-
Dubbing heresy
Given the existence of all kinds of chenilles and yarns including punch yarns for small flies,quills, etc. it seems to me if one wanted to you could tie essentially any fly without using dubbing.
Of course, not many would want to but don't you think maybe if all the products we have now existed when fly tying began maybe dubbing would never have developed?
-
I've found rough dubbing the perfect blend of translucence and bulk for imitating the real insects. Believe it or not, the other articles give some of my flies too ribbed an appearance for discerning trout.
------------------
Jude
Late to bed,
Early to Rise,
Guide all day,
Tie more flies!
www.customflys.com
-
As A.K. Best says "Mayflies are NOT fuzzy"!
------------------
"If we carry purism to it's logical conclusion, to do it right you'd have to live naked in a cave, hit your trout on the head with rocks, and eat them raw. But, so as not to violate another essential element of the fly-fishing tradition, the rocks would have to be quarried in England and cost $300 each."
~John Gierach
-
There once was an old timer in our club that made his nymphs out of one material only.
Electrical tape!
The fish police won't come to get you if you choose not to use dubbing.
Then again it wouldn't be fur and feathers
------------------
"such a day, Rum all out.
Our Company somewhat sober.
A damn'd Confusion amongst us!
Rouges a plotting; great Talk of Separation,
So I look'd sharp for a prize; such a Day took one
with a great deal of Liquor on board,
so kept the Company hot,
then all Things were well again."
Blackbeard's Log
-
Actually one of my favorite flies to tie is a midge pattern with a zlon shuck and then use the zleon to also form the body. It makes for a very clean body and is easier to tie than using dubbing. But the biggest benfit is that the fish seem to like it http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/biggrin.gif.
I dont tie many dry flies with dubbing...except for the EHC sparkle caddis emerger, and the sparkledun/comparadun. I prefer to use biots or quills. Then again thats just me and others may differ.
------------------
Take care everyone and cya around. Mark
-
There's a reason why Gold Rib Hares Ears are so productive.
There are good reasons for the use of dubbing. Jay covered some of these.
Dubbing also simulates movement, a fuzzed nymph while not moving or moving slowly may looked blurred as if to be moving, or fleeing from prey.
How many fish do you think get the opportunity to observe how smooth and slick his dinner appears to be. The nymph is either gobbled up proto or gone, under the nearest rock.
Nymphs swept down stream in a current are either a passing blur or dinner, one or the other, not a perfect smooth skinned model.
Don't take my word for it, fish the Hares Ears, Kaufman Stones, Red Fox Squirrel Nymphs etc. Now fish the best smoothest most realistic imitations, see what result you get.
Iv'e done both and the fuzzy suggestive patterns work better for me, they just simply catch more fish.
-Yaf
-
Buddy,
I respecyfully disagree that fuzzy nymphs aren't buggy. Many nymphs have gills that are nicely immitated by dubbed bodies. Legs on some nymphs are also easily imitated by picked out dubbing. I also think that a roughed up nymph can give you a shape while allowing light pass through the fuzz giving the illusion of translucence. Dubbing fibers can also trap tiny air bubbles. But then again I'm a follower of Polly Rosborough, father of the "Fuzzy Nymphs".
Jay
[This message has been edited by Jayatwork (edited 23 March 2006).]
-
Duckster,
Dubbing is quick and cheap. You can 'mix' it to get mottled shades of color. The technique is old, and predates much more suitable materials, so it got to be the 'standard'.
If you think about it, way back 'when' they didn't have good floatation treatments, so they needed something that would help the dries to float.....Beaver, Muskrat, they naturally shed water...available for the price of one shell and a short walk....
You'll never a see a real aquatic bug with a body that has that kind of 'texture'. Nymphs aren't 'fuzzy', all that stuff sticking out doesn't look 'buggy' it looks 'shaggy' and no insect in the water actually 'is' that.
If we really wanted to 'match' the real bugs, we'd be using things like latex, rubber, foam, and plastic for bodies.
Luckily, fish are pretty dumb, and they don't care.
So, if they had access to the stuff we do in this time when dubbing was first used, I doubt if we'd even know what it was. We'd alos have missed out on cane rods, wicker creels, spun deeer hair, and lots of other 'fly fishing lore' along the way....
Good Luck!
Buddy
-
Jay makes my point for me. I'm certainly not belittling the effctiveness of dubbing, just it's suitability as an 'imitation' of the fbugs themselves.
It's not neccessarily the 'imitative' flys that produce best, but often the 'representative' ones.
Nothing in the stream looks even remotely like a GRHE, but it's one of the most effective flys we have. I'd certainly not be without one.
But, if we want to 'imitate', all effectiveness aside, dubbing really isn't the best, or even close, material for it.
The bugs under the surface have 'waxy' or 'smooth' skin. Segmentation is obvious on all of them. Legs are visible as separate little legs, and unless they are very small bugs, someone with decent eyes can easily see and count them. The 'gills' so often referred to as a 'reason' dubbing is 'better' are usually small, often transparent, and exist in one specific area. They are 'hard to see', even with a decent close up camera or glass.
Still, it's a fact that the most 'accurate' imitations are seldom as effective as the shaggy, looks like nothing in particular but similar to a lot representative patterns.
Probably because is usually the presentation that counts, seldom the exact fly.
So, while it would be nice to think that the ancestors of this sport had that 'figured out', I really doubt it. They used what they had, dubbing was an amazing concept that allowed them to do many things well. But, if they had had our resources, they wouldn't have 'needed' it, and necessity has always been the progenitor of inovation.
Good Luck!
Buddy
-
Have a look at the nymph photos here. [url=http://www.troutnut.com/naturals/favorites.php:a177e]http://www.troutnut.com/naturals/favorites.php[/url:a177e]
Most have fairly prominent fuzzy or spikey structures that I think dubbing imitates well.
Jay