STOP SNAGGING FISH....

[Pepiot]

So, by your logic it is OK to steal if it is to feed your family. It is OK to poach fish, deer, elk if it is to feed your family. Do you believe that someone paid $33 for themselves and $9 for each of their kids to go out and intentionally foul hook fish? My bet is that they weren't licensed (hard times you know)....

Who said anything about poaching or not paying for a tag? You know you make an *** out of you and me by assuming. Who are you to judge the person or situatuion.

 

[Darknight]

So, by your logic it is OK to steal if it is to feed your family. It is OK to poach fish, deer, elk if it is to feed your family. Do you believe that someone paid $33 for themselves and $9 for each of their kids to go out and intentionally foul hook fish? My bet is that they weren't licensed (hard times you know)....

Both sides of this issue have merit. On the one side I totally believe in natural resource management; on the other side is culture or necessity. One only has to look back not too far in our Native American history here in Oregon to find that it was at one point culturally taught and accepted to catch fish in nets by the dozens. This was done of course to feed the tribe over a long period of time. Of course in those times some took advantage on other fronts and would kill deer, elk and beaver for their pelts in such excess it almost made them extinct in some areas. It is still acceptable under federal law for some tribes to engage in their native way of harvesting animals from the wild.

With times getting tougher and tougher; if the dollar failed and the economy collapsed and unemployment hit 50% like some are predicting, would you harvest an animal out of season with no tag to feed you family, or stand in the government bread lines?

 

[Pepiot]

If anybody thinks that fishing (non shellfish) & hunting (big game) is a viable way to "provide" food for a family, then they are the ones who are out of touch with reality. I remember a study in 2002 quantified the 'value' of what a sport-caught salmon in Oregon was and it came out to be just under $100/fish. Divide that by the average weight ($100/19.8lbs) you get roughly $5/lb for the fish. I believe that is what Rancher's Reserve steak is currently going for at Safeway. You can't tell me that is an economical way to put food on the table? NOW, if you extrapolate that number from the year 2002 (to 2012 to account for inflation and high fuel prices) I'm sure that $5/lb skyrockets! Does this mean that fishing is limited as a 'rich man's activity': Absolutely not...but the argument that illegal fishing is justified in order to provide a meal is null as well.

You need to realize that bag limits and quotas are NOT arbitrary numbers that are just pulled out of thin air. Fisheries managers have data on what types of techniques are more efficient and what the success rates for each are. They then look at the predicted population and decide the necessary escapement and survivability needed to maintain the species. A quota is then set to stay within MSY boundaries via direct displacement & bycatch. The next step is to obtain an effort estimate to predict on average how many people will be fishing/day. Restrictions are then placed to keep the catch per angler-day ratio consistent with the length of season in order to stay within the MSY model.

These restrictions are purposefully meant to inhibit success in order to maintain both the viable population of the species and provide fishing opportunity for humans. If you break these restrictions and use techniques with a high efficiency (like gillnetting, snagging, pitchforking, night fishing), the catch per angler-day ratio is skewed and the overall population can suffer...potentially to the point of collapse. Here's the shocker: Fisheries managers write restrictions to keep us below the magical 1.00 number. That means that statistically, we can't 'tag-out' every day. Just because you're allowed "X" ammount of fish per day as your bag limit, does not mean that the fish population can support everybody tagging out every day. Restrictions are in place to prevent that from happening, and if people don't abide by those regulations, the population (and future fishing opportunity) can suffer.

I'm not saying that snagging & gillnetting are immoral ways to fish. What I'm stating is that they are techniques with a higher efficiency. What IS immoral is knowingly using these restricted techniques at the expense of a population and at the expense of law-abiding fisherman...because if things get out of hand, fisheries will get shut down/restricted and EVERYBODY loses...even the people who followed the law.

Maybe not viable but food is food at any given time.

 

[OEDub]

Maybe not viable but food is food at any given time.

Until the population collapses...then, no more fishing opportunity (or "food") for anybody.

 

[Pepiot]

Until the population collapses...then, no more fishing opportunity (or "food") for anybody.

Pease eloborate

 

[Darknight]

Until the population collapses...then, no more fishing opportunity (or "food") for anybody.

There is plenty of untouched wilderness left in this country. In a colapse a person could live off the grid for life having plenty of food. Most of the sheeple will off themselves fairly quickly and can't think for themselves, so it's not likely you will have too much competition for food in the backwoods.

 

[OEDub]

Pease eloborate

As I stated in a previous post, Fisheries Manager Scientists actively monitor and regulate opportunity to harvest resources. If we don't abide by those restrictions, efficiency is increased and the fish population is impacted at a greater rate. If the population is impacted more than predicted, additional restrictions are implemented...perhaps to the point that the fishery is shut down completely. That is when fishing opportunity & harvest ("food") is lost.

There is plenty of untouched wilderness left in this country. In a colapse a person could live off the grid for life having plenty of food. Most of the sheeple will off themselves fairly quickly and can't think for themselves, so it's not likely you will have too much competition for food in the backwoods.

Darknight, we are living in the "real world" here...not some post-acocalyptic fantasy realm. Your more than welcome to come join the grown-up conversation at any time.

 

[Pepiot]

Is everyone thick headed around here? My main intention was do what you deem necessary, not to disobey the law. It's simple provide for your family period. If some wanna be game a warden and feels you are breakn the law let them report it period. No one will look out for you but you. Again, if you catch a fish by the mouth or I snagg one, we both caught a fish. This whole argument comes down to the ability of feeding a family if needed, not sport.

Until the population collapses...then, no more fishing opportunity (or "food") for anybody.

 

[Darknight]

Darknight, we are living in the "real world" here...not some post-acocalyptic fantasy realm. Your more than welcome to come join the grown-up conversation at any time.

[/QUOTE]

I was not personally attacking or making fun of you! I could make fun of your spelling; what is acoc fantasy? Do you have acoc fantasies often? I am not judging you I have friends of that kind, in real life. Tell us how you really feel!

The impending colapse of the dollar or some sort of natural disaster happening again, is very real and you shouldn't judge people for preparing for such things.

 

[OEDub]

If the conversation is reduced to simply "feeding a family", then a person is honestly wasting their time, money, and effort fishing. If you're truly worried only about food, then plant a garden and raise a few animals. The effort:reward will be far greater. That individual can then spend the remaining time at a job (even if its cheap labor for a neighbor) supplementing their family.

If we go back to the original comment about the ethics of fishing within the boundaries of the regulations, then not only is following them an intelligent decision, but the right thing to do on an ecological, legal, and respectable level. It has nothing to do with being a 'wannabe warden'. Its about preserving the ability to engage in an active, healthy, educational activity for myself and future generations.

Darknight: "acoc fantasy"
What?? HaHa! You got me there. I bet Freud would have something to say to me as well
I can concede that if the situation arises where only the elite few survive a total societal collapse, then we may possibly have a game-changing event and no regulations may apply. It still wouldn't prevent over-harvesting from depleting a limited resource, though. This is what current restrictions are in place to prevent.

 

[Pepiot]

Exactly show me the original comment about ethics of fishing and the boundaries of the regs OEDub

 

[Pepiot]

I have all night but good luck with coming up with somethn

 

[OEDub]

The OP was about snagging fish and stating that it was wrong. I belive that encompasses both "regulations & ethics". I feel that myself and others have posted more than enough material in this thread to address an educated, factual point. I honestly hope people can benefit from it. Unfortunately, it's late and I feel that we're picking at things, just to be picked at and we're getting off topic. I actually did enjoy the conversation...tight lines, Pepiot.

 

[Pepiot]

The Op's name is I ate a squirrel. Gotta cook that stuff thru. It is very one sided on what happened. I am all for following the law but if needed would do anything for my family as would you
OEDub

 

[coop44]

look at what legal fishing did to the rock cod population. commercial fishermen using "christmas tree" rigs pulled up lots of rock cod and in the process destroyed the kelp beds. Got to have some regulation and enforcement, just to stop morons from ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[Dunerunner]

Who said anything about poaching or not paying for a tag? You know you make an *** out of you and me by assuming. Who are you to judge the person or situation.

If you had read my post without anger and emotion, you would have seen that I stated that in tough times (a qualifier you established in your post to justify snagging fish) I doubted that the perpetrators would have legally obtained fishing licenses. If times are so hard they cannot afford food, they are not going to buy fishing licenses.

Both sides of this issue have merit. On the one side I totally believe in natural resource management; on the other side is culture or necessity. One only has to look back not too far in our Native American history here in Oregon to find that it was at one point culturally taught and accepted to catch fish in nets by the dozens. This was done of course to feed the tribe over a long period of time. Of course in those times some took advantage on other fronts and would kill deer, elk and beaver for their pelts in such excess it almost made them extinct in some areas. It is still acceptable under federal law for some tribes to engage in their native way of harvesting animals from the wild.

With times getting tougher and tougher; if the dollar failed and the economy collapsed and unemployment hit 50% like some are predicting, would you harvest an animal out of season with no tag to feed you family, or stand in the government bread lines?

If total societal occurrede occured and it was every man for himself, there would be more than the wild animals taken. I envision no domestic cattle, sheep or foul living within 80 to 100 miles of any major population center. It would be ugly and desperate the likes of which no one in this country has ever experienced. Have you read the novel "One Second After"?

 

[jdub75]

about a year or so ago I was camping in Sweethome on Foster, fishing the pond at the campground when this drunk guy came by & told me how to catch the big ones below the dam. I had never heard of 'flossing' until that moment, and I told him that sounds illegal and not fishing at all but some lame attempt at it. He got all angered & started swearing at me (in front of my kid & his).
These people will perpetuate their own demise (hopefully), just hope the fisheries outlast their imbred, uneducated & ignorant ways of life.

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

about a year or so ago I was camping in Sweethome on Foster, fishing the pond at the campground when this drunk guy came by & told me how to catch the big ones below the dam. I had never heard of 'flossing' until that moment, and I told him that sounds illegal and not fishing at all but some lame attempt at it. He got all angered & started swearing at me (in front of my kid & his).
These people will perpetuate their own demise (hopefully), just hope the fisheries outlast their imbred, uneducated & ignorant ways of life.

Flossing is only illegal if you hook the fish from the outside of the mouth. They run 6'-8' leaders in the late summer. I think that what happens is that the fish is swimming upstream with its mouth open and the line goes in their mouth. When the angler feels that, they set the hook and. They have to pull all of that line through the Fishes mouth (flossing) before they can get a hook set. The Fish has to be hooked in the inside of the mouth to be legal.

 

[RVTECH]

I just returned from 10 days at Lake Billy Chinook and was sickened by the number of people who think Snagging is just OK.

What species of fish were they snagging? Kokanee perchance?

 

[Dunerunner]

Bull Trout, Dolly Varden, Browns...Been 30 years since I fished Billy Chinook, only it wasn't called that...then.