Do the purists force (via legislation) other fly fishers into a corner with ‘traditional’ techniques only? I for one do not want to be forced into a dry fly only waters situation. The full gamet of top to bottom fly fishing should be maintained and C&R maintained. This country seems hellbent on following all manner of Euro methodology. Don’t give an inch on techniques or access. Carefully monitor preservation decisions to be nothing more than a back door ‘sea kittens’ ploy. If you want to use dry flies have at it. As long as no snagging or flossing is taking place then mind your business not mine. I know several rivers already have these ‘no added weight’ restrictions and that is fine…so far, it is ok to still fish subsurface. Perhaps we could institute ‘blindfold’s only waters’ for those that need an ever increasing challenge while preserving the fishery.
I stand corrected:
Perhaps you missed that the article is aimed only at those waters “currently designated as “Fly Fishing Only” (FFO).”
I don’t care how anyone else fishes – I use many different methods including a worm and bobber on a warm water pond – until the state starts setting aside public fisheries for a particular group, excluding others. At that point we should, as responsible anglers and citizens closely examine the purpose behind such restrictions. When weight was allowed on FFO waters here (in 1992 after 40+ years without weight), the primary conservation benefit (sanctuary) of FFO was lost. The water should have been set to ALO (Artificial Lure Only) as some fine sections of our trout streams have been for years. By going ALO the water would be open to all anglers and would still provide some conservation benefit over general law including bait. Retaining FFO when many of the implements allowed were clearly jigs and other lures is hypocritical at best, don’t you agree?
BTW, the article does not even remotely suggest dry flies only. Unweighted streamers, wet flies, and nymphs have been used effectively on the waters I mentioned since I can recall. I was catching fish on one such water using streamers in 1963 – it just takes patience to bring the fish up to the fly, rather than the fly down to the fish. You don’t catch as many fish, but you appreciate each you catch as a fish not a number.
JMO
SwittersB & Exploring 
switter,
Perhaps you missed that the article is aimed only at those waters “currently designated as “Fly Fishing Only” (FFO).”
I don’t care how anyone else fishes – I use many different methods including a worm and bobber on a warm water pond – until the state starts setting aside public fisheries for a particular group, excluding others. At that point we should, as responsible anglers and citizens closely examine the purpose behind such restrictions. When weight was allowed on FFO waters here (in 1992 after 40+ years without weight), the primary conservation benefit (sanctuary) of FFO was lost. The water should have been set to ALO (Artificial Lure Only) as some fine sections of our trout streams have been for years. By going ALO the water would be open to all anglers and would still provide some conservation benefit over general law including bait. Retaining FFO when many of the implements allowed were clearly jigs and other lures is hypocritical at best, don’t you agree?
BTW, the article does not even remotely suggest dry flies only. Unweighted streamers, wet flies, and nymphs have been used effectively on the waters I mentioned since I can recall. I was catching fish on one such water using streamers in 1963 – it just takes patience to bring the fish up to the fly, rather than the fly down to the fish. You don’t catch as many fish, but you appreciate each you catch as a fish not a number.
JMO
LikeLike