Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jon5hill]

To add to my above.

Enforcement is required to stop people from snagging.

Enforcement is required to make people harvest the snagged fish and stop fishing once quota is met.

See the problem with your idea? The proposed fix requires the very solution to the "problem" in the first place.

I see the point you are making, but there is definitely a distinction to be made here - often those who snag fish intentionally, yet only retain fish that are caught in the mouth only retain their limits - they respect that rule - that is because the number of fish you have on your possession is not subjective like proving if you are intentionally foul hooking a fish is. It would require no more enforcement than exists now - as people actually respect that rule because counting the number of fish on hand is a very objective measure of whether or not someone is breaking the law.

[jon5hill]

We should not reward unrespectable behavior by allowing people to benefit from those actions. I feel that would open the floodgates to blatant snagging on all systems all the time if it were legalized and would spread like wildfire if legitimized in any way shape or form.

I feel you have a very pessimistic viewpoint

It is occuring anyway at the cost of fish on the spawning grounds because we impose an ideal that we think our grandfathers would scoff at on others and because we put the words illegal around it in the fishing regulations. This is reality - we don't enforce it at all and they snag them anyway. Have you ever even heard of someone being ticketed for intentionally foulhooking a fish?

My feeling is that it already has rapidly proliferated to the point where entire families are going out there yanking tons of sockeye out of the river while Billy McSportFisherman stands beside them waving his finger saying, "You know, you have to let that one go because it came in backwards hooked on the tail". The naive family looks at him and nods, and out of fear releases exhausted fish back into the system - just to go ahead and bonk the next one. What's the point? The great majority of these people respect objective rules, and that means they own licenses, salmon tags and follow retention limits. I'm saying remove the clause about intentionally foul-hooking fish because reality would suggest its pointless (uninforced) and damaging (deleterious to the salmon population). As users of the resource we have to look out for the fish first.

... there is a portion of the fishing community (possibly larger than we realize) that would absolutely explode if keeping snagged fish were allowed...

At what fisheries? The sockeye openings are rare (maybe 1 of every 4 years) and already a zoo - I'm saying let it be one and get them off the resource faster and stop harrassing fish that they can't keep because a rule suggests its wrong. Those fish will go on and likely not spawn. What's the point?

Generally speaking, people obey retention limits, and fishers reinforce it with one another. I have seen on hundreds of occurances one fisher pointing out to another fisher that he or she is over their limit. People are generally honest about how many fish they are keeping - they fear and respect objective laws.

Allow the retention of foul-hooked fish and we'll have lost any leverage to convert the receptive ones about selective techniques and appropriate methods

Really? I would challenge that outright. I have on several occasions shown blatant snaggers that by enticing a fish to take a presentation you only take the brightest, energetic, and fresh salmon from the system - the point sells itself once they taste a few boots. Merely watching someone else who can provoke a fish to bite rather than snag is exciting for people. Consider the pink salmon fishery on the Fraser mainstem. The entire system is lined with people who prefer to catch them with pink spoons because they willingly take a lure and are brighter, stronger, and fresher than terminal area snagging. There are very few places except at maybe peg-leg and some terminal areas (lower vedder) where the droves go and intentionally snag colored up mega-humpies off the gravel beds.

...at least the current regs gives us regular people some ammunition and basis with which to educate whenever possible, and call out/report violators.
...They'll just be back the next day and in greater numbers because it's so darn easy.

The basis to educate is based on an ideal about the sport of fishing, not the harvest of fish. The fishery is a harvest of fish, has been for years, and should not be regulated like a sport. We will never convince a family who is out there on the gravel bars with 5 licenses that they should try egg patterns for bull trout on the Mamquam in November - they aren't into the sport, they are interested in bagging their legal limit of fish as efficiently as possible and getting the hell out of dodge.
 

...If you want to reduce a behaviour, you have to reduce the incentive in doing it or make the alternatives more desirable; not make it even easier to do and rewarding.

Why should we want to reduce the behaviour? Enforcement regulates limits effectively, and if people are fishing it down too hard, they will just close it or decrease the retention limits. What planners and managers can not keep track of is how many fish are being released back into the system that are dying from incidental hooking mortality - the few studies that have been done were not very effectively conducted but we know there is incidental hooking mortality occuring on these fish - we can make that number diminish by allowing people to keep what they snag and get them off the resource. More licenses and more salmon tags drives money into the hands of conservation efforts, and the retention quotas keep people from overfishing. This wishy washy business about where a hook should be set is far too subjective and obviously damaging to be of any use for a meat-harvest type fishery.

