Got to thinking about "fly fishing only" again. I don't know about Maine, but when fly fishing only (FFO) regulations came to WA state in 1940 and 41, the only known alternative regulation at that time was standard bait fishing with barbed hooks and 15 fish trout catch limits. The proponents of those FFO regulations (and by coincidence I happened to know and be acquainted with a few of them) really believed FFO served the interests of fish conservation in that fewer fish would be caught and harvested. Concepts like barbless hooks and selective rule regulations were not popularly known at that time. Not to mention "catch and release." Lee Wulff made a hard sell of that concept nearly a hundred years ago, but it didn't really catch on until the 1970s and wild trout management in Montana actually became a fishery management concept.
Built into the philosophy associated with fly fishing is the concept of restraint. "By choosing to fly fish, I limit myself to a less effective method of fishing." I understand and accept the truth to that in most fishing that I know about, except trout fishing. Certainly in early season, as rivers are coming down from spring runoff and as lakes are just beginning to warm, bait fishing is more effective. But once streams drop into shape and hatches regularly occur, and lakes warm up to where insect hatches become prolific, fly fishing seems more effective than anything short of blasting caps and gillnets. At least in my experience.
I was fishing Lake Chopaka in 1973 when I met a local man from Loomis. He was an L.A. transplant who moved to take a teaching job there. He said at first he wanted to teach all his newfound acquaintances to fly fish. He soon realized that would be a terrible mistake. The locals idea of a fishing creel was a gunnysack, and it was meant to be filled. Restraint just wasn't a part of most people's fish and wildlife philosophy. Creating a population of murderous anglers wasn't something he wanted on his conscience, so he stopped teaching the gospel of fly fishing. That makes perfect sense to me.
Catch and release fishing only came to me as a concept after I started fly fishing seriously. I was a casual fisherman who caught only a few trout because that was usually the best I could do. So it was natural to catch a brace of trout - as many as I would eat - and then stop for the day. As I began to get the hang of fly fishing, my catching increased exponentially. I remembered reading one of the Lee Wulff articles about a trout being to valuable to be caught only once. I had 2 or 3 dead trout in my creel, and I didn't want to stop fishing. So duh! Releasing fish suddenly became the most sensible thing to do after first catching them.
Fly fishing may be associated with the elitist nature of practicing restraint when fishing, but it is no longer as necessary to fish conservation objectives. Decades of experience has demonstrated that "selective rules" the prohibit bait and allow only artificial lures and flies, and single, barbless hooks serve conservation objectives quite well. Where FFO has the edge is in providing a higher quality fishery for the reason, I think, that a lot of anglers simply choose not to participate. Consequently, the fishing pressure tends to be lower on FFO waters, making for a higher quality fishing experience for those who do choose to participate. This is seen as a good outcome for those among us who think fish management should provide a range of experiences to the public. But it is seen as unjust and a bad outcome for those who would have everything reduced to the least common denominator. This leads to the sorta' political comment: All hail diversity and inclusion, but fvck equity.
