Managing instream flows, with Hal Herring

Tom: Hi, and welcome to the Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast. This is your host, Tom Rosenbauer. And my guest this week is Hal Herring. Hal has been covering conservation issues in Montana for such magazines as Field & Stream for about 34 years. And Hal also writes for Field & Stream Magazine about conservation issues.
And today, we're going to be talking once again about an important issue, which is instream flow, and the amount of water in Montana's rivers, and what we can do to increase the healthy levels of water for trout populations. And we explore what...you know, what individuals can do about this. And one thing that Hal stresses is that we all need to make sure not only to get involved with these issues and stay involved, but to educate ourselves on...you know, on the laws and on the history of water law in the western states, and also on the various needs of people that draw on this water, what agriculture needs, what recreation needs, how much water rights mean to landowners financially. So, we're going to get into some detail here. And Hal is very passionate about the issues, and very educational. I hope you enjoy the podcast.
But first, we're going to do the fly box. No. As a matter of fact, we're going to do a product. And one of the products that I love are the Pro Zippered Waders. And I can't tell you the number of times I wear these waders on a hosted trip or people just see them on the water and say, "Wow, those look really cool. I want a pair of zippered waders." And I am a huge fan of both the Stockingfoot Pro Zippered Waders and the Bootfoot Waders. These waders are not inexpensive, but they are the toughest waders and some of the most comfortable waders I've ever fished in. And, you know, if you are someone who fishes hard and is constantly busting through brush and sliding down banks and sitting on logs and kneeling on rocks, these are the waders for you because they're going to hold up.
But that zipper, you know, you get to a certain age or you drink too much coffee, and having a zipper in your waders so that you...when nature calls, you don't have to take off your jacket and your raincoat and your sling bag or your vest, and then take off your wader belt and bring your suspenders down. You don't have to do that with these zippered waders. And, boy, it's a time saver and a real convenience. These zippers are the finest waterproof zippers we found. They make the waders quite expensive, but they're worth it. And if you're worried about zippered waders leaking, I have never had, ever, ever, ever had, one of these zippers leak.
So, you know, I use the stockingfoot mostly for trout fishing. And then for saltwater fishing, I really like...saltwater and winter fishing, I really like the bootfoot waders. I fish in Cape Cod in the spring for striped bass and the water's often very cold. And having bootfoot waders, where you don't have to have wading boots that get sand in them walking on the beach, walking in the surf. And then for winter fishing, bootfoot waders really keep your feet a lot warmer than stockingfoot waders. And I'm not sure about the physics involved, I guess it's just that the water is around your foot in stockingfoot waders, is closer to your skin, the cold water. Anyway, bootfoot waders are much warmer.
So, anyway, those are two great products and I highly recommend them. All right, now the fly box. And the fly box is where you ask me questions and I try to answer them. Or you comment. And I comment on your comment sometimes. Or you have a complaint. Or you have a suggestion, a tip, you want to share with another listener. It's your fly box. And you can send me a question by either just sending me an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or, if you want, you can attach a voice file. And if I can answer your question, I'll read it on the air.
So, let's start the fly box. First one is an email from Bastion from Switzerland.
"I have a question about the casting mechanics of different types of fly rods. A few weeks ago, I met a bamboo rod builder and fished a bamboo rod for an afternoon. Also, fell in love with it. The casting was a bit different and I had the feeling that the rod had loaded by its own weight and not so much by the weight of the silk fly line. When I'm fishing a normal graphite rod, it is more clear that the rod loaded from the weight of the line. Can you explain how different the fly rods load and is there a difference between split cane rods, fiberglass rods, and graphite rods?"
Well, Bastion, there is a difference. Graphite as a material is lighter and stiffer than the other materials. And it is difficult to even feel what a graphite rod is going to be like without putting a fly line on it. Because you wiggle it and you really can't tell much, I don't think, with a graphite rod. Both bamboo rods and fiberglass have more mass, they have more weight of their own, and you can tell a bit more about how a bamboo rod or a fiberglass rod is going to cast by wiggling it in a fly shot. But graphite, not so much.
There is a difference in the casting. Because these...because fiberglass and bamboo rods have more mass, you do feel the rod more when it loads because there's more mass there to feel. And you do need a fly line to load both those rods, you still need a fly line to load a bamboo rod or a fiberglass rod. But it loads differently and it kind of loads throughout the length of the rod. And, again, there's some solid mass there in the case of bamboo, or split cane, that makes the rod feel different, it's a totally different feeling.
And I'd urge anyone who hasn't cast...you know, has just grown up with graphite rods and has not cast fiberglass or a bamboo rod to try it sometime. You know, borrow somebody's or go to a fly shop and see if they have a fiberglass or a split cane rod and cast it. Because it is a wonderful feeling and it's quite different.
All right. Let's do a phone call. The first one is from Steven.
Steven: Hey, Tom. I have a question, and then also, for the first time, a comment. There was a caller, I think one episode ago, talking about textured lines versus smooth lines. And you answered and I just had one thing to add to the answer, if I could. I actually really like the feel and sound of a textured line. But the time I used it for a day of rainy swinging of flies up in the Pacific Northwest, stripping all day on a textured line, cut into my finger like the devil. And I don't think it would have been like that with a smooth line. So, that is the one thing I would watch out for. If you're going to be stripping a lot with a line and swinging a lot and that kind of thing, I would definitely go for the smooth line.
But on to my question. I've been recently getting into surf fishing here in Los Angeles, and having a blast doing it. I got a seven weight and a Scientific Anglers surf line on there. It's got a five-inches-per-second sinking head, and then intermediate line after that. My question for you is just about the cadence of casting into the surf. Is there a best method, timing of when to get your line out there, how long to wait for it to drop, how quick to strip it in? I'm sure some of it is species-specific, depending on what you're targeting. But yeah, it's corbina, halibut, that kind of thing around here. Leopard sharks, too. I've gotten a croaker and a surfperch, which is fun. But I'm just wondering how I can dial that in a little bit better.
So, yeah, thanks so much, appreciate all you do. I love the podcast. Thank you. Take care.
Tom: Well, Steven, that is a good point. You know, textured rods are a little rougher. And, although I've never had one cut into my hands, I can imagine it can happen, particularly if your hands get wet and your skin gets a little soft because it's wet. You know, if you're stripping a lot of line, I would advise using, you know, one of those finger guards or even fishing gloves to keep from getting cut. So, thank you for adding that to our discussion of textured versus smooth lines.
Regarding surf fishing, something I learned many years ago from the great Tony Stetzko in surf fishing was to wait for the last wave, last big wave. And usually, waves come in groups of three. It's not a cardinal rule, but they often come in groups of three. And you want to wait for that last wave. And just as the last wave is breaking, cast over the top of that. That's because you're going to have some smoother water and some relatively less turbulent water to strip your fly through so you have more control of it. And I find that to work quite well, just waiting for that last wave, and then throwing over the top of it.
And then also Tony, the great Tony Stetzko, the late great Tony Stetsko, wonderful striped bass surf angler, also taught me to step back about three steps after that cast. Because your line is almost never totally tight when it lands in the water and you want it to begin fishing immediately. And by stepping back three steps, you kind of tighten up that line and put some tension on it without having to strip like mad.
So, those are the two things that I know that I do that help in surf fishing. And then as far as retrieve is concerned, you're going to have to experiment. I don't know if there's a standard retrieve. I start with standard footlong pulls with not much pause in between. But if that doesn't work, I'll go slower, I'll go faster. And then casting at different angles to the waves, don't always cast straight over the waves. Sometimes you want to cast kind of up-current or down-current, because there usually is a current along the shoreline. And you got to try all the angles and all the retrieves to see what's going to appeal to the fish at that particular time.
Okay, let's do another email. This next one is from Anthony.
"Love the show. It gets me excited to go on my next fly-fishing adventure on the weekend."
"I have a question for you related to a situation that I typically run into, hopefully other guys can relate. I live in Colorado, and my wife and our dog typically go for a hike/run every weekend, weather permitting. Since getting into fly-fishing this year, I try to make sure we always pass a river, lake, or stream. On the way home, I'm usually allocated a short amount of time to jump out of the car and do a little fishing. Usually, I need a game plan going into it because the boss doesn't like sitting around for that long unless she's catching fish, too."
