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