Coppersmith Studios Presents

Fanaticism in Fly Fishing

Fanaticism is characterized by an excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea. It also includes having an excessive intolerance of opposing views. Throughout my life I have been a bit of a loner and fished primarily by myself or with my one fishing partner and so I really haven't mingled much with the larger angling community. That changed when I began posting videos about trout streams on YouTube and started encountering the many comments that my viewing audience left behind. While there is certainly a diverse spectrum of people out there it has become increasingly clear that many anglers are clearly characterized by a high degree of fanaticism.

These fanatics read and/or watch the outdoor media which appears to recognize this characteristic and attempts to exploit it for profit by feeding it exactly what it wants to hear. Nowhere is this more evident than when dealing with the topic of how to handle fish. The prescribed methods of handling trout during the catch and release process are highly exaggerated and applied indiscriminately to all instances when in reality special care is only needed on occasion. When these fanatical anglers see other people such as myself not following these unnecessary actions they exhibit a lack of tolerance and appear to go on a crusade to convert others to their narrow minded and warped viewpoint. And of course anyone who does not agree with their viewpoints are labeled as trash. It makes no difference as to how many scientific studies are cited that support the opposing viewpoint - if the viewpoint is different from what is held by the fanatic and their community as represented by the outdoor media then the opposing viewpoint and its adherent is considered evil.

On my website I have written articles on how to handle fish, myths regarding trout and skin infection, and myths regarding ruining a stream via video. Those articles deal mostly with scientific facts. In this article I will deal with my perception and speculation of fanaticism in the sport of fly fishing.

The Outdoor Media is Corrupt

After reading my thoroughly researched articles on fish handling procedures and how trout rarely contract skin infections it should be obvious that the outdoor media could not possibly have been unaware of their systematic exaggerations and deception on these topics. The question must therefore be asked: "Why on Earth would the outdoor media tell people they have to handle and release their trout in very specific careful ways if that wasn't necessary? Why would the outdoor media tell people you must be careful to avoid removing fish slime or the trout will get a skin infection and die if this was not true?" There is a very simple answer: MONEY!

By telling you these lies the outdoor media accomplishes the following objectives:

1. They are conveying to you how precious and valuable the trout are. This is done in a subtle way, without them telling you directly, which makes it all that much more effective.

2. By conveying the idea of the value of trout they are reinforcing the belief that you are justified in spending much of your time and money pursuing trout. This translates into spending more time reading the outdoor media and buying the products they advertise.

3. By saying how important it is that you handle the trout in a certain manner they are also saying, again indirectly, how important it is that you read your outdoor media so that you learn about these things.

I am not in any way saying that trout are not valuable, that you are not justified in spending your time or money pursuing them, or that you don't learn some useful knowledge from the outdoor media. What I am saying is that the outdoor media is to a certain extent corrupt. The source of the corruption often starts with the editor, whose decision it is as to which articles to publish and what writers to hire. Outdoor writers and media creators soon learn what is expected of them and they adjust if they want to maintain a career in this field. And yes, you can bet many of those writers value such careers extremely highly. Can you imagine how nice it must be to make your money going fishing and writing about it? I don't make any profit at this work so for me it is something I can only imagine.

Throughout my fishing career I have fished many places across the USA. I have done a tremendous amount of research on these waters. It is common to read about a stream having excellent fly fishing only to find out when I arrive that the whole area is at best mediocre. When I read assessments from a state agency such as a department of natural resources or a department of wildlife I consistently find the assessments to be accurate. Government resources are generally reliable and accurate. Their employees are seldom under pressure to exaggerate about the fishing quality of a stream. I have heard of retired newspaper columnists who admitted their editor told them to make every stream they write about sound so exciting that the reader will be tempted to go fish it the very next weekend. One example of this is author Michael Kelly who mentioned it in one of his books after he retired from writing.

I mention in my article on fish handling procedures that it is common for the outdoor media to recommend using 2 pound line to catch 20" trout from highly pressured waters. I also mention how catching large fish on such light line can be lethal to them because they fight a lot longer and trout are not designed to withstand excessive exhaustion. And yet, I have never heard anyone criticize such practices. The outdoor media views using light line as a useful piece of information that it can offer its audience to catch more fish. For it to criticize using light line would be to criticize itself, or to limit what useful tips it can offer its audience. This would make it less useful and could hurt its revenues, so it turns a blind eye on the harm it can do. And yet it appears to put a microscope on so many other practices of catch and release as if it were really obsessed with well-being of these trout. Clearly there is something fishy here.

