Print

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

[marmot]

#1 I was paraphrasing the regs and in fact, I wasn't far off.

#2 you guys KILL me...are you seriously that ignorant?!?  Its my only guess because while I did not know about the "on the head" part (which you refer to me missing intentionally) , you both read over the regs and ignored the FIRST part:

Snagging - Attempting to take fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth.

Are you really so stupid to think that a flossed fish "voluntarily took the hooks" or are you such a hard core flossers you refuse to admit it.  Either way, in the head or the mouth (per WA regs) doesn't matter IF THE FISH DIDNT STRIKE THE HOOK.  

So who's "campaign" doesnt it fit now AWF?

BTW - did anyone notice that in the BC regs SNAGGING in definitions tells you to "read page 96 - foul hooked fish" or something like that.  Foul hooked definition just talks to where the fish was hook...what we miss that WA nailed was HOW. PS I did see a button to suggest changes, point out omisions, etc.  Think I'll go put my feedback in. 

Dont worry AWF, Government is so slow you'll probably be able to floss your way right through winter steelhead season into another sockeye season...good luck and have fun!

If you're going to suggest changes, make them realistic.

DFO obviously condones flossing sockeye and have left the wording the same for years for a reason.  They know very well what is going on.  If you want to see changes you have to suggest changes that might receive a warmer reception.  This is why fighting flossing from an ethics standpoint, at least now, is a total waste of time.

[Gooey]

Here's how I see it, in our regs there is no definition of snagging, it simply says refer to foul hook.  foul hook simply states that fish hooked anywhere but the mouth are foul hooked and must be released. 

Snagging and foul hook are two totally separate thing.  foul hooked being WHERE this fish is hook and snagged be HOW. 

So marmot, since dfo is quite happy with things, maybe i should simply concede and recommend that DFO endorse snagging...heck they are doing it now right?  Sure buddy, that makes a lot of sense. 

All I know is if enough people say it, they will eventually get the message.

 

[doja]

Ignorant.... thinks banning a method on a isolated river with very little enforcement would work. Wait that's just stupid, LOL 

Pathetic.... doesn't see the facts, you can't prove a fish was not biting and enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove at best!

All I know is if enough people say it, they will eventually get the message.

 

You do know there are probably far more snaggers....

[troutbreath]

Someone should start a snagging fish web site. Then all the snaggers can glibly pat each other on the bum over their snagging prowress. So we don't have to constantly post about it here.

Just a thought.

[BigFisher]

sounds good, but is it legal to post pictures of random people online? 

[marmot]

Here's how I see it, in our regs there is no definition of snagging, it simply says refer to foul hook.  foul hook simply states that fish hooked anywhere but the mouth are foul hooked and must be released. 

Snagging and foul hook are two totally separate thing.  foul hooked being WHERE this fish is hook and snagged be HOW. 

So marmot, since dfo is quite happy with things, maybe i should simply concede and recommend that DFO endorse snagging...heck they are doing it now right?  Sure buddy, that makes a lot of sense. 

All I know is if enough people say it, they will eventually get the message.

 

Conceding and going about a more intelligent way to solve the problems you want addressed are two distinctly different things.  I'm NOT suggesting you concede.

Fact: DFO has actively decided to allow this fishery to continue.  They have made a conscious decision NOT to amend the regulations. 

This isn't when you throw your hands up in the air and decide there is nothing that you can do.  This is when you figure out a better approach that will be received.  They know about the ethical dilemma.  They know about the scores of people that are disgusted by flossing.  They also know the potential problems resulting from allowing such a fishery to continue.

The problem is that DFO thus far has not been able to come up with any sort of solution that would allow the sockeye fishery to remain open while addressing the concerns that flossing presents on other systems.  Like I said, they are well aware of the ethical dilemma and by their actions have already made up their mind.  You may as well spend your efforts constructively rather than continuing to frustrate yourself.  How many times have we seen these "is flossing ethical" threads? 

[Gooey]

What does ethics have to do with it?  A flossed fish is a snagged fish...we (including DFO) know it.  This is simply and enforcement issue.  I have seen tickets given out for flossing coho on the vedder so to hear that someone here has an inside track on what DFO is thinking or what their mandate is...I find that quite laughable.

"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove"...Doja, that doesnt even make sense?!?  If you are going to participate in this debate, at least try and form a functional sentence that represents an intelligent position!

PS doja, when you pull in sock after sock and the are all hooked outside-in, never INSIDE the mouth, any intelligent person knows how the fish was hook.  So to me, that leaves only two questions, are you one of the delusional fishers that think the actually fish bit or are you one of the types that just doesnt care and hides behind this whole "they cant prove it" idea?

[doja]

What does ethics have to do with it?  A flossed fish is a snagged fish...we (including DFO) know it.  This is simply and enforcement issue.  I have seen tickets given out for flossing coho on the vedder so to hear that someone here has an inside track on what DFO is thinking or what their mandate is...I find that quite laughable.

"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove"...Doja, that doesnt even make sense?!?  If you are going to participate in this debate, at least try and form a functional sentence that represents an intelligent position!

PS doja, when you pull in sock after sock and the are all hooked outside-in, never INSIDE the mouth, any intelligent person knows how the fish was hook.  So to me, that leaves only two questions, are you one of the delusional fishers that think the actually fish bit or are you one of the types that just doesnt care and hides behind this whole "they cant prove it" idea?

Gooey, the flaw in your approach is one good reason why your "campaign" won't fly...

"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove" this is worded well enough, but your less than grade 12 writing approach might not understand that (based on the many typo's in your poorly written paragraph).  

The "PS sentences" show your highly flawed approach.... I never once said I support snagging in this thread (but you assumed and made an *** of your self, again)....

I'm just pointing out the difficulty's in enforcing something that is highly difficult to prove....

[doja]

PS, I'd like to see a copy of a ticket for "flossing"...

Not saying it isn't true, but I'd like to see it or the court documents supporting an allegation/conviction.

[Sandman]

"enforcing a ban on flossing is difficult to prove" this is worded well enough. . .

. . . I'm just pointing out the difficulty's in enforcing something that is highly difficult to prove....

Ok, but your sentence as written suggests that it is difficult to prove the enforcing of a ban on flossing, which really is not "worded well enough," just as Gooey's post has spelling errors. 

However, while you both have a point that a debater's arguments are weakened by poor communication skills, especially when the writing errors interfere with the understanding of the argument itself, both of you are guilty of an ad hominem attack whereby your argument becomes an attack on the man and not his arguments.  We all have varying education levels (not all of us hold graduate degrees) and some of us speak (and write) English as a second language,  therefore grammar should never be used to belittle the ideas of another member.  Let's keep the debates healthy and focused on the topic.

[Sandman]

We all know that bans and regulations in general, especially in a regime of low enforcement, does not stop the undesirable activity.  By banning flossing, a method designed to snag a fish in the head, DFO would be making it clear that such an activity is undesirable and illegal.  This would not stop it from happening on "isolated rivers with very little [or no] enforcement", just as a ban on treble hooks or bait does not stop people from using them, but that does not mean we should not have those regulations in place.  What it does do is make the act a clear violation and allows DFO to cite offenses they DO see when they can get officers to the rivers.  As for enforcing something that is "difficult to prove,"  this has not stopped DFO from trying to cite cases of people "targeting" species that are currently closed.  How can you hope to prove such a thing?

[DanL]

...  By banning flossing, a method designed to snag a fish in the head, DFO would be making it clear that such an activity is undesirable and illegal.  This would not stop it from happening on "isolated rivers with very little [or no] enforcement", just as a ban on treble hooks or bait does not stop people from using them, but that does not mean we should not have those regulations in place.  What it does do is make the act a clear violation and allows DFO to cite offenses they DO see when they can get officers to the rivers. ...

This is wonderfully articulated and exactly why we should continue to speak out on this.

It's not that I care that people retain fish hooked on the outside of the jaw, but rather that the technique is a perversion of what sport fishing is supposed to be about and is not limited to a few spots on the Fraser. I have seen this method absolutely explode in popularity in systems like the Vedder, Stave, etc where its not only completely unnecessary, but quite frankly obscene in my humblest opinion.

Unfortunately, people who are new to fishing will observe effective flossers and equate flossing == skillful angling, when we all know that its not. New fishermen tentatively give it try, maybe with a little side jerk mixed in, and are impressed with their 'success' and pass it along to their friends and acquaintances. Next thing you know another generation of snaggers is born. The proliferation of flossing does nothing to advance the state of the sport, but rather denigrates it.

[Bently]

Just think, if {and it's a big if}, the DFO was to ban the flossing method and also make a leader restriction to say 36"s while fishing the rivers, we fishermen that actually try and trick the fish to bite our offering could maybe enjoy the river like we used to {many years ago now}

I wonder what bars like Peg Leg and Scale as well as a bunch of others would look like {with no flossing allowed}when the salmon are running, probably only a handful of actual fishermen.

I guess when I wish, I wish big  , but maybe I should just quit dreaming instead, since the flossing fools will always be there, like it or not.

[doja]

Just think, if {and it's a big if}, the DFO was to ban the flossing method and also make a leader restriction to say 36"s while fishing the rivers, we fishermen that actually try and trick the fish to bite our offering could maybe enjoy the river like we used to {many years ago now}

I wonder what bars like Peg Leg and Scale as well as a bunch of others would look like {with no flossing allowed}when the salmon are running, probably only a handful of actual fishermen.

I guess when I wish, I wish big  , but maybe I should just quit dreaming instead, since the flossing fools will always be there, like it or not.

Just to prove a point several years ago flossing sockeye, I used a short leader and guess what.... out did the other fishermen. My buddy with a looooong leader did just as well as me even though he highly doubted it.... A short leader can be just as good and in some situations DEADLY!!!

And yes, back in the day I knew only to floss.... but mainly because the bait/ethic groups were not friendly in helping me out but the flossing people did....

[BwiBwi]

Funny how some still kept on saying it's sports fishing.   This is recreational fishing.  Ethical or not it's for the enjoyment of being out there fishing.

Animal lovers would think any type of fishing is unethical.  It's like arguing over a 450 feet homerun is more of a homerun thann a 400 feet homerun while the end result's the same.