Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: TNAngler on August 09, 2013, 06:24:28 AM
-
Hey guys. Long time listener, first time poster.
I am a member of the hated bottom bouncers, except I do it right. I was up in the area for 10 days visiting family and went fishing 4 times. During that time, my dad, my wife, and I caught about 50 sockeye (lost probably a quarter that many), 2 kings in the boat (not big, 10-15 pounds each) and 1 other that took us for a long run but wrapped me around a tree under the water (we were fishing a new area as our old hole is only 3 feet deep now. I estimate it was over 30 pounds). We launched at island 22. We went the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday the first week it was open, then the next Monday (which was this week Monday). This Monday was after the nets had been in the water all weekend and we only caught 3 sockeye that day and all the jumpers that had been around were gone.
The most frustrating part of that day was that a FN member drifted a net right down in front of about 30 boats, only about 30 feet in front of us, well within our casting range. Heck, it was within my wife's casting range and this was her first time casting and therefore was probably the shortest caster there. There were many words spoken to him and I'm pretty sure someone went back to the launch to report him but he only made that one set and left. I think if he had made another set he might have caught a weight to the back of the head on an "accidental cast". He caught nothing on the set. I didn't feel bad for him at all.
Sadly, most of the time we were the only ones catching fish. Sure a couple other sockeye were caught or a couple went out with kings but for the other 5-10 boats around that we could see, combined they would catch one sockeye for ever 3-5 we caught. Actually, that might be a little low. The great thing about this year was that most of the sockeye we were catching were much larger than previous years. It has been averaging about 5 pounds on the sockeye but this trip there were some that were 10 or so. Big and bright and fiesty.
Of all the fish we caught, only one of them was flossed and even that one was hooked in the mouth. Most were up through the nose, some were in the outside cheek. I know the grippers and rippers that you are talking about and there are many up there and they disgust me as much if not more than most of you. I also saw a number of them catch smaller fish that were kept. I suppose they could have been very small kings but I doubt it and on Wednesday when we were checked by the DFO at the launch we let them know. In my opinion, if you aren't going to get the fish to hit and catch it right, there is no sense even going. Just stay home.
So, if you can time it right around the nets, there are definitely fish to be had if you do it right.
-
All those sockeye are flossed....what kind of thought process do you have on what you are doing? I am quite confused, you think those sockeye bit? The reason I and others hate on flossing BITING fish(Chinook) is because sockeye are not open. Do you think when you snag all these sockeye that they all happily swim away? Bar fish or use other ethical ways to target Chinook-sockeye are closed so why do it?
By the way I am trying to stay civil and mean no offence in my post-I am just astounded that you think what you are doing is correct.
-
If you know what you are doing, sockeye will bite. Heck, they almost tore the pole out of my hand a couple times. We weren't trying to catch the sockeye, we were throwing out deeper where the kings were. I would have been happy only catching kings.
If you can't tell based on how it feels and where it is hooked whether it is flossed or not, then yeah, you are probably flossing everything. I've been fishing similar to this for 30 years. I know when a fish hits and when it just gets a line in it's mouth.
Also, our setup is very specific. If we change the color just slightly, we don't catch anything. So if you think a change in the color will suddenly turn a flosser that outfishes everyone on the bar to a flosser that catches nothing....
-
If you know what you are doing, sockeye will bite. Heck, they almost tore the pole out of my hand a couple times. We weren't trying to catch the sockeye, we were throwing out deeper where the kings were. I would have been happy only catching kings.
If you can't tell based on how it feels and where it is hooked whether it is flossed or not, then yeah, you are probably flossing everything. I've been fishing similar to this for 30 years. I know when a fish hits and when it just gets a line in it's mouth.
Also, our setup is very specific. If we change the color just slightly, we don't catch anything. So if you think a change in the color will suddenly turn a flosser that outfishes everyone on the bar to a flosser that catches nothing....
Regs say selective fishing methods only.....to target Chinook. You bar fish. If you are bouncing bottom you are snagging fish plain and simple. Real sportsman don't snag fish....
there should be a course in order to get a fishing licence, same as hunting.
bottom bouncing springs is not selective.plain and simple.
6 times out bar fishing 4 springs caught for me. Hooked inside the mouth with bait and 00 spinnglo.
zero sockeye hooked. Imagine that
-
Regs say selective fishing methods only.....to target Chinook. You bar fish. If you are bouncing bottom you are snagging fish plain and simple. Real sportsman don't snag fish....
there should be a course in order to get a fishing licence, same as hunting.
bottom bouncing springs is not selective.plain and simple.
6 times out bar fishing 4 springs caught for me. Hooked inside the mouth with bait and 00 spinnglo.
zero sockeye hooked. Imagine that
I disagree with this statement completely. I grew up 'bottom bouncing' pencil weights and slinky's. I catch my fish in the mouth and they bite. There is a HUGE difference when it bites compared to swimming across your line. If you had a few seasons of actually trying it you would know for yourself.
I've fished the vedder and had people come down and accuse me of snagging till they see fish on the beach with a hook buried through it's beak. then they ask to see my setups and how i'm fishing them....... and like the previous poster said, you change colours or size and the bite is off.
i'm talking about a completely different technique than reel in and rip reel in and rip.
what i coonsider 'flossing' is the complete BS i see around the tamihi rapids, where you throw your float in for 1.757 seconds and rip it. that is disgusting.
-
Regs say selective fishing methods only.....to target Chinook. You bar fish. If you are bouncing bottom you are snagging fish plain and simple. Real sportsman don't snag fish....
there should be a course in order to get a fishing licence, same as hunting.
bottom bouncing springs is not selective.plain and simple.
6 times out bar fishing 4 springs caught for me. Hooked inside the mouth with bait and 00 spinnglo.
zero sockeye hooked. Imagine that
You know what I find odd? We were checked, one of the days we brought home a Chinook by DFO. One of the things she checked was where the fish was hooked. According to her definition, it was not snagged. She spent a lot of time checking our gear and everything we were doing as there was nobody else coming in at the time. She had no problem with anything we had done. We have been checked and watched numerous times over the years. There has never been an issue. We don't set the hook until they hit. Heck, if I feel it flossing them, I drop my rod because that isn't how I want to catch fish.
If I am bottom bouncing and thereby "snagging" fish as you claim, how do you explain changing color of yarn and leaving the rest of the setup exactly the same turning catching fish all the time to nothing? And I'm not talking just this year. Back in the 90s and 2000s when the runs were really good, we could catch a sockeye every other cast with our set up but if we changed color, nothing. Heck, there were times when my arms hurt so bad from fighting fish that I would put on a different color just to take a break and experiment for other color combinations that might work in case ours stopped one day. Just because you don't know how to get sockeye to hit doesn't mean it isn't possible.
And let's forget about Monday because if I had known the nets were in all weekend I wouldn't have gone. So, I have 3 days fishing, 3 Chinook hooked, 2 caught and the one we lost was because it was a new area and didn't know not to let the fish go into a certain area and you can't afford that lack of knowledge with a huge Chinook. Every sockeye and king I have caught were hooked inside the mouth. About half are through the nose. Imagine that.
-
I disagree with this statement completely. I grew up 'bottom bouncing' pencil weights and slinky's. I catch my fish in the mouth and they bite. There is a HUGE difference when it bites compared to swimming across your line. If you had a few seasons of actually trying it you would know for yourself.
I've fished the vedder and had people come down and accuse me of snagging till they see fish on the beach with a hook buried through it's beak. then they ask to see my setups and how i'm fishing them....... and like the previous poster said, you change colours or size and the bite is off.
i'm talking about a completely different technique than reel in and rip reel in and rip.
what i coonsider 'flossing' is the complete BS i see around the tamihi rapids, where you throw your float in for 1.757 seconds and rip it. that is disgusting.
People have accused us of snagging/flossing frequently too until they watch us and check stuff out. Then when they realize that isn't what we are doing, then they want to know our secret.
Reep and reel fisherman are horrible. Unless it's a run like 3 years ago (which I sadly missed) or pinks are swarming the river and you are getting bites three, four, five times on each drift, you shouldn't be setting the hook on every cast, let alone multiple times per cast. You set the hook when the fish hits and that is it. If you were to watch us, most of our drifts last week resulted in no hook sets. We got hits and lost some fish but those were usually at the very bottom of our drift where the smaller sockeye are and since the angle is worse they don't get a good angle when hitting it. I would say 75% of our hook sets resulted in a fish on for at least 10 seconds, with 50% resulting in fish to the boat.
-
People have accused us of snagging/flossing frequently too until they watch us and check stuff out. Then when they realize that isn't what we are doing, then they want to know our secret.
Reep and reel fisherman are horrible. Unless it's a run like 3 years ago (which I sadly missed) or pinks are swarming the river and you are getting bites three, four, five times on each drift, you shouldn't be setting the hook on every cast, let alone multiple times per cast. You set the hook when the fish hits and that is it. If you were to watch us, most of our drifts last week resulted in no hook sets. We got hits and lost some fish but those were usually at the very bottom of our drift where the smaller sockeye are and since the angle is worse they don't get a good angle when hitting it. I would say 75% of our hook sets resulted in a fish on for at least 10 seconds, with 50% resulting in fish to the boat.
A good flosser will only set the hook when they feel the line bump a fish. Since they almost always catch the line in the mouth due to how they swim up the river. So they won't be setting the hook every cast.
Bottom line it's still flossing.
Also the angle thing your talking about not hooking up in the dangle. When fly fishing or swinging spoons you get smashed in the dangle all the time.
-
I don't understand why a lot of you guys hate on bottom bouncing. I have been bottom bouncing and have never hooked a fish other than in the mouth. I can immediately tell if i have the fish in the mouth. I do not even pull back and set the hook until i feel it bite my hook hard.
are you for or against it and why?
-
I'm not really going to get into it.
But you need to realize the fish are never actually biting your hook. You're flossing them.
-
I'm not really going to get into it.
But you need to realize the fish are never actually biting your hook. You're flossing them.
I would say for 99.99% of bottom bouncers this might be case. There are some of us out there though that are not flossing them and still catching fish. Much more frequently than the flossers or most anybody else.
-
i agree with this. I tie hooks with 3 different colours of wool and i am definitely not flossing them you can feel them bite it.
-
It has its time and place, I like float fishing in most cases but you can only set so deep, local rivers here aren't all that deep so float fishing is more productive, deeper faster rivers bb can work quite well.
-
i agree with this. I tie hooks with 3 different colours of wool and i am definitely not flossing them you can feel them bite it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to convince many people around here that you are getting fish to bite your wool in the Fraser. However, there are ways of bottom bouncing bait and other lures in clearer rivers to entice fish into biting.
-
It has its time and place, I like float fishing in most cases but you can only set so deep, local rivers here aren't all that deep so float fishing is more productive, deeper faster rivers bb can work quite well.
i would rather float fish any day of the week than bottom bounce. But all of the fish are colored in the chilliwack right now.
-
All of u fools realize that salmon do not eat in fresh water, all bites are accidental or u have aggrivated the fish to the point of striking .........bottom bounce away buddy and good luck
-
I think you'd be hard pressed to convince many people around here that you are getting fish to bite your wool in the Fraser. However, there are ways of bottom bouncing bait and other lures in clearer rivers to entice fish into biting.
Can you explain why the color of wool matters? Use one color and I can catch fish all day long. Use a different color and I can't buy a bite.
And I don't use just wool.
And you think the fish can't see well enough to hit something within a couple feet of itself?
-
All of u fools realize that salmon do not eat in fresh water, all bites are accidental or u have aggrivated the fish to the point of striking .........bottom bounce away buddy and good luck
Yes. Chinook striking on roe usually involves them trying to bury the roe from what I've heard. If you find something that aggrevates them enough for them to strike bottom bouncing, I don't see what the issue is.
This completely removes grippers and rippers who are snagging/flossing/setting the hook multiple times every cast just in case they might hook into one.
-
A good flosser will only set the hook when they feel the line bump a fish. Since they almost always catch the line in the mouth due to how they swim up the river. So they won't be setting the hook every cast.
Bottom line it's still flossing.
Also the angle thing your talking about not hooking up in the dangle. When fly fishing or swinging spoons you get smashed in the dangle all the time.
Explain the color difference then. And explain how a good majority of my fish are hooked through the snout.
And I didn't say I didn't get smashed. With our hookup, I don't think the hook is properly positioned downstream.
Heck, if that doesn't convince you, what if I tell you on the same set up we are casting, we have had multiple times where a guy is essentially taking a nap and has let his sinker fall into a meter of water to be woken up with a sockeye having grabbed the lure. I suppose the lure just sitting there somehow flossed a sockeye too.
-
Can you explain why the color of wool matters? Use one color and I can catch fish all day long. Use a different color and I can't buy a bite.
And I don't use just wool.
And you think the fish can't see well enough to hit something within a couple feet of itself?
What colours you find work best?
-
What colours you find work best?
We have one that we use but I would prefer to not release it. I will say it isn't wool you can buy in the store, we had to raid my mom's sewing cabinet for that color yarn and got every piece of it she had back when we first discovered it... crap, over a decade ago.
-
lol... a bare hook on a 30 foot leader is just as effective ::)
-
show us what you're using
-
lol... a bare hook on a 30 foot leader is just as effective ::)
Uh huh, ok. That is why we outfish everybody near us combined?
Remember though, for greatest effectiveness, you must rip the pole back multiple times throughout a cast, just in case there is a fish nearby.
-
show us what you're using
It includes a red spin n glo along with a couple other items. It is the yarn that makes all the difference though and that is a family secret.
-
I do think that at times "bottom bouncing" you can have sockeye bite, it's just rare.
The one year I was out I caught 10 socks the one day all reeling in, and all 10 of them were right through the nose.
There was no hook set involved, and as I said, they hit on the retrieve right along the edge.
I was just using a huge roe sized hunk of chartreuse wool with a pencil weight and a 3 ft leader.
That was also a year with very good visibility...
Still realize though that 90% of even more of the socks that people catch bottom bouncing are flossed.
If you're legitimately bottom bouncing with a 2-3 foot leader and roe, then the chances of getting biting fish are much greater.
The fact you catch more than others is just what josh has said... it's all about feel.
When I use to bottom bounce regularly I would get fish 5 to 1 vs my buddies just because I was more in tune with what fish felt like.
Sounds like you do it enough that you probably have a much better feel than most people = more hook ups.
-
I do think that at times "bottom bouncing" you can have sockeye bite, it's just rare.
The one year I was out I caught 10 socks the one day all reeling in, and all 10 of them were right through the nose.
There was no hook set involved, and as I said, they hit on the retrieve right along the edge.
I was just using a huge roe sized hunk of chartreuse wool with a pencil weight and a 3 ft leader.
That was also a year with very good visibility...
Still realize though that 90% of even more of the socks that people catch bottom bouncing are flossed.
If you're legitimately bottom bouncing with a 2-3 foot leader and roe, then the chances of getting biting fish are much greater.
The fact you catch more than others is just what josh has said... it's all about feel.
When I use to bottom bounce regularly I would get fish 5 to 1 vs my buddies just because I was more in tune with what fish felt like.
Sounds like you do it enough that you probably have a much better feel than most people = more hook ups.
Oh, I realize that most of the people out there bottom bouncing have no idea what they are doing and I would say your 90% is probably low. I would say a good 60% of bottom bouncers at least are out there hoping or ok with snagging one.
I'm not using roe.
And it isn't about feel. I would say over half the fish we catch we wouldn't even have to set the hook on. They just about rip the pole out of your hand. They hit it very hard. On my big Chinook, if I hadn't been paying attention, he probably would have ripped the pole out of my hand. Some of the bigger sockeye we caught hit just as hard. There is no doubt it is a fish and you would have to have no feeling in your arms/hands to not know it. Sure, some of them are a lot lighter and feel more like you just slammed into a rock. The ones that really rip it though are still more in number than anyone around us combined.
-
Summer bottom bouncing has provided stimulating exercise when casting 5oz weights all day with the centerpin. ;D
As most of my fish are hooked during the retrieve, I've found a wool colour combination of chartreuse and orange a popular choice for numerous piscatorial species.
At times, and in addition to generous amounts of wool, I'll add a small corkie of complimentary colour to provide additional drag during the swing. This techniques results in the increased use of my interior oblique and transversus abdominus muscles and thus completes my workout.
Tight lines ;D
-
Summer bottom bouncing has provided stimulating exercise when casting 5oz weights all day with the centerpin. ;D
As most of my fish are hooked during the retrieve, I've found a wool colour combination of chartreuse and orange a popular choice for numerous piscatorial species.
At times, and in addition to generous amounts of wool, I'll add a small corkie of complimentary colour to provide additional drag during the swing. This techniques results in the increased use of my interior oblique and transversus abdominus muscles and thus completes my workout.
Tight lines ;D
How you get your stimulating, I'm not sure we really need to know, but thanks for sharing anyways :)
-
I find pink or bright green wool works best in the Fraser, get lots of bites with those colours.
-
Brutal....Must not be a long time fisherman to realize that BBing is just a form of snagging!
Think of how a BB rig works once you cast it out! Think of how many people think it's easy once they get into it and think it must work on other rivers. It's a pure meat harvest and the fish aren't biting your hook!
I'm a retired BB'r cause I know the difference and seen the ugliness it causes. I was damn good at it back then and only used a 7-9 foot leader and whatever colored corkie I had and still got my 2.
Oh man...why did I even bother to reply to this!!
-
Uh huh, ok. That is why we outfish everybody near us combined?
Remember though, for greatest effectiveness, you must rip the pole back multiple times throughout a cast, just in case there is a fish nearby.
I don't know if you are serious or just being a troll. Just because you out fish people next to doesnt mean the fish are biting. There are techniques to every fishery. Most people who bottom bounce do not have a clue how to do it effectively. Personally Bare hook or wool really doesn't matter as long as you are hitting the lane. I feel wool gives you an advantage because it can get caught up in the fishs teeth. This is a snagging fishery no doubt about it. That's why you have to use wool or something on hook or else it is illegal to bottom bounce because its considered snagging. You wanna bottom bounce go ahead but don't delude yourself to think you are enticing a fish to bite.
-
I don't know if you are serious or just being a troll. Just because you out fish people next to doesnt mean the fish are biting. There are techniques to every fishery. Most people who bottom bounce do not have a clue how to do it effectively. Personally Bare hook or wool really doesn't matter as long as you are hitting the lane. I feel wool gives you an advantage because it can get caught up in the fishs teeth. This is a snagging fishery no doubt about it. That's why you have to use wool or something on hook or else it is illegal to bottom bounce because its considered snagging. You wanna bottom bounce go ahead but don't dilude yourself to think you are enticing a fish to bite.
:sigh: The fish are biting. As I posted in another thread, with the setup we have, we have had numerous sockeye take it when it is just sitting at the back of the boat, not trying to fish. You can't tell me that a spin-n-glo spinning a foot below the water five feet behind the boat is flossing anything.
We have a spin-n-glo along with some yarn and other stuff but we are still bottom bouncing with it.
And I have been fishing for all kinds of salmon for almost 40 years. If you can't tell whether the fish is taking it or getting snagged, then you don't know what you are doing. The fish, sockeye and chinook alike almost rip the pole out of my hands. They are hooked usually through the nose. Almost never in the corner of the mouth. Always inside the mouth. A good portion of the fish would be hooked well enough by hitting that setting the hook wouldn't even be required.
And hitting the lane is important no matter which way you fish. If the fish are right on the bottom and you are near the top, you won't catch anything. If you are on the bottom and they are near the top, you won't catch anything. If it is deep enough, if they are in the middle and you are on the bottom, you won't catch anything. You have to be able to put it relatively in front of them, close enough that they care.
