Petition for Rule Change on NH FFO - Accepted for review

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
21

I’m sorry, but I just think the proposed new rules are a bad idea. If the fish are there to be caught then let us catch them. If you want to support a healthy fish population then use a bag limit where a 0 bag limit = catch and release.

If you’re in a catch and release only area (or a catch and release only period of time such as the “winter rules” here in California") then it would make sense to ban bait (because the fish tend to swallow it more which makes catch and release more difficult) and to ban barbed hooks (again, because it makes the release more difficult).

But to say that you can only fish a traditional dry fly as defined by a set of laws and rules!? That really does seem to go overboard.

I’d much rather see my local fish and game wardens enforce the rules we have now. I went hiking to the Bear river twice this week and both times saw people fishing the river when the regulations book show that it’s clearly closed between Nov 15th and April 15th. Asking the wardens to check your fly for “traditional materials” and “traditional techniques” borders on ridiculous.

22

Since when is an intermediate line considered traditional. It is a plastic sinking line. I can see an ungreased silk line or a horse hair line slowly sinking but really are they true intermediates.

If the whole point is to keep flies out of deep water why not just restrict it to dry flies only. The only way for a sanctuary is a complete closed season.

I like the challenge of getting my unwieghted flies down deep on floating lines. Sparse flies on heavy wire hooks and mending like crazy can put flies deep in moving water. It is kind of how I like to fly fish for everything. There are going to be those that can get their unweighted flies deep.

The traditional aspect just sounds like a gimic that will annoy a lot of people.

23

Overmywaders, I am still patiently waiting for an answer to my question. Let me rephrase it this way:
Have you ever, or recently, used nymphs or streamers when fly fishing?

I realize that I did not hold any punches on my previous posts so maybe that is why you are ignoring me. However, like I said earlier, your post (As well as some writing on your site) is very insulting to anyone who uses nymphs, streamers, emergers, sinking lines, weighted flies, weight on their leader and strike indicators. Basically you insulted the vast majority of those who fly fish.

Here is a related question. Do you limit your fly fishing only to those months were there are reliable hatches? Have you ever had the desire to go out and fish on a warm (or even cold) winter day? Yes, I realize that there are midge hatches and dry fly opportunities in the winter.

I am just curious if you are the absolute true purist that you claim to be. If so, that is great, I hope you are happy with that. Just do not go around trying to impose that on the rest of us.

Also, your statement that dry fly (traditional???) fly fishing is the most difficult way to catch a trout is so ridiculous to comment on beyond this.

24

You left out one thing that being only allowed to use a 9 ft long willow stick for a rod and cotton string tied 3 in frome top of willow

25

flybop,

Actually, I was hoping that someone else would write that specific types of flies are not mentioned in the petition; however, no one has. So, since you and a few others seem to misunderstand the petition to be “dry flies only”, I will clarify. Streamers, wet flies, nymphs, dry flies are/were/should be all used on the FFO sections of our rivers. Nothing in the petition excludes these flies or insinuates that fishing a dry fly is more sporting than a streamer. Nowhere in the petition or my subsequent posts did I offer insult to anyone - if you wish to take insult, remember that it wasn’t offered. : ) Quotes from Wulff and others were employed to demonstrate the concept of sanctuary; any remarks about difficulty in fishing were necessary to the context.

I fish streamers and bucktails. I fish dries and wets. I don’t have any nymphs, not because I wouldn’t fish them but because I have never taken the time to learn to do it properly and have always been made to understand that it is a science of its own. So, instead of using nymphs (which were not commonly tied when I started fly fishing) I use wet flies. Here are some of my wet fly boxes:
http://www.overmywaders.com/wetflies1.jpg

If they look unused, it’s because they are; the used flies are in other boxes. When I am about to use one, I typically clip the wing to half its thickness and may remove some of the hackle. They don’t look as pretty, but they fish better. BTW, if I needed a Prince nymph, I could take a Coachman, shorten the wing to a stub, scruff it a bit, remove some hackle, and voila - a Prince. I wouldn’t know what to do with it, but if you ever need one…

Now, flybop, please indicate where I have written anything which insulted you or others. If you looked at my blog you will find numerous references disparaging my own piscatorial abilities; where did I insult anyone else? Chapter and verse, please, I want to learn the error of my ways.

Thanks.

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

The Contemplative Angler (Blog)

26

Comments from Reed’s Blog: “Reed,
I think this is a wonderful idea, and I would support it if I lived in New Hampshire. The benefit to the fisheries would be well worth it. I think your plan probably holds nearer the original intent of Fly Fishing Only waters than what is currently allowed. I mean, what’s the point of Fly Fishing Only waters if you’re basically tossing the same hardware available to other types of fishing?” Good luck with the petition,
Nathan
#1 nathan kennedy (Homepage) on 2008-11-17 13:10 (Reply)
Nathan,
Thanks, I appreciate the support. (I am encouraged at present by the reception within NH.) Within thirty days I should hear from the Dept. of Fish and Game regarding their thoughts. If they decide to put it before the public for discussion then the rules process begins; otherwise, it dies immediately."
Best regards,
Reed
Reed,
You only have 1 comment on your Blog and I was wondering what reception your referring to? Is there another Forum or Blog that shows that NH fly fishers are being supportive?
Thanks,
Doug

27

Overmywaders,
I agree that there will be a higher mortality rate on fish that are hooked vs those that are not. However, in a well executed, quick fight in cool water, the rate should not be high enough to really hurt the population.

Here’s maybe another way to look at it. I’m stealing this quote from a former local fly fishing personage whom I never had the pleasure to meet, but apparently in the past he often would state to those complaining about some “other group’s” use of a local river that “A river can never have too many advocates” or something very similar. Meaning that as fly fishers, maybe we didn’t like the fact that kayakers would sometimes float through the area we were fishing and put the fish down for 5 minutes. But this small inconvenience was worth it in the larger picture because this was a whole group of people separate from fishermen who also loved the river and would help to preserve it. A good trout river with kayakers is better than a degraded river where the fising community alone wasn’t enough to protect it.

I see this sentiment being applicable to your situation - why limit the group of fishermen that bonds with your rivers and wants to see them preserved to only those that embrace your definition of ‘traditional’ fly fishing?

Lastly, several people have posted that they’ve been insulted. In fairness, it would seem that while overmywaders has listed some POSITIONS that people have found to be insulting, he has not offered any direct insults to individuals or groups.

IMHO, I believe he should be commended for maintaining a polite demeanor in his posts, even in the face of some pretty healthy criticism.

28

Certainly no offense was meant in my response to this thread .Sorry if I was misinterpereted. Snobby and condecending?(The folkes that have met me would not think that). If you met me on the bank you would certainly never think that! Especialy if you saw me nymphing waist deep in some of the hairiest water that a guy shouldnt stand in. Apparently my point was not taken in the spirit that it was meant. I get what "OverMYWaders " is getting at. Its a fishery defensive tool. It isnt a bad thing.

Cheers
Perch

29

Please bear with me as I tend to get a little off tangent in my post then refer back to something earlier in it.
I do have to say that putting a FFO on a stream is going to slow down the guys with the spinning rods and bait chuckers, but it isn’t always the answer. Down here in MA I had a discussion with a couple folks from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and was told that everywhere they designate a stretch of water as Catch and Release gets more pressure because you just put a big x on the map for everyone to go there and catch fish. There are streams that should be C&R but aren’t because only the locals and the die hards would be the only ones on there. Now there is a FFO section of the Swift River, and I have seen guys in there with spinning rods and plastic bubbles and flies on the end. Is that fly fishing? I would say yes and no. Reason would say that they weren’t using a fly rod or fly line, but yes because they were using a fly versus a lure. Most C&R sections are Artificial Lures only, and the problem with that is the treble hooks on the lures not the lure themselves.
I watched several guys use Daredevils on spring trout, and a friend of mine caught a nice 20" Brown on one, but he used a single hook instead of the treble, made it barbless and did it with a spinning outfit. Do I think less of him because he uses a Spinning outfit? No I don’t because he is a responsible angler who took the treble hook off and used a single barbless hook in it’s place. So what does this have to do with TFFO? In TFFO you have to use a traditional fly outfit, and that restricts who can go in there. And that becomes a problem as if you have a person who can’t quite afford or master the fly rod but can cast a spinning rod, why prohibit that person from experiencing the same thing because he can’t afford it or master it? Also what’s the cut off for tradition? 16th century, 18th century, 20th century? Fly fishing has evolved over the years and I think that yes some restrictions are needed, but does putting a big X on a map saying TFFO actually help or hurt that stream? I know that if you gave me a map with every C&R and FFO section on it, I and probably thousand of other anglers would too, would go to fish that river hard and fast, and then the end of that stream would start because of overfishing, even though we’re putting the fish back, and we would be changing the enviroment around the stream by crushing plants, widening footpaths, stirring up the riverbed, etc. But if I didn’t read about it, didn’t see it on a map with “C&R” or “FFO”, then I would probably not spend any time or effort to search it out, along with most other anglers who look for fishing spots from either word of mouth or by actuallly going there with another angler. If anything you should ask for regulation on the hook and number of hooks on a line, as I see more damage to fish by fly anglers who run 2 or 3 flies on their line that wrap the loose ends with the flies around the fish as the fish fights to get loose, sometimes getting foul hooked in the process. And unless the regs are changed, running 2 or 3 flies on a line is still traditional in most states. I would rather see a proposal of prohibiting treble hooks and limiting to 1 hook on a line than punishing fellow anglers by prohibiting them access because of their equipment, less the treble hooks.
Also I have used a bright orange rooster tail with a single barbless hook in early spring on a fly line, tough to cast but guaranteed to catch a fish when the flies don’t work, and I don’t use bait at all, artificials only.

30

Such restrictive measures make no sense at all in a put and take fishery. Regulations such as C&R or FFO in such waters are people management, not fisheries management. I see no need for “traditional” methods to be prescribed in that situation.

Wild trout, on the other hand, are a totally different story. I would support any measure, including a ban on fishing, to protect a wild, reproducing fishery.

31

Since rivers are not stocked in Montana, I guess you’d have to ban fishing in the entire state…:confused:

32

I’d like to thank the participants in this thread; I received some interesting and some valuable input.

We will see what happens as this proposal moves forward through the layers of review; but for now, here, I think we have squeezed all the juice out.

Thanks.

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

The Contemplative Angler (Blog)

33

Notice the word “protection”, and the phrase “including a ban on fishing”. If you have a viable wild fishery that can support C&R or a limited harvest, there is no need for further protection. However, if a wild population was struggling to survive, (Apache trout in the west, brook trout in the east, for example), in a certain area, I would certainly support very restrictive regulations, including a ban on fishing.

Seriously, no stocking of streams in Montana? Not being a wise guy, just curious.