Print

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

[A Frayed Knot]

Everyone has power to change something, so long as we keep it civil and give them no way to fight back, aka a good strong argument. Not just a personal belief system, you give them facts, cold hard facts. Science if you have too to prove the contrary.

The reason Jon said what he said about keeping it civil is because this can easily turn into a "flame war"

[jacked55]

I hate to bring up a point slightly off topic but I gotta ask the intent of the proposal you are referring to? If we are solely discussing these changes in the interest of fish escapement and reproduction than I would suggest there needs to be stricter regulations on FN and commercial boats. Their by catch and fish waste impacts the fishery way more than the snagging population annually. Having openings done at more appropriate times, and with greater regulation and enforcement would be a huge step in fixing the fish numbers IMO. While I do not agree with the snagging, intentionally or not, I do not see their impact causing more of an impact than those I mentioned.

[shuswapsteve]

I agree with Jon's idea.  I have always thought this way about this fishery even though I don' t participate in it much (not something I do cartwheels for).  It just seems pointless to just keep foul hooking fish and letting them go until you get the one that has the hook in the mouth. It's no mystery what this fishery is - it's a meat harvest fishery....so let the angler just keep his/her first 2 or 4 Sockeye, regardless where they are hooked, and go home.  I believe it is worse to catch and release in these circumstances until you obtain your quota than the act of flossing/snagging/bouncing/or whatever.  Guys I know don't do this for the sport of catch and release - they just want the fish to eat.  The lure of having fresh Sockeye on the BBQ is very enticing.  Sockeye tasted great smoked this year but actually the brookies from small lake fishing this fall were better.   

[shuswapsteve]

I hate to bring up a point slightly off topic but I gotta ask the intent of the proposal you are referring to? If we are solely discussing these changes in the interest of fish escapement and reproduction than I would suggest there needs to be stricter regulations on FN and commercial boats. Their by catch and fish waste impacts the fishery way more than the snagging population annually. Having openings done at more appropriate times, and with greater regulation and enforcement would be a huge step in fixing the fish numbers IMO. While I do not agree with the snagging, intentionally or not, I do not see their impact causing more of an impact than those I mentioned.

Not sure what FN fisheries you are referring to?  I don't believe you can totally blanket them all with the same criticism because FN commercial fisheries in the interior in the terminal areas greatly reduce bycatch of weaker stocks.  They are licenced, regulated (quota) and enforced and they are not conducted if the abundances are not showing up past Mission.  Personally, I don't see greater enforcement happening given the current fiscal climate.  It's all about priorities now and available resources.  Although it seems bad, foul hooking fish may not top the list of priorities given all the other crap that is going on.

[clarkii]

This is a solution to a 1 per 4 year issue and provides zero incentive for these anglers to turn ethical...

[shuswapsteve]

Personally, this has nothing to do with making anglers more ethical. It just makes sense from a biological perspective if this fishery is going to happen. But really...how ethical is it to continuously hook and release fish, fighting them on a fishing rod to near exhaustion for personal enjoyment whether it is flossing, fly fishing, gang trolling, etc?  That's why I take "ethics" with a grain of salt.

[RalphH]

Good point. So often when certain anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences or prejudices and not really considering how all angling activities effect the fish and the environment.

Oregon has had legal snag fisheries in the past and may currently. They have also amended their regulations to require fish be hooked in the mouth, at least in salmon bearing rivers. In other jurisdictions there are administrative approaches to regulating foul hooked fish versus fair hooked. Usually anywhere in the head is allowed.

In general our regulations is written so that enforcement is required to make it work. Anglers can be ticketed for simply trying to snag fish. It would interesting to see if the Oregon experience is leading to a reduction in snagging.

I personally don't think your proposal is sound or would be achieve what you think it will. Snagging has been an issue  for several decades. Making it legal won't fix that or the issues you identify.

[jon5hill]

I hate to bring up a point slightly off topic but I gotta ask the intent of the proposal you are referring to? If we are solely discussing these changes in the interest of fish escapement and reproduction than I would suggest there needs to be stricter regulations on FN and commercial boats. Their by catch and fish waste impacts the fishery way more than the snagging population annually. Having openings done at more appropriate times, and with greater regulation and enforcement would be a huge step in fixing the fish numbers IMO. While I do not agree with the snagging, intentionally or not, I do not see their impact causing more of an impact than those I mentioned.

