Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: mojo7 on September 25, 2013, 10:55:39 PM
-
I was fishing a well known, accessible by transit, local, urban, hatchery enhanced river (0 to little natural spawning due to river geography and large water volume fluctuations) who's hatchery is well funded due to the proximity to tourists and a large recreational user base that has a very healthy bi annual coho return rate.
Guy beside me was casting a spoon and I was using wool and blade. We were both getting the odd fish, mostly pinks, and I got a nice dime bright spring jack that I bonked. We both hooked and lost a couple of coho and it was past dinner time when buddy beside me caught a pristine, 10 minutes out of the ocean, 10lb hatchery coho, the kind of dime bright ocean fresh coho this river is famed for...
by the tail. :-[
There was no one else around but me that could see that is was snagged and the guy was heartbroken having to let it go. He says to me "Damn! It's snagged" and proceeds to unhook it. I thought to myself this guy has been fishing ethically for 4 hours and letting go all the pinks (non retention in this particular river) and a couple of nice springs I would have kept. The coho in question would have probably ended up like 90% of the coho in this river as black zombies sitting in a pool with no where to spawn until a massive water level rise would have flushed its fungus infested, half rotten body down the river to feed the crabs in the ocean. At that thought I turned to the guy and said...
"Look buddy you might as well keep the fish."
He looks up at me with surprise and confusion. ???
I say "That is a perfect coho. Just keep it I won't say anything." ;)
He eyes me suspiciously, and then tempted by the potential forthcoming gourmet dinner, he lets out a water testing..."It IS a nice fish"
I say "Take it home and have yourself a nice dinner. The thing is only going to rot and die anyway so you might as well make good use of it. The hatchery won't need it."
He says..."Are you sure?"
I say..."Just take it"
He says..."Well I am going home as it's getting late and I have a bit of a drive" and then he quickly gives the fish a head massage, cleans it and puts it in a bag and heads on home.
This guy was going to release the fish so he knows the rules and plays by them so I thought I'd give him a break and give him a nice dinner.
Alright guys let me have it...right or wrong?
-
WRONG! You're promoting/encouraging snagging and poaching.
-
WRONG! You're promoting/encouraging snagging and poaching.
x2
-
WRONG! You're promoting/encouraging snagging and poaching.
So you can't see the big picture? Only the written rules printed in tiny letters demanding compliance.
The guy was not a noobie he was fishing ethically, he was not attempting to snag as it was a by product of proper fishing method, the fish in this river are NOT endangered and would in all likelihood rot and die without spawning. I gave him a nice dinner and he was grateful.
Do you come to a complete stop at a stop sign on an empty rural 4 way intersection when there is no other traffic around?
-
Still wrong. It is the thin end of the wedge. And there are so many people out there who don't know or care about the rules.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" A little extreme perhaps but the point is valid. Every decision has a greater effect. It is up to those of us who care and who know the rules to encourage others to do so. None of us is perfect, I've forgotten to pinch barbs before, we are all human, but wilfully disobeying the rules and actively encouraging one of the other 'good guys' to break them is not cool.
-
I can see where youre coming from. No one will really agree with you, but in the real world, it happens.
My thoughts are, its a hatchery fish. Its not wild, its an enhanced, placed fish. That being said, rules are rules, and I tend to follow them. If someone is fishing in a meat fishery, and they want to keep ONE fish for dinner, then hooked in the mouth, hooked in the tail, it doesnt matter, as its no longer sport or recreation, but simply meat harvesting. Again, these are just my thoughts, and I dont encourage poaching, but at the end of the day, all the snaggers in Canada probably cant match the harm a couple nets do.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" A little extreme perhaps but the point is valid.
Your analogy doesnt apply to this scenario as much as it does to someone who is actually harming the fish run. One person who takes a fish, be it mouth, tail, fin, doesnt matter, still takes one fish. I understand the idea of survival of the fittest, and that fish does not deserve to be taken out of the life cycle early, but even so, its one fish. If it were 20, 30, 500 fish, that will effect the health of the run. I would hardly say the guy who kept a snagged fish is evil, but simply selfish, maybe even greedy, but evil? I think thats more than a little extreme.
-
Your analogy doesnt apply to this scenario as much as it does to someone who is actually harming the fish run. One person who takes a fish, be it mouth, tail, fin, doesnt matter, still takes one fish. I understand the idea of survival of the fittest, and that fish does not deserve to be taken out of the life cycle early, but even so, its one fish. If it were 20, 30, 500 fish, that will effect the health of the run. I would hardly say the guy who kept a snagged fish is evil, but simply selfish, maybe even greedy, but evil? I think thats more than a little extreme.
I agree with you, I don't think it is 'evil', not even close. My point, and use of that quotation is to say this: If those who actually KNOW the rules and CARE about the health of ALL our fisheries choose to disobey them and encourage others to do so then what hope do we have? Just because it is the Cap and the fish might die in a pool doesn't matter. I'll offer another quote: “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.”
To me, the point isn't whether under those narrow circumstances, retaining a fish will negatively impact the population. The point is what happens if, by encouraging that behaviour, that guy then goes out and does that on another river. And then some guys see him doing it and say "why should I follow the rules if no-one else does?"
It is a slippery slope, thin end of the wedge, whatever you want to call it. Of course I don't literally mean that it is Evil, I used that quotation to illustrate the point that it is incumbent upon those of us who know and care to hold ourselves to a higher standard. How can you be taken seriously if you care to raise a moral objection against those guys in the Okanagan who poached 50+ trout if they can say back to you - 'Well, you broke the rules too...'
What are you going to say... 'yeah but mine wasn't as bad as yours?'
-
Wrong
-
I have seen a lot go on that river from the mouth all the way up to the top and some guys making up their own rules on what is acceptable for that river. No matter what the situation might be, you can't write your own regulations! What the OP did was WRONG!
