Update: WDFW Clarification, fish "caught" with bait

[Bscman]

This is a spur off another thread, where some small debate was going on regarding what a definition of a fish "caught" while using bait actually is.

I've contacted Dennis Nicks, of WDFW (Olympia Office) regarding fishing with bait...here is my question as sent, and his response (both word for word).

The regulations read that all fish caught with bait must be counted
toward your daily limit, whether kept or released. However, it does not define
what a "released" fish is.

Obviously, the traditional definition would be any fish that is landed
(or boated) then released back to it's original waters unharmed. Is this the
same definition the WDFW is using for fish "released" after having been
caught with bait?

In other words, if a fish strikes your bait but it is lost during the
retrieve (never landed/netted/boated) does it count toward your limit
as well?

I guess the clarification most needed is whether this rule was put in
place to keep from "feeding the fish," or put in place to help limit the number
of fish that are potentially harmed during the de-hooking/releasing aspect
of bait fishing. I am assuming it is the latter, as fish caught on bait
tend to be hooked pretty deeply and sometimes cannot be released without
serious harm to the fish.

My interpretation of the regulation is that "caught" equals
landed. So if you never land it because the fish "escaped" (cutting the
line doesn't count), then it doesn't count against your limit. You are
correct- the intent of the regulation is to account for the high hooking
mortality while fishing with bait. In other words, many (if not most)
of the fish released after being caught on bait will die. If the fish
was not well hooked it probably will live.

I tend to be pretty long-winded...so I apologize for the "read." I hope this helps to clarify.

Among answers to a few other questions I asked, he let it be known they run into a lot of problems with parents fishing with their "childs" gear. He mentioned one of their more common problems is seeing children off playing, asleep in the boat, etc. while the parents are still fishing with their gear. Fair warning was given that children must be actively participating, and within "immediate control" of their gear in order to be legal...if a kid can't operate a downrigger, don't be setting their gear up with one.

[FishingFool]

that's always how i interpretated it. :cyclops:

[Anglinarcher]

that's always how i interpretated it. :cyclops:

For good, or for bad, so did I.:thumright

[Dave]

Well done. I can't say I was sure it didn't count towards a limit if it escaped. The regs are sometimes hard to decipher. Thanks for the clarification.

[Bscman]

I was confident I had it figured out (and sure enough, I did) but if this post helped one person, it was worth it. :cyclopsan

[Anglinarcher]

OK, let's take this one step further, cause I don't have it figured out.

The bait rule is for trout, that is clear, and I understand it. This is the only State I know of that uses the rule, but I understand it.

But, let's say I am fishing, with bait, for, oh let's say walleye. Now, I catch a couple of trout on my walleye lure w/bait. Am I done fishing for walleye, or is it ok to just keep fishing for walleye, even if I am catching trout.

Now, let's say that I am not picky, I AM fishing for walleye, but I catch a few 12" trout, say a dozen, which I release, and keep on fishing. Now, I catch a 5# trout, I am not fishing for trout, and have not kept them, even though they were caught on bait, but I want to keep this fish. I have already caught, and released, more than my limit of trout with bait, but I was not fishing for trout, and this fish is in no more danger than the other trout already released, and it will fit nicely in my cooler with the walleye I am catching.

Is it legal to fish for the walleye if I catch my trout by accident first?
If I can keep fishing, can I now keep the trout, even though I released the limit already?
Can the rule even be enforced, if any of us do figure out the law?

[DannyCore]

OK, let's take this one step further, cause I don't have it figured out.

The bait rule is for trout, that is clear, and I understand it. This is the only State I know of that uses the rule, but I understand it.

But, let's say I am fishing, with bait, for, oh let's say walleye. Now, I catch a couple of trout on my walleye lure w/bait. Am I done fishing for walleye, or is it ok to just keep fishing for walleye, even if I am catching trout.

Now, let's say that I am not picky, I AM fishing for walleye, but I catch a few 12" trout, say a dozen, which I release, and keep on fishing. Now, I catch a 5# trout, I am not fishing for trout, and have not kept them, even though they were caught on bait, but I want to keep this fish. I have already caught, and released, more than my limit of trout with bait, but I was not fishing for trout, and this fish is in no more danger than the other trout already released, and it will fit nicely in my cooler with the walleye I am catching.

Is it legal to fish for the walleye if I catch my trout by accident first?
If I can keep fishing, can I now keep the trout, even though I released the limit already?
Can the rule even be enforced, if any of us do figure out the law?

It would technically be illegal to keep that fish. But it wouldn't be immoral. And theres just about no way you could ever get caught.

[Bscman]

It would technically be illegal to keep that fish. But it wouldn't be immoral. And theres just about no way you could ever get caught.

I agree.
You can't control your "bycatch." So releasing all those trout, which is not your target species, would be acceptable/justifiable to most.

However, if a WDFW agent is sitting back watching you (as they often do for some time, before making contact) and they witnessed you catch and release several fish (beyond your 5 fish limit) may have a problem, and they will make contact. They may not be so understanding.

What would be ever worse is if you decided to keep that fish, after releasing several others....
I can see a BIG problem, as it would look like you're grading to a bystander....or especially to an interested enforcement officer who was lurking behind a tree.

My thoughts?
Contact WDFW with your specific question. I have a feeling much of the answer may involve "discretion of the officer."
One way or the other, it'd be nice to have it on record (and maybe a copy on hand) to CYA just in case!?!?

[northfork]

I came across this exact question in regards to Rufus.
Legally speaking "WDFW" 2 trout any size with bait and your done fishing for the day. Period.
But....
It is up to the enforcement officer to determine whether you are really fishing for Walleye in Walleye holding, deeper water or fishing in shallow water where it is more likely to catch trout.
I'm pretty sure the article was in F&H news last winter. I cut it out to show my brother on the way to Rufus.
The 5# question is up to the angler after reading the regs. I know what I would do.

[crankbait42]

what if you are fishing bait with barbless hooks and when the fish gets near the boat and you see it and decide it is little can you let the line go slack and let the fish shake the hook? would it count because it is on purpose?

[Bscman]

what if you are fishing bait with barbless hooks and when the fish gets near the boat and you see it and decide it is little can you let the line go slack and let the fish shake the hook? would it count because it is on purpose?

I know a few that used this method with river-run salmon in areas where, once the fish is landed, it must be kept. Use a barbless hook and just give it slack once you see the size and condition of the fish (and you don't like it).

You're skirting the law. It's one of those things that would be hard to prove you're doing on purpose, but it would probably be considered illegal if it was proved.

My thoughts? Just don't use bait if you want to grade, or release fish--problem solved.
I try to only use bait on what I refer to as "planter lakes." I will rarely use bait on a high lake, or a lake that I know has a small population of fish....because I prefer to release these fish, healthy, so the population remains strong.

[crankbait42]

i do let the line go slack when i see the fish sometimes even with lures because sometimes all i want to do is see the fish and i think it is easier on them not having to get lifted out of the water but sometimes you dont have a choice. but i always count it as part of my limit if i do it with bait.

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

....

I know a few that used this method with river-run salmon in areas where, once the fish is landed, it must be kept. ....

Are these rivers in WA state? I don't know of any Puget Sound area rivers (or WA area rivers for that matter) where once a salmon is landed, it must be kept.

[Bscman]

....

I know a few that used this method with river-run salmon in areas where, once the fish is landed, it must be kept. ....

Are these rivers in WA state? I don't know of any Puget Sound area rivers (or WA area rivers for that matter) where once a salmon is landed, it must be kept.

Negative

[Anglinarcher]

Good answers, but to be honest, the 'discretion' part bothers me a little. I see laws as something that are fairly enforced, and that means that what is good for one is good for another - discretion plays on part.

And what about "It is up to the enforcement officer to determine whether you are really fishing for Walleye in Walleye holding, deeper water or fishing in shallow water where it is more likely to catch trout."? I usually use cranks in shallow water, but I have caught a ton of big, very big, walleye in shallow water. Believe it or not, during the right time of year the shallow water pattern is the way to get the big old monster eyes.

So, how does an enforcement officer, who probably can't catch a fish if his life depended on it, determine my intent?

Sure a good thin I don't like to use bait. This rule could drive a man to drink.

[catchmorebluegill]

Isn't using barbless hooks and exception to the bait rule? Also, I went to a hatchery yesterday and they said the same thing about the high mortality rate with barbed hooks with bait. However, with most trout and other fish and that I catch, only about 5% or so swallow the hook (except for at Reflection Lake, they always swallow the hook it seems.) ; and only about 25% of those fish seem to die. Am I just lucky? I'm changing to barbless hooks and following the rules now, but I didn't notice that one until this year...yikes.

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

Isn't using barbless hooks and exception to the bait rule? ... I'm changing to barbless hooks and following the rules now, but I didn't notice that one until this year...yikes.

Negative.

[catchmorebluegill]

Oh... . Well, I guess I better not use bait anymore than, because I usually release a lot of fish that I catch. .

[fishaholictaz]

Fair warning was given that children must be actively participating, and within "immediate control" of their gear in order to be legal...if a kid can't operate a downrigger, don't be setting their gear up with one.

Does this mean the guides can't put out there customers poles because they can't do it with out getting tangled? I have never ran a downrigger so I imagine if I was on a guided trip where they are used the guide or deck hand would be operating it. This has been bothering me because I put out my kids poles when trolling and cast for them when bank fishing like a lot of fathers.

[Dave]

I have emailed the WDFW asking if it is unlawful to set a line on a downrigger for a juvenile or elderly person who is unable to do so. I also asked if it is unlawful to cast a line for the same type of person who is unable to do so. I will let you all know what the reply says.

Dave