Old Dogs Still Hunt?

[Byron haugh]

Seen any of these White Wulf's in a fly shop lately?

[NJTroutbum]

You will along the Susquehanna come White Fly time.

[Byron haugh]

Could some of you Lee Wulff buffs please let me know which fly Lee used during a PMD hatch?
Thank you,
Byron

I'm guessing it might have looked like this (size 14)?

[narcodog]

Seen any of these White Wulf's in a fly shop lately?

You'll find them in Catskill Flies and Dette Fly Shop.

[JohnScott]

.... but I was pretty tired when I got home from fishing yesterday so I just read the thread, which morphed from a question about Blue Ribbon waters ( whatever they are ?? ) to a more general discussion which is really interesting.

My own take is that yes, if fish in a particular stream eat a certain fly often they probably do develop an awareness that it represents danger and a subsequent aversion to it. So heavily fished waters might require new flies, or at least a periodic cycling of patterns.

Beyond that, presentation is more important than pattern. This was drilled into me early on by one of my mentors, Bruce Staples, and my ongoing experience and what I hear from other fly anglers I respect just continues to reinforce that belief. Patterns are important, but secondary.

There are selective trout, and it is more likely you will run into them on certain types of water with certain types of hatches. But occasionally the trout will be selective, or at least some of them, on just about any stretch of river whatever the hatches present are.

My own approach to tying flies is distinctly different than some others and very similar to yet others. I do tend to the simplest pattern that will represent a food item to the trouts, and I don't use flash as part of the equation, except in the form of an occasional beadhead or ribbing on some nymph patterns.

A while back, in a Reader's Cast article, I made an observation, and this thread pretty much confirms that observation.

"Sometimes I think trout will eat anything that looks alive, is smaller than they are, and is slow enough for them to catch. What trout actually eat, when you think of it in terms of the flies that can be used to hook them, really is amazing. Especially given the comparatively small number of life forms available to them as food in the waters they occupy."

John

[NJTroutbum]

I'm thinking a #16 Olive Wulff, or some variation......or a #16-18 Haystack. The latter of which I still fish extensively over many small hatches.

Could some of you Lee Wulff buffs please let me know which fly Lee used during a PMD hatch?
Thank you,
Byron

I'm guessing it might have looked like this (size 14)?

[Allan]

Could some of you Lee Wulff buffs please let me know which fly Lee used during a PMD hatch?
Thank you,

Byron,

I really don't know but you might try contacting Joan Wulff or one of the staff at the Wulff School and ask that question.
The phone #845-439-5020
In a video of Lee Wulff, taken shortly before he died, was of him fishing along various holes on the Beaverkill. It was in the summertime and in it he caught several trout. The only fly seen in the video on which he caught trout was his Royal. Not sure the size but maybe a 12 or 14, I think.
Lastly, the White Wulff you posted looks like a variation of the original. Either that or the color of the hackle is altered by the camera. Not to say that's bad, just that if it is a variation you should identify it as such. And NO. I have not seen that fly, in its variation state, in fly shops.

Allan

[Byron haugh]

.... but I was pretty tired when I got home from fishing yesterday so I just read the thread, which morphed from a question about Blue Ribbon waters ( whatever they are ?? ) to a more general discussion which is really interesting.

My own take is that yes, if fish in a particular stream eat a certain fly often they probably do develop an awareness that it represents danger and a subsequent aversion to it. So heavily fished waters might require new flies, or at least a periodic cycling of patterns.

Beyond that, presentation is more important than pattern. This was drilled into me early on by one of my mentors, Bruce Staples, and my ongoing experience and what I hear from other fly anglers I respect just continues to reinforce that belief. Patterns are important, but secondary.

There are selective trout, and it is more likely you will run into them on certain types of water with certain types of hatches. But occasionally the trout will be selective, or at least some of them, on just about any stretch of river whatever the hatches present are.

My own approach to tying flies is distinctly different than some others and very similar to yet others. I do tend to the simplest pattern that will represent a food item to the trouts, and I don't use flash as part of the equation, except in the form of an occasional beadhead or ribbing on some nymph patterns.

A while back, in a Reader's Cast article, I made an observation, and this thread pretty much confirms that observation.

"Sometimes I think trout will eat anything that looks alive, is smaller than they are, and is slow enough for them to catch. What trout actually eat, when you think of it in terms of the flies that can be used to hook them, really is amazing. Especially given the comparatively small number of life forms available to them as food in the waters they occupy."

John

John,
In my post I purposely said my post assumed equal presentation. In other words, all other things (presentation) equal, which fly? This is what I said:

"Now everything I say assumes that the fisher has good presentation. So, it is a theory which says, all things equal (presentation of the fly), the fisher today must use much closer imitations to the trout's food than 40-50 years ago."

I agree that presentation is nearly or equally important as fly selection, but given that it is the same by a fisher, which fly is the best to use?

This is how they determine blue ribbon fisheries:

A Blue Ribbon fishery is a designation made in the United States by government and other authorities to identify recreational fisheries of extremely high quality. Official Blue Ribbon status is generally based on a set of established criteria which typically addresses the following elements:

• Water quality and quantity: A body of water, warm or cold, flowing or flat, will be considered for Blue Ribbon status if it has sufficient water quality and quantity to sustain a viable fishery.
• Water accessibility: The water must be accessible to the public.
• Natural reproduction capacity: The body of water should possess a natural capacity to produce and maintain a sustainable recreational fishery. There must be management strategies that will consistently produce fish of significant size and/or numbers to provide a quality angling experience.
• Angling pressure: The water must be able to withstand angling pressure.
• Specific species: Selection may be based on a specific species.

Criteria as used by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.^[1] Specific criteria may vary by state.

Many quality recreational fisheries are informally referred to as Blue Ribbon by government agencies, tourist, media, environmental, sportsman organizations and writers, but are not officially designated as such by established criteria.
[edit]

[Byron haugh]

I took a photo this morning that shows the color a little better on my "Lee Wulff PMD" size 14

[Steven]

I've read nearly all this thread.

Seems to me there is a question of semantics here:

There's no reason to suggest that the "heritage patterns" as Orvis now calls them, no longer work as well as they once did. However, that doesn't preclude that the newer patterns may be better (for any number of reasons), and would have been better had they existed back in the day.