Print

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

[Easywater]

Someone questions me calling the average flosser clueless and then alwaysfishn proves my point!  "The fish is voluntarily taking the line in it's mouth "....you cant be serious.   

Give it a drink buddy.
Everyone knows your position on this topic - no need to blather on about it in response to every post.

Flossing Sockeye in the Fraser is an accepted practice and it's not against the rules.
You realize that too many Sockeye end up on the spawning grounds otherwise and that's why DFO allows a "harvest"?

Most people on this board would agree that the problems begin when people start doing it for other salmon and on other rivers.

[Gooey]

alwaysfishin, this isnt a laffing matter plus your comment didnt come through as sarcasm, hyperbole, etc... I know there are fishers out there that actually believe what you wrote.  

As well, it is not as simple as buying beef or some other mass produced food source.  there are a host of issue from snagging to littering and fighting, to poor treatment of released fish, to lack of species identification knowledge....there is a wide array of issues that go hand in hand with the whole flossing thing and the fishers who regularly employ it.

Frankly, flossing makes it too easy...anyone with no skill or knowledge can have a great deal of success flossing.  Thats why the slab run on the vedder right through to the cable pool on the capilano have their bottoms lined with snapped off flosser's gear  


I will focus on the snagging issue though...its not "my opinion" or my personal ethics that cause me to take this position a flossed fish doesn't bite ergo it was snagged, snaggin is illegal ergo flossing is illegal too, it just isn't enforced.  Thats the facts,  Until every fisher that flosses realizes that then we will have all the beaks lining up at every decent hole on ANY river...thats my biggest issue.

PS - I asked a CO once why they dont patrol the capilano more, his comment was prioritization...its much more important to monitor sensitive systems like the Cheak and Squamish or police nets on the Fraser than worry about a man made/maintained run in the middle of the city.  Its no diffeent on the fraser...enforcement priorities aren't on a flossed fishery right now....so don't fool yourself, flossing isn't legal, its just not enforce .

[Gooey]

"Most people on this board would agree that the problems begin when people start doing it for other salmon and on other rivers"

Exactly, and thats a huge problem now...one that grows year after year!  River fishing the vedder and chehalis was a much different story 15 years ago...I am only 37 and I can tell you there has been a high degree of degredation.  Maybe newer fishers accept it as the norm?  Maybe they don't see the issue that more seasoned anglers see?  I dont know but every time I try and drift a run for coho and steelhead and hang up on 80 braid or a snapped off betty with a 10 foot leader, I know exactly what fishery to thank!

[BBarley]

As well, it is not as simple as buying beef or some other mass produced food source.  there are a host of issue from snagging to littering and fighting, to poor treatment of released fish, to lack of species identification knowledge....there is a wide array of issues that go hand in hand with the whole flossing thing and the fishers who regularly employ it.

Frankly, flossing makes it too easy...anyone with no skill or knowledge can have a great deal of success flossing.  

Are you really that opposed to people "flossing fish"?
A heavy weighted fly line, high-stick nymphed through a the river can be as lethal as your general flossing rig. Would you be angered if you saw someone out with a fly rod swinging T-16 through an area on the Fraser?

I think your posts hint a little bit of pre-existing anger towards the zoo that accompanies sockeye fishing, and especially sockeye harvest openings. While I agree with you 100% on the mayhem that ensues, I don't think banning long leaders is the end all on the subject.

Remember, when it comes to fishing, for some people it's only about catching, and they'll do whatever they need to do to hook up with the fish they're after.

[nosey]

The year before last I was fishing in the Campbell River and right there at the logging bridge there were a couple of guys flossing springs, 12 foot leaders, bouncing betties the whole shot, they were doing quite well too obviously it works and it's legal I'm told, anyone that thinks it's ethical in the Fraser would probably believe it's ethical anywhere, even in one of B.C.'s most famous and gorgeous systems like the Campbell. It's nothing short of discusting, sry my opinion only thanks for you time.

[jeff]

on a side note i saw a huge spring in the hacthery channel the other day with a 10 foot leader and hook stuck in its belly, wonder how that happened

[alwaysfishn]

I will focus on the snagging issue though...its not "my opinion" or my personal ethics that cause me to take this position a flossed fish doesn't bite ergo it was snagged, snaggin is illegal ergo flossing is illegal too, it just isn't enforced.  

Until you can show me a law that says flossing is "illegal" saying it is illegal cannot be anything but your opinion.

Suggesting that a CO is not enforcing flossing is just ridiculous. I've seen CO's go down a long line of fishermen and all they checked for was barbed hooks and licenses. I suggest that the reason the CO's didn't write tickets for the 50+ fishermen was because there was nothing illegal being done....

Why would they be doing the sockeye mortality study on an illegal technique?    Why spend all that money on researching the survival of a fish caught using an illegal technique? I'm just applying a little logic here Gooey.....  something you are sadly lacking....  

