The discussion of what constitutes fly fishing comes up repeatedly on US Fly Fishing web sites. This is why. First of all American fly fishermen have pushed the limits of the fly rod to include heavily weighted flies such as cone heads, Clouser Minnows and the like which could easily be cast by spin fishermen using noodle rods. These flies the spin fishermen see as no different as their jigs. American FF has also discovered a technique called Chuck and Duck in which the fly line may or may not be used. Some anglers use a light running line others use mono. To this they added a barrel swivel and attach a leader of fluorocarbon and to the swivel they also attach a "slinky" which is a short piece of climbing rope with the center removed to accommodate split shot. It is closed at both ends but it is attached to the barrel swivel and slides easily over the stones on the river bottom. Attached to the leader is a fly weighted or some times not weighted. Generally an egg fly or a nymph is used. This rig is not cast as we normally would cast a fly; it is flung, some times water loaded in addition and the entire rig heads to the bottom.
Another approach is the use of strike indicators (bobbers) attached to the leader and below the leader is a series of small split shot to bring the egg fly or nymph into the strike zone. Some of these rigs can be cast others can not and must be water loaded and flung. Both techniques are effective for trout and steelhead.

The spinning noodle rod anglers argue that this is not fly fishing at all and demand that they be given access to water designated as Fly Fishing Only. Their argument is that they can and DO fish the exact same flies with their noodle rods so why are they denied access to the FFO waters when the fly fishermen are using tactics developed by spin anglers? I think they have a good argument. I constantly encourage fly fishermen to get back to their roots and the sport many great anglers on both sides of the Atlantic have devoted a life time to.

Recently I read a thread here in which posters spoke of their favorite books and not one included Halford, Skues, Gordon or Wulff. I don't know what to make of that but it explains the lack of understanding I see in the new crop of American fly fishermen. My question is; why are so many fly fishermen abandoning the sport or taking it backwards? Certainly Halford, Skues, Gordon and Wulff and many others knew about split shot but they elected to develop a sport that challenged the angler to raise the fish and not fish the bottom as is done with bait or jig. I believe some anglers have lost the soul of fly fishing. I would greatly appreciate your comments as I find this all disquieting.

Sorry for the double post.

Have to say that it sound like well beyond the thin end of the wedge. My local water doesn't set too many rules, they state 'Fly fishing only' and 'size 10 maximum' and that's about it.

I have to say that I have never felt that it would be acceptable to fish a team rather than a single fly and don't think any of the others do it.

In many regions here there are very specific rules about the type of fly that you can use at specific times.. perhaps engage the interest of the administrators of the water locally about what they think is sporting?

__________________
Andy Smith
Started tying and fishing again in January 2010 after 25 years of doing other rather pointless things.

Hi Bobby,

This has been debated a number of times and at various levels - cerebral and grunting.

My own take on this is that 'fly fishing' is a very broad church that should be so inclusive that it can welcome, with open arms, the fundementalist dry fly only followers of Halford or the more Catholic Skues who accepted that sex (nymph fishing) could be acceptable for reasons other than procreation.

However, on the other side of the aisle there are also the pagans - I've ignored the Church of England (who never live up to their own 'rules') and the Presbyterians ( on the basis that if it's enjoyable it's WRONG) - who will do anything to catch a fish. These are the guys who will use anything, push the boundaries (rules) and sell their souls for 'success'.

Each of these 'sects' has their own Reverend Paisley(s) who shout/spew, fire and brimstone from the pulpit of their own little 'church', hoping to divert the 'unGodly' from the false path to their own form of redemption, their own strict 'rules'.

In the middle of this mayhem are the Quakers who are quietly getting on with their 'sport'. They don't shout that they have the moral high ground or are 'right'. When the fish rise they enjoy the simple fun of the dry fly, in winter they'll wade quietly and catch grayling on heavy leaded nymphs under their rod tip. On big still waters they'll manage a boat and fish effectively at depth using tackle and techniques that raise eyebrows and outrage in the more established 'churches'. They fish in the sea and tiny tumbling streams, even heavily stocked small ponds! They recognise each other as 'fishermen', they're social and delight in talking about and sharing what they do - they're obsessive and competitive but the nice thing is you'd hardly know.

