French Nymphing Banned?

[Chris Lee]

Interesting read from czechnymphs.com

Even the second attempt for ban of French nymphing not passed thanks to the Czech
Tuesday, 05 April 2011 19:27


Author: Karel Křivanec

In the evening of Friday, April 1, 2011, the General Assembly of the International Fly Fisher Federation FIPS-Mou took place in Rome within the regular CIPS congress. We considered also our participation in Rome during the spring board meeting of the Fly Fishing Federation in Prague, but as the agenda of the General Assembly did not contain any essential items, we decided to render the participation at the GA to the CFU delegates to the CIPS congress for economical reasons.

But we were very surprised at discovering on Tuesday, March 29, that there was a new FIPS-Mou document, sent out by the secretary general of FIPS-Mou on the preceding day with proposals for a number of changes of international rules. It was submitted clearly after the two-month period defined by the FIPS-Mou Statute, but the presiding FIPS-Mou board considered the two-month limit as intended only for plebeians (National Federations), but not for the presiding board themselves. What can be added to that? None of the five sirs was probably ashamed of showing their hands for such a flagrant trampling on the Statutes! And it is quite obvious why they did it. The indigestible morsel called “French nymph” has got stuck in their stomachs, disturbing their digestion since several years.

The proposal for changes included also a number of good provisions that had been applied last year during the world championship in Poland and the European championship in Bosnia and nobody had protested against them. It was particularly the issue of international supervizors and their presence at local competitors, which we had required since many years. Further, the proposal improved the formal wording of several points of the competition rules, which did not cause any problems anyway, and several problem proposals were included too.

The first proposal concerned the fly-fishing lines, suggesting that only lines from AMTMA 3 and thicker should be used. Thinner lines would be banned. A very funny provision, when considering how it could be checked in a competition with 100 and more participants, each with several rods. Two years ago, the main argument of the FIPS-Mou presiding board to the third refusal of our proposal for legalization of micro-rings was the fact that the controlors were not able to recognize what a micro-ring was, even if they received its sample in a small plastic bag. And today they should recognize a line with AFTMA 3. I would not dare to do it, and the line has no tag or mark attached.

Another item consisted in the recommendation (?) that the line should stick out of the last rod guide in the final phase of throw, but only at river competitions! I don’t understand it at all, because it either should or need not stick out of the last rod eye. So the controlors should equip themselves with binoculars, and when fishing at a river as wide as the Polish San, they probably should have a small astronomical telescope. And all that would be required from controlors who are not able to recognize a micro-ring. That constitutes a perfect environment for filing protests and for constant disputes on whether the transparent line does or does not stick out of the rod, doesn’t it?

And further proposals concerned the leaders. Leaders only double the size of the rod should be used only in river fishing, while in lake fishing there would be no limit like to date. This item could also become subject to constant remeasuring of leaders and cause of a number of protests because for a rod of 3 m, an extension of 600 cm would still be OK, but an extension of 601 cm (or 600,1 cm already?) would not be OK any more.

Another “great” idea in the proposal was the idea stating that the leader may be connected only through knots at least 30 cm from each other. FIPS-Mou did not recall our demands for legalization of micro-rings, devices serving to anything else than to connection of individual parts of the leaders. They somehow don’t like the arguments of how many nylons and fluorocarbons would be saved by that. And where will the competitor put the old leader exchanged during the competition? He will probably throw it away somewhere, so that it gets into water etc. Nobody of the presiding committee wants to hear the official Czech proposals, but they lend an ear to oral complaints of less successful competitors and different conservatives threw in somewhere at the hotel lavatories!

And the last attack against the modern ways of nymphing consisted in the proposal ordering that the leader must be only straight, without any intentional frills, spirals and knots. That means almost perfect attack against everything new. It is interesting that the presiding board overlooks for example the fact that the rules have banned shooting heads since the beginning, but that fly-fishing lines constituting exactly such banned shooting heads have existed at least for 10 years. There is still double standard and the situation probably will not improve.

