Why tube flies?

Discussion in 'Fly Tying' started by Dipnet, Jan 28, 2014.

  1. Only once was I checked in regards to a "fly" in a flyfishing only fishery. It was on the Metolius and an office asked to see my HEAVILY WEIGHTED stonefly... which we use with a dropper system to drag the target fly down to the trout. You can't use split shot with a "fly" in Oregon so everyone who wants to catch trout on the Metolius with nymph patterns, ties patterns to work like split shot.

    Fact is, the primary technique for catching trout on the Metolius is using a dropper system dead-drifted with a weighted stonefly. Flyfishers say it is difficult to catch fish on the Metolius but they are normally dry fly anglers. The Metolius is not a dry fly river but a nymph river. If you want to catch two or three trout, use a dry fly. If you want to catch dozens, you use nymphs.

    The no split shot regulation is out of the stone age. It's a stupid regulation. We skirt the regulation with the heavily weighted stonefly patterns so split shot may as well be allowed.

    The officer evidently noticed the huge splash my pattern made when it hit the water so he wanted to look at my pattern. He looked at it and asked "is this a heavily weighted fly?"

    Duh. Yes it's a heavily weighted fly, that's why it splashes like it does when it hits the water. I said... "yup, that's what it is". He said okay and left.

    I think there must still be some elitist flyfishers in Oregon that continue to fight for the no split shot regulation and they are fools for doing so. It makes no difference if you're using split shot or a stonefly wrapped with three layers of lead wire for the underbody. You may as well be using split shot.

    Stupid rule.
     
    tkww likes this.
  2. On fly fishing only waters, I don't use stingers, tube flies, flies with 2 hooks and any 'fly' that has a bare hook. By my reading of the regs and conversations with WDFW, these things do not meet the definition of a fly. If I'm fishing fly-only waters, I even try to remember to remove them from my boxes so I don't screw up.

    The word 'manufactured' doesn't say commercially manufactured so I assume they mean something made, built, produced, etc. which includes flies tied at home. And yes, putting scent on a fly or lure turns it into bait.

    Bait: Anything that attracts fish or shellfish by scent and/or flavor. This includes any device made of feathers, hair, fiber, wood, metal, glass, cork, leather, rubber, or plastic, which uses scent and/or flavoring to attract fish or wildlife.
     
  3. According to the regs:

    "A hook may be single-point, double, or treble.See Freshwater or Marine Area gear rules for limitations.
    Barbless: A hook from which all barbs have been deleted when manufactured, filed off, or pinched down.
    Single-Point: A hook with only one point.
    Double: A hook with two points on a common shank.
    Treble: A hook with three points on a common shank."

    So I would say that a clipped hook, having no points, is not a hook and the stinger is the de facto hook!

    Whether or not Leland's popper is a fly or a lure per definition? I guess I don't have the answer for that.
     
  4. Bare hook, it's a lure.
    Jack
     
    GAT likes this.
  5. OK, to make this discussion even more crazy, per the WDFW definitions (p. 11 of the pamphlet) a lure is: "A manufactured article, complete with hooks (emphasis mine), constructed of feathers, hair, fiber, wood, metal, glass, cork, leather, rubber, or plastic, which does not use scent and/or flavoring to attract fish."

    Notice the plural "hooks".

    With a strict reading of the language, I'd interpret that to mean that a lure has to have more than one hook, otherwise they would've said "complete with a hook or hooks" or "one or more hooks".

    Admittedly, I'm gettin' really finicky here.

    I'm assuming the state interprets "hooks" as meaning one or more but I would think that one, if cited for fishing any type of single-hook fly in fly-fishing only waters--tube, stinger or whatever sort of ambiguous fly--could make a legitimate argument before the court.

    I never attended law school so I'm just guessin' here. When I was working at the marina I often told customers, when handing them a copy of our state's regs, "You might want to consult an attorney"! :)
     
    GAT likes this.
  6. The editor of Flyfishing , when it was called that, sent me flyfishing and angling magazines from England... it was from those magazines that I learned most of what I know about stillwater flyfishing... Anyway, they would refer to any fly patterns that didn't represent an aquatic insect as "lures". I always thought that was interesting.

    I used some of the pattens they covered in the magazines for my flytying column. The editor told me I could write about any pattern I wanted except the popular fly style in England called Boobies. I never understood why he didn't want me to cover a fly by that name :)
     
  7. In the RCW and WAC, I believe only a fly and fly fishing have legal definitions (as does a 'lead jig'). The bottom line is the fly fishing only regs state what requirements your fly, fly line and reel must meet and if any of these things don't meet those definitions, one is committing a violation. A bare hook is a bare hook whether or not that bare hook is attached to a tube or a spoon or used as a trailer on an Intruder or with a corkie and yarn in an egg loop.
     
  8. So...

    If I dress the single pointed barbless hook by tying on marabou, it's not a bare hook, and if I use this dressed single hook with a tube fly, the tube fly is not a weight, and the line is tied directly to said hook, is it legal in flyfishing only waters?

    Now I could pose the same question with a tiny plug whose only hook is a marabou dressed single barbless hook. The hook is single barbless and not bare, the plug body is not a weight , but in this case the line is tied to the plug body, not directly to the hook. (These work great, by the way, where they are legal, in selective gear rule lakes.)

    This post addresses hooks being bare or not.

    The weights question is also interesting and I will save this for another post.

    Jay
     
  9. It may turn on the language " angler may use ONLY the following tackle ... Flies... Fly line... Backing.... Leader.... " and not "fixed spool reels ... Bait... Weight attached to the leader or line". ...

    If the tube fly in my previous post, with the hook itself dressed enough to qualify as a fly, covering a minimum of half of the shank of the hook, AND the tube is attached to the hook, the tube could be regarded as part of the legal fly. So if said tube has the flexible tubing to hold it onto the hook, and said hook qualifies as a fly, then this could be construed as compliant. The definitions of lure and fly do not require that things attached to the hook be attached by any particular method or degree of permanence. ( though it does say manufactured, without definition)

    On the other hand , if the tube is still not regarded as a " an integral part of the design of the fly pattern" or failed to meet the idea of "manufacture", then a tube fly as specified above might still not be compliant as it would be something in addition to the ONLY items above.

    NOW.. This train of thought brings us to indicators! In flyfishing only waters an indicator would be something in addition to the ONLY items that are listed above. So are indicators illegal in flyfishing only waters?

    Jay
     
  10. Been off this forum for a while.
    My Tube flies are tied 'short' as our Sea Trout tend to 'take' short it makes a difference in hook up success rates in my opinion.
    The top one in the photo is a wake lure, not a tube.
    [​IMG]
    Cheers
    Richard
     

Share This Page