I interpret The term "I" in Gman's post to mean he owned the vehicle, the home and the freezer the fish were in.

I interpret "we" and "our" as plural. Ambiguous? Yes. But I disagree that it appears he kept more than his possession limit. If there were 3 family members, or 4 then he was not over his possesion limit. (12 socks and 3 springs for 3 people would be the possesion limit) 15 fish!

Hi DanS! Are you part of a Board clique too?

Aunty M...
What is a board clique???

Board clique

Just teasing 4Salt a little.

Of course I knew that's how you'd interpret it Aunty, could I expect anything less? :p

Speaking of interpretations, I'll remove any ambiguity, and spell it out:

Personally, if G-Man wants to keep more than his limit OR NOT, that would be between him and the DFO.

I responded to Dan only because I could see where the others could get the wrong idea about G-Man's post. I didn't understand why Dan responded in the manner that he did. Now I do. No accusations towards G-Man on my part. Just trying to have a little fun with DanS. (Man it sure seems to get me in trouble, especially with Aunty. )

Speaking of ambiguity, this: must not mean what I thought it did.

p.s. Did the term "Board clique" hit a nerve with you Aunty?

Board Clique?

Did any of you Piscatorially Correct in your face idiots notice that G-MAN lives less than fifty miles from where he was fishing?

Possession limit? Duuhhh...

Why spend an hour on the road when it could be so much more fun to sleep in your car for a few days?

Edit - PS: No! No! No! Please don't repromand me for being obtuse.

Hit a nerve 4Salt? Nope... I thought I was just being a smart a$$ like I normally am. :p

Uhoh... be careful Plunk, you too could wind up being in some board clique!

I only said something for one reason.

The BB's seem to be a place where everyone hangs out like a bunch of vultures and waits for someone to say or show something and then pounce on them if there is ANY chance something less-than-savory is going on.

Remember the "Snagged fish on the cover" thread, and the "Tony D. Suspended from STS" thread?

Why do we always assume that someone is doing something wrong?

What I find objectionable is that when such fisheries are allowed flossing becomes an accepted method which it should not be. As I stated no true sportsman would do it PERIOD thats it. What makes it worse is that people learn how to do it then think it's ok anytime that the fish won't bite and flossing spreads hell i ain't gonna callit flossing anymore it's snagging. next thing you know you have peole saying it's ok to fish for steelhead on a redd because they won't bite any other way. Frankly i don't care if I am called a pureist. I don't care if people are offended by someone pointing out that what they are doing is wrong.
There used to be a legal snag fishery on the Washougal for fall chinook. People came from all over the world to participate in it. Even though it was only open to seniors and people with disabilities. pretty soon there were people all over the river snagging only they didn't stop with fall chinook, they also snagged coho, and wild steelhead. These people were the absolute scum of the earth. There was more litter generated from that fishery than from the MX Nationals which brings in 20.000 people.

These types of fisheries are always horrible and should not be allowed anywhere on the planet for any reason PERIOD! OK call me a closed minded ******* but quite frankly i'd rather be right than popular...

courtesy of PLUNKER.

Definition of obtuse..(the second time I've seen that word used most recently) "not sharp or quick of wit"
Your description of yourself Plunk??
.

Are we done yet?????

What do you think about being neither?

Dan, you must be a framer because you hit that nail squarely on the head.

Dan, that's the funniest thing I've read in awhile.

Both

Spot on.

When G first started this thread I was wondering how long it would take for the sparks to fly.

I to felt that G's wording may have left him standing knee deep in the shiat...at least as far as perspective. Since we did not see G last weekend I assumed that in his excitement perhaps it was more a matter of verbiage.

Explain yourself G and put this one to bed!

RA3...I believe the politically correct term in Rome is "bouncing"!

42,000 visible "bouncers" on the Fraser of which 99% are honest hard working folks like you or I and we are all going to hell for flossing? :rolleyes:

What about 42,000 rabid pro sports fans packed into a stadium? Are they also going to the same hell for supporting all that is unethical about pro sports in America's?