And nobody has given any explanation for why the color of the yarn matters if I am flossing. If we are just flossing, then the color would make absolutely no difference. The fact that we get tons of bites with a certain color, and virtually none with a different color, and everything else is the same, including fish still being caught by others in the boat using the right color, you can't tell me that is just flossing or snagging anything. We have done these experiments. Switch one fisherman that has been catching fish to a different color for a bit, leave everyone else the same. The other color stops catching fish completely.
Explain how that indicates flossing and snagging. If you can explain that, then I will consider your positions.
-
I don't know if you are serious or just being a troll. Just because you out fish people next to doesnt mean the fish are biting. There are techniques to every fishery. Most people who bottom bounce do not have a clue how to do it effectively. Personally Bare hook or wool really doesn't matter as long as you are hitting the lane. I feel wool gives you an advantage because it can get caught up in the fishs teeth. This is a snagging fishery no doubt about it. That's why you have to use wool or something on hook or else it is illegal to bottom bounce because its considered snagging. You wanna bottom bounce go ahead but don't delude yourself to think you are enticing a fish to bite.
Rodney....where do I click "LIKE" for this post! :)
I actually had a longer post previously but this topic will pop up again so I didn't bother!
-
All of u fools realize that salmon do not eat in fresh water, all bites are accidental or u have aggrivated the fish to the point of striking .........bottom bounce away buddy and good luck
coho will take dew worms quite readily, every species will take roe, ive seen coho caught on raw chicken before, ive caught all species on shrimp/prawns, hard to say if they feed or what but in all reality what they eat in the ocean isnt gonna be in the river so even if they were still feeding theres nothing there for them to really eat.
-
Not that it will matter because I don't think you guys would listen anyways but we have also talked with a fish bioligist who has a very good explanation for why the fish are striking at our combination. It envokes a reaction because of their years in the salt. He wasn't at all surprised that the fish didn't strike at other combinations.
-
(http://lakecityquietpills.com/photo/multihost/images/83617598888376636643.gif)
-
:sigh: The fish are biting. As I posted in another thread, with the setup we have, we have had numerous sockeye take it when it is just sitting at the back of the boat, not trying to fish. You can't tell me that a spin-n-glo spinning a foot below the water five feet behind the boat is flossing anything.
We have a spin-n-glo along with some yarn and other stuff but we are still bottom bouncing with it.
And I have been fishing for all kinds of salmon for almost 40 years. If you can't tell whether the fish is taking it or getting snagged, then you don't know what you are doing. The fish, sockeye and chinook alike almost rip the pole out of my hands. They are hooked usually through the nose. Almost never in the corner of the mouth. Always inside the mouth. A good portion of the fish would be hooked well enough by hitting that setting the hook wouldn't even be required.
And hitting the lane is important no matter which way you fish. If the fish are right on the bottom and you are near the top, you won't catch anything. If you are on the bottom and they are near the top, you won't catch anything. If it is deep enough, if they are in the middle and you are on the bottom, you won't catch anything. You have to be able to put it relatively in front of them, close enough that they care.
And nobody has given any explanation for why the color of the yarn matters if I am flossing. If we are just flossing, then the color would make absolutely no difference. The fact that we get tons of bites with a certain color, and virtually none with a different color, and everything else is the same, including fish still being caught by others in the boat using the right color, you can't tell me that is just flossing or snagging anything. We have done these experiments. Switch one fisherman that has been catching fish to a different color for a bit, leave everyone else the same. The other color stops catching fish completely.
Explain how that indicates flossing and snagging. If you can explain that, then I will consider your positions.
And anyone who thinks sockeye are biting in the Fraser when you bottom bounce certainly don't have a clue on what they are doing, nor a grip on reality....Have you ever looked at what wool looks like in the fraser? you cant see it two inches away, now imagine trying to spot it while it zips down river. You must be a troll-My hats off to you because you are a good one. I find it sad to see how many people have agreed that they are indeed getting them to bite, however. If there was a test in order to get a fishing license you would fail.
-
i agree with this. I tie hooks with 3 different colours of wool and i am definitely not flossing them you can feel them bite it.
OMG I almost pissed myself. Sure you feel the bite with the 3 or 4 oz bouncing along the bottom ! Keep telling yourself that you feel the bite if it makes you feel better :)
-
I don't understand why a lot of you guys hate on bottom bouncing. I have been bottom bouncing and have never hooked a fish other than in the mouth. I can immediately tell if i have the fish in the mouth. I do not even pull back and set the hook until i feel it bite my hook hard.
are you for or against it and why?
If by bottom bouncing, you are talking about drift fishing with a 30" leader, it is quite a common technique and does get fish to bite. http://www.steelheadnotebook.net/drift.htm When I went to Central Coast, everyone (except fly fishermen) bottom bounced and were getting fish to bite. I couldn't find one person float fishing there during my 3 day visit. If by bottom bouncing, you are talking about using bouncing betty with a 12' leader, then it is flossing. Are you asking about the first or 2nd? Just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. Unfortunately, most people in the Lower Mainland only see the 2nd method and many clump all forms of bottom bouncing as flossing or snagging. I don't see many people drift fishing around here probably due to the negativity associated with bottom bouncing around here in Region 2.
-
I was also talking about a complete different form of 'bottom bouncing'.... I dont have any experience with bouncing betty's or fishing for sockeye on the fraser..... so i'm not sure if my experience is relevant.
I used 'bottom bouncing' on smaller river systems with a lot more visibility than what the fraser has........... 1 ounce of weight and a 24-36" leader.
I assure you that the fish will bite with this technique as you can actually see the take in some waters.
-
Putting the bottom bouncing discussion aside for one second, because most of you have already made up your mind and I think it's ridiculous to waste more time trying to argue what fish can and cannot see in water with a few inches of visibility, lets talk about the consequences of not abiding to what you are being asked to do.
It's all cool and dandy that you are able to catch and release 50 sockeye salmon by getting them to bite while others can't even get a couple on the hook, but this is currently a selective fishery. Participants are asked to avoid catching and releasing sockeye salmon, and only target chinook salmon. If you are catching and releasing that many sockeye salmon, you are not selectively targeting chinook salmon. This doesn't really have much to do with whether you are flossing or not, the same would apply to other fisheries and techniques. If anglers are asked not to target coho salmon in the Fraser in September, yet the managers determine the percentage of by-catch is too high, management measures will be implemented. If managers determine that you, as in the whole recreational Fraser River summer chinook fishery, are intercepting too many sockeye salmon, then expect to see more extended "no salmon fishing" in future summers.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has no intention to implement additional terminal tackle regulations on this fishery. They are satisfied with the way it is being operated right now (too many sockeye interception, whole fishery shuts down). First Nations will report and request Fisheries and Oceans Canada to follow through this implementation when they see sockeye salmon being caught. Sooner or later emails will be in my inbox giving advance warnings of the immediate closure of the fishery because of actions by participants like you. Personally do I really care if it stays open or not? Not really, there are way nicer places to fish in this province during the months of July and August. Consider the above as a favour. If you want to see this fishery remain open, stop hooking and releasing sockeye salmon.
-
Sure would be nice to see the Fraser go back to the pre 1992 days. Sockeye were only opened to First Nations in freshwater, if the sport fisher wanted sockeye they had to go fish in the salt chuck. Barfishing for springs started in May, miss those early season openings.
-
Sure would be nice to see the Fraser go back to the pre 1992 days. Sockeye were only opened to First Nations in freshwater, if the sport fisher wanted sockeye they had to go fish in the salt chuck. Barfishing for springs started in May, miss those early season openings.
I used to look forward to May long weekend far more back then...
To those that are catching more than a handful of sockeye in the non-tidal section of the Fraser and that those fish are biting are truly misinformed. It is possible that a few fish may actually bite but that would be happening on a barfing setup. I bet if I stood right beside TNAngler and tossed out a bare hook that I would get as many fish as his "secret" setup. Actually I think I would probably hook more fish because I understand fully what is truly happening in the water. Sure I have participated in sockeye flossing openings (not denying I haven't done it long ago in the past) in fact I'm sure most good rods have done it at least once in the past.
Now please people continue on I need a few more chuckles as I sit here drinking my beer lol.
(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3000/86d67/products/5685/images/4343/t5462_WithoutStupidPeople_BLK_CRM__27408.1349810378.600.600.jpg)
-
Very well said Rodney! :D
-
Point and case why I love fwr!!!
-
HEAR HEAR RODNEY!
-
Wow guys, this is shaping up to be a very good thread (TROLL) ;D
-
Thank you Rodney, for putting things in perspective.
I would like to add that the opening post is nothing but a sad attempt at a troll, for one simple and obvious contradiction:
The opening poster said in his first post:
"I was up in the area for 10 days visiting family and went fishing 4 times. During that time, my dad, my wife, and I caught about 50 sockeye (lost probably a quarter that many), 2 kings in the boat (not big, 10-15 pounds each)"
Then he proceeds to say: "We weren't trying to catch the sockeye, we were throwing out deeper where the kings were. I would have been happy only catching kings."
If I am wrong, and TNAngler really meant what he wrote, the above two quotes in juxtaposition tell only one thing: That we are dealing with an individual who is in complete disregard for the state of this precious resource, and who sadly does not have the required skill to catch kings WITHOUT ending with numerous PROTECTED sockeye salmon as bycatch.
Frankly, I have more respect for the flosser who snags his two sockeye during an opening and leaves than for anyone catching and releasing sockeye after sockeye during a closure trying to catch an elusive chinook.
So, TNAngler, until you learn to respect the resource and to catch only the fish you are targetting (with zero or MINIMAL incidental bycatch), I suggest you follow your very own advice: "if you aren't going to get the fish to hit and catch it right, there is no sense even going. Just stay home."
-
Feel free to post a few detailed photos of your set-up for review
-
I have no problem with flossing sockeye but, as Rodney points out, a 50 to 2 ratio isn't fishing for springs, it is a 4% bycatch.
And I did have some other issues with the post and the attitude.
So we can assume that you "came up" from the States to catch "kings"? In BC the net fishers and anglers have the same right to fish for these salmon. I tried to find the pamphlet that was produced a year or two ago but I couldn't find it but the gist if it was that we share the resource and when a net fisherman drifts down through the area you are expected to take a couple minutes out of your fishing time and let them drift by. You have no more right or entitlement to the spot or to the fish than they do. Letting them fish through is called courtesy, perhaps this concept is foreign to you?
And, maybe, where you are from it is okay to threaten to throw chunks of lead at people (although too often it involves thirty round clips) but around here it is not. It is called assault and the penalties can be quite harsh, and sometimes the law gets involved.
BTW, there are no "kings" or reds or silvers here, just springs, sockeye and coho.
Don't care if my socks are flossed or not just as long as they are barbecued or canned.
-
milo, you talk about contradictions, but you missed the biggest one:
Of all the fish we caught, only one of them was flossed ... Most were up through the nose, some were in the outside cheek.
;D ;D ;D
Sounds to me like MOST of this TNA's fish were flossed, not just the one. Perhaps he's not a troll, just doesn't understand the definition of flossing.
In any case, another thanks to Rod: sox are CLOSED FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING and it's asked that springs be targeted selectively. Stop hucking 2+oz betties, 10+ foot leaders, and whatever "secret" terminal tackle you feel entices more bites. Pinks are open and still biting. Go fish for them if you can't figure out bar fishing.
BTW, there are no ... reds ... here.
Actually, GordJ, there are reds, whites, and the occasional marble in the Vedder ;) ;)
-
If bottom bouncing is an ethical way to fish for springs during a sockeye closure then I am going to hit the river with some dynamite tomorrow. I don't see the difference.
-
Bottom bouncing/flossing should not even be allowed to do IMO.
A bunch of weekend warriors out to fill the freezer. If it was impossible to floss a salmon, 50% of the people fishing/snagging the rivers would not even be there.
I would pay double for my fishing license yearly to cover the cost of the snaggers not being there.
If the fish does not bite the hook, it does not deserve to be taken out of his habitat. If you cant convince the fish to bite the hook, then your just not ready to catch one at this point in your fishing hobby... Just my thoughts on it all.
-
I canot believe it has taken me this long to join in. ;D ;D
You think it is bad out there now wait to the pinks arrive. ::) ::)
And by the way when I was one of the early flossers, :-[ :-[ around 15 years ago I remember the day my son said this "watch this dad", 3 casts with a bare hook, results 2 sockeye, end of our flossing days.
-
Feel free to post a few detailed photos of your set-up for review
Good post.......not once have we been told about the length of leader he's been fishing with. If TAngler is using a 2-3' leader and getting a wack of fish with the line hanging straight behind the boat I'd be far more inclined to believe that some of the sockeye are biting.....although, even at that length it's still possible to floss fish if they are running thick. If the leader is more than 5' long and closer to 10' or more, which I have a feeling it is, it's flossing all the way. I'd put money on it!
I have had plenting of sockeye bite in my years of fishing but none of them have been in the Fraser....only clear water systems like the Vedder and the Thompson.
-
ok.... so i have 3 sheep and I'm gonna go shave them for wool and dye there wool !
what color should I use !
just please leave these fish alone ! come on ! In the states right now they had a sockeye opening in washington lake ! 2 fish ! ounce u got them U MUST STOP FISHING FOR THEM !!!
-
ok.... so i have 3 sheep and I'm gonna go shave them for wool and dye there wool !
what color should I use !
Green of course ;)
-
Black would probably be more suitable!
-
I wonder if/when a "no bottom snagging law" will ever be implemented. Like an earlier poster said, I would also be willing to pay double or triple my license fee. Heck, they could make it any price they wanted and I would pay it. Yes, even sexual! :'(
-
Couple fo comments on the debate.
1. Fish biting you guys are contradicting yourselves, the non flossing group states that fish don't bite in the Fraser because they cant see etc. Yet promotes Bar fishing which involves a fish biting . So obviously the fish do bite in the Fraser.
2. Bottom bouncing is a legal technique, and has various forms. In clear water say on the Chehalis, I use various combination with 6 and 8 lb test, sometimes no weight just a dew worm or ball of roe or wool, sometimes with a split shot or two. Had some great days with the springs. Yes sometimes fish get tangled but its no different that fly fishing with a sinking line or adding a split shot to a fly line. Big Difference is the splashing of the fly line on the surface of the water will spook the fish, the lighter line doesn't. As for the Fraser that's a different story, technique is legal, and the interception is a minute fraction of the total fish population. Instead fo arguing over the small % , we should do something about the largest problem, that is the nets in particular drift nets. Can you imagine the huge increase in fish population if drift nets were banned from the Fraser. Let the FN use their traditional techniques, no problem and let them have a longer opening , but lets stop the main culprit that is hurting the fishery that's the DRIFT Nets.
3. In line with point 2, I say again because it is critical, the % of fish hooked by recreational fisherman of all types is only a small fraction of the total catch. If people and DFO are serious about the fish populations then the largest takers of the fish need to be controlled and managed not the smallest.
I have no problem with FN right to fish, but the drift net is an expediency not a right.
So solution easy Ban the drift nets completely, leave the set nets, rod fishing with single hook, dip buckets etc but get rid of the DRIFT nets and these discussion would not be required.
-
Bottom bouncing/flossing should not even be allowed to do IMO.
A bunch of weekend warriors out to fill the freezer. If it was impossible to floss a salmon, 50% of the people fishing/snagging the rivers would not even be there.
I would pay double for my fishing license yearly to cover the cost of the snaggers not being there.
If the fish does not bite the hook, it does not deserve to be taken out of his habitat. If you cant convince the fish to bite the hook, then your just not ready to catch one at this point in your fishing hobby... Just my thoughts on it all.
x2 Well stated
-
Its not the method .... its the person. ANY method can be used to snag fish.
We need more CO's and enforcement and that will only happen when the license at least doubles, it is ridiculous how little we pay .... and thus how little goes back into the pot to manage this wonderful fishery.
We are the envy of many around the world .... let's keep it that way!!
-
HI!! Long time listener first time poster. First thing that has caught my eye and attention on this subject of flossing, is the discussion of length of leader. Now from what I understand both float and bottom fishermen seem to agree that anything over 36" leader your flossing them it seems, correct me if I am wrong?
Secondly it seems theres a general consensus that if your a bottom bouncer, your a flosser, no questions asked.
So here's my dilemna, I have fished the vedder, chehalis, and the harrison for 7 years now. I regularly see Float fisherman, with there 24-36" leaders, yet there float is set almost on the bottom of the river anyways, and I also see them reef there rod high in the air, for what almost seems like no reason. So my question is how is this ANY different from any of these bottom bouncing dudes?
When I first started salmon river fishing i was not taught anything. Asking fellow fisherman on the river was a very chilly situation. They simply didn't want the competition or could care less. I bottom bounced for 4 years before i learned about the float set up. In this time I watched MANY float fisherman troll the bottom with their floats, bait, wool etc and SNAG OMG i don't know how many fish. They all just jerk their lines constantly to a point its very distracting. Yet within these 4 years of bottom bouncing I only ever snagged 1 Chum. I felt absolutely horrible! Never mind trying to haul the hog in! it was brutal.
In my 7 years total I have only ever snagged 1 more fish and that was with a lure on the chehalis. Again I felt horrible.
As a Newbie I was easily able to tell when a fish bit while bottome bouncing. It takes less than an hour to figure this out. As a float fisherman its the same deal. you can feel your line hitting a school of fish is way different than one actually taking a bite. I have fished 2 pink years as well with no snags.
I have morals and ethics especially when fishing. And I do take issue with people catching and keeping fish illegally caught. But I myself and i am sure many others, that either bottom bounce, use wool, or 3-5' leaders are able to fish like this and not floss a fish or snag them. Simply being patient for when the fish bite.
So I am trying to understand why there seems to be an "elitist Fishermens" group that has a large discriminatory reaction to those that don't fish as they do??
p.s. In my 7 years I have never caught a sockey salmon
-
I also have a problem with leader length discussions.
I for one vary my leader length based on where I am fishing. faster water shorter slower water longer.
I get my Coho mostly on a bull back when the bait, lowly is held back and rises a few inches of the bottom, does not matter whether its float or lightly bottom bouncing that's when they bite.
So I don't think there is one size fits all, it depends on the water flow and conditions at the time.
-
Couple fo comments on the debate.
1. Fish biting you guys are contradicting yourselves, the non flossing group states that fish don't bite in the Fraser because they cant see etc. Yet promotes Bar fishing which involves a fish biting . So obviously the fish do bite in the Fraser.
2. Bottom bouncing is a legal technique, and has various forms. In clear water say on the Chehalis, I use various combination with 6 and 8 lb test, sometimes no weight just a dew worm or ball of roe or wool, sometimes with a split shot or two. Had some great days with the springs. Yes sometimes fish get tangled but its no different that fly fishing with a sinking line or adding a split shot to a fly line. Big Difference is the splashing of the fly line on the surface of the water will spook the fish, the lighter line doesn't. As for the Fraser that's a different story, technique is legal, and the interception is a minute fraction of the total fish population. Instead fo arguing over the small % , we should do something about the largest problem, that is the nets in particular drift nets. Can you imagine the huge increase in fish population if drift nets were banned from the Fraser. Let the FN use their traditional techniques, no problem and let them have a longer opening , but lets stop the main culprit that is hurting the fishery that's the DRIFT Nets.
3. In line with point 2, I say again because it is critical, the % of fish hooked by recreational fisherman of all types is only a small fraction of the total catch. If people and DFO are serious about the fish populations then the largest takers of the fish need to be controlled and managed not the smallest.
I have no problem with FN right to fish, but the drift net is an expediency not a right.
So solution easy Ban the drift nets completely, leave the set nets, rod fishing with single hook, dip buckets etc but get rid of the DRIFT nets and these discussion would not be required.
Hoards of people snagging fish is not a small problem.Sure the sport fishermen take the smallest percentage but that doesn't mean what they are doing is right.
