[BlindSquirrel]

Hey Cagey -- for minimal confusion, please change the topic to "fin clip law" instead of "fin lip law"...

:cheers:
Blind Squirrel

 

[Salmon Stryker]

All of the fish I have caught are missing a lip fin. :grin:

Yes I think that if your fish is obviously a mis-clip from the hatchery you should be allowed to keep it.

 

[CATCH AND EAT]

Leave Cagey alone. He types with one finger and one eye while biting his tongue. :grin:

 

[Jignfloat]

Ive also been told in the clipping process upwards of 20% of the fish to be clipped, are not clipped at all. This is supposedly intentional, hoping the fish will spawn naturally. My feeling is, if these are the sportsmens fish....clip them all. Its not like they all get caught anyway. I know we have caught cookie cutter coho in the CR, absolute identical fish, one clipped one not. Im sure this is common...like stlhd, its obvious if the fish is reared in a pond. jm2cents, Russ

 

[WaterDog]

This is what jelly and powered sugar does to a key board especially when he types with one finger. :wink: :tongue:

 

[CATCH AND EAT]

I am glad I am not Finnish otherwise I might be insulted by this thread. Lutfisk anyone? :tongue:

 

[Born to be Wild]

Here's something I came across at a charter boat office that is very confusing to me.

It is from ODFW and shows some clipped and not clipped illustrations.

But at the top it states that: Oregon State Regulations only regard "A" as a fin clip. :shrug:

The picture below is of a coho that I posted a few weeks ago that caused a charter boat operator to get a stout warning.

I was one of the few or two that voted to keep the regulations the same because I figured there would be too much disagreement but maybe I was wrong.

Dano

 

[Fishplay]

There is no doubt in my mind the fish in the photo is a clipped fish.

That said....the charter boat captain that allowed that fish to be kept should have been ticketed not sternly warned.

The law is " removed in it's entirety, with healed scar".

I'm in support of changing the way the law reads so fish like those in the picture can be retained legally.

Untill that time the law should be enforced as it reads.....and it's pretty clear and easily interpreted.

 

[CAGEY]

This poll contains one question.

Should the law be changed regarding the wording for "clipped in its entirety".

Yes
No

[ 08-05-2003, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: CAGEY ]

 

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Fishplay:
There is no doubt in my mind the fish in the photo is a clipped fish.

That said....the charter boat captain that allowed that fish to be kept should have been ticketed not sternly warned.

The law is " removed in it's entirety, with healed scar".

I'm in support of changing the way the law reads so fish like those in the picture can be retained legally.

Untill that time the law should be enforced as it reads.....and it's pretty clear and easily interpreted.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree. It seems to me the lack of consistency in enforcement is a significant issue and one that causes some grief. If one officer lets you get away with it but the next dosen't, ill feelings are compounded.

By changing the law we may be able to gain some consistency as well.

 

[husker]

that fish has a funny clip. the adipose fin is definitely not its usual self but i still would have thrown it back to save headaches. and then drank a beer because tossed a good 1 back and hated it

 

[Born to be Wild]

I agree. It seems to me the lack of consistency in enforcement is a significant issue and one that causes some grief. If one officer lets you get away with it but the next dosen't, ill feelings are compounded.

By changing the law we may be able to gain some consistency as well.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is true. That was my thoughts in my original post above.

Seems the troopers all got together and thought it over and decided to issue warnings instead. three warnings were given the day that picture was taken.

The trooper that gave the warning is a pretty nice guy that I have met at several meetings and he showed the regulations to the person that kept the coho but also realizes it's an expensive ticket and probably a bad clip and went with a warning instead.

Aparently it is up to their discretion and even though I would have turned this one loose as we did on Snapshot's boat, if the trooper felt it was a bad clip and was indeed a hatchery coho, I feel he made the right decision to not cite the charter captain.

It would be very difficult seeing a fin of that nature in the water which means a clip like that will probably end up being both netted and boated and it's survival would really be questionable.

Maybe the best thing to do is change the regulation on fin clipped but my concern is that some might start keeping non clipped coho like the illustration in "E" above and argue that it is a miss clip. Heck, they have enough coho coming in with adipose fins intact where the angler susposedly thought it was a chinook!

Dano

Day 24

 

[husker]

could the clips be changed to a ventrical clip? would those clips be easier to identify? and/or easier to clip?

[ 08-05-2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: husker ]

 

[CAGEY]

Whooooeeee, what a bunch of picky suckers. :tongue:

Catch and eat, Waterdog, For your information i do not type with one finger, i use two and with the other hand i eat donuts. Secondly, iam not a messy eater and i do not get jelly on the keyboard. And last but not least it is impossible to insult me. :laugh: :dance: :cheers: :tongue:

[ 08-05-2003, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: CAGEY ]