Print

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

[mastercaster]

Haven't you clued in yet?  You're not going to pull that secret wool of yours over anybody's eyes who have a lick of sense when it comes to the Fraser River flossery.  Luckily....the poor sockeye will have a much better chance now that the river is closed as of today.  Now they've got to worry about water temps.  idf it isn't one thing it's another~

[zabber]

I fished for Chinook

False. You fished for Sockeye AND Chinook. AGAIN: hucking >1oz of lead into the Fraser -- around the Island 22 area -- from which a long leader is trailing is a non-selective fishing method.

What part of "non-selective" don't you understand? Whatever it is, go back and read my first post on p.5 of this thread; I've defined it for you. And don't spew that "long leader isn't necessarily flossing" cr@p. Even if that is true, you've demonstrated that what you were doing was flossing when you said:

one of them was flossed ... some were in the outside cheek

As mentioned multiple times now, you can continue to believe what you believe but no one is really going to buy into your insanity. I suggest you stop posting/talking and go back to lurking/listening, and stay home in forthcoming years if you're unable or unwilling to fish more selectively during sockeye closures. Break the laws in your own country instead.

Yes, 50 fish is easily achievable with the right conditions.  However, arm strength will keep many from getting there, as will having to spend the better part of the day to do it.  And if you add in a good sized chinook, the arms usually just won't stand for it.

I don't think you give anglers enough credit but, fine, whatever. The point was that it isn't difficult to land a large number of sockeye (e.g. 20) in a short period of time, as liketofish claimed. I was agreeing with you there.

[TNAngler]

False. You fished for Sockeye AND Chinook. AGAIN: hucking >1oz of lead into the Fraser -- around the Island 22 area -- from which a long leader is trailing is a non-selective fishing method.

What part of "non-selective" don't you understand? Whatever it is, go back and read my first post on p.5 of this thread; I've defined it for you. And don't spew that "long leader isn't necessarily flossing" cr@p. Even if that is true, you've demonstrated that what you were doing was flossing when you said:

As mentioned multiple times now, you can continue to believe what you believe but no one is really going to buy into your insanity. I suggest you stop posting/talking and go back to lurking/listening, and stay home in forthcoming years if you're unable or unwilling to fish more selectively during sockeye closures. Break the laws in your own country instead.

I don't think you give anglers enough credit but, fine, whatever. The point was that it isn't difficult to land a large number of sockeye (e.g. 20) in a short period of time, as liketofish claimed. I was agreeing with you there.

5 fish out of 50 weren't in the nose or straight down in the bottom of the mouth.  1 fish was in a place that would lead me to believe it had almost surely been flossed.  I've seen some people with bad luck bar fishing accidentally snag fish that often.  Heck, I've seen someone whose only fish all year (and it wasn't for lack of trying although it very well could have been for lack of skill) only catch one fish bar fishing.  That fish had broken someone else off and this guys' hook hooked through the eye of the swivel still attached to the hook in the fish's mouth.  I would definitely consider that a variation of snagging as his hook was not in the fish's mouth.


It is only your opinion that I broke the law.  Even DFO would dispute that I broke the law as it stood on the days I fished.  In fact, they did.  There was no request to use a selective fishing method when I fished.  How you get from that to me breaking the law defies all reason.

  On this board, perhaps.  The bar fisherman who are very outspoken and very harsh have either beaten everyone that disagrees with them into not speaking up or leaving the board.  There is no open discussion about it.  There are just attacks and trying to treat people like idiots to get them to either shut up or go away.

So, let me give you this example.  Growing up, I used to bar fish in Washington.  Coho and Chinook were running.  In probably 5 years, I caught less than five chinook but caught dozens and dozens of coho.  Would you say I was fishing for coho?  Because I am pretty sure I was using the same methods that you use bar fishing for chinook.  Or would you say that was a non-selective fishing method?

Or what about the bar fisherman on this board, who had only caught a couple chinook and a couple sockey bar fishing?  Is he doing a non-selective fishing method?

My method was not as selective as some but there was no request for people to use a selective fishing when I fished.

Until your regs change such that I am unable to fish in a way I find enjoyable, I will continue to visit you guys a couple times a year, or more likely every other year.

