Print

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

[Geff_t]

And forget about using anything rubber (pink worms, jensen eggs, goey bobs) as they destroy bird life. No mention of using sand shrimp, would these not be considered introducing a foreign species to the river. Apparently foreigners are only Americans ( don't even know why that was even writen in there and if I was an American I would be offened.

  I am sure it was writen with good intention but it sure seems one sided ( die hard bar fishermen). I sure hope they go to a public discusion forum like they did with the sturgeon. Only fair to get both sides of the debate.

[hotrod]

Has there ever been a successful study on the numbers of fish caught bb'ing and published.Something solid in the science community? I have heard of no such study. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence to prove otherwise.Everything else said by those who are against it, is all heresay! In a court of law this would not even make it to trial.




    Hotrod

[johnny]

Well I think I am coming to the conclusion that this whole debate is a giant red herring that is fractioning the angling community for no good reason...

The MAIN issue we ALL should agree on is conservation and management of the stocks. We all kick and cry about whether a fish was "flossed" or if it "took the presentation" while our Coho and steelhead runs are suffering BIG TIME, ocean survival is low, fish farms are damaging our wild stocks, government mismanagement is taking place, there's a lack of enforcement for the already existing rules, etc etc... REAL issues that will affect whether our children will ever be able to angle at all when they are older!

IMO we are our own worst enemy in fractioning ourselves into sub-groups and in that losing our collective voices for REAL concerns.. and yet this issue is more heated than ANY other.

Yes, keep forming committees on how BB'ers are wrecking our fishery, but remember who to blame when we ALL need to band together for a REAL conservation issue and find very few williing to join in the fight..

..and NO I don't bounce when sockeye are closed.

[glog]

just read the 49 page document and I must say that it raises some good points but seems very biased to me, the barfishing crusaders make it sound like everyone that bottom bounces for fish is double dipping, leaving garbage behind fishing with treble hooks ect.

thats exactly my point earlier. these special interest groups exaggerate, blow things out of proportion all to get their narrow viewpoint across. and what is really funny is these guys have no idea the trouble they can cause in order to promote there views.

they point to two snagged sockeye as a major event, yet how many are injured killed by the wide mesh spring nets in the fraser.   Its time these special interest groups and their BS disappear and a balance is restored to the whole scenario. 

[TrophyHunter]

If you think about it D.F.O. is very smart with how they handle things!! right now we have the whole sport fishing community divided into two groups bashing the hell out of each other !! it is a classic attempt to take away pressure from the REAL problem !! and so far we are letting it work !!   

TH

[2:40]

Dont forget that this concern is not limited to the Fraser. The same thing is going on in other systems. It isnt 'bar fishermen' but guys who chuck spoons, flies and float fish who are worried. I guess it depends on your perspective, but I think the paper is quite honest. Nothing there cannot be proven by someone with an open mind watching what's going on.

The article at the beginning of the paper is not just some guy mad he didnt get a fish. (See the mentality here...people want a fish on the rocks so bad they assume everyone does!!) If you go on to read it you see him unhappy with snagging, taking more than their limit, garbage and kicking fish. Dont tell me some of us are growing some tolerance for this to advance their wish to maintain the snaggery on the Fraser!

This paper had individuals who support some form of flossing to get at the sockeye. But they do see a problem thats growing in regards to where sport angling's going. It was a group effort.

Milo, you say even playing field for all. Great policy dont get me wrong. But trying to level the field for guys snagging is only going to hurt all guys who hold a fishing rod. That's why snagging is illegal! It cannot be a part of sport angling. Look what happen when a loophole is found! I know the LEGAL thing is beat to death. Who will be the first to say they see that even though it's a loophole, the action is the same! How is it different? Because DFO tells you so and only because they cant do much about it?

DFO knows what's going on. Sure, they have had people concerned about the snagging. They've also had plenty who tell them to keep out of DFO's business. Dont think DFO only has one side of this issue talking to them. While bogged down from the top on a lot, the ones who are on the water everyday know what they're seeing and they are acting accordingly. I dont think there's a goal to divide anglers. We're doing it ourselves by letting greed, lack of foresight and stubborness rule the day.

Outside of conservation issues (which is DIFFERENT but also a SERIOUS issue!!!!!) this snagging debate is the biggest threat to angling. I wish guys would focus on the act of snagging and what it does to sport angling. Why not start a thread about nets and ideas on what we, as a group, can do? I promise I wont say "well, anglers are snagging fish, which really is outside what anglers should be doing, so who are we to talk about nets?" 

Guys fuss about these nets, but when I tried to get people to write letters about it to pressure change, only 5% claimed they took the time to write a paragraph and to do their part. I call BS on the net excuse. I think some guys are most happy to see the nets in the river as they're a great thing to hide behind. That's just my view.

Thanks Milo.  Here take a handful of 14oz bar weights! I have a-plenty. 

[lucky]

not all fish that are caught bottom bouncing are snagged, and not all fish caught bar fishing are legit hookups, of course there are more foul hooked while bottom bouncing because usually more fish are caught"because more water is covered". Last year alone while fishing for sockeye I hooked two suckers and one small sturgeon bottom bouncing, all three fish had the wool buried deep in there sucker mouths? is it possible that I snagged them deep in the back of the mouth?

[Sandy]

II thought this was over and done with. But even the forum moderators are ignoring their own requests to reduce the talk as it goes nowhere.

But here we go again.  Another thread and this one  started by the forum moderators. themselves

It is obvious that they want to ram through their own personal opinions and try to stifle any others that dare to disagree with them, why else would they say reduce the talk and then startup another thread with the same topic.

Oops, busted. This is in fact a secret attempt of the global fishing ethic domination that moderators of Fishing with Rod have planned out over the year since the establishment of the website. We disguise our objective by making Dragonspeed participating heavily during the sockeye opening. A couple of years ago, we even made him blend in with the crowd by asking him to drive his precious Toyota Tundra through the side channels at Peg Leg only to have the truck stuck and lost as a result.

Perhaps a lesson on universal symbols used on the internet is needed in this case.

After observing repetition of arguments being used on both sides, moderators of Fishing with Rod discussion forum would like to request all participants to selectively post information during July and August of 2007. There shall be an implementation of no flossing talk during this requested time. The objective of this request is to preserve the interest and spirit of moderators which are endangered during this time of the year. Failure to comply to this request may result in a total ban of posting by all discussion forum members.

The symbol is known as a wink, usually employed when the poster's intention is humorous and readers should understand that the information posted is not to be taken seriously. Failure to do so, may often lead to misunderstanding and forum wars.

Next lesson will be the differentiation of waste and waist, as well as their, there and they're. Stay tuned for the dramatic ending, they actually have different meanings.

As for these committee’s its unfortunate that not enough of the average Joe’s volunteer for these committees which end up usually stacked in favor of some radical opinion.

These small vocal special interest groups always try to do things by committee as they know that if they had a referendum on the issue they would be well and soundly  be defeated. There’s a very simple solution to this issue.  When you buy your fishing license have a questionnaire attached regarding leader length and  bottom bouncing. The majority wins. But we all know from the number of fisherman on the Fraser during sockeye season who is going to win that argument. In this world the majority opinion should be sufficient, however we all know form the past that these small vocal special interest groups love to twist, exaggerate, misdirect, use fear and scare tactics in order to get their own personal agendas approved.

As for the sockeye early Stuart  run scare, fear mongering tactics being used. Its so much BS its getting ridiculous.  In one day at Steveston public dock I saw more small sockeye being LEGALLY sold by commercial boats at the public fishing dock that I have in 25 years of fishing the Fraser in July. I can count the number of early sockeye that have been hooked on one hand, and they were all long lined released.

This is getting almost as bad as the religious zealots that try to ram their personal version of their religion down peoples throats.

Before more misinformation is being distributed like a bad witch hunt, some clarification maybe needed. The Sportfishing Advisory Committee is made up of representations from all sportfishing associations across the designated regions. Each group has its own interest but all groups share one common resource. The primary goal of the SFAC is to ensure angling opportunities but in addition, the committee works closely with enforcement and other departments in Fisheries and Oceans Canada to make sure the resource that our group is utilitizing is not threatened by our own or other groups.

The average fishermen can indeed be involved. In fact, it is encouraged. To say that the majority of the angling community is left out is a poor excuse of ignorance. One can be involved simply by joining an organization that shares your interest and has a representation at meetings. One can even be further involved by coming out to these meetings as they are mostly open to the public.

Perhaps knowing the origin of the sockeye salmon sold at Steveston Fishermen Dock would be a good idea before being used to strengthen your point of view.

had to print this out so as I could have a sit on the throne to read and digest 

[Sandy]

Well I think I am coming to the conclusion that this whole debate is a giant red herring that is fractioning the angling community for no good reason...