-
Although it's wrong, I certainly would not get upset over it, and would probably do the same as Mojo under the same circumstances. There was nobody else around to cause problems and no bad examples being set. People can say a precedence is being set, but I disagree. Ethical behaviour is something we CHOOSE to do on our own and not just because others are looking. In our society we have a lot of rules and laws that we are somehow supposed to abide by. In many applications they are silly. How many here drive 5 to 10 km over the speed limit? No lying now. I know very few people who never speed. How many people here stop and wait several seconds at a stop sign when there is no traffic on the road. It is the law that you are supposed to come to a COMPLETE stop and look both ways at EVERY stop sign. Very few people do and few things are totally black or white. Ethics are what we are really debating here and I've heard a wide variety ethics on many different subjects.
-
I agree with you, I don't think it is 'evil', not even close. My point, and use of that quotation is to say this: If those who actually KNOW the rules and CARE about the health of ALL our fisheries choose to disobey them and encourage others to do so then what hope do we have? Just because it is the Cap and the fish might die in a pool doesn't matter. I'll offer another quote: “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.”
To me, the point isn't whether under those narrow circumstances, retaining a fish will negatively impact the population. The point is what happens if, by encouraging that behaviour, that guy then goes out and does that on another river. And then some guys see him doing it and say "why should I follow the rules if no-one else does?"
It is a slippery slope, thin end of the wedge, whatever you want to call it. Of course I don't literally mean that it is Evil, I used that quotation to illustrate the point that it is incumbent upon those of us who know and care to hold ourselves to a higher standard. How can you be taken seriously if you care to raise a moral objection against those guys in the Okanagan who poached 50+ trout if they can say back to you - 'Well, you broke the rules too...'
What are you going to say... 'yeah but mine wasn't as bad as yours?'
I know you weren't being literal, I just wanted to point out that what happened is illegal, but not disgustingly wrong.
to your last point, it would be easy to expect to be taken seriously. it's like stealing a chocolate bar vs rape. both are crimes, one is a lot more sever than the other. really, I'm playing devils advocate here. I wouldn't do this, note would I offer the advice the op did, but if I saw it on a river, I wouldn't raise all kinds of hell, for the reasons I listed. a wild fish, or large quantity of fish and that's a different story.
I have seen a lot of sh** go on that river from the mouth all the way up to the top and some guys making up their own rules on what is acceptable for that river. No matter what the situation might be, you can't write your own regulations! What the OP did was WRONG!
Actually what the op did was give bad advice. what the other guy did was wrong.
-
Actually what the op did was give bad advice. what the other guy did was wrong.
What I meant was that encouraging someone to break the law is wrong. What the other guy did was illegal.
-
...Ethical behaviour is something we CHOOSE to do on our own and not just because others are looking...
Precisely why it was wrong, regardless of whether anyone was around to witness it and be influenced by it. The OP encouraged the guy to break the law and keep a snagged fish, and the guy could have run into a CO on his way out to the car and now has to explain why his fish has a fresh wound on its tail and not in its lip. Bottom line is the guy did not "catch" it, so he did not deserve to keep it no matter how long and hard he had tried prior. You can call me elitist now if you like, but this fish was not caught by fishing, it was caught by snagging. If it was ok for him to keep a fish that he snagged, then it is ok for anyone to snag and keep fish as long as they have "tried hard" and know the rules. The speeding analogy is telling. If you drive 10km over the limit you likely feel the limit is too low, that you can safely drive at the higher speed. If that is the case here, then you are suggesting that the law be changed and snagging should be allowed. It does not really matter how many people roll stop at a stop sign, that is the thing about right and wrong, it doesn't matter how many people do it. If it is wrong, it is wrong.
-
Mojo7, I somehow suspect that the salmon you encouraged that guy to take was the exact SAME salmon I was destined to catch LEGALLY this Sunday - but now it's gone! Thanks a lot! No wonder I never catch anything - ever! Sheesh!
-
So you told the guy you wouldn't say anything and now you've gone back on your word and we all know about it! LOL:))
hotrod
-
Were you really expecting anyone on a fishing forum that prides itself on promoting ethical practices to support poaching? If not then this is just a troll.
-
I hate where "Sports Fishing" is going and this is just another great example.
Well I guess we all now know Mojo is a poacher...heck if he condones someone else doing it you KNOW he does it himself. BRUTAL!
See, the issue here Mojo is you condoned it. He knew what was right and you made it OK for him to break the rules...guess what, next time he is in that situation, I bet he doesnt think about it nearly so hard and he just keeps the fish.
I have been fishing fresh water salmon for about 25 years (im 40 now)...what is this "meat fishery" term I keep hearing tossed around. I saw this dirt bag from Mission (his name is Gus) on the Chehalis this summer snagging red springs...he and his buddies said they wanted to tag out their cards over the next 2 week holiday. They were snagging fish intentionally...they too called it a MEAT FISHERY...I guess if an individual decides its a MEAT FISHERY then they can chose what rules they want to follow? Just like the chump fishing roe in the cable pool Monday afternoon when the water spiked.
"Ah dont worry, its just an urban run with no natural reproduction".... NO, its the ethics and laws that govern sports fishing in BC, not just the rivers/runs we figure the laws should apply too!
Makes me angry that people dont respect the fish, resource, or the laws....its extremely sad to see.
-
I officially protest your action on behalf of Burrard inlet crabs.
-
A couple of questions for mojo:
1. What gives you the right to let someone else keep a illegally caught salmon as you say "I gave him a nice dinner and he was grateful."?
2. What other ethical decisions are you making about a public resource that are against the law?
It seems to me that you know a good amount about your local fishery and that is fantastic but maybe your ego is getting in the way of your ability to make a basic ethical judgment. Its kinda along the lines of the more you know the more you know you don't know.
I think this is a great post and while it is a judgment error IMO it is a topic that should be discussed. Just because you are knowledgeable about a fishery doest give you the right to make such calls. The rules are the rules.
