Something I don't understand about posting pics of flies on the flytying forum

[Greg H]

I am not complaining here - I really, truly, don't understand the facination for posting soft hackle/spider flies and commenting on them. I am not picking on anyone, several tiers have done this over the past few years. Hans Wilhenman(sp), with whom I have communicated and respect, posted several on the Flyfisherman site before it became defunct.

What puzzles me is this: these flies have basically 4 parts: abdomen, thorax, hackle, thread-head. Of course there is skill in tying a neat one, but they are not as tough as Marino thorax flies, or some modest salmon flies. There are hundreds of materials with which to tie flies, and thus there are millions of variations of spider flies. Do we need to see them all?

In comparison we don't see hundreds of woolly bugger variations - without a rib this is also a 4 part fly - why if we changed the rib every time we could have hundreds of millions of variations - but we don't see them. We don't see hundreds of caddis variations - wings of cellophane, or organza or caribou skin. There are all kinds of flies on the 'net, just as there are in the Orvis and Cabela's catelogues. I just wonder why it is that on the forum wet flies predominate as opposed to other styles, and why they turn up on the forum and are not left to the fly box inventory (like mine are) or logged on the Hatches Magazine website - or on Hans' site.

How about a thread showing all the crazy Stimulator variations? - "sorry no traction for that one, it's only spiders we need to see variations for". I don't get it.

[mnklagoon]

I think we do. Some people might not know as much as you do. I for one would love to see them all. I suppose some post pictures to help others as well as some post because they are proud of how they turned out. I guess its like posting on your profile that you are a level B caster. You must be proud of it but it does nothing for anyone here.......We wonder why our sport is dwindling away......

[kbproctor]

Could it be that folks simply tie more wet flies because 90% of what a fish eats is underwater? Makes sense to me, but then I do a lot of fishing but not a lot of catching.

[rainbowchaser]

In some ways doing a simple fly well is more difficult than doing a complicated fly. There is nothing to hide a lumpy body or gaps or poorly trimmed hackle stems.
There is an elegance in the lines a well tied soft hackle like a well made rifle or a china clipper ship that is lacking in overdressed patterns.

[Ron Eagle Elk]

GregH,

I tend to tie and fish a lot of spider/flymph style flies. I enjoy catching fish and those simple styles seem to work well for me. At the fly fishing expos I have noticed a resurgence in interest in tying and fishing the soft hackle spiders and flymphs. I very seldom have an empty chair in front of me when I'm tying. I enjoy sharing patterns that I have found effective with other fly fishermen, as well as fishing techniques.

During the fall of the year I also tie flies for, and fish for, salmon, steelhead and sea run cutthroat trout. While these are slightly more complicated, they are still wet flies tied in the style of spiders and flymphs. As simple as they are, I still catch fish with them.

It's true that the simple spiders and flymphs won't win any prizes for hard techniques or difficulty in dressing. What they will do is give a new or old tier a fly that is quick and easy to tie and will catch fish.

Do I really want to see a dozen different ways to tie an Adams dry fly or a married wing salmon fly. You bet I do, because even if I don't tie that particular fly, I will most likely learn something.

One way to get more variety on the fly tying forum (I'm assuming you mean the one here on FAOL, not the Fly Tying Forum) is to submit more of your dressings.

I also comment on flies that interest me or on flies that are tied by friends of mine. Hopefully you'll do the same.

Now I'm off to the vise to dress some catskill style dries.

REE

[Lotech]

Ron.
I'd love it if you'd post some of your Catskill flies. They take me about 5 minutes to tie. Or 20 if I do a good job.

[lastchance]

I am not complaining here - I really, truly, don't understand the facination for posting soft hackle/spider flies and commenting on them. I am not picking on anyone, several tiers have done this over the past few years. Hans Wilhenman(sp), with whom I have communicated and respect, posted several on the Flyfisherman site before it became defunct.

What puzzles me is this: these flies have basically 4 parts: abdomen, thorax, hackle, thread-head. Of course there is skill in tying a neat one, but they are not as tough as Marino thorax flies, or some modest salmon flies. There are hundreds of materials with which to tie flies, and thus there are millions of variations of spider flies. Do we need to see them all?

In comparison we don't see hundreds of woolly bugger variations - without a rib this is also a 4 part fly - why if we changed the rib every time we could have hundreds of millions of variations - but we don't see them. We don't see hundreds of caddis variations - wings of cellophane, or organza or caribou skin. There are all kinds of flies on the 'net, just as there are in the Orvis and Cabela's catelogues. I just wonder why it is that on the forum wet flies predominate as opposed to other styles, and why they turn up on the forum and are not left to the fly box inventory (like mine are) or logged on the Hatches Magazine website - or on Hans' site.

How about a thread showing all the crazy Stimulator variations? - "sorry no traction for that one, it's only spiders we need to see variations for". I don't get it.

Well then, Greg, why don't you post a tutorial on tying Marinaro Thorax Style Flies? I'd love to learn how to tie them.

To me all flies are beautiful in their simplicity. Let's face it, none of this takes the skill of a brain surgeon.

There are people here of all skill levels that need help with their tying, so I say any fly posted will help somebody. Easy for you doesn't mean easy for me.

I'm serious about the Marinaro tutorial.

Bruce

[Greg H]

Hey Bruce,
I agree, any fly posted will help somebody - there will be a new/good idea shown, or very neat/tidy fly that sets the bar higher for our efforts. Sometimes I see an image and my first reaction is, "Duh, why didn't I think of that!", and I am off to the bench to try it out.
What puzzles me (unless I am wrong about the number of wet flies shown compared to other flies), is that spiders/soft-hackles seem to be the majority of samples. One COULD do the same with streamers (both large and small) and post flies/lures with materials collected on the bench, received from travellers, found in a craft shop; but that doesn't happen very often IMO compared to wet flies. Streamers can be both attractor and imitative patterns, like we do with wet flies, so one MIGHT think they would be equally represented, but since they aren't I have my question.
I have tied, but don't recall seeing on the web, Royal Buggers (you can use orange marabou and black marker for the tails). I can't be the only one who has tried this - but none are posted. I wonder if buggers et al are considered too silly, but wet flies have history and therefore respect.

Re. Marinaro: I will get the materials and camera out - and re-read Marinaro. The thorax tie was hard to clearly describe even for him (at least the way I read it - twice). I will also check the web to see if there already exists a good demonstration - no need to reinvent the tutorial here. What I appriciate most about Marinaro is that he considered the nature of fly fishing, the appearance of the 'bait' and the approach to tying analytically so the result was solutions 'outside the box'.

[FishnDave]

Royal Bugger? That sounds interesting... Post a picture of that, please?

[Big Bad Wulff]

Without stepping on too many toes(imagine me doing that), I think there are some people that live via the internet. Posting and showing what they make gives them purpose in life. Now after that, what can you do? You're a ' bad person' if you say something. But then if I reply to you, saying you are a bad person for doing that, doesn't that make me a bad person too?
I guess that is a question for the ages and maybe for Spicoli and Mr Hand:
"If we're both here, doesn't that make this both our time"

But i agree, sometimes it does get to be a little much. But then again that is what the site is for.