and left. Overall another enjoyable Fraser sock trip.
Only thing I can generalize is It doesn't what the sports is, always some great people, always some aHoles. When you find yourself surrounded by the latter it is time to move.
And NO, I was no where near PEG!
-
Went Fraser sockeye fishing yesterday. Walked in, asked nicely to squeeze into a space, offer to leave if it became a problem, gentlemen there was nice and let me in. Had a nice discussion with him, made another friend. After he left the space was vacant. As I was landing my fish a new group came in and immediately offered to help me with the fish. Chatted with them for a while. Fishing was quiet so I left my gear bag behind to walk to another spot. Came back 1/2 hour later with sockeye in hand. Fellow who moved into my old spot upon seeing me immediately asked if I wanted my spot back. I told him no thanks, I'm done, grab my other fish, moved to his left to get out of his way to clean the fish. Grab my gear (I can leave it unattended for hours with no concern of theft), said good luck to everyone and left. Overall another enjoyable Fraser sock trip.
Only thing I can generalize is It doesn't what the sports is, always some great people, always some aHoles. When you find yourself surrounded by the latter it is time to move.
And NO, I was no where near PEG!
What you've described here is what I experience the majority of the time.
-
Is it more ethical when a sockeye bound for your table bites your hook or you floss it? It is definitely more "sporting" when a sockey bites a spin and glow rather than it being flossed..... Should we exchange the word ethical with the word sporting? No one likes being labeled as unethical! Especially if they are doing something that is legal.
I am not 100% convinced that flossing is either ethical or unethical. I am 100% convinced that a "holier than thou" attitude will not answer the question and instead just divides the fishing community.
I don't see ethics involved for me. There is a common goal which is to hook a fish in the mouth as a recreation. In basketball, the slam dunk is a higher percentage shot but getting to the hoop is risky as you can foul a defender as you charge in. Taking an outside shot is less risky to get a foul but is a lower percentage shot. Some people think the outside shot is prettier and requires more skill. Others think that the power slam dunk requires more athleticism and is more impressive and brutal. In tennis/volleyball, when you are in a position to win a point with either a drop shot/tip or a smash/spike, some people think a smash/spike is better and others prefer a dropshot/tip (I always go for the smash). Different people have different preferences on what they like to do. Flossing and lure/bait fishing are both ways to hook a fish for recreation for me and I have not yet evolved as a fisherperson to a point where the choice is an ethical decision.
Now if I entered a fishing tournament where the rules are to catch as many fish as possible by getting them to bite and then I am able to get away with cheating and win the tournament by flossing fish, then that would be unethical.
-
Well written! And very logical analysis.
-
Ok so here's a question...who here thinks its OK to floss a steelhead on the vedder? Or a coho or white spring for that matter?
Alwaysfishn I am really curious to hear what you have to say to this question?
My guess is that most people here are NOT OK with flossing a steelhead, coho, etc, etc. So to those poeple I would also like to know why its not OK to floss a steelhead and how its different than flossing sockeye.
-
Ok so here's a question...who here thinks its OK to floss a steelhead on the vedder? Or a coho or white spring for that matter?
Alwaysfishn I am really curious to hear what you have to say to this question?
My guess is that most people here are NOT OK with flossing a steelhead, coho, etc, etc. So to those poeple I would also like to know why its not OK to floss a steelhead and how its different than flossing sockeye.
Of course it's not ok to try and floss a steelhead, spring or coho in the Vedder!
As far as how it's different from flossing sockeye, I'm not going to go there.
Sockeye season is over and the flossing debate is also over for me. If you really are interested in the answer to your question, re-read the posts in this thread and I'm certain you'll find the answer... :)
For the life of me Gooey I can't understand or appreciate how you can floss sockeye yourself, and yet have such a persistent argument against it. Folks like Chris that have totally given up flossing, I can appreciate. ???
-
#1 - I went out 4 times this year...its is a fishery I have virtually lost all interest in.
#2 - "Sockeye season is over and the flossing debate is also over for me"...well then why did you post at 739am this morning in response to Samw's post?
#3 - (and this is the one I love) .... "Of course it's not ok to try and floss a steelhead" but you wont quantify why....probably because it would equate to an admission that sockeye don't bite and that they are in fact being snagged.
My buddy was out fishing the vedder on sunday...he saw fish rising and proceeded to try and get a bite out of the fish. 3 guys walk in with betties and long leaders and floss the crap out of the hole. He didnt get anything, they "hooked" 3 fish. They propapbly changed his luck in that hole as we all know what a hail storm of betties can do to fish sitting in a run. I think that sucks...period.
I am not against flossing a sockeye or two, my position is that flossing sockeye needs to be managed seperately from a sports fishing lisence or a normal salmon tag. Examples like the one above are more and more common. I saw a beak flossers at the alison pools this summer that told me reds don't bite, only flossers are getting them...thats just BS but the sockeye fishery is changing the face of fresh water salmon fishing and creating an acceptance of snagging.
Yes sockeye is done for the season...all that means is a change in scenery for all those flossers.
-
So how did you overcome that overwhelming guilt each time you went?
And how did you repent upon returning home?
And G.. forbid did you actually keep a snagged/immorally/unethically/illegally hook on the outside of the mouth ;D
#1 - I went out 4 times this year...its is a fishery I have virtually lost all interest in.
...
-
I repent by snorkelling the cap and pulling yards and yards of line and leaders and bouncing betties that all those flossing beaks snap off in there each year...usualy do it 2-3 times a season.
Like I said, I do think there is space for a sockeye floss fishery...we just need to separate it from what we call "sport" fishing.
-
You're a good sport for cleaning out the river, hats off to that. :)
Also gonna agree there's not much sports in the oh too easy to catch socks this year. Maybe we can call it "entertainment" fishing cause it sure was amusing watching all the newbies.
Now comes the tedious canning job. :(
I repent by snorkelling the cap and pulling yards and yards of line and leaders and bouncing betties that all those flossing beaks snap off in there each year...usualy do it 2-3 times a season.
Like I said, I do think there is space for a sockeye floss fishery...we just need to separate it from what we call "sport" fishing.
-
Why not just make flossing out-right a summary offence?
At least we as citizens can call upon the RCMP for support.