The Otter Point Closure Line: West is West

[casper5280]

I could give a rats butt who fish’s where. All I’m saying is if you are over the line you own it, don’t be blaming it on I got pushed there or the tide took me there or it’s foggy out. That’s all BS and you are over the line. Go ahead and fish where you want but if Johnny law comes along be a man and say you knew you where over the line. I’m out.

 

[Saxe Point]

I don't think so, ziggy. I think no one cares other than you and a few others.

If you don’t care about the rules and whether they are followed, then you don’t care about the resource, which the rules are intended to protect. It’s that simple.

 

[Jama]

The rule we are discussing has nothing to do with protecting the resource.

 

[Rockfish]

The rule we are discussing has nothing to do with protecting the resource.

Correct, and it should be fought and protested at every opportunity.

 

[Rum Buddies]

Well I'm not going to name names, but rumor has it someone took photos of a couple of charter operators and reported them DFO.

Guess we'll find out if the excuses hold up...

 

[Saxe Point]

Correct, and it should be fought and protested at every opportunity.

One could argue about whether the rule is designed to protect a resource, or which resource it is designed to protect. Could be the salmon, it could be another resource. One could argue as well about the effectiveness of the rule in terms of its stated objective. But at the end of the day, if you don’t like the rule’s objective or its effectiveness, the answer is not to ignore it or willfully disobey it. The answer is to seek to have it changed.

In addition, the mere fact that you find it difficult to have the rule changed does not justify ignoring or willfully disobeying it.

 

[fishhook]

Very articulate description of the problem Profisher.

... But if these things do concern the regulator, this fudging of the boundary rule is evidence that could prompt them to move the line east. They may conclude that there will always be systematic, but small, boundary violations, and therefore in order to keep sports fishers off the large populations that so obviously congregate at Otter, they could then move it to Trailer Park.
...

I feel the location of the boundary is straight offending. It criminalizes law abiding fishermen. They could have put the boundary to 500m west of 3rd rock then it would be between two fishing spots. But instead they put it right through the middle of Otterpoint. I'm all for sticking to the rules and I always do but as Profisher pointed out due to the traffic there and currents sometimes you have no choice . Example: If the boat next to you plays a fish while keep heading west and you are caught on the inside then you have no choice. Same situation is when you are on the inside and got a fish. You can't simply turn outside because another boat is already there. And if you slow down to pass up that boat then the next boat will follow already. No way to turn with a fish on while on the inside.
I hope DFO is smart enough to enforce the boundary only to those that willfully ignore it. I have seen boats circling at 2nd rock couple weeks ago. That is definitely beyond of what I consider to be the wiggle room you might need occasionally. But in general most if not all stick to the open area.

 

[ziggy]

I don't think so, ziggy. I think no one cares other than you and a few others.

Well if that’s the case, it’s pretty sad, but I can live with it. Fortunately I guess those “few others” that worry about following the rules are the people I am fortunate to fish with and call my friends. Call me silly I will continue to fish with barbless hooks, not exceeed my daily, possession and annual limit and follow the closures. If it was just about filling a freezer I’d go to Thrifty’s and save money!

 

[calmsea]

Good for you ziggy, but I also don't care where you fish and what you fish with. Unless you have a deadly lure secret of course

 

[chris73]

Well if that’s the case, it’s pretty sad, but I can live with it. Fortunately I guess those “few others” that worry about following the rules are the people I am fortunate to fish with and call my friends. Call me silly I will continue to fish with barbless hooks, not exceeed my daily, possession and annual limit and follow the closures. If it was just about filling a freezer I’d go to Thrifty’s and save money!

I also follow the regulations, but don't care if others cross this closure line or even fish with barbed hooks. I would care if a reg had real merits and violations had the potential to do real damage to the environment but not this bs.

 

[ziggy]

Good for you ziggy, but I also don't care where you fish and what you fish with. Unless you have a deadly lure secret of course

Well I guess if you don’t mind poaching, you don’t mind poaching, it bothers me. Some probably don’t care about illegal nets across the Fraser or boats filled with suspicious people jigging in RCA’s either. Oddly enough I’ve seen numerous threads on here from people who do obviously care about illegal fishing, so I don’t think I’m alone. Unless of course those people are all hypocrites and feel that only other people need to play by the rules.

This whole thread makes me think we need a lot more enforcement out on the water and maybe Recreational fishermen are a bigger problem than I thought. I’m actually finding this very depressing.

