Print

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

[Stratocaster]

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.

I'd like to think that in a perfect world that both flossing and true sportsfishing can co-exist i.e. flossing is only practiced on the fraser for socs and true sportsfishing is done everywhere else.  But from what I've witness these past few years it clearly cannot.  Its too simplistic to classify all types of angling as being "recreational fishing" and just lump them all together and expect everything to be ok.  The fact of the matter is that when these flossing tactics are used on smaller rivers (like the Vedder) it negatively affects the ability of anglers wishing to fish in a more sporting manner (i.e. attempt to entice the fish to bite).  For example, you fish a run with your #4 hooks, 8lb florocarbon leader and a drennan float in hopes of being stealthy and fool a coho to taking your fire cured roe which you meticutiously prepared the day before.  In comes someone with typical sockeye gear, 50lb power pro, 4/0 hook and a 6 ft 30lb leader with a piece of green yarn as the lure and a 2 oz. betty and tries to floss his fish all the while spooking the whole run for the rest of the anglers.  Do you think that's ok?  Sure that guy is doing nothing illegal unless he fishes with a barbed hook or retains a fouled fish.  That's the problem.  There is nothing to stop someone from fishing that way.  Its easy for us to say leave it on the fraser for socs but that clearly isn't happening.  I'd be the first to admit that I've done my fair share of flossing in the past   I didn't do it this year and I doubt I'd ever do it again.  I don't get much enjoyment out of it and the negative impacts that result from this fishery far outweighs how good these fish taste. 

[Gooey]

In comes someone with typical sockeye gear, 50lb power pro, 4/0 hook and a 6 ft 30lb leader with a piece of green yarn

How many times has a guy like this:
See you having discovered a productive spot and walk in 5 feet away from you?
Walk in between you and a buddy who when there is not enough room?
Killed a hole you where fishing by beating it with a bouncing betty and turning the fish off?
Leave so much line in the water after a snag that you cant properly float fish it any more?
Drag a fish up on the rocks only to release it?
Released it with a boot to the side, sending the fish flying?
Kept a snagged fish because when you boil it all down, they DONT CARE how or where a fish is hooked?

BwiBwi...I dont care whether you call it recreational or sport fishing...either way these people are ruining it.

These are all things we see flossers do on a regular basis and its happening on every river I fish...if individuals here can't acknowledge that these are issues that need to be addressed (by DFO and recreational anglers alike) then I question those individuals commitment to the sport and the resource.

[Ed]

If you recognize that that bottom bouncing is a meat fishery where you snag your fish, why would you continue to catch and release when all you are doing is harassing the fish and likely stressing them to the point of preventing them from reaching the spawning grounds?

I think the focus for conservation is that we release them with minimal harm which means people shouldn't be dragging them on the beaches or booting them for the field goal. Bottom bouncing is just a method of fishing just like any other type. Other methods of fishing such as fly fishing or maybe even pinning (less experienced anglers) also have a huge chance in stressing the fish to a point where they are unable to make it to their spawning point. I remember in an earlier post by someone saying that you don't see people fined for the "method" of fishing they are using but you do if you are handling/releasing the fish inappropriately.

[Ed]

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.

 I totally agree, personally i don't get a chance to fish too often so if I do go on a fishing trip I'd like to make a day trip out of it because i really enjoy just being out there fishing. I don't get the luxuries of going to a river for a few hours couple times a week to go fish.

Thinking it from an ecological/environmental point of view..even if i did catch the max for me and my buddy at 4 each, my ecological footprint would still be a lot smaller than some of the seasoned fishermen out there who go out a few times a week. (considering every year i buy a annual fishing licence and probably fish 1-2 times).

I think if animal rights groups had power over our fishing regulations...we would have a lot less of these problems. We probably wouldn't be allowed to fish much throughout the years but at least the fish are happy 

[alwaysfishn]

I think the focus for conservation is that we release them with minimal harm which means people shouldn't be dragging them on the beaches or booting them for the field goal. Bottom bouncing is just a method of fishing just like any other type. Other methods of fishing such as fly fishing or maybe even pinning (less experienced anglers) also have a huge chance in stressing the fish to a point where they are unable to make it to their spawning point. I remember in an earlier post by someone saying that you don't see people fined for the "method" of fishing they are using but you do if you are handling/releasing the fish inappropriately.

