Take an All-New Phil Monahan Fly-Fishing Trivia Challenge 05.11.17

Welcome to the latest edition of our weekly trivia challenge, in which we test your knowledge of all things fly fishing and where you might learn a thing or two about this sport we love. Here’s another set of 10 new questions–pulled from the minds of the Quizmaster and Uncle Google–that will have you scratching your head.

On the last quiz we saw quite a fall off, with just 3 perfect scores, less than a quarter of the total from the week before. Take a bow Bob T. (second week in a row), Al Cravinho, and jerry lalonde (first time!). Six of you scored a 90% and the most common score was 50%.

The winner of this week’s random drawing will receive a Mayfly Lifecycle Fly Selection, featuring eight patterns.

The winner of our last quiz (as determined by random.org), and recipient of Tom Rosenbauer’s completely revised Orvis Fly-Fishing Guide was Daniel, whose score was accompanied by “Yowzer!” (but not in a good way).

So post your score below for a chance to win a video that will help you become a better nymph fisherman.

Good luck!

Take Our Quiz!

128 thoughts on “Take an All-New Phil Monahan Fly-Fishing Trivia Challenge 05.11.17”

  1. 60%.

    According to Wiki, Atlantic salmon used to run up the Hudson River. So that would give NJ two native species in that question thus making that question flawed.

    1. I* think those early anecdotal accounts have been discredited. Here’s some info from a salmon club in New York:

      “Salmon in the Hudson River

      The Connecticut River was famous for salmon in colonial days, and the species even frequented the Housatonic River some 50 miles due east of the Hudson (Kendall, 1935:78). Rumors that salmon once inhabited the Hudson stem from Hendrik Hudson’s original account of 1609, where he reported seeing them off Sandy Hook in September and again as he passed upstream through the Highlands. But Dr. Samuel Mitchill, pioneer American ichthyologist of New York City, was explicit on the subject in his “Fishes of New York” (Mitchill, 1845:435). Salmon, he said, had never been observed there in colonial times and fish frequently encountered in commercial nets were only strays from other streams. DeKay (1842:242) again only confused the situation by accepting the Hudson record literally, noting, in connection with one taken at Troy in 1840.

      “The Sea Salmon rarely now appears on our coast, except as a straggling visitor … Previous to the setting of so many nets along the whole course of this river, it is probable that salmon were more numerous.”

      Since he did not refer to Mitchill or other contemporary writers one must conclude that DeKay’s information was superficial and not to be given credence when considering the question of salmon in the Hudson.
      Dewitt Clinton (1815a:148-153) researched the subject of salmon in the Hudson River and after reading the Journal Of Hendrik Hudson came to the conclusion

      “Hudson certainly did not intend the common salmon. I believe, that the fish he meant, is our rock fish or streaked [striped] basse, which comes into the river about that time, in great numbers.”

      Clinton also quoted a “Natural History of New Netherland” written in 1655 by Adrian Van den Donk, M.D. who referred to the great abundance of water fowl and game in the area and said that

      “the fishes are in the greatest plenty: streaked basse, shad, sturgeon, sea basse, black fish, herring …”

      It perhaps significant that salmon did not appear on the list.
      The Hudson River lacked the necessary spawning and nursery capacity to maintain salmon. The first major tributary, the Mohawk River, entering from the west above Albany, was impassable due to the 70 foot falls at Cohoes. Upstream movement on the main stream was blocked at Hudson Falls, some 50 miles north of Albany. Below these natural barriers the tributaries were small and usually impassable due to falls close to the Hudson. Maintaining a stock of Atlantic salmon in such a large river would require great production of young to offset the toll exacted by predators during the years of stream life, the downstream journey of the smolts to the ocean and one or more years of sea life.

      An attempt to establish salmon in the Hudson was made by the U.S. Fish Commission in the 1880’s, recognizing that the lack of suitable spawning grounds was the probable cause for its absence in that river (Chamey, 1887:351). A small planting was made in the Vermont portion of the Battenkill in 1880, followed by releases of about 2 1/2 million fry in the headwater tributaries, mostly in Warren County (N.Y.). Young salmon did well in one of these streams, Clendon Brook flowing into the Hudson from the east 5 miles north of Glen Falls. Fred Mather, who worked for the N.Y.S. Fish Commission and was superintendent of the new fish cultural station at Cold Spring Harbor, recovered parr by angling there. In 1888, Mather (1889:418) tracked down numerous reports of salmon from the Hudson, arriving at a total of 134. The task of soliciting information on the catch was not easy because a law had been passed the year before making it illegal to take salmon in New York waters except by hook and line. As salmon were mostly caught incidentally in shad nets, fishermen were suspicious about inquiries on this subject and hence the reported catch was believed conservative. Most of the salmon recorded were from estuary waters, Gravesend and New York bays but at least 30 were captured at the dams at Mechanicville and Troy. A dam at the latter location had been built in connection with the Erie Canal and further penetration upstream was possible only in high water. “

  2. 30% again?! I’d be crushed except I spent the day with an Orvis approved ghillie on the River Test in SE England and had a banner day. Not one of those 10 huge browns I netted using a superfine 7′ 3wt or the Helios 5wt the ghillie provided asked me any of these questions. Just saying . . .

  3. Pingback: This is Fly Daily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.