Remembering a Time... The Start!

[Roe Bags]

Pat you may want to check a post from way back. " Friends of the Cowichan want you off their river" , I believe you linked the article. Its no secret what the agenda is of " the friends of the Cowichan". It is well documented. Dave asked if there were any user groups out there that had lobbied for "fly fishing only" and I gave him an example. He has now asked if this was for their personal agenda or a conservation measure. My personal opinion is it is a personal agenda hidden behind a so called conservation measure. Is there a bunch of hard data out there showing "fly fishing only sections" have helped save or increase fish stocks? Nope, maybe why some of these restrictions are being lifted. Wonder why there not being lifted on the rivers with the certain " groups" we are talking about? Probably just a coincidence.....

 

[Dave H]

I already stated my post was my own personal opinion, and I stand by what I said. You're calling me out and going over my post with a magnifying glass as if I've personally attacked you or a particular flyfishing club or something?? I couldn't even name a group let alone a person lol, so you clearly need to relax. Sorry, maybe I should have said certain "individuals" instead of "groups", then maybe you wouldn't be so worked up.

If me saying that fly only water was put in place to remove competition is so stupid and assinine, then why was it done? And how come it's all of a sudden being removed on rivers like the Englishman and Little Q. I honestly want to know? There must have been a reason to go fly only on these locations?? I hope the decision was based on science, but I'm skeptical.

Sorry about it seeming like I'm calling you out but it WAS you who posted your claims in the first place.
I'm well aware you weren't attacking me personally but you did make unsubstantiated claims against some un-named group as if they were somehow a problem for you.
Is having a few flyfishing only sections on a few rivers really that hard for you to endure? And I don't recall the Englishman having any flyfishing only rule but then I don't fish down that way.
I do note that a few areas have flyfishing only for a couple of months a year but then it changes to artificial fly only to accomodate other gear users.

And your assertions that flyfishing only was instituted to remove competition from a river doesn't pass above the "stupid and assinine" level no matter how many times you claim it.

Reducing the effectiveness of anglers while still allowing angling on a river is better than having it closed altogether and actually keeps nobody off the river save those who would rather whine about something than learn how to do it. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere flyfishing has evolved a lot and can be effective at times, but will never be as effective as bait, particularly for steelhead.

You should know I'm at an age where I've pretty well seen it all and heard it all when it comes to this "debate" and am well aware of Joe Saysell, Bob Hooton and any number of other guys who favor keeping rivers open to angling but restricting the effectiveness of anglers so as to reduce the impact on the target fish.

As to "science"..........

Here's a small sampling of science done throughout a number of years comparing mortality rates between bait caught fish and fly caught fish, even though it's not really a bait versus fly debate we're having. It's all about conservation via lessening multiple hooking damage to highly sought after fish.


1) “The results of 18 studies of hooking mortality of nonanadromous trout were integrated with meta-analysis. Studies were coded for all variables suspected of having a relationship to rates of hooking mortality. The analysis showed that trout caught on bait died at higher rates than trout caught on artificial flies or lures. . . and that wild trout died at higher rates than hatchery-reared trout.” – North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, 1992.

2) “Mortality of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss caught and released by anglers using number 8 worm-baited hooks was investigated during 1990–1991 at the Hagerman (Idaho) State Fish Hatchery and within a 2-km segment of Badger Creek, Idaho . . . 17 percent of 281 wild rainbow trout on Badger Creek were hooked in the gills or esophagus. Overall, hooking mortality was estimated to be 16% for wild rainbow trout.” – North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Volume 16, Issue 2, 1996.

3) “The most thorough of . . . hooking mortality tests was conducted in Michigan by Shetter and Allison (1955). They concluded that ‘hooking mortality from worm fishing is significantly higher than the hooking mortality resulting from the use of artificial flies. Approximately 42 percent of all the trout caught on worms died soon after their release, but only 3 percent of those caught on artificial flies died after being hooked and released.’” – The Progressive Fish-Culturist, Volume 29, Issue 2, 1967.

4) “The post-release mortality of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss caught on scented artificial baits was compared with postrelease mortalities of rainbow trout caught on traditional artificial flies. In all, 457 fish were captured on flies, 505 on artificial baits fished actively (ABA), and 511 on artificial baits fished passively (ABP). . . Overall mortalities were 3.9% for fly-caught fish, 21.6% for fish caught on ABA, and 32.1 % for fish caught on ABP.” – North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 16, Issue 3, 1996.



5) “A summary of selected literature shows that hooking mortality of trout is variable depending on hooking location, hooking duration, fish size, and water temperature. Mortalities can vary from zero to 32%. Certain points are clear however: Trout caught on bait die at higher rates (up to 32%) than those caught on artificial flies or lures.” – NSW Fisheries Research Report Series: 9, January 2004.



6) “Analysis showed that trout caught on bait died at higher rates (31.4%) than trout caught on artificial flies (4.9%) or lures (3.8%).” - Taylor & White (1992).


