Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: for those who are against flossing  (Read 18055 times)

zabber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
  • Sometimes I fish, sometimes I catch
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2011, 05:53:44 PM »

on our fishing license it's called recreational not sports.

Here here!!

 :)
Logged
A rig out of water catches no fish.

liketofish

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2011, 11:59:37 PM »

Most people going fishing just want to treat it a recreation. So it is an appropriate title. I am not sure why we fish for sports. Sports are infested with steroid users. Not much ethics there.  ;D I am happy to fish for recreation, using the most effective method allowed by DFO. If sport fishing means challenging or more difficult, then sockeyes do not qualify. Steehlead & coho are much more like a sport fish then millions of soc. Driving 2 hours to take your limit in 2 casts is not sporting by any means.  :D
Logged

skaha

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2011, 11:52:43 AM »

Most people going fishing just want to treat it a recreation. So it is an appropriate title. I am not sure why we fish for sports. Sports are infested with steroid users. Not much ethics there.  ;D I am happy to fish for recreation, using the most effective method allowed by DFO. If sport fishing means challenging or more difficult, then sockeyes do not qualify. Steehlead & coho are much more like a sport fish then millions of soc. Driving 2 hours to take your limit in 2 casts is not sporting by any means.  :D

-- gofish often plants sterile fis and has trophy catch and release only lakes.. many feel these fish shouldn't count and in future may get an IGFA  * asterisk just like the ball players if record is broken.  If we didn't have a major wind storm going on here... I'd just go fishing instead of thinking about it.
Logged

jon5hill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 351
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2011, 10:21:26 PM »

Quote
Or one final way of looking at it: would you prefer that all sport fishermen were banned from flossing sockeyes? Thereby leaving 100% of the run for the FN and commercial guys? Would that make you feel better?

This would make me feel better. If people are interested in this fishery only because it's a means to get them, consider the economic comparison of spending gas money and going to Steveston once and buying all the sockeye you want and more (also higher quality) for a whole season vs going and spending hours on the river, losing gear, gas, and time.

Now with all that saved time, you could spend a few hours tossing chironomids at trout and certainly not be wasting your time!
Logged

gearjammer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2011, 11:57:36 PM »

If the DFO was so concerned obout flossing, why did they lift leader lenth restrictions?
Logged

Burbot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2011, 06:14:18 AM »

If the DFO was so concerned obout flossing, why did they lift leader lenth restrictions?

You assume DFO knows what they are doing.  Just look at how 'well' they managed the east coast....
Logged

doja

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2011, 07:18:29 AM »

You assume DFO knows what they are doing.  Just look at how 'well' they managed the east coast....

So are you saying the recreational sector killed it.... 
Logged

skaha

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2011, 11:20:15 AM »

If the DFO was so concerned obout flossing, why did they lift leader lenth restrictions?

--If you're going to floss leader length isn't an issue... can tie a spoon or spinner direct to a line and snagg.. not finese flossing but just as effective.
--how would you define a leader in court...different from main lne, line below a swivel etc. (inteded to be retorical questions)
--its not the rules that are at issue.
--really it is the person on the end of the rod that knows for certain if they are flossing or not.

--I like the speed signs in some states in USA.... they have stretches of road with big sign... speed limits strictly enforced!
--I think this would work as when I have driven through these signed areas... they nail you.. no question.

--So just admit that some fisheries and areas the management strategy is to allow harvest by any means to a maximum quota then fishery is closed in that area or the area after two weeks of harvest or quota is reached then is signed...recreational sport  fishing rules strictly enforced... and do it!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 02:48:33 PM by skaha »
Logged

typhoon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1328
Re: for those who are against flossing
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2011, 11:39:13 AM »

Leader length is obviously an issue. Talk to anyone at scale bar as to the effectiveness of a 15 foot leader vs 5 foot leader. They will tell you that a 30 foot leader is the way to go.
If flossing with a short leader is significantly less effective then more people will switch to more effective methods.

Leader length is the distance from the weight (or end of the weight in the case of a sink tip fly line) to the terminal tackle.
A spoon tied to mainline has no leader.
Logged