Your other point about fish not biting in the fraser, it means the fish you guys are snagging in the face with green wool are not biting....bar fishing uses a lure set in a spot with or without bait/scent....If positioned properly the fish swim to it, and bite.....Big difference between sweeping a piece of wool and a stationary bait.The spin n glow or any other lure also gives off a vibration in the water the fish can pick up.Nice try though.
-
@goog, but also for others + future reference:
For clarification, and without getting into exact specifics (so as not to encourage more greenhorns to fencepost), the term "bottom bouncing" the Fraser for sockeye is generally accepted as referring to the practice of tossing 1.5-5oz of lead into the river, from which a hook attached to 6-15+feet of leader is trailing.
The principle behind this practice is that the fish are "lined;" the long leader gets pulled (roughly) horizontally along the river bottom until it gets pulled into a fishes open mouth (picture yourself flossing your teeth; this is how the line enters the fishes mouth and this is how the name for this angling practice was coined). The weight continues downstream, pulling the line through the fishes mouth until the hook arrives at its head. If the hook is angled correctly, then BAM; "FISH O-O-O-ON!!" Sometimes the fish are hooked in the mouth (as in, under the tounge, through the roof of the mouth, etc.), but often they are hooked in the head (i.e. from "outside in"; e.g. in the cheek, in the snout, etc). Occasionally, a fish is hooked in the tail or side, but this is a rare occurrence (~1% of fish) if the angler is not "ripping" the hook throughout the bounce, or at the end of it.
The fact that fish are being lined is evidenced by the observation that bare hooks can catch just (or nearly) as many fish, as well as hookset observations (i.e. fish being hooked in the head -- instead of in the mouth -- and on the opposite side of the angler, to boot). This should also be evidence enough that the (vast) majority of the fish aren't biting these tiny, fast-moving rigs. Fish that are hooked inside the mouth are almost certainly done so by chance, and I would wager decent money that TNAngler's observation that the fish won't "bite" a different coloured wool is either: A) a fluke, or B) a lie. Since the post seems troll-like, I'm leaning towards B), but having participated in this fishery a few times I know from experience that the fishing "turns on and off," due to the way the fish migrate, so A) is certainly possible and -- in the spirit of "benefit of the doubt" -- is my official position.
As to why the fish "feel" like they are biting/hitting? Well, this is simply because, to the uninitiated, that's how it feels when 3oz of lead, under tension, suddenly comes to a dead stop and changes direction. In fact, the force imparted by the weight travelling downstream is such that the angler does not need to set the hook on these fish; the hook is set once it hits the fish.
Now, all of that brings us to TNAngler's main query "what's the big deal with bottom bouncing?" and if you've followed the above, thus far, you may instinctively understand the short of it: it's a grey area. The long of it follows:
Technically, the regs state that "snagging (foul hooking) is hooking a fish in any other part of its body other than the mouth. Attempting to snag fish of any species is prohibited. Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately."
As others have mentioned, this reg prohibits an angler from willfully trying to hook a fish by the side, etc. (e.g. "gripping and ripping"). That being the case, an angler could bottom bounce the Fraser for fish -- when sockeye are open and/or if they are not being asked to selectively target Chinook (or other species) -- and be fishing legally. However, such an angler should expect to release about 50% of fish (as they won't be hooked in the mouth). Also, such an angler can expect to be "called out" -- particularly on an internet forum -- as lining fish is not considered to be sporting by more than a few anglers. The reason for this is an ethical one. Ethics, in case you don't know, is concerned with "what is right." This is not always synonymous with "what is legal." Many things that are legal are not considered to be right, and vice versa. In this case, flossing fish is legal, but considered to be unsportsmanlike by some, who consider sportsfishing to involve getting a game fish to bite. Many will also take issue with the high % of fish that are foul-hooked. Of course, due to the nature of ethics, some take the other side of the argument: that BC issues an "angling licence" and the angler is to entitled to catch fish by whatever means is allowable, according to the regulations/Synopsis. Their ethics are elsewhere.
As long as the regulations are what they are, the flossing debate will almost certainly rage on annually -- around mid-summer -- with insults such as "snaggart" and "meat head" being flung by one side, while betties are flung by the other. Then there are those who pop the corn, crack the beer, and enjoy the show, and those who are busy fishing other flows. Had I not felt the need to right past wrongs, I might be among them right now ;) :P
Of course, at this point in time, there is also another factor that makes bottom bouncing an even bigger deal; something that it appears TNAngler was unaware of. As others have already elaborated on this, I will not do so, but will summarize it briefly:
- As Rod said, and as alluded to above: sockeye are currently closed for recreational angling (not just retention). That means you are not even lawfully allowed to play "catch & release" with them.
- The only salmon open for angling in the Fraser are Chinook ?and pink?, and anglers are asked to use SELECTIVE methods in targeting this/these species. Selective methods include: casting and retrieving spoons and spinners, bar fishing spin n' glows, fly fishing, floating roe, etc. Selective fishing methods DO NOT include bottom bouncing (because bottom bouncing hooks all fish that swim upstream with their mouths open). There is no such thing as "selective" bottom bouncing, even if one claims to be "casting where the kings are."
- Those bottom bouncing the Fraser right now for Chinook ?and pinks? are fishing unlawfully (because they are, affectively, fishing for sockeye as well. Recall: SOCKEYE ARE CLOSED FOR RECREATIONAL ANGLING, INCLUDING CATCH & RELEASE!). This changes bottom bouncing from an ethical issue (grey area) into a legal one (black area).
- Water temperatures are at record highs. Sockeye are a cold water fish. Catching and releasing these fish unlawfully is putting additional extra strain on a recovering run, even if the strained fish are a "minority." (NOTE: this year's run of sockeye is the return from the abysmal 1.x mil that we saw in 2009; numbers are not yet in but it is far from a "strong" run.) This makes the actions of all the fenceposts on the Fraser right now that much more reprehensible.
-
Well said Rodney, and I love this perspective GordJ
I have no problem with flossing sockeye but, as Rodney points out, a 50 to 2 ratio isn't fishing for springs, it is a 4% bycatch.
The flossing debate is a red herring.
Irregardless of FOC's request to use selective fishing methods, IMHO, it is irresponsible, even unethical, to catch and release so many sockeye while searching for chinook.
-
Don't care if my socks are flossed or not just as long as they are barbecued or canned.
Best post of the whole thread.
-
@goog, but also for others + future reference:
For clarification, and without getting into exact specifics (so as not to encourage more greenhorns to fencepost), the term "bottom bouncing" the Fraser for sockeye is generally accepted as referring to the practice of tossing 1.5-5oz of lead into the river, from which a hook attached to 6-15+feet of leader is trailing.
The principle behind this practice is that the fish are "lined;" the long leader gets pulled (roughly) horizontally along the river bottom until it gets pulled into a fishes open mouth (picture yourself flossing your teeth; this is how the line enters the fishes mouth and this is how the name for this angling practice was coined). The weight continues downstream, pulling the line through the fishes mouth until the hook arrives at its head. If the hook is angled correctly, then BAM; "FISH O-O-O-ON!!" Sometimes the fish are hooked in the mouth (as in, under the tounge, through the roof of the mouth, etc.), but often they are hooked in the head (i.e. from "outside in"; e.g. in the cheek, in the snout, etc). Occasionally, a fish is hooked in the tail or side, but this is a rare occurrence (~1% of fish) if the angler is not "ripping" the hook throughout the bounce, or at the end of it.
The fact that fish are being lined is evidenced by the observation that bare hooks can catch just (or nearly) as many fish, as well as hookset observations (i.e. fish being hooked in the head -- instead of in the mouth -- and on the opposite side of the angler, to boot). This should also be evidence enough that the (vast) majority of the fish aren't biting these tiny, fast-moving rigs. Fish that are hooked inside the mouth are almost certainly done so by chance, and I would wager decent money that TNAngler's observation that the fish won't "bite" a different coloured wool is either: A) a fluke, or B) a lie. Since the post seems troll-like, I'm leaning towards B), but having participated in this fishery a few times I know from experience that the fishing "turns on and off," due to the way the fish migrate, so A) is certainly possible and -- in the spirit of "benefit of the doubt" -- is my official position.
As to why the fish "feel" like they are biting/hitting? Well, this is simply because, to the uninitiated, that's how it feels when 3oz of lead, under tension, suddenly comes to a dead stop and changes direction. In fact, the force imparted by the weight travelling downstream is such that the angler does not need to set the hook on these fish; the hook is set once it hits the fish.
Now, all of that brings us to TNAngler's main query "what's the big deal with bottom bouncing?" and if you've followed the above, thus far, you may instinctively understand the short of it: it's a grey area. The long of it follows:
Technically, the regs state that "snagging (foul hooking) is hooking a fish in any other part of its body other than the mouth. Attempting to snag fish of any species is prohibited. Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately."
As others have mentioned, this reg prohibits an angler from willfully trying to hook a fish by the side, etc. (e.g. "gripping and ripping"). That being the case, an angler could bottom bounce the Fraser for fish -- when sockeye are open and/or if they are not being asked to selectively target Chinook (or other species) -- and be fishing legally. However, such an angler should expect to release about 50% of fish (as they won't be hooked in the mouth). Also, such an angler can expect to be "called out" -- particularly on an internet forum -- as lining fish is not considered to be sporting by more than a few anglers. The reason for this is an ethical one. Ethics, in case you don't know, is concerned with "what is right." This is not always synonymous with "what is legal." Many things that are legal are not considered to be right, and vice versa. In this case, flossing fish is legal, but considered to be unsportsmanlike by some, who consider sportsfishing to involve getting a game fish to bite. Many will also take issue with the high % of fish that are foul-hooked. Of course, due to the nature of ethics, some take the other side of the argument: that BC issues an "angling licence" and the angler is to entitled to catch fish by whatever means is allowable, according to the regulations/Synopsis. Their ethics are elsewhere.
As long as the regulations are what they are, the flossing debate will almost certainly rage on annually -- around mid-summer -- with insults such as "snaggart" and "meat head" being flung by one side, while betties are flung by the other. Then there are those who pop the corn, crack the beer, and enjoy the show, and those who are busy fishing other flows. Had I not felt the need to right past wrongs, I might be among them right now ;) :P
Of course, at this point in time, there is also another factor that makes bottom bouncing an even bigger deal; something that it appears TNAngler was unaware of. As others have already elaborated on this, I will not do so, but will summarize it briefly:
- As Rod said, and as alluded to above: sockeye are currently closed for recreational angling (not just retention). That means you are not even lawfully allowed to play "catch & release" with them.
- The only salmon open for angling in the Fraser are Chinook ?and pink?, and anglers are asked to use SELECTIVE methods in targeting this/these species. Selective methods include: casting and retrieving spoons and spinners, bar fishing spin n' glows, fly fishing, floating roe, etc. Selective fishing methods DO NOT include bottom bouncing (because bottom bouncing hooks all fish that swim upstream with their mouths open). There is no such thing as "selective" bottom bouncing, even if one claims to be "casting where the kings are."
- Those bottom bouncing the Fraser right now for Chinook ?and pinks? are fishing unlawfully (because they are, affectively, fishing for sockeye as well. Recall: SOCKEYE ARE CLOSED FOR RECREATIONAL ANGLING, INCLUDING CATCH & RELEASE!). This changes bottom bouncing from an ethical issue (grey area) into a legal one (black area).
- Water temperatures are at record highs. Sockeye are a cold water fish. Catching and releasing these fish unlawfully is putting additional extra strain on a recovering run, even if the strained fish are a "minority." (NOTE: this year's run of sockeye is the return from the abysmal 1.x mil that we saw in 2009; numbers are not yet in but it is far from a "strong" run.) This makes the actions of all the fenceposts on the Fraser right now that much more reprehensible.
well put!
to identify and target a species of fish not open to fishing is illegal! you did that , by you're own admission , you said if you know what you're doing,you can get them to bite and that you were catching. GUILTY as charged!.
However "we" I'd say a very high percentage of the river anglers out there have done what you were doing, and partaken in the BB style of fishing; I do believe the style or the use of bottom bouncers can be amended to a more ethical way, ( problem really boils down to ambiguous language in the regs regarding leader length), hopefully, most become reformed, and are more educated in the actual process / science of the bite.
I'm sure you are now not surprised in the hostile nature in responces to you're post and with your reasoning behind it.
wishing you good and ethical fishing adventures in the future.
-
Also, those who are catch and releasing sockeye while bottom bouncing should read Shuswap Steve's post on " Where are the Sockeye". The paper he refers to examines the detrimental effect of handling sockeye salmon in the Fraser River especially as water temperature increases.
-
Also, those who are catch and releasing sockeye while bottom bouncing should read Shuswap Steve's post on " Where are the Sockeye". The paper he refers to examines the detrimental effect of handling sockeye salmon in the Fraser River especially as water temperature increases.
Here it is for those that may have missed it.
http://faculty.forestry.ubc.ca/hinch/Robinson%20et%20al.%202013%20Cons%20Physio.pdf
-
Salmon supplement states, to be determined for sockeye. It does not state no fishing for ,which would mean if you happen to catch one you simply must release it quickly and carefully. Also i can not find where it states selective methods when fishing for chinook's, either in the supplement or fisheries notice as it has in previous years . If someone can provide that great, however until then this argument is invalid whether it is ethical or not. Just another installment of the annual pissing match, until they make it very clear that bottom bouncing is for the sockeye fishery only, and all other species must be released if using this method. What i would like to see in the future is no bouncing while sockeye are closed,when it is open get your two and either change methods, or go home and release all other species.
-
For clarification, and without getting into exact specifics (so as not to
encourage more greenhorns to fencepost), the term "bottom bouncing" the
Fraser
for sockeye is generally accepted as referring to the practice of
tossing
1.5-5oz of lead into the river, from which a hook attached to
6-15+feet of
leader is trailing.
Thank you for the clarification on the bottom bouncing methods typically used on th Fraser. I understand now more why people would be upset with this method, as no doubt it would be flossing. I have never fished the fraser nor will i probably ever. especially if this is the method used.
Again thank you for heling me understand the "flossing" issue a little more
-
Salmon supplement states, to be determined for sockeye. It does not state no fishing for
Yes, but the most recent fishery notice says very clearly:
"...
Subject: FN0721-Salmon - Fraser River Sockeye Update - Areas 11 to 29 - August 9, 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the reduced Summer run abundance and increase management
adjustment factor First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial fisheries targeting
Fraser sockeye are being closed in an orderly fashion to reduce the impacts on
Summer run sockeye. Fishers are requested to check for opening times and any
restrictions in their local areas. There are no planned Canadian commercial or
recreational fisheries directed on Fraser sockeye at this time."
In other words, recreational Fraser sockeye fishing is NOT open at this time. In other words, it's closed, and -- as Sandy said -- by fishing for sockeye you are committing an offence. By bottom bouncing you are targeting all salmon species, including the sockeye, even if you are 'not trying to.' This has been demonstrated by TNAngler. It doesn't matter whether you're not being asked to fish selectively for Chinook, the fact is: SOCKEYE ARE CLOSED FOR FISHING, regardless of whether or not DFO has stated that selective methods be used for targeting springs.
But, you're right, they have not stated that (AFAI can tell); it was wrong of me to assume.
If someone can provide that great, however until then this argument is invalid whether it is ethical or not.
False. Again, there are currently no recreational fisheries directed at sockeye. The fact that salmon supplement hasn't been updated to "closed," from "to be determined," doesn't mean you can fish for them.
But, whatever, go bounce your heart out and release those sox into the bathwater while going for your spring. I won't stop you, nor will DFO. Just don't go posting "why is there no more sockeye?" in 10 years.
-
Thank you for the clarification on the bottom bouncing methods typically used on th Fraser.
You're welcome notracy (and anyone else that's new to this). Not sure what your experience with fishing for salmon is but if you're looking for opportunities I would suggest targeting pink salmon north of Vancouver. The fishing is HOT for them right now, and they will attack pretty much whatever you throw at them (i.e. they will actually BITE your lure). Too bad you can't get a licence for dogs because even they're limiting out ;) :P Good way to introduce kids to salmon fishing. There is a decent, recent thread in the General Discussion section.
Cheers,
Z
-
What does it take for DFO to close both the sockeye and chinook fisheries on the Fraser? Both sockeye and chinook numbers are dismal yet anglers are allowed to floss these fish into extinction.
It's interesting that you are not allowed to take sockeye that are in the millions, yet anglers are allowed to kill chinook that are only in the thousands. Next on the hit list will be the pinks in about 3 weeks. :(
-
False. Again, there are currently no recreational fisheries directed at sockeye. The fact that salmon supplement hasn't been updated to "closed," from "to be determined," doesn't mean you can fish for them.
But, whatever, go bounce your heart out and release those sox into the bathwater while going for your spring. I won't stop you, nor will DFO. Just don't go posting "why is there no more sockeye?" in 10 years.
Never said there was an opening for sockeye, was just making a point that until the DFO disallows the method of BB'ing it will continue. I very rarely fish the fraser, I find it more satisfying to go short float the other flows in the area. And as far as whining about not having sockeye in ten years, I am sure "ceremonial" fisheries will take care of that, considering most of their catch is sold before it is caught :-X
-
Dirty water? Short weight leader line? Use short Leader and a bobber to keep it off the bottom. If youre hitting the bobber, shorten it up. You will be surprised.
ALSO, I was on squamish Friday (Thursday? /shrug) and watched all the old timers with their fly rods "enticing" Pinks to "bite" every cast with heavy sinking line and the long leader lines fly rods have. It was cute. Got into it with several guys keeping snagged fish or giving fish away because they were limited out. Also, with how many Pinks are in the river, and how frequently they were catching them, why would anyone need to drag a fish onto the shore to release it? Sigh. So many people so little time to try to nicely point out things.
-
...why would anyone need to drag a fish onto the shore to release it?
How else can you be the envy of other anglers if you don't drag it at least 10' up the rocks (bonus points if you get it to the sand) to confirm that it is in fact "landed"! If you released it in the water someone could question if you even really had a fish on. Plus it's virtually impossible to land a fish in the water anyway! You may not be aware, but reels don't work on the last 20' of line, which is why you must back 30' out of the water to consider it an official landing.
-
its amazing the BS that comes out on this emotional topic, Statements like " flossers will cause the extinction of a salmon species" is not only stupid its utterly idiotic. if you are going to make arguments and opinions at least get them factually correct. All the flossers combined catch a minute percentage of the total catch. Go after the real threat that's the nets. No mention of the huge catch of Chinook from the nets.
-
All the flossers combined catch a minute percentage of the total catch.
500 anglers/day * 30 days * 20 sox/angler =~ 300,000 sockeye in a month... That's about 5% of the run... That estimate may be a bit high but seems possible.
All the flossers combined catch a minute percentage of the total catch. Go after the real threat that's the nets. No mention of the huge catch of Chinook from the nets.
The subject at hand was "bottom bouncing whats the big deal?" not "who's the biggest threat to sockeye?"
I'm not here to save the sockeye (that's management's job, as far as I'm concerned); I was just answering a question. You seem to have a good idea of what needs to be done though, so if you can make a difference I'd support your cause.
-
ALSO, I was on squamish Friday (Thursday? /shrug) and watched all the old timers with their fly rods "enticing" Pinks to "bite" every cast with heavy sinking line and the long leader lines fly rods have.
I understand how frustrating it must be to watch a fly guy out-fish you 10:1. ;D
For the record, the weapon of choice is a floating line and a slow sinking tip with no more than a five foot tippet. The line must not drag on the bottom, which a heavy sinking line certainly would.
And yes, when the pinks are in in good numbers, catching a fish every cast is a no-brainer if your presentation is right.
