Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: winter steel on October 10, 2005, 12:13:37 AM
-
I can't wait for the day that DFO imposes a leader restriction. The scene on the Vedder/Capilano/Chehalis and even the Chekamus (to some extent) is sickening. I really do not understand what satisfaction a person can get from landing a fish that has been lined/flossed. Are your egos so important that you have to catch a fish at all costs. Maybe you do not know any better, ( I doubt it) but really ignorance is no excuse. I would love to see an angler have to pass a test before he/she can receive thier license. Fish ID's, basic river etiquette, catch and release practices, and how to use the regulations. Fishing is not a right, but a privelage and ensuring one knows the basic regulations and restrictions leaves no chance for them to plead ingorance when busted. Also, more visuals on rivers highliting specific regulations could help the general angling public regulate the streams better themselves. I was on the Vedder Saturday and did not make many friends as I was very vocal about the lack of "angling" (by definition) going on. I firmly believe that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem and river etiquette is becoming a huge problem to fishermen and even more so the fish.
As a side bar, the bait ban that has been proposed for next year would only encourage more flossing. I understand the reasoning behind a bait ban on certain rivers to protect juveniles/steelhead and whatever else. However, I think the use of larger hooks and perhaps spot closings would be a better answer to the problem. I say ban wool ;D after what I saw this weekend. Tight Lines.
-
All very good ideas but remember one thing. The dfo would make about 50 percent less money if they had to make people take tests. Do you really think they will freely give up all those liceanse bucks and spend more on tests and people to process them and so on.
-
May be not ego. But wanting a fish on the dinner plate???
-
the vedder is the sacrificial lamb in the BC river system by the DFO. This is why you have VERY VERY FEW DFO officials enforcing anything there. By having one throw away river (hatchery arguments) they can focus on more import smaller wild gened streams.
-
Hmmmm you seem to target people just trying to bring a fish home to there family, yet you have nothing to say about the commecial fishermen who I belive don't use bait or lures to encourge a bite, yet take hundreds of thousands of fish just to end up selling it back to YOU(as a far less quilaty prouduct).As far as proper etiquette keeping your mouth shut about a COMPLETELY LEGEL method of fishing IS proper etiquette, no wonder you made few freinds.As far as being part of the solution what have you done lately, beside complaining about what isn't being done??? You don't see rod in here debating right and wrong.
-
All very good ideas but remember one thing. The dfo would make about 50 percent less money if they had to make people take tests. Do you really think they will freely give up all those liceanse bucks and spend more on tests and people to process them and so on.
Money collected from licences and fines don't go back to DFO; they go into General Revenues.
-
Hey, pontooner I love guys like you. What have you done for me lately? Well, I'm attending a DFO discussion downtown Tuesday night (6:00 pm at the BCIT campus), I help with the broodstock program on the Capilano, volunteer at the Seymour hatchery when needed, financially help with the Steelhead Society, Pacific Salmon Foundation and oh ya pick up bottles, beer cans, line and other crap left behind on rivers by others. I also ran a kids fishing camp this summer teaching young anglers how to fish and everthing associted with it. If you consider intentionally snagging fish as a completely legal means of fishing I won't bother wasting your time or mine. The commercial fishery is not a past time, hobby, recreation or sport it is a lively hood for those in it and because they have abused the resource in the past they are suffering for it today.
I was not asking for a ralley cry from Rodney or anyone else for that matter. I believe that there is always room for improvement and angling just so happens to be one area that I care about and would love to see a few things implemented to make the experience more enjoyable for all anglers. I don't care if you want a fish for the table, you have every right to your fish and enjoy it with your family. I am not denying anyone that right, I just don't think it should be at all costs (i.e. illegal means).
-
theres plenty of fish in the river. theres no need to bicker about flossing or short floating. the hatchery is well on its way of recieving brood stock eggs from the wild fish in the system. its good to see so many people fishing the vedder beacause then the hatchery will continue to keep production high. the vedder is a huge moneymaker for the government(taxes) , tackleshops, fishing guides and of course the city of chilliwack. remember the vedder is a hatchery river which means there will always be fish. theres plenty of room for all license holders whether you floss or float so please get out there and fish and stop this stupid stupid i hate flossers argument. really man.....give it up.
-
WS, have you been given an agenda on the public consultation tomorrow night?
For those who are unaware of, DFO is having a series of fall consultations with the public. The schedule can be found on this page (http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/consultations/consultation2005/calendar_e.htm).
This topic came up during lunch at Cookies last Saturday (it always does ;D ), we all agreed that there is no one simple solution for this. Anglers are great adapters and new techniques will emerge. Leader length restriction is not the answer, how about just pinching on a split shot one foot above the hook and multiple split shots several feet up from therek. Float fishing only is not the answer, you can simply adjust your float to as deep as you want. Should spoon fishing be banned because you can simply let your spoon drag along the bottom in a slow pool until you bump into a fish's back? The list goes on.
Regulations need to be reviewed constantly as you made a good point, there is always room for changes. Enforcement is needed because some people just can't play by the rules. However, I think the most important factor is the number of misinformed anglers out there. Most are learning how to fish by watching what others are doing. When we talk about how angling is degrading, it's not just how frequently people are flossing, snagging fish. How about the need to catch a fish becomes so much to the point that someone has to pull a knife out when tension reaches its high point? How about the amount of garbage being left behind by people who only narrowly focus on the fish they want to catch instead of their surrounding?
It's great to see participation of angling increasing, but if the new participants are not informed, which may lead to the end of fishing, then something needs to be done.
-
theres plenty of fish in the river.
We've all heard that before. ;)
Don't be so sure about production of fish at the hatchery. It maybe a good idea to pull out some stats on budget and fish prod. from the past ten years. Like Buck said in another thread, we'll start to see some noticeable differences in the next two years.
-
Rodney, I ahve not been given a schedule, but I do agree with you whole heartly about misinformed anglers and no simple answers. Unfortunately, on a recent trip I realized that some anglers consciously choose not to be informed and really if you abuse it you lose it. Rodney, are you kidding me, dragging a spoon on the bottom at the prices you and the stores charge for spoons ;D LOL. I'll see you Tuesday night, tight lines.
-
Not sure if I will be there on Tuesday night, as most of the issues scheduled to be discussed are most likely already been going back and forth in emails with them throughout the year. I'll try to get an agenda tomorrow morning and see what's up.
