Anti snagging coalition

[BUGLEMAN]

I am thinking that we should form one. At this point I would like us to use this coalition as a way of rousing and organizing efforts to get ODFW to adopt non-buoyant lure restrictions.

In Washington State they have successfully adopted them to curb blatant use of buzz bombs etc. to discourage snagging in problem areas. Buoyant lure restrictions means to restrict the use of trebble hooks on sinking lures. They are typically applied to areas know for snagging. I would like to use this thread to brainstorm here on ifish and to discuss opinions how and if we should form this.

Would Jennie like to see her creation involved in a sort of political effort.

To accomplish any goals there must be organization. Organization would be required to coordinate and assign tasks. To conduct a multifaceted appeal and build a case for this issue. There should be tangible goals. Who, like me, is interested in getting non-buoyant lure restrictions here in OR instigated for use in our snagging hot beds and eliminate one form of illegal harassment of the resource? I don't really use treble hooks anyway.

Who is willing to make a few phone calls, do a little research or some small effort? It would be fun. I think this should be a slam-dunk! It would be cool to have another solid effort associated with ifish. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: BUGLEMAN ]

[FISHFINDER]

Bugle,

I'm in. I have a little time to spare for a good cause. You lead and I will follow. I hope some of the others will be as inspired to take a little action.

FF

[FM2]

BM, You have a good idea on the non-bouyant lure issue but why not take this another step. I'm not sure of what the Washington regs are regarding this but I will look into it. I believe the time is ripe to not only ride the coattails of the Wash. regs but to add additional language to a proposal.

I think there a two main issues to deal with at this point, enforcement and penalities. Without enforcement the people who snag fish will continue knowing there is not enough officers available to "catch them in the act". Knowing this, people will extend the limits of the law. What is needed is relaxed enforcement regulations. In other words if law enforcement would ease the requirements needed to convict an individual this possibly could provide another form of enforcement. I believe this needs indepth brainstorming and research to determine the boundaries and what would legally consitute enforcement. This issue could really bog down a process due to political boundaries and who or what would be defined as an "enforcer of the law".

The second issue would be penalities for convictions. If penalities are severe enough this will deter many "conscience" people who do this. I think it's a given there will be a percentage that would do this no matter what the consequences are. The focus would then be on the people who are potential targets for stiff "deterrants" such as steep fines, loss of license, loss of fishing gear and whatever penalities would deem appropiate for this offense. I think stronger punishment is needed, how long has the current fines been in place? Times change and policies need to change with them.

Once these two foundational issues are addressed then people can move forward on the methods of snagging and how to define those. In political areanas, politicians have a quasi protocol on issues that need their attention. In this case presenting possible solutions and penalities could have an impact on the decision makers. Most do know snagging is a problem, they would like to know what to do about it?

My $.02 !

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: FM2 ]

[Vinny]

Question,
The only two snags I've seen were accidental. Are some snaggers so arrogant and defiant that they don't care about the law or the difference between right and wrong?

Don't these individuals respond to a little friendly chat about right & wrong and the key word "sport" in sport fishing?

[BUGLEMAN]

Vinny,

Snagging is a severe problem that I used to be indifferent to and uneducated about. There is very bold and defient individuals out there who should be called criminals and prosecuted as such. Read the thread called suggestions to slow down snaggers if you haven't already. I have witnessed some real characters directly out of the movie, DELIVERENCE.

FM2 your suggestions are very noteworthy and maybe even accomplishable. But on the otherhand I feel like just taking a small bite and not changing the entire system. Catching them in the act is what our constitution, freedom and judicial system is all about we can't take that away. But this leads directly to the non-bouyant lure restriction. Just having a treble on your sinking lure would be a crime on certain problem streams or holes that this would be enacted on. This could serve to discourage blatant snagging and prevent the closing of some of our most productive fishing waters and make enforcement easier. That is what our police need during this time of shrunken budgets and manpower cuts.

Also I feel that we need a political sucess to rally around. So let's just bite off what we can chew. IMO

What do you and all you other folk think?

Stew and 'Bait (officers of our TV chapter of NW Steelheaders), can we bring this subject up at the next meeting - Thur. 18th at Hillsboro Legion Hall? A recognized organiztion with some political clout would help a lot to have involved.

RT

[Slow Roll]

Count me in on the effort. I'll do all that I can.

