Print

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

[merrittboy1]

I for one would not pay that kind of money, $300, to fish and I love to fish.  Give me a break, we already pay enough in taxes etc.  the money we already pay for our license is not being used properly by the government.  How would it make a difference? As well, people would still cheat.   Hunters take the CORE program, but we still have poaching and gun abuse issues.

Was on the river for several days during this last week.  Saw far more people fishing ethically than on "the dark side."  I myself was not a strong believer in the use of roe and am now a convert... Saw how well it worked, tried it for an extended period with success and boom, a new believer.  I guess what I am saying is that we need to keep trying to get things across to people.  Education... Not going to happen with everyone, never will, but there are far more people fishing properly than not.   I also do not believe that it is our job to verbally or physically attack others on the river.  Just doesn't seem right.  Being ethically strong role models is the answer.  Watching others has certainly changed my fishing techniques.     

[RalphH]

I would think you "leader length" would be considered 0" then.  If you were to attach a spitshot or two above the spinner them the "leader length" would be the distance between the two, even though it is not a separate piece.

then unless a weight or swivel is attached on fly leader the length on a fly rig would also be zero...as would the same case be for jigs. That's what I mean by unworkable as there are many ways to work around the restriction. I think the Oregon model where fish must be hooked inside the mouth to be retained is a better approach but alas virtually unenforceable.

[RalphH]

A little history on the upper chilliwack
It was opened in about 1973. The idea was to reduce the number of so called resident rainbows that were competing with sthd. smolts.

best 2 recall the opening was for about 2 weeks. With the requirement to release all wild trout that objective is moot. I don't see anything to be gained from an opening of the upper river.

[Sandman]

then unless a weight or swivel is attached on fly leader the length on a fly rig would also be zero...as would the same case be for jigs. ...

Not necessarily, but perhaps with a floating line, yes.  On a sinking or sinking tip fly line, the line itself is the weight, so the leader length is just that...the length of the leader attached to the fly line (between the line and the fly).  The purpose of such a regulation is to control intentional "flossing", and an unweighted spoon or spinner is not going to be very effective as a "flossing" rig as the line would not be parallel to the stream bed, but rather angled up to the rod.  Of course you would be able to manipulate the line and rod tip in some cases to try to floss rather than trick the fish with your spoon or jig, but it just would not be as effective as a weighted line with a 12 foot leader.  I am guessing the reason for such a regulation would be to discourage intentional flossing (by making it more difficult and therefore less effective) and to encourage more sporting methods of catching fish.  The problem with any regulation is enforcement.  If no one is out there patrolling and monitoring abuses, no regulation change is going to help.

[Carich980]

A bit off topic I guess But in addition to fish regulations Id like to also see an overnight camping ban on the river above the crossing except in designated camping areas to reduce the amount of garbage left behind by all users. There are campgrounds open and available to those that want to spend a night.

A leader restriction of whatever amount may not stop all the snagging but it would reduce the BB flosser's who transition over from the Fraser. Most of those guys imo are new fishers that are ignorant to fish biting and once they saw a leader length restriction would likely help educate them on flossing vs biting. It wouldn't end the snagging or flossing but i think it would reduce it from people who genuinely don't know the difference.

Id like to eventually see an annual fish/salmon tag system with an inflated price per tag in the form of a marked color coded zap strap type tag to be connected through the mouth/gill plate opening. Have tags available from the local fishing shops made of recyclable material and make the bag limits annual limits like chinook are. Limits of 10 for each species is more then enough fish for one angler each year imo.

Also make it illegal to Retain fish in spawning colors/condition and leave the discretion of silverish dark fish in the opinion of the officer at the time of inspection.

[Sandman]

Also make it illegal to Retain fish in spawning colors/condition and leave the discretion of silverish dark fish in the opinion of the officer at the time of inspection.

This is not very constructive as a regulation needs to be clear to the individual so they know what is legal or not.  You cannot have just have it "at the discretion" of the officer if the fish is "too coloured" or how is the individual to know if those purple bars showing under the silver scales of the chum they just caught would be perceived by the officer as "in spawning colours".  Regulations need to be quantitative (measurable) to be effective, qualitative regulations would leave too much to judgment and would not stand up in a court.

