Fly Fishing Stamp

Wildbrowntrout

Wildbrowntrout

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Berks/Tioga County
The latest addition of "Pennsylvania Outdoor News" has an entry in the "Letters" section talking about a fly fishing stamp:

"FLY-FISHING STAMP IS A GREAT CONCEPT!

Last issue a fly-fisherman wrote about implementing a fly-fishing stamp. This really makes a lot sense.

I have tried fly-fishing, but I really don't care for it and it is expensive to get set up. Yet even though I have paid for my fishing license, I don't get to fish the "fly fishing only" areas that have the fish I helped pay for.

I also know that fly-fishermen have put a lot of time and effort into improving streams through organizations like Trout Unlimited. Of course there are other sportsmen's organizations, both local and national that are not fly-fishing organizations that do the same.

I think that a fly-fishing stamp would help to level the playing field for all the bait and lure fishermen, barring political influences of course."

Now I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I sure have a strong opinion on this matter. Thoughts?
 
Are there ffo sections where they stock fish in PA? I always assumed all the FFO areas had wild fish where the state didn't pay to stock them. Having a FFO only section where they need to stock fish would be puzzling to me.
 
Just another tax, IMHO, but pile it on....

No solution will satisfy some people. There are thousands of miles of stream in PA, yet some people fixate on the few miles of streams they can't fish, because they use a different form of tackle. There's plenty of room for a few FFO sections to coexist with all the other stream stretches in the state. And I can't think of many (any?) FFO sections that are the top waters around; in other words, other anglers aren't being excluded from all the best waters by a few FFO designations. Personally, I'm glad they are not creating any more FFO stretches, as it just perpetuates the us vs. them mentality that exists and adds yet another regulation to maintain and comply with.

Two regulations would cover it - C&R All Tackle or Open to Harvest. No stamp needed. Simplify. Cease stocking over wild populations of fish (especially those streams that they dump the minimal allotment of 300 fish in). PFBC financial issues solved, to boot.

"Level the playing field"? If the letter's author wants to get on the playing field, then abide by the rules and buy and use the gear needed to play in that field. There are much bigger issues in cold water conservation than worrying about not being able to fish a FFO section, like losing access to a stream section for ALL angler types. Or having the stream sections warm and no longer be cold water.
 
ryansheehan wrote:
Are there ffo sections where they stock fish in PA? I always assumed all the FFO areas had wild fish where the state didn't pay to stock them. Having a FFO only section where they need to stock fish would be puzzling to me.
Click to expand...

FFO sections are stocked in PA. Some have wild fish, but not necessarily by design :)
 
There are far more all tackle streams to fish. Opening the measly amount of FFO streams to all tackle is just plain silly. Want to fish FFO, play by the rules. Ever notice how much cleaner FFO streams are as far as the amount of beer cans bait cans and just more trash than all tackle streams?
 
The OP proposes a fly fishing stamp.

But offers no supporting arguments for the proposal.

"level the playing field" What is that even supposed to mean?

"flyfishing is expensive" It can be. Or not. And spin gear can be expensive. But the expense of people's tackle isn't in any way relevant to the proposal.




 
troutbert wrote:
The OP proposes a fly fishing stamp.

But offers no supporting arguments for the proposal.

"level the playing field" What is that even supposed to mean?

"flyfishing is expensive" It can be. Or not. And spin gear can be expensive. But the expense of people's tackle isn't in any way relevant to the proposal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you meant me or the guy that wrote it, but I for sure do not agree with what he's saying. Did anybody else find the TU comment to be odd too? "fly fishermen organization", My dad has never touched a fly rod and is a member, as are people who never fished in their whole life.
 
Historically, for whatever reason, PA Outdoor News as well as its previous incarnations under other names, seems to spend a fair amount of time engaged in pot stirring. I guess they see it as being important.

I'm not sure I agree, but whatever.

In any event, I see no reason or justification for a "flyfishing stamp".
Choosing one angling method over another is not the same as being deprived of an opportunity to fish a specific place.

It is a conscious choice you make and like all choices, it has consequences..

 
That guy should be careful what he wishes for. A FF stamp opens the door to a bait dunker stamp, a spin artificial lure stamp.... why not a stamp for everything just like the game commission.
 
Wildbrowntrout wrote:
troutbert wrote:
The OP proposes a fly fishing stamp.

But offers no supporting arguments for the proposal.

