Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: silver ghost on August 16, 2011, 12:46:33 AM
-
At one of the notorious fraser flossfests today, I witnessed some funny behaviour among flossers - catch and release. This is because guys get their sockeye limit but keep fishing for springs. and so catch and release becomes commonplace, as the meat mentality makes everyone stay until they have caught every species the freshwater regs allow them to retain.
but seriously - DONT DRAG THE FISH ONTO THE BANK IF YOU HAVE YOUR LIMIT ALREADY! I think, most times fish are dragged p and even KICKED back in the river they might as well be bonked and fed to the sea birds, as the likelihood of them recoverig is slim to none
------------on this note, there was a study done at grassy, where DFO researchers looked at te C and R recovery/mortality rate among sockeye. what I dont like about this is they hand pick their anglers - I think there was even an ad on here for volunteers at one point --------this biases the study because the anglers who volunteer/are chosen know what theyre doing and treat the fish with care. and so this study is basically garbage because we all know what really goes on - dropping, throwing, unecessary handling, picking up by the gills, kicking, etc - and these are the things that affect the C and R mortalities the most. I stand by my belief that there are significantly high morts following c and r of sockeye
poaching: IF YOU LAND THE FISH, THAT IS YOUR FISH. no giving fish away, that counts as over your limit if you yourself keep two. CATCHES ARE NON TRANSFERABLE - you cannot legitimately tell a consevation officer your 3 year old son caught a 10 pound sockeye on a levelwind. Please. i've seen families of 5 wait on the bank until the father catches the limit for the whole crew. But that didn't go without notice - I made a few calls to the poaching hotline today and only hope someone came out after I left.
garbage: if you can pack it in, pack it out! i yelled at a guy today for throwing his plastic bag into the water only for him to give me a dumb expression and shrug his shoulders like he didnt know what was wrong with it. you can really pick out the seasonal meat harvesters from the whole bunch. and im not saying im NOT a harvester - I am one, but I get my limit of delicious sox and get out, and dont 'sport snag' like the other spring-hungry ''anglers''. show some respect for the f'ing river. and fish.
-
Frustrating to see, yes. Anything new, nope.
-
I saw this happen yesterday morning, some lucky flooser probcuaght 7-8 sox in the time I got my 1.
No one was saying anything until I said "isnt the limit 2". He gave me the stink eye as an older guy started lecturing him on the same thing lol.
-
So I'm not trying to debate the mistreatment of fish or those that are keeping limits for the whole family. I think you make very good points there but I'm trying to understand your thoughts on flossing and C&R?
To start off let me say I very rarely bottom bounce. (I can't say I never do it as I have done it a couple of times in the past for Soc's but I can't stand this type of fishery so don't partake)
But are you saying if you're flossing/bottom bouncing then after you catch your limit you should leave?
Some of us rarely ever take our limit and often just go to catch fish, is there a difference in C&R regardless of fishing style?
-
So I'm not trying to debate the mistreatment of fish or those that are keeping limits for the whole family. I think you make very good points there but I'm trying to understand your thoughts on flossing and C&R?
To start off let me say I very rarely bottom bounce. (I can't say I never do it as I have done it a couple of times in the past for Soc's but I can't stand this type of fishery so don't partake)
But are you saying if you're flossing/bottom bouncing then after you catch your limit you should leave?
Some of us rarely ever take our limit and often just go to catch fish, is there a difference in C&R regardless of fishing style?
If you recognize that that bottom bouncing is a meat fishery where you snag your fish, why would you continue to catch and release when all you are doing is harassing the fish and likely stressing them to the point of preventing them from reaching the spawning grounds?
-
I do not bottom bounce, and mostly catch and realease when i do go out.
But my question is why would bottom bouncing be anymore stressful to a fish then most other techniques.
(speaking of course to fish that are caught in the mouth and not dragged out by their my friend)
Wouldn't a fish caught through legitimate means have the same stress as one that was flossed.
Again I'm not trying to argue bottom bouncing I refuse to practice it myself, but I'm trying to understand why you guys think that someone shouldn't be allowed to C&R based off their fishing method.
-
C&R using bait. Isn't that even more stressful to fish?
Isn't that also why bait ban is in place where endangered species are present and to prevent high mortality rate in C&R?
-
The sad thing is , is that when the "F" gang get there limit of sockeye and continue "F-ing" for the chinnook their allowed, the sockeye they continue to catch is usually given to another angler {some just pass their rod to the guy/gal at the last minute who wants the sockeye and lets him/her land it} who doesn't have their limit yet.
A bend in the rules if I ever saw one ::)
Pretty hard pressed to practice C&R when you got a bunch of meat hungry rod holders a few feet away looking at you drooling, saying "Are you gonna keep it", "I'll take it !!", "Can I have it" etc. etc.
Quite the so-called fishery boy, makes one want to go up country and do some trout fishing instead ;)
-
Its time to manage this fishery for what it really is; a recreational harvest. Catch your 2 socks and your done. No C&R. This may alleviate some of the crowding on the bars because the sockeye heroes won't be sitting in their spot all day. Also, this "harvest" needs to differentiated from the other "sports" fisheries and the notices should explicitly say so.
-
Yep snag your two socks and then your done for the day. Those people fishing after the two should be fined. Just being a sore sight hogging after fish.
-
Seems a lot of people confuse or associate bottom bouncing with flossing, I catch more fish bottom bouncing then I ever have with a float.
Just a style I am more comfortable with, I also use under a 3 foot leader, usually anywhere from 18 inches to 2 feet, anything longer and it never gets in the zone.
99% of the fish I catch are hooked in the front of mouth, not hooked on the outside corner, I get the odd foul hook but they always go back.
People can floss just as easily with a float so lets not get an elitist mentality here because you use a float your not flossing, or bottom bouncing.
Unless your short floating, your bottom bouncing, if your weight hits the rocks on the bottom on a regular basis, (like it's supposed to) your bottom bouncing.
Whether you have a float or not, floats are just indicators, remove the float and your bottom bouncing.
When i fish I use just enough weight to tick the top of the bigger rocks on the bottom, not dredge the bottom, loose way to much gear if you have to much weight.
I also don't fish for sox, so my methods apply to all species I fish for, pinks, coho, springs if I ever catch one.. lol
Call me a flosser, god forbid I bottom bounce, but lets not judge simply by the way a person catches a fish, I release 10 times as many fish as I take, and I also get skunked more often than not...
If someones fishing with an unusually long leader they are flossing, whether it be attached to a float or not.
All I'm really saying here is lets not paint everyone with the same brush based on the setup they are using, I bottom bounce but I would not say I floss.
-
If your fishing for for sockeye and your bottom bouncing you are usually flossing. If your using that technique for some other fish it can be legit. I'ts just the way it is, so you will have to get use to the handle "snaggart" when fishing like that.
-
Sockeye Flossing Gear is usually different than that of traditional bottom bouncing gear. Those that use bottom bouncing as a legit sportsfishing method normally don't fish with 12 foot 30# leaders, a 4 oz betty with a 5/0 hook. Problem is, I see this gear all time on smaller rivers like the Vedder and Chehalis. Why would you need a 5/0 hook on the vedder?
-
I would say that any method (float/bottom bouncing) with a really long leader would be flossing/snagging no matter what species
However applying the term "snaggart", with any body that bottom bounces would be an error, for lack of a better word.
As you say there are legit ways to bottom bounce.
Personally I use rubber worms, unscented eggs, different color wools, spin n glos, spinners, spoons, all on a short leader, no bait cause I'm on the island, I definitely wouldn't say that's flossing/snagging.
I also see what you mean strat, heaviest weight i have to use might be 1/2 oz, I also use 1/0 hooks, like i say longest leader of 3 feet, and that just doesn't get down on the smallish flows I fish.
I've seen all kinds of gear out there, huge buzz bombs, to guys snagging every ten seconds loosing miles of 30 lb line, etc, but I usually catch more fish than them...
I have never seen sockeye madness like you guys have though, never did get to be one of the many at the somass this year, and I'm sure that doesn't come close to a busy mainland flow.
Cheers!
-
Those people fishing after the two should be fined.
This is not what the current regs say. You can retain 2 sox and still fish and retain springs and pinks. I am 100% against abusing the fish but let's keep our emotions to ourselves when there are clear regulations in place to protect resources.
-
It seems to me, that Fishhunter's original complaint was not against flossing (or bottom bouncing) nor even with continuing to fish for Springs, it was with the way the subsequent fish were being treated (hauled onto the rocks just to be kicked back in or passed to someone else).
-
Wading in here on this topic. I feel when I walk into a tackle shop or go online for a sportfishing license I must ask myself and everyone should think. What do I intend to do and what do I really want here. I purchase a license to go sportfishing. That said what does that mean? Well simply its me trying to fairly entice a fish to my creel so I may enjoy a good meal or have that feeling of calm serenity when I release my fish I have bested in a sporting manner. So lets look back a few years to a time when things were a little clearer. We had the sportfish and the commercial salmon. At the time it was a distinction based on the ability of anglers to entice fish to take the gear presented generally. So we had the Chinook and Coho on the sportfish side and the Chum, Sockeye and Pink on the commercial side. Even today you see fisheries managers designating fishing priority opportunities using this scale. Hence generally we fish before the commercial fishers for Chinook and vice versa when Sockeye become available. History lesson done. Now we come to present day anglers using methods we have developed to entice or harvest salmon. Bottom bouncing methods in use on the Fraser is SNAGGING. Plain and simple. It doesn't really matter from a SPORTFISHING perspective where the hook ends up, it's still snagging. Bar fishing on the other hand is the age old game of enticement and reward.
So when I fish during snagfest I am at peace knowing that to harvest my two sockeye a day I employ the method that works. We are fishing only because a surplus of commercial sockeye is deemed available and as such I use my single strand of gillnet with a hook on the end of it. So when I'm done catching my two sockeye and wish to catch a chinook I change my method of fishing so satisfy my sense of honor as a sportfisher and use gear to entice the fish in the age old test of wills. In my mind if it was just about the meat in the freezer then that analogy could be used to harvest deer at night with a pittlamp. Thank god it is not and is so easily enforced. I wish SNAGGING chinooks under the disguise of sportfishing could be as easily enforced. But alas it is not and it is up to each of us to live with ourselves and the methods we use. If we lead by example i firmly believe we will one day see DFO make the distinction between fish harvested under a harvest license and let us keep our sportfishing license as it was intended.