Damn, just when I was thinking about increasing the price of my spoons... ;)
-
Rod, Please PM any details (agenda etc) about tomorrow, winter steel, bug pumper and I are all planning to attend.
My impression was that the agend it "fisheries reform"...pretty board topic which leader lengths/regs/flossing could all fall within.
As Pontoon highlighted by his misinformed comment re :a COMPLETELY LEGEL method
, a lot of guys dont even realize flossinging is snagging hence it is illegal.
FF if you think discussions like this on FWR are useless chatter, maybe we will see you at the consultation where your voice can be heard by DFO directly. Thru this consultation, we all have a chance to help shape how our treasured spot evolves; I wonder who cares enuff to try and make a difference?
-
These are the topics that will be discussed. How they are going to fit all those in three hours, I am not sure.
- Fisheries Act Renewal
- Fisheries Reform
- Integrated Groundfish Proposal
- Wild Salmon Policy
- Species At Risk Act List & Freshwater Recovery Strategies
- Proposed Rockfish Conservation Areas
I am surprised there isn't one set up in Chilliwack for the Fraser Valley crowd.
I am also frustrated that a public consultation is being set up in the middle of the salmon season. The stakeholders meetings are taking place on Wednesday and Thursday, are people expecting the guides just drop their business for two days to attend these?
I'll forward all info if I get some tomorrow.
-
as one of those mis educated fishermen , I only heard of "flossing" or "short floating" when i came to this forum not long ago . I never use a leader longer than 18" . So i don't think i "floss" . But what is Short floating . ? I ask because i don't want to be a mis informed person making a mistake i didn't know about . Other than that i will leave the topic alone .
-
I would like to see manditory test, a higher level of basicic angling knowledge and a large increase in fines.
If everyone is forced to learn the rules BEFORE they start fishing then no one can compalin about a $300 minimum fine for snagging, poaching etc. People will have NO excuses and should be much more careful about working within the regs.
I fully endosre increasing liscencing fees to cover the cost and admin of a fishing liscence test. I think that if liscences were $150 then alot of uncommitted fishers would stay off the river - I think these more casual fishermen are some of the main culprits. Take the guy that I saw at KWB who had a 12 foot leader, leader harnes and 3oz BB...doubt he's around after the thick of salmon season.
-
If licence fee is increased to the prices that you mentioned, then I think you will definitely be seeing a new breed of poachers on our waters. Well, actually, you won't even see them, poaching will be done so out of sight since fines will be so high.
-
d
-
Dennis, I am surprised as well that more fishermen do not say anything when an obvious abuse is present or even just helping some lost angler find his way to the promise land. I think that the surrounding crowd plays a role, strength in numbers can be both a positive and a negative thing depending on the crowd. Rodney, if more revenue was made available through license fees, perhaps some of it could be spent on increased moderation of the resource.
-
Rodney, if more revenue was made available through license fees, perhaps some of it could be spent on increased moderation of the resource.
In that case, I think it's a good idea to find out just how much of the licence fee goes back to the resource. ;D Actually, let's start by finding out how much of the salmon conservation stamp fee goes back to our fish. I don't have the exact value with me right now, but I recall it was a lot less than what I had expected.
-
Fishing license fee goes to the general revenue. Then the goverment decide on how much funding the DFO gets as well as other fishery and environment related programs. IMHO, no matter how much we pay for license to access the fishery the fundings will be the same. After all, policies are made to make the government more money to spend on the programs that they feel are appropriate.
With the increase cost of license, there will be a decline in licenses sold. With the decrease in sales of license, those who want to get a license could pay up to a hundred time what it cost now. They have to get the money for administration cost of a complicated licensing policy. I guess, if people have to pass exam(s) in order to fish, children will never have an opportunity to fish. That would be a tragedy. No more future generations will come forward to champion the fisheries and the environment, since it will become no longer their concern. In many countries, people do not get opportunities to fish because it is very cost prohibitive. Hence, they become unaware or do not care what happens to the fishery.
Some people always propose changes without having any sense of the socio-political implication of the rules they are proposing. I guess Forest Gump says it best. ;)
-
Matuka you raise some excellent points. With regards to license fees, a microeconomics study concerning marginal supply and marginal demand would quickly tell you the price of a fishing license that would maximize revenue without hurting numbers. Ninety bucks for a license (all tags included) to fish year round on almost any freshwater isystem s a pretty good deal and I for one would be willing to pick up a few more pop cans and sacrifice some doe to improve the resource. I think children could be an exemption to the test as most fish with an adult and they are definately not the offenders on most rivers. I'm not sure at what cost it would be to develop a program to test competency but we are not asking you to register your rods ;D. Personally, I would rather not expose children to an abuse of the resource as it is now on certain systems. I'm not propsoing immediate change, just food for thought in regards to improving our resource. If nothing is ever discussed nothing ever changes. Matuka, other than Britain (Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire) where fishing is privatized costing anglers between 300-600 dollars a rod day I don't know of any other countries where it is cost prohibitive. In fact, some countries like Cuba, Mexico and I believe some of the Scandanavian countries charge nothing for their own citizens to fish. I'm working on memeory which means I could be wrong. Tight Lines.
-
I really have to question the wisdom of dramatically raising the cost of license fees. I am in agreement with others that peer pressure is a far better way to go. For instance, in some lakes in the interior they are flyfishing only. If a tourist ever got on one of those lakes and started fishing with a willow leaf, the flyfishermen would get over there right away and tell them you can'fish like that here. And if it was an honest mistake, inform the person of lakes down the road that they can fish like that. Same thing can be done here with regards to the complaints about flossing and snagging and it may not eliminate it totally but I bet the numbers will come down. And with regards to a license increase, who is to say that the throwing more money at the problem will make it better. If that is the case, then the government should open up the books and show us where this money is going. If they can clearly show that they are severely handicapped by a lack of funds then yes maybe licenses should increase but only within a reasonable amount. I for one am finding my dollars stretched enough with higher gas costs, and heating bills I certainly don't want to be hit with any other increases unless it is absolutely necessary.
-
Today at the roadside pool at Allisons I spoke up and applied pressure(I won't say peer cause this dip-sh*t aint in my group) when some cowboy hatted goof brings in some ugly spring by the tail and him and buddies toe it up on the beach.They stand there looking at it and by the time I decide to yell at them if they were going to put that fish back in the river ,it was too late.They had already slit it's throat >:(.I guess I startled them and they push it out into the river in a cloud of blood :(.My verbal barrage that followed managed to at least get them to put their rods down and take a break.Flossing/snagging semantics are trivial dogma with b.s. like this happening.
