We need to figure a way of intergrating the egg industry and the fly tying material industry. We would have low cost soft hackle material forever. I was amazed to learn, while visiting an egg producing facility, that the entire chicken is wasted once a layer goes past their prime. I would have thought at least the meat was harvested for dog and cat food but the management indicated the cost benefit was too low for them to consider doing that.Originally Posted by DUB
Want to hear God laugh? Tell him Your plans!!!
After re-reading La Fontaine's book several years ago, I started applying Frog's Fanny to the Deep Sparkle Emerger. It seemed to make it a little more successful in stillwater but didn't seem to make any difference in moving water. Using it allowed me to use different types of yarn I happened to have on hand instead of just the La Fontaine yarn I had purchased from The Bookmailer. It makes most any material hold air bubbles for a while. But, again, didn't seem to help in moving water.
Joe
Joe,
Emergent sparkle pupa or deep sparkle pupa?
Hi, Byron,
I really meant both of them. I guess I combined the two with "Deep Sparkle Emerger". Sorry.
Joe
I never had any luck with the La Fontaine caddis flies. Even at the height of a Grannom hatch I was killing them on a wet fly. I put on a La Fontaine emerger and I had just a couple takes in a about 30 minutes. I have a mess of them tied and I still carry them with me. I try them now and then and I just can't interest the fish. Maybe my flies are tied poorly? I can't figure it out.
They are a frustrating tie for me. I always picture them with a perfect veil spread 360 degrees around the hook and looking like an air bubble around the body while still in the vise. Mine never turn out that way. I imagine the fish don't mind, but it frustrates me and maybe the fish really do mind.
Joe
I never did either. In the mid 80's, maybe early 90's the local fly shops loaded their bins with the lafontaine patterns. Took about a year or so and something new and improved replaced them as is usually the case.
Made me wonder. If a pattern has to have such a specific material, to be a success, is it really that great of a flie? It is for some, and not for others. I suppose that's what makes this sport fun.
Byron,
The "blended method" I mentioned was developed by Eric Slagle. It appeared in an article in FLY TYER Magazine - Spring 2006, ppgs. 20-29.He calls it " a contemporary revision" of the original GLF pattern.
EXAMPLE:
Ginger Sparkle Pupa
Dubbing:
One-half squirrel belly Antron
One-half light cahill Superfine Dubbing
Veil:
One-half cahill cream Antron
One-eighth squirrel belly Antron
One-eighth golden stone Antron
One quarter white Antron
I never had much success with this pattern until I tied up a bunch using this method:
...on the desk...
..on the River...
...result...
PT/TB
Daughter to Father, "How many arms do you have, how many fly rods do you need?"
http://planettrout.wordpress.com/
The Results. I didn't need 4 synthetic materials just for a veil, or scuba gear to figure the fish were on caddis.
They even work in the middle of January.
I suppose the only thing the photos prove is, I target fish with below average IQ's, with patterns (SH's) that were tied with the same materials (hackles and dubbing) that have been lashed to hooks for hundreds of years.
I like synthetics as much if not more than the next guy. However, it is nice to know that I dont have to rely on a chemist at the Dupont factory to keep me supplied in material. All I need is a chicken farmer!
Planet,
Nice looking box of flies! Thanks for the information. I was not aware of the Slagle suggested changes. I enjoy learning through these posts. I have used Dave Whitlock's SLF (antron and squirrel) dubbing for the body on mine.
Thanks again,
Byron
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
