Any Tips for the N. Umpqua?

[HappyFishers]

Going to be heading down there on Wednesday and Thursday for the first time and I'm really hoping the weather, water, and fish will abide by my schedule.

Any tricks or tips?

You'd think I'd know since I grew up trout fishing the S. Umpqua....but no.

See you all Tuesday!!

and thanks for the advice,

HF

[Steelie28]

Wear studded boots! Purple seems to be a good color. I have had luck with a large beadhead purple bugger. Make sure to check the regs for the fly only water. You may need a lawyer to explain it all to you.

Steelie28

[wade]

The rules are kinda particular but if you swing an unweighted fly you're safe, and that is the tradition there.

This edit feature can be kinda nice.

Kevin.

[ 12-02-2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: wade ]

[Bubzilla]

"Its fly fishing only in the flywater, the same rules as the rest of the state going under that description, no lawyer needed."

Sorry, but wrong--very wrong. Maybe consulting counsel wouldn't be such a bad idea after all? The North Umpqua above Rock Creek is not now, nor has it ever been (with the exception of a few months during the early 80s), a "fly fishing only" area. In fact, even now with the regulations designed to eliminate the use of indicators, using a spinning rod and reel is perfectly legal--which of course is not true of "fly fishing only" waters in the State of Oregon. For almost fifty years the regulations were "fly only"--limiting fishing to a single fly (weighted or unweighted) with no added weight on the line. Now we have the very specific regulations eliminating weighted flies (which are of course legal on all "fly fishing only" waters in Oregon), and the use of indicators (also perfectly legal on all "fly fishing only" waters in Oregon), but still allowing the use of any type of rod or reel (not lawful on "fly fishing only" waters in Oregon) and floats with anything but fly gear. Of course everyone is restricted from using weighted flies now--making the ability to use conventional gear illusory at best. Can you say "special interest"?

[ 12-02-2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[wade]

:grin:

[ 12-02-2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: wade ]

[Bubzilla]

I think it's safe to say that you can lose the attitude. No person, least of all me, suggested anything whatsoever regarding "sidestepping" regulations. I think the comment regarding needing a lawyer was in regard to the difficulties in reading and understanding what have become very complicated regulations--I know that's how I meant it. In fact, they've become complicated enough that the article in the most current issue of Northwest Flyfishing even misstates the current regulations (floating lines are no longer required during summer months).

As for your not having ever read anything regarding the use of non-fly gear on the North Umpqua, all I can say is that has ALWAYS been the regulation, and the only way to have never read it would have literally been to have never read the regulations. I'm assuming that is the case.

[ 12-02-2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[wade]

[img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[ 12-02-2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: wade ]

[wade]

[ 12-02-2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: wade ]

[lilnorthfork]

[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]
Kind of ironic this post was started by 'HappyFishers'.
Wade, do you know how to not anchor a driftboat? :grin:

[TillamookChinook]

Stop by Joe Howell's Blue Heron Fly Shop, next to the river, near where the Fly Only water begins. He might have some helpful info.

You could also buy the current issue of Northwest Flyfishing magazine. The article is more an Ode to the Beautiful N. Fork Umpqua than a "how to", but you might find it useful.

It is a beautiful river. I fished it evenings maybe four times this summer and never did get a fish.

[greenbuttskunk]

yes, wear cleats, the river can be more slippery than snail snot! check regs, as it had restrictions on wieght, floating line, indicators, etc. Beautiful river.
We fished it last year and did well on trout, but did not target steelies.

[Steelie28]

When I said you may need a lawyer, all I meant was to read the regs carefully as they have changed a couple of times in the last few years. I'm glad they have liberalized them somewhat with the last change, allowing sink tips in the summer again. It is strange that you can use any type of rod/reel combo though. The reason I brought this up in the first place was I ran into some people from out of state that had heard about the N. Umpqua from some friends that had fished there. They were told that spinning rods were OK to use above Rock Creek and were using blue fox spinners and pixies. Once I explained the regs to them, they said their apologies and took off to some good holes I told them about down river.

Steelie28

[SSPey]

Bubster - I disagree and find that the regs are quite simple provided that you choose to use fly gear. If you choose to use regular tackle, well, you're in for it. But anyway, why would you want to fish around a bunch of elitist purists interested in making for a challenging fishing experience while minimizing mortality to one of America's most prized possessions - the wild N. Umpqua steelhead?

