This is humorous. Early OP steelheaders were creative and had access to yarnies, split shot and bobbers. It seems like they chose everything from weighting flies to lead line in an effort to get down. They ddidn't use bobbers or shot that I know of. There have been egg flies swung for years (think Babine special or double egg sperm flies). If I were to make an inference regarding what steelhead flyfishing pioneers thought, I'd guess that they would view modern bobber/ shot nymphing as gear fishing. The reason would be that in those streams that they succesfully lobbied to become FF only like the stilly and N. Umpqua it is disallowed. flyfishmt, So you understand what the deal is, IRA loves nymphing. Some, like Mr. Bellows and me, don't view it as flyfishing. It's an ongoing discussion/ argument. Mis-interperatation and hurt feelings are the norm in this argument. If you want to use nymphing techniques, apparently yarnies work well. Go Sox, cds
odd=evil.... makes sense to me. and nymphing can certainly be considered fly fishing... but it is certainly more nuanced than i feel like explaining here, especially since i now have to say egging, beading, or glo-bugging instead of nymphing because we're discussing a yarn fly and not a mayfly nymph. i also think it is pretty telling (and sad) that a fly shop would only mention one technique (that we know of from the OP). just adds another layer to my general dislike of the fly fishing industry. i also laugh when all of the links on yarnies via google are gear fishing sites.
Of course, what old time fisher-people would or would not do only matters if it matters to you. If following in a tradition is important, then run with it. If you want to try something else, then go crazy. Its your free time to do with as you please. There is no definition for fly fishing other than the one you choose to accept. Fish in accord with the definition that works for you. Unless you are in FF only waters. Then you better read the regs, because someone had their definition adopted by the man
I love this idea that those who support people fishing how they choose to fish with a fly rod and fly line (and yes calling it fly fishing, yes I guess if we don't catch the fish with our hands it is all technically gear fishing so I guess you are right there Charles) some how have hurt feelings when someone says differently, yet it seems to me it is always the traditionalist who start these arguments and then respond the most vehemently. I feel so butt hurt right now, my feelings are so hurt.
This damn argument again... seriously? The horse is dead, put away your beatin sticks. What a waste of electrons, nothing has been gained by this inane bickering over something we each define for ourselves. As for the subject of yarnies, I've fished them little on the dry side and have witnessed their effectiveness. I enjoy fishing simple patterns and yarnies fit the bill. Plus, they can be tied to resemble chinook eggs, which is effective at the right time of year. They also don't seem to tangle up too much when nymphing, compared to weighted flies and are relatively easy to cast. I should fish them more often.
Not sure how a statement beginning with "I love....." can be wrong. But it does seem to me that he is spot on. If you say you prefer to swing, you're a traditionalist. If you say you love to catch fish, you're simply butt hurt. Pretty common theme to these threads.
Well you are almost correct, I really wasn't butt hurt nor were my feelings hurt, so I was wrong there. But in reality I was baiting to see how you would respond, you know to see if your feelings were hurt. Now I'm wrong on all accounts, hmmm defensive much? Oh I guess you are right again, even the swingers get their feelings hurt.
To all, The intent of my question was not to cause any hard feelings amongst the group. For the most part, I consider myself to lean towards traditional fly fishing, but in these days with synthetics, foam, UV materials and on you have to sometimes wonder. I was a fly fishing guide in Utah when Glo bugs and San Juan worms first arrived and saw guides nearly go to blows over the ethics of using them. As a non-resident of WA, who only fishes here every few years, I just wanted to see what the general opinion was. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused.
Don't take it personal, we here at WFF look for any excuse to turn a thread into a swinging vs catching debate. You could have asked for directions to a fly shop and it most likely would have turned into this.