"Do you have any tips for making the most of the time? What flies/rigs would be good to have ready? Any fishing method that usually gives you the best bang for your buck?"
Well, Anthony, I'm not trying to sound like a smart-ass here, but jumping in the water for 15 minutes or half an hour when trout fishing is almost always a losing game. You need to spend some time observing the water, and maybe walking up and down the bank to find the best water. And to just jump out of the car and expect to be successful in fly-fishing for trout is...you're setting yourself up for some disappointing expectations.
So, here is my first tip. Don't try to go fishing if your wife and your dog are along. Go out, have a nice day in the woods, take a hike, drive home, and then tell your wife how much fly-fishing means to you and that you really want to spend a day or half day fly-fishing. And go by yourself so that you can spend some time enjoying the water and, you know, not having to worry about somebody watching over your shoulder, that's no fun.
However, that being said, if you... And that's what I do. My wife doesn't fish. So, I don't try to fish when my wife and I go hiking. I just go on my own. And we hike, and then maybe the next day I go fishing. But if you do want to try to do this, you know, I guess there's...I might start with any method. But, you know, if you don't know the water and you've just got a few minutes, one thing is to throw a black Woolly Bugger. You know, a size six or eight black weighted Woolly Bugger, see if you can interest a fish.
The other way is a dry dropper. You know, you're covering two things, you're covering the surface and you're covering down below with a nymph, and that's kind of my go-to. If the water is not real cold and not real dirty, I'll go with a dry dropper.
But, you know, I can't really give you a game plan because there are so many variables, and trout fishing changes every day. You know, we can't predict what's going to happen the next day. So, I can't really tell you other than try to find some time to yourself when you can get out there and enjoy fishing by yourself.
Here's an email from Austin from Michigan.
"Two questions that I can't seem to get a solid clarity on."
"One, I am somewhat new to fly-fishing and I'm really interested in wade fishing for fall salmon and fall/winter steelhead and browns here in Michigan, primarily on the Pere Marquette, Rogue, and Muskegon rivers. What type of fly-fishing do you think would be most effective? A lot of the people talk about chuck and duck, more specifically for salmon, and I have very little interest in this method. But it feels like I'm led to believe that if you're not using chuck and duck during fall and winter, you're not going to catch any fish. Is this true? If not, what are the best methods for fall salmon and fall/winter browns and steelhead in wading waters?"
"Number two. What is the difference between nymphing, swinging wet flies, and soft tackle approaches? Although slight variations in the type of bugs you're simulating, it seems that, from a technique standpoint, they're all pretty similar. The biggest difference I can point out is that nymphing is attempting to get the fly closer to the bottom, where wet flies and soft tackles are closer to the surface. It seems like a lot of people dismiss swinging wet flies as being a beginner technique, but it seems like you can approach it with a lot of nuance and get good at it, just like you can with dry, streamers, etc."
"In addition, am I wasting my time trying these approaches without a switch or Spey rod? Currently running a 10-foot 7-weight Recon?"
All right, Austin. Well, in answer to your first question, those rivers that you fish are swift, but they don't have a lot of breaks in the current. They're kind of sandy gravel, fine gravel bottom. And the current moves really fast and the fish hug the bottom, or they get near sweepers and logs and things like that that break the current a little bit, or deeper in pools. And to get that fly down to the salmon and the steelhead and the browns, the most effective way is the chuck and duck method because you don't have anything pulling the fly back toward the surface. You're kind of clunking a couple of weighted flies or a piece of lead or non-toxic shod in a couple flies, or one fly. And, you know, it's kind of like Euro nymphing with bigger flies, with steelhead flies. And that actually is the most effective on those waters.
However, you don't have to do that. I think if you experiment with some sinking lines, some sink tips, some polyleaders, and swing flies, you know, get a heavy enough fly and a heavy enough...either a fly line or a sinking polyleader to get your fly down close to the bottom. You can swing a fly through those pools. It is not going to be as effective as far as numbers of fish, but it's going to be a lot more elegant, a lot more fun, a little bit more like true fly-fishing than the chuck and duck method. And it will work, under the right conditions. The fish have to be a little bit more aggressive, but I would try that.
If you don't want to do the chuck and duck, I would get yourself, you know...I would get yourself various weights of sinking lines, depending... You know, it's going to depend on the water level and the depth of the water you're fishing, how much...how heavy a line you need. But weighted flies will definitely help, short leader. And that's probably the best way to do it. And there's lots of information out there about swinging flies for salmon and steelhead. So, that's what I'd recommend.
You know, I think...and your second question, I think you're kind of confusing types of fly patterns with approaches, with presentation methods. So, nymphs, wet flies, and soft tackles can all be fished upstream dead drift under an indicator, with a Euro nymph method, or swung in the current. They all work that way. And you can get wet flies and soft tackles deeper by using a polyleader or a sinking line, and get those down.
So, it's...you know, it's a type of fly. And they can be interchangeable. You don't have to indicator nymph or Euro nymph with a nymph, you can swing a nymph if you want. Conversely, you can dead drift a wet fly or a soft tackle if you want, maybe with a little weight on the leader or a weighted soft tackle. So, you can fish those like a nymph.
So, it's...you know, it depends on the type of water you're fishing and what the fish are reacting to, but I would not...you know, I would not just slavishly swing wet flies and soft tackles and just fish nymphs dead drift under an indicator or a dry dropper or whatever. I try fishing them always until you come up with something that appeals to the fish.
And I think you're absolutely right. You know, if fish are really on to swung wet flies, it can be pretty easy just to kind of throw it out there and let it swing in the current. But if fish aren't really aggressively chasing, you know, little baitfish or maybe emerging caddisflies, wet fly-fishing and swinging soft tackles can be quite nuanced and quite difficult. Definitely not just a beginner method. In fact, I struggle more with swinging soft tackles and wet flies than I do with fishing nymphs under indicators or dry droppers. So, definitely not a beginner method and it's a lot of fun, it's very satisfying. And so, you know, don't just consider it a beginner method.
And also, you can certainly use that 10-foot 7-weight Recon. You know, on those rivers, they aren't...I mean, they aren't terribly huge. I guess Muskegon is the biggest of the three. But you can fish all those waters with a 10-foot 7-weight, that rod's got enough reach to mend line and I think it'll work just fine for you.
Here's an email from Tanner from Utah.
"I'm considering buying some materials from a man who has lost his eyesight and could no longer tie. Two questions for you. One, how should I evaluate the condition of the materials? I do not have any expertise in being able to understand if something is quality or rotten."
"Number two, is there a life span for certain materials? Does it change depending on how certain materials are stored? I was watching you and Flagler tie the Adams Irresistible, and he said something about using a rooster cape that was 40-plus years old. Wondering if I should avoid older materials when buying from classifieds, etc."
Well, Tanner, yeah, most of the fly-tying materials that we use do not age. They hold up really well over time. You know, some of the old rubber legs and some of the latex, you know, like latex skin for making wing cases on nymphs and stuff, will degrade over time. But feathers and hairs and all the other synthetics, if they're stored properly, they can last for years and years and years. Sometimes, you'll find some old non-mylar tinsel. I think they used to call it French tinsel, which was a real metallic tinsel, not a plastic mylar tinsel. And that would tarnish over time, it would oxidize a little bit. But you can clean that up with some silver polish and have that old tinsel back in good shape.
So, the one thing that you need to watch out for, and so buying things on Craigslist or, you know, eBay or whatever could be iffy, is that if the hairs or feathers, any of the natural materials, were not stored in airtight bags, like Ziploc bags or shoeboxes that are airtight, beetles and moths can get in there and eat the feathers or eat the skin that holds the feathers together and that can ruin them.
So, you know, if you're looking at a collection of fly-tying materials and you don't see any obvious beetle larvae or moth larvae. And one of the ways you can tell is when they chew this stuff up, they leave kind of a dust, kind of a sandy dust in the bag or in the container that was holding the materials. And if they look a little dusty or you see little holes in the materials, you don't want it. And if you do take it, you want to make sure that you wash it really well with soap and really hot water, and then dry it, and quarantine it. Put it in its own Ziploc bag, don't put it in with other materials. And you'll soon find out if bugs are going to hatch out of there.