You will have many opportunities in the future to make better calls on the river and all the good ethical calls you make following this one WILL make a difference.
Tight lines.
-
Consider this:
I was fishing on a small flow for Coho and saw a fellow catch and bonk one.
It turns out he was a novice and bonked a WILD coho (only hatchery retention was open).
It was pointed out to him that he should not have killed the fish.
He ended up sliding the dead fish back into the river.
While a "waste" of a fish, I believe that this was the right thing to do.
-
Your analogy doesnt apply to this scenario as much as it does to someone who is actually harming the fish run. One person who takes a fish, be it mouth, tail, fin, doesnt matter, still takes one fish. I understand the idea of survival of the fittest, and that fish does not deserve to be taken out of the life cycle early, but even so, its one fish. If it were 20, 30, 500 fish, that will effect the health of the run. I would hardly say the guy who kept a snagged fish is evil, but simply selfish, maybe even greedy, but evil? I think thats more than a little extreme.
So what happens if 500 people act in the exact same manner. Oh its just me taking a fish i snagged in the tail?
It all adds up we don't need to promote people for doing this because then monkey see monkey do attitude comes out and we are even worse than where we are today.
Its still called one word in my books, poaching. I know that may sound harsh but it is what it is. And the rules are meant to be followed, there is a reason they are there .
So evil maybe not, but you encouraged and promoted illegal fishing activities. Which in my books is wrong.
Oh and if it is the river i think you are talking about, it used to have a very big wild fish return, and now it is non existent, because people said oh its wild just take it i wont tell. same sort of thing.
If someone said that to me on the river i would want to bonk them on the head more than the fish.
-
Wrong.
Punishable offense.
-
Consider this:
I was fishing on a small flow for Coho and saw a fellow catch and bonk one.
It turns out he was a novice and bonked a WILD coho (only hatchery retention was open).
It was pointed out to him that he should not have killed the fish.
He ended up sliding the dead fish back into the river.
While a "waste" of a fish, I believe that this was the right thing to do.
Bet he learned his lesson and won't make that mistake again whereas if he had brought it home he might not have.
-
So you told the guy you wouldn't say anything and now you've gone back on your word and we all know about it! LOL:))
hotrod
thats what i was wondering to hotrod. which makes me question if the event really happened or someone trying to stir they old pot on fwr
-
My question is... what would you guys do if you worked at a lodge and no matter how much you try and educate people, guys who come to canada for 4 days on a fishing trip simply cannot know all of the rules... so many cases of keeping salmon in excess of daily quota, bonking undersize, oversize, closed species... do you yell at them and tell them how horrible they are, or call DFO on them and have them fined?
They leave the country tomorrow, and don't return for a year. But when they get back to their home country (usually USA), they tell their friends about what a great time they have had fishing and encourage them to come next year, injecting over $1000 per day into the local economy. If you call DFO and have them come down and give them a fine, they might not want to return, and may tell their friends about how scary of an experience they had being approached by fishery officers with guns, being humiliated in front of a large group of guests and fined for keeping a sockeye, for example, when they thought it was "one of the ones they could keep"...
What about the couple that lives in a remote coastal community without grocery stores, and has depended on recreationally harvesting halibut to get them through the winter, but after this year's changes to the daily/annual quota, the amount they can now keep has been reduced to half.
The correct answer is the same... nevertheless it illustrates the challenges our fisheries managers face on a daily basis... who do you fine, who do you let off...
-
Wow, Un believable that you would actually ask if that was right or wrong! With that kind of attitude youve probably poached a load of fish in your life. Please stay in your own country and do not fish bc waters.
What would you expect from the guy who claimed all the sockeyes he flossed in the fraser actually bit though?
Spend a bit more time reading the posts before typing, you're mixing up the posters.
-
My question is... what would you guys do if you worked at a lodge and no matter how much you try and educate people, guys who come to canada for 4 days on a fishing trip simply cannot know all of the rules... so many cases of keeping salmon in excess of daily quota, bonking undersize, oversize, closed species... do you yell at them and tell them how horrible they are, or call DFO on them and have them fined?
They leave the country tomorrow, and don't return for a year. But when they get back to their home country (usually USA), they tell their friends about what a great time they have had fishing and encourage them to come next year, injecting over $1000 per day into the local economy. If you call DFO and have them come down and give them a fine, they might not want to return, and may tell their friends about how scary of an experience they had being approached by fishery officers with guns, being humiliated in front of a large group of guests and fined for keeping a sockeye, for example, when they thought it was "one of the ones they could keep"...
What about the couple that lives in a remote coastal community without grocery stores, and has depended on recreationally harvesting halibut to get them through the winter, but after this year's changes to the daily/annual quota, the amount they can now keep has been reduced to half.
The correct answer is the same... nevertheless it illustrates the challenges our fisheries managers face on a daily basis... who do you fine, who do you let off...
First off i don't think americans would be scared of fisheries approaching them with a hand gun. have you ever run into their conservation officers down there. Second year they spend money, that doesn't mean it goes into fishing related ideas. And if they are fishing with guides and the guide should say no thats not a keeper. And if so the guiding company should get fined.
No matter what its the law. What would the Americans do if you got caught doing something down there related to their wildlife?
-
Definitely wrong not even a question.
Like someone said that guy commited an illegal act and you promoted poaching... I wouldn't even consider that guy a fisherman, he's a poacher.
Put your head on strait, release any fish you snag intentional or not. You can't just justify keeping a snagged fish because you think it's going to just die and rot anyway.
grow up and grow some ethics. The river needs more people who will do the right thing when noone is around, if you're not willing to do that, take up a different sport the rivers don't need you.
