Old Dogs Still Hunt?

[Byron haugh]

Hi,
I know this is going to bring me some "hate posts", but here goes anyway:

First, let me give a little background so you know where I am coming from with this. I grew into fly tying with idols like Lee Wulf, Jack Dennis, Charlie Brooks, etc. I tied their patterns and only wished I could tie as well as they do/did.

A few years ago, I concluded that a lot of the flies they tied would not be as effective these days. For three reasons:
1. The year after year; and increasing each year; fishing pressure on the streams and trout.
2. The application of "relatively" recent understanding of insects, their behavior, etc.
3. The development of new materials

As an example, Lee would cast out a size 10 Wulf and catch a huge trout. I believe, these days, he most probably would have gone home skunked. I know it is sort of a sacrilege to say that, but I tend to think it has a lot of truth to it. The trout are much better educated these days. They see all sort of imitations thrown out there at them. They demand better today.

As a bit of support for my theory, I give you Rene Harrop. A world-renowned tier and fisherman. He offers his flies (for a premium) at the Trout Hunter fly shop in Island Park, Id. There you will find patterns that are beautiful, look very much like the intended insect, and are tied in the appropriate sizes and stages of the insects. The whole fly tying community, including the big warehouses like Umpqua are moving this way.

I firmly believe that if you were able to fish the major blue ribbon streams of 40 years ago, the size and pattern of fly would not be very important. Today, however, I believe it is nearly everything.

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.

Thanks for listening, now go ahead and blast me!

[narcodog]

IMO you are not correct. I fish almost exclusively with the old standard patterns with the exception of sparkle duns and the use of CDC on some patterns.. The rivers I fish are Blue Ribbon in the west and N.E. I have been fishing for about forty years and I really don't see any difference today than back in the day.

[Buddy Sanders]

Byron,

I think that presentation is by far the most important aspect, as you've aluded to. However, remember that those older tyers didn't have the materials and resources we do now. If Lee Wulff was here today, I doubt he'd be tying and fishing the same flies he fished during his era. As a pioneer in his time, if he were born in ours he'd be on the cutting edge trying the 'new stuff'. So would Carrie Stevens and Jack Dennis (one of my favorites mostly BECAUSE he did experiment a lot), et. al..

I also strongly disagree that "the fisher today must use much closer imitations to the trout's food than 40-50 years ago." That's really the opposite of what I'm seeing out there on the wter. In many ways, the newer materials and flies that are catching fish today are actually LESS imitative than the older patterns. The overwhelming use of flashy stuff, beads, and bright colors in many of the most efffective patterns shows me that ATTRACTING the fish is more important than 'mimicking' its food. Trout especially are very susceptable to flash and bright hues. Remember that lots of anglers catch trout without resort to a fly rod, and things like spinners, spoons, glowing eggs, and bright colored dough baits are the top producers for them. NONE of these things look anything like a natural trout food. And you can take it as a fact that a ball of bright orange power bait will catch more fish overall than a highly detailed stonefly nymph.

Many fly tiers get caught up in the classics, or the established patterns, thinking that somehow the evolution of tying is a bad thing. Even the simplest tie, if presented properly, will catch fish. My experience is that simplifying patterns and adding some bright colors or flash is way more effective on selective fish than a detailed 'imitation'.


I'm sure others feel differently. That's okay too.

Buddy

[Byron haugh]

IMO you are not correct. I fish almost exclusively with the old standard patterns with the exception of sparkle duns and the use of CDC on some patterns.. The rivers I fish are Blue Ribbon in the west and N.E. I have been fishing for about forty years and I really don't see any difference today than back in the day.

Narc,
If you were right, I believe the fly shops out west would primarily offer the "old standard patterns". Being an avid tier who hangs out a lot in the big fly shops in the West - around Yellowstone Park, I can tell you, you will not find a lot of the "old standard patterns". Believe me, if there wasn't much change between now and 40 yrs ago, everyone would be using Sandy Mites, Wulfs, and Catskill style dries. You won't find any of these offered in the fly shops out there today. I know, as I have looked.

[Byron haugh]

Buddy,
This is what you said, in part:
"However, remember that those older tyers didn't have the materials and resources we do now. If Lee Wulff was here today, I doubt he'd be tying and fishing the same flies he fished during his era. As a pioneer in his time, if he were born in ours he'd be on the cutting edge trying the 'new stuff'. So would Carrie Stevens and Jack Dennis (one of my favorites mostly BECAUSE he did experiment a lot), et. al.."

This is what I said:
"A few years ago, I concluded that a lot of the flies they tied would not be as effective these days. For three reasons:
1. The year after year; and increasing each year; fishing pressure on the streams and trout.
2. The application of "relatively" recent understanding of insects, their behavior, etc.
3. The development of new materials"

My entire point is that the Wulfs, Sandy Mites, Hendricksons, etc. are no longer relied upon. And, believe me, if they worked as well today, that's what the guides would be putting on their clients' lines. It is not. They use hopper/droppers (with tiny flashback nymphs), sparkle duns, etc.
And I agree totally that Lee Wulf and even Franz Potts would be tying different flies today!! My point exactly!!!!

[flybugpa]

this is exactly why i fish almost exclusively softhackles over heavily fished c+r waters here and out west on the rivers you fish twice a year. I will hook almost every rising fish i cast to on a soft hackle , my thinking behind this is that the fish have not become educated enough to to point of rejecting what i am presenting to them. your mileage may vary

[Rick Z]

I think that the old patterns would work as well as ever. Part of the problem may be that folks are looking for the new and greatest thing to help them catch fish.
We all know thgazt a new pattern will catch fish better. Is it presentation or the pattern? Some patterns work better than other on certain days.Still using somepattern that I did when I started fly fising.

Rick

[NJTroutbum]

I still fish the crap out of the old classics. Each fly hs it's place. when I'm fishing pocket water and the likes I fish Wulffs, Humpies, EHC's....etc almost exclusively. I agree with the changing of materials offered being an ever changing thing. Which is a good thing, as many of them "enhance" those classics. But I doubt the trout are any "smarter". Many waters are fished heavier maybe. I have found, that the closer you get to looking "exactly" like the bug with new materials....the less effective the fly becomes. Just my thoughts.

[tigfly]

Byron, I really like your flytying posts and the great discussions that they become. As far as old flies that still work, I am willing to bet that nearly any flyshop in the country sells an Elk Hair Caddis, Adams, or some form of Comparadun (40 yrs. old pattern?) right next to their new creations. The old wet flies seem to be making a comeback of sorts also. That is not to say that the newer patterns and materials haven't increased or added to our success, such as Chernobyl ant style flies, beadheads, etc. I am happy to fish whatever works regardless of pedigree.

[flybugpa]

exactly , most new materials catch the eye of the tyer far quicker than they do of a fish