I believe very strongly in the value of honesty. You may have noticed that never have I told anyone to Like or Subscribe to my YouTube channel. The reason why I don't say this is because without knowing the exact individual viewing my videos I have to admit I am not in a position to say if they should Like or Subscribe to anything. A person should only click the Like button if they truly liked it and only they know that. A person should not click the Subscribe button for my channel unless they want to be a subscriber and only they can know that.

When people began criticizing me for not wetting my hands I began for a while to wet my hands prior to handling a fish. I let this be seen in the video. Then one day I received a comment from a viewer who said they were glad to see me wetting my hands before handling the trout. If you have read my other articles you will know the scientific data is strongly unified in the conclusion that wetting your hands does not in any way benefit a trout. In my opinion it probably hurts the trout by increasing the likelihood of dropping them. But what really occurred to me then was that I, like the outdoor media, was misleading my audience to gain their approval. I have since refrained from ever wetting my hands prior to handling a trout. I don't care how many mis-informed fanatics criticize me for it. I refuse to mislead anyone about anything.

Trout Unlimited

The Trout Unlimited organization has done a lot of good. They help obtain access to trout streams, they help to re-habilitate streams and they help to influence legislation that benefits streams. Having said that, it is clear Trout Unlimited helps promote fanaticism. I have been a member of T.U. for many years. 4 times a year they publish their magazine TROUT. In this magazine they show lots of pictures of people fishing with fly rods and run stories about people fishing with fly rods and even occasionally run a story about fly fishing for a species other than trout. They also help to sponsor a lot of fly casting classes. Never have they shown a picture of an angler using a spinning reel. Never do they mention the existence of spinning rods or people who fish with spinning rods other than in association with poaching. Occasionally they will show a picture of a child between the ages of 3 and 6 who is using a closed faced spinning reel to fish for trout, but never an open faced spinning reel. Perhaps Trout Unlimited should rename themselves to Fly Rod Unlimited.

One of the most hypocritical articles I have ever read anywhere in my life came from a TROUT magazine in 2023 which was about inclusion. It was about encouraging fly fishermen to be more inclusive and encourage people of other races and cultures and certainly to encourage women to get involved in the trout fishing community. All the while it continued to ignore the existence of spin fishermen. What is so surprising about this is that about 50% of the T.U. membership uses spinning gear to fish for trout (97% use fly fishing gear, so half the members use both methods). The local state chapters of T.U. sometimes publish their own newsletters periodically. The newsletters I have seen from the Wisconsin and Michigan chapters had a balance of both fly fishing and spin fishing information in it, so it appears the corruption and fanaticism evident at the top of the organization does not always extend down to the local chapters.

I also recall a comment from the editor that it was becoming increasingly difficult for them to show pictures of trout being caught and posed for the camera without trigging an avalanche of letters from their readers that the trout weren't being handled correctly. The editor did not acknowledge that T.U. was partly responsible for creating a false perception in the audience that trout must be handled in very specific ways otherwise they will die.

Flying Fish

One of the most surprising criticisms I have encountered from my films is that when fighting a small trout I will sometimes pull it out of the water. This can happen when I first set the hook or it can happen as the fish is brought near a rapids or plunge pool and I am getting ready to net it.

Let me first explain my history of hooking fish. Over the years I somehow got into a bad habit of not setting the hook when fighting a trout. I would try to get the fish in as soon as possible and that usually worked for the smaller fish and often for the medium sized fish. I seldom got in trout over 15 inches because they fight longer and have time to find a way of throwing the hook if you don't have the barb set deep. This flaw in my technique came to a climax on a trip to Montana where one evening I lost a trophy cutthroat trout over 20 inches long and the next day I hooked, fought and lost 13 trout, some between 15"-17". I was becoming very bothered by this and finally realized it must be due to my failure to set the hook. I then told myself that from now on I should set the hook hard enough to either break the line or pull the hook out of the fish's mouth. From that moment to the end of the fishing season I did not lose a single trout due to the hook coming out. It was about a week later that I hooked and landed the largest trout of my life, a 21" brown trout that had gotten tangled in some underwater sticks that I was lucky to get in. You can see I have a valid reason to set the hook hard when a fish hits.