There is no problem with having an opinion though. I have a few of my own.  

[BBarley]

Bottom bouncing with a piece of pencil lead and a 2 foot leader and a spinner is legal, bottom bouncing with a bouncing betty and a 15 foot leader and a piece of yarn is just as legal.
Intentionally snagging fish anywhere on their body say by using 6 ounces of weight and a 4/0 treble is illegal.

People form their own opinion based on their views and beliefs. So rather than argue over an issue as stupid as flossing, why don't you take your anger and problems out on user groups that cause the most damage?

[nosey]

The only user group that uses the bar on St Elmo road is bottom bouncers, the last time there was a sockeye opening there was a pickup and a half load of garbage left behind when it was all over I consider that to be damage and maybe even unethical too.

[skaha]

Until you can show me a law that says flossing is "illegal" saying it is illegal cannot be anything but your opinion.

Suggesting that a CO is not enforcing flossing is just ridiculous. I've seen CO's go down a long line of fishermen and all they checked for was barbed hooks and licenses. I suggest that the reason the CO's didn't write tickets for the 50+ fishermen was because there was nothing illegal being done....

Why would they be doing the sockeye mortality study on an illegal technique?    Why spend all that money on researching the survival of a fish caught using an illegal technique? I'm just applying a little logic here Gooey.....  something you are sadly lacking.... 

There is no problem with having an opinion though. I have a few of my own. 

-when it is stated speeding is illegal they do not have to  add speeding  with a ford is illegal or speeding with a motorcycle is illegal.. it is implied and understood...however if it requires explanation it should be clarified

--I believe some of us have been through a radar trap at105 in a 100 zone and not stopped... whereas there is zero tolerance for exceeding the speed limit in a school zone.

--maybe they are doing the studies to determine if the regulations should be rewritten.. That is if they were to make flossing legal as a selective harvest method would none targeted fish survive release

[buck]

EASYWATER

  Too many sockeye end up on the spawning grounds and that's why DFO opens the river ? Over the last decade it's been a real struggle to get enough fish on the spawning grounds. Pressure from all user groups seems to have priority over conservation. Over spawning is a myth perpetuated by the commercial fisherman.

 

[Easywater]

EASYWATER

  Too many sockeye end up on the spawning grounds and that's why DFO opens the river ? Over the last decade it's been a real struggle to get enough fish on the spawning grounds. Pressure from all user groups seems to have priority over conservation. Over spawning is a myth perpetuated by the commercial fisherman.

 

Obviously, that's not the case when there are not enough fish but when there is an abundance of fish, then too many fish to the spawning grounds cause problems.
This year is shaping up to be a huge year.

Cummins on the Cohen Inquiry: http://www.johncummins.ca/docs/S%20Inquiry%20-%20June%2012%202010%20-%20CKNW%20-%20Sean%20Leslie%20Show%20-%20Cummins%20on%20Cohen%20Inquiry.pdf

The International Commission was putting about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 spawners on to the spawning grounds each year. Since the Department took over it's got into a program that it would refer to as weak stock management, and it's been crowding these spawning grounds and putting sometimes three, four, and five times as many sockeye into the spawning ground.

That became a concern in British Columbia and three of the scientific advisers here -- LeBlonde, Riddell, and Walters -- co-authored a study for the Department and they said that this over-spawning wasn't a factor in the serious declines of the run. Well that's in sharp contrast to findings in Alaska where the fishery is very successful and the science there says that over-spawning is not helpful and that it can be detrimental to successful sockeye runs.


http://www.sustainablecoast.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=239:this-is-not-a-science-seminar&Itemid=121&tmpl=component&print=1

June 17, 2010
The real issue before the Cohen Inquiry is DFO's failure to manage the Fraser River fishery.

" Why were the policies and procedures of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission so effective in increasing the size of sockeye runs when the management of the fishery was under their control and why have stocks collapsed since DFO took over management in 1986? " Did the Department's policy of weak stock management, which resulted in over spawning throughout much of the Fraser system contribute to the disastrous decline of the Fraser River fishery?

[dennyman]

If you look at some of the data they have compiled over the years, on average if 100 million sockeye smolts hit the ocean, only 10 percent make it back to the coastline.  That means about a 90 percent mortality rate when at sea. I tend to scratch my head, when people start talking about too many salmon making it back to the spawning grounds.

[BBarley]

Someone with the "absolute" knowledge may want to step in and correct me on this.

I've spoken to numerous staff up at the Fulton Creek Spawning Channels in Granisle. They have a series of man made runways perfectly suited for spawning sockeye, and they only allow up to a certain number of males and females into the channels, the one's that don't make it typically swam at the gate until it is their time to go. I've heard of years where they've opened up an "in-lake" commercial fishery to take place at the mouth of Fulton Creek just to scoop up all the left overs. They called it ESSR, excess-salmon to spawning requirements.

