Many people release the big halis?

[Aces]

Sportsfishing can mean different things to different people. I think most sportsfishermen share my views. My only point was to highlight what sportsfishing is not - it's not about "needing" the fish the way some people do. World Fisheries Trust (created in 1995, a Canadian non-profit organization dedicated to the equitable and sustainable use and conservation of aquatic biodiversity) has defined the difference as follows:

What is subsistence fishing?
Subsistence fishing refers to fishing, other than sport
fishing, that is carried out primarily to feed the family
and relatives of the person doing the fishing. Generally it
also implies the use of low tech “artisanal” fishing
techniques and is carried out by people who are very
poor. Quite often this fishing is part of a life that also
relies on small-scale agriculture and other sources of
income, and may include some sale of fish.
In Canada, the term also applies to First Nations fisheries
for food and ceremonial purposes, and may have some
slightly differing legal implications depending on the part
of the country.

Actually i don't think that most "sportsmen" that fish in the saltwater would agree with you.

Most enjoy going fishing for "sport", ie. with rod and reel BUT they also want to eat the fish that they catch. Hardly sustenence fishing aka as the so called "first nations" people (there is an argument about who was actually 1st) where they use nets, traps and weirs to collect their fish..... most of which is sold illegally, like stolen property.

 

[yo mama]

Plain and simple. If it is open to retention, and you want to keep it, thats your choice. Some do some don't. If you don't like it better take up a new hobby or start bitching to the people who make the rule.

 

[Saxe Point]

Relax guys. I never said a sports fisherman doesn't want to keep fish or shouldn't. I do! The only point is that the sports fisherman doesn't need a fish the same way a subsistence fisher does - totally different thing. I don't know why this is so difficult or controversial. Let's focus on conserving the fish for subsistence and sports!

 

[Last Chance]

It is a similar argument to "carbon emissions" in Canada. When you are a drop in the bucket, it feels good, but makes NO damn difference at all. Do what feels best to you, but when a commercial boat that has a 900,000 pound quota doesn't throw a damn thing back, what impact is the entire recreational fleet going to have letting large fish go. The rec fleet has next to no impact, we can see it on the West Coast, when Area "G" is trolling, salmon are few and far between on Swiftsure, when they are not, it's plenty of fish.

It feels good, but at the end of the day, it's a drop in the bucket. I would wonder how many large fish survive the release, I know halibut are a very hardy animal, but, let's say in a good day, someone is fishing a productive area like the Victoria Waterfront. They release a couple of 80 pounders, one of them swallows the trailing hook of a tandem rig, the other one doesn't bleed much, but gets an infection from the open wound regardless. Had the angler kept the first 80, would it have been better?

I'm for conservation, but, like the gun registry, certain aspects of it look a lot better on paper then they really are.

 

[reelfast]

i would respectfully suggest you take a look at the 'season' we have here in washington state. you are well on your way to rationalizing your actions which will in turn produce a duplicate WA season up north. all the best on this but you are fooling yourselves.

 

[wolf]

To add how many on here are even able to let a big fish go these fish are mean and stubborn even with all the years ive been on the water I dont think I would like to mess with trying to release one. I will never knock a person from letting them go but if you are really about conservation that is your right so you know what "DONT GO FISHING" why take the chance of letting a fish go only to die or become seal bait. its bad enough to watch wild coho in sept floating out of of sooke trying to find hacthery fish.
Do I personally want to kill a big hog "NO" I dont but and this is a huge BUT I fish and ill keep it.

I fish for many reasons and the main one is food for my table as I love to harvest almost everything I possablly can....I hunt for meat!!!!! fish for seafood!!!!! pick wild mushrooms, we have 4 gardens that we fill our freezer with every year, I cut my own firewood to heat our house/shop mainly cause then I know where it is all coming from. i try and buy local when I can and support local. call me old fashioned. but I enjoy it.