Now imagine if I'm fishing a dry fly on the surface and a 5" trout hits it. I see a splash and the fly disappears and so I whack the fish hard to make sure I get a good hookset. Obviously in these situations because the fish is small and it is near the surface it is going to get pulled out of the water. Then I get a lot of comments from viewers that fish aren't supposed to fly and I'm killing them and mistreating them.

This is complete nonsense. First, none of the fish that I have pulled out of the water exhibited any sign of trauma. I do not recall a single fish that was caught this way that did not appear to survive the catch and release process. The main reason why I believe the mortality rate for such fish is near zero is because this is a phenomena encountered with small fish. Small fish are caught quickly and therefore encounter very little exhaustion in the fight. They are also easier to handle when getting the hooks out and so tend to be put back in the water faster and so suffer less oxygen deprivation.

When a hookset pulls a fish out of the water there are 3 factors at work: The size of the fish, the depth of the fish and the force of the hookset. If I set the hook hard on a 5" trout that is 2 feet below the surface it is going to stay below the surface. No one would criticize me for setting the hook too hard then but it is actually the same amount of force. I really have to wonder what some people expect me to do when a fish hits a dry fly on the surface. Am I supposed to magically ascertain the size of the fish and then adjust the hook setting force to make sure the fish doesn't get pulled out of the water? And don't these people realize that within 8 seconds the fish is going to be in my net and taken out of the water anyways?

When a fish is deep and experiences a hard hookset they stay in the water and experience most of the force of the hookset. Hopefully this results in the barb penetrating their jaw so the fish won't get away. If the fish took the fly near the surface and get pulled out of the water from the hookset the force of the hookset is actually diminished because the trout's body moves in the direction of the force and therefore does not experience the full force of the hookset the way it would if deep water held it in place.

There have been times when a hooked fish is about to swim down a plunge pool or powerful rapids. When I see this happen I will make a determination if my line and rod is strong enough to lift the fish out of the water. If it is I try to first raise the fish to the surface and then raise it into the air and swing it into my net. There are a lot of people out there who think I am being cruel to the fish when doing this because I am applying too much pressure to it when it is in the air. Again, this is complete nonsense. A fish is usually capable of applying more pressure to the line when it is in the water than when it is out of the water. A fish in the air can usually only exert as much force as its body weighs. A fish in the water can exert several times more force than its body weight by swimming, and when it swims with the current the force is even stronger. Letting a fish swim with the current and down the rapids will prolong the fight a lot and it will result in a lot more pressure exerted on the fish for a longer time and may cause the fish to experience dangerous levels of exhaustion.

Science

It seems that a sizeable portion of the population would rather believe what their peers say than what scientists say. People in general have a herd mentality. Of course there are exceptions and I am certainly one of them and there are others. I recall when the Covid pandemic occurred social scientists identified 3 groups of people. The first group believed what scientific studies were saying about the pandemic. A second group seemed intent on believing what they wanted to believe, which incidentally was the most convenient thing to believe, and had no trust in the scientists. The third group would let whatever group they were most connected to make up their mind for them.

There have been people who have told me I am killing the fish I catch and I should stop referring to scientific studies to defend myself. This person did not say why I should stop referring to scientific studies. Such studies provide invaluable information. When backed with experience and common sense they can provide good, reliable guidance. I suppose these people didn't like that I was challenging their previously held beliefs. Perhaps if they were shown some of their beliefs were incorrect it would become more difficult for them to be on the same page as their fishing friends and that thought made them uncomfortable.

Occasionally someone will point out a scientist who says you should do this or that when handling a fish and they use that to point out the necessity of handling trout with tremendous care. There are basically two categories for this point.

First, some fishery biologists have echoed the need to be careful with trout slime. I believe this comes partly from hearing so many false claims in the outdoor media about the need to not remove fish slime, about the susceptibility of trout to skin infection, and that these scientists may be affected by this misinformation themselves. After all, most fishery biologists are also avid anglers which is why they went into that profession in the first place. Secondly, many fishery biologists spend at least some of their time working with fish hatcheries. Fish hatcheries often have poor quality water high in ammonia and nitrates and their holding tanks are often made of course, highly abrasive concrete. There are valid reports of trout contracting skin infections in fish hatcheries and I believe some biologists assume this extends to trout in natural environments. It does not.

