Print

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

[canso]

Would you weigh in a 20lb miss clip to the Boxing Day Derby?
I would hate to be in a situation where a CO or others question the legality of a fish.
Send it back, and pull a Sock. from the freezer for dinner.

[blaydRnr]

I have let go enough miss clips over the years..........because the law states "missing fin"

i've released more hatchery fish than i've ever retained only because i don't always feel like eating fish.


 

 

[blaydRnr]

Would you weigh in a 20lb miss clip to the Boxing Day Derby?
I would hate to be in a situation where a CO or others question the legality of a fish.
Send it back, and pull a Sock. from the freezer for dinner.

i've weighed in a steely at Fred's before with a spiny looking thing that stuck out where the adipose should have been...not one person in the shop (with about 15 customers and 3 staffs present) questioned whether it was a hatchery or wild...that's because common sense prevailed...if anything, some of them made fun of the way the spine looked, but they all referred to it as a misclip.

no such thing as a deformed adipose when a perfectly healed cut dominates the area where the rest of the fin is suppose to be.

[blaydRnr]

This is why I've never killed a miss clip........however after releasing the first one that I landed a few years ago, I was checked by a CO. I asked him about the fish which had about 50% of the adipose left with a healed scar. He informed me on how they clip them at the hatchery and that if a fish is missing any part of the adipose with a healed scar it is 100% hatchery.

So it seems that there may be some subjectivity regardless of what the regs state. The concern that I would have is the simple fact that you don't get to choose your CO! So try explaining that to the next CO you meet.....who has decided that you've just killed a wild fish......maybe the guy has a bit of a napoleon complex.....maybe he is not having the greatest day.....

I am not arguing that a miss clip fish is not a Hatchery fish, just that based on the letter of the law you could be screwed depending on the CO's interpretation.

Now realistically you will not have to worry about running into a CO on the Vedder  

in the past 5 years, i've caught about 6 misclips...of those, i released 4...of the 4, two of them i wasn't sure about (the other 2, i just didn't want)....moral of the story, if you're not sure release the fish...simple.

i guess for me, i feel confident because i've had interaction with CO's and even hatchery staff who assured me that misclips are totally legal.

[Dave]

Now realistically you will not have to worry about running into a CO on the Vedder  

Sad but so true hue-nut.  Don't blame the CO's ; sometimes they can't even gas up their trucks for a roundabout;  budgets are so restrained they really only respond to emergencies now ....
You will however meet a few keen Fishery Officers out there, and thanks for that

[blaydRnr]

Sad but so true hue-nut.  Don't blame the CO's ; sometimes they can't even gas up their trucks for a roundabout;  budgets are so restrained they really only respond to emergencies now ....
You will however meet a few keen Fishery Officers out there, and thanks for that

let's not forget the RCMP also have jurisdiction maybe it's time they expanded their duties to help with the short comings of the local fishery.

[hue-nut]

let's not forget the RCMP also have jurisdiction maybe it's time they expanded their duties to help with the short comings of the local fishery.

haha I think their time is better spent trying to control Chilliwack's "questionable" citizens. If they can't seem to catch some of the car thieves along the river my dollar says they aint gonna be investigating a potential wild fish kill

[blaydRnr]

haha I think their time is better spent trying to control Chilliwack's "questionable" citizens. If they can't seem to catch some of the car thieves along the river my dollar says they aint gonna be investigating a potential wild fish kill

Maybe it's because of their lack of presence that make it easy for thieves to break into cars and slash tires...ever think of that? and who's to say that poachers wouldn't think twice if they knew the police did periodical spot checks on licenses and retained fish?

"Chilliwack's questionable citizens?" LOL.... i think the questionable citizens you're referring to are busy breaking into cars and slashing tires along the vedder. 

[Sandy]

posting two replies that I have recieved from MOE those replies give no doubt to the reasons that this topic became so heated with seemingly polar oposits on interpretation.

an also brings to question that also became another heated debate a couple of years ago and to me reinforces the need to simplyfy the regs. As follows:


Hello George,

 

                Thank you for your email dated February 21, 2012, regarding the definition and retention of hatchery fish. Your enquiry has been forwarded to me for response.

 




                  The definitions of various species of hatchery fish are provided below:

 

“trout” means brook trout, brown trout, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, rainbow trout or steelhead.

 

“hatchery trout” means a trout of any kind that has a healed scar in place of the adipose fin.

 

“hatchery chinook salmon” means a chinook salmon that has a healed scar in place of the adipose, pelvic or pectoral fin, or in place of a maxillary.

 

“hatchery coho salmon” means a coho salmon that has a healed scar in place of the adipose, pelvic or pectoral fin, or in place of a maxillary.

 

                There is no reference to “mis-clipped” fish in the regulations, as such it is likely up to the discretion of a Conservation or Fisheries Officer, and possibly the opinion of a judge to determine whether or not a specific mis-clipped fish was legal to retain or not.

 

                My interpretation of this regulation is that the adipose fin must be completely removed and replaced with a healed scar. My rational for this is that the regulation does not state that a healed scar must be in place of “the adipose fin or a portion of the adipose fin”.

