DEC 'chuck-and-duck' ban [Archive] - Flyaddict Community Forums - New England Fly Fishing Connecticut Rhode Island New York Massachusetts Maine Vermont New Hampshire

Kype

04-15-2008, 11:24 AM

Rich

I was planning to fish using C&D for the first time this week but my trip to NY had to be canceled due to home renovation etc.
My position on weighted flies, which some believe is intended to undermine their fishing and cause havoc is really focused only on FFO areas such as the Housatonic River in which a small portion, 3 miles of the river were set aside for fly fishing at a time when weighted flies were not considered part of fly fishing. I find absolutely nothing wrong in using weighted flies in general regulation or ALO water.

Maine is soon to loose FFO designation on many waters if the use of weighted flies continues. For some people that isn’t a concern, for others it is.
Many anglers are now so addicted to the effective use of weighted flies and the high catch rate they can at times bring they forget that fly fishing isn’t necessarily about the body count but the experience. Many anglers forget that un-weighted fly fishing is also a means to protect the fish by limiting the catch rate. C&R has is not benign. Some studies have demonstrated that there may be a 10% +/- mortality with it. When you couple that with people fishing thermal refuges like that found at the mouth of Furnace Brook and the damage rate of C&R grows.
The reward lies in the challenge. The Housatonic River FFO area it is a unique piece of water which can be fished very well with un-weighted flies. It is a very unique place. I would be saddened to see it lost as may soon happen to some FFO areas in Maine.

Bobby

MuddlerMinnow

04-15-2008, 11:36 AM

I'm confused-- chuck and duck is very different that fishing with weighted flies, which is what it seems that article is about. Chuck and duck is usually an unweighted fly with several large split shot 6" up the leader attached to a thin, unweighted running line.

there is no comparison between chuck and duck with split shot and an egg fly and casting plugs on a spinning rod....

I think it's a pretty easy comparison. In both chuck and duck and spin casting, you are relying on the weighted terminal tackle to carry the line, rather than the weight of the line to carry the terminal tackle.

The Patriot

04-15-2008, 12:52 PM

Right, in that respect, one can compare C&D with plug fishing... but in respect to the bait that is being used, there is no comparison between plugs and egg patterns or nymphs... a larger fast moving flashy lure versus a tiny egg or nymph which has to be dead drifte....

Yes, casting the lure versus casting the line... but compare the baits and how they are presented.

And even with lots of split shot, one can't cover nearly as much water with C&D as one can with a spinning rod and plugs.

paul young

04-15-2008, 12:53 PM

this is a useless attempt at regulating an illegal activity; snaggers will still snag (or line, or lift, or whatever you want to call it).

this is a culture problem that the NY DEC created when they encouraged the snagging of salmon back in the day. the culture needs to be changed, not the regulations.

a serious attempt should be made to put officers on the river in plainclothes YEAR ROUND.
MAKE THE FINES STIFF ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY DETER THE PRACTICE. REVOKE THEIR HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES. CONFISCATE THEIR EQUIPMENT.

i would love to watch someone from the DEC try to hook a steelhead without additional weight, on a single fly, in the Salmon river when it's flowing at 1200 cfs (typical winter flow) and the water temp is below 40f.

you can talk about "the experience" all you want, but when i drive 325 miles 1 way and spend $300 to fish for a weekend up there i want to have a reasonable chance of hooking up. it shouldn't be like hoping you hit the lottery.-paul

The Patriot

04-15-2008, 12:55 PM

The Patriot

04-15-2008, 01:00 PM

My position on weighted flies.... is really focused only on FFO areas such as the Housatonic River

Bobby

I agree Bobby...

Ya hear that Housy Dave? ;)

No more indicator nymphing for you pal! :p

Get rid of your bobbers and lead, and start fishing dries or swinging streamers... your days of pillaging the Hous FFO area are numbered!

I've been telling Dave for years, Bobby, that he's not "fly fishing"! ;)

If Dave couldn't nymph, I doubt he'd ever catch a fish!

After all, he's really just a bait dunker! :p ;) D

bigwilly11189

04-15-2008, 03:32 PM

What excatly is this Chuck and Duck?? I'm kinda confused.

Rich Strolis

04-15-2008, 03:55 PM

????? Did I miss something here? Jim, I am not for or against the use of chuck and duck fishing, just not a method I feel comfortable with, nor do I wish to fish that way. That being said if the DEC wants to get rid of the method because of abuse by anglers, then I would be for their decision. I have seen both sides of the spectrum with chuck and duck, and the guys that know what they are doing can really rack em up. But we all know the fine line between the chuck and ducker and the oversized weight guy who utilizes the strong rip at the end of their drift......

On the weighted fly thing, I am all for weighted flies. As long as you are fishing sportingly and utilizing the fly rod, or any other type of gear why not be able to use weighted imitations.

Andrew

04-15-2008, 04:00 PM

Jim would fish with a tandem rig of ice picks if he could, and he'd cast straight for their eyes. If you don't believe me, read some of his other posts. The guy's a Neanderthal.

;) ;)

Kype

04-15-2008, 04:38 PM

My fellow fly fishermen. What I have done here is post news worthy information related to the NY Rivers as well as include a link from which it originated. The basic discussion is related to FFO regulations in Maine. It appears that some of Maine’s FFO waters may be changed to ALO due to the use of weighted flies by fly fishermen. I thought you might like to read that discussion as it may come to the FFO area on the Housatonic some day. Fly fishermen here fish the Farmington and appear to have no issue with sharing the water with the spinning rod angler. That is fine. I do the same here in Vermont. I would however be doing you a disservice if I didn’t share what I am seeing happen in Maine. If you want the Housatonic changed to ALO continue to fish weighted flies as the Fly Fishermen in Maine have been doing.
Check out some of Cap’s comments. I he is an avid fly fisherman and wilderness guide that has it right.
http://www.neoutdoorvoice.com/phpBB2...pic.php?t=6346

Ruby River

04-15-2008, 06:56 PM

Precisely!

Good luck catching steelhead with a floating line and a weightless fly with no lead.... or would this still allow sinking lines? If so, then one is primarily confined to fishing streamers, unless you want to try to swing an egg fly on a sink tip line....

This is ridiculous....

The following is from the Daily Gazette

All that ends in the fly zones on Oct. 1. You’ll still be allowed to use weighted flies and weight on your leader, the way you would nymph-fish a trout stream, but you won’t be allowed to use weight to the extent that it becomes “the primary means of propelling the cast.”

SloNDeep

04-15-2008, 09:02 PM

For those who enjoy my perspective on the use of weighted flies in FFO areas such as the Housatonic this information and discussion might be of interest. It may get the blood pumping but then it might open some minds.

I do not appreciate your perspective on the use of weighted flies in FFO areas or elsewhere.

I do not believe the chuck and duck style of fishing represents fishing with weighted nymphs or adding weight to the leader.

I think I already have an open mind and believe you are insulting to imply that one needs to read the propoganda you post to have an open mind.

One could argue that those opposed to using weighted flies in FFO areas are not open minded

Andrew

04-15-2008, 09:38 PM

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 06:22 AM

:)

Ok, just to clear up any misunderstandings...

1) I'm not mad, angry, or upset with Bobby, Rich, or anyone else... :)

2) Contrary to Andrew's slanderous lies, I don't fish with ice picks... :D (But I will cop to being a bit of a neandrathal.)

3) I can appreciate the issue which Bobby is presenting. What has happened in Maine apparently is that since fly fishermen are using weight and/or weighted flies in FFO areas, spin anglers who want equal access to those areas are using that fact against them. They are arguing that since fly fishermen are using weight, why can't they also use artificial lures? It's a good argument. If I were a spin fisherman who wanted equal access, I would argue the same point. I am not a big fan of FFO areas, and don't really care if FFO areas become ALO areas. In Maine or CT.

4) I see nothing whatsoever wrong with using weighted flies, split shot, or sinking lines. If you're delivering an artificial fly or lure by means of a fly rod, you're flyfishing. (Legal definitions from various states notwithstanding.)

5) In the specific case of the Great Lakes tribs, and "chuck and duck" flyfishing for steelhead, browns, and salmon, the intention of the ban in question are admirable. Snagging is not sporting, ethical, or legal. Efforts should be undertaken to curtail this illegal practice. But as Paul Young stated so aptly, this is not the best way to achieve that end. Ruby River shared more from the article, to wit:

"You’ll still be allowed to use weighted flies and weight on your leader, the way you would nymph-fish a trout stream, but you won’t be allowed to use weight to the extent that it becomes 'the primary means of propelling the cast.'"

That sounds like a very subjective criteria, and I don't see how that can be assessed or enforced.

I still agree most strongly with Paul Young.

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 06:30 AM

What excatly is this Chuck and Duck?? I'm kinda confused.

"Chuck and Duck", in it's truest form, is very heavy lead attached to the leader, a mono running line (not flyline), nymphs or whatever, fished with a fly rod or noodle rod.

The term chuck and duck is also loosely applied to any type of nymph fishing which utilizes weight added to the line and or heavily weighted flies/lures/bait.

The name is derived from the fact that typically adding weight to the line prevents one from making overhead casts in the traditional sense of fly casting, and instead relegates one to lobbing the line, indicator (if applicable), weight, and fly/lure via water hauls and/or roll casts, at short range.

They call it chuck and duck because you "chuck" the whole mess to the water, and "duck" because with all that weight, and any kind of wind, you're likely to get clobbered in the head with your own rig....

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 06:44 AM

Jim, I am not for or against the use of chuck and duck fishing, just not a method I feel comfortable with, nor do I wish to fish that way. That being said if the DEC wants to get rid of the method because of abuse by anglers, then I would be for their decision. I have seen both sides of the spectrum with chuck and duck, and the guys that know what they are doing can really rack em up. But we all know the fine line between the chuck and ducker and the oversized weight guy who utilizes the strong rip at the end of their drift......

On the weighted fly thing, I am all for weighted flies. As long as you are fishing sportingly and utilizing the fly rod, or any other type of gear why not be able to use weighted imitations.

Rich,

For all intents and purposes of this discussion, Bobby lumps any and all use of weight and/or weighted flies into the same category. Which means that indicator nymphing is "chuck and duck". Which means that fishing a conehead wooly bugger on a floating line is a no no.

