# New fly definition



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

There had been discussion about this in the Coldwater Committee, see the minutes in a previous thread for details. The NRC voted on and passed it. Pretty good imo, perfect isn’t possible and this clears up some things while allowing some of the newer styles of flies that didn’t exist in the ‘70s.

_ “Artificial flies”, known as wet and dry flies, streamers or nymphs, is defined as a single pointed hook, or no more than two single pointed hooks connected in-line (the second hook commonly known as a stinger hook), crafted with natural, artificial and/or synthetic materials attached to the hook with thread. An artificial fly may not include a spinner, spoon, scoop, lip or any other fishing lure or bait attached. Material of any type cannot be attached above the eye of the hook*.*The fly or leader may be weighted, but no weight shall be attached to the terminal tackle in a manner that allows the weight to be suspended from or below the hook. Single pointed hooks are restricted to measuring ½ inch or less from point to shank._


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

That doesn't make for easy reading.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

That’s what happens when people are always trying to find a loophole, definitions get longer to close loopholes. Which sentence(s) are you having trouble with?


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

kzoofisher said:


> That’s what happens when people are always trying to find a loophole, definitions get longer to close loopholes. Which sentence(s) are you having trouble with?



It's too verbose for the average angler to digest. It lacks clarity.

It's too complex.

The whole addendum with, "_Material of any type cannot be attached above the eye of the hook" is overkill. What the hell are they trying to address? Bobbers? 


_


----------



## Lightfoot (Feb 18, 2018)

Streamer eyes might be cutting it close. How about eyes on poppers? No more glue on or melted on beads, lol, works for me as I prefer mcflyfoam


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I would guess they’re addressing putting a bead above a fly. Like I said, folks looking for loopholes make new rules much more complicated. The driving force behind updating the definition was the enforcement division so I guess we can expect some tickets to get handed out in a few areas next spring. 

Btw, I read the definition to my wife and she thought it was pretty clear. She doesn’t fish but, obviously, being married to a fisherman and having children who fish, knows what a fly is. If it’s clear to someone who doesn’t fish and not clear to you you’re probably overthinking it. Go with what common sense tells you rather than trying to figure out what the definition of ‘is’ is.


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

kzoofisher said:


> I would guess they’re addressing putting a bead above a fly. Like I said, folks looking for loopholes make new rules much more complicated. The driving force behind updating the definition was the enforcement division so I guess we can expect some tickets to get handed out in a few areas next spring.
> 
> Btw, I read the definition to my wife and she thought it was pretty clear. She doesn’t fish but, obviously, being married to a fisherman and having children who fish, knows what a fly is. If it’s clear to someone who doesn’t fish and not clear to you you’re probably overthinking it. Go with what common sense tells you rather than trying to figure out what the definition of ‘is’ is.



Why would anyone put a bead above a _fly?_

beads are placed above _bare hooks to mimic an egg much like yarn tied on to a hook._

The way it's written, "any material" would invalidate many so called 'strike indicators' sold in fly shops.

In an effort to close 'loop holes' as you put it, they only further the perception that the legislators are attempting to make fishing more _exclusive for a few _rather than _inclusive for the many._

The more they screw around trying to exclude people from fishing the special needs waters the more they are revealing themselves as a class war mongers.


Maybe the age of flies only regulations should be shelved in favor or artificials only regulations.


----------



## Fishing Mike (Sep 16, 2019)

There are a lot of people that fish what were previously accepted among the fishing population as artificial flies, that weren't legally considered artificial flies by previous definition or ambiguity, and they wanted to continue to use their flies in flies only water without making those waters more inclusive to other types of lures. There was a lot of ambiguity on if a streamer tied with dumbbells are just jigs, or if a double hook streamer is still a fly or a lure under the fly definition. Take for example many streamer fisherman fishing 'drunk and disorderly' platforms which really are just rapala imitations tied creatively to use an angled hook, deer hair and uv resins as a bill to push water. Many videos on youtube now reference how 'leading' fly tyers are being inspired and adapting their flies to mimic artificial lures or other gear tackle.