The intent is to see if we can find common ground to address a problem. If recreational fishers can agree on some principles regarding sport fishing that include a separate and distinct set of rules for meat-harvest type fisheries, then we may be able to unify and gather enough interest to propose changes to regulators by collecting signatures. At present it seems like the wild west, where meat-harvest/snaggers are breaking the rules - so to keep things in line with the law, we either enforce the rules properly (super low probability given funding limitations for enforcement and lack of interest due to revenue generation into the sport fishing/outfitters industry) or change the law. There is a lot of stigma generated by those of us who consider ourselves ethical anglers and those of us who consider ourselves meat harvesters. This is not necessary, and the root cause of this stigma is from the fact that the law suggests what meat harvesters are doing is not within the legal framework imposed by sport fishing regulations - an obvious source of conflict on the river. There is a lot of hate out there..

The ultimate goal here is to improve numbers on the spawning grounds by letting go of release-requirements for non-mouth hooked fish. One proximate goal would be to recognize that there is sport fishing and there is meat-harvesting and they should not be both held under the same rules, for obvious reasons.

Sure, addressing larger problems like commercial fishing by-catch would significantly improve escapement numbers, and definitely help populations of special concern (North Thompson Steelhead/Coho, Cultus Lake Sockeye), but it's a larger battle to fight and it's directly against industry. The change I propose is a small win for recreational fishers, and it's in line with reality, eliminates the illegality of what is happening anyway, and reduces incidental hooking mortality on non-mouth hookups. It's something tangible and it's a reasonable goal. It would also be helpful to bring together some voices in the fishing community for other purposes. We all enjoy the resource but we don't have a unified voice - it's time to get one and this is one way of starting.

[jon5hill]

This is a solution to a 1 per 4 year issue and provides zero incentive for these anglers to turn ethical...

That is the problem precisely. We have a common belief that what they are doing is not ethical. The root of that is because it states that it is illegal in the sport fishing regulations. Let's not kid ourselves, snagging is not going anywhere. Many excellent sport fishers I know also participate in snagging, and their view is that it is an entirely different thing. I can't agree exactly because I view fishing as something sacred like many of you, and we'd be damned to let these snagging idiots tarnish our wonderful sport right? Well take a single look at the Stave, Peg Leg, or any bouncing bar during a run of Sockeye/Pinks and now Springs on the Fraser mainstem. It's a gongshow everywhere you go - and it will only increase unless one of 2 things happen - we legalize it as a harvest fishery, with a distinct set of rules including the one I am suggesting in the original post with a legitimate harvest quota, and manage it properly - OR - we adequately enforce the current regulations (I would prefer this but it's not a reality). These people have figured out how to snag fish efficiently with bouncing betties and huge leaders and will continue to do so with a tuft of rainbow sparkly wool on their hook so long as it will produce a fish on the end of their line. I think that those of us who avoid this meat harvest and fish within what we consider ethical boundaries are the minority now - people want a fish on the table at the end of the day. It's hard for all these guys to justify the gas expense and gear just to snap a few photos. It's a value system that is different from what you or I believe and it's based on providing food. The video posted above is gut wrenching to watch, but why is that technically wrong - because the instrument he happens to use is the same that we use to entice a fish to take a presentation? We need to wake up and start regulating it properly instead of clumping it with our beloved sport and judging them all the time. Whose to say what impact it would have on converting a snagger to our ways? I think that it's a deep rooted respect for the sport that we all bear, and that's something that is taught from an early age. There is no way I could convince a single friend of mine who snags not to do it because it makes my sport look stupid. Stack my feeling up to putting a big bright sockeye on the dinner table and the filled belly wins every single time.

[jon5hill]

Good point. So often when certain anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences or prejudices and not really considering how all angling activities effect the fish and the environment.

Oregon has had legal snag fisheries in the past and may currently. They have also amended their regulations to require fish be hooked in the mouth, at least in salmon bearing rivers. In other jurisdictions there are administrative approaches to regulating foul hooked fish versus fair hooked. Usually anywhere in the head is allowed.

In general our regulations is written so that enforcement is required to make it work. Anglers can be ticketed for simply trying to snag fish. It would interesting to see if the Oregon experience is leading to a reduction in snagging.

I personally don't think your proposal is sound or would be achieve what you think it will. Snagging has been an issue  for several decades. Making it legal won't fix that or the issues you identify.

Would it be accurate to state that you don't believe it will achieve the issue of incidental hooking mortality on non mouth-hooked fish?

