North of Falcon Update

[TomD]

I can think of several things that I would like to see discussed. Every time we advise WDFW to change steelhead regulations through the WDFW, they tell us to go to the NOF process. I'd like to see all native steelhead C&R. I'd like to see stiffer tribal negotiations out on the OP, get better numbers on the escapement out there. That's no secret that I'm unhappy with the way that steelhead are managed on the OP. I believe that the rivers out there can support a larger escapement goal, the escapement is set artificially low because of the pressure the tribes put on us to have harvest opportunity. Historical abundance shows that runs could be significantly bigger, even though they give us habitat destruction excuses to prove that the runs can only be as big as 2,000 or so native returns, I, as well as many sport anglers, think that this isn't true. Even so, escapement is barely met out there as it is. I'd like to see net days reduced to allow for more fish to get by, and the one fish per year taken off the catch card.

Nate - the meeting went over time on just topics they had already put on the docket, so we didn't get to much new. I didn't get to bring up the 18 inch leader thing or the Wallace...

I DID, however, ask the lead BIO after the meeting about steelhead, and he confirmed my thoughts, which are/were that steelhead are NOT covered at NOF... So I think you are getting conflicting information, which is too bad

I believe that they do have a steelhead advisory board, much like the salmon board I am on... which might be a/the place to push for what you would like. I'll ask if they have a contact for us on that board...

Tom

[TomD]

I should also put out there for everybody that the next/last public meeting for NOF is next Tuesday April 1st (I know) at the Lynnwood Embassy Suites.

The importance of that meeting is that is where/when the Department will present updated model runs based upon the data scrubbing and run cut negotiations which have taken place with the Tribes to date. They should also have catch numbers from Canadian fisheries in the model, so that will help solidify. We will find out if the changes made get us back inside the box or if more cuts will be needed to meet the ESA threshholds for the various runs. The Department will continue negotiations with the Tribes during the PFMC week, but they will need some ideas and input from the Public on where to take cuts if they are necessary.

Tom

[natetreat]

I can think of several things that I would like to see discussed. Every time we advise WDFW to change steelhead regulations through the WDFW, they tell us to go to the NOF process. I'd like to see all native steelhead C&R. I'd like to see stiffer tribal negotiations out on the OP, get better numbers on the escapement out there. That's no secret that I'm unhappy with the way that steelhead are managed on the OP. I believe that the rivers out there can support a larger escapement goal, the escapement is set artificially low because of the pressure the tribes put on us to have harvest opportunity. Historical abundance shows that runs could be significantly bigger, even though they give us habitat destruction excuses to prove that the runs can only be as big as 2,000 or so native returns, I, as well as many sport anglers, think that this isn't true. Even so, escapement is barely met out there as it is. I'd like to see net days reduced to allow for more fish to get by, and the one fish per year taken off the catch card.

Nate - the meeting went over time on just topics they had already put on the docket, so we didn't get to much new. I didn't get to bring up the 18 inch leader thing or the Wallace...

I DID, however, ask the lead BIO after the meeting about steelhead, and he confirmed my thoughts, which are/were that steelhead are NOT covered at NOF... So I think you are getting conflicting information, which is too bad

I believe that they do have a steelhead advisory board, much like the salmon board I am on... which might be a/the place to push for what you would like. I'll ask if they have a contact for us on that board...

Tom

Yea, the steelhead are for a different time, they're on my mind at the moment though. I'd really like to see if it's possible to have a wallace fishery. I would also be really amused if the 18" leader thing goes through. Sporties get sloppy thirds on all these fish, so it would be nice if we could catch a break.

[MarkFromSea]

Here's the remaining meetings:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

March 27
Pre-season Columbia Basin salmon forecasts and fishery outlook:
6 p.m.-8 p.m., Benton PUD, 2721 W. 10th Ave. Kennewick.
Public discussion of potential recreational and commercial salmon fisheries statewide.

April 1
North of Falcon Meeting:
9 a.m.-5 p.m., Embassy Suites Hotel, 20610 44th Ave. West, Lynnwood.
Public meeting to present results of state-tribal negotiations and analyses of preliminary fishery proposals. With public participation, preferred options are developed for Puget Sound sport and commercial fisheries.

April 3
North of Falcon Meeting – Columbia River & Ocean discussion:
9 a.m.-2 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., Olympia.
Public meeting to present results of state-tribal negotiations and analyses of Ocean and Columbia River fisheries proposals. With public participation, preferred seasons are developed for Ocean and Columbia River area sport and commercial fisheries.