So if you want to fault me on killing go ahead. Ill do what I can to feed myself and my family its the way it is plain and simple.

wolf

 

[tincan]

reelfast, What is the season for hali in Washington? Is there one at all? What's the history with opening/closures over the years? thx

 

[lorneparker1]

Some of you guys should google "the starfish story"

 

[tincan]

"Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has." (Margaret Mead)

the world is filled with examples of this. doesn't take long to google a long list of great people doing great things.

 

[Optimist]

Washington hali fishery is on an open day schedule ,and because of that they have been relying on the canadian swiftsure bank for there halibut for years which inturn comes off the canadian quota ,so reelfast if your a conservationist,stay on your own side!!!

 

[Fishmyster]

Relax guys. I never said a sports fisherman doesn't want to keep fish or shouldn't. I do! The only point is that the sports fisherman doesn't need a fish the same way a subsistence fisher does - totally different thing. I don't know why this is so difficult or controversial. Let's focus on conserving the fish for subsistence and sports!

You're right the sportfisherman doesn't need the fish the same as the first nations. Sportfishermen actualy eat the fish they catch! First Nations fishers sell the fish and buy pop and chips silly. Where have you been living lately?? This is a touchy subjest because the average taxpaying sportsman in this country is getting jacked out of the resource. While getting jacked, these people that contribute the most, are expected to be the conservative with thier harvest. Once we are all broke from the govt sucking all the finacial life out of us and giving it to all the chosen ones do you think it would be fair for all of us to go sustainance fishing?
As fishtofino stated I too don't thing the average sportfisherman or citizen agrees with you.

 

[Saxe Point]

You're right the sportfisherman doesn't need the fish the same as the first nations. Sportfishermen actualy eat the fish they catch! First Nations fishers sell the fish and buy pop and chips silly. Where have you been living lately?? This is a touchy subjest because the average taxpaying sportsman in this country is getting jacked out of the resource. While getting jacked, these people that contribute the most, are expected to be the conservative with thier harvest. Once we are all broke from the govt sucking all the finacial life out of us and giving it to all the chosen ones do you think it would be fair for all of us to go sustainance fishing?
As fishtofino stated I too don't thing the average sportfisherman or citizen agrees with you.

What an outrageous and unfair generalization - the hallmark of of a completely ill informed opinion. If there are some who are selling their fish that are for food, social or ceremonial purposes, that is a problem and it should be addressed. But if you are suggesting all First Nation fishers do this, that is a serious allegation that you can't prove and should not make. It's about as fair as saying that all sportsfishermen are scofflaws because some ignore the rules.

Our Canadian Constitution says that First Nations have aboriginal rights and the Supreme Court of Canada says they include fishing rights. Best of luck to you in getting the Constitution amended. Right thinking citizens will have none of it, so you better get used to it.

Like others, you can't seem to separate your emotions from logic. The only point I was making is that a subsistence fisherman "needs" fish in a way that a sportsfisherman does not. No one has refuted this. That a sportsfisherman really likes to keep and eat fish, or that there may be possible abuse of a right to fish, or that there are conservation challenges in managing the resource has nothing to do with the point I was making. If a person is fishing to avoid starving (subsistence), the objective is not sport. One who needs fish for subsistence has a greater moral and ethical claim to the fish than a person who fishes for sport, even if the sportsfisherman likes to keep fish. Surely you can agree with that. If not, we've got bigger problems than fish!

 

[Lipripper]

 

[Gunsmith]

Where is Statler and Waldorf?

 

[Lipripper]

They're watchin..... don't worry about it...


[zSDj7bjAv2s] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDj7bjAv2s

 

[Gunsmith]

Good now I can take a break!

 

[Fishmyster]

What an outrageous and unfair generalization - the hallmark of of a completely ill informed opinion. If there are some who are selling their fish that are for food, social or ceremonial purposes, that is a problem and it should be addressed. But if you are suggesting all First Nation fishers do this, that is a serious allegation that you can't prove and should not make. It's about as fair as saying that all sportsfishermen are scofflaws because some ignore the rules.

Our Canadian Constitution says that First Nations have aboriginal rights and the Supreme Court of Canada says they include fishing rights. Best of luck to you in getting the Constitution amended. Right thinking citizens will have none of it, so you better get used to it.

Like others, you can't seem to separate your emotions from logic. The only point I was making is that a subsistence fisherman "needs" fish in a way that a sportsfisherman does not. No one has refuted this. That a sportsfisherman really likes to keep and eat fish, or that there may be possible abuse of a right to fish, or that there are conservation challenges in managing the resource has nothing to do with the point I was making. If a person is fishing to avoid starving (subsistence), the objective is not sport. One who needs fish for subsistence has a greater moral and ethical claim to the fish than a person who fishes for sport, even if the sportsfisherman likes to keep fish. Surely you can agree with that. If not, we've got bigger problems than fish!

Hey Saxe point. As I am a fishing guide my livelyhood is dependant on the abillity to go fishing. I need to fish to sustain myself financialy. What is it that you do to put the food on you table?

 

[Aces]

What an outrageous and unfair generalization - the hallmark of of a completely ill informed opinion. If there are some who are selling their fish that are for food, social or ceremonial purposes, that is a problem and it should be addressed. But if you are suggesting all First Nation fishers do this, that is a serious allegation that you can't prove and should not make. It's about as fair as saying that all sportsfishermen are scofflaws because some ignore the rules.

Our Canadian Constitution says that First Nations have aboriginal rights and the Supreme Court of Canada says they include fishing rights. Best of luck to you in getting the Constitution amended. Right thinking citizens will have none of it, so you better get used to it.

Like others, you can't seem to separate your emotions from logic. The only point I was making is that a subsistence fisherman "needs" fish in a way that a sportsfisherman does not. No one has refuted this. That a sportsfisherman really likes to keep and eat fish, or that there may be possible abuse of a right to fish, or that there are conservation challenges in managing the resource has nothing to do with the point I was making. If a person is fishing to avoid starving (subsistence), the objective is not sport. One who needs fish for subsistence has a greater moral and ethical claim to the fish than a person who fishes for sport, even if the sportsfisherman likes to keep fish. Surely you can agree with that. If not, we've got bigger problems than fish!

It appears to me that you must live in the city where you don't have much contact with the "first nations" people because Fishmyster is quite correct. There is a massive problem with them selling fish granted under a food license - open your eyes. The Feds are afraid to take them to court so nothing is done about it....hence it's not in the public eye like it should be.

Lipripper - you better put on another batch of popcorn, lol.

 

[Saxe Point]

Hey Saxe point. As I am a fishing guide my livelyhood is dependant on the abillity to go fishing. I need to fish to sustain myself financialy. What is it that you do to put the food on you table?

Good morning Fishmyster. You're only closer to subsistence, relying on sportfishing to make a living, by being closer to the resource. But you don't need to eat the fish to survive. You rely on the sportsfisherman to earn a living to put food on the table. I work to earn money to put food on the table, but not in anything connected to sportfishing, commercial or subsistence fishing.

But your reliance on sportfishing to make a living means you have a greater stake in a healthy fishery than the sportfisherman, who needs neither the sport caught fish to eat nor the income from the sportfishing industry to make a living. So in the spectrum of moral or ethical claims to the fish, yours is stronger than mine, but that of a subsistence fisherman is stronger than yours. Was that where you were going?

 

[Saxe Point]

It appears to me that you must live in the city where you don't have much contact with the "first nations" people because Fishmyster is quite correct. There is a massive problem with them selling fish granted under a food license - open your eyes. The Feds are afraid to take them to court so nothing is done about it....hence it's not in the public eye like it should be.

Lipripper - you better put on another batch of popcorn, lol.

Popcorn or not, that's a separate issue from the point I was making. My point was not made with reference to the constitutional rights of the First Nations, but was a lot simpler. Anyone whose economic options are so limited that they need to catch a fish to to eat (or else they go hungry), is different than someone who fishes for sport, and likes to keep the fish for food. It was about poverty. Some people thought this simple proposition diminished their own legitimate interest in and need for a sustainable fishery. I don't think so.