-
Matuka you raise some excellent points. With regards to license fees, a microeconomics study concerning marginal supply and marginal demand would quickly tell you the price of a fishing license that would maximize revenue without hurting numbers. Ninety bucks for a license (all tags included) to fish year round on almost any freshwater isystem s a pretty good deal and I for one would be willing to pick up a few more pop cans and sacrifice some doe to improve the resource. I think children could be an exemption to the test as most fish with an adult and they are definately not the offenders on most rivers. I'm not sure at what cost it would be to develop a program to test competency but we are not asking you to register your rods ;D. Personally, I would rather not expose children to an abuse of the resource as it is now on certain systems. I'm not propsoing immediate change, just food for thought in regards to improving our resource. If nothing is ever discussed nothing ever changes. Matuka, other than Britain (Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire) where fishing is privatized costing anglers between 300-600 dollars a rod day I don't know of any other countries where it is cost prohibitive. In fact, some countries like Cuba, Mexico and I believe some of the Scandanavian countries charge nothing for their own citizens to fish. I'm working on memeory which means I could be wrong. Tight Lines.
What do you think the elasticity of the supply curve in this case?
The price of the license would definitely have to increase dramatically in order to support the extra cost of setting up offices to handle testing and all the associated administrative cost of a more complicated licensing process. Do really think $90 from fishermen that buys the license would be able to cover the cost to set it up all accross Canada? I really do not think you have any grasp of the numbers involved regarding the cost to have all that set up. I suggest that you look up what the staffing, buildings and all the associated budgetary cost for any government departments. You will a better idea on how much it would cost to do your suggestion. Then you count how many fishing license get sold every year. Then you plug it into this formula:
Fishing license price increase = (Cost of the administration of the policy per year) / (Number of fishing License sold per year)
Just because you read some highschool micro economics book does not mean you can bamboozle everyone. ;)
-
If there is no efficient way of monitoring or imposing regulations. It doesn't matter what they change in the regulation book. Look at how many violations are done at current level and how many actullay get caught? And that's not just recreational fishery also native fishery and commercial fishery.
-
matuka, thats kind of like saying, its really expensive to track CO2 production and ozone wholes etc. so why bother. I am sure the keito accord is expensive but no doubt something very neccesary in todays environment.
we all agree (i think) that there are problems with the sports fishery and if it costs me extra so we can start to get a handle on some of the problems to thats fine with me.
Keep in mind you need to take test to get a hunting liscence of a drivers liscence, maybe the excecution of a fishing liscince test could be piggy backed on the current providers of the previous tests mentioned...the synergy of one office doing a hunting and a fishing test seems obvious to me.
-
Hey Matuka, let's not get personal. I'm not trying to bamboozle anybody, supply and demand is a relatively easy concept to understand and in this case the elasticity of the supply curve is unaffected by price (in realtion to the good we are supplying-licences is infinite), and has no bearing, it would be the sustainablity of the resource that would be in question, adding/subtracting anglers, catch rates blah, blah, blah. I actually studied economics at SFU. I don't think we are taking SAT tests or final exams, standardized tests can be and often are done on computers, much like a learners license in driving. I'm not suggesting a new department be set up, nor would one be needed. The initial set up cost would definately be there, however, results and even licenses themselves can then be attained online, not to mention perhaps statistical information that can be made more readily available online should people wish to record there tagging their. I really do think we can improve our fishery in more ways than one ( than simply adding more fish), you eveidently do not share my opinion in that our fishery and its management needs improving. BwiBwi your right , but at least ignorance could not be used as a defense when a fellow angler reports him or her to DFO or simply tries to right a wrong. Tight lines
-
Winter Steel, you may not have made a lot of Friends on the weekend, but you can count me as one. Etiquette -- whats that ?
-
It's how the officers want to see each situation. It is the anglers' duty to understand and know all regulation when they are angling. But officers sometime cut them some slack. Don't know if it's a good system or not, sometimes it can be a true oversight from some anglers and sometime can be deliberate. Tough call.
So will test really help? Not really, all the information is there in that regulation book as it is at current time.
I do sincerely agree changes need to be done.
-
Hey Matuka, let's not get personal. I'm not trying to bamboozle anybody, supply and demand is a relatively easy concept to understand and in this case the elasticity of the supply curve is unaffected by price (in realtion to the good we are supplying-licences is infinite), and has no bearing, it would be the sustainablity of the resource that would be in question, adding/subtracting anglers, catch rates blah, blah, blah. I actually studied economics at SFU. I don't think we are taking SAT tests or final exams, standardized tests can be and often are done on computers, much like a learners license in driving. I'm not suggesting a new department be set up, nor would one be needed. The initial set up cost would definately be there, however, results and even licenses themselves can then be attained online, not to mention perhaps statistical information that can be made more readily available online should people wish to record there tagging their. I really do think we can improve our fishery in more ways than one ( than simply adding more fish), you eveidently do not share my opinion in that our fishery and its management needs improving. BwiBwi your right , but at least ignorance could not be used as a defense when a fellow angler reports him or her to DFO or simply tries to right a wrong. Tight lines
Based on what you said:
1. How many people would you need to issue infinite numbers of license?
--Hello!!!!!!!!!!!! we live in a finite planet called Earth.
2. Do you really understand what is meant by elasticity of the supply curve?
--I am not to sure if understand what a supply curve is and how it could be determined.
3. Do you think SFU would be proud to be named as your educator for the level of knowledge that you have in the subject area?
--I'll show some of my colleagues at SFU what you wrote.(LOL)
4. How many computers would you need to set up testing centres throughout Canada?
--FYI, computers does not run by themselves and they cannot exist without using up space.
5. Do you think that all people in Canada should have computers and learn to use it?
--It sounds like you are making it a prerequisite to getting a fishing license too. Or maybe, the Government should give everybody a computer and courses to learn to use them as part of the so called "initial set up cost". That way everybody can get their fishing license online and all fishermen can frequent fishing forums.