There is a second phenomena regarding scientists and their research. These studies require money. A scientist will petition various institutions and request grants to fund a specific study. When a grant is issued, they feel an obligation to show their benefactors that the money was put to good use. They do this by issuing a statement when publishing the article that their research shows people should do this or that in regards to fishing. For example, a study showing that a rubber net removes less slime from a trout than a mesh net might be summarized by a scientist saying their study shows it is better to use rubber nets when fishing for trout than mesh nets. Such a statement is not a direct lie but is extremely misleading because no evidence was shown that trout caught with a mesh net are more likely to experience a skin infection or death than a trout caught with a rubber net. The scientist surely knows this, but they are under pressure to show a simple advisable result from the study so it doesn't look like they wasted a bunch of money doing irrelevant research. Keep in mind I have a degree in physics and during that time I spoke with various professors regarding recommendations on how to conduct an experiment. The details of an experiment are peer reviewed before they get published and are usually accurate and reliable. Everyone knows the summary is meant for the benefactors who normally don't read the whole article and just want to verify the money was well spent.

Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human traits, feelings, and behaviors to inanimate objects, nonhuman animals, or nature. Based on the many comments from my viewing audience it is safe to say many fly fishermen experience this phenomena. This is nothing to be proud of because it is basically a specific instance of being out of touch with reality.

I have learned to try to avoid showing a picture of a trout on the ground. Besides people being mis-informed regarding a trout's susceptibility to skin infections I have had people tell me this is an insult to the fish. That is, the fish is feeling insulted because it was filmed while laying on the ground. I wonder if these people were ever told by a fish that such an action is insulting to it. I will point out there can be a challenge when trying to pose a fish in front of the camera if it is large enough to require two hands to hold it and I need one hand to hold the camera and there is no one else with me.

Some people have criticized me for holding a fish out of the water because you could see the fish gasping for air (via water). So long as a fish is alive it will attempt to breathe. When a fish stops breathing it has gone into shock and needs to be revived and will experience a higher mortality rate. While it is true a fish gasping for air probably wants to be back in the water I don't think the fish wanted to be caught in the first place. If the people want me to respect the wishes of the fish and not remove it from the water why don't they respect the wishes of the fish and not catch it in the first place?

Some people have said I should hold my breath for as long as the fish is out of the water and see how I like it. This is really comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare the physiology and response of a fish to being out of the water to that of a person being without any air. I am tempted to say to these people, who are trout anglers themselves, how about if someone puts an invisible hook in your food the next time you visit a restaurant and then snags you and drags you 30 feet into a big net. You wouldn't like that so maybe you should not do that to a fish. Realistically, if a someone did a trap like that to another person they would go to jail for some years.

Some people said I should be more respectful to the trout because I am going into their environment, their homes where they live, and disturbing them. I will point out that people have been wading trout streams and catching fish since ancient times. The difference now is that we catch them with hooks, bait and line and we often let them go to be caught again. It is our environment too. These people make it sound like we are a monster invading the home of some innocent human family. To an extent we are, but the family is one of fish not people.

There have been a few times when I caught a small trout when surrounded by large boulders. The trout was hoisted out of the water, swung past me as I missed the netting attempt and bounced off a boulder. It is common for people to vent their disgust at me for slamming the fish into a boulder and giving it a concussion. I find these comments entirely unreasonable. First, they act like I deliberately tried to swing the fish into a rock. This is complete nonsense and goes against everything I am trying to do out there, which is to film the catching of a fish. Until the fish is in the net it is not yet caught. I would never deliberately swing a fish anywhere unnecessarily prior to netting it because to do so would risk losing the fish. A fish can come off the hook at any time and it is really painful to me when I lose a fish a second before I'm about to net it. I am therefore always in a panic when I have a fish on to hurry up and get it in. I don't understand how people can realize that when you are surrounded by large protruding boulders and you miss the netting of a fish there is going to be a real chance that fish may hit a rock. Secondly, never in my experience have I ever noticed any observable harm from a fish that swung into a rock. No fish ever lost consciousness. No fish ever failed to swim away on its own power. It is possible the fish may have experienced some bruising. So what. If you care that much about a fish that you don't want it to experience a bruise then you shouldn't be fishing for it in the first place.