RT, what time is the meeting on the 18th? Couldn't make it last time but want to this time.

The social half hour starts around 7:00 pm and the meeting commences at around 7:30; third Thursday of each month - next one on the 18th. Always interesting and constructive. And raffle prize give aways, usually including 2 rods (member or not). The Legion Hall is a couple blocks from the courthouse on Main St.

RT

[4Salt]

Bugleman,

Up here in WA, we have the non-buoyant restrictions that you describe, and it hasn't slowed snagging down ONE BIT! I'm not trying to discourage you, or anyone else from taking positive steps to stop this scourge on our rivers. In fact, I applaud you for wanting to stand up and take action. The main problem as I see it, isn't with the gear being used, it's with the people using it! [img]images/icons/mad.gif[/img] Single octopus hooks with a corky and some yarn, account for probably 90% of the snagged fish up here. It's too bad there isn't any way to legislate changes in human nature. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[FM2]

Here is a link that provides a guideline for proposing changes. I thought this could be helpful to see what information may be needed. This is in pdf format and is 7 pages long. I'll post other information and links as time permits.


WDFW

[boater]

4salt, i realy dont agree with you on what you posted, i know for a fact there used to be buzz bomb throwers all over the duwamish/green rivers and now you may see 1 or 2, i think the first thing to do is get the non-bouyant lure restriction, no trebles on sinking lures. get these lead swinging maggots off the rivers. just my 2 useless cents worth.

[BUGLEMAN]

boater and RT, right onnnnnn!!!

boater this is exactly why I feel that enacting such a restriction is nesassary. If only to give the commission an alternative to closing a stream. Listing a river non-bouyant says, we are watching you.

RT this is exactly the kind of attitude that will get this somewhere (as I am sure you know). Kind of like a web with people taking a good idea for this cause and running with it. I am sure there is many others who could take this issue to other NW steelheader chapters. But what do we take? A suggestion or ask for help with their resources? Some statistics and examples would help to enlist these people/groups.

Does anyone have contacts at WDFW regarding their NBL [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] (non-buoyant lure) restrictions. I will follow up with Sgnt. Scroupp tomorrow to see what he learned. The interesting part will be when we probe ODFW and see what/or if they have anything on the books. One call to Steve King should do it.

Let's here those ideas!!!! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: BUGLEMAN ]

Bugle', a couple members of Steve King's Clackamas ODFW office used to read the BB here at ifish. I suggest you tell him and his colleauges how to access here and to read this and other anti-snagging threads; both to see what is being reported about it's prevalence and to read many solution suggestions.

BTW, what the heck is a biostitute? A streetwalker that goes both ways, or what?

RT

[Hoosier Daddy]

RT: Biostitute - A "biologist" whose opinions and conclusions are for hire. Biologist + Prostitute = Biostitute. Just say no. Never know what you might catch.

[BUGLEMAN]

RT 10 yrs ago, I once knew a young biologist intern who worked for the Corp. of Civil Engineers at Bonneville. She told me what she did there and how things work. Basically she said that they were given a conclusion and then they "collected" data on nitrogen, barging and passage and wrote a report that supported that conclusion. They called themselves biostitutes. So, don't ever trust anything that the corps. says. They operate fish saunas, stranders and blenders. I told her I could never do that and needless to say we never went out again. Now back to NBLR.

To be successful we just need to rally the troops to write letters and attend meetings. It just makes to much sence.

[4Salt]

Boater,

I'm not saying that Bugleman shouldn't try and get the non-buoyant restrictions put in place in Oregon. I was just pointing out that snaggers don't need treble hooks and buzzbombs to snag fish. Single hooks are probably MORE effective than trebles. The buzzbomb slingers are still out there on the Snohomish system, and they're still snagging, even with the single hooks. Gear restrictions are a good place to start, but ENFORCEMENT is the ultimate solution. IMHO of course. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[garyk]

It's great to see good and concerned folks responding to this problem.

However, as the previous post notes - enforcement - is the issue. Snagging is already illegal. The underlying issue is one of enforcment. OSP's game cops have been cut by something like 50% in the past decade. So, you can figure that enforcement efforts have declined by a like percentage.

Ensuring adequate OSP staffing levels is the strategic issue to be worked on, if you want game laws enforced.

I wonder how many folks bemoaning game law violations also voted for the various McIntire/Sizemore/Hempstreet initiatives that caused these cutbacks?

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

It's quite easy, really.

Single, barbless hook.

Keep all leader lengths under a certain length.

Outlaw weights below the hook, on the same line as the hook.

If those proposals were met, snagging would almost disappear.

[FM2]

BM, I would suggest you begin a petition to have interested parties sign as support for your idea on non-buyount lures. The wording would need to reflect a general description of your suggestion on NBLR. I would think if you could obtain several hundred, if not thousands of signatures of supporters for your idea, this will have some leverage when placed in front of a decison maker. You can obtain signatures in many ways but in order to have an impact with more than a couple of folks ideas, a signed petition can be an effective tool. I think you are on the right path to begin a dialogue on this issue but this will take time and energy to achieve results.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: FM2 ]

[4Salt]

Hey 'Yall,

Let's go fish the Hump at stevens creek, or the Satsop at the "S" curves, Or the Cowlitz at the Barrier dam, or the Carbon at Voight creek. 99% of the "Anglers" (term used loosely) will be using corkies and yarn. Some will have barbless hooks (the law on the Hump and Satsop) and some will not. Let's count how many foul-hooked fish are kept. Gear restrictions can be a useful tool, but without someone there ENFORCING the restrictions, how effective are they really? Snaggers are criminals who don't abide by the snagging reg. Why would they abide by the gear reg.? I truly wish your suggestions (good ones by the way) were the answer, but as long as there is no enforcement of current regs. there will ALWAYS be snaggers. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[salmonlips]

In light of the thread going here, snagging has been and will continue to be a problem until someone properly enforces the laws in place. Snaggers sometimes have to change their tactics a little bit. Case in point, last weekend I had a few hours to kill and went to Eagle Creek. A couple of guys with fly gear and polarized glasses were fishing upstream from me. Their technique was to dangle a suspended (probably a weighted fly) in the run and wait. After awhile,they'd start calling out the fishes activity, like a play by play announcer. "He's looking at it, He's real aggressive, (big hook set) fish on" I couldn't prove it but my guess was these guys were actually snagging fish in the mouth or close. I did see a couple of face hooked fish as well as some definitely in the mouth. Anyone ever hear of this? Other than myself and one other guy free drifting eggs, everyone else in the hole wasn't too subtle. Corkies, yarn and lots of weight plunked and waiting for line bumps was the rule. The other egg guy and I went fishless. The fly guys were the only people that had verifiable mouth hooked (or snagged)fish.

[DanS]

I'm with 4S.

Changes in regs aren't the answer......enforcement IS the answer.

This month, I'll take Y'All out to the Satsop and show him the "Snag King". This guy is there EVERY year, and he is the most "accomplished" snagger I have ever seen. Single, treble, barbed, barbless, NBLR, whatever regs are in place don't even slow this guy down. Why?

Because it wouldn't matter if you had "no hooks" regs in place. This dude snags because you almost never see a Gamie out there enforcing ANY rules, so why change the rules and expect things to get better?

Snaggers don't follow regs, so why would you think a change in regs would slow them down? I mean, the Qulicene HAS selective gear rules in place, and it's the biggest snagfest I've laid eyes on.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: DanS ]

[FM2]

I agree enforcement is very important but BM suggestion might be an "In" to open up the possibilites for enforcement options down the road. His rationale makes sense.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think there a two main issues to deal with at this point, enforcement and penalities. Without enforcement the people who snag fish will continue knowing there is not enough officers available to "catch them in the act". Knowing this, people will extend the limits of the law. What is needed is relaxed enforcement regulations. In other words if law enforcement would ease the requirements needed to convict an individual this possibly could provide another form of enforcement. I believe this needs indepth brainstorming and research to determine the boundaries and what would legally consitute enforcement. This issue could really bog down a process due to political boundaries and who or what would be defined as an "enforcer of the law"

The second issue would be penalities for convictions. If penalities are severe enough this will deter many "conscience" people who do this. I think it's a given there will be a percentage that would do this no matter what the consequences are. The focus would then be on the people who are potential targets for stiff "deterrants" such as steep fines, loss of license, loss of fishing gear and whatever penalities would deem appropiate for this offense. I think stronger punishment is needed, how long has the current fines been in place? Times change and policies need to change with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: FM2 ]