Print

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

[glog]

Couple fo comments on the debate.
1. Fish biting you guys are contradicting yourselves, the non flossing group states that fish don't bite in the Fraser because they cant see etc. Yet promotes Bar fishing which involves a fish biting . So obviously the fish do bite in the Fraser.

2. Bottom bouncing is a legal technique, and has various forms. In clear water say on the Chehalis, I use various combination with 6 and 8 lb test, sometimes no weight just  a dew worm or ball of roe or wool, sometimes with a split shot or two. Had some great days with the springs. Yes sometimes fish get tangled but its no different that fly fishing with a sinking line or adding a split shot to a fly line. Big Difference is the splashing of the fly line on the surface of the water will spook the fish, the lighter line doesn't.  As for the Fraser that's a different story, technique is legal, and the interception is a minute fraction of the total fish population.  Instead fo arguing over the small % , we should do something about the largest problem, that is the nets in particular drift nets.  Can you imagine the huge increase in fish population if drift nets were banned from the Fraser. Let the FN use their traditional techniques, no problem and let them have a longer opening , but lets stop the main culprit that is hurting the fishery that's the DRIFT Nets.

3. In line with point 2, I say again because it is critical, the % of fish hooked by recreational fisherman of all types is only a small fraction of the total catch.  If people and DFO are serious about the fish populations then the largest takers of the fish need to be controlled and managed not the smallest.

I have no problem with FN right to fish, but the drift net is an expediency not a right.

So solution easy Ban the drift nets completely, leave the set nets, rod fishing with single hook, dip buckets etc but get rid of the DRIFT nets and these discussion would not be required.

[jimmywits]

Bottom bouncing/flossing should not even be allowed to do IMO.
 A bunch of weekend warriors out to fill the freezer. If it was impossible to floss a salmon, 50% of the people fishing/snagging the rivers would not even be there.
I would pay double for my fishing license yearly to cover the cost of the snaggers not being there.
If the fish does not bite the hook, it does not deserve to be taken out of his habitat. If you cant convince the fish to bite the hook, then your just not ready to catch one at this point in your fishing hobby...  Just my thoughts on it all.

x2 Well stated

[Kype]

Its not the method .... its the person.  ANY method can be used to snag fish. 

We need more CO's and enforcement and that will only happen when the license at least doubles, it is ridiculous how little we pay .... and thus how little goes back into the pot to manage this wonderful fishery.

We are the envy of many around the world .... let's keep it that way!!

[notracy]

HI!! Long time listener first time poster. First thing that has caught my eye and attention on this subject of flossing, is the discussion of length of leader. Now from what I understand both float and bottom fishermen seem to agree that anything over 36" leader your flossing them it seems, correct me if I am wrong?
Secondly it seems theres a general consensus that if your a bottom bouncer, your a flosser, no questions asked.


So here's my dilemna, I have fished the vedder, chehalis, and the harrison for 7 years now. I regularly see Float fisherman, with there 24-36" leaders, yet there float is set almost on the bottom of the river anyways, and I also see them reef there rod high in the air, for what almost seems like no reason. So my question is how is this ANY different from any of these bottom bouncing dudes?


When I first started salmon river fishing i was not taught anything. Asking fellow fisherman on the river was a very chilly situation. They simply didn't want the competition or could care less. I bottom bounced for 4 years before i learned about the float set up. In this time I watched MANY float fisherman troll the bottom with their floats, bait, wool etc and SNAG OMG i don't know how many fish. They all just jerk their lines constantly to a point its very distracting. Yet within these 4 years of bottom bouncing I only ever snagged 1 Chum. I felt absolutely horrible! Never mind trying to haul the hog in! it was brutal.
In my 7 years total I have only ever snagged 1 more fish and that was with a lure on the chehalis. Again I felt horrible.

As a Newbie I was easily able to tell when a fish bit while bottome bouncing. It takes less than an hour to figure this out. As a float fisherman its the same deal. you can feel your line hitting a school of fish is way different than one actually taking a bite. I have fished 2 pink years as well with no snags.

I have morals and ethics especially when fishing. And I do take issue with people catching and keeping fish illegally caught. But I myself and i am sure many others, that either bottom bounce, use wool, or 3-5' leaders are able to fish like this and not floss a fish or snag them. Simply being patient for when the fish bite.

So I am trying to understand why there seems to be an "elitist Fishermens" group that has a large discriminatory reaction to those that don't fish as they do??

p.s. In my 7 years I have never caught a sockey salmon

[glog]

I also have a problem with leader length discussions.

