lineing your right on i call it flossing when the nasty gets a little color i see alot of FLOSSING!!!!!!

The regs actually read " Attempting to take a fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook in its mouth", as the definition for snagging. Regardless of whether it is hooked in the mouth or not if the fish doesn't go after your gear (lining for example) it is still snagging in my mind.

Take care gentlemen, Doubletake

Hey,

If you're getting tired of seeing the blatant snagging going on around your favorite rivers, drop an email to the WDFW Enforcement people. Their email address is:

enforcement-web@dfw.wa.gov

Drop them a line and tell them you want to see more enforcement officers on the rivers.

Fish on........

TK I can understand your frustration over this lining controversy. But I've fished the Skok, Hoodsport, McCallister, Carbon, Kalama and the Nasty over the last two weeks and far and away the most popular set up is a corkie/yarn combo (hook size and placement has varied). The reason is because this is the most successful way to hook these fish legally. The part of the regs that Doubletake quoted is a bunch of crap! How do we know that a fish has voluntarily taken a lure or even bait without personally asking it? Hooking a fish from the outside of the mouth equals a lined fish is an inexact science. I've fished for Kenai and Russian River reds for over ten years, and many are hooked on the inside of the mouth and on occasion even in in the gills. Are these the "voluntary" takers that WA's regs stipulate as legal keepers. I don't think so, they are ALL legit as long as they are hooked from the gillplate forward.

I could really cause a stir by saying that "I think Kalamabama is a poacher because he uses a vibrax and wigglewart." I'd argue that those silvers didn't voluntarily take his lures. They couldn't help themselves due to their aggressive natures and territorial instincts. Kalabama exploited a feature similar to that of the liner who exploited a salmonid's propensity to flex its jaws. I could, but I won't...

The point I'm trying to make is that let's distinguish between the snaggers and the legit fishers whether the fish is lined or not. If the regs only allowed us to angle for returning adult salmonids that "voluntarily" take our lure and baits, then we'd be only river fishing for summer-run steelies.

Hohwaiian - I don't usually disagree with your posts but your last one has my head spinning. The regs quoted by Doubletake are not crap. They are a reasonable definition of legal hooking of a fish. What is unreasonable is your interpretation of those regs (I'm being polite here...). To state that someone could be accused of snagging because they are catching fish with spinners and wigglewarts distorts the definition to the point that almost everyone who fishes could be considered a snagger. Even you agree this is unreasonable. Therefore, you appear to have unilaterally decided the regs are not worth following and snagging is okay under some circumstances. I disagree.

Plus, you state that since lining is often used on the Kenai/Russian Rivers, then the salmon snagged in Washington are "ALL legit as long as they are hooked from the gillplate forward". Where, may I ask, did you get this!? I do not have a copy of the Washington State regs in front of me. So could someone please point out the section of the regs that indicate that fish hooked from the gillplate forward are legally caught fish, irrespective of whether they were hooked "voluntarily" or not. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember this being in the regs.

My point is that some anglers sometimes bend the regs to fit their situation so they can continue to fish as they think they should be allowed. Your post seems consistent with my point. And, just so I don't sound too sanctimonious, I could probably be accused of bending regs same at some point in my 30+ years of fishing too.

I admit that interpreting the regs ain't always black and white but this snagging situation isn't one of them.


------------------
MSB

Cohoangler,
I'm in complete agreement with you. "Attempting to take fish with a hook in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) into its mouth." seems perfectly clear and not open to interpretation. "Lining", as I understand it, is simply a method of being a little more selective in where you snag your fish. It's a matter of intent, if you're trying to snag a fish you're damned well trying to snag a fish. How far is an individual willing to bend the rules just to hook a fish?

Coho angler
I sit here and read everyones posts and notice alot of people are asking questions about seasons, limits and legal lures, if you guys would spend the time to reads the regs you wouldnt have to ask these questions. Every year there are several changes to the rules and it is in the regs for everyone to read. Several of the streams I fish had major changes this year which I had to tell my fishing buds about because they dont bother reading. Sorry about the rambling but we all need to just sit down and study the regs before we ask stupid questions or worse go fishing illeagly. To answer CohoAngler question on page 56 under statewide general freshwater rules under tackle it states 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.

Spinnerman, so it looks like cohoangler was right. As I read what you have stated from the rules and regulations it appears very specific in that the fish should be retained, if leagal to do so, only if it is hooked in the gill, eye, or tongue. I don't think this includes the entire head of the fish from the gill plate forward. Maybe you should have directed this to Hohwaiian instead of cohoangler as it seems hohwaiian may have his regs a little confused.

duke

Dan S. thanks for the e-mail address I will try and get an e-mail out to help you guys out. The more letters they get the more impact it will have.

Hohwaiian,

I know from your other posts that you are an experienced and knowledgable angler.

That is why I cannot believe you don't see/understand the difference between the fish attacking your offering (legal), and your offering attacking the fish (illegal).

TK

Although I am completely ignorant of Wa. F&G regs from what I read from the posts the regs support only keeping fish which have been "legally hooked". In support of the regs which as posted state that fish hooked in the ey or gill be retained this to me interprets that the fish has somehow gotten the bait, lure, hook into its mouth and has been hooked deeply. Hooks imbedded in the gill plate are obvious results of lining (snagging) as not many fish try to squash their prey with their cheeks before comsumption. Neither do they try to stun their prey with any other part of their anatomy such as fins or their tail. Too many times have I heard "hooked right in the mouth" when actually the fish had been snagged somewhere forward of the dorsal fin...yes these fish are retained as legal catches. Another arguement (or rationalization) is that I drove such and such distance and spent such and such amount therefore I should be able to take home some fish...regardless that the methods of take are centered around SNAGGING!!! It is pretty sad.....sigh!

Cohoangler, I was more or less validifying your earlier post. So I'm befuddled as to why you dissed me. I feel you did not understand the points I was trying to make because I was just too sarcastic. For that I apologize...

Anyway to clear the confusion, I offered an expanded (sarcastic) definition about Kalambama's use of spinners/plugs to make the point that "voluntarily" used in the context that which the WDFW does is extremely ambiguous. The term "voluntary" for me and for our lawmakers mean totally different things. For me "voluntary" means doing something because I want to. Yet, explain to me why a salmon or steelhead strikes a plug when encountered with the wiggling wall of death. In this instance it is FORCED to strike a plug or else retreat down the riffle it just spent precious energy scaling. In this example, according to our regs, a plug-hooked fish would be considered "snagged" whether in the mouth or not. Sorry folks but this is the kind of ridiculous scenarios that go through my noggin when I try and interpret this regulation.

According to Herzog's book, one of the reasons a salmonid picks up a drift bobber is out of curiousity. Since it dosen't have hands it uses it mouth. Makes sense to me! Now does this constitute a "voluntary" take on the fish's part? Most would agree that it does. Now with this in mind, picture the scenario where a salmon or steelhead picks up a drift bobber that has floated up the leader. The line slides through its mouth and the hook imbeds on the OUTSIDE of the jaw. When the lucky angler reels in the fish how is he/she to tell whether it was lined or not?

Cohoangler this is the line of thought you brought up, which I agree with. The point we were trying to make is that in this instance it is impossible to tell whether the fish took the drift bobber "voluntarily" unless you ask it...Thus fretting over whether or not a fish was lined is an inefficient use of mental energy!

Another thing, according to the game wardens Dennis and Mike from area 10, a fish is legit "from the gillplate forward." It is not stated so specifically in the regs, but this is how they interpret WA's regs. Thus, please don't think I'm a dumbass or snagger because I go by my own state's laws.

Hammer Bob have you ever seen underwater footage of chinook attacking a bait ball? If so, then you'll know that they attack with whatever body parts they have including their tails. Then they go through and pick off the stunned prey. Accordingly, lots of hookups, at locations other than in the mouth, occur when they miss your jig or they tail slap your bait.





[This message has been edited by Hohwaiian (edited 09-08-2000).]

Hohwaiian, no I have never seen footage of salmon attacking a bait ball. I have seen ohter footage of various other species attacking bait. I have also observed a large number of fish in swimming flumes. My conclusions are that aside from billfish which are equipped to slash bait balls to injure and cripple prey and threser sharks which use their tails to herd and stun bait (and probably others I am unaware of) most other species attack with their mouths. From experience I know they will circle back and consume stunned bait fish or a piece of bait left on a hook. Fins and the tail are principally used for propulsion and manuvering rather than as weapons. I believe the occasional baitfish may be stunned as a fish moves through a school of fish but I believe this is coincidental rather intentional. Have you ever noticed how a school of bait moves away from the attack of a predator regrouping behind it? For a salmon to whip its tail with enough force and sidewards movement to stun bait would certainly make for some unusual body positions to say the least.... in my opinion of course. If salmon were using their fins and other body parts a larger proportion of fish would be foul hooked when fishing roe or just about any other lure. I don't think the numbers support your theory. I do agree with you that there is question and doubt about how a fish gets hooked on the side of the head...especially when using floating drift gear. I have hooked numerous steelhead which I know have taken a corkie in its mouth only to find the hook outside its mouth on the gill plate...your explanation is the only one that fits. I still believe that using excessively long leaders is still for one purpose only..lining fish. I have to this day never been able to get a long-leader fisherman give me an explaination on how the long leader improves the presentation. My basic premise is that using a method of fishing in which the greatest proportion of fish taken are foul hooked and trying to justify it as a legitimate method of take is lame. But as the letter of the law typically reads they are legal methods and as such you, I, and anyone else are free to use these techniques until they are legislated out of existence.

Hammer Bob we're venturing into an area where there are no numbers to support our theories, only past fishing experience to rely on. In any case, I don't think a salmon picks out an individual herring when it bumrushes the school. With this in mind, one of the reasons an artifical lure gets struck when other REAL baitfish are present is that it behaves differently, unlike the schooled-up bait. In this instance a feeding chinook will attack with its mouth the majority of the time because the lure has been singled out.

Another thing, you are using an example of chinook feeding behavior in saltwater to try an justify a freshwater fishing scenario, i.e. using roe. As we know Chinook are not feeding in the river thus their behavior when encountering a roe cluster will not be to try and squash it with its fins.

Hammerbob I fish Seacrest Pier in Seattle for kings nearly every day during the summer. Seacrest is the equivalent of Pacifica Pier in your neck of the woods. I see hundreds of kings landed every season. Unlike Pacifica which mostly uses bobber and bait, we use jigs with sticky sharp barbless trebles attached. Every year there are a fair number of chinook hooked square in the tail. Either the chinook tailslap the jig in an attempt to wound it or they are a lot more clumsy than I think...

Well this seems to be a hot topic and very timely.
First off I believe salmon do bite when in the stream. How else can you explain a baited kwikfish out fishing an unbaited kwikfish.
Or the fact that I catch salmon in low water conditions using a corky with eggs PLUNKED. OR the fact I have deep hooked chinook with spinners so far down I can't even see the dam thing.
Or the fact I have seen salmon come across the pool to attack a spinner. They weren't getting backed out of the pool at all or even close.
There seems to be a gray area in our regs that allows the use of a lining techinque that appears to be legitimate setup. Sure fish will also miss the lure and get hooked outside of the mouth as they turn on it. But it really is the intent of how the rigging is fished that determines whether it was snagged or not. We are not mind readers so we don't really know for sure all the time.
Fish can be snagged or lined with virtually every set up we fish with including fly gear. The ones that are out of the ordinary fishing setups can be regulated against (6 ft leaders on drift gear). So the only real way to stop the snagging is to enforce the area of the fish where the hook is located. The head region including the gill plates seems to be a realistic answer.

In B.A.S.S. tournaments fish hooked outside the mouth must be released even if you saw it bite!! So the next step to stiffer regulations is to make it legal to keep only fish hooked on the inside of the mouth. This would make us release fish that were legitimately caught. But I don't think it would stop the snaggers and just hurt the honest fishermen with good intentions.

Thats my rant
Tight Lines

------------------
Marty
Steelheader.net marty@steelheader.net

I think this is a great topic, with some nice debate. The sad fact is that the people doing the debating are not the problem...to quote someone from another thread, the people reading and posting on this board are for the most part serious, law abiding, ANGLERS! I just wish we could shove this down the throats of the hundreds of snaggers we all encounter every day. Me? I am gonna take the enforcement e-mail address enforcement-web@dfw.wa.gov and send off a letter every time I get home from a long day of fishing next to a bunch of no-fish catching knuckleheads.



[This message has been edited by eggdrifter (edited 09-09-2000).]

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?

Kalamabama, Yes I agree with you! They SHOULD all get tickets, lose there gear and maybe even spend some time in jail. there rigs are purely intended for SNAGGING! For those that are trying to justify what these people are doing, PATHETIC!

Hohwaiian - My apologies. It seemed a bit out of character for you. I should have known you were just raggin' on us. I guess you got me hook, line, and corkie.......

Also, I hit the lower Kalama yesteray morning, avoided the snaggers at the RV Park, walked 200 yards upstream to a deep slot and nailed a 30lb. Chinook buck on eggs on the first drift. Not a bad way to start the day.

------------------
MSB

Hohawaiian,
I'll stick with what I said. Lining is a more selective form of snagging. The intent is to hook a fish who doesn't "voluntarily take the hook into his mouth". That's a far cry from a fish who either tries to eat bait or attacks a spoon, plug, fly or other lure for whatever motive. The initiative lies with the fish. How do you regulate an attitude? It seems to me we do it all the time; expecting people to adhere to certain standards of ethical behavior whether such standards are enforcable or not.

I saw this fishing for the first time last week and was astounded that it is legal. Not only are 3 out of 4 fish being snagged but the fisherman (if you could call them that) were rude and arrogant. I would never bring my family there. Most guys were reefing on their rods with every bump or every few seconds. It seems to me that fisheries should regulate this (use single barbless hooks) or stop it altogether. I would rather fly fish that hole!