April 4
Final Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion:
9 a.m.-5 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., Olympia.
Public meeting to reach final agreement on sport and commercial salmon seasons for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay.
2014 Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor North of Falcon Salmon Management

April 5-10
Final Pacific Fishery Management Council:
Hilton Vancouver Washington, 301 W. Sixth Street, Vancouver, WA.
PFMC adopts final ocean fisheries regulations and state-tribal fishing plans are finalized for all inside area commercial and sport salmon fisheries.

[Bay wolf]

Wondering what your view on the 18" leader length mandate is? I argued against it. Here is my my reasoning.

1. According to the position of SOME of the WDFW staff members, all fish hooked outside the mouth are snagged. Following this logic, having a leader length of 18" max will prevent snagging. My argument is that there are times (very clear water conditions, or beads under a float for example) when an 18" leader is impractical. I also feel that once an 18" leader length is mandated on one river, it is a slippery slope to having a State wide mandate. We already have so many gear restrictions in our (sport fishermen) efforts to reduce mortality rates, it is time the tribes give their fair share.

2. According to the WDFW guidelines. Any fish hooked forward of the gills is a legally caught fish. In fact, I know many sporties who peg beads or corkies a few inches above the hook intentionally to avoid having a fish inhale the offering and get deep hooked. This is done in the event a native fish is taken, it can be released unharmed. According to the WDFW interpretation, this is flossing and in such, snagging! My argument is that, staying within THEIR guidelines, those fish are legally caught, and in fact are reducing mortality rates!

The point of the 18" leader length mandate is this: Reduce mortality rates on native fish by preventing snagged fish.

I suggested to the panel last night that leader length alone is not the solution. Rather a more precise description of the attempt to snag fish. We already have rules regarding the gear limitations, and that fish foul hooked must be released, but they need to include a description of the rod ripping action used by snaggers! We have all seen it, cast, rip, drift, rip, drift rip! If they include that in the anti-snagging rules, then we as sporties would be able to site the regulations on the river when we see someone intentionally trying to snag fish.

I know there are some who detest flossing as un-sportsman like, I don't like it myself, but in some sense it is accomplishing the reduction of mortality and that is what drives all our opportunities. WDFW itself says that there is an abundance of hatchery fish that need to come out of the water. We as sportsmen can do a lot in educating those that floss, but the reality is, unless you want to see a rule that says: only fish hooked inside the mouth, in the upper jaw no more than one centimeter off the exact center, one centimeter inside the outermost part of the top lip can be retained, I don't think reducing leader lengths to 18" to prevent snagging (flossing) is the way to go. Further, the regs state the fish must "willingly take the offering in it's mouth. That is very open to interpretation. Does that mean "try and eat it? Or does it mean "snap at it out of aggression? That rule does nothing to prevent snagging as it cannot be proved one way or the other.

I did however add that if they needed to include a maximum leader length than something like 48" would be more appropriate.

What are your thoughts?

[Norm]

I think there are way too many rules to begin with

[jd39]

I think if they were serious about stopping snagging/flossing they'd post wardens at known snagging/floss fisheries. Like the Skook and Skok but they don't do that, I've been to the Skook 5-6 times between last season and this one, have not seen a single game warden but plenty of "anglers" snagging/flossing away. I've never fished the Skok but hear it's just as bad or worse then the Skook. Enforcement is needed not more rules. Saw one kid gut hook a big hen while trying to floss then bonk and walk away with it while telling people to "mind their own business" when it was pointed out what a piece of work he was. A game warden nearby would have been useful.....
Seen and been checked at American by wardens 3-4 times, yeah lots to protect in there and the flossing is out of control on that fishery! If stopping flossing/snagging is a WDFW priority then they need to prioritize enforcement but that's probably too much common sense for a government agency to handle.

[skagit510]

I think if they were serious about stopping snagging/flossing they'd post wardens at known snagging/floss fisheries. Like the Skook and Skok but they don't do that, I've been to the Skook 5-6 times between last season and this one, have not seen a single game warden but plenty of "anglers" snagging/flossing away. I've never fished the Skok but hear it's just as bad or worse then the Skook. Enforcement is needed not more rules. Saw one kid gut hook a big hen while trying to floss then bonk and walk away with it while telling people to "mind their own business" when it was pointed out what a piece of work he was. A game warden nearby would have been useful.....
Seen and been checked at American by wardens 3-4 times, yeah lots to protect in there and the flossing is out of control on that fishery! If stopping flossing/snagging is a WDFW priority then they need to prioritize enforcement but that's probably too much common sense for a government agency to handle.

agreed

[natetreat]

It's not going away anytime soon. It's a tradition passed through the generations. I think it's a lost cause. You can argue whether it's ethical, moral or unsportsmenlike until the end of time. By the letter of the law it is illegal. To enforce, you have to prove intent, which is not possible if actually taken to court. Unless you retain a foul hooked fish, the ambiguity involved in fishing "techniques" makes the flossing tickets unenforceable.