__________________
[I]"I still don't know why I fish or why other men fish, except that we like it and it makes us think and feel."[/I] Roderick L Haig-Brown

[url]www.wildfly.net[/url]

[url]http://www.gameanglinginstructors.co.uk/[/url]

My view is that some "fly-fishermen" will do whatever it takes to catch fish then put forward all manner of fanciful reasons to justify their methods.
Fly-fishing can be very challenging, much too challenging for some

__________________
*
How poor a thing, sometimes I find,
Will captivate a greedy mind - Isaac Walton.

~~*~~~~~
*****©(

I have merged both threads as they were posted in separate forums.

Admin

Two very good posts there Kype and Lighthouse When I started fly fishing forty years ago it was a double taper line and two to three flies on a ten foot cast........that was just how everybody fished.........then progress came along and Pandora's Box was opened. More and more people fly fished and for some a blank day was a complete waste of time / money. Boobys were invented, dog noblers etc. and the fly fishing armys grew bigger and bigger and so did the tackle business and so on and so on. There are parallels in other walks of life I guess. I think most fly fishermen have their own version of "the soul" and "the spirit" of fly fishing, and make a personal decision as to what is acceptable. Personally I can't equate what makes fly fishing worthwhile for me and the competition scene, I guess lots of people fly fish for lots of different reasons and to satisfy differing needs. It has become a very broad church indeed as you say, but I think I would still be right of centre on this one...old fashioned to some.

Thanks all for the thoughtful posts. What concerns me is watching a decline in our wild fisheries as we move from raising fish to the fly to putting it at nose level with weighted gear. As I mentioned the practice of fishing weighted flies and lead on the line has spin fishermen asking what is the difference between their gear and fly gear?

In order to protect wild stocks I believe an anything goes approach will lead to a loss of wild stock and in the end it will be hatchery fish. I would rather fish without weight and end the day with fewer fish caught then see the wild fishery deteriorate. I practice C&R except when a fish is mortally injured. But C&R is not benign. There is a mortality % associated with it and it can stress spawning fish so as to disrupt successful spawning. For some time now I have been advocating C&R restraint. Returning to unweighted flies simplifies many of the issues which have developed since the common use of weight and weighted flies became popular.
I suppose I will need to close my eyes and let the biologists figure out how to manage the declining fishery in light of the increased pressure more anglers and bottom techniques put on while fish.

Again thanks for the comments.

Bobby

I suppose one starting point would be; if I'm having to ask "is this flyfishing or not?", then I'm in the wrong place.
A large part of it for me would centre on whether the weight of the lure is cast or the weight of the fly line is cast (or causing the rod action) with the lure attached.

Bobby,

I understand and respect what you're saying here but I believe you're in danger of setting off on a journey down a dangerous path.
" .... move from raising fish to the fly.." Are you advocating dry fly only for wild fish? If so, you're denying a huge heritage of wild fishing in Gt Britain and Ireland on wild lakes, lochs and loughs where the skillful application of the wet fly from a drifting boat has long been the traditional method and forms the basis for current International Competition rules.

"...the practice of fishing weighted flies..." Similarly, are you saying that the Sawyer Pheasant Tail, tied solely with copper wire and pheasant herl fibres are a threat to wild trout? Admittedly, the use of lead split shot is an Americanism that has never really caught on over here, we prefer to 'load' our flies with tungsten beads / bodies etc and our friends in Eastern Europe particularly have developed tactics and techniques that are a million miles from spinning.

Fly fishing in the UK has enjoyed a huge growth in the past 30 or 40 years on the back of the development of firstly, stocked water supply reservoirs and secondly heavily stocked, small, 'put and take' fisheries - additionally some sections of our most famous chalkstreams are now heavily stocked with rainbow trout and stewpond reared browns. The techniques developed in some of our larger reservoirs - the use of heavy, ultra fast sinking lines from drifting boats controlled by rudders etc, reflect the nature of both the water and the stocked 'quarry' and indeed the differences between fly fishing, spinning, trolling, trailing etc do become blurred in this situation.

What's left of our wild river trout stocks are less threatened by angling techniques than by neglect, farming practices and associated environmental pressures.

__________________
[I]"I still don't know why I fish or why other men fish, except that we like it and it makes us think and feel."[/I] Roderick L Haig-Brown

[url]www.wildfly.net[/url]

[url]http://www.gameanglinginstructors.co.uk/[/url]