[Tex]

So, let me give you this example.  Growing up, I used to bar fish in Washington.  Coho and Chinook were running.  In probably 5 years, I caught less than five chinook but caught dozens and dozens of coho.  Would you say I was fishing for coho?  Because I am pretty sure I was using the same methods that you use bar fishing for chinook.  Or would you say that was a non-selective fishing method?

I would whole-heartedly say by what you describe above that you were fishing for Chinook using a non-selective fishing method, given the results.

If:
1) the Washington gov't had said that the coho were endangered, and
2) that they were closed to fishing, but
3) Chinook were open to fishing, and
4) the Washington gov't asked that you use selective fishing methods

And if:
5) there was another method (ie. other than barfishing, in your above-described scenario) that was less effective in catching Chinook, and finally
6) this "alternative" method eliminated most/all of the coho bycatch...

Then I would say with absolute certainty that you shouldn't be barfishing at all and you should be using the alternative method.

This would reduce or eliminate bycatch of the endangered coho, and you would be complying with the request by the Washington gov't to stick to selective fishing methods for your Chinook fishing.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[absolon]

If your method catches 25 non-target species for every one target species you catch and you don't as a result change your method to be more selective you aren't going to get any sympathy from anyone even if what you are doing does sort of fall within legal permitted methods.

It doesn't take much of a sense of moral responsibility to realize that this years sockeye is in trouble and that regardless of what the regulations permit, it isn't a good idea to be subjecting the sockeye to the stress of being caught in such adverse conditions. Your desire to catch springs is not justification for your bycatch and the consequent damage it does to the few remaining fish.

No responsible angler should fall back on the excuse that what they're doing is justified by the regulations so it's all right to continue it.  Take some personal responsibility for your actions.

[TNAngler]

If your method catches 25 non-target species for every one target species you catch and you don't as a result change your method to be more selective you aren't going to get any sympathy from anyone even if what you are doing does sort of fall within legal permitted methods.

It doesn't take much of a sense of moral responsibility to realize that this years sockeye is in trouble and that regardless of what the regulations permit, it isn't a good idea to be subjecting the sockeye to the stress of being caught in such adverse conditions. Your desire to catch springs is not justification for your bycatch and the consequent damage it does to the few remaining fish.

No responsible angler should fall back on the excuse that what they're doing is justified by the regulations so it's all right to continue it.  Take some personal responsibility for your actions.

I have only defended myself against claims I was breaking the law.  Also that I was fishing this way when there were requests that a selective fishery be used.  Neither is the case.

And when we were fishing, the sockeye were in the river pretty good.  The DFO agent that checked us out told us that there were a lot of sockeye moving up the stream which we could tell by all the jumpers, that the nets would be opening shortly, they would be getting more days, and that if the nets were getting more days, it would likely lead to an opening on sockeye shortly.  Then the bottom completely fell out.

If I had known the bottom was going to completely drop out, I would not have been up there fishing.

[Athezone]

  On this board, perhaps.  The bar fisherman who are very outspoken and very harsh have either beaten everyone that disagrees with them into not speaking up or leaving the board.  There is no open discussion about it.  There are just attacks and trying to treat people like idiots to get them to either shut up or go away.

You hit the nail on the head with that one TN !!! Don't worry about what these people say, I don't.

[absolon]

The bottom fell out four years ago and under those circumstances, any thought there would be a good return this year is strictly wishful thinking.

Bottom line is that your method was resulting in a bycatch 25 times as large as your catch of target species and at least some level of wasteful consequent mortality to the non-target species. Regardless of the state of the stocks that is unacceptably high and should have resulted in you changing your method to one causing less collateral damage.

The sockeye will only survive if anglers take some responsibility to ensure that they do and that means getting off the fish when they are in trouble regardless of what the regs say. You might not be able to affect the net fishery but you can make a contribution by changing your own behavior. Indeed, ethics demand that you do that.

[chris gadsden]

The bottom fell out four years ago and under those circumstances, any thought there would be a good return this year is strictly wishful thinking.