-
Pathetic and wrong. I say pathetic because to me ethics say a lot about the type of person you truly are; you know, when no one is looking. In your case both you and the gentleman who retained the fish decided that without someone holding you to a higher standard breaking the law was acceptable. You even found ways to justify it because of the other fish that were caught fairly. I wonder what other morally questionable acts you could find a way to justify? The reality is a nice chrome Coho was not caught fairly and therefore should not have been kept. Last year I fished the cap with a buddy of mine and we got into a number of coho, but all wild. Finally as we were about to leave my buddy gets into a nice one that goes ballistic. When I first saw it, I swear it was hooked in the yap, but by the time it came in it was tangled and foul hooked. Guess what - it went on to swim (or die) another day. Even if it ended up a mouldy dead zombie, it gave back to the river! Then again I guess you wonder why we didn't just bonk all the "wild" ones anyway, I mean really they are just a hatchery fish that didn't get clipped right?
If someone is fishing in a meat fishery, and they want to keep ONE fish for dinner, then hooked in the mouth, hooked in the tail, it doesnt matter, as its no longer sport or recreation, but simply meat harvesting. Again, these are just my thoughts, and I dont encourage poaching, but at the end of the day, all the snaggers in Canada probably cant match the harm a couple nets do.
I really don't understand this acceptance of "meat fisheries". Ian made a good post in another thread about how everyone brings their own perceptions into an argument and you've done just that, so I'll offer the other side. I view the fishery I believe the original poster is referring to as a sport fishery. I believe that purchase of my license allows me to angle for fish in a sporting manner. I enjoy keeping the odd fish and I take pride in enticing a fish to take my offering. I take offence to others that circumvent the rules in an effort to retain more fish. I'm annoyed by (and report) anyone who illegally retains a fish and I'm sick and tired of people justifying their actions and the actions of others because "it's just a meat fishery". Last I checked, I don't (and can't) purchase a license to harvest fish for sustenance and I doubt you do either. I am as entitled as you are to go out and enjoy a recreational fishery and providing I'm not tangling line with a trawler in a commercial opening I shouldn't have to compete with idiots intentionally snagging and retaining! Further to that, while I agree nets do far more damage, how does that have ANY relevance on a discussion on ethics? It certainly shouldn't be justification for poaching, which I guess you're ok with, but just don't encourage?
-
My question is... what would you guys do if you worked at a lodge and no matter how much you try and educate people, guys who come to canada for 4 days on a fishing trip simply cannot know all of the rules... so many cases of keeping salmon in excess of daily quota, bonking undersize, oversize, closed species... do you yell at them and tell them how horrible they are, or call DFO on them and have them fined?
Actually was in that situation. I worked a summer at the QCL in a year we had a total ban on coho retention. We had all the guests well educated in how to tell the difference between a coho and a chinook, before sending them out on the water (not all paid the extra for a guide), yet day after day we had guests coming back to the docks with coho. I had to politely inform them, under the gaze of the attending Haida Watchmen, that they had killed a coho, show them the white gums again and then showed them the black gums of their springs and then toss the coho off the dock to feed the crabs. No, we did not have a DFO officer present, and the watchmen knew how hard we were trying to teach these guests how to properly ID fish, but they all tried to plead ignorance.
No one here is saying that the guy needs to be fined or even yelled at, they are saying he should not be encouraged to bonk it though. The Watchmen were visibly disappointed in our guests behavior, but they did not insist on charges or fines being levied on the guests, but you can be damn sure they would have crucified me if I had advised the guests to keep the illegal catch.
-
OK maybe my description of the river in question was a little too opaque for some and for my defense of my actions the river in question, the Capilano, is pivotal.
The Capilano, in all intents and purposes, is a put and take fishery for recreational, aboriginal and tourism use. The natural historical return rates pre Clevland dam was between 3500-7000 coho. After the dam the rates went to 2000 until the building of the hatchery in 1971 and then the return rates were between 20,000-40,000.There is an excess of 18,000 to 38,000 hatchery fish competing with the 2000 natural fish that the river, in it's current state, can accommodate.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/166454.pdf
The excess fish are for our enjoyment and as I said most will rot and die without spawning so for this particular river only would I turn a blind eye to someone fishing "in good spirit" IE proper ethical fishing method with no illegal intent, keeping one (hatchery not wild) for the dinner plate if an accident happened. We're talking 1 fish not limiting out.
I'm not advocating wholesale snagging slaughter and I will speak up if I see intentional snagging but lets look at the big picture and try to understand that the rules are there for the protection of the species on rivers much more sensitive to kill rates than the Cap. If the hatchery program on the Cap was diminished or eliminated then it would be a completely different story. I'm sure the DFO sets it's allowable recreational catches with the health of the species as a whole in mind and most likely makes allowances for inevitable illegal harvesters into their limit quotas. OK, given its historical record I'm not so sure that is how DFO sets its limit quotas, but a rational view of species management would certainly do this. Obviously if return rates change, quotas and outright retention bans are quite rightly put in place.
When it comes to snagging with intent or even accidental snags on other river systems I'm in agreement with the majority on this forum but in my opinion the Cap is kind of a one off fishery.
As for the fears of this guy getting carte blanche for the same behavior on other river systems I will repeat he was a good, knowledgeable (he knew the rules and followed them) fisherman. I don't have any worries that a slippery slope avalanche of species threatening proportions will happen anytime soon. I think we have greater worries out there.
As for me personally I am a casual sportie more for the walk/exercise getting fresh air kind of fisher.The numbers don't matter much to me. If I catch, I catch, if I don't no big deal so no worries of me snagging the pacific salmon into extinction.
Is it just me or are there a few fishers that seem to have just a wee bit too much ego/emotional investment in their fishing identity?
-
Oh, its the Cap...well that changes everything then...youre right, rules/laws dont apply there. My mistake. And for "Gus" they don't apply on the Chehalis, etc, etc, etc.
Your attitude is total b*** s***. Defending your position is infuriating for anyone who respects the rules and the resource and its attitudes like that are ruining sports fishing.
-
Wow.. strict rules here.
I better not go over 50km/h in a 50km/h zone EVER.