But I would just avoid anything that looks like it might have been moth or beetle eaten. Other than that, I think, you know, older materials, as long as you can look at them, you should be safe in buying older materials. But again, buying it online or sight unseen is going to be tough because you never know how they were stored, you never know what condition they're going to be in.
Aaron: Hi, Tom. This is Aaron from Kansas. I've been fly-fishing for about a year and a half and I really love it. I have found though that all the different stages of bugs and all the corresponding flies to those stages and all the terms we use really overwhelming, let alone all the stuff that I'm going to need to tie my own for wild trout fishing.
One thing I've also heard about is the San Juan Shuffle. I wonder how exactly is that done and even if it's ethical or not. And in rural areas, do you do a country two-step or a line dance step? Or if you're in the cities or back east, do you do a waltz? And if you're in the southern hemisphere, do you do a tango? Or is the San Juan Shuffle its own step that I should seek professional help for?
On a more serious note, I've listened to the podcast long enough to learn of your disdain of stock trout in areas that can't sustain them. I get it. But it was one of those stock trout on a power bait a couple years ago that really propelled me into fly-fishing. And I belong to our local fly-fishing club and most of those members, too, started with those stockers. I think that there is one upside, and that is it gets people into fly-fishing. And I agree with you, that most of the time it's only downsides.
My last comments are about fast-action rods. If, for instance, you buy a fast-action five-weight, and you buy a five-weight line designed for that rod but yet it weighs as much as a six-weight line, are you not just finishing a six-weight setup? Why or why not?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Tom: Aaron, the San Juan Shuffle is a method where you shuffle your feet along the bottom and it kicks up things like scuds and worms, mainly midge larvae. And it really stimulates the trout to feed downstream of you. It's considered unethical, yeah. I mean, sometimes you can't help it. Sometimes certain rivers are so full of midge larvae that just wading, just the act of normal wading in the river, will get the fish to swim up to your feet and start gobbling stuff. But, you know, purposely shuffling along the bottom is not good for the bottom and it's not considered ethical. So, I would avoid it.
I don't really have a disdain for stock trout, by the way. I mean, there are lots of places where we wouldn't have any trout fishing without having trout stock there at least once. And some rivers won't support trout year round, or the trout don't have suitable spawning habitat, and in order to have trout in there we have to stock them. So, I don't have disdain for them. What I don't...what I do have disdain for is when trout are stocked in an area that can already support wild trout. And yeah, maybe you're going to get bigger, dumber fish in amongst those wily wild trout, but, you know, that's kind of cheating. And, you know, wild trout will reach a certain size based on the habitat that's offered to them in a trout stream. And if they don't get very big, they don't get very big. That's, you know...that's part of the game. So, that's the only thing I don't care for, is when trout are stocked in a wild trout stream.
And you're exactly correct. You know, a fast-action five-weight is most often... Or, I mean, and really, it's not so much "fast action," because you can have a fast-action rod that will cast the correct line size. But a lot of rods these days are really super stiff, and they feel light and powerful. But the problem is that they're really a six-weight rod, and that's the case for a lot of rods where you need to over-line them one or one and a half or even two sizes to get the rod to really flex properly and do a proper fly cast. Otherwise, you have to work too hard. Because if a rod's too stiff for the line that's on it, you have to push too hard, you have to put more of yourself into the cast, as opposed to letting the line bend the rod and build up energy. So, yeah, a lot of these so-called fast fives or fast sixes or whatever are really under-lined rods.
Here's an email from Ben.
"I was wondering if you could speak to these questions. This is a very broad question, but looking for some advice. If you're approaching a river blind for smallmouth in each of the four seasons, how would you start your fly selection in the morning and progress throughout the day? Also, how would you adjust the size and color of the fly selections during those changes?"
Well, Ben, you know, a lot of fishing for bass, particularly...smallmouth and largemouth both, is guesswork. And, you know, it's just trying different flies and seeing which works. But if I were to use a methodical approach and it was...let's say it's midseason when, you know, the water's a little bit warmer. You're not going to have many insects active early in the day. So, the fish probably aren't going to be looking that much at the surface. So, early in the day, I would fish a baitfish imitation or a crayfish imitation. You know, my go-to fly for smallmouth generally is a black Woolly Bugger. But, you know, you might try a nymph that...a big nymph that imitates crayfish and dead drift it, or you might strip it a little bit. You might try a streamer that imitates a crayfish. Or some sort of baitfish imitation early in the morning.
And then as the day progresses, I've found that as the water warms up and the insects...and air warms up and the insects, dragonflies and damselflies and hoppers and things like that, get more active, then the fish are more likely to look up for a popper, for a surface fly. But you might stick with the Woolly Bugger or crayfish all day long, or you might decide to go with a surface bug. And then you can fish that surface bug right into the evening. Often in the evening, it'll work pretty well. But you could also go back to the crayfish or the streamer, the baitfish imitation. It depends on what you see. You know, do you see fish chasing baitfish? Do you see fish, you know, grubbing on the bottom for crayfish? You see that sometimes. If not, then, you know, you just keep cycling through different types of flies and see what works.
The one thing, early and late in the season when the water is cooler, I would stick with the sinking flies and not go to a popper at all. Generally, in early spring and then in the fall, you're going to be much better off with baitfish or crayfish imitations.
You know, as far as size and color are concerned, I would just experiment. I would just try different sizes and colors. You know, try a black one, try a white one, try a tan one, try a yellow one. I can't tell you. There's no...I don't think there's any methodical way of deciding which color to use for bass at any given point in the day.
Here's an email from Terry from Central Texas.
"How do the regular releases of water from a dam into a tailwater affect the fishing on both sides of the release? For example, the local river releases water beginning around 4 p.m., peaking at 12 a.m., and then slowly going down until the next release point. Same question for trout streams with consistent discharge schedules. Is fishing better at the beginning of the discharge, once it peaks, or as it's winding down?"
Well, Terry, that's going to vary with every river that's affected by a dam where there's regular releases. Sometimes, the fish really turn on when the water first starts to rise, particularly if it doesn't rise too quickly. You know, that additional discharge will bump some crayfish and minnows around and it will dislodge some insects and the fish will react to that more available food by feeding actively. And then once the discharge peaks, it generally, but not always, generally in a lot of rivers, it's going to move the fish into the margins of the river, into the slower, shallower water along the banks. And then as the water drops, sometimes that can have a feeding increase, as well. And again, it depends on the river.
So, probably the least productive time is going to be at the...you know, the peak flow, as long as the peak flow lasts. It's going to be a little bit more difficult to find the fish. But then again, a lot of people that fish tailwaters, I remember talking to...doing a podcast on the Little Red River in Arkansas, and he said that they like peak flow because they know where the fish are. They're all going to be pushed up along the banks and they're going to be easy to find because they're all going to be feeding in there. Now, that's not always the case in all rivers. Sometimes the fish just sit on the bottom and wait out the high flows and you can't really get a fly to them. So... And I know some rivers that fish much better on the drop as the water is dropping after a heavy flow.
So, I don't think you can tell. You need to do some investigation either on your own or talking to people in fly shops or looking online and seeing when the best time is going to be. But, of course, you know, the old platitude is the best time to go fishing is when you can. And that's kind of the story of my life. You know, I go out there and I deal with what the river serves up for the day.
Here's an email from Adam.
"In a few months, I will be vacationing near a beach and want to try saltwater fly-fishing for the first time and I have two questions."
"First. The only rod that I have would be...somewhat appropriate is my 10-foot 8-weight Clearwater that I absolutely love using for bass here at home. I had someone tell me that a 10-foot rod is really too long for most surf and flats fishing and it'll be difficult to get a tight enough loop to cast to fight the wind. Is this true? And if so, is there a modification I can make on my cast to partially negate this? Realistically, I'll be doing very little fishing with salt, so I'd prefer not to buy another rod specifically for this."
