I was having a conversation recently with a gear fisherman buddy about Oregon’s fly fishing only waters — places like the Metolius, North Fork Middle Fork Willamette and North Umpqua. He argued that those designations were unfair to folks using gear or bait because we all pay the same amount for license fees. He argues that fly fishermen are getting some of the most pristine water in the state “for free”, while others are excluded. So he has been trying to convince ODFW to require a stamp or fee to fish the fly fishing only waters.
And I think it’s a great idea. For an extra $5-$10 a year, maybe the fly only waters get expanded? Or better enforcement? Or most importantly, funds raised through the sale of trout stamps could go into an account that can be used only for stream habitat restoration (i.e. not hatcheries). Other states have tried trout and salmon stamps, a quick Google search brings up Minnesota and Delaware. The federal duck stamp project has been a huge success.
What’s your take on having an Oregon Trout and Steelhead conservation stamp?
-MS
Contact Us:
9 responses so far ↓
1 Adam Glass // Jul 23, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I think it’s a great idea. I would gladly pay 10 extra dollars for better habitat restoration for said waters. Furthermore the expansion of fly only waters would be an added bonus.
2 Ryan Anderson // Jul 23, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Sounds good to me, an extra few bucks to help out the fund raising is a great idea!
3 Levi // Jul 23, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I think that a fee could be put to great use. I also think that it is not necessary. I archery hunt and use a traditional wood bow. There are many areas where the high tech compounds are not allowed to be used, as well as the traditional archer not having to pay an extra fee for the use of this area.
The men and women who fly fish generally have more respect for the environment they are fishing (not in all cases of course) in choosing not to leave empty cans and other garbage around, as well as if they come across these things most pick it up. When you get to a spot where people are throwing bait and other gear in the water you generally find empty worm cans, beer cans and all sorts of strange garbage. With just this consideration I could understand if the ODFW told that group of fishermen they needed to pay an extra $5-$10 added to there license fees every year for the garbage removal.
Like the federal duck stamp has done for its sport I think that a fee could do great things. When you think factor all the cost involved in driving to go where you chose to fish for the day, all your fly equipment food and time… a $5-$10 fee every year would not be a big thing! and could be well worth it in the long run if put to proper use buy the ODFW.
4 Tim // Jul 23, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I think the added fee is a great idea. As for Levi’s comments - this is the type of elitist fly fisherman attitude that results in me getting the “stink eye” from gear fishermen as soon as I start fishing anywhere near them.
In all honesty, I think the whole idea of fly only water is a little ridiculous and elitist. I think it should be single hook artificials only rather than fly only - who cares whether you present your lure/fly with a fly rod or a spinning rod?
5 Matt Siegmund // Jul 24, 2008 at 3:46 am
I’d pay it in a heartbeat! If he want’s to fish the water let him go and buy a fly rod like the rest of us. Maybe it would expand his horizons and move him away from the “dark side ” of the force!!
Maybe he means well, but the mentality of some of those type of people just makes my blood boil. I know most of you have had an incident or two with a “gear fisherman”. I can’t say that I’ve had anywhere near as many with a fly fisherman.
I’ll be the first to admit that I use “gear” occasionaly (not bait) if it’s the best method to fish a certain type of water. But I would never dream of using on the current “fly only” waters.
Besides gear fishing increases the mortality rate of the fish and most of these waters have large native populations. The North Umpqua especially is one of the only places left in the United states, let alone the world, that has a healthy run of native fish. I don’t think allowing gear would be a positive thing.
I can’t say that I’ve met to many guys fishing bait that are interested in “catch and release”, have you?
Maybe that sounds a little elitist, so be it. But what is the reasoning to let them use that kind of tackle on those waters???
I think $5-10 dollars is more than reasonable, and would gladly pay it to keep those waters the way they are.
6 carlos casillas // Jul 24, 2008 at 4:06 pm
$10 is cheap for the privilege.
if you play you must pay.
this is the way of the world!
7 barrett // Jul 24, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Some awesome trout artwork has been on the Wisconsin trout stamps in past years.Some of these stamps are real collectors items.When is the last time you gut hooked a fish on a fly? Prime water can only be prime by protecting it ,10 bucks seems like a small price to pay for the future of fishing.
8 Randall // Jul 25, 2008 at 1:03 am
I think it’s a great idea. I’d like to see more of these ‘fly only’ waters be reduced to single barbless hook, fly or gear…it doesn’t make a difference (bait does). As far as the thought that more ‘gear’ fishermen create more ‘incidents’…that line of thinking is pure rubbish…I’ve had waaay more negative interactions with flyfishermen than gear fishermen & I flyfish exclusively.
9 Erik Stowell // Jul 26, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I would support an extra fee for fly only waters, IF ODFW can really assure that the $ generated would be invested in wild fish management, habitat restoration, enforcement, and expansion of fly/artificial only waters, and not into their trout hatchery programs Oregon is way behind many other states in trout fisheries management (witness Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Montana and gasp - even California). The days of dumping truck loads of liver fed planters into pristine streams and 5 fish limits should be long gone by now!
Leave a Comment