FLYMPH FORUM

Hans Weilenmann wrote:

CreationBear wrote:Very interesting discussion, gentlemen--I'm curious how you see Stewart spiders relating to the sparcely hackled spiders that Mike mentions. In other words, does winding the hackle down the length of the thorax make for a more natural presentation since the fibers are more spread out than they would be if you'd simlpy wrapped a "heavy" collar? Or were "Stewarts" designed simply to ride higher in the water column..."flymphs" avant la lettre?

CB,

A Stewart's Black Spider is not that much more heavily hackled...



Cheers,
Hans W

Besides, as Stewart wrote "The spider is made rather more bushy than is advisable at first, as the trout's teeth would otherwise tear it away too fast. After capturing a dozen trout it will be spare enough."

A bit earlier in the book, he also writes "The only objection to spiders is, that the feathers are so soft that the trout's teeth break them off, and after catching a dozen or two of trout, little is left of them but the bare dressing, rendering it necessary for the angler the change them, and if the trout are taking readily, this has to be repeated two or three times a day."

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd object. That the fly would catch a couple dozen trout more than makes up for the need to change it afterwards, in my view.

CM_Stewart,
Howdy

Thank you for the positive slant towards a more fuller hackleing. I need all the positive reenforcement that I can get.
As well as strict instruction in structure and proportions.

Thanks again,
hank

Hans Weilenmann wrote: There is likely no single reason, but here are two probable factors which played and are still playing a role:

1. When spiders crossed the big pond and were re-born as 'softhackles', they tended to be fished on a downstream swing. In order to have at least a bit of 'body', it is likely that heavier hackling kicked in. The sparse spiders were never meant to be fished in such a manner

2. It requires a leap of faith to have confidence in fishing these skinny patterns. If a few barbs are good, surely more barbs are better...

Those are both definitely factors, but I think there may be a third, that of the concept of "longevity." I'm of the less-is-better school, but I will somewhat over-hackle a fly when I tie it, since every time I handle it -- pull it out of the fly box, take it out of a fish's mouth, or out of a tree -- it tends to lose a barb or two of hackle. The fly may start out with twenty or more barbs (too many) , but it doesn't take long before it's down to a more desirable 12-14 barbs. I'm not entirely convinced that the less-is-more thinking didn't start out as thrifty North Countrymen encouraging themselves not to throw a fly away just because it's lost half of its hackle. Many of the flies photographed in Brook&River Trouting don't look especially sparsely hackled to me, but that's probably because they were unfished at the time.

i've only read the last (3rd) page of this thread.....but Tenkara Bum.....can you imagine if the angler of the day (Stewart) was that greedy in terms of his pitchin' a bitch bout how often he might have to change his fly...........he'd undoubtedly never heard of catch and release.....jeeze.....doesn't speak very well for modesty OR conservation...........i take it your refering to a book from WWWAAAYYYYYYY back in the day?
And since when was a Spider "reborn as a soft hackle"???????? Isn't a Spider a Spider? And the original soft hackles, an imitation of emerging Caddis? Fill me in please.
Maybe i'd better go back and read the entire thread.....

.....a few minutes later.....ok, i see i had checked out the first page, but entirely missed the second and most important page. Mark's quoting of the official definition of a flymph. i like that part about the originals not being hackled thru the thorax and then that having evolved into the norm. It's amazing how not only fascinating the entire subject of flymphs is.....but also how passionett ya'll feel about it. The Magic of Trout and Rivers.....now don't nobody steal that title.....

willowhead wrote:(Stewart) was that greedy in terms of his pitchin' a bitch bout how often he might have to change his fly

I suspect that if every time I had to change a fly it meant tying a new one from scratch, without a vise, on the streambank, in fading light, I'd want a fly that didn't need changing very often as well.

CM_Stewart, Howdy;

chuckle, chuckle, chuckle...

You make it sound like " I had to walk 5 miles to school, in my barefeet, inna snow, UPhill, BOTH WAYS!"

Sorry, I think (personnal opinion being expressed), that if Mr. Stewart were as smart as alot of folk say he was, well, maybe, just maybe, he'd a made up a few extras before he went fishin'. I can and do appericate the thoughts of attempting to tye one "in hand" I had a hard enough time just tying the one at the front of this thread.
Thanks ALL for your input and helping ENABLE me in my new addiction...
hank