# Artificial Flies Only



## BDuff1234

So I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer for on the Michigan DNR site. I am trying to find a definition that the Michigan DNR gives for what an artificial fly is, as it pertains to the artificial flies only sections of rivers. I just want something I can read "straight from the horses mouth" as you might say. 
People might debate on here what may or may not be classified as a fly, and I'm open to hearing about that as well if people feel so inclined. But I mainly just want something to reference from the DNR for a solid definition for an artificial fly. Depending on what's out that and what it might say, further discussion about particular items being classified as a fly might also be pursued. So if anyone can provide any direction as to where one might find that information, I would be very grateful!

Thank you in advance for any help you all provide!


----------



## jatc

http://www.eregulations.com/michigan/fishing/common-terms/

Here ya go straight outta the "book".


----------



## the rapids

the single hook only requirement has to be one of the most often violated rules in artifical flies only stretches of streams. if you add up the number of folks that you see streamer fishing in those sections (particularly pm flies only) with tandem hook streamers, it could be quite the money maker (and would probably correct arrogance of the hero guides that push them) but it seems like that is not enforced. with some of the streamers that pass for 'flies' these days (including wedge shaped 'diving lip' heads made out of deer hair) we should really just adjust to allow for artificials only on those stretches...


----------



## kzoofisher

the rapids said:


> the single hook only requirement has to be one of the most often violated rules in artifical flies only stretches of streams. if you add up the number of folks that you see streamer fishing in those sections (particularly pm flies only) with tandem hook streamers, it could be quite the money maker (and would probably correct arrogance of the hero guides that push them) but it seems like that is not enforced. with some of the streamers that pass for 'flies' these days (including wedge shaped 'diving lip' heads made out of deer hair) we should really just adjust to allow for artificials only on those stretches...


Been a long time since I was there, are they fishing tandem hooks (two points on the hook) or two single pointed hooks? The difference between a single pointed hook, a multi-pointed, a set of hooks on a bait and how they all equal one hook is confusing. Really important for whippers, though. Fisheries could change the definition to "single pointed hook" to clear things up. Maybe they think that is just one more level of complication and unnecessary considering the number of actual violations as compared the the complaints of a few who don't understand the rules.


----------



## the rapids

kzoofisher said:


> Been a long time since I was there, are they fishing tandem hooks (two points on the hook) or two single pointed hooks? The difference between a single pointed hook, a multi-pointed, a set of hooks on a bait and how they all equal one hook is confusing. Really important for whippers, though. Fisheries could change the definition to "single pointed hook" to clear things up. Maybe they think that is just one more level of complication and unnecessary considering the number of actual violations as compared the the complaints of a few who don't understand the rules.


two single pointed hooks on an articulated fly. no confusion by the 'common terms' rulebook section an artifical fly is only a single hook fly. by that definition, articulated flies (circus peanut, drunk and disorderly, double deciever, etc) are not artificial flies unless one point is clipped. no points are clipped from what ive seen, and that is by design. You can check this out on other rivers with artifical flies reaches like the upper manistee too. Also, many of these flies have seasonally inappropriate hook gaps over 1/2". just saying this is the kind of thing that at minimum needs education and at maximum needs enforcement, i dont think these folks are that ignorant to not know what they are doing. hopefully saves the OP some headaches.

from common terms, link provided above
*Common Terms*
Artificial Flies: Any commonly accepted single hook wet and dry flies, streamers and nymphs without spinner, spoon, scoop, lip or any other fishing lure or bait attached. The fly or leader may be weighted, but no weight shall be attached to the fly or to the terminal tackle in a manner that allows the weight to be suspended from or below the hook.

from the rulebook http://www.eregulations.com/michigan/fishing/it-is-unlawful-to/
"it is unlawful to"... Use multi-pointed hooks exceeding 3⁄8″ between point and shank and/or single-pointed hooks exceeding ½” between point and shank on all streams (including tributaries to the Great Lakes) from Aug. 1 to May 31.


----------



## kzoofisher

Two single pointed hooks on a fly=one hook _ All hooks attached to an artificial bait or “night crawler harness” are counted as 1 hook (note: for crappie/perch rigs and umbrella rigs each hook is counted as part of total allowed)._ Flies are flies but they are also artificial baits, the only exception for counting hooks individually are crappie/perch rigs and umbrella rigs (sabiki's are umbrellas). This is how a guy whipping on the St Clair can run six body baits with three trebles each for a total of eighteen hooks and fifty-four points that count as six hooks total. And a guy casting an articulated streamer with two hooks is legally casting only one. If he wanted to articulate the streamer a bunch of times he could tie it with six hooks and still be legal. 