I think you're missing my point. While I have no argument against bottom bouncing, you are after all snagging the fish. To continue fishing (snagging fish) for enjoyment is hard for me to understand. Continuing to floss after you have caught your limit even though you are careful in releasing the fish, causes stress and just gives the anti-flossers ammunition in their arguments.

In my mind catch and release fishing shouldn't be practiced on fish that are migrating, as the added stress probably does effect their survival. I would be fine with a rule that said after you have flossed your 2 sockeye you must limit your gear to a bar rig setup, or leave the river. But then I feel the catch and release fishery on the Thompson steelhead shouldn't be allowed either.

[Ed]

I think you're missing my point. While I have no argument against bottom bouncing, you are after all snagging the fish. To continue fishing (snagging fish) for enjoyment is hard for me to understand. Continuing to floss after you have caught your limit even though you are careful in releasing the fish, causes stress and just gives the anti-flossers ammunition in their arguments.

In my mind catch and release fishing shouldn't be practiced on fish that are migrating, as the added stress probably does effect their survival. I would be fine with a rule that said after you have flossed your 2 sockeye you must limit your gear to a bar rig setup, or leave the river. But then I feel the catch and release fishery on the Thompson steelhead shouldn't be allowed either.

 I agree with that. I've never tried to bottom bounce or ever fish at the bars.. so i wouldn't know how the scene is like.

[BwiBwi]

At the end of the day a hooked fish is just that a hooked fish.   The best fishing method to keep these 'home coming' salmon/trout healthy is no fishing.
Apart from that it's the handling of fish that's most important.   As for many that said BB on Fraser is like a gong show...  well so is tossing spoons for pinks around MR and Abbotsford area.

We live in a Metro with pop pushing towards 4mil mark, finding a piece of easy access fishing area with relative fish people fishing is very unlikely to happen.  If you want solitude, lots of hiking and exploration will be required (you'll also find more willing biters too.  *no matter what fishing methods are utilized, when you have a section of run having 10~20 people working it, fish becomes wary and would not take any offering). 

[Gooey]

At the end of the day a hooked fish is just that a hooked fish. 

Enticing a fish to bite and snagging it in the face are two totally different things.  Other than being a way to hook fish, they have nothing in common...even a supporter of flossing like AWF is smart enough to realize that.

[BwiBwi]

So you are saying a fish bite the bait and the hook didn't hook the fish??  Did the fish got glued or lassoed? 

[Sandman]

So you are saying a fish bite the bait and the hook didn't hook the fish??  Did the fish got glued or lassoed? 

If it were true that "a hooked fish is a hooked fish" then there would be no regulations against snagging and no need for a definition of "foul" hooked fish (since any hooked fish would be the same).  The difference between "foul" and "fair" has always been between a fish biting the hook and becoming hooked (it is "fair" because the fish was fooled into biting the hook), or the hook being driven into the fish by any other means (it is "foul" because a fish that is not enticed to bite is hooked anyway).  If you want to accept flossing as "fair" then you must accept any form of snagging as "fair" as well.  Recreational fishing becomes all about harvesting fish and forget about the "sport" (or art) of creating lures to fool the fish into biting and the satisfaction of a successful "bite".

We live in a Metro with pop pushing towards 4mil mark, finding a piece of easy access fishing area with relative fish people fishing is very unlikely to happen.  If you want solitude, lots of hiking and exploration will be required (you'll also find more willing biters too.  *no matter what fishing methods are utilized, when you have a section of run having 10~20 people working it, fish becomes wary and would not take any offering). 

 A bit of a circular argument...there are so many people fishing the run so the fish will not bite, since the fish will not bite the people fishing the run must floss them, since flossing fish is so easy more people are fishing the runs, since there are more people fishing the runs the fish will not bite...

If we extend that circular argument around then...
If the 10-20 people who were working the run in question were not allowed to floss then they would not catch as many fish, since they do not catch as many fish then many of them would not stay and fish, so there would be less people working the run and so the fish would be less shell shocked and more inclined to bite and so flossing would not be needed to catch the fish...

[alwaysfishn]

If you want to accept flossing as "fair" then you must accept any form of snagging as "fair" as well. 

Interesting approach but most would argue that your statement is ridiculous....

Flossing on the Fraser is legal and therefore acceptable to many fisherman that are targeting sockeye for their freezer. They wouldn't think of taking that technique to a river like the Vedder where the fish bite and the water is clean enough for the fish to be able to see a presentation.

Your generalization is true for a small percentage of the fishermen.