Well, my point in all of these is that some people ideas does not make sense financially or philosophically. People are wasting Government's time (taxpayers' monies) with regard to the "flossing issues". In my observation, "flossing" is not the most productive way to fish. If you spend some time observing the "Gong Show" on the Vedder R. you will see the low level of success that they are having. That is why I never "floss" for coho. It is easier to catch the fish if they like what you are offering. ;)
As far as "snagging", it is against the law. If people stop wasting Government's time about nonsensical things, they probably will be able to allocate more resources to enforcing the rules.
I think too many people waste the Government's time on issues that are not of significant values. The time that Government spend on dealing with people whinning about "flossing" could be better spend on other things. Things like these is probably the reason that recreational fisheries do not command a lot of respect and credibility.
I think people should focus more on protecting, conserving and enhancing the fisheries and the environment.
-
Matuka, as I was taught by your colleagues, I guess I am a poor reflection on their ability to teach or maybe I'm just dumb :'(. Elasticity of the supply curve, as I was taught is affected by the price of the good/service in question (Micro 101 Doug Allen). In this case I suppose your right, if the cost of producing that piece of paper (license) was to become astronomical than sure, I suppose the points on the curve or the curve itself will shift or move, I'm sure you can correct me on that either way. A finite planet called earth, how philosophical. You need to know how to operate a computer to get a driver's license. It is funny Matuka, I just came back from an open house held by DFO and found it quite educational in terms of their initiatives, directions and problems facing the fishery and fish (thanks Ron Kadowaki). While you on the other hand find it necessary to only critique what I have to say. Are you the official opposition? By the way you have a couple of grammatical errors (tenses), maybe you should critique your highschool teacher ;D. Thoughtful discussion is never a waste of time, nor does it cost the government a dime.
Flossing not an effective way to catch fish!!! Gooey, Bug Pumper and I have witnessed numerous occassions where an angler flossed his way to his limit. During steelhead season there was a chap that we nicknamed the "dentist" because of his proficiency with wool and a long leader knowing that the steelhead sat in a particular section of the run. It is not just flossing, but an overall etiquette and respect towards fishing and fish in general. I think the only thing we can agree on is conserving and enhancing our fisheries and environment. How do we go about doing that Matuka? According to Rod (DFO official) money is simply not available to the department and raising license fees/user fees is not an option. So what do we do? Ask some of your colleagues like Eric Poole (avid fisherman who was a T.A. up at SFU) and see what they can come up with. We can then submit their suggestions to the sport advisory council who can pass it on to DFO and the provincial government, instead of just wasting our time talking about it.
-
That is pretty funny Matula. I thought that we were talking about BC's fishery, I didn't know that the rest of Canada worried about BC's fishery. If you are suggesting that the government try to imposed these restrictions across Canada, well that is not going to work for so many reasons. Also the fact that you are trying to base your argument of your supply curve on a cross Canada demand seem a bit off as well. This is a BC problem, I am pretty sure that the bass and walleye fishermen of Manitoba and Ontario could care less about BC's fishery!!!
Matuka you raise some excellent points. With regards to license fees, a microeconomics study concerning marginal supply and marginal demand would quickly tell you the price of a fishing license that would maximize revenue without hurting numbers. Ninety bucks for a license (all tags included) to fish year round on almost any freshwater isystem s a pretty good deal and I for one would be willing to pick up a few more pop cans and sacrifice some doe to improve the resource. I think children could be an exemption to the test as most fish with an adult and they are definately not the offenders on most rivers. I'm not sure at what cost it would be to develop a program to test competency but we are not asking you to register your rods ;D. Personally, I would rather not expose children to an abuse of the resource as it is now on certain systems. I'm not propsoing immediate change, just food for thought in regards to improving our resource. If nothing is ever discussed nothing ever changes. Matuka, other than Britain (Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire) where fishing is privatized costing anglers between 300-600 dollars a rod day I don't know of any other countries where it is cost prohibitive. In fact, some countries like Cuba, Mexico and I believe some of the Scandanavian countries charge nothing for their own citizens to fish. I'm working on memeory which means I could be wrong. Tight Lines.
What do you think the elasticity of the supply curve in this case?
The price of the license would definitely have to increase dramatically in order to support the extra cost of setting up offices to handle testing and all the associated administrative cost of a more complicated licensing process. Do really think $90 from fishermen that buys the license would be able to cover the cost to set it up all accross Canada? I really do not think you have any grasp of the numbers involved regarding the cost to have all that set up. I suggest that you look up what the staffing, buildings and all the associated budgetary cost for any government departments. You will a better idea on how much it would cost to do your suggestion. Then you count how many fishing license get sold every year. Then you plug it into this formula:
Fishing license price increase = (Cost of the administration of the policy per year) / (Number of fishing License sold per year)
Just because you read some highschool micro economics book does not mean you can bamboozle everyone. ;)
-
Is DFO Federal Government department?
--Correct me if I am wrong. I always think that they are. I guess that would make me very strange for believing that it is so.
-
Fisheries and Oceans is a federal department.
-
Is DFO Federal Government department?
--Correct me if I am wrong. I always think that they are. I guess that would make me very strange for believing that it is so.
I still don't see what that has to do with this. Each province has different license fees and regulations. Each province has different species of fish, thus requiring different regs. It may be federally run, but to think that the government would impose a country wide licensing program and dramatically raise license fees across Canada to fix a problem in bc is a little far fetched!!!
Other than the transplanted chinnook and coho in Ontario, isn't bc the only province with west coast salmon. Thus again making this a bc problem and not a canada problem. To dramatically increase license fees might even cause more of a problem. Do you think that there would be the resources out there to police this properly???? Or that people would fish anyways???? I don't really know myself, I do know that we won't have to worry about that far ahead, because I don't see this getting off the ground at all. So kinda makes me wonder why people are getting so worked up over this!!!!!! ;D ;D
-
I personally think leader restrictions would help alot. Flossings affectiveness goes down alot with a shorter leader. Of course people will still floss fast water with thier shorter leaders, but if it eliminates the long leader crowd its a step in the right direction.
-
Big Steel,
Like it or not, agree or disagree: BC Salmon fisheries is under the jurisdiction of the DFO. Are you interested in changing that too?
Bug Pumper,
I would never under estimate peoples creativity when people are determine to accomplish something. Imposing a leader restriction would create a necessity. I do not know if you would agree, but "necessity is the mother of invention". People will come up with more effective way of "flossing".
