Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: nvloc on April 08, 2008, 04:05:06 PM
-
For instance, McKay Creek is closed to fishing, but the sea-run cutthroat have returned and are currently moving in. Even though it's closed, would you fish the tidal zone?
-
No.
-
fish anything thats legal
-
NO.
"fish anything thats legal"? up to you I suppose but just because it is legal doesn't make it "right".
I'm gonna go a step further actually and say that attitudes like that disgust me and I feel have no place in ethical fishing. If you're at that point you'd be doing everyone a favor by putting down your rod and picking up another pastime. Its attitudes like that (if thats truly how you feel, which I'd hope it isn't..) that give anglers a non-conservationist image to the rest of the public. That doesn't do anyone, or the fish, any good.
-
If it is legally open what is the problem?
-
Exploiting loopholes and taking advantage of the opportunity just because it's legal is the problem. The river is closed to protect, lets see.....the fish returning to it....not the river itself....so you'd target those same fish in the estuary near the mouth of the river just because whoever drafted the regs didn't think far enough ahead to limit fishing in the estuary too? That would be a decision lacking common sense and a shred of ethics IMO. But hey, you wanna walk that road, thats up to you.
Really I'm responding to the "anything that's legal" comment, more than this particular river. I just think its an ignorant stance to take in this day and age.
-
Ethically no, In the past I have stopped fishing a number of species on river systems with low returns despite be legally allowed to fish for them. I also think catch and release limits should also be introduced which has been done on some Atlantic salmon streams i.e. a max of two steelhead released a day on the Thompson River.
-
open is open, closed is closed.
what’s the problem?
if its edible I eat, if not, its catch and release, pretty simple.
Steelhead has bin slow this year, you should stop fishing now. ::)
-
Can you say Troll ??? lol
TH
-
I would fish it only for species that are not being protected...
IE... Coho protection, no fishing for coho while they are staging, but cutties another time of year for sure!
Cheers,
Nicole
-
I wouldn't. Maybe legally, you could fish the tidal zone but in my opinion that goes against the spirit of the law (or the intent, if you like) as the whole point of closure is to protect the species there. Intercepting them enroute to the "no fish zone" doesn't protect the species, and defeats the purpose of the closure in the first place. However, as Nicole points out if the closure is species specific, I don't necessarily see a problem with going after a species that is open in the same system.
For those who want to argue the legality of it, you're right, it's legal. But, it's not ethical and that's the question here.
-
open is open, closed is closed.
what’s the problem?
if its edible I eat, if not, its catch and release, pretty simple.
Steelhead has bin slow this year, you should stop fishing now. ::)
agreed 100%
-
Canso et al. maybe you can defend your stance that ethically its OK to target a species "before" it has entered protected waters....rather than just state your position? So far you have no argument as to why it should not be considered unethical...please, enlighten us as to why it should be ok....anybody....?
Keeping in mind that Nicole's point is a far cry from "fish anything that's legal"...
-
Interesting responses; definite food for thought.
Maybe this begs the question:
If we avoid the tidal zone of a closed freshwater flow because of ethics, should we be fishing flows that are closed permanently to retention? (ie. Seymour River Trout/Char)
-
I'd say that the more "apples to apples" question would be "if a river was closed to retention would you retain fish in its estuary, knowing that estuary fish were moving in to the river".
Closed to fishing and closed to retention are two very different things. If C/R practices are unlikely to harm a population of fish, there is no need to "close" the river. If the river is too fragile to support even C/R fishing, it is closed entirely. So it's not really the same. If however that river was a fragile system and STILL open to C/R, personally I'd avoid it and fish one of the many other healthier systems.
People should show a little common sense these days and realize that their actions have an impact on the future of these ecosystems and leave them the f alone unless they are healthy. I guess thats not prudent these days though as we all have to look out for number one, right?
-
Be careful with being "really" ethical in your thoughts. You may end up never fishing salt water ever again for anything that decides to pay freshwater a visit.
If it's "legal" and you think it shouldn't be, voice your opinions to somebody about the situation that can help fix it.
I pick and chose the waters, species and timing for my fishing with concerns for the fish(and other things) always in my mind,,,always.
-
Be careful with being "really" ethical in your thoughts. You may end up never fishing salt water ever again for anything that decides to pay freshwater a visit.
If it's "legal" and you think it shouldn't be, voice your opinions to somebody about the situation that can help fix it.
I pick and chose the waters, species and timing for my fishing with concerns for the fish(and other things) always in my mind,,,always.
"really" ethical thinking to me would have none of us fishing at all....I'm not advocating that....just some basic common sense to allow for good judgement when the laws allow for exploitation, which they most often do.
-
Cutthroat are extremely sensitive to disruption of their environment
In this area, the Cutthroat population problems are not from over fishing,
But building and large developments that cause excess sediment and chemical pollution.
Over the years building practices have changed for the better to help sensitive fish such as this.
Example: catchment ponds on building sites(prevents chemical pollution), the worst is adding seawalls, removing trees, adding large rocks, culverts in place of streams and otherwise modified causing sediment issues.
It was the fishermen that pointed out that there was a problem.
Its fishing licence funding paying, for the research, to repair the problem that was never caused by fishing.
I don’t feel bad for catching fish we helped save.
We are talking estuaries with a few sport fishermen. I’ve never seen large groups targeting this species.
The day I see Pegleg meat hunters shoulder to shoulder in are local estuaries is the day I will admit we have ethics issues regarding cutthroat.
-
just some basic common sense to allow for good judgement when the laws allow for exploitation, which they most often do.
If the majority had "common sense" and "good judgement" there would no need for laws. Yet we have them. If YOU think that this particular "loophole" should be closed up,,,,,,then go DO IT. And you can also educate those that think that "following the law" is good enough. But to say a person is "unethical" because they are following the rules, yet don't understand the consequences of doing so, seems a little silly to me. I believe this is where the people get he impression that some out there with the rods in hand are just a little to high on themselves and the sport they enjoy.
-
just some basic common sense to allow for good judgement when the laws allow for exploitation, which they most often do.
If the majority had "common sense" and "good judgement" there would no need for laws. Yet we have them. If YOU think that this particular "loophole" should be closed up,,,,,,then go DO IT. And you can also educate those that think that "following the law" is good enough. But to say a person is "unethical" because they are following the rules, yet don't understand the consequences of doing so, seems a little silly to me. I believe this is where the people get he impression that some out there with the rods in hand are just a little to high on themselves and the sport they enjoy.
Look, there will always be ways to skirt the law and "closing loopholes" is not the answer. Like you say, educating people is great. Thats why I am in favor of implementing angler education prior to anyone being licensed. I brought it up in here, where there are people with political inroads, and nobody seemed interested. It was largely met with a "waste of money" response. I do agree that education is paramount.
But to say a person is "unethical" because they are following the rules, yet don't understand the consequences of doing so, seems a little silly to me
lets rephrase then, they display a lack of ethics and are simply uneducated, which is precisely what you are saying, no?
My "high on myself" response as you are seeing it is not coming from this specific river example either, its the "fish anything thats legal" comment. I'm not some hyper ethical angler....just somebody tired of seeing SO many examples of people doing just about everything in their power to make a mess of what is already in trouble..from reasons that canso has already mentioned.
Canso, I am not saying that your decision to fish this particular creek is unethical. I wouldn't do it, but thats just me. Your argument for why you think its alright to fish it is completely valid, and you don't need me to say that of course, but again this is FAR FAR FAR away from "fish anything that's legal".
-
It's all bad when were "high on ourselves" and then go out fishing :-\ I try never to do that.
-
Please....are you guys really this lame? You know what's right and wrong...Don't hand me this B.S. about your dollars going to solve the problem in your license fee's etc. The fish aren't going to be there much longer and yet your still fishing them through another F***ing loophole...
Some of you guys are so, What? your worlds so pathetic that you have to feel better about yourselves from killing fish!!! Don't tell me they are so tasty you can't resist..because they are not...Does it make your sad little life so much better because you came out on top for a change? Give your freaking heads a shake...
Ok, no threats....
-
I kind of look at this the same way that I look at the judicial system. Lawyers and judges get all caught up in the strictly legal interpretation of law that they seem to forget that this is supposed to be a system of justice, not legal nitpicking. Somebody who murders someone and gets off on a legal technicality...that p*sses me off, big time. So, you can follow the law that states you shouldn't fish a body of water, etc etc and then try to target fish specifcally entering that body of water by intercepting them before they enter that body. It's legal. It does not make it ethical or moral, IMO. Nor does it do the fish any justice.
-
Man am I glad to see I'm not the only one that comment rubbed the wrong way.
-
Your opinions are welcome, but please leave the insults and threats out. Rudeness does not get your point across, it only further divides both sides of an issue.
-
South of a line due west from Cape Caution:
* wild trout: catch and release only
* hatchery trout: 2, none of which may be less than 30 cm
McKay Creek closed all year
If you really want some trout to eat there's lots in the local lakes.They will taste better than Cutthroat from the Ocean. One way around it is for the hatchery fish in that area not be clipped so that they all look wild.
-
Your opinions are welcome, but please leave the insults and threats out. Rudeness does not get your point across, it only further divides both sides of an issue.
I personally believe the reason we have allot of our problems today are because we as a society have become afraid. The majority of intelligent, well meaning individuals have given away our rights in the name of political correctness. I'm so sick of seeing and hearing these cowards and children who have been raised without an ounce of respect preach about their rights!
And we stand by and don't do anything because of legalities that protect the guilty?
I don't care if it causes a large divide...I don't care if it's rude...I'm calling a spade a spade..a gutless coward a coward...The problem lies because it has always been OK to bend the rules just a little, to look the other way instead of making a stand when you see something wrong, to always wait for the other guy to do something because you can't do it yourself...To accept the unacceptable because it's better to loose something through debate then to win something back with a fight?
I'm sorry but I'm tired of ignorance being acceptable and allowed to win or be given a chance to "debate" their legal loopholes..Does anyone else not get a bad feeling in the pit of their stomachs watching these ****heads take glee in catching, torturering and killing fish, not for food but for purely because they can? Is it any wonder the stocks are down and dropping further off?? Do you think it matters to these guys when the fishery is closed completely? Hell no, they aren't sportsmen in the first place, they'll just move on to next thing they can ruin and blame it on everyone else...
-
I think Rodney is eluding to that old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. I also think there are far more people out there who think about where they are fishing and do what's right for the fishery than people who greedily sap the resource for all it's worth just because they "can".
I agree with you though xgolfman, and I welcome the divide that separates myself from people who really don't care. My stance isn't about being high on myself, its about giving a f about the future, if the perception is the former, I really don't care. Nobody here is brash enough to admit that if the fish were really in peril, they'd still fish for them if it was legal...but my guess is there are a few guys that would be out there regardless. There always are. Sad.
-
No that's not what I am saying. I'm telling, not asking, all to follow the registration agreement or do it somewhere else if you wish to continue:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Back to the original topic please if there are still constructive criticisms to add, or we'll be closing the thread shortly.
-
No that's not what I am saying. I'm telling, not asking, all to follow the registration agreement or do it somewhere else if you wish to continue:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Back to the original topic please if there are still constructive criticisms to add, or we'll be closing the thread shortly.
Oh poop. Don't need coffee when I read these...
-
Hey Rodney, sorry if I misinterpreted....the expression just means "be nice", basically.