Because that's wrong and it's breaking the law.
-
Next up the Seymour, whats next after that? Stave? Allouette? Heck lets just dam the Chilliwack so all the snagging would be "ok" then ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Funny story, the last few years I have been taking out a few co workers that are new to fishing rivers locally, they have now traded in their spin casters and rubber gum boot waders and have upgraded to better quality, more user friendly equipment in my opinion ( drift rods, nice baitcasters and breathable waders), they are into it... they watch what I use and do and are learning to be good rods. There have been a few times were we have jigged a fish, some real beauties just like this poster mentions, I get the old, I wanna keep it look...that's nice lets keep it comment...nope, they always go back...moral of the story, resist, there are plenty of rivers and plenty of fish out there, to encourage someone to keep a jigged coho, and I don't care how pretty it WAS is just irresponsible and setting a poor example. keep at it and you will get your fish, today tomorrow or next year...what this poster and fisherman did was wrong.
-
What we don't want is this to start to become OK...
-
Frankly, this all stems back to the advent of flossing.
When I first started fishing, a guy I comercial fished with taught me the ropes....run timing, water conditions, different presentations, how to borax roe (this was all applied to float fishing). From there, I researched, experimented, and lerned and grew as a fisher. In the last 6 weeks I have caught coho on roe (where open), on flies, spinners, jigs, etc, in low gin clear water and high colored water. If you put the time in, you can learn where to go and what to toss and you can get BITES in any condition.
Bottom line, since the advent of flossing, many fishers dont even bother learning how to make a fish bite, they just line them. You have people that aren't true fisherman picking up rods hooking fish immediately. Becuase this (the effectiveness of flossing), I think the expectation of hooking a fish is higher with these types of fishers so when those tough desicions come along (like the one that started this thread), wrong desicions are being made.
Lets face it, a flossed fish is snagged, it didnt bite.
While this guy who kept the tail hooked coho wasn't flossing, I understand what he did as the prevailing attitude of most fishers now a days condones snagging....sorry to say nimmie-me but it already has become OK with "the masses".
-
mojo7,
You have to believe that the rule was put in place for a reason, right? If the gov't considered it a complete meat fishery, then why would they not allow keeping of fish by any method? There are a bunch of lakes where fisheries will dump in a whole bunch of fish that won't survive. Especially down in the states where they will plant trout in lakes and rivers where they won't be able to live through the summer. Some of those are catch and release only but those fish are going to die so you think it fine to take those too?
A couple years ago, I've had a 25+ pound chinook that we swore was hooked in the mouth the first couple times it surfaced but by the time we got it in the net it was wrapped up and it was hooked outside the mouth. There was even a hook hole in the fish's mouth right where we thought we saw the hook the first couple times it surfaced, but when we got it in, the hook was under the jaw and the line wrapped around the fish. Any DFO officer would have been able to see the hook hole in the mouth and considered it ok to keep. These sadly got returned because we knew where the hook was when the fish got pulled up. I say sadly not because we wish we hadn't returned it but because it was the only chinook we had seen that caught that day and it was right before dark so we knew it was probably the only one the bar would see all day. Sure, the penalties are bad but you have to live with yourself and your buddy with his self. I wouldn't have been able to keep that fish and felt anything but ashamed and sick. Character is not following the rules when you are being watched or think you might get caught. It is what you do when you are pretty sure you won't get caught. That is when you find out who you really are. Are you someone that still acts like a good person or do the rules not apply as much anymore.
-
Frankly, this all stems back to the advent of flossing.
I'm so glad to learn that before flossing there were no fish snagged or at least if they were snagged they weren't kept. Or maybe before flossing people didn't think it was ok for them to do it. Perhaps you should give yourself a 30 second time out before actually hitting that post button and reread to make sure you are making sense.
-
What would you expect from the guy who claimed all the sockeyes he flossed in the fraser actually bit though?
Well, with the reading comprehension or at least name recognition you have, we (humans? because I'm not sure the nationality, race, or anything of the original poster) must all look the same. I didn't even get the idea the original poster was from the states. I would expect an apology but honestly, I don't care about your opinion enough for it to matter.
-
There's not much I can add that the majority of posters haven't said already and I am with the majority that can't and won't condone this action. A man's integrity is one of the most important and valuable gifts we possess, don't throw it away, for once lost it is difficult to get back.
And again this is not about flossing but about ethics. Doing the right thing even though no one is looking.
-
Headed down to the Cap early morning excited that I can keep wild cohos now.
I ended up keeping 6 wilds since they are just going to rot in the river anyways. I threw the hatchery ones back in the river as I don't think the meat is as red.
Great Day!!!!
And a super duper special thanks to Mojo7 and others for opening my eyes to see the big picture!!!!
-
When he realized the fish was snagged and he had to release it, he was an ethical fisherman. When he decided to keep it, encouraged or not, he became a poacher. I mourn the loss of one of our own...... :( :(
-
I'm so glad to learn that before flossing there were no fish snagged or at least if they were snagged they weren't kept. Or maybe before flossing people didn't think it was ok for them to do it. Perhaps you should give yourself a 30 second time out before actually hitting that post button and reread to make sure you are making sense.
Maybe you should give yourself a few minutes to disgest what is being said and then formulate an intelegnet response. ::)
Several people here share the opinion that since flossing became mainstream, fishing ethics have gone out the door. Do you disagree? I had this status indian guy fishing on a sport lisence tell me its fun flossing coho in the cable pool...I had just watched him snag (in the body and tail...not even flossed) multiple fish. While these fish were release, I guarantee they were far worse for wear. I would never continue to fish in a manner where I was HARMING fish like that. He did not care about the potential damage he was causing. This is the same guy that fishes with the blond/deaf guy who posted a pic holding a steelhead by the gills (in the cable pool). These guys just dont care and I guarantee I didnt see this type of stuff 20-25 years ago when I was learning to fish...its common now though.
