Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?  (Read 85536 times)

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #120 on: August 13, 2013, 01:24:36 PM »

Using a bouncing betty and a long leader in the murky Fraser River is gonna floss fish, I don't give a rats arse what's on the hook end besides the hook. Lotta difference if your using a 3 foot leader with a 00 spin-n-glow that is basically in the same small zone all the time.

Whose using a bouncing betty?  I have seen salmon travel upstream when there was an inch or less visibility.  Yet somehow they make it all the way upstream and I doubt they are doing it by touch.  Yes, smell tells them where they are going but not what is right in front of their face.  If they can make it through that, you think a foot of more of visibility for us isn't a picnic for them?  I've seen stuff 10 plus feet away in a shallow dirty stream spook fish.  To think they can't sense and see a spin-n-glo coming downstream at them gives them not near as much credit as they deserve.
Logged

zabber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
  • Sometimes I fish, sometimes I catch
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #121 on: August 13, 2013, 02:08:47 PM »

As Rod said, assuming the sox were biting, you were still fishing for them during a closure.

I'm not going to try to convince you that your fish were flossed, because there's this old saying about arguing with an idiot and I'm still not sure about you. At the end of the day, short of some high-tech underwater surveillance that doesn't exist, there is know way of knowing for sure whether your sox bit or not. I'd still wager good money on the latter.

Again, the "big deal" with this fishery (your original query) is the fact that most people do it wrong. There are very few of the "gripper and rippers" that you refer to, even at the most popular of bars. However, EVERYONE is flossing; a questionable angling technique. You really can't blame them though; they don't have access to the secret wool  ::)

Now, until you educate the masses on how to fish the Fraser effectively, yet ethically, I'd suggest you stop gloating, trolling, or whatever the he!! it is you're doing.

-Z
Logged
A rig out of water catches no fish.

zabber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
  • Sometimes I fish, sometimes I catch
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #122 on: August 13, 2013, 02:12:46 PM »

To think they can't ... see a spin-n-glo coming downstream at them gives them not near as much credit as they deserve.

You ever heard of a lateral line? You're right; fish have other senses besides sight. I imagine it's probably one of their main senses though; why else would people avoid fishing "blown" rivers?

In 6-12 in. of vis., do you really think that a salmon that is off the feed is going to react to a tiny spin n' glow that's blowing past them at 3-10m/sec?
Logged
A rig out of water catches no fish.

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #123 on: August 13, 2013, 02:31:04 PM »

You ever heard of a lateral line? You're right; fish have other senses besides sight. I imagine it's probably one of their main senses though; why else would people avoid fishing "blown" rivers?

In 6-12 in. of vis., do you really think that a salmon that is off the feed is going to react to a tiny spin n' glow that's blowing past them at 3-10m/sec?

6-12 in of vis for us.  And yes, I've heard of the lateral line.  Between the vibration and the sight, the fish will have time to react IMHO.  Rough estimates would put it below 3 m/sec though.  Assuming we were casting way out and it took about a minute per drift.  However, that doesn't change much as at that point it is more a reaction than a purposeful deciding that it is going to eat that.  I think we have established that chinook and coho will definitely do that.  It is a reaction to something they are very familiar with.  A flash of a color they have associated with food, something red in front of it, likely blood meaning the food fish got half eaten.  Either it it now or it will be taken.  Split second decision.  After years in the salt water reacting to that and a day or two in the fresh water, you think that goes away?  I'm shocked you think sockeye wouldn't have that reaction when other species of salmon do.  None of them eat.  They all still have reactions.
Logged

Bently

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 500
  • fish eyes love my ties
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #124 on: August 13, 2013, 05:42:15 PM »

If you and you friends are catching 50 sockeye for every 2 chinnook you land {over any period of time}then you shouldn't be fishing the way your fishing, whether you think it won't hurt the run or not, that's the biggest issue I have with this entire BS thread. Talk nets all you want {we all know how bad it is}but this is a sports fishing forum, nothing more so that's what I stay focused on and IMO as well as your confession you've caught waaaay too many sockeye to be doing what your doing.

I can say your flossing all these fish and you can argue it's your secret color combo all day long, I don't think we are going to budge on our opinions so I'll stick with my opinion and you can yours.

Logged

zabber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
  • Sometimes I fish, sometimes I catch
Logged
A rig out of water catches no fish.

Brian the fisherman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #126 on: August 14, 2013, 03:56:54 AM »

Wow, that is quite the revelation.  I agree that you have to have a long leader to be a flosser.  I disagree that having a long leader automatically means you are flossing.  You should attend some classes on logical proofs.  One item being true does not automatically mean the opposite is also true.

