Academic, intellectual pedantry: In the 20+ years I've been fishing, it seems the distinction between "fly fishing" defined, for my purposes here (you don't have to agree) as the presentation of an imitation fly (adult or immature stonefly, caddis, mayfly, mosquito, etc.) with a line that provides the casting momentum and "regular" fishing defined as presenting any lure or bait with a spinning, casting, or cane-pole rod with a line-end weight providing the casting momentum and presentation determined by lure weight and design or accessory bobber,-- the distinction has been blurred to where there is no dividing line at all, no norms, thus no ethics, only laws. Years ago, nymphing was presentation of a stonefly, caddis, mayfly nymph imitation with an upstream cast or the Leisenring lift; now it seems to be referring to a bobber ("indicator" is the euphemism) and heavily weighted jig lobbed out into the current with the floating fly line helping the bobber to float ... heck, why not add a worm, salmon egg, or some scent? The self-imposed limitations on gear (and thus effectiveness and the need for superior skill) used by fly fisherman of yesteryear did lend itself to feelings or moral superiority that may or may not seem justified depending on one's point of view. Reading Haig-Brown, jock Scott, AHE Wood, etc., I'll feel a little gut wrenching when they talk about killing so many fish...fish caught with those old fly-fishing methods, which even back then extended "flies" to imitations, even abstract imitations, of prey fish. The main legal question now is whether those waters set aside from the main limit bait (that includes scent), weight on the end of the line, weight in the line itself, etc. etc.