7) “Comparing the use of flies and bait fishing the study found that fishing with flies caused 3.9% mortality, artificial baits fished actively caused 21.6% mortality and artificial baits fished passively caused 32.1% mortality for rainbow trout.” – Schisler & Bergersen (1996)




And I think Hooton retired like six years ago after some 37 years as a steelhead Biologist so I'm thinking he might be slightly more knowledgeable than either you or I are regarding such things too.



Take care.

 

[Roe Bags]

Lots of good articles on bait mortality but I thought we were lifting the fly fishing only sections not lifting bait bans..lol While were at it can we lift the jet boat bans? I'd love to get back into the circus pool....jk Dave those days are long gone...

 

[Sculpin]

Lots of good articles on bait mortality but I thought we were lifting the fly fishing only sections not lifting bait bans..lol While were at it can we lift the jet boat bans? I'd love to get back into the circus pool....jk Dave those days are long gone...

Great post and thank you .

All of Daves reports were from American resources. I found that quite interesting. Why not post up British Columbian reports?

 

[ElBee]

Derby,

Awesome video with a great message.



Dave H,

Please, if you are going to copy and paste someone else's work, provide a reference, link or citation. That is unless you are Mark Hume.

The suggestion that the issue is strictly about conservation, is disingenuous or naive.

To suggest that the issue is entirely one of bait vs fly is also very much off topic and lends little justification for FFO as many hardware chuckers use similar size hooks to flyfishermen.

Perhaps you can copy and paste an article which delineates differences in mortality between fish captured on 1/0 single barbless spinners and 1/0 single barbless flies.

The issue is not one of conservation, but one of exclusivity. One need not permit the use of bait, barbs or trebles for conservation purposes, while permitting all other methods.

Unless of course the real issue is certain people/groups dont want other groups of people on their river.

 

[Sharphooks]

Derby,

Awesome video with a great message.



Dave H,

Please, if you are going to copy and paste someone else's work, provide a reference, link or citation. That is unless you are Mark Hume.

The suggestion that the issue is strictly about conservation, is disingenuous or naive.

To suggest that the issue is entirely one of bait vs fly is also very much off topic and lends little justification for FFO as many hardware chuckers use similar size hooks to flyfishermen.

Perhaps you can copy and paste an article which delineates differences in mortality between fish captured on 1/0 single barbless spinners and 1/0 single barbless flies.

The issue is not one of conservation, but one of exclusivity. One need not permit the use of bait, barbs or trebles for conservation purposes, while permitting all other methods.

Unless of course the real issue is certain people/groups dont want other groups of people on their river.

^^^^^^
this!

I've fished both trout and steelhead all my life mostly as a fly fisherman.

Not because I thought there was some supreme hierarchical significance associated with that method or because it gave me some kind of bragging rights---it was simply because I found it an effective way to catch fish under most conditions and it wasn't as gear intensive as some of the other methods available to me. And I liked the idea of not having to rupture a disk coming back on a snag the way gear guys sometimes have to do when fishing steelhead

I started fishing one of the big Fraser tribs for steelhead in the early 80's. As a fly fishermen, I stuck out like a sore thumb---there just weren't a lot of guys doing it. The bait guys would ALWAYS be gracious to me, share their spots with them, help me out. They were basically a generous lot who didn't think I was a threat to their methods or their historical interaction with that river.

Now every year it gets thicker and thicker with "spey" guys, a good portion of them carrying attitudes around big enough to fit in a steamer trunk. In my humble opinion, the whole experience of that river seems to have gone down a rat hole with the new "spey" dynamic---they gang up in holes and try to dominate water. They give you stink-eye if they come over a bluff and find you in "their" hole. And for some of them, their idea of getting "low holed" is when a bait fisherman steps in the hole 100 yards downstream from them....it's goofiness on steroids.

I was just there a few days ago---already packed with the spey guys. A friend of mine who lives on the banks of that river said..common, let's go wet a line, MOE opened the river!

I checked out the building gong show and said no, I'm good, and packed up and went home. Not a super silex to be seen anywhere on the river. Sad.

Fact: Over the years I have killed multiple fish on flies, some when a river was strictly C&R, some on a river back in the days when you could kill. But the important point is this: I had ZERO intention of killing these fish. They died because I'd nicked a gill filament with my fly. I killed several big bucks---watched them bleed to death in back eddies. One barbless 1/0 hook and that was that.

A few years ago I wrote a detailed piece in this Forum about how I killed a 12 pound doe in that same Fraser Trib. It was back in the day when you could kill, but I had ZERO intention of killing anything that day, especially a big doe

How'd I kill it?

I'm one of those guys who likes to wear handicaps when fishing, especially after a run of good luck. I like to back off, do something a bit different, maybe something a bit more challenging. It's the only way you learn new shiat as a fisherman

So I'd hooked a few fish that day on wet flies and thought I'd put my handicaps on. I got out a 9 foot bamboo LL Bean trout rod for a No. 5 line. My Godfather had given me the rod when I was 7 years ole. Not quite the right piece of artillery for this river but it was a beauty.

I tied on a little tiny dry fly and started working from the bottom of a hole going upstream, the way a chalk stream Brit would go after a leader shy brown trout

Now fishing an upstream dry is hard enough, but I was doing it while wading on boulders slick as snot, up to my chest, stripping the line back in to achieve that ultimate "drag free" drift. This was work!! But wow, was this ever hierarchical significance on the fishing totem pole as far as difficulty was concerned.... Ya sure, you betcha!