Of course we did not like such artifice of the FIPS-Mou concerning the sudden proposal of changes of rules. It must be stressed that we are not against regular discussion and possible approval of some new provisions, particularly if they will move our sport forward. Therefore our presisent Martin Musil wrote a letter to all FIPS-Mou member countries telling them that we did not agree to the proposed changes because sufficient time was not provided to discuss them. His letter had quite good response, and Walter Ungeman, the USA delegate supported us most strongly at the discussion. Thanks to the skilful action of the CFU representatives at the Rome session, the 5 main items of the newly proposed ones were finally not approved, by 11 votes to 8 (19 member countries were present in total).

So this time the FIPS-Mou still did not succeed with the April Fool’s joke, and that’s why I did intentionally not state the names of the sirs of the FIPS-Mou presiding board, although I assume that a lot of readers know them and are aware that they really tried to implement the proposal like one man. Therefore they should draw a lesson from the result of the vote, because such behaviour is really not correct. Finally, it should be stated that approval was granted to the proposal that from now on, only hooks designed as barbless are allowed. Some federations certainly did not like it, but they did not protest at the assembly, so that this change was approved.

The extensions and the French nymph will be further discussed, and maybe the French will express themselves on that issue too; so far they have played a straight bat and don’t know about anything under discussion. It is probably caused also by the fact that all proposals were filed only in English and they recognize only their native language, constituting also the official language. Their biggest rivals – the Czech – must be their cat’s paw. The presiding board will probably not waive its intention to get back to the waving lines above the competitors’ heads. But that is not the main issue; probably their successors will understand that, because the next congress will include elections, and some members of the presiding board have been there for more than twenty years and they certainly will want to extend their influence by further four years.

[Chris Lee]

Finally, it should be stated that approval was granted to the proposal that from now on, only hooks designed as barbless are allowed. Some federations certainly did not like it, but they did not protest at the assembly, so that this change was approved.
[/quote]

So, after digesting this it appears that only factory barbless hooks will be allowed in FIPS MOUCHE tournaments. It looks like no other rules changed.

[Seth Gerring]

Very interesting.  I wonder why the is a push to ban french nymphing?

As for the barbless hook issue I understand.

Seth

[Dejon Hamann]

Wow! So much to digest here. 

Thank you for posting this Chris.

[Chris Smith]

Will this rule change (barbless designed hooks) apply to Nationals this year?

[Daniel Podobed]

Interesting article, but quite concerning about modern nymphing, and I'm not even a competition angler.

[Chris Puchniak]

Interesting read for sure.  Naturally, politics are in everything, but I didn't really realize what does actually happen at FIPS-Mouche...

I'd be interested to know when the rule changes take affect - do they apply to events of this year, or only event yet to be created?

And when the new document is published.

Factory barbless hooks does make sense.  Should make it easier for the controllers to do their job on judging if a hook is barbless or not.

[Chris Lee]

Here is a little more information regarding the barbless hooks. The original 2009 rules document reads:

28.7. All flies must be dressed on hooks which are barbless or de-barbed."

The proposed rule per FIPS website reads:

"28.7. All flies must be dressed on hooks which are barbless."

So, it looks like they only removed the wording "or de-barbed". There is nothing official on their website to confirm the rule change or when they take effect. It refers to the document as "board recommendations".

Read more here: http://www.fips-mouche.com/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=10

[Mark Hanes]

I am guessing this it up for vote at this years nationals.

[Loren Williams]

Hmmm.....there is a difference between "barbless" and "manufactured barbless".  Chris...were those your interpretations or did you see that printed somewhere? If that is how FIPs reprinted the rules then it still looks to me like the hooks needs to come out of a patch clean...not necessarliy built without a barb.

[Dejon Hamann]

The individual rule changes and proposals are intriguing enough.  But what really stands out for me, as Chris has mentioned, is the glimpse we get into the process.  I think too often we hold Fips-Mou rules and standards as the end-all, when in fact they should only be an example to use as we build our own standards that fit our national tastes.  Of course, it is a good charge for all aspiring to compete at the Fips-Mou Worlds to to study the rules closely.  But using them as doctrine, especially in lieu of the evidence that a minority could change them dramatically at any time, is an atrophy for North American competitive fly fishing. 

Interesting read for sure.  Naturally, politics are in everything, but I didn't really realize what does actually happen at FIPS-Mouche...

[Chris Lee]

Hmmm.....there is a difference between "barbless" and "manufactured barbless".  Chris...were those your interpretations or did you see that printed somewhere? If that is how FIPs reprinted the rules then it still looks to me like the hooks needs to come out of a patch clean...not necessarliy built without a barb.