As to the 1/2" between point and shank rule, that may get violated but very seldom with intent. I checked my biggest streamers, the 5"-7", and none of them have hooks that big. Maybe some people's do and they don't know it. Of course, the beauty of carrying a fly rod and wearing all those fancy clothes is that the cops leave you alone. Sometimes it's great to be privileged.  I know a lot of my jigs have hooks bigger than that, basically everything 2/0 and up. If the Detroit counts as a stream as well as a Great Lakes connecting water the thousands of violations there over the next few weeks will be a gold mine for somebody.


----------



## Chasingchrome

Other threads it has come up. Plastic Egg Beads. If they are tied into a single hook fly pattern it is legal. Meaning they are a fly body.


----------



## jkloess

Sorry for the blast-from-past reply, but I wanted to check if anyone has received further clarification on this topic. Original question is for "artificial flies" restricted sections of rivers, are multiple hooks tied to a single fly acceptable, e.g. articulated double hook streamers NOT two separate streamers tied in tandem?

Per the 2016/2017 Michigan Fishing Guide:

-Artificial flies are defined as "Any commonly accepted *single hook* wet and dry flies, streamers and nymphs..."
-Artificial lure is defined as "..Artificial lures include spoons, spinners, *flies* and plugs..."
-Hook is defined as "A single, double or treble pointed hook. All hooks, single, double or treble pointed and attached to a manufactured artificial lure shall be counted as *1 hook*."

From various previous posts I've seen basically two interpretations:
1) The "single hook" part of the artificial flies definition is intended to be one hook quantity *and* one hook point, e.g. multiple hook articulated flies *and* multiple point hooks are illegal for use in artificial flies only sections.
OR
2) The "single hook" part of the artificial flies definition is intended to be one hook point only, i.e. a treble hook could not be used on a fly. However since both hooks are part of a single fly (which is also considered a type of lure) they are counted as a single hook, and thus multiple hook articulated flies are legal for use in artificial lies only sections.

To be honest, I don't mind using shanks or clipped hooks if that is the restriction but before I clip my whole box of streamers or tie a whole batch with shanks instead, I thought it was worth an second opinion.

Thanks!


----------



## Rasputin

Does this mean no 2-fly rigs, like a hopper/dropper, or 2 nymphs on one leader?


----------



## OldBuck

jkloess said:


> Sorry for the blast-from-past reply, but I wanted to check if anyone has received further clarification on this topic. Original question is for "artificial flies" restricted sections of rivers, are multiple hooks tied to a single fly acceptable, e.g. articulated double hook streamers NOT two separate streamers tied in tandem?
> 
> Per the 2016/2017 Michigan Fishing Guide:
> 
> -Artificial flies are defined as "Any commonly accepted *single hook* wet and dry flies, streamers and nymphs..."
> -Artificial lure is defined as "..Artificial lures include spoons, spinners, *flies* and plugs..."
> -Hook is defined as "A single, double or treble pointed hook. All hooks, single, double or treble pointed and attached to a manufactured artificial lure shall be counted as *1 hook*."
> 
> From various previous posts I've seen basically two interpretations:
> 1) The "single hook" part of the artificial flies definition is intended to be one hook quantity *and* one hook point, e.g. multiple hook articulated flies *and* multiple point hooks are illegal for use in artificial flies only sections.
> OR
> 2) The "single hook" part of the artificial flies definition is intended to be one hook point only, i.e. a treble hook could not be used on a fly. However since both hooks are part of a single fly (which is also considered a type of lure) they are counted as a single hook, and thus multiple hook articulated flies are legal for use in artificial lies only sections.
> 
> To be honest, I don't mind using shanks or clipped hooks if that is the restriction but before I clip my whole box of streamers or tie a whole batch with shanks instead, I thought it was worth an second opinion.
> 
> Thanks!




I Emailed the DNR about this several years ago. I don't have their response any longer but essentially a tandem-hook (two single-pointed hooks) fly is NOT legal to use on "flies only" water, but a double-pointed or treble-pointed hook IS legal as long as it meets the rest of the definition of an artificial fly, particularly the "commonly accepted" part. Many classic salmon fly and streamer patterns are tied on such hooks. Those, by definition, would be legal to use in "flies only" water as they use one hook. The number of points on the hook does not matter.


----------



## jkloess

OldBuck said:


> I Emailed the DNR about this several years ago. I don't have their response any longer but essentially a tandem-hook (two single-pointed hooks) fly is NOT legal to use on "flies only" water, but a double-pointed or treble-pointed hook IS legal as long as it meets the rest of the definition of an artificial fly, particularly the "commonly accepted" part. Many classic salmon fly and streamer patterns are tied on such hooks. Those, by definition, would be legal to use in "flies only" water as they use one hook. The number of points on the hook does not matter.


Interesting, thanks for the info!

Just to clarify, by "tandem-hook" do you mean 2 or more single hook flies creating a "single fly" such as:
https://www.slideinn.com/product/galloups-sex-dungeon/ 

Or is it tandem rigs with two separate flies tied together, such as hopper dropper rigs or tandem nymphs?

