Reflections on the Water: The Metaphysics, Sport and Literature of Fly Fishing

D'ARCY EGAN

THE PLAIN DEALER

Steve Schoenwald of Hinckley receives some fly fishing tips at Wade Lagoon from Case Western Reserve University Professor John Orlock. Orlock is teaching a class on the sport - and art - of fly fishing.

To understand the great lit erature spawned by the sport of fly fishing - books written as long as 500 years ago - pick up a fly rod and learn to cast and catch fish.

So says Case Western Reserve University Professor John Orlock.

Orlock is teaching freshmen the art of fly fishing and quite a bit more this fall with his course "Reflections on the Water: The Metaphysics, Sport and Literature of Fly Fishing."

On Thursday morning, Orlock had a dozen young men and women waving fly rods and casting a small fluff of orange yarn into the still waters of Wade Lagoon, dappling the reflection of the nearby Cleveland Museum of Art.

"The course is an examination of fly fishing with an integration of academic skills, providing an introduction to outdoor life," said Orlock, who, not surprisingly, is an avid fly fisherman. "Fly fishing, like no other sport, has been responsible for a proliferation of great literature."

A part of the college's SAGES (Seminar Approach to General Education and Scholarship) undergraduate program, the course has been a collaborative effort, said Orlock. Molly Berger and Peter Whiting, deans of the College of Arts and Sciences, encouraged Orlock. So did steelhead trout fisherman Bill Siebenschuh, chairman of CWRU's English Department, as well as college librarian Bill Klaspy.

Klaspy, also a fly fisherman, is guiding the students through a wealth of literature on the sport.

Ray McCready, president of Orvis - a leading maker of fly tackle - donated rods and reels. The equipment prompted Orlock to offer the course twice each year.

Orlock pointed to Stephanie Jackson, a student from Moon Township, Pa.

"On Monday, she couldn't make a cast," he said. "Now, she's showing a lot of skill."

A great help, said Orlock, was a session this week with George Vosmik, a local master of fly casting and fly tying who has taught hundreds of people the art of fly fishing over the years.

A smiling Xi Chen of Solon, who had never fished before, was adeptly making roll casts.

"It's my favorite class," said Tyler Smith of North Ridgeville. "Maybe because it gets us out of the classroom. But it has been fun, learning to fly fish and reading a lot of great books."

The course reading assignments include:

Norman Maclean's "A River Runs Through It," which became a popular movie credited with rejuvenating the sport.

"Uncommon Waters: Women Write About Fishing," edited by Holly Morris.

And, of course, the ever-popular "A Treatyse of Fysshynge Wyth an Angle." The book, penned by Dame Julianna Berner in 1496, was the first on sport fishing.

"There is such emotion in fly-fishing literature," said Penny Tucker of Stanton, Tenn., co-instructor of the course, as she collected rods and reels at the end of the class. "It was hard not to tear up at the end of 'A River Runs Through It.' "

A burning question is whether a sport can be considered art.

Orlock has the credentials to make such a determination. The former head of the theater department at CWRU, he was awarded the Samuel B. and Virginia C. Knight Chair in the Humanities in 2000. He's also a playwright, whose works have been featured at such major theaters as the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Cleveland Play House and the Focus Theatre of Dublin, Ireland, among others.

"Fly fishing is like dance," said Orlock. He points out that the great fly fisher Joan Wulff was a dancer before she took up and excelled at the sport.

"I thoroughly enjoy fly fishing, and fly fishing literature," said Orlock. "Introducing both to students has been a terrific experience. I believe it is an introduction for them into a new and wonderful world."

from:

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1221295087284330.xml&coll=2

We hold these truths to be self evident

Catch up entry number 2 - posted on Aug 2 but fished on July 4th in the Driftless

My July the 4th.

Landed from old yurp on wednesday, headed up to the farm where the pup was boarded in central wisco. Spent the afternoon and fishing through the evening.

Where and what are these pairs.











My fireworks outside the tent - camped next to a stream behind some farmers trees, and the fireflies were flying.

