Print

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

[mojo7]

OK maybe my description of the river in question was a little too opaque for some and for my defense of my actions the river in question, the Capilano, is pivotal.

The Capilano, in all intents and purposes, is a put and take fishery for recreational, aboriginal and tourism use. The natural historical return rates pre Clevland dam was between 3500-7000 coho. After the dam the rates went to 2000 until the building of the hatchery in 1971 and then the return rates were between 20,000-40,000.There is an excess of 18,000 to 38,000 hatchery fish competing with the 2000 natural fish that the river, in it's current state, can  accommodate.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/166454.pdf

The excess fish are for our enjoyment and as I said most will rot and die without spawning so for this particular river only would I turn a blind eye to someone fishing "in good spirit" IE proper ethical fishing method with no illegal intent, keeping one (hatchery not wild) for the dinner plate if an accident happened. We're talking 1 fish not limiting out.

  I'm not advocating wholesale snagging slaughter and I will speak up if I see intentional snagging but lets look at the big picture and try to understand that the rules are there for the protection of the species on rivers much more sensitive to kill rates than the Cap. If the hatchery program on the Cap was diminished or eliminated then it would be a completely different story. I'm sure the DFO sets it's allowable recreational catches with the health of the species as a whole in mind and most likely makes allowances for inevitable illegal harvesters into their limit quotas. OK, given its historical record  I'm not so sure that is how DFO sets its limit quotas, but a rational view of species management would certainly do this. Obviously if return rates change, quotas and outright retention bans are quite rightly put in place.

When it comes to snagging with intent or even accidental snags on other river systems I'm in agreement with the majority on this forum but in my opinion the Cap is kind of a one off fishery.

As for the fears of this guy getting carte blanche for the same behavior on other river systems I will repeat he was a good, knowledgeable (he knew the rules and followed them) fisherman. I don't have any worries that a slippery slope avalanche of species threatening proportions will happen anytime soon. I think we have greater worries out there.

As for me personally I am a casual sportie more for the walk/exercise getting fresh air kind of fisher.The numbers don't matter much to me. If I catch, I catch, if I don't no big deal so no worries of me snagging the pacific salmon into extinction.

Is it just me or are there a few fishers that seem to have just a wee bit too much ego/emotional investment in their fishing identity?

[Gooey]

Oh, its the Cap...well that changes everything then...youre right, rules/laws dont apply there.  My mistake.  And for "Gus" they don't apply on the Chehalis, etc, etc, etc.

Your attitude is total b*** s***.   Defending your position is infuriating for anyone who respects the rules and the resource and its attitudes like that are ruining sports fishing.

[ninez]

Wow.. strict rules here.
I better not go over 50km/h in a 50km/h zone EVER.
Because that's wrong and it's breaking the law.

[Johnny Canuck]

Next up the Seymour, whats next after that? Stave? Allouette? Heck lets just dam the Chilliwack so all the snagging would be "ok" then 

[minnie-me]

Funny story, the last few years I have been taking out a few co workers that are new to fishing rivers locally, they have now traded in their spin casters and rubber gum boot waders and have upgraded to better quality, more user friendly equipment in my opinion ( drift rods, nice baitcasters and breathable waders), they are into it... they watch what I use and do and are learning to be good rods. There have been a few times were we have jigged a fish, some real beauties just like this poster mentions, I get the old, I wanna keep it look...that's nice lets keep it comment...nope, they always go back...moral of the story, resist, there are plenty of rivers and plenty of fish out there, to encourage someone to keep a jigged coho, and I don't care how pretty it WAS is just irresponsible and setting a poor example. keep at it and you will get your fish, today tomorrow or next year...what this poster and fisherman did was wrong.

[minnie-me]

What we don't want is this to start to become OK...

[Gooey]

Frankly, this all stems back to the advent of flossing. 

When I first started fishing, a guy I comercial fished with taught me the ropes....run timing, water conditions, different presentations, how to borax roe (this was all applied to float fishing).  From there, I researched, experimented, and lerned and grew as a fisher.  In the last 6 weeks I have caught coho on roe (where open), on flies, spinners, jigs, etc, in low gin clear water and high colored water.  If you put the time in, you can learn where to go and what to toss and you can get BITES in any condition.

Bottom line, since the advent of flossing, many fishers dont even bother learning how to make a fish bite, they just line them.  You have people that aren't true fisherman picking up rods hooking fish immediately.  Becuase this (the effectiveness of flossing), I think the expectation of hooking a fish is higher with these types of fishers so when those tough desicions come along (like the one that started this thread), wrong desicions are being made.

Lets face it, a flossed fish is snagged, it didnt bite. 

While this guy who kept the tail hooked coho wasn't flossing, I understand what he did as the prevailing attitude of most fishers now a days condones snagging....sorry to say nimmie-me but it already has become OK with "the masses".

[TNAngler]

mojo7,

You have to believe that the rule was put in place for a reason, right?  If the gov't considered it a complete meat fishery, then why would they not allow keeping of fish by any method?  There are a bunch of lakes where fisheries will dump in a whole bunch of fish that won't survive.  Especially down in the states where they will plant trout in lakes and rivers where they won't be able to live through the summer.  Some of those are catch and release only but those fish are going to die so you think it fine to take those too?

A couple years ago, I've had a 25+ pound chinook that we swore was hooked in the mouth the first couple times it surfaced but by the time we got it in the net it was wrapped up and it was hooked outside the mouth.  There was even a hook hole in the fish's mouth right where we thought we saw the hook the first couple times it surfaced, but when we got it in, the hook was under the jaw and the line wrapped around the fish.  Any DFO officer would have been able to see the hook hole in the mouth and considered it ok to keep.  These sadly got returned because we knew where the hook was when the fish got pulled up.  I say sadly not because we wish we hadn't returned it but because it was the only chinook we had seen that caught that day and it was right before dark so we knew it was probably the only one the bar would see all day.  Sure, the penalties are bad but you have to live with yourself and your buddy with his self.  I wouldn't have been able to keep that fish and felt anything but ashamed and sick.  Character is not following the rules when you are being watched or think you might get caught.  It is what you do when you are pretty sure you won't get caught.  That is when you find out who you really are.  Are you someone that still acts like a good person or do the rules not apply as much anymore.

[TNAngler]

Frankly, this all stems back to the advent of flossing. 

I'm so glad to learn that before flossing there were no fish snagged or at least if they were snagged they weren't kept.  Or maybe before flossing people didn't think it was ok for them to do it.  Perhaps you should give yourself a 30 second time out before actually hitting that post button and reread to make sure you are making sense.

[TNAngler]

What would you expect from the guy who claimed all the sockeyes he flossed in the fraser actually bit though?

Well, with the reading comprehension or at least name recognition you have, we (humans?  because I'm not sure the nationality, race, or anything of the original poster) must all look the same.  I didn't even get the idea the original poster was from the states.  I would expect an apology but honestly, I don't care about your opinion enough for it to matter.

[Athezone]

There's not much I can add that the majority of posters haven't said already and I am with the majority that can't and won't condone this action. A man's integrity is one of the most important and valuable gifts we possess, don't throw it away, for once lost it is difficult to get back.

And again this is not about flossing but about ethics. Doing the right thing even though no one is looking.

[cutthroat22]

Headed down to the Cap early morning excited that I can keep wild cohos now.

I ended up keeping 6 wilds since they are just going to rot in the river anyways.  I threw the hatchery ones back in the river as I don't think the meat is as red.

Great Day!!!!

And a super duper special thanks to Mojo7 and others for opening my eyes to see the big picture!!!!

[StillAqua]

When he realized the fish was snagged and he had to release it, he was an ethical fisherman. When he decided to keep it, encouraged or not, he became a poacher. I mourn the loss of one of our own......

[Gooey]

I'm so glad to learn that before flossing there were no fish snagged or at least if they were snagged they weren't kept.  Or maybe before flossing people didn't think it was ok for them to do it.  Perhaps you should give yourself a 30 second time out before actually hitting that post button and reread to make sure you are making sense.

Maybe you should give yourself a few minutes to disgest what is being said and then formulate an intelegnet response.   

Several people here share the opinion that since flossing became mainstream, fishing ethics have gone out the door.  Do you disagree?  I had this status indian guy fishing on a sport lisence tell me its fun flossing coho in the cable pool...I had just watched him snag (in the body and tail...not even flossed) multiple fish.  While these fish were release, I guarantee they were far worse for wear.  I would never continue to fish in a manner where I was HARMING fish like that.  He did not care about the potential damage he was causing.  This is the same guy that fishes with the blond/deaf guy who posted a pic holding a steelhead by the gills (in the cable pool).  These guys just dont care and I guarantee I didnt see this type of stuff 20-25 years ago when I was learning to fish...its common now though.

As several posts indicate, many fishers throw around this term "meat fishery" like its some official label that DFO has created and which sanctions the fishers to snag, floss, go beyond their limit, etc ie its a "meat fishery" I can do what I want to the fish.

The point I was making is that the average fisher now, views a day fishing, the fish, the resource, etc much more differently then the average fisher did before the cancer we know as flossing took over...

Of course fish were snagged pre flossing days and sure some fishers probably didnt care back then.  But lets face it, flossing is snagging so if all you do is floss fish your are already operating in a very grey area.  So if youre OK with flossing/snagging, being OK with keeping a snagged fish isnt a big leap. 

And the pivitol influence (in my opinion) is the advent and then mainstreaming of flossing from fraser sockeye to EVERY other river and run in BC.

[TNAngler]

Several people here share the opinion that since flossing became mainstream, fishing ethics have gone out the door.  Do you disagree?

Forgive me.  Several people can't be wrong.  Yes, I disagree.  There are more people fishing today which make the problem more of an issue, sure, but long before flossing the Fraser became popular or allowed or whatever there were ethics issues.  You can't tell me that someone who is willing to poach a fish today wasn't willing to poach a fish before flossing, all else being the same.  Just like in many other areas, ethics of all kinds are going down the toilet.  There are many more people today willing to do whatever they feel they have a right to do no matter how they have to go about doing it.  Granted most of those probably go about the route of flossing or snagging because it is seen as easier.  To think that these people, before they started fishing and learned to floss were ethically pure is complete BS.  Or are you going to try and blame flossing on all of the moral decay?

I could perhaps see a much lesser DFO presence on failing to force some ethics on fisherman.  If people know they are going to be checked and have the law thrown at them, they are more likely to comply.  If they think nothing will happen and nobody is seeing them, that is when we find out who they are on the inside.  And that is regardless of the type of fishing they are doing.

Flossing becoming popular might have brought more people out fishing but chances are they would have made it out there eventually.  There are too many jobs these days where people sit in front of a computer all day and rarely get outside.  Most of these have fishing as a child as a happy memory and therefore eventually seek it out as a way to unplug for just a couple hours.  So, combine that with increased population, hard economic times so people need a stress relief and if they can catch dinner and save a couple bucks all the better, the drive away from artificial stuff in our food but without the vegetarian restrictions and what is better than wild salmon for that, along with many other factors.

I understand your bitterness but you are directing it at the wrong item.  It pisses me off something horrible that the fishing I enjoyed as a kid will never be experienced by my kids.  That the fish have been raped by seemingly everybody that possibly could.  Blaming it all on flossers or even a good part of it is like blaming the fact guns exist for mass school shootings.  It just doesn't add up.