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.
Author
Topic: Sport Snagging (Read 38327 times)