Jump to content
OzarkAnglers.Com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
bkbying89

Missouri rules prohibit rubber and vinyl in flies.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bkbying89 said:

Doesn't the term  "soft plastic" include rubber legs and or other body parts?

Bill

It does not. The definition is explicit,   (3CSR 10-20.25 (B))

Quote
(B) Soft plastic bait (unscented)—Synthetic eggs, synthetic worms, synthetic grubs, and soft plastic lures.
 

there is no grey area here, imo, the definition of soft plastic baits (unscented) does not include parts of a lure but refers to the whole lure.

The only possible dispute I can see is if a "squirmy worm"  is a synthetic worm (I have been told that it would get a ticket at RRSP).   But legs. rubber skirts, antennas, shell backs, Nymph Skinz, Scud Skinz,  Swannundaze, Vrib are all accepted plastic  materials in fly tying, and none of them constitute a "lure". 

3 hours ago, laker67 said:

I meant with flies like you use any where else in the other zones. 

As I said, imo, you fish a Trout Magnet (or similar) just like a cone head or bead head  or other small jig used in the "fly only" areas. We don't want to define all those jigs as being "not flies" or "not fly fishing", do we? Go backwards to dry fly and winged wets only requirements?  I am not a fan of zones at all, keep it simple make rules that apply to all users on all waters, unless science dictates a need for "special management" on certain waters.  But, since idiots out of self interest  have  had zones created, I will do my utmost to use them.

If we as users want to set aside waters for exclusive use of fly fishers doesn't that mean fly users should be excluded from other waters as well?

>>Clarification; imo, anyone using a bobber/indicator/sighter  is not "fly fishing"; any one using a spin cast, spinning or casting rod and/or reel is not "fly fishing"; anyone using lures heavy enough that they pull the line rather than being pulled by the line is not "fly fishing"; any one using anything but a single action reel is not "fly fishing" - so when I enter a Mo. trout park "fly only area" I do not expect to see more than a small percentage of the anglers "fly fishing", nor even "fly rod fishing", however it is the accepted standard in Mo. and life goes on. (I suppose there are some that would say fishing from shore or a boat is not "fly fishing" and some that would require two handed rods) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is perfectly clear.  It says "any material" except flavored or scented soft plastic "bait" that is permanently attached to a single hook.

I've never known anyone that has had their fly inspected by an agent, and I've never known anyone to have the soles of their boots inspected either.     Supposedly the agents in Arkansas used to inspect hooks in the barbless area with a piece of panty hose.....but I'm not too sure that wasn't just a tall tale.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third world problem for sure.  This is a "Who Gives a rat's behind" question.  Arguing about what is legal to catch a fish in a barrel that was raised for the sole purpose of stocking to be caught.  What is the rule's purpose anyway?  So stocker fish don't die by swallowing the hook?  If so, just stock a few more, eliminate this stupid law, and concentrate on more important issues like stocking paddle fish and sturgeon.  Geez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jerry Rapp said:

What is the rule's purpose anyway?

Crybaby fly fishers didn't want to compete with bait fishers and crybaby bait fishers didn't want to compete with fly fishers, so Uncle made rules allowing each have a safe space, then the fishers cried over possible cross dressing of baits (both as bait pretending to be fly and as flies/lures pretending to be bait); so Uncle again intervened to describe each type of bait and lure in such a way that the criers could again feel safe, and all that was Codified as not rules but laws.

as to stocking more fish either trout or dinosaurs, we all know there is not enough money for that, ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fishinwrench said:

never known anyone that has had their fly inspected by an agent,

Not recently but ~20-30 years ago the RRSP guy checked flies and lures, seen it many times and he checked me once- gave me a verbal warning about using a dropper in the Park. I always thought he was wrong about the dropper, but never challenged him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tjm said:

Not recently but ~20-30 years ago the RRSP guy checked flies and lures, seen it many times and he checked me once- gave me a verbal warning about using a dropper in the Park. I always thought he was wrong about the dropper, but never challenged him.

Man!   30 years ago under-aged kids could smoke dope, drink beer, have sex, and trip on acid, all on the courthouse steps and not get in trouble..... but rubber legs on a fly at RR would have gotten you a citation.   What a crazy world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

crazy

I think he was checking for corn etc on the fly, but, but he did check and  I saw him write a ticket to some guy that was squirting scent on his fly. Aren't you the guy that says they should do more?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

Supposedly the agents in Arkansas used to inspect hooks in the barbless area with a piece of panty hose.....but I'm not too sure that wasn't just a tall tale.   

No it's really true. One of the unexpected benefits of wearing them was it helped with keeping the ticks off. But they originally started wearing them because it made them feel pretty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tjm said:

I think he was checking for corn etc on the fly, but, but he did check and  I saw him write a ticket to some guy that was squirting scent on his fly. Aren't you the guy that says they should do more?  

Yeah, more of some things and less of others. That isn't the kinda "more" I'm talking about.    

Seriously, who cares if the guy squirted scent on his fly, as long as he didn't keep more than his limit.    Do you really think after the scent was added he just started slaying them?    I'm betting not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, liphunter said:

No it's really true. One of the unexpected benefits of wearing them was it helped with keeping the ticks off. But they originally started wearing them because it made them feel pretty!

They woulda kept wearing them but it gave them muffin top so they quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.