Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Hooked "in" the Mouth issue put to rest?

  1. #1
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,766

    Default Hooked "in" the Mouth issue put to rest?

    A while back we had a fairly lively discussion regarding the legal meaning of a fish hooked "in" the mouth, with some saying that the requirement could be met even if the hook entered from outside the mouth, as long as it exited in the mouth. I just watched a somewhat new ADFG video on fishing for Klutina reds, which will hopefully put this issue to rest once and for all. If you watch the video, you will hear the biologist say that "the point of the hook must originate inside the mouth". He further clarifies that fish hooked in a manner which has the point of the hook originating outside the mouth are foul-hooked.

    This is what I have been maintaining all along, and I hope the video makes it clear. Remember, this is not a user video, this one is straight from ADFG. I can't think of a clearer description from a more authoritative source.

    -Mike

    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Cue up 11:46 to see the original hooking wound.... long and linearly torn from towing the fish against the strong current. Wound appears to be fresh and still-bleeding... just below the lip line on the outside of the mandible.

    The "pseudo" corner hookup site under the maxillary plate is pristine and shows absolutely no signs of being traumatized or stressed from the battle
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  3. #3
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Cue up 11:46 to see the original hooking wound.... long and linearly torn from towing the fish against the strong current. Looks to be just below the lip line on the outside of the mandible.

    The "pseudo" corner hookup site under the maxillary plate is pristine and shows absolutely no signs of being traumatized or stressed from the battle
    So you're suggesting that a respected ADFG fisheries biologist, in providing instructions on the proper way to hook sockeye salmon, actually foul-hooked a fish, removed the hook off-camera, then re-hooked the fish for the video? Sorry, but no sale, friend.

    And even if he did, the point still stands. He clearly says (and demonstrates) that the point of the hook must originate INSIDE the mouth. Period.

    Where, in any of this video, could anyone conclude that the point could originate from any point whatsoever outside the mouth, as you have indicated on many occasions?

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  4. #4

    Default

    I believe fishNphysician ​is the one that put the video on here to begin with....

  5. #5
    Member alaska_pike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    big lake
    Posts
    320

    Default

    So basically at least 95% of reds are going to be foul hooked and need to be released? Since these fish do not bite, the only way I can see them getting hooked the majority of the time is from the outside of the mouth as the line is flossed through the salmons jaw.

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    So you're suggesting that a respected ADFG fisheries biologist, in providing instructions on the proper way to hook sockeye salmon, actually foul-hooked a fish, removed the hook off-camera, then re-hooked the fish for the video? Sorry, but no sale, friend.
    I suggested NOTHING. Just made an astute observation and noted it in my post.

    Interpretation is up to each individual to decide for himself/herself what may or may not have happened.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  7. #7
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Considering the ADFG has zero authority in legal matters, i cant say that thiS videology settles anything. Those troopers must get tired of writting all those tickets for "foul hooked" fish.

    Explain how a hook in the mouth must originate from one side or the other. It's in the mouth, regardless of shank or hook. If ADFG is such an authority on the matter there must be a statute they can point us to... oh wiat, they have zero legal authority, and shoud refrain from interpreting the law.

  8. #8
    Member Albradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairbanks,Alaska
    Posts
    482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bambistew View Post
    Considering the ADFG has zero authority in legal matters, i cant say that thiS videology settles anything. Those troopers must get tired of writting all those tickets for "foul hooked" fish.

    Explain how a hook in the mouth must originate from one side or the other. It's in the mouth, regardless of shank or hook. If ADFG is such an authority on the matter there must be a statute they can point us to... oh wiat, they have zero legal authority, and shoud refrain from interpreting the law.
    Hmm... It seems several people on here are turning into armchair Lawyers, Seriously who do you think makes the regulations that Troopers enforce?? I'll give you a hint ADFG.
    There's a fine line between fishing....

    and standing on the shore like an idiot! ALLEN BRADLEY-TANGLE LAKES ADVOCATE/FANBOY

  9. #9
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bambistew View Post
    Considering the ADFG has zero authority in legal matters, i cant say that thiS videology settles anything. Those troopers must get tired of writting all those tickets for "foul hooked" fish.

    Explain how a hook in the mouth must originate from one side or the other. It's in the mouth, regardless of shank or hook. If ADFG is such an authority on the matter there must be a statute they can point us to... oh wiat, they have zero legal authority, and shoud refrain from interpreting the law.
    Time to engage a little google-fu and gain a basic understanding of the distinction between laws and regulations. Then, dig into Alaska Statute 16.05 and read it to understand the origin of ADF&G's authority.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  10. #10
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Cue up 11:46 to see the original hooking wound.... long and linearly torn from towing the fish against the strong current. Wound appears to be fresh and still-bleeding... just below the lip line on the outside of the mandible.

    The "pseudo" corner hookup site under the maxillary plate is pristine and shows absolutely no signs of being traumatized or stressed from the battle
    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I suggested NOTHING. Just made an astute observation and noted it in my post.

    Interpretation is up to each individual to decide for himself/herself what may or may not have happened.
    On the contrary, your original post contained several observations and you concluded that the corner hookup was in question. The whole point of your post was to question whether the fish was foul-hooked. If that was not the conclusion you are leading us to, then by all means please clarify. What exactly is your point?

    Having said that, I did look at the video again and noticed something you did not mention. The fish was hooked on the wrong side of the mouth for it to have been flossed from the left bank. In the video the angler is fishing from the left bank of the river, with the current flowing from left to right as he faced the river. This means that the fish would be oriented with the left side of its mouth toward the angler. A flossed red fair-hooked fish in this situation would have the point of the hook entering the inside of the left-hand side of the mouth. His hook entered the right side. I cannot see how the fish could have been hooked in the manner shown, given the orientation of the fish relative to the angler. So you may be correct, that the hook was moved after the fish was landed. I wonder, though, as the other fish was hooked in the same corner of the mouth and when he was fighting the fish, it was obviously hooked on the right-hand side. Maybe his drift was such that he was hooking them this way, I don't know. I cannot imagine that the Department would issue a video where the fish was foul-hooked though.

    Regardless, my point remains. The video clearly states that the point of the hook must originate from INSIDE the mouth. It goes on to say that if the point originates from OUTSIDE the mouth, the fish is foul hooked. In that regard, one can only conclude that fish hooked in any manner which has the point of the hook originating from anywhere outside the mouth is indeed foul hooked. You have on several occasions advocated a method designed specifically to push the hook point from outside the mouth.

    I realize that to many this is a senseless discussion, because the fish are being snagged anyway. The video itself uses the term "flossing", which is, as we know, a method of hooking fish that are not actually biting. Under the right conditions, you can floss rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, king salmon, silvers, and pretty much anything else. I've often told anglers that it has nothing to do with how hungry the fish is, it's all about how hungry the angler is. If you can toss plastic rings around the tops of pop bottles at the fair, you can floss reds. It's just a trick, and there's really not much to it.

