Thanks for the informative advice 4salt.

I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, thank goodness for friendly anglers like yourself willing to help out a cracker like me on stuff like this...

My main lure of choice for Summer runs (and everything else for that matter) is spinners and spoons. I occasionally use bait for Summer runs when the river conditions are poor. Most of the Summer runs in the river I fish are hatchery fish and I have no problem at all hooking these in the anus.

Hooking mortality/bleeders are part of C & R. Release them, its the law...

h2o,

My intent was not to be antagonistic. Stating the obvious was more of a light-hearted jab than anything else. I understand your tendency to be quick on the trigger after the Vision hooks nightmare threads. My apologies if I offended you.

A little good natured sarcasm is all...my intent was to get one of these out of you, not one of these

P.S. Thanks for getting the name right...I have this vision of people sitting back at their computer desks scratching their heads trying to figure out what h20 means...

I think more of these bleeders survive than people think,also there is 100% mortality of the ones you bash in the head

Under "Selective Gear Rules" on page 13 of Washington Statewide General Definitions it is noted that "If any fish has swallowed the hook or is hooked in the gill, eye, or tongue, it should be kept if legal to do so."
I agree if you release the fish it has more than zero (as oppose to keeping it) percent chance of surviving but what is the logic behind this rule? and can you get in trouble IF you get caught?

I believe the logic behind this rule is sound. To have the rule read any other way would make it unenforcable. Every time a gamie caught someone with a bonked nate, the poacher could use the hooked it in the gills excuse. It has to be an all or nothing rule or enforcement would be impossible.

stlhdh20,

The rule is talking about "legal fish" and your example is about an illegally kept fish.

The way I read the rule is that if you are fishing under selective rule and you happened to catch a fish that for example was hooked in the tongue, you "should keep it if legal" even if you want to release it. Now this fish could be anything legal such as Native, Dolly, Hatchery, ... For example lets say you caught a native hooked in the tongue and you want to release it. This rule is telling you "don't release it if legal to keep" and I was wondering about the logic behind this.

I personally think the purpose of the rule is to stop people who are doing selective harvest. Lets say you catch a fish and is bleeding but the fish is small and you let it go to catch a bigger one to harvest. This way you may have already killed the previous bleeding fish and by letting it go your daily limit is still open and now you are going to harvest the next bigger fish as well. In the process you killed 2 fish (assuming that bleeding fish may die) but only one is going towards your daily limit since you released the bleeding fish.

This is my interpretation of the logic behind this rule. The only problem is what if you are not harvesting and you want to release the fish. You could technically be in violation of the law! Any other inputs?

I misunderstood your question. It looks like you have the logic nailed.

If you are from Washington you quickly wrap the fish in a black plastic bag and put it as far under your bow or seat as possible, without drawing any attention.

If you are from Oregon, you stare dumbfounded at the game cop and ask, "where is the adipose?" which depending on whether you are from salem or portland or tillamook you might not know anyway.