Legal Snagging ??

OK let me know what you folks think. I have been in the Kalama fishing for the nookies and silvers. 99% of the others fishing this river are snaggers. Big chunck of lead two foot leader very large hook and then a big corky. I know of no fish that would hit this set up. Cast let it sit on the bottem and wait for a line bump and yank. I think this is really cheezy fishing. I have been catching them there legally and getting fish so everyone else should be able to also. I mean seeing this makes me jump up and down mad. Did see the "Man" there today and he says that they must be hooked in the mouth to be legal. All I see are fish comming in side ways. The rigging is clearly for snagging. I think they should all get tickets and lose all the new gear they bought for snagging. What do you think?
Keep the Rivers Clean!!!

------------------
dank

I agree! Seems like the norm on many rivers is to snag Salmon and even steelhead. I encountered snaggers on the Beginner's hole in July. They were "fishing" a big chunk of lead, a big hook (I couldn't tell if it was a treble) and a big wad of green yarn. They stood up by the road and cast to fish they could see, sometimes right over my line. I could get fish to go once and a while by using very light gear and finesse baits and jigs. The same applies to Salmon. I've even offered the snaggers the same gear I'm catching fish on and most have refused. I did have one convert on the Kalama however, and even though he didn't catch a fish, I think his snagging days are over. I'm afraid it is only going to get worse as more fish move into the rivers. I'd certainly like to hear some solutions to this snagging problem.

Well, I don't believe in snagging or using gear like this. But Bob could probably back me up on this statement. The setup you've described is (or was since I don't fish those rivers that much anymore) a popular setup for kings and such on the Hoh and Solduc. Usually they shorten the leader using such big cheaters or spinnglos so that they stay in the strike zone. Also you need the big lead to get those monsters down. I'm talking about cheaters and spinnglos the size of BOBBERS. I'm like you kalamabama, I use standard size gear and do just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if someone read about this method or are old fisherman from the north coast. Bob would know if they still use this method. I know everytrip I make to the Hoh I always find quite a few of these monster lures. Since my parents don't have property down at the ocean and I live so far away, my trips to the Hoh are limited, so not sure if this is a widely used method anymore.



------------------
you haven't lived til you've rowed a cataraft. Friends don't let friends run Outcasts.

I hope to fish the Kalama this week from the bank. Is there a phone number to call to report that type of abuse?

My father in, law may he rest in peace, was fishing on the Green in what was then a fly fishing only section for fall run chinook probably 1974 -1976 era when he ran into some folks who were fishing illegaly with big heavy gear and they all had five gallon buckets half full of roe they were goning to sell to bait fisherman. When he told them what they were doing was illegal one of them pulled a sawed off shot gun out of a shoulder holster and stuck it in his face a nd told him to mind his own **cking bussinness! I'm sure this fellow and his ilk are still out there so be a bit cautious when you walk in on these types.
Actually I can almost see why the cop was on the freeway rather than down there hanging out with those guys, 150 to one, any cop in the world would certainly need back up and I'll bet that doesn't exisist in the day to day workings of WDFW.
Well I'm off to the Waters everything is so low and clear over hear it will be a good view of all the rocks on the bottom and a good walk but I have limited expectations off catching.

Hey Kalama-

Take a camera, take some shots of these neaderthals-then bring them into the Fish and Wildlife.

Kalamabama - I agree this is sick! I fished the lower Kalama and the North Fork Lewis (near the hatchery) this weekend and both rivers were loaded with snaggers. I fished hard but didn't get a strike all weekend. The snaggers did well with their corkies and big hooks. I admit they generally throw back the fish hooked by the tail or fins but if they're hooked anywhere near the head, they're in the fish box. I'm not blaming the snaggers for my bad luck since I often get skunked without any snaggers in sight. However, it's very disturbing to see such a beautiful river with lots of cohos and Chinooks treated like trash. I don't usually get real steamed about a few people snagging but it's gotten out of hand. There's more than just a few people doing it.

To make matters worse, I stopped by the fish trap near Modrow and talked with the WDFW techs that were emptying it. They are not expected to get enough fall Chinooks to meet the needs of the upper hatchery. Yet they have allowed a "sport" fishery in the lower river. Even the WDFW techs were puzzled as to why they opened the fishery. My advice is to close the lower river for fall Chinooks since they can't get enough for the hatchery and those fish aren't being caught by sport anglers. They are being removed from the river by snaggers. I saw several nice Chinooks (20+ lbs) snagged by the gills and removed from the lower river. It's time this stopped!

I'm glad I'm not the only one concerned about this.