The folks at the spawning channels told me that almost every year they fill up the channels with their needed allotment, which means they are essentially getting 1:1 ratio or higher of returns. I've been told over-competition and disease break out is the main reason they only allow so many salmon to make it in the spawning channels.

So my personal belief is that there is legitimacy to simply putting too many spawners on the beds so-to-speak.

Now, where I think the concern should be, is some of the methods of commercial harvest cough* gillnet cough* are ridiculously unselective at targeting the fish passing by. So allowing a 16 hour opening say in the migration route may seem harmless, you may take alot of the ESSR from one stream, but you may also eliminate a run from a smaller stream....

I just thought I'd share my opinion, I'm not an expert so take this with a grain of salt

[chris gadsden]

Until you can show me a law that says flossing is "illegal" saying it is illegal cannot be anything but your opinion.

Suggesting that a CO is not enforcing flossing is just ridiculous. I've seen CO's go down a long line of fishermen and all they checked for was barbed hooks and licenses. I suggest that the reason the CO's didn't write tickets for the 50+ fishermen was because there was nothing illegal being done....

Why would they be doing the sockeye mortality study on an illegal technique?    Why spend all that money on researching the survival of a fish caught using an illegal technique? I'm just applying a little logic here Gooey.....  something you are sadly lacking....  

There is no problem with having an opinion though. I have a few of my own.  

Go with you conscience, if you think it is OK to take fish by a method where you quarry is not biting, go for it. For me and many others they want no part of it. I donot need a fish that badly that I would have to fish that way.

Sorry for being a bit blunt but, I went after the Liberal with this letter that ran yesterday in the Chilliwack Progress. I have to tell it the way I see it even though many will say I have it wrong but so be it.

I have to agree with Randy White's statement that the B.C. Liberal rein as government will come to an end in the next provincial election. (Former conservative Conservative MP predicts election defeat for B.C. Liberals July 27, 2010 by Robert Freeman ) Bringing in the HST I feel has signaled the final death blow to Campbell's government and for most of his cabinet ministers and MLA's. Many other issues and decisions made over their term as government has seen the voter loose confidence in the BC Liberals. As in many causes governments lose power as it is their own actions that defeat them, in other words, they defeat themselves.

One reason I feel why Campbell and his finance minster Colin Hansen were forced to find another way to bring in more revenue to the provincial coffers is because their government cut taxes starting back when they were first elected. A total of 37 percent since 2001 the Premier said this in a previous article while defending his government's stance on bringing in the HST on July 1. When we see the financial mess we are in now how wise a move was that to cut these taxes so much? We now have had a ballooning deficit the last few years with the news now filled with how our education, and  health care services that we so treasure in British Columbia continue to suffer. Many other ministry including the Ministry of the Environment has been slashed to the bare bones. The Liberal party always boasts about these tax reductions but it leads one to ask was it more about using this statement time and time again just to get elected 2 more times then good fiscal management? The proof now seems to appear in the pudding as because of the financial mess we are in the Liberals, in a desperate move have had to bring in the HST to try to prevent our deficit from growing even more.

Then we had the 2010 Olympics that I have to admit I enjoyed along with most  British Columbians and people throughout the world, we were all thrilled by the accomplishments of many of our Canadian athletes. However I believe our tax base in British Columbia is too small to be able the afford the tax dollars that had to be spent to put this 2 week party on. More money added to our deficit. Where do we get these funds from Hansen must have asked himself. Well the HST now appears to be the latest one while core services continue to face financial hardships.

Also the fish farm issue has been handled so badly, they continue to ignore the evidence provided by Dr Alexandra Morton and others, just another example of how they really do not seem to care about the environment and our wild salmon that are a cornerstone of British Columbia. The same wild salmon that have helped build our province with these salmon substantiating our First Nation people for thousands of years. This issue is a prime example how the government has stopped listening to the people, they I believe have become too arrogant and self centered. If they do not like what you are saying and it is not on their agenda they tune you out, hoping you will just go away.

I know being a government MLA or a cabinet minister is not easy and some time hard decisions have to be faced but over the years but I have seen this once fresh government change and lose touch with the people, the people that put them in power to represent them. Transparency on so many issues disappeared. Many other ways of being good government slipped away also, we are all familiar with them. Two years ago I was so disillusioned and left the party and did not renew my Liberal membership. I am glad I did as the way the HST was brought in it would have been the final nail in the coffin for me as it now will be for this once great party in less than 3 years time from now, if not sooner if recall is successful.

Where do I go from here, back to my family roots of the NDP where my mother's cousin son Grant Notley was the NDP  leader in Alberta before he was killed in the 1980's in a plane crash or will it be another party that will surface in the months ahead that will garner my support.

All I ask of the next government, please donot do what the Liberals have done, lose the trust of many of us, over 700,000 voters who signed the anti HST petition. The people have spoken and the B.C. Liberals will now pay the price as Randy White says, in the not too distant future.