Responces from The MDC officials about rubber and plastic materials.

Below is an email thread concerning the interpretation of what is a “fly”.  The email also included a picture of the fly described (Copper John Rubber Legs-Beadhead) in order to eliminate any ambiguity.

I’m of the opinion that the regulations, as written and interpreted, do not take into consideration the curent state of the sport, and are overly restrictive.

Keep up the writing campaign!

Lou

Good morning Mr. Forbringer.

Due to the rubber legs,  the fly would not be considered a “fly” but an artificial lure.  It could not be used in areas designated flies only.

Brian D. Canaday

Fisheries Division Chief

Missouri Department of Conservation

573-522-4115 *3174 (office)

573-508-9491 (work cell)

573-526-0990 (fax)

brian.canaday@mdc.mo.gov

___________________________________________

From: Louis Forbringer <lforbringer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:38 AM
To: Brian Canaday <Brian.Canaday@mdc.mo.gov>
Subject: Re: Form submission from: Proposed Regulations Comments-Fly definition
 

Hi Brian,
Thanks for your response.
I want to be clear that I am interpreting the regulation correctly, so I’ll ask if the fly depicted below (Copper John Rubber Legs-Beadhead) would be considered legal?
  
Thanks for your help.
 
Regards,
Lou Forbringer

I also received a letter back from MDC about the use of rubber in some of the flies that we tie. Doesn’t seem to be much bend in the regulations. While I’m not willing to give up on the campaign I am looking for suggestions for materials to use in place of the rubber leg materials. Mainly for terrestrials.

I don’t know who first stirred the pot about rubber legs being legal but obviously the old bromide of “letting sleeping dogs lie” never occurred to him!  The more we “bug” the state’s fisheries authorities about this the more aware of this and diligent in its enforcement they will become, which is old timers know is a misinterpretation of the regulation as originally conceived.   So let’s cool it with arguing with them.

All,

Below is an email update I recieved today regarding the definition of a “fly”.  It appears our writing campaign has paid off.  Congratulations to all who helped bring attention and clarity to the issue.   Well done!

Regards,

Lou

Good afternoon Mr. Forbringer.  I just wanted to provide an update on our discussions related to this issue. I hope the following is helpful.

In recent months, due to public interest and the need for consistency, Protection and Fisheries division staff have been evaluating how the fly definition is interpreted and how it interacts with the other definitions of flies, lures, and baits.   During this process, a document from the original 2004 Wildlife Code change was discovered.  This document provided further guidance of the original intention of the regulation change.

Below is an excerpt from the original document outlining how the new definitions were to be interpreted.
<p style=”text-align: left;”>1. The use of the phrase “…any material…” in the fly definition allows fly tiers and anglers to use the    wide variety of natural and synthetic materials currently available and eliminates the list, never all-inclusive, of approved materials.  This should eliminate a great deal of confusion and allow more consistent interpretation of this definition.  Flies containing rubber legs, foam, leather, beads, cork and a number of other materials will now conform to the definition of what is permitted in a “fly.”</p>
As you can see, the original intention was to allow any material to be used in the construction of a fly.  Flies however cannot be lures defined as soft plastic bait or natural and scented bait.  As an example, a rubber worm cannot be permanently attached to a single hook and be considered a fly because a synthetic worm meets the definition of soft plastic bait.  However, rubber legs or antennae on a fly would be permissible.

Thank you for bringing this question and issue to our attention.  I hope this explanation provided some additional clarity into the use of flies. Again, just to be clear, the fly in the photo within the e-mail chain below is a “fly” and can be used in “fly only” zones/water.

Please feel free to contact me or your local Conservation Agent if you have any questions or we can provide additional information.

Brian D. Canaday

Fisheries Division Chief

Missouri Department of Conservation

2901 West Truman Blvd.

P.O. Box 180

Jefferson City, Missouri  65102

573-522-4115 *3174 (office)

573-508-9491 (work cell)

573-526-0990 (fax)

brian.canaday@mdc.mo.gov

VICTORY!!  Thanks to all of you that took the time to write letters to the MDC on this ruling. GREAT JOB FATC.  When “other” fly fishing organizations would not write letters, YOU did!!