Hard rains gonna fall

June 8

Some things I thought I was gonna do didn't happen, others fell into place in a vague way. A bit of a window opened for take off Sat morning and the radar looked mostly not good. A single line of storms on sw to ne diagonal was looking to cross the driftless and so I figured I'd gamble on coulee hopping keeping an eye on the thunder heads and headed off for a June fish on the spring creeks. In the car at 11AM had me on the first stream at 2:30PM. I figured I'd play to hit the headwaters and watch the radar on the phone and jump the ridges looking for clear water to try to avoid being struck by lightning.

I knew that there was some H.I. bank work happening on the first spot on a largish drainage south of the sconny river, but apparently dropped in right at the top of the work. This is what spring creek bank restoration looks like when it is just a couple of weeks old.


This spot used to look very different.

Although very natural looking, in 2005 when this pic was taken it had had extensive brushing the previous season, including placing that log. The new bank work looks pretty raw. I could always get a brook trout or two from this spot - and apparently still could.
This is a brown from the next pool upstream.
Tucked into the bank and waited out the rain from an isolated thunderhead. The lightning wasn't too close.
15 minutes later 90 degrees and 100% humidity on cold spring water.


Another nicer brook trout amongst many.

Here's my June submission for the Calendar fundraiser. This is bank work that is one year old.

Another thunderhead rolled in from the south and I followed it up and over the sconny river to fish a different stream. Stopped to set up the tent, at the highest point on a little county campground, next to a dandy spring and hopped a ridge to another stream.

There was fish.



A little after 7PM the steady wind from the south stopped, and it was all perfectly still, and hot, sticky, and the sulfers started popping off the surface, and a cloud wall came bearing down the valley at about 50 miles an hour - from the north. After all this regular summer storms from the south - this had bad news written all over it. I didn't make it back to the car before the driving rain hit.
I made it back to the tent, had a couple of cheese snadwiches and drank the majority of the pilsner 6-pack and settled in with the lightning overhead and the first glo bugs of the season blinking down below and rain pounding on the tent.

Sometime in the night, I heard something a little different than the steady rain. Went down with the flash light and the creek had backed all the way into the spring head. It was topping the bridge and going over a few inches. I moved the car to higher ground and went back and figured I'd wait it out - went back to sleep in the tent. At dawn the rain had stopped and the river dropped down under the bridge. I tossed the wet gear in the back and took off driving in a non-stop hard rain all the way back to the state border.

The briefly back under the bridge river.

This is usually about 18 inches deep here and crystal clear, about 9/10 feet deep.

The sand on top of the bridge from the night's flash flood.
It rained six more inches that day after I left.

The pup, a cork handle, and my local fly shop

Last August the pup was four months old. I kept him him gated on the deck while we at the place in th U.P. One evening coming in from the lake after doing some popping for bluegills I brought the rod up on the deck to clean it, set it down and turned away for 30 seconds to get a drink and in that time the damage was done. The all cork reel seat handle on my custom built out Sage LL 9 ft 4 wt was chewed. I'm not a gear collection guy. The rod was one of two that I have and fish. A bit irritiating and mildly problematic.

4 month old Grif and the damage done

The rod had been originally been built out by Eric at Coren's Rod Reel. Coren's is my neighborhood fly shop.

The store

Eric is really skilled at fixing any fishing equipment and has the shop nicely appointed with equipment, predominantly fly stuff. So I toyed with the idea of doing something about it myself. Cork Filler ? Sand it down ? Finally decided to take it back to Eric and show him the damage to his handiwork. He took a quick look, and said " ah - no problem. I''ll take this section of the handle out, split three cork rings, cement them back in, shape the handle, no problem."

And it turned out just like that.

The repaired grip on my Sage LL 9 ft 4 wt

The man himself ...

Need a fly shop on the North Side of Chicago ? A rod or reel repair ?

Corens Rod & Reel Service

6001 N Nina Ave
Chicago, IL 60631-2411
Phone: (773) 631-5202

Why don't you stop hurting the kids ?

