A forum to discuss tying and fishing wingless wet flies and other soft hackle fly patterns
https://flymphforum.com/
Hank,hankaye wrote: So, to get it to lay flat, ....................I un-twist it.
Ok, I can do that.
Thanks Denis, at least that puts a perspective on it.scotfly wrote:They were developed for definable fishing reasons Norman.Otter wrote: Have these styles developed for definable fishing reasons or simply because for example . the originators of these styles had easier access to or preference for, a certain size of hook ?
Now theres a few puzzlers
The Clyde style were developed for the.... Clyde.In the days of old (when you were a boy) on a large fairly fast and deep river like the Clyde, before weighting, the solution to getting your fly to fish a little deeper, was to put less materials on a bigger hook.
On an even faster river like the Tummel, the solution was to use even less materials than the Clyde style.
That's my understanding of the basic premise of the design anyway.
So, ........... if I follow this correctly, the faster rate of travel (water flow), also means less time for reaction/judgment thereby inducing a take using the speed of the water (flow rate), to help influiance the reaction/judgement..........makes sense to me.Otter wrote:Thanks Denis, at least that puts a perspective on it.scotfly wrote:They were developed for definable fishing reasons Norman.Otter wrote: Have these styles developed for definable fishing reasons or simply because for example . the originators of these styles had easier access to or preference for, a certain size of hook ?
Now theres a few puzzlers
The Clyde style were developed for the.... Clyde.
On an even faster river like the Tummel, the solution was to use even less materials than the Clyde style.
That's my understanding of the basic premise of the design anyway.
So the faster the water, the less likelyhood of the size of the hook putting the trout on guard. So the Tummel style may possibly be only at maximum effectiveness on similarily fast water. As always its worth considering these matters.
As to where - no better place than our sponsor:hankaye wrote:willow-head, Howdy;
check the top entry on Pg. 2.
Dosen't say where but describes it.....
hank
No not necessarily so.Otter wrote: So the faster the water, the less likelyhood of the size of the hook putting the trout on guard. So the Tummel style may possibly be only at maximum effectiveness on similarily fast water. As always its worth considering these matters.
I'm 99% convinced that Wyatt is at least 95% right about that "prey image" - otherwise we all were catching far less fish. General impression, size and shape, movement - or lack thereof - and orientation (where in the water) plus, maybe, colour. What did I leave out?Otter wrote:Maybe Bob is 100% right, but I ain't quite 100% convinced
I find it difficult to accept that a small pattern such as the tummel style tied on a large hook is as effective on less than fast flowing water than same pattern on a smaller hook - call me cautious when it comes to such matters.