Bottom line is that your method was resulting in a bycatch 25 times as large as your catch of target species and at least some level of wasteful consequent mortality to the non-target species. Regardless of the state of the stocks that is unacceptably high and should have resulted in you changing your method to one causing less collateral damage.

The sockeye will only survive if anglers take some responsibility to ensure that they do and that means getting off the fish when they are in trouble regardless of what the regs say. You might not be able to affect the net fishery but you can make a contribution by changing your own behavior. Indeed, ethics demand that you do that.

Nice to be on board with you on this one.

[zabber]

5 fish out of 50 weren't in the nose or straight down in the bottom of the mouth.  1 fish was in a place that would lead me to believe it had almost surely been flossed.

During one of a handful of flossing outings the vast majority of my fish were hooked in the mouth. The % was so high that I too believed they may have bitten (I was still wet behind the ears at this point). Even the springs were hooked in the mouth (under the tounge, etc). During another outing the fish were not so lucky. The fact that you can IDENTIFY 10% of your fish as flossed/fouled suggests to me that most, if not all, were.

I've seen some people with bad luck bar fishing accidentally snag fish that often.

Exactly: with BAD luck. You fished using a technique that is generally accepted to be lining fish and you happened to have "good" luck. That is how I would explain away your wool, location of hooking, etc. You are drawing conclusions based on a very small sample size; in all likelihood, (statistically) insignificant results. As far as the "hitting" goes: I've already told you that that's how a flossed fish feels. No, not like hitting a rock. All the fish I've flossed feel like they "hit" just as hard as big Interior rainbows hit a slowly trolled pumpkin head. Feels great, but doesn't mean they bit (referring to the sox, not the bows).

It is only your opinion that I broke the law.

You're right, it is. That is how I (and some others) interpret your actions in light of a lack of opening for sockeye; the fact that there was no wide closure or request to use selective methods is irrelevant. For the last time (since you seem to have trouble with the logic you're so fond of): lack of opening = closed. Bottom bouncing = fishing for/targetting all species. Tf, by bottom bouncing you were targeting a species that was closed.

Even DFO would dispute that I broke the law as it stood on the days I fished.

As I've said before: the DFO [would] not stop you. Sounds like they saw a bright future and decided to look the other way. As mentioned before sometimes politics comes into play, as does manpower (or lack thereof), competence, and a host of other factors. The point is that the fact that an agent of the law agreed with you doesn't necessarily mean that you were not breaking the law. Again, it is my opinion that you were fishing unlawfully, based on my interpretation of the reg(s). I am trying to keep an open mind but it seems like you are trying to hard to justify your actions by finding a "loophole" in said regs.

My method was not as selective as some

Your method was FAR from selective. In fact, it's on the opposite side of the spectrum; it's a step down from ripping your hook through the water, secret wool or not.

If I had known the bottom was going to completely drop out, I would not have been up there fishing.

I HIGHLY doubt that based on your original post (where you gush about how big and feisty the sox were) and this previous statement:

Until your regs change such that I am unable to fish in a way I find enjoyable, I will continue to visit you guys a couple times a year, or more likely every other year.

In fact, based on that apathetic statement, I no longer have a problem with telling you -- as others have -- to follow your own advice and just stay home. You're not welcome in my province with that attitude (as if my welcome means anything to you anyways ).

There is no open discussion about it.

That's because, as suggested by another poster, this topic is a proverbial "dead horse." It is generally accepted that bottom bouncing the Fraser is flossing, and when someone comes around claiming that it's not that bad if you do it right (cast the secret wool to where the kings are), and goes on to dig his heels into the ground/refuse to pull his head out of the sand there is little other recourse.

You were right about a few things, and one of them is that your groups 50 sockeye probably has little impact on future generations. However, the concern is that new fisher(wo)men may read your post, believe your delusions, and mimic your actions. This is a site that promotes ethical angling, so these reactions should not come as a surprise to you. Of course, they were what you were after all along right? Can't get sockeye to bite so may as well entice the FWR members?

