Inventor of No-Hackle Flies

All about flies Fly Tying
1

Hi,

I sometimes think that Doug Swisher and Carl Richards do not get the credit they deserve. I think most of us credit Mike Lawson for the “no-hackle” fly (He perhaps made them most popular); and others with the Comparadun - perhaps even Craig Mathews (although he replaced split tails with a Zelon “shuck” to form the Sparkle Dun).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Swisher and Richards deserve a lot of the credit for popular flies sans hackle. Before I get blasted, I should note that Fran Betters is credited with having invented the “haystack” which preceded the comparadun. Or, should the credit be given to Caucci and Nastasi as most writers do - their book “Hatches” was published in 1970? I have seen a photo of a fly tied by Swisher which purports to have been his pattern as early as the mid-60’s and the fly looks like the comparadun except that it used split deer hair for the tails.

What Doug Swisher himself says about the origin of the comparadun:

I’m constantly being asked about the history of fly patterns so I thought I’d use this part of the website to cover some of the more important milestones, most of which happened in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s. Even though there are many more books being written nowadays, most of the original ideas were spawned 30 to 40 years ago. The year 1965 seemed to kick everything off’

The first No-Hackle Fly – 1965
Swisher & Richards – AuSable River
Hair Wing --Split Tails
Between 1965 and 1966, the tails were made of hair or hackle fibers, either clumped or split with thread and the wings were made of hair or hen hackle fibers, either clumped or spread from waterline to waterline. Carl and I simply called it a Hairwing or Henfiber No-Hackle. Years later, someone else “re-invented” it and called it a Comparadun.

This is a duck wing No Hackle Doug tied.

2

You have to be excellent to tie the duck wing no hackle correctly.

The problem is that the wings must be perfectly symetrical or the wings spin the fly. The result is a twisted leader. I think that is why this fly is not as popular as the comparadun. Because it has caught fish for me that parachutes and sparkel/comparduns could not, I save mine for very special fish.

3

Yes, it is hard to tie correctly. And, the wings soon become frayed. However, if nothing else will attract that sipping trout, often it will.
Of course, the comparadun is also a “no hackle” dry fly.

4

i may be wrong , but i think fran betters came up with his haystacks and usual patterns in the 50’s. the first time i walked into his shop was in 67, and he was pushing the haystacks series pretty hard at that time, and it seemed to be pretty well established among the locals

5

Yes, I said that Fran Betters is credited with the haystack before the comparadun was developed

6

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

7

Thanks for the insight. Have not looked yet. Those are dries, I presume?

Perhaps all of us should have said: development of popular no hackle patterns in the last 500 years.
I don’t think many folks were fishing the Dame’s patterns or the guys we cited would not have needed to come up with their patterns…

8

The UK has always had a popular dry fly, the Hare’s Ear, which was tied without hackle. Very popular in the 1800s and early 1900s. I think it remains known to this day. Although many of us know the gold ribbed hare’s ear as a nymph, the original dry was tied with wings, and no hackle. The guard hairs were tied in as a thorax and picked out to suggest legs, and to provide flotation in substitute of hackle feathers. It was considered a must have on the Test I believe? Anyway, no hackle dries have been around a long time. They just didn’t catch on in North America until really made popular through the mags by Swisher and Richards.

  • Jeff
9

Hi,
So, not being able to rely on memory I’ve just had a look in my digital copy of

Floating Flies and how to dress them. By Frederic M. Halford.1886 (which can be foundin various archive sites for free as it’s out of copywrite).

And Halford lists 3 variations of the Hare’s Ear dryfly, which was tied without a hackle. The hare’s fur was used as an “imitation hackle”, in that this was whatprovided the floatation rather than a cock hackle. I had a very quick glance through thedressings and didn’t find any others.
Anyway, with Halford publishing this in 1886, andwith him being the instigator of the “dry fly purist school”, I think it’spretty well documented that dry flies without hackles have been around for sometime. Note too, that pattern 22 is justdescribed as “Ogden’s original pattern”, Odgen being James Ogden. So, here’s what Halford describes :

  1. Hare’s Ear Quill
    Wings. Pale or medium starling.
    Body. Peacock quill, dyed in No. VIII.
    Legs. Hare fleck (from outside shoulder of thehare).
    Whisk. White or pale yellow cock’s beard hackle,dyed in No. II.
    Hook. O, oo or ooo.

A very good summer pattern of pale olive. In dressing this fly, wing as usual: spin thehare fleck between the ends of a short length of pale yellow tying-silk, aspreviously described (p. 12), fasten this to the shank of the hook like anordinary hackle, then proceed to bind in whisk and quill for body; work andfasten in body, holding the hare-fleck hackle in the pliers; take three or fourturns of it at the shoulder close behind the wings ; secure the end of thisimitation hackle, carry tying-silk between the turns of it to the head; wherefinish and varnish. Arrange, and ifnecessary, pick out the hare-fleck with the dubbing-needle to form legs.
(found on pages 83-84).

Later, on pages 89 and 90, he has:
22. Hare’s Ear.
Wings. Pale starling.
Body. Pale primrose silk.
Legs. The lightest fur from a hare’s face spun onpale yellow tying-silk, and worked as a hackle.
Whisk. Fouror five strands of a ginger cock’s-beard hackle.
Hook. o, oo or ooo

Ogden’s original pattern.

  1. Gold-Ribbed Hare’s Ear.
    Wings. Medium or pale starling.
    Body and Legs. The body is formed of dark fur from a hare’s face, ribbed withfine flat gold, and the hare’s fur picked out at shoulder to form legs.
    Whisk. Red cock’s beard hackle.
    Hook. o or oo.

This is probably the most killing pattern of thepresent day in the Test and other chalk-streams; in fact, one of the mostskilful and successful anglers in the county of Hants scarcely ever uses anyother dun, from the opening of the season in March until the closing of theriver. It is equally efficacious fortrough and grayling.

And that ends Halford’s information. Also, Steve posted a thread on this awhile back hoping to revive some interest in the pattern.

  • Jeff
10

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”…

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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.

15

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”?

16

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

17

Hi Byron,

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
18

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.

19

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.

20

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.