Print

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

[Fish Assassin]

They'll just tie on a buzz bomb or spoon to the end of their line and rip away

[DanL]

There's no reg stating that the fish needs to strike. That's why people floss; they can hook fish legally without having to illicit a bite. Some argue it's a skillful angling method while others argue it's unsportsmanlike and/or unethical.

Not to single you out specifically, but I'll use this post as an example of this particular argument. IMHO it's playing lawyerball to justify this method of 'fishing'. While it may be currently technically within the rules, to me it simply does not pass the sniff test of sport angling. Ask any layperson how to catch a fish, and they'll likely reply 'get the fish to bite the hook/bait/lure'. I doubt many people would say you cast your line in the hopes that it smacks the fish 'somewhere in the mouth area'. I think instinctively, people equate fishing with getting the fish to bite, period. The fact that flossing may be quite technical and require a non-trivial amount of of skill is immaterial.

For comparison, consider the defintion of snagging in the Oregon regulations: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/docs/2012_Statewide_Fish_Regs.pdf

Snagging: Hooking or attempting to hook fish other than inside the mouth (emphasis mine)

Furthermore, apparently they are adopting new rules for 2013 to further clarify the definition of snagging:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/public_process/docs/Summary_of_Final_Rules_Adopted_2013_Regulations_9-17-2012.pdf

Page 9 - General Statewide Regulations; Definition of “Snagging”

Redefine “Snagging” to help enforce anti-snagging regulations.

Existing Rule: Snagging “Hooking or attempting to hook fish other than
inside the mouth.”

Proposed Definition: Snagging “Taking or attempting to take a fish with
a hook and line in any way or manner where the fish is not enticed to
voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth. Gamefish which are hooked
other than inside of its mouth must be released immediately unharmed.”

Rationale: Help to curtail illegal snagging activities and allow legitimate
anglers more opportunities to fish for and catch salmon and steelhead. 
Oregon State Police officers will be able to articulate in court that the
angler’s actions are not conducive to a fish “voluntarily” taking the hook in
its mouth. By considering the anglers fishing technique, along with any gear
configuration, officers can communicate in courts that the violator is doing
the opposite of “attracting” fish. In other words, the gear is chasing the fish,
versus the fish chasing the gear.[/i] (emphasis mine)

To me this is a nicely concise and clear definition of the intent of the regulations meant to define the sport of fishing. I dont know that this new wording is meant to diffuse the proliferation of flossing, but it seems likely. Just for arguments sake, lets say similar wording was adopted in the BC regs. Would you oppose it and what would be your rationale for not redefining snagging in such a manner?

[alwaysfishn]

You can make all the regulations you want.......  if the resources to hire enforcement officers are not there, the definitions do not mean anything. Hunters and boaters need to take a test (and in some cases a course) in order to have the ability to boat or hunt..... why not have fishermen take a similar test.

As difficult as it may be to accept, I believe most of the fishermen who are using snagging techniques on the Vedder do not know any different.

[Meeeks85]

Saw this guy there that day.  In a matter of an hour, he must have snagged 5 fish and then to add salt to the wound, he would "play" with it until it is near death.  He couldn't even touch the fish to unhook it.  He would bring it to shore and unhook it barely touching the fish then just throws it back in the water.... I actually took a video of him but it wasn't very clear.  My friend said something to him but he just replied with "they are fine, it swam away"

[LP89CG]

I think this topic has been beat to death.

All you can do is educate people around you. If they dont want to change then thats up to them. Since flossing is an allowed form there is not much anyone can do.

This thread is the same as the 2012 Floss Out thread.

Maybe people just need a place to go to express their frustration, but how many different ways can you say the same thing?

[t-bone]

of note: more enforcement or at least presence would help. Also, I  think if it gets really bad than a lottery (more $$$) would get rid of alot of these hacks.

[RalphH]

I have a couple of modest proposals to reform the Chilliwack/Vedder Fishery:

• close the hatchery or at the least stop stocking the river. The 2 prime native species, coho and steelhead seem to be doing quite well judging by the number of wild fish caught as are pinks, the summer run of sockeye and chum even though there have been some issues with low returns on that species. The hatchery could be used to raise fish for stocking other less fished systems in the area. However I feel don't we need it and the funds could go to better enforcement and habitat maintenance. After all any extra enforcement is better over the negligible amount we see these days
• charge a daily angling fee. Even a modest charge in the $5 to $10 per day range would dissuade most causal meat anglers from fishing. Everyone would have to display a visible date marked  permit. This is done in other jurisdictions. Some harvest could be allowed - no more than 2 fish a day of all species. Coho and steelhead via a tag system only. Tags would have a charge and be limited. Availability would possibly be best via a lottery

Now I am sure a lot of people who bemoan the growth of flossing and the continuation of snagging (just as prevalent 40 years ago when I first fished the river) will find such suggestions unpalatable but the problem is the over produced availability of fish and the easy low cost access. That's what brings so many people with no ethical standards or regard for even existing regs to the river. Make 'em pay and reduce the tangible rewards, those people will be gone.

Cheers

[zabber]

To me this is a nicely concise and clear definition of the intent of the regulations meant to define the sport of fishing. I dont know that this new wording is meant to diffuse the proliferation of flossing, but it seems likely.

Agreed.

lets say similar wording was adopted in the BC regs. Would you oppose it and what would be your rationale for not redefining snagging in such a manner?

No, I wouldn't oppose it. As I've expressed on this board in the past, I have no particular attachment to flossing, and I can buy the arguement that it's "unsportsmanlike" (if you define sportfishing as an activity in which the objective is to illicit a fish to strike a lure). However, I currently hold a 2012/2013 Non-Tidal Angling Licence, which allows me to angle (see Synopsis for definition). Like many others, I've partaken in the sockeye "meat fishery" with virtually no illusions as to what I was doing (angling vs. "sportfishing"), despite reports of sockeye caught on bar-rigs. I haven't take the "moral high ground" on this matter because I don't believe there is one.

[zabber]

I can buy the arguement that it's "unsportsmanlike" (if you define sportfishing as an activity in which the objective is to illicit a fish to strike a lure)... angling vs. "sportfishing"

Hmm... Was thinking about this today so took another look at the Synopsis. It says:

Although angling is the most popular form of
sport fishing in British Columbia, there are
other methods that you can use to take fish.
Your basic fishing licence entitles you to:
angle - fish (with or without a rod) with
one fishing line to which only one hook,
one artificial lure OR one artificial fly is
attached.
down-rig …
ice fish …
set line …
spear fish …
trap crayfish …

Seems that they're saying that there's more than one type of sportfishing. Not sure whether they're including spear fishing and trapping crayfish as sportfishing.

Again, it all comes down to definition, so I guess if you define sportsfishing as elicting a game fish to strike then flossing could not be considered angling. And while I hear what you're saying ("ask any layperson how to catch a fish, and they'll likely reply 'get the fish to bite the hook/bait/lure'") I challenge you to ask around; I've actually nonpartisanly explained the flossing debate to new & non anglers and have found that the majority have replied "who cares [if the fish didn't bite/was lined]?" The fact that officers do nothing but check licences and ticket people for fishing past boundaries at the popular bars suggests that flossing is just a wee bit more acceptable -- in the eyes of the law -- than ripping a barbed treble through a school and dragging in fish @$$ backwards

Does that make it right? I guess that's up to each individual angler to decide for him-/her-self. As has been mentioned before on this forum, if you ask certain aboriginals they'll tell you that CnR sportsfishing is unethical; for where's the sport in "molesting" fish?

But that's it for entertaining this argument from me, DanL; I've promised Nitro to give it a rest

[bcguy]

myself and another buddy at work have been debating this and think we have come up with a good idea for DFO to easily end the flossing issue. Perhaps Rodney or soem of the other more experienced people can comment what the likelyhood of it happening would be?
Issue a maximum leader length for specific rivers, say C/V river maximum leader length cannot exceed 24".
This would basically eliminate ALOT of the flossers not by actually fining them, but by cutting down on their productivity. Let's all face it, as long as the flossers can actually catch fish, which they always seem to do, they are not going to stop because it is productive for them. But, if they shortened down those 8' leaders to 24" i would be willing to bet a few trips home empty handed and they might start re-thinking their so-called technique. Especially when the only people around actually catching fish are the ones doing it the right way.
Just my opinion, but i would love to hear some responses, thanks.

The problem with the restricted leader length idea is that most of these guys run 10 ft of line under the float before the 24" of leader material even starts 

[bigsnag]

In reading many of the posts referring to a lack of funding for CO's to enforce regulations,I would suggest that a portion of fishing license fees go towards funding enforcement on rivers rampant with reports of noncompliance of regulations. A portion of freshwater licenses already goes to The Freshwater fishing Society to fund trout hatcheries and developement for interior trout fisheries ,why not enforcement. 

   If this could be the case I and many of you out there in support of this idea would gladly pay ie: a 10-15% surcharge if it was specifically designated towards funding enforcement. An increase in enforcement means more ticket/fines revenue which a % would be allocated back into enforcement funding. With continued violation reporting for Co's to act on, this idea would be self supporting and the sports fishery would be funding its own enforcement costs.

Rodney,Chris, has this idea ever been raised at  any of your user groups meetings over the past years? 

[kalex60]

I would really like to see just once the dfo acutally show up when we call. Called over 11 time on 4 different rivers with no response by the dfo either than them saying there is noone in the area. Dont know why I even bother calling anymore if they are not going to show up.

[Dave]

I would really like to see just once the dfo acutally show up when we call. Called over 11 time on 4 different rivers with no response by the dfo either than them saying there is noone in the area. Dont know why I even bother calling anymore if they are not going to show up.

Three Fishery Officers at the KWB today ...  there has probably been more presence and enforcement by DFO this year on the Chilliwack-Vedder than any I can recall so it shows the calls do work but, there are only so many FO's to cover such a large territory ...

[kalex60]

Three Fishery Officers at the KWB today ...  there has probably been more presence and enforcement by DFO this year on the Chilliwack-Vedder than any I can recall so it shows the calls do work but, there are only so many FO's to cover such a large territory ...

nice to hear they are there but what about all the smaller rivers or the stave

[dennisK]

Three Fishery Officers at the KWB today ...  there has probably been more presence and enforcement by DFO this year on the Chilliwack-Vedder than any I can recall so it shows the calls do work but, there are only so many FO's to cover such a large territory ...

So why 3 at kwb? Why not just 1 and 2 others elsewhere? I was at tamahi and railway bridge and saw some pretty outrageous violations .Called RAPP fwiw.

Seriously, if they need 3 officers to do what..hold hands?