There's a big difference...to me, where the hook ends up is pretty irrelevant...it's more the intent of the angler...or snagger, as the case may be.

If you are trying to get them to bite your offering, and they do...well, hard to argue that you aren't fishing.

If you are forcefeeding them the leader, and they don't bite the lure, and you're not even trying to get them to bite the lure...you're snagging.

Fish on...

Todd

Here we go...again.

The difference is willing vs. unwilling fish, a fish that bites a lure as compared to one that does not.

Is that the same as finding fish that want to be hooked?

Thank you. and yes, that is all the difference. the fun part of fishing is GETTING THEM TO BITE. much like bringing in ducks to your spread..... if it wasn't for that......who gives a chit?

all I have to say is...........wow!

Is there concensious on ways to deal with this? It is a proposal year I beieve so now is the time to fill their inboxes with ideas.

I for one agree with the 18-48 inch leader restriction.

that would be the glorious eyeguy i think. you must be talking the haaaaaaaaaaaaang back method.

An easier solution to eliminate snagging and flossing would be to allow only single circle hooks in freshwater. Wouls be easy to enforce, too. Non-circle hook; write 'em up.

Had a bunch of flies tied up and used them on some chum streams (Kennedy and Minter). Had a grand total of one fish that was snagged and landed. With all other non-inside the mouth hooked fish simply giving slack let the fish go. Was able to catch a number of fish with the hook inside the mouth, in the roof of the mouth, etc.

The bigger issue with elimination of flossing will be the reduction in recreational catch; assuming everybody accurately reports their catch. Since salmon are managed on quotas/dead fish if the sporties take fewer the nest get more.

You rang?

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=287870

this a very solid point. if we take out the snagg/floss caught fish from sport catch reports. that would have a negative impact.

But we have to assume that the snaggers report their catch which is a rather tall order.

Well why not add to the rule: "regardless of where the fish is hooked."

A series of camera documentaries showing the exact behavior that is being outlawed should help prosecute those specific actions.

I'm very pessimistic that anyone could ever be successfully prosecuted for flossing. That is, it's very difficult to successfully prosecute someone for retaining a fish that was hooked and landed in a manner that allowed a fish that did not actively pursue the bait/lure to be reduced to possession; particularly if the fish is hooked inside the mouth.

The best we can do is enact gear restrictions, such as making it illegal to have a leader longer than say, 24 inches. But then the violation is simply having a leader that's too long. The issue of "flossing" never enters the equation. It's also called "guilt by association". Your leader is too long so you must have been flossing, therefore you're guilty.

Again, I am less concerned about flossers than I am about intentional, blatant, and obvious snagging.

Then again, this debate is not about the fish, or other problems such as habitat loss, or Tribal netting, etc. It's about us anglers, and how we pursue our hobby.

Anything Twitching should be banned.

What?

Even twitching eyelids?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn12P-IvZJ0

what the Hell is that??

edit: oops, that didn't work.......what is that barrel thingy? Never seen one.

Kinda a cross between a Barrets Sniper rifle and a potato gun.

Well, for those of us in the SRC, it's called "Death From Above!"

I'm just glad that snag'm-n-bag'm season coincides with hunting season

Yup same group of people is out in the woods, beer cans everywhere and cars in the ditches..Only saving grace is the state doesn't issue them another tag when they fill the first one.