-
This is probably a troll from a bar fisherman who is out here to shame the bb folks for catching way too many sockeye while bb. I was at Snaggy bar on Friday. Very few sockeye caught by any one. I didn't hook one sockeye in 7 hours. Just focus on outside fast water and avoid slower near shore water and there will be next to zero sockeye hooked.
If the original poster is sincere about his method, post it out for others to try to see if there is merit to his claim. Fishing folks have tried different colours for eon and any special colour that works like miracle should have already been discovered. Sockeye does bite when they can see well. So if the Fraser clears, bb will catch them in the mouth if you drift their travel lane and slowly release line to slow the drift, must like you bb the Vedder or Chehalis with shorter leader. But in cloudy water, it will be hard to say. I won't say fish cannot see 100% in coloured water. I used to believe so. But 20+ years ago, we fished the Gold for C&R steelhead. Under flooding water with almost yellowish water at a canyon pool, we hooked over 20 steelhead by bb on short leader a small spin & glo with orange body and white wing, the local called Gold River Special. Them steelhead must have 6th sense. They could feel the small spin & glo and hit them at random in flooding yellowish/brownish water. So when the poster mentioned he used a red spin & glo, it reminds me of the Gold River experience.
But I just don't buy there is a secret and magical colour out there not discovered yet by the fishing fraternity at large, and such colour is like a fish magnet to strike. They author has to reveal it for others to try it so see if this is just a troll or a undiscovered secret. But I agree with Rodney. If you catch so many sockeye, stop fishing. This is not a time to use the magic colour if it exists and if it is a magnet to sockeyes.
-
Wow, lot's of people get upset about this. To answer some of the things...
The net drifting WASN'T OPEN. They closed Sunday evening. Sure, if they are open and drifting in front of us, I would probably consider it rude but move on. The fact that they weren't currently open and he was trying to poach the fish, that was the issue.
If any of you think fish can't see in dirty water, you are mistaken. They might not be able to see everything but if they can probably see or know what is going on within 10 feet of them if we can see a foot.
I don't suppose that, in the last 7 or so years I have been up there fishing for one week during the summer, that I have caught one fish outside the mouth? That was a 15-20 pound chinook which we got in as quickly as we could and released. There were a bunch of guys on the bar that were upset we released it.
When we anchor, we are out from shore about 15 feet, we are in 4 feet of water. Most of the sockeye we hooked were a good thirty or forty feet or more out from the boat so 50+ feet or so from shore, in 12 feet of water. If we wanted to catch more sockeye, we would let our lines drift closer in to shore where most of the sockeye run. Heck, most of the sockeye jumping were less than 5 feet out from the boat and in toward shore from there. Most of the boats around anchored right up next to shore to be able to fish where the sockeye were jumping.
Before the nets opened up, there were a bunch of sockeye in the river (relative to past years except 3 years ago). There were sockeye jumping all over the place. Maybe that is what shoved some of them out into deeper water usually only inhabited by the bigger chinook.
You needn't worry anymore though. I am back a long ways away and won't be fishing up there again this year.
-
^^ I don't think your a "Troll" at all, but I DO think you'd probably make the "Beak" category. Why you ask ?? Ask any long time bar fisherman, they'll tell you that probably 99.99% of the Chinnook caught bar fishing the Fraser River are in no more than 5 to 10 feet of water, the sockeye are a deeper running fish as the look for the colder/faster water while the Chinnook like to travel in slower, more conservative waters.
Look at it this way, why do most of the Chinnook travel down the West Coast in 50 fathoms of water and shallower ? They like to hug the beach almost all the time, how do I know this ?? I was a commercial fisherman for 30 years and there isn't much you can tell me about what and where salmon travel.
As for your secret wool combo, that's near THE TOPS in the comic department when yakking about BB'ing and flossing. I've bottom bounced with pencil lead and 3 foot leaders with spin-n-glows, plain old dew worms, gooey bobs and the likes in the old days for Steelhead on many Island rivers, including the Gold and yes that was and can still be a great way to get fish but only if the river bottom and river flow is right for the said method.
To finish I'll just say this,.......Your fish were flossed, deal with it, accept it and carry on, your not the only one guilty of catching too many sockeye while looking for the Chinnook to retain and if this carries on we bar fishermen won't have a fishery to enjoy at all.
I wish the bouncing betty was never made but it is what it is so................
-
Edit - not going to bother.
-
500 anglers/day * 30 days * 20 sox/angler =~ 300,000 sockeye in a month... That's about 5% of the run... That estimate may be a bit high but seems possible.
I think you mean 2 fish/angler. so 30,000 in a month, which seems totally believable.
-
I think you mean 2 fish/angler. so 30,000 in a month, which seems totally believable.
Maybe he was talking Catch and Release, DanL? I have no idea whether 20/fish/angler/day is realistic or not though as I don't BB.
-
I think you mean 2 fish/angler. so 30,000 in a month, which seems totally believable.
And yet the FN took 17k reported in a week which was a very light week. And those 30k in a month that were released and might have a harder time getting up stream are going to destroy the fisheries? Yes, I should be doing everything I can to help the run. Unless the nets are gotten under control, my 50 measely fish won't amount to a hell of beans as the runs are going to be gone very soon anyways. BBing as a whole is part of the problem but there are much more serious problems.
And for the week I was there, I would guess that number of fish per angler is very high in a month as many went without catching anything all day.
-
Maybe he was talking Catch and Release, DanL? I have no idea whether 20/fish/angler/day is realistic or not though as I don't BB.
With lots of fish like 3 years ago, yeah, possibly. The way it was the first week of the season, not even close. On average outside of my boat, there was probably 1 or 2 sockeye caught PER BOAT. Unfortunately I believe a couple of those were kept and most were snagged. For Chinook, there was 1 caught for every 10 boats per day. From our location, we can see a number of people bar fishing. Probably a good 30 or 40 rods. They caught nothing.
-
^^ I don't think your a "Troll" at all, but I DO think you'd probably make the "Beak" category. Why you ask ?? Ask any long time bar fisherman, they'll tell you that probably 99.99% of the Chinnook caught bar fishing the Fraser River are in no more than 5 to 10 feet of water, the sockeye are a deeper running fish as the look for the colder/faster water while the Chinnook like to travel in slower, more conservative waters.
Look at it this way, why do most of the Chinnook travel down the West Coast in 50 fathoms of water and shallower ? They like to hug the beach almost all the time, how do I know this ?? I was a commercial fisherman for 30 years and there isn't much you can tell me about what and where salmon travel.
As for your secret wool combo, that's near THE TOPS in the comic department when yakking about BB'ing and flossing. I've bottom bounced with pencil lead and 3 foot leaders with spin-n-glows, plain old dew worms, gooey bobs and the likes in the old days for Steelhead on many Island rivers, including the Gold and yes that was and can still be a great way to get fish but only if the river bottom and river flow is right for the said method.
To finish I'll just say this,.......Your fish were flossed, deal with it, accept it and carry on, your not the only one guilty of catching too many sockeye while looking for the Chinnook to retain and if this carries on we bar fishermen won't have a fishery to enjoy at all.
I wish the bouncing betty was never made but it is what it is so................
Travel in the ocean and the river don't always correlate unless you were a commercial fisherman fishing in the river. The sockeye, at least the smaller ones, are going to be in 4 feet of water or less usually. That is where most of the ones caught from the beach are, snagged at the very bottom of the drift. Only the bigger sockeye are out in the deeper waters of the holes we fish which is why the previous couple years, when the sockeye have been so small that we have only caught chinook and no sockeye. The fact we were catching some meant they were bigger (and they were) than they have been in the past. The Chinook, when most of these fisherman catch them, are very early in their cast, in deeper water. I have caught them in 6 feet of water as well, but not right up against shore. You might find some up there but they are usually pretty small. I would bet most of your bar fisherman are fishing more of a flat, where it drops off pretty quick and then flattens out and they travel that shelf. The sockeye right up against the drop off toward the top, the Chinook at the base of the drop off.
Look at the reaction of Chinook versus sockeye when something isn't right, ie they get freaked by a net. Chinook will go and sulk in a deep hole, just hanging out for a while before moving on. Most of the rest of the fish try and get away, heading upstream quicker.
Bottom composition also plays a huge roll in where the fish go and different kinds of fish like different bottoms. Chinook are going to like bigger rock, stumps, crap like that. Where we were fishing, the current is slightly stronger along the side because of the way the river splits. Every Chinook we caught was out in the deeper water where a stump was upstream a little bit breaking the current.
Again, nobody has explained the color difference I and others have witnessed. Also, if I am flossing them, why are so many hooked through the beak or the opposite way it would hook if being pulled through the mouth? If it was being pulled through the mouth, assuming fishing on the right bank according to the fish, you would expect it on the outside of the left cheek or inside of the right cheek. Not where I am hooking them.
Also, for the ones that say I don't know what a fish hit feels like and that it is just getting stopped like it would against a rock, all I can do is shake my head. I have fished for salmon just about every way there is. I have experienced many hits on a whole lot of different tackle. My favorite form a fishing is back drifting a plug for steelhead. They get so mad at it that they absolutely kill it. I have been bar fishing with more weight than we fished for in the Fraser and had a salmon pick up the spin-n-glo and roe, swim upstream with it and was holding the pole when it turned out from the bank and I set the hook. The hits we have aren't quite as mad as the steelhead with the plugs but they are pretty close. I have flossed a good number of sockeye back in the days they were more plentiful and know what it feels like. We did what we could to avoid this from happening.
So are you saying with your spin-n-glo's for steelhead that you were flossing them there too? I bet they would hit that thing pretty good. So how does that mean that I am flossing if I am using pretty much the same thing you did before?
-
Look at the reaction of Chinook versus sockeye when something isn't right, ie they get freaked by a net. Chinook will go and sulk in a deep hole, just hanging out for a while before moving on. Most of the rest of the fish try and get away, heading upstream quicker.
Actually, chinook are smarter than you credit them for. Most will take you on a long run DOWNSTREAM upon hook up. They know how to use the current to their advantage. As ageneral rule, chinook don't go upstream voluntarily when hooked. You have to FORCE them.
Also, if I am flossing them, why are so many hooked through the beak or the opposite way it would hook if being pulled through the mouth? If it was being pulled through the mouth, assuming fishing on the right bank according to the fish, you would expect it on the outside of the left cheek or inside of the right cheek.
For two reasons. Hooks tend to "bounce off" a bit before they get impaled (due to the yarn or corky or knot or whatever). A flossed fish can have the hook impaled just about anywhere in and around the mouth.
You were flossing them. Live with it.
-
Travel in the ocean and the river don't always correlate unless you were a commercial fisherman fishing in the river. The sockeye, at least the smaller ones, are going to be in 4 feet of water or less usually. That is where most of the ones caught from the beach are, snagged at the very bottom of the drift. Only the bigger sockeye are out in the deeper waters of the holes we fish which is why the previous couple years, when the sockeye have been so small that we have only caught chinook and no sockeye. The fact we were catching some meant they were bigger (and they were) than they have been in the past. The Chinook, when most of these fisherman catch them, are very early in their cast, in deeper water. I have caught them in 6 feet of water as well, but not right up against shore. You might find some up there but they are usually pretty small. I would bet most of your bar fisherman are fishing more of a flat, where it drops off pretty quick and then flattens out and they travel that shelf. The sockeye right up against the drop off toward the top, the Chinook at the base of the drop off.
Look at the reaction of Chinook versus sockeye when something isn't right, ie they get freaked by a net. Chinook will go and sulk in a deep hole, just hanging out for a while before moving on. Most of the rest of the fish try and get away, heading upstream quicker.
Bottom composition also plays a huge roll in where the fish go and different kinds of fish like different bottoms. Chinook are going to like bigger rock, stumps, crap like that. Where we were fishing, the current is slightly stronger along the side because of the way the river splits. Every Chinook we caught was out in the deeper water where a stump was upstream a little bit breaking the current.
Again, nobody has explained the color difference I and others have witnessed. Also, if I am flossing them, why are so many hooked through the beak or the opposite way it would hook if being pulled through the mouth? If it was being pulled through the mouth, assuming fishing on the right bank according to the fish, you would expect it on the outside of the left cheek or inside of the right cheek. Not where I am hooking them.
Also, for the ones that say I don't know what a fish hit feels like and that it is just getting stopped like it would against a rock, all I can do is shake my head. I have fished for salmon just about every way there is. I have experienced many hits on a whole lot of different tackle. My favorite form a fishing is back drifting a plug for steelhead. They get so mad at it that they absolutely kill it. I have been bar fishing with more weight than we fished for in the Fraser and had a salmon pick up the spin-n-glo and roe, swim upstream with it and was holding the pole when it turned out from the bank and I set the hook. The hits we have aren't quite as mad as the steelhead with the plugs but they are pretty close. I have flossed a good number of sockeye back in the days they were more plentiful and know what it feels like. We did what we could to avoid this from happening.
So are you saying with your spin-n-glo's for steelhead that you were flossing them there too? I bet they would hit that thing pretty good. So how does that mean that I am flossing if I am using pretty much the same thing you did before?
Put it this way, if a fish that is flossed can have the hook in it's back then they cana have the hook end up anywhere, not just on the side you think it should be, or the part of the jaw it should be, I mean shake your head lad, water current, the fish's reaction, many things can decide where the hook ends up.
BTW, I've never flossed a Steelhead with a piece of pencil lead and a THREE FOOT LEADER with a lure or bait while bouncing in the old days. I think your leader is much longer than THREE FEET while fishing the Fraser, and if you say it isn't I'd be tempted to call you a big fat liar........period.
Anyways, glad to hear your back home safe and sound, God knows we've got enough anglers up here with blood in their eyes and a no care attitude for sockeye as it is. The only thing they care about is hooking a fish, may it be the right species or not.......sad, very sad. :-[
-
TNAngler, how long, may I ask is the leader that you and your buddies are using?
-
Actually, chinook are smarter than you credit them for. Most will take you on a long run DOWNSTREAM upon hook up. They know how to use the current to their advantage. As ageneral rule, chinook don't go upstream voluntarily when hooked. You have to FORCE them.
For two reasons. Hooks tend to "bounce off" a bit before they get impaled (due to the yarn or corky or knot or whatever). A flossed fish can have the hook impaled just about anywhere in and around the mouth.
You were flossing them. Live with it.
You didn't read what I wrote. What I said had nothing to do with when they get hooked. I said if they get spooked. I also said most species other than chinook swim upstream. That isn't really either as a bunch of them would much rather go downstream to something they have already experienced if they are spooked. It was a statement about Chinook holing up in deep holes, counter to being more shallow.
Again, explain the color difference.
If I am just impaling them, then you would expect the hook location to be random, or mostly so. Not consistent. Unless you are going to tell me that no matter where in the drift I am, I am flossing them through the mouth at exactly the same angle and duration and it is bouncing consistently for all fish.
I realize a bunch of you are purists and think that only your way of fishing is correct and the right method. I also think you are seeing a great natural resource and source of enjoyment slipping through your fingers so you are lashing out at the only thing you feel you can. When you consider that one drift net can catch just as many fish as most bottom bouncers probably catches in an entire season, it seems like you are barking up the wrong tree. What is the survival rate for a fish that is caught and released? Lower than if it hadn't been, right? What is the survival rate of a fish caught in an illegal drift net? 0% I suppose if they pick it up quick enough they might be able to be released but realistically, if they are already fishing illegally, why would they throw anything back. One guy with a drift net can do in a day what boatloads of bottom bouncers can't do an entire season.
-
Put it this way, if a fish that is flossed can have the hook in it's back then they cana have the hook end up anywhere, not just on the side you think it should be, or the part of the jaw it should be, I mean shake your head lad, water current, the fish's reaction, many things can decide where the hook ends up.
BTW, I've never flossed a Steelhead with a piece of pencil lead and a THREE FOOT LEADER with a lure or bait while bouncing in the old days. I think your leader is much longer than THREE FEET while fishing the Fraser, and if you say it isn't I'd be tempted to call you a big fat liar........period.
Anyways, glad to hear your back home safe and sound, God knows we've got enough anglers up here with blood in their eyes and a no care attitude for sockeye as it is. The only thing they care about is hooking a fish, may it be the right species or not.......sad, very sad. :-[
As you said, many things can decide the hook placement. Doesn't the fact that they are very consistently in one of two places, like 90% of the time of better, mean that there is something other than being flossed happening? I deal with numbers all day. Our hook locations are not random in the least which is what you would expect with flossing. A couple spots with higher possibility because of the way the drift is happening but a whole bunch of other places. That isn't the case. So, logically, you can't explain that by saying I was flossing.
To answer the question, yes, our leaders are longer than 3 feet. But let me ask you why you used a 3 foot leader? Why not a 1 foot leader? Why not a 5 foot leader? Why not a 6 inch leader? If you are bouncing on the bottom, your spin-n-glo is trailing behind the sinker. It starts out about 3 feet above the sinker when the sinker first hits with a 3 foot leader and is slowly sinking. Your goal is to get that spin-n-glo to be within striking distance for the fish at the optimal time. My guess is the fish were probably a foot and a half to two feet off the bottom. If the water were deeper but the fish weren't as deep, wouldn't the leader need to be longer so that you were indeed actually in their strike zone when in the optimal zone?
Long leader = flossing = snagging is probably generally true but not always. That is all I want you guys to realize.
-
Let me also state that I did not create this thread, it was part of a different thread and Rod separated this out and named it. A lot of the people out there disgust me just as much if not more than most of you. There are bad bottom bouncers. Probably most of them are bad. There are bad bar fisherman although probably not anywhere near a majority. There are bad FN with nets, percentage wise probably small. If they made bottom bouncing illegal, I would find some other way to catch fish or go somewhere else. Unfortunately the times I am able to visit up there are very limited and the fishing is also limited. Telling me that I am flossing them and to just deal with it when I have too much evidence to make me believe that I am not flossing them hasn't changed my mind. The holes in the arguments that I am flossing are just too much to overcome.
Now, if someone wants to take Rod's that we should limit our sockeye catch because there aren't enough fish, that I can buy. However, my 10 sockeye a day split between 3 people for 3 days, and 2 fish for 3 people the last day I have a hard time believing is going to impact the run. Especially considering the 17k reported sockeye caught over the previous weekend. And considering I probably only saw 100 or so fish caught, possibly 150, counting chinook, at least the place I was at wasn't going to decimate the run compared with other methods.
-
TNAngler, how long, may I ask is the leader that you and your buddies are using?
STILL NOT ANSWERED.......4'? 5'? 6'? More? How difficult is this question that it has not been answered despite many requests? It's pretty much a sure way to figure out whether fish are being flossed or not.
-
STILL NOT ANSWERED.......4'? 5'? 6'? More? How difficult is this question that it has not been answered despite many requests? It's pretty much a sure way to figure out whether fish are being flossed or not.
Because I think it is a null tell. What if I told you the distance was 6'? What if I told you it was 40'? That still doesn't explain the color issue and where the hook is located unless you are going to try and tell me that with a 6' leader that the hook is always going to end up in one of two spots. Besides, the length of the leader does change based on how deep the water is and how deep you expect the fish to be. See my previous response. If you are fishing in deeper water and the fish are high up, you need a longer leader.
-
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/spencerrolls/mostinteresting_zps8eb35a50.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/spencerrolls/media/mostinteresting_zps8eb35a50.jpg.html)
;)
In all seriousness, there is no way for me to know for sure whether or not you are flossing without actually being there. That said, I'd say I would be fairly shocked if it turned out you were getting the majority of those sockeye to bite (vs being flossed) given what you've told us and what I know of the fishery you are describing.
-
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/spencerrolls/mostinteresting_zps8eb35a50.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/spencerrolls/media/mostinteresting_zps8eb35a50.jpg.html)
;)
In all seriousness, there is no way for me to know for sure whether or not you are flossing without actually being there. That said, I'd say I would be fairly shocked if it turned out you were getting the majority of those sockeye to bite (vs being flossed) given what you've told us and what I know of the fishery you are describing.
