The Underground’s Short Casts for 2009-06-21

6 Comments

1. 

   troutdawg June 21, 2009, 1:29 pm Reply

   This should be an interesting debate and loooking forward to hearing more about this new technique~

   TD

     troutdawg(Quote)

2. 

   paul w June 21, 2009, 7:13 pm Reply

   Troutdawg.

   Agreed.

   Already, on other sites, I have seen much debate about whether it is snagging, or not.

   There is so much technology involved in fly fishing today, other than one’s personal ethics, I just wonder if a line can ever be drawn at what is ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ practice.

   It’s probably more a case of highlighting one’s own personality than anything.

   I mean, I remember with fondness when I was a kid fishing with my late (and deeply missed) father – we used floats (it was in England), and I still love watching a float bobbing on the surface.

   So, I like to sometimes use indicators for that very same reason…and have even bought (now, keep calm…) a tiny and beautiful float to use next time I go out.

   That’s right, a float on fly gear. I can already see the raised eyebrows.

   And you know – I don’t give a hoot.

     paul w(Quote)

3. 

   Tom Chandler June 22, 2009, 10:12 am Reply

   paul w: I just wonder if a line can ever be drawn at what is ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ practice.

   That’s certainly accurate, though in this case, it seems as if the legal definition is up for grabs. A couple of folks on Twitter suggested the Moffitt system isn’t legal in their states (Minnesota and Pennsylvania).

   This should prove interesting.

   Frankly, I wonder if the circle hook won’t find a larger audience among fly fishermen for its often-less-damaging-to-the-trout hooking qualities.

     Tom Chandler(Quote)

4. 

   Ray June 22, 2009, 11:23 am Reply

   The “Snagging” opposition to the moffit system was always as stawman, as far as I’m concerned. Opposition used the letter of sportfishing laws to target something that OBVIOUSLY adheres to the spirit of the non-snagging laws (which are in place to prevent people from literally fishing by snagging).

   The fish is voluntarily taking the fly, and the hook is hooking them on the outside of the mouth during hookset.

   That all being said, I really don’t personally see a significant advantage of Moffit vs. Standard barbless flies. I small streams a lot, and catch high numbers of fish, and I’m fairly confident that my hooking is not causing mortality to my quary. I can see the Moffit system for something like fishing egg patterns or something, if there is a concern over deep-hooking.

   Seems like a bunch of hoopla to me, but I do really wish we would see more states requiring barbless hooks overall, and I think this would lead to growth of circle hooks for the baitfishing market….which would be a good thing.

     Ray(Quote)

   • 

     Tom Chandler June 22, 2009, 1:02 pm Reply

     I’m not quite willing to dismiss the snagging issue as a strawman; the distance between flies and hook is probably what is giving some state wildlife folks pause (the Web site suggests a 6″-36″ distance between hook and flies).

     I don’t recall the pegged bead setup suffering so much legal attention.

     In any case, protestations from other fly fishers don’t really count for much; the similarly controversial pegged bead system is pretty much a standard setup among guides.

     Whether the Moffitt system prospers or not may have more to do with simple inertia; the non-standard flies and rigging might be a hard sell with a lot of fly fishers/fly tyers.

       Tom Chandler(Quote)

5. 

   Ray June 22, 2009, 1:25 pm Reply

   Tom Chandler:
   Whether the Moffitt system prospers or not may have more to do with simple inertia; the non-standard flies and rigging might be a hard sell with a lot of fly fishers/fly tyers.

   Myself included.

     Ray(Quote)