I received the lists of rule proposals that will not be considered( and reasons why) by the commission during this rules cycle change and also the list of proposals to be considered. If you would like the documents email me at richardh@obwilliams.com and I will email them to you.

Some people are interested-- sent out 5 e-mails so far.

Here are a couple of the proposals....

26. SNAGGING CLARIFICATION
PROPOSAL: This proposal would make it unlawful to possess a fish taken for personal
use from fresh water that was not hooked inside the mouth or on the head. The head of a fish is defined as any portion forward of the rear margin of the gill plate. This rule
would not apply to forage fish taken with forage fish jigger gear.
EXPLANATION: This proposal is intended to clarify the snagging rule for both anglers and enforcement officers. There has been some confusion in the past as to exactly what constitutes a legally hooked fish. This proposal, if adopted, should clear it up.

27. REMOVING STEELHEAD AND SALMON FROM FRESH WATER
PROPOSAL: When fishing in fresh water, (except in the Columbia River between the
Buoy 10 line and the Rocky Point/Tongue Point line) it is illegal to remove from the
water any salmon or steelhead required to be released.
EXPLANATION: This is expected to improve survival of released fish because they will not have the additional handling and stress caused by their removal from the water.

Proposal 26 is just plain dumb...it will undoubtedly lead to yahoos attempting to snag fish in the head, rather than actually trying to get the fish to bite, not to mention legalizing flossing, which is still snagging at this point, even if it takes more skill than jabbing a fish in the side with a buzz bomb. If looks like they're attempting to alleviate confusion that doesn't exist. The rules are quite clear that fish must voluntarily take the hook in the mouth and be hooked in the mouth.

This proposal was undoubtedly sent in by someone who wants to keep fish that are hooked in the gill plates, not by someone who is confused by the rule prohibiting that.

Proposal 27 is a little different...it's not really practical in some situations, but is doable in most. The only reason it's probably a good idea is that the majority of the fishermen out there don't seem to know how to catch and release a fish without grabbing it by the gills or kicking it up the beach. This proposal still wouldn't stop someone from sticking their hands in the gills of a fish to be released, so long as they leave the fish in the water. I wonder if you could net the fish, but leave the net in the water...looks like it to me.

Fish on...

Todd.

The wild fish only advocates who catch and release but hold the fish out of the water for photographs won't like #27 I suspect. Some of the newer nets have rubber coated baskets that make safe capturing in the water possible and make it easier to remove a hook before releasing. Saves all that thrashing around at the boat.

I thought the rules had already stated that you could keep any fish the was hooked in the head..... When did that change?

I don't know if I have ever seen a fish "snagged" in the head?? Usually the body or fins.... I have caught a lot of fish though (especially alligator rolling silvers) that have had the hook come out of their mouth, only to be lassoed around the head...... That considered snaggin or ropin?? Maybe they need to "clarify" that too.....??

MC

Thanks Jerry for sending these to me.

Sent out 11 so far.

I just did a search under "barbless hooks" and was amazed on how many threads came up concerning this issue. I also found it to be extremely funny on how many of you had taken the stand that the use of "barbless hooks" is the only way to go for protecting our wild steelhead and salmon runs. In fact, numerous members have taken the stand that the use of "barbless hooks" is supported by numerous studies. I even recall seeing a few of those studies quoted, or parts from those studies quoted, and being used to support the argument to use only barbless hooks!

After reading the new released WDFW proposals, and reading the reasons for why WDFW has denied some of the proposals, I am left scratching my head.

As just two examples, on page 39, this is stated:
"Proposal description: More barbless hooks used for salmon and steelhead and get rid of treble hooks on plugs for salmon and steelhead."

WDFW's "Rational" for denial of proposal was: Hook regulations are generally considered on a case by case basis and barbless hooks are in use now in all marine areas.

Then two proposals down, this proposal was proposed:
Require barbless hooks use statewide for any none-handicapped angler over the age of 12 (or from age 10-16).

WDFW's "Rational" for denying this proposal was: "The Commission rejected a similar proposal in the last major cycle-research doesn't indicate that barbless hooks reduce hooking mortality"

Ok, will somebody tell me what's wrong with this? Without taking anything out of text, and according to WDFW's own words,

If this is true, why in the devil are we required to use "barbless hooks" anywhere then? What am I missing or taking out of text on WDFW's reply?


