yea that will be the day...

i called to report guys using banana wieghts with big single hooks on the ends down at spokane street and they gamie i called (who will remain nameless to protect them) told me it was perfectly legal under the new regs.

a banana wieght is in no way shape or form a lure and never will be. they really need to re-define the regs and the definition of BAIT and LURES

bankwalker, I think that is a really good example of how hard it is to try to address snagging by gear definition. And on the other hand, how does an honest, accomplished, thinking fisherman create new and fun fishing gear when it has to constantly pass new restrictions?
The banana weight/hook setup differs little from a spoon by definition.

I spoke with a game warden a few weeks ago. There was no mentioning of the hook having to be in the fishes mouth. It turns out snagging or attempting to snag a fish is a gross misdameanor. That means they can hall your a$$ off to jail. It would be disappointing to see a warden incarcerate someone for keeping a fish hooked just outside of the mouth.

Actually, I might be wrong here but I think any fish and game infraction starts as a felony and you have to go to court to plea bargain it down from there.

At least that was how my deal went down in CA (I forgot to crimp my barb while fishing for shad). Seeing as though it was a felony, I'm pretty sure that is federal and not state???

It ended up costing me $135 bucks and was relabeled an infraction. But if I would have pushed this issue (i didn't - I was guilty), it would have been dropped to a misdameaner with possible 6 month jail time and $2,700 in fines.

... and no, i didn't get an attempt to explain anything. It was guilty or not guilty.

If you ask me there just trying to make it harder for a good fisherman, but God forbid the Indians choking the rivers with their nets thats o.k. Don't get me wrong people who snag fish upset me and where never going to get rid of them until there is more enforcement but I don't see that happing anytime soon. The State is trying force the sport fisherman out of the picture so that the Indians and commerical guys will stop their bitchin, just my thoughts.

Mikey .... the proposed "in the mouth" restriction would be for non-bouyant lure restricted waters...can be read on page seven of the link in an earlier post.

Scott...dunno about game violation charges here...last one I got was for shooting ducks two minutes past closing time back in the late '60's. We were picking up the decoys when Mr. Green "wanted to talk".

that said, I'm due.....more from confusion over present day rules than intention to violate, however.

i belive the barbless thing comes from the "non-boyant lure restriction"
once it is a Non Boyant restrictions i belive it means it needs to be a single barbless...at least that is what i thought....

i like the rule as a whole, but think it wont help..i floated the satsop and the hump this weekend and fished the skok today, never even saw a gamie at all...only seen em on the skok once a couple years ago...actully i think i have only seen them in the salt, other than that one day on the skok...

You are incorrect! In washington there are fish & wildlife laws that are infractions, misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies. What the actual regulation is classified as is up to the state supreme court which also sets the fine for each regulation. An example of a infraction would be barbed hook, misdemeanor would be no license, gross misdemeanor would be snagging and felonies are mainly commercial regulations, however there are a few recreational hunting violations that are felonies, however they are usually second-time offenses.

.

I can tell you that maybe 5% of recreational fishing cases are ever prosecuted. Almost every guy that shows up at arraignment the State does a Bail Forfeiture, which is basically no contest and the defendant pays $109 to $250. The only guys that don't take the BF are those the take there case to trial because the game warden was actually wrong when they wrote the citation. My take is that we do not need more regulations, we need fish and game to do their jobs and the State to prosecute these crimes. If I ruled the world I would make these civil citations and any one who gets more then one citation in less then five years loses the ability to get a fishing license. If you are caught fishing without a license then maybe throw that back in the criminal courts.

Just so very one is clear...

RCW 77.15.370
Unlawful recreational fishing in the first degree

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful recreational fishing in the first degree if:

(a) The person takes, possesses, or retains two times or more than the bag limit or possession limit of fish or shellfish allowed by any rule of the director or commission setting the amount of food fish, game fish, or shellfish that can be taken, possessed, or retained for noncommercial use;

(b) The person fishes in a fishway;

(c) The person shoots, gaffs, snags, snares, spears, dipnets, or stones fish or shellfish in state waters, or possesses fish or shellfish taken by such means, unless such means are authorized by express rule of the commission or director; or

(d) The person fishes for or possesses a fish listed as threatened or endangered in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.11 (2002), unless fishing for or possession of such fish is specifically allowed under federal or state law.

(2) Unlawful recreational fishing in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 77.15.380 Unlawful recreational fishing in the second degree — (1) A person is guilty of unlawful recreational fishing in the second degree if the person fishes for, takes, possesses, or harvests fish or shellfish and:

(a) The person does not have and possess the license or the catch record card required by chapter 77.32 RCW for such activity; or

(b) The action violates any rule of the commission or the director regarding seasons, bag or possession limits but less than two times the bag or possession limit, closed areas, closed times, or any other rule addressing the manner or method of fishing or possession of fish, except for use of a net to take fish as provided for in RCW 77.15.580.

(2) Unlawful recreational fishing in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

BINGO!

We have a winner!

The current definition of NBLR and it has been for years, does NOT prohibit barbs. Barbs have been legal forever under the NBLR definition. It is the "selective gear rules" that require barbless.

From what I can tell, barbs will also be legal under the new proposed rules.