-
Matuka, in referrance to your comment to Bug Pumper: thats why it is critical that any changes be followed up with clearer regulations and possibly more enforcement. As you and I have discussed, some simple verbage changes to the regs would help clarify what is a fair or foul hooked fish.
At the DFO consultation last night I mentioned how the reg states that a fish must be hooked" in the mouth" and many fishermen think in the mouth includes: a flossed fish hook outside in, in the side of the jaw, on the top of the nose, etc. DFO was shocked by this. I also suggested that the verbage should be "INSIDE the mouth"...they liked my ideas enuff to put me in touch with the team that write the regs.
I think you are missing Big Steels point, changes dont need to be canada wide, they can take place provincially even tho they are managed by a federal entity....thats all he is saying.
Apparrently around the time of the east coast collapse BC was very close to gaining control of its fiseries from DFO...sounds like it was decided that provincial government is too volitile and that the higher level of consistancy at the Federal level is whats needed for LONG TERM management plans and stratagies. But at one time yes, we almost did get control of our fisheries.
-
If the rules or policies are deemed to be discriminatory it will be challenge on the contitutionality. It is guaranteed to be overturned. All that would happen is that Constitutional Lawyers fills up their pocket with tax payers' monies. The cost on both sides will be paid by our monies.
-
I have no idea what you mean? Are you referring to my post re reg changes, WS - leader restrictions, BigS - liscencing fee increases? what do you mean?
Either way I fail to see how any of it is discriminatory or unconstitutinal!?!?!? Please elaborate!
-
Rodney, if more revenue was made available through license fees, perhaps some of it could be spent on increased moderation of the resource.
In that case, I think it's a good idea to find out just how much of the licence fee goes back to the resource. ;D Actually, let's start by finding out how much of the salmon conservation stamp fee goes back to our fish. I don't have the exact value with me right now, but I recall it was a lot less than what I had expected.
It is $1.00
-
Guess I should throw a way my fly rod now :'(, in fear of being labled a FLOSSER, or maybe just use 1 foot of lead in the river. That should work real well ::)
-
Pontooner, thanks for coming out bud! You and your insightful post, most definitely are an asset to our sector! thank you once again. :-X
3 questions for you:
When you go out there with a fly rod is your INTENTION to floss a fish...I assume the answer is NO.
Now tell me, a guy with a 10 foot lead, 3oz, bb who is sitting in a bottle neck like KWB, as an inteligent indivual I assume, what do you think his intentions are? What do you think the product of his actions are?
Who do you think represents the "problem" on the vedder: a handful of fly fishers or the hordes of flossers?!?
Do us all a favour and think things thru before you post your comments.
PS - as Winter Steel stated, if you arent part of the solution, you are part of the problem....its time people started to make a conscious descision as to what side of the fence they are on!
-
I can't wait for the day that DFO imposes a leader restriction. The scene on the Vedder/Capilano/Chehalis and even the Chekamus (to some extent) is sickening. I really do not understand what satisfaction a person can get from landing a fish that has been lined/flossed. Are your egos so important that you have to catch a fish at all costs. Maybe you do not know any better, ( I doubt it) but really ignorance is no excuse. I would love to see an angler have to pass a test before he/she can receive thier license. Fish ID's, basic river etiquette, catch and release practices, and how to use the regulations. Fishing is not a right, but a privelage and ensuring one knows the basic regulations and restrictions leaves no chance for them to plead ingorance when busted. Also, more visuals on rivers highliting specific regulations could help the general angling public regulate the streams better themselves. I was on the Vedder Saturday and did not make many friends as I was very vocal about the lack of "angling" (by definition) going on. I firmly believe that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem and river etiquette is becoming a huge problem to fishermen and even more so the fish.
As a side bar, the bait ban that has been proposed for next year would only encourage more flossing. I understand the reasoning behind a bait ban on certain rivers to protect juveniles/steelhead and whatever else. However, I think the use of larger hooks and perhaps spot closings would be a better answer to the problem. I say ban wool ;D after what I saw this weekend. Tight Lines.
Yah right from a department that promotes fish farms and their sea lice, while turning a blind eye to the devistation. And you look to these guys for recomendations; that's like having a child molester make our laws concerning child abuse.
-
Gooey that you for being one of the only people to get my point!!!!! Also I only mentioned increasaed license fee because Matulla had mentioned that the licences would have to go up 100 fold to pay for this new program!!!!! Anyhow, I don't see how all this arguing is going to help!! Bottom line for me is that the government isn't going to do anything about this!!!! They have us by the short and curlys, if we wanted to pose a strike so to say, and all fishermen did not buy licences to prove a point, what point that may be I don't know, They would more than likely close all river systems, and impose huge fines on anyone caught fishing!!!! Perhaps that is a bit far fetched, but no more than the licencing idea that is being thrown around in this thread!!!! Just one man's opinion!!!
-
The problem is that pontoonman has a point. If there is a regulation stating no leader longer than x feet, most fly guys will have to pack it up and go home. :(
-
Dagonspeed what are you complaining about you guys have the river all to yourselves in May ;D You do have a point, however I'm sure between all the brilliant minds out here in cyberspace we could come to some sort of resolution to satify fly anglers. How about we designate the Vedder fly only-JK ;D Dragonspeed, do you think a leader length restriction could be relaxed for fly anglers or adjusted accordingly (I know flossing can be done flyfishing but on a whole I believe it to be minimal with anglers of that nature-yes I am sure there is an exception out there, but I do not want to hear about it). If it was relaxed would flossers then pick up a fly rod, I mean casting a fly is a lot of work and those fly lines are not cheap, not to mention the cost of flies themselves (I know wool can be used). It seems to me that flyfishers generally are few on the rivers in comparison and we should be able to accomodate them. Maybe we should show A Rriver Runs Through It for those that offend ;D Tight lines.
-
DS doesn't want leader restriction for a different reason. ;D
Do you really want to be more restricted? If restrictions continues to increase but enforcement continues to decline, be prepared to see no changes on the river.
What's next?
Mandatory use of a float?
Designated float depth (ie. must be two feet shallower than river depth)?
Mandatory use of fast action drift rod, 8wt+ fly rod, medium weight class, specific lb test line and hook size?
The main problem sits on the lack of enforcement, which all of you should be pushing for.
A poacher will still study, pass the entry test, obtain a licence, and fish in an unlawful manner as he or she wishes if enforcement is absent.