The fanatics who watch my videos and criticize me for mishandling fish are almost always anglers themselves. The issues they criticize me for are almost always less severe than the act of catching the fish in the first place. Yet they never criticize me for catching the fish to begin with because that is something they do themselves. It is like saying it is OK to go up to a stranger, sucker punch them and knock them down, but then insist you must offer them a hand back up otherwise you are being unkind. Only a fanatic who is out of touch with reality would think this is valid logic.

Vegetarianism

I assume the majority of the fishing fanatics who criticize me for not treating the fish well enough during the catch and release process are not vegetarians. I myself eat a small amount of fish which I get from the grocery store, usually tuna, salmon and pollock. I do not eat cow, pig, sheep or even chicken or turkey. I believe it is better for one's health to avoid eating those creatures. At the same time, those creatures clearly have a higher level of consciousness than does a fish. I don't see how a person can on one hand think it is OK to hook and fight a trout and eat all of the beef and pork as they please but on the other hand think it is immoral to subject a fish to some discomfort during the release process. Do these people not realize the inconsistency of their moral standards? Are they thinking at all?

Let's look at it from another perspective. Most people eat tuna from time to time. Most of the tuna eaten are wild fish caught in the ocean by commercial fishermen. Tuna are a larger and longer lived fish than trout and therefore I would assume have a higher level of consciousness than a trout. For example, most tuna live 15 to 25 years. The typical lifespan for brook and rainbow trout is 3 to 4 years and brown trout average 4 to 6 years. How is it that people who regularly eat tuna and therefore actively support the harvesting of these much older wild fish condemn what they view as cruelty to animals when they see me catching and releasing trout that have a 98% chance of living? And again, these people are themselves sport fishermen. My only explanation is their fishing fanaticism has lead to symptoms of anthropomorphism and they have become out of touch with reality.

Prioritizing Fish over People

One aspect of fanaticism among fly fishers is the tendency to show more concern for a fish than for a person. This has been very common when people have told me to stop wearing gloves when I fish. Granted, these people may have been mislead by the outdoor media into believing my gloves are harming the fish. However, there is no excuse for them to not realize my gloves are protecting me. Everyone knows about the prevalence of skin cancer among outdoor enthusiasts and anyone who has gone fishing should know it is really hard to keep sun screen lotion on your hands. You can't wipe the fish slime off your hands without wiping off the lotion too. Sun burn, abrasion, biting insects and stinging plants are all common issues encountered while trout fishing. When I remind people about this they generally don't seem to care about my well-being, they only care about the well-being of the fish. I find that really shameful.

Another area I see people prioritize the well-being of a fish over that of a person is during the release process. I have seen people standing in a soft bottom stream for several minutes while they hold a trout and wait for it to recover. After the fish swims away, they realize they have sunk into the sediment and have become stuck. That can be surprisingly dangerous. I know of other people who have caught fish from a certain spot in a fast, turbulent river and risk their lives trying to return the fish back to the spot they caught it from. Even if that is the only safe place for the fish to be returned to it is a grave mistake for a person to put their own safety in jeopardy for the benefit of a trout. Do I have to point out that most of the trout you catch only have about a year left in their lifespan whereas a person has many more? Rich Osthoff in his book Fishing the Rocky Mountain Backcountry tells of a time when he fell while releasing a 10 inch brown trout in a remote stream in Idaho, knocked his head on a rock and fell unconscious face down in a shallow pool of water. These accidents can and do happen.

Conclusion

I could talk much more about the subject of fanaticism in fly fishing but I think it is time to bring this subject to an end. I mean, to bring the fanaticism to an end. To be fanatical is to be out of control and out of touch with reality. My recommended cure is to pay attention and think. And stop criticizing people if they don't release trout the same way you do.

Regards,

Dan Coppersmith

08/01/2024

Created by: Dan Coppersmith 2024| www.CoppersmithStudios.com

Navigation

Contact Us

Coppersmith Studios Presents

Fanaticism in Fly Fishing