Print

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

[chris gadsden]

So Chris, 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'. 

MOE and FOC staff. Others on this SFAC sub committee, I would say it is 5 in favor of BB and 3 are not in favor of this activity because they see it as snagging and for all the other reason that have been stated many times before.

What are you doing up so late and what am I doing up so late too. I guess catching up on e-mails after the fishing trip.

 I better get some sleep as River Cleanup tomorrow, I mean today now.

[Old Black Dog]

In all respect this document was presented to the SFAC sub committee a few weeks ago by a power point presentation.

With all due respect.
This was done by a group that is called the "Chilliwack River Watershed Strategy" which is not a part of the SFAC.
This is an independant group and has nothing to do with the SFAC.
It has as noted a number of government people on it and should be taken in that context.
I believe it was set up by the Government people and the people on it were hand picked by them?

[FLOSSNBONK]

If it's legal, I will go out floss my Chinook, If the socks are open , I will floss my limit. Then I will go home. If you want to sit in a lawn chair all day and wait for your spring, go ahead, if you wan't to push your ethical high ground and preach how I'm the problem with the fishery , go ahead, but be nice about it, if you're not nice , then I won't be either. And like another poster said, you want to eliminate bottom bouncing , go ahead, I will adapt to another method to floss my limit. I think the best way is to have a daily, yearly limit on all fish, once you're done , get off the river. Catching and releasing stresses fish. Even if a fish is foul hooked (especially), it should be retained if the species is open , and that counts towards your limit. Reducing the encounters with the fish will help the conservation and help eliminate the congestion on the bars, which is what the bar fishers really want. restrict my leader length, go ahead , I will adapt.

Cheers, to all, and good flossing.

[Sandy]

restrict my leader length, go ahead , I will adapt.

Cheers, to all, and good flossing.

thats good, but if your fishing with the proposed leader length 3' approx then I think you wouldn't be flossing.might be bottom bouncing

[chris gadsden]

In all respect this document was presented to the SFAC sub committee a few weeks ago by a power point presentation.

With all due respect.
This was done by a group that is called the "Chilliwack River Watershed Strategy" which is not a part of the SFAC.
This is an independant group and has nothing to do with the SFAC.
It has as noted a number of government people on it and should be taken in that context.
I believe it was set up by the Government people and the people on it were hand picked by them?

Yes you are correct that this report was prepared seperate from the SFAC, as was I, I believe in my last posted statement.

 Of course there is nothing wrong for any people concerned about any issue to form a comittee and file a document, that as I have said several times is a great thing about our Demorcratic process. That is why my dad and thousand of others through the history of Canada and in our present times served their country to preserve that right. Many gave and continue to give their lives to protect our democratic society.

If that is every lost we will have a lot more to worry about than fishing issues.

When the SFAC sub committee is finished with their report on fishing ethics I am sure it will be presented to the SFAB and will be made available to the angling public as well.

This will be welcomed by all, I am sure.

[Old Black Dog]

You are right Chris that any group can put together a report and that is fine.

However if the group is set up by MOE/DFO employees and pick the people they wish to have involved then it becomes very questionable as to its credibility of speaking for fishermen in general.

As to the 3 foot leader proposal, this will "NOT"effect flossing, it will just take longer to get the fish.

You of all people know that this has been going on in rivers throughout the province for years.

Have you looked at the Skeena where the government only allows fly fishing for sockeye and guess what they floss "ALL" the fish they catch.
So are you planning to ban fly fishing there? They use short leader and 3 feet would be just fine with them?
Are you proposing to ban leader length in all rivers in the province?

 

[chris gadsden]

Thanks OBD.

Well I guess the hope is to try to convince people that going out sportfishing by a method that intentionally is used to snag a fish is not really what fishing is about.

Remember most that oppose this method now did it at the beginning of the sockeye fishery (myself, Gwyn, 2:40 and Steve and many others) I have said many times and I repeat I was part of getting sockeye and other species open through the FVSS. Now seeing it for what it is, I, as well as in many others minds as well we must attempt to try and change this attitude.

Of course we realize this will be difficult but we will not be truthful to ourselves if we do not try to correct this method of what some call fishing. It will be up to MOE or FOC regulations to change them or it could be by people's change in attitude. We know it will be difficult, for an example,
 many choose not to comply with FOC's and SFAC's 2 notices not to botton bounce during the Early Stuarts migration timming through the Lower Fraser ( the snagging method with long leaders not true true bottom bouncing method used by old time anglers years ago. One, if they really whats to know how they are hooking fish, be it fishing with a spey rod fishing or any method for that matter they can of course check their hook placement when they beach the fish to see. this is not new news of course.