 

[fogged in]

Well I guess if you don’t mind poaching, you don’t mind poaching, it bothers me. Some probably don’t care about illegal nets across the Fraser or boats filled with suspicious people jigging in RCA’s either. Oddly enough I’ve seen numerous threads on here from people who do obviously care about illegal fishing, so I don’t think I’m alone. Unless of course those people are all hypocrites and feel that only other people need to play by the rules.
This whole thread makes me think we need a lot more enforcement out on the water and maybe Recreational fishermen are a bigger problem than I thought. I’m actually finding this very depressing.

“does not justify ignoring or willfully disobeying it.”
“Well I guess if you don’t mind poaching, you don’t mind poaching, it bothers me.”
“This whole thread makes me think we need a lot more enforcement out on the water”
“I go with the simple method - follow all the rules. If breaking the rules of the day is ok - then which one?”
“Does it matter if people fail or refuse to respect the boundary specifically, and the fishing regulations generally?”

Comments like these do not reflect a knowledgeable understanding of the Otter Point boundary problem.
We all agree that anyone fishing the west of Otter Point, ie first, second or third rock or the beach or Tugwell, or Muir, or Sheringham, or Pt. No Point, all favorite fishing spots and are in the first 5 or so miles from the East side of the closure is downright wrong GIVEN THIS RIDICULOUS REGULATION and will not be tolerated by anyone and is being honored by almost all sport fishers at all times! (the very very few who have ventured about 200 yds. down the side of Otter to 2nd rock on a very rare occasion will and should be prosecuted)
The 50 miles or so of closure from Otter Point to the East side of Renfrew Harbor is not being fished for salmon halibut or bottom fish AT ALL.
Crabbers, Freighters, Pleasure Boaters AND Whale Watchers are however free to proceed as usual.
So I say, lets stop the petty debate over who might be a few yards over a tough to determine line!
AND PLEASE REMEMBER... THE CLOSURE IS NOT A SALMON CONSERVATION CLOSURE, IT'S CLOSED TO ALLOW THE ORCA'S AN UNDISTURBED FEEDING AREA.

 

[ziggy]

Hey, I don’t like the regulations any more than you do. Where I fish we have lost the Pender Bluffs, a go to spot for fall Springs, Coho and one of the few places where Sockeye can be caught. We annually lose Coal Island and the approaches to the Saanich Inlet another favourite and productive spot, to Spring non retention every August first! So while I may not be knowledgeable in your particular closure ( more accurately, directly affected by), I’d argue I’m pretty damn knowledgeable about closures and the loss of productive areas. My area also has a much larger minimum slot size etc., but even though I find it odd , given the fish are migratory and pass through areas that for whatever reason are less restrictive regarding retention and size.

I read the Sooke reports and see a lot of people still catching a lot of fish regardless of the closure, understand Sockeye was on fire,it hasn’t been the case where I am. We have a few areas still open for Springs and not a hell of a lot else.

I also suggest that comments like “I don’t care about using barbed hooks” etc. makes me wonder if we are still talking Sport Fishing. At any rate fish with Barbed hooks, fish the closed areas and you can argue with DFO, why not phone them up and tell them you’re going to do it and want to be arrested. I could respect that! I’m not here to be anyone’s moral compass, pay you money and take your chances, but we need to agree to disagree I guess

 

[Saxe Point]

“does not justify ignoring or willfully disobeying it.”
“Well I guess if you don’t mind poaching, you don’t mind poaching, it bothers me.”
“This whole thread makes me think we need a lot more enforcement out on the water”
“I go with the simple method - follow all the rules. If breaking the rules of the day is ok - then which one?”
“Does it matter if people fail or refuse to respect the boundary specifically, and the fishing regulations generally?”

Comments like these do not reflect a knowledgeable understanding of the Otter Point boundary problem.
We all agree that anyone fishing the west of Otter Point, ie first, second or third rock or the beach or Tugwell, or Muir, or Sheringham, or Pt. No Point, all favorite fishing spots and are in the first 5 or so miles from the East side of the closure is downright wrong GIVEN THIS RIDICULOUS REGULATION and will not be tolerated by anyone and is being honored by almost all sport fishers at all times! (the very very few who have ventured about 200 yds. down the side of Otter to 2nd rock on a very rare occasion will and should be prosecuted)
The 50 miles or so of closure from Otter Point to the East side of Renfrew Harbor is not being fished for salmon halibut or bottom fish AT ALL.
Crabbers, Freighters, Pleasure Boaters AND Whale Watchers are however free to proceed as usual.
So I say, lets stop the petty debate over who might be a few yards over a tough to determine line!
AND PLEASE REMEMBER... THE CLOSURE IS NOT A SALMON CONSERVATION CLOSURE, IT'S CLOSED TO ALLOW THE ORCA'S AN UNDISTURBED FEEDING AREA.

I respectfully say you are wrong to characterize this as a "petty debate over who might be a few yards over a tough to determine line." Wrong in two ways.

First, even if you could prove that someone was fishing "a few yards" over the line (few meaning 2, 3, or even let's say 5), I don't expect anyone who has contributed to this discussion, or even the regulatory authority, would view this as a serious violation warranting enforcement action. That would be "petty", but nobody is taking that view. It borders on ridiculous and is completely different from people fishing significantly over the line.

Second, you assert precisely the thing that many have refuted: the line is tough to determine. It's just not. The last 2 days I approached and crossed the boundary and then came back over it again, before I dropped my lines well east of the boundary. The GPS numbers told me each time where the line was. It doesn't matter where you are in a northerly or southerly direction, the numbers that indicate that westerly line still appear on the GPS. Simple, and many others have said so.

Whether the closure rule is good or bad is a different debate (and a very heated one.) So is the issue of whether it is hard to fish close to the line without crossing over it, as articulated by Profisher. But neither of these support your "petty debate" statement. In fact, I suspect that most members of this forum would consider the debate about the appropriateness of the closure rule to be anything but petty!

 

[fogged in]

. In fact, I suspect that most members of this forum would consider the debate about the appropriateness of the closure rule to be anything but petty![/QUOTE]

Come on Saxe..shake yourself and read my post!
I said "So I say, lets stop the petty debate over who might be a few yards over a tough to determine line!
AND PLEASE REMEMBER... THE CLOSURE IS NOT A SALMON CONSERVATION CLOSURE, IT'S CLOSED TO ALLOW THE ORCA'S AN UNDISTURBED FEEDING AREA. "
And if you reread my post, you will see what I said about the "Appropriateness of the closure" and the 99.9% compliance of Sport Fishers.
This whole debate has gone from ridiculous to insane!!
Just like the closure...insane...
Tell me, is DFO actually using their recognizance to record what is important....
How often, what days and what times, are the Orca's within a half mile of the shore, where we like to fish, in the closed area???
I am done with the stupidity of this debate, just like other informed members of this forum.

 

[Saxe Point]

. In fact, I suspect that most members of this forum would consider the debate about the appropriateness of the closure rule to be anything but petty!

Come on Saxe..shake yourself and read my post!
I said "So I say, lets stop the petty debate over who might be a few yards over a tough to determine line!
AND PLEASE REMEMBER... THE CLOSURE IS NOT A SALMON CONSERVATION CLOSURE, IT'S CLOSED TO ALLOW THE ORCA'S AN UNDISTURBED FEEDING AREA. "
And if you reread my post, you will see what I said about the "Appropriateness of the closure" and the 99.9% compliance of Sport Fishers.
This whole debate has gone from ridiculous to insane!!
Just like the closure...insane...
Tell me, is DFO actually using their recognizance to record what is important....
How often, what days and what times, are the Orca's within a half mile of the shore, where we like to fish, in the closed area???
I am done with the stupidity of this debate, just like other informed members of this forum.[/QUOTE]

I read your post and understood it too. Unfortunately, while you might have read mine, you clearly did not understand any of it, or indeed any of my previous posts, and especially the one about keeping the issues analytically separate. Clear thinking and precise use of language are more important than the use of capital letters and bold font. You have used the latter; try the former.

The main point of this thread is that that the line is easy to discern, but you claim otherwise without explaining why.

The other related point that has been discussed, which you clearly don't understand, is that the closure might be (as you feel) entirely misguided. But that doesn't mean the rule should not be followed. Or does it, in your view? That's what we have been talking about.

Read and understand what you are saying in your own post before castigating others who do understand what you are saying.

As I said before, the strong feelings about whether the closure is good or bad has been beaten much harder in other threads, and it's probably not dead. That's where you should direct your attention. Don't characterize a discussion you do not understand as insane, ridiculous or stupid.

 

[gon fishin]

the line is like sex , either you're in or you're out and there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant