Print

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

[jon5hill]

I would like to keep this thread objective, so please keep the replies constructive.

I wanted to pose a suggestion about the current regulations in light of the reality of enforcement on several clauses in our freshwater salmon fishing regulations to see whether or not there is agreement within the angling community.



On page 9 of the Freshwater Fishing Synopsis 2013-15, it clearly states:

Any fish willfully or accidently snagged must be released immediately

It goes on to expound the definition of snagging on page 88:

snagging (foul hooking): 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

It is well understood that enforcement on these regulations is either completely missing, hopelessly lacking in scale and subjective. In light of these facts, there are plenty of people out there willfully snagging fish, hauling them to shore, and yet keeping only those fish hooked in the mouth. This is interesting as it seems there is at least some partial adherence to the idea that a fish needs to be hooked in a particular location for it to be retained.

However, the result of this is that there are plenty of fish that are intentionally foul hooked in the caudal fin, pectoral fin, dorsal fin, gill plate, anal fin, and eye socket that are released back into the wild. The "angler" would then release said fish because it is not a "head shot". The consequence is that several fish are depleted of their energy reserves, mishandled, dragged onto the rocks, and then kicked back into the water. Ultimately the "angler" would remain at their post, snagging away until their limit was reached. This may result in many more than their limit of fish dying or being so depleted and abused that they would be unable to spawn or compete for access to spawning grounds. The ultimate end result is an effective withdraw of perhaps many more than 2-4 salmon out of the system, but could be much, much higher. In the broad strokes, if all "anglers" who practice snagging are releasing non "head shot" fish, the implications for a fishery may be much larger than if we simply allowed them to keep fish hooked from any location.

It's no secret that these "anglers" are intentionally, willyfully, and very purposely foul hooking fish - many times they don't even have a presentation on their hook. Yet they do so with impunity, and still retain only those fish hooked in the mouth. My suggestion is that if we are going to let them exercise this type of behavior as we currently do - we should allow them to retain fish hooked anywhere on their body so as to satisfy their daily quotas, prevent the foul hooking and subsequent release of other fish, and get them off the resource.

This has the added benefit of removing a lot of conflict that may arise between fishers regarding where their hooks were set. I have seen people scream at others for retaining fish that were hooked in subjective areas, like the side of the head, the maxilla, or the gill plate. It also would benefit all anglers by getting the snagging crowd off the water sooner. The entire fishery exists because monkey see monkey do, so ostensibly if there are fewer present on the river, fewer people will learn the technique and start buying betties at their local tackle shop.

I know this may be admitting defeat to some, but to date there has been zero interest from enforcement to wade into this issue and attempt to regulate it. In the interest of the fish, we're removing fewer effective spawners from the system by allowing snaggers to keep their tail-hooked fish.

I'd like to hear thoughts and opinions, but please keep the dialogue constructive.

Jon Hill
 

[ChumChaser]

Although I do agree that it would reduce the amount of fish that get returned  to the river harmed at first. I also  think that more people would start snagging and that would not be good. We would see more wild fish dragged across the rock only to be kicked back into the water,  or killed. Having more snaggers on the river would mean less spots to get away from them. The only solution I can think of is enforcement.

[jon5hill]

Although I do agree that it would reduce the amount of fish that get returned  to the river harmed at first. I also  think that more people would start snagging and that would not be good. We would see more wild fish dragged across the rock only to be kicked back into the water,  or killed. Having more snaggers on the river would mean less spots to get away from them. The only solution I can think of is enforcement.

I would challenge that, I think it would reduce the number of new people fishing. It's exactly the same technique, only with less scrutiny when a fish is landed, so people are off the water sooner. People who are out there would get their limits and leave sooner - ultimately reducing the chance that a random stranger walks by and tries to learn how to snag as well.

[skaha]

--I believe we need more than one regulation to cover this.
--There should be an explanation of the intent of the regulation.
--If there is an area where the intent is a harvest fishery... ie it is a quota situation were fish can be removed until the quota is reached. Then I do not see any harm in allowing harvest by snagging, netting or whatever is deemed to be appropriate.

--I believe the regulations are in some cases abused by fisheries managers... ie they use fish catching regulations as a tool to limit the number of people as they do not have enough information on the fishery or they do not have enough enforcement of the fishery. Abuse of the precautionary principle in other words they don't know so lets just add some regs in case there might be a problem

--In areas where bycatch is an issue... that is there is a sensitive species in the same waters at the same time as there are other species that do not need to have a limited catch or there is a management reason for a slot limit *(size) then selective methods that allow for reduced mortality of non target species or size is a legitimate tool. This is where I would envision a regulation such that it indicated a willful take by the target species and use of a rigging that increases successful release when required.

--Legal definitions can be painful as the law is most easily enforced if there is no discreation. I have most often found that knowing the intent and explaining the intent results in a higher degree of compliance. 

[CELLIKBHOY]

well I believe that bottom bouncing  should be banned altogether but that's probably not likely to happen so Jon your suggestion is pretty good I assume you are talking about Sockeye. getting the yahoos off the river sooner is a better idea.

[Golfer]

well I believe that bottom bouncing  should be banned altogether but that's probably not likely to happen so Jon your suggestion is pretty good I assume you are talking about Sockeye. getting the yahoos off the river sooner is a better idea.

The issue with this is that, you can ethically bottom bounce with a 20" leader and piece of roe, in northern rivers, and the salmon actually eat your presentation.  A better idea would be to impose a leader restriction of say 36".