Loren, the article I posted from czechnymphs.com suggests that hooks be "designed" as barbless. I would intrepret that statement to mean "manufactured barbless". However, that is only an intrepretation and nowhere on the FIPS website does it mention that hooks be manufactured barbless. FIPS rule recommendation only says "barbless". So, if that document is approved, my intrepretation would be that no barbs would be allowed to be on the hook, even if pinched flat.

It really is somewhat confusing...How would a controller know if you had factory barbless or just filed off the barb? The FIPS document removed the wording "de-barbed" which makes it appear illegal to even file the barb off. I hope they provide some clarification to the meaning of "de-barbed", however, they probably won't.

Obviously there was enough concern with debarbing that they removed the language from their rules document. I would assume that in competition not all barbs are being pinched equally?

[Loren Williams]

It's gonna really limit all countries from obtaining good hooks at good prices if that's the direction they are going.  You think good barbless hooks are expensive now!

[Jim Frazier]

loren , maybe it is about the money. I dunno , as long as it comes out of the patch clean i can't see a difference in the de-barbed or factory barbless.

[Seth Gerring]

It's gonna really limit all countries from obtaining good hooks at good prices if that's the direction they are going.  You think good barbless hooks are expensive now!

On the other hand it could have the opposite effect.  Maybe now it will be more profitable for the hook companies because more hooks will be sold. My thinking here is supply ans demand. If the demand is high and supplies are increased then price should go down.  But on the other hand, yes this is third hand, demand goes up and no increase in supply price will go up. I hope that it would cause a decrease in price but I know that is wishful thinking.

Seth

[Lance Egan]

Does anyone on here think a maximum leader length rule would be a bad thing?  Let's say just in theory that fips implemented a maximum leader length of 25'.  Would this bother you?  Why or why not?

I ask because I think this type of rule will exist in the near future.  Having controllers try to enforce rules like "fly line out the tip ring at all times" is not feasible.  Also on this note, the rule should be the same for river and lake venues in my opinion. 

As far as barbs go I hope this rule boosts the sales of barbless hooks which in turn should increase the offering of BL hooks from manufacturers. 

[Devin Olsen]

Does anyone on here think a maximum leader length rule would be a bad thing?  Let's say just in theory that fips implemented a maximum leader length of 25'.  Would this bother you?  Why or why not?

I ask because I think this type of rule will exist in the near future.  Having controllers try to enforce rules like "fly line out the tip ring at all times" is not feasible.  Also on this note, the rule should be the same for river and lake venues in my opinion. 

As far as barbs go I hope this rule boosts the sales of barbless hooks which in turn should increase the offering of BL hooks from manufacturers. 

A maximum leader length of 25' would not bother me but that's basically because I don't really fish anything longer than that. If it was getting down around the 20' range it would impact me and I would begin to take issue with it. I also wonder where all the measuring will end. At some point I think there is enough for controllers to be paying attention to especially when most of them are already not measuring distances between flies or tapers or any of the other leader, bead, hook rules, etc. Furthermore, (maybe I'm wrong) most of us believe that one of the best things about competition fishing is the effectiveness of the nymphing techniques that have arisen from it. I don't really want to see that effectiveness legislated out of the game which will affect the uniqueness and marketability of competition fishing to the masses.

As far as the hooks go, down the road I believe your remark about more barbless models being offered is legitimate. In the short term, their availability is very narrow and I feel I still have a hard time finding manufactured barbless hooks that I like for certain applications. Plus, I have entire fly boxes that will need to be replaced now and that sucks. Furthermore, I don't see this rule creating much of a greater demand overall. The competition need is still such a small part of the market that I don't think we have much of an influence on hook design in the major companies as of yet. However, you would know better than I since I'm not in the fishing biz anymore. Apparently the hook companies still think the masses don't care about gaps or point lengths because barbs make up for it and those who crimp them don't know better anyway. I guess I also don't see the need for manufactured barbless hooks if they would just make a greater emphasis on controllers testing the hooks in the first place. If they don't test them now, they won't test or even know how to test whether it is manufactured barbless either.

[Loren Williams]

I am kind of in the same train of thought as Devin on this.  I can, and do, fish leaders in excess of 25' but it is rather new for me and I have a benchmark leader system that I use far more frequently that I can fall back to in conditions where I may grab the longer leader.  If they go shorter than 15 or 18 feet then there will be some happy fish.