"level the playing field" What is that even supposed to mean?

"flyfishing is expensive" It can be. Or not. And spin gear can be expensive. But the expense of people's tackle isn't in any way relevant to the proposal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you meant me or the guy that wrote it, but I for sure do not agree with what he's saying. Did anybody else find the TU comment to be odd too? "fly fishermen organization", My dad has never touched a fly rod and is a member, as are people who never fished in their whole life.
Click to expand...

WBT, is that you "Spinner?" ;-)

I'm an all tackle angler, who prefers fly fishing for trout. And I don't prefer it because it is easier. It isn't. I find it more challenging.

Like anything else, fly fishing is only as expensive as you want it to be. Therefore I agree with TB. Expense is irrelevant unless you are using a stick and shoe string for fishing and dig your own bait.

Now, to answer your question...

I didn't read the article, nor do I intend to look it up.

I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with a special stamp for fishing FFOs, but not a stamp to fly fish in general. It's all just fishing, so to put a special tax on a fishing method would be wrong. But to put a special tax on fishing a certain location would be less malodorous.

But where do we stop?

How about a stamp to fish any special regulations water? Would you support that?

I suppose I wouldn't strongly oppose that, not because it would keep the riffraff out, but because I rarely fish these. Special regs waters are for "special people" and therefore are usually more crowded. :p ;-)

But seriously. In the spirit of level playing field... Wouldn't requiring a special stamp for a special area restricted to a special fishing method, require the funds from said stamp be used to improve, enforce, and/or increase the numbers of special places like that?

That my friend might be a can of worms that didn't consider.



 
Dear Reader,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter. Get yourself a trout stamp and the problem is solved.

Love,

The editor
 
Tangential rant:

I love the "fly fishing is expensive" argument.

A guy a few houses down form me has a fully tricked out sparkle boat for tournament bass fishing....to catch (mostly) largemouth bass! I love bass fishing, but I think it's lunacy to spend many tens of thousands on gear for that.

Compare that to the 7 fly fishing outfits, all gear, fly tying materials accumulated over decades, canoe, etc. that I own (as an example) and he has outspent me 3-4 fold at least.

Oh, and I catch more than my share of largemouth bass on the same waters this guy tournament fishes.

I'm just using this as a case study, not to bash one's use of discretionary income.

IMO, as others have suggested, the cost of entry to fly fishing is quite low, if you are a little creative. For example, I guy I fly fish with bought an old Wonderrod at a yard sale for $5, put a used Medalist reel on it and cheap fly line. It fishes just fine. So, for under $50,he has a functional fly fishing outfit. yes, it costs less than my fly line, but I did not spend north of $50 out of necessity.

Just sayin'...
 
Oh, and to address the OP, I do not support more "stamps. It's asinine. As salmonid said, SIMPLIFY the regs. Adding additional complication is only confusing and encourages breaking of the regs.

My suggestions (FWIW):

1. I think they need to raise the basic annual license fee by at least $10. Then, plan/announce increases about every 5 years. These increases can be smaller ($1-2??) so they will be easier to swallow. I do not WANT to spend the extra money, buy the economics seems to demand it. This will bring in needed revenue for conservation/research projects and admin expenses. I would also very much like to hire and retain more WCOs for enforcement. That will take money!

2. Have 3 designations for waters: 1. all tackle; 2. all tackle approved trout & salmon waters (stocked, trout/salmon combined stamp required); 3. All tackle C&R. Raise the cost of the trout stamp is accordance with the cost of stocking and STOP stocking over "good" wild trout waters (waste of $$ and of a resource); 4. Heritage Waters (ie, Fisherman's Paradise).

Now, was that so difficult?

These are not perfect, but they are easy to understand and comply with.

Yes, some will chose to poach rather than pay more, but I don;t think the rate of poaching will increase so much that it will offset the revenue from price hikes. and the additional patrols should help to address this.

Simplifying the regs will help with compliance, too.

I believe it will net far more money and start to change the culture to expect license fee increases every so often.

Discuss. :)
 
Fly-Swatter, I pretty much agree with all that about simplifying the tegs, but can do one better on the cheapo scale.

I bought a whole bundle of fishing rods at an estate auction once. In that bundle, I saw a White Wonderrod and another old fiberglass fly rod. I think it was an H-I, but can't remember for sure. Basic production fly rod from the early days of fiberglass. Bamboo brown, and metal ferrules. Anyway, I got the entire bundle for $10.

