Old Dogs Still Hunt?

All about flies Fly Tying
1

Hi,
I know this is going to bring me some “hate posts”, but here goes anyway:

First, let me give a little background so you know where I am coming from with this. I grew into fly tying with idols like Lee Wulf, Jack Dennis, Charlie Brooks, etc. I tied their patterns and only wished I could tie as well as they do/did.

A few years ago, I concluded that a lot of the flies they tied would not be as effective these days. For three reasons:

  1. The year after year; and increasing each year; fishing pressure on the streams and trout.
  2. The application of “relatively” recent understanding of insects, their behavior, etc.
  3. The development of new materials

As an example, Lee would cast out a size 10 Wulf and catch a huge trout. I believe, these days, he most probably would have gone home skunked. I know it is sort of a sacrilege to say that, but I tend to think it has a lot of truth to it. The trout are much better educated these days. They see all sort of imitations thrown out there at them. They demand better today.

As a bit of support for my theory, I give you Rene Harrop. A world-renowned tier and fisherman. He offers his flies (for a premium) at the Trout Hunter fly shop in Island Park, Id. There you will find patterns that are beautiful, look very much like the intended insect, and are tied in the appropriate sizes and stages of the insects. The whole fly tying community, including the big warehouses like Umpqua are moving this way.

I firmly believe that if you were able to fish the major blue ribbon streams of 40 years ago, the size and pattern of fly would not be very important. Today, however, I believe it is nearly everything.

Now everything I say assumes that the fisher has good presentation. So, it is a theory which says, all things equal (presentation of the fly), the fisher today must use much closer imitations to the trout’s food than 40-50 years ago.

Thanks for listening, now go ahead and blast me!

2

IMO you are not correct. I fish almost exclusively with the old standard patterns with the exception of sparkle duns and the use of CDC on some patterns… The rivers I fish are Blue Ribbon in the west and N.E. I have been fishing for about forty years and I really don’t see any difference today than back in the day.

3

Byron,

I think that presentation is by far the most important aspect, as you’ve aluded to. However, remember that those older tyers didn’t have the materials and resources we do now. If Lee Wulff was here today, I doubt he’d be tying and fishing the same flies he fished during his era. As a pioneer in his time, if he were born in ours he’d be on the cutting edge trying the ‘new stuff’. So would Carrie Stevens and Jack Dennis (one of my favorites mostly BECAUSE he did experiment a lot), et. al…

I also strongly disagree that “the fisher today must use much closer imitations to the trout’s food than 40-50 years ago.” That’s really the opposite of what I’m seeing out there on the wter. In many ways, the newer materials and flies that are catching fish today are actually LESS imitative than the older patterns. The overwhelming use of flashy stuff, beads, and bright colors in many of the most efffective patterns shows me that ATTRACTING the fish is more important than ‘mimicking’ its food. Trout especially are very susceptable to flash and bright hues. Remember that lots of anglers catch trout without resort to a fly rod, and things like spinners, spoons, glowing eggs, and bright colored dough baits are the top producers for them. NONE of these things look anything like a natural trout food. And you can take it as a fact that a ball of bright orange power bait will catch more fish overall than a highly detailed stonefly nymph.

Many fly tiers get caught up in the classics, or the established patterns, thinking that somehow the evolution of tying is a bad thing. Even the simplest tie, if presented properly, will catch fish. My experience is that simplifying patterns and adding some bright colors or flash is way more effective on selective fish than a detailed ‘imitation’.

I’m sure others feel differently. That’s okay too.

Buddy

4

Narc,
If you were right, I believe the fly shops out west would primarily offer the “old standard patterns”. Being an avid tier who hangs out a lot in the big fly shops in the West - around Yellowstone Park, I can tell you, you will not find a lot of the “old standard patterns”. Believe me, if there wasn’t much change between now and 40 yrs ago, everyone would be using Sandy Mites, Wulfs, and Catskill style dries. You won’t find any of these offered in the fly shops out there today. I know, as I have looked.

5

Buddy,
This is what you said, in part:
“However, remember that those older tyers didn’t have the materials and resources we do now. If Lee Wulff was here today, I doubt he’d be tying and fishing the same flies he fished during his era. As a pioneer in his time, if he were born in ours he’d be on the cutting edge trying the ‘new stuff’. So would Carrie Stevens and Jack Dennis (one of my favorites mostly BECAUSE he did experiment a lot), et. al…”

This is what I said:
"A few years ago, I concluded that a lot of the flies they tied would not be as effective these days. For three reasons:

  1. The year after year; and increasing each year; fishing pressure on the streams and trout.
  2. The application of “relatively” recent understanding of insects, their behavior, etc.
  3. The development of new materials"

My entire point is that the Wulfs, Sandy Mites, Hendricksons, etc. are no longer relied upon. And, believe me, if they worked as well today, that’s what the guides would be putting on their clients’ lines. It is not. They use hopper/droppers (with tiny flashback nymphs), sparkle duns, etc.
And I agree totally that Lee Wulf and even Franz Potts would be tying different flies today!! My point exactly!!!