The MAIN issue we ALL should agree on is conservation and management of the stocks. We all kick and cry about whether a fish was "flossed" or if it "took the presentation" while our Coho and steelhead runs are suffering BIG TIME, ocean survival is low, fish farms are damaging our wild stocks, government mismanagement is taking place, there's a lack of enforcement for the already existing rules, etc etc... REAL issues that will affect whether our children will ever be able to angle at all when they are older!

IMO we are our own worst enemy in fractioning ourselves into sub-groups and in that losing our collective voices for REAL concerns.. and yet this issue is more heated than ANY other.

Yes, keep forming committees on how BB'ers are wrecking our fishery, but remember who to blame when we ALL need to band together for a REAL conservation issue and find very few williing to join in the fight..

..and NO I don't bounce when sockeye are closed.

pretty well sums up my thoughts.

[Jonny 5]

Look a few pages back or on one of the other flossing threads. 

Has there ever been a successful study on the numbers of fish caught bb'ing and published.Something solid in the science community? I have heard of no such study. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence to prove otherwise.Everything else said by those who are against it, is all heresay! In a court of law this would not even make it to trial.




    Hotrod

[hotrod]

Still found no data to back anything up! This is about one group of anglers aginst another.One is using it for the end to their means.



     Hotrod

[chris gadsden]

This is the first of two committees that are dealing with this issue, not sure when the other will be complete. However a member of this forum who is the chair of the SFAC (Sportsfishing Advisory Sub Committee) may comment on this but I am sure it will be posted for further discussion when completed.

Remember these committees have members from both sides of the issues and are all volunteers who give freely of their time, I think you can applaud them for their efforts.

For those that may think these discussion are a waste of time it is great that it is your choice to read them or not.

But as I said many times changes are coming in the months ahead as FOC and MOE will take the results of these two committees to heart I am sure.

I know this personally as when the FVSS was started many said we would never get a chinook fishery again but we did after a lot of hard work.

The FVSS working with FOC also got all salmon species open but as some will admit including myself the sockeye fishery has spawned a new generation of anglers.

In my humble option it is time to get back to angling methods where the fish actually bite and are not snagged by the ill luck of many fish being snagged by leaders upwards to one quarter the lenght of the Air Canada Centre.

Is that sporting?

As I mentioned in this post a SFAC sub committee was also struck to deal with this ethics issue as well. This committee started with meetings around the same time as the committee that came up with this 49 page document posted here. I believe they are working on a document or paper as well and I am not sure when it will be completed but I would think it will be made public as well.

This SFAC sub committee worked with FOC the last while to come up with the selective fishing request paper that was posted in tackle shops, handed out by committee members at boat launches and posted on the net.

Thanks to Gerry for heading that up.

[troutbreath]

When they came for the snaggers... I said thats OK I'm not one of them.
Then they come looken for the ones keeping more than tey should..Hey hey I'm OK
Then they come looken for the garbage leavers,... OK I'm OK
Then they came for the fish kickers.....oooups gotcha

Moral is there is more than one issue that affects the fishery.

[chris gadsden]

This is almost funny.

The SFAC has not approved these proposals and in fact has not seen them yet.

This was done by a group that is called the Chilliwack River Watershed Strategy.

This appears to be made up of a select group of people who were asked to work on this and has "nothing to do with the SFAB"!


The ideal of a leader length rule stopping flossing is a joke, as noted 3 foot leaders are plenty.


There as another proposal coming from DFO that may change totally the way the fishery is handled on the Fraser.

Wait till that one is out to public meetings and see if your concern about leaders really matters.

In all respect this document was presented to the SFAC sub committee a few weeks ago by a power point presentation. This was done of course done out of courtesy as the SFAC sub committee is also dealing with the same topic.
When there is a concern by a number of people things have to be put down in document form so anyone that is interested can see what the concerns are and what possible solutions there are.

As I said before the SFAC sub committee I believe is also comming up with a paper as well and I am sure all will be interested in seeing their recommendations.

[Steelhawk]

So Crhsi, just who are the guys in the SFAC? Is there a balance between bar fishing and bottom bouncing (lots of guides bounce for sockeyes) groups? I hope it will be a democratic process, in which these people actually represent their 'constituents'.