[milo]

This upper river is far to valuable to play around with for some limited angling opportunities; think fish and let's not screw this up. - keep it closed.

I have too much respect for you to even attempt to argue against your point of view.
We'll keep it closed.

[norton]

I agree with Dave. Keep the upper river CLOSED!

[Carich980]

This is not very constructive as a regulation needs to be clear to the individual so they know what is legal or not.  You cannot have just have it "at the discretion" of the officer if the fish is "too coloured" or how is the individual to know if those purple bars showing under the silver scales of the chum they just caught would be perceived by the officer as "in spawning colours".  Regulations need to be quantitative (measurable) to be effective, qualitative regulations would leave too much to judgment and would not stand up in a court.

True, But something should be done about people killing the spawning fish if they need to argue it in court so be it, better something then nothing.

[dnibbles]

True, But something should be done about people killing the spawning fish if they need to argue it in court so be it, better something then nothing.

If you want spawning fish left alone by anglers, close the rivers and only target in the ocean. Problem solved.

They are all spawners, just in different stages of development.

[RalphH]

Not necessarily, but perhaps with a floating line, yes.  On a sinking or sinking tip fly line, the line itself is the weight, so the leader length is just that...the length of the leader attached to the fly line (between the line and the fly).  The purpose of such a regulation is to control intentional "flossing", and an unweighted spoon or spinner is not going to be very effective as a "flossing" rig as the line would not be parallel to the stream bed, but rather angled up to the rod.

first off fly line isn't and probably cannot be defined for regulation. One can use a length of mono and a fly and legally be fly fishing. So this suggestion is much the same, unworkable for regulation or we would have seen it by now.

Not everyone agrees with your analysis of what is effective or not effective for flossing. I will leave that comment at that.

Final observation; as many people have alluded if people can get away with killing a limit (or more) of fish that have been hooked in the but or the back or the belly and not suffer any consequences, how the heck does anyone expect a leader length restriction to fix anything?

[VAGAbond]

Lots of suggestions about limiting leader length.   Did you notice the report on Oregon's regulations in another string:

Oregon was looking at this but this year changed the regs to require leaders be 18 inches long or longer (pg. 11) and to require any fish not hooked inside the mouth be released. The 1st reg is an ànti-snagging`rule and the 2nd is aimed more generally at snagging and flossing (or lining as they call it in some parts down south.

[Sandman]

first off fly line isn't and probably cannot be defined for regulation. One can use a length of mono and a fly and legally be fly fishing. So this suggestion is much the same, unworkable for regulation or we would have seen it by now.

Not everyone agrees with your analysis of what is effective or not effective for flossing. I will leave that comment at that.

Final observation; as many people have alluded if people can get away with killing a limit (or more) of fish that have been hooked in the but or the back or the belly and not suffer any consequences, how the heck does anyone expect a leader length restriction to fix anything?

Yes, I never suggested it would be a final solution, I just suggested how such a regulation could be used reduce the number of angler who intentionally fish to floss.  While no new regulation would stop someone willing to break existing regulations, it could encourage those who do not want to break the law, but will do whatever they legally can to hook a fish, to try more sporting methods.

While I know that the fly, not the line, defines it as "fly fishing," we are not talking about a fly fishing only regulation, just a leader length regulation.  I have no problem with someone using just  fly on a mono line and considering that leader length 0".  I challenge anyone to try effectively flossing fish with that rig. 

While I am sure lots of people may disagree with me that a weight and long leader that presents the long leader parallel to the stream bed is more effective at flossing or "lining" fish than an unweighted line with a spoon or jig, I would love to hear those arguments.  Again, I am not saying that one could not floss fish with a short leader or with a spoon attached directly to the mainline.  I am saying it is just not very effective and you are more likely than not going to ellicit a true strike anyway.

[KP]

Hey nibbs.  You trying to cut my heart out.  Too many high seas sailors already think that way. 

[RalphH]

While I know that the fly, not the line, defines it as "fly fishing," we are not talking about a fly fishing only regulation, just a leader length regulation.  I have no problem with someone using just  fly on a mono line and considering that leader length 0".  I challenge anyone to try effectively flossing fish with that rig. 

but the complication comes with sinking lines and as such a leader length restriction is in my view unworkable as the length remains 0" in your terms despite the use of a sinking line.