I for one vary my leader length based on where I am fishing.  faster water shorter slower water longer.

I get my Coho mostly on a bull back when the bait, lowly is held back and rises a few inches of the bottom, does not matter whether its float or lightly bottom bouncing that's when they bite.

So I don't think there is one size fits all, it depends on the water flow and conditions at the time. 

[trot]

Couple fo comments on the debate.
1. Fish biting you guys are contradicting yourselves, the non flossing group states that fish don't bite in the Fraser because they cant see etc. Yet promotes Bar fishing which involves a fish biting . So obviously the fish do bite in the Fraser.

2. Bottom bouncing is a legal technique, and has various forms. In clear water say on the Chehalis, I use various combination with 6 and 8 lb test, sometimes no weight just  a dew worm or ball of roe or wool, sometimes with a split shot or two. Had some great days with the springs. Yes sometimes fish get tangled but its no different that fly fishing with a sinking line or adding a split shot to a fly line. Big Difference is the splashing of the fly line on the surface of the water will spook the fish, the lighter line doesn't.  As for the Fraser that's a different story, technique is legal, and the interception is a minute fraction of the total fish population.  Instead fo arguing over the small % , we should do something about the largest problem, that is the nets in particular drift nets.  Can you imagine the huge increase in fish population if drift nets were banned from the Fraser. Let the FN use their traditional techniques, no problem and let them have a longer opening , but lets stop the main culprit that is hurting the fishery that's the DRIFT Nets.

3. In line with point 2, I say again because it is critical, the % of fish hooked by recreational fisherman of all types is only a small fraction of the total catch.  If people and DFO are serious about the fish populations then the largest takers of the fish need to be controlled and managed not the smallest.

I have no problem with FN right to fish, but the drift net is an expediency not a right.

So solution easy Ban the drift nets completely, leave the set nets, rod fishing with single hook, dip buckets etc but get rid of the DRIFT nets and these discussion would not be required.

Hoards of people snagging fish is not a small problem.Sure the sport fishermen take the smallest percentage but that doesn't mean what they are doing is right.

Your other point about fish not biting in the fraser, it means the fish you guys are snagging in the face with green wool are not biting....bar fishing uses a lure set in a spot with or without bait/scent....If positioned properly the fish swim to it, and bite.....Big difference between sweeping a piece of wool and a stationary bait.The spin n glow or any other lure also gives off a vibration in the water the fish can pick up.Nice try though.

[zabber]

@goog, but also for others + future reference:


For clarification, and without getting into exact specifics (so as not to encourage more greenhorns to fencepost), the term "bottom bouncing" the Fraser for sockeye is generally accepted as referring to the practice of tossing 1.5-5oz of lead into the river, from which a hook attached to 6-15+feet of leader is trailing.

The principle behind this practice is that the fish are "lined;" the long leader gets pulled (roughly) horizontally along the river bottom until it gets pulled into a fishes open mouth (picture yourself flossing your teeth; this is how the line enters the fishes mouth and this is how the name for this angling practice was coined). The weight continues downstream, pulling the line through the fishes mouth until the hook arrives at its head. If the hook is angled correctly, then BAM; "FISH O-O-O-ON!!" Sometimes the fish are hooked in the mouth (as in, under the tounge, through the roof of the mouth, etc.), but often they are hooked in the head (i.e. from "outside in"; e.g. in the cheek, in the snout, etc). Occasionally, a fish is hooked in the tail or side, but this is a rare occurrence (~1% of fish) if the angler is not "ripping" the hook throughout the bounce, or at the end of it.

The fact that fish are being lined is evidenced by the observation that bare hooks can catch just (or nearly) as many fish, as well as hookset observations (i.e. fish being hooked in the head -- instead of in the mouth -- and on the opposite side of the angler, to boot). This should also be evidence enough that the (vast) majority of the fish aren't biting these tiny, fast-moving rigs. Fish that are hooked inside the mouth are almost certainly done so by chance, and I would wager decent money that TNAngler's observation that the fish won't "bite" a different coloured wool is either: A) a fluke, or B) a lie. Since the post seems troll-like, I'm leaning towards B), but having participated in this fishery a few times I know from experience that the fishing "turns on and off," due to the way the fish migrate, so A) is certainly possible and -- in the spirit of "benefit of the doubt" -- is my official position.

As to why the fish "feel" like they are biting/hitting? Well, this is simply because, to the uninitiated, that's how it feels when 3oz of lead, under tension, suddenly comes to a dead stop and changes direction. In fact, the force imparted by the weight travelling downstream is such that the angler does not need to set the hook on these fish; the hook is set once it hits the fish.


