Kant of a Mayfly's Wing at rest

Sorry, meant the "cant" or direction of a mayfly wing.

Anyway, I know a lot of posts I post bring a lot of strong disagreement, but I am "coming out of the closet" on this issue.

I just received my "Fly Tying" catalog today from Orvis. On the cover is a beautiful photo of a PMD at rest on a weed. Anyway, the wing is "canted" at as much as 30-45 degrees to the rear.

I have always wondered why so many dry fly patterns have completely upright wings! I have never witnessed a mayfly on the water with straight upright wings.

Now, this pic of a fly of mine is not my best fly or anything, but only selected as it was the first I came across with a canted wing which I believe is most like the actual insect: Just close your eyes and picture one you have tied that looks a lot better.


http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...h/IMG_2932.jpg

Or one like this one I tied for the same reason:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...h/IMG_1834.jpg

Now, compare that vision in your mind to the real thing below:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/.../photo-181.jpg

Now, I am going back in my closet to avoid all of the disagreements that are sure to come!!!

No argument here.

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...004_edited.jpg

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...s/PA100022.jpg

John

The angle of the mayfly wing appears to be relative to the flat surface on which they are sitting and is a result of the thorax being elevated by the legs. If the body is flat in the film with the legs penetrating the surface the wing will seem to be much more upright

These are BWO spinners actually on the water - in a little backwater about half a mile below the Chester Dam on the Henry's Fork.

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...isSpinners.jpg

I don't know if they would be able to maintain the same position on moving water, but it seems likely to me.

John

No disagreement here but an observation.

I have only come across one reference to a time imitation of the wing has made any significant difference to the effectiveness of a fly. It was in an article by Dr Malcolm Greenhalgh in Fly Fishing and Fly Tying. He was fishing the river Lune in Lancashire late in the evening, with strong low sunlight. Patterns with wings were taken, those without were ignored (given all other considerations were the same). Malcolm believed that part of the "key" the trout had locked on to was the shadow of the wing on the natural.

Ever since I started tying I have been told that the wing is more for the benefit of the angler, making the fly easier to see, than the fish. Malcolm's experience seems to bear this out.

Cheers,
A.

Although, if you read any of the books that address what a trout sees out of its window - they all agree - the wings without a body attached is first. Then the body, and when they get close, the wings and body finally joined.

If I remember correctly, Theodore Gordon used a single wing of wood duck that was canted back.

A.K. Best ties in his wings with the the butts facing the eye, arguing, that over time, the wings will cant back. And of course, the Harrop Elk Hair Dun has the wing canted back.

My guess would be that it's just easier for a guy who may have to tie 10 dozen flies a day to tie in wings tip forward.

The great 18th century fishing guide and fly tier Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Mayfly Design, agrees:

"Tie in such a way that the design of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle of fish behavior and fish perception."

... trico wings do seem to be pretty much upright. A couple duns on the Missouri last September.

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...TricoDunF2.jpg

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j.../TricoDunF.jpg

And a spinner, same time and place - in the cab of the truck.

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...coSpinner2.jpg


Given the shape of the trico's body, particularly the abdomen, it seems likely that the wings are virtually vertical when the fly is on the water.

John

I have always wondered why more patterns don't have the wings on a slant. Then I read the late JC's article here about the foot print insects leave on the water while resting on the surface. If I am not mistaken his conclusion was that the fish has already committed or turned from a fly based on the foot print even before the wing comes into their window of vision. I have since only added wings when I want a fly that looks good to me. Interesting though when you read Swishers and Richards they advocated hackless flies. Whatever gets er done.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig

I have always wondered why more patterns don't have the wings on a slant. Then I read the late JC's article here about the foot print insects leave on the water while resting on the surface. If I am not mistaken his conclusion was that the fish has already committed or turned from a fly based on the foot print even before the wing comes into their window of vision. I have since only added wings when I want a fly that looks good to me. Interesting though when you read Swishers and Richards they advocated hackless flies. Whatever gets er done.;)

---

See my earlier post about what a trout sees from its window

Byron,

You gave examples of slanted wing patterns but not of the patterns you feel do not have slanted wings. Can you give us a few examples of those.