[Sandman]

Flossing on the Fraser is legal and therefore acceptable to many fisherman that are targeting sockeye for their freezer.

We already know that people already target springs in the same way on the Fraser, and from the reports on the Vedder Gong Show thread it is more than a "few" fisherman that would take this method to the clear waters of smaller streams.  But my question is directed at the Fraser fishery.

So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?

I am curious as to how you see the two as different, (other than the snagging happening near the mouth, which makes flossing "legal").  If your approach is that flossing in the Fraser (where the water is so dirty that the fish cannot see your presentation) is acceptable, why is snagging under those conditions not acceptable to you?  A simple change in the regulations could make it as legal as flossing. 

[alwaysfishn]

We already know that people already target springs in the same way on the Fraser, and from the reports on the Vedder Gong Show thread it is more than a "few" fisherman that would take this method to the clear waters of smaller streams.  But my question is directed at the Fraser fishery.

So would you accept ripping a bare weighted hook through the Fraser's water to snag a sockeye "for the freezer"?

I am curious as to how you see the two as different, (other than the snagging happening near the mouth, which makes flossing "legal").  If your approach is that flossing in the Fraser (where the water is so dirty that the fish cannot see your presentation) is acceptable, why is snagging under those conditions not acceptable to you?  A simple change in the regulations could make it as legal as flossing. 

I would support a rule that said as soon as you land your 2 sockeye using methods allowed under the regulations, you must leave the river.

I am curious as to why there isn't the same protest against commercial and native fishermen who "snag" sockeye in their nets.... Whether I floss a sockeye or a fisherman snags a sockeye in their net, both sockeye end up on someones table. Neither fisherman likely does it for sport, rather they do it to fill someones freezer. I make every effort to teach fisherman I meet on the difference between flossing for meat and fishing for sport. It's not difficult for people to understand once it's explained in a civil manner.

Perhaps the anti-flossers could use more of an educational approach to the problem of fishermen taking the Fraser flossing technique to the smaller rivers. Your current approach certainly isn't having any effect other than puffing up your own feathers...

[Sandman]

I am curious as to why there isn't the same protest against commercial and native fishermen who "snag" sockeye in their nets.... Whether I floss a sockeye or a fisherman snags a sockeye in their net, both sockeye end up on someones table. Neither fisherman likely does it for sport, rather they do it to fill someones freezer. I make every effort to teach fisherman I meet on the difference between flossing for meat and fishing for sport. It's not difficult for people to understand once it's explained in a civil manner.

Perhaps the anti-flossers could use more of an educational approach to the problem of fishermen taking the Fraser flossing technique to the smaller rivers. Your current approach certainly isn't having any effect other than puffing up your own feathers...

Now I am curious...are you suggesting that my approach (re-read my post above if you need to) is less "civil" than yours or that your approach is more "educational" than mine?  Is that what you are saying?  Just want to be sure I am not misunderstanding you, as at no time do I suggest that you are "puffing up your own feathers." 

I was just asking you to confirm what you just did, that you see no difference between snagging and flossing (or even netting) and that you feel the sockeye should be open to a private (or individual) harvest by individual anglers like a commercial or native opening, and that any method should be allowed to harvest them as "a hooked fish is a hooked fish" as BwiBwi said.  No one is complaining here about the netting of Sockeye because that is currently a completely different fishery and I have yet to see John Smith stringing a gill net across the Vedder canal because he saw a commercial fisherman do it on the Fraser.  Flossing as a method that uses the same gear as "angling", and the sockeye flossers carry the same "angling" license used on all rivers.  So it is easy to see why anyone who sees the effectiveness of flossing on the Fraser for sockeye would figure the same method would be effective elsewhere.  Once the "harvest" becomes more important than the pursuit, what is stopping them?  You cannot say it is  matter of "educating" anglers of the difference, as you yourself have pointed out, there is no difference.  If it is "legal" on the Fraser, it is "legal" on the Vedder, the Stave, even the Alouette.  The Question is should it be legal, if "snagging" is not.  What you want to see is a separate fishery, a Fraser River sockeye meat fishery (snagging optional) like they have in Alaska, but this would require separate permits (like commercial and native), so it is clear to all those who engage in it, that this is a limited opportunity fishery and cannot be transplanted to any other body of water or at any other time for any other species.

[alwaysfishn]

Sandman, I prefer to put things in my own words and don't feel the need to repeat myself.

I don't have a problem with your values, I do have a problem with how you present your values.