[clarkii]

To add to my above.

Enforcement is required to stop people from snagging.

Enforcement is required to make people harvest the snagged fish and stop fishing once quota is met.

See the problem with your idea? The proposed fix requires the very solution to the "problem" in the first place.

[DanL]

First off, I'll refer to snagging as the intentional foul hooking of fish which is illegal under the regs, and not the legal technique of flossing.

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.

I think your intentions are good and your proposal would probably have the desired effect on a some small percentage of anglers but overall I think it would not have the overall end result you envision.

We should not reward unrespectable behavior by allowing people to benefit from those actions. I feel that would open the floodgates to blatant snagging on all systems all the time if it were legalized and would spread like wildfire if legitimized in any way shape or form.

IMHO most people are ethical and try to learn to do things the right way but there is a portion of the fishing community (possibly larger than we realize) that would absolutely explode if keeping snagged fish were allowed. Believe you me, that sub-segment of the community are not too concerned about resource management, conservation, and respect for fish. Allow the retention of foul-hooked fish and we'll have lost any leverage to convert the receptive ones about selective techniques and appropriate methods.

Current snaggers will then go off and teach their friends, families, kids the only 'proper' way of fishing they will probably ever know. Would they ever bother learning any other technique if snagging is suddenly legal?

I agree current enforcement currently leaves much to be desired, but at least the current regs gives us regular people some ammunition and basis with which to educate whenever possible, and call out/report violators.

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.

If we want them off the resource, I firmly don't believe that the answer is to reward such behavior and hope they go home early. They'll just be back the next day and in greater numbers because it's so darn easy.

From a human psychology perspective, people respond to incentives. If you want to reduce a behaviour, you have to reduce the incentive in doing it or make the alternatives more desirable; not make it even easier to do and rewarding.

[shuswapsteve]

Good point. So often when certain anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences or prejudices and not really considering how all angling activities effect the fish and the environment.

That's kind of what I wanted to say but you said it better than my mumbo jumbo.

[shuswapsteve]

I don't think that most anglers that engage in flossing/snagging/bouncing/or whatever are intentionally trying to purposely foul hook salmon.  I concede that I don't know every personality on the river and their intentions, but from the people I have met that participate in the fishery they would rather hook the fish in the mouth and feel better about their catch than to drag it in by the tail or the belly.  Yeah there is just a chunk of wool or nothing at all on the hook, but they fully understand that these Sockeye are not interested in feeding.

I don't think Jon's idea rewards anglers that do this or that snagging will explode because as Ralph states has been an issue for decades.  Under the current regulatory environment, anglers in this fishery are doing it anyway so why not let then take their first 2 or 4 fish foul hooked or not and let them be on their way....because I believe most folks would comply.  They want the meat - not the sport.  Spending time losing gear while trying to keep Sockeye that are all properly hooked is not fun.  As I said before it just seems pointless to keep catching and releasing salmon like Sockeye until you get one that is hooked in the mouth.  What is better for the resource in this circumstance: Keeping the foul hooked Sockeye and adding that to your daily quota or continuously catching and releasing Sockeye with limited energy resources until you get that one that properly hooked according to the regulations?

The likelihood of this fishery going away is pretty slim (IMO) due to the revenue generated not only for local businesses, but for the financial coffers of the Pacific Salmon Foundation.  If you reduce participants you will reduce the amount of money generated by the sale of salmon stamps.  Why purchase a stamp if the likelihood of catching and retaining a Sockeye has greatly diminished?  That money goes to projects that many here would agree are necessary.  Trust me...government money for these projects is limited to non-existent.  It's not a conservation issue because if the abundances of Sockeye are not coming past Mission or the lower river test fisheries then the recreational fishery is not happening...and that is basically once out of every 4 years.  If water temperature are deemed too extreme the fishery is not happening. The fishery is closed at a certain point to prevent the bycatch of endangered species albeit not perfect.  Sockeye on the spawning grounds this season are showing up in generally good condition.  I agree with what Ralph said....when anglers talk about ethics they are really talking about personal preferences and prejudices.

[A Frayed Knot]

I am impressed with the conversation in this forum.

I think it just comes down to education and the community. Like what Flytech has done on the water and what I see a lot of other fishermen whom I am sure may or may not come to these forums but taking the time to help each other and getting around to help sway the few to a better course of fishing and more enjoyable.