old and new

I eagerly tie up anything I see that looks like it will catch fish, then see reports that recommend the old faithfuls - PT, Hare's ear, and Prince, Adams, and wooly buggers. What do you folks catch the most on? Do you just use new stuff for the novelty, or like me, to substitute for fishing skills? Do the fly companies invent these things just to sell flies, or do they actually work better? I'm looking at my fly boxes filled with 1 or 2 of every fly I have been enticed with, next to the boxes of row after row of the same fly.

I primarily fish for trout on the Chattahoochee River in the burbs of Atlanta below Buford Dam. It is a stocked stream where browns are reproducing throughout the cold water section and bows are showing some reproduction. The periodic DNR photos from population surveys always show a few real pigs. In the section I fish most frequently wooly boogers, PT, Prince Nymph, gold ribbed peacock soft hackle, etc. are always good, along with Rainbow Warriors, Blue Assassins, and Copper Johns. I o well with wet black ants fished under a dry in the summer and hopper patterns do well next to the bank.

Mostly I fish the old patterns (or should I say classic patterns). They catch trout in any water here in Iowa, stocked, stream reared or self reproduced fish. Then for warm water species I do a mix, for bluegills. For Bass I am a bit more toward the classic patterns.
M

I tie different versions of the insects that will be hatching where I fish at that particular time. I also tie the various stages of those insects.
When I get to my fishing destination, I get information from the local shops as to what patterns are working and usually get a few for two purposes: to sorta reimburse them for the info, and to have some samples to tie myself.

Of course, I buy a lot more than a few flies there as I usually re-supply leaders and other supplies.

The shops where I fish are home to some pretty famous tiers who regularly fish the same waters, so their patterns turn out to be quite productive. But, they are always coming up with new ones too.

I catch the vast majority of my river fish on spiders (soft hackles), or wee wets (both hackled and palmered winged wet flies; also wingless palmers have taken their fair share). After that, streamers are my most productive still water flies, with hair wing (usually sqirrel tail wings) being my typical streamer, though Micky Finns are in there, as are matuka's. I get some on nymphs if I think to try one, and have taken some on dries, but generally don't think to try one unless I spot a rising fish. I have, though, taken the odd fish on a dry when nothing seemed to be looking up but thought I would practice my casting and drift management.

In most cases, though, you could probably transport my fly box back to the 1930s, and parts of it to the 1800s, and it woudln't be out of place apart from the modern hook.

- Jeff

These days my fishing is mostly on the lochs. There are a lot of traditional patterns that work every bit as well now as they have always done. If you look in most people's boxes around here you will see they are predominantly traditional flies. If you look into mine you will see similar, but not the same.

Take the Soldier Palmer, perhaps the oldest fly any of us tie. It is thought to be the fly Aelian described, or at least similar. Tail of red wool, body of red wool or seals fur, palmered red game hackle, red game hackle at the head. This fly is usually tied with around six turns of hackle on the body. One of the most effective ways to fish it is to "dibble" it, that is to work it through the surface. Therefore I tie them in such a way that exaggerates this. In place of the usual six turns of body hackle, I put up to 20 turns of the stiffest hackle I can get. Is it the same fly? I don't know, it does produce a better fly for dibbling. It is also more focused on that one technique. That means there is still a place for the original in my box, to cover the times when the fish want the fly fished with a different technique.

This is an example of the approach I take to the flies I use. It involves the constant questioning of what we do. Some people are happy to take a "monkey see monkey do" approach to fly fishing. The process of catching a fish is far from completely understood (my understanding even less complete), so I work towards the end of completing it. Yes I know, I will never fully understand it. I can though understand it more.

Cheers,
A.

I don't think that new flies are much of a big deal, but many of the new materials are worth investigating. My fly boxes tend to be well stocked with variations of old standbys, but many of them incorporating more modern materials. I might be dating myself with the definition of "new", but ... I fish a lot of PTs, but now carry some with beads which were not part of the original. I fish Hare's Ear nymphs, but now incorporate a mylar flashback wingcase. I fish lots of scuds, but now dub them with Ice Dub and other synthetics. My Prince nymphs are usually tied with synthetic peacock dubbing these days. Maybe because I'm a tyer, but when I look at new flies, I'm looking for new materials and how they might enhance the flies I use regularly.

I catch the vast majority of my fish on traditional wets, mostly soft hackles.

About 10 years ago, I tried an experiment: fish no fly that wasn't around before I was born (1952) for an entire year. I caught roughly twice as many fish as I did the previous year, with the about the same number of hours on the water. I will agree, however that some new materials are worth using.

ICW the old classics......I tie up non classic creations of my own. My mind just always thinks outside the box. So they have nothing in common. Just silly ideas. But I catch fish on them. It seems to me that work because I am throwing something down there that they have never seen before........