[Bubzilla]

Floater:

They're so simple that at least two people in this thread, that use fly gear, misstated them, one person, who uses fly gear, innocently recommended a fly that would currently be illegal, and a guy who wrote a book and numerous articles on the river, and who I'm sure only uses fly gear, recently misstated them in print (please see the latest issue of Northwest Flyfishing). Must be painfully obvious, huh? That's why nobody ever seems to be able to get them straight, right?

At any rate, not going to debate with you. And, for the record, I never use "regular" tackle anywhere--unlike some of the purported and self-proclaimed "purists" who pick up the gear come winter. Nothing whatsoever wrong with doing that, but then I'm not the one trying to exclude everyone who doesn't subscribe to my own myopic version of fishing from public waters, either. Frankly, after years of it, I'm tired of arguing with people who thinks it's okay to prevent people from enjoying a public fishery because they don't use the right gear, or more accurately the right technique--when there is no evidence whatsoever that the exclusion will help in conservation (or at least so say the biologists in charge of the river). It's good that Lilnorhtfork mentions the anchoring post--really the same thing. Too many people simply worried about getting their way, and forget about anyone else or their ability to share in the resource. Very sad.

[ 12-05-2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[Steelie28]

Bubz,

You caught me! For the record, I did not have good luck in the fly water with a purple beadhead bugger, as it is illegal. I have caught numerous fish in the lower river with that fly. My post was incomplete and I apologize to Happyfisher for poor, perhaps costly information. I re-read my previous post and realized I looked like a real idiot. "Hey, make sure you check the regs, then go use a fly that will get you a ticket" [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

Steelie28

[SSPey]

fly anglers:
single barbless unweighted flies
no metal core (e.g. LC13) lines
no other attachments to your line (* no indicators)

gear anglers:
same as above, but casting bubbles allowed


did I get it right? Sorry if * ruffles your feathers, or your bead head, or whatever. Any restrictions that make it harder to pound fish are bound to increase survivorship. It doesn't take a degree in biology to understand that, nor a degree in law to understand that society occasionally resticts resource use for conservation purposes

What ruffles my feathers are the "special interest groups" who continue to push for hatcheries on virtually all of our waters even though we know they are detrimental to legally threatened wild stocks.

[Bubzilla]

Floater:

What is hilarious about your post is that some of the biggest and most outspoken proponents of the new rules adopted on the North Umpqua--simply designed to outlaw indicator fishing--have long criticized ODFW for stopping the hatchery plantings above Rock Creek. That's a fact. Makes it pretty hard to argue that the rules have anything whatsoever to do with conservation, doesn't it? Oh, and it many not take a degree in biology or law as you state, but it doesn't take a genius to realize when someone is using a claim of conseravtion to cover their real motives either. But maybe it does take a biology degree to realize when something will be so insignificant as to have no biological impact whatsoever--which is precisely what the biologists said when the new regulatons were proposed. Guess they know a social issue, rather than a conservation issue, when they see it too, huh? Removing weighted flies, and prohibiting fly anglers from using indicators, was about forcing people to swing wet flies. Period. And, the conservation arugment is simply a convernient way to avoid having to be truthful and state that the regulations are about enforcing an aesthetic.

[ 12-05-2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[BrokeItOff]

I am not sure whether to get in the middle of this but here goes. I have fished down there a few times, and enjoyed it very much. Looking at the way the lower river is fished (there seems to be a ton of pressure on the lower river), I think that the flyfishing only water is a good idea.

However, I think the no indicator rule is a little silly (you can still nymph w/o an indicator). The non-weighted fly is also a little disingenuous because that can be partially mitigated by the way a fly is tied, hook size/weight and material used.

What has put me off more down there is the attitude of some of the fisher folks (fly fishing elitism/aesthetism). As fly fishermen, we need to be careful about over doing it in terms of purity etc. it seems sometimes we are more interested in exclusion than inclusion.

blast away :smile:

Shane

[TillamookChinook]

What a complicated thread!

But I did at least glean one piece of useful information. Studded boots should be purple.

Now I finally know what I did wrong all summer.

TC

[Bubzilla]

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijac a thread simply asking for advice to rehash an old and increasingly tired debate. Won't mention the North Umpqua ever again. I promise.

Shane I think your post is right on. I couldn't agree more.

Steelie 28 I hope you didn't take what I said about the illegal fly thing as an attack. I just thought it illustrated how much the new rules haven't been easy to follow.

Finally, here's a couple tips for you HappyFisher: First, forget about going late--which has always been the conventional wisdom. Go in early July, and you'll catch more fish. Since the hatchery plantings have ceased, there are generally only a few thousand fish in the fly water each year. They see a lot of stuff tossed at them, and they are increasingly less likely, in my experience, to take swung flies as the season progresses. When they're fresh, they can be very, very aggressive. Just my experiences in recent years. Sometimes there are not a lot of fish then, but usually more than enough to make it worth the trip. Also, water temps are generally still good then--which is basically the reason for waiting for late season, i.e., lower water temps. Second, use BIG flies. Something about the North Umpqua fish makes them very attracted to outsized patterns. If you're going to use a skunk, for example, try a 3/0--sometimes even larger. The results can be amazing. Also, the main reason for employing a light sink-tip on the North Umpqua is not to sink the fly--it's to control the speed of your swing. Think slower is better. The actual depth difference in most situations is negligable. Also, don't be affraid to bat clean up. Most guys race down to camp out on "their" water for first light. Try sleeping in an extra hour sometime and come in behind them. You'll be shocked at how you do. Finally, don't overlook the water below Rock Creek. There are several really nice holes that you hike down to that will usually produce fish--either hatchery or wild--on flies (swung or otherwise).

[ 12-05-2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[wade]

That was great info on your last post Bubzilla, I personally appreciated it for what that's worth. The other was just one big rant with me as the excuse to loose it. If this was the first time you've pounded somebody on this topic I'll eat my hat. I respect your opinion mainly because its founded on history which from my perception is beyond reading but you were there, and this is an ace-in-the hole on any discussion on the N Umpqua. However, "I think it's safe to say that you can lose the attitude," :tongue: and this is by no means a misperception. For most the flywater is about tradition. Sure that's not true for everyone, maybe not even for those involved in making regs, certainly not you, but that is what its about for most folks that love that part of the river.

Kevin

[Bubzilla]

Wade:

I think if you'd went back and read your posts, as opposed to deleting them when you saw that your initial post was not entirely correct, you'd have seen why I "pounded" you. You suggested that I, and others, were attempting to circumvent the law; that is, you implied, intentionally or not, that we were dishonest and/or unethical. That, in my book, always deserves a response--regardless of the topic.

If you're referring to my first post, all I can say was that I wanted to make clear something that is often misstated, i.e., that the North Umpua is not "fly fishing only." Once I observed a "fly fisherman" dress down a man and his small boy for breaking the law by fishing with spinning gear on the "fly fishing only" water. The man and his son were fishing with floats and flies, and were perfectly legal. The "fly fisherman," who had never even bothered to read the regulations evidently, went so far as to demand that the man and his son leave the river at once or he'd call the law. Then, when I stepped in and explained that he didn't know what he was talking about, he threatened me. So, you may feel like you were the target of some pent up rage or something, and maybe that's true--in that I have a pretty low tolerance for the sentiment you'd expressed.

I agree the river is about tradition. And, for nearly fifty years that tradition was to limit angling to the use of a fly. Period. Then, in the name of aesthetics, those regulations were changed so as to prevent, as a practical matter, all but the wet fly swing. Now, many fly anglers want to go even further and imply that the river may only be fished with fly gear. Not true, and merely another extension of the elitism that began the regulation changes in the beginning. No offense, but that's the truth.

[ 12-05-2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[wade]

I deleted my posts because I mispoke which released a flood of venom from you, it was my way of correcting a wrong on my part. It was my attempt at ending your rampage which I thought was my doing, which was silly since it has since been simply rechanneled onto someone else. You have no place to criticize me or anyone for deleting or editing a post, what you may have forgotten is that I read your earlier writings before you toned them down. I'm not criticizing for that because I think its admirable, as long as you don't berate others for doing the same. I will not speak again on this thread, so if you need the last word you have a free shot.

Kevin

[SSPey]

Originally posted by Bubzilla:
What is hilarious about your post is that some of the biggest and most outspoken proponents ....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I made it clear where I stand on the hatchery issue. What's really hilarious is how you misattribute to me what the "biggest and most outspoken proponents" believe.

I think your post must be referring to someone else, or someone else's post.

PS. I use indicators under certain conditions. And I'm glad they are not allowed on the NU. Those fish will readily move to a fly, so step up to the plate and take the challenge.

[ 12-05-2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: floatnfish ]

[Steelie28]

Bubzilla,

No harm, no foul. We're on the same page.

Steelie28

[SSPey]

since the other thread was closed by admin, and Bubzilla doesn't accept PM or email, I'm not sure how to contact him (her?).


unless, of course, its considered acceptable to ---------

[ 01-05-2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: floatnfish ]