FLYMPH FORUM

No, not a question of what you wan't for lunch.

This time last year I embarked on a journey to learn the secrets of tying and fishing spiders and softwings. That I enjoyed every moment of that journey is undeniable and but for a severly limited amount of time actually fishing I may well have learned a lot more about actually fishing them, please God over the coming seasons that may be remedied.

The question I pose is that do we often put way too much effort into playing with materials, hooks etc to the point that we become fixated on this side of our craft to the detriment of really creating flies that are defined to imitate specific prey for the trout. In other words flies designed by us and created by us for a specific purpose, tried and tested , re-tried and re-tested under specific conditions and either accepted as successful or cast to one side. So many creations, concocted from the latest materials purchased, are given a swim more in hope than real genuine expectation as they are concoctions more from our imagination than from any real imitative reasoning.

Not to detract from or deny the sheer pleasure we gain from tying with various materials, experimenting etc... or indeed the enjoyment watching our internet buddies develop as tiers, sharing our learning and knowledge of materials we must all at some stage pose the question - Which came first the Chicken or the egg or more accurately "Are our creations designed to catch trout, or are trout designed to catch our flies.

I find myself at times completely and utterly bored seeing on the internet a multitude of creations that whilst they are the results of great skill and dedication and at times inspiring. Without a specific reason for exisiting I just can't relate to them in a meaningful way.

Maybe im just getting old and suffering internet meltdown, who knows.

Well, shoot don't melt down. For myself I like tying the traditional flies using tradition material because they are tested patterns. I will also tie using combination's of material from the traditional flies. Like last night I tied using blue silk and picric dyed partridge. Two proven materials that the trouts like. Now what I may do next is add a veil of mole or use a thorax of peacock again all proven trout catchers.
If you read and study the long used materials along with modern research you may come up with a "killer" pattern, who knows unless you experiment.

I have a lot of junk in my boxes that did not work but then again I have some that have worked very well on trout in unexpected streams.

Hi Otter,
I think this is about where we came in, isn't it?

Otter wrote:
The question I pose is that do we often put way too much effort into playing with materials, hooks etc to the point that we become fixated on this side of our craft to the detriment of really creating flies that are defined to imitate specific prey for the trout.

(my emphasis)

First of all, you are making an assumption that this is what a fly is actually doing. Personally, I am FAR from convinced of this, or at least when pursuing scrappy little wild brown trout on a small stream such as my own. Now is you had said something like: suggestive of insect life and so food I might have been able to agree.

And that really is at the heart of it. A large part of the pleasure I get from fly fishing and tying, is looking at the classic patterns, and yes fishing them, but also trying to discover what the triggers are, and then trying to concoct patterns that incorporate those triggers and seeing if they work.

I think you and I agree in as much as we both think that the sole purpose of tying a fly should be to catch fish, and that there is something almost vaguely annoying when this is not the case! I must admit I do see some flies that while they may look very beautiful in their own right, and demonstrate great skill from the tyer, I would not waste time tying them on my leader, to catch fish in my river. But then what harm does it do? For me, fly tying is a means to an end, but for others, it is an end in itself. There are worse ways to spend one's time.

For my own part, I fish every pattern I make up, just to see if it works. (I haven't fished any I've posted this last week or so though, as my back is out at the moment.)

What is a 'classic' fly anyway, in your definition? My most successful spider this year has been Greenwell's Spider. But a close second has been this, a pattern I 'made up and called George

George the Spider by GlassJet, on Flickr


That hackle is partridge, but it has caught with hen and magpie scalp, too.(I am sure btw that this fly has been 'invented' many times!) From fishing this and other flies, and looking at the 'classics', I reckon it has four triggers. The yellow silk, heavily waxed to that beautiful olive colour. Little bits on the abdomen that wave about, in this case courtesy of the goose herl, a metal rib that catches light and flashes, some longer spikier stuff at the thorax that adds to the movement and general allure of the fly, and some long barbs that wave about enticingly on the front. This generalisation is the meta-pattern I follow for flies that seem to catch fish on my river.

