Editor’s note: We first published this piece in 1994, two years after “The Movie,” A River Runs Through It, initiated rapid growth in the popularity of fly fishing and led to a rise in conflicts between anglers — much of which resulted from ignorance of common notions of considerate behavior toward others when fishing. Fast forward twenty-seven years, and our sport is again experiencing an increase in participants, and ignorance is again leading to intemperate words, or worse. Now’s an appropriate time to revisit the topic of fly-fishing etiquette.
I turned back to let my gaze follow the creek’s cascading descent, but then stopped short. My eyes had caught a movement in the distance — the back-and-forth glint of a waving fly rod. An angler, the first I had encountered on the creek that year, was working my way. Hurriedly, I stuffed the remainder of my sandwich into the creel and drew back into the alders. I needed to put more stream between us. It was 1946, and the only fishing etiquette I understood was that any visible angler was too close.
Nearly half a century later, angling solitude is likely to be broken in minutes rather than days. On well-known waters, a traffic cop seems more fitting than a game warden. Even people new to the sport can share a horror story of some angler’s deplorable manners. In short, the worst of today’s highway behavior has been spilling over into the trout stream.
When I think of etiquette, the focus shifts from myself to my interactions with other people. Etiquette is synonymous with a social code, rules of conduct, and manners. It is the standard of what is socially acceptable in conduct as prescribed by authority or convention. Ultimately, it involves making choices that honor another person’s rights as much as my own. Etiquette has been summarized as “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet often today the Golden Rule seems to give way to another code: “Looking out for Number One.”
Some say etiquette is just common sense. Ernest Schwiebert, in his second volume of Trout, asserts that the “rules of etiquette are logical and simple,” but then proceeds to lay out at least 35 separate “never do this” precepts. Etiquette is not simple because accepted guidelines vary with the waters and tactics one fishes; the acceptable spacing between anglers on a large river, for example, often constitutes crowding on a small stream. Developing workable etiquette guidelines that fit the variety of conditions the modern angler fishes may take time. In planning this article, I wanted to begin the search for such guidelines and get beyond the easy issues of closing gates behind one’s car, slowing down when approaching dusty parking areas, and taking care not to litter. To learn more about this and reach beyond my own opinions, I developed a questionnaire that included 12 “social situations” one might experience on lakes, streams of various sizes and character, and steelhead rivers. I offered etiquette choices for each situation and provided space for comments to better represent one’s point of view. I received completed questionnaires back from 50 experienced California fly fishers — approximately 90 percent of those sampled. My first finding was that these experienced anglers were keenly interested in fishing etiquette and had a wealth of practical ideas to pass on to others. I have organized my findings into seven principles or “points of etiquette.” Two of them deal with right-of-way, three with interference by crowding,
one with streamside movement, and one with angler communications.
1. “First come, first serve” establishes basic right-of-way. The respondents agree that the first person to start fishing establishes the right to that spot, and that other people are obliged to go elsewhere or wait for the first angler to move on. The acceptance of this principle is what motivates people to arrive early at favorite spots and sometimes, in an unattractive spectacle, to literally race one another to the water. This principle also gives the stationary angler right-of-way over a moving angler, such as one fishing from a drifting boat.
This right carries no time limit, despite the tendency to be critical when someone “hogs” the best water. One veteran fisherman suggested that the spirit of etiquette “may be best expressed by the angler who leaves a prime spot to others after a reasonable period of time instead of continuing to monopolize it.” I have seen that happen, but not often.
One common right-of-way problem occurs on small streams when two anglers fish toward each other. Each is disturbing the water the other would be fishing next, and one should stop fishing and relinquish the remaining water to the other. Long-standing tradition favors the upstream-fishing angler. In Schwiebert’s words, an angler working downstream should “retire from the river and move unobtrusively around an angler fishing upstream.” Yet many people who fish today seem unaware of this etiquette tradition. Anglers often continue to approach one another as if bent on playing a stream version of the game of “chicken.” The game often ends suddenly when one makes a cast into the last unfished pool.
2. Anglers should allow for critical access routes to other water. As people converge on the same fishing spots in ever-increasing numbers, one needs to recognize places where an angler’s fishing interferes with the other anglers’ ability to get to the water. When access routes are blocked, behavior soon reverts back to John Gierach’s description of the courtesy of “too many hungry rats in a small cage.”
The water adjacent to the Buffalo Ford parking lot on the Yellowstone River provides a case in point. Unless the river is low, there is only one safe place for a solitary wader to cross over to the attractive water on the far side. The problem occurs when people start casting to fish that are rising in the water that must be waded through. The options are to wade through the water that is being fished, risk a life-threatening crossing elsewhere, plead to wade across, or wait who knows how long to do so.