[jon5hill]

The issue with this is that, you can ethically bottom bounce with a 20" leader and piece of roe, in northern rivers, and the salmon actually eat your presentation.  A better idea would be to impose a leader restriction of say 36".

And they would be free to ethically bottom bounce and entice fish to eat roe just the same.. that wouldn't change anything. The issue is that we're not regulating snagging whatsoever on the Fraser for Sockeye/Pinks, and it's making its way to our terminal rivers, where the real winners of the fish population show up to spawn - these fish are hauled in backwards and sideways just to be released and then eventually die without spawning so a snagger can get 2-4 mouth-hookups and bonk his limit. They should keep the first 4 fish they catch instead of only the ones that are mouth hooked. If we assume that this isn't going to be regulated, and there seems to be zero interest from enforcement to start regulate snagging any time soon, or ever for that matter - it would make more sense to allow them to simply take home a fish hooked anywhere than only those hooked in the mouth.. I mean come on, nobody is fooling anyone - we all know that the fish has not in fact eaten the green wool, or attacked it - it's just a farce to begin with, it's making a mockery of the rules, so we should just cut our losses of valuable spawners and allow them to take their limits no matter where they are hooked. Enforcement could then adjust limits, which are adhered to by most people including the snagging "anglers".

[Carich980]

Reduce the Daily & possession limits. Make a rule like steelhead season where once your limit is retained your done fishing, 1 fish per day. I bet if the rivers were catch & release only it'd be a ghost town out there.

What's sad is that the majority of those people already have their Freezers stuffed with sockeye this year and are still out taking 4 a day. I wonder how many fish are wasted every year.

The only other thing people understand is heavy financial fines. Up the fines for snagging fish, make it so crazy that the word will spread like fire amongst them.

[jon5hill]

Reduce the Daily & possession limits. Make a rule like steelhead season where once your limit is retained your done fishing, 1 fish per day. I bet if the rivers were catch & release only it'd be a ghost town out there.

What's sad is that the majority of those people already have their Freezers stuffed with sockeye this year and are still out taking 4 a day. I wonder how many fish are wasted every year.

The only other thing people understand is heavy financial fines. Up the fines for snagging fish, make it so crazy that the word will spread like fire amongst them.

These are all things that we would all agree with, but they are a pipedream. They are not consistent with what is actually happening. Enforcement simply does not care about snagging as it is a political issue. It drives a lot of money into the sport fishing and outfitters industry in the lower mainland. As anglers who benefit from the resource we have a responsibility to put the fish first, and if we are going to go ahead and allow snagging to persist, then we might as well let them take the first fish they catch, regardless of where the hook was set. That's the point here.

[skaha]

These are all things that we would all agree with, but they are a pipedream. They are not consistent with what is actually happening. Enforcement simply does not care about snagging as it is a political issue. It drives a lot of money into the sport fishing and outfitters industry in the lower mainland. As anglers who benefit from the resource we have a responsibility to put the fish first, and if we are going to go ahead and allow snagging to persist, then we might as well let them take the first fish they catch, regardless of where the hook was set. That's the point here.

--This makes sense if this is a harvest quota fishery. This system is used on some USA rivers to reduce the number of people on the river and to ensure people do not cull for larger fish... again without regard for those released. Usually do not allow a catch and release fishery at the same time. That would mean that C&R types would have to just not go to the river until after the harvest fishery openings.

--In Osoyoos there was a 2 fish limit even though the limit on USA side of Osoyoos lk was 5 fish. What this does is reduce the number of people that are willing to travel greater distances if they can only keep 2 fish so basically makes it a more local fishery... The issue in LML would be that you have a lot of locals so it doesn't necessarily reduce the number of people on the water.


--Again the management objective has to be clear then regulation can be used in part to help meet the objectives.

--You have to conscider that there are those who believe that C&R is not ethical.

--Also if management plan is to an escapement number if "recreational" fishers do not take their full quota the quota will be given to other fishery constituents.  In other words reduce the recreational quota to 2 fish the the other 2 fish could be given to commercial net quota.

[Noahs Arc]

I'm on the fence with your suggestion Jon.
If they were allow snaggers to keep any snagged fish, they would have to put a stop fishing rule once you'd got your limit. Snaggers are snaggers, but for the most part, they still enjoy what they're doing out on the water or they probably wouldnt be there.

[A Frayed Knot]

If anything I think they need to be stricter and an almost zero tolerance rule when it comes to fishing. The RCMP and DFO need to be strict all persons and not be selective though.

Situations like video are reasons enough : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4G1R84swgU fast forward to the  4:10 point and watch on.... Gross.

[firstlight]

That video is disturbing in more ways than one.

[canso]

If anything I think they need to be stricter and an almost zero tolerance rule when it comes to fishing. The RCMP and DFO need to be strict all persons and not be selective though.

Situations like video are reasons enough : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4G1R84swgU fast forward to the  4:10 point and watch on.... Gross.

Reading the comments under the video, it seems this kid was killed in an accidental shooting.

[leapin' tyee]

I would like to keep this thread objective, so please keep the replies constructive.

I wanted to pose a suggestion about the current regulations in light of the reality of enforcement on several clauses in our freshwater salmon fishing regulations to see whether or not there is agreement within the angling community.

Hey Jon.  Do you have the power to change the regulation. !!!!!!!!!!!