# Artificial Flies and Lures Only?



## utahtu (Apr 2, 2008)

My question is this: Many waters in Utah are listed as "Artificial Flies and Lures Only" which is great. However, artificial lures include anything even 6-8" Rapala type lures with three sets of treble hooks. Does this seem reasonable that Utah allows these lures as a tool to promote conservation of our fisheries?

I suggested to DWR that 'artificial lures' be defined as lures with single barbless hooks. The powers that be in the fisheries section said that wasn't practical and would not consider any such change.

Your thoughts.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm not sure I understand. What is the benefit of your defintion over the current definition. Do you think that fewer hooks that are barbless will help more fish survive release? If so, what data do you have to show that fish dying after release in these systems supports such an opinion? 

Please clarify so I can understand a little better.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Well its obvious you fly-fish. Which is cool by me, I do to but I also throw lures. I would no doubt agree that more fish are killed by trebles on a 6" rapala than an 18 adams but I think that gap is smaller than that of a gut hooked fish from say a worm hook. I have never had to cut the line and let a trout have a rapala. Normally there is only one or two of the six hooks actually in the fish and most of the time its right in the corner of the mouth. I have never had a fish swallow a lucky craft down to its guts. Fish swallow bait, they dont swallow big lures. My .02 cents.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

utahtu,
I can see your point. And I can only speculate as to the reasons the DWR has not restricted "artificial lures" further. But in my reading I have found that the only difinitive studies that have been done on released fish mortality show that there is not much difference in released fish caught on artifcial lures and flys. So there really is not much justification in more restrictive rules. That said, the first thing I do to a Rapala when I buy a new one is take the belly hook off. This reduces snagging and the "fowl hooking" of the second hook when a fish is fighting. But I will share an experience I once had that applys here. I was trolling at Scofield many years ago and the fishing was very good. We were keeping a few larger fish to eat but releasing the smaller ones. I had been fishing with a Rapala and releasing fish unharmed but felt compelled to switch to a tripple teaser with a single hook to facilitate releasing fish. The first two fish I caught on the triple teaser were hooked right through the eye and had to be kept. I switched back to a Rapala.


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

I would bet that fighting a fish to near exhaustion on a fly rod does far more damage than catching them on a rapala with spinning gear


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

We're fine the way it is.

I could see a regulation like that on a water that is mandatory C&R, full time. Possibly on Huntington Creek as well, where fly fishing is the only method allowed.

Other than that, people who are interested in fishing in such a way should continue to do so without trying to force others to follow suit. They can pat themselves on the back and know that they put a smaller hole in the face of some fish that day.

The fish in this state, for the most part, are stocked for the public to enjoy. The majority of the fishing public in Utah, I believe, would be against single barbless hooks only.

Let's let Idaho be Idaho and Utah be Utah.

If the single/barbless crowd _really_ wants a place to fish with those regulations, they should get together and raise the funds necessary (they seem to be good at that) to build a private lake for that very thing. Until then, they're at the mercy of the publicly funded DWR.



utahtu said:


> artificial lures include anything even 6-8" Rapala type lures with three sets of treble hooks. Does this seem reasonable that Utah allows these lures as a tool to promote conservation of our fisheries?


I don't believe that the lures are being allowed *as a tool to promote conservation.* I believe they're being allowed as a tool to catch fish, which is what most anglers are trying to do while on the water.

Harvest is a tool of conservation. A very important part of conservation, I would think.


----------



## cat_man (Sep 19, 2007)

If you want that rule, come to Washington. Here there are some rivers that are 'selective gear' rules. That means no bait, and artificial lures must have only one single hook (no trebles) and it must be barbless.

The only reason I dislike it is not because it causes you to catch less fish, but rather because it's a pain to change the hooks on my lures when I want to fish in these waters.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Or fish huntington creek here. Flies only.


----------



## FishMogul (Sep 8, 2007)

so we have gone from AFL vs Bait to AFL vs AFL -Ov- 

I see your point... I think it all boils down to how you release the fish. About 99% of the fish I have caught on LC's or Rapalas are lip hooked. I have never witnessed a fish swallow a Rapala or LC. and I rarely see more than just one treble hook in the lip.. also the Rapalas and LC's that have the 3 treble hooks are just to big to be tossing in little rivers and creeks, at least for what I like to do. I don't know to many people that toss 8" LC's or Rapalas in a river :shock: .. I also fly fish so I can understand your point.. It's just a matter of proper landing and releasing your fish.. If they change the rule I will follow them until then.. I will continue as is.


----------



## Mallardpin (Sep 8, 2007)

hockey said:


> I would bet that fighting a fish to near exhaustion on a fly rod does far more damage than catching them on a rapala with spinning gear


This is the smartest thing said yet. I was a rapala man for a long time and the fish I caught on them were never to tired to swim off. Now that I am more of a fly fisherman, I have some fish that need more time to swim off.


----------



## FishMogul (Sep 8, 2007)

Mallardpin said:


> hockey said:
> 
> 
> > I would bet that fighting a fish to near exhaustion on a fly rod does far more damage than catching them on a rapala with spinning gear
> ...


+1 agree 100%


----------



## slapwater (Jun 18, 2009)

In reference to the comment on Washington Regs, those are in place not to facilitate the releasing of fish or minimize C&R mortality, but to minimize the foul-hooking of spawning salmon that are stacked so thick that people intentionally snag them with trebble hooks. Like has been mentioned, there is no data to suggest trebble hooks, or even barbed hooks increase mortality. I haven't fished with anything other than a fly for 3 years and I crimp my barbs, but adding these as regulations is unnecessary.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> Well its obvious you fly-fish. Which is cool by me, I do to but I also throw lures. I would no doubt agree that more fish are killed by trebles on a 6" rapala than an 18 adams but I think that gap is smaller than that of a gut hooked fish from say a worm hook. I have never had to cut the line and let a trout have a rapala. Normally there is only one or two of the six hooks actually in the fish and most of the time its right in the corner of the mouth. I have never had a fish swallow a lucky craft down to its guts. Fish swallow bait, they dont swallow big lures. My .02 cents.


My thoughts and experience has been the same as Nor-tah's.

Usually one trebble in the corner or lip of the mouth using a rapala or simillar lure. The trick is to land them quickly, keep 'em in the water if possible and handle and release them gently


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

As some have already posted; most fish are only lip hooked.

So IMHO as some have already stated, I firmly believe the following are the ‘main’ reasons for a fish to die. 

1) Over fighting a fish because one has inappropriate tackle including possibly using barb less hooks.

2) Improper handling of the fish when its landed (out of water too long, holding in vertical position, placing on the bottom of a hot metal boat, sticking hands in gills, dragging fish up on shore, dropping fish and the list can go on).

If ‘you’ want to use barb less hooks and remove treble hooks from larger lures that’s 'your' choice…but not necessarily our choice. 

The current Utah DWR regulations are just fine and I say leave them as they’re currently written.

:wink: :wink:


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

FishMogul said:


> Mallardpin said:
> 
> 
> > hockey said:
> ...


 Make that +2

I've noticed a huge difference between the two methods. I still fly fish 90% of the time. And, although I don't feel like the regs need to be changed, I do feel like if you want to change the hooks on your lure it's not a bad idea.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

utahtu said:


> My question is this: Many waters in Utah are listed as "Artificial Flies and Lures Only" which is great. However, artificial lures include anything even 6-8" Rapala type lures with three sets of treble hooks. Does this seem reasonable that Utah allows these lures as a tool to promote conservation of our fisheries?
> 
> I suggested to DWR that 'artificial lures' be defined as lures with single barbless hooks. The powers that be in the fisheries section said that wasn't practical and would not consider any such change.
> 
> Your thoughts.


The question I would pose back would be this. Is there a particular fishery that is having a problem from excessive hooking mortality from treble hooks on lures? From my perspective, it seems to me that most of the AFL waters I visit have some measure of brown trout overpopulation and the loss of a fish or two from an errant hook (or legal harvest) would be considered a GOOD thing. Statements from the DWR itself would support this assertion. I would also agree with others that lure hooking mortality is quite low. The only exceptions I could think of that might benefit from your suggestion are Bonneville or CRC broodstock lakes.

Usually, initiatives to restrict "artificial lures" further like this are suggested in an effort to kick out "lure chuckers" from preferred waters, not truly foster conservation.


----------



## Wilford (Mar 31, 2009)

I think the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife in Utah has already thought this issue out fairly well. I do not see a valid basis for being more restrictive on artificial lures. I personally fish with all methods and feel that each has a place. If someone feels that they need to be more restrictive for themselves, then so be it. I think that it would be counter productive for many reasons to try and be more prescriptive in this area generally.


----------

