Quote Originally Posted by Gigmaster View Post
I'll weigh in one this one as well.

I have to agree that "FLY FISHING ONLY' spots are discriminatory, and maybe not even legal. Spin fishermen, bait-casters and even cane-pole fishers pay their license money same as everyone else, and have the right to use the same water. If they ever designated a piece of water for BAIT-FISHING ONLY, you would hear anglers screaming from now until Doomsday.
Fly fishing only serves two purposes:

1) It's a management tool. It's the easiest way to enforce catch and release, if you're trying to build a self sustaining population.

2) It opens up fishing areas to the public that wouldn't be opened otherwise. Many land owners will allow fly fishing on their property and not bait fishing because the fly fishers don't tend to leave trash. (Especially bait containers and beer cans.)


Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against either bait fishing or put and take -- where practical.

As far as license fees, you could make the other argument -- why should I, who seldom keeps a fish (I can't say never), have to subsidize an expensive stocking program to keep fish in the river, when limited harvest rules will accomplish the same thing for free? It costs about $2 to put a catchable size rainbow in a stream (a tad more for browns.) In my state, it costs about $5 for a trout stamp. There are few self sustaining populations of rainbow here, and those are largely in catch & release water. Do the math -- anyone who keeps more than two rainbows a year is being subsidized by those who don't keep fish.

As you say, there's plenty of water, and room for both management practices.