I fish with my hooks clipped so that I still get a hit and know I could have caught the fish but I am still superior to anyone that uses hooks!

I am also a vegan who doesn't eat anything that created a shadow.

I also don't support the use of any fossil fuels so if you have a boat with a motor I am better than you. If you can't walk to your fishing hole I think you should be perma banned.

All joking aside if you hate flossing, dont floss. There are a bunch of fly fishermen that think using gear/bait is horrible and should be banned. Where does it end?

Will there be proof problems if WDFW tries to prosecute? Almost certainly. But that doesn't make trying to floss fish legal.

If I am attempting to entice the fish to hit my offering willingly, and I unintentionally floss one, I'm legal all day long.

Yer delusional.....still.
And apparently you fit right in with the broken fisheries in the over-populated areas.

It's true, ignorance is bliss.


I'm lucky in that I fish in a roadless area where it's one man to a run and the fish attack my offerings.

Never said I flossed DD. I'm not making this personal. You outta do the same.

The conversation is about whether or not flossing is legal. You seem to want to make it about me. I'm not interested. Feel free to continue this conversation with the WDFW - so far flossing still exists all along the west coast so somehow it must still be legal.

so far flossing still exists all along the west coast so somehow it must still be legal.

so far flossing still exists all along the west coast so somehow it must still be legal.

Don't want to start an argument because this has been beaten to death elsewhere, but until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fish did not voluntarily take the offering (i.e. bead, corkie, etc.) then the method remains legal. Most are likely flossed as you assert, but there is a small percentage that hit the offering willingly. That being the case, you can't call it illegal. Not arguing one side or the other - just pointing out why the method remains legal in CA along with OR and WA.

You are missing the point. In California it is illegal and the site is promoting illegal fishing.

From their fishing regulations:

1.05. ANGLING.
To take fish by hook and line with the line held in
the hand, or with the line attached to a pole or
rod held in the hand or closely attended in such
manner that the fish voluntarily takes the bait or
lure in its mouth

Easy argument - My shiny line is my lure.

Flossing has an appropriate place in the eyes of many and that seems to be sockeye fisheries. Sure sockeye will eat, but it's way easier to floss em and fill the freezer and that's what 99.9% of sockeye fisherman are after, subsistence.

Sportsmanlike? Depends on how you define the word I suppose. There is a line between subsisting and sport certainly and I firmly believe the resource needs to be treated with respect regardless. I also firmly believe in the fundamental importance of both sport and subsistence, sustainability being the important concept in each case.

I floss sockeye and help others to do the same and am not afraid to admit it. Why in my mind this is ok for one fish but entirely unethical for others? I am not quite sure. Justify it how you will; they don't bite, there are so many, etc.

A few points on fishing vs. flossing.

First, the techniques are entirely different though to the untrained eye they can appear similar. Drift fishing, when done well, should try to mimick a natural (current speed) relatively drag free presentation of something that fish is naturally inclined to chew on.

Flossing, when done well, should try to target fish in a specific position (traveling or holding) with line and leader at strategic depths and angles so as to allow the angler to manipulate terminal tackle to achieve expressed purpose of getting groceries hooked in a "legal" area. What does "in the mouth" mean anyhow? What is on the end of the line, besides a hook of course, is of little importance as long as strategic line and leader depths, speeds, and orientations are met.

The differences are painfully obvious to any fisherman and we all know, or should at least, what it is we are trying to do. Unfortunately many charged with enforcing anti-snagging regulations arent fisherman, at least to the point of being able see the differences between fishing and snagging with a drift rig and/or trying to explain the differences from a "legal" standpoint.

To fisherman, anyone that cant tell the difference between a flossed hook up and a naturally accepted offering I say you are an unskilled and/or inexperienced angler. The differences are so obvious they they really can't be missed if you pay attention to the details, as any fisherman worth his salt does. The devil is in them after all.

Setting angler input or methodology aside for a moment, the way a fish behaves after it is hooked is entirely different from a fish that has taken voluntarily vs. one that has been snagged. One fish has been up to something else entirely (resting or moving) with a fairly focused agenda whilst the other has chosen to bite something and is surprised that this thing has a life of it's own.

