Let's get "chummy" !

K

kaimuki49

by that i mean of course, let's be friendly, conversational, at ease, etc - not chummy as in illegal chumming. but now that we are comfy, let me ask this for the sake of conversation: isn't slathering scent and all that expensive goop, which comes in every conceivable color and is available at immorally high prices in any sporting goods department, CHUMMING? t k
 
C

Coastaldweller

Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
150
Location
Coos Bay
I like your style, Kaimuki49. You play the devils advocate. You just like to get people riled up...lol
 
C

Coho Kid

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
97
Location
Portland
Not nearly as much as the guy I know that hooks a soup can full of stuff to his anchor.
 
K

kaimuki49

coho - i think u might have misunderstood my comment "no harm meant" above. i wasn't talking about chumming, i was replying to coastal who observed that i am an agitator. i was saying i do take devil's advocate positions but it all usually harmless.

anyway, yes, yes, i imagine some people sneak a bit of chum down with their anchor. the point of my question i guess was this - if we are going to ban chumming, then lets be honest and ban all chumming including lure scents, etc etc. to attract a fish with a scent other than the bait presented is chumming! attractants, scents, and so on are marketed and admittedly used by fishermen to "lure" the fish to the lure so to speak (in addition to the other properties the lure has like action, color, shape etc). that's chumming.

additionally, you know those kwik fish lures that come with a hinged back and the fisherman is supposed to insert tuna or herring and so on - THAT also is chumming. i am not opposed to chumming mind u (i grew up in a place where it is common and good fishing practice to chum). i am saying, however, let's either make all chumming illegal or make it legal. but playing this word game where we say chumming is illegal, but attractant scents on gear is ok is nonsense. anyhu, dats it from the big kahuna today lol. take care. tommie kai
 
B

beaverfan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
2,179
Location
Beaverton, Oregon
Actually chumming is defined as: "Depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish."
 
K

kaimuki49

lol, yes i KNOW that!! that would be because i read the regs. thus, my earlier discussion.
 
C

Coho Kid

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
97
Location
Portland
I really like scent. Call me a dough ball if you wish.
 
G

GraphiteZen

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,157
Location
Corvallis, Oregon
actually chumming is defined as: "depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish."


UH OH!!!! :shock: I thought "chum" had to be predominately liquid and self-contained within a can!!!

Kidding, OSP. KIDDING! :D
 
B

beaverfan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
2,179
Location
Beaverton, Oregon
The difference is fairly obvious if you think about it. The act of chumming attracts a bunch of fish and creates a feeding frenzy of sorts where a fishes natural inhibitions are essentially thrown out the window. Putting some scent on your hook does not create a feeding frenzy, a feeding frenzy will only happen if there is plenty of food. Using scent on a lure/bait simply adds scent to your arsenal.
 
K

kaimuki49

BEAVFAN - Something that you must understand when interpreting laws: the law IS what the words of the law say. One reads the actual wording of the law then gives that wording its plain and common meaning. You make a common error right out of the gate: in your mind chumming means feeding frenzy. Additionally, you impute to this discussion that the only way to get a feeding frenzy is by using "plenty of food". That is part of what the law prohibits indeed, but it also bans a lot more.

You quoted the definition of chumming earlier - Depositing in the water ANY SUBSTANCE, not attached to a hook, which MAY ATTRACT FISH. General Regulation #13 then prohibits fishing with the aid of chum. Pretty simple - the law tells us that chumming is banned and the law tells us precisely what chumming consists of. Using scents on swivels, leader, the body of the lure, and so on is prohibited. IF the substance "may attract fish" and it is not on the hook, then it is clearly chumming. As I said earlier, using lures with body cavities which are loaded with herring or similar, is clearly chumming. Injecting scent oils into a trolled herring, to leave a stronger scent trail, is chumming. Putting scent on terminal gear other than the hook, is chumming.

You may have a picture in your mind of what "chumming is", but the law has the definitive say on what practices are illegal as chumming. I repeat, I am not opposed to a broad range of chumming practices, but I am opposed to people who get all self righteous about how low life chumming is, THEN go out and troll baits and gear which are loaded, slathered, covered, etc in attractant scent! ok, big kahuna kai gotta nap now. be safe.
 
troutdude

troutdude

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
7,988
Location
Willy Valley, Oregon
This train of thought seems to be a matter of semantic legalese. If you attach Power Eggs, for example, to a hook and then add scent...are you not putting the scent on the hook, by way of the bait? While pondering that conundrum, let's explore our philosophical approach; even further into the deep dark recesses of legality.

Could we not also apply this same theoretical axiom in a myriad of ways & means (sorry, had to go there...tis the season of political pundits and telephone robo ads). For example, those who integrate the usage of Kwikfish (and similar "lures") to entice their favorite prey. Would additional flavoring & the associated odorization--in the form of strapped on slivers of smaller marine life--also not be "attached to the hook"?

Are both of these forms of fish intoxication, merely all of forms of the same violation of the law?

Please stay tuned...

Film at 11:00.
 
B

beaverfan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
2,179
Location
Beaverton, Oregon
BEAVFAN - Something that you must understand when interpreting laws: the law IS what the words of the law say. One reads the actual wording of the law then gives that wording its plain and common meaning. You make a common error right out of the gate: in your mind chumming means feeding frenzy. Additionally, you impute to this discussion that the only way to get a feeding frenzy is by using "plenty of food". That is part of what the law prohibits indeed, but it also bans a lot more.