No way I'd hook anything, I was thinking--- no way---steelhead want to see the big "V" of a riffle-hitched fly going across the top before they'd respond...

Long story short, a big doe came up off the bottom and slurped my drag-free dry fly off the top. The take was a soft sucking sound and a gentle perturbation of the water, not the explosive boil you get dragging a greased up fly across the top, but she took the fly with fierce determination.

I beached a beautiful doe. I was high as a kite. Wow, what a cool feeling---a big doe on an upstream dry! But what was this? Blood? There was blood gushing out of her gills---wtf? She'd sucked the fly in so deep it ripped across one of her branchiostegals and that was all she wrote. Wow, I'd just stomped on 10,000 potential steelhead fry with a freaking dry fly!



Don't let anyone kid you that fly fishing somehow leaves less of an impact on any given lake or river fishery. Is it somehow more difficult to catch fish with this method? No, it is not. Give me reasonable conditions and I'll show you that it can be just as effective as gear. In some conditions, I'll show you it can be WAY more effective, especially for summer and fall run steel.

Yes, the spey guys will rub "data" in your face to make it seem to the contrary but if you strip away the puffery, it's a disingenuous argument wrapped up in an ulterior motive---they are trying to create exclusive water for themselves. It's a resource grab, plain and simple. Tragedy of the Commons brined in single malt scotch....


I shudder to think of that Fraser trib going fly-only. But you can bet they're trying. They got bait this year---I do support the bait ban, mainly because the bait guys really beat up on the rainbow populations in that river while they're chasing steel. Don't ask me for data to back up this comment--I've fished that river for three decades and every season I witness it. There's a whole stretch of river where the rainbow are pretty much gone, and it's not because somehow there's less available food in that stretch--it just happens to be in the most productive area for steelhead, and that's where the fishermen have beat on them for years


But to go strictly fly ("spey??) only?

No way!!!!

I fished the Dee once in Scotland. There was a measuring stick in the river. On the stick was a red line. The deal was: when the river height was above the red line, use what ever you have in your vest---spoons, devon minnows, worms, flies--- no problem

When the river height was below the red line: NO WORMS

Sounded pretty logical to me

 

[finaddict]

Great post and thank you .

All of Daves reports were from American resources. I found that quite interesting. Why not post up British Columbian reports?

Because there is only one from Bob Hooten. Dave has quoted all of these American studies many times in the past. A lot of these studies were for fresh water rainbow trout in lake conditions.

Dave is right though, FFO DOES contribute to conservation. It accomplishes this by removing a very large sector of the fishing community from the water. This is what allows Fly Fishing proponents to promote their cause with a clear conscience. so where do the hearts of the FFO crowd lie? Are they doing this for the good of the fish, or for their own self directed interests? All i know is that whenever a river has a FFO section, I purposely pick up the fly gear and fish there.

 

[Dave H]

Because there is only one from Bob Hooten (speaking of agendas to make all BC steelhead rivers FFO......) Dave has quoted all of these American studies many times in the past. A lot of these studies were for fresh water rainbow trout in lake conditions.

Dave is right though, FFO DOES contribute to conservation. It accomplishes this by removing a very large sector of the fishing community from the water. This is what allows Fly Fishing proponents to promote their cause with a clear conscience. so where do the hearts of the FFO crowd lie? Are they doing this for the good of the fish, or for their own self directed interests? All i know is that whenever a river has a FFO section, I purposely pick up the fly gear and fish there.

Funny eh??

I have never quoted any of those American studies in the past that I can recall although I must confess I may not be able to recall everything I've ever posted during the past 15 years or so. And the simple reason I used them is because I stumbled on them and used them in response to the "no science" claims coming from the anti-fly side regarding the conservation benefits of fly only areas.
The other obvious reason they are American studies is because our Provincial government has rarely allowed the funding for much science over the years and certainly very little over recent years.
Death by a thousand cuts.

Here, read it from the horse's mouth.

http://ariverneversleeps.com/steelhead-mismanagement/


And for goodness sakes, can none of you spell Bob's name correctly??

It's Hooton, and he certainly has advocated any number of things to help conserve steelhead, including the use of regulations and tackle restrictions, mostly arising from his Skeena times I suspect. Not sure I've ever heard him advocate FFO on all rivers in BC though.
Not another one of your strawman concoctions is it??

And I'm glad you purposely pick up fly gear and fish flyfishing only waters, because that's what they are there for and as I've noted before it removes nobody from fishing any waters save those who simply cannot bring themselves to fish that way or have some imaginary plot they must fight against.

Your anecdotes are all related to summer-run steelhead as far as flies being as effective as anything else goes and don't relate to our rivers and winter-run steelhead, and I also have killed a steelhead caught on a fly when the fly got into its gills.
So what??

Fishing is a blood sport and nobody has ever claimed that fish somehow don't get damaged when caught on flies.
That's just another concoction from the gear guys side.

