Print

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

[k.c.]

No shortage of soap boxes here

[blaydRnr]

I can understand why you think i am playing both sides of the field....with flossing though I think you have to.  I don't think we can treat it as such a grey area anymore.  

I floss the fraser for sockeye have been out maybe 6 times in 20 years for springs while socks are closed.  It is a meat fishery not a sports fishery and i think everyone here acknowledges that.  Issue is this - DFO, the regs, and the average fisher treat the sockeye fishery the same as any other sport fishery...but hang on, didnt we just agree its not a sports fishery?!?

go snorkel the cap and pull some gear...you will see what I mean.  Someone earlier in this thread said he laffs when snaggers come on and floss the vedder (funny how they're snaggers on the vedder) and he laffs when they snapp off a bunch of expensive tackle....I get upset by stuff like that.  litters the river, ruins the run, and its not neccesary, whites and coho bite.  But flossing indoctrinates a mentality when you will get a fish regardless of whether or not they want to bite.  It promotes an expectation that you will be going home with fish, and it carries over to every other river with a vast number of anglers now a days.

yes we both agree sockeye is a meat fishery...where we part is the ethical stand point.

and yes, i also stated that i laugh at the newbies trying to bb the vedder... not in the humorous sense, but more in cynicism. i was try to relay that bbing is NOT as prevalent on that river as people make it out to be...it's just not a viable way to fish a very rock filled flow....however i do agree flossing is a major problem...stemming from a totally different technique that i don't believe evolved as a result of the fraser sockeye fishery.

take the time to research a book written by Charles White on "how to catch salmon" circa 1974  and you'll see a section where he depicts an experience he had when he foul hooked a chinook on the back dorsal and it shows him with his hands together in prayer hoping the fish did not get away...back then sockeye wasn't even on the radar of most sports anglers, yet it was already an accepted practice to retain snagged fish...of course this doesn't make it right, it just shows that the problem has been around longer than people have bottom bounced the fraser.

[Gooey]

So you think guys on the vedder with 10 foot leaders and bouncing betties arent a direct result of the fraser fishery?  I can tell you that when i just started river fishing, flossing sockeye was just catching on.  We never flossed the ved nor did you see anyone else doing it 15 years ago.  As the fraser floss fishery became more common, so did flossing on the ved.   to think that there is no corilation between the fraser flossing and vedder flossers is totally nieve.

......yet it was already an accepted practice to retain snagged fish.

Good thing we evolved beyond that!?!  

[blaydRnr]

So you think guys on the vedder with 10 foot leaders and bouncing betties arent a direct result of the fraser fishery?  I can tell you that when i just started river fishing, flossing sockeye was just catching on.  We never flossed the ved nor did you see anyone else doing it 15 years ago.  As the fraser floss fishery became more common, so did flossing on the ved.   to think that there is no corilation between the fraser flossing and vedder flossers is totally nieve.

Good thing we evolved beyond that!?!  

oh i see people flossing all the time, but not with betties and not bbing, i think you got the two techniques confused.
the people i see fish the pocket water using very little weight and smaller hooks under a float, running their line down the shoot intercepting ascending fish.
what i believe you're referring to is the limit hole where people long lined to reach fish resting on the bottom...that run is now permanently closed.

also lets not jump to conclusions...sometimes people lengthen their leader because they are depth gauging in deeper runs...i'm not talking about 10 ft...but more like 3 to 5 ft.

[Tofino Osprey Lodge]

I guess banning river fishing for salmon would end that argument. 

[Fish Slayer]

What I don't understand is how gooey is so anti-flossing yet he makes and sells betties? Makes me think of the crooked government where it's the almighty dollar is all that matters, heck it even over rides ethics.

The only way to stop/eliminate flossing is to shut down the sockeye fishery altogether, and in time the numbers of snaggers will hopefully drop however that may take a generation or more. 

