Print

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

[Big Steel]

Gooey that you for being one of the only people to get my point!!!!!  Also I only mentioned increasaed license fee because Matulla had mentioned that the licences would have to go up 100 fold to pay for this new program!!!!!  Anyhow, I don't see how all this arguing is going to help!!  Bottom line for me is that the government isn't going to do anything about this!!!!  They have us by the short and curlys, if we wanted to pose a strike so to say, and all fishermen did not buy licences to prove a point, what point that may be I don't know,  They would more than likely close all river systems, and impose huge fines on anyone caught fishing!!!!  Perhaps that is a bit far fetched, but no more than the licencing idea that is being thrown around in this thread!!!!  Just one man's opinion!!!

[DragonSpeed]

The problem is that pontoonman has a point.  If there is a regulation stating no leader longer than x feet, most fly guys will have to pack it up and go home.

[winter steel]

Dagonspeed what are you complaining about you guys have the river all to yourselves in May You do have a point, however I'm sure between all the brilliant minds out here in cyberspace we could come to some sort of resolution to satify fly anglers. How about we designate the Vedder fly only-JK   Dragonspeed, do you think a leader length restriction could be relaxed for fly anglers or adjusted accordingly (I know flossing can be done flyfishing but on a whole I believe it to be minimal with anglers of that nature-yes I am sure there is an exception out there, but I do not want to hear about it). If it was relaxed would flossers then pick up a fly rod, I mean casting a fly is a lot of work and those fly lines are not cheap, not to mention the cost of flies themselves (I know wool can be used). It seems to me that flyfishers generally are few on the rivers in comparison and we should be able to accomodate them. Maybe we should show A Rriver Runs Through It for those that offend Tight lines.

[Rodney]

DS doesn't want leader restriction for a different reason.

Do you really want to be more restricted? If restrictions continues to increase but enforcement continues to decline, be prepared to see no changes on the river.

What's next?

Mandatory use of a float?
Designated float depth (ie. must be two feet shallower than river depth)?
Mandatory use of fast action drift rod, 8wt+ fly rod, medium weight class, specific lb test line and hook size?

The main problem sits on the lack of enforcement, which all of you should be pushing for.

A poacher will still study, pass the entry test, obtain a licence, and fish in an unlawful manner as he or she wishes if enforcement is absent.

DFO's mandate is not to dig into an angler's tackle box. That is why it is reluctant to implement a leader length restriction.

Leader length restriction is not going to solve the problem. The solution has to come from the angling community, which should clean itself up before criticizing other sectors' wrong doings. A good start would be to develop responsible angling ways in the young generations.

[BwiBwi]

Do you really want to be more restricted? If restrictions continues to increase but enforcement continues to decline, be prepared to see no changes on the river.

Agree, current regulation would work well enough if enforcement is there.

[blaydRnr]

Do you really want to be more restricted? If restrictions continues to increase but enforcement continues to decline, be prepared to see no changes on the river.

Agree, current regulation would work well enough if enforcement is there.

what enforcement?  i was on the river today and while i was checking out one of the meat holes, dfo came around.  they 'spot' checked 5 guys out of about 30.  i was there for less than 10 minutes when i noticed a guy fishing with barbed hooks and another guy mishandling a boot spring...guess what? dfo did squat.

dfo enforcement is as effective as the marijuana laws here in bc.  reality bites, so no need to floss for new regulations, at least not until the old ones become applicable.

[BwiBwi]

so no need to floss for new regulations, at least not until the old ones become applicable.

Good one. By the way out of those rigs I unhooked from a log jam many hooks are barbed BAD really bad.

Please be considerate, when reusing those hooks I don't want to pinch out the barbs. 

[Gooey]

IMHO enforcement is up this year?!? I dont remember hearing this much about DFO last year.   I have seen them on the upper river and heard tons of reports of them at KWB etc.  Prior to this fal season,  I havent seen DFO on the vedder for a decade when they did a spot liscence check on me!

Back to the flossing thing, you can floss with a 12 inch leader or a 12 foot leader.  Its the guys fishing 12 foot leader who are actively trying to increase their chances of flossing a fish that need to be regulated, and it not like huge changes are needed either.

Here is what the regs say now: It is illegal to "wilfully foul hook or attempt to foul hook any fish other than herring, northern anchovy, Pacific sand lance and squid. To avoid foul hooking (snagging) fish, anglers should aim to induce the fish to take the hook in its mouth".

What if the last sentance read: To avoid foul hooking (snagging) fish, anglers should aim to induce A STRIKE thus causing the fish to take the hook INSIDE its mouth". 

We all know a flossed fish hasn't bit or struck the presentation, we also know a flossed fish is hook out side in, NOT "INSIDE the mouth". 

This verbage would make flossing clearly illegal and thus allow DFO to clamp down on flossers.  Because you can floss a fish with 12 inches of line I would still have a leader restriction which fly fishers would be exempt from, BUT Fly fishers would still have to pay attention to the rules above regarding flossing.

If we want to go back the the hardware fishers who occasionally gets a fish to STRIKE the spoon but ends up with the hook in its jaw, I think because the first requiremnt was met (a strike was enduced) then the enforcement of the second regulation (hook inside the mouth) could be left to the discretion of the Officer.

Bottom line is that flossing and flossers are the problem, not fly guys and spoon chuckers.  I also think flossers represent a type of fisherman who have little repect for the environment or the resource (just look at the mess around sockeye season compared to steelhead season).  Lets face it, they are meat fishermen and have regard for nothing more than themselves and their freezers and something needs to be done about that!

[Rodney]

Enforcement is up in some parts, I think what others are saying is... is it enough overall?