It's color ;)
Well, anybody that has been there has said we have not. Fisheries guys, other fisherman that have asked our secret... a bunch. Maybe next year I will invite one of you guys to go with me but you will have to fight my wife for a spot on the boat.
-
If you are fishing in deeper water and the fish are high up, you need a longer leader.
That's hilarious !!! ::) ::) ::)
Most decent fishermen would just use a float if the fish are up in the water, {after all their biting right ??} and there's still no need for a long leader. Hows the foot taste, hehe !!
The more you try and explain your BS, the more it's becoming obvious what your actually doing, and that is that your flossing like everybody else who BB's on the Fraser.
BTW, doesn't a hook with yarn sink also ?? How does it stay "UP" in the water, you didn't mention how that happens. ::)
-
That's hilarious !!! ::) ::) ::)
Most decent fishermen would just use a float if the fish are up in the water, {after all their biting right ??} and there's still no need for a long leader. Hows the foot taste, hehe !!
The more you try and explain your BS, the more it's becoming obvious what your actually doing, and that is that your flossing like everybody else who BB's on the Fraser.
There are reasons not to use a float. It is very difficult to use a float out far enough on the Fraser that we are fishing and actually have any ability to react to a strike. Using a float around some others casting unless they are using a float as well is asking for all kinds of tangles.
If you think it is such BS, then explain how I am wrong with the color (colour if you prefer) difference, and the location of the hooks? Because a lot of people here keep repeating the same things over and over and over like zombies. Bottom bouncing is bad. Bottom bouncing is flossing. And yet nobody has yet attempted to dispute the two items that indicate anything but flossing or snagging.
-
I believe that you are sincere, otherwise you won't spend so much time to defend yourself here. Perhaps just reveal the colour then with a picture of the yarn. Then people will try it out and no one will say you are a troll. Actually this is good for the fish because people will switch to this yarn and catch fish inside the mouth, and you will bury all the anti-bb people's pride and ego once and for all, and you can disprove their almost religious claim that sockeye doesn't bite on the Fraser. There will be less need to bounce aimlessly and catch fish at the wrong spot. Since you didn't invent the colour, and since it is available in the store, then what is the big deal to reveal it? Just compare this to the pink fishery, no body is trying to hide that anything in pink colour will catch pink and what is that big a deal to reveal this to the rest of the fishing world. It will only help the fish to have less foul hooking and it will prove to others that you are not trolling here. My humble 2 cents.
As far as not using the float, like in bottom bouncing with shorter leader in the Vedder, the main reason is to slow down the drift. The top water is fast and can push a float down too fast for any fish to react in murky water. But the bottom of the river with all those rocks and gravels can create pockets of slower water, and the fact that each time the lead hit a rock, it slows it down. This slowing down allows more time for the fish to react to the wool if they want to bite it. I often bounced with a top down presentation in deep pools and fast deep runs with short leader on a small spin & glo to get steelhead not catchable with a float. After fishing 20+ years, you learn something. Some of these comments are just from people who think they know it all about all fishing methods or approaches. Take it easy TN.
-
BTW, doesn't a hook with yarn sink also ?? How does it stay "UP" in the water, you didn't mention how that happens. ::)
Dealing with this separate since you added it.
Apparently you aren't reading or just aren't following along very close. I am using a spin-n-glo. In case you haven't seen them before, THEY FLOAT. The hook and yarn will drag them down some and the angle of the line from the current will some too. Left alone, they will float. And in fact there are other things around the spin-n-glo that also float.
Do I need to draw you a picture of how a spin-n-glo keeps a hook "UP"? ::)
-
I believe that you are sincere, otherwise you won't spend to much time to defend yourself here. Perhaps just reveal the colour then with a picture of the yarn. Then people will try it out and no one will say you are a troll. Actually this is good for the fish because people will switch to this yarn and catch fish inside the mouth, and you will bury all the anti-bb people's pride and ego once and for all, and you can disprove their almost religious claim that sockeye doesn't bite on the Fraser. There will be less need to bounce aimlessly and catch fish at the wrong spot. Since you didn't invent the colour, and since it is available in the store, then what is the big deal to reveal it? Just compare this to the pink fishery, no body is trying to hide that anything in pink colour will catch pink and what is that big a deal to reveal this to the rest of the fishing world. It will only help the fish to have less foul hooking and it will prove to others that you are not trolling here. My humble 2 cents.
To some extent, I can see this point of view. However, considering how many people I saw fishing who spent all day beating the water without catching anything or catching one or two (even when the runs are strong), if there was something that would give them a greater chance to catch fish, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. Also, the color isn't something you find in fishing stores. Actually I'm not sure it is even available in yarn anymore. If people are nice on the river, we have shared our secrets and they have gone on to catch many fish as well. However, do I think making it easier to catch a salmon a good thing for everybody? Probably not. There are enough people up there as it is. If it was easier, there would be a lot more people and make it even harder on the fish.
-
Dealing with this separate since you added it.
Apparently you aren't reading or just aren't following along very close. I am using a spin-n-glo. In case you haven't seen them before, THEY FLOAT. The hook and yarn will drag them down some and the angle of the line from the current will some too. Left alone, they will float. And in fact there are other things around the spin-n-glo that also float.
Do I need to draw you a picture of how a spin-n-glo keeps a hook "UP"? ::)
Nope, no picture needed, must have missed that with all the talk about the secret color combo LOLLOL
Carry on with your fiction.
BTW, if you were supposedly catching so many sockeye why didn't you stop and change to something else ?? If your such an ethical fisherman why bother continuing to land sockeye after sockeye knowing that mortality still comes in the way of C&R to some extent ??
-
I can't agree with this kind of mentality. I just revealed the secret of catching a steelhead in water people usually ignore, first the deepest part of a pool just below the fast rapid water with a drop off and this is where steelhead will line up ready for the ascend to the rapids and they are not available to the short floating guys except people who know how to do true bb fro them. Then the fast run on top of those popular pool/runs where steelhead will hide after being harassed the whole day by things throwing at them. They move up the fast runs where people generally ignore, and you can take them by top down presentation with a small spin & glow and a short leader with true bb. Do you know what a steelhead is as a sport fish compared to a sockeye and how much more numerous there are sockeyes than steelhead? If members come here to brag about something, then hold off to share anything for fear of other people catching more fish, I don't have sympathy for them if they are called troll or being bombarded by people calling them BS. Why even come here then and post? Do you know what Rodney has been doing here with diagrams and illustrations and special articles helping to explain to people how to catch fish more effectively? Is he a bad guy then or is he bad for the fish? I rest my case. I personally don't care a dime if you reveal this or not because after 20+ years on the river, I know how to catch fish, even to avoid a sockeye as is now. And I am more than happy to help others to catch a fish and any newbies who want a free instructor can contact me.
-
As many of us know the real secret to be a good flossers is the longer the leader you can cast the more success rate you will have, that is the key, plain and simple.Wool color, spin and glows, corkie or bare hook has nothing to do with it.
As I said before when I was part of the flossing crew at the start of this type of activity I was fishing a 2 to 3 foot leader and was doing very poorly. A fellow beside me was having lots of success. He said "lengthen out your leader to at least 8 feet or more." Presto, I became a good TOW er too. :-[ :-[
-
Nope, no picture needed, must have missed that with all the talk about the secret color combo LOLLOL
Carry on with your fiction.
Still calling it fiction but unable or unwilling to point out where I am wrong with the evidence I have seen. I understand. You have just swallowed the zombie line and are unwilling to think differently. It's hard to refute proof that doesn't fit inside your accepted reality.
This thread is a pretty good indication of one of the major problems with fisherman these days. The runs are collapsing and instead of fighting the big problems that are causing massive amounts of destruction (the gov't, environmentalist, big business, and countless others) they spend their time fighting over the scraps, worried about three people that hooked and then quickly and gently released about 50 sockeye.
-
As many of us know the real secret to be a good flossers is the longer the leader you can cast the more success rate you will have, that is the key, plain and simple.Wool color, spin and glows, corkie or bare hook has nothing to do with it.
As I said before when I was part of the flossing crew at the start of this type of activity I was fishing a 2 to 3 foot leader and was doing very poorly. A fellow beside me was having lots of success. He said "lengthen out your leader to at least 8 feet or more." Presto, I became a good TOW er too. :-[ :-[
But some people just can't wrap their head around it Chris, they still think their "one upping" the other anglers when in reality their just another floss artist, too funny really but I still blame you for all the "tow...ers"out there now a days though, LOLLOL.{jk} :P
-
Still calling it fiction but unable or unwilling to point out where I am wrong with the evidence I have seen. I understand. You have just swallowed the zombie line and are unwilling to think differently. It's hard to refute proof that doesn't fit inside your accepted reality.
Whatever you think pal, now answer the part you didn't quote...... Mr Ethical Fisherman ::) ::)
-
As many of us know the real secret to be a good flossers is the longer the leader you can cast the more success rate you will have, that is the key, plain and simple.Wool color, spin and glows, corkie or bare hook has nothing to do with it.
As I said before when I was part of the flossing crew at the start of this type of activity I was fishing a 2 to 3 foot leader and was doing very poorly. A fellow beside me was having lots of success. He said "lengthen out your leader to at least 8 feet or more." Presto, I became a good TOW er too. :-[ :-[
Yes, to be a good flosser, you have to have a long leader. Does having a long leader automatically make you a flosser? According to most of the people here, yes. I disagree.
To be a bar fisherman, you need to use a heavy weight, 4+ ounces depending on depth and water speed. Does fishing with 4+ ounces make you a bar fisherman?
-
I realize a bunch of you are purists and think that only your way of fishing is correct and the right method
I don't like bottom bouncing because im a purist. I hate it because it produces scum bags who are just out to get meat. They don't care how they hook it, or release or even bothering identifying a species. For that alone is a very good reason to have disdain for this type of fishery. By all means you can fish any way you want, but as I said earlier the fish are not biting. How can you explain bare hooks inside a fish mouth? so now the fish have enough time to see a little hook coming at them with no clarity. meh It's very hard to believe someone thinks the fish is biting. what colour hair do you have? and can i style it any way?
-
BTW, if you were supposedly catching so many sockeye why didn't you stop and change to something else ?? If your such an ethical fisherman why bother continuing to land sockeye after sockeye knowing that mortality still comes in the way of C&R to some extent ??
You gotta stop adding questions after I am already answering the previous one.
About 10 sockeye a day between three people isn't that many. It was an indication that there were fish there. Keeping fishing as we were provided us the best chance at Chinook. If you are going to complain about 10 fish a day, then why aren't you hounding all of the FN people drift netting when they were supposed to be closed?
-
Does having a long leader automatically make you a flosser? According to most of the people here, yes. I disagree
There it is in a nutshell !!
-
I don't like bottom bouncing because im a purist. I hate it because it produces scum bags who are just out to get meat. They don't care how they hook it, or release or even bothering identifying a species. For that alone is a very good reason to have disdain for this type of fishery. By all means you can fish any way you want, but as I said earlier the fish are not biting. How can you explain bare hooks inside a fish mouth? so now the fish have enough time to see a little hook coming at them with no clarity. meh It's very hard to believe someone thinks the fish is biting. what colour hair do you have? and can i style it any way?
I hate that it produces scum bags too. Although, to be fair, I have seen far more fish poached by bank fisherman (plunkers in the states) who drive down on the bar and sit there waiting for anything to take it. They are within 20 feet of their truck usually and any fish they hook goes in the back of the truck and they head home, only to reappear 20 minutes to an hour later to fish some more. Most of the fish are very illegal to keep but it doesn't matter.
If I was using a bare hook or even just some yarn, I could see your point. With a decent sized spin-n-glo and other items at the hook, the fish should be able to see it in plenty of time. However, I have seen a number of people fishing with bare hooks or just a little yarn and yes, they catch some in the mouth. They also catch a bunch in the gut, on the back, outside the mouth around the head, a bunch of different places. Thankfully, that is not what we are doing.
-
There it is in a nutshell !!
Wow, that is quite the revelation. I agree that you have to have a long leader to be a flosser. I disagree that having a long leader automatically means you are flossing. You should attend some classes on logical proofs. One item being true does not automatically mean the opposite is also true.
-
Wow, that is quite the revelation. I agree that you have to have a long leader to be a flosser. I disagree that having a long leader automatically means you are flossing. You should attend some classes on logical proofs. One item being true does not automatically mean the opposite is also true.
Using a bouncing betty and a long leader in the murky Fraser River is gonna floss fish, I don't give a rats arse what's on the hook end besides the hook. Lotta difference if your using a 3 foot leader with a 00 spin-n-glow that is basically in the same small zone all the time.
-
But some people just can't wrap their head around it Chris, they still think their "one upping" the other anglers when in reality their just another floss artist, too funny really but I still blame you for all the "tow...ers"out there now a days though, LOLLOL.{jk} :P
Yes I am one of the Guilty Ones, as well as Pete, no wonder he moved away. ::) What a mistake we made although there apparently is something in the works with FOC to change things, hope it does not take too long.
-
Using a bouncing betty and a long leader in the murky Fraser River is gonna floss fish, I don't give a rats arse what's on the hook end besides the hook. Lotta difference if your using a 3 foot leader with a 00 spin-n-glow that is basically in the same small zone all the time.
Whose using a bouncing betty? I have seen salmon travel upstream when there was an inch or less visibility. Yet somehow they make it all the way upstream and I doubt they are doing it by touch. Yes, smell tells them where they are going but not what is right in front of their face. If they can make it through that, you think a foot of more of visibility for us isn't a picnic for them? I've seen stuff 10 plus feet away in a shallow dirty stream spook fish. To think they can't sense and see a spin-n-glo coming downstream at them gives them not near as much credit as they deserve.
-
As Rod said, assuming the sox were biting, you were still fishing for them during a closure.
I'm not going to try to convince you that your fish were flossed, because there's this old saying about arguing with an idiot and I'm still not sure about you. At the end of the day, short of some high-tech underwater surveillance that doesn't exist, there is know way of knowing for sure whether your sox bit or not. I'd still wager good money on the latter.
Again, the "big deal" with this fishery (your original query) is the fact that most people do it wrong. There are very few of the "gripper and rippers" that you refer to, even at the most popular of bars. However, EVERYONE is flossing; a questionable angling technique. You really can't blame them though; they don't have access to the secret wool ::)
Now, until you educate the masses on how to fish the Fraser effectively, yet ethically, I'd suggest you stop gloating, trolling, or whatever the he!! it is you're doing.
-Z
-
To think they can't ... see a spin-n-glo coming downstream at them gives them not near as much credit as they deserve.
You ever heard of a lateral line? You're right; fish have other senses besides sight. I imagine it's probably one of their main senses though; why else would people avoid fishing "blown" rivers?
In 6-12 in. of vis., do you really think that a salmon that is off the feed is going to react to a tiny spin n' glow that's blowing past them at 3-10m/sec?
-
You ever heard of a lateral line? You're right; fish have other senses besides sight. I imagine it's probably one of their main senses though; why else would people avoid fishing "blown" rivers?
In 6-12 in. of vis., do you really think that a salmon that is off the feed is going to react to a tiny spin n' glow that's blowing past them at 3-10m/sec?
6-12 in of vis for us. And yes, I've heard of the lateral line. Between the vibration and the sight, the fish will have time to react IMHO. Rough estimates would put it below 3 m/sec though. Assuming we were casting way out and it took about a minute per drift. However, that doesn't change much as at that point it is more a reaction than a purposeful deciding that it is going to eat that. I think we have established that chinook and coho will definitely do that. It is a reaction to something they are very familiar with. A flash of a color they have associated with food, something red in front of it, likely blood meaning the food fish got half eaten. Either it it now or it will be taken. Split second decision. After years in the salt water reacting to that and a day or two in the fresh water, you think that goes away? I'm shocked you think sockeye wouldn't have that reaction when other species of salmon do. None of them eat. They all still have reactions.
-
If you and you friends are catching 50 sockeye for every 2 chinnook you land {over any period of time}then you shouldn't be fishing the way your fishing, whether you think it won't hurt the run or not, that's the biggest issue I have with this entire BS thread. Talk nets all you want {we all know how bad it is}but this is a sports fishing forum, nothing more so that's what I stay focused on and IMO as well as your confession you've caught waaaay too many sockeye to be doing what your doing.
I can say your flossing all these fish and you can argue it's your secret color combo all day long, I don't think we are going to budge on our opinions so I'll stick with my opinion and you can yours.
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=8778494
-
Wow, that is quite the revelation. I agree that you have to have a long leader to be a flosser. I disagree that having a long leader automatically means you are flossing. You should attend some classes on logical proofs. One item being true does not automatically mean the opposite is also true.
You are incorrect young grasshopper. when you send a very long leader into the water, you are not presenting an appealing presentation to the fish due to the lack of tension in your leader. And even if you correct that slack in your leader. then your playing dentist. so its either your magic super duper unbeatable color that a witch and a magician pulled out of a hat for you is literally fish cocaine. and there is NO WAY that your wool is special and you should go get an MRI.... or just admit that your choice of fishing methods is a poor method to attract a bite, and more likely to foul hook or "flosss" a fish and snag it.
-
If you and you friends are catching 50 sockeye for every 2 chinnook you land {over any period of time}then you shouldn't be fishing the way your fishing, whether you think it won't hurt the run or not, that's the biggest issue I have with this entire BS thread. Talk nets all you want {we all know how bad it is}but this is a sports fishing forum, nothing more so that's what I stay focused on and IMO as well as your confession you've caught waaaay too many sockeye to be doing what your doing.
I can say your flossing all these fish and you can argue it's your secret color combo all day long, I don't think we are going to budge on our opinions so I'll stick with my opinion and you can yours.
What have you done, personally, to try to fix the issues with the nets, or anything else? I know a lot of people on this board do and hopefully you are too but that isn't how you strike me.
In my opinion, net shouldn't be used in the river. Give them money toward getting gill nets and let them fish in the sound to catch their fish. Or give them free license to fish with pole or dip nets in the river. That is how it used to be when there was a joint commission between us and you. Unfortunately, WA is probably more messed up than you and the Fraser is at least big enough that some fish get by the nets. I grew up near the Nooksack. It didn't take very long once the nets went into the river that runs that were amazing went to endangered. Prior to that, there were very strict regulations on a whole number of fish, only being able to keep hatchery fin clipped fish, or the dorsal fin had to be smaller than a certain size, etc. And yet, when the coho and chinook were running, the bars would be packed with people bottom bouncing or plunking. Poaching was frequent. And yet, the runs stayed strong. My family actually started our own hatchery for coho and over the course of 5 or 6 years when the runs were down and raised close to a million salmon over those years to release into the system. The first year of return, we got some spawners coming back up a stream where they were pretty much gone from previously. The next year, nothing. When we tried to find out why, there was an illegal net place completely across the opening to the creek. And boy, there were some huge coho being pulled out of that net that we had raised. We reported it but fisheries in WA refuses to really monitor the nets at all. The Native American's themselves laughed when we reported it to them. They weren't going to do anything about it. We closed down the hatchery because we were just putting money into poacher's pockets. Once they found where the fish were going, not a single spawner got up the creek.
The nets down there would even hide it, put only half corks on so it wasn't really visible above the water or just enough corks to keep it a foot or two below the water. That made some guys with boats running up the river real happy and was very dangerous as you can imagine someone going 30-40 kph up river with a jet does when he suddenly stops when his motor snags that corkline. Some of them were just left there without being checked. We even had many sightings of nets being picked up, the fish being gutted, eggs put into a bucket to be sold and the fish carcass thrown back into the river. Some fisherman got tired of it so they would go up when the nets were not supposed to be in the river and drop in bales of hay that would roll down the river and collect any nets. They started getting charged but the guys with the nets were told to stop, while they are sitting there with their nets in the river and the officer would walk off. They wouldn't even make them make a show of stopping.