 

Regards,

 

Stephen MacIver|Policy & Regulations Analyst|Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch|Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations|Phone (250) 387-9767|Email: stephen.maciver@gov.bc.ca


 

 

From: doonhamer252@shaw.ca [mailto:doonhamer252@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:47 PM
To: Conservation Officer Service ENV:EX
Subject: miss clipped steelhead

 

 

I noted a rather lengthy discussing on on of the web sites ( Fishing With Rod) regarding the legality of keeping a “mis-clipped fish.

Pictures are accompanying the story.

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29419.0

 

my feeling is that unless there is a completely missing adipose fin and a healed scar it is not a keeper, yet several anglers tell us that they are keeping them as the mis-clipped. Some are claiming CO officers have told them it was OK and in one case the CO was present as the fish came to hand (a miss-clip) and told the angler it was OK to kill it.

 

 

Please clarify this situation so as we may get back to our full contact angling on the Chilliwack\Vedder. 

 

regards

George (Sandy) Vernon

and the other reply:

George Vernon
 
The intent of the clip fin is to allow the retention of hatchery fish. Sometimes at the hatchery the fin is not completely removed or is cut long . The fish, if it has the presence of a healed over scar is a hatchery fish and can be harvested.
 
Conservation Officer Paul McFadden/
Fraser Valley Zone/Conservation Officer Service/
Ministry of Environment/Box 3010, Cultus Lake, B.C.V2R 5H6/
Phone: 1-800-731-6373/Fax: 604-824-2319


So there you have it , A definitive answer

have at it!

[Rodney]

lol Sandy, even the staff cannot agree within the ministry.

While I personally think a mis-clipped is definitely a keeper and am very confident about the legality of my action, this issue may need to be revised by the ministry so the precise wordings are added into the regulations to avoid this situation. The same may also need to be done at DFO for hatchery-marked coho. I'll bring it up at the next SFAC meeting.

[Sandy]

fully agree Rod, Almost needs to be down to single sentence and bullet points. You may keep a fish............. providing the ....fin is completly removed and a healed scar is in it's place.

My point in this whole debate is that: I would not take the chance that when the interpretation of the reg is left up to whomever. This not to question the qualifications or motives of that person, it simply means that the cost too both sides may be great or potentialy could be so should another differ in it's intention. How can we expect a CO to enforce the legislation if his own co-workers or managers differ on what they in field feel is or should be the correct interpretation?
Perhaps as you said a change in wording or a directive posted? but... lesser experienced anglers may make mistakes in identifiying what is a miss-clip and what is just a damaged fin. Very easy with hindsight to say what is what, but in the heat of the moment, especialy so for the inexperienced?
personaly I,d copy and print those replies, Ifin you intend to keep what is identified as missclip.... just in case.

[hue-nut]

"Chilliwack's questionable citizens?" LOL.... i think the questionable citizens you're referring to are busy breaking into cars and slashing tires along the vedder. 

did you think I meant otherwise?

[Sandman]

McFadden's response mirrors my own, that the purpose of clipping the fin is to allow anglers to retain the fish and so it really doesn't matter if 100% of the fin was removed (or only 80% because the hatchery staff did not double check to see if they got it all), the bottom line is they clipped it at the hatchery (we know this because the scar healed over) so why not keep it?  Whereas, the analyst MacIver's response was pointing out the weakness in the language of the regulations that could cause individuals (fishers and COs) some trouble, so if you want to play it safe and avoid the possibility of having to defend your killing of a fish that had only part of its fin clipped off, then release it.  However, you do not have to feel like you are being unethical if you retain a fish that came from a hatchery when it was purposefully (if unskillfully) clipped so you would be able to keep it.

[bigblue]

McFadden's response mirrors my own, that the purpose of clipping the fin is to allow anglers to retain the fish and so it really doesn't matter if 100% of the fin was removed (or only 80% because the hatchery staff did not double check to see if they got it all), the bottom line is they clipped it at the hatchery (we know this because the scar healed over) so why not keep it?  Whereas, the analyst MacIver's response was pointing out the weakness in the language of the regulations that could cause individuals (fishers and COs) some trouble, so if you want to play it safe and avoid the possibility of having to defend your killing of a fish that had only part of its fin clipped off, then release it.  However, you do not have to feel like you are being unethical if you retain a fish that came from a hatchery when it was purposefully (if unskillfully) clipped so you would be able to keep it.

Well said Sandman.

[skaha]

--my argument is that it is a grey area thus a professional should not take the chance as they must not be perceived to be guilty.
--I think it would be a tough call for a guide if a client wanted to bonk it... they should recommend against bonking it... they should tell the client up front before a fish is caught what the call will be.
--Whenever there is discreation and advice ministry staff should be presenting to the public black and white... no portion of adipose and healed scar... as there is no wording or illustration in the regs that indicates a mis-clipped is OK to keep. Discreation does not mean YES it's OK 
--Even though the concensus seems to be that mis-clipped feature is likely a hatchery fish and in most cases hatchery fish are intended to be kept within quota and season it does not make it OK unless the defenition is changed. 
--Even adding a definition of mis-clipped... how MISed would it have to be 1/2, 1/4, elongated flap etc. would likely end up with similar resulting discussion.