Hooks:  if they go into and out of the fabric then what is the difference?  Yeah, manufactured barbless hooks are easier, and the good ones are sticky and penetrate like a hot butter knife but lots of them are garbage and they are all way expensive.  With that market driven by some of the top teams I am fearful of what may happen if they suddenly became required equipment?  TMC hopefully would attack the market since they only deal in fly hooks but other companies like Mustad have such a  small vested interest in fly hooks compared to the far more popular bait, lure, SW and bass hooks that I doubt they'd dump $$ into R&D of BL competition quality fly hooks.

Of course, as is often the case, I could be as wrong as wrong could be.

[Dejon Hamann]

To answer your question Lance, I say yes.  But specifically for the reason Devin has highlighted below.  There are very, very few controllers now, I would surmise even world championship controllers, who can administer the current rule set.  Adding to that compounds the problem.  The rules in fact become a joke when they are so complicated that they can not be applied by a judge.

I think I have a unique position as having spent a TREMENDOUS amount of time trying to figure out how fips-mouche type competitive fly fishing can work and prosper in North America.  Of course, there are many members who have been on the scene contemplating this for longer than I, but together with the Coop Board we've put easily a few hundred hours in on it over the last 2 years.  

In the beginning we were "fips or nothing".  But as time progressed it became evident that all though the rule set defines the sport... it can also kill the "sport" of it.  And more importantly the growth.  My current belief is the rule set needs to be as streamlined as possible to allow an open air of competition.  I know it's not bench mark or favorite of many in this community, but can you imagine what would happen to Bass fishing if they had a huge long complicated list of rules?  

Personally, I would like to see the rule set stripped down rather than added to.  Leader length, net length, fly distance length, tapering, and others axed.

I guess what's continually at issue here is delineating the difference between "Course" fishing and "Fly Fishing".  And I believe prudent rules like the prohibition of floating indicator devices and added weight sufficiently take care of that.  

As far as "debarbed" hooks I think there is a good direction here, but possibly not fully thought out implementation.  Again, in the spirit of simplyfying the rules taking out the need for controllers to monitor individual flies since their barb may or may not be mashed down enough... or prohibiting anglers from using any hook they desire with modification why not amend the rule as something like:

"28.7. All flies must be dressed on hooks which are barbless or de-barbed.  Any evidence of a barb must be completely removed via filing or otherwise and not just crimpled."

Now, for the most part a controller can see at a glance whether the hook is indeed "barbless" or not.

Just a couple cents.

. I also wonder where all the measuring will end. At some point I think there is enough for controllers to be paying attention to especially when most of them are already not measuring distances between flies or tapers or any of the other leader, bead, hook rules, etc.

[Randy Hanner Sr.]

Hey D  the way I read the part about the straight leader implies no curly allowed.

[Daniel Podobed]

Aren't the French the ones who created the curlie "sighter"? This seems to be a direct attack on the french nymphing style, and I would hate to think it, but it seems to be a means to limit their success as a team.....

can it be so?

[Dejon Hamann]

Hey D  the way I read the part about the straight leader implies no curly allowed.

I agree. In fact, the proposed changes would explicitly outlaw them:

Change article 27.3
Sections of a leader may be connected only by a knot. Loop connections are not permitted. A
single loop may only be used to connect the end of the leader to a fly line. The distance
between the knots used for connecting consecutive sections of the leader may not be less than
30 cm, measured when the leader is laid on a flat surface, without any tension applied to the
leader.
Add new article 27.4 and renumber the former 27.3 to 27.5
All leader material shall be a straight, single strand of monofilament. Braided leaders are not
permitted. The leader material may not be processed, twisted, coiled or kinked for deliberate
change the shape of the straight monofilament.

[Mark Hanes]

Hell that one makes a new ball game. 

[Chris Lee]

Remember, though, the article I posted says none of the proposed rule changes carried except the barbless hooks. I won't completely buy into the article, however, until I see an official FIPS rule book posted to their website.

[Dejon Hamann]

Indeed, but by a frightening margin:

the 5 main items of the newly proposed ones were finally not approved, by 11 votes to 8 (19 member countries were present in total).