I predict exponential growth in double handed sink tip fly rod/reel sales.

I did attempt to get an answer from WDFW enforcement, no luck there.

BEADS........BEADS..........BEADS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's Obama's fault!

Got an email from Olympia today. They pointed out to me that there Is no current definition of what a "leader" is under state law. They suggested that I come to the public meeting and suggest a definition. I continue to wonder what it is they are proposing. Seems they should be proposing a definition of leader length also.

Apparently there is a biological reason to suggest this rule, BUT how can they be attempting to address it if they don't also address the definition.

They did give a "common" definition indicating that the leader starts where the mainline ends and some other line starts. Seems to me that would preclude fly fishing and allow flossing because you could just go up the mainline x feet and put a weight on.

Holy fu.ck.

So these fuckin' donkeys are going to limit leader length without defining what a leader is first? Christ. I just checked the definitions in the regs - there is no definition of leader.

Just like greg said. You can drive a truck through the loopholes. Don't use a leader. Tie your hook directly to the mainline.

Now what? Ticket you for the leader, by THEIR definition, that you aren't using?

I can't even believe you guys are behind bullsh!t like this. Shame and tickets are the way to limit snagging. Any gamie that can't write enough snagging tickets in the known sangfests to pay his own salary should gtfo. Go to those spots, and crack the fu.ck down. Bust the assholes snagging and then come back tomorrow and do it again. And if dudes are being stealthy with their 12 foot leaders and not ripping every cast to meet the snagging definition, then loudly clown their asses in front of the crowd and encourage others to join in the mockery of of dipsh!ts using that kind of gear.

Gamies aren't stupid. They know snaggers. They don't need a bullsh!t rule like this if they want to put a crimp in the known snagfests. Their problem is lack of manpower streamside. 800 middle-manager dipsh!ts and a handful of wardens for the whole west side. No wonder things have become what they are.

Fu.ck you and your rules, WDFW. Fire some management, hire some boots, and get those boots in the field to enforce the laws already on the books.

Just what is the job of a legislator, if not to legislate?

I've noticed that legislators do not suffer much,if any punishment, for passing poor legislation, in fact they are often rewarded for it.

Just got off the phone with a WDFW contact. For clarification, the proposed 48" leader length is for the Puyallup, Nisqually, and Skokomish rivers only at this time.

Yes, there is no definition of "leader" in the current WACs/RCWs. Yes, the Dept is aware of that and they are working on wording that would be put into the WAC IF the regulation proposal stays in place. They recognize the potential problems for the fly fishing community and are thinking about that. They are planning on putting some discussion points on the NOF website to help clarify their proposal.

There have been some good discussion points in this thread as to how to define a "leader". If you want to be heard, you can go to the link below and make your suggestions to WDFW staff.


http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

I would be interested in what the "biological reason" for the 48"leader limit is.

I guess someone thinks a leader length restriction might cut down on illegal fishing techniques.

Law enforcement presence will do that, too. Just need to find the officer time to do that.

I can clearly understand the ethical consideration of snagging and cutting it down by requiring shorter leaders. I'm not getting what the "biological reason" for shorter leaders is.

Biological reason is something to do with how many fish are lined and exhausted before release vs. Caught legally allowing the fishermen to leave with limits. The thought is that it'll help even the playin field a bit and should be better in the long run for both retaining fish and releasing unwanted fish with better health and potential.

I thought the snaggers kept the snagged fish. I never fish those rivers they're talking about so I don't know. Learn something new every day I guess.

Hi All

A few years ago we dealt with Odd Rule Changes that came out of nowhere on a different river to deal with snagging.

1st things I would say. If you don't like it, like it or want to see it changed/tweaked Get Involved. You can say all you want on here but until you go to North Of Falcon meetings or whatever other meeting are held regarding the changes, WDFW won't care what you think. Show up at the meetings and things can be influenced, changed etc. I came to that conclusion by attending the Mill Creek meetings that Sport River Fisher People are the least represented. Puget Sound Salt water Sport Fishing interests. They attend, Tribes, you bet. Commercials yup. River Sport Fishing in Mill Creek. Very few.

I will also tell you when we asked about enforcement to take care of the problem areas they told us that they don't have the manpower and have to worry about Elk Bow season, Native Kings on other rivers etc.

My personal feeling is that I never understood the long leader thing anyway.

They don't have the manpower because they willfully hire paper pushers instead of enforcement officers.

And who is going to enforce THIS rule if they lack the manpower already?

How many man-hours of labor at WDFW have already been wasted on this proposed rule? Managers talking about what a leader is, IT people changing websites, having more meetings............... How many thousands of dollars do you figure that comes out to?

What I've never understood is passing new rules you have nobody to enforce.

