Overly complicated?

All about flies Fly Tying
1

I realize that many of us, myself certainly included, tie flies for fun. It’s relaxing. It’s related to our fishing habit. It can allow us to be creative. Most of us could buy flies much cheaper, given all the tools and materials we accumulate.

But, at what point do we stop adding stuff to our flies? I know much of this comes from a percieved need. The fly is too dull, the fly doesn’t float, the fly doesn’t really ‘look’ like the real insect…whatever the reason.

So we add legs. We add flash. We add an extra hackle. We try different things. We experiment.

I like all of that.

Still… When you get a nymph that takes twenty three steps to tie. AND you are going to fish it deep along the stream bottom in the rocks where you will lose quite a few if you want to catch fish with it. Or a dry fly that takes ten minutes to tie. AND you plan to fish it on a fast mountian stream overhung along most of it’s length with trees and bushes…

I recently looked in a new pattern book. All nymphs and midges…hundreds of them. Amazing stuff. About five to ten actual ‘ties’ with just different materials and colors…ALL of these flies catch fish. From what I can detect, though, the simple ones work as well as the more complicated ones, often better, and no one thinks you have to ‘have’ all of them to be successful.

Does adding a small tuft of yarn behind the bead on a midge make it a ‘new’ fly? Does it make it more effective? If you overlay the abdomen with clear mono it sure looks cool, but does it catch more fish? Using a two layer wing case looks great, but again, it’s an extra step and does it really matter on a size 20?

A dry fly with two hackles may land upright and give a wider footprint on the water. But my parachute dries all land upright, and if I want it wider can’t I just use a wider hackle? Is the extra hackle and the extra step really needed, or is it just because it’s fun to do? Heck, if you use a standard wound hackle on a dry fly and ELIMINATE the wings, it doesn’t matter HOW it lands on the water, as it looks the same regardless…taking out a couple of steps to achieve the goal seems okay to me.

Maybe I’m just getting old, but I find myself looking at fly recipes and seeing what I can leave out and still get the same fish (I don’t care if it’s not the same ‘fly’, that’s not the reason for the effort. As long as it catches the fish in the same conditions, I’ll leave off what I feel are the ‘irrelevant’ steps).

More and more I’m going with simple ties that I find effective on the fish. I’ll still tie a few of each ‘new’ fly pattern I see that intrigues me, I almost always tie the Fly of the Week here,…but few of these actually see water.

As our lives get more and more complicated, it seems our flies are following suit. I’m not sure it’s a bad thing, perhaps it was inevitable.

I do know I’m not going to follow along with it.

I know it’s a rant, but I wanted to say something about this…YMMV.

Buddy

2

In my humble opinion, it’s a matter of who you’re tying for. If you tie for the fish, your approach is absolutely spot-on.

Lots of guys tie for other fly tyers…this is where you’ll see the super-realistic ties, full-dress atlantic salmon ties, true-to-period spey and dee ties, etc.

For me…well…I tie for me. I’ve tied lots of creations that may never catch a fish, either to prove something to myself, or try a specific combination, or whatever. I enjoy pushing my boundaries as a tyer, and feel that that stretching of my abilities is the only way to improve. That’s why I’ll spend a half hour on one Catskill-style dry, or steelhead hairwing, or classis winged-wet…they’re difficult challenging ties. Needlessly complex? Probably. Fun? Yep.

3

You may recall the late Al Campbell did a terrific series of flies for FAOL called the Too Simple Flies. And they work. Give those a try.
Here’s a start for you: http://www.flyanglersonline.com/alcampbell/ac041904.php

4

I’m with you Buddy. I tie mostly for myself and therefore the simpler the better. I still catch a lot of fish and many of my flies I devised myself based on observation and what works where I fish. When I sit down to tie I want to see something for my efforts, meaning a dozen or so. When I tie for others, their request, instructions and $$ then I will be very specific to their request, even if it takes more steps than I like.