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

Kalamabama, now I'm not a plunker, and I certainly am not saying that these guys are not intentionally trying to snag the fish which is just wrong. However, what you describe sounds a lot like an over sized plunking outfit. They need the big weight to get their big honkin lure to sit on the bottom just a fact. "Plunker", any input here. Maybe, these people just don't have a clue on what to use and they are stuck on the bif fish = big lure mantality. Just seems to me if someone is activly trying to snag a fish there must be a better way to sang one then to sit and wait, why aren't they just repeatedly casting out and retrieving ??
I don't know maybe I'm just tired of people jumping to colclusions and saying that 99% of the people are "bad" or snaggers. Even after you asked a guy and he essentially told you that he knew that he had to hook th fish in the mouth for it to be leagal. Why don't you ask him to explain his technique and then determine for yourself if he's really just a snagger. Chances are he may not realize what he's doing wrong and you could give him a couple hints (ie: smaller baits and hook...) that he could use to lower his chances of snagging fish and raise his chance of getting a fish. If he is just a snagger, make sure that you tell him that you just saw the game warden heading upriver and shuld be coming back any minute hehe..

Just my thoughts,

Duke

duke,

You are WRONG. The Kalama doesn't have enough flow in it now to even drift with 3/16" pencil lead in most places, let alone to require a large chunk of 1/4" lead. Don't believe kalamabama? Then go see for yourself. These clowns are snaggers, pure and simple. It's not a big fish/big lure mentality, it's a big hook and corky-big-enough-that-I-can-see-when-to-snag mentality. If you doubt me, go take a look for yourself. Most guys on this BB know a snagger when they see one. And if you want to see snaggers, just head to the Kalama, Skok, Carbon or any other place that the Kings stack up thick enough to snag in the low water. This AIN'T plunking, this is snagging.

Fish on.......

We have two different breeds of snaggers in California. One type have come to be known as "beaders". They use 10-12 ft. leader with the smallest bead possible when fishing from the bank at places where salmon stack up typically below dams or at the mouth of the Klamath. The method is to floss the fish with the long leader as they are breathing and hook them wherever they can. The other type fishes from boats using Gibbs minnows with trebles to snag fish by jigging. Both claim it is a legal fishing method according to the letter of the law but almost all fish are foul hooked some being released but many are not. These methods attract a very unpleasant crowd with reports of knives and guns being drawn....makes for a nice day on the river! I would like to see both methods regulated and there are rumors that CDFG has some plans in the works......but if you believe that then I have a bridge for sale!

Thank you for your input guys. Maybe 99% is a bit harsh. I do see the thin line as to the legal part of it. I was just down there and got my limit in one hour pitching a bule fox and non of the guys with the other type of rigs got any made me feel better when I saw some of them start pitching spinners. I guess I will just have to tell everyone there is a better way to catch the fish and more fun that draging them in with 30# test.
Keep the Rivers Clean!!!

For one thing, snaggers are NOT fisherman. Im getting tired of hearing about these fuzznuts polluting the river with there huge trebles and bad attitudes. If you see a legitamite snagger call the poacher hotline! Lets bust some of these anklebiters!!

fish right....

><> BW

Just wanted to let you all know this problem is not isolated to Washington. Oregon's Eagle Creek off the Clackamas River has more than it's share of these losers. Last year ODFW set up a sting for a weekend and nabbed quite a few of them snagging silvers. I might have tried to "guide" a yarn and corky into the mouth of an occasional non receptive fish in my day. But atleast I was hooking them in the mouth. Not that that makes it right. However, some of these morons make it so blatantly obvious that you can tell what they're doing from 50 yards away. You see them jerking their rods every cast in a pool 3-5 ft. deep. If you report these sightings and ask your fish and wildlife folks for help I bet they would set up a similar sting if the snagging is in a concentrated area. Some of these F&W guys are really cool and they honestly have the same interest in the fish as we do. To preserve the rights and the resources for our kids. -Jason

The way people do it around my neck ofthe woods is buzzer bombs. Legal hooks and they nail the fish on them. I like the look on their face when they loose that 5$ bomb after hookin a 20# king in the tail. With all that casting the fishing stinks but tthe looks I get after wading out and scooping their bomb off the bottom is worth loosing my hole. Theres no point in fighting with them, and after adding another bomb to my tackle in front of them makes my day. Those buzzers will come in handy next humpy run on the sno.

Well Dan S, thanks for so politely clearing that up... All I really wanted was a second opinion and well I guess I got one. I also see from other posts (Andy Mathews' thread and others here) and it looks like you guys have quite a problem. I'll have take your guys word for it as I don't think I'll drive 5 hours to "see for myself". I've never been around so many people just trying to snag fish so forgive my naievety.
Sounds like you better go get a cell phone and bring it to the river. The only real way to get rid of these clowns is to make this cost them some money and maybe they will think twice the next time. Unfortunately, it sounds like the enforcement is stretched pretty thin so you just have to keep trying if they don't make it there on your first call, don't give up!

