When do Flies become Lures

[ebf]

harharhar. i see shades of the fly vs spinning battle returning, where is shelton when you need a good bust-up

ps i have cast a fritz weighted with splitshot on my spinning gear, but have not tried casting a rapala with my 6wt, does this qualify ? .... (must make a mental note for cram a meps or rapala into my fly box for some experimentation, hehe)

[Nepptune]

As I said, as long as you are enjoying yourself then who cares !

I agree completely! Yes we are always going to debate the X,Y and Z of this matter, but I think its a personal thing, and unless you are fishing in some sort of competition, then I really think its as Daryl says, so long as you are having fun..... who cares!

But for me, if you are tying the fly/lure yourself, then its a fly... If you are buying a rubber frog intended for bass on a spinning stick and chucking it on your fly rod....well, then you are just plain daft anyway... use the spinning stick, fight fish on conventional tackle is way more fun than on a fly rod anyway ( ok, if anyone wants to agrue about that, thats fine with me, I'm not budging on this issue!! The feel of the fight on a conventional rod is 100 times better than on a flyrod with all its flex and the drag of teh line in the water!)
We fly fish for reasons other than the fight though, so lets not go there... its a type of fishing we all enjoy, for whatever reason.... What you put on the end of your tippet is your choice.... but I draw the line at using bait on a fly rod!!! I would rather the cork grip on my fly rod stays smelling of cork ( and possibly fish slime ) but NOT of sardine or chokka!!!!!

Each to his own I reckon.... But Damage, as you said, tying a plastic squid to a hook, is not really a fly..... but it is used on a fly rod, so it is flyfishing..... ... Tough one to decide really....

But in the end, so long as you are having fun, protecting the resource, and not catching more fish than me, we're good!

[Nymph+O-]

In my opinion a fly by it self excluding the presentation bit is an imitation of the natural organisms/insects found in and around the natural habitat of the fish. This would include exaggerated variations in terms of triggers and colours in order to evoke curiosity and interest from the fish. (Instinct)
As far as materials go I would say it is a fly as long as raw/unshaped materials are being used without the assistance of a mould or pre-made shape.
My reason would be that fly fishing is a form of art from the fly to the presentation. It also opens doors to huge creative expression - be that in the retrieve, colours, materials, design, innovation or pictures taken. I also find the individual to be a lot more involved in terms of tactics, application and reaction within the environment

[Philip]

blerrie interesting...

Surely guys like MC and Sudesh would have some info on what is legal/allowable in competitions that i'm sure will be of an indication of what the old stiff upper lip snobbish fly fishers of the older regime would have defined as being a fly??? I reckon if you can tie it, you can use it. But then one can argue what's the difference between a self tied and prefab tied fly.

[Pierre]

... use the spinning stick, fight fish on conventional tackle is way more fun than on a fly rod anyway .....

Fighting fish on a fly rod is much better for. When i fished for yellowfin on conventional tackle i found the tackle extremely uncomfortable. I would much rather have used fly tackle. Yes big fish but its been done on 12 weight + outfits. So there i would disagree with you.

[Nepptune]

Fighting fish on a fly rod is much better for. When i fished for yellowfin on conventional tackle i found the tackle extremely uncomfortable. I would much rather have used fly tackle. Yes big fish but its been done on 12 weight + outfits. So there i would disagree with you.

Pierre, have you spoken to the guys who have tackled big Yellowfin on Fly tackle? check this pic:



Thats Sarge and Rob Lewis. These fish were taken on 14 weights off Cape Point. I fished with Rob in Seychelles, and a more obsessed flyfisherman you will not find anywhere.
After these two fish, one weighing 52, the other 54 kilos, and a 2.5 and 4.5 hour fight time, Rob could not hold a knife and fork, or a pen or anything else men hold for nearly a week!!! Personally, I don't think of that as comfortable! Fish such as these are not meant to be taken on fly tackle.... we could of course now get into what constitutes fly tackle... but thats a whole other can of worms!!!
I think the conventional tackle you were fishing with must surely not have been set up properly for you, as a proper stand-up set up is an absolute thing of comfort when fitted to you properly....

But as stated, each to his own right? I love the feel of a fish on fly tackle, of course I do, thats why I am a fly fisherman.
But I do feel that for some species, maybe not all species, but certainly some of them.... Take Tigerfish for example.... The flex of the rod, and the drag of the bow of flyline in the water take alot out of the fight when compared to a light stiff fast action spinning rod and 15 pound braided line.... With the spinning set up, you feel every little movement and head shake....
Thats not to say I would rather chase Tigers on Spinning tackle than on fly, or vice versa, I'd rather use both!! But thats just me!!!

I think each has its own merits, and I like to use both as much as possible.

Now, what were we talking about again.... oh yes, flys or lures....