"Second. I am unsure what to do about a stripping basket. Am I setting myself up for serious aggravation if I don't take one? Packing space would be at a premium on this trip and I would not be able to fit one of the rigid plastic models, so I was looking at the collapsible mesh types. Have you used one and do they work? Anything I need to look for when buying one?"
"Also, I thoroughly enjoyed your latest book and learned a ton about finding trout, and the photography was excellent."
Well, thank you, Adam, for that. You know what? You can absolutely use your 10-foot 8-weight rod in saltwater. And sometimes that's an advantage, particularly fishing the surf, because you're able to hold that line over the tops of the waves so that they don't...you know, it's like mending line. Keeping your rod a little higher, you can control it better and keep your line from getting ripped around by the waves.
And, you know, you can get a tight loop with a 10-foot 8-weight rod. It's a matter of adjusting your casting style. You want to kind of...if you want a tight loop with that rod, you want to shorten up and increase the speed and decrease the arc of your cast. That's going to give you a tighter loop and increase the force you put into it, increase the speed. So, yeah, you can get a tight line. You can get high line speed with a 10-foot 8-weight rod. It's just a matter of adjusting your casting style and tightening up a little bit.
Now, a 10-foot rod is a little bit more air resistant than a 9-foot rod, just because it's longer. But that being said, you can throw a tight enough loop with a 10-foot 8-weight to fish in saltwater, absolutely. So, you'll be fine. You'll be fine with that rod.
As far as stripping baskets are concerned, I think you'd get away without it. I am not a big fan of stripping baskets. My arms are short and I'm short. And when I'm stripping line, I'm always banging into the stripping basket when I'm trying to make a long strip. And so I do use them. I do use them in the surf when the waves are washing the fly line around my feet and I get tangled in it. Or if there's a lot of kelp in the water or seaweed in the water, it keeps your line out of that. But I try to avoid them. I have used the mesh type and they're fine, they'll work. So, that's one thing you can do.
The other thing you can do is that, you know, you can buy a plastic dishwashing basin, you know, the plastic tubs. Like a Rubbermaid dishwashing tub, I guess you call them. And you can either put a bungee cord in it or, you know, run a cheap nylon belt through it and belt it around your waist. That'll work fine. Drill a couple holes in the bottom so that the water drains out of it. And a lot of people for many years used those plastic...cheap plastic basins for stripping baskets. So, that'll work for you, as well. You can probably buy one when you get there and modify it a little bit.
So, anyway. But, you know, if the water's clean and you're not fishing in a lot of surf, then you can probably get away without a stripping basket. For instance, when I'm fishing for ribbonfish and wading for redfish, I don't use...never use a stripping basket. I will use one for striped bass fishing in the surf, but that's about the only place. So, you may be able to get away without a stripping basket.
Here's an email from Todd.
"I'm not a fly tier, so please forgive the amateurish question. If I have some mop flies where the mop has been thrashed, can I reuse the hook and bead by simply replacing the mop tail?"
Absolutely, Todd. You can certainly do that. Mop flies, they're not very durable, they don't last very long. So, I understand why you're asking that. And yeah, you could cut off all the thread and the mop material with a razor blade. And then, you know, even though you don't tie flies, you can attach some thread to the hook. You can probably figure out how to do that. And then just wind a piece of mop material on the hook, put a little glue on it, a little head cement or super glue, and go to it. Yeah, absolutely.
And the other thing you can absolutely do is probably you can coat the back end of the bead and the hook shank with super glue and just stick a piece of mop material on there and it'll probably hold okay. So, yeah, you can do that. Shouldn't be a problem at all.
Here's an email from David.
"I've started tying a few of my favorite flies in anticipation of the fall trout season here in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and also replacing some of my saltwater patterns that I used up over the summer. My questions are about how to finish a tie to maximize the fly's durability. What matters most, the materials and thread being used, the whip finish, or the cement epoxy? Does a two, three-turn whip finish equal the strength of a single six-turn whip finish? Does Sally Hansen's Hard As Nails do the same thing as head cement or super glue?"
"I tie mainly small streamers, mops, and Woolly Buggers for trout, but also tie saltwater patterns for backcountry tarpon and snook in Florida. Do the same fly finishing techniques and rules apply to saltwater patterns? I'm hoping to get better at tying so I can feel confident that a pattern's performance and durability on the water is equal to how I feel it looks coming off the vice."
Well, David, I don't think...I do believe that a two-whip finish is more durable than a whip finish with lots of turns. A lot of the fly tyers that I know, particularly guides, if they're not going to use head cement, they will do two-whip finishes. But I wouldn't do a three-turn whip finish. I do two five-turn whip finishes. So, I tie a five-turn whip finish, and then don't cut the thread, and then tie another five-turn whip finish on top of that. And that should work quite well. A single six-turn whip finish probably isn't going to be as durable.
Anything that will coat the head of your fly and is waterproof and is not too thick so it doesn't get into the eye of the fly will suffice. So, Sally Hansen's, a lot of people use that. Sally Hansen's Hard As Nails nail polish. Head cement will work. Super glue will also work. All of those things are waterproof and they will seal the thread and protect it a little bit. You know, in your saltwater flies, typically they have bigger heads and they just look better with a shinier finish, with a hard glossy finish. And, you know, saltwater flies generally take more abuse because you've got coral and mangroves and sand and all that stuff. And you've got fish with bigger teeth, sharper teeth usually.
So, typically on saltwater flies, you know, maybe two coats of head cement or, you know, two thin coats of Sally Hansen's, make a thin coat and let it dry, and then take another coat. Or two coats of UV cure epoxy. Super glue doesn't look as good on saltwater flies because it dries...a lot of it dries kind of whitish and it doesn't really give you that glossy head. So, it'd probably work just fine and durable, but it doesn't look as good on the bigger saltwater flies. So, I wouldn't worry too much about it. You know, all of those things will work.
Scott: Hey, Tom. This is Scott from Fort Collins, Colorado. Got a few questions for you. You had mentioned in a recent podcast that you should not lip bass. Honestly, I was a bit horrified because I live on a lake full of largemouth and I've been doing that for 40 years, for largemouth, smallmouth, crappies. I mean, heck, even small tarpon, I guess, with some minor thumb skin loss. But it seems to me that lipping a bass or a crappie to lift it out of the water versus netting and/or handling the fish would be a lot better since it's quicker and handling could potentially remove slime and really keep them out of the water longer.
So, I guess, is there any study or data supporting higher mortality by lipping, and what you mentioned? Or, I mean, can you just elaborate a bit on what you meant and maybe explain why that's bad?
Second question. On a trip to Montana last month after a long day of fishing, my 10-foot 5-weight Recon snapped at a ferrule. The sections had loosened up, I didn't notice, and the ferrules literally exploded and just disappeared on a cast. I was able to salvage the rest of the rod by reeling it in quickly, and I did send it back to Orvis for repair. This actually happened to me a few years back on another rod. So, I guess, besides the obvious step of checking your rod often to see if sections are separating, is there any product that can help resist the sections from separating that's safe? A high-end St. Croix rod of mine came with some wax to apply to the joint sections. I guess, would that help prevent ferrules from loosening?
And lastly, a quick flag tying question. Although I love UV resins, I like plain-old head cement, typically using water-based Loon Hard Head, I think is the stuff I have. I like using a needle tip applicator bottle for accuracy, and the stupid things only last a month before the needle clogs and you can't get the needle back into it. It basically makes them disposable, which I'm not a fan of. Is this common for all these types of needle dispensers? Can you recommend something better, or maybe should I switch to a different type of head cement, maybe something not water-based?
Anyway, thanks for the podcast and all you do for fly-fishing, Tom.
Tom: Well, Scott, you know, lipping bass, per se, is not a bad thing as long as you keep the bass suspended in the water. So, in other words, when you land a bass, it's perfectly fine to lip that bass as long as you don't lift it up by the lip. You know, bass are used to being suspended in water. And when you lift them up by the lip, there's a chance that you could damage the jaw or maybe the internal organs of that fish by holding it up by the lip.
So, there's nothing wrong with immobilizing a bass, just don't lift it out of the water. And I think there's some pretty good science behind that. And I don't have any references, but I do remember talking to a biologist that said that it's not good to lift up a fish by its jaw. But certainly, you can lip them, just keep them in the water.
