WDFW 2009-2010 Sportfishing Rule Changes

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/rule_proposals/2009-2010ces.pdf

It's a bit wordy in that it includes the proposals, testimony, staff recommendations and commission actions.

Lot's of discussion about a new Anti-snagging rule modification...

This was the proposal..

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 a single hook 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.

and this is the modification the commission adopted..

Terminal gear limited to one single point hook unless fishing from a floating device, when
two single point hooks may be used. Hooks must be ¾” gap or less and attached to or below lure or bait.
Weights may not be attached below or less than 12” above the lure or bait.

Not sure what "fishing from a floating device" means.  Does that mean, boat, kayak, float tube?  Or are they referring to the use of a float (bobber).  Anyway, sounds like you guys in Washington need to remove all your trebles from your lures.

Dang, pretty soon you wont be allowed to use a hook at all, the fish will just have to bite the lure and hang on until it get sto the boat.

The floating device must mean a bobber or something, why would it be different just because your on a float tube or something. Of course allowing extra hooks on a bobber doesn't make much more sense either.

Not entirely sure what they mean by that ... "floating device".

CBY, we already had the non-buoyant lure restrictions and in some cases, we are already limited to fishing below bobbers (Duwamish pink salmon fishery comes to mind).  The intent of these regulations is to reduce snagging.

-Allen

The floating device must mean a bobber or something, why would it be different just because your on a float tube or something.

Probably because the snaggers being targeted aren't typically floating on the water in a boat/float tube/kayak but casting from shore.

No problem whatsoever of only using single point hooks. IMO trebles just rip apart salmon's mouths which are so delicate. Fishing w/o them can be just as successful. Plus there's been some fisheries that have been a real abomination when it comes to snaggers. There's been lots of reports of just total aholes who'll snag fish like chum, throw 'em on the bank and kick them around. Anything that can give them a ticket is all good IMO.

When it comes to floating devices I believe they mean boats, yaks, etc. since the two single point hook restriction is common among all boating regs. in the sound. They do need to clear that up though. Don't want to give snaggers a loophole.

Z

well why don't they just write a rule that says no snagging game fish....then just write them a ticket...besides u couldn't use trebles for salmon before could you?

this state is stupid with its laws

They do have anti-snagging rules.  And people still do it.  So these rules enable law enforcement to write a ticket for attempting to snag by outlawing the gear.  If there were no gear restrictions, law enforcement would have to wait until an actual snagging incident occurred before being able to write a ticket.  Subtle difference, but it is a big difference.

-Allen

This only effects the salmon fishery, right?     There's no way in hell I am goin' to start replacing all the hooks on my bass gear.  I would suspect most of these individuals doing the snagging don't have licenses anyway.  Another case of big government instituting laws or rules to govern those that only serve to inconvenience law-abiding citizens and doing nothing about catching those who will not follow them anyways.  Why not create a few much needed jobs in Fish & Wildlife for more game wardens to enforce the existing rules?   

This only effects the salmon fishery, right?     There's no way in hell I am goin' to start replacing all the hooks on my bass gear.  I would suspect most of these individuals doing the snagging don't have licenses anyway.  Another case of big government instituting laws or rules to govern those that only serve to inconvenience law-abiding citizens and doing nothing about catching those who will not follow them anyways.  Why not create a few much needed jobs in Fish & Wildlife for more game wardens to enforce the existing rules?   

It's obvious why they don't something like that. It makes too much sense...

This only effects the salmon fishery, right??

Page 14. no. 24. Anadromous species only.

"This proposal would replace the current non-buoyant lure restriction with a new anti-snagging rule. The anti-snagging rule requires the use of a single hook 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."

its kinda like saying...we are too lazy to catch people speeding so lets just outlaw cars that will go faster than the speed limit...another indication of how government handles a problem...they make a law about it...even though there is alrdy 3 or 4 laws that alrdy apply but they don't or won't enforce.

if the government enforced all the laws they alrdy have then there would be no need for new laws...the regs are complicated enough lets not add anymore

and as far as actually catching them in the act...make the fine much stiffer when you do catch them...imo that is a better way than making a new law that won't be enforced or will only be enforced on the people who were following it anyways


the good news is that it doesn't really matter what i think because the government will make whatever laws they want regardless...even if i vote...i think Seattle has proven that time and time again


sorry im on another conservative rant again

hi guys, 

after reading thru this mess, my biggest questiond aren't about the number of hook or what they mean by floating device, but, are :

who is or constitutes the conservation committee of the washington fly fishing club, and why do they hold so much power over wdfw and it's decisions?

and why does the inland empire fly fishing club, based in california, have any influence inside wdfw and it's policy making process?

looking thru this, it's a rubber stamp commitee for high money complainers who want to ban eveeryone from fishing "their" favorite waters.

also, take a look at this rubber stamp concerning size and posession linits at a certain lake;

#13. Scooteney Reservoir Walleye
Proposal: This proposal would change the rules for walleye on Scootenay Reservoir (Franklin Co) from the
statewide standard minimum size of 16”, to a minimum size of 12”. The daily limit of 5, and the restriction of
only 1 over 22” may be retained will remain unchanged.
Testimony:
Against this proposal. There is enough pressure on these fish now. This rule would cut back on the
number of 16”-20” fish available for fishermen. These larger fish are caught both in the early spring and in
mid-October.
Good idea to let anglers access these fish. How do they get more into the reservoir?
What about raising the daily limit to 8 fish? No, try 5 first and see how it goes.
There are lots of transients fishing in this lake. They are fishing to feed their families, but if you drop the
minimum size to 12” they will fish it out. Other people come to the park expecting to get a nice-sized
walleye. These will be gone. This lake is not very big or very fishable.
In the last 10 years, fishing has gone down (due to fishing by transients). There are 5-6 groups on the bank
fishing every day
Staff Recommendation: Adopt as proposed.
Commission Action: Adopted as proposed.

huhn? did they even stop to consider the complaints about the place being over fished already?

oh, and then there's a new marine protected area we need to worry about not violating, too;
#21. New Marine Protected Area
Proposal: This proposal, developed in conjunction with staff of the State Parks and Recreation Commission
(Parks), would create a new Marine Protected Area near Saltwater State Park in southern King County. The
area would be closed to all recreational fishing for fish (including salmon and bottomfish), shellfish, and
unclassified marine fish and invertebrates year-round. NOTE - clam and oyster harvest is currently closed in
the entire park. Parks will mark the boundaries of the area with buoys in the water and pilings on shore.
The proposed area would encompass about 300 feet of the park’s 1445 feet of shoreline, and would run out
about 1200 feet from the high tide line. The map below shows the area of the proposed closure.
Testimony:
Supported by Conservation Committee of the Washington Fly Fishing Club.
This would close a prime area that people use when wading for crabs. Should leave this activity open.
SCUBA divers don’t use the intertidal area anyway.
Could close the part beyond mean low tide line.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt as proposed.
Commission Action: Adopted as proposed.

gosh i have a lot of catching up to do when i get back there.

The reason that there is the exception for "floating devices" in the anti-snagging rule is that people are legitimately fishing using 2 single hooks while trolling herring for salmon, and also to allow free drifting 2 hook rigs in rivers for steelhead.
I agree that the rules get convoluted and difficult to understand, but it is also difficult for law enforcement to prove someone had the intent to snag a fish.  Many drift fishermen "set the hook" at the end of every drift - "just in case".  Well what they are really doing, whether they intend to or not, is feeding their leader through the fishes mouth until the hook hits the corner then whammo, they set the hook and it is "fish on".  Otherwise known as snagged, or more gently known as "flossed".  So our fish and wildlife department will continually change the rules pertaining to legal gear because that is the hard evidence they can use to actually cite someone. 

I've caught snaggers red handed and actually pointed them out to a wdfw agent and he told me - as long as they release any fish that come to hand that is foul hooked there is nothing I can do.  I cannot prove their intent to snag.   While that is dissappointing to me, I understand that perspective - all the snagger has to say is "I felt a bite". 

Brighter new is: it looks like there will be a season for springers on the columbia after all!!  Now all I need is for someone to show me how to "get it done"    That is a fishery that I haven't figured out, but would love to.

I understand the proving issue...but on the other hand when a cop pulls you over because you didn't signal to turn...can he prove that...no but it is his word against yours...cops are given the authority to make that judgment call...they don't go off and write another law

and to Richard...this state has also proven a few times that it creates and upholds laws based on special interest groups (not saying this is the only state but they are very blatant about it around here)

Hopefully the rules won't get as bad as they are in my business...The FAA came to our avionics shop the other day...one of the first words out of the inspectors mouth was (remember these are the guys who enforce the law)
Don't ask me to interpret any laws. We are not supposed to do that however we will tell you (and fine you) if you interpret the law wrong.
Once the laws get so complicated that you can't interpret them and the enforcers won't interpret them because they could interpret it wrong...there is a problem

The sad part is that these laws are passed because it is indeed a problem.  Perhaps "we" are not the problem, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.  It's better than shutting the fishery down altogether.  I'm more upset that there are people that cause this problem, than I am that measure are in place to address the problem.  Personally it is no skin off my back.

-Allen