-
Gotta admit that I hear what Shifter is saying - but our neighbours to the south call it "drift fishing" as opposed to "float fishing". They use bank sinkers, which are little bean-shaped leads, and present their offerings near the bottom. Yes, the bait bounces on the bottom but to do it correctly, it should bounce very infrequently. They also employ short leaders and small hooks to ensure that is doesn't become a snagfest. Like up here.
The whole sockeye meat fest really just disgusts me. I get so fed up of the sheer disrespect, disregard and stupidity that I'd rather go fish somewhere else. If there's one thing that really gets my goat, it's watching people line the banks and use any means necessary to over-harvest a resource that we claim, as British Columbians, we value. Perhaps some of us do, but the scene on the Fraser says otherwise. Quite honestly, I believe that the DFO should, in the result of an infraction, not only take away the gear that the person was using, but confiscate their license and blacklist them. I think there would be fewer over-harvestres iif they knew they would lose their gear and their license rights for a couple years, no?
J
-
Gotta admit that I hear what Shifter is saying - but our neighbours to the south call it "drift fishing" as opposed to "float fishing". They use bank sinkers, which are little bean-shaped leads, and present their offerings near the bottom. Yes, the bait bounces on the bottom but to do it correctly, it should bounce very infrequently. They also employ short leaders and small hooks to ensure that is doesn't become a snagfest. Like up here.
The whole sockeye meat fest really just disgusts me. I get so fed up of the sheer disrespect, disregard and stupidity that I'd rather go fish somewhere else. If there's one thing that really gets my goat, it's watching people line the banks and use any means necessary to over-harvest a resource that we claim, as British Columbians, we value. Perhaps some of us do, but the scene on the Fraser says otherwise. Quite honestly, I believe that the DFO should, in the result of an infraction, not only take away the gear that the person was using, but confiscate their license and blacklist them. I think there would be fewer over-harvestres iif they knew they would lose their gear and their license rights for a couple years, no?
J
You are correct in your comments on the disrespect shown in this fishery. However you also need to put it into perspective by watching the FN food and ceremonial fishery for half a day. Some observations I have seen.... small sockeye and pinks tossed back in the river dead, sockeye caught, left sitting in the sun for hours and sometimes discarded, caught under food licenses and sold for cash......
Should the authorities focus on a large number of fishers that impact a few fish, or should they focus on a small number of fishers that have an impact on a huge number of fish? Sometimes it seems like they are doing neither....
-
So if you are caught going over the speed limit the cops should take your car away and blacklist you from driving, eh?
This is the typical, schoolyard "equivalency" argument, and I don't think it is valid here. My point is that if the consequences vastly outweigh the benefits of over-harvest, and enforcement was high...do you think it would happen to the degree it does now? I don't.
You are correct in your comments on the disrespect shown in this fishery. However you also need to put it into perspective by watching the FN food and ceremonial fishery for half a day. Some observations I have seen.... small sockeye and pinks tossed back in the river dead, sockeye caught, left sitting in the sun for hours and sometimes discarded, caught under food licenses and sold for cash......
Should the authorities focus on a large number of fishers that impact a few fish, or should they focus on a small number of fishers that have an impact on a huge number of fish? Sometimes it seems like they are doing neither....
I don't think that the DFO will ever truly target FN fisheries. But I don't want to bring that aspect into this discussion, that's a whole 'nother can of worms...
J
-
DONT DRAG THE FISH ONTO THE BANK IF YOU HAVE YOUR LIMIT ALREADY!
Yes, this is covered on page 11 of the latest Synopsis.
CATCHES ARE NON TRANSFERABLE
I have not been able to find this mentioned in the Synopsis.
garbage: if you can pack it in, pack it out!
Classic outdoor etiquette...
Sorry to hear that you had such a sh!tty time on the river. Maybe try a more remote location next time? Or a better attitude? I had a good-to-great time at one of the more popular bars 3x in row. Yes, there were some things that were "wrong" and a bit irritating, but I just ignored them. When you're fishing at a place nicknamed "gong show," you -- sadly -- kinda gotta expect that that kind of stuff's going to happen. Get your fish, enjoy the sun + scenery, and get out. Don't let others ruin your day.
-
I have seen flossing done with 2 foot leaders, and there are legitimate non-flossing techniques that use 6 foot and longer leaders (google "side-drifting" in Washington's Skagit river - an old method used for picky steelhead). There isn't an easy way to limit the allowable fishing methods without cramping someone's style.
-
Copied and pasted from another forum........
Latest assessment for the sockeye catch to date shows that the recreational sector has accounted for 11,070 fish to date. Thi is from a total catch to date of 1,189,030. This is less than 1% of the total harvest to date. We sure seem to spend an awful lot of time discussing less than 1% of the total harvest. By comparison, US Commies have 206,750, Canadian Commies have 304,660 and Canadian Aboriginals have 623,060 fish per group. AS a user group we sure get all bent out of shape about how we harvest our pittance. We really need to spend more time looking at the bigger picture.
Discuss amongst yourselves ;-)
Cheers
Commercial Catch
Canada
A & C Areas 1-10 Net 0
F Areas 1-10 Troll 0
G Areas 123-127,11-12 Troll 0
B Areas 11-16 PS 39,650
D Areas 11-13 GN 98,040
H Areas 12-16 Troll 8,900
H Areas 18-29 Troll 800
B Area 20 PS 0
B Area 29 PS 0
E Area 29 GN 119,180
FRA Econ. Opp. + BCI FN Demo 38,090
Canadian Total 304,660
United States
Alaska Net&Troll 0
Washington
T.I. Areas 4B/5/6C Net 19,820
T.I. Areas 6/7/7A Net 110,010
N.I. Areas 7/7A Net 76,920
Washington Total 206,750
U.S. Total 206,750
Non-commercial Catch
PSC Panel Area Test 21,500
PSC non-Panel Area Test 11,930
Fraser River Aboriginal (FSC) 388,690
Marine Aboriginal 234,370
Recreational 11,070
Charter (Albion & Qualark TF) 2,930
U.S. TI Ceremonial 7,130
ESSR 0
Non-comm. Total 677,620
Catch and Escapement
Catch Accounted-to-date 1,189,030
Potential Spawning Escapement (Mission esc. minus FN, sport & TF catch above Mission) 1,924,510
Total Accounted-to-date 3,113,540
-
I'd be interested to learn how they "account" for recreational fish. I mean, there's the stats guy at Scale that stops you and asks you about your catch when you're leaving, but other than that?
I was running some "estimates" thru my mind and figured: 2 fish a piece, 50 guys per bar per 3 hours; maybe 300 fish per bar per day? Say, 10 bars fished = 3000 fish/day... 10 days = 30,000 fish...
Lol, and I thought that was a "conservative" estimate :p
-
They account for the recreational catch by using the creel surveys, together with the helicopter flyovers which count the number of anglers, times the number of days. Not many bars out there produce as well as the scale bar.....
-
They account for the recreational catch by using the creel surveys, together with the helicopter flyovers which count the number of anglers, times the number of days. Not many bars out there produce as well as the scale bar.....
Do you know how many fish they count per angler? At Scale I estimated about 50 guys in the water, with a decent amount of turnover throughout the day; would think at least 150 visit that location per day. I don't believe 2 fish a head is unreasonable, considering the amount of guys catching for their families, giving fish away, poachers... Would probably need to account for fish mortality from guys CnRing "going for their spring" too...
I heard that Grassy, Gill, and Jones produce just as well as Scale, as does Peg Leg when the water's lower. That's 5 bars there, and my guess is that there are a few others...
But then, I'm sure DFOs factored that all in; I'm probably just overestimating, haha.
-
Wading in here on this topic. I feel when I walk into a tackle shop or go online for a sportfishing license I must ask myself and everyone should think. What do I intend to do and what do I really want here. I purchase a license to go sportfishing. That said what does that mean? Well simply its me trying to fairly entice a fish to my creel so I may enjoy a good meal or have that feeling of calm serenity when I release my fish I have bested in a sporting manner. So lets look back a few years to a time when things were a little clearer. We had the sportfish and the commercial salmon. At the time it was a distinction based on the ability of anglers to entice fish to take the gear presented generally. So we had the Chinook and Coho on the sportfish side and the Chum, Sockeye and Pink on the commercial side. Even today you see fisheries managers designating fishing priority opportunities using this scale. Hence generally we fish before the commercial fishers for Chinook and vice versa when Sockeye become available. History lesson done. Now we come to present day anglers using methods we have developed to entice or harvest salmon. Bottom bouncing methods in use on the Fraser is SNAGGING. Plain and simple. It doesn't really matter from a SPORTFISHING perspective where the hook ends up, it's still snagging. Bar fishing on the other hand is the age old game of enticement and reward.
So when I fish during snagfest I am at peace knowing that to harvest my two sockeye a day I employ the method that works. We are fishing only because a surplus of commercial sockeye is deemed available and as such I use my single strand of gillnet with a hook on the end of it. So when I'm done catching my two sockeye and wish to catch a chinook I change my method of fishing so satisfy my sense of honor as a sportfisher and use gear to entice the fish in the age old test of wills. In my mind if it was just about the meat in the freezer then that analogy could be used to harvest deer at night with a pittlamp. Thank god it is not and is so easily enforced. I wish SNAGGING chinooks under the disguise of sportfishing could be as easily enforced. But alas it is not and it is up to each of us to live with ourselves and the methods we use. If we lead by example i firmly believe we will one day see DFO make the distinction between fish harvested under a harvest license and let us keep our sportfishing license as it was intended.
