Petition for Rule Change on NH FFO - Accepted for review

I submitted a petition for a rule change to the New Hampshire Fish & Game Department and it passed initial muster with the department! The long process of review - layers of it - and public comment won’t start until January.

Of course, petitions do not necessarily resemble the final presentation to the public; nor the rule as implemented. However, the substance of the petition is as follows:


Petition for Adoption of Rules ? New Rule for Fly Fishing Only Streams

Pursuant to RSA 541-A:4, the undersigned hereby petitions the State of New Hampshire, Department of Fish and Game, to modify the regulations for existing flowing waters currently designated as "Fly Fishing Only" (FFO) to be upgraded to a new designation of "Traditional Fly Fishing Only" (TFFO) and to add such additional waters as it determines may benefit from the new designation.

In this brief, we will endeavor to present the myriad benefits of a different approach to Fly Fishing Only than exists under our current rules. Through Traditional Fly Fishing, as defined below, large sections of many of our current FFO designated rivers and streams will become sanctuaries for large trout - growing trophies and reducing the need for intensive, and expensive, stocking.

The Concept of Trout Sanctuaries

Until 1991-1992, the FFO sections of New Hampshire rivers had a conservation purpose that no other angling type presented. Because no weight was allowed on line, leader, or fly, the trout in fast water or deep pools never had the fly presented directly to them, it was always passing overhead. Even with an intermediate line, the leader and fly would seldom get deeper than six inches in fast water. Of course, in some back eddies the fly might go deeper, but for the most part, large trout had those waters as "sanctuaries". Lee Wulff, a former member of the NH F&G Commission and renowned writer, defined and promoted this concept of trout sanctuary in his book "Lee Wulff on Flies" (Stackpole, 1980):

"... we can break fly-fishing down into several classifications, depending upon technique. The first classification is surface fly-fishing, with floating lines and no weight of any kind, in the fly or on the line. The second classification is intermediate fly-fishing, in which weighted flies or sinking-tip fly lines are used, but no attached weight, such as split-shot or sinkers. The third classification is unlimited fly-fishing, in which lead-core sinking lines, weights and sinkers, and weighted flies (and perhaps spinners) are used.

Of the three classifications of fly-fishing, surface fly-fishing is the most difficult way of taking trout and all the classifications of fly-fishing are more difficult than spinning. With surface fly-fishing all the fish have to be brought to the surface for the lure, and all the deep flowing water is sanctuary for the fish. Any trout caught by surface fly-fishing leaves the sanctuary of its own volition, and unless it leaves, it cannot be caught. This eliminates the drifting of a lure right into the trout's holding level and almost right into its mouth, so that simple curiosity as much as hunger may cause it to mouth the lure. The intermediate fly-fishing classification gives the angler a greater advantage and allows him to drift his flies deeper in the flow, where most of the feeding by the trout is done. The unlimited fly-fishing classification lets an angler have maximum advantage, allowing him to reach the fish at their holding level, and this is particularly deadly on big fish."


Thomas McGuane, an internationally famous outdoor writer and novelist, wrote in "Live Water" (Meadow Run Press, 1996):

"In a perfect world, fishing with split shot on the leader wouldn't be fly fishing at all. Neither would monofilament nymphing and maybe even shooting heads. Lee Wulff said that the fish is entitled to the sanctuary of deep water. That's where most of us used to set the bar in trout fishing. We fished on top and tried to devise ways of catching big fish that way, fishing at night, fishing with greater stealth, hunting remote places that rarely saw an angler."


John Gierach, a modern writer on the subject of fly fishing and the author of many books, wrote in "Good Flies" (Lyons Press, 2002):

"I still do my share of dredging with weight on the leader - sometimes lots of weight, as much as it takes - but in the past few years I've tried to do it more sparingly. If there's anything wrong with this kind of nymph fishing, it's that it can be too effective. Lee Wulff once said that trout deserve the sanctuary of deep water, and I can't help thinking about that every time I nip three split shot onto my leader and dredge up a fish that might have started rising in an hour or two if I'd left him alone. Maybe there was a time when this didn't make too much difference, but with the crowds you now see on popular rivers - not to mention the beat-up trout you sometimes catch - maybe the idea of letting the fish hide, rest, or feed undisturbed from time to time is worth thinking about."

So, the concept of sanctuary for trout is neither new, nor logically inconsistent as a practice beneficial to the growth and preservation of large trout.

Benefits of Traditional Fly Fishing Only Designation

The introduction of Traditional Fly Fishing Only waters will have sporting, practical, environmental, fiscal, and social benefits to the State of New Hampshire. These include:

    * Free advertising of New Hampshire waters in fishing magazines, journals, and the Internet as sportsmen explore and debate the concept of TFFO.
    * Fly shops will realize an increase in sales of flies and fly-tying materials that meet the criteria of TFFO.
    * Guide services will flourish as newcomers require guides to instruct them on casting and fishing in the traditional manner.
    * Spin fishermen will warmly accept the new regulations. The current FFO regulations allow the use of jigs (Clouser minnows, conehead Muddlers) and other weighted flies which are more safely and easily cast with spinning gear; thus fishermen using a spinning rod justifiably question the fairness of FFO rather than ALO. Since the flies used in Traditional Fly Fishing are too light to cast with spinning tackle, the equity of the new designation will be apparent.
    * Trout will grow larger in the safety of their "sanctuaries."
    * The added cachet of TFFO will resonate with new fly fishermen and the similarity to the fishing prior to 1992 will be attractive to the "old-timers."
    * The Department of Fish and Game will save money in stocking, as the number of fish caught per angler day will be less, but the satisfaction with each catch will be greater.
    * The fishermen who adopt Traditional Fly Fishing methods will be possessive of their waters and will police them themselves, calling upon Conservation Officers as necessary. Thus no additional enforcement checks will be required.
    * Only FFO flowing waters need be altered to TFFO, as ponds and lakes would not realize the same benefits as rivers and streams.


Proposed Definitions for Traditional Fly Fishing Only Waters:

Artificial Fly for Traditional Fly Fishing - In waters designated Traditional Fly Fishing Only, a fly shall be constructed on a single hook with a single point dressed with any or all of the following: feathers, fur, hairs, wool, cotton and other grasses, silk, metal tinsel not greater in thickness than five thousands of an inch, rayon or nylon thread or floss. Resin, gum, and nitrocellulose varnishes and lacquers may be applied to the thread of the fly. Epoxy and other synthetic adhesives may not be used. The hook shall have no additional weight affixed, including but not limited to: hooks, natural bait, molded weight, beads, coneheads, dumbbells, spinners, spoons or similar devices.

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.

Clearly, Traditional Fly Fishing Only will bring attention to the finest fishing waters in New Hampshire, both from resident fishermen and out-of-state anglers. The additional challenge and prestige of catching trout under TFFO conditions will increase angler count on the waters, but decrease actual angling pressure on the fish.


The Petitioner thanks you for your thoughtful consideration of the above and looks forward to your response.

Let me know what you think, either by replying to this post or by PM. Perhaps other states could benefit from similar rules?

Thanks.


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

The Contemplative Angler (Blog)

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 tend to agree with the previous poster in the respect that I would be unlikely to fish waters with regulations that prevented me from using techniques I like, but I live far away from the east coast and am unlikely to go there to fish in any case. I’m also not totally convinced that the new regulations would provide environmental benefits or that the “sanctuary” effect of these regulations would significantly increase either the overall health of fish, their size or their numbers. Besides, this year I replaced the crumbling full wells on one of my old beater grangers with a non-traditional fatter-than-normal half wells grip, and I don’t want to be blacklisted!

On the other hand though, I think there’s room for all sorts of different approaches and if you and your neighbors and other NH sportsmen want to set aside some areas for traditional techniques only, more power to you! I love to see flyfishers who are excited about their local waters. We need more people who care about rivers and fish, and one way to achieve that is by giving local folks more input into how their natural resources are regulated. If you haven’t already, you should float the idea in front of local clubs and organizations to get more information. Maybe you can even finagle some firm or group into providing you with an EIA, which would give you more ammo when you go up against the bureaucrats.

It’s an interesting idea. I’m curious to see how it turns out.

I always heard that C-4 did a bang up job on trout and was exciting as well. I suppose someone will rule against that too.
Oh, by the way, we have streams out here ya can’t wade in and ya can’t use any lead either. Some places oversea ya can only fish up stream, and only to a fish that is rising and only with a dry fly. Talk about rules…

Actually, the ‘rules’ are simply control methods used by the fish/game boys to best manage the resource. Various rules can provide various results. Usually, man hours of recreation is usually a desired ratio. To allow each to fish as they wanted would be outlandish and would soon eliminate the need for any further rules, ever. Rules are a necessary part of a civilized society.
However, if any rules are proposed or instituted for vanity reasons I am fundamentally and vehemently against such.

it would be more traditional if you outlawed string or any kind of line also . Only catch a trout with your right hand as he jumps out of the water to the left and upstream .

I am a dry fly fisher most of the time, but this sounds a bit on the extreme side of rules. It certainly turns me off to ever wanting to fish these waters!

Hey REED,
Good to “hear” from you again. Were this elongated "rule change " proposal authored by anyone else, I would have ignored it as too long and tedious to read. Being, however, that it IS you who authored it, I “readily” read it and support the premise, whatever it is :slight_smile:

Sounds just like dry fly or nothing elitist snobbery to me. How about this for a rule: YOU fly fish the way YOU want to and YOU let the rest of the world fly fish the way WE want to?
That sounds like a rule that the vast majority of us can live with.
Self absorbed, overly inflated, egotistical attitudes like you just posted are a large part of the reason that many who do not fly fish think that all of us are a bunch of snobs.
And, just in case this response appears to be harsh and or insulting: Please carefully read the original post. Then decide who is insulting who.

Traditional fly fishing is fine…if that is what you like. But my opinion is that everyone likes to put their own slant on things to make it more enjoyable to them. In other words…it’s fishing! I think I should be able to enjoy it my way. I agree with a previous poster that these ‘rules’ would turn me off in a big way!

Thanks for all the great input. Because FAOL has readers from all over the world, it is possible that stream conditions and fishing laws vary tremendously from what we have here in New Hampshire. Our present Fly Fishing Only sections of river are high-gradient, over granite bedrock and boulders; some riffles, rapids, flats, pocket water, and pools. Prior to 1992, the fish had the protection of holding in the fast water and the deep pools, because no weight was allowed. You worked hard for your fish, but it made each more valuable. (As JC quotes - “It is in working within limits that the master reveals himself” ~ Oscar Wilde)

Once weight was allowed in 1992, the catch rate was much higher - because the fish lost their sanctuaries - but the quality of the fish, both in appearance (now often torn and scarred) and size, diminished, in my experience.

Just some background. Now, please continue your excellent input. Thanks.

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

The Contemplative Angler (Blog)

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.:rolleyes:

Kevin

Main Entry:tra?di?tion [](javascript:popWin(‘/cgi-bin/audio.pl?tradit01.wav=tradition’))Pronunciation: rə-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.

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)