Most of your concerns seem based on your personal observations on the Thompson regarding the spey guys and all that and as I don't fish the Thompson I can't rebut anything about that nor do I care.

And for the record, I personally haven't advocated for flyfishing only on any river anywhere at anytime.

I was and am definitely against the use of bait on wild steelhead rivers though, no doubt about that.

I would prefer to see an artificial fly only reg. used rather than flyfishing only in several cases, just so the gear guys can fish without whining.

And wool flies tied on a hook and fished under a float have been rumoured to catch a few steelhead now and then, so there ya go.





Take care.

 

[Dave H]

Derby,

Awesome video with a great message.



Dave H,

Please, if you are going to copy and paste someone else's work, provide a reference, link or citation. That is unless you are Mark Hume.

The suggestion that the issue is strictly about conservation, is disingenuous or naive.

To suggest that the issue is entirely one of bait vs fly is also very much off topic and lends little justification for FFO as many hardware chuckers use similar size hooks to flyfishermen.

Perhaps you can copy and paste an article which delineates differences in mortality between fish captured on 1/0 single barbless spinners and 1/0 single barbless flies.

The issue is not one of conservation, but one of exclusivity. One need not permit the use of bait, barbs or trebles for conservation purposes, while permitting all other methods.

Unless of course the real issue is certain people/groups dont want other groups of people on their river.

Right you are regarding my error in not crediting Mark Hume for compiling the list, my bad.

But you'd be better off not suggesting I'm being disingenuous or naive, given my history and all that.

I find that insulting and ignorant, particularly coming from someone with seven posts who just registered.

Your imaginary concoction of this issue being "one of exclusivity" plus your other rather mangled attempts at making a point need some polish also.

Try proof-reading before you post.


Take care.

 

[Hyde-N-Seek]

Sharphooks, very well thought out post. I do agreed it's sad to not see much super silex on that special river.
Totaly agreed on bait ban though.

Years ago, I remembered a gentelman from the state that religiously fished the T yearly with a 13 foot sage blank. You don't happen to be him?

Haven't been back to the T for a few years now but she sure is special.

 

[finaddict]

Funny eh??

I have never quoted any of those American studies in the past that I can recall although I must confess I may not be able to recall everything I've ever posted during the past 15 years or so. And the simple reason I used them is because I stumbled on them and used them in response to the "no science" claims coming from the anti-fly side regarding the conservation benefits of fly only areas.

So you used these studies even though you now reveal that lake caught rainbow trout studies really do not pertain to fly only regulations on flows? Not very endearing to your case Dave. You come on like gangbusters and "Crap" all over everyone demanding they name names and then spout off all kinds of scientific studies, and then admit that they really have nothing to do with your original case? I have expected (and received) better from you in the past. ;-)

The other obvious reason they are American studies is because our Provincial government has rarely allowed the funding for much science over the years and certainly very little over recent years.
Death by a thousand cuts.

Here, read it from the horse's mouth.

http://ariverneversleeps.com/steelhead-mismanagement/


And for goodness sakes, can none of you spell Bob's name correctly??

Probably should let you know again that criticizing spelling on a forum is considered very bad form. Having said that, I normally am a stickler for correct spelling and pronunciation. I can assure you that I will spell Mr. Hooton's last name correctly from now on.

It's Hooton,

yep got it.

And I'm glad you purposely pick up fly gear and fish flyfishing only waters, because that's what they are there for and as I've noted before it removes nobody from fishing any waters save those who simply cannot bring themselves to fish that way or have some imaginary plot they must fight against.

Your anecdotes are all related to summer-run steelhead as far as flies being as effective as anything else goes and don't relate to our rivers and winter-run steelhead, and I also have killed a steelhead caught on a fly when the fly got into its gills.
So what??

Sorry Dave, you are now complaining to the wrong guy about the wrong post. Wasn't me. I "anecdoted" (yeah I know its not a word) nothing about summer run steelhead.

Fishing is a blood sport and nobody has ever claimed that fish somehow don't get damaged when caught on flies.
That's just another concoction from the gear guys side.

Huh? So now you are saying that the gear guys are making up a story that the fly guys are saying that the fly doesn't kill fish? Beside the fact that this would seem really self-defeating for the gear guys to promote this, it also seems to be a most unusual and "conspiracy-theorist" statement.

Most of your concerns seem based on your personal observations on the Thompson regarding the spey guys and all that and as I don't fish the Thompson I can't rebut anything about that nor do I care.

Again you have the wrong guy. Please separate your replies to the posts that they are to pertain to. You really can't lump us all in the same evil gear chucking, beer swilling boat.

And for the record, I personally haven't advocated for flyfishing only on any river anywhere at anytime.

I never said that I knew your stance on FFO at any time, but thanks for your statement on the record.

I was and am definitely against the use of bait on wild steelhead rivers though, no doubt about that.

I would prefer to see an artificial fly only reg. used rather than flyfishing only in several cases, just so the gear guys can fish without whining.

Perfect, so please define what constitutes a fly. Is it feather only? wool? feather and Crystal flash? feather crystal flash and maybe a few little rubbery bits? Heeeeeyyyyy........ wait a sec, rubber bits? fake eyes? plastic parts? Aren't these the same evil items that the gear guys use?!?!?! Can we allow that?

