Lies, damned lies, and so-called fishing flies
Some people fish for salmon using spinners. Some people fish using flies. Some salmon waters have banned spinners (that are much easier to cast and generally easier to fish with), declaring them fly only.
Now some wise guys at Grays of Kilsyth have produced the spinhead, a spinner attachment for your fly. If this is used on a fly-only water it is downright cheating. In water that permits spinning there may be an argument for casting something like this with your fly rod but I can't, for the life of me, think what it is. In fact there is no real difference between using this device and attaching a Mepps spinner to your fly leader. The fly-only rivers should move swiftly to ban its use on their waters.
If all you want to know is: "Will it catch fish?" Of course it will. I discussed these moves to create "spinning flies" in one of my fishing columns here. Here is an article trying to justify its use.
Now some wise guys at Grays of Kilsyth have produced the spinhead, a spinner attachment for your fly. If this is used on a fly-only water it is downright cheating. In water that permits spinning there may be an argument for casting something like this with your fly rod but I can't, for the life of me, think what it is. In fact there is no real difference between using this device and attaching a Mepps spinner to your fly leader. The fly-only rivers should move swiftly to ban its use on their waters.
If all you want to know is: "Will it catch fish?" Of course it will. I discussed these moves to create "spinning flies" in one of my fishing columns here. Here is an article trying to justify its use.
Labels: cheating, fishing, fly, fly rod, Grays of Kilsyth, meps, salmon, spinners, the spinhead
posted by Richard Donkin at
12:44 PM
6 Comments:
Mr Donkin,
I feel obliged to apologise for having offended your refined sensibilities, although I have to admit to some puzzlement at your somewhat dogmatic, not to say narrow-minded, objection to the Spinhead. I cannot see any rational basis for a ban on such a device, which has been designed to allow the continued use of the fly rod in conditions which would normally warrant resort to the spinning rod. In common with many other salmon and sea trout fishers, I prefer, wherever possible, to stick to the fly rod rather than resort to the rather mechanical business of spinning. In such difficult conditions, for example of high, cold and coloured water, it seems to me perfectly reasonable that the dedicated fly fisherman should have resort to the use of larger, heavier and more colourful lures or, indeed, to any device which adds to a fly whatever flash, mobility and life may be necessary to attract a fish in difficult conditions. For me, there is no line between fly fishing and spinning with a fly rod. Most of the lures used by salmon fishermen today, could not, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, be called "flies". They are lures, of the most diverse kinds. I fail to see why a lure, made up of a two or three inch copper tube, around which some bucktail has been tied and designed to represent a fish, might be judged more acceptable than a 2 centimetre metal tube, with a small metal blade spinning around it. Are we to assume that you impose on yourself strict rules, on size and weight of fly, regardless of conditions? Do you, for example, eschew the use of two inch copper tube flies, or large conehead Templedogs, even in a high, cold and coloured river? Do you stop fishing at the onset of adverse conditions, or do you persist with irrational methods in the hope of a miracle?
Perhaps you, Mr Donkin, have the luxury of fishing a grand fishing beat, on a grand salmon river, where you might expect to catch a barrow-load of salmon using nothing more indelicate than a size eight Blue Charm, fished on a floating line. Many of us are not so fortunate. We spend hours dreaming of catching one salmon in a season on the fly rod, and even more hours at the fly tying vice, thinking of ways to make our flies more attractive to the few salmon that find there way into the busy association beats we fish. Much of my time, in recent years, has been spent in thinking of ways to bring added life and mobility to my salmon and sea trout flies, so that I might improve the odds in the lottery that, for most of us, is salmon fishing. I am confident that the Spinhead will, in the coming seasons, with or without your approval, catch me more salmon than I have ever caught on a conventional fly, although it is not so easy to fish as a conventional fly, requiring a deal more care and concentration in casting. If I had had the luxury of fishing one of the best beats, on one of the best salmon rivers, I doubt whether I would have bothered developing such a device. Alas, I don't. So I will continue to experiment, in the hope of improving my chances of hooking a salmon on the fly rod, especially in the less than ideal conditions I am often required to fish. In conclusion, I must say that I have no intention of cheating or lying, as you have implied. I will use the Spinhead, and recommend its use by others, only on beats where it is considered acceptable, by open minded and enlightened proprietors.
Yours in sport,
John Gray
Dear John,
I assume you are the John Gray who runs Grays of Kilsyth. If so, the first thing I want to say is that the flies on your site look as if they are very well tied indeed.
The second thing is that I apologise if my "wise guys" comment appeared flippant.
I do not apologise, however, for saying that your spinhead attachments should be banned on fly-only waters. I don't decide the factors that make a river fly only. But some riparian owners have chosen to invoke this rule.
The rule has meant, however, that some have sought to stretch the meaning of what constitute's a fly. I don't think that a fly with the Spinhead attachment is a fly. I regard it as a spinner. I have no objection to the device being used on waters that allow spin fishing.
On a fly-only water I don't think a Spinhead is any more acceptable than a fly with a worm or a prawn attached to it.
You could argue, as I think you do, that all salmon flies are lures. You are in good company. As early as 1931 Eric Taverner was writing in his book, Salmon Fishing, of the "fiction" of the salmon fly.
In Salmon Fishing, A Practical Guide(1984), Hugh Falkus wrote: "In the sense that an artifical "fly" is a simulated insect, there is almost no such thing in Britain as fly-fishing for salmon."
He went on to say: "Does this mean that salmon fishing should be a free-for-all; that anglers should be able to fish any method they wish on any water at any time? Most certainly not!"
I would urge any neutral reader to look at page 100-102 on this matter.
Falkus was writing before the steep declines in fish catches and the introduction of conservation measures on many rivers.