I am against abuse of the fishery and the method, and against unsportmenlike, unethical anglers and angling. But the regulation cited in the article Bobby posted is very subjective and ambiguous, and is going to be very difficult to interpret, apply, and enforce, and will not accomplish it's stated purpose.

Read what Ruby River posted.... how does one determine whether or not the weight added to the leader is the primary means of propelling the cast? And even if it is, does that mean that one is necessarily snagging? So if the water is high, and I've added a few 3/0 split shots and a big stonefly nymph, with an egg trailing on a dropper, and I'm indicator nymphing, and not snagging, a game warden can assert that the added weight is the primary means of propelling my cast, and I am in violation of the ban on chuck and duck.

It's a bad regulation.

Paul Young has it right.

And I will continue to fish with weight and/or weighted flies in FFO areas, because doing so is still fly fishing. And if they open FFO areas for ALO regulations, that's just fine by me, because I can still fish there either way. And it has nothing to do with being addicted to fishing with weight, or a body count. It's simply one more way to fly fish, just like dry fly fishing or streamer fishing, and sometimes it's the only way, or the best way.

I totally disagree with anyone who asserts that using weight or weighted flies disqualifies that method as fly fishing.

cap

04-16-2008, 07:46 AM

Hello i've read here a bit and because Kype notified me about you guys' discussion i just thought i'd offer you mine. i just signed up....

I pretty much agree with Kype on this stuff...but you must remember that Kype and i are both Atlantic salmon fisherman and perhaps we are older and have a "corporate memory" about how regulations and flies and techniques for fly fishing have evolved over the years.

I don't have a problem with flyfishing with weighted flies...in fact I do it all the time.

Just to put things in perspective I pretty much introduced all those Galloup and Linsenman heavily weighted streamer flies to Maine and fished with them and guided with them for several years prior to the publication of their book "Modern Streamers for Trophy Trout". I had info about them in advance and saw how effective they were at catching.

Not to belabor the point but FFO water has a conservation benefit and I consider myself a conservationist and I have donated a lot of time and money to conservation causes since I was a kid. I've been fishing and fly fishing for more than 45 years.

I've "lifted" fish in Alaska and know how to do it...it ain't that difficult...I've foul hooked quite a few fish in my lifetime too...

people can use weights and weighted techniques as much as they want as far as I am concerned but if FFO is regulation designed to protect and conserve fish it has more efficacy and is easier to monitor and enforce possible "infringement of the rules" if one considers the regulation in it's "original form" as it used to be applied in Maine and other parts of New England and by Atlantic Salmon regulators in all of North America...ie weighted flies and added weight in the form of split shot are (and were) not allowed in FFO water.

Out west in Blue ribbon fly fishing waters is where most of these fly designs were developed but all those blue ribbon streams that are famous for flyfishing the reg is ALO and spin fishers fish side by side with flyfishers slinging weight. It's a logical regulation...out wets there are many fish per mile and they have much more productivity in the water so weighted flies and jigs and lures don't necessarily impact the the fish in a way that is unsustainable.

Maine was a place were flyfishing has a long and storied history and the regulations prior to the early 90's mimicked the fly fishing regulations which traditionally were developed to portect and conserve altlantic salmon in the Northeastern United States and the Canadian Maritimes.... but in the early 90's, spawned by guides and tackle sellers and manufacturers and with a precedent for use in the west, we allowed weight to be added to our flies and this coincided with the explosion in the popularity of flyfishing nationwide.

If you want to sling weight and the fish can support it in sustainable way don't you think it is easier to designate that water as ALO and then you don't run into all the problems associated with how you define flyfishing and flycasting and whether the line propels the fly or the other way around?

This is how the regulations are worded out west where all these weighted flies come form....Maine should follow suit and most likely will follw suit. There are alot of noodlerodders and float rodders who have fished in the NY Tribs and they understand that these tools work ganfgbusters and they most likely will want in to FFO water and they have an argumanet as far as I am concerned because Maines FFO water does not protect and conserve the fish like it used to. They say "If i can throw the same fly as you with your flyrod on my noodlerod or my float rod (which is built a flyrod blank anyway) why the hell can't i fish in that water? You ain't protecting the fish any more or any less by allowing me to do it because we are all using the same terminal tackle and almost the exact same rods and using all the same techniques."

I think they have a point and there is some inertia to change the regulations in maine top reflect this...Many in law enforcement would support it as well...it is just easier to enfrce that kind of regulation...ALO is ALO and jig is a jig...

Now there are some folks, me included, who think there is an alternative to this and we think we could actually protect more fish and quite probably improve the fishing if we just returned to "the old" regulation of FFO which dissallowed the use of added weight. Since our waters are less productive and we have fewer fish per mile, maybe by allowing some fish to escape the hook we might get more holdover and bigger and better fish, fewer crowds and quite possibly an over better fishing experience on FFO waters.

Either or is OK with me...It ain't that I am against the weighted techniques in use provided the fish can handle it and if there is some logical way to include all tackle so that enforcement and grey areas are gone....but on the other hand I'd just prefer to see getting the lead out...you'd still be able to fly fish and we'd prtect and conserve a few fish at the same time...

what is not to like about that?

Andrew

04-16-2008, 08:33 AM

What Kype either doesn't get, or really does get (in which case I REALLY have no use for the discussion) is that if one's goal is to have a good discussion, or even more, to educate or enlighten, the path to success is not paved first with insulting or degrading comments. It seems that every one of these posts includes various references or implications that suggest that anybody who does not see things his way is not truly fly fishing, is not open-minded, does not "get it", is not enlightened, etc. Then, inevitably, the original post is followed by one that proclaims "Hey, I'm just passing along some information..."

It strikes me as very disingenuous. But, if that's not the case and he just doesn't realize what he's doing, then maybe this will serve to point it out. There's an old saying to the effect that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I'm a very open minded guy, and consider myself pretty **** enlightened, but I've had enough vinegar. Pass the honey, and I'll lend you my ear.

Andrew

cap

04-16-2008, 09:06 AM

I don't know where that came from Andrew if it is in response to what I said...???

I am not saying that chuck and duck, or throwing droppers, or fishing with heavily weighted coneheads or using strike indicators isn't flyfishing...I'm saying that once the weight is allowed...when is enough enough? YOu keep adding it and there comes a point where it is very difficult to discern when the flyline is propelling the fly...in fact it becomes pretty subjective....I want to be legal...If FFO is suppose to protect fish, I might be poaching unintentially if my fly is too heavy and my flyline too light...I suppose there are many others in the same position....would'nt it better and in the fishes interest to make this very cut and dry...this is this and that is that...no "interpretation" necessary?

If I could use weighted flies legally on Atlantic salmon water I would...why? because i guarantee i'd catch more fish....there is a reason weighted flies are dissallowed on ever single salmon river in North America...

What do you suppose that is? Is it protecting the fish? Why not protect more?

Andrew

04-16-2008, 09:23 AM

I don't know where that came from Andrew if it is in response to what I said...???

Sorry cap - no, it wasn't in response to anything in particular you wrote. In fact, I just re-read your post and I find nothing in it that is the least bit insulting or offensive. I was just trying to make a more general point about how we can generate a productive discussion, and how we can insure that it starts off bad from the get go. I happen to prefer the former.

I'm willing to bet a spool of lead fuse wire that nobody on here will be offended by your post.

Best,

Andrew

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 09:46 AM

I think this is much more a political issue than one of protecting fish.

I think weight and weighted flies are prohibited from Atlantic Salmon rivers to protect the fish from snagging, not from legitmate angling.

If your concern is truly to protect fish, then just close the season and stop fishing for them completely.

How does restricting artificial lures, jigs, spoons, plugs, etc., protect the fish? By reducing the number of fish caught? We are practicing catch and release, are we not? If so, then the mortality rate is minimal for either fly fishing or spin fishing or noodle rods, or float rods.

And I agree that if a noodle rodder or float rodder can deliver the same "fly" with his rig that I can with my flyrod, then he should be allowed to fish those areas.

If we really want to get nitpicky and technical, when does a fly cease to be a fly? What about Clouser minnows? What about the new fly Dave at C&C designed, the "Dirt Diver"? It's made almost completely out of metal, with a little feather tied in for effect. Is that a fly, or a lure?

Give up the ghost, change with the times, and understand that things evolve for good reasons, and that evolution is usually a good thing.

The goal of angling is to catch fish. Method matters. But adapting to conditions and the behavior of the quarry is fundamental. Adding weight or using weighted flies or sinking lines in order to reach the fish is part of the game. If that opens the door for ALO, so be it. ALO won't kill any more (or less) fish than fly fishing, with or without weight, weighted flies, or sinking lines. True, more fish will be caught, and that combined with the accompianing mortality will result in more dead fish over the long run... but like I said, if that's the concern, then just close fishing for the species.

The only good reason to restrict the use of weight is to address the problem of snagging. And it's not the best way to do so.

The argument being made is like saying that we need to protect deer, or turkey.... so we're going to allow hunting, but only with a sling shot.... because firearms and archery are too easy.

So we'll allow fly fishing for salmon with a floating line and a single weightless streamer... because we know that fish will only very rarely be caught... as opposed to allowing the use of weight, weighted flies, sinking lines, or lures, which will greatly increase the number of fish caught.

And this issue is not limited to Atlantic Salmon, but is being broadly applied (by Bobby) to fly fishing only areas in stocked rivers!

This debate is BEAT! I'm done....

Eric L

04-16-2008, 09:54 AM

The problem here, as I see it, is that folks are discussing completly unrelated issues. The Salmon River, Maine FFO waters, Atlantic salmon fishing and the Housatonic TMA are all distinctly different.

The Salmon river proposal to eliminate chuck and duck is geared toward reducing the snagging of fish. As pointed out earlier in this this thread it does not propose to eliminate the use of weight on a leader or weighted flies. Traditional Atlantic salmon techniques (floating line, unweighted fly, down and across) will not work under most circumstances there. There is a logic flaw here by Kype in even suggesting that this proposed reg change is relevant to Maine FFO waters, Atlantic salmon fishing or fishing for trout in CT.

What's the big deal of keeping Maine FFO waters instead of reverting them to ALO? Do FFers pay more for a license than spin fishermen? These regs worked for a while to reduce harvest, but it's a lousy way to "manage" a fishery. I lived in ME for 10 years and watched through the 80's as fishing got worse and worse. If the creel limits were smaller and minimize size of legal fish were larger you would'nt need restrictive tackle regs to maintain a decent fishery. RECRUITMENT OVERFISHING: look it up.