    You mentioned "interpretation". For what it's worth, here is mine. Historically, the angling community has adopted an ethic against snagging, and in Alaska we have made specific exceptions to that standard (saltwater salmon in Resurrection Bay, for example). We passed regulations prohibiting snagging salmon on the Kenai River, but some anglers quickly figured out how to floss reds. Properly done, flossing results in fish being hooked INSIDE the mouth, making the harvest of these fish legal. Even though the angler was "attempting to snag", which is a violation of the regulations, the fish was hooked inside the mouth, making it impossible to determine whether or not the fish was actually striking the fly or lure. Therefore the method took root, and eventually became the primary method for catching reds. This method later became a go-to method for catching king salmon in the Valley streams, particularly in Willow Creek (I know one angler who has boasted of several 40-fish days just this season on Willow Creek, using this method). Along with that came anglers who reasoned that if snagging in this manner was legal, then hooking the fish anywhere in the vicinity of the mouth was okay, regardless of the entry point of the hook. Some go farther in saying that any hookup forward of the gills is okay, while others, recognizing that the fish are being snagged anyway, will keep a fish that's hooked just about anywhere, as long as they can get away with it. In my opinion it's all snagging anyway, regardless of the entry point of the hook. But the line has been drawn with this video, which clearly indicates that fish must be hooked in a manner where the hook point originates from inside the mouth. In the end, by anglers accepting this method of snagging, we have opened a can of worms. We have placed a degree of definition on snagging and we call it something else in order to feel better about it.

    The method you are advocating is nothing more than a nuance; a variation on the snagging theme. The issue I have with it is that it is specifically intended to hook fish from outside the mouth.

    Parenthetically, for those who still question whether these fish are actually striking the fly, I would wager that if you trimmed all the material from your hook, so the hook was completely bare, you would catch as many fish as you do now. I have seen it done many times. With rare exceptions, reds don't bite.

    The whole thing is a strange animal, and it has mostly driven me away from fishing for reds. I started dipnetting a few years ago, so I don't need to catch reds for the freezer anymore. My only justification for angling for them anymore is to come up with fish to give away to folks who have no access to them. But I rarely do it anymore. I understand your situation. As a nonresident, dipnetting is closed to you. It's clear that you like to catch and eat reds, and I would imagine that you return to the Southland with coolers full of them, to enjoy with friends and family. I have no issue with that. But let's call this what it is, and promote methods that sit squarely within the intent of the regulations. The accepted legal standards are clearly stated in this video, and we should follow them.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  11. #11
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Stupid to allow people to scoop up "subsistence" fish with a net, and then beech about whether a red is hooked properly enough in the mouth to be legal. End this charade about being sporting in catching reds. They are either a meat fish or they are not. In a matter of a few miles a fish shouldn't transform from a freezer filler to a noble game fish.

  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Flossing has evolved to become the primary technique for harvesting inriver sockeye. Are there circumstances where sockeye can be tempted to strike an angler's offering. I believe past threads amply demonstrate that. However, the fact remains that flossing them harvests exponentially MORE sockeye by at least THREE orders of magnitude... not just because reds are such notoriously POOR biters, but because the circumstances conducive to provoking a strike are extremely limited. Moreover the folks pursuing them in that manner are VASTLY outnumbered by the flossers.

    Bottom line.... FLOSSING FOR REDS IS HERE TO STAY!

    Make no mistake about it. The mechanics of the floss hookup are 100% intended to willfully hook a NON-biting sockeye from the outside in. Once the leader has engaged the fish in the scissors, the hook is clearly outside the mouth on the mid-river side (as opposed to the bank side) of the fish. The mathematical probability of WHERE the hook point finds its first purchase is 95%-plus somewhere on the outside of the face on the fish's mid-river side. The overwhelming majority of those hookups will occur along the continuous edge provided by the maxilla and mandible (upper and lower jaws).

    What happens to the other <5% of the time when the hook misses the outer maxilla/mandible? Only two possibilities.... 1) at least some of the time, the hook pulls all the way thru the open jaws and misses the fish entirely (DAM!) or 2) by the slimmest of chances that hook point finds the tongue or the INSIDE of the maxilla/mandible on the other (bank) side of the fish's mouth.

    The mechanics of the flossing technique makes your version of a legal hookup from the inside out an infinitesimally small probability... perhaps 1 or 2 out of 100 flossed sockeye might be hooked in this manner.

    The agency and its enforcement arm tell us any sockeye salmon hooked elsewhere than the mouth MUST BE RELEASED. In other words ONLY mouth hookups may be retained. Now think about it... it ain't rocket science. How does anyone (the agency and its enforcement arm included) rationalize that only 1-2% of the mouth hookups are legal to retain? Insisting that only those fish hooked INSIDE the mouth from the INSIDE OUT are the only legal fish that can be kept is ABSOLUTELY NUTS! If you add up all the fish hooked elsewhere than the mouth plus all the mouth hookups that are "illegal" by that ridiculous interpretation, then virtually ALL sockeye encounters with hook/line are not legal to retain.

    Serially? I mean... SERIALLY?

    If that's the game those folks want to play, and 99%-plus of all sockeye encounters are not legal to retain, they may as well make the in-river flossery for sockeye 100% C&R, because that's essentially what the inside-out interpretation would accomplish.

    GOOD LUCK!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  13. #13
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    Stupid to allow people to scoop up "subsistence" fish with a net, and then beech about whether a red is hooked properly enough in the mouth to be legal. End this charade about being sporting in catching reds. They are either a meat fish or they are not. In a matter of a few miles a fish shouldn't transform from a freezer filler to a noble game fish.
    I understand what you're saying, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. On one hand you have Alaskans who have traditionally relied on salmon for food, and on the other you have the sport fishery, which contains both folks who want the fish on the grill and those who are just in it for catch-and-release (for fun).

    In the former case, Alaska natives have a longer history of reliance on the resource, but the state cannot separate them from other Alaskans, therefore all Alaska residents have the right to participate. In order to keep the fishery from getting even more out of hand than it has, the state has excluded nonresidents.

    In the latter case, everyone has an equal chance (residents and nonresidents).

    My point is that the two fisheries have two completely different purposes, therefore a comparison of the two will not make sense.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  14. #14
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    ...The mathematical probability of WHERE the hook point finds its first purchase is 95%-plus somewhere on the outside of the face on the fish's mid-river side. The overwhelming majority of those hookups will occur along the continuous edge provided by the maxilla and mandible (upper and lower jaws).

    What happens to the other <5% of the time when the hook misses the outer maxilla/mandible? Only two possibilities.... 1) at least some of the time, the hook pulls all the way thru the open jaws and misses the fish entirely (DAM!) or 2) by the slimmest of chances that hook point finds the tongue or the INSIDE of the maxilla/mandible on the other (bank) side of the fish's mouth.

    The mechanics of the flossing technique makes your version of a legal hookup from the inside out an infinitesimally small probability... perhaps 1 or 2 out of 100 flossed sockeye might be hooked in this manner...
    Are you aware of any data that support your math? I am not aware that there is even a mechanism for capturing the data, much less tracking it to the percentage level. I suspect that you are basing this assertion on your personal experiences. Is that correct?

    I can tell you that over the last 30-some years of catching reds in both the Kenai and the Russian, that I have caught hundreds of them by pushing the hook point from INSIDE the mouth. It may be that the way you are rigging up is resulting in large numbers of outside hookups, I don't know. But to assert that only 1%-5% of the fish hooked are hooked inside the mouth is simply not true. Not in my own personal experience.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  15. #15
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    I understand what you're saying, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. On one hand you have Alaskans who have traditionally relied on salmon for food, and on the other you have the sport fishery, which contains both folks who want the fish on the grill and those who are just in it for catch-and-release (for fun).

    In the former case, Alaska natives have a longer history of reliance on the resource, but the state cannot separate them from other Alaskans, therefore all Alaska residents have the right to participate. In order to keep the fishery from getting even more out of hand than it has, the state has excluded nonresidents.

    In the latter case, everyone has an equal chance (residents and nonresidents).

    My point is that the two fisheries have two completely different purposes, therefore a comparison of the two will not make sense.
    Beg to differ. Again, at what point does a red salmon go from bag 'em and tag 'em, to "Oh my gosh you got it .5 inches from the mouth! Release it!".
    Kings, silvers and humpies supply plenty of "sport". Reds... well, they give you the big whoopdi-do on the end of your line, but in the end, you probably caught him by accident. Turn people loose with snagging hooks up to the bridge and end this sham.

  16. #16
    Member MaximumPenetration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Flossing has evolved to become the primary technique for harvesting inriver sockeye. Are there circumstances where sockeye can be tempted to strike an angler's offering. I believe past threads amply demonstrate that. However, the fact remains that flossing them harvests exponentially MORE sockeye by at least THREE orders of magnitude... not just because reds are such notoriously POOR biters, but because the circumstances conducive to provoking a strike are extremely limited. Moreover the folks pursuing them in that manner are VASTLY outnumbered by the flossers.

    Bottom line.... FLOSSING FOR REDS IS HERE TO STAY!

    Make no mistake about it. The mechanics of the floss hookup are 100% intended to willfully hook a NON-biting sockeye from the outside in. Once the leader has engaged the fish in the scissors, the hook is clearly outside the mouth on the mid-river side (as opposed to the bank side) of the fish. The mathematical probability of WHERE the hook point finds its first purchase is 95%-plus somewhere on the outside of the face on the fish's mid-river side. The overwhelming majority of those hookups will occur along the continuous edge provided by the maxilla and mandible (upper and lower jaws).

    What happens to the other <5% of the time when the hook misses the outer maxilla/mandible? Only two possibilities.... 1) at least some of the time, the hook pulls all the way thru the open jaws and misses the fish entirely (DAM!) or 2) by the slimmest of chances that hook point finds the tongue or the INSIDE of the maxilla/mandible on the other (bank) side of the fish's mouth.

    The mechanics of the flossing technique makes your version of a legal hookup from the inside out an infinitesimally small probability... perhaps 1 or 2 out of 100 flossed sockeye might be hooked in this manner.

    The agency and its enforcement arm tell us any sockeye salmon hooked elsewhere than the mouth MUST BE RELEASED. In other words ONLY mouth hookups may be retained. Now think about it... it ain't rocket science. How does anyone (the agency and its enforcement arm included) rationalize that only 1-2% of the mouth hookups are legal to retain? Insisting that only those fish hooked INSIDE the mouth from the INSIDE OUT are the only legal fish that can be kept is ABSOLUTELY NUTS! If you add up all the fish hooked elsewhere than the mouth plus all the mouth hookups that are "illegal" by that ridiculous interpretation, then virtually ALL sockeye encounters with hook/line are not legal to retain.

    Serially? I mean... SERIALLY?

    If that's the game those folks want to play, and 99%-plus of all sockeye encounters are not legal to retain, they may as well make the in-river flossery for sockeye 100% C&R, because that's essentially what the inside-out interpretation would accomplish.

    GOOD LUCK!
    Every sockeye I caught on rod and reel this year (approx 50) were either snagged in the body (less than 5), or were hooked in the outside of the mouth, in the corner. I retained approx 25 of them. One of them was hooked and caught with a game warden 25 feet away who was checking other people's fish. He warned a couple people about "jerking" at the end of the drift, but he ticket nobody. He watched as I hooked my fish and walked over and watched as I landed the fish. It was clearly hooked on the outside of the mouth. He complimented me on the nice red I caught and complimented my 7 year old son on his bonking ability.

    Inside or outside the mouth is an argument not worth having. Any game warden with a stick of ethics and a touch of common sense would never dream of ticketing someone for hooking a red on the outside of the mouth. I'm not sure why this discussion is happening.
    An unarmed man is subject, an armed man is a citizen.

  17. #17
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    But let's call this what it is, and promote methods that sit squarely within the intent of the regulations. The accepted legal standards are clearly stated in this video, and we should follow them.

    -Mike
    The only way that "might" happen is when word gets out that there are a hundred plain clothed troopers constantly giving tickets to thousands of flossers keeping fish that are hooked from the "outside in."