I have fished many weeks where not a fish has been caught and where one between six rods has been a bonus. Today I fish on rivers, such as the Dee, where various restrictions have been imposed in line with catch-and-release policies. I don't want Newfoundland-style restrictions on UK rivers but I fear they are inevitable if we continue to push the boundaries of fly-only conditions.
I wish your device every success on waters that permit spinning. I might even try it myself although it does sound as if it's a swine to cast.
All I would ask is that you sell it with a caveat: that this Spinhead might not be acceptable on fly-only waters. In the meantime I would urge fly-only proprietors and their ghillies to think very carefully about their rules if they are tempted to allow this lure. Fly only means no spinning and this device turns a fly in to a spinner.
Dear Mr Donkin,
You will perhaps allow me a wry smile as I picture you "pushing the boundaries" ..... legering a fish egg on your fly-only salmon beats. I refer, of course, to your website article euphemistically entitled "Upstream Nymphing for Salmon".
John,
I think you have a point. I welcome a debate on these methods. I do feel a bit uncomfortable about the "egg ledgering" although the egg "fly" is always moving and, I would argue, is therefore more acceptable than something that turns a fly in to a spinner on a water that has outlawed spinners.
At the heart of this for me, I think, is something to do with aesthetics. Falkus's objection to spinners was all to do with tackle loss - spinners getting snagged in shallow water.
Today my understanding is that a"no spinners" rule is about giving the fish a more sporting chance. The upstream egg method, I know, can be deadly so there is the question about whether it should be lumped with spinning.
All I do know is that if I show a Spinhead to my ghillie on the Dee he will tell me to take a hike.
Anyway, good luck to you. I think your Spinhead has set the cat amongst the pigeons, so to speak, but maybe I'm in a minority of one.
regards,
Richard
Richard,
What would help in this whole debate would be the application of some logical and ethical consistency, on the part of fishing proprietors, anglers and angling writers.
Fishing proprietors will generally set their rules according to their individual objectives, among which economics will often take priority. A proprietor on a prime fly fishing beat on the Dee might achieve optimum catches, and optimum income, by setting a strict "fly-only" rule, although how they will choose to define a salmon fly is anyone’s guess. A proprietor on a lesser beat, in an effort to make an impression on his catch records, and consequently on the value of his fishings, might allow the use of the spinning rod, or even a bunch of worms. General statutory rules might be set by the Fishery Boards and we might hope that such rules would be motivated by a concern for the welfare of the salmon, and not merely in the short term interests of the proprietors.
Within those rules, the individual fisherman’s own self-imposed rules will be dictated by his personal objectives and his conscience. Aesthetics may play a part but aesthetics are, almost by definition, subjective. What appeals to one angler will not appeal to the next. Rules can not reasonably be dictated by one person’s vague notion of what is, or is not, aesthetically acceptable. Similarly, what one angler considers "sporting" may be distasteful to the next. Would you ban any lure which is effective in catching salmon, in order to give the salmon a sporting chance? If so, you might ban the use of the fly and floating line on the Dee in June...... or better still, cut off your hooks at the bend. This will minimise any harm and undue stress to the salmon. No, surely we go fishing to catch fish. Any sensible fisherman will, within the rules and according to his own lights, select a method and lure which will maximise both his fishing pleasure and his chances of catching a fish. I doubt very much whether a salmon will prefer to be caught on a fly, especially a muckle copper tube "fly" fitted with a size 4 treble hook, rather than a spinner.
Finally, I think it incumbent on angling writers, in particular, to apply a degree of logic and consistency in their approach to matters relating to angling ethics. The following passage hardly exemplifies such an approach. Copied from your website article "Salmon Flies", the following extract shows quite clearly that you are prepared to attach a "wobbler blade", or diving vane, to your salmon flies, in order to "help get the fly down while, at the same time, imparting lifelike movement".
"..... A Google search highlighted some US suppliers and a few in the UK including one (troutcatchers.co.uk) that also stocked some things called “wobbler blades”, little shovel-like accessories you can tie on to the front of your flies to help them sink and move at the same time.
Maybe this is taking innovation further than it needs to go. But for spring salmon fishing, where the fish tend to lie deeper than they do in the summer, anything that can help a fly get down, while, at the same time, imparting lifelike movement, may be worth trying, particularly in slower water. I have some reservations over their casting potential but will give them a go in Scotland next month."
In other words, it would appear that, in addition to fishing for salmon with a legered fish egg, albeit an artificial fish egg, you are quite happy to turn your salmon fly into a Rapala-like plug in an effort to make it more effective in luring salmon in difficult conditions…. and all this, presumably, on a fly-only beat. I must confess that I am struggling with your ethical distinction between a spinning blade and a diving vane as salmon fly attachments.
Regards,
John Gray
John,
I take your point. I wasn't very impressed with the wobler and the shovel-like blade was pretty useless. You could have pointed also to my very first FT column where I complain about various restrictions on hook type etc.
I don't know the answers and maybe I do blow a bit hot and cold on some things but I'm trying to stimulate the kind of debate we've been having here. I worry that innovations are overtaking attempts to define various methods. I confess also that I may have been influenced a little by chalk stream rules where on some waters anything but the orthodox small upstream fly is frowned upon.
Anyway I'm going to the Tay in the first week of April where there will be few fish about and where spinning is still accepted. So perhaps I will try your Spinhead there. I am certain of one thing: not everyone will have my missgivings. I expect it to sell well.
By the way, last year in Iceland I saw a tandem arrangement for a red Frances where the body one was attached behind another and moved as if on a hinge. It looked very lifelike. I haven't seen this arrangement in the shops.
regards,
Richard
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home