How do you justify spending the money on gear, gas, and time to go and snag fish when your interests are "filling the freezer"? You could just as easily go to the docks and buy the fish from the fisherman and save yourself gas, gear, time and money. If you participate in snagging for the explicit purpose of filling the freezer, there are 2 options here:
1. You are too dumb to see how it is more expensive to put a day on the river snagging instead of simply buying the fish from the docks.
or
2. You aren't explicitly snagging to fill your freezer, rather - you enjoy intentionally foul-hooking fish.
-
I said I would not discus this again but most add this one note that I have said before and new readers of this forum may not have seem it.
We are now developing a new generation of people, especially young people and others that have just took up angling if we can call flossing that.
Many are not learning other ways to fish our rivers and now go after all species of fish that way and that is sad not to learn the art of making a fish take your offering .
-
They account for the recreational catch by using the creel surveys, together with the helicopter flyovers which count the number of anglers, times the number of days. Not many bars out there produce as well as the scale bar.....
The whole counting of salmon for all sectors is very unreliable. One year on the Vedder the stat's said there was more coho caught and released than entered the Chilliwack River hatchery. ???
-
How do you justify spending the money on gear, gas, and time to go and snag fish when your interests are "filling the freezer"? You could just as easily go to the docks and buy the fish from the fisherman and save yourself gas, gear, time and money. If you participate in snagging for the explicit purpose of filling the freezer, there are 2 options here:
1. You are too dumb to see how it is more expensive to put a day on the river snagging instead of simply buying the fish from the docks.
or
2. You aren't explicitly snagging to fill your freezer, rather - you enjoy intentionally foul-hooking fish.
What's the difference between "snagging" a fish yourself to fill your freezer versus having a commercial or native fisherman snag the fish (using a net) so you can buy it? Why should a person who "snags" his own fish be any more concerned about the cost of his gas and equipment than any person who goes fishing?
I know you are trying to make the point that you disapprove of the Fraser sockeye fishery, however your points are illogical and only make you sound elitist. The techniques you use and the amount you spend to go fishing are no better or worse than the techniques the "dumb" people use, or what it costs them to "fill their freezer". ::)
-
What's the difference between "snagging" a fish yourself to fill your freezer versus having a commercial or native fisherman snag the fish (using a net) so you can buy it? Why should a person who "snags" his own fish be any more concerned about the cost of his gas and equipment than any person who goes fishing?
I know you are trying to make the point that you disapprove of the Fraser sockeye fishery, however your points are illogical and only make you sound elitist. The techniques you use and the amount you spend to go fishing are no better or worse than the techniques the "dumb" people use, or what it costs them to "fill their freezer". ::)
What I am saying is not a rationalization of the commercial or native "snagging" with nets, it's a cost assessment. The reasoning is based in economics, and assuming people generally don't like throwing money in the trash can, it would be illogical to spend more resources than necessary on something unless you derive some external value from it. When people invoke the "filling the freezer" argument - this is my counter argument. That is all I'm saying here..
-
What I am saying is not a rationalization of the commercial or native "snagging" with nets, it's a cost assessment. The reasoning is based in economics, and assuming people generally don't like throwing money in the trash can, it would be illogical to spend more resources than necessary on something unless you derive some external value from it. When people invoke the "filling the freezer" argument - this is my counter argument. That is all I'm saying here..
Costs me a total of about $10 in fuel to get where I need to go and back, I'm gone for about 3 hours after my work day when I want to relax, and I rarely lose gear...maybe a betty every trip. I go with a buddy so divide the fuel costs in half... so maybe $7 for two sockeye and I know exactly how well they were taken care of prior to consumption.
To boot, I enjoy being on the river regardless of what I'm doing, I see no problem with the harvest aspect of it and I do enjoy fighting the fish. You can pretend that a fish hooked "outside" the mouth fights differently than one hooked "inside" the mouth if you like, but you aren't fooling anyone. The fight is still enjoyable and anyone that says they don't derive at least some enjoyment from it is full of it.
The biggest problem is not flossing itself but the regulation of it. The regs are currently inadequate in terms of protecting other fisheries from being affected by the methods employed by flossing. Since nobody seems to want to push flossing specific regulations and would rather remain divided on the issue of whether it's OK or not, not much positive change is likely. To me it is rather funny that the same guys that push for fly/gear/bait guys to pull together and fight as one rather than remain divided are also the ones that polarize themselves on the flossing issues. Get off the pedestal and do something effective like email DFO about regulation changes that might help to prevent flossing from spilling over into other systems. Fighting flossing or ridiculing people who choose to participate in it won't get anyone anywhere.
-
Costs me a total of about $10 in fuel to get where I need to go and back, I'm gone for about 3 hours after my work day when I want to relax, and I rarely lose gear...maybe a betty every trip. I go with a buddy so divide the fuel costs in half... so maybe $7 for two sockeye and I know exactly how well they were taken care of prior to consumption.
To boot, I enjoy being on the river regardless of what I'm doing, I see no problem with the harvest aspect of it and I do enjoy fighting the fish. You can pretend that a fish hooked "outside" the mouth fights differently than one hooked "inside" the mouth if you like, but you aren't fooling anyone. The fight is still enjoyable and anyone that says they don't derive at least some enjoyment from it is full of it.
The biggest problem is not flossing itself but the regulation of it. The regs are currently inadequate in terms of protecting other fisheries from being affected by the methods employed by flossing. Since nobody seems to want to push flossing specific regulations and would rather remain divided on the issue of whether it's OK or not, not much positive change is likely. To me it is rather funny that the same guys that push for fly/gear/bait guys to pull together and fight as one rather than remain divided are also the ones that polarize themselves on the flossing issues. Get off the pedestal and do something effective like email DFO about regulation changes that might help to prevent flossing from spilling over into other systems. Fighting flossing or ridiculing people who choose to participate in it won't get anyone anywhere.
So it is OK for you to go and do it, but you want to prevent it from going on in other systems? and ridiculing people is bad.. there's like 4 inherent contradictions here. Also - I don't buy your economic assessment one bit, like hell you spend 7 dollars to get 2 sockeye and go home. How many trips do you go and get nothing, how much did you spend on the rod, reel, and line? Lunches, gasoline, all sorts of other costs you are not addressing. I admire your honesty though, you're the first one to admit that you love flossing because you think it is enjoyable. However, I do think pulling in a fish backwards/from its dorsal fin/side/neck/eyeball/anus feels significantly different on the line than a mouth hook up. Maybe that's just me.
-
The biggest problem is not flossing itself but the regulation of it. The regs are currently inadequate in terms of protecting other fisheries from being affected by the methods employed by flossing. Since nobody seems to want to push flossing specific regulations and would rather remain divided on the issue of whether it's OK or not, not much positive change is likely. To me it is rather funny that the same guys that push for fly/gear/bait guys to pull together and fight as one rather than remain divided are also the ones that polarize themselves on the flossing issues. Get off the pedestal and do something effective like email DFO about regulation changes that might help to prevent flossing from spilling over into other systems. Fighting flossing or ridiculing people who choose to participate in it won't get anyone anywhere.
I don't think anyone would get much traction with DFO arguing that flossing isn't ethical; they're obviously managing it as a fishery, a fish harvest, and not as a recreational sport activity. I think the only argument that could get them to change the regs would be if they could be convinced that the incidental by-catch of endangered sockeye, chinook, coho, etc. from flossing is negatively affecting weak fish stocks during the "sport" fishery. I've heard the anecdotal reports of guys on the rivers but is anyone, including DFO, actually collecting enough hard data to document it?
-
So it is OK for you to go and do it, but you want to prevent it from going on in other systems? and ridiculing people is bad.. there's like 4 inherent contradictions here. Also - I don't buy your economic assessment one bit, like hell you spend 7 dollars to get 2 sockeye and go home. How many trips do you go and get nothing, how much did you spend on the rod, reel, and line? Lunches, gasoline, all sorts of other costs you are not addressing. I admire your honesty though, you're the first one to admit that you love flossing because you think it is enjoyable. However, I do think pulling in a fish backwards/from its dorsal fin/side/neck/eyeball/anus feels significantly different on the line than a mouth hook up. Maybe that's just me.
1. I think the harvest fishery should be identified and regulated as such, and restricted to the fraser so we don't have people employing the same methods to fish for other species at other times. Not a difficult concept to grasp. If it's going to happen we should properly regulate it. Currently we do not have set of regs that will allow this to continue while at the same time protect other systems (which seems to be most peoples peeve about it).
2. I drive a honda civic..that should explain the fuel costs split between two people.... I have yet to come back without 2 fish... I don't go often and when I do I know where and when to go to maximize my chances. My reel/rod/line I already owned, I use my surfcaster that I had lined with tufline years ago. I'm using 5 year old line. I fish areas that bounce well with no snags so I don't lose gear. I pack a couple of apples. What sorts of other costs are there??? Lets hear "all sorts"....
3. I've seen plenty of fish really "fouled" but I have only fouled one or two in the few years I've been flossing fish. You can criticize me for still fishing even though I know there's a chance of fouling them all you want but the fact is that I've fouled just as many fishing spoons in the same timeframe. It happens... heck, I foul cutties on fast stripped fry patterns sometimes... an outer mouth hooked sockeye fights the same as an inner mouth hooked sockeye, plain and simple. As you don't "do it" you wouldn't know that the vast majority of the time you are not my friend hooking or eye hooking fish anyways.
You can pretend you are taking some sort of high ground here but as long as you are poking fish for your enjoyment you're going to have a tough time winning any ethics based arguments. I'd be happy to engage you in some if that's your wish :)
Bottom line... you're not going to solve anything by complaining about something that isn't just going to go away. You're better off acknowledging that its here to stay and doing something with your time and energy that will "contain" it.
-
I don't think anyone would get much traction with DFO arguing that flossing isn't ethical; they're obviously managing it as a fishery, a fish harvest, and not as a recreational sport activity. I think the only argument that could get them to change the regs would be if they could be convinced that the incidental by-catch of endangered sockeye, chinook, coho, etc. from flossing is negatively affecting weak fish stocks during the "sport" fishery. I've heard the anecdotal reports of guys on the rivers but is anyone, including DFO, actually collecting enough hard data to document it?