This has no bearing at all on Atlantic salmon fishing. Why on earth did anyone even bring that up???

Last I checked folks were'nt snagging fish with flyrods on the Housatonic river. I was there last week on one of the 3 days of Spring trout fishing in CT I will get this year. The river looked like one of those midwest flooding news photos. I half expected to see cars floating downstream. Water was high on the Farmington too. While I prefer to fish dry flies I only had 3 days to fish so I rigged up with a strike indicator, lead on the leader and a bead head. This combo worked for me on the Naugatuck and Farmington. I only got one fish on a dry (on the Willi) in 3 days of fishing. So, if Kype had his wish my one CT trout outing of the year would have been pretty much for naught.

In CT fly fishers and spin fishers get along reasonably well sharing the water. Does this bother you in some way? What IS the problem?

Respectfully,

Eric

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 10:03 AM

The problem here, as I see it, is that folks are discussing completly unrelated issues. The Salmon River, Maine FFO waters, Atlantic salmon fishing and the Housatonic TMA are all distinctly different.

EXACTLY!

Each river and each species is different, and may require different management.

What's good for FFO Salmon rivers is not necessarily good for Great Lakes tribs, or the Housy.

I strongly agree with Eric..... as usual.... thanks for your post Eric! Well said!

Kype

04-16-2008, 10:10 AM

Patriot

There is only 3 miles of water in the Housatonic FFO area! It is such a small but special place why would any fly guy want to risk loosing that special historic designation?
As far is progress being made with weighted flies! People all knew that weighted flies were effective a long time ago but chose to move forward. I see regression not progress. Out side of FFO areas I could care less if people use weight, I own some weighted flies myself as did all the old timers.

Catch & Release is not a blank check to catch as many fish as we can. New Hampshire has recently suggested that LL salmon caught which have disfiguring old C&R etc hook injuries be removed and harvested as they will not obtain the size and trophy status they wish to have in their LL salmon waters.
Studies continue to indicate that C&R is more damaging than we thought. Like you I practice C&R. I am not advocating we kill all our fish and take them home. All I am addressing is a concern for one 3 mile piece of storied FFO water. You are honest and I respect your ALO position but I don’t think 3 miles of un-weighted FFO is much to ask.

Sincerely

Bobby

Kype

04-16-2008, 10:11 AM

Andrew

I apologize for offending you in my introductory statement. From this side of the computer I read the humor I intended in the post.

Cap

It is always good to read your posts. That is why I linked your comments in my initial post here to help inform anglers of the discussion under way in Maine and clarify shared concerns for the future of FFO areas.

Thanks!

Bobby

hookandhackle

04-16-2008, 10:32 AM

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 10:33 AM

Patriot

There is only 3 miles of water in the Housatonic FFO area! It is such a small but special place why would any fly guy want to risk loosing that special historic designation?

Catch & Release is not a blank check to catch as many fish as we can. New Hampshire has recently suggested that LL salmon caught which have disfiguring old C&R etc hook injuries be removed and harvested as they will not obtain the size and trophy status they wish to have in their LL salmon waters.
Studies continue to indicate that C&R is more damaging than we thought. Like you I practice C&R. I am not advocating we kill all our fish and take them home.

All I am addressing is a concern for one 3 mile piece of storied FFO water. You are honest and I respect your ALO position but I don’t think 3 miles of un-weighted FFO is much to ask.

Sincerely

Bobby

Bobby,

As always, I enjoy our discussions! :) Even if I may happen to disagree with you on some things, I appreciate your contributions, your experience, and your perspectives.

First, just to be perfectly clear, I am in no hurry to give up the Housy FFO area. But so far, I haven't heard any such rumblings, and after participating in the proposal to change the regs on the Farmington, and seeing how glacially our DEP and state govt move on these things, I am not at all concerned. I think your warnings about the impending demise of FFO waters based on something that is happening in Maine may be premature and alarmist where the Hous is concerned, with all due respect. If there was such a movement, to change the Hous FFO to ALO, well, I don't know how I might feel or what I might do, if anything. I don't fish there all that often, so my personal stake is limited. But I support my flyfishing peers. So I might oppose a change to ALO. On the other hand, from an intellectual perspective, I can understand the position of spin fisherman using artificial lures who want equal access to the water. So I might support such a change.

In all probability, I would abstain and let the chips fall where they may. To fight to retain FFO there isn't intellectually honest on my part.

Second, C&R may indeed do more damage to any given fishery than we realize. But given the choice of C&R or harvest, I think we can agree that C&R is clearly the lesser of those two evils. It's either that or give up fishing and take up bird watching.

Of course, we could always go to FFO with hooks that have no points whatsoever.

Finally.... you said:

"You are honest and I respect your ALO position but I don’t think 3 miles of un-weighted FFO is much to ask."

Thank you. I don't disagree with you that 3 miles of FFO is too much to ask. But I may disagree with you about restricting the use of weight, weighted flies, or sinking lines there.

And more importantly, perhaps you should ask Housy Dave what he would think about increasing the restriction to weightless FFO. Dave is almost a one hundred percent indicator nymph angler who uses split shot. And he is an avid and regular Housy FFO angler. I'm sure he could adapt and fish there with other methods, or go to other areas on the Hous outside the FFO area. But your regs proposal would deprive him (and others) of the ability to fish that area with their preferred method.

So given the choice between ALO and weightless FFO, I suspect that Dave (and others) would opt for ALO, allowing them to retain their ability to fish whereever they want with their preferred method, even if that meant sharing the water with spin anglers, as opposed to having to change their tactics or fish elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Jim

cap

04-16-2008, 11:55 AM

Gentleman...you cloud the issues...I am not advocating one way or the other for Housatonic regs, atlantic salmon regs, Maine regs, ALO regs, ffo regs, weight in, weight out or anything else of the sort...

It is very simple...

I do not want to ban weights....but..

I'm just saying that if you use weight on a fly rod you should allow a spin fisher to cast the same lure and weight if he is physically able to do it with his equipment in the same water.

It doesnt matter to the fish if it is caught on a zonker on a flyrod or a zonker on a spinning rod...

If you can follow that but you want to have water where you keep spin fishers out - for whatever reason you want...it really does'nt matter...it could be social or it could be conservation or it could be tradition)...you should follow suit and not allow flyfishers to get away with casting those same lures that the spinfishers obviously know they too can cast!

In other words if you want to keep angling pressure down by eliminating spin fishing you should'nt allow a flyrodder some special status, to cast the same lures and jigs that spin fishers use.

That is the gist of what is happening in Maine...

Follow this progression....

1) Out west where heavily weighted flies originated there are NO FFO waters. They are all ALO waters, even in all those storied waters shown on the "Fly fishing" shows and written about in all the "Fly fishing" magazines in Montanna and Idaho...the same waters that people go on vacation and spend money in Dan Baileys "Fly" Shop and hire drift boat "flyfishing" guides and where people flyfish for trophy trout in beautiful mountain scenery! Yes sir they are ALO!
Also even in all those wild Oregon and Washington steelhead rivers where people use spey "fly" rods, and spey "flies" and they "flyfish" thier asses off people can still use spinning rods on those waters because the regulation is ALO.

All those places that most fly fishers think of as "the epitome of the fly fishing ethos" actually allow spin fishing and the regulation is ALO. It makes sense too. You might as well allow spin fishing since alot of the flyfishing techniques use the same terminal tackle and that tackle can be delivered either way. Spin fishers and fly fishers use the same weighted lures and have ACCESS TO THE SAME WATERS...Clousers, conehead madonnas, zonkers...whatever....it's a no brainer to have ALO regulations like this. It make sense...

2) Atlantic salmon waters throughout North America, on the other hand, have absolutely no ALO regulation waters...in fact they are all FFO waters...These places are also storied and written up in the "fly fishing" magazines and are on all the "fly fishing" TV shows and they too represent "the epitome" and the "creme de la creme of the ethos of what it is to go fly fishing". And they do not allow weighted flies on these waters and they do NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO SPIN FISHERMAN. This too makes sense as a spin fisherman cannot deliver an unweighted fly with his weapon of choice.

Then we have trout fishing and LLsalmon in Maine on "fly fishing only" water...

Historically New England "FFO water" regulations were exactly like atlantic salmon FFO water is now (scenario 2 above)...no weight allowed...simple rule to follow and a simple rule to enforce...spin fisherman had no access but it was a reasonable thing for them not to have accesss as they could'nt cast an unweighted fly anyway.

But in the early 90's we allowed weight making it more like the same style of fishing that is done out west on those blue ribbon trout waters out there....

but...and this is the big BUT..... what did'nt happen in New England when we changed our FFO regs from no weight to allowing weight was we did'nt change the reg to ALO and include the spin fishers as they do out west on thier storied "fly fishing water". WE continued to deny the spin fisherman access....

Hence the nightmare of enforcement, and the divisive connotations concerning elitism etc between sportsmen who just happen to be holding a different type of fishing rod while all the while fishing the same lures. This is the nature of the controversy....

Hence the dilemma...

We allow weight but we keep out some sportsmen...

We are not like either number one or number two in the above scenarios...we exist in some netherworld between the two....

Personally I think we should be one or the other...and so do a lot of others.

As long as we change from what we have now and we either covert to ALO and allow spin fishers access that wopuld be fine...or we could get the lead out of the flyfishermans arsenal and conrinue to deny access to the spin fisherman...

Either or.....This would unite sportsmen and it would also make the rules simpler and it would make enforcement simpler too.

But you have to move one way or the other and get off that subjective middle area which is causing the diviseness in the sporting community. As a flyfisher and an atlantic salmon angler I'd prefer that we moved toward getting the lead out of FFO and we moved towards number 2.......but if there is too much public outcry...or there is too much inertia and it goes toward number One that would be OK too if the fishery could support it.

Where the problem comes from is that there are some spin fishers who are pushing for and want number one and they have some support within the department to change the regs (I do not fault them for this...I say they definately have a point!)...but there are also flyfishers who don't want number 2...they continue to want to fish these FFO waters with thier weight and they also continue however to want to deny access to the spin fisherman... it only makes them look like complete ******* elitists and contributes to more and more divisiveness amongst sportsmen.