Back to the flossing thing, you can floss with a 12 inch leader or a 12 foot leader.  Its the guys fishing 12 foot leader who are actively trying to increase their chances of flossing a fish that need to be regulated, and it not like huge changes are needed either.

So... what? It's ok to floss if leader length is regulated to 12 inches?

You keep getting into these technicality of how the fish is hooked etc, when clearly the issue is to get enforcement present to make sure all are obeying to the existing regulations. The existing problem is that the newbies are already having a hard time knowing, understanding and following these, while the people who intend to disobey know they can due to the absence of enforcement.

[Gooey]

Rod, the rules offering a grey area:  "hook in its mouth".  Todays level of interpretation is that the jaw, the out side of the mouth, under the chin, ontop of the nose, abvoe the gill plate....the average angler considers this "close enuff".

That needs to change.  No flossing is not OK.  If you floss a spring or coho on the vedder, i think  it should be released.  Problem is that DFO's acceptance of flossing on the fraser has made it OK to do elsewhere. I think on page one of this thread, Pontoon refers to flossing as "a perfectly ligitimate fishig method"  . People need to be edjucated and the regs and enforcement are how it should be done.  The current conflict between sport fishers happens because the rules are grey, and everyone has a different set of personal beliefs/ethics which colour how they are interpretted.

You say that: "The existing problem is that the newbies are already having a hard time knowing, understanding and following" (the regs)...doesnt that mean the regs need to be simpler, more to the point and state forward?

If the regs were "black and white" and easier to understand then discrepancies with personal ethics, language skills, interpretation, comprehension, age/ability, etc would be greatly reduce if not eliminated.

[lunker]

I think that even if the regs were changed to be much more specific, the problem would persist.  Put yourself in the shoes of a CO, how do you "enforce" a no flossing directive?  The problem is you cannot demonstrate that a fish was flossed with 100% certainty.  Sure it may be obvious to those who spend a fair bit of time on the water, but how do you prove to a guy who fishes maybe a dozen times a year that when he saw his float move or felt a tug on his line, it was just the leader reaching the end and the hook sticking the fish, and not the fish hitting the wool?  As we all know fish do hook themselves from the outside once in a while when hitting a presentation.  On the other hand enforcing a leader length restriction is straightforward, but as Gooey stated you don't neccessarily need a long leader to floss, especially when the fish are stacked.  So I don't think that either measure will be as effective as people think.  The main problem is that bottom bouncing with long leaders has become a normal way to fish.  I think the only way you are going to reverse the trend on systems like the vedder is to eliminate the fraser bottom bouncing fishery. 

Now, I have bb'd the fraser for sockeye, but I think it is coming to a point where we have to make a choice.  Simply put, how can we expect anglers(especially new ones) to rationalize the difference between fishing for salmon (bouncing a weight on the bottom with a long leader and some wool) on the fraser and any other system.  All systems can be blown out or dirty at one point or another, so how can we expect people to only fish one way on one river and not carry that over to other systems? We cannot have it both ways, so I think the only solution would be to close the floss fishery on the fraser and implement a leader length restriction (leader being the length of line after a weight or weighted line, this should not impact fly fishing).

[Gooey]

As much as I love my 7 or so days of sockeye slayin, I agree, its not worth the frustration of seeing flossing the other 358 days on all the other rivers!  I have seen more snagged fished retained on the fraser than anywhere else and I think this lack of stortsmanship and the meat mentality is permiating the entire sport sector now.

Flossing itself would  not be tough to make illegal...but I wasnt suggesting that.  Flossing ends up with the hook on the out side of the mouth.  If regs are reworded to make this clearly a snagged fish then RENTENTION of this fish would be illegal.  Anyone can tell if a hook is inside the fish's moth or in THE side of a fish's mouth.  They want to do some C&R well just treat the fish properly and I guess I could live with that.  But making that flossed fish illegal to retain and you eliminated alot of the meat fishers out there.   

Keep in mind it is illegal to even TRY to snag a fish,  all those guys bottom bouncing guys could be forced to change if they were writen tickets for fish harrassment for even tryig to floss.  This may sound rediculous to some and way over the top, but I think it is an appropriate response the current environment on the river.

I have seen guys

[Rodney]

If the regs were "black and white" and easier to understand then discrepancies with personal ethics, language skills, interpretation, comprehension, age/ability, etc would be greatly reduce if not eliminated.

The regulations will never completely be black and white, there will always be grey areas. Fishing and its resource that it depends on are constantly changing, regulations will constantly evolve to accommodate that change. However, until the existing black and white regulations that are enforced, expect to see the level of compliance to drop if more rules are introduced.

[pontooner]

Ok gooey, so when the majority of fishers(flossers) are not allowed to floss, what will happen to the amount of licenses sold.I would think that they would go down and do you think the government would like that,NO.That is why they will not implement rules against it, because it is NOT about the fish rather the money they bring in.Now I'm not saying I support the floss fishery, but you must realize that the government isn't going to do anything that will affect its revenue.  Look at the fn illegal netting, they seemed pretty careless about it, implying they don't care.Also wondering why do people floss sockeye,do they not take lures,roe like other salmon???

[winter steel]

 Pontooner, to an extent you have a point. Licences, if you buy all your tags and for the entire season bring in roughly 32 million for the government. But by the looks at some of the weapons you boys carry , the real money would be in the secondary markets where the spin offs from anglers is huge. Plus, many of the freshwater licenses are sold to those who fish lakes exclusively or have limited access to rivers, Rodney perhaps you would know how many anglers buy a salmon tag or fish exclusively lakes. I do think that the number of flossers is concentrated on a few systems where the population of the surrounding area has contributed to the problem. It is also difficult to say how many would not buy their license if they had to catch fish via a different means. Besides, I wouldn't necessarily complain if the rivers were less crowded Tight Lines