Gooose, Both fish were hooked right in the tounge? Then that's all that matters!

ZoZo If you'd notice I did not say that everyone using corkies was snagging! i said that there are more people snagging with corky drift set ups that fish legit with them. Understand also i am talking only about salmon in the fall.
I wish you guys would quit assuming i am saying or meaning more than i am saying.
I say exactly what i mean and leave nothing out. there is NO reading between the lines no interpreting what i am saying. I say EXACTLY what i mean.
If you can get salmon to take a corky i think thats great however there are a thousand guys for every one of you that are snagging with them. Ok maybe a hundred but certainly no less than that. Maybe things are a little different here than in the rest of the state but here in southwest washington there are vastly more snaggers than fair fishermen. if you wanna see what I am taking about go drive up the Washougal the next rain we get or go down to the meat hole on the North lewis ( particularly from the "rock" or below the hatchery intake)
1. they are all snagging
2. they are people who wouldn't put the effort into finding fish someplace else so they would not be displaced to other areas. well maybe to another terminal fishery like blue creek or the barrier dam.

I think site or season gear restrictions could limit these guys's procductivity and make them not want to fish any more and thats a damn good thing!!!

a couple weeks ago there was mention of how a couple people in boats floating through got hit by flying lead from these creeps. In my opinion that says it all about the charecter of these fellows and is cause enough for the closure of the access there. These people and the legit anglers around them absolutely refuse to police themselves so I say good ridence to bad rubbish WDFW has no obligation to these people to allow them to harvest or even fish for these fish if they do not obey the rules.

certainly there are guys that catch fish fair on corkies vastly more catch them with corkies and eggs. but here in SW Washington corkies for salmon are used as the primary snagging set up and i think WDFW would be in the right banning them and all drift bobbers from September1-November 15.

sure you can disagree all you want but all I want to do is get rid of snaggers. If you disagree with that well then go ahead and call me a nazi and tell me how all i wanna do is tell people how to fish but understand I have never said or implied that and your just offended because your own actions are wrong according to the law and sportsman like conduct. snagging (flossing-lining) is the game of sore losers

Here, Here!

Gooose,

My point addresses your original point. Since you changed your original point away from "Gill Plate Forward Won't Work" there is nothing more I feel the need to say, but you brought up some other stuff I'll type about a bit.

As far as the fish hooked in the tongue goes I'd say it was legal so long as you didn't admit to trying to floss in front of a warden or anyone else that might judge you including yourself.

You CAN CAN CAN floss without having the hook end up on the outside of the fish's mouth, I've been a very bad boy. Take it from a person that use to floss a lot in clear water conditions etc etc. I could even tell you the best corky setup(or an odd looking fly I call the Dentist ) to make it happen more often. We won't even talk about the dynamics of fish trying to spit leader on a slow drift. You could even run this setup through a bonked fish on the bank to see how it flops around just inside the mouth almost every time. But... that knowledge would be used for evil and I'm working on staying on the side of good in all aspects of my life. Sure some things are hard to give up, but my fishing is much much cleaner now and I'm feeling very good about it. In my flossing hay day an undercover warden wouldn't suspect a thing, in fact he'd change the color of his corky to mine like everyone else and wish he had some anise oil or whatever I was using that day, like it mattered. I hope that answers your mean spirited yet amusing question at least, not that it deserved an answer.

I would say that all this stemmed from a chat awhile ago. I had said that I remember in regs that there used to be a "gill plate forward" rule in the regs. SInce I don't hord my reg books, I'm going off memory. I asked quite a few people, and even emailed the state just to ask if there was a rule at one time. I had recieved the response from Evans I do believe. Have I ever kept a fish not hooked in the mouth? Nope. I've released all that's hooked outside of it. But I base my info off old regs I've read, and from my parents/grandparents who've fished here since turn of century. Now this blows up to a "I've talked to gamies" BS. Well, guess what? I've talked to gamie's as well and i've heard opposite. Plus, there's the legalities of setting presidence. If this has been a "general rule" and been overlooked in the past, then these gamies have set themselves up for some lawsuits for harassment and "profiling" if any of these guys decide to hire a lawyer. I could care less what the rules say in regards to lures. All the fish I KEEP are caught legally, hook in mouth. If they want to drop the rules to just in mouth I'd be more then happy with it. I just get damned tired of the "little boy" menality I've read and seen lately. I really don't feel like going to the law library and pulling out the RCW's to find the law. I am almost 100% sure it's in the RCW's, not in the F & G area. This was set back in the days when you had law enforcement making busts. I'm not 100% sure, since my grandad started fishing back in about 1910 around here, and never really had long discussions on who wrote tickets and EXACTLY what the regs were. Just that it was a rule that gill plate forward was in the books when I started fishing steelhead in the 70's. And even recently about 1995 I was asked by an officer why I released a nice steelhead brat that I had hooked outside the mouth on the Hoh. I said "It wasn't in mouth" and he had said "Gill plate forward was legal". Also had a real you know what Gamie on the Puy years ago say same thing as well. So go figure. I'm just relayed what I'd learned/saw over the years.

