Whoa, there, Nor Cal Drifter. I didn't say I had NEVER seen a bleeder that was flossed. What I said was that I RARELY see snagged fish bleeding. My point was that flossing, while I think it sucks, is probably not any more harmful, all things considered, than what we call legitimate fishing. To be clear, I don't support flossing as a legitimate form of fishing. Because people do it, regardless of legality, my suggestion was to confine those people to small, well-defined areas where they might do more good than harm, all things considered.

My reasoning is that guys who floss or snag outright are generally in it for the meat. Where along the river are their odds of snagging meat better than in a terminal hatchery zone? Give them a legal option, in a location where they have very favorable odds, and even the poachers might go for it. Meanwhile, publish a clear set of definitions for attempted snagging in the regulations and enforce them strictly up and down the rest of the river. With little incentive to stray from the confined areas (and indeed plenty of dis-incentive to do the same), I think we could get snagging/flossing/etc. resasonably under control without sacrificing our ability to use terminal tackle for legitimate purposes.

I'm just trying (half seriously) to think outside the proverbial box. If something like this ever got implemented, I am sure I would live to regret it. After all, there must be devils lurking in the details of any proposal that invokes nausea in the one proposing it.