I tie flies to fish with, thus I want to spend more time on the water and less at the vise. But, I better have tied a passable imitation so my time on the water isn’t wasted either :smiley:

Best,

Kelly.

5

I posted a new article on my blog about crappie flies (I’ll post the link in the warmwater forum). I noticed my 3 favorite patterns each use at most 2 materials, but the color options are endless.

6

Indeed, if you’re tying flies as lures to catch fish, then I would go with simple North Country Spiders, hare & copper for a nymph, and wingless dry flies, palmered. Those are all effective and simple to tie.

Now, for those who enjoy tying flies, and who like to fish all sorts of different patterns, well …

  • Jeff
7

A fly needs to be just complex enough to convince the fisherman it will catch fish. Most of what we tie will catch fish if submerged or float often enough. You have to have faith and not be afraid of losing it. Back in the 70’s and 80’s I used to do a good bit of bank fishing for LMB with a baitcaster. I had some Bagley crankbaits rarely tied on because I knew what they cost and that I could not get them back if they hung up on a root or stump. They never caught any fish in my tackle box.

8

I think there is a place for both lines of reasoning. I think there are certain situations; i.e., glassy, slick water where the trout are really picky in which a more realistic fly might work better. It is for these situations when I think it may be worth the extra effort at realism. In addition, I think the parachute fly has “legs” out in front of the insect. While they work in 95% of the cases, maybe it would be helpful to have something that might carry you out to that extra 5%?
Just my thoughts.
Thanks

9

Cold and Jeff,

I guess I get the whole ‘tie it to expand your skills or have fun doing it thing’.

I find myself doing a lot of that kind of tying with deer hair or foam or balsa topwaters for bass and pike. They are just ‘fun’ for me to make, even though they take quite a bit of time and effort to produce. Still take fish, though, and the extra ‘time’ is in the artsy or ‘finish’ part of it, the flies themselves are pretty basic…

Byron,

As far as more ‘relistic’ flies being more effective under the conditions you describe, that has not been my experience at all with what you’d call ‘picky’ trout. In those circumstances, a simple dry fly of the right size and a similar color presented properly always seems to work better for me than an exact replica of whatever insect is ‘hatching’ at the time. For subsurface, simple thread midges or a bit of pecock herl wrapped around the hook shank fished at the proper depth has taken more ‘picky’ trout for me than the more time consuming and ‘realistic’ ties out there.

I like tying the realistic stuff. It’s fun. But it’s not something I’d fish much. Everything I’ve seen around a trout stream, lake, or river leads me to believe that the simple impressionistic ties are much more effective at catching fish. But I still believe that presentation is the second most important aspect of fly fishing sucess(first being angler confidence).

I guess my real problem with complicated flies isn’t in tying them, but more with the concept that they are necessary to catch the fish.

It’s all for fun. Luckily, none of this really matters. If I had to fish to live, I’d probably use bait and starve at it anyway.

Thanks for playing along.

Buddy

10

I think most flies are tied to catch the fisherman in the shop rather than to catch fish. We look at flies, oogle them . . . . But in reality, simple ones catch fish as well as complicated ones do. Ask a guide buddy what he or she ties for their clients to use and lose. You’ll find they are simple easy ties, and they catch fish.

11

Hi Buddy,

I think I know where you’re comming from. I agree, that flies most definately do not have to be complicated to catch fish. In fact, I tend to believe the opposite in most cases. I think when tying becomes more work than fun, then it’s time to stop: it’s too complicated when you don’t enjoy doing it. Much like life, really.