I dont understand why a rapala with single hooks replacing the trebles are is any different than a streamer, or a bead is any different than an egg fly in the context of fishing lures. I also don't understand why a euronymph is considered a fly but a small feather jig is not. I also hope conservation officers start checking hook gaps on flies only stretches because some of the streamers have far larger hook gaps than 1/2". Now we just have an increasingly complicated string of language codified just to allow certain anglers to continue fishing flies that push the boundary of a fly vs lure in waters designated flies only


----------



## MuddybootsGB (May 14, 2016)

kzoofisher said:


> Material of any type cannot be attached above the eye of the hook*.*


So to be literal, what can you tie directly above the eye of the hook? Eyes are tied directly behind the hook eye not over them. Or does this mean the line above the eye of hook? Strike indicators could be construed as such.

Give this rule to 10 CO's and you will 20 different answers.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

You can use a 2-fly rig, which would have a fly tied in-line, or on a dropper, above a dropper fly. Wanna get literal?


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

So I guess I can't fish a teeny nymph below a bead anymore.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Abel said:


> So I guess I can't fish a teeny nymph below a bead anymore.


Or a big one like a hex or a large caddis larva. Unweighted they work pretty well below a bead. Still perfectly legal in most of the state. You do have to be quick on the set though, if the fish takes the nymph instead of the bead you don’t get the extra time that short line flossing gives you.
The extreme lengths people are going to looking for loopholes and issues to create is a fine example of why the rules get so complicated. Does anyone really think that the ‘no material above the eye’ was meant to ban bobbers (strike indicators)? Or maybe even attaching line to the fly? De facto ban of fly fishing! No, the intent of the definition is obvious and the fact that a need for an update was introduced by Enforcement tells us they’d gotten sick of ambiguities people were trying to exploit. 

Extreme literal interpretations of the rules without any regard for their intention is a disservice to all sportsman. I hope the anti fishing crowd doesn’t take a page from you guys or a lot of lures are going to get banned by definition.


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

kzoofisher said:


> Extreme literal interpretations of the rules without any regard for their intention is a disservice to all sportsman. I hope the anti fishing crowd doesn’t take a page from you guys or a lot of lures are going to get banned by definition.



I think your ire is misplaced. Perhaps you can redirect it towards those that write the definitions that are unclear in the language they are written. 

I think a judge would have similar questions in interpreting the new definition for clarity. Especially if anglers are receiving tickets by conservation officers that aren't familiar with the rationale of the rules.


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Or a big one like a hex or a large caddis larva. Unweighted they work pretty well below a bead. Still perfectly legal in most of the state. You do have to be quick on the set though, if the fish takes the nymph instead of the bead you don’t get the extra time that short line flossing gives you.
> The extreme lengths people are going to looking for loopholes and issues to create is a fine example of why the rules get so complicated. Does anyone really think that the ‘no material above the eye’ was meant to ban bobbers (strike indicators)? Or maybe even attaching line to the fly? De facto ban of fly fishing! No, the intent of the definition is obvious and the fact that a need for an update was introduced by Enforcement tells us they’d gotten sick of ambiguities people were trying to exploit.
> 
> Extreme literal interpretations of the rules without any regard for their intention is a disservice to all sportsman. I hope the anti fishing crowd doesn’t take a page from you guys or a lot of lures are going to get banned by definition.


Ya, in AK if you fish a bead it has to be free sliding or pegged within inch n half of the hook.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Interesting. My kid guided in Alaska this summer and said he saw guys fishing giant beads, like 22-30mm. Of course, they’re fishing really big hooks too.


----------



## callmemaybe (1 mo ago)

That’s what happens when people are always trying to find a loophole, definitions get longer to close loopholes. Which sentence(s) are you having trouble with?


----------