DFO's mandate is not to dig into an angler's tackle box. That is why it is reluctant to implement a leader length restriction.
Leader length restriction is not going to solve the problem. The solution has to come from the angling community, which should clean itself up before criticizing other sectors' wrong doings. A good start would be to develop responsible angling ways in the young generations.
-
Do you really want to be more restricted? If restrictions continues to increase but enforcement continues to decline, be prepared to see no changes on the river.
Agree, current regulation would work well enough if enforcement is there.
-
Do you really want to be more restricted? If restrictions continues to increase but enforcement continues to decline, be prepared to see no changes on the river.
Agree, current regulation would work well enough if enforcement is there.
what enforcement? i was on the river today and while i was checking out one of the meat holes, dfo came around. they 'spot' checked 5 guys out of about 30. i was there for less than 10 minutes when i noticed a guy fishing with barbed hooks and another guy mishandling a boot spring...guess what? dfo did squat.
dfo enforcement is as effective as the marijuana laws here in bc. reality bites, so no need to floss for new regulations, at least not until the old ones become applicable. :P
-
so no need to floss for new regulations, at least not until the old ones become applicable. :P
Good one. By the way out of those rigs I unhooked from a log jam many hooks are barbed ??? BAD really bad.
Please be considerate, when reusing those hooks I don't want to pinch out the barbs. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
IMHO enforcement is up this year?!? I dont remember hearing this much about DFO last year. I have seen them on the upper river and heard tons of reports of them at KWB etc. Prior to this fal season, I havent seen DFO on the vedder for a decade when they did a spot liscence check on me!
Back to the flossing thing, you can floss with a 12 inch leader or a 12 foot leader. Its the guys fishing 12 foot leader who are actively trying to increase their chances of flossing a fish that need to be regulated, and it not like huge changes are needed either.
Here is what the regs say now: It is illegal to "wilfully foul hook or attempt to foul hook any fish other than herring, northern anchovy, Pacific sand lance and squid. To avoid foul hooking (snagging) fish, anglers should aim to induce the fish to take the hook in its mouth".
What if the last sentance read: To avoid foul hooking (snagging) fish, anglers should aim to induce A STRIKE thus causing the fish to take the hook INSIDE its mouth".
We all know a flossed fish hasn't bit or struck the presentation, we also know a flossed fish is hook out side in, NOT "INSIDE the mouth".
This verbage would make flossing clearly illegal and thus allow DFO to clamp down on flossers. Because you can floss a fish with 12 inches of line I would still have a leader restriction which fly fishers would be exempt from, BUT Fly fishers would still have to pay attention to the rules above regarding flossing.
If we want to go back the the hardware fishers who occasionally gets a fish to STRIKE the spoon but ends up with the hook in its jaw, I think because the first requiremnt was met (a strike was enduced) then the enforcement of the second regulation (hook inside the mouth) could be left to the discretion of the Officer.
Bottom line is that flossing and flossers are the problem, not fly guys and spoon chuckers. I also think flossers represent a type of fisherman who have little repect for the environment or the resource (just look at the mess around sockeye season compared to steelhead season). Lets face it, they are meat fishermen and have regard for nothing more than themselves and their freezers and something needs to be done about that!
-
Enforcement is up in some parts, I think what others are saying is... is it enough overall?
Back to the flossing thing, you can floss with a 12 inch leader or a 12 foot leader. Its the guys fishing 12 foot leader who are actively trying to increase their chances of flossing a fish that need to be regulated, and it not like huge changes are needed either.
So... what? It's ok to floss if leader length is regulated to 12 inches?
You keep getting into these technicality of how the fish is hooked etc, when clearly the issue is to get enforcement present to make sure all are obeying to the existing regulations. The existing problem is that the newbies are already having a hard time knowing, understanding and following these, while the people who intend to disobey know they can due to the absence of enforcement.
-
Rod, the rules offering a grey area: "hook in its mouth". Todays level of interpretation is that the jaw, the out side of the mouth, under the chin, ontop of the nose, abvoe the gill plate....the average angler considers this "close enuff".
That needs to change. No flossing is not OK. If you floss a spring or coho on the vedder, i think it should be released. Problem is that DFO's acceptance of flossing on the fraser has made it OK to do elsewhere. I think on page one of this thread, Pontoon refers to flossing as "a perfectly ligitimate fishig method" :-X . People need to be edjucated and the regs and enforcement are how it should be done. The current conflict between sport fishers happens because the rules are grey, and everyone has a different set of personal beliefs/ethics which colour how they are interpretted.
You say that: "The existing problem is that the newbies are already having a hard time knowing, understanding and following" (the regs)...doesnt that mean the regs need to be simpler, more to the point and state forward?
If the regs were "black and white" and easier to understand then discrepancies with personal ethics, language skills, interpretation, comprehension, age/ability, etc would be greatly reduce if not eliminated.
-
I think that even if the regs were changed to be much more specific, the problem would persist. Put yourself in the shoes of a CO, how do you "enforce" a no flossing directive? The problem is you cannot demonstrate that a fish was flossed with 100% certainty. Sure it may be obvious to those who spend a fair bit of time on the water, but how do you prove to a guy who fishes maybe a dozen times a year that when he saw his float move or felt a tug on his line, it was just the leader reaching the end and the hook sticking the fish, and not the fish hitting the wool? As we all know fish do hook themselves from the outside once in a while when hitting a presentation. On the other hand enforcing a leader length restriction is straightforward, but as Gooey stated you don't neccessarily need a long leader to floss, especially when the fish are stacked. So I don't think that either measure will be as effective as people think. The main problem is that bottom bouncing with long leaders has become a normal way to fish. I think the only way you are going to reverse the trend on systems like the vedder is to eliminate the fraser bottom bouncing fishery.
Now, I have bb'd the fraser for sockeye, but I think it is coming to a point where we have to make a choice. Simply put, how can we expect anglers(especially new ones) to rationalize the difference between fishing for salmon (bouncing a weight on the bottom with a long leader and some wool) on the fraser and any other system. All systems can be blown out or dirty at one point or another, so how can we expect people to only fish one way on one river and not carry that over to other systems? We cannot have it both ways, so I think the only solution would be to close the floss fishery on the fraser and implement a leader length restriction (leader being the length of line after a weight or weighted line, this should not impact fly fishing).