From the sounds of it, BOTH are technically illegal and essentially you get one and only one hook in "artificial flies" only sections, but multi-point hooks may be acceptable depending on the pattern.


----------



## OldBuck

jkloess said:


> Interesting, thanks for the info!
> 
> Just to clarify, by "tandem-hook" do you mean 2 or more single hook flies creating a "single fly" such as:
> https://www.slideinn.com/product/galloups-sex-dungeon/
> 
> Or is it tandem rigs with two separate flies tied together, such as hopper dropper rigs or tandem nymphs?
> 
> From the sounds of it, BOTH are technically illegal and essentially you get one and only one hook in "artificial flies" only sections, but multi-point hooks may be acceptable depending on the pattern.


Two or more hooks joined to create a single fly would be illegal. I did not ask about dropper flies specifically, but I would assume it would be OK providing there is a reasonable tippet length between them. Like a lot of rules, there are gray areas subject to interpretation and intent.

And just for the record, I'm an avid year-round fly-fisherman and enjoy fishing a lot of flies-only water throughout the state. However, I do not agree with restricting tackle based on the current "social" criteria.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Or all the restricted waters could just be artificial lures/flies only, problem solved.


----------



## lodge lounger

Being a fly fisherman, I have to admit I appreciate the flies-only water. All the fly guys flock to the designated streams, leaving the rest of the trout water (where I typically do a lot better) way less crowded.


----------



## Fishman95

lodge lounger said:


> Being a fly fisherman, I have to admit I appreciate the flies-only water. All the fly guys flock to the designated streams, leaving the rest of the trout water (where I typically do a lot better) way less crowded.


I've done equally as well on the pere marquette in the C&R flies only and in the other stretches.
I do equally well on the paint creek artificial lures section and the rest of it.


----------



## fisheater

Fishman95 said:


> I've done equally as well on the pere marquette in the C&R flies only and in the other stretches.
> I do equally well on the paint creek artificial lures section and the rest of it.


I sure you have done well in sections of water appropriated for social reasons. The appropriation of the waters on Paint Creek has made me an enemy to Trout Unlimited forever.
I usually stay away from these pages. I really prefer to fish the Clinton, but I will forever be galled by TU's action on Paint Creek.


----------



## Fishman95

fisheater said:


> I sure you have done well in sections of water appropriated for social reasons. The appropriation of the waters on Paint Creek has made me an enemy to Trout Unlimited forever.
> I usually stay away from these pages. I really prefer to fish the Clinton, but I will forever be galled by TU's action on Paint Creek.


Can you elaborate?
The browns in the Clinton taste nasty.


----------



## fisheater

Fishman95 said:


> Can you elaborate?
> The browns in the Clinton taste nasty.


The browns taste bad when there is a sanitizing chemical that is put in the water from the sewage treatment plant. I believe it is a potassium compound. You can smell it in the water when you fish. If I smell it, I go home.
When there is no odor in the water, the browns and rainbow are both delicious.


----------



## Fishman95

fisheater said:


> The browns taste bad when there is a sanitizing chemical that is put in the water from the sewage treatment plant. I believe it is a potassium compound. You can smell it in the water when you fish. If I smell it, I go home.
> When there is no odor in the water, the browns and rainbow are both delicious.


I've heard that before. Anyway, what were you saying about TU and the paint?


----------



## fisheater

The gear restrictions currently in place are not for biological reasons, but rather because a certain group of people (TU) wanted the fishery managed in that fashion. Before TU pushed the gear restrictions on Paint Creek I accepted and even supported gear restricted waters. Now I would support the removal of gear restrictions on every water in the state. 
Some people think they are entitled to things others are not. TU's sense of entitlement to Paint Creek, by far the best trout water in SE MI, has earned a steadfast opponent to any gear restrictions on any water in the state on my part.


----------



## Fishman95

fisheater said:


> The gear restrictions currently in place are not for biological reasons, but rather because a certain group of people (TU) wanted the fishery managed in that fashion. Before TU pushed the gear restrictions on Paint Creek I accepted and even supported gear restricted waters. Now I would support the removal of gear restrictions on every water in the state.
> Some people think they are entitled to things others are not. TU's sense of entitlement to Paint Creek, by far the best trout water in SE MI, has earned a steadfast opponent to any gear restrictions on any water in the state on my part.


I don't follow. Is trout unlimited not wanting what's best for the stream and the fishermen who use it? That stream is highly pressured and SE Michigan's gem (when it comes to trout fishing). I don't see how the gear restrictions here are different than gear restrictions anywhere else. 
I like the 14" limit. I feel like there is a good number of 8-16" fish that otherwise would be a rare catch.

I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I l'm not clear on why you oppose the gear restrictions.


----------