Back to the 'classic' question, I'm sure you'd agree the partridge and orange is a classic? Total flop to me, never had any success with it at all. Likewise Snipe and purple (and I'm not alone in this!) but tie a gold rib on the P & O and i've caught fish with it. Odd, isn't it? But the point is, if you gave me the choice of fishing one of these 'classics' and tying something up out of my waste tray, and I had to catch a fish, I'd choose the latter option any day.

Fascinating topic though, Otter.
Andrew

Funny Andrew, I've also had very little luck with the Partridge and Orange, hence I don't use it much, hence I don't catch anything with it.

I think Otter has a legitimate point here. I'm pretty new to tying (a couple of years now) and I found I was getting a lot of "carp" in my fly boxes just because I was tying just for the sake of tying without having enough materials or knowledge to focus on anything. About a year ago I decided enough was enough. There are certain "classic" patterns I tie just because they are proven fish getters (and they are good practice), there are certain patterns I just can't be without (fishing rivers with very educated and particular fish that if they want a size 20 BWO soft hackle an 18 just won't do) and there are flies I tie (these are the ones I play with) because I want something particular (size, colour, profile) for a specific lake or stream. I've all but given up tying just for the sake of tying unless I'm tying classics in which case I'm probably sharing them with others. Sometimes I find that a "play" pattern becomes a classic just for me and that's why I continue to experiment but with some focus now. I think if you don't play you don't expand your knowledge to the same level. I also don't believe a fly has to be a perfect imitation of a particular prey item. General colour and size and how you fish the fly seems (for me) to dictate the success of a particular fly.

Is this enough rambling? I think I should go cook a turkey now.


Vicki

kanutripr wrote:Funny Andrew, I've also had very little luck with the Partridge and Orange, hence I don't use it much, hence I don't catch anything with it.

I Sometimes I find that a "play" pattern becomes a classic just for me and that's why I continue to experiment but with some focus now. I think if you don't play you don't expand your knowledge to the same level. I also don't believe a fly has to be a perfect imitation of a particular prey item. General colour and size and how you fish the fly seems (for me) to dictate the success of a particular fly.

Is this enough rambling? I think I should go cook a turkey now.


Vicki

What did you do with the feathers, Vicki?

If we look to flies that are effective we should not only keep the trout as the only fish that could decide if a pattern is worth to keep in our box. There are a lot more species and perhaps they like other flies than a trout does. Neil Patterson descibes the Grand Slam in his book: Chalkstream Chronicle (exelent book btw) They have to catch 7 species of fish just using copperwire and hook as fly. And it is possible to catch fish in this way, as Oliver Kite has proven many times.

Could this be a reason to sell all our feathers and dubbings? I don't think so. It is also for fun that I ty my flies. I do have my favourits in one year and next year it could be another fly. Jan Schreiner , a Dutch writer about fishing and flyfishing, said that everything that is moving is also edible. Mike Connor writes in a thread on this forum that proving something about flies and flyfishing is very difficult, so let us enjoy our flytying, as toy said too Otter.

Greeting

kanutripr wrote:Funny Andrew, I've also had very little luck with the Partridge and Orange, hence I don't use it much, hence I don't catch anything with it.


Vicki

There's no doubt there is a huge dollop of 'survivor bias' in this, and everyone has their own heroes and villains. But this last year I've tried to be quite systematic fishing these spiders (by that I mean in this case I have deliberately fished the P&O when, if i was just out to catch fish, I wouldn't have) and can say that the plain P&O just doesn't do it for me, on this river. Neither has the snipe and purple, and neither has the waterhen bloa - that is the classic Yorkshire cast.

And that isn't just me - an old guy who fishes my river says it is because the flies weren't designed for here. Not sure I buy that but it doesn't do to contradict 'old guys'... But, he did say that he knew someone who once caught a trout on a snipe and purple, at one particular bend in the river!

The Greenwell's Spider, by contrast, has performed astonishingly well all year, seemingly irrespective of what life is on / in the water. This leads me to conclude that some designs just scream 'I'm alive! Eat me!' at the fish in a given river, and some don't. I think it is good fun trying to find out which do and which don't, and playing around trying to find more 'do's' than 'don't's'.

