Print

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

[nvloc]

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?

[Sam Salmon]

No.

[canso]

fish anything thats legal

[marmot]

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.

[salmon river]

If it is legally open what is the problem?

[marmot]

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.

[Teal]

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. 

[canso]

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.

[TrophyHunter]

Can you say Troll lol
TH

[Nicole]

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

[MERC]

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.

[fyrslyer]

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%

[marmot]

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"...

[nvloc]

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)

[marmot]

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?