6

this is exactly why i fish almost exclusively softhackles over heavily fished c+r waters here and out west on the rivers you fish twice a year. I will hook almost every rising fish i cast to on a soft hackle , my thinking behind this is that the fish have not become educated enough to to point of rejecting what i am presenting to them. your mileage may vary

7

I think that the old patterns would work as well as ever. Part of the problem may be that folks are looking for the new and greatest thing to help them catch fish.
We all know thgazt a new pattern will catch fish better. Is it presentation or the pattern? Some patterns work better than other on certain days.Still using somepattern that I did when I started fly fising.

Rick

8

I still fish the crap out of the old classics. Each fly hs it’s place. when I’m fishing pocket water and the likes I fish Wulffs, Humpies, EHC’s…etc almost exclusively. I agree with the changing of materials offered being an ever changing thing. Which is a good thing, as many of them “enhance” those classics. But I doubt the trout are any “smarter”. Many waters are fished heavier maybe. I have found, that the closer you get to looking “exactly” like the bug with new materials…the less effective the fly becomes. Just my thoughts.

9

Byron, I really like your flytying posts and the great discussions that they become. As far as old flies that still work, I am willing to bet that nearly any flyshop in the country sells an Elk Hair Caddis, Adams, or some form of Comparadun (40 yrs. old pattern?) right next to their new creations. The old wet flies seem to be making a comeback of sorts also. That is not to say that the newer patterns and materials haven’t increased or added to our success, such as Chernobyl ant style flies, beadheads, etc. I am happy to fish whatever works regardless of pedigree.

10

exactly , most new materials catch the eye of the tyer far quicker than they do of a fish

11

Possibly because the “old standard patterns” dont catch fishermen as well as the newest, latest and greatest eye-catching patterns do?
I think we over-emphasize fly patterns at times. We like new things and like to think we’re evolving into better, smarter fly tyers and fishermen, when in fact the fish are the same as they were decades ago. I think that’s quite possible.
I’ve had days on the water where a chewed up, ratty-looking fly kept consistently catching fish, even when it hardly resembled the fly it looked like when fresh out of the fly box. But if it had looked that way new, I would have never tied it on. I believe the old traditional patterns are just as effective as they ever were, its just that folks dont fish them like they used to anymore. As fly fishermen, many of us are always on the lookout for the latest-n-greatest to help us catch fish…and there’s nothing wrong with that either I suppose. Hey, it’s fishing…and supposed to be something we do for enjoyment and pleasure, and if that is what makes us enjoy the sport, I say go for it and have fun!

12

Byron,

I respectfully disagree. Presentation is as much a part of fishing as pattern selection; his ability to put the fly where he wanted it, and at distances that a lot of us can still only dream about would allow him to get the fly to many fish in the river we couldn’t touch. He probably wouldn’t tuna-boat them fishing a #10 Wulff like in earlier times, especially water like The Ranch, but I think a person with his rare abilities would still do well by today’s standards.

Regards,
Scott

13

I’m not disputing that the newer patterns don’t work at the same time I’m saying that the old patterns are still effective as they once were. Another aspect is that today the media plays a big part in what folks fish with. Every year new and improved patterns are introduced, do they catch more fish, I really don’t think so. I also hang around the shops in the west and the availability of the older patterns is not there, because, I think the shops are pushing there newest and improved. For instance Blue Ribbon Flies comes out with a couple of new patterns every year and for the most part they just add some new material which is fine. The advertise them, video them and that has folks buying them.

But for the new patterns to out fish the older patterns I don’t think that is valid. If you go into the shops of south central PA or the shops of the Catskill’s you will find a multitude of the old patterns being sold and used.

If Walt Dette or some of the old tyers were still alive and tying I’m sure they would adapt some new materials to there flies. For instance the Dette’s Coffin flies went from white wool to poly for a body so that is one advancement in his use of a newer material.

There is another thing is that if you go into BRF’s you will see that they are stocking more old pattern s/h’s then they have in the past.

The purple flies you tyed a few weeks ago is another example. Purple has been used for a hundred years in s/h’s so it has been adapted for todays times.

You mentioned the Sandy Mite, they are not offered any more as they are a very complicated and time consuming fly to tie. I watched Frnk johnson tye some at last years FFF get together, that is not a flie that can just be knocked out in a few minuets.

14

When all young trout are approximately 6 months old, one of the elder trout gathers them in a school where they are required to study the classics (i.e. fly patterns from bygone eras). As a result, they are soon able to discern differences between the old fake patterns, like Thoedore Gordon’s Iron Fraudator imitation (one of those Catskill style flies you mention) and genuine food sources. Of course as we all know, trout do not use computers and the internet, and can’t simply look up this information in Wikipedia, so it is very important that they select an elder trout that has an exceptionally large brain to store all of this information so it can be passed from generation to generation.

And so it is that flies designed in bygone eras, such as Frank Sawyer’s Pheasant Tale (or it is Pheasant Tail?), that once caught many trout for skillful anglers is no longer effective. The same thing is true of another old Sawyer fly, the Killer Bug. Today, as you say flyfishers “must use much closer imitations to the trout’s food than 40-50 years ago”. Just ask Dr. Korn.

15

Consider as well the books which really shook up our sport, Selective Trout by Swisher & Richards and The Modern Dry Fly Code by Vince Marinaro were written 50 years ago!

16

I still fish a size 10 Royal Wolf a lot. I fish it between hatches in pocket water or a long the edges and catch penty of fish. I think you are putting way too much emphisis on the fly. Presintation I feel is much more important.

17

I knew this would happen!!! LOL

Here’s a point I think should be considered, as I said before:

Fly shops out west (Yellowstone region) do not carry size 10 Grey Wulfs. Guides do not put such flies on your line. These guys are in the business of helping you catch fish - or you wouldn’t be happy and wouldn’t buy/contract again.

Believe me, Mike Lawson and his guides want folks to catch fish. Craig Mathews and his guides want folks to catch fish. Bob Jacklin wants his clients to catch fish. Rene Harrop and his guides want the customers to catch fish.
Next time you’re out there, check what flies the guides are using for their customers.

Anyone identify this style?:

18

Okay, so I only read the first two posts under this thread and will disagree with almost all that was written.

"A few years ago, I concluded that a lot of the flies they tied would not be as effective these days. For three reasons:

  1. The year after year; and increasing each year; fishing pressure on the streams and trout.
  2. The application of “relatively” recent understanding of insects, their behavior, etc.
  3. The development of new materials"

None of that has anything to do with trout reaction to potential food. Do you think trout pass on information to their proginy? Do you think trout learn in cemented hatcheries? Do you think even wild native or non-native trout know the difference between rabbit/muskrat/synthetic dubbing? What I have learned after 50+ years of fly fishing, speaking with other fly fishers, reading a lot about the subject, etc. is that we fly fishers tend to give trout a lot of credit and that, according to some of the masters you cited, trout have a tiny brain and are simply dumb as sh*t. They react to potential food for several reasons. A minor one is the specific fly pattern.

Hey Buddy - You write, “If Lee Wulff was here today, I doubt he’d be tying and fishing the same flies he fished during his era.” Perhaps you should learn what flies Lee Wulff tyed and used before you make such a claim. If you were to see the last video of Lee Wulff, you would see him tye 5 flies ranging from one with very modern synthetic materials to his named Royal Wulff and down to a size 28 Grizzly Midge. Oh, and Byron he didn’t use a vise or a bobbin. So I completely disagree that Wulff would not be fishing the flies of his era. He would because the fish and what motivates them to ‘hit’ flies has not changed. So although he’d likely try some of the modern flies and as an innovator he’d be tying some new fly patterns too, he’d be catching fish with his old ‘stand-bys’ as well as flies that have come around since his passing.
You guys might be interested in seeing a few of the ‘underwater videos’ in which trout take opportunistic food which may not be food at all.

Anyway, you’re entitled to your opinions.

Allan

19

Hi Byron,
Here we have a very different access system for our rivers. On many there is no more fishing pressure than there was. One good example is the Chatsworth water on the river Wye in Derbyshire. The number of tickets available hasn’t changed (the cost has gone up hugely instead). I was fortunate to be invited by a member some years ago (6 or 7), during the mayfly hatch (E. Vulgata). The most successful pattern was a white wulff on a L/S 8. Probably the same pattern that was used over the last 30 to 40 years. That shows that you are right in that fishing pressure affects the patterns needed.

Just down stream the fishing pressure is greater than it was. On that length the old patterns do not work as well. I can quote quite a few instances of this kind of change in fish behaviour. It is the direct angling pressure that does it. Leave the river without fishing it for a year or two and the fish are as naive as they once were. Just as we did a few years ago, when there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There was no access to the water for a season. The next year the trout were noticeably easier to fool.

As to materials, well 300 years ago Stewart was tying his black spider with dark brown silk thread. Probably because he couldn’t get a true black. I suspect that if he could get a good black then he would have used it. Classic salmon flies were tied with the materials available, mostly from the millinery industry. These were the latest materials at the time. Inventive fly tiers have always used the best materials they could get.

The proliferation in tying materials is in some ways to the detriment of the skill of fly tying. 15 years ago I taught a fly tying class at a local shop. Then the Fritz material came along. Quite suddenly all people wanted was to lash marabou and Fritz to a hook. A year or so later, when these people had learned that flash isn’t the only thing that trout take, the shops best selling fly tying material was… thread, ready dubbed with hare’s ear.

I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve just heard an advertisement on TV for an electronic game with which you can send, “Hand crafted communications to your friends”. Funny I’ve been doing that for years with a pen and paper.

Cheers,
C.

20

Allan,
Thanks for your input. What % of your dry fly boxes consist of size 10 Grey Wulfs?
Thanks for your response.