Unfortunately, I see the Fraser following the same path, just slower.
If you look at the Fraser, the amount of chinook coming through is quickly dwindling too. Springs have been completely shut down. Fall runs are nowhere near what they used to be. If you are such the idealist as you claim, then it shouldn't matter that chinook are open because you wouldn't want to catch those either as you would be taking just one possible spawner out of the possible pool. You would spend every minute that you would have spent fishing trying to fix it, or fishing a stream that isn't currently hurting. I have spent that time. I am resigned to the fact that the dirt people and political correctness is going to drive these fish into being endangered and hopefully then, they will close the whole fishery down and put forth the money to make sure the rules are followed. Unfortunately, I think the money will always be "better spent elsewhere" and even then, the gov't won't step up. I hate it for my kids who will never know the amazing fishing I grew up with.
If you look at the number of fish caught, or going in the test fisheries net, or any other item, the number of sockeye outnumber the number or chinook by a very large margin. Yes, there are methods where I could reduce the number of sockeye I caught but frankly, I don't find them enjoyable. I enjoy feeling the fish hit which you just don't get bank fishing, or using a float, or heck, even trolling in the saltwater. If I was able to come later in the year, I probably wouldn't even bother with a bunch of the idiots up on the Fraser and would go some of the places in WA that I know well and know there won't be many idiots around and where I can catch fish using some pencil lead and a little spoon. That isn't an option for when I have to be up there.
Let's turn this around though. Let's say next year, chinook are way down but sockeye are coming out of your ears and instead of one over 50 cm and 3 under, they lower it to none over 50 cm and 1 under. Would you just stay home instead of risking catching a Chinook? I assume you wouldn't bar fish, you would go out and find a way to catch a couple sockeye without risking catching a chinook. What would you do if you hooked a big chinook? Cut your line so you don't have to fight the fish and lose the 5-10 dollars you have in whatever spoon or whatever you are using and hope the hook works its way free before the sinker gets caught on the rocks and traps the fish for a while? Give it a bunch of slack and pray it gets off itself? Try and get it in as quickly as possible risking losing it so you don't strain it any more than necessary? I would guess the last one is what most fisherman would do, which is also what we did. You can say it isn't the same or if you caught more than a couple you would change methods again but percentage wise with current runs, that one chinook, or two, are a higher percent of spawners than my 50 sockeye.
-
^^^ Delusional.........when you actually believe your own BS. ::) ::) ::)
-
YUP!
-
Yes, there are methods where I could reduce the number of sockeye I caught but frankly, I don't find them enjoyable.
It's okay, you enjoy flossing fish on the Fraser. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
I enjoy feeling the fish snagged which you just don't get bank fishing, or using a float, or heck, even trolling in the saltwater.
::) Seriously though, that's such BS. You can feel a fish hit bank fishing if you're using bait off the bottom or casting + retrieving lures. You say there are no options for when you have to be up here but there is a burgeoning pink fishery up the Sea-to-Sky. These salmon willingly bite just about anything pink, and you can sure as he!! feel 'em. There is also lake fishing; a bit slower in summer, but I've had days mid-summer heat that beat out anything in spring or fall.
You can say it isn't the same or if you caught more than a couple you would change methods again but percentage wise with current runs, that one chinook, or two, are a higher percent of spawners than my 50 sockeye.
The fact of the matter is the fishery was closed. Using your logic, it's okay to steal a chocolate bar from WalMart because they can just "write off" the loss. ::)
^^^ Delusional.........when you actually believe your own BS. ::) ::) ::)
Not to mention in a magic wool ;D ;D
-
Keep fishing unselectively, keep debating the fish's eyesight, keep using others' actions to justify your own, and you'll keep seeing lobbying like this and eventually the whole recreational salmon fishery shut down on the Fraser River. :)
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/News_Releases/UBCICNews08131301.html#axzz2bxyTsTNX
-
The fact of the matter is the fishery was closed. Using your logic, it's okay to steal a chocolate bar from WalMart because they can just "write off" the loss. ::)
Except I didn't actually take the chocolate bar. I went when you couldn't buy chocolate bars and I picked one up, looked at it, put it back on the shelf, and walked out with nothing.
-
I realize a bunch of you are purists and think that only your way of fishing is correct and the right method. I also think you are seeing a great natural resource and source of enjoyment slipping through your fingers so you are lashing out at the only thing you feel you can. When you consider that one drift net can catch just as many fish as most bottom bouncers probably catches in an entire season, it seems like you are barking up the wrong tree. What is the survival rate for a fish that is caught and released? Lower than if it hadn't been, right? What is the survival rate of a fish caught in an illegal drift net? 0% I suppose if they pick it up quick enough they might be able to be released but realistically, if they are already fishing illegally, why would they throw anything back. One guy with a drift net can do in a day what boatloads of bottom bouncers can't do an entire season.
-TNangler
this is so true.
-
Except I didn't actually take the chocolate bar. I went when you couldn't buy chocolate bars and I picked one up, looked at it, put it back on the shelf, and walked out with nothing.
In the Fraser:
Total legal retention of sockeye by FN? Over 90,000.
Total legal retention of sockeye by everyone else? Zero.
You can dispute it but I would say total illegal retention of sockeye by FN +fish harmed beyond an ability to reach their spawning grounds >>>> total illegal retention +fish harmed beyond an ability to reach their spawning grounds by everyone else.
I'm guessing truth doesn't really matter when it comes to politics though.
Whatever though. I just hope someone up there steps up before you lose the fisheries that you have but I don't see it happening. I feel it will go the way of WA where salmon was something you used to be able to catch but now you focus on lakes or other fish. After the sockeye are almost gone, the chinook will get hit harder until they are gone. Pretty soon, the only way they can make a living is to do the same thing to the pinks, chum, coho, whatever else they can get.
-
When are you going to remember what the thread has for a title, it's not about natives fishing with nets, it's called "bottom bouncing what's the big deal".
We all know how the nets on the river effect the runs so quit trying to use that as a crutch for your lame excuse as an angler that keeps on fishing using a method that clearly has caught too many sockeye. Your not fooling anyone, well except for the pee brains that are actually so dedicated to bottom bouncing and have the same mentality that you have that they are actually agreeing with you.
Takes all kinds to make a world I guess, but as far as flossers with no regard for what they do ??, then you fit the bill pard, sorry but you have readily admitted it all over this thread.
Again, incase you missed it the first time, this is a "Recreational" Fishing Forum, try and keep it to that will ya.
-
FYI, TNAngler didn't start the thread. This was split from another thread to prevent that topic to be derailed.
-
^^ Sorry, modified, his was the first post so..........
-
^^ Sorry, modified, his was the first post so..........
As stated, I didn't start the thread. And if you had read all my posts, I stated that Rodney moved it here and named it. I posted first in a thread about how the fishing was to let the guy asking that there were some chinook around, more sockeye than I had seen in previous years, until the nets went in and then they were gone, along with the chinook.
You throw around all kinds of accusations and crap. You have been real good at slinging the crap. And yet you haven't refuted most of my points. There's no sense arguing with you because your arguing is no better than my 6 year old calling someone a poopoo head. Although some day I hope I am able to teach her how to use logic and facts.
And yes, this is a recreational board. And if things don't change, THERE WILL BE NO RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR SALMON! So if you are going to say the nets shouldn't be discussed here, well, I guess it takes all kinds. If you want to believe my catch and gentle release of 50 sockeye all year is a cause for how you have acted and continue to act, meh, it is your call. Contrary to popular belief, I don't want more people catching sockeye. I would have preferred to catch all Chinoook, nothing else. Based on the number of sockeye around on the Wednesday we went and got checked by the DFO, they thought there would be a sockeye opening for recreation soon. Now all of a sudden, the fish can't be found. I'm sure that is all because of bottom bouncers.
-
^^^ Blah blah blah.
Even the sites owner has regarded your fishing method as a poor choice for what species you were after {from what I gather, that being chinnook}, why can't you see that ??
You say you got only 2 chinnok but a good 50 sockeye, well from what I understand, a few guys have had much better success rates catching chinnook while bar fishing in less than a week than you have flossing your brains out for 10 days or whatever.
Sometimes you have to do what is proper in regards to what is asked by the people who write the rules {in this case, using selective fishing methods}, whether it's the most fun way to fish for you or not, and just think, if your such a skillful angler you probably would have landed a bunch of nice chinnook while all the other bar rods you said you saw, caught squat.
Bar fishing is a great way to spend the day, and there's nothing more exciting than hearing that ol bell jingle and watch the stampede !! It's a lot of old time fun, one hell of a lot more fun than using a long leader to foul hook everything in it's path.
AND....If you want to talk nets I suggest you start another thread, as this is about BB'ing, you know, to stay on track so to speak. :P
p.s. Maybe try taking all this as constructive criticism instead of pokes and jabs, I'm thinking that may be hard to swallow for ya but i guess there's a slim chance and if i offended you personally then you have my apologizes. Your still a flosser though........ ::)
-
Here you go. Don't say that I didn't warn you.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=153070&ID=recreational
FN0735-RECREATIONAL - Salmon- Region 2 - Fraser River - Closed time for all Salmon fishing
Effective one hour after sunset on Thursday August 15, 2013 until further
notice, fishing for any salmon species is not permitted on the Fraser River
from the downstream edge of the CPR bridge at Mission, BC to the downstream
edge of the Alexandra Bridge.
Current run size estimates of Fraser River Summer Run sockeye salmon combined
with record water temperatures in the Fraser River have resulted in no
allowable harvest. The Department's priorities are to ensure that there is
sufficient sockeye returning to the spawning grounds. The Department is
continuing to manage fisheries to minimize sockeye impacts and provide priority
access to First Nations' fishing for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Anglers fishing for chinook salmon in areas that remain open to salmon fishing
are required to take every measure possible to ensure that their fishing
activities are not impacting sockeye salmon. The Department is continuing to
monitor the Fraser River to ensure compliance.
Recreational fishing opportunities for trout, steelhead and sturgeon and other
non-salmon species in this area remain open. In addition, recreational fishing
opportunities on the Fraser River for pink and chum salmon are anticipated.
This reflects a change to the BC Freshwater Salmon Supplement. The on-line
version of this guide will be updated within 24 hours of this notice, please
browse:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/index-eng.html
Variation Order No. 2013-371
Notes:
Barbless hooks are required when fishing for salmon in tidal and non-tidal
waters of British Columbia.
Anglers are requested to release any hatchery marked sockeye. These fish are
hatchery raised sockeye and part of a recovery program designed to increase the
numbers of Cultus Lake sockeye.
The term "hatchery marked" means a fish that has a healed scar in place of the
adipose fin.
Sport anglers are encouraged to participate in the Salmon Sport Head Recovery
program by labelling and submitting heads from adipose fin-clipped chinook and
coho salmon. Recovery of coded-wire tags provides critical information for
coast-wide stock assessment. Contact the Salmon Sport Head Recovery Program
toll free at (866) 483-9994 for further information.
Rockfish Conservation Areas that are currently in effect and are closed to all
fin fishing. Descriptions of these closures, and other recreational fishing
information, can be found on the Internet at:
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/recfish
Did you witness suspicious fishing activity or a violation? If so, please call
the Fisheries and Ocean Canada 24-hour toll free Observe, Record, Report line
at (800) 465-4336.
For the 24 hour recorded opening and closure line, call toll free at
1-(866)431-FISH (3474).
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Contact DFO Lower Fraser at (604)666-8266
-
I go away and come back and it's still going strong.
Bring out the popcorn!!
-
Anglers fishing for chinook salmon in areas that remain open to salmon fishing
are required to take every measure possible to ensure that their fishing
activities are not impacting sockeye salmon. The Department is continuing to
monitor the Fraser River to ensure compliance.
^^^So glad you bolded this, Rod, especially the "every possible measure" part.
In layman's terms, they are saying this: DO NOT BOTTOM BOUNCE.
-
It is unlikely that we will see total salmon fishing closures in additional areas along the Fraser River. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has chosen to close this stretch of river to salmon fishing because it has the largest occurrence of sockeye salmon interception by recreational fishermen. If people choose not to fish selectively, this is just easier to have a blanket closure to achieve 100% compliance.
But you know... Let's blame the natives, it's all their fault. ;D
For the tidal portion of the Fraser River, we can still cast spoons for pink salmon without intercepting any sockeye salmon. This fishery is also known to have very high compliance rate.
-
Rodney, what's your thoughts on how long that stretch will remain closed, couple weeks, a month ??
Just got the boat all ready for this weekend as I was gonna take the missus up for a bar fish but guess that plan is cancelled now. Like you said, there's still an awesome pink fishery on the way with the odd one here and there being caught already. Still lots of fun to be had {on the Tidal Fraser}, especially with the light tackle gear.
Lets just hope there's not too many meat heads with the mentality of "but officer, I was targeting Steelhead and trout with my 10 foot leader and wool".......or spin-n-glow and secret combo, lol :P
-
I have no idea when it will reopen. My guess is a few weeks from now in September.
-
Except I didn't actually take the chocolate bar. I went when you couldn't buy chocolate bars and I picked one up, looked at it, put it back on the shelf, and walked out with nothing.
More like: you tore open the wrapper, decided you didn't want it, rewrapped it, and put it back on the shelf.
In this case, the fish you released have a low probability of spawning; more likely is pre-spawn mortality, especially @ current water temps. Using the chocolate bar analogy again: someone might buy it and not bat an eyelash, but more likely it will have to be chalked up as a loss.
Anyways, the POINT was that you're trying to rationalize away your unlawful behavior. That is not to say that all laws are just, and I am not judging you; I am simply trying to alleviate your confusion as to what the deal with bb'ing (during a closure) is.
Now, as far as mortality goes: total sockeye mortality attributable to flossers C&R'ing is NOT zero. Then you've got the poachers. Clearly DFO recognizes the harm that you and your crew are doing to the sox is not insignificant. So should you.
-
(http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/deadhorsebeat_2.gif) (http://www.smileyvault.com/)
-
Bottom bouncing, what's the big deal
The big deal is that when the river is open to chinook but closed to sockeye, it intercepts too many of the wrong species.
Now the non-tidal section is CLOSED to everyone.
If fisheries would just ban the flossing of fish, or if anglers chose not to fish this way while sockeye are closed, the river would still be OPEN to people who use methods to target chinook and avoid sockeye bycatch.
Unfortunately everyone loses an opertunity because of a few.
-
7-Eleven called. The store is closed so all chocolate bars can remain wrapped and those which were unwrapped and rewrapped can now be returned to the shelves and remain there for the rest of 2013. ;D
-
7-Eleven called. The store is closed so all chocolate bars can remain wrapped and those which were unwrapped and rewrapped can now be returned to the shelves and remain there for the rest of 2013. ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
I guess this thread and all the blame game on the bb fishermen have done the damage. I don't know where you have 50 sockeye hookups for a day by one guy. In the one and only time I bounce this year, never saw it in the bar I fished and Snaggy is an awesome sockeye bar during prior oppenings. Never saw this in prior years. The number is a fairy tale and it sure gets the authority to zoom on the issue. This plus those who have connection to DFO probably did the flaming. But in the end, all parties lose and the fish win. Long live the fish. But from the fact that the OP of this thread couldn't even name the colour not to say a picture, the thread is more likely a troll by a bar fisher trying to shame the bb and now ending up closure of the entire section of the Fraser affecting both groups of fishermen. If next year, another guy comes in here doing the same bragging about huge number of sockeye hookups. we will see the same consequence. I wish CO could be sent on site to actually count sockeye hookups by fishermen on the bars. It is never 50 sockeyes per rod, not even 5 in the bar I fished. Most of the experienced spring fishermen rarely hooked sockeye. They know where spring travel and most would retrieve the bounce after the 45 degree line angle is passed to avoid the sockeye.
Oh well, now we can all rest a little and wait for the Fraser pinks, or if you care for some sub-standard pinks, go to Squamish.
-
Yes that must be it... Chris has actually double teamed to inflate the number of by-caught sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. Through this website's connection with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, I have managed to successfully conspire and find a justifiable reason to shut down the entire recreational salmon fishery from Mission to Hope. Bar fishers have pushed their agenda to defeat flossers. We actually had a toast in Chilliwack last evening to celebrate our victory, because we had so much free time to spare.
Seriously? ::)
If you choose not to be involved in the consultation process and don't have a clue about how these management decisions are made, then keep opinions like the above to yourself please. It's difficult to decide whether one should laugh or be offended by your absurd non-sense.
Liketofish, you should be either a politician or a lobbyist if you aren't one already.
-
^^^ Blah blah blah.
Even the sites owner has regarded your fishing method as a poor choice for what species you were after {from what I gather, that being chinnook}, why can't you see that ??
You say you got only 2 chinnok but a good 50 sockeye, well from what I understand, a few guys have had much better success rates catching chinnook while bar fishing in less than a week than you have flossing your brains out for 10 days or whatever.
Sometimes you have to do what is proper in regards to what is asked by the people who write the rules {in this case, using selective fishing methods}, whether it's the most fun way to fish for you or not, and just think, if your such a skillful angler you probably would have landed a bunch of nice chinnook while all the other bar rods you said you saw, caught squat.
Bar fishing is a great way to spend the day, and there's nothing more exciting than hearing that ol bell jingle and watch the stampede !! It's a lot of old time fun, one hell of a lot more fun than using a long leader to foul hook everything in it's path.
AND....If you want to talk nets I suggest you start another thread, as this is about BB'ing, you know, to stay on track so to speak. :P
p.s. Maybe try taking all this as constructive criticism instead of pokes and jabs, I'm thinking that may be hard to swallow for ya but i guess there's a slim chance and if i offended you personally then you have my apologizes. Your still a flosser though........ ::)
I took Rodney's comments to heart. Yours, well, let's just say you haven't convinced me or probably anybody else of anything.
I have bar fished. I have heard the bells. If you think that is an exciting way to spend the day, then have at it. To me, it is a boring waste of time.
Also, it was established that the rules did not ask anybody to use selective fishing methods. Perhaps they should have, but they didn't.
Consider my points on hook placement and the complete number of fish caught when changing colors and I will take some of what you said as constructive. Some of it was just insulting and meant to be that way. The fact is, you ignored all of my points except to scoff at them and expect me to take yours seriously.
-
Here you go. Don't say that I didn't warn you.
That is too bad. Although, honestly, if they wouldn't have let recreational go and it would have also prevented FN from going, I'm sure plenty of people would have been very happy with that, especially me. If all of the bycatch was able to get up and spawn and the 90k from FN was able to get up and spawn maybe when this run came back it might be stronger.
Also I hope you guys get a whole bunch of rain soon so that maybe the river will cool down and the fresh water will be some in that have been waiting out in the salt.
-
Anyways, the POINT was that you're trying to rationalize away your unlawful behavior. That is not to say that all laws are just, and I am not judging you; I am simply trying to alleviate your confusion as to what the deal with bb'ing (during a closure) is.
When I was up there, bb'ing was not closed. There were no regs saying you couldn't bb. They weren't asking people not to bb. Sockeye was closed and if you caught one, you were asked to release it quickly and gently. You don't like how I fished but to say it was illegal is completely wrong.
-
I guess this thread and all the blame game on the bb fishermen have done the damage. I don't know where you have 50 sockeye hookups for a day by one guy. In the one and only time I bounce this year, never saw it in the bar I fished and Snaggy is an awesome sockeye bar during prior oppenings. Never saw this in prior years. The number is a fairy tale and it sure gets the authority to zoom on the issue. This plus those who have connection to DFO probably did the flaming. But in the end, all parties lose and the fish win. Long live the fish. But from the fact that the OP of this thread couldn't even name the colour not to say a picture, the thread is more likely a troll by a bar fisher trying to shame the bb and now ending up closure of the entire section of the Fraser affecting both groups of fishermen. If next year, another guy comes in here doing the same bragging about huge number of sockeye hookups. we will see the same consequence. I wish CO could be sent on site to actually count sockeye hookups by fishermen on the bars. It is never 50 sockeyes per rod, not even 5 in the bar I fished. Most of the experienced spring fishermen rarely hooked sockeye. They know where spring travel and most would retrieve the bounce after the 45 degree line angle is passed to avoid the sockeye.
