Catskill Fly Fishing Center and Museum

Swung by the Catskill Fly Fishing Museum while visiting the place where I learned how to fly fish.  Saw lots of tiny flies and a hard back copy of Bassin' With A Fly Rod, which surprised me a little.

FWC Keeps Bass Regulations From Last Year

"The statewide bag and length limits for black bass are: 5 Black bass (including largemouth, Suwannee, spotted, Choctaw, and shoal bass, individually or in total), only one of which may be 16 inches or longer in total length. There is no statewide minimum length limit for largemouth bass."

FWC Freshwater Rule Changes for 2017

Was I the only one that thought these limits would only last one year?

The Improved "V" Worm

This is my version of the "V" worm.

Hook:  EWG Worm Hook
Trailer Hook:  Small Salmon Hook
Body:  Wool or Other Large Diameter Yarn
Tail:  Marabou
Trailer Hook Mono:  20lb
Thread:  Black Flat Waxed Nylon

Instructions:

1)  Tie yarn in loop with the loop length ~4x the length of worm desired.

2)   Double the yarn loop.

3)  Anchor the tied end of the loop to something strong and twist the doubled yarn loop to achieve a tight twisted single strand.

4)  Keeping tension on the twisted single strand, fold the end to the tied end of the loop and release the tension.  The twisted single strand will twist with itself to form a double twisted strand.

5)  Using a clothes pin or hackle pliers, clamp the tied end of the loop so that the double twisted strand will not unravel.  Remove from anchoring device by either unhooking or cutting the tied end of the loop.

6)  Set aside the worm body and put hook into vice.  I recommend bending the bard down.

7)  Tie the worm body on hook with hook point up.  Tie close to clamping device.

8)  Remove clamp from worm and trim excess yarn from the hook eye end.

9)  Using 20lb mono, tie a Snell Knot on a small hook, preferably a Salmon Hook or Octopus Hook an inverted eye bend.  Leave a long tag end as that will be used to tie the hook to the worm body.

10)  Thread the "leader" end of the mono through the last hole at the end of worm body and thread until half of the hook's shank is in the body.  The hook should stick our straight of the end of the body with the hook point up.

11)  Using the tag end of the mono from the Snell Knot, form an Overhand Knot and slide the loop of the overhand knot over the tail of the worm body until it lines up naturally with with the tag end of the Snell Knot on the hook's shank.  Tighten to secure the hook to the worm body and repeat at least three times.

12) Trim off excess line from the tag end of the mono.

13)  Wrap the "leader" end of the mono around the worm's body so that it naturally follows the twisted yarn working your way to the eye of the hook.  It shouldn't be too tight or too loose.

14)  Tie the "leader" end to the hook eye as you would a single mono weed guard by threading the mono through the hook eye, taking a couple of turns of thread, and then folding the mono over the top of the thread and wrapping to secure the mono the head of the worm.  Trim off excess.

15)  Tie to the tail of the worm a tuft of marabou using the overhand knot location from step 11 as the tie end point.  Use enough threat to cover the mono and the marabou should hide the trailer hook.

16)  The completed Improved "V" Worm.

Quote For July

"..enjoy the fresh air, watch the birds, cast your graceful loops, and think transcendental thoughts.  I'd rather catch bass, thank you very much."

"Fred" an unnamed Boston professor that was also known as "Bubba" and held his bass club's "Mr. Bass" Title
(from the article "Bubba's Bait Box" by William G. Tapply Warmwater Fly Fishing Dec 1998-Jan 1999)

Why I No Longer Support The Florida Wildlife Federation

Does the FWF hire bad attorneys or do they sue to generate donations?

In 2015, I stopped giving to the Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) when they decided to sue the State of Florida over Amendment 1, Water and Land Conservation.

I did not vote for Amendment 1.

I typically vote “no” on all constitutional amendments.¹  

They only thing I dislike more than the mob rule of the public passing constitutional amendments is when the state gets sued by conservation groups.   So when the FWF announced triumphantly that the would be suing the government over Amendment 1, I did not renew my membership and sent an email to the president of FWF that cited that I would not support an organization that sues taxpayers. I asked the FWF president why, since Amendment 1 passed with overwhelming support, that FWF could not find one legislator that would sponsor a bill that would craft a better law.  I thought any opposition to such a bill would be political suicide and the conservationists would have the upper hand.

