[Snagly]

This topic was inspired by a couple of comments alluding to the (lack of) ethics relating to lining sockeye. The specific issue was whether it was more or less ethical to line sockeye near the mouth of the Skeena -- hundreds of km from Babine Lake -- or in the lake itself -- maybe 1 km from their eventual redds. As lining attempts will result in at least a few fish being accidentally snagged and released, these survivors are left to make their way in a physically depleted fashion to the spawning grounds. "Is it more ethical to line fish closer to their eventual spawning water than farther downstream?" met with the reply that lining was unethical irrespective of where it was practiced. Fair enough.

Here are a few other ethical posers for the Board to consider. I'm less interested in views on right and wrong, and more interested in 1. Have you done any of these things? 2. If you saw others doing these things, what do you do?

1. Wade up to the head/ tail of the pool to keep the sockeye in casting range?

2. Throwing rocks to move steelhead/ sockeye/ any fish around in the pool?

3. Fishing with scented lures in a no bait area? Bait?

4. Fishing with barbed hooks in a barbless hook only area?

5. Fishing out of a boat where not permitted?

6. Allowing your dog to bite/ paw/ molest fish that are later released?

7. Keeping a fish hooked nearto, but outside, the mouth?

8. Targeting a species out of season?

9. Illegal guiding?

* * * * *

I'm OK with the first two, though I've not thrown rocks to move the fish around. (I have waded up to act as an in-stream scarecrow and herd the sockeye back into the run.) I'm not OK with the rest, but I've seen it all on the Skeena tribs. I haven't called the COs, however. I'm wondering how Board members react when they see thse actions.

This post has been edited by Snagly: 30 July 2010 - 07:14 PM

[Ian Forbes]

I prefer using gill nets in the river. Much more effective. Why screw around using fishing rods.

[jmooney]

If you're gonna bonk it and gonna eat it, then go dirty. If you're a sportsman than have some damn ethics and challenge yourself.

This post has been edited by jmooney: 31 July 2010 - 09:16 PM

[B.Barley]

I believe that that best way to fish, is within the rules, and then it's up to you.

I've seen so many ways of sure hooking sockeye/springs on the Fraser and tributaries, most of which would make me puke if I was fishing the Skeena. I understand these fish come back to river's near you. They are not ours, they exist only because they made it through all our obstacles to complete their life cycle.

Whether you agree with DFO or not, these fish never consulted with anyone, and are poised to do what they do.

This post has been edited by B.Barley: 31 July 2010 - 01:39 AM

[treblig]

Got to get the sleep out of my eyes . I thought you said got to wade up to your head................. then grab some tails had to read twice before the eye focused ... funny

treblig

This post has been edited by treblig: 31 July 2010 - 05:52 AM

[guppy]

Quote

2. Throwing rocks to move steelhead/ sockeye/ any fish around in the pool?

How would you like it if I threw some rocks at your house or your backyard while you are entertaining friends to get you to come outside...lol? I guess you have my answer. If I saw someone doing it I would probably hobble them slightly (I figure humans will have an easier time hiding so I will try to level the playing field slighly) and throw some rocks at them to see how they like it. Sounds fair?

Quote

6. Allowing your dog to bite/ paw/ molest fish that are later released?

I saw this posted on another board sometime ago, however, the salmon was not being fished for at the time. People that allow their animals to do this need to find another form entertainment like pulling wings off of houseflies. They probably wouldn't approve of some young person throwing rocks at their pet while it was minding its own business playing in a park or along the river bank. I guess you have my answer. If I saw someone doing it I would probably give the dog a nice juicy steak (not the dog's fault) and then throw some nice mungers in the back of the owner's pickup or cooler. More or less a little souvenir of their experience with nature and their fun with Fido and his fishy friend. It's the sort of gift that keeps on giving days and even weeks after the fact. Thoughtful huh?

[Phoenix]

Well-- I have to disagree with Ian. He is on the right track, but using gillnets is too inefficient. Ian-- as an old forester, I am sure you remember how the loggers at Woss got thier sockeye for the winter. 40% stumping powder into pool and throw the charges progessively downstream as they detonate. Make sure there is a strong stopper net at the bottom of the pool, Worked great for many years.... no reason it still wont work.


Now-- any more stupid questions you want me to answer Snagly???? :skull:

[Snagly]

Guppy, I don't find the house analogy at all apt. These fish have no cognitive capabilities whatsoever: they're just running a carbon ROM chip which occupies a half peanut-size spots in their heads. The PETA people will have us believing that fish feel pain, too, even though the physiology of fish brains is such that they don't actually have pain receptors. So the few nerves that are there function more to tell the fish that something is wrong (e.g. a seal just bit your flank) than to trigger excruciating pain. A fish feels about as much pain as your Honda Accord does when the engine warning light comes on. Inducing a fish to move 30' as result of anchoring the boat at the top of the hole, wading out to stand in front of them or throwing a rock doesn't diminish the fish's fitness to spawn (as throwing rocks at Snagly Manor may do, esp. if my wife is home!). Of course, many Board readers -- nay, all of the respondents -- find such practices abhorrent as well as unethical.

My original post obviously set the ethics bar too low. Here are a few more for you.

1. Lee Wulf fished for Atlantics only with a floating line, pleading that anglers leave deep water as a resting refuge for the fish. About 7 years ago I made a pilgramage to the Gaspe peninsula to fish for Atlantics. This was fun and frustrating. One day I strung up a sink tip (gasp!) only to have the lodge manager come to the water to request that I take it off for fear that "all the fish in the pool are going to end up foul hooked". (Even then, my reputation preceded me!) I respectfully declined and took two fair hooked fish out of the pool. My fishing colleagues -- including a fly fishing hall of famer, if that matters to anyone -- didn't have any problems with that sink tip, but I switched back to a floating line as I didn't want to be looking for ground glass in my food the rest of the week.

So does anyone fish only a floating line for ethical reasons?

2. Do you ever use those weighted leeches with dumbbell eyes or put split shot/ lead strips on the leader to sink the fly deeper? Do you end up with so much lead that at least occasionally you find yourself slinging the fly rather than roll casting or false casting?

3. Jim Teeny's "Catching More Steelhead" (1975) is a real eye opener for steelheaders. In fact I'm going to put this on in the background to make me feel better about myself as I add to this thread. Teeny is variously viewed as a snagger, a fishing genius or just someone who casts very accurately and as a result induces otherwise dormant fish to open their mouths to eat a fly they won't move to take. I confess to having applied Teeny's methods many times to fair hook (or less charitably, "snag in the mouth") steelhead in clear streams by dead drifting a deep sunk fly right down the pipe.

Anyone have a problem with trying to put the fly right on their noses, or does the fish have to willingly move . . . 6" or a foot, more . . . before this becomes ethical?

4. Do you lift fish out of the water for photos? Drag or swim them onto the bank to land them?

* * * * *

Finally, a dog story. My buddy and I are posing a big buck for the photo opp. The fish has its head in the water 90% of the time, and then "on three" it gets a lift for the photo. There's a rodless angler walking his golden retriever on the far bank who is giving us sh@t for holding the fish up for a photo. My buddy yells out, "Shut up or I'm gonna cross the river and hurt your dog!" Wow! Talk about getting a reaction! This guy drags his dog by collar away and is shouting how he's going to shoot us if we so much as try to touch his dog! My buddy and I release the fish (photos done), burst into laughter and then start fishing again. My buddy also informs me that South of the Border, our sparring partner could face charges for threatening to shoot us. Ah, the good old US of A!

(No, I'm not going to ask if it's ethical to shoot someone who threatens to hurt your dog.)

[gemaster]

I don't want to sound overly sassy. I respect this is a serious topic/thread but I'm not overly serious.

I know we screwed with salmon stocks. Humans are historically stupid. Given that reality, it's funny how we treat each little fishy with so much respect. Can't lose a scale, only allowed 3 seconds out of water at a time, feeling guilty for letting that sucker take another run, not using gentle nets, having thoughts of using that 3 prong hook instead of the single, pinching barbs, etc, etc, etc. I'm just not a believer in that nonsense. I don't feel guilty for bonking fish. If my dog can get one, I say go for it. If I could catch a sockeye with my bare hands I would, but I would stay within the regulations in terms of kills per day allowed.

The issue isn't 10-100 guys lining a shore catching one or two fish a day. Someone please tell me what a net takes in per scoop. Then tell me how many nets and how many fish are taken in how many seconds. In reality, sportfishing is a drop in the galaxy, if the galaxy was water.

I respect ethics in fishing. I fish because it's fun and relaxing. I also like the taste of salmon. I really enjoy Gary Cooper because he's okay with letting those tyee flop on the deck of the boat. Gary knows they are destined for his bbq. I don't have a problem with it. It's so not politically correct I love it.

I've seen people snagging pinks and thought how awful and disgusting that was. Then I realized, hey I was a kid once. I thought that was okay. They were trying to bite the hook right? Point is, who the hell cares about a couple guys snagging a couple pinks? Not exactly the most critical use of an officers time don't you think?

I just think we as fisherman have enough limits on our enjoyment to give the fish enough of a chance. That's why I kill every fish that I get my hands on. Within reason of course ;-)

This post has been edited by gemaster: 31 July 2010 - 11:49 PM

[Snagly]

Gemaster, I now hand the baton to you as the Lead Stirrer on the Board. I did dig out that Jim Teeny video and it turns out it's 1977 and "Breaking Tradition with Jim Teeny" (3M/ John Fabian) is the proper name. In the first minute it shows Jim rocking steelhead. what's truly a marvel is the abundance of summer steelhead in the mid-70's near Portland OR where they shot the film.

OK, a few more ethical issues:

1. You're first into a favorite run that can fish more people than you/ your group. Someone else shows up. Do you invite them in or tell them to move along if they ask to fish?

2. If you let them into the run, do your buddies and you stake out the prime water and stay nailed to the bottom or do you cast and step down to give everyone a shot at the prime water?

3. If you hook up in the prime water while fishing with strangers, do you then go to the top of the run to give them a shot at the prime water?

4. If someone shows you new water, can you fish that water on your own afterwards without permission from your friend? What about showing that water to someone else?

5. If you're fishing a more effective technique (e.g. gear vs. an unweighted fly on a floating line for winter steel), do you let the fly guy lead the way down the run?

I'd like to say that I do the Noble Thing all the time, but sometimes a buddy and I will hog a hole. People who step in above or below without asking permission find that our felts are nailed to the cobble.

One common trend I've noticed over the past ten years the willingness of strangers to speak up if they see someone mishandling fish. That's a positive trend.

* * * * *

A week spent snagging fish in the mouth gives you plenty of time to re-calibrate your ethical compass.

[Knute]

I miss Danglerhttp://fishbcforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/focus.gif

[guppy]

Snagly, on 31 July 2010 - 06:17 PM, said:

Guppy, I don't find the house analogy at all apt. These fish have no cognitive capabilities whatsoever: they're just running a carbon ROM chip which occupies a half peanut-size spots in their heads. The PETA people will have us believing that fish feel pain, too, even though the physiology of fish brains is such that they don't actually have pain receptors. So the few nerves that are there function more to tell the fish that something is wrong (e.g. a seal just bit your flank) than to trigger excruciating pain. A fish feels about as much pain as your Honda Accord does when the engine warning light comes on. Inducing a fish to move 30' as result of anchoring the boat at the top of the hole, wading out to stand in front of them or throwing a rock doesn't diminish the fish's fitness to spawn (as throwing rocks at Snagly Manor may do, esp. if my wife is home!). Of course, many Board readers -- nay, all of the respondents -- find such practices abhorrent as well as unethical.

The house analogy is definitely applicable. Why do you think Sockeye use those holes during migration? Do you think that salmon do not have some ability to seek out cooler or deeper water for protection? Think about it. If I chased you out of your nice air conditioned house out into the street wouldn't you tend to get a little warm and/or feel a little more vulnerable? Not sure where you are posting from, but if you are posting from the southern interior of BC you will realize and appreciate that salmon depend on pool cover especially with this latest heat wave. Even water temperatures at 18 deg C can lead to decreased swimming ability. Salmon don't normally like to move from these refuge areas in the heat. I imagine throwing rocks are not meant to keep them in these areas. Are you certain that throwing rocks at fish (basically harassing them in my opinion) doesn't diminish a fish's fitness to spawn? What is your training and education in regards to the subject or are your opinions anecdotal evidence at best? I have no idea why you brought up PETA or fish feeling pain because that was not my point at all. It is also important to reiterate, that I am not anti-angling and I don't believe anglers should feel guilty about bonking a salmon for food consumption.

I find it strange that you are very concerned about ethics with regards to hooking fish, deploring those "big time snaggers" because they are so bad and unethical, but see no problem throwing rocks at migrating salmon while they take refuge in a pool (on top of the catching and releasing of sockeye to begin with). I also find it strange that we teach children not to throw rocks at salmon on the spawning grounds, but apparently their parents don't seem to practice what they preach.

[Snagly]

I'm posting from Singapore and the trip I have been alluding to was to Alaska where the sockeye were super abundant. That actually brings up the perhaps the most important ethical question of all, which is "Do you fish -- even C&R even when legal -- when the run is much diminished from historical averages and may not be plentiful enough for spawning pairs to meet minimum escapement goals?" (The Thompson steelhead run comes to mind.)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the sockeye in the interior, but sockeye we were lining were more easily nabbed if they were highly concentrated in the deeper holes or runs. When they began to spread out (due to fishing pressure or a desire to migrate), we'd wade up into shallower water at the heads or the pools or down to the tails and shoo them back into the deeper pools. I don't think that the water temp would have differed by more than 1-2F and as I already noted the fish were very close to where they were going to eventually spawn. So I can see why you are upset at the thought of moving fish out of the deeper, cooler water into the warmer flats. I agree that this practice could definitely impair spawning effectiveness (esp. among those fish subsequently bonked on the head).

I didn't throw any rocks at the fish, but as I've written above I don't object to using the boat to try to keep them in the hole or wading out to act as a human scarecrow so I don't see how chucking a few stones is any different. In fact I snagged (!) on the bottom the remnants of some angler's home made sockeye spooking device. It took me a while to figure it out, but here's the set-up:

1. 40-50' of cord

2. 18" strips of white cloth knotted in the middle on the cord with 8" or so dangling. Tie each strip above the other for 3'-4' above the end of the cord

3. Tie a cloth pouch to the end of the cord (the one with the cloth strips).

Hike down to the sockeye hole. Put river rocks in the pouch for weight. Sling cord out into hole/ run where while cloth strips flutter in the current. Use this contraption to spook the fish where you want them. (When I hooked this device, I thought at first I had a decomposing squid or octopus on the line. It didn't take long to work out that the cord had broken on the sling or the retrieve, leaving this in the river to rot.) Part of me admires the ingenuity behind the device and part of me wonders if reductio ad absurdum we shouldn't just snag'em in the bodies with weighted trebles and be done with it.

As far as teaching the kids not to throw rocks . . . most of the time I don't think that doing so is going harm the fish. If Jock Scott thought it was OK to wake the pool up . . . what's the harm in a physiological sense (interior sockeye perhaps being an exception)? Of course, ethically this isn't most people's cup of tea which is point of this thread.

* * * * *

PETA uses inappropriate anthropormorphic analogies ("How would YOU like a hook in the mouth?") and I took the "your house" comment to be much the same. We're talking about fish, not people. Though the PETA inclusion was a low blow.

This post has been edited by Snagly: 01 August 2010 - 04:56 PM

[gemaster]

This thread is classic. I'm finding this a real gas. A real bucket of laughs.

For those who are so ultra sensitive (Mark Pendlington) about caressing and pampering fish, here is your ultimate dilemma.

You are really the guilty ones here. You aren't eating the fish. You are catching them for your selfish desires. For the thrill of it. All you are doing is playing the fish, admiring it (while it's under the water) and then releasing it. Yes, releasing it into the jaws of a waiting seal because you've tired that fish out. Not for a need like eating, but rather for the "thrill" of it. That is much less responsible imo. If you really care about the good of the fish. Stop fishing! That means the fish will survive. You won't harm it. If you care so much about each and every fish, simply stop fishing. If you are doing it for the thrill, then you have no pedestal to preach from. If I kill a fish I can take pictures of it. I can use an old school hardcore net. I can let it lose scales etc.

Face it. If you fish, ethics are only skin deep. It would be like you are an environmentalist who takes pictures of the guys cutting down the trees. Your photos are taken for the love of trees and closeups, and not to prove how wrong it is to cut the trees down. You say it's wrong on one hand, but there you are participating and promoting the demise of the forests. Think about it.

This post has been edited by gemaster: 02 August 2010 - 08:01 AM

[Sugar Magnolia]

Iam a blaster,what the heck is stumping powder????? :rolleyes: