I’ve seen this question come up in social media again and again (with some pretty heated debates). I’m not sure why people seem to focus so heavily on labeling tenkara as “fly fishing” or not. After all, we don’t obsess about the many, more incorrect labels and misnomers we use in our in our day-to-day lives. We say, things like, “get in the car” when it’s really a “truck”. We say, “hand me a Kleenex” referring to brands of tissue that aren’t actually Kleenex. We fluently use redundancies like “ATM machine” and “PIN number” without batting an eye. Why the obsession with accurately determining if “fly fishing” is the correct label to use to describe tenkara?
I think part of it is that people who want to reject tenkara due to tenkaraphobia are desperate for ammunition (and this rejection of classification is low hanging fruit). But I also think it’s part of human nature to falsely believe that labeling something makes us understand it better.
I find this debate particularly ironic since the very people arguing it can’t even seem to agree on the correct spelling of the very label they want to apply or deny. Is it, “flyfishing”, “fly-fishing”, or “fly fishing”. At any rate, does it really matter?
If you ask me if tenkara is “fly fishing”, I would say that it is. But I don’t really care if it is or not. Because there isn’t an “is” or “not”. Labels are just convenient ways of referring to things–they’re not the ultimate defining nature of them. Tenkara is tenkara whether you call it “fly fishing”, “baseball”, or “aardvark” . Tenkara doesn’t need to be validated by a label. It is a great form of aardvark. Besides, can you really even define “fly fishing”?
Picture a car. Any car–it doesn’t matter. Remove the steering wheel. Is it still a car? Most people would probably say it is (it’s just a car without a steering wheel). Now, remove the tires. Still a car? Sure. Next, remove the body. What about now? Maybe. Next, take out the engine. Then the transmission. Hmmm…you can see where I’m going with this. At some point, it will be difficult for you to decide how much has to be stripped away before you declare that it’s no longer a “car”. Some people might say it’s not a car anymore after the engine is removed while others might contend it’s still a car until there’s nothing left but the chassis. And that’s the inherent problem with labels. We like to use them, but when it comes right down to it, we really don’t understand how we use them and we could never come to a consensus. We don’t even understand our own rules. So why preoccupy ourselves with them and try to convince others? If the “car” still gets you from point A to point B, do you really care what others call it?
Given all confusion, flawed arguments, and red herrings, I find it best to just say tenkara is tenkara and leave it at that. As Shakespeare wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Tenkara is tenkara. And it’s a pretty sweet way to fish–whether you call it “fly fishing”, “cane pole fishing”, or “aardvark”. No label will ever change its efficacy, simplicity, or felicity. When I’m out on the stream tenkara fishing, all I’m thinking about is what I’m doing and the experience–not what it’s called. I think anyone who really understands tenkara probably feels the same way.
So all labels aside, enjoy your time on the water and forget about the labels. If you enjoy it, it doesn’t need classification. Label it under “a good day on the water”.
Excellent post Jason. Very well writte. I like the car argument. And, indeed, tenkara is tenkara.
Thanks Daniel. I believe you are the one who really made me realize that “tenkara is tenkara”.
It is what it is and as usual you express the thoughts so very well. Tenkara was around way before the Western Style so one could make the case that the Western Fly Fishing Technique is an off-shoot of Tenkara. What came first, the chicken or the egg?………Tenkara of course.
Good point about Western fly fishing being an off-shoot. Never thought about it that way but it makes sense.
Thanks for a great post Jason,
If we really need to define “Tenkara” then I would say it is a form of fly fishing, as fly fishing is in my opinion, any form of angling with an artificial fly.
Delane makes a great argument about Western style being a off-shoot of Tenkara.
Whatever it is, anything that can bring on some controversy and make people question how they approach fishing (philosophy, skills, equipment, etc.) must be a good thing.
Fly fishing – The Contemplative Man’s Recreation. -Izaak Walton
I also don’t understand the need (almost despair) trying to put a label on it; tenkara is this, tenkara is that…
For me it means fun, joy and i like it!
About being fly fishing or not, in my understanding, no matter what rod/pole one uses to trow, toss or cast a fly, if it is a fly (or kebari)it is fly fishing. what makes one choose one over other method is the reach and quality of presentation… And when it comes to presentation alone tenkara is hard to beat!
it’s much more easy following a dichotomy approach
it’s fishing ? yes
it does uses a fly? yes
then it’s fly fishing, from here onwars anyone can make all distinctions they may want, as if using streamers/nimphs are or aren’t fly fishing as they don’t resemble flys, same with grasshoppers imitations or other bugs.
Going such anal is a sign of having more time than common sense or a great willingness to argue. 😀
Surely fly fishing is angling for fish with a live or artificial fly, regardless of the equipment or means, therefore Tenkara is fly fishing, end of I would say.
Well stated Jason. Those that don’t understand, will debate to justify what is different than what they have. Once they try Tenkara they will understand.
To paraphrase the preeminent fictional philosopher of our time, Forest Gump: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what fly fishing is…”
In western fly fishing, the line is cast and the fly is dragged along with it – tenkara is the same. This is what makes it different from spin-fishing or bait-casting, it is an entirely different process. Tie an unweighted fly to a spinning rod line, or bait casting rod and try to cast it. You can’t do it – you have to add weight of some kind.
This does bring up the question “Is casting a cone-nose streamer, or heavily weighted fly actually fly fishing?” You can cast these easily with spinning gear…not that it matters. It’s just more evidence of the ambiguity of the term “fly-fishing”.
Does it matter? Well – if it means that I can’t fish my favorite Fly Fishing Only waters with Tenkara then yes it does matter. But otherwise it is not really an existential crisis (what does it all mean? moan, whine…etc) However, I think that it’s fun to mull these things over.
I agree with Anthony. For me the defining characteristic of fly-fishing is that you cast the line and the weightless fly goes along for the ride. Whether a reel is involved or not makes no difference.
Yep, I agree to Morgan.
That’s true in the style practicised in the US and UK, here in Guadalajara, Spain the way to fish a wet fly was similar to tenkara, but using either a cane pole or a spinning rod (with or without reel) and regular test line. A small plastic sphere partially filled with water (a “bulldo”) added the weight needed to cast it and several flys were tied after the weight, usually 3. In other parts of Spain some people practice what is called “pesca a la leonesa” which also involves a long rod, with reel this time, but again there is regular test line, a piece of cork, a buoyant indicator and several flies tied to line.
Still fly fishing and still elluding being confined to anything beyond fishing as goal and using artificial flies to entice fish.
This topic seems to keep coming up whenever Tenkara is discussed. I don’t know what motivates the nay sayers but they are only exposing their ignorance about the sport of fly fishing. Fly fishing, in both the west and east, has been practiced for thousands of years. Our first good western written description is by a Roman naturalist Ælian who wrote “On the Nature of Animals” in about 200 AD. Because the ancient Macedonian fly-fishers were unable to attach a natural fly to a hook without spoiling its fish catching abilities they devised an artificial fly.
“They fasten red (crimson red) wool around the hook, and fix on to the wool two feathers which grow under a cock’s wattles, and which in colour are like wax. Their rod is 6 feet long and their line is the same length. Then they throw their snare, and the fish, attracted and maddened by the colour, come straight at it, thinking from the pretty sight to get a dainty mouthful; when, however, it opens its jaws, it is caught by the hook and enjoys a bitter repast, a captive.”
This description of fishing with an artificial fly sure sounds a lot like fly fishing – Tenkara – to me. This style of fly fishing – rod, line and fly – was prevalent until well into the 1600’s when Thomas Barker published the “Art of Angling” in 1653 with its illustration of a reel. (Note: There is a silver and gold plate recovered from a 500 to 600 A.D Roman Ship wreck that clearly shows a rod fitted with a reel and guides.) Fishing illustrations well into the mid 1800’s show anglers with only a rod, line and flies. They are clearly fly fishing. The reel is a relative modern addition to the fly fisher’s arsenal.
The unabridged “Webster’s New International Dictionary” defines fly fish: “to angle with real or artificial flies.” So again Tenkara is still in the game.
Dave Whitlock in his “L.L. Bean Fly-Fishing Handbook” illustrates the difference between conventional casting and fly casting. In conventional casting a weighted lure – bait or a plug – is put in motion by the acceleration of the rod and the lure then pulls the light weight line behind it. Here we are casting a concentrated weight at the end of the line. The line is used to connect the lure to the rod and fisher, but the lure is the thing being cast.
In fly casting we use the rod motion to accelerate a distributed mass – the fly line – into motion where the fly line pulls the almost weightless fly along behind it. The line still connects the fly to the rod and fisher but is also used to cast the fly. The fly line is the thing that is being cast.
If you have doubts, try to cast bait or spinning rods without a lure attached to the line. You will not cast far. Then cast a fly rod and line without a fly attached and you will quickly see the difference. So the difference between fly fishing, including Tenkara, and all other types of rod fishing is that in fly fishing we are using a distributed mass – the fly line – to cast our fly. Whereas other types of fishing there is a concentrated weight at the end of the line.
The argument that Tenkara is not fly fishing is advanced by people who do not know fly fishing, its history, and techniques or they have some unstated agenda they are trying to advance.
We should move on.
Good stuff jason. You write really well.
Thanks for sharing your great insights.
tj
Great post Jason!