The danger comes (if you can call it that! ) if you don't test the flies on those with the only opinions which really count - the fish. Otherwise, the whole exercise becomes little more than model making. Even so, model making wasn't a crime last time I looked!
Andrew

GlassJet wrote: There's no doubt there is a huge dollop of 'survivor bias' in this, and everyone has their own heroes and villains. But this last year I've tried to be quite systematic fishing these spiders (by that I mean in this case I have deliberately fished the P&O when, if i was just out to catch fish, I wouldn't have) and can say that the plain P&O just doesn't do it for me, on this river. Neither has the snipe and purple, and neither has the waterhen bloa - that is the classic Yorkshire cast.

How odd. Those are my top three flies over the last ten years. I'd probably be a bit high to say I've caught a thousand trout on just those three patterns, but not by very much.

I wonder if it has to do with confidence in a pattern? One or another of those would be the first flies I'd tie on in a given day, for much of the year; they're also the flies I resort to when I thought I knew what was going on, didn't, and wanted to catch or fish or two while I was considering what might be better. They see more time in the water, so of course they catch more fish. The flies I tie on in desperation tend not to work as well.

You may be right about the river, but I've had success with each of those in a fairly wide variety of waters. With just the bloa, I've take large browns out the Madison in Montana, my best ever landlocked salmon in Grand Lake Stream in Maine, as well as hundreds (literally) of wild browns in my home stream. That's a pretty wide variety of stream types, but I suppose there could be waters where they just don't work. I've had good days with a snipe&purple on Cumberland Valley (Pennsylvania) limestone streams (you'd call them chalk streams), as well as a variety of freestones. There are several rivers where I've had no success with it at all, so I can easily believe that it doesn't fish in your river. I don't recall a single stream where I haven't been able to catch at least one fish on a partridge and orange. I do, however, usually tie them with a rib of gold wire, just to make it seem like the pattern requires a (tiny) bit of skill to tie, maybe that makes a difference that I didn't think it does.

Hi Bob,
Have caught with the P&O with a gold rib, fished up and across as I usually like to fish. The only times I have caught with the plain P&O is when fished downstream, which I rarely do, though I don't know whether that is significant.

Other people who fish my river have said this too, but then again, upstream wet fly isn't the easiest way to fish, so maybe it is to do with that.

I am sure confidence comes into it a lot, and, if these flies spent more time in the water I am sure that yes, they may well catch. But, my only point is, that for me there are flies I put on that I know work much better for me than these 'classics'.

The one that really surprised me was the waterhen bloa - that should catch for me, it has 'bits what wave about' on the body,and waxed yellow silk. But I have had no joy with it - until I put on a silver wire rib!

Maybe I just have odd trout... and regarding different waters, I should get out more!

Regarding P&O, my mate Pete, who is a far better fisher that I will ever be, says that most times he has little luck with the pattern, but just occasionally, when it works for him it really works. He just isn't sure why it does when it does!
Andrew

GlassJet wrote:Hi Bob,


Regarding P&O, my mate Pete, who is a far better fisher that I will ever be, says that most times he has little luck with the pattern, but just occasionally, when it works for him it really works. He just isn't sure why it does when it does!
Andrew

This is kind of what I am getting at. I have a view rightly or wrongly that certain flies have become classics for a number of reasons, and rated in order of importance.

1. They are extremely imitative of a particular prey item, when fished in the correct manner at the correct time on many waters they will perform extremely
Well.

2. They are secondly quite suggestive of a number of other prey items and will work quite when well those prey items are to be expected on the menu and are
fished in the correct way.

3. They are loosely suggestive of being simply food, and will at times take fish but not in a very reliable way , and their success may be more attributed to
the skills of the angler and maybe the confidence of the angler than the attributes of the fly.

It all really boils down to

The right fly , fished the right way at the right time will catch many fish.
The wrong fly, fished the right way at the right time will catch fish.
The wrong fly, fished the wrong way at the wrong time will catch very little.

When another angler gave me a fly saying its a great one, I generally gave it a try and generally committed it to the bin.

When that happens now before accepting the fly I ask where did it work, under what conditions did it work and what was happening visa ve hatches etc. - if the angler giving me the fly cannot put any meat on the bone then there is absolutely no point in accepting his offering as I would not know when to use it or how to use it. Sometimes its hard not to accept what is a generous offer in case you were seen to give offence, but I have found by being plain blunt about it most anglers once they get over what seems an insult - kinda go - hmmm you have a point there, that explains why many of my great flies never see the following season because I never had any understanding of why they might have worked when they did.

