Lead thrower
You can look at flossing like this:
"It depends on YOUR ethics. You can choose your own; you don't have to accept mine.
I think the more relevant issue is legality. Under the rules of fair chase (that's what's considered sportsmanlike conduct), and the opposite of the definition of snagging, the fish is supposed to willingly take the bait or lure in its mouth. Flossing is snagging, but because the fish ends up being hooked in or near the mouth, wildlife agents are less likely to cite because of the greater difficulty of prosecution.
To floss or not to floss? Flossing is equivalent to shooting sitting ducks or using aircraft to hunt big game. They violate the concept of fair chase. Even if it's legal, I'm partial to fair chase; it helps define me as a civilized person, and the end does not justify the means.
Or, if you want to, you can go "full circle" and you can look at flossing something like this:
It's OK to fool fish by using scents; it's OK to full fish by using carbon mono line; it's OK to fool fish by feeding them an unreal colored chunk of eggs; it's OK to piss off fish with plugs, lures, jigs; Or you could look at it like shooting ducks over unreal decoys; or using a call to call ducks in when you are not a real duck; or putting camouflage on to hide when you are hunting; or fishing on land that no one else has legal access to fish on; or fish from a boat in holes that can not be reached by foot; or using a lure that no one else has; or using "electronic" fish finding devices to find or locate fish; but somehow it's not "sporting" or legal to sneak your line down into a fishes mouth when he's not ready to let you do it!
You guys got to get a life!
And I am just getting warmed up on how some of you can add 2+2 and come up with a -3!
This is not a flame I just think you get enjoyment out of debating the un debatable.
If this subject was not "debatable" in law, it would already be a rule change in the new WDFW rule change proposals
Cowlitzfisherman
Previous Topic
Index