Now, all of that brings us to TNAngler's main query "what's the big deal with bottom bouncing?" and if you've followed the above, thus far, you may instinctively understand the short of it: it's a grey area. The long of it follows:

Technically, the regs state that "snagging (foul hooking) is hooking a fish in any other part of its body other than the mouth. Attempting to snag fish of any species is prohibited. Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately."

As others have mentioned, this reg prohibits an angler from willfully trying to hook a fish by the side, etc. (e.g. "gripping and ripping"). That being the case, an angler could bottom bounce the Fraser for fish -- when sockeye are open and/or if they are not being asked to selectively target Chinook (or other species) -- and be fishing legally. However, such an angler should expect to release about 50% of fish (as they won't be hooked in the mouth). Also, such an angler can expect to be "called out" -- particularly on an internet forum -- as lining fish is not considered to be sporting by more than a few anglers. The reason for this is an ethical one. Ethics, in case you don't know, is concerned with "what is right." This is not always synonymous with "what is legal." Many things that are legal are not considered to be right, and vice versa. In this case, flossing fish is legal, but considered to be unsportsmanlike by some, who consider sportsfishing to involve getting a game fish to bite. Many will also take issue with the high % of fish that are foul-hooked. Of course, due to the nature of ethics, some take the other side of the argument: that BC issues an "angling licence" and the angler is to entitled to catch fish by whatever means is allowable, according to the regulations/Synopsis. Their ethics are elsewhere.

As long as the regulations are what they are, the flossing debate will almost certainly rage on annually -- around mid-summer -- with insults such as "snaggart" and "meat head" being flung by one side, while betties are flung by the other. Then there are those who pop the corn, crack the beer, and enjoy the show, and those who are busy fishing other flows. Had I not felt the need to right past wrongs, I might be among them right now

Of course, at this point in time, there is also another factor that makes bottom bouncing an even bigger deal; something that it appears TNAngler was unaware of. As others have already elaborated on this, I will not do so, but will summarize it briefly:
- As Rod said, and as alluded to above: sockeye are currently closed for recreational angling (not just retention). That means you are not even lawfully allowed to play "catch & release" with them.
- The only salmon open for angling in the Fraser are Chinook ?and pink?, and anglers are asked to use SELECTIVE methods in targeting this/these species. Selective methods include: casting and retrieving spoons and spinners, bar fishing spin n' glows, fly fishing, floating roe, etc. Selective fishing methods DO NOT include bottom bouncing (because bottom bouncing hooks all fish that swim upstream with their mouths open). There is no such thing as "selective" bottom bouncing, even if one claims to be "casting where the kings are."
- Those bottom bouncing the Fraser right now for Chinook ?and pinks? are fishing unlawfully (because they are, affectively, fishing for sockeye as well. Recall: SOCKEYE ARE CLOSED FOR RECREATIONAL ANGLING, INCLUDING CATCH & RELEASE!). This changes bottom bouncing from an ethical issue (grey area) into a legal one (black area).
- Water temperatures are at record highs. Sockeye are a cold water fish. Catching and releasing these fish unlawfully is putting additional extra strain on a recovering run, even if the strained fish are a "minority." (NOTE: this year's run of sockeye is the return from the abysmal 1.x mil that we saw in 2009; numbers are not yet in but it is far from a "strong" run.) This makes the actions of all the fenceposts on the Fraser right now that much more reprehensible.

[clarki]

Well said Rodney, and I love this perspective GordJ

I have no problem with flossing sockeye but, as Rodney points out, a 50 to 2 ratio isn't fishing for springs, it is a 4% bycatch.

The flossing debate is a red herring.

Irregardless of FOC's request to use selective fishing methods, IMHO, it is irresponsible, even unethical, to catch and release so many sockeye while searching for chinook.

[shuswapsteve]

Don't care if my socks are flossed or not just as long as they are barbecued or canned.

Best post of the whole thread.

[Sandy]

@goog, but also for others + future reference:


For clarification, and without getting into exact specifics (so as not to encourage more greenhorns to fencepost), the term "bottom bouncing" the Fraser for sockeye is generally accepted as referring to the practice of tossing 1.5-5oz of lead into the river, from which a hook attached to 6-15+feet of leader is trailing.

