Well.. duh snagging is illegal but the rules are unclear as what you can use. Hook attached to weight.... Jigs,spinners, spoons attached to weight. the way it reads it seems you cannot use these in the river. There can be two fish in a hole and bite all the above. Unfortunately there are idiots intentionally snagging making legit fishers look bad as if not following the rules! One person made a good point and description here about kids on the skok using some crazy obvious snagging gear! Legal eagle here.Ccan the wdfw officers make up the rules as you fish?? It is not a bummer to have more officers if your legal which sometimes the rules are hard to decifer,which is my point. Then.. there should be NO problem.

IMHO, the WDFW statutes (RCW 77 and the WACs) are in serious need of updating (read re-write). As far as the appropriate penalties for violations, I can tell you that both a fine and clear process for the potential for license suspensions ranging from one year to life will serve as a deterrent for most folks who might think about pushing the envelope.

Fines will impact some folks and cause them to not violate in the future. Some folks just consider a fine a cost of doing business. The loss of license privileges, however, takes the person out of the field for a period of time. That can impact the mindset more than a fine.

Additionally, WA is a member of the Wildlife Violator Compact (about 30 states participating) and the suspension is applicable in all member states. Most of the western states are participants so the suspension means no hunting/fishing in any WVC until the suspension is over.

the problem with our snagging laws is that if we are fortunate to get a warden to witness someone in the act, they have to prove intent. the wardens know the guys with 6' leaders are more than likely trying to snag fish(which includes flossing in WA), but all one of them has to say in court is "i thought i was getting a bite".

That's precisely my point there picklboss. The rules are unclear cuz often people with good intentions try to over compensate with a bunch of unclear rules due to an enormous problem. I'm saying, we know the problem...snagging. Everyone knows what and who is snagging when you're on a river, it's easy to see, so, keep the rule simple, let the there be more officers to do their job, and make the punishment as stated in another reply easily applicable so there is a true deterrent. More complicated rules written without clarity does nothing to prevent the problem the first rule was intended for. Keep it simple, it usually works best.

A guy light-lining Steelhead and playing them out,does a greater hit to the mortality rate of the run,than say a 6yr old driving 25lb test and reeling [censored] in backwards and letting it go for fun.

It's all semantics,until things are bonked on the head and then the line is clearly drawn.

Easy fix,like everything else,but there's no money there...thus the impetus to require Joe Average to have Johnny Cochran streamside on retainer,to decypher the cryptic Rules and the kneejerk reaction of the day.

Very few are actually interested in the Resource's wellbeing,compared to those on the dole in one way or another,perpetually reaching in the cookie jar and extracting cash from the Bureaucratic Bumbling that feeds the fire via selfish self interests.

Legislators are educated beyond their intelligence and eager to prove same.

Defense attorneys, some Prosecutors, many Judges, a lot of legislators, and folks who write the rules can't seem to grasp the concept of strict liability and want the officer to prove that the violator was committing the act knowingly, willfullly, or negligently.

A snagging rule should be straightforward. Most of the laws should be written as strict liability - either you're committing the violation or you're not. If you commit the crime, you pay the penalty and face license suspension.

Common Sense...is no longer common.

FishPrince's point on "probability of getting caught" is an interesting one.

I continue to wonder how and where the best use of well trained volunteers could help the situation. I'm aware it's a complex and difficult issue, but with so many good folks out walking the rivers, why this approach isn't at least tried in a pilot program.

With just 50 volunteer "fishermen/jr. wardens" out there, odds of getting caught go way up.

Your most excellent line so far, and completely true. Worthy of plagerism.

FishPrince's suggestion of revising snagging to a legal infraction is sounding like the best thought out treatment of the issue I've seen. Maybe it can get some traction in the department.

Sg

Volunteer marshalls with a bit of training?? cell phone reception is just about everywhere now.

The last thing I'd want to see is some Mall Cop Ninjas walking up and down the stream course with their plastic merit badge and a whistle,thinking they are saving the World as they flung tickets as per their discretion.

There'd be some floating Ninjas with whistles in their ass...headed downstream.

Deputy wardens are not a good idea in the litigious society we have. Simple, straightforward laws with fixed fines (jail time not needed for most fish and game violations) and the probability of license suspensions based on one ticket (serious crimes) or multiple tickets (lesser crimes) would help the officer and the public.

The idea of re-writing the statutes isn't a new one. It has been on the table with the WDFW Enforcement Advisory Group for over 3 years. The following draft report that addresses the license suspension process might be of interest. Similar changes could be made to the penalty sections.

I shepherded two statute re-writes through the Colorado legislature for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The first bill (which took two years to pass) cut the length of Title 33 from 120+ pages to about 60 pages. In my reviews on RCW 77, I'm sure similar cuts could be made.

Statute changes, however, can be dangerous. We saw what happened this past year. The bill title would have to be very tight and by-in by both sides of the aisle would be critical.

****************************************

Draft License Suspension Process

Discussions within the Enforcement Advisory Committee (EAC) indicate a strong preference for stricter use of the license suspension process available to the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to help remove individuals who commit flagrant and/or continuing violations of WDFW statutes and administrative codes.

The current process seems cumbersome and provides an extended window of opportunity for those who choose to violate fish and game rules. Under the current scenario, with few exceptions, an individual must commit two violations within 10 years before the potential exists to suspend the license privileges. There is no procedure to identify those violations that are particularly egregious compared to those which don’t impact the resource but are more technical in nature.

Most of the EAC were in agreement that a point system, such as is used in Colorado, would be a fairer way to identify the severity of violations and allow more latitude to the WDFW in identifying those individuals who need to be removed from the hunting and fishing arena for a period of time up to a potential lifetime suspension for particularly serious crimes. A concept paper was provided to Chief Bjork in 2005 that discussed the way a point system could be implemented in the WDFW statutes. A copy of the paper is provided below.

In lieu of a point system, another possibility would be to change the way in which violations are utilized for the suspension process. In this scenario, a violator could face a suspension under some different guidelines. One would be that any felony violation would take the person to the suspension process. The second stage would be two misdemeanor violations within a five year period. The third stage would take the person to the suspension process if three or more violations (infractions and/or misdemeanors) were filed in a five year period. This could be 3 infractions or two infractions and a misdemeanor.

Under the Colorado point system, one violation could take a person to the suspension process. In some cases such as a gross overbag of fish or small game, illegal take of two or more big game animals over the limit, trespassing, etc along with felony charges could result in a suspension. Under the scenario of tickets accumulated, which would require violations on different dates, gross violations wouldn’t get a person into the suspension process. If that was desired, the RCW would have to identify numbers of wildlife or seriousness of violations (loaded firearm in a motor vehicle, spot-lighting, etc) that would take the person to the suspension process for a single incident.

We’d be happy to discuss options.

+1