From below fish can see a pattern of dimples on the surface formed by the feet of the insect, they often key in on these dimples, hackle can represent these dimples.
To see if I understood correctly: Are you suggesting (stating?) that on a freshly hatched dun the insect’s feet are the only parts of its body that touch the surface, with the remainder (body and tails) elevated above the water surface?
I am not aware of any argument. Not looking for one, nor indeed could I even consider whether I agree, or disagree, until I know what is being suggested.
Let’s wait for JC to wake up, and see if he likes to chime in.
Hans:
Just suggesting that since Vincent Marinaro, was a close personnal friend of JC’s, and JC was involve in the editing of Vincent’s " In The Ring of The Rise", that JC would be the best to know about this.
If you took a barb from a feather the soft end would be flexable, yet if it is cut, a sharp edge would be created, this could/would penetrate the surface film of the water easier, than the soft hackle barb tip. Just a logical explaination to the Thorax style fly created by Vincent Marinaro.
Since Vincent is no longer alive to comment, who better to state the case then JC? Who was a friend to Vincent, and Vincent was a mentor to JC!
I understand about sharp or flexible barbs. Where my curiosity lies is how the freshly hatched dun is positioned on/in the surface. More directly: whether the insect rests on the film with only the ‘soles’ of its feet touching, or whether the body also is in contact with the film. I have heard arguments for both cases, or perhaps both may occur routinely. If there is clear evidence for one or the other, that would be welcome information.
I have read, and re-read, In the Ring of the Rise with interest, but also works such as Clark/Goddard - The Trout and the Fly (1980), which includes stunning underwater images of naturals drifting into the window of the trout.
While both Vince Marinaro and Goddard/Clark came into the subject from a similar angle, not all their conclusions are along the same lines.
Just to bring up another point…as most people know Oliver Edwards is very picky about his flies. He wants them to mimic the natural very closely. [url=http://www.essential-skills.tv/images/gallery/v_06_DryFly/fly_on_vice.jpg:fbcd7]This[/url:fbcd7] is an image of his “Foot Print Dun” which is supposed to imitate the “Foot Print” or “Dimples” a dun creates on the water. Now I am not saying JC does not know about entomology but Oliver who ties some of the most precise fishing flies ever ties this pattern so that body also rests on the water…Hmmmm
“Fly Fishing Can Solve Any Problem”
[This message has been edited by Stonefly Nymph (edited 21 February 2005).]
The theoretical/philosophical discussions do very little for me. There are any number of ‘xspurts’ on both sides of the fence. There are just as many xspurts who believe that wings are important, for whatever reason, as the number who believe they serve no purpose insofar as getting a fish to strike. Until such time as fish talk, who’s to say which xspurt is right?
I will agree with JC on one aspect of his article: The true thorax style takes a while to learn and tie properly. Tyers tend to shy away from them. Same is true of quill winged wet flies, irresistibles, muddlers and some other styles. It’s the difficulty, time and effort that often makes certain flies less popular, much more so than effectiveness.
Very eloquently put…What a beautiful journey it is…I tip my hat to Mr. Marinaro…John G.
"Perhaps his style of tie takes a fly-fisher to far, to fast. Perhaps it robs one of the trip, the venture; for it is that very trip that is in itself it?s own end. Fly fishing is indeed a journey; for those fortunate few, a life-long journey. I started when I was eight.
Once learned, a thing can not be un-learned. One can not go back. Vincent Marinaro took me to the plateau of his peers. For that I am grateful, forever grateful. If you are blessed to find a mentor, you are truly blessed; I was."~James (Castwell) Birkholm
I am a very inexperienced fly fisherman. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from this site. Having grown up in central Pa. in the 60’s I took interest in Vince Marinaro’s books based on the knowledge that I gained from this site. Vince Marinaro conducted years of research based on onsteam time and laboratory experiments at his home. What he presents is theory based on empirical evidence (e.g. obtained by actual experimentation)on how trout see and eat flies from the surface and how their environs affect their actions. The method of tying flies that Mainaro proposed was based on trial and experimentation in his effort to duplicate what the natural looks like to the trout from his research. I think that Marinaro’s conclusions are a simple theory of dry fly fishing. You would not need many differnet dry flies inorder to fish any water anywhere if Marinaro is correct. You are just trying to stimulate an instinctive reaction in what really is a simple minded animal that will behave the same way instinctively given the right stimulus.I think his conclusions would have a negative impact on the flytying industry. I believe that this may be a reason why a lot of people do not give his work much discussion. As I said I have limited flyfishing experience but this is what I think is the summary of Marinaro’s work. Please correrct me, but I think Marinaro proposes simplicity versus 10 fly boxes filled with 200 flies each for the match the hatch philosophy.
I think to a degree you are correct. I value VM’s work deeply. Reading is wonderful and it grows your skills. But just because it is in print does not mean it is 100% accurate.
For sake of discussion (which is healthy ), we cannot truthfully know how a trout “sees” nor can we duplicate the environment in which it lives. A slant tank is just that. Also, obviously not every natural gets eaten. Can’t get any better than a natural.
I insist that there are other factors at work that lead to refusals. I am not prepared to lay it all on the fly. I am positive that I can catch more fish today than I could 10 years ago simply because my angling skills have improved, fly patterns and tying abilities aside. I’m equally positive that I will never catch every fish I present to. I’d have it no other way.
And, if we did ever figure it all out I’d quit the sport.
[This message has been edited by LWilliams (edited 22 February 2005).]
You could certainly ‘handicap’ yourself and not fish any mayflies per Vince, but that still leaves a whole batch of insects he didn’t take to the “inth degree”…how would you approach that?
I took Proper’s statement of not cutting the hackle to mean the equivalent of not cutting the hackle short i.e. at the same level as the hook point. This practice has been advocated by many to ensure the proper “cocking” of the fly.
As for the modern “Thorax” tie with the hackle completely sheared from the bottom, Proper inveighs against this as well, arguing it creates the wrong light pattern.
On the other hand, Proper presented his “Perfect Dun,” which, he argued, created a smilar light pattern to the Marinaro Thorax.
To be honest, I have no idea if this is true and really don’t know why it should have a different light pattern than the modern thorax.
So here’s my question for JC:
JC,
I’m interested in your view of this creation from the vise of Marinaro’s other famous (at least in the flyfishing world) disciple.
Clearly, Proper was neither “too lazy or too inept to tie them [the Marnaro thorax] properly.” Is Proper’s Perfect Dun an abortion?
Thanks,
Steven
(Who has tied and used the Marinaro Thorax pattern successfully, but just can’t seem to get past the fact that they are damn funny looking when they’re not in the water.)