    If they are so adamant about this, then why not? It would be easy and the state would make millions off of fines paid. I'll tell you why not, because it would keep 99% of the people from coming to the Kenai (or pretty much anywhere else) to "fish" for reds. They think they have a problem now with dipnetting?......keep people off the river by trying to adhere to this stupid "inside out" regulation with rod and reel and see what happens.

    Do you actually believe that every fish cop in Alaska thinks that all these people are only keeping fish that are hooked "inside out"...??? No wonder they sleep so good at night.

    Until they start filling up the jail house it is absurd to actually believe that all the flossers in Alaska are going to adhere to this "outside in" / inside out" regulation.....

    I can hear it now way down in Nevada when Joe asks Harry what he's going to do this summer? Harry says....."I think I'll pack up the motor home and head up to Alaska. I'm really looking forward to going on down to that famous Kenai river that has such silty water that I mostly can't see any fish in, and see if I can cast out a single hook in fast current, and strategically place it inside of an opened mouthed stressed out salmon that doesn't bite as it swims upriver.....all kids o' fun eh Joe...???!!!"

    When most flossers are pretty good about releasing foul hooked fish, believe me when I say that fish cops can care less about this inside out / outside in thing. If they did care there'd be hundreds of them with writer's cramp. They have plenty to do just looking for blatant snaggers and over the limit dipnetters.....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  18. #18
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post

    My point is that the two fisheries have two completely different purposes, therefore a comparison of the two will not make sense.
    Not true...... I know MANY that will not expose themselves to the dipnet fiasco, me included. Although I do love the feel of a sockeye on the end of a fly rod, I only do it to have fish for the winter. Why else would I poll for position with all the rest of these nuts...???!!!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    Not true...... I know MANY that will not expose themselves to the dipnet fiasco, me included.
    And I won't subject myself to the flossing fiasco. I've caught too many reds on waked dry flies to have to resort to such nonsense or the crowds. Also caught them in saltwater, both from shore and trolling. Far as I'm concerned, flossing is really no different than gillnetting- just a matter of scale. The fish didn't intend to bite. I won't fight the gillnetters and I won't fight the flossers. Let em fight each other. Meanwhile I'll just go on catching the reds that actually bite and be happy with myself and the fish.

  20. #20

    Default

    I rarely comment anymore because as this thread illustrates its way too easy to compete for the pointiest head of all. So I'll risk some thoughts based on growing up fishing the Kenai/Russian system since the early 70's:
    - my dad equated red fishing as snagging (can't argue that as the technique speaks for itself) and and thus I learned with others;
    - I would guess the "hook in or out" ratio for me to be 1-2 in order and could really care less as others have stated;
    - I hate the fact that so many have taken this flossing technique to other salmon fisheries whether at ship creek low tide, upriver ninilchik kings, mouth of anchor/deep creek silvers, etc-you know who you are. Beyond the borderline legality it spooks the fish making it harder for those trying to coax a bite in the limited water;
    - I eagerly participated in the first years of dipnetting the Kenai, Kasilof, and Hidden Creek (remember that circus?) as an opportunity to get it done. What I subsequently realized was "now what?-C & R for the rest of the year? A few years later when I had the luxury of taking a summer off and counted over 90 sport caught reds the answer became obvious. I enjoy sport fishing more than harvesting and have not dipnetted (directly at least) in over ten years. How many salmon does one really need? Does one really need to proxy fish for Kings?
    - Finally, our collective greed and competitiveness has resulted in everything from no clamming (amazing it took this long) to the Kenai King debacle and has only become worse with the Internet age. Hunting is unfortunately not far behind. Were we all to maybe step back and contemplate the fine line between true enjoyment of the sport versus "getting mine" at all costs. As others have alluded to maybe that's the wisdom with age thing and perhaps why I find myself retreating to less " competitive" fisheries-or going when most are done or unwilling to.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •