I don’t know how many of you read the UK magazine ‘Trout & Salmon’ but there has been a very interesting article in the June 2005 edition. It is by Mike Daunt and is very critical of the craze for the exotic feathered salmon flies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I won’t go into details except that his condemnation of Francis Francis is very savage. The last sentence in the article is - “The story of the salmon fly merely goes to prove the old adage that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Francis may have been an essentially decent man but he was also living proof that power demands responsibility.”
I recently worked for a large forest products company that had in the head office a nice shadow box display of some really magnificent classic Atlantic Salmon flies. I can’t remember who tyed them, but they were works of art.
When I mentionned to the VP that all the flies had multiple parts from some very rare birds, they auctionned off the set and gave the money to Ducks Unlimited. Times change. Happily sometimes.
People who judge past events, by what is todays standards of conduct for acceptable behavior, will not learn the lessons that History teaches us! So said a wonderful teacher of History, that I had the pleasure of learning from.
Or how about “That was then, this is now!”?
Maybe the Golden Rule, about “Not speaking ill of the dead!”.
Before you complain about the splinter in the other person’s eye, remove the log lodged in yours…
Not really interested in reading something written by a person who does not have a grip on reality, and how to seperate past events from current events. ~Parnelli
[This message has been edited by Steven H. McGarthwaite (edited 08 June 2005).]
Well Steven, how can you judge the article if you are not willing to read it. I am a great believer in checking the evidence. I did not say that I necessarily agreed with everything in it myself.
There is a lot more to the article than the attack on Francis Francis. I can send you the article and then decide, nothing in the past or present is immutable. I did not wish to put it on the BB for copywrite reasons.
Donald/Scotland
[This message has been edited by Donald Nicolson (edited 09 June 2005).]
I was just going on your critic of the article, where you mention…"It is by Mike Daunt and is very critical of the craze for the exotic feathered salmon flies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The last sentence in the article is - “The story of the salmon fly merely goes to prove the old adage that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Francis may have been an essentially decent man but he was also living proof that power demands responsibility.” "
Donald, I consider you a close friend, even though we have never met, and live on opposite sides of the Alantic Ocean. I have never disagree with your idea and thoughts on anything you post or have sent me.
As such, when you mention the harshness this Mike Duant wrote about time and people that cannot defend themselves or their good name, I have no interest in reading such tripe. I trust your judgement on the person’s character, and find it lacking. I mean what I say and say what I mean! There is so much good stuff to read, I don’t need to waste my time reading someones article, attempting to destroying someone else good name.
You cannot judge past events, and hisory, by todays standards. You do not speak ill of the dead. Learn from history, but move on and look forward to how things can be improved, and look inward on how you can change things that you do that effect others.
I detest those who beat someone down, just to elevate themselves…special those who pick on those who are no longer here to defend their good name, such as Francis Francis.
~Parnelli
[This message has been edited by Steven H. McGarthwaite (edited 12 June 2005).]
The article is a good summary of how the extravagant salmon flies became popular in the 1800’s. The author, Mike Daunt, accuses Francis Francis of abusing his “power” as fishing editor of The Field to promote these unnecessary fancy flies which use the feathers from rare endangered birds. He cites the recent success of hair wing salmon flies to infer that the older patterns were probably as effective as the fancy new flies. While he admits that Francis Francis “may have been an essentially decent man…” Mike Daunt believes that Francis Francis acted primarily to enhance his social position, and personal power.
I have 3 thoughts about the article.
While other authors of the period (Halford, Theodore Gordon) believed that new patterns were necessary because trout were more “educated,” I find it hard to believe that salmon (most of which spawn once) would grow “tired of” old drab patterns! On the other hand, the use of color and contrast in the new patterns may have increased catches at times. Modern hairwing salmon fishermen still report that one pattern or color may outfish another on a particular day.
Mike Daunt gives no evidence of Francis Francis’ supposed character defects. The fact that Francis Francis was successful in his career and highly regarded is not enough to convince me that he misled the fishing public intentionally or through willful neglect. Francis Francis strikes me like other authors I have met - passionate, opinionated and a lot of fun to be around!
Use of feathers from endangered species was a failing of the times. While fly tying was probably less important to the feather trade than women’s hats, there seemed to be no sense of responsibility for the preservation of rare species.
Happily sometimes. 