Getting to know your quarry, it's moods, mindsets and behaviors is a big part of being successful in fishing and elsewhere. If to you fishing is just chucking a line out there and then now and again something pulls back, there is more to it mate. With greater investment comes greater reward.

Once upon a time I'd would have said there are flosserman and fisherman and that's it, but unfortunately it's not that simple. I now realize there are those that have been shown the wrong way and that know no other other methods. There are those that know and abide by better standards for the most part but comprise for food, clients, friends, and fun. There are purists that hold themselves and others to standards that would draw lines between one form of ethical fishing and another.

My current fishing venue is a perfect example of the culture clash that can exist in the steelheading world. For the last few days I've been kicking around steelhead streams in Alaska rubbing elbows with folks that only know how to catch a fish using the kenai flip and rip with a "coho" fly. Then there are those that will only fish an unweighted fly on a floating fly line. Finally there's a few more of us somewhere in the middle.

In the end who is right? Maybe we are all wrong. How can you love something to death anyhow.

I caught a steelhead today, a few in fact,. They are majestic creatures. It was a good day. They all ate what I showed them and I feel good about that. I hope I have a few more days like today down the road. More that that, I hope others are able to enjoy the same sort of days long after I am gone.

Flossing has an appropriate place in the eyes of many and that seems to be sockeye fisheries. Sure sockeye will eat, but it's way easier to floss em and fill the freezer and that's what 99.9% of sockeye fisherman are after, subsistence.

Sportsmanlike? Depends on how you define the word I suppose. There is a line between subsisting and sport certainly and I firmly believe the resource needs to be treated with respect regardless. I also firmly believe in the fundamental importance of both sport and subsistence, sustainability being the important concept in each case.

I floss sockeye and help others to do the same and am not afraid to admit it. Why in my mind this is ok for one fish but entirely unethical for others? I am not quite sure. Justify it how you will; they don't bite, there are so many, etc.

A few points on fishing vs. flossing.

First, the techniques are entirely different though to the untrained eye they can appear similar. Drift fishing, when done well, should try to mimick a natural (current speed) relatively drag free presentation of something that fish is naturally inclined to chew on.

Flossing, when done well, should try to target fish in a specific position (traveling or holding) with line and leader at strategic depths and angles so as to allow the angler to manipulate terminal tackle to achieve expressed purpose of getting groceries hooked in a "legal" area. What does "in the mouth" mean anyhow? What is on the end of the line, besides a hook of course, is of little importance as long as strategic line and leader depths, speeds, and orientations are met.

The differences are painfully obvious to any fisherman and we all know, or should at least, what it is we are trying to do. Unfortunately many charged with enforcing anti-snagging regulations arent fisherman, at least to the point of being able see the differences between fishing and snagging with a drift rig and/or trying to explain the differences from a "legal" standpoint.

To fisherman, anyone that cant tell the difference between a flossed hook up and a naturally accepted offering I say you are an unskilled and/or inexperienced angler. The differences are so obvious they they really can't be missed if you pay attention to the details, as any fisherman worth his salt does. The devil is in them after all.

Setting angler input or methodology aside for a moment, the way a fish behaves after it is hooked is entirely different from a fish that has taken voluntarily vs. one that has been snagged. One fish has been up to something else entirely (resting or moving) with a fairly focused agenda whilst the other has chosen to bite something and is surprised that this thing has a life of it's own.

Getting to know your quarry, it's moods, mindsets and behaviors is a big part of being successful in fishing and elsewhere. If to you fishing is just chucking a line out there and then now and again something pulls back, there is more to it mate. With greater investment comes greater reward.

Once upon a time I'd would have said there are flosserman and fisherman and that's it, but unfortunately it's not that simple. I now realize there are those that have been shown the wrong way and that know no other other methods. There are those that know and abide by better standards for the most part but comprise for food, clients, friends, and fun. There are purists that hold themselves and others to standards that would draw lines between one form of ethical fishing and another.

My current fishing venue is a perfect example of the culture clash that can exist in the steelheading world. For the last few days I've been kicking around steelhead streams in Alaska rubbing elbows with folks that only know how to catch a fish using the kenai flip and rip with a "coho" fly. Then there are those that will only fish an unweighted fly on a floating fly line. Finally there's a few more of us somewhere in the middle.

In the end who is right? Maybe we are all wrong. How can you love something to death anyhow.

