What about the steelheaders who use very light, limber rods, no fly line (just mono running line) to roll cast flies and split shot/slinky rigs?
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!”
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…
- All flies are lures
- Not all lures are flies
- To be a fly, the materials, no matter what they are, must be tied/attached directly to the hook
- 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
At first, I was gonna stay outa this. I usually stay outa debates that go past one or two posts. However, I do have something to say, or maybe just an observation. I pretty much agree with Larry (sagefisher) and not just because we went to the same high school. Here’s the thing:
On one hand, ya got “fishin”. On the other hand ya got “ain’t fishin” …be it worm drownin, slingin’ spinners and spoons, or castin’ flies.
I usually opt for “fishin” and pretty much don’t judge others on their choice of methods, long as they’re legal. As for me, there’s lot’s of legal methods that aren’t something I won’t do. I prefer basic, old-fashioned fly fishin’.
However, In Oregon you can fish a fly on spinnin’ gear with a casting bubble, so what you use to cast is up to you. Terminal tackle, however, is closely regulated in fly-only waters as it should be.
If y’all are legal… I say fish how you like. I really don’t think it’ll have much impact on the fish population either way.
As for the concept of fighting regulations, or how they’re enforced. I say go ahead, take your best shot, but bear in mind, you’ll have a citation to deal with either way, and sometimes your fishing priveledges can hang in the balanc.
…Just my two cent’s worth of opinion…Happy"Fishin’ " …ModocDan
Oregon has a pretty good definition, but still leaves out coneheaded flies for example. Overall, this is the most complete definition I’ve seen so far. Of course, the word conventional always leaves room for interpretation.
A fly is a hook, dressed with conventional fly tying materials. The affixed materials may be natural or synthetic.
Tied in conjunction with other materials, the following items may be part of the fly: wire (lead or other metal) used
for weighting the fly, dumbbell eyes or beads (metal, glass or plastic). A fly is not a hook to which sinkers, molded
weights, spinners, spoons or similar attractors are attached
Meanwhile, I think Wyoming has the worst definition of an artificial fly…
Artificial Flies and Lures
means manmade flies and lures. Artificial lures include spoons, spinners and plugs made of metal, plastic, wood and other nonedible materials, or plastic products made to resemble worms, eggs, fish and other aquatic organisms. Artificial flies includes flies, streamers, jigs, and poppers tied from such materials as thread, feathers, hair and tinsel. Artificial flies and lures does not include living or dead organisms or edible parts thereof, natural or prepared organic food stuffs, or chemical attractants.
So by Wyoming’s definition, a fly is a fly, but also a streamer, jig, or a popper tied from a vague list of materials. I guess that’s the key. A fly is a fly if it is tied to the hook!
Paul
I love it. By Oregon’s definition, a Zonker would not be a fly?
So, by this definition, a tube fly is not a fly?
Ted
Hi,
Sorry, I just thought of something that might be of interest. If one goes back to some of the older fishing books, like “The complete Angler” by Stewart, you will find chapters on minnow fishing. This is where a small fish was attached to the hook so that the fish was curved. This caused the minnow to spin (parr tails were also used, and are usually covered in the older books as well). Our modern metalic “spinners” (meps) and spoons, and such, are derived from this line of angling, from minnow fishing. They are artificial minnows, or “spinners”. In North America at least, the term “Lure” is commonly used to refer to such things. In many other parts of the English speaking world, however, a “lure” is anything artificial that is used to attract the fish (to lure it), even if it is tied with feathers, etc. The one exception to this use of “lure” is with resepect to “flies”, whereby I mean artificial immitations of an actual fly; I believe some would not even include non-winged insects when describing flies. (Oh, I suppose it gets odd if one had a rubber molded fly that one stuck a hook through; even though it represents a fly, it would probably be called a “lure” because it wasn’t constructed with feathers, fur, etc; but I’m not trying to set definitional boundaries).
Streamers, and bucktails, and even some of the smaller “flies” (like a butcher, or Peter Ross), are also meant to immitate small fish. As such, in many parts of the world these are still commonly referred to as “lures”, simply to differentiate them from “flies”. In North America (and other parts of the world too I suspect), the term “fly” no longer is held in resevere for an immitation “fly”, but rather is used to cover immitation fish (streamers), snails, crayfish, mice, shrimp, fish eggs, and so forth. In “fly fishing only” waters, however, one could use streamers even if they get called “lures”, but one couldn’t use a “spinner”. There were times, though, when this might not have been the case. The “butcher” was banned on some rivers, for example.
Anyway, this doesn’t go towards a definition, I just thought it was interesting.
- Jeff
Jeff,
“a “lure” is anything artificial that is used to attract the fish (to lure it), even if it is tied with feathers, etc.The one exception to this use of “lure” is with resepect to “flies”, whereby I mean artificial immitations of an actual fly;”
You’re kidding, Right? If not are you saying that these are not flies, just to name a few: the Adams, Royal Coachman, Royal Wulff, White Wulff, Gray Wulff, Dun Variant, Cream Variant, Gray Fox Variant, and so many other flies tied with natural materials.
Clarify, please.
Allan
He probably meant “to imitate an aquatic insect”? Or any insect for that matter
This is easy. A lure depends on it’s own weight to be able to be cast. A fly depends on the weight of the fly line to cast it. Flies are lures, but not all lures are flies…
I think that statement was previously posted. So, what about a rubber worm cast with a fly rod?