Zabber,
Fishery managers generally (not just DFO) manage resource by looking at numbers. If there are enough fish that can be allocated for harvesting, then the fishery is opened. If harvest is determined to have reached the allocated quota, then it closes. As long as these fish are harvested by methods defined legal and CPUE does not exceed expected level, then they are allowed while retention is open. After all, a dead fish is a dead fish, no matter how it is caught. The problem with this type of management approach, is managers have a tendency to underestimate the skills of those who participate in the fishery. Fishermen are always changing their techniques, behaviours, locations, timing, while working within the legal boundary to achieve their goal - Improve their catch rate.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not wish to impose leader length restrictions or any further rules on terminal tackle in addition to existing ones. This has been brought up several times when I engaged in discussions on this exact issue with regional managers. What it wishes to see, is a dialogue being started by the community so we can identify the key issues, if there are some, and develop solutions to improve the quality of this fishery and the ones that are affected by it.
The issue I have with flossing proponents in these discussion is the constant diversion of the core problems by suggesting the problems generated by other fisheries are just as bad if not worse. This post earlier is the worst example, or best, however you want to look at it.
You can apply most of your descriptions above to the Vedder too. In fact it is worse at the Vedder. The crowd, the garbage, the snagging (yes, intentional snagging by jerking the rod towards the end of each drift when fishing the rapids), the crowded fish holes with people fishing shoulder to shoulder, and hooks catching the wrong body part of crowded fish even by float fishing or flyfishing. In terms of damaging a fish, there is nothing worse than foul hooking it and fighting it in a rapid, and letting the hook tear apart the flesh of the fish, or letting it tire out to near death because of the prolong battle of landing a foul hooked fish. These foul hookings happen so much more often on the Vedder than bottom bouncing on the Fraser. In a day of bb the Fraser, you rarely see a foul hooked fish. But if you are fishing a crowded fish hole on the Vedder, there will be a foul hooked fish every few minutes. Why don't you go to Tamahi or even the bottom of Keith Wilson Bridge & take a look. In terms of bonking the wrong fish, or keeping over the limit, is the Vedder exempt from these problems? Why are we still allowing the Vedder fishery open then based on your argument? These problems are not a result of the location or method of fishing. They are created by fishermen, a human issue. Most of the time, bbers know the game of crowded fishing and they respect and tolerate crowding. There is usually a open spirit about it and people look past these issues to have a good time out in the bars. For someone who don't like crowd, they can buy a boat and hide away to some islands on the Fraser. We live in a free society and must learn to respect other's legal choices.
I originally wasn't going to address this but it has been put out of context so much. I don't need people reading this on here and walking away with the same attitude. The problems that I addressed earlier have completely been misinterpreted on purpose, just so you can paint a pretty picture on the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. Why? Especially when I've already suggested that this fishery is here to stay and we should be looking for solutions to minimize its impact on the overall resource and angling quality in Southern BC? As always, you are more interested in laying the blame on others and making the outrageous claim that everything is all good when people are out enjoying flossing sockeye salmon on the Fraser River.
This is not just about bottom bouncing with a long leader. It is about the intent to catch a fish by sweeping the line across the river bed and hoping to foul hook a fish in its mouth region during the process. Because the technique is defined legal for the Fraser River salmon fishery, it can then be, and has been, employed in other fisheries such as the Chilliwack River. No, people are not bottom bouncing with a betty and long leader to achieve the same result. They are float fishing by having the weight dragging along the bottom and jerking the rod repeatedly when the float goes under to "catch" one. They are fly fishing by swinging a lead line across a school of fish. The technique maybe different, the intention and result remain the same. Fish are brought in. If they are foul hooked, they are released. If they are hooked in the mouth region, they are retained. It's not pretty, but it's legal, practiced just as it is on the Fraser River. Is it a problem? That would depend on who you ask and what their definition on angling quality is.
Fish caught in the Fraser River are rarely foul hooked compared to ones caught in the Chilliwack River? Don't make such a bold suggestion without the numbers to back it up. What's the purpose of this suggestion anyway, beside insisting these fish in the Fraser River are actually not flossed? Again, the point has been missed, which is that participants are now taking advantage of the same legal loophole at smaller streams to improve their catch rate. Lets say if in fact more fish are being foul hooked in the Vedder due to anglers fishing with the intent to floss, then there's more reason to be concerned!
By the way, 86% of sockeye landed in the
3-year Fraser River sockeye salmon catch and release mortality study were hooked outside the mouth. But hey, 14% were hooked in the mouth, they must be biting.
Misidentifying species and exceeding daily quota occur in all fisheries, but its impact is more significant in the Fraser River because you are targeting mixed runs with the possibility to intercept vulnerable stocks such as interior steelhead and coho salmon. All groups that work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognize this and have been trying to find solutions to prevent it.
The root of these problems is the amount of new participants being introduced to fishing by taking part in the Fraser River salmon fishery as their first fishing experience. The idea of flossing is then imprinted and they only believe salmon can be caught this way unless shown otherwise. By modifying the technique slightly, they then participate in smaller tributary fisheries with the same intent. Some will eventually learn, others will fish like so forever because the regulations allow it.
If you firmly don't believe that, then there isn't a problem for you to solve and the discussion can pretty much end right here. If you feel this type of fishing is accepted in fisheries other than the Fraser River, then there also isn't anything else to discuss. Don't even lay the blame on Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You cannot advocate for the acceptance of flossing as a legal method to catch salmon in less-ideal condition and complain about the decline in angling quality of other fisheries.
Back to Zabber's suggestions. I cannot comment much about licence testing. That has been suggested at meetings in the past and they never go further than being suggested. Other ideas that have emerged in the past include having important regional information printed on one side of the sheet that is used to print licences at the store, so anglers walk away with the information when getting a licence. This still does not eliminate the fact that you can catch fish by flossing in streams beside the Fraser River. You can recommend, but how high do you think the compliance would be when the catch rate is much higher by lining fish than enticing them to bite?
Like Athezone said, there are no immediate, easy solutions, that's why we are not seeing many responses in what normally is a hotly debated topic.
While I personally find it silly to spend all that money and time to fish on a crowded Fraser River bar when there are much better fishing opportunities in this province, I don't really care if others choose to do it. However if you are going to promote it, you should at least recognize potential problems, address them and demonstrate that it can in fact have minimal impact.
perfect, restrict leader size, great idea, best thing I heard all day, and if you are intentionally trying to sang a fish in the head...sounds like snagging to me...hmmmm...bounce bounce...snag snag, bounce bounce set the hook on nothing...snag snag....oops fish on, oh wow and it is in the mouth, holy smokes, big or small ripe or fresh just bonk em all.
Thanks once again for those constructive criticisms, which definitely have persuaded people to change their behaviours and improved the situation.
Author
Topic: 2012 floss-out (Read 70877 times)