# Leader Length Discussion



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

New York has had, for years, a restriction on the length of line between added weight and the hook. Basically, your "leader" cannot be longer than 4 feet long. In "fly-speak", this is in reference to what would commonly be referred to as a tippet. Bottom line, if you are using split shot, slinkies, etc then your hook can't be more than 4' from that weight. The purpose of this regulation is to lessen the chances that fish may be "lined" (ie snagged in the mouth).

Given the various discussion on here regarding "lining", "flossing", and "mouth hockey" I was wondering where the barometer of public opinion is regarding this topic? While I agree with people that feel we are already being over-regulated, I think a regulation like this will shed new light on the very common practice of running excessively long leaders to fish that clearly are not biting. In essense, it has legalized snagging to a degree.

Please keep your coments civil. I am just trying to get an idea where people stand on this topic? When I made mention of it in past emails to individuals in the DNRE, I did not receive any response.


----------



## Ron Matthews (Aug 10, 2006)

in Michigan?
Forget it-
We can't get passed OUTRIGHT SNAGGING with enforcement of laws already in the books....


----------



## big_phish (Jan 1, 2009)

Leader can't be more than 4'? I thought the shorter the leader, the more prone one is to snagging. I personally converted my 13' float rod to a drift rod and I use leaders that are 8-9' long. That's the only way, other than float fishing I've been able to catch steelies.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

big_phish said:


> Leader can't be more than 4'? I thought the shorter the leader, the more prone one is to snagging. I personally converted my 13' float rod to a drift rod and I use leaders that are 8-9' long. That's the only way, other than float fishing I've been able to catch steelies.


Why do you feel you need to use an 8' leader? Are you fishing to fish on gravel? If so, chances are good that a percentage of the fish that you caught were "lined" and not feeding because they were busy trying to spawn.


----------



## FishKilla419 (Feb 22, 2008)

Spawn,flies,wobble glos. When I bottom bounce, my leader is no longer than 3-4' if that.

I think if we could get past the legalized snagging rigs and out right snagging it would be a start.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

You will still have people fishing a 2-4' leader that on fishing for salmon will set the hook on the "bump". Having a max 4' leader, you'd probably have a ton of fly fisherman po'd that they are not fair hooking as many because the shorter leader is spooking fish.


----------



## jrv (Nov 11, 2008)

I've had times where I am sight fishing and I know that a short leader spooks the fish because they see the weight bouncing at them. 4 feet usually works well; they aren't scared of the wieght and you usually don't end up lining the fish.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

TSS Caddis said:


> you'd probably have a ton of fly fisherman po'd that they are not fair hooking as many because the shorter leader is spooking fish.


:lol: I have no doubt that some people would not hook as many fish. I also can't see how even a 3' leader would spook fish? When it comes to salmon, its not always the weight they are trying to get away from, a lot of time its that blasted egg-sucking leech that keeps drifting/swinging over their bed. Bare hooks will hook more salmon in the mouth that any fly if the fish are on shallow gravel.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Is that rule for only rivers? Or does it include lakes? The reason I ask is sometimes when I pier fish I use a long leader for soaking spawn.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

diztortion said:


> Is that rule for only rivers? Or does it include lakes? The reason I ask is sometimes when I pier fish I use a long leader for soaking spawn.


The regulation in New York is for only certain salmon/steelhead/trout streams and rivers.


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

diztortion said:


> Is that rule for only rivers? Or does it include lakes? The reason I ask is sometimes when I pier fish I use a long leader for soaking spawn.


I see your point in question, but you are not drifting your presentation at fish as if you would in a river. I would think leader length fishing from a pier or surf would be irrelevant.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

salmo'dog said:


> I see your point in question, but you are not drifting your presentation at fish as if you would in a river. I would think leader length fishing from a pier or surf would be irrelevant.


You never know around this state. I could see them throwing a law in the books including ALL waterways. 

I honestly believe, that it's about pointless. The only thing to me that would make sense would be to educate people are the practice. Even after a law would go into effect, it would still happen.


