FFIM

FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently June 19th, 2019, 5:12 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 14th, 2019, 4:53 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: January 24th, 2002, 1:00 am
Posts: 2367
Location: Lyons, CO
FFO is about keeping the number of people down AND protecting the resource. The whole idea is that we can cut down the number of people willing to fish a given popular/fragile piece of water and reduce their effectiveness to protect the fishing resource on that piece of water. It makes plenty of sense as a democratic way of limiting fishing pressure and preserving a resource.

Personally, I think a reasonable approach might be single hook ALO with a maximum weight of 1/16 of an ounce total weight. That converts to a pretty simple rule, e.g. no more than 3 BB shot with a couple of unweighted flies. 3 BB shot is just short of 1/16 of an ounce. Cutting down on weight would give fish more refuge. 1/16 ounce is a very small, very light lure that's tough to cast very far, even with 4 pound test -- maybe there's a spin fisher out there who can cast 80 feet with 1/16 of an ounce lure. That would let the spin fishers in, but keep them closer to their feet than the fly casters, and a restriction on heavy weight might also cut down on the number of flyfishers and restrict some flies (those tung head buggers wouldn't pass). Enforcement might be a pain, but this might also be a way of getting some spin fishers into fly fishing as well. When I was a kid, I once high stick nymphed a little brook someplace in the Maritimes and hammered a ton of brookies with a single hare's ear. I didn't know that high stick nymphing existed at the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 14th, 2019, 5:39 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Posts: 537
pushaw wrote "FFO is about keeping the number of people down and protecting the resource."

I don't believe state law makers make "keeping the number of people down " a factor in their decision concerning designating a water FFO, although it may be a result. For it to be discussed out loud might suggest a form of discrimination? I do believe FFO is a designation given to protect the fishing resource not only of the pond designated but perhaps other waters in the immediate area connected by streams to the pond.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 14th, 2019, 7:20 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 18th, 2012, 12:31 pm
Posts: 165
hatch wrote:
t marchetti, Your statement " Lets be honest, FFO isn't about protecting the fishery it's about excluding people, people who pay taxes and buy licenses", came across to me as as statement of your beliefs on the subject, not as a topic for "food for thought" or something said "tongue in cheek". That is why I read your post twice. Your following statement "Why do we fly fishermen deserve a special place for ourselves" is also stated in a manner that might make a reader think it's your belief as to the facts of the situation not a hypothetical statement to make a point concerning your true beliefs on the subject. Am I even coming close to getting this right? I tend to take what people say literally. I cant see your body language or hear your tone of voice to help me interpret your meaning.

Communication in this media can easily be misunderstood. I try to be very clear about the points I am trying to make. Misunderstandings between debating parties can be corrected almost immediately in a face to face discussion. Unfortunately that cannot be done here. Sorry if I misinterpreted the points you were trying to make. I guess I am still not totally clear on your beliefs on this topic. Perhaps we all need to be extra clear on our stance and the points we are trying to make while posting here.


I believe that FFO is exclusive and that the only reason that it works is because it is exclusive. I also believe that when people are excluded they sometimes rebel and are less likely to see your point of view. I believe that we all need to work together to protect our resources. Growing up in the Belgrade area, I saw first hand what a small group of kids could do to a fishery in one season. In 1976 I wrote a letter to the head of fish and game and asked if there was a way to get my local streams designated FFO. He replied that designating streams FFO was unfair to other people that bought fishing licenses and that I should instead talk to other fishermen about conservation. That is the approach that I have taken ever since and I know I converted many meat fishermen over the years. So I believe that education is the answer. If we really want to protect a fragile fishery then we need to limit our own pressure and impact on it and convince others to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 14th, 2019, 10:23 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Posts: 537
I believe that the only people who are excluded from fly fishing have excluded themselves. Yes, you are expected to purchase the proper equipment and learn how to use it in a lawful manner. Many sports require the purchase of specialized equipment and require that the participant follows the rules of the sport when participating. Show up at a public golf course with some baseballs and hockey sticks and see how far you get. When you get escorted off the course will you be shouting "I'm being excluded"?

Those excluded from fly fishing have simply chosen not to purchase the proper equipment required or don't wish to use that equipment within the existing rules. They have made the conscious decision not to. No one has told them they can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 14th, 2019, 10:52 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 18th, 2012, 12:31 pm
Posts: 165
hatch wrote:
I believe that the only people who are excluded from fly fishing have excluded themselves. Yes, you are expected to purchase the proper equipment and learn how to use it in a lawful manner. Many sports require the purchase of specialized equipment and require that the participant follows the rules of the sport when participating. Show up at a public golf course with some baseballs and hockey sticks and see how far you get. When you get escorted off the course will you be shouting "I'm being excluded"?

Those excluded from fly fishing have simply chosen not to purchase the proper equipment required or don't wish to use that equipment within the existing rules. They have made the conscious decision not to. No one has told them they can't.


Poverty excludes people from fly fishing and golfing. Your golf analogy doesn’t make sense, but if I was told I could only use a certain club for a certain shot, then I would have a problem. That being said, I wouldn’t play golf even if I could afford it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 2:07 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Posts: 537
Tim, MY comment about golf and baseballs and hockey sticks was to make the point that many sports require specialized equipment and that equipment must be used taking certain rules into consideration, the same as fly fishing. This fact is common in most sports. Fly fishing is not an exception. It's the way it is.

I'm not sure we agree on the definition of the word exclude . Here is what I found. #1 "to prevent from entering;keep out; bar #2 to prevent from being included , considered, or accepted; reject #3 to put out, expel

With that definition in mind you made the quote "I believe fly fishing is exclusive and that the only reason that it works is that it is exclusive." Do you believe the sport of fly fishing, as managed in the state of Maine, prevents people from entering the sport? Prevents people from being included? How so?

In another post you say " Poverty excludes people from fly fishing and golfing". Yes , the lack of money keeps a lot of us from doing a lot of things. To me this quote says something very different than fly fishing itself being exclusive. I don't think we can blame the fact that we cant afford things on the objects that we cant afford . There are many other factors more deserving of the blame. Yes, fly fishing costs money. So does everything in this world. It may keep some people from fly fishing but I don't think this makes fly fishing "exclusive". It's just a fact of life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 8:32 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 18th, 2012, 12:31 pm
Posts: 165
I didn’t say fly fishing was exclusive. I said the law was exlusive. The law doesn’t prevent people from becoming fly fishermen. It prevents people who are not fly fishermen from fishing. I’m sure we will have to agree to disagree. My biggest point is that, we fly fishermen should not think we are doing anything special for the fishery just because of the method we use. And if we are going to have a law that benefits us, we need to respect it and not morph fly fishing into something resembling other types of fishing to suit our needs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 10:07 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Posts: 537
Hey TMarchetti, Sorry Tim, you did say FFO is exclusive not fly fishing is exclusive. I stand corrected. I still don't think the FFO laws keep people from fishing and result in FFO waters being exclusive. Anyone can fly fish them can't they?

In your latest post you said "The law doesn't prevent people from becoming fly fishermen .It prevents people who are not fly fishermen from fishing." Sorry I don't understand how the laws surrounding fly fishing keep people from fishing. Can you explain your opinions and clarify them for me?

In your last post you say, "" My biggest point is that, we fly fishermen should not think we are doing anything special for the fishery just because of the method we use." Tim I can't speak for any other fly fishermen/women but speaking for myself myself I don't think I am doing anything special for the fishery by fly fishing. I do think that the DIFW has designated certain waters in our state FFO to give that water a level of protection they feel it needs to remain healthy. I am just there following the rules and enjoying what those rules, at least in part, have created. I don't take any credit for it.

Your last statement " And if we are going to have a law that benefits us, we need to respect it and not morph fly fishing into something resembling other types of fishing to suit our needs." Well said Tim. I couldn't agree with you more!


Last edited by hatch on January 15th, 2019, 10:48 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 10:16 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: December 2nd, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 4210
Location: Ellsworth
Fly fishing is expensive.......and that expense precludes people from fishing?

That’s the most laughable argument ever made. Ever talked to a Bass fisherman? $70,000 for a bass boat. $40,000 for a pickup to tow it. 200 lures at $7.00 each. 10 or more graphite sticks at $300 apiece plus 10 level wind reels @ $150.Total of almost $116,000. (And yes......I got these prices from a Bass fisherman).

I’d argue that flyfishing is one of the least expensive outdoor sports. If one really wants to fish ffo waters you go to Beans or Cabelas and get a $75 dollar outfit, a dozen flies, and a couple of leaders. Total outlay under $200. Add $60 for waders if it’s cold out.

Flyfishing an expense keeping people from fishing. bull**** argument every which way but loose.

Dave M

_________________
"Fish the West every year. Life is short; and you'll be dead a long time." Chris Hutchins--2009


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: December 5th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5389
Location: Manchester, ME
Just tried to post a longer response and got interrupted by a phone call, timed out, and it was lost. Hope this is fixed in the new version.

Short version.

(1) How much FFO water is there in Montana?
(2) How many anglers have been pushed out of rivers like the Missouri or the Big Hole or the Yellowstone or Slough Creek or Soda Butte or Armstrong Spring Creek by spin anglers?
(4) (Total sarcasm here.) How about we cut the baby in half. Let spin anglers onto fly water, but limit them to lures (including any split shot) of 1/8 ounce or less. And hold us fly anglers to the same standard, counting the combined weight of cones, beads, shot, and sinking shoot heads we are allowed.
(5) Maine FFO regs are as much about tradition as conservation, though both are involved and important.
(6) For us old farts, some of the newer fly angling techniques are a lot less traditional than say, trolling a tandem Miss Sharon.
(7) It's shack nasty season. Everyone calm down!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 11:43 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5481
Location: Near the tying bench
Jeff Reardon wrote:
Just tried to post a longer response and got interrupted by a phone call, timed out, and it was lost. Hope this is fixed in the new version.

Short version.

(1) How much FFO water is there in Montana?
(2) How many anglers have been pushed out of rivers like the Missouri or the Big Hole or the Yellowstone or Slough Creek or Soda Butte or Armstrong Spring Creek by spin anglers?
(4) (Total sarcasm here.) How about we cut the baby in half. Let spin anglers onto fly water, but limit them to lures (including any split shot) of 1/8 ounce or less. And hold us fly anglers to the same standard, counting the combined weight of cones, beads, shot, and sinking shoot heads we are allowed.
(5) Maine FFO regs are as much about tradition as conservation, though both are involved and important.
(6) For us old farts, some of the newer fly angling techniques are a lot less traditional than say, trolling a tandem Miss Sharon.
(7) It's shack nasty season. Everyone calm down!



Is there a #3?

And yes- I've been pushed from a pool on the Madison by a group of spin anglers. They do exist in Montana.

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 11:44 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 18th, 2012, 12:31 pm
Posts: 165
hatch wrote:
Hey TMarchetti, Sorry Tim, you did say FFO is exclusive not fly fishing is exclusive. I stand corrected. I still don't think the FFO laws keep people from fishing and result in FFO waters being exclusive. Anyone can fly fish them can't they?

In your latest post you said "The law doesn't prevent people from becoming fly fishermen .It prevents people who are not fly fishermen from fishing." Sorry I don't understand how the laws surrounding fly fishing keep people from fishing. Can you explain your opinions and clarify them for me?

In your last post you say, "" My biggest point is that, we fly fishermen should not think we are doing anything special for the fishery just because of the method we use." Tim I can't speak for any other fly fishermen/women but speaking for myself myself I don't think I am doing anything special for the fishery by fly fishing. I do think that the DIFW has designated certain waters in our state FFO to give that water a level of protection they feel it needs to remain healthy. I am just there following the rules and enjoying what those rules, at least in part, have created. I don't take any credit for it.



Your last statement " And if we are going to have a law that benefits us, we need to respect it and not morph fly fishing into something resembling other types of fishing to suit our needs." Well said Tim. I couldn't agree with you more!


I’m glad we could agree on something. Let’s leave it at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: December 5th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5389
Location: Manchester, ME
There may have been a #3.

Some food for thought.

When I fished a lot with ultralight spinning gear, the lightest practical lure I could cast was about 1/64th ounce. And at that, even on a very light rod with 2 lb mono, casts were pretty limited.

Lures of 1/32 ounce and 1/16 ounce were commonly cast on ultralight gear, and light spinning gear could cast lures in 1/16-1/6th ounce. The largest size Mooselook Wobbler is a 1/4 ounce lure--and it's a chunk to cast on any spinning gear I ever used.

1/64 ounce = 442 mg
1/32 = 884
1/16 = 1768

Here are some common fly weights in that range:

Tungsten BB shot: 400 grams
Small Lead Dumbell eyes: 680 mg
Medium lead dumbell eyes: 1030 mg
Large lead dumbell eyes: 1345 mg
3/16 Copper Bead heads: 620 mg
Fish Skull Sculpin Helmet: 1300 mg
Large Tungsten Cone Head: 1250 mg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 9:53 pm 
Offline
FFIM-aholic

Joined: February 14th, 2007, 1:00 am
Posts: 1518
Location: New Hampshire
I am surprised that those fish skulls aren’t heavier than a tungsten cone.

Aside from weight, what about shape and material... I just picture a spoon, Rapala or wobbler slicing through the air better than a clauser or equal weight. When my son wanted to fish a clauser for stripers on a spinning rod, I had to put a one ounce egg weight above the swivel. Admittedly, it was on a medium action rod, that takes some weight to load. Even then, our range was limited.

_________________
"Fishermen...spending their lives in the fields and woods...are often in a more favorable mood for observing her, in the intervals of their pursuits, than philosophers or poets even, who approach her with expectation." - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal??
PostPosted: January 15th, 2019, 9:59 pm 
Offline
FFIM-aholic

Joined: February 14th, 2007, 1:00 am
Posts: 1518
Location: New Hampshire
I am surprised that those fish skulls aren’t heavier than a tungsten cone.

Aside from weight, what about shape and material... I just picture a spoon, Rapala or wobbler slicing through the air better than a clauser or equal weight. When my son wanted to fish a clauser for stripers on a spinning rod, I had to put a one ounce egg weight above the swivel. Admittedly, it was on a medium action rod, that takes some weight to load. Even then, our range was limited.

_________________
"Fishermen...spending their lives in the fields and woods...are often in a more favorable mood for observing her, in the intervals of their pursuits, than philosophers or poets even, who approach her with expectation." - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group