Jason, I really like the picture with the striking line across the rocks (light & dark) and the Tenkara rod with no water in sight. Obviously you can catch fish with Tenkara where others cannot! To simple fishing……..sydney
If only “they” tried it, they will like it, yes? And, if they don’t there will be more fish for me…..and, I’ll enjoy every minute and smile.
“As Shakespeare wrote, ‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’”
I hate to tell you, but the question of whether tenkara is fly fishing pales in comparison to the question of whether Shakespeare really wrote Shakespeare!
Chris, and the question of whether Shakespeare really wrote Shakespeare pales in comparison to the question of whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or the other way around. I’m still not 100% convinced. But I know for sure that Plato invented Socrates.
I enjoy reading the responses as much as the article.
Tenkara is fly fishing at its simplest (where did I read that line before…?) and I am somewhat tired of the arguing of what it is and what it isn’t. At the end of the day, what counts is what it is to me. And to me it a very fun (and effective) way of catching fish with a fly.
To me it only matters when it comes to fishing regulations. Can I use my equipment or not in a given location at a given time to fish? All else is semantics.
I reckon that people that worried about this sort of thing would also be in the camp that regard pure flyfishing as the use of a dry fly only, and would argue that nymphing or wets is something less than fly fishing.
I also reckon that people that fret about this stuff should just go fishing, and stop worrying about what is right or pure in their view.
I’ve just finished reading Isaac Walton again – once again, it strikes me how tuned in he really was to the essence of this sport, and also how close tenkara really is to where the western style of fly fishing started from. But I an not going to forgo my TUSA rods for split cane or willow, nor will I drop my fluoro for horsehair lines, regardless of what Chris might sell. 🙂
Who cares who says what! Do you enjoy using a Tenkara? Really isn’t that all that matters?
Considering the amount of debate going on out there about both western and tenkara “fly fishing” i have no choice but to re brand both forms of fishing as “Art” or “religion” they are the only 2 things discussed with as much fervor.
and for anyone who would like to debate my re branding. I would like to direct your attention to the casting abilities of Sakakibara Masami (aka Tenkara no oni) and tell me this man has not made both an “art” and a “religion” out of a rod, line, and fly.
Whenever I come across such questions of definition, these salutary reminders come to me:
Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties which have hitherto amused philosophers, and blocked up the way to knowledge, are entirely owing to ourselves. That we have first raised a dust, and then complain we cannot see. George Berkeley (The Principles Concerning Human Knowledge, 1710)
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass
As others have noted above & H-D explains, it only matters if it has some practical consequence (YOU CAN”T FISH LIKE THAT HERE). The regulations here on flyfishing only waters define fly-fishing as “generally accepted practices of fly fishing” (Lawyer’s gold mine if ever taken to court!).
The problem seems to have arisen because the collective us think it is a good idea not to have lure and bait fishing in certain waters. Imagine if there were lure only waters, the debate would be can you use a fly line to cast a unweighted balsa wood lure?
Perfect quotes to compliment this thread Losthackle! Especially the Berkeley one.
A further thought. On the basis of the accurate information assembled by Mark Cole above, you could start a movement to have those reel-flingers banned on fly fishing only waters on the grounds that they are not really fly-fishing in the true tradition.
We could also burn efiigies of Halford, Leonard and Skues et al and raise aloft the banner of Dame Juliana and Master Cotton.
I agree with Jason on this as well as well as everyone else. It is funny that I have met western fly anglers and they have asked if I am fly fishing and I don’t respond by saying yes I am fly fishing. I tell them I am using a Tenkara rod to cast a fly which allows me to catch a fish. Therefore I am fishing and because I am catching fish with a fly does it matter whether I am “fly fishing” or “Tenkara fishing” or just “fishing”? To me catching a fish is catching a fish and if people don’t like my style of fishing then that is there opinion and they can go find another place to fish. Semantics be damned.
Asked the ranger here in Tasmania when he checked my licence at Little Pine Lagoon (fly fishing only) whether Tenkara would be allowed. Basic answer was he wasn’t sure. Personally he had no problems with it(!), but there is no official line on it.
For the record, fishing a fly under a float is NOT fly fishing and not allowed on fly only waters in Tasmania.
I didn’t have the heart to argue that if bubble float fishing or tenkara are not fly fishing, and are clearly not lure fishing or bait fishing (the only 3 permitted methods), does that mean that they are outlawed in Tasmania?
Think I am morphing into a bush lawyer!
Careful, “bush lawyer” is a title you might not find auspicious!
Oh well, better than being a bogan drongo!
And at the risk of completing the metamorphosis, and for the benefit of anyone attempting Tenkara in Tasmania, I trawled through the regulations.
Generally you may only use a rod and line (no mention of reel or type of line) and, in fly only waters, an artificial fly without a float or sinker. No more than 3 flies on the cast.
So, I would think that tenkara and European loop rod would both be legitimate.
But htne, not all bush lawyers are to be trusted.