Quality Trout Regs in Wisconsin Attacked

It would be nice if this letter to the editor to end special regulations was just written by a some one who doesn't know better. Roger Kerr is a "retired" WDNR ex-fisheries manager. He has been running a campaign to overturn the enlightened fishing regulations in Wisconsin for 8 years. The people in south west Wisconsin ignored his attempts to turn back the clock on stream management, but he has found a receptive audience in the people trying to get rid of the quality trout water regulations on five files of the forty two miles of trout water on the Prairie River. There is no science or conservation ethic at work here. Just a simple and wrong minded appeal to go back to the days of put and take fisheries, as if it was some how a better and healthier and more enlightened system. It is not. The fact that there was a successful vote to overturn the regulations on the Prairie was the first step in what will be a determined effort to turn back the current age of sophisticated and enlightened Trout fisheries practice in Wisconsin. On April 14th there will be an advisory vote to put the regulations back on the table as as issue for the conservation congress. All in attendence can vote. These are locations to go and vote.

from the April 2 Antigo Daily Journal

Prairie River announcement from the Wisconsin Fly Fishing Forum

net.net -> attend the Spring Conservation Congress Hearings on April 14 and vote YES on question 36 so that the natural resources board considers putting this item back on their agenda for their April meeting.

As many of you are probably already aware, back in February the Natural Resources Board voted 5-2 against extending the emergency special regulations on the Prairie. I am sending you this e-mail for informational purposes so that you may educate and encourage friends, family etc to attend the Spring Conservation Congress Hearings on April 14 and vote YES on question 36 so that the natural resources board considers putting this item back on their agenda for their April meeting.

This data has been gathered from numerous sources who stated that it could be shared.

Note that you do not have to live in the state of WI to vote on advisory questions, but you must be present to vote.

If you have any questions on this, feel free to contact me.

A little history

Back in roughly 2000-2001 the Friends of the Prairie River submitted a resolution to the DNR Natural Resources Board to implement a special regulations section approximately 5 miles long on the Prairie River. This is a regulation that would require artificials lures only and require larger size limits and lower bag limits if you wanted to keep a trout.

In 2002 the resolution made it to the Spring Conservation Congress hearings to be voted on. The rule passed statewide and was implemented in the new trout regulations for 2003.

In 2005 local fisherman in the area learned about these special regulations and were unhappy that they couldn't fish with live bait in this 5 mile stretch of water and keep smaller trout. The Prairie is over 30 miles long and I counted 30 access points for fisherman along the river that do not have special regulations on them. There are only 6 access points in the current Cat. 5. water.

By 2006 these upset landowners collected a petition and sub-mitted their own resolution to the DNR Natural Resources to have the regulations removed and put back to category 5 water.

In 2007 their proposal to remove these special regulations was on the ballot at the Spring Hearings and it passed statewide to remove the regulations for 2008 fishing season.

A missing piece of the puzzle was left out of the question when it was presented at the 2007 spring hearings. The DNR had done shocking surveys on this special regulation water and the surveys showed an increase (over 100%) in both the size and numbers of brook trout present. Even with our current drought situation in Wisconsin this showed that the special regulations were working and should remain in place.

Also during this time frame the DNR stopped stocking brown trout in the river in 2003. This section of the river contains a lot of spring upwellings that are used as spawning and rearing habitat for a good part of the rest of the river. In essence, now that the stocking program has been eliminated, this stetch becomes "The Hatchery" or nursery, if you will, for the entire river system. That is why this stretch should be protected.

Now, after the fact early in 2008, one of the Natural Resources Board members proposed that these regulations should be brought back to the table and put into an emergency extension since the shocking/survey data (that wasn't presented a the 2007 hearings) proved they were working. Unfortunately after the NRB had their meeting on Feb. 27th, the board voted 5-2 not to grant the extension. One thing that did come out of the meeting is that there will be another question on the 2008 spring hearings on whether or not the regulation should be re-instated. If there are enough votes, then the NRB may consider re-instating the regulations.

A few key things to note

We are faced with this situation because of a lack of leadership at the DNR that resulted in this issue in the first place.

In 2007 the when the question was posed at the conservation congress hearings, the DNR did not provide results of the survey data. This may have made a difference in the statewide vote if this information was shared with the public. It is my contention that if the biological information had been made available at last year’s Spring hearings – and it was not - the results might very well have been different. But that is not even the point, because it would hardly be different from arguing that there is an analogous rationale for a vote by Wisconsin motorists on whether to remove the state’s highway speed limits. Or that we should increase the bag limit on deer because a majority of hunters want more venison. Democracy is a wonderful concept, but some decisions affecting the public ought not to be left to a public vote – especially when the science – even “preliminary data” science – shows that it is contrary to good public policy

Why is the missing information important? When presented as being only a social question an audience would conclude that the special regulations had not had a positive impact and would see no reason to continue the regulation. The biological information would be critical to letting the audience know that the special regulations did indeed have a very positive impact on the resource.