In my estimation you have to have it one way or the other...I suggest that if Fly fishers want to preserve the notion thier notion of FFO water then they will have to accept number 2...because what is the status quo is unacceptable....and there is inertia and people who are pushing for number 1...in fact it is freightraining in their direction! IT would be so much simpler and easier for them to accept one or the other...but they don't!

I don't understand it myself...because if they want to preserve flyfishing and maybe help the fish too 2 seems like the obvious choice to me from the standpoint of a flyfisherman....I can live with one however...I am not an elitist in the least....

The Patriot

04-16-2008, 12:14 PM

Cap,

First, welcome to the board! :)

Second, no disrespect, but since this is at least the third time this discussion has come up here, I for one am frankly tired of it, and therefore did not read your entire (lengthy) post... and this is from one who is known for lenghty posts. ;)

But I did read enough of it to come to this conclusion; I agree with what you say about being consistent. Therefore, I for one advocate ALO, so that I and others can continue to fish with weight, weighted flies, or sinking lines. I have no interest or desire to preserve FFO areas, for any reason, sociological, conservation, traditon, or whatever.

One thing I disagree with you however, is the notion that when I am using split shot, weighted nymphs, sinking lines, streamers, or weighted streamers such as clousers, that I am casting the same "lures" that spin fishermen use, or want to use, or are able to use. I don't think one with a spinning rod can effectively cast such nymphing or streamer rigs. Nor do I believe that I am using the same "lures" on my fly rod, that spin anglers are using on their spinning outfits.

But again, I agree with the notion of consistency. And I would rather allow spin anglers to ply the water side by side with me, than to limit myself to weightless flies and floating line. I think my own personal selfish fishing interests are better served by sharing the water than tying one arm behind my back.

Thank you for clarifying the issue.

Regards,

Jim

cap

04-16-2008, 12:40 PM

Right...thanks..

I should clarify a tad it more...and I know you guys probably think it is beating a dead horse...particularly if this has been discussed ad nauseum here..i am new so I don't have a corporate memory here... :D

The ALO regs would and should be converted to ALO single hook in the waters we are talking about...then the spin fishers terminal tackle would be more in line with the flyrodders..,and vice versa..

I agree that not all spinning tackle that is currently allowed in ALO water approximates weighted flies...but certainly a lot of it does..

If a very small and light Rapala had a single - single barbed hook at the ass end..(no mutiple trebles)..it would approach an epoxy crease fly...

A clouser or a Popovics Jiggy head, any jig fly...is a jig is a jig is a jig...

Redfish spoons for flyrods are like johnson spoons for spinning rods..

I have a friend who holds the Maine State record for rainbow and he fishes almost exclusively with nymphs and splitshot...he uses a 10 1/2 foot flyrod with a spinning reelseat attached..a small Daiwa spinning reel and 4 pound test...he is a nymph fisherman beyond comparison...but he isn't a flyfisherman...and is banned from FFO water yet another "flyfisherman" with a 25 foot leader, the same nymph fly and spilt shot is legal?...just does'nt make sense to me...

Eric L

04-16-2008, 01:17 PM

cap

04-16-2008, 02:04 PM

please tell me how a spinfisher can cast a size 16 bead head pheasant tail nymph,
You obviously have'nt read my whole post...because you are cherry picking little snippets here and there and are commenting on those snippets out of context...

A spinfisherman can't cast a size 16 beadhead...but he can with a few splitshot added up the leader and sometimes flyfisherman add more weight than just a beadhead fly. To be honest with you allowing beadheads into flyfsihng water is what the original intent of the law was when first allowing weight...

But once you allow a size 16 beadhead you also allow a size 2 6x long tung conehead woolhead sculpin with extra lead wraps on the shank and a rabbitstrip tail with two trout beads 18 inches up the tippet...and a spinfisherman can cure as hell cast one of those.....

and at a certain flyline weight i submit that a flyrodder is no lobger flycasting a fly of this construction either....

and therefor the whole point if the discussion.

That's it for me....on this one...

if you don't understand where the concepts are coming from I guess you never will...

Rich Strolis

04-16-2008, 02:13 PM

Jim,
I got ya. I just dont want to be lumped into the same category. I am with you on the preservation of fisheries and the weighted fly thing too, it seems to me that this is becoming a recurring thread that has run its course....

Ruby River

04-16-2008, 04:41 PM

Pardon the interruption. I've read all the discussion threads and I'm a bit confused as to the changing of these regulations. Does this mean the use of weighted/tungsten/brass beaded flies/nymphs will be banned? Or, does the change in regulations refer to adding lead weight to the leader?

Although extremely convenient, lead should be banned from all fishing as it truly is a very hazardous substance.

The Hippie

You guys certainly can make some posts very entertaining as well as interesting.

From what I understand the main reason for this change in fishing is simple and in part, just as The Hippie stated. As well as the snagging of salmon and other fish on the Salmon River in N.Y., the "slinkies" that are used to get the fly to deeper water are filled with lead split shot.

The slinkies are pieces of parachute chord that are filled with lead shot and attached to the leader by a swivle. They come in a variety of lengths - including 6" and as you can imagine that means alot of lead left on the bottom of the river when the danged things get snagged and break off.

I will admit to having used slinkies when I first when up to Pulaski and attempting to get into the "Chuck and Duck Line Dance" along one particular favorite and crowded piece of river by the Altmar Bridge.

I did not enjoy this type of fishing. And it did not take long for me to give it up mostly because of the concern of leaving lead behind.

The next day I had a guide and he was able to get me into plenty of steelies using a floating line, an unweighted fly and just two split shot along with a wool indicator. The water was extremely high that year and fast but I found that it was not necessary - in my humple opinion - to use anything else or near the quantity of lead that the slinkies use to get to the fish.

If I am interpreting this change correctly, then the use of weighted flies along with some split shot will be acceptable while the very obvious and heavily weighted slinkies will not be so.

The Patriot

04-17-2008, 07:24 AM

Rich,

Didn't mean to "lump you in" with anyone.... I was just responding to your "????? Did I miss something?" question. :)

Cap,

Speaking for myself, I understand the concepts completely. I hear ya, and I understand where you're coming from. But like I said, I would rather let spin anglers in than restrict myself to methods which may not always be effective.

I also agree with you that certain types of flies or rigs can be cast with spinning rods, noodle rods, or float rods. But really, when we talk about spin anglers and artificial lures, is that the bulk of the anglers that we envision? When I talk about spin anglers and artificial lures, I typically envision a 5 or 6 foot spinning rod, with a conventional spinning reel, spooled up with 4 or 6 pound test mono, casting phoebes, rooster tails, spinners, cleos, kastmasters, rough riders, rapalas, etc., etc., etc. I think the anglers you refer to are the exception to the rule.

OTOH.... this is based on my limited experience here in CT on the Farmington, Housatonic, and Salmon rivers, and in the Catskills. I haven't really done any trout fishing in northern New England, and have never fished any Salmon rivers, although I would love to!

Ruby River,

I think your interpretation of the new regs is on the money. I agree with you.

However, it's not your interpretation or my interpretation that we have to worry about, or that will matter.

The only interpretation that matters is that of the game warden who is writing you a ticket, a summons, kicking you off the water, taking away your license, or confiscating your gear. And that causes me great concern.

One more reason to avoid the Salmon River, and visit the Erie Tribs..... the Salmon River is alot of hassle to begin with. This just makes things that much more complicated.... the extra two hours to Buffalo is looking better all the time....

cap

04-17-2008, 08:06 AM

But like I said, I would rather let spin anglers in than restrict myself to methods which may not always be effective.

That is OK in my book too. I thought I said I was down with it one way or the other?

If Maine want's to have no FFO water left in the state, that's is OK by me...but...I think it is a shame that the first place in the country to adopt a conservation regulation based on a tackle restriction would wish to have it disappear.

My point being that if the fishery could not support ALO in a sustainable way, there still is a way to keep fishing it (without closing it to all fishing) and that is to make it even more restrictive...and that would be "FFO weightless" as it is on the atlantic salmon rivers like The Miramichi, The Restigouche, The Margaree, The Torrent, etc. etc.

I can understand what you imply - that if the fishery could not support ALO as we envision it (with flyrodders chucking weighted flies and spin fishers standing side by side)...then you just close it down completely...of course that is an option too.

I'd be more willing to give up my weight to still be able to fish...and I'd be willing to give up my weight as a protective measure to make the fishing better to.

I also agree with you that certain types of flies or rigs can be cast with spinning rods, noodle rods, or float rods. But really, when we talk about spin anglers and artificial lures, is that the bulk of the anglers that we envision? When I talk about spin anglers and artificial lures, I typically envision a 5 or 6 foot spinning rod, with a conventional spinning reel, spooled up with 4 or 6 pound test mono, casting phoebes, rooster tails, spinners, cleos, kastmasters, rough riders, rapalas, etc., etc., etc. I think the anglers you refer to are the exception to the rule.

I don't really have a problem with those lures in the water provided they are fitted with a single siwash hook which is how the conversion to ALO would take place...The ALO regs out west are specific...ALO-SINGLE BARB....

Also if spin fishers wish to be successful, I mean really successful, they will give up their more traditional techniques of spin fishing and adopt the ultralight, noodlerod, float rod way of spin fishing...that is because flies (and or jigs) on a drag free drift, with or without a bobber or strike indicator, often work way better than an actively fished lure.

Ruby River

04-17-2008, 09:01 AM

Rich,

Ruby River,

I think your interpretation of the new regs is on the money. I agree with you.

However, it's not your interpretation or my interpretation that we have to worry about, or that will matter.

The only interpretation that matters is that of the game warden who is writing you a ticket, a summons, kicking you off the water, taking away your license, or confiscating your gear. And that causes me great concern.

One more reason to avoid the Salmon River, and visit the Erie Tribs..... the Salmon River is alot of hassle to begin with. This just makes things that much more complicated.... the extra two hours to Buffalo is looking better all the time....

Patriot -

I totally agree with you that my interpretation of the new regs does not matter. It will be up to me before I go up to Pulaski in Oct. to make sure I know what the new regs are.

sharrychrist

04-17-2008, 09:16 AM

Hi, This post of mine will surely updates knowledge and contain valuable information. However I would like suggestions about some specific information. If you can help me then please send me a private message. Many Thanks,

Kype

04-17-2008, 09:19 AM

Jim

“I don't disagree with you that 3 miles of FFO is too much to ask. But I may disagree with you about restricting the use of weight, weighted flies, or sinking lines there.” Jim

I have never mentioned a thing about standard sinking lines or sink tips as we now know them.
Jim, perhaps the situation isn’t about to be an issue in Connecticut. Then again at least we have discussed it and have had Cap’s Maine experience presented. Why not know about it?