You quoted the definition of chumming earlier - Depositing in the water ANY SUBSTANCE, not attached to a hook, which MAY ATTRACT FISH. General Regulation #13 then prohibits fishing with the aid of chum. Pretty simple - the law tells us that chumming is banned and the law tells us precisely what chumming consists of. Using scents on swivels, leader, the body of the lure, and so on is prohibited. IF the substance "may attract fish" and it is not on the hook, then it is clearly chumming. As I said earlier, using lures with body cavities which are loaded with herring or similar, is clearly chumming. Injecting scent oils into a trolled herring, to leave a stronger scent trail, is chumming. Putting scent on terminal gear other than the hook, is chumming.

You may have a picture in your mind of what "chumming is", but the law has the definitive say on what practices are illegal as chumming. I repeat, I am not opposed to a broad range of chumming practices, but I am opposed to people who get all self righteous about how low life chumming is, THEN go out and troll baits and gear which are loaded, slathered, covered, etc in attractant scent! ok, big kahuna kai gotta nap now. be safe.


You are lookinng way too deep into things, your making it FAR more complicated than it truly is! If you think it is chumming then take it up with ODFW. You can put scent on lure bodies, I don't know why you would assume you can't. As long as the lure is attached to a hook you are good to go. There's no need to make things so complicated. As I mentioned above if you truly want to know the answer call ODFW I'm sure they would be more than happy to explain things to you.
 
K

kaimuki49

This train of thought seems to be a matter of semantic legalese. If you attach Power Eggs, for example, to a hook and then add scent...are you not putting the scent on the hook, by way of the bait? While pondering that conundrum, let's explore our philosophical approach; even further into the deep dark recesses of legality.

Could we not also apply this same theoretical axiom in a myriad of ways & means (sorry, had to go there...tis the season of political pundits and telephone robo ads). For example, those who integrate the usage of Kwikfish (and similar "lures") to entice their favorite prey. Would additional flavoring & the associated odorization--in the form of strapped on slivers of smaller marine life--also not be "attached to the hook"?

Are both of these forms of fish intoxication, merely all of forms of the same violation of the law?

Please stay tuned...

Film at 11:00.

BIG KAHUNA SEZ: ohh you making my head sore with all this screeching and jabbering! "semantic legalese . . . pondering that conundrum . . . associated odorization . . . theoretical axiom . . ." and on and on. oh, poor Kahuna only follow the law and ask simple question bruddah.

if you see my post #12 again, then you will note i only used and gave words their simple, intended meaning - that probably doesn't qualify as semantic manipulation ya? and i just QUOTED the law in question - uhmm dat not "legalese". just plain speaking ya?

COASTALDWELLER where you stay when i need your ballast???? t kai kahuna
 
B

bigsteel

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
2,546
Location
salem, oregon
big kahuna sez: Ohh you making my head sore with all this screeching and jabbering! "semantic legalese . . . Pondering that conundrum . . . Associated odorization . . . Theoretical axiom . . ." and on and on. Oh, poor kahuna only follow the law and ask simple question bruddah.

If you see my post #12 again, then you will note i only used and gave words their simple, intended meaning - that probably doesn't qualify as semantic manipulation ya? And i just quoted the law in question - uhmm dat not "legalese". Just plain speaking ya?

Coastaldweller where you stay when i need your ballast???? T kai kahuna
aloha
 
G

GraphiteZen

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,157
Location
Corvallis, Oregon

Don't start trolling steel. ;)

---

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/docs/2010_Oregon_Sport_Fishing_Regs.pdf

A search for "chumming" yields:

Page 6

Chumming: Depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish.

Page 8

13. Taking or attempting to take any fish by means of chumming, or knowingly angle with the aid of chum, except chumming is allowed
when fishing for offshore pelagic species outside of three miles from shore and only if no species other than offshore pelagic species
have been retained.

A search for "chum" yields:

Page 105

Use of chum is allowed. Chum may be live, dead, or
cut up squid, herring, sardine, anchovy, smelt or Pacific
mackerel.

A search for "scent" yields:

Page 7

Any item used to attract fish which is not an artificial fly or a lure. Molded soft plastic or rubber imitation worms,
eggs, or other imitation baits are considered bait. Scent is not considered bait.

A search for "bait yields:

Page 7

Bait: Any item used to attract fish which is not an artificial fly or a lure. Molded soft plastic or rubber imitation worms,
eggs, or other imitation baits are considered bait. Scent is not considered bait.

---

So you see, chumming is "Depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish", Bait is any item used to attract fish, but scent is not considered bait; scent is therefore not chumming.
 
Last edited:
K

kaimuki49

ZEN - that could be a very interesting breakthrough in this condom, urr, conundrum. let big kahuna ruminate on that.
 
C

ChezJfrey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
1,508
Location
Tigard, OR
Actually, it seems quite clear and is neither 'legalese' nor semantics.

"Chumming: Depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish."

If scent is applied to a lure, which is technically a device with a hook, would it not be considered chumming according to the specific definition?
 
K

kaimuki49

ZEN - ok the verdict is in. Here is the scoop. You recited the definition of "chum/chummin" - very good. You then recited the definition of bait and scent (tho i must have an outdated book because i couldnt find "scent" on page 7. i shall accept your representation on that) - ok, very good again.

However, how do you get from the definition of those various things to your conclusion that since chumming is the depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish, then it follows that using scent in places other than a hook, is not chumming?

Scent according to the regs is a "substance", yes? when put in the water in some way - other than on a hook - it "may attract fish", right? Would it not then be chum/chumming? The discussion you offered about what bait is, is correct, but not relevant to answering the issue in this case. A red herring maybe. t big k kai
 
Top Bottom