input on pattern

[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..............

[Silver Creek]

I'll give John the benefit of the doubt. Its hard to tell what someone means on-line without an emoticon in the post. The reply could be interpreted as tongue in cheek.


Looking at the fly, I don't know what natural it is imitating, but an opportunistic fish could take it as some sort of flying insect. Trout take polypro yarn strike indicators so it would not suppose me if a trout took this fly.


I'm not as certain as Allan on one point. I'm not sure that the fly will helicopter. The wings are not solid, but are of wood duck or mallard flank feather barbules so so they are not a solid airfoil. I say cast it and see if the fly spins.

[ScottP]

First thing I thought of was that it looks like the Easter Bunny, especially the front-on view; from the top it reminds me of an Irresistible on crystal meth. Second thought was it would be a killer bluegill pattern (although I'd never spend that much time at the vise on a bluegill fly). It would be interesting to hear how many different fish you do catch on it.


Regards,
Scott

[moonlitflies]

Now I'm no expert and have no idea what the Blue Gill Bomber is, but I would guess that it would work for trout as a Bee imitation. I have a friend who fishs bee imitations frequently and does well with them. It is a rather interesting pattern. Maybe some day I will decide to get a picture of a variation of the Adams pattern I have tied on here to get a bit of feedback. Happy FISHING to everyone this Easter weekend.

Brandon

[Buddy Sanders]

Spoof,

It would certainly take bluegills, and if tied a bit larger it's a decent pattern for smallmouth.

Most trout would eat it, if it's presented properly. Tied small, maybe a 16 or 18, it woulld be an effective nymph in most faster streams. On the really fast pocket water stream I prefer to fish, it would work as tied, but I'd probably add some weight to it.

I really like the tail, and the spread out wings just look 'edible' to my eyes. I'd keep the body as is for 'gills, widen it for bass, and maybe slim it a bit for trout.

I don't carp fish much, but it might do well for them, too.

Keep at it Spoof, you are on the right track. Remember, this is just fly tying. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'. Tie what an how you like.

Doesn't have to look like a bug, or anything else, it just has to look like food to the fish. I think sticking with 'established' patterns is the best way to become mediocre at the bench (which, if you've been here a while, is rather obvious). Experiment, that's how all the 'established' patterns were created in the first place.

Buddy