I have to tell you I am a bit confused by people actually wanting their flies weighted or split shot added to the leader when fishing the Housatonic River FFO area as with sinking line, short leader, and a pair of nymphs I left plenty of un-weighted flies in the bottom of that river. Today I dread the thought of loosing my flies and all my hard work at the bench like that, especially when good fish can be had on top or just under the surface with caddis pupa or a variety of emerger patterns or wet flies. I am not talking large flies here simply #18 - #10 un-weighted nymphs. How do people stomach loosing flies like you must be doing? It would make me want to fish some place else with a gravel bottom.

As a side line, for years I viewed wet flies as an out dated old mode of fly fishing. I read the latest BS on fly fishing and the wet fly fishermen were viewed sort of like caveman, though it wasn’t actually said. My years of swinging Atlantic salmon flies and later adopting the things I learned in Canada to my trout fishing opened my eyes! I love all forms of fly fishing but I am addicted to the surge of a fish hammering a wet. Atlantic salmon fishing has improved my trout fishing by leaps and bounds.

The Patriot

04-17-2008, 09:30 AM

I thought I said I was down with it one way or the other?

Yes you did.... I wasn't implying or suggesting otherwise... I am crystal clear on your position. No worries! :)

If Maine want's to have no FFO water left in the state, that's is OK by me...but...I think it is a shame that the first place in the country to adopt a conservation regulation based on a tackle restriction would wish to have it disappear.

However, I sense that you would really prefer to preserve FFO waters. That's OK, you're certainly entitled to your view and opinion. :) Perhaps I'm reading too much into your posts and Kype's, but I sense a bias and an agenda. Like I said, that's OK. I'm just sayin'.....

My point being that if the fishery could not support ALO in a sustainable way, there still is a way to keep fishing it (without closing it to all fishing) and that is to make it even more restrictive...and that would be "FFO weightless" as it is on the atlantic salmon rivers like The Miramichi, The Restigouche, The Margaree, The Torrent, etc. etc.

I take it that we are primarily talking about Salmon rivers or perhaps wild brook trout streams. Really, I don't object to weightless FFO for such applications. And since I've never been there, and probably won't for the forseeable future, and if I went it would be a special trip, not something I'm gonna do on a regular basis, I really have no stake in that. I think where we part ways (at least Kype and I, not necessarily you and I) is where it seems that this standard (weightless FFO) is applied universally to all FFO water.

It seems that Bobby is taking this issue and applying across the board, globally, to all FFO water. And I don't think that is necessary or appropriate. Like we said above, every river, every fishery, every species, requires different management based on it's own unique needs. So weightless FFO may indeed be a sound strategy for wild salmon or brook trout waters, but may not be appropriate for places like the Housatonic FFO area, or the Salmon River (CT) FFO area, or the Salmon River (NY) FFO area. What I continue to hear Bobby saying (and I could be wrong) is that this has to be the way on ALL FFO waters, everywhere. I couldn't disagree more.

I can understand what you imply - that if the fishery could not support ALO as we envision it (with flyrodders chucking weighted flies and spin fishers standing side by side)...then you just close it down completely...of course that is an option too.

Actually, I'm not really implying that. My statement is rhetorical; that if your concern here is simply the well being of the species, then just close down the fishery altogether, because FFO, even weightless FFO, will still result in angling related mortality. But I see your point, where certain fisheries are concerned.

While you and Bobby are largely in agreement, I think he takes this a step further, and like I said, tries to apply it globally, rather than where it may be appropriate and wise from a management standpoint. He continues to raise the specter of losing the FFO area on the Hous if we don't embrace this weightless FFO ethos. I think he is over shooting the mark.

I'd be more willing to give up my weight to still be able to fish...and I'd be willing to give up my weight as a protective measure to make the fishing better to.

To each his own. :)

I just don't think that giving up weight or not fishing is the only choice. I think that is a false choice. There is a third choice, and that is including ALO, and there is a fourth choice, and that is fighting for the status quo. In cases such as wild Atlantic Salmon streams, or wild brook trout streams, perhaps there is a protective, conservation aspect. But again, I don't think this issue can be applied globally, or painted in such broad strokes to include the Hous in CT, as Bobby appears to do.

I don't really have a problem with those lures in the water provided they are fitted with a single siwash hook which is how the conversion to ALO would take place...The ALO regs out west are specific...ALO-SINGLE BARB....

Also if spin fishers wish to be successful, I mean really successful, they will give up their more traditional techniques of spin fishing and adopt the ultralight, noodlerod, float rod way of spin fishing...that is because flies (and or jigs) on a drag free drift, with or without a bobber or strike indicator, often work way better than an actively fished lure.

Totally agree with you on these points. Definitely single barbless hooks, and more specialized gear for the non-flyrodders.

Thanks Cap! Good discussion...

Jim

Andrew

04-17-2008, 09:34 AM

Jim

How do people stomach loosing flies like you must be doing? It would make me want to fish some place else with a gravel bottom.

One of the reasons I started tying was so that I could fish my flies where I wanted to fish them, without worrying about losing them. I think that if losing a fly is constantly on your mind, you don't fish to catch fish, you "fish" to prevent fly loss. To me, that's just casting practice with a decorated hook on the end of your leader.

Sure, it sometimes stings to lose a really nice fly, but if I'm fishing an area where I think this is very likely, I tie flies accordingly (e.g. If I can help it, I won't cast a nice spun deer hair slider to a bluefish!)

The Patriot

04-17-2008, 09:47 AM

I have never mentioned a thing about standard sinking lines or sink tips as we now know them.
Jim, perhaps the situation isn’t about to be an issue in Connecticut. Then again at least we have discussed it and have had Cap’s Maine experience presented. Why not know about it?

I have to tell you I am a bit confused by people actually wanting their flies weighted or split shot added to the leader when fishing the Housatonic River FFO area as with sinking line, short leader, and a pair of nymphs I left plenty of un-weighted flies in the bottom of that river. Today I dread the thought of loosing my flies and all my hard work at the bench like that, especially when good fish can be had on top or just under the surface with caddis pupa or a variety of emerger patterns or wet flies. I am not talking large flies here simply #18 - #10 un-weighted nymphs. How do people stomach loosing flies like you must be doing? It would make me want to fish some place else with a gravel bottom.

As a side line, for years I viewed wet flies as an out dated old mode of fly fishing. I read the latest BS on fly fishing and the wet fly fishermen were viewed sort of like caveman, though it wasn’t actually said. My years of swinging Atlantic salmon flies and later adopting the things I learned in Canada to my trout fishing opened my eyes! I love all forms of fly fishing but I am addicted to the surge of a fish hammering a wet. Atlantic salmon fishing has improved my trout fishing by leaps and bounds.

Bobby,

Sorry if I misunderstood you about sinking fly lines... I interpreted "weight" to include such lines. If I was incorrect, I apologize.

Wet fly fishing is truly an art. I've never spent much time doing it, being first a dry fly guy, second a nympher, and third a streamer angler (streamers being largely a form of wet fly fishing). But when I have, either with streamers or with more "traditional" wet fly patterns... I agree... the take of a good fish on a down and across swing is exciting! It's a fun way to fish, and I wish I were better at it. It's always on my list of things to work on, and I carry an assortment of wets and soft hackles.

Wet fly fishing can be done with either floating or sinking lines.

Nymphs can be swung wet fly style.

But the only way (that I know of) to effectively fish nymphs deep, on a dead drift, on the bottom, is with a floating line and weight added to the line via split shot, or heavily weighted flies.

I don't yet tie, I buy my flies, which is actually even worse! ;) Every time I lose a fly that costs me two bucks! :eek: But I chalk that up to the nature of the beast, part of the game, the cost of going fishing.... I can't get upset every time I lose a fly, whether it is on the bottom or in a tree.... :rolleyes: ;) It just goes with the territory...

Good discussion Bobby! Nice chatting with you! :)

Jim

Kype

04-17-2008, 03:45 PM

Jim

You can continue to say I am applying weightless regulations, the very same regulations that were in existence on the Housatonic from the get go, globally all you want but I have never said that! As a matter of fact I have been specific about the historic, storied 3 miles of FFO on the Housatonic River.

I have pointed out the situation Cap has in Maine and asked him to share that here with you to shed light on the Maine experience.

My inclusion of the Salmon River situation is merely a heads up and it appears that many, like me didn’t know there was a potential change coming.

Jim, to be honest with you no one should have a difficult time catching trout in the Housatonic FFO area with un-weighted flies. It was done for a long, long time quite successfully I might add by a heck of a lot of skilled fly anglers. The reason that can be done there better than on any other river I know from Connecticut to Labrador is that the 3 miles of Housatonic River FFO area is specially configured to permit that! This is the entire point! It is a very special piece of river Jim.

There are a few pools here and there on other rivers that come close to the type of water in the Housatonic FFO area but there is no place I have found to equal it in New England or Eastern Canada. I have looked hard and long and it just isn’t there Jim! Growing up in Connecticut I didn’t realize just how good the FFO area was on the Housatonic or how lucky we were to have it or how important it really is.

Do you think that anglers out there now are not up to par with the anglers of the last generation hence they need weighted flies or shot fished slow and deep?:) Do they need shot and weight so much now that it out weighs the potential of loosing the FFO designation some time down the road?

You appear quite comfortable with ALO regulations which is OK. You are honest and I like that. Do you really believe others will be comfortable with that as well?

The bulk of large New England Rivers I fish would be poor places to impose FFO un-weighted fly regulations. Cap has wild native brook trout to protect in Maine both in streams and in ponds in which case the historic regulations are useful, as well as necessary for Atlantic salmon.

Vermont and New Hampshire rivers, my home waters, are an entirely different thing. I do not have FFO regulations of any kind here in Vermont and do not feel they would be appropriate. Again, I am not applying any regulation option GLOBALLY.

P.S. I just read some additional posts so I will tag some more on to this one. Jim, if I could have you here for a day or so in my neck of the woods I would gladly share a day of wet fly fishing with you in exchange for a day on the Farmington. I don’t know the river except for the very low end I fished last year.