Regarding your rod. You know, these days, modern rods are made so... You know, ferrules will eventually wear a little bit just from, you know, wear and tear, they're going to loosen just a little bit. But the ferrules are made so that as they loosen, they tighten up a little bit as the male section goes further into the female section.
So, generally, you don't need to worry about it. But if you don't seat those properly... And you should seat them fairly snuggly. You know, put some pressure on that. You can offset it a little bit, and then twist it to seat it so that the ferrule dots line up. And that should hold. If it doesn't, you probably just were a little casual about seating the rod and didn't fully seat it. And yeah, a ferrule that's loose and rocking back and forth can make a rod break at that point.
You can put a little wax on your ferrules if you do have that problem. Use it sparingly. You don't need a special ferrule wax, it's just paraffin. So, you can use a candle or you can buy a block of paraffin in the grocery store that they use for canning and use that. But don't put a lot on, just a couple nicks on the male part of the ferrule is all you need to help it seat properly.
Regarding those needle dispensers. Boy, they sure are handy, but they do eventually clog. I know the one that I use has a needle that goes back into the...when you cap it up, the needle goes back into the tube so that it doesn't clog. But if you do...if you have one without that needle on the cap, you know, you can just put a really thin needle up inside that tube when you're not using it.
And if it does clog, take that cap off and put a little bit acetone you can buy in a hardware store in the cap, and then just let it sit there and dissolve the head cement that's stuck in there. Or you can run a really fine piece of wire or piece of monofilament or something through there and clean out that tube, that should...acetone should clean that out very well for you.
All right. That is the fly box for this week. Let's go talk to Hal Herring about water issues in the Western United States.
Press the "record" button and we're going to start. And don't pull any punches.
Hal: All right.
Tom: Okay. So, my guest today is Hal Herring. Hal has been a...is a freelance journalist and has covered conservation issues in the West for 30 years. Also a contributor to Field & Stream Magazine. And Hal has a podcast with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. What's the title of your podcast, Hal?
Hal: It's the Podcast & Blast, BHA Podcast & blast.
Tom: Podcast & blast, okay. So, what are we going to talk about today, Hal?
Hal: Well, I'm interested... I mean, I've been fishing in the West for 35 years and the South for all the time I was alive before that. So, that's... I mean, I'm interested in the... My beat has been conservation for Field & Stream and everybody else for 30 years.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And I do think we're coming to some critical juncture of conservation in the United States. And I have a lot of collected life experience as a reporter to back that idea up. And I would say it, we could talk about instream flow stuff in Montana as within that context.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And I guess I'm encouraging folks to look hard at the future of conservation in America at a time when I think the decisions that we make right now, Tom, are going... I think we're at a point kind of like we were in the 1930s. And if people look at this history, we made these decisions in the 1930s, like the Pittman-Robertson tax on firearms and the Federal Restoration of Wildlife Act.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: 1934.
Tom: Yeah. Or we're looking at the scenario like the 1960s, the late 1960s, where we were at a crossroad.
Hal: Well, yes. And...but the stuff that we started in the '30s, the disasters of the '30s, right?
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: The Dust Bowl.
Tom: Oh, okay. Yeah.
Hal: And all that. That came to fruition...our reaction came to fruition in the 1970s with the Clean Water Act.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And the Clean Air Act of 1972.
Tom: Right.
Hal: All of which was signed by Nixon, you know, I mean, who was a staunch, you know, conservative Republican.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: So, these...we've been coasting on the 1970s federal legislation for 50 and 60 years now, and that momentum is lost now.
Tom: Yeah, I agree. I agree.
Hal: And it's fascinating to me because the population, of course, is 339 million or whatever, it's twice what it was when I was born. And so the decisions we make about what we want, we value now, what we want to keep, that decision needs to be made right now. And that's really kind of...it's not my soapbox now, I'm writing a book about the public lands. But they are also in this context.
Tom: And you said something interesting before we started recording the podcast. You said that, you know, the increase in particularly angler participation during COVID and just after COVID has not translated into numbers of people who are involved in conservation.
Hal: I think that's true. And one of the more depressing things, and I don't have the numbers on this, but was that in Iowa, where we've lost so much water quality, Des Moines River, Raccoon River, the number of fishing licenses goes down. And people have simply seemed to give up. And they focus though...we're focusing a lot of attention, angler hours, on these rivers, which remain only because of the ferocious efforts of people at our grandparents' age.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: I mean, it's really kind of amazing. I listen to Randy Newberg's podcast a lot, you know, Elk Talk. And the hunters, he has a clearinghouse of hunters. And he just...Randy always says, "Conservation is not convenient."
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: If you want to do the easy thing, you're not going to have the fish and wildlife and hunting and fishing that we've had up to now.
Tom: Exactly.
Hal: And that's true all over the world, if you look at that. It's...you know, we've done something unique. And we seem to have lost...we seem to have forgotten how we got it.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: So, that's kind of where I'm at. And my deal is not to cry or be moaned about it. I come from Jim Posewitz's kind of mentorship. He was a really powerful Montana conservationist, fisherman, hunter. And he just said, you know, you don't win any friends by telling everybody how awful it is.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: You win friends by going fishing and going like, "Man, ain't this great?"
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: You know, "Boy, wouldn't it be nice if our grandkids could do this?"
Tom: So, let's talk about...you know, let's get into some specifics. Let's talk about instream flows and the situation as it is now and where you see we need to go.
Hal: Well, and it's a very...I wouldn't say it was all that complicated. We need more water left in the rivers of Montana. I'm going to speak simply to Montana. I don't know anything about Idaho, Wyoming.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And so I've been here for 34 years as a very deeply involved fisherman. And we have...we've lost ground on the instream flows of rivers like the Big Hole. And it's despite all the valiant and often successful efforts of, like, Trout Unlimited and all the folks... Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks at one time was cutting edge on leasing water from the owners to keep the water in the river, to keep it cold enough for cold water fish.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And as the population has grown up in Montana and as more agriculture uses more water, we're losing ground. And one of the things that's concerned me the most is that people say, "Oh, lord, it's climate change." And I'm all...I totally understand the role of climate change in drought and feast or famine flood events and hotter temperatures.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: But it doesn't matter if there's no water in the river as to what...how many degrees of temperature has gone up. The baseline is that you could have a meteor strike. And if there wasn't any water in the river, it wouldn't have a quantifiable negative effect, you know?
Tom: Yeah, yeah.
Hal: The baseline is that there needs to be water in the river, cold water, tributaries need to connect to the river.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And the overwash or the echo effects of this are amazing. Because when you dry up a tributary in the summer, one of the things that I experienced near where I live, we have some massive floods in 2018. And one of the things that happened was the tributaries don't develop the riparian vegetation that stabilizes them, because you've dried them up with irrigation demands.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And so you have more frequent flood events and more gravel that gets moved and more dirt that gets moved by the water. So, this whole thing is, like, it's the ultimate in, like, ecological thing. And the final result is that, like in the lower Jefferson, you just have algae and carp, where once you had, you know, beautiful trout fishing. And people are surprised by things like smallmouth bass showing up up the Yellowstone or largemouth in the Bitterroot or pike up the Bitterroot, good lord. And people say, "Well, how could this be?" And I'm like, "Dude, there's no...the water is too shallow, it's very hot.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: It's favoring the warm water species, if anything. So, that's what I've... I've just seen this happening in real time. And I've seen it happening when more and more people seem to love going to the rivers and sort of overwhelming them.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Which is...like I said, that could be a positive if every one of those people were a constituent for conserving that cold water fishery.
Tom: So, what do you see as the solution? What do we need to do to keep colder water in these rivers so that we can spread the crowds around, right? So, we have more cold water.
Hal: Right. Well, it's... So, again, the leasing of water from water right holders is...has been the most effective way to address this.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And because that seems to me to be reaching sort of the height of its potential... I'm not saying it has, I think it's going to still be done. Well, a lot of people are talking about what Joe Gutkowski talked about in the 1990s. And Gutkowski was the Budweiser Outdoorsman of the Year and toughest man alive. And he was a Montana conservation leader. He worked for the Forest Service his whole life. He proposed a minimum instream flow law. And that would have left 25% of the recorded normal flow. And that would be hard to determine, but 25% had to be left in the river. And that was Joe Gutkowski. If you look that up, he was covered pretty well at the time. It's still on the internet. He died at age 94 in 2021. And Joe knew what he was talking about.