That speaks to my point though. Manage it as a harvest fishery. Currently it's being "managed" the same as any other sport fishery..we just have an opening...That's not managing. Managing would involve some changes to the regs that were harvest specific, ie, not fishing after you catch two fish, retention of any fouled sockeye or spring, two fish aggregate limit. The biggest impact could be from restricting terminal tackle --"flossing rigs" to this fishery only.
As far as bycatch goes, we desperately need better angler education. Unfortunately MOE have made it pretty clear that they are not interested so far.
-
Here's a regulation change that I would approve of:
"Anglers are not permitted to use bouncing-style weights with attached leaders in excess of 3 feet long for the purpose of foul hooking fish"
I would thoroughly like that one, along with the billion dollars they would make in tickets.
-
LOL,....i have foul hooked fish bar fishin,float fishing.....pretty much any style fishing,it happens if you fish lots.jon5hill,what about the fly anglers who floss,alot of salmon hooked by fly are flossed,thats a fact.are they better than the dreaded long line betty crowd?when your usin a fly rod it takes alot longer to land a fish than the dreaded flossin kill em all tecnique,its hard on the fish.you better include the fly fisherman in your proposed regulation change,or can they just use a floating line only?lol.....flossing is here to stay weather a guy likes it or not but it is only efficient in certain rivers in certain runs with the right bottom.
-
Here's a regulation change that I would approve of:
"Anglers are not permitted to use bouncing-style weights with attached leaders in excess of 3 feet long for the purpose of foul hooking fish"
I would thoroughly like that one, along with the billion dollars they would make in tickets.
Sure, but it'd never happen. Too much money is being brought in by the fishery. Neither would the "billion" dollars in fines, even if it did happen. We already have scores of violations happening every day and we're not seeing billions in revenue... I'd be surprised if $10,000 in fines gets generated during a whole sockeye opening...
I think it'd be a good idea to implement it on other systems though, and only allow bouncing style weights with attached leaders in excess of 3 feet during the sockeye fishery. This isn't so "I" can do it either, I could take it or leave it as far as the fishery goes. I'm just seeing the unavoidable truth that DFO is choosing to allow it to happen, knowing full well what it's about, and trying to suggest changes that would mitigate some of the potential damage. It'd be nice if people could put their heads together on this one instead of bicker back and forth about ethics which by the inaction of DFO are rendered completely irrelevant (at least in practical terms). You are not a dumb guy and you are passionate about fish and fishing. You should channel that into something constructive.
-
LOL,....i have foul hooked fish bar fishin,float fishing.....pretty much any style fishing,it happens if you fish lots.jon5hill,what about the fly anglers who floss,alot of salmon hooked by fly are flossed,thats a fact.are they better than the dreaded long line betty crowd?when your usin a fly rod it takes alot longer to land a fish than the dreaded flossin kill em all tecnique,its hard on the fish.you better include the fly fisherman in your proposed regulation change,or can they just use a floating line only?lol.....flossing is here to stay weather a guy likes it or not but it is only efficient in certain rivers in certain runs with the right bottom.
You didn't respond to anything I said in particular, rather, you named me in a post that had no bearing on anything I have said.
I'll do the same in return:
This isn't rocket science - it's obvious where the differences are and you know it as well as anyone. The fact is people are out there purposely snagging fish and they are all doing it the same way. Your little subjective fly snagging claim is absolutely negligible by comparison. Quit adding grey area that doesn't exist. Bouncing betties and long leaders are used for snagging - which is not fishing - and should not be allowed. Period.
-
You didn't respond to anything I said in particular, rather, you named me in a post that had no bearing on anything I have said.
I'll do the same in return:
This isn't rocket science - it's obvious where the differences are and you know it as well as anyone. The fact is people are out there purposely snagging fish and they are all doing it the same way. Your little subjective fly snagging claim is absolutely negligible by comparison. Quit adding grey area that doesn't exist. Bouncing betties and long leaders are used for snagging - which is not fishing - and should not be allowed. Period.
But it is allowed, and because it is allowed, it is not snagging, as snagging by definition is illegal.
If you don't approve, don't participate. Pontificating on how you are better than others because you don't participate does nothing to enhance your status...
-
This isn't rocket science - it's obvious where the differences are and you know it as well as anyone. The fact is people are out there purposely snagging fish and they are all doing it the same way. Your little subjective fly snagging claim is absolutely negligible by comparison. Quit adding grey area that doesn't exist. Bouncing betties and long leaders are used for snagging - which is not fishing - and should not be allowed. Period.
I would agree on the lack of grey area but disagree completely on your assignment of black and white. DFO has made the fishery legal for sockeye and springs. If it were a misinterpretation of the regs, the regs could have been amended years ago to clarify it. People who choose to claim that it's a misinterpretation of the regs or an abuse of the wording don't have a leg to stand on for this reason. It's your own overzealous desire to look down on those who participate in it and your own need to feel that your set of ethics are above that of others.
I know that the fish do not bite. I could care less with this particular fishery. If it were fishing with spear or net I'd feel the same...it's a harvest. Whatever is going to be fastest and most effective wins. If DFO allows it, I may not want to participate in it for my own reasons but I would not be expecting other people to adhere to my own personal code of conduct. If it is not a conservation concern and is managed properly, I have no problem with whatever method is deemed legal. You can have as much of an issue with it as you like but as I said, it's not going to get you or anyone else anywhere and your efforts are better spent trying to improve the fishery.
-
the whole fish count by the guy on the bars is a farce. i dont know how many would be truth full if they had over their limits and he dosent even look to see if its the truth. he dont care. just there for a pay cheque.
bottom bouncing and snagging are not the same. look the tech temrs up. snagging is hook out of mouth. flossing or bouncing is in a mouth. not to easy to get that thing diameter line between a fish mouth and get a clean hook. big difference. why dont people pick on heavy fuel consumption cars or speeders like they pick on bottom bouncers to. some seem to put a fishes life before human...sad realy.,
-
i used to work for DFO and the whole bizz is a joke. money grab after money grab and many many dollars wasted. same as in forest fire fighting, did that to and was a joke of waste of our hard earned tax dollars. the whole thing to me was a cushy fat assed sit in a chair gov pen pushing deck driving money grab...typical government worker type job
-
I know that the fish do not bite. I could care less with this particular fishery. If it were fishing with spear or net I'd feel the same...it's a harvest. Whatever is going to be fastest and most effective wins. If DFO allows it, I may not want to participate in it for my own reasons but I would not be expecting other people to adhere to my own personal code of conduct. If it is not a conservation concern and is managed properly, I have no problem with whatever method is deemed legal. You can have as much of an issue with it as you like but as I said, it's not going to get you or anyone else anywhere and your efforts are better spent trying to improve the fishery.
There are several sockeye rivers in Alaska that they open to dip net fishing for residents personal use for a couple weeks each year that are a real gong show....but they are plain and simple a harvest, not a sport fishery, which I agree is what the Fraser sockeye harvest is being managed as. I wouldn't have any problem with it but I seriously doubt DFO can minimize the bycatch, police it effectively or keep the snaggers off other rivers.
-
That's the problem though, stillaqua, it is not being managed at all, it's just given an opening, nothing more. It is managed just as any sport fishery is... Basically hands off without any harvest specific regs... THAT is what i have a problem with.
-
sorry i guess it sounded like that way to..no way i meant the guys doing the work. i mean the government end of it. i saw a huge waste of money while i was there. of course doing the work was hard. and better clear up the fisheries thing to.,.. all i did was hatchery work, breeding feeding and trying to revive Alouette Lake.
-
3. I've seen plenty of fish really "fouled" but I have only fouled one or two in the few years I've been flossing fish. You can criticize me for still fishing even though I know there's a chance of fouling them all you want but the fact is that I've fouled just as many fishing spoons in the same timeframe. It happens... heck, I foul cutties on fast stripped fry patterns sometimes... an outer mouth hooked sockeye fights the same as an inner mouth hooked sockeye, plain and simple. As you don't "do it" you wouldn't know that the vast majority of the time you are not *** hooking or eye hooking fish anyways.
Just FYI, as D.A. pointed out, a fish hooked by the "outside" of the mouth is a foul hooked fish. Technically, that's a fish hooked by the face, not by the mouth; the mouth being the cavity in the face ;)
-
Just FYI, as D.A. pointed out, a fish hooked by the "outside" of the mouth is a foul hooked fish. Technically, that's a fish hooked by the face, not by the mouth; the mouth being the cavity in the face ;)
We know a fish has a mouth, I'm just not convinced a fish has a face.
By definition a face is what identifies one human from another. A face has muscles which allows it to make various expressions which reflect an emotion the human is feeling.
"Technically" a fish does not have a face as it has no muscles in what might be a face area, only a mouth, eyes and head....... all fish of a species look identical.
As such, a fish "hooked in the mouth" would be a fish hooked anywhere other than in the head, eyes or the body....
You're probably thinking I'm making this stuff up...... :D Google it. ;D
-
"Technically" a fish does not have a face as it has no muscles in what might be a face area, only a mouth, eyes and head....... all fish of a species look identical.
That's what they think about us too.....we all look alike. ;D
-
That's what they think about us too.....we all look alike. ;D
The way we pull them out of that water by their faces mouth's..... they probably think we're all terrorists. ;D
-
::) Okay, okay. You can replace face with head in my post to make it more technically correct :p
Point stands: the "outside of the mouth" is the head. The mouth is the cavity in the head where the tounge, teeth, etc. are located. I'd draw a diagram, but I'd like to think this is easy enough to understand :D
-
Just FYI, as D.A. pointed out, a fish hooked by the "outside" of the mouth is a foul hooked fish. Technically, that's a fish hooked by the face, not by the mouth; the mouth being the cavity in the face ;)
If that was a foul hooked fish, DFO would be issuing tickets. DFO defines what foul hooking is. By their inaction they have allowed an outer mouth hooking as legal. It is moot to my line of thinking anyways, for this fishery at least. I believe that a fouled sockeye...any fouled sockeye, should be kept and counted towards your retention, and that after your limit you HAVE to stop fishing.