And wool flies tied on a hook and fished under a float have been rumoured to catch a few steelhead now and then, so there ya go.

So then all steelhead flies would be made of natural wool and feathers only? all organic items from natural sources only? Or are would be allowed to use rubber bits and crystal flash if we only used a little bit? We could insist on a regulation that allowed for only 0.02 grams of artificial items tied to a hook? You hear how ridiculous this sounds?

Take care.

Thanks Dave. You too. Cheers

 

[CVmike]

Remembering my start ,good times, did not even consider wadding and anchoring in rivers would disturb or destroy reeds and spawning habitat.Time to think about leaving the waders for hunting as they already come in shades of camo not hi- vis.Equal opportunity at the waters edge.I would go as far to say this includes swimmers and kayaks.Protect the summer runs of fish.Tourism as a industry, do not take this in consideration.

 

[CVmike]

Remember fry and smolt need to mature in the slow waters, where you stand in the water before going to sea, and if pressure drives them too the fast water and out to sea sea before there ready they die too.

 

[Derby]

^^^^^^
this!

I've fished both trout and steelhead all my life mostly as a fly fisherman.

Not because I thought there was some supreme hierarchical significance associated with that method or because it gave me some kind of bragging rights---it was simply because I found it an effective way to catch fish under most conditions and it wasn't as gear intensive as some of the other methods available to me. And I liked the idea of not having to rupture a disk coming back on a snag the way gear guys sometimes have to do when fishing steelhead

I started fishing one of the big Fraser tribs for steelhead in the early 80's. As a fly fishermen, I stuck out like a sore thumb---there just weren't a lot of guys doing it. The bait guys would ALWAYS be gracious to me, share their spots with them, help me out. They were basically a generous lot who didn't think I was a threat to their methods or their historical interaction with that river.

Now every year it gets thicker and thicker with "spey" guys, a good portion of them carrying attitudes around big enough to fit in a steamer trunk. In my humble opinion, the whole experience of that river seems to have gone down a rat hole with the new "spey" dynamic---they gang up in holes and try to dominate water. They give you stink-eye if they come over a bluff and find you in "their" hole. And for some of them, their idea of getting "low holed" is when a bait fisherman steps in the hole 100 yards downstream from them....it's goofiness on steroids.

I was just there a few days ago---already packed with the spey guys. A friend of mine who lives on the banks of that river said..common, let's go wet a line, MOE opened the river!

I checked out the building gong show and said no, I'm good, and packed up and went home. Not a super silex to be seen anywhere on the river. Sad.

Fact: Over the years I have killed multiple fish on flies, some when a river was strictly C&R, some on a river back in the days when you could kill. But the important point is this: I had ZERO intention of killing these fish. They died because I'd nicked a gill filament with my fly. I killed several big bucks---watched them bleed to death in back eddies. One barbless 1/0 hook and that was that.

A few years ago I wrote a detailed piece in this Forum about how I killed a 12 pound doe in that same Fraser Trib. It was back in the day when you could kill, but I had ZERO intention of killing anything that day, especially a big doe

How'd I kill it?

I'm one of those guys who likes to wear handicaps when fishing, especially after a run of good luck. I like to back off, do something a bit different, maybe something a bit more challenging. It's the only way you learn new shiat as a fisherman

So I'd hooked a few fish that day on wet flies and thought I'd put my handicaps on. I got out a 9 foot bamboo LL Bean trout rod for a No. 5 line. My Godfather had given me the rod when I was 7 years ole. Not quite the right piece of artillery for this river but it was a beauty.

I tied on a little tiny dry fly and started working from the bottom of a hole going upstream, the way a chalk stream Brit would go after a leader shy brown trout

Now fishing an upstream dry is hard enough, but I was doing it while wading on boulders slick as snot, up to my chest, stripping the line back in to achieve that ultimate "drag free" drift. This was work!! But wow, was this ever hierarchical significance on the fishing totem pole as far as difficulty was concerned.... Ya sure, you betcha!

No way I'd hook anything, I was thinking--- no way---steelhead want to see the big "V" of a riffle-hitched fly going across the top before they'd respond...

Long story short, a big doe came up off the bottom and slurped my drag-free dry fly off the top. The take was a soft sucking sound and a gentle perturbation of the water, not the explosive boil you get dragging a greased up fly across the top, but she took the fly with fierce determination.

I beached a beautiful doe. I was high as a kite. Wow, what a cool feeling---a big doe on an upstream dry! But what was this? Blood? There was blood gushing out of her gills---wtf? She'd sucked the fly in so deep it ripped across one of her branchiostegals and that was all she wrote. Wow, I'd just stomped on 10,000 potential steelhead fry with a freaking dry fly!



Don't let anyone kid you that fly fishing somehow leaves less of an impact on any given lake or river fishery. Is it somehow more difficult to catch fish with this method? No, it is not. Give me reasonable conditions and I'll show you that it can be just as effective as gear. In some conditions, I'll show you it can be WAY more effective, especially for summer and fall run steel.