So, other people say, "Well, that would be the end of these collaborative efforts because the landowners who own the water"... Montana is unique in that, the water right is attached to the property.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And so that really...that was part of our constitution in the 1970s that also gave us the right to a clean and healthful environment. And that constitution has been under attack. If you want to look at how...how we've changed, I mean, the Montana constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment has been...you know, it's challenged by legislators now.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: I mean, it's bizarre. Because as people have valued this even more, somehow, like, politicians and others feel it's okay or acceptable or even attractive to say it's silly. I don't...I'm not sure I understand where we're at.
Tom: Yeah. So, Hal, explain to people and to me. Currently... Let's say I own a ranch on a river and I have water rights for a certain number of acre-feet per year. I guess it's per year, right?
Hal: Yes.
Tom: And I want to keep water in the river. So, I don't use it. What happens to that portion of my water right?
Hal: Well, I don't know, Tom, that's a great question. You can...I think you can give it up, but there is a beneficial use standard.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And so that's where you get into that use it or lose it concept.
Tom: Right.
Hal: So, whether I can voluntarily give up those minor inches that I'm allocated, or acre-feet of water, I don't know if I lose those or not.
Tom: I think you do currently as the law reads, I think you do.
Hal: So, one of the things that happened was, up until 1969, beneficial use was only, you know, called...using it for, say agriculture, or whatever.
Tom: Right, right.
Hal: But in '69, Montana created what's called the Murphy laws. And those laws were...allowed you to use...to recognize instream flow.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: As a beneficial use.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: Those are called Murphy rights. So, that's...I'm looking at this, it's 1973.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: So, that was certain key streams though. And they did not apply, by the way, to the Big Hole.
Tom: Oh, okay. So, it wasn't everywhere.
Hal: What's that?
Tom: It wasn't everywhere, it was just in certain...
Hal: It wasn't everywhere.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: And so that's part of this whole story. And it becomes where you're peeling the onion or you're cutting things so thin. And that's why people right now are asking whether maybe they shouldn't run a ballot initiative in Montana. Which, you know, has done some good before with, like, cyanide heap leach mining and canned elk shooting. Whether they would float a ballot initiative for an instream flow law and whether people would support that or not. And then whether that would stand up to a constitutional challenge, given that water rights are owned in Montana, they're attached to property.
Tom: Right. And it's a valuable part of your property, right?
Hal: Oh, my lord, yeah. When I owned that place in the Bitterroot, which was only five acres, every bit of value depended upon that water right.
Tom: Yeah. And so you can understand why people don't want to...if they're going to lose it, if they leave it in the river, you can understand why they don't want to lose it, because it's...
Hal: Actually, you couldn't, you can't. Because you can't diminish the value of your property, I mean, if you're a person who might need to cash that in someday, if you got old or put in a hospital.
Tom: Right.
Hal: You know what I mean? It's kind of set up right now in a way that's very difficult to solve this. And I think that's why the emphasis has been on voluntary leasing. And one of the things that they did, like if you look at the Painted Rocks Reservoir at the headwaters of the Bitterroot, they were able to purchase, or lease, an enormous... This was Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. And that was a revolutionary change. Because before that, leaving the water in the river was not a beneficial use. And so that's kept the Bitterroot charged up far beyond what it would look like if they hadn't have done that.
So, we're at a point though where we have to figure this out, in all its complexity and in all its inconvenience. It also...it's becoming...because it's becoming a kind of a zero sum "us versus them" game.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And it hasn't been that before. And, I mean, it goes...there are so many nuances here. Like people thought that when you converted to center-pivot irrigation, that you would use the water more efficiently.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And we did. And that was supposed to be a net gain, right?
Tom: Right.
Hal: But it turned out that flood irrigating, which was very inefficient, actually dumped a lot of water back into our rivers. Now, albeit that water was warmer, you know. And it... And this was...since we started using much more fertilizer, it's more...it's a little more nutrient-dense, it's not the best. But we were losing so much in evaporation from center pivots that that turned out not to be a net gain for our rivers.
So, it's a... I don't know. All I can say is that if we want this to continue... And I think we do, because it's a big economic driver for Montana, if nothing else.
Tom: Fly-fishing is a big economic driver, you're saying?
Hal: Yes, it is.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And it's, like...it's why Simms Waders is here. And it's just a... Also, I mean, beyond that though, I mean, we should want...we should...anybody who's ever stood in the Madison or the Yellowstone, I love the Yellowstone. And you stand there and you fish with your kids or something. And these experiences, we...I don't think it's right to let those things fall away. When we got to enjoy them because people passed stuff like the Murphy laws, and they passed...they changed the definition of beneficial use. These were difficult things to do.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: I mean, during the frontier days, the Snake River itself had gone dry down around...below Glenns Ferry, Idaho. I mean, people had no restraint whatsoever regarding the treatment of natural resources. And we have...we changed that mentality partially because of the Dust Bowl, you know, and the disasters of agriculture on the Northern Plains, you know.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: But... And the Southern...I mean, the Southern Plains was the Dust Bowl, the Northern Plains people just left. It didn't work, right? The 1909 Homestead Act.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And we suffered these disasters, and then we attempt...we did try to fix them, we did fix them. And we're at another juncture where we're being asked, "Who do we want to be as a nation?" And that's what... I'm not tending toward the abstract, because it's the microcosm that makes everything work.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Like how much water is going to be in the Big Hole?
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And that's going to give you the health of your river system and your... And I always say that fish and wildlife, hunting and fishing, have never been the base cause for...reason for conservation. Hunting and fishing are the interest on the principal of sustainably and well-managed lands and waters. And we live on that principal as hunters and fishermen.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: But it is the interest. And if you diminish the principal, your interest goes down.
Tom: Yeah. So, if you were governor of Montana...no, let's say if you were dictator of Montana, what would you do, what would you institute?
Hal: I would float the idea of the ballot initiative. Because even as a dictator, I wouldn't feel like I had the velvet...the iron glove, you know? Because eventually even a dictator has to be supported by the people in some way.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: So, I would float the idea of the ballot initiative.
Tom: The ballot initiative for minimum instream flows?
Hal: Yeah.
Tom: And would that...
Hal: And recognize in all its complexity and the can of worms that it would open up. I would say I think that people of Montana agree that 25% of the river deserves to remain in the river. And that we do want a Jefferson River with trout in it.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And a Big Hole River that you can float down in a raft or go and sit on the bank and enjoy fishing. And that grayling...you know, like, the Endangered Species Act came into play on the upper Big Hole.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And that the precepts of the Endangered Species Act, for whatever flaws it may have, are sound. We do believe that species created by the creator, or whatever reason, deserve to be maintained. As Aldo Leopold said, "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is you keep all the parts."
Tom: Yeah. That's a great quote. That's a great quote.
Hal: It is. And I think about it a lot, you know. It's like... But yeah. And I think as the benevolent dictator, I would still put it to the people.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And say, "What do y'all believe in, man? What do we want?" And, "Couldn't we have both?" Because we're not talking about diminishing agriculture. We're talking about moving this into a future where we use water efficiently here and we placekeep the values of the rivers and the riparian areas and the fisheries intact. How do we do that? Well, hell, we've done harder stuff than that.
Tom: Is there enough water to do that? Are there more changes that can be made in the agricultural practices so that those farms and ranches can be viable and still leave enough water in the rivers?
Hal: Well, I would be speaking from a position of just assumption there, but I would assume so, yes. And here's the other thing. Is we need to have a conversation about the relationship that private American agriculture has with federal government subsidies and funding. And we need to have a serious conversation about what incentives we have produced.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: With that federal funding for agriculture.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And I'm not a person who says that...like, I'm not so conservative that I don't think the federal government has a role in private enterprise like that, you know? But the federal government definitely, "Of the people, by the people, for the people," needs to be studying what incentives are being produced by these subsidies. And that's where I think we could begin. I don't talk...I wouldn't talk about cutting those subsidies or cutting the money off or anything. Let's make sure we know where it's going. And could we use it as we did with Conservation Reserve Program?
