I wanted to comment on some of the posts about Gary LaFontaine, but they were on a thread that wasn’t specifically about him, so I didn’t want to offend the person who started that thread by hijacking.
Some of LaFontaine flies are a “little out there” it seems to me, but that was him - on the cutting edge. I had the pleasure of meeting him a couple of times and found him to be really a great guy. He was truly full of enthusiasm for the sport. Not just a great tier and innovator, but a great fisherman. Who knows what he might have offered us had he lived beyond his relatively young age.
I think his work “Caddisflies” alone would have made him sort of a giant amongst authors and researchers amongst fly fishers. But, he went on to write so much more and explore so much more - even to the point of his underwater observations of trout and their reactions to fly patterns.
Anyway, it reminded me to look at the flies I have of his. I think I could take these out of the shadow box and catch some fish today.
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and I saw nothing disrespectful from that post. I have had success with some of his flies, and not much with others. That being said, I 100% agree with you on his studies with Caddisflies.
If someone loves all of his patterns, it’s OK. If someone thinks his patterns are junk, it’s OK too.
I just wanted to honor his efforts and research into the subjects of trout, fly fishing and fly tying to catch trout.
When you read his books, he provides rationale for his patterns. He explains why he dresses the flies as he does which I find refreshing…whether I agree with his conclusions or not.
I think he misunderstood the “I didn’t want to offend …” part of you post.
I agree 100% with your assessment of GF – a giant among authors and researchers. I also agree that some of his patterns are just a bit too far out there for my tastes.
He was working on a book exclusively on Baetis when he got sick. I can only imagine or maybe I can’t what would of been written in that book. Truly a great fly inventor and as Byron said he had a tremendous amount of energy about fly fishing and tying.
Gene
Red,
You may be right about Cheech’s response. I thought I was pretty clear that I didn’t want to “hijack” a thread NOT about LaFontaine and offend the author of that thread by going on about my thoughts concerning LaFontaine, but thought better to start a new thread.
I personally would not tie or fish some of his patterns, but have sure learned a lot about trout behavior and insects from his work. I also developed a new way of observing flies from some of his explanations of critical thinking about patterns and what they impart to the trout when on the water.
Here’s a very brief example. The Sparkle Dun is probably my favorite dry fly of all patterns/styles.
In this excerpt, Gary is talking instead about it’s sister, the Compara Dun, but, in just a few words, he explains why the pattern may be so successful:
Byron, I remember meeting Gary at Bennett Spring. He was the main guest/speaker at one of the early conclaves they had at Bennett. Must have been at least 20 years ago. He was an interesting guy.
Dave,
I was fishing there that week. My friend and I were in the dining lodge having dinner and I saw Gary and a bunch of fellows also having dinner there. Charlie Reading, a long-time friend invited me to join the table and I did. Was a pleasant evening. Small world??
A couple weeks ago, I met and fished with a guy from Pennsylvania who told me that LaFontaine’s fly “The Mess” was one of his go-to patterns. I remembered reading about that pattern a number of years ago in one of LaFontaine’s books, but never tied or used it myself, as I thought it was a bit “out there”.
A day or so after I first met that guy from PA, he fished Depuy’s spring creek for a day. Afterwards, I saw him, and asked how he did fishing there. He said The Mess was one of his most successful flies that day, and accounted for his best fish.
Here is a photo of the photo in LaFontaine’s book. I think the photo is credited to Doug Olooney, and I presume it was tied by LaFontaine or at least to his specs.
The space between the “reverse hackle collar” and the hook eye seems different from the illustration in his book, but, it’s his book.
I am a big fan of LaFontaine’s Duck butt dun. I tie it with a biot body but that fly catches more fish for me than any other. Of course a regular old sparkle dun may do just as good, but I like his CDC tails.
He details that pattern in his 1993 book “Trout Flies-Proven Patterns”.
He says that he tried several shuck materials including Antron. Says he rejected Antron as being too bright for a mayfly shuck.
I am not sure of the timing of this fly compared to Craig Matthews and John Jureck 's Sparkle Dun? I think Matthews Sparkle Dun came about during the late 80’s - early 90’s. Not sure about the date of origin for the Duck Butt Dun, although it is in the 93 book.
I find it quite interesting, though, that my recollection is that Matthews selected Zelon for just the opposite reason. As I recall, when they were crossing a fence on the Henry’s Fork, he and Jureck glanced back at an eddy and saw “glistening” material on the water which was determined to be the shucks of crippled mayflies on the water. So, they selected Zelon for its sparkle…just the opposite of LaFontaine’s thinking.
Certainly, both patterns have proven themselves. I would guess that the Sparkle Dun has been the more popular overall…??
Very cool to hear some of the history of the fly Byron. I will have to pick up that book. To me the main advantage of the sparkle dun is durability as I have had those CDC fibers break off, especially after a few trouts teeth have tangled with it. And if I am fishing rougher, faster water I will often choose the sparkle dun. But on lower gradient streams, and the spring creeks that I mostly fish I definitely prefer the more subtle shuck that the Duck butt dun provides.
I also tie my X-Caddis with a CDC shuck. The Duck Butt X-Caddis if you will. It works well.
A Duck Butt Dun I tied this morning, trying to stay “true” to his instructions.
[
V](http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/byhaugh/media/IMG_6061_zps7688e3bd.jpg.html)ery simple, short instructions of his. However, one intriguing thing I find in them is the length of the trailing fibers. In nearly every other similar pattern I have found, the trailing material is shorter. Perhaps, he intended it to be tail fibers PLUS shuck material…He does say not to try to even the fibers…
Has the bubble caddis been photographed in detail yet? You know, the “trigger” that makes trout attack caddis pupa? I heard a photo in a california lake was taken a few years ago.
](
