Very good points Marty. But I am not denying that chinook "bite" lures/bait. I questioned whether they bite because they are actively feeding during their spawning migration upriver.

The kwickfish example is a good one to debate. I feel that a baited kwickie gets more successful bites because its action is affected by the bulkiness of the wrap. This produces a slower more enticing offering (i.e. cutplug "roll" vs. "spin" debate). Also the smell and feel of real flesh in its mouth produces a latent feeding response. Hence the chinook munches and chews on the kwickie, producing a deeper hookup.

I ask: if "voluntarily" is "perfectly clear and not open to interpretation"(Quoting Preston), then why is this part of the regulation unenforceable? For me the act of fishing is merely understanding a certain fish's behavior and using this information to catch it. If there are gear restrictions and/or closed seasons imposed by a higher authority, then I follow them.

A good example is the paddlefish snag fishery in the Midwest. The paddlefish is a filter feeder, thus will not strike traditional offerings. Typical rigging incorporates multiple treblehooks tied inline. This is done because a paddlefish has a tendency to roll up the line, impaling itself with multiple trebles and ensuring a solid hookup. In this instance, understanding the paddlefish's behavior coupled with gear modifications produces results.

Another prime example is hooking nosedown summer-run steelies with a hot-orange U-20. TK, take notice, this is a legal example where your offering "attacks" the fish. When a U-20 divebombs a holding inactive summer-run the bite is merely a defensive reactionary strike by the steelhead. This time of year is prime time for this method, when the rivers are low and the steelies have been in the river for a few months. Again understanding this steelhead behavioral trait coupled with the right colored banana-shaped plug produces results.

In this context, lining is merely the result of understanding that salmonids open and close their mouths during their upstream journey. Now folks where does divebombing a summer-run compare to lining on the moral hierarchy of recreational fishing methods? For me they are both low on the totem pole, yet the former method is clearly legal in WA.

As Marty pointed out any recreational outfit is capable of lining fish. Does this mean we outlaw all recreational angling methods except for plunking (salmontackler will love this one)? How do we outlaw a state of mind? I think that those of you that think lining is snagging have been brainwashed by the WDFW and probably have never fished out of state. LOL...No, seriously those of you that think so are letting your morals cloud the bigger issue - the regulation's ambiguity and unenforceability...Comments? Disses? Both?