Jim, it is always a pleasure to discuss things with you! You got me fired up now by golly! Good posts!

Bobby

The Patriot

04-17-2008, 04:17 PM

Hi Bobby,

I will concede that the Hous is a special place.... as is the Farmington, the Beaverkill, the Willowemoc, the branches of the Delaware... hell, the Catskills!

And I will concede that anglers can catch fish in any river on weightless flies, given the right conditions and skills.

But is that really the point? Just because it CAN be done, does that mean that it is the only way, or the best way, or the right way to do it? I can kill a turkey or a deer with a sling shot.... or a spear.... but I can also shoot a deer from a couple hundred yards with a rifle....

Let's keep this discussion entirely about the Housatonic. Forget about Maine, forget about Salmon or wild brook trout, forget about the Great Lakes Tribs.

We have heard no such rumblings or complaints or efforts by anyone in CT to change the Hous FFO area, and no such inclination has been expressed by our DEP. In fact, by and large, the DEP appears to be in most cases satisfied with the status quo. Therein lies the basis for my assertion that you are applying a situation in Maine in a broad manner, and raising the specter of losing the FFO area on the Hous in a global application of a specific situation. As I said once above, with all due respect, and I do mean that sincerely, I believe you are premature, overreacting, and alarmist. I believe you are over shooting the mark.

When and if such an issue arises on the Hous, THEN it will be time for you to sound your alarm and beat your drum. And by the way, how do spin fishermen know what methods we flyrodders are using? How do they know we use weighted flies and split shot? Just because it's not prohibited doesn't mean we're doing it. And if we stop doing it, how do they know? We have to make a law and change the regs just to prove to them we're not?

I think we are way ahead of ourselves where the Hous is concerned.

I appreciate, admire, and respect your concern and your love of the Hous and the sport. But I think you should breath easy for now, until you hear otherwise. Just because something is happening in Maine, in wild Atlantic Salmon rivers, or the Great Lakes Tribs where snagging is a huge problem, doesn't mean we'll face the same issue on the Hous. And if we do, we'll have plenty of time and opportunity to deal with it.

Regards,

Jim

Kype

04-17-2008, 09:07 PM

Jim

This is totally out of character for me to say!

I quit! You win!
I assure you I will not come beat the drum! Save a link to the discussion in the event you need it!**/

Tight Lines!

Bobby

SloNDeep

04-17-2008, 09:24 PM

...I have to tell you I am a bit confused by people actually wanting their flies weighted or split shot added to the leader when fishing the Housatonic River FFO area as with sinking line, short leader, and a pair of nymphs I left plenty of un-weighted flies in the bottom of that river. Today I dread the thought of loosing my flies and all my hard work at the bench like that, especially when good fish can be had on top or just under the surface with caddis pupa or a variety of emerger patterns or wet flies. I am not talking large flies here simply #18 - #10 un-weighted nymphs. How do people stomach loosing flies like you must be doing? It would make me want to fish some place else with a gravel bottom...

Now I understand.

You dont know how to fish with nymphs.

You may want to attend one of the many nymph clinics being offered. Alternatively, you can pick up Larry Tullis' book on nymphing.

There is no need to use weighted flies or add weight that is sufficient to dredge the streambed. You merely need to get your flies near the bottom, so they will drift more naturally. Then you will lose very few flies. It's not really complicated.

Now that you've been enlightened, you can go forth with an open mind and try some alternative, yet very sporting, methods of flyfishing. To be more sporting, you may wish to forego the indicator (bobber).

One might argue that nymphing is more sporting than fishing dries because you can not see the fish take the fly, and more sporting than fishing wets because you don't often feel the fish take the fly; if one is of the arguing variety.

Downeaster

04-18-2008, 02:05 PM

The last I knew Kype could fish nymphs with the best of them, despite what ol' Huck used to say. ;)

How've you been Kype? Long time no see! :eek:

overmywaders

04-18-2008, 03:31 PM

Jim,

If we enjoy LaBranche's "The Dry Fly and Fast Water" we understand that he was writing about fishing the Catskill rivers and others of the region. While he may have focussed on the dry fly, much of what he said was applicable to fly fishing as it was known until fairly recently; i.e., fly fishing in fast water meant bringing the fish (let's assume a trout) to take a fly at a a depth of max 10" (assuming unweighted fly, leader, and floating or intermediate line). This was a pretty sporting proposition when I was young (1960), fishing the FFO stretch of the upper Conn. in NH. There the wardens hoped you would wear bright colors so that could find your body easily if you slipped:) (well, that's what one told me, but I still went too deep. Stupid kid, me, but alive.)

So, under the definition of Fly Fishing that existed until 1992, it was necessary to coax a trout up through the water column, you couldn't get down to him. This required patience, skill, and, of course, immeasurable luck. We didn't catch as many fish then, but we earned each one.

You said, Jim:

The goal of angling is to catch fish. Method matters. But adapting to conditions and the behavior of the quarry is fundamental. Adding weight or using weighted flies or sinking lines in order to reach the fish is part of the game.

I'm not sure that I agree. If the goal is simply catching fish, then why does method matter? I suggest that method matters for the reasons stated by Howard Walden,II, in "Upstream and Down":

Sporting ethics as conceived today tolerate the killing of fish and game—in fact the kill is the core of the matter—but do not tolerate methods of killing which are inhumane or easy of accomplishment. Mere killing is not honored; skillful killing is. So in order to kill a trout or a grouse skillfully one must devise a difficult method of killing. A snap shot at a grouse in full flight, made in a split second as the bird dissolves in the November woods, is an extremely difficult way to kill that grouse. The difficulty challenges skill of a high order; the acquisition and exercise of that art are the essence of the sporting appeal of that particular kill. A big brown trout may be easy to hook with a live minnow at night but almost impossible to take with a small dry fly in broad daylight. Hence, according to the code, the latter achievement is worth ten of the former.

Your alternative of using weight to get down to the fish, instead of using skill to lure trout to the surface is, in keeping with the analogy above - and I mean no disrespect - akin to shooting a sitting bird -- very effective and efficient, but lacking many skills. I have shot a sitting spruce partridge - he was just looking at me with curiosity from an alder branch ten feet away - and he tasted no worse than any other, but somehow it seemed "cheap".

These are just my observations. I have personally been pushing for all FFO waters in NH to go ALO/single hook/single point since the introduction of weight -- it just makes sense. I would, actually, prefer a restoration of the former rules, but I am not particularly sanguine in that regard.

Best ergards,
Reed

Andrew

04-18-2008, 04:33 PM

There was a time when reels on fly rods were considered borish, because they were tools that poachers used. A gentleman angler would not use one.

Point is, if your goal is to suggest that what is proper and respectable in fly fishing is what was done "some time ago", then you still have to decide when that time is. And nothing guarantees that the person you're trying to persuade is going to choose that time period.

Many of the things we now consider "pure" and "sporting" were originally developed for much more utilitarian purposes, but we are often choosing to quote authors who came so much more recently, that even they themselves have forgotten (or never knew) this general point.

No matter what methods you use, I can imagine methods that are more sporting - at some point, I will be imagining methods that will guarantee no fish are caught.

Jim IS right - the point is to catch fish. Saying that, and that "method matters" are not mutually exclusive ideas, and to say that the goal is to catch fish is not the same thing as say that the goal is "simply" to catch fish.

Somewhere in this discussion is, buried, but hardly hidden, disagreements about the superiority of methods. Is it so hard to understand that if you try to tell somebody that the methods they use to enjoy their passions are inferior, that they will resist?

overmywaders

04-18-2008, 05:16 PM

Andrew,

There is no moral issue here. A bait fisherman enjoying his day astream and killing his fish quickly is just as much a gentleman as a "dry fly purist".

The only reason there is a debate about methods is because the state has mandated certain methods on particular waters. It should not matter to me, nor does it, how you fish so long as it is legal. There was a scientific/conservation benefit to the old FFO unweighted regs - that benefit does not exist under the FFO weighted regs, so why retain the FFO designation since it would be more inclusive (and safer) to make it ALO/Single hook/Single point.

As for how we individually wish to handicap ourselves to increase the difficulty of hooking/landing/killing fish, you may have far more restrictive ideas for your own fishing than I have for mine. But these are individual choices. I don't use a spinning rod for trout, but I love to fish with a bobber on a warm water pond, never knowing what might bite, waiting for the float to quiver.

Andrew

04-18-2008, 07:43 PM

I never suggested this was a moral issue. Superiority can me measured in many ways.

And if this debate were only about regulations, none of the words so loaded with connotations of superiority or inferiority would have been used. It's as clear as a bell that this discussion has been about more than regulations.

SloNDeep

04-18-2008, 08:21 PM

...There was a scientific/conservation benefit to the old FFO unweighted regs - that benefit does not exist under the FFO weighted regs, so why retain the FFO designation since it would be more inclusive (and safer) to make it ALO/Single hook/Single point...

2 questions:
I'm curious, what was the scientific benefit; who did the research?

I understand how ALO is more inclusive, but how would it be safer to go from FFO to ALO/Single hook/Single point?

__________________________________________________ _______________
Personally I don't really care how LaBranche or Howard Walden fished, I fish for my personal pleasure and enjoyment.

When I do get up to the Upper CT in NH, I usually do not use weighted flies, because it is such small water, I usually fish big streamers or small quill nymphs that get deep enough on their own. I have not fished it in high water, but if/when i do, I will fish weighted nymphs if they are legal, because I enjoy catching fish - I even enjoy catching lots of them when I am fortunate enough to do so. Though I understand the NH conservationists have bigger worries up there right now; Didymo has been found in the Upper CT.

overmywaders

04-18-2008, 09:00 PM

Andrew and SloNdeep,

Lots to answer.

First, the questions about conservation. That deep water and fast water was a sanctuary for trout was a logical conclusion in that the fly would, typically pass over the fish either too fast or too shallow to interest the fish. Thus, patience was required to draw the fish's attention to the surface; or, sometimes, twenty minutes of wading to get into position to safely make one cast. While I might quote LaBranche (and I don't understand anyone's objection to something, simply because it is written) and his description of bring a trout, with twenty-five casts, up to take his fly; I will not , but i will instead mention that I have invested forty casts on a trout before taking it in fast water and considered it fun and rewarding. Yes, I might have stunned it with a slinkie, but it just wouldn't have been the same :)

Lee Wulff wrote about the importance of this sanctuary, and, since he was on the NH Fish & Game Commission, he may have learned a few things about fish. He also wrote that he had been on the committee of the Federation of Fly Fishers trying to come up with a definition of "Fly fishing" and quit in disgust because they were too - I can't recall the term but it was not "bold" or "brave" - to define their own sport. Further, Lee wrote about the "most challenging" form of fly fishing was with a floating line, no weight on leader, or fly. He delineated two other "levels" of fly fishing where weight was added and the challenge diminished. BTW, the FFF finally came up with a definition (tho' they've changed it at least once):
"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."