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

diztortion said:


> You never know around this state. I could see them throwing a law in the books including ALL waterways.
> 
> I honestly believe, that it's about pointless. The only thing to me that would make sense would be to educate people are the practice. Even after a law would go into effect, it would still happen.


I agree, but it's not just leader length...sure running long leaders is more to the "finesse" side of snagging (*NOT* for *ALL* anglers). Let's say the leader length restriction is in effect at a 4' maximum, then what about all the people we see with a treble hook just within the maximum size/shank guidline (with choice of yarn, rubber egg, or nothing at all) with a splitshot about two to three inches above it?

It is a double edged sword to get a restriction in place and it all comes back to the fact of not enough enforcement vs. illegal methods of angling. It will frustrate the heck out of us for the rest of our lives, but nevertheless, I always in a fairly decent manner try to persuade any angler I see with that kind of rig to try bobber and spawn or cast cranks and spinners. They do bite ya know!:coolgleam


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

If I use a six hundred dollar rod, a four hundred dollar reel, and drive a 50,000 suv, I couldnt possibly be snaging could I? I use a ten foot floro leader, and two micro dot flys make up my PM two fly rig. My 350 dollar a day guide says were finese fishing, unlike those heathen bait chuckers. I am very critical of anyone who is not fly fishing, cuck and duck is real fly fishing, right? If I get concerned about possibly foul hooking fish, after the fourtyth fish of the day breaks me off with that strange little sideways jump, we switch to indicator rigs. No bobber for us! We run at least six foot of leader past the weight because we are purists. If we throw this rig in the dark water where we cant see whats happening its all good. I also keep the rap line on my cell so I can report any snaggers I see.


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Won't happen, will make it to hard for the most guys on the fly water to make a living.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

plugger said:


> If I use a six hundred dollar rod, a four hundred dollar reel, and drive a 50,000 suv, I couldnt possibly be snaging could I? I use a ten foot floro leader, and two micro dot flys make up my PM two fly rig. My 350 dollar a day guide says were finese fishing, unlike those heathen bait chuckers. I am very critical of anyone who is not fly fishing, cuck and duck is real fly fishing, right? If I get concerned about possibly foul hooking fish, after the fourtyth fish of the day breaks me off with that strange little sideways jump, we switch to indicator rigs. No bobber for us! We run at least six foot of leader past the weight because we are purists. If we throw this rig in the dark water where we cant see whats happening its all good. I also keep the rap line on my cell so I can report any snaggers I see.


Bravo! While it might not win "Post of the Year", its definitely "Post of the Month" quality.


----------



## big_phish (Jan 1, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> Why do you feel you need to use an 8' leader? Are you fishing to fish on gravel? If so, chances are good that a percentage of the fish that you caught were "lined" and not feeding because they were busy trying to spawn.


 
Let me tell you a little story. A few years ago, I was fishing manistee with some friends of mine. After a day of trying, we were ready to pack up and leave when an old timer comes down and fishes next to us. On his very first drift, he hooks up. I was po'ed. :rant: Now, was the fish "lined?" Don't know, I didn't set his hook. I can tell you the fish came in head first and he pull the hook out of his mouth. When I inquired what I may be doing wrong, he said to use a longer leader. So I decided to stay a while longer and apply my newfound knowledge. About 30 minutes later, I hook up and land my first manistee steelhead. The rest is history. It was a shame I never got his name. He even coached me through playing an landing the fish. Ever since then, I've used a longer leader. Btw, the hook was deep inside the fish's mouth. 

Despite having caught fish, my hook and landing ratio is still very low. On average, a good day for me is right around 5 or 6 hookups and maybe landing 1 out of them. It's a long day of fishing for so few hookups but you and everyone else on here will agree it is rewarding nonetheless. Perphaps a shorter leader will result in more hookups. Definately something I will go back to trying the next time I'm out. Isn't it great that there's a site like this that allows us to share information. 

To answer your question, no, I do not target fish on gravel. Majority of my fish have come from fishing holes, transition waters and other likely spots along the rivers. I am gradually learning to interpet flow, undersand and water temp but I'll confess, it's not a priority when you are a weekend fisherman and life calls on the other days as you well know. It has been a long and enduring process for me to find some relative amount of success and continues to be a learning experience. My knowledge of fishing has come from sites like this, trial and error, and countless hours on the water. I come from a worm drowning family. :lol:

Have I fouled hooked fish while fishing legitimately, sure, most if not all of us have. Maybe one day, you and I can fish together and I/we can learn from each other. Good luck.


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

If you line 40 fish and set the hook on everyone of them, how many times will the hook miss the outside of the mouth and get stuck inside the mouth to make it appear as though the fish bit? Can someone please give a mathmatical formula for this scenario? I believe a lot of the fish hooked inside the mouth on flies during migratory runs are simply lined fish that get hooked as mentioned above. I do want to say that you don't have to fish gravel to line fish. Many steelhead and salmon are lined on a daily basis in the holes very easily. Maybe a one fly on the line rule in the future?


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

plugger said:


> If I use a six hundred dollar rod, a four hundred dollar reel, and drive a 50,000 suv, I couldnt possibly be snaging could I? I use a ten foot floro leader, and two micro dot flys make up my PM two fly rig. My 350 dollar a day guide says were finese fishing, unlike those heathen bait chuckers. I am very critical of anyone who is not fly fishing, cuck and duck is real fly fishing, right? If I get concerned about possibly foul hooking fish, after the fourtyth fish of the day breaks me off with that strange little sideways jump, we switch to indicator rigs. No bobber for us! We run at least six foot of leader past the weight because we are purists. If we throw this rig in the dark water where we cant see whats happening its all good. I also keep the rap line on my cell so I can report any snaggers I see.





Flyfisher said:


> Bravo! While it might not win "Post of the Year", its definitely "Post of the Month" quality.


For my own story, back in the day I'd get in the local lineup below the handicap deck at Tippy.. the norm was an extreme over length leader. Not uncommon for a guy [in carhart jacket, old neo boot foot waders, orange knit stretch hat, to mirror your broad stroke of the brush] with your standard 9' light spin rod to have a pencil [or weight of choice] reeled up all but touching the tip top with arms held upright and _still_ have his terminal [sometimes multiple hooks] hanging slightly downstream in the current. Did these sports get fish? You know it! more by far than we did. The finger pointing grows tedious... it's the man, not the gear, that implements intent / method.. good / bad or otherwise.

I'll Quote myself [and provide link] from your original thread on same topic of not so distant past.




Flyfisher said:


> Oldgrandman, lining is the real deal. All you need is a single fly (or bare hook for that matter), 6'-8' leader, and a 1/4 downstream approach to a spawning fish in 12"-18" of water. Its a great way to "mouth" hook a loose fish or two off of gravel in the Fall. Posted by Flyfisher 06-20-2007, 10:42 PM post # 30





shotgunner said:


> Agreed!100%! Thing is, its FAR from just people hanging onto a flyrod doing it. Its a fact of the whole.. an unstopable faction.. a SEPERATE issue that I don't see as connected with the one @ hand.
> 
> *For the record I'd wholeheartedly support a leader length restriction [New york implemented 4' a few years ago] and equal bait only waters.. No purist here Where do i sign?*
> SG


Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: DNR should restrict leader lengths... - Page 3 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...=189783&highlight=purist&page=3#ixzz138AmcbIi


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

Plenty of fish get zipped inside the yapper, but on the contrary, I've also got some winter steelhead hooked outside the mouth.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Flyfisher said:


> No, please read the first sentence of the first post in this thread. I quoted myself here for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What about 9' fly leaders? Meaning if I am running a floating line and an 8' leader to a surface fly, it's technically against the law, or does their law only count if there is weight attached to the leader? If it's just when there is weight attached, this would be a perfect law to have here in Michigan.

Something similar to this is what I would LOVE to see at the creek mouths here on the Joe. Instead of some worthless hook size regulation...


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I would support a leader length not to exceed 4' from attached weight, the only way I would need a longer leader is if I wanted to line a fish.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> To try and tie this into the current debate about gear restrictions is a lame response, at best.


How do you figure it's not a gear restriction?!


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Boozer said:


> *does their law only count if there is weight attached to the leader?* If it's just when there is weight attached, this would be a perfect law to have here in Michigan.
> 
> Something similar to this is what I would LOVE to see at the creek mouths here on the Joe. Instead of some worthless hook size regulation...


Yes, just from the hook to where the weight is attached.

Lining is a problem in many places around the state. It just seems that either people don't care or are in denial.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

diztortion said:


> How do you figure it's not a gear restriction?!


 It's not in the frame as the gear restrictions because it does'nt limit the bait used.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

diztortion said:


> How do you figure it's not a gear restriction?!


Maybe we should go back to the days of allowing M60's (lead molded to a treble hook)? OMG, they outlawed my favorite salmon casting lure!!!

If you want to consider it a "gear restriction" then so be it. I see it as no more a gear restriction than outlawing treble hooks with lead molded on them. 

Once again, you fail to answer my original question regarding a legitimate use for a leader in excess of 4 feet while fishing for trout, salmon, or steelhead? Your avoidance techniques clearly show you can't answer the question, and yet you still argue your side?


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

When they outlaw the use of lead then everyone will suffer the true consequences of gear restriction. Until then I say a maximum of 36" leader with only the use of one fly. They should snag/line half as many fish then because we all know that they should be willing to do whatever it takes to avoid hooking a fish that doesn't bite. Why is it that when it comes to flyfishing on the rivers you have to use two flies to hook fish? I would like to hear the reasonings behind it.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Grass Shrimp said:


> Until then I say a maximum of *48"* leader with only the use of one fly, *baited hook, or artificial lure*


I made some changes (bolded) to reflect my opinion. Leader being defined at the distance between added weight and the hook.



Grass Shrimp said:


> When they outlaw the use of lead then everyone will suffer the true consequences of gear restriction.


True



Grass Shrimp said:


> Why is it that when it comes to flyfishing on the rivers you have to use two flies to hook fish?


I can see both sides of the coin in this argument. I used to use a two-fly rig on a regular basis for steelhead throughout the winter, except I would have about 18" from my split to the first fly and less than a foot to my second fly. It can be effective in trying to determine what the fish want that day, mostly referring to winter steelhead/stream trout. 

However, when two flies are separated by 4' of mono and then another 4' to a slinky weight or pencil lead one effectively has an 8' multi-hook leader, quite common on the Muskegon when the salmon are, you know, doing their thing. Maybe the fly shops promote the two fly rig to sell twice as many flies.

I used to catch 75% of my steelhead on small, pale globugs tied on a #12 scud/caddis hook, even when running two flies, so once I gained confidence in that fly, I fished it solo most of the time. Exception being when the little blacks start emerging in late February. The second fly always seemed to get caught up somehow anyway.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> Please tell us, are you one of those guys that stands below the "blue line" every spring chucking your 10' leaders, snelled yarn, and 1/2oz cannonballs into the muddy waters of the Grand River? I can only figure so...


Considering that Al (Diztortion) has been spending all fall casting cranks and tossing gut, I wouldn't figure him to be the "blue line" type. 

Gear reg changes in process
reduced salmon numbers
dwindling steelhead numbers
At least 30 more jobs being cut in fisheries next year due to no money
Lake Michigan forage base dwindling
Dam removal back lash
Possible/likely new director appointed by new Gov.
Asian Carp threat
long leaders

Which one of those things probably isn't even on the radar?


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

It is becoming very clear that there is no reason to use a leader longer than 4' to catch fish. I get the feeling that the flyfishing community wouldn't support a rule governing this because it would be limiting the way some people grew up learning how to fish. Hmmm. Can we say hypocracy! It wouldn't be right to make them change the way they fish the river. It is all right , though, to fight to change the way others fish the river.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> Considering that Al (Diztortion) has been spending all fall casting cranks and tossing gut, I wouldn't figure him to be the "blue line" type.


I am sure Al's a real decent guy then, just doesn't seem to be able to answer my question while I have answered all of his.



thousandcasts said:


> Which one of those things probably isn't even on the radar?


I'll assume that is a rhetorical question? 

And in the big scheme of things its not that big a deal, so we just ignore it?