The principle behind this practice is that the fish are "lined;" the long leader gets pulled (roughly) horizontally along the river bottom until it gets pulled into a fishes open mouth (picture yourself flossing your teeth; this is how the line enters the fishes mouth and this is how the name for this angling practice was coined). The weight continues downstream, pulling the line through the fishes mouth until the hook arrives at its head. If the hook is angled correctly, then BAM; "FISH O-O-O-ON!!" Sometimes the fish are hooked in the mouth (as in, under the tounge, through the roof of the mouth, etc.), but often they are hooked in the head (i.e. from "outside in"; e.g. in the cheek, in the snout, etc). Occasionally, a fish is hooked in the tail or side, but this is a rare occurrence (~1% of fish) if the angler is not "ripping" the hook throughout the bounce, or at the end of it.

The fact that fish are being lined is evidenced by the observation that bare hooks can catch just (or nearly) as many fish, as well as hookset observations (i.e. fish being hooked in the head -- instead of in the mouth -- and on the opposite side of the angler, to boot). This should also be evidence enough that the (vast) majority of the fish aren't biting these tiny, fast-moving rigs. Fish that are hooked inside the mouth are almost certainly done so by chance, and I would wager decent money that TNAngler's observation that the fish won't "bite" a different coloured wool is either: A) a fluke, or B) a lie. Since the post seems troll-like, I'm leaning towards B), but having participated in this fishery a few times I know from experience that the fishing "turns on and off," due to the way the fish migrate, so A) is certainly possible and -- in the spirit of "benefit of the doubt" -- is my official position.

As to why the fish "feel" like they are biting/hitting? Well, this is simply because, to the uninitiated, that's how it feels when 3oz of lead, under tension, suddenly comes to a dead stop and changes direction. In fact, the force imparted by the weight travelling downstream is such that the angler does not need to set the hook on these fish; the hook is set once it hits the fish.


Now, all of that brings us to TNAngler's main query "what's the big deal with bottom bouncing?" and if you've followed the above, thus far, you may instinctively understand the short of it: it's a grey area. The long of it follows:

Technically, the regs state that "snagging (foul hooking) is hooking a fish in any other part of its body other than the mouth. Attempting to snag fish of any species is prohibited. Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately."

As others have mentioned, this reg prohibits an angler from willfully trying to hook a fish by the side, etc. (e.g. "gripping and ripping"). That being the case, an angler could bottom bounce the Fraser for fish -- when sockeye are open and/or if they are not being asked to selectively target Chinook (or other species) -- and be fishing legally. However, such an angler should expect to release about 50% of fish (as they won't be hooked in the mouth). Also, such an angler can expect to be "called out" -- particularly on an internet forum -- as lining fish is not considered to be sporting by more than a few anglers. The reason for this is an ethical one. Ethics, in case you don't know, is concerned with "what is right." This is not always synonymous with "what is legal." Many things that are legal are not considered to be right, and vice versa. In this case, flossing fish is legal, but considered to be unsportsmanlike by some, who consider sportsfishing to involve getting a game fish to bite. Many will also take issue with the high % of fish that are foul-hooked. Of course, due to the nature of ethics, some take the other side of the argument: that BC issues an "angling licence" and the angler is to entitled to catch fish by whatever means is allowable, according to the regulations/Synopsis. Their ethics are elsewhere.

As long as the regulations are what they are, the flossing debate will almost certainly rage on annually -- around mid-summer -- with insults such as "snaggart" and "meat head" being flung by one side, while betties are flung by the other. Then there are those who pop the corn, crack the beer, and enjoy the show, and those who are busy fishing other flows. Had I not felt the need to right past wrongs, I might be among them right now

Of course, at this point in time, there is also another factor that makes bottom bouncing an even bigger deal; something that it appears TNAngler was unaware of. As others have already elaborated on this, I will not do so, but will summarize it briefly:
- As Rod said, and as alluded to above: sockeye are currently closed for recreational angling (not just retention). That means you are not even lawfully allowed to play "catch & release" with them.
- The only salmon open for angling in the Fraser are Chinook ?and pink?, and anglers are asked to use SELECTIVE methods in targeting this/these species. Selective methods include: casting and retrieving spoons and spinners, bar fishing spin n' glows, fly fishing, floating roe, etc. Selective fishing methods DO NOT include bottom bouncing (because bottom bouncing hooks all fish that swim upstream with their mouths open). There is no such thing as "selective" bottom bouncing, even if one claims to be "casting where the kings are."
- Those bottom bouncing the Fraser right now for Chinook ?and pinks? are fishing unlawfully (because they are, affectively, fishing for sockeye as well. Recall: SOCKEYE ARE CLOSED FOR RECREATIONAL ANGLING, INCLUDING CATCH & RELEASE!). This changes bottom bouncing from an ethical issue (grey area) into a legal one (black area).
- Water temperatures are at record highs. Sockeye are a cold water fish. Catching and releasing these fish unlawfully is putting additional extra strain on a recovering run, even if the strained fish are a "minority." (NOTE: this year's run of sockeye is the return from the abysmal 1.x mil that we saw in 2009; numbers are not yet in but it is far from a "strong" run.) This makes the actions of all the fenceposts on the Fraser right now that much more reprehensible.

