Not a style I've seen on here..

[Soft-hackle]

Again, fly tying is an art that can, and I believe, does stand alone, apart from fly fishing. Is that what it's suppose to be? Probably not, but not because fly tying is not a stand alone art, but because its intention was to create flies that imitated local insects and WERE FISHED as such.

The abundance of patterns is not something new. Take a look at Ray Bergman's Trout. This book was first published 1947. The color plates of flies, even at that point in time, were overwhelming is scope. Many were not really imitative type flies, either.

New fly patterns are always in demand and it is WE that demand them. It is we that market them, and WE that are "caught" by them every bit as much as the fish we fish for. The internet only disseminates the information as do periodicals, and the continuous parade of books which are published.

Many of the fly fishers that come here ARE satisfied with the patterns they have and use regularly, adjusting older patterns and creating some new ones based on traditional guidelines. We, like many, use this medium TO LEARN, to converse and that is the plus side.

We all fish and tie for our own personal reasons, but for the most part because we want to fish and fish with the flies WE tie. There is NO magic fly, although many believe there is, and for the most part, this realization comes only after one has fished for a number of years. There are patterns that work for us, others that don't, and this is what makes the process interesting. We test, try, theorize, tie, re-test, rehash and theorize some more. If we did find THE FLY that worked constantly, under all circumstances for all species, wouldn't it get rather boring? As long as this doesn't happen, I don't think we'll have to worry.

Mark

[Roadkill]

If there is one major flaw in presentation of flys on internet forums, it is that such presentation only contains a picture and a list of materials and tying instructions and that may appeal to the hobby fly tier in us. But without any information of what that fly is meant to imitate or how best to fish it, to an angler tier it is about as much use as a picture of a barbie doll. Is it an oversight on the presenter, or is more often than not the case that the presenter has no idea on the how, where when. what ????

I can't quite agree that this is a major flaw. A picture of a Barbie doll has done the job of hooking millions of little girls. On this post I expect to see little more than Fly Dressings. Other topics or forums contain many of the answers that you are speaking about. We have Fishing Wingless Wets only a click away on this forum. Anyone can post a question to find out more about a pattern, tying , or fishing. Beginners would do well to look at other sources on the net or in books for specific info about entomology or fishing tactics in general if they don't have any experienced fishers to talk with to learn the art of flyfishing. If you want to learn about flymphs nothing can beat starting with the words of Pete Hidy. I will gladly answer a question about fishing any fly that I post on any forum.

I type way too slow to try and condense 50+ years of tying and fishing into each post on a fly. IMO experience is gained on the water as well as at the tying bench. Once you have enough experience reading water, understanding bug and fish behavior, and testing your fishing and tying skill you can merely look at a fly picture and get all that you need to fish that fly.

A site like the flymphforum is in my opinion a specialized place generally looked at by more exreienced flyfishers. If you polled everyone who flyfishes and asked them about flymphs I suspect the vast majority would not have a clue what fly you are talking about.

[Otter]

I would disagree with you strongly on the issue of posting flies without some degree of detail and I do not mean insult to any that have posted in this manner. And in some ways I probably am not really aiming this at this site as the profliferation of experimental flies here is minimum and most are interesting in so far this is a specialised site.

For example if I simply posted a picture of a flymph tied with my recent (I wish ) purchase of a Golden Plover skin - people would respond kindly with , nice tie otter. If I mentioned the Golden plover part it make its a bit more interesting.

Now if I simply added, tied this up to imitate yellow mays - then the pattern would now have some life, some meaning and would make it a bit more interesting for those looking at it - and maybe someone seeking such an imitation may get some inspiration from it.

This was really brought home to me with some of flyfishwithme's excellent recent postings where he gave some great detail on either the history of the fly or his ideas if it was his own creation.

I am not trying to bully anyone into posting in this manner, or stop others from simply posting their patterns, but I hope you will agree that it is food for thought.

[Roadkill]

Otter

I agree with you that it is food for thought but I only question how do you choose the knowledge level of the many readers to decide what detail to post and where to stop. For example for a steelhead tying class I taught at a local arts center, I tied 12 different variations of a Green Butt Skunk all basicallly the same fly but with different material and tying styles that lend themselves to different fishing conditions or presentations in order to prompt discussion about the great variety that is present in every tying opportunity. The readers can vary from those who have never heard of a green butt skunk to those who fish it well and knew the creator of the pattern. Flies are dynamic and even talking to famous flies creators often yields the tinkering that each pattern undergoes over time or for different conditions. A search for information on the Green Butt Skunk fly just brought me 68,000 hits, more than enough information to fill in the gaps of information from one picture if someone seeks more. If I post a GBS, do I post all 12 and all the different thoughts that go into each fly?

To the same Golden Plover fly you tied to a imitate a yellow mayfly I might add just a little more dubbing for the body to use it for a local caddis fly. Some will see the fly and know it was tied with Plover, others will see it and know nothing more than it is kind of a yellow fly and hope they can match it to a yellow bug in a river. Some either do know, or want to know what species(and sex) of mayfly and the hatching conditions. And for many of us multiple books on the subject are never enough. I for one will quit fishing when I no longer feel the joy of continually learning about flyfishing every time I go out.

[Ruard]

We all fish and tie for our own personal reasons, but for the most part because we want to fish and fish with the flies WE tie. There is NO magic fly, although many believe there is, and for the most part, this realization comes only after one has fished for a number of years. There are patterns that work for us, others that don't, and this is what makes the process interesting. We test, try, theorize, tie, re-test, rehash and theorize some more. If we did find THE FLY that worked constantly, under all circumstances for all species, wouldn't it get rather boring? As long as this doesn't happen, I don't think we'll have to worry.

Mark

Well said Mark. I agree completly with There is no Magic fly. I enjoy tying flies and share them with other people. Sometimes I am inspired by someone else and I hope sometimes someone else is inspired by my flies.
I love this post verry much. I dont agree with the possibility that we all become MacDonald fans. There will allways be flyfishers that have there roots in history, flyfishers are self-conceited enough to wear a fish-hat, of witch everybody says this is nothing for you, you will have an ugly head with that.
So we can be ourselfs in flytying and fishing and believe in the gurus is our own choice. Most of the gurus are just normal people when you met them, and they just want to fish and have there days when they cannot catch anything.


Greeting