Why tube flies?

Dipnet

The wanted posters say Tim Hartman
#31
Thanks for quoting those regs Freestone, but does anyone know if WDFW actively enforces this regulation in regards to using tubes on fly-fishing only waters? Has anyone out there actually been cited for this?
 
#32
The most important advantage of tube patterns is that in most situations they are gentler/cause less harm to hooked fish.

I tie all top water flies as tube patterns for the following reasons: (1) they float better thus less foam needs to be used, (2) smaller lighter hooks can be used, (3) can use foam shapes that give realistic profiles. My favorite top water patterns(see photo) are: sand lance, Delia's squid, pile, worm, and chum fry. For floatation I use: 1/8 and 1/4 inch diameter cylinders, small sized pencil popper, and foam dinks(hook size 10).

Roger
Nice lures.:)
Jack
 

dogsnfish

Active Member
#33
No problem, thanks for asking for clarification.

Tube flies do not meet the WDFW definition of a fly; they would be classified as a lure and therefore, are illegal in Fly fishing-only waters.

WDFW Definitions: (pgs 10-11 of Regs)

Fly: A lure on which thread, feathers, hackle, or yarn cover a minimum of half of the shank of the hook. Metallic colored tape, tinsel, mylar, or bead eyes may be used as an integral part of the design of the fly pattern.

Lure: A manufactured article, complete with hooks, constructed of feathers, hair, fiber, wood, metal, glass, cork, leather, rubber, or plastic, which does not use scent and/or flavoring to attract fish.

Ahhh, now I get it! According to this definition, a fly is a lure, but a tube fly is a lure that is not a fly.
 
#34
Ahhh, now I get it! According to this definition, a fly is a lure, but a tube fly is a lure that is not a fly.
It would seem so (according to WDFW). Taking it a step further, I would guess that putting scent on a fly or a lure makes it bait??
I think I will have to curtail my practice of rubbing a herring on my flies:). Stinking up my waders, anyway.
A further thought: According to WDFW rules and regs, is a Miyawaki "Popper" a fly or a lure???? Leyland, are you reading the mail? What say you?
Jack
 
#36
Because of the stinger?

HI Pat, how is my favorite former "Professional Amateur" doing?


I don't know.
My thinking: Once the hook, upon which the materials are tied, is clipped, is it still a hook? Then, is the addition of the stinger hook considered (by WDFW) a continuation of the clipped shank and therefore it becomes "the hook"? If not, then it doesn't fit the criteria for a fly (according to WDFW).
Jack
 

Dipnet

The wanted posters say Tim Hartman
#37
Interesting question, Jack!

Maybe this can be passed along to the WDFW so they can further refine their definitions?

Also, in the definitions that Freestone listed, why is a fly called a "lure" and then a lure is called a "manufactured article"???

Even after working in the sportfishing industry my entire life our regulations often mystify me!

:scratches head:
 
#38
Interesting question, Jack!

Maybe this can be passed along to the WDFW so they can further refine their definitions?

Also, why in the definitions that Freestone listed, why is a fly called a "lure" and then a lure is called a "manufactured article"???

Even after working in the sportfishing industry my entire life our regulations often mystify me!

:scratches head:
 

Dipnet

The wanted posters say Tim Hartman
#39
Yeah, I know....???

So a fly is a lure but a lure is not a fly unless "thread, feathers, hackle, or yarn cover a minimum of half of the shank of the hook. Metallic colored tape, tinsel, mylar, or bead eyes may be used as an integral part of the design of the fly pattern."

Yikes! I'm getting a headache!! :confused:
 
#40
Flies, spoons, spinners, streamers, poppers, sliders, plugs, etc. etc. are all lures. A fly is a kind of lure for which WDFW creates a special category and then further defines it. Everything else falls under the category of lure.
I'm not too happy with their choice of the word "manufacture". Generally, it connotes "large scale". But, I understand their (WDFW) meaning. (I think).

Jack
 

GAT

Dumbfounded
#41
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.
 

Freestone

Not to be confused with freestoneangler
#42
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.
 

Dipnet

The wanted posters say Tim Hartman
#43
I don't know.
My thinking: Once the hook, upon which the materials are tied, is clipped, is it still a hook? Then, is the addition of the stinger hook considered (by WDFW) a continuation of the clipped shank and therefore it becomes "the hook"? If not, then it doesn't fit the criteria for a fly (according to WDFW).
Jack
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.
 
#44
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.
Bare hook, it's a lure.
Jack
 

Dipnet

The wanted posters say Tim Hartman
#45
Bare hook, it's a lure.
Jack
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"! :)
 

Latest posts