[chris gadsden]

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Fish+sockeye/8763969/story.html

[Bently]

During one of a handful of flossing outings the vast majority of my fish were hooked in the mouth. The % was so high that I too believed they may have bitten (I was still wet behind the ears at this point). Even the springs were hooked in the mouth (under the tounge, etc). During another outing the fish were not so lucky. The fact that you can IDENTIFY 10% of your fish as flossed/fouled suggests to me that most, if not all, were.
Exactly: with BAD luck. You fished using a technique that is generally accepted to be lining fish and you happened to have "good" luck. That is how I would explain away your wool, location of hooking, etc. You are drawing conclusions based on a very small sample size; in all likelihood, (statistically) insignificant results. As far as the "hitting" goes: I've already told you that that's how a flossed fish feels. No, not like hitting a rock. All the fish I've flossed feel like they "hit" just as hard as big Interior rainbows hit a slowly trolled pumpkin head. Feels great, but doesn't mean they bit (referring to the sox, not the bows).
 You're right, it is. That is how I (and some others) interpret your actions in light of a lack of opening for sockeye; the fact that there was no wide closure or request to use selective methods is irrelevant. For the last time (since you seem to have trouble with the logic you're so fond of): lack of opening = closed. Bottom bouncing = fishing for/targetting all species. Tf, by bottom bouncing you were targeting a species that was closed.
As I've said before: the DFO [would] not stop you. Sounds like they saw a bright future and decided to look the other way. As mentioned before sometimes politics comes into play, as does manpower (or lack thereof), competence, and a host of other factors. The point is that the fact that an agent of the law agreed with you doesn't necessarily mean that you were not breaking the law. Again, it is my opinion that you were fishing unlawfully, based on my interpretation of the reg(s). I am trying to keep an open mind but it seems like you are trying to hard to justify your actions by finding a "loophole" in said regs.
Your method was FAR from selective. In fact, it's on the opposite side of the spectrum; it's a step down from ripping your hook through the water, secret wool or not.
I HIGHLY doubt that based on your original post (where you gush about how big and feisty the sox were) and this previous statement:
In fact, based on that apathetic statement, I no longer have a problem with telling you -- as others have -- to follow your own advice and just stay home. You're not welcome in my province with that attitude (as if my welcome means anything to you anyways ).
That's because, as suggested by another poster, this topic is a proverbial "dead horse." It is generally accepted that bottom bouncing the Fraser is flossing, and when someone comes around claiming that it's not that bad if you do it right (cast the secret wool to where the kings are), and goes on to dig his heels into the ground/refuse to pull his head out of the sand there is little other recourse.

You were right about a few things, and one of them is that your groups 50 sockeye probably has little impact on future generations. However, the concern is that new fisher(wo)men may read your post, believe your delusions, and mimic your actions. This is a site that promotes ethical angling, so these reactions should not come as a surprise to you. Of course, they were what you were after all along right? Can't get sockeye to bite so may as well entice the FWR members?

Hopefully that made some sense to him but I doubt it, good post Zabber !!

People that continue to fish the way they are when they have that high of a by-catch, no matter what the regs say, are just being a careless, self centered POS.

[Fishawn]

So, NiceFish....

What of the secret setup? Did you receive an email from TNAngler?

[Johnny Canuck]

The regulations should be changed so that a minimum of a 10 oz weight has to be used to fish the non-tidal section of the Fraser or a float setup with a leader no longer than 25" from hook eye to swivel eye. Would work for the creek mouth anglers who use floats and for the barfing guys all while eliminating the floss fishery plague of the Fraser.

[NiceFish]

I was sent an e-mail of the rigging for this bottom bouncing.

I would have to agree that it is still going to floss fish majority of the time. I do not dispute that some Sockeye will bite out of instinct, having experienced this myself on the Fraser (by fishing in slow moving water / back eddies I have happened to, by dumb luck hook into a few sockeye that did bite). However, when any long leader + weight heavy enough to bounce the bottom is fished in the current - it's already been explained so many times on here that majority of the time the fish was flossed and didn't bite.

The "secret" colour isn't a secret at all. I have seen this colour, and every colour under the rainbow fished on the fraser - and had many people claim they have the "best" colour for sockeye fishing. Anything works.

I think this angler is still wanting to believe the fish bite; and maybe one or two did; but not anywhere near enough to be considered a majority.