Petition for Rule Change on NH FFO - Accepted for review

[BobC]

I may be in the minority, but a regulation like that would certainly keep me away from fishing any of the waters so designated or planning a vacation to fish where I would not be allowed to utilize techniques that I actually enjoy. I personally believe that a regulation like this would bring a division within the fly fishing community - one that we don't need.

I would agree with Esquire and others that have commented here. In PA there are a number of primo waters that are fairly restrictive, but not overly so considering their location and reputation. I wouldn't want to see them restricted even further as it would really limit the people that would fish it. I don't think I would be interested in regulations such as the above, but maybe that's the point. What was is Oscar Wilde (or was it Groucho) said, "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would accept me" LOL

[ridgeliner]

I would think that fishing should be fun and accessible to ALL. It seems to me that you want to change the laws to suit you and that you don't care about anyone else. Fishing and in particular fly fishing, should be enjoyed by everone. We shouldn't have to hire a guide to teach us how to follow the new laws. Nor should we have to buy new equipment or flies to enjoy this great sport. PLEASE.....we have enough laws and restrictions on the books now. Let's go fishing..........not writing new laws.

[overmywaders]

As JC mentioned, rules are adopted that serve the fishery, as a fishery. Obviously, if the fishery biologists see long term benefit in the petition I presented - and benefit outweighs cost - it will eventually go before the public for public comment. It is a tremendous system of participatory democracy of which NH residents can be proud.

For those from NY, such as ridgeliner, your DEC adopted some new rules for Oct. 1, 2008. Among them are these:
"Great Lakes and Tributary Regulations:
* Restrict the use of weight on the line, leader, swivels or artificial flies in the Salmon River fly fishing-only area in order to reduce snagging of trout and salmon.
* Refine the allowable fishing tackle that may be used in the special regulations fly fishing catch-and-release areas on the Salmon River in Oswego County in order to offer an unimpeded traditional fly fishing experience."
see http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/46894.html

Note the weight restrictions and the move to an "unimpeded traditional fly fishing experience." This is to benefit the fishery and enrich the anglers' experience.

What I proposed is not dissimilar from the regulations in JC's neighbor to the North. In BC, there are areas that are "artificial fly only" and some which are "fly fishing only". Here is the definition of each:

"artificial fly - a single-pointed hook that is
dressed only with fur, feathers, hair, textiles,
tinsel and/or wire, and to which no external
weight or external attracting device is
attached. Two or more hooks tied in tandem
are not permitted. Where gear is restricted
to artificial flies, floats and sinkers may be
attached to the line.

fly fishing - angling with a line to which only
an artificial fly is attached (floats, sinkers,
or attracting devices may not be attached
to the line when fishing is restricted to "fly
fishing only")."

So, a traditionally-dressed fly with no beadheads, dumbbell eyes, coneheads, etc. And when FFO, no sinkers, floats, etc.

Please continue with your input, all is gratefully received.
Thank you.

Best regards,
Reed
http://www.overmywaders.com/


The Contemplative Angler (Blog)

[perch]

Once more into the breach.
I have to agree with "Overmywaders".
I like the proposal that he has come up with . I think that it would be good for the sport .
I also like the idea of defineing what is "Fly fishing" .
Im sick of watching guys with spinning gear and a rooster tail fishing in "fly fishing only " areas and thinking that they are fly fishing.
Call it what it is . Spinning.
Fly fishing : A tippet, a leader, a line used to impart power from a rod to said tippet and leader.
Fish and Game could figure out where to impose what goes where and when.
I'd like to think that the more fragile fisheries would be protected and the more robust fisheries would receive less regulating.
Fisheries biologists should be in charge . This should Not be a popularity contest of who likes what teqnique .
Frankly I know guys that enjoy fishing with C-4. Not many agree with that teqnique.
The guys that think its fun see the fish and game guys as very narrow minded.
Heck, they still use high power hunting rifles in Vermont to shoot pickerel during their breeding season(DUH) unless they've stopped and I havent head.
That aint fishing as far as I see it. The fellows doing the shooting sure think it is. Tradition you know.
Everybody has their own opinion.
What is best for the fishery should be what 's important.
I prefer as high a quality as I can get .
Dont we fish with fly rods versus spinning gear for the challenge?
Keep the bar high.

[flybop]

Part of the original post made an effort to insult, albiet, thinly discussed, any method other than "pure" dry fly fishing. Yes, the post is dripping with condescending phrases and comparisons. To be clear, I have nothing against anyone who spin fishes, even those who use bait, as long as they respect the resources. The same is true with anyone who fly fishes. Overmywaders and Perch go way out on a limb to try to equate any form of fly fishing that they disprove of with chucking rooster tails. Again, it is your condescending attitude and remarks that will make more people oppose your little idea.
Citing well known figures in the fly fishing world is great. However, I am not too sure that any of them were trying to force everyone else to fish the way they prefer. They were simply stating a preference.

Just a simple question for overmywaders and perch: On those days that the fish just simply are not looking up do you keep flailing all day without a single look (I know guys who do this) or do you get the clue and just go home?

For what it is worth: The absolute highest form of fly fishing is throwing six inch streamers on sinking lines in fourty mph winds from a drift boat.

[hutjensmpg]

I agree with JC's comment that the rules are, in reality, simply tools to accomplish conservation and/or recreation goals.

Since your stated goals (grow trophy fish and reduce the need for stocking) seem to be conservation related, and being unfamiliar with the waters in question, I'll ask if C&R only regs, slot regs, reduced limits, or some other more conventional (at least in my experience) modification may accomplish the same goals while leaving the changes less open to charges of 'elitism'?

I think the use of the McGuane and Geirach quotes heighten this potential, since they are purely subjective personal opinions, and Geirach contradicts his point right there by admitting he fishes weighted nymphs when fish aren't rising. If I were at a hearing for this proposal, I'd jump all over that to show that even a famous 'purist' enjoys catching fish with 'compromised' methods over not catching fish with 'pure' methods, therefore, what do you think a completely average guy like me prefers? Given Wulff's prior association with the agency and the more conservation related orientation of the quote, that one may still be appropriate, but in general I'd say that in these types of proposals you'd be better served by trying to stick to more goal oriented/scientific arguments.

Back to my question about C&R regs, in both MN and WI, where I do most of my fishing, we have several places with C&R only, limited to artificials, whether that be spinning or fly, and the stretches have very healthy populations of large wild trout. The mortality rates are pretty low (the water stays nice and cool), but the fishing can definitely be challenging as the fish have learned well. The mention of stocking puzzles me, though, as I'm used to that only being done in marginal water with low holdover rates, but I guess the water there is different. But it does seem odd to me to see stocking and FFO mentioned in the same breath, especially since 'high gradient, rocky bottoms' doesn't seem to me like the kind of marginal water that would harm fish if they were landed reasonably fast.

Some of the listed positive effects of the proposal strike me as highly debatable.

The comments on this board seem to contradict the 'cachet' and advertising points.

As for fly shop sales, I know that I lose far more flies when using weighted nymphs than dries, unweighted nymphs, or wets. So wouldn't those shops see a corresponding or greater decrease in sales of those items?

Guides - if you're attracted to the defined TFFO areas, I'd guess you're already pretty well versed in FF and wouldn't need a guide?

I hope you don't take this as overly critical - I don't intend it that way. Just thought I'd point out what I perceive to be some problems with the arguments.

[overmywaders]

hutjensmsg,

You said:
"...I'll ask if C&R only regs, slot regs, reduced limits, or some other more conventional (at least in my experience) modification may accomplish the same goals while leaving the changes less open to charges of 'elitism'?"

TFFO is not that unconventional. As noted in a post above, BC already uses something very similar with a distinction between "artificial flies only" and "fly fishing only" waters; as well, in Nova Scotia fishing for Atlantic salmon has *always* been fly fishing without weight and now some rivers are being petitioned to go floating line only.

None of the regs you suggested actually reduces the number of fish *caught*. I don't want to go into statistics, mortality studies, or any other discussion of C&R - that is a digression; but logically, fish not caught have a lower mortality rate per season than fish caught (of course, all fish have a 100% mortality rate, as do humans). TFFO will reduce the number of fish caught without imposing a low C&R limit. (C&R limits are used in some fisheries.) Further, the fish not caught will be those able to claim the best holding water; typically the larger, more aggressive fish. You CAN catch these fish when they go to their feeding locations, but that is usually early evening and NH doesn't allow fishing after two hours after sunset or before two hours before sunrise, so the window of opportunity is very small. You can also, sometimes, persuade them to come up through the water column to your fly; but this usually involves 20-40 good drifts over their location with something of interest. Since these fish are not visible in the fast water, you are spending a lot of time on a location that may be barren. I enjoy this type of fishing, as do many others, but it is not to everyone's taste.

Thanks for your input.

Best regards,
Reed
http://www.overmywaders.com/


The Contemplative Angler (Blog)

[fly-chucker]

I see that synthetic materials are not included in the definition of "traditional" flies. If the plan is to limit this area to "traditional" flies, then why are hooks with eyes allowed? Shouldn't this area require blind eye hooks? I'm also assuming that you could not use a vise to tye said flies also.

If "traditional" techniques are to be the only ones allowed, could one fish with a graphite rod, or would bamboo be the only option? Maybe no bamboo either, looks like your stuck using greenheart. What about "modern" fly lines? It appears as if silk lines would be required. Sorry, silk is out, it appears that horse hair lines would be more "tradition". Why the exception for nylon leaders? These are certainly not "traditional".

As far as C&R, toss it out the window, that is most definatly a "non-traditional" technique. Fill that creel up, and don't forget your priest to put 'em out of their misery.

Just a few things to consider when we do things the "traditional" way.

Kevin

[chewydog]

Main Entry:tra?di?tion Pronunciation: \trə-ˈdi-shən\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition ? more at treasonDate:14th century 1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

I'm with fly-chucker on this one. Since the original poster does not define "traditional", I take the above definition to mean historical, not some conceived date to meet you're agenda. Taking the written word concerning fly fishing at its earliest there isn't squat on dry flies. Try more like wool and "sinkers". Read this: http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/treatise_prologue.htm

And, forget waders.


"Of the three classifications of fly-fishing, surface fly-fishing is the most difficult way of taking trout"
If that wasn't so laughable, I'd dignify it with comment. Pure snobbery imo.

[overmywaders]

chewydog,

Since the petition was directed to the New Hampshire DF&G, the term "traditional fly fishing" is to be understood in the NH context supported by the (hopefully) unambiguous definition. Given that I clearly defined "Traditional Fly Fishing" as:

"Traditional Fly Fishing - A technique for fishing where the weight of the line is used to cast a very light-weight fly that would not be heavy enough to be cast with a spinning or casting rod. No additional weight may be affixed to fly, leader, or line. The line shall be either a floating fly line, or an intermediate fly line with a sink rate of less than one inch per second, to which a leader of Nylon or silkworm gut is affixed. The rod shall be one designed for fly fishing and the reel shall be a single-action fly reel. The fly shall conform to the definition of Artificial Fly for Traditional Fly Fishing (above). No more than three such flies individually attached to the leader may be used. Dropper flies must be attached to the leader by Nylon or silkworm gut droppers no less than eighteen inches apart."

I think there is little room for misunderstanding the definition above; it should pass the "substantive due process" test.

What is traditional may also vary by local - a chair made by a PA craftsman in 1720 might be an Eastern standard for an "antique", and a Sears & Roebuck Golden Oak Bureau shipped west in 1930 may be an antique by Manitoba standards; neither is wrong. What is a fishing tradition in MT may never have been practiced in NY; and the converse.

BTW, the first line of my definition was taken almost verbatim from the Federation of Fly Fishers' glossary -

"Fly fishing: A technique for fishing where the weight of the line is used to cast a very light weight fly that would not be heavy enough to be cast with a conventional spinning or casting rod.

Fly: An imitation of a fish food item, traditionally very light and made of hair, feathers and thread tied to a hook. Modern flies have many synthetic materials and often include lead to help them sink." see http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4447

Note *their* use of the word "traditionally."

Thanks.

Best regards,
Reed
http://www.overmywaders.com/


The Contemplative Angler (Blog)