Any debate surrounding ethics is bound to get a little heated. Maybe it doesn't need discussing anyways. Lets face it, people aren't going to change their actions or at the very least second guess their behavior just because they learn that a large number of people find their actions unethical...right?
Canso, I think you and I would both blow a gasket if cutthroat estuary fishing got like pegleg. If we're talking ethics here, as is the topic, there is an argument commonly known as the "slippery slope" argument....that is , if you follow something to its logical conclusion you will find the answer to your "dilemma". So, following your argument to its logical conclusion, meaning "if everybody did what you are saying is ethically ok" then we would indeed have a problem. Again, this is not about legality, its about ethics. Mutually exclusive. In that regard it is not unlike littering, one little piece of garbage strewn in the river is unlikely to cause a problem. But if we all did it.... Of course, arguments like this are often countered by saying that it's absurd to think that "everyone" is going to start fishing estuaries for cutthroat....but I would argue that it is premature to say that. What makes pegleg fundamentally different from your favorite estuary? If sockeye fishing, and much of the salmon fishing that we take for granted disappears, what will be left? Trout, for one....Maybe it is not such a long shot to see those estuaries getting more crowded in the near future. I hope it is, but maybe it isn't. What do you think?
-
^^^^^ As far as I know,,,,dumping any amount of garbage is "illegal" and I am scratching my head on the comparison with ethics????? My point being on this topic is that if it is "legal" and you,,, personally, don't think it should be,,,,,try to get it changed. After that, you can get on the soap box and "inform" people of why they should change their thoughts to what you believe on the topic of "ethics". That in itself, would be one hell of a job, if you know people and human nature at all. Good Luck.
-
So exactly how many of you fish the Chilliwack or the Allouette?...They both have closed sections on them...I guess that means we really shouldn't fish any part of them according to quite of few of the posted reply's here. Quite a few of you really need to give your head a shake
-
^^^^^ As far as I know,,,,dumping any amount of garbage is "illegal" and I am scratching my head on the comparison with ethics????? My point being on this topic is that if it is "legal" and you,,, personally, don't think it should be,,,,,try to get it changed. After that, you can get on the soap box and "inform" people of why they should change their thoughts to what you believe on the topic of "ethics". That in itself, would be one hell of a job, if you know people and human nature at all. Good Luck.
You don't understand the argument I'm making. I'm merely using littering as a clear example of the "slippery slope" argument because it is something we have all seen. Doesn't matter in this context if it's legal/illegal. It could be legal to litter and would still be a valid argument. Hope that clarifies.
It's not up to any one person to tell people what is ethically right or wrong, I'm ONLY saying that it would be a great thing if people showed some form of ethical thinking while out fishing rather than just leaving it up to the law to dictate to them what is ok and not ok.
-
So exactly how many of you fish the Chilliwack or the Allouette?...They both have closed sections on them...I guess that means we really shouldn't fish any part of them according to quite of few of the posted reply's here. Quite a few of you really need to give your head a shake
I'm advocating a common sense approach to ethics, where somebody makes a decision based on common sense and respect rather than a decision based on legality alone. I'm not saying "don't fish anything, ever, that has any part of it closed". Nobody here has said that.
I'm not going to say anything else on it, I'm starting to feel like a broken record. If you get it, you get it. If you don't, I don't think there is anything else I can say to get you to understand the point I'm trying to make.
-
^^^^^ You are forgetting one thing here. Each of OUR "ethics" changes with OUR experience's. YOUR experience's have dictated on how/where/why you fish the way YOU do ,,,,,,,today. In the same breath, tomorrow your "ethics' may change, even ever so slightly.
Again,,,if YOU want changes in people's attitudes, "ethics", etc, YOU must go about it in a different way other than how you are going about it here. You will not get anywhere with the "holier than thou" attitude that I witness with some that can afford all the toys, gear, etc and then assume they have "become" a fisherman. It's a learning curve for all of us, and there are ways to "increase" that curve without alienating people along the way. It is an art and a skill few understand until it is usually too late.