-
As much as I love my 7 or so days of sockeye slayin, I agree, its not worth the frustration of seeing flossing the other 358 days on all the other rivers! I have seen more snagged fished retained on the fraser than anywhere else and I think this lack of stortsmanship and the meat mentality is permiating the entire sport sector now.
Flossing itself would not be tough to make illegal...but I wasnt suggesting that. Flossing ends up with the hook on the out side of the mouth. If regs are reworded to make this clearly a snagged fish then RENTENTION of this fish would be illegal. Anyone can tell if a hook is inside the fish's moth or in THE side of a fish's mouth. They want to do some C&R well just treat the fish properly and I guess I could live with that. But making that flossed fish illegal to retain and you eliminated alot of the meat fishers out there.
Keep in mind it is illegal to even TRY to snag a fish, all those guys bottom bouncing guys could be forced to change if they were writen tickets for fish harrassment for even tryig to floss. This may sound rediculous to some and way over the top, but I think it is an appropriate response the current environment on the river.
I have seen guys
-
If the regs were "black and white" and easier to understand then discrepancies with personal ethics, language skills, interpretation, comprehension, age/ability, etc would be greatly reduce if not eliminated.
The regulations will never completely be black and white, there will always be grey areas. Fishing and its resource that it depends on are constantly changing, regulations will constantly evolve to accommodate that change. However, until the existing black and white regulations that are enforced, expect to see the level of compliance to drop if more rules are introduced.
-
Ok gooey, so when the majority of fishers(flossers) are not allowed to floss, what will happen to the amount of licenses sold.I would think that they would go down and do you think the government would like that,NO.That is why they will not implement rules against it, because it is NOT about the fish rather the money they bring in.Now I'm not saying I support the floss fishery, but you must realize that the government isn't going to do anything that will affect its revenue. Look at the fn illegal netting, they seemed pretty careless about it, implying they don't care.Also wondering why do people floss sockeye,do they not take lures,roe like other salmon???
-
Pontooner, to an extent you have a point. Licences, if you buy all your tags and for the entire season bring in roughly 32 million for the government. But by the looks at some of the weapons you boys carry ;D, the real money would be in the secondary markets where the spin offs from anglers is huge. Plus, many of the freshwater licenses are sold to those who fish lakes exclusively or have limited access to rivers, Rodney perhaps you would know how many anglers buy a salmon tag or fish exclusively lakes. I do think that the number of flossers is concentrated on a few systems where the population of the surrounding area has contributed to the problem. It is also difficult to say how many would not buy their license if they had to catch fish via a different means. Besides, I wouldn't necessarily complain if the rivers were less crowded ;D Tight Lines
-
Rod and any one else who cares to comment...we all are in agreement that flossing is out of control. What other "bright ideas" does anyone have to curb flossing?
I think changes to the regs are needed, nothing else really has been suggested!
I would be willing to pay $150-200 for a better fishing experience. Let dfo push flossers out with increaased regulations...sounds good to me!
-
nothing else really has been suggested!
I did... in the last three posts actually, increase enforcement to take care of those who disobey the existing regulations before introducing more...
FYI, freshwater fishing licence fee does not go to the gov, it funds the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC.
Also FYI, freshwater licence sale has been steadily dropping in the last couple of years.
Today I had the pleasure to have lunch with the president of the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC. He and I discussed several ongoing issues, including this one. One of the identified problem that is consistently being reported, is the fact that regulations in this province are complicated to read and interpret for new anglers (not you, not me, new comers). By introducing more regulations on top of these, people will either just give up fishing, or go out there and do whatever they want anyways.
I would be willing to pay $150-200 for a better fishing experience. Let dfo push flossers out with increaased regulations...sounds good tome!
Gooey, the regulations are not designed just to accommodate you, because you are not a good representation of the angling public. ;) That's not an insult, that's the truth. Most of the licenced individuals don't fish the way you do, earn the same amount as you do, fall in your age group, fish as much as you do, or fish as little as you do. You want a better fishing experience, spend more money for a trip to the north. This is why I often ::) when the topics "I think the regulations should be....". Like you preached in another thread, join a sportfishing association, be represented or represent it, attend the SFAC meetings, make recommendations to DFO, and let the fishery managers to regulation the angling public.
-
Rod, I couldn't agree with you less on this topic and thats rare.. What would extra enforcement do if there's nothing to enforce?? You can only enforce something if its in the regs. Flossing IS the problem, and because it works so well with long leaders people do it.
If you restrict leaders to 2 feet the flossing success would go down in a big way...and people might actually try to learn to get a fish to bite. The fly fishing question is a non issue, a restriction can be applied to drift fishing or BBing only.
Matuka, I think you said that people will find a way, maybe it was someone else. Well of course people will find a way. Its just smart to eliminate as many ways to cheat as possible.
-
Rod, I have writen it before, don't know if you read it...a buddy of mine (and marco's coinsidentally) got a ticket for a flossed coho (hook out side in, right thru the maxilla) at the tamahi. $175 and they took the fish. Flossing is illegal period. I have always assertained that DFO non-enforcement against flossing on the fraser is creating an acceptance with the general fishing public that its OK to floss anywhere/anytime.
Look at the demographics of fishers in BC and you will find many a very diverse group - ages, races, languages, etc. Imangine if the speed limit was as grey as the fishing regs - it would be chaos! the regs need to be as simple and clear as a speed limit sign - something EVERYONE can easily understand.
Now rod, I have not had anyone here disagree with the statment flossing is snagging. If thats the case then all those new comers you refer to are unkowningly breaking the law (you agree right)... now your solution (more enforcement) will lead to a bunch of people getting fines. Some of those fines I would be happy with because people knowingly work around the regs, but a lot would be levied against people who simply don't know any better. Should they be fined for AMBIGUOUS regulations? Thats an injustice if you ask me.
I think Bug Pumper makes an excellent point, and this just builds on that. We need a clear, concise set of regs that DFO then can enforce.
-
Gooey, you trying to push a rope up a hill.
The province likes people to fish with wool, and leader length is not important.
Just check all the rivers that only allow for flies only, no bait or lures allowed. That does not mean fly fishing.
Flossing has been around on all the rivers for years over 25 that I am aware of.
Jim Teeny was charged for flossing in the U. S. and convicted and he was using a fly line and showed everyone else how to do it on TV.
Fly shows done here in B.C. still show how to do it .