Duke

I've never jumped in on a snagging forum before, so here goes.

There are two illegal types of fishing being talked about here. The setup being used on the Kalama is the same method employed by Sockeye fisherman in AK. It's called "lining", and it is at least somewhat of a crude art form. The long leader is the key, and when the fish swims by and bumps it, you set the hook, usually in its motor (tail). This method was "taught" to me my first year of fishing. (This guy still "fishes" the Sky, owns a sled and a wooden leg, anybody else know him?) I found out why these guys were the only ones catching the stacked-up, lock-jawed silvers. It took me until my 2nd year to realize that this is not fishing and I now abhor it. Hohwaiian, if I remember correctly, thinks this type of fishing is legal, as long as you get them in the mouth when they yawn or flex their jaws.

The other type of buzz bomb/hollow core lead/treble hook setups that are repeatedly yanked and jerked through holding water is done by total morons.

Snagging is only done by people who cannot catch fish the correct way, and are idiots.

TK

hey guys i live in the northern part of california and have seen the big weight and corkie thing for over 20 years on the mad river. the large corkie is only for the guy to see where his hook is while sight fishing. they wait until a fish swims by and they set the hook. these guys used to put their hook about 18 inches above the weight which was tied to the end of the line. a small piece of yarn was placed on the hook for the game wardens to see. i seen tinfoil used as well. this was outlawed 15 -20 years ago. second, when fishing a deep hole the corkie keeps the hook off the bottom. the fish swims into or past your line and the hook is set. with the corkie floating off the bottom it makes a "u" shape turn during the hook set and ends up somewhere on the belly of the fish. these guys are easy to spot, becuase they set the hook and run backwards. they have to run becuase a fish might have ran into the line several feet above the hook. we also have a huge "lining" (long leader) problem down here. they closed the mouth of the klamath river last year, and this year basically resricted a long leader set up. this concerns me becuase no one can fish a closed area. some one posted earlier than these guys might be plunking, i dont think so. plunking works best in higher flows, not low clear water. anyways my two cents worth.

duke,

Sorry for being so blunt, but I've seen these snaggers at work many times on the Kalama, so I know kalamabama is speaking the truth. Jigging, snagging, lining, whatever you want ot call it, is a bogus method of landing fish.

I just emailed the WDFW enforcement people and asked why they choose not to enforce the regulations that their own department sets forth. You all ought to try the same thing. If they get enough responses, maybe you'll actually see a Gamie writing a ticket to these goons. We'll see......

Fish on.......

TK's post has me a bit confused. Is snagging legal if you happen to snag a fish in or around the mouth? I'm not sure but it raises two questions:

Let's say I rig up a corkie with a single 2/0 hook and a sinker and snag a coho by the tail using the "lining" method described in this thread and elsewhere. If I returned the fish to the water, have I done anything illegal?

Let's say I use the same rig and snag a coho in or around the mouth. I keep the fish and note it on my license card. Have I done anything illegal?

I do not have any specific answers but this is exactly the situation on the lower Kalama. Coho snagged by the fins are usually released (but not always). Those snagged near the mouth are kept. I agree that both situations are very difficult to enforce but that doesn't mean it's legal.

Kalamabama - Congrats on getting your limit on spinners. That's a great way to convince the snaggers to change their ways - get your limit by legal means. If you don't mind me asking, what color Blue Fox spinner were you using? I've been skunked several times this year and am grasping at anything to help. Last year I did quite well on cohos with 1/2 oz. green/silver Pixie spoons. Thanks.


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

cohoangler #5 blue fox silver blade orange body red #3 gamakatsu hook. Good luck. I have also done good with wiggle warts.

------------------
dank

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!

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!

i call them jerks every little bump and snag pull hard and jerk your line .i didnt go to that school.FISH ON !!!!!!!!

Howaiian is right in the fact, that there is no way in proving that a fish voluntarly took you lure. This is an area once again, where our laws, make no sense, as spinnerman pointed out the rule that any fish caught in the eye, or gills should be kept. What conflicting rules! You, that think that there is no difference between drifting your bait in a fishes mouth, and using a 3 ounce weight, a treble and ripping chunks of flesh are crazy! What we are talking about is an issue of ETHICS. There will never be a way to stop all snagging, but what can be done is get rid of trebles, and maybe even have weight restrictions on certain streams. just my two cents. Oh and I have seen Salmon go up and hit baits with there tail on occaison, not that it means any thing.