  • Jeff
12

Again, I don’t think having some patterns which perhaps have a more realistic footprint on the water is a waste of time. After all, I thought most of us tie for fun not necessarily for quantity or speed. Frankly, most of my flies are comparadun style flies or my soft hackle. I do like to experiment with the 35 year old patterns as I buy into their concepts which encouraged their invention

It’s a little like Craig mathew’s sparkle dun style at Blue Ribbon Flies in West Yellowstone. I don’t think Ive met a fisherman on the waters around Yellowstone who hasn’t found that style ( with the trailing shuck) to be effective - more so than the “standard” comparadun. It was this little added “realism” that seems to make a big difference. The original Haystack would work, but if you ask the guides, they recommend the sparkle dun

Anyway, I tie mostly for fun. If you costed out my flies actually used, I am pretty sure the unit cost would way exceed purchase costs of buying them. But, I take pride in catching a picky trout on something I made

Don’t think there is a right or wrong - just personal philosophies???
Thanks for my 2 cents worth

13

I prefer tying the flies that are more simple. My experience is limited to the 11 years I’ve been tying and flyfishing. When I think back to the times I’ve used the more complicated patterns I don’t remember them being more productive. The most complicated fly I tie at this time is a split case nymph. It works. But I’ve also made some modifications (step savers) and found they work equally well. By and large I fish relatively simple flies. When I can drop a simple midge underneath a cdc comparadun and have success I’m content. I also agree … it’s a good thing this doesn’t really matter. I think most people will fish with a fly they think will catch fish.

14

Hi, I will give this one anecdote
4 of us were fishing henrys fork by Ashton, Idaho this summer. We witnessed a nice hatch of flavs. None of us could entice a take until one of us tried an olive sparkle dun. After that, we all caught many really nice rainbows. I’m not saying the zelon trailing shuck was the only thing that would work, but we had tried parachutes, thorax styles, standard split wings, etc. They wanted that sparkle dun

Now, I’m sure not saying that Craig matthew’s sparkle dun meets the true definition of a “realistic” fly, but I can tell you that all the guides around there recommend using one.

That pattern in a colors for pmd’s, blue-winged olives, etc is surely in my box

15

I can fish a #14 CDC & Elk on the local freestoner from late March-October and do very well. The same fly works on a lot of the streams I fish in Montana in the summer, although there are other waters and times where I’ll need to use something closer to what’s hatching, or something bigger with foam and legs if I want to pound up some fish. All-in-all, I like to keep them as simple as possible.

Regards,
Scott

16

What is your local stream??

17

No matter where I fish, I tend to use the same old patterns, and when I say old, I’m talking several hundred years old. Flies that consist of little material other than hook, silk thread, some cobblers wax, maybe some very sparse dubbing and some sparse hackle. Those flies are still around because they work very well, or they would be resigned to some musty volumes in a damp basement instead holding honored places in many fly boxes around the world. I do experiment with newer flies, but when push comes to shove, you’ll usually find a cast of wee spiders on my line instead of the latest and greatest concoction.

REE

18

one the heavily fished water i live next to, the trout have seen everything, in my opinion ,the more components a fly has , the more these fish are gonna find wrong with it, i tie everything sparse and think outside the box, neccessity to catch fish dictates that. you are not going to catch much here on an elk caddis with hackle palmered thru , and zero on some foam monster. just not gonna happen. You may catch alot of fish elswhere on those 2 filies but not here.Old timers mention the fish here had PHD’s, can tell who tied the fly and hook manufacturer. back to less is more. Remember the 3 keys , size shape and color.think outside the box. I don’t even have a box, out of neccessity. i like simple , elegant flies with a little bling, and the bling is optional. your mileage on all this drivel may vary.

19

I tie simple flies to catch fish, but I enjoy tying “fancy” stuff for fun. I get a kick out of seeing how fast a complicated fly gets torn up by fish… A whole bunch of work, absolutely destroyed.

One of my “mottos” is I don’t tie anything I wouldn’t mind hanging in a rock and breaking off.

20

goose biots and a snowshoe rabbits foot and you could probably make every dry pattern you would need. I’m getting to that point more and more… Just two materials…simple stuff, easy.
Now, putting them on a hook well, that may take twenty five steps :slight_smile: