Leaners

Bill Monroe · 08-04-2003, 06:22 AM

Just curious (but I dunno how to start a poll...if someone wants to set it up, it would be interesting...maybe it's been done)

As I understand it, the fish and wildlife commission on Friday will be asked to relax the adipose restriction that says "removed in its entirety" with a healed clip, to something more benign that would allow partials...in the regs for next year.

Seemed like a slam dunk to me until I talked with state police, who apparently don't want it to change and instead would prefer to leave discretion or disgression (which could mean non-aggression) to troopers at the dock or in the boat.

I've watched others from that end of keeping very slight leaners and each time involved a range of emotional traumas until the dock and rig were safely on the way home...not about whether the fish was hatchery...but whether or not the cop would think so...

I guess my gut feeling is to go with the fisher person...liberalize the rule a little bit to ease the trauma and, in fact, probably allow a few more hatchery fish to be kept (rates of clip error range from 7 to 10 percent, I think).

What about it?

[ 08-04-2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Bill Monroe ]

Flatfish · 08-04-2003, 06:36 AM

Change the law. I would rather see the police educated than the resource wasted.

The taxpayers of Oregon pay a lot of money for these fish. To not take advantage of them because of a sloppy clip is throwing away resources. Hatchery fish were bred to be caught and eaten.

Either change the law, or find a better way to do precise clips on little bity fins. I know there is a clipping machine in the world. But given the revenue problems faced by the state right now, I would not want to try and get funding for a clipping maching.

I have stood for hours on end clipping tiny fins. It is easy to get half of one.

Mark and the dog.

Straydog · 08-04-2003, 06:56 AM

Change the law. We pay too much for these fish to let them go under utilized.

Plus, many of these fish are clipped by volunteers ( [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] ) and the consistancy varies accordingly. Budget realities make it prudent to continue using volunteers rather than buy more fin clipping machines so we should allow some flexability in this situation.

dawhunt · 08-04-2003, 07:23 AM

The law needs to be changed.I don't have my washington booklet handy right now but a partial clipped adipose on a fish,the fish is yours to keep.IF ITS A HEALED CLIPPED FIN !!and it very easy to tell if its been clipped or not even if half the fin is left.
Bob

freespool · 08-04-2003, 07:41 AM

I feel the law needs to change. To much time is wasted trying to determine,is it,or isn't a keeper? A couple years ago I was fishing the Clack. at Dog creek and my buddy gets one,with the left pecteral missing. We figured fin clipped no problem. Got home and looked up the reg. and oh oh,only steelhead can have any fin mising,not chinook. Bill is that error rate of 7-10% for manual or machine clipping?

fish_on · 08-04-2003, 07:43 AM

Change the rule, if it has been clipped it should be kept.

Rubber Robin · 08-04-2003, 07:44 AM

Yes, the law should be changed! No doubt! A partial clip is a hatchery fish.

The only thing that the current Oregon law accomplishes is bad feelings between enforcement personel and the fisherman.

Pitch Pocket · 08-04-2003, 07:52 AM

The cops want the discretion so they can harrass you if they feel like it depending upon what? Which side of the bed they got up on?

Change the law. Don't give them the option to give you a hard time just because they don't like the way you look.

CAGEY · 08-04-2003, 08:01 AM

Iam a 27 year veteran of the badge and leaving that decision up to the officer is like putting a fire out with gasoline.
We all know that a good % of the fin clipped fish are not clipped in their etirety. There almost always seems to be a small portion left. In my book if the fin is gone and there is a little bump left, iam keeping it. Perhaps the law could be written which allows for a healed bump with the entire ribed fin removed but allow the base of the fin to remain.

Leaving it up to the game officer is not fair to him or the fishermen. You will always have some do do that is looking to make his day look good.

ampersat · 08-04-2003, 08:14 AM

on the other side of the issue is the breeding question. if we release partially clipped hatchery fish, then they will end up spawning with the native population and stirring up that controversy. this is becoming less of an issue though as hatcheries switch over to broodstock breeding.

i took a 10lb springer this year with a mostly clipped adipose. it was easy to tell that it was a misclip and the odfw checker didn't take issue with us at all.

let's not leave it up to the officer's discretion. let's make it a law.

Slowpie · 08-04-2003, 08:17 AM

Having worked both as a F&G officer and in a hatchery "clipping tiny fins", I know that fins are often not clipped in their entirety. As one person suggested, it is usually fairly easy to determine if a fin has been clipped - even partially. If the fin was clipped by the angler, it would have a totally different look than a healed fin. Changing the law to remove the "in its entirety" language makes good sense to me.

Digifish · 08-04-2003, 08:23 AM

The key to situation is "healed". If the adipose is completely or partialy removed and a "healed" scar is remaining, that is all that is needed to prove that this fish has aged since clipped and suficient evidence that it came from a hatchery. The language of the law should reflect this.

The margin of error is small enough with this method and certainly not worth upsetting someones fishing day with descrentionary calls.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty straight forward, IMHO.

See a healed scar-----> bonk, bonk , bonk....no questions asked.

BTW, thanks to all you volunteers doing the cliiping. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

fishonksm · 08-04-2003, 08:42 AM

IMHO I would like to see the law changed. We have all seen the fish retention numbers continually fall and tag/license fees rise for years, now its time to give back some ground.
With so many hatchery fish to be clipped, a % will undoubtedly will be partial or missed altogether. The one thing that needs to be left in the law is the word “healed”. A clip is a clip partial or other wise. I can’t say l have ever been hassled over a fin clip before, but was questioned one time by Washington fish checker about a catch I had until he waved his wand over the fishes nose and then proceeded to remove it for the tag inside it.
[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

Bill Monroe · 08-04-2003, 08:44 AM

Thanks for all of this...
I've never known any Oregon State trooper who delighted or even was satisfied by harassing anglers and hunters. They're totally dedicated and worth all of our support.
I think the main gig seems to be they fear more leeway for abuses, i.e., half an adipose (which doesn't show the healed scar as well), nicked adipose, etc...I see their point, but also agree with everyone here.
I'm also very tuned to the anxieties between the catch and the creel check...seems worth the risk to minimize that...
keep it going and maybe I'll send this off to Lindsay and his staff tomorrow.

Capt. Hook...Joe???

[ 08-04-2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Bill Monroe ]

Hooker · 08-04-2003, 08:56 AM

Nothing is more frustrating then getting a fish to the boat and there is a question about a clip!
I got a steelhead on the lower Columbia this weekend and the dorsal fin was completely gone and the left pecteral was also gone. It had a adipose fully intact though. I was in question so I threw it back--was this a legal fish?

OceanBlue · 08-04-2003, 08:59 AM

Maybe I'm all wet here, but I agree that it should be changed. Is there a way to put a measurement on it? Clipped and healed, but like Cagey says, ribbed fin gone? It seems to me there is little room for a judgement call with that.

And having been at a finclipping event, I can assure you that there's a wide margin for error there. You've got kids of all ages... literally from about 6 to 96 doing this work.

BrionLutz · 08-04-2003, 09:10 AM

Bill,

I'd lean to the more conservative approach and leave the law clear "in it's entirety".

Introducing a gray area of "partial" seems like it would be an enforcement nightmare. Folks are complaining about judgement calls on "no fin", imagine the launch ramp battles over "partial".

It will be like something out of Monty Python's Dead Parraot routine...tis, tis't. We are already stretched thin on game enforcement police and checkers due to the budget. Probably not the best time to change things that are inevitably going to take up more time.

The more conservative approach is to error on side of ensuring that more natives make it. Seems a small price to pay.

Brion

Trollin · 08-04-2003, 09:15 AM

Change the law, I've clipped fins at Whiskey Creek hatchery and know how difficult it is to completely remove those little suckers

freespool · 08-04-2003, 09:27 AM

Hooker,my interruption of the regs. is you released a keeper. Salmon are atipose fin clip,steelhead are any fin missing. Kind of confusing ha?

timinthegorge · 08-04-2003, 01:19 PM

Bill, Bill, Bill..... First change the law. If it's partial and healed, it's clipped.

Second, "disgression" instead of "discretion"??? What's that about?

Sorry, two years as a graduate assistant reading freshman papers makes those things kinda like, stand out...

Tim....

Jerry Dove · 08-04-2003, 02:31 PM

A clip is a clip is a clip is a clip. I can't think af a game officer that I know that would pinch a person for keeping a cliped,a cliped,a cliped fish. Be at the ODFW Commission open house Thrus. night or the meeting Friday and say a clip is a clip is a clip. Jerry

CATCH AND EAT · 08-04-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Change the law. We pay too much for these fish to let them go under utilized.

Plus, many of these fish are clipped by volunteers ( [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] ) and the consistancy varies accordingly. Budget realities make it prudent to continue using volunteers rather than buy more fin clipping machines so we should allow some flexability in this situation.

The earth has stopped and the planets are aligned because Straydog and I agree totaly on this baby. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

As for you Brion, a big hearty [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] right at ya!

If they are at all showing a sign of a clip do you really think those boys at the traps will let the fish through????? NOPE!!!

Just wondering if ya have a graph showing the escapement of hatchery fish through fish traps into the wild. Got to be one out there somewhere.

Please don't take this serious at all Brion. Just rattling your cage a little. However, you are wrong about this with respect to your opinion.

[ 08-04-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

BrionLutz · 08-04-2003, 06:56 PM

CE,

Quote:

However, you are wrong about this with respect to your opinion.

In your opinion <grin>.

I think we should keep it as black and white as possible.

There's also a political angle, if sports fishermen won't error on the side of the salmon, it doesn't leave us much bargaining room when asking commercial fishermen, tribes, dam operators, developers, timber companies etc. to go out of their way to error on the side of the salmon.

If we won't make the effort or accept the sacrafice for our hobby, how can we ask folks whose livelihood is on the line?

I'd like to see the sport fishing community be the leaders.

Brion

willametteriveroutlaw · 08-04-2003, 08:18 PM

This is a pretty black and white subject. If part of the fin is missing and healed... Then its clipped.
brion,
whats your logic behind saying a full clip or nothing? If you have much expirience with salmon a misclip is very very easy to spot. I have never seen a wild fish with a piece of its adipose missing. (fall chinook, countless wild sockeye, wild silvers, and wild chinook observed). I lived in alaska for 6 years and worked on a commercial boat, in a cannery, and sports fish alot. (in ak right now) I saw several misclips on the kasilof this year, (personally landed a couple). there pretty blatantly obivous. The reason that I wouldn't want to leave it to the discression of a trooper is that what if he/she had a bad day and got there buttons pressed. (i am a bit of a smartass) Next thing you know theres a 300.00 fine, fish, rod, gear.. truck if I really **** one off, GONE. Even if i was nice I could bear a resembalance to someone they didn't like. The possibility for human judgement error is too much.

BrionLutz · 08-04-2003, 09:08 PM

willametteriveroutlaw,

Quote:

This is a pretty black and white subject.

Hmm...comment below indicates there's some problems even with the clearer fin/no fin.

Quote:

The reason that I wouldn't want to leave it to the discression of a trooper is that what if he/she had a bad day and got there buttons pressed.

Partial would seem to add even more discretion. I think that is what the troopers were saying to Bill, keep the law as clear as possible which is fin/no fin.

Brion

willametteriveroutlaw · 08-04-2003, 09:49 PM

Not really brian, there pretty easy to distuinguish.. Did you even read my post???? or just find sentences that gave you a leg to stand on and quote them?

Dr Strangelove · 08-04-2003, 10:03 PM

These fish are circumsized; marked for a different fate. Don't discriminate on how much regrowth there might be. I'd be in big trouble if this were the case. If it's clipped its Kosher!

[ 08-04-2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Dr Strangelove ]

CAGEY · 08-04-2003, 11:52 PM

Bill, i started a poll for you.

Straydog · 08-05-2003, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
There's also a political angle, if sports fishermen won't error on the side of the salmon, it doesn't leave us much bargaining room when asking commercial fishermen, tribes, dam operators, developers, timber companies etc. to go out of their way to error on the side of the salmon.

If we won't make the effort or accept the sacrafice for our hobby, how can we ask folks whose livelihood is on the line?

I'd like to see the sport fishing community be the leaders.

Brion

Brion,

I understand your point but think you are selling us sport folks a little short, perhaps. As I see it, we are the leaders in terms of conservation and habitat restoration.

It may be just that I don't do my thing in an area where I would be apt to run into many commercials but it seems to me the Sport folks are stepping up the plate very often.

We are the ones joining Steelheaders, Oregon Trout, Watershed Councils or other organizations which give tremendously to the resource.

We are the ones stepping up to the plate asking for higher user fees to support our hobby.

We are the ones accepting or even requesting, catch and release fisheries.

We are the ones asking for bait bans in certain stretches of water. We are the ones lobbying for barbless hooks in some circumstances.

We are the ones asking for more sensible logging practices and weighing in on other natural resource issues.

We are the ones purchasing extra harvest tags for hatchery fish.

Obviously, when I refer to "we", I am speaking of only a portion of the sportfishing community, as we don't all agree on these issues. However, I think the Sports do set a pretty good example and on this issue think we would be getting a just reward for a lot of involvment and hard work.

[ 08-05-2003, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

08-05-2003, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Bill,

I'd lean to the more conservative approach and leave the law clear "in it's entirety".

Introducing a gray area of "partial" seems like it would be an enforcement nightmare. Folks are complaining about judgement calls on "no fin", imagine the launch ramp battles over "partial".

It will be like something out of Monty Python's Dead Parraot routine...tis, tis't. We are already stretched thin on game enforcement police and checkers due to the budget. Probably not the best time to change things that are inevitably going to take up more time.

The more conservative approach is to error on side of ensuring that more natives make it. Seems a small price to pay.

Brion

These are hatchery fish Lutz )Duh(

Straydog · 08-05-2003, 06:36 AM

What is it with some folks choosing to call Brion Lutz "Lutz"? :whazzup:

Is this an oh so thinly veiled attempt to hide disrespect? Kind of a "partially clipped" way around the user agreement?

Not just picking on you Keta as I have noticed it from others, yours was just handy as I just posted on this thread........

Whats up with that, anyway?

[ 08-05-2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Bill Monroe · 08-05-2003, 06:41 AM

Ok, ok...you guys are, umm, "migrating" a little (some a lot) off the principal question...it was meant to get others feelings about fin clips, not each other or even a debate...thanks all...I'll send the url off later today...

roadsend · 08-05-2003, 06:49 AM

Change it. Partially clipped=clipped=hatchery fish.
Its bad enough that some hatcheries are not clipping all their releases.

Coop · 08-05-2003, 07:29 AM

CHANGE THE LAW THERE IS TO MUCH GRAY AERA IN THE LAW AND THE COPS LOVE TO USE THAT TO MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID. :shocked:

[ 08-05-2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Coop ]

husker · 08-05-2003, 07:41 AM

IMHO

there is to much gray in the law already. we all know that a clip, may or may not be complete. the objective in clipping is to identify a fish as being a hatchery. so even a partial clip (healed) shows its a hatchery. change the law. brion heres to u [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] i happen to agree with C&E on this subject

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 09:38 AM

Straydog,

Quote:

As I see it, we [sports fishermen] are the leaders in terms of conservation and habitat restoration.

Eyow! I think that might be the subject for a looooong thread in LIG <grin>.

Regarding the "in it's entirety" or "partial" specifically, I don't think it makes that much difference regarding what sports fishermen get to keep but it kind of lowers the bar overall vis a vis native fish.

I think if commercial fishermen were proposing simlar "bar raising" the emotion would run as high in the other direction.

That Bill mentioned those who do the actual checking thought it would create problems not solve them was interesting.

Be better for sports fishermen to error on the high side

Brion