Back in... So, Conservation Reserve Program came from the Erodible Cropland Program, which was built during the Dust Bowl. To 1985, it became the Conservation Reserve Program. And that was to take marginal lands out of production. And the government paid by the acre to keep those things out of the watersheds and from blowing away.
Tom: Right.
Hal: Because they weren't good agricultural lands.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And so those models exist. We're not reinventing the wheel. And the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the NRCS, which started out as the Soil Conservation Service back in the '30s.
Tom: Right. Right.
Hal: I mean, we've done this before, Tom. It is, like... I don't know where... Well, I'm not going to be negative. But if I was to be negative for a second, I'm not sure where we lost the backbone and the stomach for solving hard problems. When we sit around all day and plan trips on rivers that are the absolute...that they owe their existence to Americans devoting themselves to solving hard, inconvenient, conflict-laden problems. And it's not really about zero-sum or getting out with the boxing gloves. It's more about figuring stuff out in a rational model with an agreement upon a goal.
Tom: Yeah. So, you see it as a program similar to what we did with land for water?
Hal: Yes, I do.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And I think that the money and the land use and all of that, I think it's in place. I think...like I said, I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel. However, through the leasing program and through a lot of larger landowners, and smaller landowners, have been wonderful to work with in keeping water in rivers. Obviously, through the leasing program.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: However, I'll say this with a caveat. We have, like, a wheelbarrow load of carrots, you know, that you can pass out, but so far we haven't had a stick. And so it's easy to say, "Well, I don't want any carrots. I'm keeping the water, I'm going to do whatever I want." There's no wall to push on there for landowners who don't want to play nice with water.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And like we said, the water right is the value of your property. So, you can't just give it up.
Tom: No. No, you can't.
Hal: So, it's an intractable situation. But how many times have we been... Like King George III was an intractable situation, as well. I mean, it's like we're equal to this task.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, there's definitely...there are solutions. I mean, I forgot the book I read, I think it was called The Big Thirst, recently about the fact that all the water that's ever been on earth is here, and we're not creating any and we're not losing any.
Hal: Right. Right.
Tom: And we just...we need to figure it out. I mean, Las Vegas has figured out how to use water and reuse it and be viable because they've been smart about their...you know, planning their water use and reusing water and being efficient with it.
Hal: One of the reasons is they have to.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Yeah. I mean, there's billions of dollars that hinge on making the right decisions there.
Tom: Right, yeah. And the same thing could be done for instream flows.
Hal: It could. It has to be.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: I'm saying the "could" is maybe a wiggle room, like I got a back door I can run out of.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: "Could" ain't it. It's we got to figure it out.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And it's...or else, you know, learn to fish for carp.
Tom: Yeah. Well, I love carp, but I love trout, too. And I'd rather have more trout than more carp, because there's plenty of carp already.
Hal: That's right. And, I mean, I can go over to Freezeout Lake if I can use enough bug dope and fish...and have incredible carp fishing.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: You know, in those canals.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: But it's not the same as going up, you know, to the headwaters of the Yellowstone, or up the Jefferson and Beaverhead and Big Hole, that's just such an incredible complex.
Tom: Yeah, it is. Yeah.
Hal: And then, you know, I was going to tell you, when I was in the Bitterroot, I managed a little ranch up Kootenai Creek, North Kootenai Creek. And there was a water... There's always a water dispute, right? And I was pretty new at it, I think I was 25 years old or something. And the guy came up. And my one neighbor was pretty...he was old school and he was pretty easy to deal with. But some of the new guys downstream, he said...he's screaming at me. And he said, "I went down there and the water was flowing under the bridge into the river." And I said, "Well, I didn't know, you know, that that was a disaster." And... But I was like 25 years old. And I realized... He was, like, leaping up and down in fury that the water had reached the river, you know, instead of being used at his place.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And I realized then that it wasn't probably going to be okay. Like no tributaries reach the river during the hottest part of the year during the...you know, after second cutting of hay, that's probably not going to work out. And then people were like, "There's largemouth bass down at Poker Joe." You know, a fishing access site. And I was like, "Who'd have thunk it?"
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Or, "There's Pike at Florence Bridge."
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And I was like, "No."
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: So, I've been in this forever and I just...and I never...I didn't know Joe Gutkowski. I profiled him after his death. Not after his death, but when he was very old. And I never got to sit around with him. But he had the right idea in 1996, you know. And it was...it wasn't to a zero-sum "let's have a law to clobber people."
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: It was, "Let's get this conversation started."
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And we've let it slide, man. You can't let stuff slide.
Tom: Nope. All right. So, if you're a citizen of Montana, or, you know, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, I mean, they all use appropriation doctrine, they all have the same issue. What would you do, what would you scream for?
Hal: Oh, I would start before informing myself how it works, first. It's really complicated and it's... Like, the goal is to have more cold water in the river.
Tom: Right.
Hal: So, now, "What do I need to know about why that goal's not being achieved?" That's it, that's where I'd start.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: And I would do that. I would read...Shaun Jeszenka at Frontier Anglers has a...he was in the newspaper recently, I've talked with him on the phone. He's been down on the Beaverhead forever. He's fourth generation Montana. And he understands agriculture. They're good people working on this. Trout Unlimited has decades of knowledge. And they...and I would...I'm going to posit that they were the leads on that, getting Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks together to get that water in the Painted Rocks Reservoir. So, there are successes here, as well.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And we need to figure...we need a kind of hive mind going on now.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: We don't have it. It's funny. These voices are kind of out there in the wilderness at the moment, even though all of this work has been done. You know, why was water and property so attached together in the constitution in the '70s? All of these things. And again, I don't think that's wrong. Like I would...my own self-interest, you know, when I lived at the Bitterroot was deeply engaged in that water right. So, I understand where we're at. But I would say the first thing is to apprise one's self of the knowledge.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And understand that everything...the goal is to have more cold water in the rivers.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: And if you're in the climate change, you know, world, we need to be building resilience right now.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And we're going the other way.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: And it's not...in my opinion, it's not okay to blame this on climate change. Which I think of as, like, I'm standing barefoot on a rattlesnake and I'm worried about, like, whether that truck out there is going to hit my mailbox, you know.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: I think we should address the things that are, like...we need to catch the rattlesnake, put it in a bucket, and take it out, you know, in the backyard.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah, this is...
Hal: And then we can go move the mailbox.
Tom: Yeah. This is more solvable and something that we as individuals can have some effect on. Climate change is...you know, I think of it as, like, worrying about nuclear war. I mean, when I was a kid in the '50s, I used to wake up with nightmares about Russians climbing in my window.
Hal: Right.
Tom: And I couldn't do anything about that.
Hal: Right.
Tom: But we can solve the instream flow issue.
Hal: We can.
Tom: Climate change is serious and it's scary, but, you know, it's going to take every government in the world to address that and we have no influence on that. We can do the best we can. But this is something that, you know, if enough people scream and yell, it'll happen just like it did in the...you know, in the late '60s. I mean, we convinced Nixon to sign the Clean Water Act.
Hal: Yeah. And, you know, he didn't want...he wasn't interested in that. And McNamara told him, he said, "This is something that you could do."
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: I mean, that's really relevant right now to what we're talking about.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Nixon wasn't particularly interested in that.
Tom: No. No, but he had good people...but he had other good people. He had, you know, people like William O. Douglas. And he had...
Hal: Yeah. Oh, my lord, yeah.
Tom: And John Ehrlichman, who, you know, we remember from Watergate. He was an ardent conservationist and an advisor to Nixon.
Hal: Ehrlichman was?
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Got you. Yeah, I didn't know that. I knew William O... If anybody wants to look up, like, William O. Douglas, I mean, you will see a consummate, like, conservation-minded, brilliant American statesman, or judge.
Tom: Yeah. If anyone wants to explore what happened in the '60s, there's a book called Silent Spring Revolution, which I found absolutely fascinating.