Here is an update on Amendment 1:  Amendment 1 Lawsuit Cost.

I choose organizations that work with government and policy makers, not those that generate frivolous lawsuits that sound good and we all end up paying for, sometimes for a decade....

I recently received an email from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) with a news release stating that an they had prevailed in an important legal case in Appellate Court.  The case was filed by the FWF and some other groups 10 years ago.  Being the legal junkie that I am coupled with the fact I was a previous supporter of the FWF, I looked up the case and was astounded after I read the Appeals Court Ruling.  It was reaffirmation of why I stopped donating the FWF.

The court’s ruling can be found here: FWF vs Army Corps of Engineers

In summary, the FWF sued the Army Corps of Engineers to force them to regulate the flow of Lake Okeechobee for environmental reasons.  Sounds great, right?  Except this duty is the sovereign right of the State of Florida, which it executes through the SFWMD.  But SFWMD was removed from the lawsuit because of sovereign immunity. The Army Corps of Engineers' responsibility in this matter is limited to maintenance and navigation.  One has to ask:  Just where were they going with this lawsuit?  The court openly asked why the lower courts allowed this case to proceed.

The court ruled (emphasis added):

“In line with the case-by-case nature of these determinations, which will necessarily result in nonmerits rulings, courts should be careful not to credit such far-reaching and speculative concerns. This is especially true when, as is the case here, the party seeking the broader ruling attempts to do so to the potential detriment of an absent sovereign entity whose absence is itself an independent ground warranting dismissal.”

The court went on to further admonish the lower court, which had also dismissed the case but only because the Army Corps of Engineers’ immunity (emphasis added):

“The “concrete form” of the dignity and comity interests at stake in affording the proper respect due the Water District as a sovereign entity also strongly favors dismissing the case because of the Water District’s absence. See Pimentel, 553 U.S. at 865–66, 128 S. Ct. at 2190. By ratifying the Conservationists’ voluntary dismissal of the Water District and unnecessarily proceeding to reach the scope of the Corps’s immunity under the navigation-maintenance exception, the District Court set the stage for a potentially expansive ruling in the Water District’s absence. Granting the Corps broad immunity would directly and adversely affect the delicate balance of power struck by the United States and the State of Florida in their management of the Waterway. The Conservationists, whose narrow concerns in this particular litigation do not align with the full range of regulatory interests possessed by the Water District, cannot be expected to serve as an adequate representative of the Water District if the Water District were not joined as a party. And even if the Water District could have waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or participated as amicus curiae, these limited accommodations would fail to fully vindicate the Water District’s sovereign interests, whether by forcing the Water District to forfeit its rightful immunity from suit or by treating the Water District as little more than an interested bystander. When taken together with the other interests at stake and absent substantial countervailing reasons, the Water District’s sovereign interests strongly favor dismissal under Rule 19(b).”

“Far Reaching and Speculative Concerns” says it all.  I wonder where the Amendment 1 lawsuit will be 10 years from now.  Hopefully it will be resolved sooner than that.




*********************************************************************************
¹ I did not vote for Amendment 1 because I am against the whole voting for State Constitutional Amendments by public vote.  Despite having good intentions, the process creates bad law.  I believe that despite the arguing, grandstanding, long and grueling legislative process produces the best laws.  Staffs are involved, community input is solicited (usually from interested parties that the law has a direct effect), and every effort is made to address all concerns and loop-holes and pit falls are considered.  Even with this process, laws usually are found to be lacking, some things come up that appear to obvious in hind sight but were not considered in the draft.  At that point, the law is amended by the legislators or the courts interpret the law as written (at least I hope “interpret” and not write new law).
Consider what happens when the “public” passes a law.  Laws are passed by public vote by design are grossly lacking, overly simplified, and full of loop-holes.  Amendment 1 was no exception:  The Real Amendment 1

Flyrod Spinner Bait + Father’s Day=

7 lbs

The Horntoad Says We Should Go To Guntersville

“THE GUNTERSVILLE EFFECT”

What would you do to become better at your sport?

I am not sure why, but I watched this "documentary" and it just is staying with me like when one thinks about a movie days after seeing it.  Part of it is fishing, part is about economics, and part of it is about friends and family.  Whether you are into tournament bass fishing or not, it is well worth the 30 minutes.

20 Feet Deep:  The Guntersville Effect