Fly Fishing Only Lakes

[Mr. Magler]

I'm a little confused as to why at "Fly Fishing Only" lakes you are not allowed to use spinning rods with legal flies. What's the big deal if the legal fly is attached to the end of a spinning rod instead of a fly rod? Some people can't afford all the fly gear, but like to use flies on their cheap spinning rods. Could someone please give me a good reason for this Reg, and I'll leave it alone forever.......

[Drewp]

I actually just emailed WDFW about this issue, and they replied and said, "The main purpose for fly-fishing only lakes is to aggravate Mr. Magler." :bounce:

[Mr. Magler]

Good one, DrewP. I had no idea the WDFW even new who I was. I must be special.

[jmay]

There are very few fly fishing ONLY lake, most are "selective" which is a single barbless hook with no bait. Why WDFW prevents spinning gear on fly fishing lake, not sure however every few years rules are up for review and public impute. I have been invloved in the process a few times, I have found there are a few powerful groups or clubs who spearhead a rule for the benifit of their group. For example the ABC County flycasters club, paid for a fish plant of triplods and the club cleans the shoreline basicly in exchange for a flyfishing C&R lake only.

Personally there are a ton of put and take lakes designed for spin casting

[littleriver]

Jmay makes some good points..

to understand the rules one must go beyond the literal meaning of the words and try to understand the interests and constituencies involved in making them.....

There are lots of different ways to fish and enjoyment of some of these methods is greatly enhanced when you know that everyone else on the lake or river is going to be "just like you"...

and I think that we have enough experience with this kind of segregation of interest to say rather conclusively that when it is implemented correctly it tends to increase overall participation.... (and that's a good thing)

best thing to do if you don't like "flyfishing only" rules is to go fish a lake where they don't apply... if you still really want to fish that lake then go to the next "rules review" meeting and state your case... it will be easy to get a chair and to be able to make your point because virtually nobody attends the rules review meetings....

[Mr. Magler]

"...one must go beyond the literal meaning of the words..."

Hmmmmmmmmm. I doubt that's what WDFW intends for us to do when they write their Regs. Of course, they ARE a government agency ;)

You're saying that "segregation of interests" and being with people "just like you" are good things? HOW BORING! That doesn't justify this Reg at all. These are public lakes that everyone should have the right to fish.

Is it worth attending a meeting to change this Reg? No. There are plenty of other lakes around.

Is it worth doing a forum about? Of course. I'm just trying to kill my curiosity.....and it hasn't been killed yet

[gpc]

Yeah I have heard of fly fishing only lakes, but there isnt too many of them as far as I know of. But I never knew you couldnt fish a fly on a regular pole and bobber. The only lakes like this that I heard of are hike in lakes, so I probably wouldnt have hiked in to fish a fly with a regular pole, but its good to know that these lakes are off limits to me, getting a ticket is never good. Its cool that there are groups out there that plant lakes and pick up garbage, they deserve special privileges for the work they put in. But if you are not a fly fisherman you get left out, but with all the lakes out there to fish its not that big of a loss, and I could only image how great these lakes are for the fly fishermen

[littleriver]

Mr. Magler... you need to reread my post... I didn't say that wanting to "be with people just like you" and "segregation of interests" are good things or that they justify these rules.....

What I said was that as long as it can be shown that these rules increase participation that they are a good idea.. if it can be shown that they decrease participation then I think they are a bad idea.....


and not all fly fishing only lakes are hike in..

The one's I'm recalling (there are more than this and I may be wrong on one or two) that are fly fishing only are aneas and chopaka in Okanogan County, Amber in Spokane County, the Yakima River above Roza Dam, Merrill Lake in Cowlitz County, and Leech Lake in Lewis County. None of these are hike in lakes.. In the case of Amber there are a multitude of "general reg" lakes nearby. In the case of Leech lake, it's right next to Dog Lake which is an excellent bait fishing lake.


I've fly fished chopaka, the yakima above Roza, and I spend a lot of time near leech lake because it's close to several trailheads I use for hiking purposes. Based on these experiences my opinion is that changing these waters from fly fishing only to no special regulations would result in pretty much clearing out the traffic and a decrease in license sales. The Yakima River above Roza Dam being an excellent case in point... and this section is not only "fly fishing only" but, like Amber Lake, it's "catch and release only".... really tough stuff, but there's at least one service there now that rents drift boats and there are guides operating on that stretch of river...This wasn't happening before the rule change and if you ended the "fly fishing only" it would all be gone.....

as sport fishers we need to understand that we all have different interests, different backgrounds, and different ways to enjoy the sport.... one size fits all doesn't work here....... one can pontificate endlessly about whether this is right or wrong or good or bad and most arguments on either side can be fully justified in one way or another but what really matters is "participation" and to increase "participation" you need to address the basic elements of human nature and go with what works.....

If you can show that making any particular fishing water "general rules" will increase participation (i.e. sport angler fishing days on that water) then I will support that change. If someone can show that making a particular water "fly fishing only" will increase participation then I will support that rule change....

It's all about participation.... think participation and it will be more clear...

[Marc Martyn]

Littleriver-

Your viewpoint is well put. However, may I correct you on Amber? It is a selective gear rules lake. Personally I would like to see it fly fishing only, but that would eliminate the use of electric motors. Browns in Pend Oreille Co. is fly fishing only.

There are very few "fly fishing only" lakes in the state. Changing those to general fishing rules would be a shame.

[littleriver]

Yes, Amber is a beautiful lake. I went to fish it about 4 years ago and the wind was blowing hard from the sw.. big waves and about half a dozen guys with float tubes hanging around the access with sad eyes because they wanted to fish but it was just too darned windy... they were all carrying fly rods so I guess that image is where I got the impression that it was fly fishing only...

So darned far over there that I haven't had a chance for a return trip... I had also read several references to "catch and release only" for the lake and was under the impression that to be "catch and release only" a water also had to be fly fishing..

I was also unaware of the thing about fly fishing only lakes not being able to have "electric motors"... I had thought the "motor restrictions" were a county regulated thing......

Gotta do more research on that one because I'm going to try to get Coldwater Lake (much, much closer to home) converted to "fly fishing only" on the next rules revision... It's now "selective fishery" and you need to allow electric motors because the lake is three miles long and that's a long ways to row even though an old man like me has done it many times.....

[Mr. Magler]

littleriver - You did associate "being with people just like you" and "segregation of interests" with an "increase in participation". So I'm pretty sure I understood what you were trying to say, and you're right; both of those things can increase participation in one very specific, closed-in group of people. But that doesn't mean that overall participation is increased. What about the Greater Good? Before I stray too far from the topic, let me ask you my original question again:

Why can't you throw a fly with a spinning rod instead of a fly rod in a fly fishing-only lake or river?

It sounds like the problem with that question is that die-hard fly rodders somehow get offended by someone who is not being "just like" them. I know the fly fishing community is pretty closed-in, and in my opinion that's exactly what's wrong with it. I love to fly fish, and personally prefer using a fly rod to cast my flies. But I've always had to scratch my head at how stuck up some fly rodders can be to other anglers.

So a guide service opened up near Roza Dam huh? Well, that sure helps those few who can afford a guided trip! So what about the spinning rodders with flies that want to enjoy the PUBLIC fishery????

Marc - I never said that fly fishing-only lakes should go to general fishing rules. Just that "fly fishing-only" lakes should be available to anyone throwing a legal fly (i.e. fly rods and spinning rods). Does it really matter what kind of pole they're using?????

Thanks for participating in this discussion guys, but I think you guys are reading too far into my question, which I will state (again):

Why can't you throw a fly with a spinning rod instead of a fly rod in a fly fishing-only lake or river?

[littleriver]

Mr. Magler.. your third paragraph is right on. It's what I believe to be a very accurate (maybe not pretty, maybe not the way we would like it to be) description of why you are not allowed to throw a fly out behind a bobber using spinning stuff in a fly fishing only lake and I think that's the way the rules are written.... And when I say "increased participation" I mean overall total increased participation, not just increased participation within the fly fishing community.... If you can show me any rule that doesn't serve to increase overall participation then I would be very willing to look at alternatives to that rule. As long as both sides are sincerely interested in the overall objective of increased participation then I think there is lots and lots of room for disagreement and for different points of view.

(note: I just looked at the "fly fishing only" rule in the pamphlet. It specifically states "No fixed spool reels".. hadn't realized the rules were that definitive)....

you also make a good point about "affording" guided trips. And, to be perfectly honest, I can't really afford to do that kind of fishing either. But neither do I consider it fun. I would rather fish by myself or with one or two buddies and fish when and where I/we want to go. That's my preference but I also understand that everyone isn't like me. To maximize participation we must provide opportunity in a way that all the preferences are served as best we can. And there really isn't any way to do that without closing off some waters to some interests.

That said I think we disagree on two very fundamental points.

so let me very quickly summarize the way I feel about "fly fishing only" and "guide service" fishing.


1. Fly Fishing Only and selective fishery lakes, I believe, greatly increase overall participation because they increase the participation in regard to one interest (the snobs who like to fly fish and/or catch and release fish) while causing minimal disruption in participation from other "interests". I do believe that there is a point where if we had too much water that was designated fly fishing only and/or selective fishery that this would not be true, but I think we are a long way from that point and that we should be looking for opportunities to add to the inventory of these kind of lakes and, further, to start developing technologies for protecting these lakes from misuse and bucket biology.


2. Guide services... I never use them but I think they are an extremely important part of the participation picture because they give people who are only marginally interested in sport fishing good access to the resource. There are lots and lots of people with money (and you don't have to be rich to afford a guide you just have to have a couple hundred bucks to pay someone to take you out fishing for a day... this is about twice what it costs to book a cruise ship and we don't think of going on a cruise as being for the very, very rich) who would never buy a license if there were no guides to take them and to assure that they will have a very high probability of catching a fish every time they go out. In fact I think that this sector of the sport fishing industry is so important that we should think about installing "guide only ramps" at some of our busy access points and/or have certain hours in the morning when only guides are allowed to use the ramps. Might even consider "guide only" seasons on some waters to promote overall tourism and this industry. Please note that I am not a guide and I do not use their services. My opinions here are based only on what I think this industry does for the sport. I just know that the more of these "marginal" participants we can get into the sport the better the opportunity will be for all of us.



Now... somehow I suspect that you will very strongly disagree with me on these two points Mr. Magler.. that's why I've left out quite a lot, in fact most, of my supporting arguments...

give me yours.. (e.g. the reasoning behind your disagreement) and I will continue with the presentation of mine....


I think these two issues (restrictive regulations and guide services) are extremely important tools in the management of sport fisheries today and, because of this, I don't think it a waste of time at all to discuss them at great length and/or in endless detail.

[ruthven78]

I agree with Marc, I enjoy having some lakes fly fishing only.

[Rooscooter]

Years ago in southern Idaho I was the president of a local fly fishing club. We were pretty active in getting water designated "fly fishing only". We took this approach over "selective gear restrictions". We did this because one of our senior members was a retired game warden and he was the driving force behind this approach. His reasoning, from and enforcement standpoint, was that in his time as a warden he had never found a person using bait with a fly rod. If you think about it it's pretty hard to cast power bait with a fly rod!. We had no malice toward people who use spinning gear (I used spinning gear) only an interest in making sure that the regulations could be enforced in a reasonable manner and maintaining quality fishing for ourselves as well as others.

We also pushed for smaller lakes frequented by fisherman in float tubes to be "no motor". This was for safety reasons primarily. There were a couple of instances on some small lakes where float tubes and boats mixed tragically and people died. By restricting smaller lakes in this manner it increased the safety of the lake while allowing very little change in access since the lakes were small and accessible by all variety of boats under human power.

I think the discussion should be about the pressure certain lakes get due to location, depth, size, food sources etc. vs good and reasonable management. Amber is a good example. I fish Amber at least 10 times a year. Every year I see people fishing from the bank with bait. I have seen one individual use quick snap swivels with pre-leadered single hook lures to quickly change from power bait when a warden appears. I have also seen several people walk out of that lake (fly fishers included) with 5 or more fish. The lakes with restrictions are restricted to ensure that the access to quality fishing is maintained.

Watching several excellent southern Idaho fisheries deteriorate over the years I now release all of the trout I catch. The easiest way to do that is with a barb-less hook fly. I use this approach in all my fishing not just the restricted lakes.

As for the statement that regulations (rules) serve to increase overall participation; I don't see the connection between regulation and participation. Maybe I'm missing the point of the argument, but I don't think written rules have a bearing on the motivation of an individual to fish or not. When an individual decides to fish the regulations serve as a framework in which to participate.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just the snob releasing fish in the motor-less boat on the fly fishing only lakes. : )

Tight Lines!

[raffensg64]

Here's the "good old boy" short answer. "Fly Fishing Only" would imply the use of a fly rod, fly reel and fly line. Correct? There's much more to fly fishing than simply tying a fly to the end of a line!

Gotta go! I'm heading out....am leaving the fly rod at home. Instead, I'm "spin fishing" for crappie today with my ultralight spinning rod and reel!

[mallard83]

!@@#%*((&^%#=-*7^%$}{?%#@! fly fishing only lakes. There is no reason to have fly fishing only lakes other than the elitist fly fisherman who think they are better than the average fisherman, and presume the fishing will be better if it is fly fishing only, WELL IT WON'T. I don't care what any other fisherman thinks, because the tree hugging fly fisherman is to blame. I am not saying that every fly fisherman is bad and to blame, but hardcore fly fisherman are alike, and the same as hardcore horseback riders and don't know how to take the heat of the true outdoorsman. And I believe modern society should call them out and not believe the B.S. that is fed to our fellow friends and fisherman. But if you fly fisherman let the state help you, than the state will develop a good fishery, you just need to give them a chance because they really only care about the tree hugger. Congratulations on the victory, you bark munchers.

[Marc Martyn]

!@@#%*((&^%#=-*7^%$}{?%#@! fly fishing only lakes. There is no reason to have fly fishing only lakes other than the elitist fly fisherman who think they are better than the average fisherman, and presume the fishing will be better if it is fly fishing only, WELL IT WON'T. I don't care what any other fisherman thinks, because the tree hugging fly fisherman is to blame. I am not saying that every fly fisherman is bad and to blame, but hardcore fly fisherman are alike, and the same as hardcore horseback riders and don't know how to take the heat of the true outdoorsman. And I believe modern society should call them out and not believe the B.S. that is fed to our fellow friends and fisherman. But if you fly fisherman let the state help you, than the state will develop a good fishery, you just need to give them a chance because they really only care about the tree hugger. Congratulations on the victory, you bark munchers.

Hmmmm.......here is a perfect example why I like going to "fly fishing only" lakes and hug trees. Ignorance is bliss!

[jmay]

Oh Mallard, where do I begin. I am a die hard flyfisherman. I do fish with tackle when with the kids, but if I had one day to live it would be with a flyrod.

Half my family work(s)ed in logging supply, the other half are hardrock miners. We all run snowmobiles and drive american cars and drink beer from a can. I am a 3rd generation life member of the NRA. Also about 3/4 of the flyfisherman I know also do some sort of hunting. Every year I get a Mule Deer, a focus on ducks the rest of fall. Not exactly the tree hugger demographic.

In the Spokesman Review last week I read an article that Idaho and Mt has fly only water, not for the people but for the Game Wardens. Its much eaiser at a causual glance to for the warden tell if someone is using bait illegally since it is next to impossible fly cast bait.

Your post was about as bad the garbage PETA and Greenpeace puts out. Little in content and big on unfounded science

[raffensg64]

Hey Mallard83......write or call your Congressman!

If you are not a fly fisherman, and/or you don't have anything constructive to say, it would be nice if you'd stay off this particular forum.

We are not better than the average fisherman, but we are more conservation-minded.

Only a very few of us are elitists.....most of us are folks who simply chose a different fishing lifestyle.

YES....the fishing is much better at "Fly Fishing Only" lakes. I'm sure they constitute well under 10% of Washington's total fishery, so relax, you can fish the other 90%.

Sorry to contradict you in so many ways.....my personal belief is that you are quite clueless.

Tree hugger, bark muncher, heat of the true fisherman, modern society, B.S., victory.......WHAT???!!! You need some help!

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

!@@#%*((&^%#=-*7^%$}{?%#@! fly fishing only lakes. There is no reason to have fly fishing only lakes other than the elitist fly fisherman who think they are better than the average fisherman, and presume the fishing will be better if it is fly fishing only, WELL IT WON'T. I don't care what any other fisherman thinks, because the tree hugging fly fisherman is to blame. I am not saying that every fly fisherman is bad and to blame, but hardcore fly fisherman are alike, and the same as hardcore horseback riders and don't know how to take the heat of the true outdoorsman. And I believe modern society should call them out and not believe the B.S. that is fed to our fellow friends and fisherman. But if you fly fisherman let the state help you, than the state will develop a good fishery, you just need to give them a chance because they really only care about the tree hugger. Congratulations on the victory, you bark munchers.

I think he's working his way to being a syndicated newspaper satirist.