In the end, it's fishing! The goal is to hook a fish, drag it to shore, take a picture and release or bonk it on the head. It is a sport, and morality has very little to do with it. When you start talking about this sort of stuff, where do you stop? It can be perceived as fish torture. Just ask PETA. Sportsmen like conduct dictates that it is cheating. That's how I feel about it. But some anglers fish for food. They don't see it as a problem. It's ambiguous. It's a decision that everyone makes on their own. I see it as a shortcut for those who don't want to take the time to fool a fish. In the end, they want these hatchery fish to be harvested, and requiring folks to hook them in the mouth in these "snag fisheries" just means more fish et left in the river, more anglers crowd the banks... That combined with the fact that it's not going away, ever. They don't have enough money or man power to have a cop babysit at the river bank. They just don't. Never going to happen. I think they should just have a rule that the first two hatchery fish brought to shore get bonked and the angler goes home. It's logical.

To me it's more ethical to minimize the impact to catch and release mortality to just accept that there will always be anglers that are going to do it, adopt the rule of limit to the bank and out. The Puke, Skok, Samish whatever. A fish hooked in the side is going to have a better chance of survival than a fish pulled in by the gills. I've never seen a flossed fish gut hooked, but I've pulled in tons of wild chinook on the Skok fishing with a bobber and eggs. Death is much more likely when the fish swallows the hook. That's why we have the limit and out rule on lakes when fishing for trout on lakes. Every time an angler catches and releases fish to get to the legitimately hooked fish, it increases the impact that we have on wild fish mortality. If it takes an angler 20 fish to get 2 in the mouth, that's ten times the impact on native fish. 2 and out reduces C&R mortality by a factor of 10.

Sure, making it illegal on paper looks great. We get to feel self righteous and proud when we mouth hook our fish legal when everybody else who is less skilled is snagging away. I feel much more accomplished, I know that I will legaally hook my fish and that makes me a better sportsman. It doesn't make me a better human being though. Just a better angler. This technique will never go away until we simply close these rivers, or post a cop on every single fishing hole. Fight the idea all you want, it's not ever going to happen. I do my part to reduce it by teaching guys how to effectively hook fish "legit". But the tradition will never go away. We need to accept it and move on.

To minimize the impact of sport anglers on native fish , this 18" leader thing is nonsense. A leader that short is a snagging leader. And a skilled flosser will still be able to floss a fish with it. Using the mainline as the flossing tool, split shot that are small enough to slide right through the teeth and floss, it's actually more effective. I'll be honest, and this may or may not be used to flame and troll me, but I learned to fish that way when I was younger. I didn't even know it was controversial. It was just another tool to catch lock jawed fish.

Go to alaska and ask the tackle shop guy, or a fly guide how to catch reds. They'll set you up to floss, or "line" the fish. Check out this great article about it. I found it by googling how to catch sockeye.

http://www.fishalaskamagazine.com/blog/ ... kan-style/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[natetreat]

That and I think it's way more important for enforcement to be out stopping poachers. Cops already have too much on their plate, what with meth labs, domestic violence, burglary, car accidents. Let them spend their time stopping actual crimes against people, not some stupid ethical argument among fishermen. The problem is really a non-problem. It's best addressed within the fishing community itself, by us skilled anglers teaching people that salmon DO in fact bite a properly presented bait.

[jd39]

Clarification: I used the wrong terminology, I should have said “gut snagged” or “snagged a big hen in the gut” instead of “gut hooked” since “gut hooked” is usually used when a fish actually bit and swallowed the presentation. Given the context most people probably got what I meant though.
Nate – unfortunately I can’t disagree with you. This is my 2-3rd season on rivers and I’ve seen flossing/snagging everywhere in that short time, it’s sad, but to you point, seems to be embedded with some as a legit fishing technique. I disagree that it is and that debate has been beaten to death so will just leave it at that. I’ve seen anglers try to admonish snaggers/flossers at the Skook into fishing legit and it had exactly zero impact on their behavior. I just go about my own business and abide by the enduring rule “don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing” which is how I like my days out fishing to go.
My point is/was if the WDFW is going to get “serious” about it passing yet another regulation isn’t going to do squat. It is already stated in the rules that a fish must voluntarily strike the presentation which is ignored by flossers/snaggers, I’m sure they’ll pay attention to an 18” leader rule that won’t be enforced either because it’ll take a game warden being present at these fisheries to enforce it. Without enforcement they are just words on paper and nothing more.