Only a hypocrite would have two seperate answers.

FJ...out.

"What do you think about being neither?" LMAO! (my belly hurts)

Are you flossing us Dan? - That line has teeth and is an easy drift to catch.

Posh II - "not sharp or quick of wit"

I like it. Good definition. Learning can be fun.

Here's a couple more:
"Lacking quickness of perception or intellect."
"Not having acute sensibility or perceptions"

Obtuse - (synonyms)
Dull-witted, dense, stupid, undiscerning, insensitive, ignorant, dumb, dense, imperceptive, insensible, doltish, feeble-witted, hasty, headlong, uncontrolled, rash, unreasonable, irrational, blind, benighted, pedestrian, backward, prosaic, slow, inarticulate, blind impercipient, shallow, unrefined, incognizant, insipid, boring, tedious, vapid, tiresome, pointless, humdrum and blunt.

Another more applicable definition for obtuse:
"Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark."

Question? Is there a difference between:
a) drifting a beaded hook on a twelve-foot leader perpendicular to and with the current (and)
b) drifting a sparsely dressed fly on a twelve-foot leader perpendicular to and with the current?

Is either ethical?
Is one or the other or both snagging?

Oh! Oh! Gotta run! Here come the thought police. Better close my mind.

Bye Now!

I was hoping not to get too caught up in this.

The Canadians can set their own rules......they're their fish to manage. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all their seasons, or bag limits, but it does mean that the participants SHOULD NOT be lumped together with the flossers down here who are doing something ILLEGAL. There IS a difference.

If you want to bring morality into it, go right ahead, but that is for an individual and/or society to determine whether or not an act is moral. We all have our lines we draw in terms of what's morally acceptable to us. I probably wouldn't call a Gamie on a dude if I saw him, say snagging silvers on the Quilcene. If I saw a guy poaching a native steelhead or a King on the Satsop this year, I would call a Gamie. There's my line.

Rob, your morals aren't the same as everyone else's and you'd be more apt to change people's compasses around by stating your point of view "flossers aren't much of a sportsman" without spazzing out about it. Of course you're welcome to butt heads if you choose, but that won't help the fish much.......

OK, is now when I say "PERIOD" ?

Well, I guess I kinda biased here as I spend my summers in a place where countless thousands of people harvest hundreds of thousands sockeye. 99% of which are harvested one of three ways: one, by flossing, two, by personal use dipnetting, and three, by personal use gillnetting at the mouth of the river.

Guess which way I prefer to fish them(although I don't claim residency anyhow to have the option to net)????

The way I look at things: if the fish don't bite period, floss 'em. Sure it's glorified snagging, but it still takes the knack to do it correctly so that you're hooking them in the mouth. If it's a fish that normally bites, then I say "no" to flossing. That's part of "fishing"

Weird way of looking at it? Perhaps, but knowing that perhaps 1 out a few thousand sockeye bite (there's been 225,000 + return to the Kasilof this year and we've caught FOUR with traditional methods) ... I can live with it.

Besides, who can resist it when this is what the fishery is all about??

Sockeye Lining Movie - 5.46 meg download

Sockeye Lining Movie - lower quality movie - 3.34 meg download

I think Fishgal's giggle says it all

Play nice eveyone

I wonder why bare red hooks behind a dodger, which sockeye definately bite in Lake Washington, don't seem to work in other freshwater situations. I assume it's been tried...

So G-Man, how big is your family? I find it hard to believe you haven't seen this post yet...

Slab Q
Thats a great question. On the Oly Pen they will take a sand shrimp. My friend who fishes L WA says he's tried but they won't take a shrimp there for him. He says they won't take a red hook on the Pen either. I have tried both on the Kenai without success, I have to wonder what the heck is up with these fish? Part of their Union Contract? :rolleyes: