A while back I posted my view that the flies of “yesteryear” such as the Wulf series, catskill series, Pott flies, etc. would not fare as well today as they did in the “old days”. As you might suspect, I got a number of folks ruffled and somewhat defensive. My theory due in large part to the heavy fishing pressure on our rivers today.
Oddly enough, while in Island Park/Last Chance Idaho, while fishing the Henry’s Fork, I met Rene and Bonnie Harrop. I bought and used a number of their flies and picked up his new book and a couple of his his tying videos.
Anyway, while reading his new book, I noticed a photo of a Catskill pattern amongst his more realistic designed flies and it caught my attention as it seemed odd to be amongst his patterns. Well, when I read the caption, I realized why it was there:
[image no longer available]
When I watched his video on tying the life cycle of the caddis flies, he also had a discussion on the river in which he explained that on today’s heavily fished rivers with catch and release, the fisher must use more realistic flies to be effective.
Now, I know this won’t change any minds as my earlier post did not change any minds. However, is is comforting to know that a world class fisher/tier/artist like Rene Harrop shares my opinion.
Thanks,
Byron
If pattern’s have to be more realistic to be effective then why is a pattern like Frank Sawyers Killer Bug still so effective? I think someone once said that “fly pattern’s catch more fisherman than fish”. Maybe I’m just old fashion. Just my two cent’s.
Interestingly enough, Rene Harrop’s book addresses the very question you asked (I think). But, first let me say, my comments and Rene’s comments apply to heavily fished, famous fly fishing water with Catch and Release regulations - thus the conditioning of the trout to artificial flies.
You mention Frank Sawyer’s “Killer Bug”. Mr. Harrop, in his book, does address Frank Sawyer’s Pheasant Tail Nymph and a variation (with rationale) to it.
I think if you posed this question on sparsegraymatter and Catskill site you would get a big argument. If you go into those shops in Roscoe their bins are full of the old standards. Those waters are fished as heavily as any.
Byron , I do understand your point. I’ve read about fisherman on classic chalk streams in England seeing trout rise and then refuse naturals. I think I’ll keep my favorite classic patterns and and reserve a grin for the trout that are not fooled by my offering and just try something else. Just all part of the fun.
Enlightening. Thanks. I think there may be some fly tiers/fishers who do care. Rene’s book is a pretty big seller and it is based upon fly designs which more closely represent the various life stages of aquatic insects.
I’m sure some, like you, could care less (as expressed). Others may enjoy learning from such a famous tier/fisher as Rene Harrop and try to expand their knowledge and skills?
I really do have respect for the members and this Board and I wish to remain ‘unbanned’. Thus the acronyms and brevity of my comment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You could find excellent arguments about what evokes trout strikes. Hey, Marinaro believed wings were key. Other renown fly fishers don’t agree. Many fly fishers believe in ‘imitation’ while others opt for ‘impression’ and while others believe a fly should ‘attract’ the fish. Still others hold ‘presentation’ of the fly highest in the scale of importance. There are fly fishers who believe the tippet should float while others are of the opinion that it should be below the surface (less of a shadow or impression on the water?). How about the varied opinions regarding short versus long rods? And certainly there are other points of contention with fly fishers with varying degrees of “opinions”.
Byron’s opinion, even when supported by illuminary fly fishers, is no more valid then someone else who may or may not have a renown tyer/fisher who shares that opinion. I did not say that we cannot learn from a renown fly fisher such as Harrop. We never stop learning. I’m just saying that any opinion is just that - an opinion. And until someone figures out how to speak to the trout and also have a lie detector machine to rate the trout’s answers since they are not likely to give up accurate information(lol), we can have all the opinions we care to express. The opinion that’s accurate at any given time is the one whose implementation actually is used to catch the trout. Even then, there may be others in the same area who use another method and catch trout. Thus dual opinions having the same result.
Maybe my answer now has more validity and I’ve not used any acronyms. OKay, Byrons opinion about using ‘flies that closely represent …’ is just his SWAG!
Here is a selection of Rene Harrop’s flies I purchased from the Trouthunter in Last Chance.
I don’t know anyone who ties as well as he and Bonnie and their son and daughter. Not just the technical aspects of tying, but the design and material selection:
If I tied that good a fly, they would be stored in shadow boxes under lock and key! They would never see the water much less a fish!! So out goes the argument of who does a fly-tier tie for, the tier or the fish. These would not be for the fish in my book.
I know many of you are expert tiers and some of you can probably tie with these two tiers but I can’t hold a candle to them. (Of course if you held a candle to them they would go up in smoke!:lol:) All joking aside and back on the subject, I believe Byron is correct in his assumption. I have fished in places that the fish would NOT look at my most perfect of flies… but for some reason would take a Chernobyl ant. Go figure! Fish are fish, and people are people. Fish eat what they want too, and we argue about what we want to argue about…
I agree with Allan also, Look at the flies from the renowned shop BRF , which most of us buy from, none are almost exact replicas of an original bug like Harrops (which i support monitarily also). What ever happened to the “trigger” of a tied fly anyway? I live on a very heavily fished tailwater in the east and all my flies have some sort of trigger incorporated in them.
Rene’ is an artist. His flies are almost too nice to fish, and in my opinion, he is the best at what he does and designed. hands down.the best. But i beg to differ on his opinion . The boys and girls swimming around the corner appear,at this point also, not to care about exact imitations also. when their opinion changes so will mine.
Oh and what about streamers, almost forgot about them, right now we are tying and fishing some of the most wildest looking stuff i have seen, alot of it coming out of the Kelly Gallup shop. Some wild lookin baitfish. just sayin’
You certainly do not need to change your opinion! Maybe, though, if you fish the Ranch on the Henry’s Fork. It is purported to be one of the toughest sections of any river to fool the biggest guys there. You might find yourself sneaking into the TroutHunter and buying a few of House of Harrop flies to fish to the big boys there.
Well, there’s that valid point again. So much depends on the kind of waters you fish. I haven’t fish the Fork, and doubt if I will. My loss, for sure. If I fish the spring creeks in SW Wisconsin, low riders are usually better… but I have also (figuratively) killed them on stimulators. Many other trout in Michigan and Wisconsin seem to like full hackled flies just fine. It sure is a fun game, isn’t it?
Right Byron, you can put money on the me sneaking into the shop to buy a handfull of flies, some to fish and others just to stare at when i get home for the fond memories!
“Maybe, though, if you fish the Ranch on the Henry’s Fork. It is purported to be one of the toughest sections of any river to fool the biggest guys there” - Byron
Well, I’ve not been out west to fish those waters. However, perhaps you can’t appreciate the difficulty of fishing in a famous pool of a famous river, like the one pictured above(which some on this board may recognize - photo is from 2003 Fish-In), with a dozen other fishers within 300 feet, fish rising/bulging And sipping to multiple hatches and spinner falls all at the same time. Maybe, just maybe, one of these guys gets into a fish. Lee Wulff, who had fished for trout and other gamefish all over the world (literally) called the fish in the above pool/river, “The most sophisticated trout in the world”. I believe he had a right to an opinion too! So, once again I’ll say that your opinion is just that - an opinion. No better or worse than someone else’s.
Oh, click on the photo to enlarge it and count the number of fishers. More arrived within 30 minutes of this photo being taken.
In fly selection, as in most things in life, when conventional wisdom fails, fly in the face of it. More often than not, that strategy has saved the day for me. Occasionally, it has wrecked the day for me, too. The only hard and fast rule is that there are no hard and fast rules. That said, there is much to what you say, Byron, in my opinion, but I wouldn’t accept it as an absolute truth, just a general truth that often applies and sometimes does not. But I don’t think you ever claimed it as an absolute, either.
Agree or disagree, it makes for a good discussion.
So out goes the argument of who does a fly-tier tie for, the tier or the fish. These would not be for the fish in my book.