Well, I draw the line at propellers... *S*
Printable View
Well, I draw the line at propellers... *S*
I wrote a long explanation that, you may be thankful for, the computer ate.
The short version is that the use of artificial materials in fly tying has blurred the lines between flies and lures and some are identical.
So this is a trick question.
Hi All,
Like some of the others, I also have read that in times past, say at least 60 years ago, in England, Scotland, and even in the United states and some other locations a fly represented an insect, and a lure represented a bait fish, etc. Thus streamers were considered to be lures. Also, streamers were differenciated from bucktails, whereas now most of us consider a Mickey Finn to be a streamer. Thus it seems to me that the termanology has changed with time.
A friend showed me a Kaufmann type stonefly nymph that had two large bead as part of the thorax, and it was heavy enough that my friends son could cast and fish it with an ultralight spinning rod, and I think I could have cast it and fished it with my standard spinning rod back in the day that I still used a spinning rod.
If it were up to me, and believe me I am glad it is not, I would adopt the definition of the game department listed above for flies, and thus include steamers. I would also allow a small bead head, perhaps 1/8" or so, and some lead underwire to weight nymphs.
I would not allow a nymph with two large bead heads that can be cast with a spinning rod to be used in the fly fishing only areas.
Maybe I am a bit old school, but I do think that the a fly should be fairly light and something not castable with a spinning rod.
I also think part of the definition should have action only imparted by the action of the rod and line. Thus, things with plastic lips, and things like the fly rod flat fish and hoola poppes should not be classified as flies, at least for the purpose fo fly fishing only areas.
Thus, for me, flies boils down to all dry flies, nymphs, wet flies, steamers or crayfish imitation, etc., tied with traditional or modern materials, which must be light enough to exclude use on a spinning rod, and exclude rigid materials either as a part or all of the device either to form part or all of the shape of the device or which can impart action to the device.
I am certain that my definition is incomplete, and does not fit what others think. It is my opinion only, nothing more.
Regards,
Gandolf
Very well stated Gandolf. Sounds like a very complete definition to me.
I've been avoiding this thread even though it's one of my favorite subjects. The best answer so far (in my view) is "Why does it matter?" Here's my take:
One place they've tried to define fly fishing is in Oregon. But their definition is so vague imprecise and full of holes it doesn't really work. It's surprising no one has challenged it.
One place they gave up trying to define it is Yellowstone Park. I asked a ranger (several times, multiple years) at Mammoth, when I got my annual fishing pass. The answer is always the same: Fly Fishing Only in Yellowstone means "not bait." I asked why each time. Each time the answer is the same: "We couldn't define it."
One definition I personally gave up on--a long time ago--revolves around weight. If it's too heavy to cast with a flyrod it isn't a fly? But I'm a world class lead slinger. I can use my 9wt salt water rod to toss a #2 Mepps Spinner. Quentin Tarrantino was famous for duct-taping a banana to the end of his line and throwing the whole fly line. So weight simply doesn't work.
The only reason it does matter (to those who worry about it) is tribal affiliation. Too many fly fishermen view spin fishermen as alien invaders. Over-crowding is a problem. But stealing public access for the benefit of a select few is not the answer.
Corollary:
On private land the owners can do what ever they want. But on public waters you'll have a fight on your hands, if you try to tell me I can't fish with my own artificial creations. As for the image posted below, it's important to remember what Crocodile Dundee said: "Now that's a fly!"
http://montana-riverboats.com/Upload...ed-wiggler.jpg
Yep, you had to know this question would have a lot of answers. All of them are right, none of them are wrong............makes an interesting read however. :)
Larry ---sagefisher---
I went to a Sylvester Nemes fly tying seminar a few years before Syl died. He sure did tie a beautiful fly. I learned some valuable tricks too, while watching him. He was a great story teller too.
At the end of the show I mentioned what a huge impact Syl's flies had made: every fly shop in the State had multiple rows of soft-hackle wet flies. But I also pointed out nearly all the commercially-available flies were beadheads. "Do you ever make beadheads?" I asked Syl.
Sylvester frowned deeply. "Why don't you just get a spinning rod," he replied. I thought he was putting me on at first. I expected him to break out in big grin any minute. But he kept a straight face, with narrow eyes and down turned lips. He was dead serious. "I mean it," he said. Get one of those ultra-light spinning rods if you want to fish those things."
Building on some previous threads...
1) All flies are lures
2) Not all lures are flies
3) To be a fly, the materials, no matter what they are, must be tied/attached directly to the hook
4) Ablility to cast from fly rod is irrelevant as many streamers today weigh as much as some crank baits
Let's test with extremes...
Streamers - Mickey Finn, Woolly Bugger, Double Bunny, Clauser, Muddler Minnow...all flies.
Classic lures - Mepps 3, Daredevil, Mister Twister (possible to cast all with a fly rod)...both the Mepps 3 and Daredevil would not be flies, however, one could argue a Mister Twister could be a fly, and in fact gummy flies do exist.
So some lures...
are never flies...
are always flies and...
some lures are sometimes flies depending on how they are being fished.
Go figure:-)
Maybe so. I do keep some #7 "flyrod flatfish" in my boxes. I sure have caught some big 'ol brown trout on those things. And I toss them quite easily, with almost any flyrod I've got. So if they're not flies.....it doesn't much matter to me. And that's my bottom line. I use the flyrod because that's what I like. And I use everything from itty bitty #22 BWOs (tied by me) to big wigglers (usually tied by me too).
Okay, I wanted to stay away from my own question but I just have to respond to one thing:
I don't think that the definition of a 'fly' or a 'lure' has anything whatsoever to do with how it is fished. If someone had as terminal tackle a size 14 Adams, Royal Wulff, Hendrickson, or Cahill, etc. and was casting it attached to a 3 feet tippet below a bubble bobber with a spinning rod/reel that fly is still a fly. If someone uses a flyrod/reel/line and casts a small Rapala, Jitterbug or other such artificial that artificial is still a lure.
As for the distinction between a 'fly' and a 'lure', that's up to you and you're entitled to your opinion. However, legally that's however your State defines it in the fishing regulations, if it is defined.
Allan