Yes, the spey guys will rub "data" in your face to make it seem to the contrary but if you strip away the puffery, it's a disingenuous argument wrapped up in an ulterior motive---they are trying to create exclusive water for themselves. It's a resource grab, plain and simple. Tragedy of the Commons brined in single malt scotch....


I shudder to think of that Fraser trib going fly-only. But you can bet they're trying. They got bait this year---I do support the bait ban, mainly because the bait guys really beat up on the rainbow populations in that river while they're chasing steel. Don't ask me for data to back up this comment--I've fished that river for three decades and every season I witness it. There's a whole stretch of river where the rainbow are pretty much gone, and it's not because somehow there's less available food in that stretch--it just happens to be in the most productive area for steelhead, and that's where the fishermen have beat on them for years


But to go strictly fly ("spey??) only?

No way!!!!

I fished the Dee once in Scotland. There was a measuring stick in the river. On the stick was a red line. The deal was: when the river height was above the red line, use what ever you have in your vest---spoons, devon minnows, worms, flies--- no problem

When the river height was below the red line: NO WORMS

Sounded pretty logical to me

Nicely put

 

[Sharphooks]

Thanks for that, Derby

I was just trying to clean up some misconceptions about the whole fly fishing thing. I'm stunned at what's become of that approach to river fishing over the last decade---the "new guard" doesn't exactly make me feel our children's fishing future is in good hands.


Yo, H-n-H

ya, that might have been me, only back in those days I used a 14 foot Fenwick---it was a prototype rod that pre-dated all the long-rod companies. Props to Fenwick for being one of the first long rod guys in this country. They built them out on Bainbridge Island in the same facility where Sage is today

That rod started off as a 4 piece and served me well until one day I drove up that steep hill at Martel and a typewriter on the desk of my camper slid off and promptly turned it into an 8 piece rod...

 

[Dave H]

First off, let me apologize for mixing up your post and the one by Sharphooks. Guess my mind was whizzing along too quickly and given my lack of enthusiasm for this whole topic anyways I goofed up.
Probably the worst goof in a post I've ever made. LOL

But it changes nothing so I'll play this one last round just to end off a bit better.

So you used these studies even though you now reveal that lake caught rainbow trout studies really do not pertain to fly only regulations on flows? Not very endearing to your case Dave. You come on like gangbusters and "Crap" all over everyone demanding they name names and then spout off all kinds of scientific studies, and then admit that they really have nothing to do with your original case? I have expected (and received) better from you in the past. ;-)

Are you a drama student or just an aspiring creative writer??

I wrote this: "What "certain groups" are you referring to?" in response to Hambone's posting of this: "It seems to me like a majority of the fly only regulations on vancouver island (and there's many) were put in place because certain groups wanted to eliminate competition. Frustrated anglers that became organized and lobbied for these changes for their own agenda, certainly not because they had conservation as their goal."

How did asking my question become crapping all over everyone??
Dramatic much??

And I told you in post #29 why I used those studies. I stumbled on them and as they fit into the discussion I posted them.

And I must have missed where I admitted anything else about them.

Creative interpretation on your behalf again??




Probably should let you know again that criticizing spelling on a forum is considered very bad form. Having said that, I normally am a stickler for correct spelling and pronunciation. I can assure you that I will spell Mr. Hooton's last name correctly from now on.


It's always considered "bad form" by those being corrected, but no excuse for you particularly given it's a well known name and one you've seen in print many times. To not spell it correctly actually seems almost wilfully disrespectful under the circumstances.

yep got it. no, pretty sure he was one of the main advocates for FFO on all class one wild steelhead BC streams.

Not a chance and I note it's now "all class one wild steelhead BC streams" whereas before it was: "Because there is only one from Bob Hooten (speaking of agendas to make BC steelhead rivers FFO......) Dave has quoted all of these American studies many times in the past."

I've already noted I've never quoted those studies in the past so guess what??

You're wrong again. And for anyone who claims any knowledge or experience in steelheading to claim the results aren't representative of the difference between mortality rates using bait against mortality rates using flies hasn't used both methods under a variety of conditions very much I'd speculate.

Just the numerical difference in the catch rate alone would increase the mortality rate, given bait will catch steelhead under virtually all conditions, including zero visibility, where a fly wouldn't even be seen, let alone taken. I've witnessed the difference too many times in the 55 years I've been actively fishing to believe otherwise.


Sorry Dave, you are now complaining to the wrong guy about the wrong post. Wasn't me. I "anecdoted" (yeah I know its not a word) nothing about summer run steelhead.


Right you are and my apologies for confusing the two.

Still, anecdotes from one person regarding his history and observations on the Thompson, while nicely written and enjoyable to read, aren't really germane to the Vancouver Island topic at hand. More spey guys and fewer Silex guys??

How horrible.

Huh? So now you are saying that the gear guys are making up a story that the fly guys are saying that the fly doesn't kill fish? Beside the fact that this would seem really self-defeating for the gear guys to promote this, it also seems to be a most unusual and "conspiracy-theorist" statement.

I don't make stuff up and that's not what I said nor meant.



Again you have the wrong guy. Please separate your replies to the posts that they are to pertain to. You really can't lump us all in the same evil gear chucking, beer swilling boat.

Yep, still not referring to you, as you've noted and I've apologized for. Noted also you couldn't help but respond though.

I never said that I knew your stance on FFO at any time, but thanks for your statement on the record.

You're welcome.

Perfect, so please define what constitutes a fly. Is it feather only? wool? feather and Crystal flash? feather crystal flash and maybe a few little rubbery bits? Heeeeeyyyyy........ wait a sec, rubber bits? fake eyes? plastic parts? Aren't these the same evil items that the gear guys use?!?!?! Can we allow that?

Seems to be well enough defined in the regs for most people to understand what a "fly" is.

Why are you having such a problem with it??


So then all steelhead flies would be made of natural wool and feathers only? all organic items from natural sources only? Or are would be allowed to use rubber bits and crystal flash if we only used a little bit? We could insist on a regulation that allowed for only 0.02 grams of artificial items tied to a hook? You hear how ridiculous this sounds?

Sure is ridiculous, which begs the question as to why you brought it up.

You like to argue about stupid stuff I guess.

Nothing I can do about that.





Thanks Dave. You too. Cheers

Take care and I'm out of here.

 

[Rum Buddies]

say what you will about elitist fly fishermen and how easy it is to floss with a fly rod, but FFO sections do keep the red neck snaggers at bay. Do you really want every river opened up to the Nitinat river crowd?

If you open up sooke river to all gear types, guess what you're going to have 100 guys down there bottom bouncing with 8 OZ of lead and a piece of yarn, snagging the crap out of everything that moves. At least the Fly guys don't intentionally snag.


You can make a point that it's not about conservation but instead about creating a nice place to fish. The converse is the Nitinat river which many true fishermen abandoned years ago because the snaggers ruined the experience.

 

[finaddict]

Now there is the Dave we have all come to know and love....... Before I get into it with Dave, I want to apologize for the thread "semi-hi-jack"

First off, let me apologize for mixing up your post and the one by Sharphooks. Guess my mind was whizzing along too quickly and given my lack of enthusiasm for this whole topic anyways I goofed up.
Probably the worst goof in a post I've ever made. LOL

Apology accepted, but if you really truly believe that that is the worst post mistake you have ever made, well you have a much higher regard for your work than you probably should. Your ability to disregard some of your own insulting comments is palpable.

But it changes nothing so I'll play this one last round just to end off a bit better.

So you used these studies even though you now reveal that lake caught rainbow trout studies really do not pertain to fly only regulations on flows? Not very endearing to your case Dave. You come on like gangbusters and "Crap" all over everyone demanding they name names and then spout off all kinds of scientific studies, and then admit that they really have nothing to do with your original case? I have expected (and received) better from you in the past. ;-)

Are you a drama student or just an aspiring creative writer??

Actually I am neither Dave, but I am also not prepared to accept everything you type without a few challenges. Your word is not gospel, although you seem to believe that it is.

I wrote this: "What "certain groups" are you referring to?" in response to Hambone's posting of this: "It seems to me like a majority of the fly only regulations on vancouver island (and there's many) were put in place because certain groups wanted to eliminate competition. Frustrated anglers that became organized and lobbied for these changes for their own agenda, certainly not because they had conservation as their goal."

How did asking my question become crapping all over everyone??
Dramatic much??

Actually you wrote "crock-o-crap" when referring to someone's post. Then you demanded that they "name names" when they talked about groups or persons who had ulterior motives in FFO regulations. Then in the next post you typed "And your assertions that flyfishing only was instituted to remove competition from a river doesn't pass above the "stupid and assinine" level no matter how many times you claim it." At that point you are calling his writings "stupid and asinine". I consider that to be crapping all over people. btw - you spelled asinine incorrectly....... and I suppose it would be bad form to note that "Dramatic much??" is grammatically poor sentence structure?

And I told you in post #29 why I used those studies. I stumbled on them and as they fit into the discussion I posted them.

And I must have missed where I admitted anything else about them.

Creative interpretation on your behalf again??

Creative interpretation? You must be a little confused. The creative interpretation happened when you used those studies in the first place, since you quoted mostly still water studies for rainbow trout and bait in land locked American states and the discussion is about river fishing for steelhead and salmon in British Columbia.

Probably should let you know again that criticizing spelling on a forum is considered very bad form. Having said that, I normally am a stickler for correct spelling and pronunciation. I can assure you that I will spell Mr. Hooton's last name correctly from now on.


It's always considered "bad form" by those being corrected, but no excuse for you particularly given it's a well known name and one you've seen in print many times. To not spell it correctly actually seems almost wilfully disrespectful under the circumstances.

No "willful disrespect" intended. I suppose it would be bad form to point out that you spelled "willfully" incorrectly?

You're wrong again. And for anyone who claims any knowledge or experience in steelheading to claim the results aren't representative of the difference between mortality rates using bait against mortality rates using flies hasn't used both methods under a variety of conditions very much I'd speculate.

You should speculate less Dave. Nowhere have I ever said in this thread that bait doesn't catch more fish. This would be considered "creative interpretation" on your part and if I am guilty of creative writing, then "tit-for-tat" bud.

Just the numerical difference in the catch rate alone would increase the mortality rate, given bait will catch steelhead under virtually all conditions, including zero visibility, where a fly wouldn't even be seen, let alone taken. I've witnessed the difference too many times in the 55 years I've been actively fishing to believe otherwise.

Agreed. And since you are dropping the "experience quotient", I would suggest that your 55 years of fishing and my 46 years of fishing and several years of studies in Fisheries management, and employment in fisheries, aquaculture and commercial fishing probably puts us on even terms in the "experience "department, so let's just call that even and not drop the "experience quotient" again, shall we?

Sorry Dave, you are now complaining to the wrong guy about the wrong post. Wasn't me. I "anecdoted" (yeah I know its not a word) nothing about summer run steelhead.


Right you are and my apologies for confusing the two.

Still, anecdotes from one person regarding his history and observations on the Thompson, while nicely written and enjoyable to read, aren't really germane to the Vancouver Island topic at hand. More spey guys and fewer Silex guys??

How horrible.

Huh? So now you are saying that the gear guys are making up a story that the fly guys are saying that the fly doesn't kill fish? Beside the fact that this would seem really self-defeating for the gear guys to promote this, it also seems to be a most unusual and "conspiracy-theorist" statement.

I don't make stuff up and that's not what I said nor meant.

Well then enlighten us to what you did mean. Your comments seem a little mixed up Dave. You said"Fishing is a blood sport and nobody has ever claimed that fish somehow don't get damaged when caught on flies.
That's just another concoction from the gear guys side." Well your writing here is a double negative, so I guess its a little easy to get it confused. My reading of this is that you were inferring that "gear guys" made up this story that fly fishing doesn't kill fish as that would somehow further the gear guys cause. How the hell it would do that I haven't a clue, but you can see how your writing (creative or otherwise) could be interpreted as such.

Again you have the wrong guy. Please separate your replies to the posts that they are to pertain to. You really can't lump us all in the same evil gear chucking, beer swilling boat.

Yep, still not referring to you, as you've noted and I've apologized for. Noted also you couldn't help but respond though.

well you seemed a little confused, so I was merely clarifying. When I wrote that you had not apologized for your error yet, so my response was not badly timed. Noted that you couldn't help but respond to my response though..........and that I have now responded to your response of my response..... and so on and so on.........

Perfect, so please define what constitutes a fly. Is it feather only? wool? feather and Crystal flash? feather crystal flash and maybe a few little rubbery bits? Heeeeeyyyyy........ wait a sec, rubber bits? fake eyes? plastic parts? Aren't these the same evil items that the gear guys use?!?!?! Can we allow that?

Seems to be well enough defined in the regs for most people to understand what a "fly" is.

Why are you having such a problem with it??

What I have a problem with is the definition and reality of what constitutes a fly these days is different. As I mentioned, artificial eyes, crystal flash, rubber legs and so on are not legal for artificial flies, yet are used regularly now in the construction of flies. As the definition states;
"artificial fly a single-pointed hook that is dressed only with fur, feathers, hair, textiles, tinsel and/or wire, and to which no external weight or external attracting device is attached"

Yet I would love to see someone get busted for using a fly with artificial eyes, plastic flagging tape, rubber legs, crystal flash, etc.

Sure is ridiculous, which begs the question as to why you brought it up.

You're right, it is ridiculous. I won't bring it up again.

Take care and I'm out of here.

You too Dave. As always, it is a pleasure to lock horns with you. I enjoy our conversations. Cheers

 

[hambone]

say what you will about elitist fly fishermen and how easy it is to floss with a fly rod, but FFO sections do keep the red neck snaggers at bay. Do you really want every river opened up to the Nitinat river crowd?

If you open up sooke river to all gear types, guess what you're going to have 100 guys down there bottom bouncing with 8 OZ of lead and a piece of yarn, snagging the crap out of everything that moves. At least the Fly guys don't intentionally snag.


You can make a point that it's not about conservation but instead about creating a nice place to fish. The converse is the Nitinat river which many true fishermen abandoned years ago because the snaggers ruined the experience.

I still don't agree that the non fly fishers should suffer because a crowd of "red neck snaggers" gives everyone without a fly rod a certain reputation. I've done the Sooke and Little Q FFO thing and found it to be a haven for the new age of snagging... Gracefully flossing a fish with almost every cast on a shiny new Spey set up.

There's no simple solution to some of the problem areas on rivers, but FFO is wrong IMO

 

[Rum Buddies]

I still don't agree that the non fly fishers should suffer because a crowd of "red neck snaggers" gives everyone without a fly rod a certain reputation. I've done the Sooke and Little Q FFO thing and found it to be a haven for the new age of snagging... Gracefully flossing a fish with almost every cast on a shiny new Spey set up.

There's no simple solution to some of the problem areas on rivers, but FFO is wrong IMO

It is a simple solution(although not perfect), want to keep snaggers at bay make it FFO. Does that stop some fly fishermen from flossing fish, no of course not. Does stop the hoards of red necks that would love to be there with heavy lead and yarn ripping it through the pools? yes it does stop that.

So for a river like the sooke it does work.