So, now the rivers are full of fish, let's let this stupid ass thread die and go fishing.

Not going to get involved in this debate. I just wanted to post about the question of whether or not the tongue is legal. On page 15 of this years regs, under selective gear rules it states that if a fish is legal to keep it should be kept if hook is swallowed(duh), or is hooked in the gill, eye, or tongue. Now, I don't know if that means that you can only keep a fish that is hooked in the gill, eye, or tongue on rivers where the selective gear rules are in effect, and everywhere else it is mouth only. Or if gill,eye, tongue is a general rule everywhere? Anybody know? The way I read it sounds like it is saying gill, eye, tongue is only legal where selective gear rules are in effect......everywhere else is mouth only. Not sure though.....I am strictly mouth only personally, although I've never hooked one in the tongue....weird :p I would think that the tongue would be considered a part of the mouth???

RiverGal

RG,

Yes, the tongue is part of the mouth.

Here's my interpretation:

I believe the "hooked in the gill, eye, or tongue..." line in the regs refers to the fact that a fish hooked in those areas is usually mortally wounded, and will probably die. The "where legal to do so" means that if the area is open to retention, and the fish is hooked in these areas you should keep it. If you're fishing in an area, or a time of year that does not allow any retention, then the fish must be released no matter if it might die or not. For clarification, "gills" means hooked FROM THE INSIDE, not hooked from the outside in the gillplate.

I'm pretty sure that this applies to all areas, not just ones with special regs, unless specifically stated.

Very well stated 4Salt and I am in total agreement with it! .... Whoa kinda of scary !

Hey gooose,

You think we should buy some lottery tickets?

RG,

4S is right, but here's a little more information about that rule...

It's not really intended to apply to salmon and steelhead...it's intended to apply to trout fishing. The reason that it is in the "selective gear" rules is that when BAIT fishing for trout, each fish you catch, regardless of whether you retain it or not, counts against your limit.

If you're fishing with artificial lures, it is legal to catch and release trout without them counting against your limit. The rule is there to encourage people fishing with lures to keep a trout that has been hooked in the eye, gill, or base of the tongue.

Tongue, gill (from the inside) and eye (from the inside) are certainly hooked in the mouth.

Fish on...

Todd.

4Salt....yes I know that the tongue is a part of the mouth, I was just wondering why in the regs they list it as a difference in where you hook it. Also, is there a place in the regs that actually defines legally hooked(I know that it is common sense....but there are a lot of ppl out there that lack common sense)? The only place that I have found any sort of definition is under the selective gear rule. Which is really misleading. Because not all rivers follow selective gear rules. I agree with your interpretation as to the mortal wounding part, but why is that specific definition only listed under that heading. I guess for some clarification my real question would be is there an actual definition as to legally hooked for all rivers??? Thanks for sharing your interpretation.

And Todd......only for trout????? If it isn't intended for salmon and steelhead, why isn't that specified??? Not meaning to say you are wrong or to argue just curious as to where you came up with that? Did you hear it from a gammie?? Just wondering?

RiverGal

Now aren't we subjecting this part of the regs to more fuzzy interpretations? Nowhere does it say "inside the mouth" in regards to trout hooked in the eye or gills. Hooked in the eye means hooked in the eye from the inside or out - now just keep that little 10" stocker (my fuzzy opinion).

IMHFO, We'all shouldn't apply a blanket moral policy towards species so low on the sportfishing hierarchy. Save your mental energy for saving wild steelhead!

The other day I took a coworker out fishing. After limiting on silvers, at his request, we went for flounder. We had no bait, so I tied on 3 oz candlefish. Not one of them flatfish took that 1/0 treb in the mouth. In fact none were even hooked in the head. Every one was a body shot. I definitely didn't feel any guilt bonking each one of those slimy bottom dwellers.

The same goes for excess brat silvers. I say let those people who fish twice a year with those $40 Walmart outfits take home something to eat. They helped pay for them just like WE did. Yeah I'm talking about those of us with the $100 rods and the attitudes like our $hit don't stink...

I'd say that 4 salt is exactly right. hooked in the gill plate is different that what hooked in the gills means. As far as the tongue goes I have caught many coho on spinners that were hooked in the tongue. Sometimes the hook goes into the little "slats" on the back of the tongue and when the hook hits the wrong spit back there the fish will bleed badly. Same goes for the gills. I have however caught lots and lots of fish that had healed eye wounds but were itherwise healthy so I think eye hooked fish can be safely released but thats just my opinion.

Thanks for the extra info. I know the difference between gill and gill plate, but thanks for the info anyway. Got my question answered offline, but thanks for the effort guys.

RiverGal

ALLRIGHT HOHWIAN!!!!!!!