In response to this situation on my questionnaire, a few anglers indicated their experience with this dilemma on several rivers and expressed irritation “with people who fish right at a parking lot that also happens to be the only safe crossing.” One veteran indicated that he wades on through and interprets the situation to nearby anglers as follows: “If someone decides to fish at a boat launch, he or she ought to expect a few boats to come and go.” The more I thought about this, the more sense it makes — especially with the wading angler’s life at risk. One should not have to ask permission to cross here. I’m not crazy about posted regulations, but because this is an exception to a common understanding, I believe that key access areas should be posted to communicate the right-of-way for the angler passing through.
This situation also occurs in lakes whenever a narrows exists between two larger, open areas of water. Here again, anglers should expect boats and float tubes to pass through, even if the fish are rising.
3. Casting into an occupied pool generally constitutes crowding. Crowding too close to another angler is perhaps the most common breach of fishing etiquette. An angler who crowds someone has acknowledged that person’s prior claim to the preferred spot but then constricts its area by placing his or her boundaries too close. Schwiebert pointed out that the crowding distance between two anglers varies with the size of the river, the character of adjacent pools and holding places, the quality of the fishing, and how well you know the other angler. This doesn’t sound simple. Yet I believe guidelines exist that offer additional help in recognizing and avoiding crowding on at least the more obvious types of water.
In modest-sized mountain rivers, such as the Truckee or McCloud, water drops through pools and runs which visibly define fishing spots. Schwiebert’s principle here is one that many mountain stream anglers may have been weaned on: “You never get into a pool that is already being fished, even on the most crowded streams, without first asking the other fisherman’s permission.” In my questionnaire I asked how much fishing water should be relinquished when bypassing another angler on mountain rivers. Not one in 50 respondents indicated that he or she would “resume fishing in the upstream portion of the pool being fishing, even if it were 200 feet long.” They selected options such as fishing again only “when beyond the angler’s view” or “after leaving a half-hour of undisturbed water.”
I presented a more tantalizing situation in which “you move up to an angler who is fishing one of your favorite runs from the opposite side of the river.” I was able to entice a few respondents to “fish the water right against their own bank if beyond the reach of the other angler.” But even here, the overwhelming majority indicated they would “be careful no to cast into the pool being fished.” Some of them commented that they would wait to fish this favorite run or return later in the day.
4. Casting to someone else’s risers or standing in the way of that person’s cast or drift lanes constitutes crowding. The “occupied pool” principle serves as a minimum standard on rivers that have distinct pools or runs, but what defines crowding on the smooth surfaces of spring creeks or lakes?
I grappled with this problem in several situations and even tried to develop objective rules such as “avoid casting to any fish that is rising within a casting distance of 50 feet from a float tube in any direction” and “stay 100 feet away from the next angler on the banks of a spring creek.” In retrospect, the rigidity of such rules does not lend itself well to the variable conditions we face when fishing.
The best visible guideline on smooth waters is the cast of the angler who arrived first. I’ve seen float tubers “mark their territory” by fanning long casts toward an approaching angler in a nonverbal message of the amount of water they are covering. One needs to “put the breaks on” well beyond the angler’s longer casts, and where there is current, beyond the drift being fished as well. Andre Puyans may have expressed the underlying principle best: “Move only close enough to communicate and observe, but never close enough to interfere.” I teach students to honor a “two-cast-plus” guideline, thus leaving a little unfished water between my cast and the next person’s cast. In this type of fishing, lines should never cross.
5. Crowding is related to an angler’s rate of movement. The joys of creek fishing include moving through changing scenery and anticipating the prospects of the next good water within view. If someone wants to disrupt the peaceful world of the creek angler, he or she needs only to cut in ahead of the angler and start fishing that visible stretch of water.
People new to the sport often underestimate how rapidly anglers can move along a creek. Small, narrow pools are quickly fished, and an energetic angler will cover several miles during a day’s fishing. Streamside foliage often forces an angler to wade up through a creek, which disturbs a much higher percentage of fish than when wading the edge of a wider stream. So, both the speed of angler movement and the extent to which fish are disturbed need to be taken into account to avoid crowding.