I find it remarkable how given the exact same history of posts we can come up with opposite conclusions. I think it mostly has to do with the medium. There is no non-verbal communication on the internet. Additionally, the speed with whih posts come out don't allow for someone to just say..I did not say that. I am not a traditionalist. In fact, I would generally think of that as a perjorative. Tradition is for those to dumb to come up with their own ideas. I truly detest tradition, for traditions sake. The idea that the original OP steelhead flyfishers are would be nymphers came up and I felt that I needed to respond. I understand that that is my problem. The problem being I often feel the need to speak up when I think the logic is flawed. In this case I clearly did. The reason that Ira's statement is wrong is that its is a classic strawman argument. It is an attempt to reframe/ reword the opositions argument into words and thoughts that aren't true to their actual argument. It's my single biggest pet peave, that is don't put words in my mouth. The other reason IRA's wrong is that he started the argument. Look back at the thread. CB gave and opinion and answeed the OP. It was a pretty darn informative post actually. So my position is that he wrong on both counts. Go Sox, cds
Nah, Charles you are wrong he didn't just answer the Original Poster, he had to add that little jab about it being odd, come on, you know what he was trying to do there. I also just projected a possibility of how those "traditionalist" would have responded, which is still highly likely so my logic was spot on. What words did I put in your mouth by the way? Now I did equate evil with odd, I will own that. Now even though you never came out and said it Charles did you at all infer that my feelings were hurt? Do you infer, or are all your statements straight up logical and literal? Just asking questions, so you know please don't infer that I'm putting words in your mouth.
Charles, I can relate about tradition. And the only reason I ever get involved in these threads is when the logic just doesn't add up in my head. At the end of the day I couldn't care less how someone chooses to fish. I do think it's pretty illogical to refer to his opinion as "wrong", but thats neither here nor there. What kills me about these threads, as Ira pointed out, is the concept that anyone who states a differing opinion is somehow sensitive and "butt hurt". I see it all the time... Someone makes a grand statement like "If you want to fish gear, use a gear rod. Why try to church it up and call it fly fishing." Then if ANYONE tries to offer a rebuttal, they are simply labeled butthurt. To me, and I hope nobody takes offense to this, it reminds me of when the word "homophobic" was becoming so popular in the 90's. If you stated that you didn't agree with someone's lifestyle choice, you were instantly labeled a "homophobe" and that was that. In this case, and I've seen it many, many times... If someone states " I believe that using split shot, indicators, and weighted flies is still fly fishing" their is an outcry of "Oh just accept it. You're fishing gear. Why deny it? Just own up to it. Nobody judges you... " blah blah blah. That's my only real beef with these situations. At the end of the day, this all boils down to opinion. NOBODY is right. And nobody is right. However it seems that the folks who lie on the traditionalist side of the argument are allowed to make concrete, black and white statements while those who defend the other side are not. And since logic seems to drive us both, I'm still waiting for a logical answer as to why using T-whatever is a perfectly acceptable method of fly fishing, but adding a small split shot somehow turns it into gear fishing.
I did not infer that your feelings were hurt. I pretty much came right out and said that feelings are hurt in the dscussion. Yours, mine and everyone else's. There was no inference, I think it was more of a statement of obvious fact. The whole thing turns into an emotional shitshow. Most of my statements on this subject, in this medium are meant to be literal. I'm sure I'd dial up the sarcasm if we discussed it in person. I'll stand by Chris' post being informative and good, right down to the acknowledgement that he'll be fishing over mostly poor biting hatchery banana's. The gentleman is asking about fly choice afterall. I have to go to date night with the wife. I would think that it would be more fun than this but she just got the bill from my skeena trip and she's asking questions. I hate questions. Go Sox, cds
Nick, That's a great question. I know of a few Canadians who say T whatever isn't flyfishing. I's say itsa weighted flyline like any other, but I can accept their thoughs as well. Shot on the leader is gear to me. That's my line, along with bobbers. Having said that I've used microshot and yarn indicators for GL trib browns and the weight was small enough that I was casting the flyline and not forcing gear onto a flyline. It was the only nymphing I've ever actually enjoyed. 10 lb browns help. I gotta go on a date . Go Sox, cds