You are incorrect young grasshopper. when you send a very long leader into the water, you are not presenting an appealing presentation to the fish due to the lack of tension in your leader. And even if you correct that slack in your leader. then your playing dentist. so its either your magic super duper unbeatable color that a witch and a magician pulled out of a hat for you is literally fish cocaine.  and there is NO WAY that your wool is special and you should go get an MRI.... or just admit that your choice of fishing methods is a poor method to attract a bite, and more likely to foul hook or "flosss" a fish and snag it.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 03:58:51 AM by Brian the fisherman »
Logged
Tight lines to all

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #127 on: August 14, 2013, 06:59:38 AM »

If you and you friends are catching 50 sockeye for every 2 chinnook you land {over any period of time}then you shouldn't be fishing the way your fishing, whether you think it won't hurt the run or not, that's the biggest issue I have with this entire BS thread. Talk nets all you want {we all know how bad it is}but this is a sports fishing forum, nothing more so that's what I stay focused on and IMO as well as your confession you've caught waaaay too many sockeye to be doing what your doing.

I can say your flossing all these fish and you can argue it's your secret color combo all day long, I don't think we are going to budge on our opinions so I'll stick with my opinion and you can yours.

What have you done, personally, to try to fix the issues with the nets, or anything else?  I know a lot of people on this board do and hopefully you are too but that isn't how you strike me.

In my opinion, net shouldn't be used in the river.  Give them money toward getting gill nets and let them fish in the sound to catch their fish.  Or give them free license to fish with pole or dip nets in the river.  That is how it used to be when there was a joint commission between us and you.  Unfortunately, WA is probably more messed up than you and the Fraser is at least big enough that some fish get by the nets.  I grew up near the Nooksack.  It didn't take very long once the nets went into the river that runs that were amazing went to endangered.  Prior to that, there were very strict regulations on a whole number of fish, only being able to keep hatchery fin clipped fish, or the dorsal fin had to be smaller than a certain size, etc.  And yet, when the coho and chinook were running, the bars would be packed with people bottom bouncing or plunking.  Poaching was frequent.  And yet, the runs stayed strong.  My family actually started our own hatchery for coho and over the course of 5 or 6 years when the runs were down and raised close to a million salmon over those years to release into the system.  The first year of return, we got some spawners coming back up a stream where they were pretty much gone from previously.  The next year, nothing.  When we tried to find out why, there was an illegal net place completely across the opening to the creek.  And boy, there were some huge coho being pulled out of that net that we had raised.  We reported it but fisheries in WA refuses to really monitor the nets at all.  The Native American's themselves laughed when we reported it to them.  They weren't going to do anything about it.  We closed down the hatchery because we were just putting money into poacher's pockets.  Once they found where the fish were going, not a single spawner got up the creek.

The nets down there would even hide it, put only half corks on so it wasn't really visible above the water or just enough corks to keep it a foot or two below the water.  That made some guys with boats running up the river real happy and was very dangerous as you can imagine someone going 30-40 kph up river with a jet does when he suddenly stops when his motor snags that corkline.  Some of them were just left there without being checked.  We even had many sightings of nets being picked up, the fish being gutted, eggs put into a bucket to be sold and the fish carcass thrown back into the river.  Some fisherman got tired of it so they would go up when the nets were not supposed to be in the river and drop in bales of hay that would roll down the river and collect any nets.  They started getting charged but the guys with the nets were told to stop, while they are sitting there with their nets in the river and the officer would walk off.  They wouldn't even make them make a show of stopping.

Unfortunately, I see the Fraser following the same path, just slower.

If you look at the Fraser, the amount of chinook coming through is quickly dwindling too.  Springs have been completely shut down.  Fall runs are nowhere near what they used to be.  If you are such the idealist as you claim, then it shouldn't matter that chinook are open because you wouldn't want to catch those either as you would be taking just one possible spawner out of the possible pool.  You would spend every minute that you would have spent fishing trying to fix it, or fishing a stream that isn't currently hurting.  I have spent that time.  I am resigned to the fact that the dirt people and political correctness is going to drive these fish into being endangered and hopefully then, they will close the whole fishery down and put forth the money to make sure the rules are followed.  Unfortunately, I think the money will always be "better spent elsewhere" and even then, the gov't won't step up.  I hate it for my kids who will never know the amazing fishing I grew up with.

If you look at the number of fish caught, or going in the test fisheries net, or any other item, the number of sockeye outnumber the number or chinook by a very large margin.  Yes, there are methods where I could reduce the number of sockeye I caught but frankly, I don't find them enjoyable.  I enjoy feeling the fish hit which you just don't get bank fishing, or using a float, or heck, even trolling in the saltwater.  If I was able to come later in the year, I probably wouldn't even bother with a bunch of the idiots up on the Fraser and would go some of the places in WA that I know well and know there won't be many idiots around and where I can catch fish using some pencil lead and a little spoon.  That isn't an option for when I have to be up there.