[skaha]

--Evolution: I was a participant in a test fisher. The intent was to capture pre-spawning fish that had a spaghetti tag attached. The tag was visible in the clear water. It was also intended to capture non tagged fish for measurement and sampling.
--There were no rules within the physical boundary of the test area... ie one could snag with a treble hook.
--Participants were monitored and ideas where exchanged daily on what worked and what did not. Within a few days all participants were "catching" the fish... ie willful take. The take could be observed due to the clear water.
--A few days into the experiment some new participants arrived. As they had not yet been on the fishery they started snagging (which was allowed). Within maybe 1/2 hr they observed that others were catching targeted fish. They observed what we were doing and changed their technique... only pressure on them was seeing that we could actually catch targeted fish at a higher rate than those who were snagging.

--What we also observed is that at certain times of the day (could not determine reason) the fish got lock jaw and no fish would bite. Also we observed that at certain times all methods enticed willful take. That is different geographic location and fishing techniques yet more fish caught during these bite time. In several instances observed multiple fish chasing presentation. We would need more time to determine if the bite times were predictable.

--We determined that it was possible to get a willful take from fish that are on the spawn area... and with refined techniques the take % could be improved.

--There would be areas if desired that could be designated as a willful take fishery. I expect clear water was a significant factor however we have not experimented in low vis water.

--So what am I getting at?  I think the problem with the lower Fraser fishery is that even though it is generally known to be a harvest fishery that it is not officially designated as such thus it is difficult to assign specific rules to this unique fishery. The fishery should be officially designated as a harvest fishery with rules that may apply only to the harvest fishery.

--That is to say Sockeye can be caught.. willful take...in clear water conditions thus the harvest rule does not have to be applied throughout the province.

--You may have better success with a rule change if it is specific to this unique harvest fishery which can be defined with geographic, species and time limited boundaries.











 

[jon5hill]

skaha, I agree entirely.

Why don't we have a sockeye tag or something, where meat-harvesters are required to buy a special permit to participate - those who want to try for mouth hookups may do so and continue damaging the stock - or they can pay for a salmon tag which enables them to retain fish hooked anywhere, and it would drive money back into conservation efforts. I know this is not a well fleshed out idea but there are definitely ways of managing it that would be better than the way it is currently set up. We need to stop people from repeatedly releasing fish that are not hooked in the mouth just so they can go on and kill one that happens to be hooked properly - one way or another this behaviour has to stop because it is impacting more fish than those removed for harvest.

[clarkii]

You seem to think everyone who snags does so in a nice visible spot shared by all anglers and otherwise is basically a legal fisherman...  This is not the case.  I suggest you read poachers. Polluters, and politics. The regs we have today worked, as there was a lot of enforcement unlike today.

Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery?  There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch.  Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.

Further you would have to push for this kind of reg to be implemented.   Your energy would be better spent on lobbying for more enforcement/educating snaggers that would contribute a lot more then a snag retention fishery.

Ill repeat my summary from an above post but modified slightly.

your proposal attempts to fix a problem to which a solution that works is known, just not implemented due to politics/b]

[skaha]

Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery?  There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch.  Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.

-- Areas where selective harvest is a significant factor would not be areas designated for a harvest fishery.
-- Harvest fishery should only be considered where bycatch would be within acceptable limits.
-- Other gear restrictions where required can still be employed to reduce snagging.

--We have areas such as school zones where speed limits are Strictly Enforced and advertised as such.
--In areas as described where there is a high likely hood of snagging non target species a no snagging rule would have to be strictly enforced.





 

[clarkii]

Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery?  There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch.  Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.

-- Areas where selective harvest is a significant factor would not be areas designated for a harvest fishery.
-- Harvest fishery should only be considered where bycatch would be within acceptable limits.
-- Other gear restrictions where required can still be employed to reduce snagging.

--We have areas such as school zones where speed limits are Strictly Enforced and advertised as such.
--In areas as described where there is a high likely hood of snagging non target species a no snagging rule would have to be strictly enforced.





 

So basically (in the case of the mainland) this reg proposal works for only one river.

* I have no idea why its decided to quote like this

[skaha]

skaha, I agree entirely.

Why don't we have a sockeye tag or something, where meat-harvesters are required to buy a special permit to participate - those who want to try for mouth hookups may do so and continue damaging the stock - or they can pay for a salmon tag which enables them to retain fish hooked anywhere, and it would drive money back into conservation efforts. I know this is not a well fleshed out idea but there are definitely ways of managing it that would be better than the way it is currently set up. We need to stop people from repeatedly releasing fish that are not hooked in the mouth just so they can go on and kill one that happens to be hooked properly - one way or another this behaviour has to stop because it is impacting more fish than those removed for harvest.

--I would also amend the defenitions of snagging and foul hooking by officially recognizing flossing.
--Flossing should only be allowed in the newly designated "harvest fishery" areas.

--Outside of the harvest fishery any fish caught without a willful take should be released. ( I realize this doesn't solve the delema of releasing a foul hooked fish that is not going to survive)

--Sport fishing defenitions should add the concept of a willful take or bite.
--Some hatchery based USA fisheries allow flossing as a management tool where main objective is to catch hatchery stock. This would be similar to the newly defined Harvest fishery.

--I sometimes flyfish the Adams... for trout thus obviously am not trying to floss as there is an abundance of sockeye stacked up with mouths open.
--We usually drift a single egg pattern so any swing would result in a frustrating sockeye snag.
--We have to ensure the leader is directly vertical to the drift either by wading and casting direct up or downstream or if a side drift mending several times to keep the leader vertical.
--It takes talent to not floss in these situations where fish are stacked. If we find we are flossing we change methods or simply quit fishing the area.
--I think we need to add the concept that you must stop fishing if you cannot get a willful take or that there is not a reasonable chance for a willful take of a target species.

[jon5hill]

You seem to think everyone who snags does so in a nice visible spot shared by all anglers and otherwise is basically a legal fisherman...  This is not the case.  I suggest you read poachers. Polluters, and politics. The regs we have today worked, as there was a lot of enforcement unlike today.

Also how do you dance around the issue when its a hachery/slot limited retention fishery?  There is more potential for damage to the fish if someone is sitting over a group of wild coho for instance and keeps snagging them in the hopes one will be a hatch.  Or say its a slot limit and they snag one outside the retention range.

Further you would have to push for this kind of reg to be implemented.   Your energy would be better spent on lobbying for more enforcement/educating snaggers that would contribute a lot more then a snag retention fishery.

Ill repeat my summary from an above post but modified slightly.

your proposal attempts to fix a problem to which a solution that works is known, just not implemented due to politics/b]

I have not read that Poachers, Polluters, and Politics. I will try to locate a copy and give it a read. I also know that what I have witnessed with my own eyes is not an insignificant fraction of the crowd who have their fishing license, purchased a salmon tag, fish within the limits set out by enforcement, and retain only mouth-hooked Sockeye. I have seen it time and time again when a non-mouth hooked fish is landed, the peer pressure from other anglers to release that fish is perhaps the leading motivator for them to release it. What you seem to be insinuating is that a majority of the people who engage in the willfull snagging of fish are more unlawful and secretive than I suggest they are. I would definitely contest that. I think that's a very pessimistic view and does not align at all with my observations at places where bouncing betty type snagging exists. People in general are afraid of the punitive damage that may arise from not having a license, fishing over their limit, and law enforcement in general - mostly because a lot of these types of 'fishers' are not in fact in touch with sportfishing culture and etiquette. We're imposing our sportfishing etiquette on meat harvesters, and it's causing more fish to die than would otherwise. Let's regulate the Sockeye fishery in a special way, and allow them to retain the first few fish they hook, regardless of location. With the number of law abiding people who are willfully snagging fish (because there is no enforcement), yet retaining only those hooked in the mouth, there would be more fish on the spawning grounds. The argument is quite simple. I perhaps initially suggested that we remove the clause carte-blanche but with some follow up dialogue on this thread it has become apparent that it would perhaps not be as effective as simply managing the Sockeye harvest differently. It's not a huge change, but I believe it is one that could improve escapement numbers.

In regards to the comment about where to spend my energy - I believe it's a lot easier to work within the system than against it. It's an easy win for the fish instead of perhaps a long arduous battle with regulators to allocate more money into conservation efforts - particularly with this federal government - it would not be an easy feat. Simply suggesting we work within the current regulations to remove the clause about mouth-hookups during Sockeye openings on the Fraser requires no extra enforcement, and improves escapement numbers - it's a simple change with some modest improvements for the fish.