As several posts indicate, many fishers throw around this term "meat fishery" like its some official label that DFO has created and which sanctions the fishers to snag, floss, go beyond their limit, etc ie its a "meat fishery" I can do what I want to the fish.
The point I was making is that the average fisher now, views a day fishing, the fish, the resource, etc much more differently then the average fisher did before the cancer we know as flossing took over...
Of course fish were snagged pre flossing days and sure some fishers probably didnt care back then. But lets face it, flossing is snagging so if all you do is floss fish your are already operating in a very grey area. So if youre OK with flossing/snagging, being OK with keeping a snagged fish isnt a big leap.
And the pivitol influence (in my opinion) is the advent and then mainstreaming of flossing from fraser sockeye to EVERY other river and run in BC.
-
Several people here share the opinion that since flossing became mainstream, fishing ethics have gone out the door. Do you disagree?
Forgive me. Several people can't be wrong. ::) Yes, I disagree. There are more people fishing today which make the problem more of an issue, sure, but long before flossing the Fraser became popular or allowed or whatever there were ethics issues. You can't tell me that someone who is willing to poach a fish today wasn't willing to poach a fish before flossing, all else being the same. Just like in many other areas, ethics of all kinds are going down the toilet. There are many more people today willing to do whatever they feel they have a right to do no matter how they have to go about doing it. Granted most of those probably go about the route of flossing or snagging because it is seen as easier. To think that these people, before they started fishing and learned to floss were ethically pure is complete BS. Or are you going to try and blame flossing on all of the moral decay?
I could perhaps see a much lesser DFO presence on failing to force some ethics on fisherman. If people know they are going to be checked and have the law thrown at them, they are more likely to comply. If they think nothing will happen and nobody is seeing them, that is when we find out who they are on the inside. And that is regardless of the type of fishing they are doing.
Flossing becoming popular might have brought more people out fishing but chances are they would have made it out there eventually. There are too many jobs these days where people sit in front of a computer all day and rarely get outside. Most of these have fishing as a child as a happy memory and therefore eventually seek it out as a way to unplug for just a couple hours. So, combine that with increased population, hard economic times so people need a stress relief and if they can catch dinner and save a couple bucks all the better, the drive away from artificial stuff in our food but without the vegetarian restrictions and what is better than wild salmon for that, along with many other factors.
I understand your bitterness but you are directing it at the wrong item. It pisses me off something horrible that the fishing I enjoyed as a kid will never be experienced by my kids. That the fish have been raped by seemingly everybody that possibly could. Blaming it all on flossers or even a good part of it is like blaming the fact guns exist for mass school shootings. It just doesn't add up.
-
When I started fishing, flossing didnt exist! You saw mostly float fishers, fly fishers, and some fisher hucking hardware. There were few fareweather fisherman and more dedicated fisherman on any run, on any river. Fast forward to today and the flossers and people fishing with no float and long leaders OUTWEIGH the float fisherman. If you surveyed the entire river (vedder) I bet on the average day there are more flossers than true fisherman.
I also venture a guess (yes a guess) that if a fareweather fisher couldn't catch a salmon to save his life then he would not spend $70 odd on a lisence. Maybe some would, but the masses wouldn't.
"there are more people fishing today" you don't think that has anything to do with flossing making salmon very accessible to new fishers? To me flossing is cheating, fishers rob themselves of the learning process and this shortcut IMO reduces apprecaition for the process.
You aren't coming close to understanding it so I'll spell it out for you:
"You can't tell me that someone who is willing to poach a fish today wasn't willing to poach a fish before flossing" NO i am not saying that at all. I am suggesting that flossing is bring out and creating more fishers who don't understand nor respect the system/fishery.
And then you even acknowledge my point by saying: "there are many more people today willing to do whatever they feel they have a right to do no matter how they have to go about doing it. Granted most of those probably go about the route of flossing or snagging because it is seen as easier.
EXACTLY...thanks for making my point.
-
Forgive me. Several people can't be wrong. ::) Yes, I disagree. There are more people fishing today which make the problem more of an issue, sure, but long before flossing the Fraser became popular or allowed or whatever there were ethics issues. You can't tell me that someone who is willing to poach a fish today wasn't willing to poach a fish before flossing, all else being the same. Just like in many other areas, ethics of all kinds are going down the toilet. There are many more people today willing to do whatever they feel they have a right to do no matter how they have to go about doing it. Granted most of those probably go about the route of flossing or snagging because it is seen as easier. To think that these people, before they started fishing and learned to floss were ethically pure is complete BS. Or are you going to try and blame flossing on all of the moral decay?
I could perhaps see a much lesser DFO presence on failing to force some ethics on fisherman. If people know they are going to be checked and have the law thrown at them, they are more likely to comply. If they think nothing will happen and nobody is seeing them, that is when we find out who they are on the inside. And that is regardless of the type of fishing they are doing.
Flossing becoming popular might have brought more people out fishing but chances are they would have made it out there eventually. There are too many jobs these days where people sit in front of a computer all day and rarely get outside. Most of these have fishing as a child as a happy memory and therefore eventually seek it out as a way to unplug for just a couple hours. So, combine that with increased population, hard economic times so people need a stress relief and if they can catch dinner and save a couple bucks all the better, the drive away from artificial stuff in our food but without the vegetarian restrictions and what is better than wild salmon for that, along with many other factors.
I understand your bitterness but you are directing it at the wrong item. It pisses me off something horrible that the fishing I enjoyed as a kid will never be experienced by my kids. That the fish have been raped by seemingly everybody that possibly could. Blaming it all on flossers or even a good part of it is like blaming the fact guns exist for mass school shootings. It just doesn't add up.
Very well said TN, your intelligence is showing through, you'd better watch out. Too many on this site have their minds made up that flosser's are the root of all evil as far as fishing is concerned. Funny, as one popular poster mentioned about fishing the Squamish during the pink run. He said that with four friends fly fishing side by side and we all hook a fish at the same time and catch 20+ fish each in less than 2 hours you know its getting ridiculous.