[natetreat]

Clarification: I used the wrong terminology, I should have said “gut snagged” or “snagged a big hen in the gut” instead of “gut hooked” since “gut hooked” is usually used when a fish actually bit and swallowed the presentation. Given the context most people probably got what I meant though.
Nate – unfortunately I can’t disagree with you. This is my 2-3rd season on rivers and I’ve seen flossing/snagging everywhere in that short time, it’s sad, but to you point, seems to be embedded with some as a legit fishing technique. I disagree that it is and that debate has been beaten to death so will just leave it at that. I’ve seen anglers try to admonish snaggers/flossers at the Skook into fishing legit and it had exactly zero impact on their behavior. I just go about my own business and abide by the enduring rule “don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing” which is how I like my days out fishing to go.
My point is/was if the WDFW is going to get “serious” about it passing yet another regulation isn’t going to do squat. It is already stated in the rules that a fish must voluntarily strike the presentation which is ignored by flossers/snaggers, I’m sure they’ll pay attention to an 18” leader rule that won’t be enforced either because it’ll take a game warden being present at these fisheries to enforce it. Without enforcement they are just words on paper and nothing more.

Yep, we're right on the same page. The debate is age old, beat to death, and not going to go away. I am right there with you, it's not legit, it's not sporting to floss.

The rationale behind the 18" leader is to minimize incidental interaction with native fish. I contend that if we allowed retention of foul hooked fish, we would accomplish this goal SO much better.

[Bay wolf]

I fought the 18" leader proposal, not because I condone flossing or snagging. I did it because I'm tired of having more and more restrictions placed on sport fishermen to reduce mortality when in some terminal fisheries it is glaringly obviouse that gil-nets are responsible for a large percentage of the mortality equation. We can debate the flossing/snagging question till we are blue in the face, but we are missing the club to the back of our head that again, WE THE SPORTSMEN ARE ASKED TO SHOULDER THE BURDAN OF REDUCING THE MORTALITY RATE ON NATIVE FISH WHEN NO ONE WILL ADDRESS THE MAJOR FACTOR INVOLVED IN MORTALITY RATES WHICH IS GIL-NETS.

Nate is exactly right, having a first fish caught must be kept fishery expanded to the more problematic rivers will reduce the mortality. But it will make the tribes happy as well since they made us, once again, impact sport fishermen without having to change a damn thing they've been doing. Gil-nets kill native fish just as sure as foul hooking one and throwing it on shore!

WE NEED TO SAY NO MORE!!

[jd39]

The rationale behind the 18" leader is to minimize incidental interaction with native fish. I contend that if we allowed retention of foul hooked fish, we would accomplish this goal SO much better.

That's the intent behind the 18" leader rule proposal? Wow, that's dumb even for the WDFW.
Anything not to address the 800lb gorilla in the room, gill netting...how pathetic. Our wdfw and politicians have the anatomy of a Ken doll if you "catch my drift"...sorry bad pun.

[natetreat]

The rationale behind the 18" leader is to minimize incidental interaction with native fish. I contend that if we allowed retention of foul hooked fish, we would accomplish this goal SO much better.

That's the intent behind the 18" leader rule proposal? Wow, that's dumb even for the WDFW.
Anything not to address the 800lb gorilla in the room, gill netting...how pathetic. Our wdfw and politicians have the anatomy of a Ken doll if you "catch my drift"...sorry bad pun.

the joke fits exactly

Yep, they are proposing it to limit interaction with wild fish. That's what they told us at the meeting. Aren't they smart?

[jd39]

Well maybe they’re really evil geniuses and setting up a catch-22 that serves their ultimate interest………now hear me out.

The ethical debate about the technique aside, flossers harvest a lot of hatchery fish. Eliminate or severely diminish their effectiveness (along with legit anglers) with this 18” leader rule while claiming “it’s to protect wild fish” and then the wdfw can complain not enough hatchery fish are being harvested and their level of interaction with wild fish is now unacceptable. Then proceed to reduce or eliminate hatchery plants outright via a “wild gene bank” designation to deal with the “problem”. Hatchery budget decreased, donuts budget increased, sporties screwed again, mission accomplished! 3 birds with one little 18" leader rule. Pure genius....

[Bay wolf]

I think the real reason is to bring this chip to the table when negotiating with the tribes. Although, there is nothing to insure that once we are mandated to 18 inch leaders that the tribes will do anything different then they have continued to do. I can tell you that the tribes have no problem doing what they want and seeing if the state has the guts and money to challenge them. They know that the state won't go to court, but will try to resolve any problems through negotiations and that results in us, the sport fishermen giving up yet something else!

[natetreat]

we will be using 18" leaders, and this is what the tribe will be using.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4G1R84swgU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bay wolf]

disgusting!

[schu7498]

thanks perry for keeping us updated! I oppose the 18 inch rule. I like the idea on gamefishin about setting a maximum leader length though. Just my 2 cents but I have not been fishing for very long, but just in the past few years I have seen a VERY noticeable increase in flossers.