Here's a couple of interesting things/loopholes I've noticed:

A. The current NBLR in its exact wording applies to "lures" and not "bait". "Bait" and "lure" have different definitions in the rules. So, if a person was to smear scent on a sinking lure having treble hooks, it is by legal definition been turned into "bait" and is thus not under the requirements of NBLR.

B. The Stilliguamish River is a popular river for salmon fishing, but there is no NBLR in effect in the mainstem. Instead, there is "selective gear rules" which does not limit the size of a hook, but instead requires a single point barbless hook. So, a snagger can be using a 10/0 barbless hook, and would not technically violate the "selective gear rules" of the Stilly.

Here is the proposal. It would only be applied in waters where there is a non-buoyant rule currently in place. It is not applicable to all waters in the state.

Here is the link to the proposal website:


http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/rule_proposals/sportfishing_rule_proposals_2009-10.pdf


#24. Anti-Snagging Rule
Proposal: This proposal would replace the current non-buoyant lure restriction with a new anti-snagging
rule. The anti-snagging rule requires the use of single hooks on all gear (floating or sinking, with or without
bait), and requires that all salmon and steelhead be hooked in the mouth in areas where it is in effect.
Other game fish may be hooked in the mouth or on the head.
Explanation: The non-buoyant lure rule is, by far, the rule that generates the most questions to our
customer service staff as well as to our enforcement officers. It is complicated, with different requirements
for lures that sink or float. The proposed anti-snagging rule would apply to all species, but would only be
used in areas where the non-buoyant lure rule is currently in place (see list and map below), with one
exception. In the mainstem Columbia River, the new rule is proposed to be in effect from Bonneville Dam
to McNary Dam. While in all other areas the rule would apply to all species fished for, in this part of the
mainstem Columbia River it would only apply to anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead. This will address
the major concern we heard from anglers to our proposal last year by allowing warmwater anglers to
continue to use gear with multiple hooks in this area, while still addressing the snagging problem for
steelhead and salmon. It would also be similar to the rule already in effect in Oregon.

If you want more LE field presence, then you need to work the Commission and the Legislature. The Chief would like to have more officers. I'd like to see more officers. A study currently being done says, if I remember correctly, that WDFW could add 80 officers and still not have adequate coverage for patrol efforts. Dollars drive the LE effort. The FY budget had $500K for fuel costs and when gas prices were climbing, LE was projecting a $1M expenditure for fuel which would have generated a $500K short fall just on fuel costs. I'm glad gas prices are falling, but I'd wager the annual fuel budget is going to be pretty tight. If they don't have money to buy fuel, you'lll see even less of the officers in the field.

As of last June, WDFW LE had 18 officers eliglble for retirement and 3 vacant positions. With the pending state budget deficit, WDFW is going to get hit to help save money. In June, the projected WDFW cut was about $2M, with LE having to save $350K. LE will do that by not filling vacant positions and cutting costs in other areas. FY 09/11 is projecting a $10M deficit in the Wildlife Fund. LE might be facing up to $1.5M in cuts.

WDFW gets funding from the wildlife fund and the general fund. In the state budget, approximately 1.4% of general fund monies goes to the various natural resource agencies in the state.

In round figures, there are approximately 120 officers to cover the state. Their contract doesn't provide for much in the way of overtime $$. They are stretched pretty thin. Seasonal demands pull them off the waters during fall hunting seasons. When doing boat patrols, they need at least two officers per vessel. When you factor in training, travel time to get to a patrol area, the other duties besides LE that they are tasked with, it is very apparent why you don't see them very often. If an officer has to drive for an hour or so to get to a patrol area and then the same time to get home, 2+ hours out of the 8 hour day become travel time. It doesn't take long to eat up the other 6 hours with contacts being made and maybe a couple of tickets written.

If you want to get some more details on what LE is tasked with, you can look at the LE webpage at:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/

I must be reading it wrong. Must use single hooks to me does not mean only one hook. It means no treble hooks. Side drifting and herring hook-ups would not be affected because where would someone side drift or troll herring where there is a NBLR in effect? Those areas are usually not very "boat-friendly". On the Chehalis it is single, barbless hooks only but you can use more than one hook on herring rigs or plugs.

so bigman the statement that snagging is a gross misdameanor is incorrect? that was right from the source. I do however find it hard to believe that failure to pinch a barb is a felony. they take you strait to jail for felonies.

Hey Mikey, you and I both find it hard to believe. I didnt realize it was a felony until the judge explained that to me in court. All i knew is that I had a mandatory show in court and could not simply pay my fine. But that was California, and they just simply do things a little differently down there. (one of the reasons I dont live there any longer)

The slap in the face for me (albeit getting a fine such as this while fishing for shad is a bit of a slap to begin with), is that there was a group of mexican farmworkers using live minnows in the hole directly across the river attempting to get a striper. This was on the Yuba in 1996 which is artificial, single barbless. I pointed it out, and the gamey looked at them and shook his head, but never went over there at all.

...That was the day when i learned fish and game rules are meant for revenue and not for protecting our resources.

lets maybe they should do less gill netting hmmm i think that my help!!!!!!!!

Did you even read my post??? I said snagging=gross misdemeanor...pinch barb=infraction..no license=misdemeanor..