If when we tie our experimental flies we should do so with a purpose in mind. If we tweak a P&O then test that tweak at such times as when a P&O has proven to be an effective as a close imitation - testing it at other times is quite likely a waste of time unless u are definitively trying to ascertain whether or not a P&O with a certain tweak would make it a highly effective imitation for a particular hatch or a stage of a particular hatch.

I realise that this may not be everyones cup of tea, and that many of you enjoy tying and fishing suggestive flies and may well believe that suggestive is better that what is deemed to be more precise and indeed may be correct in that belief.

A friend of mine has become extremely precise in all his fishing, keeping a detailed diary of every day out, water tempeature, weather conditions, water height and a myriad of other details. He will throughout the course of a day take off whats working and completely change methods simply to garner more info. From several years of collating this data both mentally and by writing in his diary when I ask him how he fared yesterday he will simply answer with one of a few answers. They (the trout) were accepting (consistently) various food forms, they were locked onto nymphs all day, they were constantly switching between nymphs and emergers etc.... Of secondary though still of vital importance was what patterns actually worked. He reckons that because he has paid such close attention to every little detail over a large number of seasons that he almost fishes entirely relying on his sixth sense - he simply understands the river and the ways of its inhabitants at a level that can only be reached by countless hours of paying attention to every single detail. When he ties a new fly it is with purpose, and if it works he will tweak it constantly to see if it can be improved to fit in the premier league.

He categorises successful flies into two compartments, Flies that trout will accept and flies that are very close to what the trout want. Where this becomes really interesting is that he has found over a large number of seasons that patterns that he has developed or accuired elsewhere that fit into the category of "Flies that are close to what the trout really want" can for particular seasons be abject failures. He believes the answer to this may well be found in his diary where he has noted water height, weather conditions, light conditions ,water tempeature and prevalent hatches and what worked during these hatches.
There's always a reason, a lot of data is required to even surmise what that may be.

The more I talk to the more succesful anglers it has become very clear that the common demoninator between them all has been attention to detail and that includes how they go about adding fly patterns to their armoury.

As always, food for thought, and our own experiences on our chosen streams may differ, our approaches may differ and how we derive our enjoyment may differ.

Apologies for rabbiting on so much

Hi Otter,
It sounds like a lot of your pleasure from fly fishing comes from the application of the scientific method, and there's nowt wrong with that. Personally, I think there are two many variables to have too much faith in that method, and you can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. But, if you and your mates keep records like that you presumably fish a lot, and if you fish a lot you are going to gather a lot of experience, and if you have a lot of experience you are going to catch more fish, otherwise you would presumably have changed to a different pastime!

So it depends to what you attribute your success.

I just don't see spiders as being 'imitative'. I do of course accept that it helps in your fly looks at least a little like what is on / in the water at the time but for me it comes way down on the side of the suggestive in the imitative / suggestive balance.

But that was my point about the Greenwell's Spider - it has caught all year, regardless of what was happening, insect-wise! And does so all around the world it would appear.

I suspect that discussions like this are greatly affected by the waters we fish. I mostly fish a couple of small, rain fed streams, for little wild brownies. They ain't too picky! I suspect it is actually quite easy fishing, which is probably why I like it, and I have found that suggestive works just fine. There isn't a great deal of selective feeding going on (some notable exceptions, but on the whole...).

But, should I drive thirty miles up the road, into the limestone area where the much richer rivers are found (in all senses of the word!) then it is a different story. Much more insect life in general, much bigger fish and much more selective feeding going on. So two people from two such river could easily get locked into discussion, taking completely opposing views, when the reality is they aren't talking about the same things at all!

I was probably doing my mate Pete a dis-service as well. One time after fishing a river really switched on to P&O, he decided to investigate and spooned a couple of trout. He found these little orange things, micro-sedge I think he said. Some such theory anyway, forget the details now. I just told him to chill out, let go of his comfort blanket of rational explanation, tie on a silver rib and just go catch a fish with it.

Andrew