But none of those fish were flossed. ;D The fly fishing elitists, master flosser's of the river. If dfo really wanted or cared they would implement rules and reg's to stop it instead of just suggesting and hoping we all fish in a safe and appropriate manner.
Anyway's have fun guy's and girl's, I'm off for one last crack at the Vedder before the rain blow's er' out.
-
When I started fishing, flossing didnt exist! You saw mostly float fishers, fly fishers, and some fisher hucking hardware. There were few fareweather fisherman and more dedicated fisherman on any run, on any river. Fast forward to today and the flossers and people fishing with no float and long leaders OUTWEIGH the float fisherman. If you surveyed the entire river (vedder) I bet on the average day there are more flossers than true fisherman.
I also venture a guess (yes a guess) that if a fareweather fisher couldn't catch a salmon to save his life then he would not spend $70 odd on a lisence. Maybe some would, but the masses wouldn't.
"there are more people fishing today" you don't think that has anything to do with flossing making salmon very accessible to new fishers? To me flossing is cheating, fishers rob themselves of the learning process and this shortcut IMO reduces apprecaition for the process.
You aren't coming close to understanding it so I'll spell it out for you:
"You can't tell me that someone who is willing to poach a fish today wasn't willing to poach a fish before flossing" NO i am not saying that at all. I am suggesting that flossing is bring out and creating more fishers who don't understand nor respect the system/fishery.
And then you even acknowledge my point by saying: "there are many more people today willing to do whatever they feel they have a right to do no matter how they have to go about doing it. Granted most of those probably go about the route of flossing or snagging because it is seen as easier.
EXACTLY...thanks for making my point.
When I started fishing, it was the same, few fair weather fisherman although a lot in WA were casting dick nights and pencil lead or winged bobbers or whatever you call them. Saw very few fly fishermen down there ever and nobody using a float. Those were simpler times though, and calmer. There has been an inflow of people to the area from all areas, over seas, California, Mexico, etc. They all came with their previous history of fishing and ethics and all of that. There are more people fishing but there are many more people in the area living and working here.
For some people, they floss because they consider it easy, they can set the hook often and "catch" fish. Before flossing, you suggest these people weren't fishing but I remember growing up running into some just like them. Like I said though, it was a different time. Back then if a fisherman saw someone snagging, they would be approached and run off, or DFO would be there and lock them up. Now, if a fisherman approaches a snagger, they so do knowing there is a greater than 0 chance a gun could get pulled. There have been guys shot because of it. DFO is rarely around. Without supervision and people calling them out, people with less ethics than people had back in the day do what they do. It used to be they had to try and hide it. I saw a number of hooks tied directly onto a weight, or weird treble hook setups that were obviously for snagging. And this was in the 70s and 80s. It was happening, just not near as frequently as flossing happens and definitely more hidden.
Also, I hate to tell you this, but in the rivers in WA, there are many more people fishing than I saw growing up too. Flossing is not an issue there. There are guys that are lucky to catch a fish all season long. They are still out there. This isn't a problem unique to the Fraser or Vedder or just in Canada. Check out the Sammish river sometime if you don't believe me. They float fish there too if you want to call it that. They have a float on. A lot of guys put a little bit of egg on and then rig it so the hook is outside and while the eggs are on the bottom, the hook is pointing downstream to gut shot any fish that comes by. You think that is because of flossing?
Face it. People these days suck. Few have any ethics worth mentioning on anything they do, including fishing. They occupy every part of the river. You could outlaw flossing completely and you wouldn't get rid of them. They would find another way because for them, the end justifies the means. Whatever they have to do to get their fish, they will do it.
Getting a fish to bite is awesome and outsmarting the fish and enticing a strike is awesome, whether it is with a fly, or a spoon, or a plastic worm for bass or any other way. There are many that don't care about this though. A majority of them gravitate toward flossing because it is legal and the way they do it is easy. If it was made illegal, they wouldn't just leave, they would do something else. You are blaming the method many of them have chosen, not the lack of ethics. Outlawing the method won't change the underlying issue and won't fix anything.
-
Very well said TN, your intelligence is showing through, you'd better watch out. Too many on this site have their minds made up that flosser's are the root of all evil as far as fishing is concerned. Funny, as one popular poster mentioned about fishing the Squamish during the pink run. He said that with four friends fly fishing side by side and we all hook a fish at the same time and catch 20+ fish each in less than 2 hours you know its getting ridiculous.
But none of those fish were flossed. ;D The fly fishing elitists, master flosser's of the river. If dfo really wanted or cared they would implement rules and reg's to stop it instead of just suggesting and hoping we all fish in a safe and appropriate manner.
Anyway's have fun guy's and girl's, I'm off for one last crack at the Vedder before the rain blow's er' out.
If you fly fish with floating line and a dry fly and the fish comes and takes it then I think they can say they aren't flossing them. If anything is below the water, unless they are seeing the fish purposefully grab it which happens some with coho or some other fresh fish, they can't say for sure.
Fact is, there isn't a method used that can't be manipulated and used in an unethical way. People aren't unethical because they floss. People are just unethical and how it manifests itself is different and I will admit there are a lot of people out flossing on the river that are snagging all kinds of fish, many of them do it on purpose. I'm not going to get into my whole discussion again but you bring up evidence, like a color change causing a complete stop in fish being caught and they just don't want to hear it but refuse to give a reason it happens because it doesn't fit in their assumed reality box they have created for themselves. Apparently the line only goes into the fish's mouth if the colors of the spin-n-glo and yarn are just right, otherwise the fish close their mouths.
I've seen bank fishing done unethically. I've seen trolling in the ocean done unethically. Fly fishing. Throwing spoons. Flossing. Anything can be done unethically and it isn't the method, it is the person.