-
If that was a foul hooked fish, DFO would be issuing tickets. DFO defines what foul hooking is. By their inaction they have allowed an outer mouth hooking as legal. It is moot to my line of thinking anyways, for this fishery at least. I believe that a fouled sockeye...any fouled sockeye, should be kept and counted towards your retention, and that after your limit you HAVE to stop fishing.
Agreed!
-
DFO defines what foul hooking is. By their inaction they have allowed an outer mouth hooking as legal.
Sure, I was just pointing out that, according to the regs, it's a fouled fish. The fact that they ignore what's going on doesn't change things. I guess it's kinda like the speeding thing: they're not gonna pull you over for 20 over on the highway, but it doesn't mean you aren't breaking the rules ;)
for this fishery at least. I believe that a fouled sockeye...any fouled sockeye, should be kept and counted towards your retention, and that after your limit you HAVE to stop fishing.
If it was proven the fish really don't bite, and the regs were changed, then I'd have to agree. Until then I'll be releasing all fouled sox; gives me more time to hook into a spring :)
Cheers
-
If it was proven the fish really don't bite, and the regs were changed, then I'd have to agree. Until then I'll be releasing all fouled sox; gives me more time to hook into a spring :)
Cheers
I think you may have missed the point..... It's is a meat fishery and the sockeye don't bite a flossing setup. Most foul hooked fish take a lot longer to pull in and by fighting the fish that long and then releasing it you have tapped some of it's energy supply which will possibly affect it's survival.
I also agree that once you have caught 2 sockeye whether they are fair or foul hooked, you should either have to leave the river or at least switch to a bar fishing setup if you still want to catch a spring. If these rules were in place they would probably better define the fishery as a meat harvest as opposed to a sport.
-
If these rules were in place they would probably better define the fishery as a meat harvest as opposed to a sport.
No doubt about it. Until then, it's just a regular fishery IMO. I've heard that sox can be taken on the bar rig so I just assume that the ones that I hook in the mouth bit. Same with the springs. Head-hooked fish are released, as per the regs :)
What can I say: rules are rules and I'm no Dr. Kavorkian ;)
-
::) Okay, okay. You can replace face with head in my post to make it more technically correct :p
Point stands: the "outside of the mouth" is the head. The mouth is the cavity in the head where the tounge, teeth, etc. are located. I'd draw a diagram, but I'd like to think this is easy enough to understand :D
The outside of the mouth is still the mouth....
Look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouth You will see the lips count which are not in the mouth....
From DFO,
FOUL HOOKING (SNAGGING) - a term used to describe hooking a fish in any part of its body other than the mouth. It is illegal to willfully foul hook a fish other than herring, northern anchovy, Pacific sand lance and squid.
-
If you see a guy rip a hook through a schol of fish and hit one in the back or the belly, you think all sorts of derogatory things because the guy is SNAGGING. If he hooked the fish in the mouth with a yank, its still a snagged fish as the fish didn't strike the hook.
The only difference between a blatant snagger and a flosser is that instead of using a good old yank to set the hook, flossers use the river's current to driver and sweep the hook into the side of the fish. We all agree that a flossed fish didnt bite so the only difference in a snagger and a flossers if we want to be totally technical, it the force use to drive the hook into the fish.
Either way, the fish did not bite and that for me is what truly makes flossing so lame.
I wish our regs would be like the paficic NW. either WA or OR has verbiage to the effect to avoid snagging the fisher should elicit a strike and they also say a fish mush be hooked INSIDE the mouth.
so until the regs and perceptions change and we focusses on how the hook got there ie a strike vs a snagged fished, you will have pathetic comments like The outside of the mouth is still the mouth....
-
I wish our regs would be like the paficic NW. either WA or OR has verbiage to the effect to avoid snagging the fisher should elicit a strike and they also say a fish mush be hooked INSIDE the mouth.
so until the regs and perceptions change and we focusses on how the hook got there ie a strike vs a snagged fished, you will have pathetic comments like
This is direct from WA fishing regulation:
Snagging Attempting to take fish with a hook
and line in such a way that the fish does not
voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth. In
freshwater, it is illegal to possess any fish
hooked anywhere other than inside the mouth or
on the head.
You missed the last part Gooey ;)
-
This is direct from WA fishing regulation:
Snagging Attempting to take fish with a hook
and line in such a way that the fish does not
voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth. In
freshwater, it is illegal to possess any fish
hooked anywhere other than inside the mouth or
on the head.
You missed the last part Gooey ;)
Probably because that doesn't fit his campaign...... :D
-
#1 I was paraphrasing the regs and in fact, I wasn't far off.
#2 you guys KILL me...are you seriously that ignorant?!? Its my only guess because while I did not know about the "on the head" part (which you refer to me missing intentionally) , you both read over the regs and ignored the FIRST part:
Snagging - Attempting to take fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth.
Are you really so stupid to think that a flossed fish "voluntarily took the hooks" or are you such a hard core flossers you refuse to admit it. Either way, in the head or the mouth (per WA regs) doesn't matter IF THE FISH DIDNT STRIKE THE HOOK.
So who's "campaign" doesnt it fit now AWF?
BTW - did anyone notice that in the BC regs SNAGGING in definitions tells you to "read page 96 - foul hooked fish" or something like that. Foul hooked definition just talks to where the fish was hook...what we miss that WA nailed was HOW. PS I did see a button to suggest changes, point out omisions, etc. Think I'll go put my feedback in.
Dont worry AWF, Government is so slow you'll probably be able to floss your way right through winter steelhead season into another sockeye season...good luck and have fun!
-
#1 I was paraphrasing the regs and in fact, I wasn't far off.
#2 you guys KILL me...are you seriously that ignorant?!? Its my only guess because while I did not know about the "on the head" part (which you refer to me missing intentionally) , you both read over the regs and ignored the FIRST part:
Snagging - Attempting to take fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth.
Are you really so stupid to think that a flossed fish "voluntarily took the hooks" or are you such a hard core flossers you refuse to admit it. Either way, in the head or the mouth (per WA regs) doesn't matter IF THE FISH DIDNT STRIKE THE HOOK.
So who's "campaign" doesnt it fit now AWF?
BTW - did anyone notice that in the BC regs SNAGGING in definitions tells you to "read page 96 - foul hooked fish" or something like that. Foul hooked definition just talks to where the fish was hook...what we miss that WA nailed was HOW. PS I did see a button to suggest changes, point out omisions, etc. Think I'll go put my feedback in.
Dont worry AWF, Government is so slow you'll probably be able to floss your way right through winter steelhead season into another sockeye season...good luck and have fun!
If you're going to suggest changes, make them realistic.
DFO obviously condones flossing sockeye and have left the wording the same for years for a reason. They know very well what is going on. If you want to see changes you have to suggest changes that might receive a warmer reception. This is why fighting flossing from an ethics standpoint, at least now, is a total waste of time.
-
Here's how I see it, in our regs there is no definition of snagging, it simply says refer to foul hook. foul hook simply states that fish hooked anywhere but the mouth are foul hooked and must be released.
Snagging and foul hook are two totally separate thing. foul hooked being WHERE this fish is hook and snagged be HOW.
So marmot, since dfo is quite happy with things, maybe i should simply concede and recommend that DFO endorse snagging...heck they are doing it now right? Sure buddy, that makes a lot of sense.
All I know is if enough people say it, they will eventually get the message.
-
Ignorant.... thinks banning a method on a isolated river with very little enforcement would work. Wait that's just stupid, LOL :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pathetic.... doesn't see the facts, you can't prove a fish was not biting and enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove at best!
All I know is if enough people say it, they will eventually get the message.
You do know there are probably far more snaggers....
-
Someone should start a snagging fish web site. Then all the snaggers can glibly pat each other on the bum over their snagging prowress. So we don't have to constantly post about it here.
Just a thought.
-
sounds good, but is it legal to post pictures of random people online? ;)
-
Here's how I see it, in our regs there is no definition of snagging, it simply says refer to foul hook. foul hook simply states that fish hooked anywhere but the mouth are foul hooked and must be released.
Snagging and foul hook are two totally separate thing. foul hooked being WHERE this fish is hook and snagged be HOW.
So marmot, since dfo is quite happy with things, maybe i should simply concede and recommend that DFO endorse snagging...heck they are doing it now right? Sure buddy, that makes a lot of sense.
All I know is if enough people say it, they will eventually get the message.
Conceding and going about a more intelligent way to solve the problems you want addressed are two distinctly different things. I'm NOT suggesting you concede.
Fact: DFO has actively decided to allow this fishery to continue. They have made a conscious decision NOT to amend the regulations.
This isn't when you throw your hands up in the air and decide there is nothing that you can do. This is when you figure out a better approach that will be received. They know about the ethical dilemma. They know about the scores of people that are disgusted by flossing. They also know the potential problems resulting from allowing such a fishery to continue.
The problem is that DFO thus far has not been able to come up with any sort of solution that would allow the sockeye fishery to remain open while addressing the concerns that flossing presents on other systems. Like I said, they are well aware of the ethical dilemma and by their actions have already made up their mind. You may as well spend your efforts constructively rather than continuing to frustrate yourself. How many times have we seen these "is flossing ethical" threads?
-
What does ethics have to do with it? A flossed fish is a snagged fish...we (including DFO) know it. This is simply and enforcement issue. I have seen tickets given out for flossing coho on the vedder so to hear that someone here has an inside track on what DFO is thinking or what their mandate is...I find that quite laughable.
"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove"...Doja, that doesnt even make sense?!? If you are going to participate in this debate, at least try and form a functional sentence that represents an intelligent position!
PS doja, when you pull in sock after sock and the are all hooked outside-in, never INSIDE the mouth, any intelligent person knows how the fish was hook. So to me, that leaves only two questions, are you one of the delusional fishers that think the actually fish bit or are you one of the types that just doesnt care and hides behind this whole "they cant prove it" idea?
-
What does ethics have to do with it? A flossed fish is a snagged fish...we (including DFO) know it. This is simply and enforcement issue. I have seen tickets given out for flossing coho on the vedder so to hear that someone here has an inside track on what DFO is thinking or what their mandate is...I find that quite laughable.
"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove"...Doja, that doesnt even make sense?!? If you are going to participate in this debate, at least try and form a functional sentence that represents an intelligent position!
PS doja, when you pull in sock after sock and the are all hooked outside-in, never INSIDE the mouth, any intelligent person knows how the fish was hook. So to me, that leaves only two questions, are you one of the delusional fishers that think the actually fish bit or are you one of the types that just doesnt care and hides behind this whole "they cant prove it" idea?
Gooey, the flaw in your approach is one good reason why your "campaign" won't fly...
"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove" this is worded well enough, but your less than grade 12 writing approach might not understand that (based on the many typo's in your poorly written paragraph). ::)
The "PS sentences" show your highly flawed approach.... I never once said I support snagging in this thread (but you assumed and made an *** of your self, again)....
I'm just pointing out the difficulty's in enforcing something that is highly difficult to prove....
-
PS, I'd like to see a copy of a ticket for "flossing"...
Not saying it isn't true, but I'd like to see it or the court documents supporting an allegation/conviction.
-
"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove" this is worded well enough. . .
. . . I'm just pointing out the difficulty's in enforcing something that is highly difficult to prove....
Ok, but your sentence as written suggests that it is difficult to prove the enforcing of a ban on flossing, which really is not "worded well enough," just as Gooey's post has spelling errors.
However, while you both have a point that a debater's arguments are weakened by poor communication skills, especially when the writing errors interfere with the understanding of the argument itself, both of you are guilty of an ad hominem attack whereby your argument becomes an attack on the man and not his arguments. We all have varying education levels (not all of us hold graduate degrees) and some of us speak (and write) English as a second language, therefore grammar should never be used to belittle the ideas of another member. Let's keep the debates healthy and focused on the topic.
-
We all know that bans and regulations in general, especially in a regime of low enforcement, does not stop the undesirable activity. By banning flossing, a method designed to snag a fish in the head, DFO would be making it clear that such an activity is undesirable and illegal. This would not stop it from happening on "isolated rivers with very little [or no] enforcement", just as a ban on treble hooks or bait does not stop people from using them, but that does not mean we should not have those regulations in place. What it does do is make the act a clear violation and allows DFO to cite offenses they DO see when they can get officers to the rivers. As for enforcing something that is "difficult to prove," this has not stopped DFO from trying to cite cases of people "targeting" species that are currently closed. How can you hope to prove such a thing?
-
... By banning flossing, a method designed to snag a fish in the head, DFO would be making it clear that such an activity is undesirable and illegal. This would not stop it from happening on "isolated rivers with very little [or no] enforcement", just as a ban on treble hooks or bait does not stop people from using them, but that does not mean we should not have those regulations in place. What it does do is make the act a clear violation and allows DFO to cite offenses they DO see when they can get officers to the rivers. ...
This is wonderfully articulated and exactly why we should continue to speak out on this.
It's not that I care that people retain fish hooked on the outside of the jaw, but rather that the technique is a perversion of what sport fishing is supposed to be about and is not limited to a few spots on the Fraser. I have seen this method absolutely explode in popularity in systems like the Vedder, Stave, etc where its not only completely unnecessary, but quite frankly obscene in my humblest opinion.
Unfortunately, people who are new to fishing will observe effective flossers and equate flossing == skillful angling, when we all know that its not. New fishermen tentatively give it try, maybe with a little side jerk mixed in, and are impressed with their 'success' and pass it along to their friends and acquaintances. Next thing you know another generation of snaggers is born. The proliferation of flossing does nothing to advance the state of the sport, but rather denigrates it.
-
Just think, if {and it's a big if}, the DFO was to ban the flossing method and also make a leader restriction to say 36"s while fishing the rivers, we fishermen that actually try and trick the fish to bite our offering could maybe enjoy the river like we used to {many years ago now}
I wonder what bars like Peg Leg and Scale as well as a bunch of others would look like {with no flossing allowed}when the salmon are running, probably only a handful of actual fishermen.
I guess when I wish, I wish big :D, but maybe I should just quit dreaming instead, since the flossing fools will always be there, like it or not. >:(
-
Just think, if {and it's a big if}, the DFO was to ban the flossing method and also make a leader restriction to say 36"s while fishing the rivers, we fishermen that actually try and trick the fish to bite our offering could maybe enjoy the river like we used to {many years ago now}
I wonder what bars like Peg Leg and Scale as well as a bunch of others would look like {with no flossing allowed}when the salmon are running, probably only a handful of actual fishermen.
I guess when I wish, I wish big :D, but maybe I should just quit dreaming instead, since the flossing fools will always be there, like it or not. >:(
Just to prove a point several years ago flossing sockeye, I used a short leader and guess what.... out did the other fishermen. My buddy with a looooong leader did just as well as me even though he highly doubted it.... A short leader can be just as good and in some situations DEADLY!!!
And yes, back in the day I knew only to floss.... but mainly because the bait/ethic groups were not friendly in helping me out but the flossing people did.... :-\
-
Funny how some still kept on saying it's sports fishing. This is recreational fishing. Ethical or not it's for the enjoyment of being out there fishing.
Animal lovers would think any type of fishing is unethical. It's like arguing over a 450 feet homerun is more of a homerun thann a 400 feet homerun while the end result's the same.
-
Funny how some still kept on saying it's sports fishing. This is recreational fishing. Ethical or not it's for the enjoyment of being out there fishing.
Animal lovers would think any type of fishing is unethical. It's like arguing over a 450 feet homerun is more of a homerun thann a 400 feet homerun while the end result's the same.
I'd like to think that in a perfect world that both flossing and true sportsfishing can co-exist i.e. flossing is only practiced on the fraser for socs and true sportsfishing is done everywhere else. But from what I've witness these past few years it clearly cannot. Its too simplistic to classify all types of angling as being "recreational fishing" and just lump them all together and expect everything to be ok. The fact of the matter is that when these flossing tactics are used on smaller rivers (like the Vedder) it negatively affects the ability of anglers wishing to fish in a more sporting manner (i.e. attempt to entice the fish to bite). For example, you fish a run with your #4 hooks, 8lb florocarbon leader and a drennan float in hopes of being stealthy and fool a coho to taking your fire cured roe which you meticutiously prepared the day before. In comes someone with typical sockeye gear, 50lb power pro, 4/0 hook and a 6 ft 30lb leader with a piece of green yarn as the lure and a 2 oz. betty and tries to floss his fish all the while spooking the whole run for the rest of the anglers. Do you think that's ok? Sure that guy is doing nothing illegal unless he fishes with a barbed hook or retains a fouled fish. That's the problem. There is nothing to stop someone from fishing that way. Its easy for us to say leave it on the fraser for socs but that clearly isn't happening. I'd be the first to admit that I've done my fair share of flossing in the past I didn't do it this year and I doubt I'd ever do it again. I don't get much enjoyment out of it and the negative impacts that result from this fishery far outweighs how good these fish taste.
-
In comes someone with typical sockeye gear, 50lb power pro, 4/0 hook and a 6 ft 30lb leader with a piece of green yarn
How many times has a guy like this:
See you having discovered a productive spot and walk in 5 feet away from you?
Walk in between you and a buddy who when there is not enough room?
Killed a hole you where fishing by beating it with a bouncing betty and turning the fish off?
Leave so much line in the water after a snag that you cant properly float fish it any more?
Drag a fish up on the rocks only to release it?
Released it with a boot to the side, sending the fish flying?
Kept a snagged fish because when you boil it all down, they DONT CARE how or where a fish is hooked?
BwiBwi...I dont care whether you call it recreational or sport fishing...either way these people are ruining it.
These are all things we see flossers do on a regular basis and its happening on every river I fish...if individuals here can't acknowledge that these are issues that need to be addressed (by DFO and recreational anglers alike) then I question those individuals commitment to the sport and the resource.
-
If you recognize that that bottom bouncing is a meat fishery where you snag your fish, why would you continue to catch and release when all you are doing is harassing the fish and likely stressing them to the point of preventing them from reaching the spawning grounds?
I think the focus for conservation is that we release them with minimal harm which means people shouldn't be dragging them on the beaches or booting them for the field goal. Bottom bouncing is just a method of fishing just like any other type. Other methods of fishing such as fly fishing or maybe even pinning (less experienced anglers) also have a huge chance in stressing the fish to a point where they are unable to make it to their spawning point. I remember in an earlier post by someone saying that you don't see people fined for the "method" of fishing they are using but you do if you are handling/releasing the fish inappropriately.
-
Funny how some still kept on saying it's sports fishing. This is recreational fishing. Ethical or not it's for the enjoyment of being out there fishing.
Animal lovers would think any type of fishing is unethical. It's like arguing over a 450 feet homerun is more of a homerun thann a 400 feet homerun while the end result's the same.
I totally agree, personally i don't get a chance to fish too often so if I do go on a fishing trip I'd like to make a day trip out of it because i really enjoy just being out there fishing. I don't get the luxuries of going to a river for a few hours couple times a week to go fish.
Thinking it from an ecological/environmental point of view..even if i did catch the max for me and my buddy at 4 each, my ecological footprint would still be a lot smaller than some of the seasoned fishermen out there who go out a few times a week. (considering every year i buy a annual fishing licence and probably fish 1-2 times).
I think if animal rights groups had power over our fishing regulations...we would have a lot less of these problems. We probably wouldn't be allowed to fish much throughout the years but at least the fish are happy ;D
-
I think the focus for conservation is that we release them with minimal harm which means people shouldn't be dragging them on the beaches or booting them for the field goal. Bottom bouncing is just a method of fishing just like any other type. Other methods of fishing such as fly fishing or maybe even pinning (less experienced anglers) also have a huge chance in stressing the fish to a point where they are unable to make it to their spawning point. I remember in an earlier post by someone saying that you don't see people fined for the "method" of fishing they are using but you do if you are handling/releasing the fish inappropriately.
