The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

The biggest problem I see with the concept of fly fishing only would be the legislature coming up with a definition of "fly fishing equipment" that the courts would enforce. As an example is a 9 foot spinning rod that has a fly reel attached considered fly gear? Another is a fly rod that has a spinning rear attached considered fly fishing equipment? Then there is the line question? The problem is definition of a fly rod,reel, and line and what constitutes the make up of each. It is much easier from and enforcement prespective to enforce terminal tackle restrictions. It would seem evident to us that are invovled but you put this concept before a court and I think the result will be not as expected.

Good point but the courts in Washington and Oregon have upheld gear restrictions and have definitions in their books as to what constitutes fly fishing equipment. The examples you listed are not fly fishing equipment as defined in those regulations. But, of course, we are talking about liberal California here with far too many attorneys looking for a cause to expect to have any meaningful regulations that make sense or in the spirit of the idea.

Charlie,

Philosophically, I agree with much of your position but just because the law exists in another state doesn't neccessarily mean it is good law. Legislatures write bad law all of the time and that is the reason the founding fathers put the courts in place as a check point of that law. I will definitely concede it is posible to write the law but it is a slippery slope when you try to define the details. At any rate an interesting concept to ponder. No I am not an attorney, I have just been around them most of my adult life and know how they think.

no/msg

The argument about "law" could go on forever and you are absolutely correct in your points, which I believe I ageed with in my previous post. Let's address another facet of California fish and game laws.

If someone can't see a few sections of a restricted number of streams set aside for fly fishing only with fly fishing equipment, a position I just don't understand, then why are most perfectly content with having different hunting seasons? As an example and an excellent parallel between two different types of sport: There is a separate and completely regulated Bow Huning season for deer. Not only is the equipment for bow hunting strictly regulated, it even goes so far as to prohibit the use of a cross bow during archery only season. Cross bows only shoot arrows and are very similar to regular archery equipment except in one important facet. So, if the DFG can regulate this why can't the same be said for fly fishing equipment? We all know what it is, understand the differences between it and other equipment, and would know that we were breaking the law if we used something other than described in the regulations. Is that so hard?

Another proposal. Since fly fishing has been proven to be less harmful to fish, why not open streams and rivers to fly fishing only during the regularly closed season and open to all during the regular season? Gear folks aren't allowed to fish now anyway, so what would be the harm? Many other states have year round open trout fishing with no adverse affects, why are we still in the stone age?

By the way, I completely reject the reasoning that fly fishing is too difficult, too expensive, too whatever. What a lame excuse!!!

I agree with you on the carpool lane stuff,,,I think I prefaced that in my rant.....

As I said I philosophically agree with most of your position. I think your second proposal is a much more palatable approach to the masses. But isn't California starting to move in that direction with the opening of the Upper Sac, and I thought I also read the Truckee?

You are right this discussion about the "law" could go on forever, the legislature proves that point repeatily.

sierratrout wrote:
Less harmful than single hook, barbless, artificial lures only? You sure about that?

Lures no longer have to be single hook in artificial only waters. Still barbless but unfortunately treble hooks are now allowed.

0% mortal trout caught with worm, because they go directly to the Kitchen...

I'll second that.

MN

use "alternate equipment and methods"...cuz it sure is fun when ya outfish them...and especially when ya release a nice one...



now I sure hope we can get a more adult attitude going with this thread,,,ok??


Paul

These studies have been around for decades. I believe it was Lee Wulff that was one of the first advocates of "fly angling only" and "catch and release" waters, this back in the late 40s early 50s. I imagine that any state that has these regulations conducted their own studies as well. So, the study you mention doesn't surprise me at all.

That fly angling has less "impact" on fisheries is so widely accepted it's a "given". That fly angling is difficult, expensive, and elitest is pure non sense (though there are those who do feel superior because the are fly fishers but, that's true in a lot of sports). I'll also state that my angling efforts aren't limited to fly fishing; to spin is not to sin.

Before I moved out here (Oregon) from Michigan I thought their DNR was one of the best in the country. I am most impressed with ODFW's fishing regulations and their logic behind those regs don't confuse me in the least, even designating Rainbow Trout over 12" as "Steelhead" on certain waters (too many idiots out there who don't know the difference). Whilst I miss night fishing for trout, I do understand their reasoning behind that general prohibition as well (there are a few exceptions).

Any who, I'm not at all familiar with the California fishing regs and was surprised to see there are so few fly fishing only waters. I did (do) find this discussion interesting as well as entertaining, if ya'll catch my drift...

Dano