[harry]

I may be part of the old stiff upper lip brigade, but in my book a fly should a hand-tied imitation (caricature is mostly a better word) of a natural living creature, be it aquatic or terrestrial. And lacing a molded piece of plastic or rubber that looks like an ant or frog to a hook does not a fly make. There must be a better way to express what I mean, but we should bear in mind why we choose to persue our quarry with a fly. In choosing to do so, one should accept the limitations and traditions that come with it. I suppose when one becomes obsessed with catching lots of fish and developing the ultimate fly that will catch a fish on every cast, boundaries of what is really acceptable can become very blurred indeed. Maybe it has something to do with the all-too-common desire for instant gratification and misplaced competitive behaviour that causes one to disregard tradition (call it common sense rules and respect for one's quarry). I refer you to GEM Skues' fictional Mr Castwell.

I agree that materials and technology are moving on at a rapid pace, but a cricket imitation with flashing lights and moving appendages that releases female pheromones into the water cannot be acceptable to this old stick. What we do have are new ways to concoct the frauds we call flies, sometimes in a really lifelike manner. But they should remain constructions of hair, feathers, fur, beads and bits of string, or their synthetic equivalents.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT A FLY LINE AND FLY ROD LOOK LIKE AND HOW THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO WORKS. SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A FLY LINE THAT IS CAST WITH A BASS ROD DOES NOT QUALIFY. NOT EVER.

[Philip]

AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT A FLY LINE AND FLY ROD LOOK LIKE AND HOW THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO WORKS. SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A FLY LINE THAT IS CAST WITH A BASS ROD DOES NOT QUALIFY. NOT EVER

Amen to that brother

[ShaunF]

I may be part of the old stiff upper lip brigade, but in my book a fly should a hand-tied imitation (caricature is mostly a better word) of a natural living creature, be it aquatic or terrestrial. And lacing a molded piece of plastic or rubber that looks like an ant or frog to a hook does not a fly make. There must be a better way to express what I mean, but we should bear in mind why we choose to persue our quarry with a fly. In choosing to do so, one should accept the limitations and traditions that come with it. I suppose when one becomes obsessed with catching lots of fish and developing the ultimate fly that will catch a fish on every cast, boundaries of what is really acceptable can become very blurred indeed. Maybe it has something to do with the all-too-common desire for instant gratification and misplaced competitive behaviour that causes one to disregard tradition (call it common sense rules and respect for one's quarry). I refer you to GEM Skues' fictional Mr Castwell.

I agree that materials and technology are moving on at a rapid pace, but a cricket imitation with flashing lights and moving appendages that releases female pheromones into the water cannot be acceptable to this old stick. What we do have are new ways to concoct the frauds we call flies, sometimes in a really lifelike manner. But they should remain constructions of hair, feathers, fur, beads and bits of string, or their synthetic equivalents.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT A FLY LINE AND FLY ROD LOOK LIKE AND HOW THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO WORKS. SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A FLY LINE THAT IS CAST WITH A BASS ROD DOES NOT QUALIFY. NOT EVER.

Good post !

[dlampert]

I may be part of the old stiff upper lip brigade, but in my book a fly should a hand-tied imitation (caricature is mostly a better word) of a natural living creature, be it aquatic or terrestrial. And lacing a molded piece of plastic or rubber that looks like an ant or frog to a hook does not a fly make. There must be a better way to express what I mean, but we should bear in mind why we choose to persue our quarry with a fly. In choosing to do so, one should accept the limitations and traditions that come with it. I suppose when one becomes obsessed with catching lots of fish and developing the ultimate fly that will catch a fish on every cast, boundaries of what is really acceptable can become very blurred indeed. Maybe it has something to do with the all-too-common desire for instant gratification and misplaced competitive behaviour that causes one to disregard tradition (call it common sense rules and respect for one's quarry). I refer you to GEM Skues' fictional Mr Castwell.

I agree that materials and technology are moving on at a rapid pace, but a cricket imitation with flashing lights and moving appendages that releases female pheromones into the water cannot be acceptable to this old stick. What we do have are new ways to concoct the frauds we call flies, sometimes in a really lifelike manner. But they should remain constructions of hair, feathers, fur, beads and bits of string, or their synthetic equivalents.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT A FLY LINE AND FLY ROD LOOK LIKE AND HOW THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO WORKS. SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A FLY LINE THAT IS CAST WITH A BASS ROD DOES NOT QUALIFY. NOT EVER.

I think it was Oliver Kite who was nearly killed by the flyfishing Gestapo of the time for daring to fish his bare hook nymph. He added a piece of wire and a touch of dubbing to it and the "brassie" was born I personally don't care what flies people fish with or how they choose to fish them. As long as it doesn't affect my enjoyment or cause excessive damage to the fish. If we stuck to the old stiff upper lip brigade then we would all still be fishing a greenheart rod with a catgut cast and wet flies (depending on how far back in history you feel we should go to be pure to the art of flyfishing). All through history we have had the same arguments over split cane, fibreglass, boron, graphite, fluorocarbon, floatant, co-polymer, mono-nymphing, fly rattles, silicone, synthetics, czech nymphs, streamers, silk lines, pvc lines and a million other things flyfishing has given us over the last couple of hundred years. If you are fishing competitively then by all means stick to the rules, if not then enjoy yourself.