A couple minutes later some guy comes up to me and asks if I would sell him one of the rods in the bundle. I asked, which one? It was a spinning rod, but I don't remember the brand. I just remember it wasn't anything unique. He used to have one just like it when he was a kid. So I asked, how much?

$10.

I said "sold."

Truth is, I would have taken $5.

So, I got a bundle of rods, at least a dozen, with two serviceable fiberglass fly rods... for free.

I sold both, as well as many of the other rods, and gave a few away as well.

Believe it or not, I even sold an old steel bait casting rod withthe screw clamp missing for $5.

Anyway, The Wonderrod was like new, and I sold it on Ebay to someone from Texas for about $25. I can't remember the exact price, but it was a good deal for him, too. I asked what the hell he would he be using that for in Texas. He later sent me a picture of his girlfriend, wearing a nice sun dress and reeling in a channel catfish with that Wonderrod. Was that you UncleShorty?

You know, even I can't make all that up.

 


Ahhh the the classic fly fishing vs bait fishing has arose again lol.
 
It seems to me, that if he thinks fly fishing is expensive, and wants to "level the playing field," then the solution is to tax non-fly fishing until it costs the same as fly fishing. Field leveled!

That modest proposal is no more stupid than the original suggestion (and they're both plenty stupid.)

 
This is another classic example of people not willing to pay for something that they do not use. People think the grass is always greener, like there is more/bigger fish in the FFO sections and they get jealous. Its a totally selfish mentality for people who refuse to see the bigger picture. I wouldn't mind a fly fishing stamp if it meant increased habitat work, protections, etc...
 
I find ffo for stocked fish kind of ridiculous but to each his own.
 
Not a FFO stamp: that would probably not fly, and non ffers would see it as elitist, and fellow ffers would probably want more FFO areas.

Instead, we could use a wild trout stamp, not just to fish wild trout streams but to support wild trout waters. Perhaps the revenue from such a stamp could be used to purchase stream sections or easements to wild trout streams that have been or might be lost behind posted signs. I think minds that are better than mine have proposed something like this on here previously.

This might be an especially good stamp, since recent studies have shown that bait fishing does not totally hammer trout as older studies suggested it did. CRAT areas, such as the LJR and Spring Creek, lend credence to the idea that fish can survive proper releases from the live bait crowd.

Anyhow, I think many would prefer a wild trout stamp to a FFO stamp.
 
nomad_archer wrote:
That guy should be careful what he wishes for. A FF stamp opens the door to a bait dunker stamp, a spin artificial lure stamp.... why not a stamp for everything just like the game commission.
Click to expand...

Yep. Then there will be a crappie pole/tenkara stamp. Having a fly fishing stamp is silly and serves no purpose, plus it just makes things more complicated......especially for people that fish both fly and spin, and whatever else.

Fly fishing only sections make sense conservation wise, but artificial lures only would probably work just as good. Heck, even single hooks(which doesn't rule out jigs and such with spinning gear) if you want to go that route. Many "elitist"(in the eyes of spin guys wanting to fish FFOs) Euro-nymph fly fishermen use jig hooks and even rubber worms with fly rods!! I once found one of those "squirmy wormy" things snagged on a tree in a FFO. And articulated streamers aren't any better than a small treble on a spinner in my opinion. If anything, probably worse. But both are obviously far better than having a fish swallow a big hook with bait.

With that said I'm a fan of All Tackle C&R Regs, and Artificial Lures C&R. Delayed Harvest is cool too. This way nobody is left out, but still, as said FFO sections make up a ridiculously small percentage of the waters in the state. And if you really have the urge to fish those oh so special stockie(generally speaking) spots, just freakin' pick up a cheapo fly rod...

More C&R and/or Delayed Harvest will mean less fish will have to be raised and stocked. Cut stockings on wild fisheries, and then you'll need to raise even less fish. Or relocate those fish to previously fall-stocked places to create additional fishing opportunities. Keep the trout stamp the way it is for the waters that do need stocked, and use any monetary savings towards other stuff, like habitat and access, warmwater fisheries, etc. More special regs would make things more messy though, but fish management wise it would make sense. And if they had a whole bunch more it would really spread out the crowds.

Overall I agree with fly-swatter's idea. Having a couple Heritage FFO sections is cool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top