This is/was portrayed as a "social issue" and not a "biological issue". I don't like the idea of a social issues driving the regulations in our state. If that is the case, this is going to set precedence for other parts of our state as well if we let this go.

Given the fact that the regs increase numbers of large trout, they have biological and social consequences. I think that some people, when they see terms like "non-biological" and "social issue", tend to think that the regs won't change the fishing, but only cater to "those fly fishing catch and release purists types." I really wonder whether we'd be where we are today if the original question hadn't been so poorly worded.

The issues have been described as social rather than biological – in that the fish population in the Prairie is considered self-sustaining. Yet the evidence – whether it is considered a “scientific” study or simply an informational exercise – shows clearly that the regulations produced larger fish and more fish in the area where the rules were in force. Further, the Board was not well served by the some of the DNR staff members who seemed relatively unfamiliar with many of the issues.

The DNR needs to stop listening to those that yell the loudest and take a stand on whats best for the resource and manage accordingly.The Board’s action, pending the results on the same question on the 2008 spring questionnaire, appears to be short-sighted in at least one regard - that the future of the fish in the Prairie River may be decided, not by what’s best for the resource, but what is most publicly popular.

Given the fact that many different user groups are competing for the same resource, as a state we have more than enough water available to provide different varied outdoor opportunities for everyone. The five miles of special regulations on the Prairie river should be a shining example of all the users willing to try a variety of management practices resulting in opportunities ranging from the possibility of a higher density of trophy fish on the five miles of special regulations water, to the opportunity on the remaining 30+ mile's of fishable water on the Prairie to catch a meal for the table and the opportunity for the entire water shed to experience these larger and more plentiful fish as they migrate throughout the system.

We also need to hold the DNR to its job of supporting whats best for the resource. It wouldn't hurt to remind the DNR of its Mission Statement. "To Protect and Enhance our Natural Resources" .... and to provide "a full range of outdoor opportunities". http://dnr.wi.gov:80/aboutdnr/missionstatement.html

The Natural Resources Board has, as its first responsibility, to consider the effect of the measures it passes, or declines to pass, on the resource, - in this case, the fish in the river.

We need to impress upon the Department that the fishery has the potential of going down like other streams in this area. Twenty years ago, the Wolf, Peshtigo, Popple, and even Montreal were streams of note. The fishery on these streams has been lost. The Pine and border Brule appear to be on a similar course. The Prairie was hanging on, but it just lost a valuable layer of protection. While angling pressure isn't the only problem facing these streams, the Department failed to address their decline. Even as these waters faced multiple threats, the Department allowed liberal harvest on them. The DNR has jumped fast on addressing VHS. To ensure enough walleye for all users, it is rare to find a water body where a daily limit can be harvested. The inconvenience of reading a trout regulation is nothing compared to having to jump lakes for 5 walleyes. DNR also doesn't follow a one size fits all in managing muskies and actively advocates for them in hearings - even rejecting th!
e "Little Johnny" argument. The same individuals will not advocate for cold water. We should support the measures taken to protect the warm and cool water fisheries, but we need to impress upon DNR that attention needs to be given to cold water fisheries because they too are threatened.

One of DNR's favorite buzz words is "partnerships". Groups such as TU, Friends of the Prairie River, Brule River Sportsman's Club, Kinni Land Trust, etc. provide manpower and funding to the DNR. Partnerships is a one way street. Conservation minded anglers buy licenses and trout stamps, too. The "takers" never give back. It is about time the DNR acknowledges its partners.

As lame as the "what about the kids" argument is, it is emotional and needs to be removed from the discussion.

The Congress needs to understand that fisheries management is not a popularity contest. Leadership of the Congress needs to get the word out among its membership to defer to science.

A small group of individuals had influenced the DNR to put this social question on the ballot, and other similar vocal individuals and groups want to influence rule makings to eliminate all category 5 trout waters in the state. This is a movement we all need to be aware of and take notice. The next group may organize to assault the size and slot limits that have been created on other species (that you fish) and that have resulted in quality fishing in Wisconsin.