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

Seriously this getting way out of line, and sorry flyfisher but your comments are starting to really seem attack based and unneccessary.
I don't personally know diz, but he contributes to the forum in a positive manner and from what Ive read here he simply disagreed with you. And you didn't seem to take too kindly to it.. And this is coming from someone that would support a leader length restriction, as it wouldn't bother me at all.
Just a question though. Don't we have a bigger problem going on right now regarding the state of our fisheries? Why get into this now?
This whole NW forum seems to have taken a turn for the worst of late, with all the bitching and moaning. Let's just stick to one controversy at a time and the fishing reports from the area
Just my .02cents
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

brookies101 said:


> Seriously this getting way out of line, and sorry flyfisher but your comments are starting to really seem attack based and unneccessary.
> I don't personally know diz, but he contributes to the forum in a positive manner and from what Ive read here he simply disagreed with you. And you didn't seem to take too kindly to it.. And this is coming from someone that would support a leader length restriction, as it wouldn't bother me at all.
> Just a question though. Don't we have a bigger problem going on right now regarding the state of our fisheries? Why get into this now?
> This whole NW forum seems to have taken a turn for the worst of late, with all the bitching and moaning. Let's just stick to one controversy at a time and the fishing reports from the area
> ...


I see your point, and I edited my earlier post that was "unneccessary". Basically, there is no reason for leaders longer than 4 feet and until someone can provide a valid defense in favor of long leaders, I will maintain this position. 

Is the timing bad, probably, given the everything else going on with our fisheries. But is this just something we continue to ignore and allow to happen? Obviously, the State of New York felt it important enough to regulate, why can't Michigan?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

brookies101 said:


> This whole NW forum seems to have taken a turn for the worst of late, with all the bitching and moaning. Let's just stick to one controversy at a time and the fishing reports from the area
> Just my .02cents
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This thread has been going rather smoothly, from a mod's viewpoint. Discussion with disagreements will arise and there's no problem with that as long as the discussion is civil. There are times when a thread gets closed, as has happened recently, because they are going on and on..........and on. In order to make room at the top of the forum header page the threads that seem unending do get closed. This one isn't there yet.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> I'll assume that is a rhetorical question?
> 
> And in the big scheme of things its not that big a deal, so we just ignore it?


No, it's a real question. Look, you have a love for long leaders, I get that, as a friend I respect that, however, I personally could care less how long someone's leader is. We all know what the game is. 

However, how many social issues do we really need on the books? This is a social issue. I mean, flies only and artificials only are social issues and most of us disagree with them. Snagging is a social issue and you'll find very little argument defending that. 

Fisheries and law enforcement are not intertwined. Fisheries could pass a reg tomorrow that states everyone has to wear a blue Amish maid bonnet when out on the water. That doesn't mean that law enforcement is suddenly going to make that a priority. Hell, take the Grand for example--the blue line guys, the east corner rippers, the bridge guys taking multiple limits of steelhead in a single day, etc. When's the last time you saw any of those guys get a ticket? The few CO's we've got already have a tough enough time enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. More regs is gonna help that?


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> No, it's a real question. Look, you have a (erection) for long leaders, I get that, as a friend I respect that, however, I personally could care less how long someone's leader is.  We all know what the game is.
> 
> However, how many social issues do we really need on the books? This is a social issue. I mean, flies only and artificials only are social issues and most of us disagree with them. Snagging is a social issue and you'll find very little argument defending that.
> 
> Fisheries and law enforcement are not intertwined. Fisheries could pass a reg tomorrow that states everyone has to wear a blue Amish maid bonnet when out on the water. That doesn't mean that law enforcement is suddenly going to make that a priority. Hell, take the Grand for example--the blue line guys, the east corner rippers, the bridge guys taking multiple limits of steelhead in a single day, etc. When's the last time you saw any of those guys get a ticket? The few CO's we've got already have a tough enough time enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. More regs is gonna help that?


So, we just ignore it? Using your line of thinking, if there were so many drunk drivers that police could properly enforce it, we should not have the laws on the books?

If we are going to have "anti-snagging" laws on the books and regulate tackle based on those laws, this should be included, in my opinion.

And I am sure you realize why, over the years, I feel like this is something that really should be regulated. Recent developments on the "fisheries" side of things just further bolsters my desire to see this through.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> And I am sure you realize why, over the years, I feel like this is something that really should be regulated. Recent developments on the "fisheries" side of things just further bolsters my desire to see this through.


And playing devil's advocate here, how does a game of "they're trying to screw us, so let's screw them back" get anything solved? If anything, the only thing it does is further the divide between interested parties and once everyone's at the table to address a real, biological issue, I'm sure that's all going to be forgotten and everyone will work together, right? 

At some point, this "us" against "them" stuff has got to stop, otherwise EVERYONE is going to get screwed. 

I mean, you know me pretty well and "forgive and forget" is certainly not part of my vocabulary and I'm like a bitter old person that is still wanting revenge for stuff that happened 20 years ago. However, we're talking about something that supercedes individuals here. I mean, half this stuff is politics and we have to play the game better if we want to have a voice. Part of that is trying to erase this stereotype that we're all a bunch of meat hunters who don't care about the resource and part of it is also public relations and knowing when to be the better "men," so to speak.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

thousandcasts said:


> And playing devil's advocate here, how does a game of "they're trying to screw us, so let's screw them back" get anything solved? If anything, the only thing it does is further the divide between interested parties and once everyone's at the table to address a real, biological issue, I'm sure that's all going to be forgotten and everyone will work together, right?
> 
> At some point, this "us" against "them" stuff has got to stop, otherwise EVERYONE is going to get screwed.
> 
> I mean, you know me pretty well and "forgive and forget" is certainly not part of my vocabulary and I'm like a bitter old person that is still wanting revenge for stuff that happened 20 years ago. However, we're talking about something that supercedes individuals here. I mean, half this stuff is politics and we have to play the game better if we want to have a voice. Part of that is trying to erase this stereotype that we're all a bunch of meat hunters who don't care about the resource and part of it is also public relations and knowing when to be the better "men," so to speak.


 Who are you and what did you with Hutch?


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> And playing devil's advocate here, how does a game of "they're trying to screw us, so let's screw them back" get anything solved? If anything, the only thing it does is further the divide between interested parties and once everyone's at the table to address a real, biological issue, I'm sure that's all going to be forgotten and everyone will work together, right?
> 
> At some point, this "us" against "them" stuff has got to stop, otherwise EVERYONE is going to get screwed.
> 
> I mean, you know me pretty well and "forgive and forget" is certainly not part of my vocabulary and I'm like a bitter old person that is still wanting revenge for stuff that happened 20 years ago. However, we're talking about something that supercedes individuals here. I mean, half this stuff is politics and we have to play the game better if we want to have a voice. Part of that is trying to erase this stereotype that we're all a bunch of meat hunters who don't care about the resource and part of it is also public relations and knowing when to be the better "men," so to speak.


I understand where you are coming from. As you mentioned, this is an "enforcement" issue and not a "fisheries" issue so if I decide to take my suggestions anywhere, as a concerned sportsman, it would be to the enforcement division. Regardless of the initial motivating factors, this is not a "us against them" scenario as this practice is simply not restricted to one single type of tackle or user group. As you can imagine, I am not very good at politics, and have no desire to enter that realm. Simply put, I see a good regulation on the books in another state with similar fisheries, and don't see why sportsmen, as a whole, wouldn't benefit from it.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> I understand where you are coming from. As you mentioned, this is an "enforcement" issue and not a "fisheries" issue so if I decide to take my suggestions anywhere, as a concerned sportsman, it would be to the enforcement division. Regardless of the initial motivating factors, this is not a "us against them" scenario as this practice is simply not restricted to one single type of tackle or user group. As you can imagine, I am not very good at politics, and have no desire to enter that realm. Simply put, I see a good regulation on the books in another state with similar fisheries, and don't see why sportsmen, as a whole, wouldn't benefit from it.


No, it's not an enforcement issue unless it's in the gear regs. It's fisheries that decides what to put in the gear regs and then the enforcement division enforces any fish, game, etc that are on the books. Now, granted, there's a process involved, but at the end of the day the fisheries division sets regs that involve said fisheries. 

The problem is that too many guys are getting caught up in the whole legal mumbo jumbo and this discriminates or that segregates and Lord knows I have as well in the past. Like I said, with one stroke of the pen they could state that you can only fish wearing a blue bonnet and zebco 202 combo. Perfectly legal since they're not denying anyone access to the water, but merely setting forth a regulation for fishing. Now, is that an enforceable law? No. Would they do something like that? Of course not. However, the enforcement division would probably love to see the regs simplified, so I don't know how far some leader law would go as that just adds one more thing to what they have to look out for every fall or spring. 

Not arguing...just sayin'


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> I think what makes this lining issue so visceral is the hypocrisy associated with the types of people who know what they are doing and try to convince us or their clients are righteous. The hypocrisy, sanctimony, irreverence, duplicity, and self-righteousness of those who pretend they are way above us slobs is what really irritates us.


First, thanks for your comments. I have been trying to avoid targeting specific groups with my discussion as this topic clearly addresses all classes of anglers and tackle. I do understand your point, however.



Splitshot said:


> That doesn&#8217;t mean that no action should be taken when individuals cross the line, but to punish everyone else when the topic is closed to further discussion because a few people lose control or because in their opinion there was enough discussion is unfair to the people who still have something to say about the subject.


True, and the original poster, I am apologetic over comments I made yesterday (and deleted). Its difficult, in the internet world, to have someone continue to deflect questions while asking the same question over and over, despite it being answered. It reminded me of watching a politician "answering questions" during a press conference.

This thread has been interesting so far and I look forward to valid reasons to not restrict leader length. Otherwise, I ask, where do we go from here?

And just to clarify, here is the way the law is written in the NYSDEC regulation book.



NYSDEC said:


> The distance between the hook, artificial fly or lure and any weight attached to the line or leader, whether fixed or sliding, shall not exceed four feet


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Flyfisher said:


> This thread has been interesting so far and I look forward to *valid reasons* to not restrict leader length.


There really is no valid reason outside of ones personal preference to fish with long leaders.


----------



## mydogisscout (Jun 24, 2005)

Flyfisher said:


> Well then, please share with me a truly legitimate reason to fish a leader longer than 4 feet long in a river?


as long as the fish is hooked legally in the mouth, WHO CARES if it was flossed or not? Washington state allos the fish to be hooked anywhere in the head forward of the trailing edge of the gill plate. they do that because the DNR knows the fish aren't biting while in the river PERIOD.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

mydogisscout said:


> as long as the fish is hooked legally in the mouth, WHO CARES if it was flossed or not? *Washington state allos the fish to be hooked anywhere in the head forward of the trailing edge owf the gill plate*. they do that because the DNR knows the fish aren't biting while in the river PERIOD.


I would be interested in reading that regulation, can you provide a link for me?

As far as caring whether a fish is "flossed or not", I would like to cite *Michigan's* current regulations and *definition of snagging*, which certainly does not permit the "lining" or "flossing" of fish.



MI DNRE said:


> Snagging means attempting to take fish in a manner that *the fish does not take the hook voluntarily in its mouth*. It is unlawful to snag fish.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

mydogisscout said:


> as long as the fish is hooked legally in the mouth, WHO CARES if it was flossed or not? Washington state allos the fish to be hooked anywhere in the head forward of the trailing edge of the gill plate. they do that because the DNR knows the fish aren't biting while in the river PERIOD.


so your one of those guys that thinks as long as the deer, that was shot at night, has a tag on it thers no harm,no foul.
As someone who fishes washington state alot i was not aware of that reg. Never actually had a fish out there hooked outside of the mouth. Washington fish are a different animal than what we have here in michigan. They will assasinate drift bobber, chase down hardware and suck down tennis ball chunks of skein.
Alaska has the gills forward, that i am aware of.
As far as this urban legend of fish not biting in the river please feel free to list a few links for this where the washington fisheries admits that river salmon and steelhead don't bite while in the river.
I don't think you can.
I think you all use the salmon don't bite in the rivers to justify the fact that when it comes to really river salmon fishing, you couldn't hit water if ya fell outta the boat. You have no clue so you justify it with puffery. 
All you have to do is look at threads on this site refering to throwing cranks, floats and skein and swinging big nasties. Salmon in the rivers do bite and are caught in an ethical manner. Sorry you don't get it, others do.


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

mydogisscout said:


> as long as the fish is hooked legally in the mouth, WHO CARES if it was flossed or not? Washington state allos the fish to be hooked anywhere in the head forward of the trailing edge of the gill plate. they do that because the DNR knows the fish aren't biting while in the river PERIOD.


Dude!...Seriously??? That's all I am going to say to this!


----------



## fishfly (Sep 7, 2007)

mydogisscout said:


> fish aren't biting while in the river PERIOD.


:help:this guy...


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Please, let's keep this conversation civil so the thread remains open.

There is some truth to the comments about Washington State allowing fish hooked "on the head" but their definition of snagging still reads the same:



WA DFW said:


> Snagging-Attempting to take fish with a hook and line in such a way that the fish does not voluntarily take the hook(s) in its mouth.


With the popularity of back-trolling plugs in the Pacific NW, one can only imagine that the state allows fish hooked in the head for the instance when salmon/steelhead slam a plug and end up with the hooks plastered all over its face. I could NOT find anything that says Washington DFW acknowledges that fish in the rivers don't bite.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

SEAWOLF XI said:


> Maybe you should practice catch and release with rotting kings in Oct. that would be the right thing to do right.


Nobody is proposing "no kill" anywhere in this thread, only "anti-snagging" regulations. Are we to assume that you do NOT even favor the current anti-snagging regulations? Your position on this topic is noted.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

This is an interesting debate. Clearly a matter of your preference for ethics vs additional regulations. 

Since I only fly fish a little, and never for Salmon, I'll keep my opinion to myself. That said, if you have a strong opinion on the issue one way or another, I encourage you to contact the DNR. They are listening to you..

Their email addresses are a matter of public information and can be looked up on the MDNR web site.

Don


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

fishinDon said:


> This is an interesting debate. Clearly a matter of your preference for ethics vs additional regulations.
> 
> Since I only fly fish a little, and never for Salmon, I'll keep my opinion to myself. That said, if you have a strong opinion on the issue one way or another, I encourage you to contact the DNR. They are listening to you..
> 
> ...


Thanks, Don. I have began the process of contact with the state.

Fortunately, this is an issue (snagging) for which the state has already taken a position on and has defined. The addition of this type of regulation simply enhances what is already on the books and does not exclude or target any one class of sportsman. Its universal whether you fish with bait, flies, or artificial lures on a fly tackle, spinning tackle, or a simple cane pole. Amongst the people that oppose snagging, I haven't heard truly valid arguments against this additional measure.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

Wow miss a couple days and fall pages behind. Anyone tuning in now please see Nighttimer's high quality post on page 5 #75 

Grass Shrimp, in my opinion your post #50 is off base. The 'fly fishing community' is made up of many facets, mainly inland resident fans and Potomodrous pursuers with a percentage of crossover. I'm not so sure the majority wouldn't support a 4' max leader length._ As for "the way some people grew up learning how to fish"_ I'm not so sure there either.. Just guessing here, but it's quite possible the majority of the 'two trips a year' crowd didn't get started until later in life, _after_ they'd become established.

Personally, I got my start on tribs of the Big Manistee with Browns and Brookies, drifting home dug angle worms pulled from burdock roots and picking crawlers when available. Age 9

If If a 4' leader law was implemented, it would provide the option of enforcement. It would be known and recognised.. whether or not obeyed.. Much like speed limits and seat belts you'd be sticking your neck out not to do so.

Flyfisher, for the third time and counting, *I'd support the 4' max leader length.*


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

shotgunner said:


> Flyfisher, for the third time and counting, *I'd support the 4' max leader length.*


Please send an email to the Fisheries division. If we don't write them to express our feeling, they would not be able to take this into consideration. 

And yes, I agree that "nighttimer's" post was very well said.


----------