well put!

to identify and target a species of fish not open to fishing is illegal! you did that , by you're own admission , you said if you know what you're doing,you can get them to bite and that you were catching. GUILTY as charged!.
 However "we" I'd say a very high percentage of the river anglers out there have done what you were doing, and partaken in the BB style of fishing; I do believe the style or the use of bottom bouncers can be amended to a more ethical way, ( problem really boils down to ambiguous language in the regs regarding leader length), hopefully, most become reformed, and are more educated in the actual process / science of the bite.

I'm sure you are now not surprised in the hostile nature in responces to you're post and with your reasoning behind it.

wishing you good and ethical fishing adventures in the future.

[dennyman]

Also, those who are catch and releasing sockeye while bottom bouncing should read Shuswap Steve's post on " Where are the Sockeye".  The paper he refers to examines the detrimental effect of handling sockeye salmon in the Fraser River especially as water temperature increases.

[chris gadsden]

Also, those who are catch and releasing sockeye while bottom bouncing should read Shuswap Steve's post on " Where are the Sockeye".  The paper he refers to examines the detrimental effect of handling sockeye salmon in the Fraser River especially as water temperature increases.

Here it is for those that may have missed it.
http://faculty.forestry.ubc.ca/hinch/Robinson%20et%20al.%202013%20Cons%20Physio.pdf

[farky]

Salmon supplement states, to be determined for sockeye. It does not state no fishing for ,which would mean if you happen to catch one you simply must release it quickly and carefully. Also i can not find where it states selective methods when fishing for  chinook's, either in the supplement or fisheries notice as it has in previous years . If someone can provide that great, however until then this argument is invalid whether it is ethical or not. Just another installment of the annual pissing match, until they make it very clear that bottom bouncing is for the sockeye fishery only, and all other species must be released if using this method. What i would like to see in the future is no bouncing while sockeye are closed,when it is open get your two and either change methods, or go home and release all other species. 

[notracy]

For clarification, and without getting into exact specifics (so as not to

encourage more greenhorns to fencepost), the term "bottom bouncing" the
Fraser
for sockeye is generally accepted as referring to the practice of
tossing
1.5-5oz of lead into the river, from which a hook attached to
6-15+feet of
leader is trailing.

Thank you for the clarification on the bottom bouncing methods typically used on th Fraser. I understand now more why people would be upset with this method, as no doubt it would be flossing. I have never fished the fraser nor will i probably ever. especially if this is the method used.
Again thank you for heling me understand the "flossing" issue a little more

 

[zabber]

Salmon supplement states, to be determined for sockeye. It does not state no fishing for

Yes, but the most recent fishery notice says very clearly:

"...
 
Subject:  FN0721-Salmon - Fraser River Sockeye Update - Areas 11 to 29 - August 9, 2013 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
As a result of the reduced Summer run abundance and increase management
adjustment factor First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial fisheries targeting
Fraser sockeye are being closed in an orderly fashion to reduce the impacts on
Summer run sockeye.  Fishers are requested to check for opening times and any
restrictions in their local areas. There are no planned Canadian commercial or
recreational fisheries directed on Fraser sockeye at this time."

In other words, recreational Fraser sockeye fishing is NOT open at this time. In other words, it's closed, and -- as Sandy said -- by fishing for sockeye you are committing an offence. By bottom bouncing you are targeting all salmon species, including the sockeye, even if you are 'not trying to.' This has been demonstrated by TNAngler. It doesn't matter whether you're not being asked to fish selectively for Chinook, the fact is: SOCKEYE ARE CLOSED FOR FISHING, regardless of whether or not DFO has stated that selective methods be used for targeting springs.

But, you're right, they have not stated that (AFAI can tell); it was wrong of me to assume.

If someone can provide that great, however until then this argument is invalid whether it is ethical or not.

False. Again, there are currently no recreational fisheries directed at sockeye. The fact that salmon supplement hasn't been updated to "closed," from "to be determined," doesn't mean you can fish for them.


But, whatever, go bounce your heart out and release those sox into the bathwater while going for your spring. I won't stop you, nor will DFO. Just don't go posting "why is there no more sockeye?" in 10 years.