Regarding the question of the biological reason for this proposed regulation, my guess is that the reason is not biological, but rather sociological. Recreational fishing is intended by most to be sport fishing. Inherent in the concept of sport fishing are ethics that include the rules of fair chase. Fair chase in fishing means the fish willingly takes a bait or lure into its mouth. Fair chase does not include the practice of ripping hooks through the water column with weight strategically placed to increase the likelihood of foul hooking a fish.

There is some biological benefit to reducing snagging. A lot of fish that fall victim to snagging are poorly hooked and not landed, leaving many wounded fish in the rivers. Most probably survive to spawn, but some certainly become infected, and that's a poor testament to sporting ethics.

Regarding the definition of a leader, WDFW needs to apply more thought. A 48" leader to a swivel and weight is a lesser flossing rig than a leader that is longer. But if the definition of the leader says nothing about the weight, then I see a problem. For example, we are not allowed to place the weight below the hook, which would facilitate snagging. But what if a prospective snagger attaches his hook to a 12" leader to swivel and then attaches the weight to a 24" dropper, that is then between 12 and 36" from the hook, but also is a superb snagging rig? I think it might be harder to define what is or isn't a snagging or flossing rig in writing than to recognize one in the field.

Regarding the effects of the regulation on fly fishing, I wouldn't worry about it. Fly fishermen fishing with a sinking or sink tip fly line usually use a leader between 3 and 4' anyway, so that's no big deal. Sure, there are exceptions to using leaders longer than 4' on sinking lines, but see the part about this being no big deal. If a fly fisherman wants to participate in this fishery, then they can suffer the "hardship" of a 48" leader. When fly fishing with a floating line, leaders of 9' or longer are the norm. However, a floating line with a 9 or 10' leader is not likely to be anyone's snagging or flossing setup of choice, so again, I don't see any big deal.

Regarding the notion of simply enforcing the regulations already on the books, just because the LEO says an angler was flossing or snagging doesn't mean the judge will grant deference to the agent. Writing citations and getting convictions aren't the same thing. I think the object is to have clear and simple regulations such that citations written = 100% convictions so that agents aren't wasting what little time they have when patrolling the summer/fall snagfests on local rivers.

I am not so sure that salmon fishing, halibut, crabs, clams, shrimp, and probably other fishes are pursued for recreation. I think that it is primarily about harvest; in a broad-brush view.

Back in the 80s there were restriction in PS on Chinook because of conservation of springers and allocation of falls. These were popularly referred to as "closures" and effort crashed. Yet, salmon fishing wasn't closed. Coho was totally open for retention. Chinook were available for C&R. What was closed was killing, and that kept folks home.

For whatever reason, many of our fishes are viewed a commodities. Perhaps it is at least partly tied to the fact that the species are harvest both for sport and commercially. To the managers, those fish need to be harvested to prevent catastrophic over-escapement. It is an interesting tightrope they walk. We need to kill 1,000 fish, but you can only kill them certain ways.

I suspect it is hard to explain to folks that "sporting ethics" of salmon fishing when, at the same time, we need to get those surplus fish out of there.

It's only taken me 21 years living in WA for it to finally cement into my brain, but i've finally figured out that for the overwhelming majority, when it comes to local stocks of salmon, it is ABSOLUTELY all about the meat in the box.

What flat out amazes me is that Bubba can set down his PBR and release a bass, or all his bass, while here the latte gets set down to kill the salmon.

I've been living and fishing in Washington state much longer than the 21 years that you mention. I willingly admit that I like to be rewarded with an occasional fish, or crab, or some clams, or oysters, and occasionally my efforts are rewarded, and I actually manage to harvest, but in reality it would be much less expensive to buy product from the market, however my time on the water and the total experience is what I really enjoy, and yes I am a happier guy when I put meat in the box, but to me it is much more than that.

I think FP may have hit the mark again. Require a special permit (to be visibly worn by anglers) to fish the subject rivers during prime snag fest season. As little as $5 or $10 a day would probably keep most of the people who are just there to snag and floss fish away. That's my guess anyway. Easy to enforce: you either have the permit or you don't, unlike trying to prove in a court of law that the suspect was snagging salmon.

As for whether it's recreation or meat, I think it's a little of both. I go salmon fishing and razor clamming for the fun and because the catch is good to eat. I know many fishermen love to fish for chum salmon CNR and never keep a fish, altho some people do keep them. I have no interest in fishing for salmon that aren't the kind of table fare that I want, so maybe that makes me a meat fisherman. But if I didn't also enjoy fishing for salmon or digging razor clams, I would just buy them. I go trout fishing, or saltwater flats fishing and never think about keeping a fish. I used to go steelhead fishing and not think about keeping a fish either, until WDFW made rules on certain rivers requiring that anglers kill the hatchery steelhead they catch.

If it were only the meat, the Puyallup, Nisqually, and Skokomish are the last places I would go to fish for salmon. On a meat only basis, that just doesn't make sense, but then neither does engaging in sport fishing using unsporting techniques.

Sg