[bluesteele]

i was being sarcastic...however, i'm starting to feel like you're more concerned about adding to your post count than defending your stance.
if ethics is what you're arguing, then why bring in the Statutes of Law pertaining to the US??? what does their regs have to do with your morals and ethics???  c'mon at least quote standards pertaining to our own jurisdiction... this is getting ridiculous.

Number 1) I could care less about post counts LOL  Unless I get a prize or something !!!!!!!!
Number 2) You obviously do not understand fully ethics. Ethics are borderless. My ethics are not based on where I live. More of a global scope grasshopper 

Ridiculous??? Could be. Admin enjoys this I am sure 

[blaydRnr]

Number 1) I could care less about post counts LOL  Unless I get a prize or something !!!!!!!!
Number 2) You obviously do not understand fully ethics. Ethics are borderless. My ethics are not based on where I live. More of a global scope grasshopper 

Ridiculous??? Could be. Admin enjoys this I am sure 

you're absolutely right "borderless" because everyone have different levels of opinion therefore ethics can't be used as an argument...that's where the law is put in place to maintain the balance.

[bluesteele]

you're absolutely right "borderless" because everyone have different levels of opinion therefore ethics can't be used as an argument...that's where the law is put in place to maintain the balance.

I agree and disagree. Yes the law is needed to prevent society from tailspinning into anarchy. But ethics are the biggest part of the picture. Ethics are what this thread is about. I think LOL

To blindly follow the letter of the law is foolish. And that is what you seem to be saying.

Consider the following quote:

"•Are our responsibilities limited to what the law requires of us?

•If we are legally allowed to do something, does that mean we ought to?

•If there is no relevant law to speak of with respect to a "What should I do?" problem we're facing, does that mean that anything goes?

The answers to these questions are: No. No. No. "

Ethics can't be used as an argument??? I really dont get it 

Bottomline flossing is unethical behavior.

[blaydRnr]

I agree and disagree. Yes the law is needed to prevent society from tailspinning into anarchy. But ethics are the biggest part of the picture. Ethics are what this thread is about. I think LOL

To blindly follow the letter of the law is foolish. And that is what you seem to be saying.

Consider the following quote:

"•Are our responsibilities limited to what the law requires of us?

•If we are legally allowed to do something, does that mean we ought to?

•If there is no relevant law to speak of with respect to a "What should I do?" problem we're facing, does that mean that anything goes?

The answers to these questions are: No. No. No. "

Ethics can't be used as an argument??? I really dont get it 

Bottomline flossing is unethical behavior.

whether you like it or not the law govern over ethics. that's the constitution which gives the free world freedom of speech and choices...unless you live your life as a saint, you can't preach ethics whenever it suits your need.

i don't believe in abortion, but who would i be to tell a young girl she has no right to terminate a pregnancy resulting from a brutal rape? (a little off topic, but totally relevant to the issue of ethics).

"flossing is unethical behavior"... in comparison to what?....gill netting? which have been known to result in the bi catch of non intended species..ie sturgeon....dip netting and gaffing from first nations? for the purpose of ceremonial and food? 

our responsibility is to use common sense because every different scenario require different calls of judgement.

[dereke]

I guess banning river fishing for salmon would end that argument. 

That is the direction we are headed

[andychan]

[Bhinky]

Yikes Gooey, if it wasn't pointed out for you, at what point were you going to mention that you are not only a flosser, but you actually SELL BETTIES, ON THE RIVER!!  I might be missing something but your stance seems a little hypocritical.

[koko]

Just because you sell drugs, as long as you and your family don't do it, it fine ? Some body got to do it.

[canso]

take the time to research a book written by Charles White on "how to catch salmon" circa 1974  and you'll see a section where he depicts an experience he had when he foul hooked a chinook on the back dorsal and it shows him with his hands together in prayer hoping the fish did not get away...back then sockeye wasn't even on the radar of most sports anglers, yet it was already an accepted practice to retain snagged fish...of course this doesn't make it right, it just shows that the problem has been around longer than people have bottom bounced the fraser.

he was fishing the ocean with down riggers. his intetion was not to foul hook the chinook.
that is a legal fish to bonk.