input on pattern

[spoof85]

anyone know what kind of fish this would be good for? i was just messing around and came up with this... tie it, try it, let me know!
DSCN1518.jpgDSCN1519.jpgDSCN1520.jpgDSCN1523.jpg

hook: size 10 nymph

thread: 8 black

tail: parrot wing (not sure what kind my wife brings me wing clipping from the animal hospital)

body: tan marabou

wing: white mallard flank

hackle: badger saddle hackle


it should probably be made on a smaller hook, this one is about 1" long, 1/2" high, bout 3/4" wide.... good size for pictures though!

sincerely, (and sorry for not being on lately)
spoof

PS- if this pattern resembles another fly anyone saw somewhere, let me know!!

[DUB]

Go try it on your local fish and let us know how it does.

[JohnScott]

anyone know what kind of fish this would be good for? !

Blind, dumb, and starving would be a start.

[Betty Hiner]

John, I find your answer to be highly insulting, and totally out of line.

That fly would be very effective on trout, and most panfish. May be our trout here aren't quite as marvelous as yours there, or the insects as grand, but that fly would "fly" here! Nice tye, spoof!

PS. The parrot biot makes incredible flies! Two toned and ruffled. Trouts love them!

[fish4trout]

Blind, dumb, and starving would be a start.

Was that really necessary?

[Allan]

Was that really necessary?

Guys,

I don't know where your sense of humor is? Misplaced in the cold before you can get to fish perhaps? The question posed was one that always requires the same answer. That is, the subscript line that John has as part of his signature, "The fish are always right."

I take that to mean, the fish are the ultimate arbitors and we can only guess at what will work at any given time and under what conditions. So his humorous answer makes perfect sense and it's your criticism that's uncalled for.

Allan

[fish4trout]

Guys,

I don't know where your sense of humor is? Misplaced in the cold before you can get to fish perhaps? The question posed was one that always requires the same answer. That is, the subscript line that John has as part of his signature, "The fish are always right."

I take that to mean, the fish are the ultimate arbitors and we can only guess at what will work at any given time and under what conditions. So his humorous answer makes perfect sense and it's your criticism that's uncalled for.

Allan

I dont have a problem with the signature. His other comment is totally uncalled for. I dont know the OP and I am not sure if he is new or not but if I was new and sombody made a comment like that I would tell him kick rocks (probably something a bit stronger) and never come back. There is a huge difference between constructive critisism and just being a jerk with a snide remark.

[Allan]

fish4trout,

I don't know the OP (as you put it) and don't know the other posters. The OP has had 51 posts so maybe he has a feel for the types of responses. Personally, when I read John Scott's post I thought that he was basically expressing the humorous fact that no one really knows. So, to the OP, try it. Let us know when, under what conditions(water, weather, sun/overcast, etc.), how'd it do, etc., and maybe, just maybe you'll know if, when and why that fly pattern works.

Okay, to comment on the fly itself:

- Hook looks and is described as much too heavy to use for a dry fly, although that seems to be what's tyed.
- Wings look as if they will 'helicopter' and destroy the tippet.
- Tail may not balance the hook bend.
- Body much too large in diameter.

Not that any of my comments matter one iota insofar as fish catching. I'm only giving my own and personal visual impression.

So that's my 'constructive criticism'.

Allan

[JohnScott]

I dont have a problem with the signature. His other comment is totally uncalled for. I dont know the OP and I am not sure if he is new or not but if I was new and sombody made a comment like that and would tell him kick rocks (probably something a bit stronger) and never come back. There is a huge difference between constructive critisism and just being a jerk with a snide remark.

... the comment was called for. spoof85 asked a question and I gave a candid, honest answer. ( It also occurred to me that he might be looking to change his name to spoof86. You can find a definition of "spoof" in the dictionary. )

In the for what it is worth category, I'm on record on the Bulletin Board a number of times as only fishing for colorblind, nearsighted, dumb and hungry fish. I'm also on record on this Forum as prefering to see flies posted after they have been fished and proven that they will catch fishies.

John

So .... were you spoofing or not, spoof85 ???

[Byron haugh]

No comment on the thrust of these postings. I don't want to offend anyone.
One thing though that John Scott said that I disagree with and don't think I will offend anyone by responding to it. The preference that fly patterns should be "proven" patterns. I don't know about others, but, I for one, tie much more than I am able to fish. Tying is a real hobby for me. I only get to spend about 28 days a year on the stream. I live in Hawaii and it is a LLOOONNNGGG trip to the Henry's Fork from here. So, I can only afford 2 trips each summer.
But, I tie about every day. I study insects (from books, internet, and when I fish). I like to tie experimental patterns and share them with others to get feedback. The internet is a great tool for this sharing of potential new patterns for specific purposes.
So, I intend to continue posting flies that I may not have had the opportunity to test on the stream..............