IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,175 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,828 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
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 (
) 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,792 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,910 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,108 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,399 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,175 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
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 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,949 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
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
 

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,910 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,653 Posts
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? :rolleyes:

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

Tim....
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top