I guess it may be an age factor but I respect our precious fish stocks I have no wish to go out and intentionally try to snag my quarry although I have accidentally done so. I did it the other day while float fishing, my float goes down, I set the hook but I quess the hook pulled out of its mouth and I foul hooked it in a fin, thankfully the hook pulled out. No method is perfect, I know that. When I mooched for salmon we would sometime catch them in the tail as the belief was they would slash the herring with the tail before turning to grab it.

The difference of course we know that people use the long leaders as it puts more flossing material in the water column, they are out to snag plain and simple and use the most effective way they can to accomplish that goal.

Many bring native netting and commercial fishing into the equation but I feel we should clean our house first. If the ones that want to tackle these issue the freedom is for them to do so and they can bring together others to do so, if they choose. It is easy for us all to talk but to pull up ones sleeves and try to do something to get changes is difficult, as well as time consumming, you know that. I admire your dedication to several issues you are involved in.

 We present our case and it will be up to FOC and MOE to make the changes they deem necessary, the final call is theirs.

I am not sure how much time the SFAB that you hold a seat on I believe, has given to this issue, if not much they may want to discuss it further in future meetings. If they feel FOC should not get into the anglers tackle box I guess the topic will go no further with the board and it will be groups like the CRWSC to do so.

I and many others would be interested in the minutes of these discussion, hopefully they are made available to all as was the recent 49 page document put together by the Chilliwack River Watershed Strategy Committee.

Thanks for you posts on this subject now and in the past.


Regards,

Chris

[troutbreath]

Our house is like 2% at best. And if we are putting in over 50 % or better of the commercial revenue for fishing, I don't see why sporties get short changed. Some old timers were the worst thing since Salmon Farming to look after the fishery. Or there would still be lots of fish in the States etc. Their most likely to run a fish farm through investment I say. Netting fish to extinction is only good for the skipper of a seine boat, or is that better than snagging fish?

[hotrod]

Are there any organized groups out there who are going to fight this forced method of fishing being proposed? Theremust be more of them that don't reply cause I certainly have yet to see someone with a 3 ft leader. Have not seen it,or a study that says long leaders are having any effect on present day stocks.


     Hotrod

[2:40]

However if the group is set up by MOE/DFO employees and pick the people they wish to have involved then it becomes very questionable as to its credibility of speaking for fishermen in general.

Maybe we should all step back and look at what we're dealing with. We're dealing with snagging and nothing more. Why are we going to such lengths over something that's clearly damaging angling and will only continue to do so?

Sure, maybe this has been around for a while. So what. Snagging's always been here and it's not going away. The problem is that NOW it's out of control. It isnt a few guys doing it anymore. It's in the thousands and our rivers wont be able to handle it.

Then what will we have left? Closed rivers and because we fought so hard to make this snagging SPORT angling, all angling will die with it.

Sure, guys snag fish with 3' leaders. I watch them do it for steelhead on the Vedder. But at least steps are being made to address this issue instead of waisting  time telling each other what wont work.

OBD, what suggestions do you have (that's tangible) assuming you share concerns with what's a yearly event, let's say under the Keith Wilson Bridge. 

[RA40]

 I sit on the SFAC - sub committee so i can speak a bit on this subject.  The CRWSC presented the document in a power point presentation on April 27. Many of us felt that the document had some good content but that the general public was not being represented. Most of the CRWS group does not really fish or know much about local fishing politics other than the 2 or 3 of the idividuals that are behind the push to close sockeye. The report is anti-sockeye/pro bar fishing and seems to blame all problems on sockeye. There was much debate over the issue of bias opions and the lack of representation by general public. The chair of the SFAB had asked many times to be involved in the CRWSC but was turned down each time.

Where it stands now - we all agreed that the lower numbers of sockeye would result in a complete closure of fishing on the Fraser if anglers did not comply to the request to selectively fish. Jerry Dewar ( SFAC-Sub Committee Chair) has worked hard to try to distribute the notices as has Chris and others that sit on this committee. The responsibility to do this is not really the mandate of the SFAC sub -commitee but should be done by DFO. we felt that by helping out we would have a hire compliance and less likely chance of a complete closure.

The commitee also agreed that we should be trying to educate anglers on other methods used to catch fish on the Fraser and proper fish handling which we are working on. As far as I know,  we the SFAC -Sub commitee does not support the document by CRWS for the above reasons and will not move forward with their recommendations but will try our best to represent all anglers point of view including pro and con. Our recommendations will be forwarded to the SFAC which will then decide what to do  or not do.

To keep fishing on the Fraser we need anglers to comply in high numbers  with the request not to BB while early stewart fish are moving through. if we get a high compliance, the chances are that the river will open later in the month for rentention of sockeye and all anglers can enjoy fishing with wahtever method they choose to fish with.

Just to clarify, the above statments and opinion is that of mine and not the SFAC-Sub commitee.

Hope you all have a great summer, keep fishing & conserve you catch.
Vic Carrao
STS Guiding Service

[2:40]

Many of us felt that the document had some good content but that the general public was not being represented. Most of the CRWS group does not really fish or know much about local fishing politics other than the 2 or 3 of the idividuals that are behind the push to close sockeye.

I think at best 2 or 3 fall in this category as most are avid anglers and have been involved in the politics  for a long time.

The report is anti-sockeye/pro bar fishing and seems to blame all problems on sockeye.

I alway say to put credit where credit is due. Why be scared to call something for what it is?

There was much debate over the issue of bias opions and the lack of representation by general public. The chair of the SFAB had asked many times to be involved in the CRWSC but was turned down each time.

I dont think anyone was turned down from attending meetings rather there was little interest aside from throwing together a group to counter this one, which is nothing wrong with that to ensure all get a say.

There will be ample chance for the public to be involved in this document and to where this issue goes in the future. 

And I too, speak for myself on the above and my understandings.

[Old Black Dog]

So, if they did an on river census as to flossing on the Fraser in season,how do you think the majority would vote?

If the vote came back a resounding yes, then as in elections the majority rules?

[2:40]

So, if they did an on river census as to flossing on the Fraser in season,how do you think the majority would vote?

If the vote came back a resounding yes, then as in elections the majority rules?

If the vote came back as you said, and I expect it would, what difference would it make?? It wouldnt change the facts surrounding this issue. It could show that sport angling is now under the control of glorified snaggers. I cant see much fishing opportunity continuing for long if sport angling is represented by a high % of snaggers.

The democratic process you indicate is valid in itself. But it is hugely biased.

Remember, most of these guys out there are relatively new to the river, only picking up angling when they found or were taught they could simply snag their fish. They could care less about fishing earlier because it was 'boring' and 'too much work'. Now they're attracted and the main attractant was easy meat.

Are these the people we want dictating what happens on our rivers?


Btw, what 'season' do you refer to? Sockeye openings? May 1 chinook openings? I bet most out there would consider 'flossing' season to be whenever the river's open. J

A personal observation: I think it's too bad that so many are keeling under for snagging. What's worse are long time anglers who I think should know better still calling this 'bottom bouncing' and trying to whitewash it.

[chris gadsden]

RA40 just a few minor points to clarify, Frank is the chair of the Upper Fraser SFAC not the chair of the SFAB, he sits on the SFAB as a committee member only. Frank was welcome to attend the CRWSC committee but declined for his own reasons which is his choice. As 2:40 said just about all on the CRWSC are avid anglers and the 2 or 3 that are not are still concerned about fish for the future or they would not have attended.

Glad you mention that the SFAC sub committee is going to try educate the general public on other ways to fish, I certainly hope it will move people away from the present method of snagging fish.

It sounds like the compliance level is slipping as many are not heeding the request as they do not seem to care about the Early Stuart stocks. Some forum members, close to the snagging grounds can verify that if they choose. Nosey???

Their action will most likely see the present method of BB with such long leaders banned in the Fraser River in the future with fishing with a fixed weight only during the salmon migration period.

That will certainly solve the problem on the Fraser but then there is areas like KWB on the Vedder.

While checking garbage dumping issues today on the Chilliwack I saw the snagging method being used in the Upper Chilliwack already for early chinooks, how will we stop that as so many of the new anglers (using the term loosely) know no other way to fish because of what they picked up from their sockeye days on the Fraser.

I wish the SFAC sub committee well with their efforts to change these people who will snag all species of salmon as well a steelhead, I hazard to guess if they were allowed to keep sturgeon they would try that too. That reminds me the snagging crews on the bars have done so as it was reported a jumping sturgeon looked like a Christmas tree with all the hooks decorated with wool, I believe green was the most observed colour.  

We will be watching with interest how this educating process the sub committee is working on develops in the days and weeks ahead. Of course many of us would be willing to help once the document and process to do so is made public.

We welcome seeing it posted on this and other web sites for all interested people can see and comment on.