Hal: Yes. Yeah.
Tom: A great book.
Hal: It is a great book. Then that whole...like, and that's about the...why Rachel Carson's book became so popular.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: You know, and there was...so much went on there. And we need to... I mean, I'm doing that right now with this public lands book. But we need to know how we got here.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And I'm really concerned. Although I'm not particularly concerned, I just recognize it as a truism. We have lived on the benefits of this federal legislation passed in the '70s.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: And it's been great. We...I mean, we are incredible beneficiaries of that. But it seems like maybe the day...the age, like federalism, you know, the state's rights and stuff, that has really come in nowadays. It's, like, more accepted that that's the only way. Well, the states haven't made any good... I've challenged somebody to look at their own state clean water laws or their state clean air laws or their state wetlands protection laws. And they barely...they're just not there, Tom.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: You know, Jim Range at TRCP, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Tom: Right.
Hal: Jim told me he was instrumental in writing part of the clean water act back when he was really young.
Tom: Yeah, yeah.
Hal: And he told me, he said, "We left it loose because we always assumed that the states would see these benefits and write their own." And so the original Clean Water Act, you know, was about point source pollution.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And they felt that the states... Jim told me this over breakfast bird hunting. He said, "We felt that the states would see this and build upon it." Because they were conservatives, right? They believed in the Tenth Amendment.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And he said, "And they never did."
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: And so maybe that's the new thing. And maybe this instream flow thing can be a Montana Tenth Amendment deal, right? Where we say, "Okay. Perhaps the federal government has reached the end of its ruling by federal fiat and saving us from, like, pollution."
Tom: Right.
Hal: "Now, we'll take the banner."
Tom: Yeah, yeah. But the people of the state need to support it, right?
Hal: Yeah. Well, the people of the state have to be...they have to be the one.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And, you know, it's so funny. Because of our stream access law, which was passed in 1985, I think, we have more people that enjoy the streams and rivers of Montana than anywhere else in the West.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And yet they haven't stood up. They don't know. They can't...you can't stand up for something you... What was that? Baba Dioum from Senegal, his quote was, "We will...in the end, we will only conserve what we love. We will only love what we know. And we will only know what we're taught." And it's...I think we haven't been taught. The stream access law has allowed you to go to these places, it's given us some of the greatest individual freedom to experience these rivers in America.
Tom: Yeah. Now, we need to make sure they have water in them.
Hal: Exactly. I was going to go into a rant about responsibility, but yeah.
Tom: Oh, yeah. Go ahead, go ahead. You can rant.
Hal: No, no, that was it. Now, with freedom comes responsibility.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: And with responsibility, recognizing that there's got to be some water in there.
Tom: Yeah, for sure.
Hal: So, I would just...I would encourage... I'm in an early stage of apprising myself of all of this, the complexity. And I would encourage anybody listening to this who loves to fish this country to start learning about it. Because it's coming, it's not going away.
Tom: Yeah. Do you have any good resources for learning about anything you'd recommend?
Hal: I would just...I would get on the internet and I would talk with Trout Unlimited.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Because they've been forefront here.
Tom: Yeah. They have, they have.
Hal: And they've been... You know, like I said, it's because... You know what they say, whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting. You know, because of that, so many people have accomplished big things without a whole lot of...they don't want the fanfare, right?
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: They want the water in the river.
Tom: Right.
Hal: And so... And that's kind of a two-edged sword, right? You don't...more people don't understand how they got the thing that they're enjoying.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Because you're not looking for...to elevate the conflict. And I honestly...I think the conflict is elevated right now. You know, because we've seen some kind of crisis levels on the Jefferson.
Tom: Yeah, yeah.
Hal: And when I say the Jefferson, I'm talking about the system, right? That's Big Hole, you know, Beaverhead.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And, you know, all of that. Canyon Ferry. Not Canyon Ferry, Clark Canyon Reservoir. You know, all of that. That's what we're talking about. When you're talking about the Jefferson, you're talking about the Missouri.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: You know, and it's... What is it? I was reading Wendell Berry's, "I hope everybody will treat each other as if we're all downstream."
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: You know, but it's...I guess people have to be armed with some knowledge now.
Tom: Yeah. Yeah.
Hal: Because the price of this particular ignorance is going to be too high for us to want to bear.
Tom: That is a great philosophy to live by.
Hal: I try. I was catching those walleye yesterday. And I was bringing them home to eat and I was just thinking...I was just so grateful that they were there and that I caught them and that I get to eat them.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: I was just, like... I really was. It was, like, a big experience in a way. Because I was just thinking how expensive it is to go to the store and buy a piece of halibut.
Tom: Yeah, yeah.
Hal: You know? And then, you know, my kids. My daughter is a half-ass fly fisherman and she likes to fish. And my son's a good fly fisherman. And I was thinking about the lives we've had. You know, the experiences we've had. They've just been... You can't match this, this is incredible.
Tom: No, you can't. And we need to make sure that it stays there.
Hal: Yeah. Well, I appreciate this. I wish I was more of an expert to lay out, like, bullet points here.
Tom: Well, your passion makes up for your expertness, Hal. So, I mean...
Hal: Okay. Lack of expertise.
Tom: Well, neither of us are. And as you said, it's a very complicated issue, but people need to educate themselves at least at a basic level on the situation that we have.
Hal: And I'll tell you, I'm looking at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. You know, they have a thing called Conservation Fisheries Management/Water Management Instream Flows.
Tom: Okay.
Hal: And that's a place to start.
Tom: Okay, good. Yeah.
Hal: And then talk with Trout Unlimited about the work they've done and why it's...a minimum instream flow law has never been passed. Well, there's a reason why it hasn't passed.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: You know, and if so, then what? Right?
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: It's like, "I get it. I get it. That didn't work." Right? We put an alternator in the truck, but the wheels still don't turn.
Tom: So, we try again, right? We try another alternator.
Hal: Well, yeah. We got to go down and look at the chassis now.
Tom: Yeah, yeah.
Hal: And so I don't... Like I said, we...this country, we've solved more intractable problems than this.
Tom: Yeah, we have.
Hal: And to do this at the state level. Because there was talk...when the Grayling was in such trouble in the upper Big Hole, they were talking about the...you know, the big steel hammer of the Endangered Species Act. Right?
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: And so that's one way.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: But people are so anti-federal now, which I do not share. Well, let's show them how it's done under the 10th Amendment.
Tom: Yeah.
Hal: Let's show them how it's done on the state level.
Tom: Yeah. Let's start with the states.
Hal: Yeah. And Bernard DeVoto said that the devolution of power from the federal level to the state level would always be advocated by those who want to corrupt things. Because it was easier to corrupt a legislature than it was a Congress. And DeVoto, you know, was the great public lands historian, right? And American historian. But, okay. So, that's true. DeVoto said that in 1959 in Harper's Magazine. That's true. But it doesn't have to always be true. Right?
Tom: No. And it's easier to enact change at a state legislature level than at a federal level, too. So, you know, the converse, or whatever, is true.
Hal: It's true. That's right.
Tom: Yeah, yeah.
Hal: So, I would just say let's...we need lots of... Like the libertarians say, you know, "Who would stop the biggest monkey from, you know, taking all the toys? All the little monkeys." Well, let's do...let's get all the little monkeys reading about this and figuring out how to hive mind in this solution.
Tom: Yeah. All right, Hal. Well...
Hal: That was my plea for the day.
Tom: Good. Well, I want to thank you for your plea and for educating us on this topic. And it's something that, again, everyone has to be involved with. You can't sit back.
Hal: It's the heart of American fly-fishing.
Tom: Yeah. It is.
Hal: Yeah.
Tom: It is.
Hal: It is. Well, Tom, I appreciate what you do. I can't wait to see you somewhere down the line.
Tom: Yeah, Hal. And thank you so much for taking the time today, really appreciate it.
Hal: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Tom: All right. Bye-bye.
Hal: Bye.
Man: Thanks for listening to the Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast with Tom Rosenbauer. You can be a part of the show. Have a question or a comment? Send it to us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. in the body of an email or as a voice attachment. You can find more free fishing tips at howtoflyfish.orvis.com.