Yvon Chouinard Has Thoughts

July on the Upper Madison. One boat in view.

In a recent Mountain Journal article, staff writer Robert Chaney covered the release of the book “Pheasant Tail Simplicity” by Yvon Chouinard, Craig Mathews, and Mauro Mazzo. The title of the article is “Patagonia and the Flies that Might Save the World: Fly-fishing conservationists Yvon Chouinard and Craig Mathews’ new book shows anglers how simplifying their hobby can improve the environment.” Sorry, what?

One of the book’s three authors had quite a bit to say. Yvon Chouinard barely spoke about the purpose of his own book, which I thought was about describing how a more direct and fulfilling path to success in fly fishing from a fly selection standpoint can be distilled down to fewer flies and better presentation. After all, in the book Yvon writes that the book is intended for “the person who knows that restricting your options forces you to be creative.” Throughout the rest of the book, there’s no mention of saving the world with flies made from the tail of a cock pheasant. It’s a simple book about simple flies with great pictures and recipes for the flies. At most, the book’s thesis is that by using a select few simple flies one can worry less about carrying boxes of flies and all the latest gear, and more about presentation. I share that view. I find that by carrying less stuff and choosing one or two simple patterns to fish allows me to more fully enjoy my surroundings, focus on my presentation, and enjoy the simple act of casting a fly without schlepping around tons of gear and having so many options that it disorients my strategy. 

Instead, in this interview with Mountain Journal at least, Yvon says that’s actually not what the book was about at all. Chouinard suggests the book was about offering a “course correction” for those in the sport through this simplification in fly selection that will apparently help solve the problems that ail our trout streams. I think. It’s very confusing. Chaney writes “as Chouinard puts it, their advice is not so much an alternative approach as a course correction to a pastime at risk of swamping itself.” However the idea that using fewer flies will help conserve our trout water is…a stretch to put it mildly. Are we even talking about the same book here?

At this point, Chaney takes us on a wild and disjointed literary adventure, bouncing from a book about simplifying our fly selection to booming economic impacts of our sport’s popularity, “loving our pastime to pieces,” aquatic insect declines, warming stream temperatures, stocked fish, uneducated anglers, wade fishing versus boat fishing, and finally ending with Chouinard wagging his finger at angling businesses for not doing enough to support the conservation of our waters because they don’t belong to his own non profit conservation initiative. It leaves readers wondering: was this an article about a book about flies or a lecture from our sport’s elders on how our streams are all screwed? Especially the Madison? More on that later. 

Let’s go back to this “course correction” idea. Should we catch fewer fish? Should we fish less in general? All of the above? I don’t follow the connection from pheasant tail nymphs to healthy trout streams. This is a very odd theory. But then Chouinard is quoted saying "I don't have illusions that people are going to simplify their lives or their fishing,” Chouinard said. So, he offers this “course correction” of using fewer flies to save the world but he doesn’t have any illusions anyone will take it?

But this journalistic voyage is nowhere near over yet. Chouinard then claims that “If you think spending over a thousand dollars for a new fly rod will catch you more fish, forget it.” Interesting. Says the guy in the picture in the article holding a fly rod worth well over $1,000 while dressed in all the fly fishing costume materials made by Patagonia which if any of us mortals bought, would also be well north of $1,000. Ironic.

And by the way, I disagree. That Winston he’s holding in that photo, I have one. I didn’t buy it because I thought it would catch more fish than any other rod. Although I could make a strong argument, it could. I bought it because it’s an immensely enjoyable rod to cast. Honestly, when I walk to the river these days to fish on my own, I take Chouinard’s advice and I carry fewer flies with that Winston in hand. I couldn’t give a damn if I caught more fish with that rod. I like casting it. It’s inarguably more satisfying to cast than other rods in my opinion. That’s why I bought it. And I’d bet the pesos I used to buy that rod that it’s also why he’s holding one fishing the Gros Ventre in that photo.

His co-author, and friend of mine, Craig Mathews, offers a few quotes as well which I largely agree with. At this stage of his fishing career, and mine, we both enjoy fishing on foot, getting close to fish, stalking them, and catching that one fish in front of us. I appreciate any book encouraging others to try it out. My only quibble with Craig’s thoughts is that he suggests that his strategy of walk wade fishing is somehow more fulfilling than the anglers in “$1,000 guide boats, parading down the river.” I would only offer that every angler is at a different point in their journey in our sport. Some are just beginning. From my experience as the guy rowing one of those boats ($600), most of the people in those drift boats don’t own waders or even their own rods. This is likely their first try at fly fishing. Floating in a drift boat away from snags on the bank and new water to fish with every cast is easier on them. Many aren't able to physically walk the river either. And the uniqueness of floating down the river is also fun. Craig obviously has no reason to float the river which he lives on. For him, wading and stalking is his niche, and that’s wonderful. But we all can’t be Craig Mathews and fish 210 days a year. For many, a drift boat offers a very fulfilling experience. To each their own, basically. Aside from this point, I agree wholeheartedly with Craig’s theory of fly and gear selection and letting the river tell him what to do. Using fewer and simpler flies allows him to be more immersed in the art of stalking. I teach the same thing to my customers as a single dry fly first guide. We stalk fish and get close to them as well. The only difference is, we’re in a boat. 

What really nags at me is the statement at the end by Chouinard that “We’re destroying the planet with over consumption. There’s too many of us consuming and discarding endlessly, and it’s totally unnecessary. We’re killing these rivers. The Madison is the worst case. Any time you look, you can see three or four boats in view.”

A lot to unpack there. Chouinard is 87 years old. He’s seen a few things in our sport over those years. No doubt, things have changed. Fishing has gotten more challenging with educated fish. The waters are more crowded now. Development is encroaching everywhere. Water quality and quantity issues are worsening. Climate change is impacting our stream’s health. On and on. The point is, we’ve got a few issues to work through. We all have a role to play as stewards of our rivers. 

But you did just write a book about how to catch more fish with simpler flies. You did tell Chaney that if you want to catch more fish, get out and walk a river. A lot of talk about how to catch more on the one hand and here on the other hand you’re concerned about too many of us over consuming? Specifically, those drift boats. It's confusing and contradictory. 

And where did the scud missile from left field come from on the Madison being the worst because of the boats? It’s a national treasure, near a national park. Of course it’s going to be one of the most visited bodies of water in the country. I’d argue people are obligated to see it. It’s special. Seeing “three or four boats in view” over the course of probably what amounts to a mile of water makes the Madison “the worst?” Please. Are boat ramps busy at times? Sure. But there are plenty of times when no boats are in view. Are these boats “killing our river?” Of course not. This hyperbole from Chouinard is unhelpful. And he knows this. As a wading angler, I’m sure he’s been to Three Dollar Bridge in July and seen far more wade anglers than the amount in those three or four boats he languishes about. No mention of that from him here. Do we need to be working on a plan to manage use? Absolutely. That’s why it was so frustrating when our Governor killed a plan which was developed several years ago to do just that. It’s not about boats or no boats. Row versus Wade. Managing use is about everyone, no matter how they choose to fish. 

Despite seeing far more users than other surrounding rivers, the health of our fishery here on the Madison is faring well, all things considered. Much better than many other rivers regionally that see far fewer users. In fact, the Madison may be the best case regionally. Chouinard clearly has it out for drift boats on the Madison. We’ve all heard it before. That’s fine. He’s entitled to that view. But, he lets that irritation cloud his judgement of the situation. 

Lastly, Chouinard clearly has contempt for angling businesses not being members of his conservation initiative, 1%, which no doubt does good in the world. But he conflates this lack of membership among angling businesses with lack of concern about the environment. Business owners like myself don’t need to belong to an initiative which requires membership fees in order to have proper concern for our environment and be active in its conservation. I’ve looked very closely at joining 1%. As a small independent outfitter, it didn’t make financial sense paying a fee to 1% to become a member, on top of giving back the 1% to a fund for unknown conservation projects. I’d rather put all my dollars directly into the hands of those actively conducting conservation efforts locally without paying a fee which likely goes to paying for staff and expenses to operate 1%. Instead, I end up giving back more than 1% on my own and volunteering for local projects. There are many other outfitters like me and small businesses that go unnoticed by Patagonia or Chouinard. We don’t have a fancy logo banner that goes on our website telling people we belong to an exclusive club. We do it quietly and because we give a damn. So to infer that the rest of us who aren’t members of his club aren’t pulling our weight is just plain false.