The thread on Peccary made me think of whether there are species whose bodies lend them to tying more with dubbing bodies to simulate a rougher body, or the materials like peccary, which are smooth. Any thoughts?
Printable View
The thread on Peccary made me think of whether there are species whose bodies lend them to tying more with dubbing bodies to simulate a rougher body, or the materials like peccary, which are smooth. Any thoughts?
I remember the first demo i attended on fly fishing and tying for trout the speaker told us the idea was to make the fly look like a bug the fish eat not someone else's fly. I think that was excellent advice, however where I fish I have never had much luck with the turning over the rock to see what under it the fish eat so I end up copying someone else's fly and hoping they know what the fish eat and what it looks like. I love the photos people post, if I think that particular creature exist where I fish I often try to wrap something around hook that matches, with varying success. That probably doesn't answer you question, but it definitely depends.
I've never a mayfly or stonefly -- adult or nymph -- with a hairy body. (Although sometimes gills can give that impression.)
Bob, that was kind of what I was wondering - does the dubbing create an impression of the gills?
Good question. I believe that if you're specifically trying to represent gill, then ostrich herl might be a better choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by herefishy
Dubbing has a couple of points going for, though. It helps build up bulk for flies where that is desirable (caddis pupae, eg), can add the appearance of tranlucency if done right, and is in general more durable than quills.
After thinking about your question, I think it would depend on whether you are tying dry flies or sub-surface flies. I would think that the body on a dry fly should be smoother than the body on a sub-surface fly. I hardly ever fish a dry fly and can only base my answer towards sub-surface flies. Several years ago at a TU meeting I was invited to, they had a guest speaker who guided on the Cumberland River section in Kentucky. When asked about flies he made the following statement, "Let's face it, trout are not the smartest fish that we fish for, but, they know the difference between something that looks alive and something that does not and when you tie your flies, make them very buggy with a lot of movement in the material which will make them look alive in the water." Since that meeting, I have always tied my flies very buggy and with a lot of material movement which translate to a rough body and not smooth. I have noticed that most of the surface insects that the dry fly fishermen try to imitate have rather smooth bodies.
So, dry flies need smooth bodies which will assist with keeping them afloat and sub-surface flies need rough bodies which will have more movement under water which could represent swimming legs or movement which could give the impression that they are "alive".
Just my .02 cents worth and nothing more.....
On the one hand I agree with you that you have to consider the texture of the naturals, or as warren puts it, make the fly "buggy". On the other hand, you want the fly to feel like the natural, so the fish doesn't spit the fly out when he strikes. True, you need the fly to look buggy in the first place to get the fish to bite (though we have some who will argue that some takes are an aggression strike), but I'm curious if anyone has considered the whole texture debate in the context of mouth-feel to the fish when it strikes, so it doesn't do an immediate refusal?
Just another angle to consider...
-ZugbugPete
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenP
The thing is, rough is NOT buggy. Insects have exoskeletons, not fur.
That's different from saying that flies shouldn't look alive. By far the most generally effective fly that I fish for trout is the Partridge and Orange -- smooth body, lots of moving parts.
"On the other hand, you want the fly to feel like the natural, so the fish doesn't spit the fly out when he strikes"
My take on that is that the fish has to feel the biggest part of most trout flies- a curved piece of steel. I don't think they chew on them anyway, though. Fish just swallow.
Chuck
A few years back, there was a stonefly pattern, one of the first of the foam fly craze, that was based on the fish feeling a soft body and kind of getting their teeth caught in the foam. Don't know if it worked, or just caught fishermen..
On nymph/wet flies I have to go with the rough body. Most of my flies work better after they have caugbht a few fish and being to look kind of scraggely.
Some of you might say most of my flies look that way.
Rick
Where was this information when I started tying. That's the mistake I've been making all these years. Funny line, Redietz. LMAO 8T :)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz