I heard a lot about morals and ethics this past week on this BB, and have to admit, I am a little puzzled. Apparently someone out there has developed a secret set of morals and ethics about Fishing Rules that we are all suppose to know about when we are out fishing. I would like to see what these new Fishing moral or ethical rules are, wouldn't you? It would also be helpful for everyone to "understand" the reasoning behind each one of these proclaimed unpublished rules.

Recently, I have read many postings on this BB saying that it "not moral or ethical" to line a fish or it's "morally or ethically wrong" to kill or harvest wild fish. The list goes on an on, but for once; wouldn't it be interesting to here and understand the logic behind their reasoning?

Just think about it, you could post a reply back to another posting, and actually say something e.g., "that's against moral or ethic rule #3 or #7". At lease that way the person being accused would know what moral or ethical rule he has been accused of breaking.

If they are going to be our judge, then they can tell us what rule we have broken! So here's the question. What secret "moral" or "ethic" rule should become part of our "fishing code of ethics", and what is your reasoning for or against it?

Who will be first?


Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????


[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]

Me first! If what your doing makes you wonder if it's right or wrong then there's a very high chance it's wrong.CF I'm looking forward to seeing some of the responces given as you know some people that said flossing is wrong are some of the same people who had no problem handing off thier rod or fishing until the boat was limited which is also illegal. Why? Could it be" Do as I say not as I do".

I thought that for 2001, limiting the boat was OK, as per WDFW p. 16, last paragraph under "Harvest Rules."

Regards.

Mike
Woodinville

I Think it only applies in areas that require a saltwater license.

Yup, you're right. I guess that since I am 100% salt, I keyed on the saltwater part of that paragraph.

Personally I've practiced C&R all year. And thanks to these efforts the spawning run of barnacle-covered rocks will be stronger than ever.

If I could insert some rules into the books for 2002 I would do the following:

• 12" minimum length on ALL trout
• bank fishing leaders no longer than 36"
• no catch/size limit on Columbia and Willamette river bass
• triple snagging fines

Plus, I would look into the potential effect of using too light of fishing tackle on the mortality rates of wild fish. Sure, we all laugh at the bass anglers and their 30lb test for 6lb fish but what we need to remember is that by bringing them in quickly they are reducing the stress on the fish. After a long battle the fish might be able to swim away under its own power after some recovery time but who's to say if the fish doesn't belly up downstream?

Gee I wonder why boat limits are legal in salt water and not in fresh??? Wouldn't have anything to do with the big money charter boats would it???

The Million dollar question. It's not legal in the freshwater which also means it's not ethical as well. Does that mean that just because it's legal in salt is it still ethical???

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Pickled Herring ]

Seth:

Money has moved non-ethical issues into legislation for years. Nothing new.

So True...

You're mixing two distinct ethical questions:

1. Is it ethical to limit the entire boat?
2. Is it ethical to break the law?

If you consider these separately, there is no dilemma.

Regards.

Mike
Woodinville

Cowlitz, I could just as easily claim that the corrupt Freshwater Charter Coalition subverted the WDFW to make barbed hooks illegal on saltwater whilst targeting salmon, to make sure the fish would escape, and then be caught by the freshwater charters.

Regards.

Mike
Woodinville

Ethics are a touchy issue. Bottom Line: Be honest with yourself as well as with others. Be honest in all of your actions and statements. Don't get up on the Board talkiing about releasing all wild fish and then when you catch a wild fish a couple of weeks later, you bonk it. Don't say one thing and then do another. A lot of guys on this Board question my ethics. They are of the opinion that since I engage in a practice that they disagree with, that I am a bad person. That's fine, I don't need anyone's approval. However, at least I am honest. No matter what I am doing, I'm honest about it, and that in itself is the ethical way to behave. If you are honest with yourself, and never do anything that you feel is wrong, then what everyone else has to say will cease to matter.

The boat limit issue confused me a bit, because I thought that salmon were listed as game fish. Well, knock me over with a feather, because it looks like I was taking my other lines out of the water when there wasn't a need to do so. Salmon are classified as a food fish! Whodathunkit? Have they always been a food fish? I read the hunting regs every year, but I just always went with common sense and a skim of the fishing regs. I guess I'll have to change that practice.

The nice thing is that I was still fishing legally, and it turns out that I don't mind pulling the extra rods out of the water when we are down to a fewer fish than fishermen for the boat limit.

As long as it is legal, I don't hold anything against the others on how they fish. If you want to hold yourself to a higher standard, then go ahead.

My only request is that you don't look down your nose at others because they choose to fish legally, but at a lower standard than yours. I would prefer that you teach them the benefits of this higher standard. An example of this would be to release all wild fish.

Beginning September 1st, I can start keeping wild silvers in Sekiu. I will do my best to target the hatchery fish, but I can tell you right now that there will be some wild fish bonked on my boat. I won't have a problem if one of my guests really wants to keep an 18lb hooknose, but I will encourage them to only take one wild fish a trip. I may even take a wild fish as well, but I will probably just stick to the hatchery fish.

Andy

These different points of view are great! But what's even greater is the explanation that you are giving that supports your point of view. No one else hast to like or accept them, but we all now can understand the reasoning behind your moral or ethical views!

It's good to be an American!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

I've been having a real (moral) dilemma this year while fishing out near Sekiu. We've had days where we caught & released 50 unclipped fish to keep 10 clipped coho.

I know that there is a certain mortality rate from this catch & release, and I purposely have fished almost exclusively single small siwash hooks, mostly spoons, to lessen the mortality rate.

But I've been considering the options... either I don't fish there at all, or I fish this way. I've been asking myself, if WDFW changed the rules next year and made it so you could keep just the first two fish you caught, would I like that? Because I do enjoy fishing a lot, and would probably like to fish most of the day, rather than be done first thing in the morning. But I also do enjoy eating fish, too.

So I'm still not sure what I'm going to do come September 1st, am I going to keep the first fish we catch, until our limits are full, or am I going to catch & release until I have the fish I want?

I think that in cases where WDFW is truly concerned about fish in a particular area (saltwater), that area should remain completely closed, or there should be much stricter gear restrictions in those areas... to lessen the C&R mortality impact... like you can only use single hooks 1/0 or smaller... something that won't brain or go through the eye of a smaller fish.

Then again, WDFW is so f***ked up when it comes to making sound scientific decisions, that I just don't trust their decisions. Example, how can they justify having openings in Area 5 and Area 7, but Area 6 has none? Never mind any net fisheries they allow... that just throws all C&R, all "protect the wild fish" theories out the window.

So I guess I'm looking for input, because I don't think many 18lb hooknose's will get released off my boat after September 1st, I think they'd all go in the fish box, wild or otherwise (If they weren't there in healthy numbers, WDFW wouldn't open the season, right?)

-N.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: StorminN ]

1. I suppose barbless circle hooks would help, although I'm just now getting around to trying them.

2. If you can ID the fish before you try to net it, and get good with one of those "hook-stick" things, you can release it with almost no impact.

3. Use a sturdy line so that you can bring the fish to the boat promptly without breaking the line.

I think that you would cause very low mortality if you did these things. Once you net the fish, or if it's bleeding, I'd guess the mortality goes way up.

As for the WDFW's convoluted regs, I dunno. I can see why they split Area 7 off from the rest, because any salmon that end up in Area 7 are probably Canada-bound, not Puget Sound-bound. I kinda wonder why they are sticking with the wild coho release thing this year, since by all accounts, this year's coho run is very strong.

I personally think the 1 rockfish per day rule is stupid, since it motivates fishers to keep C&R-ing rockfish until they get one big enough for their liking, and rockfish mortality is really high regardless of how gently you treat them. They might as well just shut down rockfish until they are sufficiently recovered.

Regards.

Mike
Woodinville

Norman,

I am right there with you. If anyone was so worried about wild fish, then I say to them, "Put your gear away."

Some folks are so worried about these wilds that they get upset when one is kept. What is the difference between someone catching 30 or more in a year and having two to five die because of hook mortality and some guy who goes up to the penninsula, fishes one of the rivers around Forks once and because of blind luck he catches one monster 30 pound steelhead and takes it home. Both fish still die. They are both removed from the gene pool. The only two differences are that one gets eaten by a family of humans while the other becomes fishfood, and one person killed intentionally while the other did not.

I guess it is all in how you look at it.

Andy

Last cast,
Unfortunately I have to disagree with your theory that if you wonder if its right or wrong,then most likely its wrong.You have to realize we are dealing with laws written by W.D.F.W and as so many people have stated before there is so much amiguity in them,Its dang hard to know if your doing right or wrong even if you have a pamphlet in your hands.One law applies to one person but not another.Or one law might be interpreted in 10 different ways by 10 different people.The heck of it is they may all be involved in the enforcement of these laws.I say do the best you can,and hope like hell your right in your interpretation.Of course there are things that should be obviously immoral,and one of the biggest would be purposely letting our resources go to waste.

HuntnFish,

The same could be said about your last post. One man's wasted resource, is another man's balanced, healthy eco-system. If you look hard enough at any law, you could probably find some loophole that would prevent you from being convicted, if caught breaking it.

In my opinion, it's those who expend alot of energy looking for a way around the laws, instead of trying to abide by the intent, that cross the "ethical border" so to speak.

If you examine the main reasons why people break or "bend" the fish and game laws, it all come down to the basic human characteristic GREED