I caught a steelhead today, a few in fact,. They are majestic creatures. It was a good day. They all ate what I showed them and I feel good about that. I hope I have a few more days like today down the road. More that that, I hope others are able to enjoy the same sort of days long after I am gone.

That argument is easy, but it is also unbelievable, and it is not true in flossing instances that the fish voluntarily takes the line into its mouth.

How about a law saying float fishing only in terminal hatchery zones (flossing holes)?

They did the suspended lure rule on the Samish River so they can do it anywhere.

I realize that one can still floss with a float, I see it in British Columbia all the time, but at least it is much more difficult and totally ineffective most places.

Over the years this subject pops up now and then. All the same points over and over again. This post should be the last word on this topic. Probably wouldn't be.

I could have posted nearly the same post as coley's.

Bullsh!t.

And everyone except you knows it.

Bullsh!t.

And everyone except you knows it.

it's pretty obvious why my point went right over your low head.

no the point is your a dwarf who posts like a tough guy. a short man who calls people names. if dunce cap or dumbass is your A game you have not raised your bar in the least. step it up or just shut up.

dan listen, I never seek out your posts and attack you. if anything I gloss right over your posts always. I never mentioned you in any way in my 1st reply. in fact I never mention you at all in any post I make unless you come after me first. I'm asking you to put a block on my moniker. this not in any a reply attack just making it public.

The solution I think is fairly easy to craft. Implementing it however is likely impossible.

If I was charged with the task of trying to solve the snagging/flossing problem in AK and by some miracle was given unlimited resources to do it, I'd go at it as follows:


Snagging defined: Any method that hooks or attempts to hook a fish that has not willingly taken or that has not tried to take (bite) the anglers lure or bait.

1. Snagging is legal for sockeye only and anglers must retain the first limit of fish landed while snagging. Snagging is not allowed after a limit has been retained.

2. No snagging or attempting to snag allowed for other species.

3. Properly train enforcement agents in what legal vs. illegal fishing looks like.

4. Deploy a sufficient number of enforcement agents so as to regularly monitor high priority areas at key times and to maintain a timely response capability.

5. Provide incentives for those that report snaggers.


The biggest hurdle of course is #4 for most agencies these days.

As for that other note, I'll blame a few of the loosely connected and/or incomplete ramblings on late night IPA fueled philosophizing.

I could have posted nearly the same post as coley's.

Make flossers read brewers posts....while staked to a pile of chum carcasses

On an anthill.

Whether or not it's legal shouldn't matter when the majority (all?) of those that "hate flossers" cite ethical reasons, not legal. Interestingly enough, on the rivers I fish down here where flossing is prevalent, they are hatchery supported systems. Wild spawners were wiped out years ago when they built the dams and blocked access to 99% of the spawning gravel. So all the "hatchery turds" and "AHFMD" types outta be happy the flossers are removing those fish from the gene pool..

non se·qui·tur noun
noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Whether or not it's legal shouldn't matter when the majority (all?) of those that "hate flossers" cite ethical reasons, not legal. Interestingly enough, on the rivers I fish down here where flossing is prevalent, they are hatchery supported systems. Wild spawners were wiped out years ago when they built the dams and blocked access to 99% of the spawning gravel. So all the "hatchery turds" and "AHFMD" types outta be happy the flossers are removing those fish from the gene pool..

You'd better ban anyone on here that's ever fished (i.e . Flossed) Sockeye in AK while your at it.

Yes
You should ban yerself...

On general principles....

Its so funny to me how much sass mouth they have to give me when I don't open carry my pistol but when they can see it they just listen to me belittle them mercilessly.

Seriously flossing should be illegal everywhere!!!

In the desert, naked.

The Horde was out in force on the lower Humptulips this weekend. They had a canopy tent set up for shade, a big ole' bonfire and a radio blaring. My son counted 12 guys/kids and even "women" standing elbow to elbow and another group roughly the same size sitting under the tent. We watched them for twenty minutes or so- 1oz cannon ball sinker with at least eight foot leaders with a corkie. They were whipping their casts all the way across the river, letting it settle and ripping 180 degrees. Pathetic. One from the group would consistently be fighting a fish when, after an all day drift with plugs and bait, we only went one 1-6.

I have never seen them in this particular spot and it really surprised me after more than twenty years drifting this stretch. When I floated by in front of them, none would make eye contact and had nothing to say. Another boat at the takeout claimed to have taken video and contacted WDLF but I doubt anything was done. I guess the word gets out that fish were stacking in this appt and they all converge.

Anchor an old bed spring in there.

Why didn't I think of that???? A couple cement blocks and barbed wire strung between? The wheels are turning now.







SF- I didn't listen really just rowed past in disgust. Couple of the guys looked shamefully upscale... The rest not so much.

nothing better then walking up to a spot where its dead and nobody's 'catching', then start flossing fish every cast. O_O

The Horde was out in force on the lower Humptulips this weekend. They had a canopy tent set up for shade, a big ole' bonfire and a radio blaring. My son counted 12 guys/kids and even "women" standing elbow to elbow and another group roughly the same size sitting under the tent. We watched them for twenty minutes or so- 1oz cannon ball sinker with at least eight foot leaders with a corkie. They were whipping their casts all the way across the river, letting it settle and ripping 180 degrees. Pathetic. One from the group would consistently be fighting a fish when, after an all day drift with plugs and bait, we only went one 1-6.

I have never seen them in this particular spot and it really surprised me after more than twenty years drifting this stretch. When I floated by in front of them, none would make eye contact and had nothing to say. Another boat at the takeout claimed to have taken video and contacted WDLF but I doubt anything was done. I guess the word gets out that fish were stacking in this appt and they all converge.

How do we classify the guy that drags a gill net for work during the day, flosses sockeye in the afternoon, and swings spey flies on a floating line for rainbows in the evening?

Subsistence snagging is not sport fishing. There are no non native subsistence fisheries in the lower 48 unless i am missing something. Using the unfortunate AK sockeye example to justify that bull$hit down here doesnt pass muster. The rest who say it is OK if you keep the first two, or that it is Ok for non biters, check your ethics at the door and understand that you are no better than the guy on the Skok with the ladder.

and understand that you are no better than the guy on the Skok with the ladder.

Every met a big or small game animal "willing" to take what you are offering? I have not.

Yesterday evening I went bank fishing with some friends. One of them is pretty new to fishing, he has just fished spinners and some eggs under a float out of my boat.

We were rolling eggs along the bottom with a split shot. The newer guy had his first experience of having a fresh king bear down on a gob of eggs. I watched the whole thing happen, it was so cool! First his look of confusion, then tensing up realizing it was a fish, then me yelling "that's him man, let it rip!".

That moment is what makes the whole thing. We had hundreds of fish running through our location, and flossing would have been super easy, but all I could think about was feeling that chomp.

Indeed. So again for aspiring sportsman out there, what is the ethical difference between harvesting unwilling fish and unwilling wildlife, assuming for a moment both are done within the confines of the law and the animals are treated as humanely as possible given the intent.

So... what about the people that have posted here their disdain for flossing then go to AK and floss up a limit of sockeye? It isn't for subsistence. Flexible ethics? And who gave anyone here the right to define what is ethical and what isn't? At the end of the day, all of us are dragging a live fish in by a hook in its mouth and in many cases killing it...how can someone sit back and decide one way is more ethical than the other? Hypocracy, irony and a hint of humor all rolled into one...

Define subsistence....

Is it ' without this food I or my family may starve', or is it ' theres plenty of easy pickings here and while I have a job, and my family is in no danger of starving I'm a gonna get all I can'

For many rural Alaskans, especially those natives in remote villages. It can be argued the former comes into play.

For tourists on the Kenai, not so much.

As Coley pointed out, flossing is not illegal in AK (Sockeye) and snaggers would argue it's not illegal in the lower 48.

Depends....

What was your intent ?

Was it a hatchery moose ?

As Coley pointed out, flossing is not illegal in AK (Sockeye) and some would argue it's not illegal in the lower 48.

I'm gonna sign off on this discussion - there's no right or wrong, just opinion, and everyone is entitled to that.
My final thought - I consider myself a very ethical angler, a great steward of the resource, and the best ally you will have as we continue to fight to save our fisheries. I also have flossed fish before - intentionally.

And yes, I used the words ethical and flossed in the same paragraph.
Dammit, I wish you bastages would just love me for who I am.

I'm out.