Cowlitzfisherman

You're a genius Gump

CFM,

You're right about the barbless hook thing...numerous studies have shown that barbed vs. barbless hooks have significantly different mortality rates...in fact, a much more significant difference than bait vs. no bait.

Aunty,

I agree with you on the taking the fish out of the water thing. It seems that it would be quite dangerous for some folks to do it out in the salt, especially if they have a high boat. The new proposal says it would be required everywhere in fresh water except in the Columbia/Buoy 10 area.

Fish on...

Todd.

What are the proposals relative to the upper Skagit if any?

Varden

Look at all the rule proposed changes! They all apply only to sport fishermen! How many rules changes do you see proposed by the commercial boys each year? 0000!!!!!

This is really becoming a big farce!

Oh yes, The North of Falcon meetings will be when they make their changes and then we must "adjust" ours to fit theirs! When will the public have a chance to make public comment on all the back door deals that are decided there? It's not going to happen!

When will we sport fishers ever learn?????????????????????????????????????

We are always at least one year behind the decisions that are made at those meetings!
Why do we continue to allow that to happen?????????????????????????????????

Why not have the North of Falcon meetings first, and then have our proposals, like they do and let them "adjust" to our decisions? After all, we at least have gone through a public comment period….I think!

While you loose more and more each year…………………….ask yourself why!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Todd,

Proposal #26 was brought about because of inconsistency in WDFW enforcement. One reg read one way... and another read another way.

This was brought about by a discussion between a Gamefishin board member and an employee of WDFW....not by a snagger wishing to get an edge.

Seems how I have had three different wardens tell me it is legal to keep fish hooked from the gill forward it was probably the wardens who made this suggestion. OOPS I mean four, forgot the quil last year. I have hooked several fish just under the chin using jigs and I know damn well they took it because I watched it happen. Also I dont know what the big deal is about flossing. Its just another method used to take surplus hatchery fish. I think what the main problem with it is alot of people just dont have the feel for it. Flossing if done right does not involve yanking every damn cast either, thats just pure snagging. I never set the hook until I felt my hook actually grab a fish or the fish grabbed the hook.

I have since moved on to better and more ethical methods as I enjoy a challenge, but it was sure fun as a teenager.

You can still photograph fish and not take them out of the water.

Bob did it with those early 2nd run kings this summer.

Just tail the fish in the water, and have someone snap a photo.

Or, if you are me, just Photoshop in a pre 2004 date on the photo.

Somehow, I don't think the state can afford to pay the "expert" the $1,000 per hour fee it's gonna take for them to prove anything about a digital photograph.

The snagging law is stupid, at best. Not ok to floss, but ok to stick a hook in a fishes "head"? What-EVER!

I think regardless of whether they want to hear it or not we need to hammer hardcore on wild steelhead release statewide without exception!!!. In my opinion it is their job to listen to us regardless of what we have to say. So as we testify about other things we all need to mention WSR..

also things to oppose are

Keeping the klickitat open through the winter:
the rationale behind this is to harvest more hatchery steelhead yet at the same time we are making a deal with the Yakima nation to increase hatchery steelhead production.. This is a bogus reg..

We also need to defeat the deffinition of a snagged fish proposal the rule neds to stay just as it is.. inside the mouth only!!!

Rob

What do you have against a little head? A liittle head is a lot better then a little tail


Cowlitzfisherman

I realize you were kidding but a fish hooked in the head (outside the mouth) is no different whatsoever than a fish hooked in the tail.

What about the proposals that WA Trout came up with about no seasons, size limits and bag limits on any non-trout species.

Anyone in that group got a High School degree?

I'm a fly fisherman but would be ashamed to be associated with that group.

TODD,

WAC 220-56-215 already defines snagging.
Unlawful possession of snagged salmon. "It shall be unlawful to possess salmon taken for personal use from fresh water areas that were not hooked inside the mouth OR on the head"

I asked a state patrolman if this over rules the fishing regs and he said it does.

What we need is the regs to define the act of snagging, not what is a snagged fish.