If you snag a fish you must let it go. If you catch it in the mouth you can keep it.
That's the law and as noted previously, at one of the Sports Shows held in Chilliwack, DFO asked people if they should do something and were told NO by the vast majority.
So, flossing is legal and does not always mean snagging!
-
OBD, you are one of the only to come out and say flossing isnt snagging.
Word for word, the regs are: it is illegal to - wilfully foul hook or attempt to foul hook any fish other than herring, northern anchovy, Pacific sand lance and squid. To avoid foul hooking (snagging) fish, anglers should aim to induce the fish to take the hook in its mouth.
Please justify your answer with the above regulation in mind.
My position is that a flossed fish didnt bite, the fish was simply lined. As well, when I read the entire sentance ending in "hook in its mouth" I interpret the regs to mean hooked INSIDE the mouth. I do not consider a flossed fish hooked "in the mouth", I and most others consider that in the jaw.
Finally have you thought that the fraser river and now the vedder are HOT BEDS for flossers. Have you considered that the demographic at that show was greatly skewed?
-
Maybe you should be invited to the next Upper Fraser SFAC to make a presentation on these proposed regulation changes. ;) It'll only be ten minutes long though, as the entire meeting is three hours and we have to fit dozens of fishery issues into those three hours. ;D
My views on flossing have already been demonstrated by my absence during the sockeye flossery. I was simply giving you a better understanding on where all the major sportfishing affiliations and DFO stand on leader length and enforcement.
-
Flossing has been around on all the rivers for years over 25 that I am aware of.
You are probaley correct but they did not know they were doing it.
When the sockeye opened on the Fraser a few years (7?) ago we all fished for them and a lot of us did not know the sockeye were not biting. Maybe I was a slow learner but it took me 2 or 3 season to figure it out that they were not biting. I had to have a small green spining glow on, thats what they liked to inhale, ::) spent a few dollars on them. It was not until my boy caught two on three casts with a bare hook that I finally clued in. :-[ :-[
Never again after that year did I take part in this type of fishing. By catching a fish if it is not biting my offering gives me no reward at all. As I have said before it is like going golfing and not hitting that white ball but walking up to the pin and drop the ball in for a hole in 0 ;D
When I see what goes on now on our rivers including the Vedder River if I am honest with myself I am partly to blame for this as I was on the FVSS team that got the all salmon species open including sockeye during several meetings with FOC a few years ago. :'( :-[ :(
I am afraid at this time I donot have a real answer to this. There is band aid solutions but it would be great if we could change it by education as a lot of us try to do in posting how to make fish actually bite. Of course it is impossible with sockeye in the dirty Fraser. In clear water you can get them to bite as we have described a few times.
-
mANG , stop fishing... I know you are perfect? and so should every around you
too mang it's fun and let's respect the rulesso then lets Go Fishing? !!
-
and............ more if they dont bite ? are we allowed to catch them?
floss and grab
?
bite Does that theY seem more Respectable to catch
ina fishers head? fish are Fish no brain
they gotta caught any way Let them spawn I f u care about them then dont fish
-
quit sniffin glew.
-
No kidding eh!!!!! What the heck was he tryin to say!!!!!
and............ more if they dont bite ? are we allowed to catch them?
floss and grab
?
bite Does that theY seem more Respectable to catch
ina fishers head? fish are Fish no brain
they gotta caught any way Let them spawn I f u care about them then dont fish
-
didn't know boomhower was into FWR ;D
-
it is illegal to - willfully foul hook !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word is willfully, how do you plan to charge people as they are not willfully snagging.
You have seen people doing this and willfully snagging is easy to see.
Just using a long leader and drifting it would not come under the term willfully. If it did then all flyfishing in rivers using a sinking line would apply. As would any fishing using a wool fly with weight, regardless of the Length of the leader!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Snagging(Foul Hooking).. hooking a fish in any other part of its body than the mouth.
Attempting to snag fish of any species is prohibited.
Any fish willfully or accidental snagged must be released immediately.(Taken from the Fresh water regulations)
___________________________________________________________________________________
I interpret the regs to mean hooked INSIDE the mouth. I do not consider a flossed fish hooked "in the mouth", I and most others consider that in the jaw.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word is YOU interpet, As noted the regs say"To avoid foul hooking (snagging) fish, anglers should aim to induce the fish to take the hook in its mouth"
___________________________________________________________________________________
So people who use wool and leaders are aiming to induce the fish to take the hook in the mouth, they are not snagging!
-
Flossers bottom bouncing with 12 foot leaders are willfully snagging fish. And a flossed fish has not taken the hook in its mouth, the hook has slammed into the side fof its face because of the way the fisherman fished it.
Flossing is snagging and if you think otherwise I'd guess you have been sharing glue with Ocean_going!
-
Back to pushing a rope up the hill !
-
This thread still hasn't died!!!!!! You guys should get a life!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
The best way to stop people from flossing is to stand beside them and catch more fish than them. Then when they ask what colour wool you are useing, keep a good attitude and show them how to rig up.
-
i totally agree with a education program and test for fishing liscences. I've had to pay out big dollars for courses to hunt, so why not fishing. the time has come.... population and renewed interest in sports fishing has forced us down this road. "trusting" the general public to follow the regulations AND practice conservation and follow edicit is a laughable idea. It is widely apparent that nearly 40 to 50% of new anglers or those newly arrived from other countries are not familiar with the ideals nor definition of conservation and ethics. These people, and all new anglers need to have mandatory education programs applied as a prerequiste to fish. I've paid out well in excess of 100.00 for hunting liscences this year, same for fishing liscences and it cost me 250.00 to take and pass the necessary courses for firearms and hunting ( the latter being some time ago but still). I would also be willing to submit myself to a one time anglers education program in order to continue fishing, and gladly pay the required fees. I love fishing, i don't just like it cuz it fills my belly and fuels my ego, it's part of who i am and it is an activity that is invaluable to me. How this turned into a flossing debate is beyond me, I agree, mandatory education and one time testing for ALL anglers.
-
quit sniffin glew.
Right On!
-
The best way to stop people from flossing is to stand beside them and catch more fish than them. Then when they ask what colour wool you are useing, keep a good attitude and show them how to rig up.
I do that; I remember one time a guys asked me what wool I was using. I answered with "I don't use wool, I use flies". Then he promptly went over to his freind and told his freind I was using Butterflies. At that I just smiled and walked away.