Harrop's Hairwing dun is an example of an imitation with canted wing that works very well. I've often thought it was a better representation of the wing angle, at least from the anglers perspective. I can't say I've had fish reject a fly because of an upright wing though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig

I have always wondered why more patterns don't have the wings on a slant. Then I read the late JC's article here about the foot print insects leave on the water while resting on the surface. If I am not mistaken his conclusion was that the fish has already committed or turned from a fly based on the foot print even before the wing comes into their window of vision. I have since only added wings when I want a fly that looks good to me. Interesting though when you read Swishers and Richards they advocated hackless flies. Whatever gets er done.http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/w.../icon_wink.gif

---

As Byron says, the fish initially sees the impression of the fly in the mirror and not the window. If the body is resting on the meniscus, the fish sees it as well. As the fly approaches the fish either by floating down stream to the fish or by the trout rising toward the fly, the wing become visible at the window's edge and then the entire fly with body and wing merged comes into the window.


http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/ima... of vision.gif


I believe the "conclusion was that the fish has already committed or turned from a fly based on the foot print even before the wing comes into their window of vision" is wrong. This is too simplistic and does not explain complex and compound rise forms.


Compound rise: The trout comes up to the fly but does not take it. He floats with the fly downstream before either taking the fly or refusing it. When he takes the fly or refuses it he is about vertical in the water. After taking the fly he can still simply swim forward back to his lie.


Complex rise: The trout comes up to the fly and floats downstream with it as in a compound rise and his body is turned vertical underneath the fly as he inspects it. But he continues to inspect the fly so that he is turned downstream before he decides whether to take the fly or not. If he takes the fly, he takes it facing downstream and after the take or refusal, the trout must turn back around before he can swim back to his lie.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...se-Complex.jpg


Variations: I have seen a compound refusal followed by a complex rise and take. I've had a trout come up to look at my fly and float under it before refusing it. He started to swim back to his lie but then turned around and came back to look at my fly again before taking it while facing downstream.


These different rise types are an attempt to describe what is essentially a continuum of trout feeding activity, but they help in describing how selective and careful the trout are in waters that are heavily fished and clear. This type of rise activity is not unusual particularly in spring creeks. I have had situations where I was fishing a surface pattern and I would get compound after compound rise from the trout, some with takes but mostly refusals. Then I switched flies usually to an emerger or a different emerger pattern and the trout would change to a simple rise and take.


So saying that a fish has made up it's mind from the surface impression cannot explain the variety of feeding that refusals that occur. Nor does it explain late refusals when a fish turns away from the fly so late in the rise that beginners think that the fish has "missed" the fly.


Unless the water is rough and the fish sees several images or is confused by broken images, fish do not "miss" the fly. How does a fish know when to open it's mouth and take the fly? It uses the window as a "gunsight"


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...SimpleRise.jpg


The fish keeps the image of the fly at or near the edge of the window. As the fish rises, the window contracts and centers on the fly. The fish learns where to place the fly relative to the window so that when it opens it's mouth, the fly will be there. Trout rarely miss and they don't miss unless the water is fast and rough. But they do refuse at the last moment.

RE> "Silver Creek's good stuff above"

All of that is interesting indeed. But I may have a different take on refusals. We all know innocent fish will bite almost anything. I've seen that played out with everything from wilderness trout to bonefish in the bahamas (the closer to the lodge you are the harder those bonefish are to catch).

On Montana's various Paradise Valley spring creeks I've seen (many times) trout refusing natural mayflies. That tells you something. Those same fish will pile up into the eddy behind your legs as you wade the creek. So they're spooky and nervous from being caught too many times. But not smart enough to figure out the human waders have anything to do with it. Leaders and oversized or over-dressed flies do make them nervous. But so does the real thing at times.

There was a period (now long gone) when there was an over-grown willow bank stretch at the upper end of DePuys Spring Creek (below O'Hairs) where not many fishermen ever got to (there is now a path). In those days the fish in that stretch were wilder. They were much harder to approach, which meant they were nervous about any disturbance or foreign noises in the water. But far easier to catch, if you managed to get into the water without disturbing them. So my point is a bit ambiguous: wild fish will eat almost anything. Picky, well-pounded fish are indeed harder to catch. But it's not clear how much a better looking pattern really makes--because they have been observed refusing naturals. They're just nervous. About everything.

......still blabbering....
We are fly tiers. We try as best we can to imitate the real thing. And a well-tied Sparkle Dun will catch many more fish than a Royal Wulff during a PMD hatch. But so will a bunch of other pattern shapes too. I think size and color matter most of all. Plus a natural drift, a quiet cast and a sunken leader. Beyond that I'm not so sure where edges of effectiveness are. I'm still not convinced they ever see much more than a fuzzy dimple.

I've also seen fish refuse naturals.

What it tells me is that the natural did not fit the search image closely enough for the fish to commit to eating it. I personally have not seen a fish get "nervous" over a natural, if by nervous you mean the fish stops feeding and or seeks cover. I suppose it can happen if a hopper splats next to a sipping fish, but for fish to fear a floating natural would be remarkable.

I think you are right that the fish often do not the dots between the wading fisher and the hook point in their lip. In some fisheries, the could rarely feed if they stopped feeding when fly fishers were in the water.

So between the latter tale of the fish spooking at your presence and being suckers for flies, and the the fish that swim at our legs with a high suspicion of flies, lies a continuum of trout behavior that has been molded by the fly fisher. I see no contradiction in either behavior.

I don't think either behavior contradicts the search image theory of how a fish is attracted to and then either commits to take or refuse the fly.

My earlier post had material that was taken from a post I made years ago to Flyfish@ explaining how we can use rise behavior determine how closely the fly and it's presentation matches the fish's search image for food or not food decision matrix. Previouosly I wrote:

"These different rise types are an attempt to describe what is essentially a continuum of trout feeding activity, but they help in describing how selective and careful the trout are in waters that are heavily fished and clear. This type of rise activity is not unusual particularly in spring creeks. I have had situations where I was fishing a surface pattern and I would get compound after compound rise from the trout, some with takes but mostly refusals. Then I switched flies usually to an emerger or a different emerger pattern and the trout would change to a simple rise and take."

Then I wrote in my Flyfish@ post:

"That tells me that the second pattern had a trigger characteristic that the
trout were looking for. By studying the differences between the two
patterns you can sometimes tell what that trigger is and use it the next
time when faced with a similar situation. As an example, a trigger might be
the addition of a zelon trailing shuck on an emerger, or perhaps a lower
profile mayfly pattern that rides low to the water like a real fly.
Whatever the reason, it pays to ask why does this one pattern work when the
other didn't? Otherwise, you will simply start over the next time
systematically going through the patterns in your fly boxes without having
an idea of what in those patterns triggers the trout's interest.

Another pattern of trout behavior which occurs often is that the trout will
perform a compound/complex rise and refusal. You'll cast to him again and
this time it is a simple rise and refusal. You keep casting and he rises no
more. Basically the trout after inspecting the fly during the initial rises
learned the surface signature or impression of that fly on the water. He
can now refuse your offering just by looking at the impression the fly body
and hackle make on his window. He has become selective against your
pattern and you had better change if you are planning to catch that trout."

Can a fish think or reason as we do? No they cannot. But that does not mean they cannot modify their behavior or adapt as in the first part of this post. Nor does it mean that they do not have a set way of determining what is food or not food that has been molded by evolution. What they do is not random, in other words, true random behavior is counter to survivability and wastes energy. Our job is to understand the triggers that the fish use to determine food from not food and to incorporate those triggers into our flies and presentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Creek

Byron,

You gave examples of slanted wing patterns but not of the patterns you feel do not have slanted wings. Can you give us a few examples of those.

---

How about any version of a comparadun?
How about any catskil style?
How about any Wulf fly?
I think we all grew up tying these flies and being exposed to them in literature to the extent that the upright wing became the accepted silhouette for a "well tied fly".
Of course, this all goes back to my assertion that the early tiers and fishers who were fishing relative virgin waters were spoiled in that the fish were less finicky due to little fishing pressure then.

Silver,
I was once asked by a writer what I thought caused a trout to take a fly. He published the article in Fly Fisherman and quoted/paraphrased me in the article.

What I told him was the story of a practice in my Air Force ROTC classes back in undergraduate school back in the mid 60's.
The practice was to show us outlines of Soviet aircraft. Slowly at first, and then faster and faster in the slides projected on the screen. We learned to make split second decisions as to which plane silhouette was friendly and which was Soviet.

So, we were developing "trigger" points about the outlines flashed on the screen. We looked for "positive" points about the plane's outline which told us it was a "target aircraft". I believe trout operate the same way. Their instinct helps them quickly identify positives in a floating object which cause it to determine it is a familiar food source and attack it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

Silver,
I was once asked by a writer what I thought caused a trout to take a fly. He published the article in Fly Fisherman and quoted/paraphrased me in the article.

What I told him was the story of a practice in my Air Force ROTC classes back in undergraduate school back in the mid 60's.
The practice was to show us outlines of Soviet aircraft. Slowly at first, and then faster and faster in the slides projected on the screen. We learned to make split second decisions as to which plane silhouette was friendly and which was Soviet.

So, we were developing "trigger" points about the outlines flashed on the screen. We looked for "positive" points about the plane's outline which told us it was a "target aircraft". I believe trout operate the same way. Their instinct helps them quickly identify positives in a floating object which cause it to determine it is a familiar food source and attack it.

---

Byron,


I basically agree but I have several comments.


First, that is true ONLY if you and the trout must make a fast decision.


Trout on smooth slow water have more time to examine the fly. That is one reason they are more difficult to catch. The second reason is that they also have more time to examine the naturals during feeding so their "triggers" are much more accurate.


So before they even look at our fly we have a heavier burden in imitation, and then after we cast the fly; we have a heavier burden in the presentation phase.


Both reasons are why it is easier to catch fish on dries in faster than slower water.

Silver,

I agree completely with that. My little story has more to do with identifying trigger points of a fly and an explanation as to why a trout will take an artificial with a big hook hanging out of the butt - that is that they concentrate on positive key points of the offering in making their decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

How about any version of a comparadun?
How about any catskil style?
How about any Wulf fly?
I think we all grew up tying these flies and being exposed to them in literature to the extent that the upright wing became the accepted silhouette for a "well tied fly".
Of course, this all goes back to my assertion that the early tiers and fishers who were fishing relative virgin waters were spoiled in that the fish were less finicky due to little fishing pressure then.

---

Catskill:


This fly was tied by Theodore Gordon. The wing is canted as is the tail. So tradition was for a tilt for Catskill flies at least.


http://midcurrent.com/wp-content/upl...catskill_8.jpg


http://midcurrent.com/flies/quill-gordon/




Royal Wulff:


http://www.danica.com/flytier/hmason/royal_wulff.jpg


If the above Catskill and Wulff flies are supported by the tail and the tips of the palmered hackle, the body of the fly is tilted, front end up and the "wing" will be canted back like a mayfly natural.


As Steve said in another post, Ian Moutter believes the Catskill tail cannot support the the back of the hook and the back of Catskill fly will sink sink, tilting the wing further. This would especially be true of the Theodore Gordon tied fly. It would be true even if the fly had a vertical wing.


That is why Lee Wulff used deer hair for the tail of his Wulff series. If the tail floats the Wulff, as I believe it does, the wing is still tilted back because the hook is not parallel to the water.


Comparadun:


I will admit that the comparadun will initially be vertical. The tilt will depend on how the wing is tied in. With the tie in point in front of the wing, the wing will tend to slant backward; do the opposite and the wing will tend to slant forward. Even when Charlie Craven ties the wing so that the natural slant is forward, he forces it a bit backward.


http://www.charliesflyboxinc.com/uploads/DSC05479.JPG


Another factor that is rarely considered with these wings is how the fly looks after it has been cast. When the fly is being cast, the air pushes the fly wing backward at a slant. So the tendency with all upright wings is to be forced into a backward slant during casting and they slowly but gradually do develop this tilt.

Silver,
Sorry, but me thinks that is stretching it quite a bit.
I will challenge you on the Catskill method. I will match you 10-1 with photos of upright v. Slanted. In fact, let's produce tying instructions for Catskill to see what the drawings/instructions say.

Regarding the comparadun style, all who tie and fish them will tell you there is a nasty little tendency of forward creep in the "wing".

Just one example here. The cover of Eric Leiser's great book "The Dettes - A Catskill Legend"

Note the dry flies on the cover. I could also post a picture of their instructions on tying the wings upright if you like.

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...h/IMG_3014.jpg

And, casting these flies does not make those upright wings cant either forward or backward once they alight on the water.


Now, what would be hard to refute is this. If a Catskill dry fly does indeed stay afloat on its "float line", there IS a bit of a canting of the fly upward at the front end of the fly....................

Here is a Theodore Gordon tied fly in Fly Fisherman Magazine:

http://www.flyfisherman.com/2011/12/...eodore-gordon/