I think you're missing my point. While I have no argument against bottom bouncing, you are after all snagging the fish. To continue fishing (snagging fish) for enjoyment is hard for me to understand. Continuing to floss after you have caught your limit even though you are careful in releasing the fish, causes stress and just gives the anti-flossers ammunition in their arguments.
In my mind catch and release fishing shouldn't be practiced on fish that are migrating, as the added stress probably does effect their survival. I would be fine with a rule that said after you have flossed your 2 sockeye you must limit your gear to a bar rig setup, or leave the river. But then I feel the catch and release fishery on the Thompson steelhead shouldn't be allowed either.
-
I think you're missing my point. While I have no argument against bottom bouncing, you are after all snagging the fish. To continue fishing (snagging fish) for enjoyment is hard for me to understand. Continuing to floss after you have caught your limit even though you are careful in releasing the fish, causes stress and just gives the anti-flossers ammunition in their arguments.
In my mind catch and release fishing shouldn't be practiced on fish that are migrating, as the added stress probably does effect their survival. I would be fine with a rule that said after you have flossed your 2 sockeye you must limit your gear to a bar rig setup, or leave the river. But then I feel the catch and release fishery on the Thompson steelhead shouldn't be allowed either.
I agree with that. I've never tried to bottom bounce or ever fish at the bars.. so i wouldn't know how the scene is like.
-
At the end of the day a hooked fish is just that a hooked fish. The best fishing method to keep these 'home coming' salmon/trout healthy is no fishing.
Apart from that it's the handling of fish that's most important. As for many that said BB on Fraser is like a gong show... well so is tossing spoons for pinks around MR and Abbotsford area.
We live in a Metro with pop pushing towards 4mil mark, finding a piece of easy access fishing area with relative fish people fishing is very unlikely to happen. If you want solitude, lots of hiking and exploration will be required (you'll also find more willing biters too. *no matter what fishing methods are utilized, when you have a section of run having 10~20 people working it, fish becomes wary and would not take any offering).
-
At the end of the day a hooked fish is just that a hooked fish.
Enticing a fish to bite and snagging it in the face are two totally different things. Other than being a way to hook fish, they have nothing in common...even a supporter of flossing like AWF is smart enough to realize that.
-
So you are saying a fish bite the bait and the hook didn't hook the fish?? Did the fish got glued or lassoed? ::)
-
So you are saying a fish bite the bait and the hook didn't hook the fish?? Did the fish got glued or lassoed? ::)
If it were true that "a hooked fish is a hooked fish" then there would be no regulations against snagging and no need for a definition of "foul" hooked fish (since any hooked fish would be the same). The difference between "foul" and "fair" has always been between a fish biting the hook and becoming hooked (it is "fair" because the fish was fooled into biting the hook), or the hook being driven into the fish by any other means (it is "foul" because a fish that is not enticed to bite is hooked anyway). If you want to accept flossing as "fair" then you must accept any form of snagging as "fair" as well. Recreational fishing becomes all about harvesting fish and forget about the "sport" (or art) of creating lures to fool the fish into biting and the satisfaction of a successful "bite".
We live in a Metro with pop pushing towards 4mil mark, finding a piece of easy access fishing area with relative fish people fishing is very unlikely to happen. If you want solitude, lots of hiking and exploration will be required (you'll also find more willing biters too. *no matter what fishing methods are utilized, when you have a section of run having 10~20 people working it, fish becomes wary and would not take any offering).
A bit of a circular argument...there are so many people fishing the run so the fish will not bite, since the fish will not bite the people fishing the run must floss them, since flossing fish is so easy more people are fishing the runs, since there are more people fishing the runs the fish will not bite...
If we extend that circular argument around then...
If the 10-20 people who were working the run in question were not allowed to floss then they would not catch as many fish, since they do not catch as many fish then many of them would not stay and fish, so there would be less people working the run and so the fish would be less shell shocked and more inclined to bite and so flossing would not be needed to catch the fish...
-
If you want to accept flossing as "fair" then you must accept any form of snagging as "fair" as well.
Interesting approach but most would argue that your statement is ridiculous....
Flossing on the Fraser is legal and therefore acceptable to many fisherman that are targeting sockeye for their freezer. They wouldn't think of taking that technique to a river like the Vedder where the fish bite and the water is clean enough for the fish to be able to see a presentation.
Your generalization is true for a small percentage of the fishermen.
-
Flossing on the Fraser is legal and therefore acceptable to many fisherman that are targeting sockeye for their freezer.
We already know that people already target springs in the same way on the Fraser, and from the reports on the Vedder Gong Show thread it is more than a "few" fisherman that would take this method to the clear waters of smaller streams. But my question is directed at the Fraser fishery.
So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?
I am curious as to how you see the two as different, (other than the snagging happening near the mouth, which makes flossing "legal"). If your approach is that flossing in the Fraser (where the water is so dirty that the fish cannot see your presentation) is acceptable, why is snagging under those conditions not acceptable to you? A simple change in the regulations could make it as legal as flossing.
-
We already know that people already target springs in the same way on the Fraser, and from the reports on the Vedder Gong Show thread it is more than a "few" fisherman that would take this method to the clear waters of smaller streams. But my question is directed at the Fraser fishery.
So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?
I am curious as to how you see the two as different, (other than the snagging happening near the mouth, which makes flossing "legal"). If your approach is that flossing in the Fraser (where the water is so dirty that the fish cannot see your presentation) is acceptable, why is snagging under those conditions not acceptable to you? A simple change in the regulations could make it as legal as flossing.
I would support a rule that said as soon as you land your 2 sockeye using methods allowed under the regulations, you must leave the river.
I am curious as to why there isn't the same protest against commercial and native fishermen who "snag" sockeye in their nets.... Whether I floss a sockeye or a fisherman snags a sockeye in their net, both sockeye end up on someones table. Neither fisherman likely does it for sport, rather they do it to fill someones freezer. I make every effort to teach fisherman I meet on the difference between flossing for meat and fishing for sport. It's not difficult for people to understand once it's explained in a civil manner.
Perhaps the anti-flossers could use more of an educational approach to the problem of fishermen taking the Fraser flossing technique to the smaller rivers. Your current approach certainly isn't having any effect other than puffing up your own feathers...
-
I am curious as to why there isn't the same protest against commercial and native fishermen who "snag" sockeye in their nets.... Whether I floss a sockeye or a fisherman snags a sockeye in their net, both sockeye end up on someones table. Neither fisherman likely does it for sport, rather they do it to fill someones freezer. I make every effort to teach fisherman I meet on the difference between flossing for meat and fishing for sport. It's not difficult for people to understand once it's explained in a civil manner.
Perhaps the anti-flossers could use more of an educational approach to the problem of fishermen taking the Fraser flossing technique to the smaller rivers. Your current approach certainly isn't having any effect other than puffing up your own feathers...
Now I am curious...are you suggesting that my approach (re-read my post above if you need to) is less "civil" than yours or that your approach is more "educational" than mine? Is that what you are saying? Just want to be sure I am not misunderstanding you, as at no time do I suggest that you are "puffing up your own feathers."
I was just asking you to confirm what you just did, that you see no difference between snagging and flossing (or even netting) and that you feel the sockeye should be open to a private (or individual) harvest by individual anglers like a commercial or native opening, and that any method should be allowed to harvest them as "a hooked fish is a hooked fish" as BwiBwi said. No one is complaining here about the netting of Sockeye because that is currently a completely different fishery and I have yet to see John Smith stringing a gill net across the Vedder canal because he saw a commercial fisherman do it on the Fraser. Flossing as a method that uses the same gear as "angling", and the sockeye flossers carry the same "angling" license used on all rivers. So it is easy to see why anyone who sees the effectiveness of flossing on the Fraser for sockeye would figure the same method would be effective elsewhere. Once the "harvest" becomes more important than the pursuit, what is stopping them? You cannot say it is matter of "educating" anglers of the difference, as you yourself have pointed out, there is no difference. If it is "legal" on the Fraser, it is "legal" on the Vedder, the Stave, even the Alouette. The Question is should it be legal, if "snagging" is not. What you want to see is a separate fishery, a Fraser River sockeye meat fishery (snagging optional) like they have in Alaska, but this would require separate permits (like commercial and native), so it is clear to all those who engage in it, that this is a limited opportunity fishery and cannot be transplanted to any other body of water or at any other time for any other species.
-
Sandman, I prefer to put things in my own words and don't feel the need to repeat myself.
I don't have a problem with your values, I do have a problem with how you present your values.
-
Sandman you are wasting your time arguing with that guy. He is always like that. He just loves to argue for the sake of arguing.
-
Sandman, I prefer to put things in my own words and don't feel the need to repeat myself.
I don't have a problem with your values, I do have a problem with how you present your values.
I am not asking you to repeat yourself, I am asking you to clarify and explain yourself. You say you "have a problem with how [ I ] present [ my ] values." I am just wondering how I am presenting my values in a way that you dislike. As I mentioned above, I did not insult you, it was you who suggested I was "puffing up my feathers".
I was asking questions in a "civil" manner, it just seems that you do not like my questions. If your argument is that flossing is acceptable because, while it is snagging, it is snagging in the general mouth area which is "legal". It is also "necessary" when fishing for sockeye in the Fraser where the fish cannot see your presentation. Under this line of reasoning, does it really matter if the fish is "snagged" in the mouth (flossed) or is snagged in the tail? If snagging in the mouth is necessary because the fish won't bite the hook willingly (because it cannot see the presentation), but I want that fish bad enough to hook it anyway "for my freezer," does the location of the hook really matter? A simple change in the regulations could make snagging Fraser sockeye legal, but would create a clear distinction between that practice used on the Fraser River bars for sockeye and the methods used for all other species and on all other waters.
Try to reply in a civil manner.
-
A simple change in the regulations could make snagging Fraser sockeye legal, but would create a clear distinction between that practice used on the Fraser River bars for sockeye and the methods used for all other species and on all other waters.
I believe the regulations are already really clear as to the definition of snagging.
I'm sure that if you re-read my comments you will see that I've already answered your questions.
