Inventor of No-Hackle Flies

[bones]

Sorry to burst all your bubbles. insofar as 'inventor of no-hackles'. If you have or can get your hands on the book, Quill Gordon, by J. McDonald, take a look at the plates following page 52. You'll see over a dozen flies tied without the use of hackles. These no hackle flies were painted based on the patterns described in the book, The Treatise of Fishing with an Angle by Dame Juliana Berners. This work from the 1400s easily predates the idea that the 'no hackle' is a product of modern fly fishing.

Allan

Allan... are we talking dry patterns that use no hackle or the "popular" pattern that uses a duck quill wing?

[Allan]

Harry,

I'd be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head if I were to even try and guess what the fly fishers in the 1400s were thinking insofar as the recipes for patterns or whether the flies were fished wet, dry or both. The work of Berners apparently describes the patterns and the illustrations provided in paintings are tyed per her descriptions. Back then did the tyers or fly fishers adhere to a specific recipe or use what was available? What do you think?
"are we talking dry patterns that use no hackle or the "popular" pattern that uses a duck quill wing? "
I think if you read the authors descriptions of the flies she mentions and look at the illustrations you can judge for yourself and draw your own conclusion(s).

Allan

[bones]

makes sense...got to find a copy of the book...

[jszymczyk]

There is nothing truly NEW in fly tying, just different ways of achieving the same results. No matter what someone does and writes about, someone has already done it. We may come up with new synthetic materials once in a while, that's about it.

I've seen no-hackle dry flies tied in western Pennsylvania in the 1940s. The old timer who had them simply said he didn't have any decent hackle at that time, so he just tied them without. They worked well and still do.

[bones]

this is my question; are we talking about a specific pattern called a "No Hackle" or a general group of flies that have no "Hackles"?

[Allan]

bones,

Since the Haystack and Comparadun were mentioned in a couple of the first posts, I'm guessing that the conversation had to do with the general group of dry flies that did not use hackle rather than a pattern name. That's only how I read the thread. Others may have a different interpretation.

Allan

[JeffHamm]

Hi Byron,

Thanks for that Jeff. Would like to see how well such flies would float out on big Western rivers. As to Dame julianne in a previous post, I don't think historians are sure that her recipes were for dry flies or wet flies or "dabbing" flies. In any case, I rather doubt they would fare very well out on some of our rivers as true "dry flies".........

Halford's view of trout fishing was primarily shapred by the English chalk streams, although he suggested his ideas would transfer to more turbulent streams and burns of Scotland as well. Keeping the historic context in mind, the English clubs basically had stretches of a river for their exclusive use - and that was pretty much it. So if you were a trout fisherman, and could afford to be in a club, you had access to the club waters. The clubs made rules about what was considered sporting, or the proper way to fish. The "proper way" wasn't necessarily the way that produced the fullest creel either. In fact, some fly patterns were banned from use by some clubs because they caught too many fish (The "butcher" and the "alexandria" were both banned at one time or another). Fishing wasn't a solitary pursuit in the sense that you went out and "did your own thing", it was an activity that had social status connected to it (club membership) and there were social norms that were to be met (were you sporting or just a fish hog, etc). If you look at some of the comments on the board, you will see that these are still around in various modes today (how many times are there disparaging comments made about "worm dunkers", etc?) Anyway, one of the "rules" was that you were not to cast to a fish until you found a rising fish and still, you first had to determined what it was feeding on, and then you had to use an immitation of that food source. If the fish was feeding on nymphs on the bottom, too bad for you, move on to find a riser. No casting to "likely looking lies", etc. It was about stalking and finding a particular fish, and casting to it with a proper immitation. So, of course, a pattern didn't have to float all day. Also, the various hare's ear patterns would be for use in quite smooth stretches, where the fly would sit low in the surface film. If it got water logged, you just tied on a new one, etc.

These rules, though, make some sense. With the club rules usually stating you had to keep every fish you caught (with the belief that a released fish would simply not take a fly ever again), and with limited water available, it was a way to prevent over fishing. Also, like any sport, it is succeeding within the constraints of the rules that is often viewed as being the most admirable. It's like not being allowed to pass the ball forward in rugby. It may seem odd to those used to North American Football (called grid iron in New Zealand), but different rules for different sports. Trout fishing was, in the UK clubs, subject to similar club rules.

Anyway, I wouldn't suggest these patterns for rough water (just use a nymph version), but if you know of some nice glides or pools, where there are often fish sipping off the surfance, these are worth a try. A gentle presentation is required, as if they slap down they go under. This is all about presentation, as the idea is to hook up on the first drift.

- Jeff

[Byron haugh]

I must say, this popular refrain: "nothing is new in fly tying" rings hollow for me. Between 1960 and 1975, the modern comparadun was developed. Then, with Mathews and Juracheck's replacement of zelon for the split tails, we have the sparkle dun. Now, I would venture to wager that the sparkle dun is used by more fishermen than any other mayfly dry fly pattern on today's streams and rivers (particularly our western ones).

The pattern floats like a cork, has a good sillouhette and has that trailing shuck enticement that trout seem to love. Without modern photo equipment and insect entomology, the tiers would probably not have come up with that concept.

Anyway, at some point things are "new". Even the earliest historical tiers came up with something "new" or we would have nothing. Today's science and new materials are allowing "new" flies all the time (in my opinion)

So, tiers, keep trying new things. To admit that nothing "new" can be developed is quite defeatist, in my opinion.

[jszymczyk]

Byron, I believe you misread the remainder of my post. It's the popularization or marketing of a "NEW" pattern by an author, guide, or celebrity which we're talking about. Substituting one material for another (z-lon for split fibers) then writing about it or having it written about, is that really new? I suppose it's all semantics, and I wouldn't be able to effectively argue the point. The "modern comparadun" was pretty much given a catchy name and written up during the 60s and 70s, but there is no question a comparable style of fly existed long before then. Absolutely continue trying different and "new" ideas or solutions to problems, but it's very difficult to know who did what first... Even something as effective and now universal as the Clouser Deep Minnow, Bob Clouser was far from the first person to put weighted eyes on a streamer. It had been done in different places and with different methods for decades. He certainly refined the methodology, Lefty wrote about it in a national publication, and a legend was born. So much so, that now nearly any type of bucktail or streamer with weighted eyes is commonly referred to as a "Clouser" even though it's not.

[Byron haugh]

Again...........the comparadun with split tails was designed and tied to represent a mayfly dun. The substitution of zelon (a very significant change to the pattern from split tails) was done to represent a hatching dun with the trailing shuck. That was a significant change to the pattern and done to recognize a previously overlooked insect stage in fly tying. Quite a big change to remove split tails and replace with the zelon material - IMHO.