Oh well, now we can all rest a little and wait for the Fraser pinks, or if you care for some sub-standard pinks, go to Squamish.
I highlighted a couple of your points.
Ok, first, ::) that you think this thread and my claiming 50 fish is the reason it closed.
Second, you didn't read what I wrote. I went up 4 days, with 3 people. We caught 50 sockeye, between the three of us, all but two in 3 days. That means 10 fish to the boat each day.
You never saw 50 sockeye on one rod and rarely even 5 per rod? 50 might be stretching it but I have seen one rod, fished right, come pretty close. The year of the big run I missed but I'm betting if I was there I would have seen it. In the years when you could keep 4, I know we came close, mostly only keeping big fish and helping out some others on the bar that couldn't catch anything with some of the ones that were smaller.
As for your 45 degree comment, you might have missed my comment. We were picking up before 45 degrees. Well before that. The sockeye that were hitting were 1/4 of the way down from straight out. And we weren't casting short. We were casting further than anybody else on the bar. Right where you say that the experienced chinook fishermen expect the chinook.
I only get a week up there every year and I would gladly take you out one day with my dad or I can see if my dad will take you out so you can witness it for yourself. It's my dad's boat as obviously I don't live anywhere near there enough to have a boat to go out in. If I was there IRL, I would have no problem showing all of you what we use even give you enough stuff to get set up. Heck, even let you cast with our poles so you could witness a hit for yourself. I don't feel comfortable posting it on a message board. I bet if there were fish there and you committed enough time to catch a couple fish with us, you would agree they were hitting and understand I have been telling the truth.
-
And to Rodney's comments about the nets, I don't solely blame the nets. It was just the one leach on the system I chose.
What happens when you get a leach on you? It sucks your blood and drops off when it is full. Unless you get a disease from it, you are strong enough to handle it and won't even really notice. Leaches can kill you though. How? Two ways.
If you are very weak already, the extra blood loss might be too much and so it really isn't the leach that killed you but it was the final cause.
If you get covered by too many leaches, you can loose too much blood too quickly and your body won't be able to cope.
The fisheries is sick, very sick. There are also many leaches sucking on it. Nets are one. Loss of habitat is another. Warm temperatures is another. Low rain fall is another this year. Fish farms are another. Poachers another. You can go on and on.
When I was up there, I think there were a couple hundred thousand sockeye crossing the counter each week. Now the leaches have dropped that number considerably. Frankly, I think closing it is the best thing that could happen to this fishery. The nets won't stay out long if they believe the recreational's are catching and possibly illegally keeping fish. Recreational guys will complain loudly if the nets are able to fish when they aren't even allowed on the water. The only way to do it and do it effectively is to shake off as many leaches as you can all at once and try and keep them off long enough that the run can recoup and deal with the leaches that weren't able to be removed.
-
I am a member of the hated bottom bouncers, except I do it right.
In my opinion, if you aren't going to get the fish to hit and catch it right, there is no sense even going. Just stay home.
You should have just stayed home. ::)
-
You should have just stayed home. ::)
Considering how much we paid to catch and release a handful of sockeye, bring home two small Chinook, and play one much larger, you should be thanking us for helping fund your fisheries.
-
How about send me an e-mail with your set up then?
-
Will the recent closure teach those that went out fishing non selectively the last few weeks not repeat this practice in the future? I guess one could hope so but then there is many that find numerous reason why they think they can and would continue to do so if a closure was not put in place after today. You can read them in posts above.
The only solution as hard as it will be for some to accept is for FOC to get in the tackle box and restrict the ways to fish when there is stocks of concern in the river that can be impacted. It is done now with regulations now, fly only, bait bans, barbless hooks, area closures, hatchery fish retention only etc.. Many have been advocating this for some time now. If not we have now lost a lot of fishing opportunities so many have enjoyed and worked for, for many years on the Fraser River.
Those involved in making these changes will be reading this and similar threads so its time people to get it done.
-
How about send me an e-mail with your set up then?
Done. Hope I don't regret it.
-
Sockeye was closed ... You don't like how I fished but to say it was illegal is completely wrong.
Sockeye was closed, you fished for them, and you say that is legal... Review your Logic 101 notes and then pull your head out of the sand m8!
Btw, 50 fish per rod is easily achievable when they're in there. I myself have caught ~20 sockeye in a the span of 3-4 hours, as have others I know or have met, on more than one occasion. 50 in a day is not unreasonable if you know what you're doing. And, believe me, this 45deg nonsense has NOTHING to do with anything. I've caught springs at the tail end of the bounce (75 deg) and sockeye at 1 o'clock. I've caught springs close to shore, sockeye far from shore, and vice versa. There is no secret to this fishery, though there MAY some ways to rig up that are more effective than others. Bottom line, hucking betties with long leaders is a non-selective fishing method. Until PROVEN otherwise, one is fooling only themselves in thinking otherwise.
-
Sockeye was closed, you fished for them, and you say that is legal... Review your Logic 101 notes and then pull your head out of the sand m8!
Btw, 50 fish per rod is easily achievable when they're in there. I myself have caught ~20 sockeye in a the span of 3-4 hours, as have others I know or have met, on more than one occasion. 50 in a day is not unreasonable if you know what you're doing. And, believe me, this 45deg nonsense has NOTHING to do with anything. I've caught springs at the tail end of the bounce (75 deg) and sockeye at 1 o'clock. I've caught springs close to shore, sockeye far from shore, and vice versa. There is no secret to this fishery, though there MAY some ways to rig up that are more effective than others. Bottom line, hucking betties with long leaders is a non-selective fishing method. Until PROVEN otherwise, one is fooling only themselves in thinking otherwise.
I fished for Chinook, I caught sockeye. Fishing for Chinook was legal.
Yes, 50 fish is easily achievable with the right conditions. However, arm strength will keep many from getting there, as will having to spend the better part of the day to do it. And if you add in a good sized chinook, the arms usually just won't stand for it.
-
Haven't you clued in yet? You're not going to pull that secret wool of yours over anybody's eyes who have a lick of sense when it comes to the Fraser River flossery. Luckily....the poor sockeye will have a much better chance now that the river is closed as of today. Now they've got to worry about water temps. idf it isn't one thing it's another~
-
I fished for Chinook
False. You fished for Sockeye AND Chinook. AGAIN: hucking >1oz of lead into the Fraser -- around the Island 22 area -- from which a long leader is trailing is a non-selective fishing method.
What part of "non-selective" don't you understand? Whatever it is, go back and read my first post on p.5 of this thread; I've defined it for you. And don't spew that "long leader isn't necessarily flossing" cr@p. Even if that is true, you've demonstrated that what you were doing was flossing when you said:
one of them was flossed ... some were in the outside cheek
As mentioned multiple times now, you can continue to believe what you believe but no one is really going to buy into your insanity. I suggest you stop posting/talking and go back to lurking/listening, and stay home in forthcoming years if you're unable or unwilling to fish more selectively during sockeye closures. Break the laws in your own country instead.
Yes, 50 fish is easily achievable with the right conditions. However, arm strength will keep many from getting there, as will having to spend the better part of the day to do it. And if you add in a good sized chinook, the arms usually just won't stand for it.
I don't think you give anglers enough credit but, fine, whatever. The point was that it isn't difficult to land a large number of sockeye (e.g. 20) in a short period of time, as liketofish claimed. I was agreeing with you there.
-
False. You fished for Sockeye AND Chinook. AGAIN: hucking >1oz of lead into the Fraser -- around the Island 22 area -- from which a long leader is trailing is a non-selective fishing method.
What part of "non-selective" don't you understand? Whatever it is, go back and read my first post on p.5 of this thread; I've defined it for you. And don't spew that "long leader isn't necessarily flossing" cr@p. Even if that is true, you've demonstrated that what you were doing was flossing when you said:
As mentioned multiple times now, you can continue to believe what you believe but no one is really going to buy into your insanity. I suggest you stop posting/talking and go back to lurking/listening, and stay home in forthcoming years if you're unable or unwilling to fish more selectively during sockeye closures. Break the laws in your own country instead.
I don't think you give anglers enough credit but, fine, whatever. The point was that it isn't difficult to land a large number of sockeye (e.g. 20) in a short period of time, as liketofish claimed. I was agreeing with you there.
5 fish out of 50 weren't in the nose or straight down in the bottom of the mouth. 1 fish was in a place that would lead me to believe it had almost surely been flossed. I've seen some people with bad luck bar fishing accidentally snag fish that often. Heck, I've seen someone whose only fish all year (and it wasn't for lack of trying although it very well could have been for lack of skill) only catch one fish bar fishing. That fish had broken someone else off and this guys' hook hooked through the eye of the swivel still attached to the hook in the fish's mouth. I would definitely consider that a variation of snagging as his hook was not in the fish's mouth.
It is only your opinion that I broke the law. Even DFO would dispute that I broke the law as it stood on the days I fished. In fact, they did. There was no request to use a selective fishing method when I fished. How you get from that to me breaking the law defies all reason.
::) On this board, perhaps. The bar fisherman who are very outspoken and very harsh have either beaten everyone that disagrees with them into not speaking up or leaving the board. There is no open discussion about it. There are just attacks and trying to treat people like idiots to get them to either shut up or go away.
So, let me give you this example. Growing up, I used to bar fish in Washington. Coho and Chinook were running. In probably 5 years, I caught less than five chinook but caught dozens and dozens of coho. Would you say I was fishing for coho? Because I am pretty sure I was using the same methods that you use bar fishing for chinook. Or would you say that was a non-selective fishing method?
Or what about the bar fisherman on this board, who had only caught a couple chinook and a couple sockey bar fishing? Is he doing a non-selective fishing method?
My method was not as selective as some but there was no request for people to use a selective fishing when I fished.
Until your regs change such that I am unable to fish in a way I find enjoyable, I will continue to visit you guys a couple times a year, or more likely every other year.
-
So, let me give you this example. Growing up, I used to bar fish in Washington. Coho and Chinook were running. In probably 5 years, I caught less than five chinook but caught dozens and dozens of coho. Would you say I was fishing for coho? Because I am pretty sure I was using the same methods that you use bar fishing for chinook. Or would you say that was a non-selective fishing method?
I would whole-heartedly say by what you describe above that you were fishing for Chinook using a non-selective fishing method, given the results.
If:
1) the Washington gov't had said that the coho were endangered, and
2) that they were closed to fishing, but
3) Chinook were open to fishing, and
4) the Washington gov't asked that you use selective fishing methods
And if:
5) there was another method (ie. other than barfishing, in your above-described scenario) that was less effective in catching Chinook, and finally
6) this "alternative" method eliminated most/all of the coho bycatch...
Then I would say with absolute certainty that you shouldn't be barfishing at all and you should be using the alternative method.
This would reduce or eliminate bycatch of the endangered coho, and you would be complying with the request by the Washington gov't to stick to selective fishing methods for your Chinook fishing.
Seems pretty simple to me.
-
If your method catches 25 non-target species for every one target species you catch and you don't as a result change your method to be more selective you aren't going to get any sympathy from anyone even if what you are doing does sort of fall within legal permitted methods.
It doesn't take much of a sense of moral responsibility to realize that this years sockeye is in trouble and that regardless of what the regulations permit, it isn't a good idea to be subjecting the sockeye to the stress of being caught in such adverse conditions. Your desire to catch springs is not justification for your bycatch and the consequent damage it does to the few remaining fish.
No responsible angler should fall back on the excuse that what they're doing is justified by the regulations so it's all right to continue it. Take some personal responsibility for your actions.
-
If your method catches 25 non-target species for every one target species you catch and you don't as a result change your method to be more selective you aren't going to get any sympathy from anyone even if what you are doing does sort of fall within legal permitted methods.
It doesn't take much of a sense of moral responsibility to realize that this years sockeye is in trouble and that regardless of what the regulations permit, it isn't a good idea to be subjecting the sockeye to the stress of being caught in such adverse conditions. Your desire to catch springs is not justification for your bycatch and the consequent damage it does to the few remaining fish.
No responsible angler should fall back on the excuse that what they're doing is justified by the regulations so it's all right to continue it. Take some personal responsibility for your actions.
I have only defended myself against claims I was breaking the law. Also that I was fishing this way when there were requests that a selective fishery be used. Neither is the case.
And when we were fishing, the sockeye were in the river pretty good. The DFO agent that checked us out told us that there were a lot of sockeye moving up the stream which we could tell by all the jumpers, that the nets would be opening shortly, they would be getting more days, and that if the nets were getting more days, it would likely lead to an opening on sockeye shortly. Then the bottom completely fell out.
If I had known the bottom was going to completely drop out, I would not have been up there fishing.
-
::) On this board, perhaps. The bar fisherman who are very outspoken and very harsh have either beaten everyone that disagrees with them into not speaking up or leaving the board. There is no open discussion about it. There are just attacks and trying to treat people like idiots to get them to either shut up or go away.
You hit the nail on the head with that one TN !!! Don't worry about what these people say, I don't.
-
The bottom fell out four years ago and under those circumstances, any thought there would be a good return this year is strictly wishful thinking.
Bottom line is that your method was resulting in a bycatch 25 times as large as your catch of target species and at least some level of wasteful consequent mortality to the non-target species. Regardless of the state of the stocks that is unacceptably high and should have resulted in you changing your method to one causing less collateral damage.
The sockeye will only survive if anglers take some responsibility to ensure that they do and that means getting off the fish when they are in trouble regardless of what the regs say. You might not be able to affect the net fishery but you can make a contribution by changing your own behavior. Indeed, ethics demand that you do that.
-
The bottom fell out four years ago and under those circumstances, any thought there would be a good return this year is strictly wishful thinking.
Bottom line is that your method was resulting in a bycatch 25 times as large as your catch of target species and at least some level of wasteful consequent mortality to the non-target species. Regardless of the state of the stocks that is unacceptably high and should have resulted in you changing your method to one causing less collateral damage.
The sockeye will only survive if anglers take some responsibility to ensure that they do and that means getting off the fish when they are in trouble regardless of what the regs say. You might not be able to affect the net fishery but you can make a contribution by changing your own behavior. Indeed, ethics demand that you do that.
Nice to be on board with you on this one. ;D ;D ;D
-
5 fish out of 50 weren't in the nose or straight down in the bottom of the mouth. 1 fish was in a place that would lead me to believe it had almost surely been flossed.
During one of a handful of flossing outings the vast majority of my fish were hooked in the mouth. The % was so high that I too believed they may have bitten (I was still wet behind the ears at this point). Even the springs were hooked in the mouth (under the tounge, etc). During another outing the fish were not so lucky. The fact that you can IDENTIFY 10% of your fish as flossed/fouled suggests to me that most, if not all, were.
I've seen some people with bad luck bar fishing accidentally snag fish that often.
Exactly: with BAD luck. You fished using a technique that is generally accepted to be lining fish and you happened to have "good" luck. That is how I would explain away your wool, location of hooking, etc. You are drawing conclusions based on a very small sample size; in all likelihood, (statistically) insignificant results. As far as the "hitting" goes: I've already told you that that's how a flossed fish feels. No, not like hitting a rock. All the fish I've flossed feel like they "hit" just as hard as big Interior rainbows hit a slowly trolled pumpkin head. Feels great, but doesn't mean they bit (referring to the sox, not the bows).
It is only your opinion that I broke the law.
You're right, it is. That is how I (and some others) interpret your actions in light of a lack of opening for sockeye; the fact that there was no wide closure or request to use selective methods is irrelevant. For the last time (since you seem to have trouble with the logic you're so fond of): lack of opening = closed. Bottom bouncing = fishing for/targetting all species. Tf, by bottom bouncing you were targeting a species that was closed.
Even DFO would dispute that I broke the law as it stood on the days I fished.
As I've said before: the DFO [would] not stop you. Sounds like they saw a bright future and decided to look the other way. As mentioned before sometimes politics comes into play, as does manpower (or lack thereof), competence, and a host of other factors. The point is that the fact that an agent of the law agreed with you doesn't necessarily mean that you were not breaking the law. Again, it is my opinion that you were fishing unlawfully, based on my interpretation of the reg(s). I am trying to keep an open mind but it seems like you are trying to hard to justify your actions by finding a "loophole" in said regs.
My method was not as selective as some
;D ;D Your method was FAR from selective. In fact, it's on the opposite side of the spectrum; it's a step down from ripping your hook through the water, secret wool or not.
If I had known the bottom was going to completely drop out, I would not have been up there fishing.
I HIGHLY doubt that based on your original post (where you gush about how big and feisty the sox were) and this previous statement:Until your regs change such that I am unable to fish in a way I find enjoyable, I will continue to visit you guys a couple times a year, or more likely every other year.
In fact, based on that apathetic statement, I no longer have a problem with telling you -- as others have -- to follow your own advice and just stay home. You're not welcome in my province with that attitude (as if my welcome means anything to you anyways :P).
There is no open discussion about it.
That's because, as suggested by another poster, this topic is a proverbial "dead horse." It is generally accepted that bottom bouncing the Fraser is flossing, and when someone comes around claiming that it's not that bad if you do it right (cast the secret wool to where the kings are), and goes on to dig his heels into the ground/refuse to pull his head out of the sand there is little other recourse.
You were right about a few things, and one of them is that your groups 50 sockeye probably has little impact on future generations. However, the concern is that new fisher(wo)men may read your post, believe your delusions, and mimic your actions. This is a site that promotes ethical angling, so these reactions should not come as a surprise to you. Of course, they were what you were after all along right? Can't get sockeye to bite so may as well entice the FWR members?
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Fish+sockeye/8763969/story.html
-
During one of a handful of flossing outings the vast majority of my fish were hooked in the mouth. The % was so high that I too believed they may have bitten (I was still wet behind the ears at this point). Even the springs were hooked in the mouth (under the tounge, etc). During another outing the fish were not so lucky. The fact that you can IDENTIFY 10% of your fish as flossed/fouled suggests to me that most, if not all, were.
Exactly: with BAD luck. You fished using a technique that is generally accepted to be lining fish and you happened to have "good" luck. That is how I would explain away your wool, location of hooking, etc. You are drawing conclusions based on a very small sample size; in all likelihood, (statistically) insignificant results. As far as the "hitting" goes: I've already told you that that's how a flossed fish feels. No, not like hitting a rock. All the fish I've flossed feel like they "hit" just as hard as big Interior rainbows hit a slowly trolled pumpkin head. Feels great, but doesn't mean they bit (referring to the sox, not the bows).
You're right, it is. That is how I (and some others) interpret your actions in light of a lack of opening for sockeye; the fact that there was no wide closure or request to use selective methods is irrelevant. For the last time (since you seem to have trouble with the logic you're so fond of): lack of opening = closed. Bottom bouncing = fishing for/targetting all species. Tf, by bottom bouncing you were targeting a species that was closed.
As I've said before: the DFO [would] not stop you. Sounds like they saw a bright future and decided to look the other way. As mentioned before sometimes politics comes into play, as does manpower (or lack thereof), competence, and a host of other factors. The point is that the fact that an agent of the law agreed with you doesn't necessarily mean that you were not breaking the law. Again, it is my opinion that you were fishing unlawfully, based on my interpretation of the reg(s). I am trying to keep an open mind but it seems like you are trying to hard to justify your actions by finding a "loophole" in said regs.
;D ;D Your method was FAR from selective. In fact, it's on the opposite side of the spectrum; it's a step down from ripping your hook through the water, secret wool or not.
I HIGHLY doubt that based on your original post (where you gush about how big and feisty the sox were) and this previous statement:
In fact, based on that apathetic statement, I no longer have a problem with telling you -- as others have -- to follow your own advice and just stay home. You're not welcome in my province with that attitude (as if my welcome means anything to you anyways :P).
That's because, as suggested by another poster, this topic is a proverbial "dead horse." It is generally accepted that bottom bouncing the Fraser is flossing, and when someone comes around claiming that it's not that bad if you do it right (cast the secret wool to where the kings are), and goes on to dig his heels into the ground/refuse to pull his head out of the sand there is little other recourse.
You were right about a few things, and one of them is that your groups 50 sockeye probably has little impact on future generations. However, the concern is that new fisher(wo)men may read your post, believe your delusions, and mimic your actions. This is a site that promotes ethical angling, so these reactions should not come as a surprise to you. Of course, they were what you were after all along right? Can't get sockeye to bite so may as well entice the FWR members?
Hopefully that made some sense to him but I doubt it, good post Zabber !!
People that continue to fish the way they are when they have that high of a by-catch, no matter what the regs say, are just being a careless, self centered POS.
-
So, NiceFish....
What of the secret setup? Did you receive an email from TNAngler?
-
The regulations should be changed so that a minimum of a 10 oz weight has to be used to fish the non-tidal section of the Fraser or a float setup with a leader no longer than 25" from hook eye to swivel eye. Would work for the creek mouth anglers who use floats and for the barfing guys all while eliminating the floss fishery plague of the Fraser.
-
I was sent an e-mail of the rigging for this bottom bouncing.
I would have to agree that it is still going to floss fish majority of the time. I do not dispute that some Sockeye will bite out of instinct, having experienced this myself on the Fraser (by fishing in slow moving water / back eddies I have happened to, by dumb luck hook into a few sockeye that did bite). However, when any long leader + weight heavy enough to bounce the bottom is fished in the current - it's already been explained so many times on here that majority of the time the fish was flossed and didn't bite.
The "secret" colour isn't a secret at all. I have seen this colour, and every colour under the rainbow fished on the fraser - and had many people claim they have the "best" colour for sockeye fishing. Anything works.
I think this angler is still wanting to believe the fish bite; and maybe one or two did; but not anywhere near enough to be considered a majority.
-
X2 here. To agree with BFers is a waste of time. They have a 'mental prison' on a legal method to take fish from the Fraser that even CO don't consider a violation because they think fishing has to be by fish biting. We trap fish, spear them, net them. So if the Fraser fish has to be flossed to be effective, so be it. For the Fraser fishery, most fishermen enjoy it and they fish short floating on the lesser systems. That is quite a norm. There are only some newbies doing bb on the vedder causing all the hate.
-
X2 here. To agree with BFers is a waste of time. They have a 'mental prison' on a legal method to take fish from the Fraser that even CO don't consider a violation because they think fishing has to be by fish biting. We trap fish, spear them, net them. So if the Fraser fish has to be flossed to be effective, so be it. For the Fraser fishery, most fishermen enjoy it and they fish short floating on the lesser systems. That is quite a norm. There are only some newbies doing bb on the vedder causing all the hate.
what type of 'bottom bouncing' are these newbs doing on the vedder? the same technique used on the fraser?
-
And the Stave and the Harrison and so on and so on ........ Liketofish I don't know why you cant see the big picture, its not the technique its the mentality behind it ! It was created to allow the harvest of sockeye by the sport fishing community but has become nothing more then a greedy money fueled monster ! Rules and laws are constantly broken and it needs to end for any hope of fish existing down the road,
-
And the Stave and the Harrison and so on and so on ........ Liketofish I don't know why you cant see the big picture, its not the technique its the mentality behind it ! It was created to allow the harvest of sockeye by the sport fishing community but has become nothing more then a greedy money fueled monster ! Rules and laws are constantly broken and it needs to end for any hope of fish existing down the road,
I agree the rules are constantly broken. I can't count the number of people using barbed hooks. We all know of nets when they aren't supposed to be in the river. We have all seen people obviously snagging. Probably all seen people keep fish they shouldn't keep.
This isn't a problem localized to BB though. Perhaps they are the most numerous fisherman.
Perhaps they should increase the charge for licenses x10 to help pay for more DFO agents. Close the river down for retention of everything for 4+ years. Pay the FN to net in the salt instead of the river. They would need the balls to do that though and I don't think they have it. Nor do they have the financial incentive to get it done.
-
We trap fish, spear them, net them.
Your angling licence does not permit you to trap, spear, or net game fish. There are numerous other restrictions on what you can and cannot do. All fish are not created equal, hence the restrictions.
As mentioned, the flossery was established primarily as a harvest/meat fishery. It is my understanding that flossing was selected as the method of choice because sockeye do not bite frequently enough in the silty Fraser to sustain any other type of fishery targeted at them here. As you've identified, problems arise when this angling technique is transferred to other streams. And, as has been elaborated upon ad nauseum, problems also arise when people use the technique at the wrong time in the non-tidal Fraser.
Tight lines,
Z
-
I don't mean local fishing. By fishing we don't mean Canadian fishing. Trap fishing may be done for eel in the Newfoundland. People use tidal currents to herd fish into traps or using bait to attract them. Spear fishing is done all over the ocean. Net fishing including scooping up fish is done all over. There are smelt fishermen using scoop nets along the sea walk of Stanley Park. Some fish are caught a certain way, others fish by another way. For goodness sake, them Yankees shoot the jumping carp with bows and arrows. That is a ridiculous way for us but the Yankees have no issue with that. So if DFO allows flossing to be done on the Fraser during openings, why all the hate? If a fisherman for the lack of skill to target springs and continuously hook sockeye, he should stop or change his approach. Just because you can't avoid sockeye because of your poor technique or because you are targeting spring in the wrong river configuration, you cannot say others are lacking the skills to avoid sockeye. There are certain bars with heavy deep water lane which only spring, even only large spring will travel. But I agree, if sockeye is in trouble, we should all stop. Not all BBers are good enough to avoid sockeye, that is the bottom line. But BFers should also stop, because they do hook sockeyes and after dragging the 1 lb lead slab for the fight and getting exhausted, that sockeye is as well dead, very different from a bb caught sockeye. So don't hide behind excuses. We stop bb, you stop bf. Good for the fish. We should all stop. FN should stop. There are the pinks coming in load. Why hurt the sockeye which are in danger?
-
I was sent an e-mail of the rigging for this bottom bouncing.
I would have to agree that it is still going to floss fish majority of the time. I do not dispute that some Sockeye will bite out of instinct, having experienced this myself on the Fraser (by fishing in slow moving water / back eddies I have happened to, by dumb luck hook into a few sockeye that did bite). However, when any long leader + weight heavy enough to bounce the bottom is fished in the current - it's already been explained so many times on here that majority of the time the fish was flossed and didn't bite.
The "secret" colour isn't a secret at all. I have seen this colour, and every colour under the rainbow fished on the fraser - and had many people claim they have the "best" colour for sockeye fishing. Anything works.
I think this angler is still wanting to believe the fish bite; and maybe one or two did; but not anywhere near enough to be considered a majority.
Is there any colour better than green for sockeye? ;D Perhaps next year you can put the colour to the test and come back to report here whether you can duplicate what the OP of this thread has claimed. If you do, then perhaps it should be revealed so sockeye are taken (if open) in the mouth instead of being flossed. That should then put the dispute of bb to rest. ;D
-
... why all the hate?
My understanding was that it's because game fish (e.g. trout, salmon) will bite a lure but that doesn't make sense, as coarse fish will also bite a lure. In any case, you can't bowfish for, or spear, game fish... These fish are typically targeted by fishing flies, lures, bait, etc. and it is considered unnecessary and unsportsmanlike to try to snag them, net them, etc. Flossing/lining is often described as snagging (even if most of the fish are hooked inside the mouth) because you are essentially just placing the hook in the fishes mouth (vs. enticing a strike). One can argue it all day but it will almost certainly continue to be considered a questionable practice.
Again, perhaps the biggest issue some have with bb'ing is that it finds its way into other systems and other fish (e.g. coho in the Vedder), and sensitive stocks are beginning to become affected. "Newbies" learn that flossing IS fishing, and they go to town with it. They see fish abused and think it's okay. Some may instinctively get turned off of "fishing," but for many this will become an outlet for their bloodlust.
As mentioned, you are legally entitled to floss fish on the Fraser, when it's open to fishing; the DFO won't stop you. However, it is up to you to you to decide whether or not to fish this way. If you are aware of the issues and factors at play, your actions will be a reflection of your ethics/morals.
All the best.
-
well then some of you who think all bottom bouncing is flossing need to also educate yourself on some techniques. I've had good intentioned jabronis come up to me and say I'm flossing on a couple of runs on the vedder...... it bothered me.
I am f'ing positive that an 20" leader isnt flossing.... especially using 1/2 oz weight that barely ticks the bottom..... but it's ok to use a 10' leader on 6' deep water as long as your using a float though..... even though your ripping it, and getting snagged up on the bottom. those are acceptable fishing practices in the lower mainland.
I have yet to see a bouncing betty and 10' leader used on the vedder.
*edit. of all the runs I've been to on the vedder/chilliwack. theres only 2 that I feel are bottom bouncing appropriate. with desired current, depth and visibility.
-
Go fish upstream of the train bridge. You will find some there.
-
some of you who think all bottom bouncing is flossing
I don't think anyone does at this point. The difference was made clear earlier in the thread.
I have yet to see a bouncing betty and 10' leader used on the vedder.
I saw this in use off one of the Howe Sound BEACHES a couple of weeks ago ::)
-
I saw this in use off one of the Howe Sound BEACHES a couple of weeks ago ::)
how is that even possible? :(
might be in everyones best interest, including the fish, if getting a fishing license turns into something similar to getting a PAL. madatory course and test.
I think someone had mentioned this earlier.
-
Go fish upstream of the train bridge. You will find some there.
Saw 2 of them today, using pencil lead, no float.
-
So what about the dufus's that fish Tamahi with their flat float, pencil lead and match head piece of wool, who cares iftheir leader is 20" long, most of them don't even cast, they plunk it out there a few feet through the hole and snag them that way........are they just as worse as the flosser with the betty and 10 ft leader ?? Damn right they are !!! Their maggots, not fishermen.
-
I Remember hearing about the rage against the BBers as a kid from my Father. It was strictly long leader lines and weights. Now it seems the rage has spread to Float fisherman with, say, 20" of leader. 10 years from now itll be anyone catching fish is a flosser.
-
10 years from now itll be anyone catching fish is a flosser.
Ahhh BS, you only have to look at them fishing to tell what the hell their doing, it's not rocket science. Anybody that thinks those beaks around KW bridge and Tamahi that fish like that are actual sportsfishermen and not just their to slay their meat are either,
a} one of them
or
b} too new to know the difference
BTW, In no way do I mean everyone that fishes those places mentioned does this, just some do {every year like clockwork}.
-
tamahi rapids should be closed to fishing period...ya I have seen that at KW bridge. one guy's float balanced perfectly in the water maybe a 2' leader... rips it once every 4 casts. guy right next to him........ leader longer than his rod and float laying horizontal on the water, ripping it three times a cast.
prefer using a slinky to bottom bounce as you don't snag the bottom much if at all, and it's also a lot easier to feel the slowish steady pull of a fish swimming over your line. the hits feel like a hit on a spoon. using a pencil weight is far more difficult...... and a lot less sexy ;)
I guess you can bastardize any technique and take the sport out of sportfishing fairly easily.....
deviating from the thread a tad, but has there ever been a bait ban during the salmon season here?
-
tamahi rapids should be closed to fishing period...ya I have seen that at KW bridge. one guy's float balanced perfectly in the water maybe a 2' leader... rips it once every 4 casts. guy right next to him........ leader longer than his rod and float laying horizontal on the water, ripping it three times a cast.
prefer using a slinky to bottom bounce as you don't snag the bottom much if at all, and it's also a lot easier to feel the slowish steady pull of a fish swimming over your line. the hits feel like a hit on a spoon. using a pencil weight is far more difficult...... and a lot less sexy ;)
I guess you can bastardize any technique and take the sport out of sportfishing fairly easily.....
deviating from the thread a tad, but has there ever been a bait ban during the salmon season here?
No bait ban on the Chilliwack Vedder, with that it would just favour those with the secret wool colour or is it green? ::)
-
No bait ban on the Chilliwack Vedder, with that it would just favour those with the secret wool colour or is it green? ::)
Green and red Christmas tree patterns all the way! unless its October, then the black/orange is the hot combo ::)
-
how is that even possible? :(
Haha, you tell me... The guy was basically dredging the bottom; ended up pulling up a barnacle encrusted rock... Not sure what he was trying to accomplish other than maybe snagging a fish. I'm remembering that he may have had a bare hook :/ :/
might be in everyones best interest, including the fish, if getting a fishing license turns into something similar to getting a PAL. madatory course and test.
Would be nice but I think there are some issues with implementing that; restricts access to the resource, not cost effective, lack of interest from stakeholders, etc. Rod, and others, may be able to elaborate on this subject.
-
Even with a course, meat heads would still run wild. There are plenty of doorknobs out hunting and owning guns, also plenty with boats. I think it might help a bit, but not enough.
-
well I guess i'm going to have to get out and take as many pics as possible. just so my grandkids could believe my stories about the so called salmon...
-
"The Great BB Controversy". Toronto or Vancouver? Tastes Great/Less Filling....
***sigh...***
-
"The Great BB Controversy". Toronto or Vancouver? Tastes Great/Less Filling....
***sigh...***
Maple Leafs you mean its our year, talk about hyjacking a thread. ???
-
X2 here. To agree with BFers is a waste of time. They have a 'mental prison' on a legal method to take fish from the Fraser that even CO don't consider a violation because they think fishing has to be by fish biting. We trap fish, spear them, net them. So if the Fraser fish has to be flossed to be effective, so be it. For the Fraser fishery, most fishermen enjoy it and they fish short floating on the lesser systems. That is quite a norm. There are only some newbies doing bb on the vedder causing all the hate.
There are more effective ways to catch fish than bottom bouncing. Bar rigging is one of them, and then you selectively catch fish you can retain. And when your BB how many springs do you actually catch. I was bar rigging beside a guy BB and i ended up with 4 fish landed and released while he had none.
When sockeye is open go ahead an BB, if you think that's the only way . I have had sockeye bit a bar rig multiple times and have float fish for them all the time they do bite.
-
Well it is interesting that DFO has finally shut it down, I hope this does good things for the next cycle. If the numbers pan out it is over double from 2009. So I would hope another double up will occur. Funny how the closure notice says to shut down sports and commercial so that the natives can get their fish, still don't agree with it, river closure means river closure for all groups. That being said I have noticed the high number of springs in the test fishery and the fishing is really good right now out at the Fraser mouth. This could mean good things for our Chinook fishery as well if they are getting thru to spawn in higher numbers. It is a shame people couldn't stop bottom bouncing with long leaders for the springs. I would assume that the soc by catch and selective fishing methods was the reason for the closure. So food fish means for every 1 fish taken home, sell 10, and that money is income to purchase other food items? This is not a "food fishery" it is a commercial fishery if being sold, sounds like a job to me, not cerimonial drift gill netting with a big powered boat to sell illegal fish to people on the road side, and if I get caught with those fish I buy, then what happens to me? Is there still native openings? not that it stops the netting, closure or not those nets are still in the water. Not trying to stir the pot, any thoughts?
-
I have seen multiple drift netting operations since the closure-All reported and no action seemed to take place.
Really hoping the higher powers turn the tap off for the natives soon-Its all take, take, take. Its 2013, learn to live civilized without free handouts for everything in life.
Fools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f6WR9REOX6s
-
Well, it's a start!
http://www.onenewspage.com/n/Americas/74vzeqdg3/British-Columbia-Boats-Seized-During-Crackdown-on.htm
Canadian authorities seized eight boats on August 23 during a crackdown on illegal salmon fishing.
27 people face charges and up to 2 years in jail, reported CBC.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been making a concerted effort to get poachers out of the area.
Enforcement officials said that on the Fraser River alone they’ve seized several vessels during the last week, not including the eight boats, and have pulled up dozens of illegal nets.
“We’re facing a fair number of nets that are fishing at night,” Herb Redekopp, chief of conservation and protection for the department, told CBC.
“There’s a real pent-up demand for these fish and the market price on the black market is very high.”
The department has night patrols and aerial units monitoring the illegal fishing.
-
And there's more....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08/23/bc-salmon-poaching-fraser-river.html
DFO targets salmon poachers on Fraser River
CBC News
Posted: Aug 23, 2013 7:41 AM PT
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2013 1:05 PM PT
Officials have stepped up enforcement to catch salmon poachers on the Fraser River. Officials have stepped up enforcement to catch salmon poachers on the Fraser River. (Gary Stewart/Associated Press)
Play iconOfficials catching people illegally fishing on the Fraser RiverDFO targets salmon poachers in B.C.1:03
Related Stories
Fraser River salmon ban begins tonightFraser River sockeye test fishery scaled backFirst Nations Skeena sockeye fishery shut for first timeSockeye salmon shortfall drives up price
Conservation officials are warning poachers to get their nets out of the Fraser River.
This year's disastrous sockeye salmon runs have prompted the closure of all commercial and recreational fisheries.
Fraser River salmon ban begins tonight
But enforcement officials say they've pulled up 50 nets and seized eight vessels in the last week alone.
Twenty-seven people are being investigated, most of them First Nations fishermen, said Herb Redekopp, chief of conservation and protection for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
"We're facing a fair number of nets that are fishing at night,” he said.
"There's a real pent-up demand for these fish and the market price on the black market is very high."
Sockeye salmon shortfall drives up price
Officials have stepped up enforcement on the river this week, including night patrols and aerial units.
"We're hitting the river hard,” Redekopp said.
“We've doubled our enforcement strength on the Fraser River from Surrey up to Hell's Gate and our primary focus is to move all the sockeye that are in the system right now up to the spawning grounds.”
Redekopp said most of the seizures have happened in the Chilliwack and Agassiz area of the Fraser.
The DFO says it's also looking into complaints of illegal fish sales.
Poachers can face a fine of up to $100,000 or up to two years in jail if found guilty.
-
http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4017939695.html (http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4017939695.html)
http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4010197914.html (http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4010197914.html)
-
http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4017939695.html (http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4017939695.html)
http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4010197914.html (http://abbotsford.en.craigslist.ca/for/4010197914.html)
Sent to DFO?
-
Sent to DFO?
I've been sending these to DFO and several politicians for the last couple weeks....
If they are really concerned about this I would think that they would already be looking at who is buying these fish.... I would think it would be real easy to catch a few of these poachers with a simple sting operation....
But what do I know???
-
Drove over the Agassiz bridge this AM and seen nets on the south east side of the bridge... also seen a few boats going up the river, but they looked like guide boats since sturgeon are still open.
Good to know DFO is patrolling this area.
Going back over Monday AM and if still there I will call. I was coming off a graveyard shift and probably shouldn't have even been driving I was so tired. :S
-
You are flossing ! You know how far those fish have to go to spawn? Hundreds of miles . And your playing those poor sockeye to exhaustion and then releasing them. If you're going to fish for springs , just barfish , and leave the sockeye alone . There's a small run this year.
-
You are flossing ! You know how far those fish have to go to spawn? Hundreds of miles . And your playing those poor sockeye to exhaustion and then releasing them. If you're going to fish for springs , just barfish , and leave the sockeye alone . There's a small run this year.
So simple, if so many continue to floss when stocks of concern is in the river we will experience more closures in the future. ::)