The Impact of the Fly Fisherman….

"Paradise Valley wasn’t a valley."

When I read this line in your post-trip report, all I could think was that "it ain't no paradise, either."

But that's because when I was there, it was completely covered with cow patties.

Hopefully, the cows are now banned, as well as the fishermen. The former do far more damage, I suspect.

My impression is that people who fish don't have greater impact than those who just backpack. What percentage of backcountry visitors fish?

One of our friends is an engineer, and he often talks about data points….when you get enough points on the chart, you can start seeing a pattern, and then you can come to some conclusions. They might be incorrect, but at least they are supported by the data.

So on our last trip we camped at Leopold Lake in the Emigrant Wilderness, and we were completely alone. Every other lake in the area had some campers, and some had what were described as crowds. But lonely Leopold was quiet—just us three chickens.

It was lovely.

Of course, Leopold doesn’t have any fish to catch…and once again we found that where there is no fishing, there are far fewer people.

Want to get away from it all? Then go someplace where the fish are not jumping. Or if they are, they’re illegal to catch.

Emigrant Wilderness may be particularly bad due to so may people being packed in on horses. It may be the combination of the fishing and the quantity of people being packed in. Other places where packers can't go and where it is a long backpack in are not so bad.

billy

Most engineers also know "correlation does not equal causation."

I'd like to see a situation where the trail ends at a fish-less lake and a harder-to-reach lake with no trail, but with fish, is more impacted.

How about Y Meadow vs Granite Lakes? Neither is abused, but Granite much less so, no?

But that's just one data point :-).

"correlation does not equal causation"

I always knew there was a better way to say this than "just because this happens and then that happens does not mean that that is caused by this". I find I need to say this very often when discussing issues with friends and maybe now they will believe me because I can say it more like a smart person!!

edit: dammit i forgot. im going to have to remember it now. drats!!

Maybe Paul's not trying to say fishermen have greater impact but only that more people have greater impact and that in some areas, without the motivation of good fishing, there will be less people, thereby less impact.

From my years of fishing experience, Ive always noticed that areas off the beaten path, without any big draws for hikers such as dramatic views, waterfalls, developed campsites, etc., will be very likely to have nobody there, UNLESS there is excellent fishing.

The West Walker river for instance. I never saw mountain bikers, hikers, backpackers, or even too many car campers along this river basin, even though much of it parallels a road just 100 yards away. But always, there was at least one intrepid fisherman out there that I would bump into. Luckily, even fisherman were few there because of it's distance from a big town.

Regarding an area's popularity, fishing would seem to be a significant factor.

By the way, for any fisherpeoples reading this, the West Walker sucks, dont go there.