Don’t buy into the argument that this water is for elitist fly fishers. There is no fly-fishing only regulations that applying to any trout waters in the state. All it takes to fish a special regs. water is a spinning gear outfit. The artificial lures restriction does not prevent kids from fishing. In fact most of them probably already have a spinning rod.

Category 5 regulations were formulated to provide a greater diversity of angling experiences, especially opportunities to fish populations of wild trout that have a natural size and age distribution unaltered by harvest. Such opportunities are the kind anglers might expect in remote destinations far from home. Now anglers in Wisconsin can experience that kind of fishing near home. Those kind of opportunities should not be canceled out on the few waters that are now designated as Category 5.

Science gives us the opportunity to measure the impacts of regulations and determine whether the goal of a regulation is being accomplished: Do we want larger fish in a stream, or do we want to be able to catch and keep them as soon as they reach eight inches? We survey walleyes, panfish, muskies, bass and sturgeon to determine impacts of angler harvest and other factors. Why shouldn’t we treat trout management in the same way?

So Now What?

I think it is imperative that as many people as possible show up and vote on this question in April so it doesn't fall off the radar screen. According to the NRB board Brief of Action, one of the board members stated that if the Prairie River question is passed during the 2008 hearings then this item would return to the April 22-23 2008 Natural resources board agenda. I think we need this issue to stay on the agenda instead of trying to get it back on the agenda as an item in 2009 or 2010. It may be harder to re-visit this if we let it go.

One thing to remember, this vote is not just about the Prairie River, it concerns all special regulation streams throughout the state. There are a number of other groups that are waiting to see what happens with this vote and you can be assured that if we lose this vote, many other special regulated streams will be at risk.

A “yes” vote on Question #36 would ask the Natural Resources Board to reinstate the regulation. While this question is specific to just one river, a resounding “yes” is a vote for science-based management of fish resources throughout the state.


Informational Links on this Issue

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/2008/February/02-08-3B1.pdf

http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm

http://www.wisconsintu.org/news/2008-1p1-8.pdf (Article Page 3)

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring%20hearings/2008/2008SpringQuestionnaire.pdf (Reference Page 31-32)

Any questions? Feel free to contact me.

Written by Joe Krznarich

A little more information

The Prarie River regulations are not about caatch and release. They are about creating a section of the river where more, and larger trout can be caught and kept. This apparently offends some people. The idea of catching more, and larger trout. There are some statistics that it might be working:

It takes a while to grow large wild trout in northern streams. IT appears that the regulations are having a fairly dramatic effect in this one 5 mile stretch on a 42 mile trout stream.

I could, of course, understand that there is a problem with this, if there was no where else to fish for trout without using artificial lures and flies. The map below is the immediate area around the regulated water. The regulated water is depicted in red. Bait can be used in all of the water marked, blue, green and yellow.

It might be worthwhile to go back and read Mr, Aments comments in the column below.The regulation on that five mile stretch is hurting the kids.

March 22 trout & PB Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:

`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away.


OZYMANDIAS -Percy Bysshe Shelley 1817

Started the day at 22 degrees, coullee hopped, three valleys and three creeks.

Skunked on the Heart of Darkness

First time out with a fly rod this year.

The project work ended in the early afternoon Wednesday. So before we stared the 41 hour Thursday morning flight-wait-flight-wait-flight land in Chicago trip home we headed down to the river. The Niger ( pronounced kneejher ) flows about 10K south of Timbuktu, and it’s port village is Koriume. Rented a pirogue with driver for a short river cruise with our work gang.

The pirogue



The pirogue driver




Casting on the river





I of course had no idea what I was fishing for, or where, or anything. The scenery was interesting. The area around the port village was pretty dense with people. My guess is that it is heavily fished, netted, and trapped for the surrounding near kilometers. I didn’t have the time to really explore as the rest of crew were out for a cruise not a fish. Flyfishing: not a spectator sport.







Something sank here.




There was evidence of fish. This guy was throwing a net for the couple hours we were out on the river. His sum total catch.



Figured I’d leave you with this one. This is a fetish stand. I don’t think they eat the heads for bush meat, they use them for juju. Let me know if anyone needs any of this stuff as tying materials.