THE STATE’S SPORTFISHING rules pamphlet has its share of contradictions.
None is bigger than the regulations governing flossing.
No, we’re not talking about good dental habits, but rather a controversial fishing technique employed by handfuls of North Olympic Peninsula river anglers every fall.
This is when an angler positions a weighted line downstream so that it “flosses” itself through a fish’s mouth.
That allows the hook at the end the leader — often fixed with a bright colored yarn — to pierce the mouth from the outside.
Thus, the fish is hooked without voluntarily taking the lure in its mouth.
Such a practice is considered snagging, according to the state’s pamphlet. That makes it illegal, and the subject of a $540 fine.
And yet, in another way, it isn’t.
Why? Because that very same rules pamphlet states anglers can keep any fish hooked inside the mouth or “on the head.”
Since the head is defined as “forward of the rear margin of the gill plate,” anyone who flosses a fish can keep it . . . as long as they aren’t caught in the act and/or admit their illegal intent.
Huh?
I’ll let Fish and Wildlife enforcement officer Phil Henry explain.
“It is a conflicting issue,” said Henry, a sergeant in charge of enforcement officers in Jefferson and Clallam counties.
“It is unlawful to snag, to hook it in the head, but it is OK to possess a fish if you hooked it in the head. It’s crazy, but that’s what I have to work with.”
There you go, obviously incongruous rules that lead to a whole lot of confusion on the rivers.
Talk to one person, and they’ll say flossing is perfectly fine (because of the possession rule). Talk to another, and they’ll say it isn’t (because the fish didn’t “voluntarily” take the hook).
Since intent is extremely hard to identify, that makes policing flossers difficult.
West End enforcement officer Brian Fairbanks said it often comes down to how obvious the act is.
For example, an angler using a large treble hook with three inches of lead weight in low and clear conditions is only a little less subtle than a stick of dynamite.
One with a little more guile, however, might be able to skate by unpunished.
“There’s two different things you can see,” Fairbanks said.
“Is the guy jerking to try and snag it? Or did he just get a bump and is trying to set the hook?
“It’s difficult for us on the outside to say what that person’s intent is. He’s the only one who really knows and if he’s doing it discreetly [it’s hard to prove].”
About the only place where such ambiguity is avoided is on the Quilcene River.
The Jefferson County watershed is one of only two rivers in the state that actually contains specific wording that states, “only fish hooked inside the mouth may be retained.”
The Quilcene receives a large run of hatchery coho every August through October, making it a popular destination for anglers.
Since this fishery occurs during a time of year when rivers are typically low and clear, it’s no easy task getting the spawning fish (not actively feeding) to actually take a lure.
Hence, many anglers resort to flossing.
(Side note: It is argued by many that flossing is the only way to hook a coho on the Quilcene in early September. Having failed using the legal method myself on the Quilcene, I can’t disprove that assertion. Then again, that could be said about pretty much any fishery I’ve participated in.)
In order to protect the wild summer chum run that also returns to the Quilcene — listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act — the state deemed it necessary to add the obvious anti-flossing rule.
Only 68 summer chum returned to the river 10 years ago, Henry said.
“Our main cause for being there is because you have summer run Hood Canal chum salmon,” the longtime Jefferson County enforcement officer said.
Of course, such an explanation doesn’t fully satisfy some Hood Canal residents, who argue they are only targeting surplus coho who will end up in a landfill anyway.
The fact that tribal anglers are afforded the opportunity to snag on the Quilcene as well makes the issue even more contentious.
“What the tribes do I can’t say anything about, but the non-tribal fishery, I can address it,” Henry said.
“I feel that we should have an ethical fishery that gives some sense of fair chase to those fish and protect what few chum we do have.
“The argument [about the surplus coho] is a good argument . . . but I’m not a policy maker.”
The problem is, Henry said, “Where does that snagging activity end? They may be only hatchery fish there [in the Quilcene], but what do I say to the guy on the Dosewallips where they have wild salmon [returning]?”
________
Matt Schubert is the outdoors and sports columnist for the Peninsula Daily News. His column regularly appears on Thursdays and Fridays. He can be reached at matt.schubert@peninsuladailynews.com.