Now, the safety aspect of spinning. A #4 Conehead Muddler moving at top speed as propelled by the force of a double-haul is, if not lethal, at least something I would not wish to encounter my head. Obviously opinions differ. Nevertheless, a Zonker, Conehead, or Clouser can be cast safely and easily with a spinning outfit; why anyone would attempt it with a system designed to deliver an unweighted fly...(supply appropriate emoticon for headscratching).

Andrew

04-18-2008, 09:50 PM

Well, since I know I'm not spin fishing, and, apparently, I'm not fly fishing, just tell me what it is called, please.

Downeaster

04-18-2008, 10:17 PM

It's just fishin...

WhipFish

04-19-2008, 03:35 AM

AMS;)...it's still called fly fishing. While some may think that it's only FF when you are using patterns that are the size and weight of the actual insect or bait, others may say that it is FF based on the way you have to land the fish. You still have to use a fly rod and reel. You don't, all of a sudden, get the luxury of reeling it in at the speed of sound like spinfishers do. So when I add lead wire and dumbell eyes to my wooly bugger I'm no longer FFing? That's BS. Does the name of my equipment also change in the process? If so, good, maybe I will get a refund on the price. It's like a Harley guy telling me I'm not a true biker because I ride a Triumph.

If the FFO section of the Housy were to become weightless then why would we even bother to fish it in July and August? I don't know about the rest of you, but I camp up there every summer and we pull 50 smallmouths out a day...each...and we celebrate if any one of us nabs a trout. (And our gear is weighted.) So when would this weightless season fall? Somewhere between endless debate and ARGGHHHHHH?!

Trout season starts today. Let this disagreement/debate end. Enough have been riled by it and nothing will come from it. Instead, put the energy into fellowship on the water with other anglers and helping to keep our rivers clean. Give advice, share a fly, help those who are new or struggling, clean up the mess (even if you didn't make it), and leave with a smile.

I'll see you out there. Good season everyone...Whip

The Patriot

04-19-2008, 07:56 AM

Great post Whipfish! Well said.

But just for the record and speaking only for myself, I am not at all riled up or angry at anyone. This is merely an exchange of some opposing points of view and perspectives. An intellectual disagreement. And everyone has been quite civil. (Although some of the sarcasm could be dialed down a notch by some participants.... nuff sed... )

Not to keep this going, because I happen to agree with Whipfish... but.... there a just a few comments I feel I need to make in reply to some posts. (I wasn't on the board at all Thursday evening and was out fishing all day Friday, so this is my first opportunity to see them...)

Kype...

I hope you're not offended in any way.... I'm not trying to "win"... I didn't think this was a matter of "winning" or "losing". I thought we were having a discussion. Not a contest.

The Patriot

04-19-2008, 07:56 AM

Reed,

An excellent post! But there is much within your post to which I must reply....

How you or anyone else chooses to handicap themselves (or not), within the realm of fly fishing, or any other legal method for that matter, does not concern me. What concerns me is efforts by some of you to impose such a handicap on everyone by regulation, by outlawing the use of weight on FFO areas, absent a bonfide conservation issue, as is the case on salmon and brook trout waters.

Now I know how spin fishermen feel about FFO areas! And how bait fishermen feel about ALO areas...

However, we have many ALO areas and many FFO areas. It is what it is. The argument against restricting the use of bait is not one of sportsmanship, or handicapping by restricting a method (bait) which is "easy", or "easier", or "too easy" to be sporting....rather, it is one of reducing angling mortality. Hence we get ALO regulations.

FFO areas are not, in my humble opinion, designed to reduce angling morality, or designed to restrict spin fishing on the basis of angling moraltiy, nor on the basis of sportsmanship. Rather, they are designed on a sociological basis of providing an area where a minority (fly fishermen) do not have to compete with a majority (spin fishermen) for water. I think this is especially true due to the fact that fly fishermen need space to cast, and spin fishermen can cover alot of water, so the two can be difficult to practice in close proximity. In the unique case of wild salmon and brook trout waters, which are not stocked and are delicate ecosystems, we can take FFO a step further and limit angling to weightless FFO. But in rivers like the Hous, which are stocked, that level of protection is unnecessary.

So ALO areas are based on an effort to protect the fish from angling mortality due to bait fishing in no kill areas, so there are more fish for everyone to catch. And FFO areas are sociologically based, except in certain cases, where weightless FFO goes even further to protect fish by further reducing the catch rate.

That said, I recognize the value of weightless FFO for wild Atlantic Salmon or wild brook trout.... it reduces the catch rate, and thereby reduces angling mortality. So in those cases, I understand the basis for such restrictions.

But in CT, I don't believe our FFO areas were conceived for that reason. Kype has been very concerned about the Housatonic FFO area. I think his concerns are without basis. Just because this has become an issue in Maine, doesn't mean it will become one in CT. And were it to become an issue, there is nothing to suggest it would gain any traction.

Reed, LaBranche wrote of fly fishing without the use of weighted flies or added weight. For those who wish to practice that method by choice, I say Kudos! That is your choice, and I respect it! My chief objection to the assertions made by Bobby and others in this and other discussions is where we take that choice away from other anglers... guys like my friends Dave and Steve, who are accomplished nymph anglers. What LaBranche was addressing was the angler who restricted himself by CHOICE... I don't believe he was advocating for such regulation of the sport by the government.

And for anyone who thinks nymphing is like bait fishing, that it is too easy, and not a challenge, and doesn't require any "skill", that just because you add weight and can get your fly down to the fish and don't have to "coax him up through the water column", I say... again, Kudos! You must be one hell of a nymph fisherman! Much better than I! Because Flyrodder and I pounded the water all afternoon yesterday with nymphs and never even got one hit!

Nymphing the bottom with added weight and/or weighted flies, with or without an indicator is one of the most challenging aspects of fly fishing I have attempted! Much moreso than dry fly fishing, where one sees the location of the fish, has an approximate idea of what he's eating, and sees the take! And moreso than streamer or wet fly fishing, where the angler is using a tight line, and a retrieve, like a spin fisherman retrieving a lure, and the take is easily felt and the fish practically hooks himself!

So the issue here, Reed et al, is not which method is more or less sporting.... that is a purely personal and highly subjective matter. No, the issue here my friends is at what point and for what reason do we LEGISLATE or REGULATE which methods of fishing are or are not sporting, ethical, or allowable. Anyone who doesn't want to use weight, doesn't have to. For the rest of us who wish to master deep nymphing, we object to your attempts to restrict that practice based upon your personal and subjective definitions of what is and is not sporting...

(Again, now I know how bait fishermen feel.... but I still feel that bait should be restricted from no kills, because fish eat -- that is swallow-- food, but they don't eat or swallow artificials-- typically....)

What we have here gentlemen is many shades of gray... we ban bait because fish swallow it and suffer greater angling mortality, so we restrict that in waters designated as catch and release areas. We ban spin fishing in small areas to provide a minority of anglers with a place of their own (a practice which I do not support.) And we go a step further and restrict angling to weightless FFO in wild salmon and brook trout water because we recognize the impact of angling mortality and doing so reduces the catch rate.

What we cannot do, I think, is attempt to apply a one size fits all mentality. What is wise in catch and release areas (ALO) may not be wise in open water. What's wise in FFO areas (more as a matter of tradition and past practice than anything else) may not be wise in all catch and release areas or ALO areas.

And what is wise in wild salmon and brook trout fisheries may not be wise for other FFO areas such as the Housatonic. Like I said, I don't think we can apply this weightless FFO ethos broadly, globally, across the board. And I think many fly fishermen who fish the Hous, and use weight and weighted flies, would be loathe to restrict that practice, just so they could have an area for FFO, if it meant they could no longer fish with weight.

What good does it do us to keep spin anglers out if we can no longer fish the way we want to? That sounds like cutting off my nose to spite my face to me....

The Patriot

04-19-2008, 07:57 AM

Reed,

As to my assertion that the purpose of angling is to catch fish, while simultaneously asserting that method matters... as Andrew said, the two are not at all mutually exclusive.

The purpose of angling is to catch fish... by using one's preferred method! It is not simply to catch the largest number of fish possible, for if it were, we would all surely use live bait.

Rather, it to catch the fish, by a specific method. Including dry fly fishing, weightless fly fishing, nymphing, streamer fishing with sinking lines, or floating lines.... it is the mastery of a particular method in which we revel, whatever that method may be... including bait fishing or lure fishing.

One of my expressions is "It's not how many fish I catch, it's how I catch many fish." Yesterday I started out streamer fishing, and did pretty well. Then I switched to dry flies, and had some action, but only one solid hook up, which I dropped. Then I switched to nymphing with split shot and an indicator, and got nothing! I wish to master each variation of fly fishing, including using weight or weighted flies. I find it challenging. I do not consider it more or less sporting than other methods of fly fishing.

If others feel differently, fine. To each his own. If you choose to limit yourself to weightless fly fishing, and find that the most challenging and rewarding method, then by all means, carry on! But please do not seek to impose that on the rest of us by regulation, absent a bonafide basis for such restriction, such as the protection and conservation of wild Atlantic salmon or wild brook trout. And please don't look down your nose at those of us who choose to use weight or weighted flies, and try to assert that yours is a more sporting method because you have to coax the fish up to the fly.

It's bad enough that the angling community is divided along fly fishing versus spin fishing/bait fishing lines..... now we're going to divide the fly fishing community along weight or weightless lines? Gimme a break!

There is certainly a tone of elitism in the posts from those of you who advocate or subscribe to the weightless fly fishing school. It may not be your intention, but you present it as a higher minded, more sporting method, and it is very off putting and troubling, even to me, who actually hates nymphing... I only do it because I have to at certain times.... and would much rather be dry fly fishing.

How would you feel if we asserted that dry fly fishing is the "purest" form of fly fishing, and that subsurface flies should be banned? No wet flies, no streamers, only dry flies.