How long are the fish disturbed? The researchers in Robert Bachman’s Pennsylvania studies observed that a flying mallard will put a fish down for “from three to five minutes,” whereas a mallard that lands in the vicinity of a trout will typically put that same fish down for “from 20 to 30 minutes.” I believe this 20 to 30 minute period is also necessary for a wild trout to resume feeding normally after being disturbed by a wading angler. I recall more than a few days when a surprising lack of rising fish was eventually explained by the discovery of someone who had been wading upstream 15 to 30 minutes ahead of me.
I asked the anglers how much water they should give up after overtaking an upstream-fishing creek angler. Three-fourths of this group said they would either “observe that angler’s rate of movement and then walk upstream far enough to relinquish a half-hour of undisturbed water” or “walk upstream far enough that they aren’t likely to see that angler again and then start fishing.” Under both approaches a considerable stretch of water is left for the other angler.
The remaining quarter of my respondents would “give that angler several pools or 200 feet of undisturbed water before resuming their fishing.” One angler who selected this option explained he “fished rather fast and would not be passed again.” This view honors oneself more than the person being passed. Should the bypassed angler cover the remaining 200 feet of water within the next 10 minutes, he or she must then choose to continue fishing in recently disturbed water, take a lunch break to rest it, or fish elsewhere. No angler should have to make that choice.
Cutting in this close often invites the angler’s version of “leap frog,” in which two anglers pass one another throughout the day. Each person spends too much fishing time walking around the other. Yet alternating pools can be beneficial for someone who is receiving instruction and enjoyable for friends who prefer to fish together.
When someone cuts me off on a small creek, I have learned to bypass that angler again, check my watch, and force myself to keep walking for a full 20 minutes before fishing again. This leaves the other angler up to an hour of undisturbed water. Unfortunately, this may not work on a crowded stream or if little fishing time remains in the day.
6. Movements along streams can spook fish. It is possible to interfere with someone’s fishing without casting a fly. If I allow my dog to splash in the water near an angler, my children to throw rocks there, or someone in my party to talk loudly or play loud music, I disturb the angler if not the fish. These disturbances are most often experienced where roads converge on trout waters. Even in remote areas, however, my movement along streams can interfere with someone’s fishing.
My questionnaire asked how to pass one another on a mountain stream, and virtually every angler indicated he or she “attempts to find a route that is well back from the stream to prevent the other angler’s fish from being disturbed.” Although “steep terrain” and “dense foliage” were cited as limiting factors, no one advocated taking “the quickest route, including walking next to or even through the water.” (Whenever a person is forced to wade in the vicinity of another angler, such movement should be done slowly and patiently.)
Several people noted an omission in the situations presented and inserted comments on the importance of “walking well back from the banks of spring creeks to avoid spooking fish, and even farther back around any angler in the river.”
I also received comments on things boat anglers need to keep in mind when passing others. These considerations included slowing as much as possible, sitting down and otherwise presenting a low profile, and keeping boat noise — such as anchors being thrown on the water or into the boat and oars striking the gunwales — to a minimum. The boater should ask any midstream angler which side to pass on, and not cast or drop anchor close to another angler’s fishing spot. Fly fishers sometimes err in underestimating how far a spin fisher can cast and how much water he or she is covering.
7. Courteous communications can defuse conflicts. Several anglers remarked that “courteous communications” is the key to addressing etiquette problems. There are benefits in communicating on the stream, even for people who savor the solitary moments the sport provides. When passing another angler, for example, a momentary chat lets people compare notes on the fishing, alerts them to the whereabouts of other anglers and gives them the opportunity to mention how far they intend to walk before fishing again. An angler whose body language or tone is unfriendly can always be left alone.
Communication takes on additional importance whenever an angler confronts unfamiliar situations, such as the Buffalo Ford crossing problem discussed previously. I presented another situation that some anglers were unfamiliar with: “You raise but fail to hook a large fish and decide to rest the water until it resumes feeding. Another angler approaches with the intent to fish the same spot.” Traditionally, the first angler to arrive has priority on the pool he or she is studying or resting, and the second angler should never start fishing without gaining the other’s permission. Because many of today’s anglers don’t know what is called for, however, an angler who is resting the water is wise to initiate communications to inform the approaching angler of the situation. Or, the first angler could rest the water by standing at the preferred spot rather than sitting back from the water where intentions are more easily misconstrued.
Distinctive local customs might be communicated as well. For example, an angler may be fishing a steelhead river where the locals rotate down through riffles, stepping down after each cast. I asked my respondents what they would do in this situation, when “approaching another angler who isn’t moving, but catching fish by monopolizing the best section of the run.” Most indicated they would merely bypass the stationary angler and resume fishing a little farther down the riffle. However, a third of my group would “inform that angler of the local custom of rotating before passing by.”
One person remarked that he would do this only after first “checking out that angler for size, hostility, sidearm, or big knife.” Even a well-known steelhead guide observed that such communications would be “okay for an NFL defensive lineman,” but that he would not risk it. Apparently, steelhead guides see their share of ugly confrontations and recognize limitations to the courteous communications approach.
One local custom, the “lineup,” deserves special attention. Its social code is most vehemently enforced on coastal steelhead rivers such as the Gualala. When first in from the ocean, winter steelhead often remain tightly grouped. Thus competition that will put one’s fly “in the bucket” is extreme, and anglers stand as close to one another as possible without risking injury. Sinking lines contribute to this close positioning by allowing a person to cast over the submerged line being retrieved by the next angler upstream.
Many of the anglers I questioned were unfamiliar with expected behavior in a lineup, while others had stopped fishing in lineups because “it’s not worth the unpleasantness.”
If an angler had trouble controlling the path of a long cast in these crowded conditions, someone is likely to raise the question of whether an angler who can’t cast should be out there. If an angler leaves the lineup to answer the call of nature, he or she should not expect to get the spot back unless next to friends. Typically, one can expect to get a spot back only after having moved away from the lineup to play a hooked, fish. An angler who wades out a step too far may have to remove a hook from his or her waders. Communication exists in a lineup, but it isn’t always courteous.
“On many back roads of the state, total strangers driving towards one another will signal a hello as they pass — not necessarily a big wave, but sometimes just a friendly subtle lifting of the fingers from the wheel. The same kind of gentle recognition of one another on trout waters can be a first step in the search for etiquette — and make for a happier fishing experience all the way around.”
— John Sullivan
Final remarks. In doing this exploratory study, I was impressed by the etiquette knowledge of the 50 anglers who responded to my questionnaire. These anglers were aware of and agreed with the right of first-come, first-serve, with staying back from stream banks, with not casting into someone else’s pool nor in the vicinity of that person’s casts on still water, and with giving a moving angler additional fishing water. They were less well-schooled on traditions for resting a pool and for giving the upstream-fishing angler the right of way. Many were also unfamiliar with problems of fishing in access routes and lineups.
More impressive than their level of knowledge was the concern these anglers expressed about the growing etiquette problem. Virtually every person in the study agreed that breaches of angling courtesy have become far too common. I believe Schwiebert hit the nail on the head in stating that “stream etiquette in the past was always carefully taught to each succeeding generation, but such tutelage has too often been lost in the explosive growth of fly fishing.” Many leaders of this sport have succeeded in promoting their teaching and fishing skills as well as the conservation practice of catch-and-release fishing. It is time to put forth this same concerted emphasis into the communication of angler etiquette.
I believe that anyone who teaches a fly-fishing or casting class, certifies casting instructors, operates a shop, operates in club leadership, or produces publications, has the obligation to communicate the important principles of angling courtesy. The regional councils of Fly Fishers International need to update — or at least widely distribute — their existing etiquette guidelines to clubs and shops as well as to individual members. Sessions on etiquette need to be included as conclave programs.
Schwiebert observed further that “anything approaching real sport with crowds is at the mercy of regulations and manners.” I would like to think that leaders in this sport can influence an improvement in manners and thus avoid the necessity for posting regulations regarding fishing behavior.
Ultimately, any improved courtesy depends on each angler and an examination of the attitudes he or she brings to trout waters. A competitive, skill-dominated perspective sometimes gets in the way of good manners. As Oregon guide John Judy puts it, “the competition to be first is sometimes pretty ugly; it brings out the worst in fishermen.”
The late John Sullivan, a long-time California fly fisher who once worked with the state Department of Fish and Game, compared fishing etiquette to the ways people drive a car. “It seems the rule on city streets and freeways is to drive without acknowledging the human presence of other drivers. One takes account of a vehicle, but not the human inside. Still, on many back roads of the state, total strangers driving towards one another will signal a hello as they pass — not necessarily a big wave, but sometimes just a friendly subtle lifting of the fingers from the wheel. The same kind of gentle recognition of one another on trout waters can be a first step in the search for etiquette — and make for a happier fishing experience all the way around.”
As I continue to pick my way along trout waters, I believe I will make greater use of a smile, nod, and even a brief chat. I will continue to give other anglers the space I would like them to give me. If I observe a breach of etiquette, I will try to offer advice in as friendly and suggestive a manner as possible. I will make an effort to see my fellow angler as a friend I haven’t met rather than as a rival for the same fish.