-
Why you guys arguing? Capilano wild coho for everyone. Snag em and Bag em.
-
Why you guys arguing? Capilano wild coho for everyone. Snag em and Bag em.
I'm disgruntled because I am in TN and get no Capliano wild coho. I wish I was up there snagging and bagging. Because of that I am pissy and arguing. :)
-
Im pissy because for 6 weeks I have been hammer coho on the fly...you can watch them chase it down and hammer it...its been awesome until the flossers and snaggers show up. them simply bombarding the hole almost always kills the fishing. they aren't getting bites and more often than not snag fish they know they can't keep...they are wasting everyone's time WHILE DAMAGING FISH. Thats why I am so fired up as of late.
I'll do my be to educate people, I have give out 6-8 flies to different fishers to encourage them not to floss.
Most dont care and continue on...so I call RAPP every chance I get.
PS - I have seen people ticketed for keeping a flossed fish...its not legal, its just not enforced.
-
Getting back to the OP's question. Did you counsel him to break the law, and did he? In black and white terms, yes.
However, IMHO, in grey terms, is it a big deal? No
1) If this fish reached the hatchery, it would wind up in a blue bin to be disposed of somehow
2) I note in the regs it says "It is illegal to wilfully hook a salmon on any part of its body other than
in the mouth. You may not retain any accidentally foul-hooked salmon" So it is illegal to willfully hook and you may not retain... If I was playing semantics I would appear that the former is more wrong than the latter.
Is it illegal to go 10 km over the posted speed limit? In black and white terms, yes. Does it cause increased risk to the public or yourself to do it? Not really. Do members of this forum regularly exceed the posted speed limit? Probably yes
Is it illegal to retain a hatchery fish that you accidentally hooked In black and white terms, yes. Does it cause harm to a public resource. Not really. Do members of this forum retain accidentally snagged fish? Probably not.
-
1) If this fish reached the hatchery, it would wind up in a blue bin to be disposed of somehow
Most of the surplus fish (beyond those needed for hatchery production) go to the Squamish Band. It's compensation for the salmon they lost when we built our dam to provide water to our homes and for watering our lawns. They don't go to waste.
-
WRONG. This is the reason why there are soo many bad ethics on the river, it perpetuates the problem
-
wrong.
-
Im giving everyone on this forum permission to kill one wild coho this year, just one fish. There goes 10,000 fish.....
-
If your answer was anything but "Wrong" consider yourself part of the problem!
Making a conscious decision to operate outside the parameters of that which is legal is not defensible. Those that do so are simply poachers with an explanation.
-
If your answer was anything but "Wrong" consider yourself part of the problem!
Making a conscious decision to operate outside the parameters of that which is legal is not defensible. Those that do so are simply poachers with an explanation excuse.
I fixed your post
-
Well did you really expect anyone to say you did the right thing? I'm fairly certain everyone, including yourself, knows that both of you made the wrong choice. It's unfortunate that it happened, and though I agree you're probably right that the actual damage it will do to the system will be slim to none, that rationalization is a dangerous game to play. I know because, before I was educated by some helpful ethical fishermen, I played that rationalization game.
I pulled up a beautiful 10 lb silver bullet of a wild coho and fought with myself on how I could rationalize keeping it. It made me sick inside when I released it and I thought, the river owes me one. A week later I foul hooked a nice 25lb spring and I convinced myself that because I let the coho go, I deserve this spring. I bonked it. That sinking feeling I immediately had was nauseating. The rest of my day was spent feeling guilty. The dinner was only a reminder of how low I had stooped. I then realized that its just not worth it in the long run.
I have since pulled a 180. I'm working on educating those around me to fish more ethically and take pride in doing things the right way. Each fish is so much more fulfilling.
-
Mojo7, yes it was wrong to tell the guy to keep the fish and for him to do so, but in saying that I understand and have been in that same situation both on the river and in the ocean. People visit me on the island during the summer to catch salmon and halibut and pay a lot of money to do so with gas and ferries etc. we have foul hooked a few and it is tough to say no. I have kept a few over my many years of fishing and it does not make me feel sick to my stomache or like a criminal to do so. Is it right, no, but I would suggest that many of the same people who are saying that they would never do it, have. My opinion of course. So don't beat yourself up or lose sleep over this. Good topic. Interesting comments, some make me laugh.
Question for egg fishers, how many fish are caught where the hooks are deep in the mouth etc? Have read a lot about how this is especially hard on released fish... If this is true then why are we doing it?
-
Mojo7, yes it was wrong to tell the guy to keep the fish and for him to do so, but in saying that I understand and have been in that same situation both on the river and in the ocean. People visit me on the island during the summer to catch salmon and halibut and pay a lot of money to do so with gas and ferries etc. we have foul hooked a few and it is tough to say no. I have kept a few over my many years of fishing and it does not make me feel sick to my stomache or like a criminal to do so. Is it right, no, but I would suggest that many of the same people who are saying that they would never do it, have. My opinion of course. So don't beat yourself up or lose sleep over this. Good topic. Interesting comments, some make me laugh.
Question for egg fishers, how many fish are caught where the hooks are deep in the mouth etc? Have read a lot about how this is especially hard on released fish... If this is true then why are we doing it?
You can suggest that, but it doesn't make it true, no more than it makes what you have done less wrong to suggest other people have done it also. Furthermore, while a deeply hook fish has a very low chance of surviving release, it is still a chance, especially if the hook is left in and the line just cut. However, a bonked fish has a zero percent chance of survival.
-
Sandman, wasn't trying to connect the two with the my roe question. My mistake, I should have started a new thread. I realize that they have a better chance of surviving than if they were bonked, but do have a difficult time with it. Off topic though as it has nothing to do with this topic... :-[
-
Good read and good topic. I think i would say thanks to mojo7 for bringing it up. Cant honestly come up with an answer because I wasnt there. Then again if I where then maybe it wouldnt of happened.