As to Walden:

"Sporting ethics as conceived today tolerate the killing of fish and game—in fact the kill is the core of the matter—but do not tolerate methods of killing which are inhumane or easy of accomplishment. Mere killing is not honored; skillful killing is. So in order to kill a trout or a grouse skillfully one must devise a difficult method of killing. A snap shot at a grouse in full flight, made in a split second as the bird dissolves in the November woods, is an extremely difficult way to kill that grouse. The difficulty challenges skill of a high order; the acquisition and exercise of that art are the essence of the sporting appeal of that particular kill. A big brown trout may be easy to hook with a live minnow at night but almost impossible to take with a small dry fly in broad daylight. Hence, according to the code, the latter achievement is worth ten of the former."

Are you therefore asserting that using weight or weighted flies is "inhumane or easy of accomplishment."? Are you therefore asserting that nymphing with split shot or weighted flies is too easy, or not difficult enough? Are you therefore asserting that the use of weight or weighted flies is less difficult than weightless fly fishing? That nymping does not require any skill, or not as much skill as fishing weightless? That catching a big brown with a weighted nymph is easy, or is less difficult than taking him with a small dry fly in broad daylight, and that fishing a weighted nymph is akin to fishing with a live minnow at night? Are you asserting that catching a big brown on a small dry fly is worth ten caught on a weighted nymph?

Cuz if that is what you are saying.....

I AGREE!! I hate nymphing, I catch alot more fish on dry flies! I always tell Dave that my fish caught on dries are worth ten of his caught on nymphs! :D

I am of course being facetious and self deprecating here... Dave and I do kid each other like that... and you know what he says? He says that any fish caught on dry flies are NEGATIVE fish... that they count AGAINST the number of fish he caught on nymphs! ;) :D So if he got 12 on nymphs and two on dries, he really only caught 10.. ;) :D

In all seriousness though.... I find catching fish on dry flies much easier than catching them on nymphs. Therefore, I think nymph fishing with weight is much more challenging and much more difficult than dry fly fishing, and if you used Walden's paradigm, then I must reach the opposite conclusion as him. That fish caught on weighted nymphs are worth ten caught on dry flies.

So you see, this becomes highly subjective and a matter of personal opinion, and perhaps, personal experience. If one is a proficient dry fly fishermen, but not as much so with weighted flies, then he places more value on the fish he catches on his weaker game than on his stronger game. But if he has been highly successful with weighted flies, then he may place more value on those he catches on dries.

And I strongly disagree with your assertion, Reed, that nymphing with weight is like shooting a sitting bird. Either you've never mastered nymphing with weight, or you are so scary good at it, that you just don't find it challenging. I continue to struggle with nymphing, and find it very challenging, whereas I find dry fly fishing fairly simple. But I still love dry fly fishing, because I love following and matching the hatch, stalking the fish, solving the problems of drift and presentation, seeing the take, and playing the fish. I find all methods of fly fishing present their own challenges, and are all rewarding.

I've also noticed that many people who eschew weighted nymph fishing are often times not proficient at it, have never mastered it. I'm not suggesting that applies to Kype or any of you in his camp on this issue... but I have talked to many anglers who have had the same experience I have had with nymphing... some of whom have just given up altogether. And they are usually the ones who compare nymph fishing to bait fishing, look down their nose at it, and poo poo it as an inferior way to catch fish when compared with dry fly fishing. More often than not, I find that it is a case of sour grapes, because they are just not good at it and don't like the fact that others are.

And those are usually the guys I see standing around on the bank, waiting for fish to rise, rather than go out and fish the water till they do. Not that there's anything WRONG with that.... I used to be one of them... and sometimes still am.... and that is a choice we are all free to make.

Just like we should all be free to choose whether or not to use weight or weighted flies. (Wild Atlantic Salmon and Wild Brook Trout streams notwithstanding.... )

;) :)

Andrew

04-19-2008, 07:57 AM

Give advice, share a fly...

I would, but apparently I don't own any flies....just lures! ;)

Of course, you're correct, as is everybody who had the good sense to go fishing and ignore this thread.

Today I make this abstinence pledge: I will no longer engage in pointless debates about the "true" nature of fly fishing. If I do, may Izaak Walton rise from the grave, throw off my loops, and impale the back of my head with a size 2/0 Clouser minnow.

Andrew

The Patriot

04-19-2008, 08:28 AM

Your alternative of using weight to get down to the fish, instead of using skill to lure trout to the surface is, in keeping with the analogy above - and I mean no disrespect - akin to shooting a sitting bird -- very effective and efficient, but lacking many skills. I have shot a sitting spruce partridge - he was just looking at me with curiosity from an alder branch ten feet away - and he tasted no worse than any other, but somehow it seemed "cheap".

Herein lies the entire crux of the disagreement. And herein lies the message of elitism and snobbery to which those of us here object and take exception.

You are saying, in so many words, that nymphing with weight does not require any skill (or enough skill) and is not a challenge at all... that it is in fact a simple matter to go out and pound up a bunch of fish with weighted flies.

"Akin to shooting a sitting bird."

Indeed!

"Very effective and efficient, but lacking many skills."

Indeed!

That has not been my experience with nymphing at all! I strongly disagree with these assertions.

If this has been your experience with weighted flies, Mazeltov! ;)

For now, I continue to struggle with nymphing. If I were to use your own standards for determining what is and is not sporting, challenging, or rewarding, then I must give up dry fly fishing altogether and devote myself wholly to fishing weighted nymphs. Because catching trout on a dry fly is a simple matter, but catching him off the bottom requires many skills which I am sorely lacking.

Each method of angling requires different skills. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves which of those skills are the most difficult, or most valuable. And none of us are in any position to pass value judgements on others.

The Patriot

04-19-2008, 08:52 AM

And one final thought about this notion of "coaxing him off the bottom through the water column to take your weightless fly... "

I think many of you think far too much of yourselves... ;)

Fish are where you find them.... trout are usually up or down, very rarely somewhere in the middle.

I suggest that more often than not, if you've hammered the same spot with 40 casts and finally hooked a fish, it is probably more a matter of a new fish moving into that area, or a fish there that finally got hungry and was looking for an easy meal, than you dancing your flies in such an enticing manner, that the fish could no longer possibly resist your offering, a product or result of your superior angling skills and ability. :rolleyes:

But if it makes you feel good to pound your chest like Zeus and consider yourself a masterful angler who accomplished the near impossible with a weightless fly... knock yourself out... ;) :D

overmywaders

04-19-2008, 09:42 AM

Andrew,

Great news! Now that you understand that, according to the FFF and others, you are not fly fishing, perhaps you will want to try fly fishing, or if not, at least enjoy your current method and work to change FFO waters to ALO.

I don't know anyone who wants your lures, but if some are not just solid epoxy, the materials might be stripped and used on flies. Or as I believe cap mentioned, the ME state record rainbow last year was caught on a White Zonker by a very capable fisherman using a spinning rod. We shouldn't look down on his way of fishing, as if one way is superior to another. (Where have I heard that before.)

Happy fishing, whatever it may be. I hope you catch your (personal) limit and that they are tasty.

Kype

04-19-2008, 09:45 AM

Jim

"Kype...

I hope you're not offended in any way.... I'm not trying to "win"... I didn't think this was a matter of "winning" or "losing". I thought we were having a discussion. Not a contest."

What can I say Jim?
I am not offended by you I simply think my point has not come across regarding the Housatonic FFO area. You may be correct and it will not be challenged and life is good there! Since it is apparent to me that my perspective is not being embraced despite my efforts to anchor the point specifically to the Housatonic River FFO area, a special piece of water which is perfect for the scope of fly fishing it originally was set aside for; I think it is time for me to let it go. You are a good debater and I enjoy the give and take but my concern for the FFO area isn't something I wish to debate. I want to ensure it survives for future generations.

Bobby

overmywaders

04-19-2008, 10:10 AM

The Patriot,

You said:

I think many of you think far too much of yourselves...
But if it makes you feel good to pound your chest like Zeus and consider yourself a masterful angler who accomplished the near impossible with a weightless fly... knock yourself out...

While you did not address the comments above to me, I want you to know I fully concur with your sentiments. If you had ever read anything I had written, the documentation is clear that I am not a masterful angler... and I can't pound my chest without setting off my pacemaker:)

Do I think too much of myself? Probably, in many ways. Oh, I don't proclaim myself as "The Patriot", that would be an arrogance bordering on the ridiculous.

However, like you I have my ways of fishing and I enjoy them. That is what it is all about. As for the public policy issue of FFO waters, time will tell. At least the DEC is taking one small step forward.

The Patriot

04-19-2008, 10:28 AM

:D

Reed,

Good reply! ;) Touche!

Just to clarify, I use "The Patriot" as my screen name after the movie starring Mel Gibson. If you have seen the movie, you know that Gibson played the titular role, "The Patriot", the protagonist. The story takes place during the American Revolution. The villian is a certain Major in the British "Green Dragoon" a vicious, bloodthirsty cavalry regiment of "special forces".

Last fall, we were discussing and debating the proposal to change the regulations on the Farmington River. I was in opposition to changing the creel in half the river to 5 9 inch fish. Others supported that change, because they wanted a mile and a half increase in the no kill, and that was the compromise the DEP and the FRAA came up with.

At that time my screen name was "3weight", after my favorite trout rod, my 3weight DRY FLY rod. ;)

A new member joined the forum and supported the FRAA/DEP compromise and the five fish 9inch creel limit. His screen name was "Green Dragoon".

So I changed my screen name to "The Patriot", who in the end of the movie skewers the villainous "Green Dragoon." :D

So that and that alone is the basis for my screen name, not any "arrogance bordering on the ridiculous." ;)

So now you know the story behind my screen name... :)

Oh, and by the way, in the end, we convinced the DEP to come up with another proposal... one that preserved the 2 fish 12 inch creel limit throughout the river, and still gained the mile and a half expansion in the no kill.... so "The Patriot" once again skewered the "Green Dragoon"...( who as it turned out was a friend of mine all along.)

Hence my "signature", the quote from Mark Twain at the bottom of all my posts. :D I was a very controversial and polarizing figure, "hated and scorned", but possessed of the bravery of my convictions during that debate, and in the end prevailed. Then, the "timid" were won over to my cause... ;)

Peace my friend,

Jim