Let's turn this around though.  Let's say next year, chinook are way down but sockeye are coming out of your ears and instead of one over 50 cm and 3 under, they lower it to none over 50 cm and 1 under.  Would you just stay home instead of risking catching a Chinook?  I assume you wouldn't bar fish, you would go out and find a way to catch a couple sockeye without risking catching a chinook.  What would you do if you hooked a big chinook?  Cut your line so you don't have to fight the fish and lose the 5-10 dollars you have in whatever spoon or whatever you are using and hope the hook works its way free before the sinker gets caught on the rocks and traps the fish for a while?  Give it a bunch of slack and pray it gets off itself?  Try and get it in as quickly as possible risking losing it so you don't strain it any more than necessary?  I would guess the last one is what most fisherman would do, which is also what we did.  You can say it isn't the same or if you caught more than a couple you would change methods again but percentage wise with current runs, that one chinook, or two, are a higher percent of spawners than my 50 sockeye.
Logged

Bently

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 500
  • fish eyes love my ties
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2013, 07:40:58 AM »

^^^ Delusional.........when you actually believe your own BS. ::) ::) ::)
Logged

mastercaster

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2013, 09:20:41 AM »

YUP!
Logged

zabber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
  • Sometimes I fish, sometimes I catch
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2013, 11:07:09 AM »

Yes, there are methods where I could reduce the number of sockeye I caught but frankly, I don't find them enjoyable.

It's okay, you enjoy flossing fish on the Fraser. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

I enjoy feeling the fish snagged which you just don't get bank fishing, or using a float, or heck, even trolling in the saltwater.

::) Seriously though, that's such BS. You can feel a fish hit bank fishing if you're using bait off the bottom or casting + retrieving lures. You say there are no options for when you have to be up here but there is a burgeoning pink fishery up the Sea-to-Sky. These salmon willingly bite just about anything pink, and you can sure as he!! feel 'em. There is also lake fishing; a bit slower in summer, but I've had days mid-summer heat that beat out anything in spring or fall.

You can say it isn't the same or if you caught more than a couple you would change methods again but percentage wise with current runs, that one chinook, or two, are a higher percent of spawners than my 50 sockeye.

The fact of the matter is the fishery was closed. Using your logic, it's okay to steal a chocolate bar from WalMart because they can just "write off" the loss.  ::)

^^^ Delusional.........when you actually believe your own BS. ::) ::) ::)

Not to mention in a magic wool  ;D ;D
Logged
A rig out of water catches no fish.

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14765
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2013, 11:10:27 AM »

Keep fishing unselectively, keep debating the fish's eyesight, keep using others' actions to justify your own, and you'll keep seeing lobbying like this and eventually the whole recreational salmon fishery shut down on the Fraser River. :)

http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/News_Releases/UBCICNews08131301.html#axzz2bxyTsTNX

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #132 on: August 14, 2013, 12:14:47 PM »

The fact of the matter is the fishery was closed. Using your logic, it's okay to steal a chocolate bar from WalMart because they can just "write off" the loss.  ::)

Except I didn't actually take the chocolate bar.  I went when you couldn't buy chocolate bars and I picked one up, looked at it, put it back on the shelf, and walked out with nothing.
Logged

kylerme

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2013, 12:15:42 PM »

I realize a bunch of you are purists and think that only your way of fishing is correct and the right method.  I also think you are seeing a great natural resource and source of enjoyment slipping through your fingers so you are lashing out at the only thing you feel you can.  When you consider that one drift net can catch just as many fish as most bottom bouncers probably catches in an entire season, it seems like you are barking up the wrong tree.  What is the survival rate for a fish that is caught and released?  Lower than if it hadn't been, right?  What is the survival rate of a fish caught in an illegal drift net?  0%  I suppose if they pick it up quick enough they might be able to be released but realistically, if they are already fishing illegally, why would they throw anything back.  One guy with a drift net can do in a day what boatloads of bottom bouncers can't do an entire season.

-TNangler
this is so true.
Logged

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
Re: bottom bouncing whats the big deal?
« Reply #134 on: August 14, 2013, 12:23:28 PM »

Except I didn't actually take the chocolate bar.  I went when you couldn't buy chocolate bars and I picked one up, looked at it, put it back on the shelf, and walked out with nothing.

In the Fraser:

Total legal retention of sockeye by FN?  Over 90,000.

Total legal retention of sockeye by everyone else?  Zero.

You can dispute it but I would say total illegal retention of sockeye by FN +fish harmed beyond an ability to reach their spawning grounds >>>> total illegal retention +fish harmed beyond an ability to reach their spawning grounds by everyone else.

I'm guessing truth doesn't really matter when it comes to politics though.

Whatever though.  I just hope someone up there steps up before you lose the fisheries that you have but I don't see it happening.  I feel it will go the way of WA where salmon was something you used to be able to catch but now you focus on lakes or other fish.  After the sockeye are almost gone, the chinook will get hit harder until they are gone.  Pretty soon, the only way they can make a living is to do the same thing to the pinks, chum, coho, whatever else they can get.
Logged