The phrase "puffing up your own feathers" obviously has you a little miffed. Try to get over it. Asking me the same questions over and over will not get you different results....
-
Sandman you are wasting your time arguing with that guy. He is always like that. He just loves to argue for the sake of arguing.
I've always understood that the reason it's called a "discussion forum" is because there are different opinions. If everyone agreed with each other what would be the point of discussing anything? ::)
-
The phrase "puffing up your own feathers" obviously has you a little miffed. Try to get over it.
I am always "miffed" at hypocrisy (ie: engaging in petty insults while lauding "civil" discussion).
I'm sure that if you re-read my comments you will see that I've already answered your questions.
If you re-read my questions and your answers you will see you really have not answered them at all:
I asked: "So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?"
You responded with: "I would support a rule that said as soon as you land your 2 sockeye using methods allowed under the regulations, you must leave the river."
That really does not answer the question now does it? A simple yes or no would do, followed by an explanation of what you saw as the difference between snagging a fish in the mouth or snagging it in the tail (other than the obvious location) if you chose to answer "no". All I was looking for was an explanation of why you think people should be allowed to "floss" Sockeye (snag in the mouth) but not snag sockeye (snag in another part other than the mouth) since you have already equated flossing with snagging in a net. You clearly are not someone who is trying to argue that the fish you are flossing are biting the hook as you have said you would not dream of using the same method on the Vedder "where the fish bite and the water is clean enough for the fish to be able to see a presentation. "
The reason I am seeking your response to the question is that you are a person who has argued that the flossing of sockeye should be allowed as it is a "meat" fishery, but you have also admitted that the method you are using is clearly hooking the fish without inducing a "bite." This method is currently "legal" as the definitions of "foul" hooking is a hook set outside of the mouth. This makes the method used to catch sockeye (bottom bouncing with long leaders) a legal method of fishing on any water and one that we are seeing used more and more on other systems where it is not "necessary" (like it is on the dirty Fraser) but certainly more effective since the fish do not have to choose to bite the hook.
I have expressed a desire to see the regulations of the Fraser Sockeye fishery changed to reflect that the majority of sockeye taken by "angling" (using a rod and line, not nets) are hooked in a method that is effectively snagging the fish in the mouth. By changing the definition of foul hooking to include a fish hooked on the outside of the mouth (point of the hook penetrating from the outside in), and to allow the foul hooking of sockeye during a specified opening (requiring a "snagging" permit), we could ensure that the use of long leader bottom bouncing stays on the Fraser where it belongs.
Therefore, I am asking you, irregardless of the current wording of the regulations:
1. Does the location of the "snag" make it more or less "foul"? That is, if you know the fish is hooked in the mouth despite having not pursued and bitten the hook of its own accord, does it make it less "foul" than if the hook was in its tail or back?
...and if you DO see a difference (other than the current regulation allows one but not the other) could you please explain it.
-
When I finish reading one of your posts, I feel like I need to take a nap....... I'm also uncertain whether I agree or disagree with you.
My comments have always referenced the current regulations and how they are being enforced. I have been checked by CO's over the years and have never received an infraction ticket. I'm just not interested in debating what the regulations could, should or might be.
When and if the regulations change I will certainly abide by them.
-
When I finish reading one of your posts, I feel like I need to take a nap....... I'm also uncertain whether I agree or disagree with you.
My comments have always referenced the current regulations and how they are being enforced. I have been checked by CO's over the years and have never received an infraction ticket. I'm just not interested in debating what the regulations could, should or might be.
When and if the regulations change I will certainly abide by them.
Fair enough... I often take a nap after finishing writing a response to one of your posts...
Would anyone else like to respond since AF chooses to take the 5th?
My interest here is that regulations must evolve with the methodology of fishermen. I see flossing itself as a response to the regulations, a method that evolved to effectively get around that part of the regulations where the current definition of "foul" hooking is lacking. The good people that wrote the current regulations likely had not anticipated that a fish "hooked in the mouth" could be hooked that way without having bitten the hook. Just as we see those "white water flossers" standing over a pocket and intentionally getting the hook near the fish's mouth and setting it into or near the mouth, long leader flossers have developed a method that ensures the "snag" occurs in or near the mouth as the leader slides through the jaw. I would argue that such a method, while currently "legal" is not very "sporting". I would, therefore, suggest that a change in the "BC Sport Fishing Regulations" as well as the BC Freshwater Fishing Regulations is needed. In addition to a clarification that a fish "hooked in the mouth" must be hooked "from the inside out," a gear restriction of a maximum leader length of 1m on a bottom bouncing rig (or sinking tip fly line) outside of a limited opening on the Fraser River during Sockeye season, and managed under a special permit (a surcharge stamp) should be implemented to ensure that this method does not expand beyond the Fraser Sockeye fishery.
-
As I stated before a few years ago we meet with Environment Minister Barry Penner to try to get some changes starting with the fish must be caught INSIDE the mouth. He thought it was good idea but those in the ministry talked him out of it being put in. It would not solve the problem completely we are now faced with in a big way with the sorry part as I have stated many times our young people are now learning flossing, snagging etc is the only way to fish, very sad.
Remember, if one flosses for sockeye on the Fraser they cannot really condemn what goes on in all our rivers for all species of salmon and steelhead by the same method, its all taking fish that are not biting, that's the bottom line. I know many will disagree with that statement but so be it.
-
As I stated before a few years ago we meet with Environment Minister Barry Penner to try to get some changes starting with the fish must be caught INSIDE the mouth. He thought it was good idea but those in the ministry talked him out of it being put in. It would not solve the problem completely we are now faced with in a big way with the sorry part as I have stated many times our young people are now learning flossing, snagging etc is the only way to fish, very sad.
Remember, if one flosses for sockeye on the Fraser they cannot really condemn what goes on in all our rivers for all species of salmon and steelhead by the same method, its all taking fish that are not biting, that's the bottom line. I know many will disagree with that statement but so be it.
Chris,
one just has to go to a tackle shop during sockeye season and there they "will learn how to fish".
Last year during that sockeye madness I went to a tackle shop (that shall remain nameless) and asked what I should be using for sockeye.
Then guy tried to sell me hoochies, bouncing betties and explained to me how I should be trying to hook the salmon with a long leader and a big hook.
When I told him I wasn't interested in flossing fish he quickly left me and never came back.
He sure wan't intersted in the sale.
-
Chris,
one just has to go to a tackle shop during sockeye season and there they "will learn how to fish".
Last year during that sockeye madness I went to a tackle shop (that shall remain nameless) and asked what I should be using for sockeye.
Then guy tried to sell me hoochies, bouncing betties and explained to me how I should be trying to hook the salmon with a long leader and a big hook.
When I told him I wasn't interested in flossing fish he quickly left me and never came back.
He sure wan't intersted in the sale.
When you asked what you should be using for sockeye in the Fraser did you expect him to show you a technique other than flossing?
While it is possible to catch sockeye other ways, the clarity of the Fraser river makes it very difficult for the sockeye to see a presentation. He probably left you because he realized that if you didn't floss for sockeye then there was no point of fishing in the Fraser for sockeye. There was no sale to make!
-
the flossing and snagging threads just go in circles year after year, yikes man ::) ::) :( :( ....holmes*
-
Would anyone else like to respond since AF chooses to take the 5th?
I don't think he's taking the 5th bud. He was pretty clear when he said:
When and if the regulations change I will certainly abide by them.
Seems like his answer to your question ("So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?") was 'yes, if it was legal.' At least that's what I took, "I would support a rule that said as soon as you land your 2 sockeye using methods allowed under the regulations, you must leave the river" to mean...
I've always understood that the reason it's called a "discussion forum" is because there are different opinions. If everyone agreed with each other what would be the point of discussing anything? ::)
I think you've mixed up dicussing and debating ;) Discussion can simply involve the exchange of information, there need not be a difference of opinion, afaic.
-
I don't think he's taking the 5th bud. He was pretty clear when he said:
Seems like his answer to your question ("So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?") was 'yes, if it was legal.' At least that's what I took, "I would support a rule that said as soon as you land your 2 sockeye using methods allowed under the regulations, you must leave the river" to mean...
I was referring to his comment:
... I'm also uncertain whether I agree or disagree with you.
My comments have always referenced the current regulations and how they are being enforced. I have been checked by CO's over the years and have never received an infraction ticket. I'm just not interested in debating what the regulations could, should or might be.
In which he bowed out of a debate over changing those regulations. I suspect you are right about his acceptance of "snagging" if it were "allowed under the regulations", but I am not so sure that he admitted as much.
-
I was referring to his comment:
In which he bowed out of a debate over changing those regulations. I suspect you are right about his acceptance of "snagging" if it were "allowed under the regulations", but I am not so sure that he admitted as much.
Sorry, I should have read the post more thoroughly :|
Maybe'll do that before heading off to bed, haha.
-
Chris,
one just has to go to a tackle shop during sockeye season and there they "will learn how to fish".
Last year during that sockeye madness I went to a tackle shop (that shall remain nameless) and asked what I should be using for sockeye.
Then guy tried to sell me hoochies, bouncing betties and explained to me how I should be trying to hook the salmon with a long leader and a big hook.
When I told him I wasn't interested in flossing fish he quickly left me and never came back.
He sure wan't intersted in the sale.
It is a very big money maker for the shops now and they just feed on the frenzy making big dollars, that what help keep the sockeye openings too as the big lobby is there. As I have said before to me I don't need a fish that bad that I have to snag it.
Even some top notch anglers now do this and just justify it by pointing at F/N and the commercial boys, I guess they have to have some excuse to let them sleep at night. ::)
PS Today while visiting Rodney at KWB ;D ;D I see an person just above where I was standing with a coho salmon on, I know most time the way it is fighting if it is fouled hooked. I walk up to him as he brings it ashore and I see it is hooked under the chin. As I walk away I say you have fouled hooked it and cannot keep it, to my surprise he let it go, maybe he should not of as he had pulled it onto the sand and it covered itself and gills in sand. ??? ::) :'( :(